Striking a Balance Between Two Modes of Service

In our modern world where inequities are continuously on the rise, service becomes all the more crucial in terms of bringing about a more just society. Service involves varying types of social contributions — namely — charity, projects, and social change. In my earlier years, I was exposed to the inaccurate perception that charity’s accessibility made it the best form of service. However, since volunteering at 826LA, I have firsthand witnessed the systemic inequities that exist in education, modifying my belief that social change is truly the most sustainable way to enact change because such change involves initiatives such as long-term government education schemes that target the root cause of inequities and aim to eradicate them as a whole. With this in mind, good service means a short-term dedication to charity while advocating for positive social change through government policy, as this addresses the underlying social issue while effectively offering temporary relief to current concerns.

Charity, despite yielding relatively short-term benefits, remains a legitimate form of service that all should participate in while engaging in larger social change initiatives. However, it becomes common for subconscious biases to take over in one’s endeavor to perform charity. Specifically, the dynamic between a volunteer and a beneficiary does not typically feel equal. Often, volunteers hold positions of privilege, naturally giving them the ability to determine the nature and extent of the assistance provided. This power imbalance can inadvertently reinforce existing social hierarchies and manifest an environment where the volunteer is a dominant figure. This dynamic not only hinders a productive level of cooperation between the two parties, but also potentially fosters a sense of dependency between volunteers and beneficiaries by upholding the existing inequality between the two parties. Needless to say, such a phenomenon should not be present given that charity aims to eradicate social inequities, not continue to perpetuate them.

To address this concern, a fundamental shift in the mindsets of volunteers is necessary. Volunteers must first put aside any lingering feelings, whether subconscious or not, of “dominance” purely because they are in a better current social position than those they serve. Instead, they should adopt a collaborative approach that involves beneficiaries actively participating in decisions that impact them. In the context of 826LA, this could mean openly listening to the concerns, ideas, and questions of students as they write their essays, with emphasis on not completely taking over that process and authoring the essay completely. Essentially, this entails giving beneficiaries the freedom to express their wants and preferences in addition to acknowledging their distinct viewpoints and areas of expertise. For instance, in my volunteering sessions, I made the choice to address student questions by first asking students how they could link any personal attributes or experiences to the essay prompt, rather than giving a direct answer that would not necessarily encompass or represent their individuality and personality. Through this approach, we can help foster a more inclusive and respectful atmosphere around service that recognizes the dignity of the people we serve, which can be achieved by incorporating an egalitarian partnership.

In addition, volunteers should attempt to develop communication and feedback mechanisms to guarantee that the power dynamic is consistently assessed and modified, cultivating a more equitable and mutually advantageous partnership. When we ask beneficiaries how they feel about our help, advice, and contributions overall, we can help navigate necessary changes that we were once blind to. Regular communication serves as an imperative tool to gauge the effectiveness of the assistance we provide and to understand the evolving needs of beneficiaries. This not only helps to avoid the imposition of well-intentioned but potentially misguided solutions, but also empowers beneficiaries to confidently express their preferences and contribute to the decision-making process. Furthermore such mechanisms also hold symbolic value. By utilizing feedback, we also indirectly communicate that beneficiaries will have their voices heard and volunteers absolutely do not hold more say over them. Ultimately, these mechanisms effectively contribute to a more balanced power dynamic and cultivate volunteer-beneficiary relationships built on trust, respect, and collaboration.

With the proper approach to performing charity in mind, it must be noted that charity is not a means to an end when it comes to solving deep-rooted, structural issues. Education inequity exists as one of these structural issues, with the glaring racial and economic disparities in standardized test scores, maths proficiency, and reading proficiency only being a few of many that point to a broken educational system. For instance, The National Assessment of Educational Progress notes that “gaps in reading and math scores between black and white high school students nationally were roughly halved between 1971 and 1996”. With these inequities buried deep within the system and reinforced through years of enabling by government officials, charity work can no longer serve the ultimate goal of eradicating educational inequities because only immediate relief is provided. Thus, we must turn to a more sustainable approach that has the capability of removing the issue entirely — social change called on by the people and enacted through the government.

To be precise, one such policy approach is to start equalising education from the bottom level — kindergarten — as a step towards social change in the world of education. By implementing policies that ensure equitable access to quality education from the very beginning, societies can address the root causes of inequality by minimising the achievement gap between various groups from the get-go. Today, the status quo presents a situation where “teachers in high-poverty schools were more likely to report that academic instructional time was eroded by problems with school facilities, lack of access to technology and libraries, classroom lockdowns, standardized test preparation, teacher absences and uncertified or insufficiently qualified substitute teachers” (UCLA). From this, it is easy to see how a certain group of students becomes swept aside due to issues plaguing their school, which gradually hinders the progress of students, eventually leading to an entire group of students lagging behind their counterparts in their education. In LA, this phenomenon is further exacerbated by segregation in schools, where “UCLA researchers recently found that 58% [of Latinos in California] attend intensely segregated schools”. The concentration of certain racial groups in schools that lack resources translates to that racial group being entrapped in a vicious cycle of being unable to access adequate resources, leading to poor academic performance and consequently, jeopardizing their future careers.

This proposed solution recognizes that early years of education lays groundwork for future academic success and overall societal advancement. Policies focused on equalizing resources, instructor quality, and educational opportunities starting in kindergarten create a more level playing field for all students, irrespective of their socioeconomic backgrounds. When all students have access to more or less equal qualities of education, there is less room for the system to discriminate against one’s socioeconomic status, leading to less structural inequities between different races and economic backgrounds. Thus, there will exist overall less inconsistencies in the quality of public education across the board, cultivating an environment where every student has an equal opportunity to thrive based on their abilities and efforts rather than systemic factors beyond their control.

Given this social change proposal, such a plan will not be set forth in motion unless we advocate for comprehensive policy reforms and engage in strategic activism. For instance, we can collaborate with education experts, community leaders, and advocacy groups to articulate the specific needs and challenges faced by underserved communities. From there, we can move on to engaging with policy makers through letters, lobbying, petitions, and meetings, which provides outlets for expressing concerns and championing specific policy proposals. The combination of using statistical-backed facts and meaningful calls for change directed at government officials aims to exert pressure on the government to implement policies that will truly equalize education from the lowest level, ultimately paving the way for positive social change in the education sector.

While we engage in lobbying towards the government in order to enact substantial social change, we must presently focus on providing service in ways we can — specifically, charity. Charity is a necessary component of social change, because given the amount of time social change will take to be in effect, struggling communities still need outlets to temporarily alleviate certain burdens. Thus, while we call the government to action and campaign for change, we must remain dedicated to charity as a form of service and stay mindful of the relationship dynamic between volunteers and beneficiaries. By performing charity alongside the enactment of sustainable social change, we effectively start to embody what “good service” means and ultimately, serve our goals of pioneering meaningful change.