PBHA & Politics

To the Editors of The Crimson:

Like Dorothy watching the oncoming tornado, I read about the growing debate over the mission of the Phillips Brooks House Association (PBHA). I hope that somebody clicks their heels and wakes up before that home, that wonderful place that PBHA has built, is destroyed in the growing storm.

I read with interest Rosa Ehrenreich's recent comments that "public service is not done in a vacuum...We're saying that there are things like poverty, homelessness, racism that are wrong."

So.

Saying that poverty, homelessness and racism are wrong is like saying that it sometimes rains in Boston. Although a scintillating observation, it is a moot point.

I took an unscientific poll at breakfast this morning. I asked my fellow breakfasters if they thought that poverty, homelessness and racism are wrong.

To my surprise, everyone said yes. I realized that Ehrenreich does not have sole intellectual possession over the idea that poverty, homelessness and racism are bad. This bumper-sticker mentality does a disservice to everyone who has ever committed a minute to help another human being. The rest of Harvard has a conscience, too.

Unfortunately, Ehrenreich and others make the mistake of confusing political intent with political efficacy. The point is that we need to change attitudes and make people realize that poverty is wrong. We need to get them to do something about it.

The sole criterion that PBHA must use to justify their actions is results. How can you effect change? How can you make one life better? The solution is not to be found in a divisive debate over whether PBHA should endorse political candidates.

First, PBHA must rid itself of any illusions of grandeur. PBHA opinions just don't matter. Will the endorsement of PBHA change an election? No. A PBHA endorsement is just a drop in an ocean of political attitudes.

But if PBHA does engage in the worthless endorsement game, they can look forward to driving away a number of volunteers who would have been interested in doing something about poverty, homelessness and racism.

PBHA currently has 1200 volunteers. After the last time PBHA played the endorsement game, the number of volunteers dropped to 300.

PBHA's sole responsibility is to those people whom they serve, and not to their own egos. If they drive just one volunteer away from their organization because of politicking, then there is one less person serving the community. There is one less student who will have a tutor. There is one less person who will have someone to talk to during a meal at a homeless shelter. If there is one less person volunteering for PBHA as a result of this endorsement game, then PBHA has hurt the people it is trying to serve.

PBHA is working. It does a fantastic job of getting people involved in community service. It should be commended for this. Motivating people to become involved in their communities and doing something about social problems is the most important statement that PBHA can make. Our society is not short of people who think that poverty, homelessness and racism are wrong; it is short of people who actively try to do something about it--by tutoring, providing meals to the needy, or simply listening.

To conclude, I must ask why Ehrenreich and others "firmly believe that there are times when PBHA has to take stands." By getting as many people as possible involved in the community, PBHA is making the most powerful statement it can possibly make. Why should this organization attract attention for their potentially divisive and alienating political beliefs when they have so many valuable gifts to offer? David Rettig '89-'90