As many of you know, Prior to PC service I was in charge of
training and recruiting volunteers at a university. In these programs, I would
challenge my students to grapple with several ethical, social, or moral issues
that arise during volunteer service.
Joe and I just had an experience that fits directly into
these categories…
Setting the Stage (Hook):
One day, our custodian stopped by and measured my shoe size.
I was confused and asked if we were buying shoes. She said, “No. These shoes
are free. We will just take this size and get the shoes.” I was confused, but
she left before I could ask more questions. I found out later that day that I
had been included on an order for a free pair of TOMS shoes… I had many feelings
about this and it prompted many questions about ethics, sustainability, and
volunteerism.
((If you are currently thinking, “What? Why? Just take the
shoes,” I would challenge you to explore these questions and to fight the urge
to find the “right answer.” The beauty about these issues is that there is no
absolute right answer. That is why I love this work so much! ))
 |
| TOMS "One for One" Shoes |
Context:
If you are not familiar with the TOMS “One for One” program,
I will provide a quick summary. TOMS shoes are made very simply with a flat,
rubber bottom, thick canvas, and either some elastic or a few holes for laces. They
are fairly popular and the cost reflects this. Many folks justify this cost
because TOMS has a “One for One” promise, which: for each pair sold in the
developed world, one new (though much lower quality) pair is donated to a
person in the “developing” world.
Rural South Africa would be classified as “developing.” Many
children go to school barefoot. Learners’ uniforms are often held together,
literally, by a thread. Electricity and water are not always reliable.
Unemployment rate in Kwa-Zulu Natal is 45%. Many families are suffering from
the effects of HIV/AIDS. Financial struggles abound. A new pair of shoes that
the family doesn’t need to figure out how to pay for? That is a blessing.
The Dilemma(s):
As you can assume from the “Setting the Stage” section, TOMS
uses the school system to help deliver these shoes to children. Schools are
able to record the desired sizes and place an order for the shoes needed. I
found out that the shoes are from TOMS because a teacher asked me to help
compile the desired sizes for the order form.
Dilemma 1: There are roughly 430-ish students, educators,
and volunteers associated with my school. The order form had over 500 shoes.
When discussing this with others, some responded to this number difference as
“taking advantage” of the system.
Personal Thoughts: The majority of the extra shoes went to
family or other community members connected to the students. My question is: if
the shoes are being given to someone who needs them, does it matter if they are
physically at this one, specific school? Personally, I do not have issue with
this; though I will admit that it felt a little yucky when I initially looked
at the numbers.
Dilemma 2: Some teachers are still wearing their TOMS shoes
from the last order. Again, this elicited some knee-jerk reaction of “taking
advantage” of the system.
Personal Thoughts: These shoes are of very poor quality. One
person says that he is able to tell where he has walked because the rubber
flakes off so easily. The old pair is probably about worn thin.
My personal feeling: Those with worn-out shoes—even worn-out
TOMS—are the target recipients. So, I do not see this as a departure from their
mission. Is it sustainable? Evidently not. Is there a long-term benefit?
Perhaps no. Is there a reasonable/justifiable, temporary benefit received by
the community? I think so. Would it have a slightly longer lasting impact if
they donated shoes of the same quality as those available for purchase?
Definitely. I imagine that TOMS is aware of these issues. They have since
developed other programs that have more potential for sustainability than the
“One for One” shoe program.
Dilemma 3: To accept
the TOMS shoes, or to not accept the shoes? That is the question.
To Not Accept The Shoes:
I am not the intended recipient of these shoes. The buyers
in the US didn’t think to themselves, “Hey, I really want to buy these shoes
for that volunteer who willingly chose to live in rural Africa.” I chose to be
here. This is temporary for me. Although I cannot afford new shoes on my living
allowance, the fact remains that I have enough financial access and privilege
to get new shoes on my own accord. Shoot, if I was that fed up with my
situation, I could always just go home. Not to mention that I had enough
financial security in the US that I brought all the shoes I could need with me.
To think of it another way … Although I may be living at the
same standard as my community, it would be completely immoral and inappropriate
for me to seek need-based grants that are available to those in my community. Perhaps
these shoes are a form of those need-based grants?
To Accept the Shoes:
When I tried to explain to my other teachers why I shouldn’t
receive the shoes, they were bothered by my protests. I am a part of their
community now, why was I trying to differentiate myself from them? In
volunteerism, we talk about serving “with, beside and for” the community. Am I unnecessarily setting myself apart from
them? Is my white-US-financial privilege causing me to take an “us vs. them”
approach in my service—that someone “like me” can’t possibly be in a position
of need?
Conclusion:
At the end of the day, Joe and I have each received and
accepted one pair of shoes. I predict that one of two things will happen: I
will either give the shoes to someone in my community or start to use them,
with a vow to buy a pair of TOMS when I return to the US as a way to atone.
