Less charity, more respect
Published Saturday July 4th, 2009
A recent letter got me thinking about why we seem to have so many people in our beautiful province who are poor, sick, inadequately housed, unemployed, disabled or living with other conditions which marginalize them, such as illiteracy or abuse.
There are less than 1 million residents in New Brunswick; we ought to be able to create communities with a high quality of life for everyone. Instead, we spend millions on health and social programs which seem to aggravate issues rather than solve them.
In a society which allegedly strives for fairness, the rich are rewarded and the poor are punished, economically, socially and legally. We rant about the government, whatever party is in power, and cannot understand why it is so ineffective and distant from the reality in which so many people live. There must be something very wrong at some level we haven't considered. I think there is.
Put simply, our own institutions keep us down. Our education, health, and welfare systems focus on negatives rather than positives. They are designed to meet needs by having an expert or authority figure diagnose the problem, prescribe the solution, and provide what is needed to deal with it. Theoretically, the worse off you are, the more help you are meant to get.
What's wrong with that, you ask? Charity is a virtue, right? Not always. Charity in a crisis is one thing, but chronic, systemic charity is destructive, because it deprives people of responsibility, confidence and opportunities for growth. Top-down, charity-inspired programs may actually result in the perpetuation of need.
The charity model as we practice it destroys initiative, leaving people stuck in an endless cycle of dependence which isolates them, leading ultimately to illness, hopelessness, frustration and crime. There is no way out.
Our health system, for example, offers few if any incentives or tools to help us stay well. Medicare doesn't pay for preventive check-ups. There is limited access to addiction services, which are sought by many wishing to escape from the downward spiral of substance dependency. Community-based non-profit organizations that could be easily accessed for support must spend valuable time raising funds to keep the doors open rather than providing services. Home economics is gone from the schools, leaving students unaware of basic life skills such as budgeting and nutrition. For many, good health is unaffordable due to low wages and high costs. Too often, the systemic response to stress-related illness is medication.
Our schools pit students against each other in a senseless competition for marks, instead of encouraging students to work collaboratively and take responsibility for themselves and each other. Teachers are tasked with documenting some level of comparative achievement which defines success on a specific day, an evaluation method which is totally at odds with the diverse ways in which students learn. Learners might be encouraged if testing were meant to show them how they had improved over time. But that's not how it works. When you don't measure up to the successful test-takers, you are labelled a failure.
When it comes to beating people down, however, our social services take the prize. Once you are stuck in the welfare cycle, the exit route is continuously blocked by legislative and bureaucratic obstacles. If you go to work to supplement your meager assistance income, you are penalized for earning. If you try to improve your substandard home, you are less likely to qualify for housing assistance than the person who lets the place deteriorate. If you try to accumulate savings so you can make a downpayment on a home, you lose your assistance cheque. If you let your sister stay with you until she finds employment, you are breaking the rules.
It is a constant confrontation with a system focused on preventing abuse of the regulations by a minority, instead of encouraging the majority, who want to move on.
Our health, education and social services are dead ends because we see them as expenses rather than investments.
That's our challenge: to recognize people as the assets they are, rather as than the burdens we make them. New Brunswick has a bright future if we get our priorities straight.
Sue Rickards was an author of last year's task force report on the non-profit sector. She lives at Lower Queensbury.
Disabled
Search Articles
More CE Network Sites & Partners:
