ASB site-leader training program unfair, ineffective
I need to say it: The worst large-scale decision I’ve made in the last year was becoming an Alternative Spring Break site leader. I’m writing this piece to express both how much I care about the ASB site-leader program’s potential and the extent to which the Community Involvement Center has disappointed me personally.
I need to say it: The worst large-scale decision I’ve made in the last year was becoming an Alternative Spring Break site leader. I’m writing this piece to express both how much I care about the ASB site-leader program’s potential and the extent to which the Community Involvement Center has disappointed me personally. I think this program is a concern to the larger Rice community, and students who may be considering applying to site lead should hear a perspective other than the one the university presents. However, this is a commentary specifically on my experience with the ASB site-leader program that is in no way representative of all site leaders and is not targeted toward the hardworking members of the CIC. In total, the ASB program ran 17 trips and gave around 200 Rice students and staff members access to service-learning opportunities. While it hurts me to communicate this in such a public way, I believe the ASB-trip experience is not worth the CIC’s program-based construction of what it means and takes to be a site leader.
The worst part about being an ASB site leader in the 2013-14 school year had to do with the specific ASB site-leader program that Rice’s CIC ran and developed; it had to do with site leaders being held to uncommunicated expectations, the CIC’s concept and understanding of service limited to theoretical academia and the CIC staff’s lack of willingness to create, participate in or understand the value of an empathetic and growth-oriented relationship between students and professional staff.
As a change from last year’s program, the CIC implemented a mandatory ASB site-leader class (UNIV 315/316, two credits, followed by UNIV 317, one credit), originally sold as a benefit that would give site leaders academic credit for their extra curricular hours as well as provide service-learning background. However, both courses held site leaders to drastically different expectations, workload and policies (including an unreasonably strict attendance policy) than were provided when site leaders originally applied to the program.
The course itself was disorganized and frequently failed to achieve any meaningful objectives. During one class in November, we spent a full hour discussing the nuances between ice breakers, name games and team builders. UNIV 317 required site leader groups (instead of the class instructor) to prepare and teach content for classes. Site leader “teachers” were provided with information but were not knowledgeable enough or qualified to teach lessons like logistics or risk management. But most importantly, on a campus that trends heavily toward rigorous academics, I disagree with the emphasis placed on academic-based service learning. I think the ASB site-leading program is valuable without making it into an academic commitment and theory; the meaning of some service cannot be understood through an academic approach that focuses on “traditional service” or using measurable community impact as a metric for success.
The CIC also mostly failed to build productive, personal relationships with the site leaders despite its outward acknowledgement of its “building” year. Holistically, the CIC refused to view ASB site leading as a program- and class-based opportunity for their office to support students to individually develop as leaders through individualized, empathic relationships, and it tended to view the program as a mainly academic and logistical commitment. The CIC lost sight of the goal, meaning, community, passion for and quality of service trips for the purpose of streamlining its interactions with site leaders. For example, one site leader was forced to enroll in — instead of audit — UNIV 317, although enrolling in the class prevented him from declaring part-time senior status and saving up to $1,585 in tuition. Another site leader was given an automatic 6.5-point deduction from a course total of 100 points when she needed to miss one class for an unavoidable obligation as newly-elected president of her college and was denied the ability to make up the 6.5 points back via an alternative assignment.
I can confidently say that in my three years at Rice, I have never felt so disrespected, unexpectedly upset and angered as I am from my interactions with the CIC. As a current O-Week coordinator, I cannot eloquently express the stark contrast between the CIC’s site leader treatment and the way that First Year Programs has so far treated the O-Week coordinators with trust, grace and compassion.
In our last class of this term, the site leaders were asked what we had learned. The value of the service I’d organized for 10 other students (as well as participated in) did not come to mind first. What I learned from site leading is that being passionate about and organizationally committed to your ASB trip may not be worth the program-related hassles of being a site leader at Rice. I am incredibly proud of the work my fellow site leaders have done in communities across the country, but given the service burnout, as well as loss of passion and dedication as this year progressed, I worry that this program may be doing more harm than good, despite the value of the service being created. Again, this is not to discredit my own trip, co-leader or participants — I am incredibly proud of everything we did and discussed on our trip. Y’all are great, and this isn’t your circus, your monkeys or your wolves.
The CIC does have plans to reconstruct the site-leader program for next year. Among other changes, it will be more heavily academic, and trip-related logistical assignments will be graded as a part of the academic workload. While I have great hope for ASB participants and the service work the program enables, and the CIC has received plenty of specific feedback from myself and others, I still feel obligated to share my experience with the Rice community. To students thinking about site leading, I would encourage you to reconsider your application, especially if you have little time, little interest in theoretical academic approaches to service, little need for unnecessary stress or little tolerance for pointless busywork. To the CIC, I urge you all to big-picture reconsider the way you approach your site-leader program as a service- and community-based program run by student leaders.
While this year has been a bumpy road, and there have been some roller coasters along the way, I’m continuously grateful for my personal spring break trip. I believe the ASB site-leading program, if structurally redesigned and empathetically oriented, could be a powerful growth opportunity for Rice students that focuses on service meaningful to them.
More from The Rice Thresher
Students of conscience should boycott Local Foods
Local Foods has served, for many years, as a casual Houston restaurant option for Houston residents, including Rice students. Folks on campus will notice that this option has become more proximate, as a Local Foods location claims space on campus in the Brochstein Pavilion.
Insurance options for Ph.D. students are overpriced and insufficient
Doctoral students at Rice are given insufficient health insurance options especially compared to institutions with graduate student unions. Aetna’s graduate student health insurance plan leaves students with significant costs compared to the minimum annual stipend. Additionally, the available Aetna plan offers insufficient benefits when compared both to medical insurance plans at peer institutions and to the non-subsidized Wellfleet plan – Rice’s alternative option for international students.
Keep administrative hands off public parties
Emergency Management is hoping to implement a new system that has students swipe their IDs when entering public parties to cross-check their name with a pre-registered list. This idea is being touted as an effort to reduce check-in time and lines at publics. The thing is – we are tired. After bans on events, APAC and dramatic changes in party requirements, we want hands off the public party.
Please note All comments are eligible for publication by The Rice Thresher.