Madison Messiah

Ramblin' on the Run

There were too many thoughts and too many different threads going to respond separately so I shall attempt to piece it together here.

First, I am still failing to understand why we can't take people on. Maybe less than past huge recruitments, but surely many more than maintaining our current numbers can be done. Why can't this happen simultaneously with the necessary structural/strategic changes?

On assuming increased impact requires increased membership.

Not "requires", but "is encouraged by". I feel that most people in the org. or that are interested in the org. would like to pursue a T-ship, but don't/can't for a certain reason. Some may not pursue its excellence, but would efforts to focus on the existing members really change their reasons for not going in the first place? Would it not be better to focus on a wider pool of potential participants and have those who are not able enjoy the fringe benefits of AIESEC (which are actually incredibly valuable). This is especially something to consider as the costs of tuition and traineeships goes up (especially with this push towards packages). Of course we should continue to push the T-ship (aka Holy Grail), just to be clear.

There are many different levels of impact, which I think has yet to be addressed. Yes, the traineeship is the ultimate for many a good reason. The domestic work undeniably lags behind. What if the amount of impact on the domestic side could be enhanced to at least close in on that of the T-ship? Less focus on the campus and more focus on the community?

I've always thought of citing "lack of work" as poor form, especially in our LC.

We all know the mission ...international understanding & cooperation... Why does this necessitate taking a trip? How much have we done to increase the understanding and cooperation of international communities here. Right now we have primaries occurring with reports that large numbers of Latinos/Hispanics aren't voting for a candidate because he is African-American. Yesterday, Danielle was at a laundry-mat filled with dozens of Latino boys skipping school. You think the school is understanding culture effectively? What if @ played a role in providing cultural competency training for schools? Is that outside our mission? Just a thought.

If "lack of work" is what is holding us back from growing that is pretty weak sauce. What other ways can we work towards our mission?

As for the concept of community and its state in Madison, it is difficult for me to comment without being there, but in general I will say this. A sense of community is of vital importance for an LC, both for member integration and retention and as the presence we want to emanate. Williams and I have led numerous szechuans to this effect, however eliminating "factions" is not vital. There are groups of people that get along better with some than with others. There is no getting around it, though we can work to minimize the effects. The important part is that every member has someone he/she can identify with and engage, that established members reach out to those less established, and that these groups aren't points of conflict or exclusion.

Limiting the size of the LC will not ensure the maintenance of this culture, only those within the LC can ensure that this legacy continues. This is something that can permeate through numbers by individuals making the effort to connect and reach out to as many people around them as is humanly possible.

Madison 10-hour road trips are not things of the past as evident from the first week in January and the Rocky Mountain Ragtag Team. I wish I could say the same for national. I too would hate to have Madison suffer a similar fate.

But while all others' communities fell, we kept it alive and those now continue to do so.

If people keep it alive, it will transcend numbers.

posted by Burbs @ 2:35 PM