Placements forced work for busy Santa Clara students

By Mike Pellicio

Being a full-time student at Santa Clara University is a lot of work. Students are busy and their time is valuable, limited, and most importantly, it is their time.

Therefore mandatory Arrupe placements should end.

Now the stance I am about to take will likely be greeted with a negative response. Some will say that I have a poor attitude. Some will say that I am insensitive.

I mean no disrespect to Pedro Arrupe, S.J., but Arrupe placements should not exist.

As we all know, they are mandatory community service assignments given through certain classes.

Some are relevant to a class, in that a Spanish class may require you to help out at a health clinic in a Hispanic neighborhood, catering to your Spanish speaking skills.

Whereas some placements are in no way relevant. Some classes make you do mandatory placements that have nothing to do with the class at all. Those types can be worthwhile, yet still are time consuming.

The placements can be positive in that you are working with people who are probably outside of your socioeconomic class, assisting charitable organizations, and in turn getting the satisfaction of making a difference in someone's life.

These are all nice reasons to take part in community service, but not all people feel that is the case.

Some people like to volunteer and others simply do not. Those who feel that it is their responsibility to lend their services to the less fortunate are always welcome to do so.

However, those who aren't up to that responsibility should not have to assume it. Sure, it is a nice thing to go out of your way to help others. But is it a bad thing not to?

If a student doesn't want to be so righteous, then why force him or her to be that way?

Regardless of whether students feel morally obliged to participate in community service, some just don't have time.

Arrupe placements don't take into account those who have minimal free time, like student athletes and those who have jobs.

The question at hand is whether these placements are fair.

Believe it or not, some students have to work full-time to pay for their education. They don't always the time to volunteer.

Student athletes put in a lot of time with their teams, and that work can be particularly draining. Should they be expected to volunteer their free time to others? Moreover, whose decision is that? Theirs or their teachers'?

With that said, the very idea of mandatory placements is preposterous to me. It is not voluntary volunteer work, it is forced volunteer work.

Not only are the placements a logistical nightmare, they are based on fatally flawed thinking.

The beauty of volunteer work is that the people want to be there. They are happy to be there because it was their choice.

Forcing people to help others will have countless negative consequences. The "volunteers" who don't want to be there might become sour, impatient, annoyed, and overall unpleasant. And, worst of all, they might subconsciously develop a feeling of resentment towards those they are helping.

Whether I am being insensitive or not, I am looking at this in an objective, logical way.

Some classes will have an Arrupe requirement one quarter whereas others won't. Are all those students being treated fairly? They both get the same credit for the class on their transcript and yet one has to do more work than the other.

Where is the asterisk that credits one student with 20 more hours of work? It's not there.

And sure since there is an Arrupe grade incorporated into the final grade for the class, there might be no need for any distinction on the transcript.

But is it fair to make people do mandatory service? Absolutely not.

This argument, and virtually any other on this subject, would never arise if Arrupe placements were changed from mandatory volunteer work to optional volunteer work.

û Mike Pellicio is a freshman political science major.