Category: Reflections

Reflections on the President’s first year in office

Has Obama lived up to or deviated from his election promises and themes? 

I think any analysis of Obama’s presidency has to be situated within the context of the American political system, which is designed to frustrate change. In particular, the super-majority requirement in the Senate gives disproportionate voice to smaller, rural states, and disproportionate power to individual Senators who can be the swing votes on key bills (such as Joe Lieberman).  In response, Obama’s approach, particularly on health care, has generally been to shoot for what can get sufficient votes to pass, without drawing many clear lines in the sand.

The resulting health care bill (the Senate version especially) is a compromise of a compromise of a compromise. Passing it would be a historical achievement in terms of increasing access and supporting the principle that everyone should be covered, but in my judgment would not do a great deal to contain costs or expand the choices most people have. In effect it is a federal subsidy to the health insurance industry to allow them to cover more people.

The question is whether there might have been some other strategic approach Obama could have taken that would have produced a more satisfying result, in terms of achieving the kinds of things Obama talked about the campaign. That is difficult to say. An alternative approach might have involved Obama taking a much more hands-on role in crafting legislation (on health care, but also on other key bills such as the stimulus package and climate legislation), and making it very clear that these bills needed to meet certain minimum requirements to get his approval. This would have been a riskier route to take. But Obama would be perceived as more of a fighter than a compromiser if he had gone this route. That probably would make him more popular with the liberal base, at the risk of increasing negatives with conservatives further.

Apart from this, the major crisis for Obama’s presidency in my estimation is the slow economic recovery and the unemployment rate. It’s inconceivable to me that any incumbent party could retain office with unemployment remaining at 10% for a prolonged period. If it stays at 10%, the Democrats almost certainly will have big losses in the midterm elections which would constrain Obama’s ability to achieve his legislative goals the rest of the first term. And if Obama himself wants to get re-elected, recovery has to be full-swing and the unemployment rate substantially lower by fall of 2011. (An interesting precedent in this regard is Reagan, who might have been beatable during the recession year of 1982 but by 1984 was a strong favorite for re-election because the economy had notably improved.) 

The current unemployment rate is a national crisis, yet there seems to be no plan from Obama or the Democrats to accelerate job creation. Nor is there political will to pass another stimulus package of real substance. Here I worry Obama may pay the price for not taking a more hands-on approach to the design of the original stimulus package to ensure it maximized direct job creation, and for not being bolder in asking for a bigger stimulus at a time when he had enough political capital to do almost anything.

The war in Afghanistan is obviously another major issue. To the average  person, the strategy that has been laid out does not seem very persuasive, and the case for why a large presence in Afghanistan directly affects our security is unclear. The American public cares more about airport security than what is going on in Afghanistan. At this point, the cost Obama has had to pay for pursuing a fairly unpopular war is not too high, but we know from histories that prolonged military engagements almost always get less popular with democratic publics as years go by. But for a non-military expert like myself, it looks like Obama is staking quite a lot on the hope that we can produce a dramatically better situation in Afghanistan in a short amount of time.

Democracy Knocking: First-time candidate works the sidewalks with a smile and a handshake

BY TOM SHIELDS

In the movie The Candidate, a young Robert Redford plays Bill McKay, an idealistic, budding politician who believes in going directly to the voters. There is one scene where a voter approaches McKay in the parking lot of a flea market. The voter hands McKay a hot dog and then proceeds to punch him in the face. McKay gets up, bloodied, realizing that he probably lost that vote.

The interaction between candidate and voter in American politics has always been an interesting dance. In August we saw that during several sometimes-contentious congressional town-hall meetings across the country. Having taught politics for many years, I would tell my students that the voter-candidate exchange was the crux of democracy, but of course that was theoretical. Having worked with other political candidates, I knew of that interaction firsthand, but from an aide's perspective. As a candidate for the House of Delegates I have been like McKay €” bright-eyed and hopeful for the best.

The first thing that all candidates must do is to get out and meet with as many voters as possible. The best way to do that is door to door. I remember well the first door that I knocked on in March; I was very nervous. I had canvassed for several campaigns over the years. Knocking on that door as a candidate felt very different: I couldn't hide. It was my name on the literature that I handed out, and it was my ideas and opinions and point of view laid out in detail.

I approached the door, rang the bell and waited. No one appeared. I grew more nervous. Then I knocked really hard. A woman peered curiously through the window. She slowly opened the door and said, "Yes, can I help you?" I extended my hand, anxiously, and said, "I'm Tom Shields, and I'm running for the House of Delegates." The woman looked at me, smiled and said very nicely, "It's nice to meet you. I appreciate you coming by." The anxiety inside melted away as I realized I had become a candidate for public office. I had entered into the democratic process.

Since that cold day in March, I have personally knocked on more than 5,000 doors while my campaign has knocked on more than 8,000. I still find it a thrill to approach the house of a voter with the great expectation of discussing the issues that will be of concern to that individual or family. Continue reading Democracy Knocking: First-time candidate works the sidewalks with a smile and a handshake

A Plea for Balance: As health-care reform advances, it's important to remember which aspects of our current system work

BY SANDRA J. PEART

It's been some time since I lived in Canada. Much of what I know of the health-care system there comes from that experience and the ongoing conversations I have with relatives and friends who are now of an age to place demands on the system. As a graduate student, I needed very little in the way of medical services. Wisdom-teeth extractions weren't covered by the system. I had to have those done at reduced rates by a dental student at the University of Toronto.

In Canada, we revel in the universality of the system. Rightly so: It's wonderful to know that all have access to affordable basic medical services. The simplicity of the system is breathtaking €” especially for one who has for some time had to deal with the American version. I never saw a bill for any service covered by OHIP, the Ontario Health Insurance Plan. Since there is sometimes a misconception about this, I should say as well that I did have some choices for my health: I wasn't forced to take on a specific doctor. Other choices, however, are more circumscribed.

These are, perhaps, the best features of the Canadian system: universal access, simplicity and choice.

They are also its weaknesses. In a system that is increasingly stressed for resources as the population ages, it seems unreasonable to expect that the provinces can continue to offer "free" services to all Canadians irrespective of income or wealth levels. By this I don't mean to suggest that services should be restricted to those who can afford to pay for service. On the contrary, it may make sense for those at the higher end of the income distribution to pay a larger amount for the services they demand. This is what has apparently happened as wealthier Canadians increasingly add private-insurance supplements to the publicly provided plan. As for simplicity and choice, though I enjoyed the lack of medical bills or statements when I lived in Canada, I had no idea what anything cost there. That just wasn't sensible. More than this, some items (my wisdom teeth) are simply off the table, unavailable through the public plan €” as a result of tough choices that OHIP makes for all in order to maintain fiscal viability.

Any system that offers services that are free of monetary payment needs to come up with a rationing scheme. Waiting times might do it: They are longer in the Canadian system than they might otherwise be. But it may be that Canadians would be willing instead to pay money (as opposed to time) for services. Co-payments might help preserve the integrity of the system, and they have the added benefit of making those who use the system think seriously about whether the visit to the doctor is really needed.

It's important to recognize, as well, that extended waiting times and overstressing a system have real consequences. A relative, now deceased, was recently hospitalized for chemotherapy treatments. He suffered a series of strokes while there; no one noticed until it was entirely too late to treat him adequately. Continue reading A Plea for Balance: As health-care reform advances, it's important to remember which aspects of our current system work

Economists must speak up and lead the national dialogue during this time of crisis

 BY SANDRA J. PEART

A "teach-in" is how David Warsh referred to the conference near the end of a session attended by students, university trustees, professors and guests. In that significant moment, Warsh affirmed that the room had a teaching feel to it. Unspoken but significant was the acknowledgment that for too long the discussion among economists has been unhelpful or nonexistent. Indeed, a major rationale for organizing the conference was the glaringly obvious lack of debate among economists before passage of the bailout package last fall.

Indeed, that $700 billion bailout passed with surprising alacrity in the light of the serious difficulties that had become apparent. Too little discussion, public or private, preceded that enormous undertaking. And now the country's politicians have committed to spend an amount that exceeds TARP, again with little national discourse. More than this, as economists ourselves we were struck by just how long our discipline has been, as conference participant James Buchanan put it, "missing in action." Even the election campaign failed to spark substantive discussion of the bailout. Now, we've done it again. We've committed to spending another enormous sum of money with merely a few days of discussion and no substantive national dialogue about the significance of the event or how best to set up rules for spending in the stimulus package.

Though some economists are of course involved at the highest levels of policy making, the rest of the profession has been curiously absent from the discussion. We've seen a number of significant letters and some op-eds published as passage of one bill or another became imminent, but most of the profession remains on the sidelines.

Though we have been educating droves of economics and business majors for decades, we seem to have had little impact on the ability of the American public to understand the causes of the crisis.

Economists have been marginalized in part because we've been portrayed as entirely inept, unable to come to a consensus. But we've failed to educate the media and others that there is in fact a good deal upon which we do agree. On fundamentals, principles, there's less disagreement. Our January conference demonstrated just that. Though we had economists from the political left and right taking part, there was remarkable agreement on fundamentals.

On what did we agree? The current crisis is extraordinary because of the very unusual combination of financial and housing market collapses. Consumption spending, financed by expected increases in housing, has been fueled by unrealistic expectations, and now the price is being paid for the correction of expectations.

In partisan discussions today, people tend to "blame" one group or another for the crisis: Greedy financial tycoons caused it all, or government policies caused it all, the conventional wisdom goes. There is blame to go around, but a more fruitful way to look at the crisis is to forego finger pointing and accept that it's been caused in part by policy failings and in part by the actions of private individuals and organizations. Significantly, the economists who met in January did just that: We avoided partisan blaming and agreed that the crisis is the result of a combination of private and public failings. This came from economists whose political views spanned the spectrum of left to right.

We also agreed that it's unhelpful to pin the cause of the crisis on an increase in greed. People have always been subject to a mix of greed, self-interest and generosity, and that hasn't changed in the past decade. But new financial instruments were developed that were less subject to regulatory oversight than others. The complexity of those instruments made them non-transparent and encouraged buyers to trust the judgment of experts.

We agreed that prices are robust mechanisms to convey information. Not a new point, surely, but it is one that somehow was lost, as models were developed to evaluate the worth of non-traded assets. When we replaced market prices with estimates from models, we added non-transparency to the system.

We agreed on the need for transparency, and that simply calling for it won't ensure we obtain it. Sometimes the incentives are such that people want to hide information. The trick for policy makers is to think about how best to ensure it's not in their interests to do so. It is as true for politicians as it is for ordinary people.

We agreed that expertise is needed as we attempt to move out of the collapse.  Moreover, discussion is needed to help all of us understand that the answer to our problems now can't happen in one sphere (public) or the other (private). Instead, we'll need to see a combination of fixes. Individuals will need to realize that before consumption can happen, the means to consume must be secured. Some of that restraint will eventually also be necessary in the public sphere. Meanwhile, the fix will have to take account of simple but important economic ideas, such as incentives, prices and transparency.

One final theme from the conference was that economists have marginalized themselves. As Dave Colander put it, the profession has increasingly trained up "show dogs" as opposed to "work dogs." The incentives in the profession are such that those who produce research for highly specialized journals are rewarded. Those whose work is grounded in problems of the here and now haven't been so much in demand.

This is why David Warsh said economists could provide a valuable service by holding more public sessions like the forum at the Jepson School of Leadership Studies. "It's easy to imagine economists of all stripes being involved in more discourse with the public," said Warsh, a former Boston Globe reporter whose blog, Economicprincipals.com, covers economic news and trends.

The time is ripe for more "teach-ins."

This essay was published in Richmond Magazine’s series “Leadership in Action” March 2009 .

This winter, 16 eminent economists met at the Jepson School of Leadership Studies at the University of Richmond to discuss the American financial crisis.  Sandra J. Peart and David M. Levy organized the meeting on  "Leadership in Times of Crisis: Economic Science and the Constitution." (Read more and watch the Webcast of proceedings at http://news.richmond.edu/jepson/features/summit.html )  A theme that emerged is that economists – and experts generally – need to correct the persistent misconceptions of the causes. The conference organizers offer reflections on the meeting and the next steps.   

Leadership in a Devout and Diverse City

A historic commitment to religious freedom and recent initiatives give Richmond the opportunity to become a vibrant crossroads

BY DOUGLAS A. HICKS

During the presidential campaign, a political commentator referred to Richmond as the 105th largest city in the country, and he did not mean it as a compliment. Richmonders can laugh about that, even as we cite our history and significance far beyond the city's and region's population figures.

On one issue in particular, Richmond stands in elite company. We hold a central place in the history of religious liberty. We have the opportunity to become a national model, a crossroads where people of diverse religious and moral commitments call each other neighbors.

Let me make this abstraction concrete. I am not talking about fostering interreligious dialogues on obscure religious doctrines. (Interfaith dialogue has its place, too.) I am talking about whether someone should lead prayer before local government meetings, and if so, who should be asked to pray and what he or she should say. Chesterfield County, of course, recently made national headlines over this issue.

I am also talking about how easy it is for schoolchildren €” of majority and minority faiths €” to have the opportunity to follow their religious practices at school, like food regulations, religious attire and holy days. Teachers and principals have quietly confronted issues like these across the region.

And I mean zoning issues for religious buildings. Which houses of worship are welcome in which neighborhoods, who decides and what are their reasons? Witness the ongoing case in Henrico County over possible rezoning for a mosque and Islamic community center.

None of these issues is simple in the present moment, and they were not simple when the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom was passed here in Richmond €” in the Old Capitol at the corner of 14th and Cary streets. Indeed, Thomas Jefferson, who drafted the statute, called the long struggle over its passage one of his hardest political fights €” and greatest accomplishments.

This law, passed by the General Assembly on Jan. 16, 1786, was one of the best leadership moments in Richmond's history. It is not hyperbole to call the Virginia Statute a major contribution to U.S. government and international human rights.

Enacting religious freedom today requires not another act by state (or federal) officials €” we still have Jefferson's law on the books and, thanks largely to James Madison, freedom of belief, conscience and expression stand at the heart of the First Amendment.

What we need today is everyday leadership by local leaders and residents to live up to these great Virginian and American principles. I suggest that we increasingly envision metropolitan Richmond as a crossroads. This is a familiar image, since our waterways and roads have served for over four centuries to make Richmond a transportation and cultural center.

A crossroads, of course, can be a place through which we merely pass as quickly as possible, doing our deals and moving on to other destinations. The crossroads can also be the place where we do our dirty work, making the interactions there dehumanizing. We need only recall the period when Richmond hosted the largest American slave market to hear that cautionary note. But a crossroads, when it is a welcoming and respectful place for all people, can become a thriving communal center. People meet there, share meals, relax in public areas, and even discuss and debate the issues of the day. Richmond is already, and has even more potential to become, one of the great cultural and religious crossroads in the country.

The political scientist Robert Putnam writes about "social capital" in America €” the norms and networks among people that create trust and a sense of community. Actually, he laments the decline of civic life in the United States even as he offers ways to revitalize it. Putnam describes two different kinds of social capital €” bonding and bridging €” and these have everything in the world to do with local leadership.

Bonding forms of social capital are those connections that draw together people who share some identity or interest in common. In religious terms, we are talking about the congregation or the denomination. I am a Presbyterian, and I enjoy the bonding of the Bon Air Presbyterian Church €” not to mention the church's softball team and a Presbyterian fellowship group. Many or most of you reading this essay are part of bonding communities €” whether they are religious, neighborhood-based, work related, arts- or sports-based, or some other kind.

But, as is attributed to Martin Luther King Jr., the 11 o'clock hour on Sunday may be the most segregated hour in America. Our faith communities, with some notable exceptions, are less diverse than our metro region. If we had only bonding forms of community, we would too easily remain in our enclaves with people like us.

That is why the second form of social capital €” bridging €” is so fundamental for our democratic life. This involves people reaching out beyond our comfort zones and familiar networks to connect with people who are, in at least some way, different from each other. And Richmond has a number of notable groups and networks doing this work of bridge building.

One such initiative in Richmond is called "A More Perfect Union," which brings together residents from local faith communities €” Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Jain, and others €” as well as the University of Richmond, VCU and a number of not-for-profits. Now housed within the Virginia Interfaith Center for Public Policy, this initiative has produced two creative media campaigns to promote respect across cultural and faith boundaries.

We should also appreciate other bridge-building organizations in Richmond, such as Richmonders Involved in Strengthening our Communities (RISC), the Virginia Center for Inclusive Communities, and Colaborando Juntos (a network of Latino/Hispanic organizations). Each of these groups works with communities of faith, but they are principally focused on civic-social issues like meeting human needs for vulnerable residents, crossing racial and regional divides, and building a healthy metro community.

Richmonders: We should invoke both our historic commitment to religious liberty and our current efforts to build civic bridges when we envision leadership for our region. We have good reason to see ourselves as a potential model for the nation, but this calls us to the hard work of engaging our neighbors at the religious and cultural crossroads that is Richmond.

Douglas A. Hicks is an associate professor in the Jepson School of Leadership Studies and executive director of the Bonner Center for Civic Engagement at the University of Richmond. His new book, With God on All Sides: Leadership in a Devout and Diverse America, is published by Oxford University Press. 

One week after: Reflections on a personal, historic moment

It has been one week since Barack Obama was elected to be the 44th President of the United States of America, and I am still overcome with emotions when I think of what this means to/for me personally. I grew up in poverty in a single-parent, welfare-dependent home in one of the most dangerous cities in America. Although I was always told that I could be anything I wanted to be (and I have repeated these words to my nieces and nephews), I never really believed it. But at 11:01 p.m. on Nov. 4, 2008, I could relate to the words that have been used to cast Michelle Obama as unpatriotic: For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country. And I finally believe that this is my country too.

God of our weary years, God of our silent tears, Thou who hast brought us thus far on the way . . .  

One of the first people I spoke to after learning of Obama's victory was my 22-year-old nephew, Deon. He and I have shared many milestones in our lives and so it was no surprise to me when he broke my "no phone calls after 10 p.m." rule to share his elation with me. We talked about a lot of things, including the time when he was 10 and invited his friend for a sleepover. He and his friend had fun playing for a while but when it came time to shower to prepare for bed, his friend began to sob uncontrollably. After trying for hours to console him, my sister finally gave up and called his mother. When the mother arrived to pick up her son, she asked what was wrong with him. Imagine the horror on her face when he responded that he didn't want to use my sister's wash cloths or water because he was afraid he would turn black and grow a tail. A tail? Really? I wonder where he got an idea like that? We can laugh about it now but it wasn't so funny when it happened.

Deon is a military brat who has lived all over the world, but he has only felt rejection here in his own country. In the middle of our conversation on Tuesday, Deon asked me how long I thought it would be before the first assassination attempt would occur and whether or not I believed the backlash in the black community would be limited to increased hazards of DWB (driving while black). As I pondered his questions, I was saddend by the realization that even in what was a great moment of joy, these questions are not his alone. He begins his tour of duty in Afghanistan on Nov. 15, so I tried to get him to live in the moment and let the future take care of itself. I wish I could have taken my own advice. Instead of worrying about the future, I was also haunted by memories.

Stony the road we trod, bitter the chast’ning rod, felt in the days when hope unborn had died . . .  

Ten years ago I left home (East St. Louis, Ill.) for the first time and moved to Wisconsin. I took a job where I was the only black person employed at the college. Although I had some trepidation, I was not prepared for the hostility and terrorism that I would encounter. I can't say which event was the worst I experienced during my two years there. Maybe it was the time I came home to find my doormat replaced by a Confederate flag. It could have been the time I pulled into my driveway and realized someone had sprinkled nails everywhere and effectively ruined my tires. Perhaps it was the time that I went to K-Mart and the manager had to check me out because the cashiers all decided to go on break rather than serve me. Or possibly it was being denied service at a restaurant.

But I do know that the incident that finally made me realize that I needed a change of address wasn't something that happened to me but something that happened to one of my students. She was walking down Main Street on her way to class one day when a car drove up, and the occupants yelled, "Go back to Africa, n-word" and then used a spray gun to shoot her with paint. She ran to my office in tears and I immediately called the police. But she refused to file a complaint, afraid of what would happen if she stirred things up on campus and in the community. The police and administration were happy to comply and there was nothing I could do to convince anyone that such behavior should not be tolerated. On that day in 1999, hope for me died. A few months later, I packed up my house and left Wisconsin, and as I was driving to Texas I kept reminding myself what the ancestors must have often told themselves: This too shall pass.

Yet with a steady beat have not our weary feet come to the place for which our fathers sighed?

I spent Tuesday afternoon canvassing homes to ensure that everyone who wanted to vote had no excuse. I drove an elderly woman to the polls and listened as she tearfully shared her story with me. "Never in my lifetime," she said, "would I have ever believed I would be voting for a black man. Look how far we've come, baby." How far, indeed. While standing outside in the rain at the school, I talked with other campaign workers about the diversity of the people working on the Obama campaign: a white "biker dude," a Jewish grandmother, and a single black woman. "In Virginia. Who would have thunk it?" the biker asked. Someone came running out of the school yelling that we had 15 minutes before the polls closed and said two people were at the wrong location. "Can someone drive them to their separate locations?" the person asked. Biker dude and I sprang into action and as he ran to his car, he yelled to me, "See you at the inauguration, my sister." I replied, "Wouldn't miss it, my brother."

Lift ev’ry voice and sing, Till earth and heaven ring, Ring with the harmonies of Liberty; Let our rejoicing rise High as the list’ning skies, Let it resound loud as the rolling sea . . .  

I can't describe what I felt when I heard David Gregory call the election for Barack Obama. My family, friends and I had many laughs. We joked about how the Republicans ridiculed Obama for his experiences as a community organizer. Who's laughing now? Boo-ya! And we cried when we realized the enormous tasks ahead.

I thought about my mother, who died 12 years ago. What would my mother – who told me that I shouldn't be the secretary for our precinct or serve as the regional director for the NAACP Youth Council because people get lynched for doing those things – what would she say if she were alive? I thought about Deon's little friend and the guys who sprayed paint on my student and wondered where they were. But above all, I thought about Barack Obama€”a man born of a white mother and a Kenyan father who has chosen to identify with black people. A man who carries the hopes and dreams of this people on his shoulders. A man who stayed true to himself when others advised him not to. A man who has given black people a reason to believe that we really can be anything we want to be. It has come to pass.

Yes, we can. Yes, he did. Yes, we will.

Facing the rising sun of our new day begun, Let us march on till victory is won!

Thoughts on Leadership from Hands On Greater Richmond Day

Several Jepson students, alums and even one Dean (thanks Dean Williams!) participated in the first Hands On Richmond Day.  Our job was to provide “back-up” for Hands On staff as they checked folks in and signed them up at the kick off.  The rally actually got me awake and alert on a Saturday morning, not an easy feat.  After the kick off, I went to volunteer at Southside Child Development Center where I got to see one of my colleagues in action as true leader.

Shelia Pleasants is the Director of Southside Child Development Center, a center providing scholarships and subsidized child care to 2-12 year olds in the Richmond area.  Southside is one of the oldest child care centers in Richmond and has a long tradition of dedicating high quality services to low-income families.  I knew Shelia because Southside participates in Success By 6’s STAR project, a comprehensive quality improvement and professional development program for child care centers. 

When I arrived at Southside on Saturday, Shelia gave me a big hug and a paintbrush.  She had three projects going simultaneously– painting a room inside, laying new mulch and painting a rusty fence to give it a new look.  As I got to work on the fence, Shelia never seemed to stop.  She had a shovel of mulch in her hand while she was problem solving for the painters inside.  As soon as we finished one section of the fence, she had another section ready to go.  There was Shelia up on a ladder sweeping cobwebs.  And a second later, back off the ladder with “goop” to clean our paint-splattered hands.  Every moment she was upbeat, focused and thankful.  Every moment she made me want to work harder on the task at hand. 

Shelia is truly a servant leader.  She dedicates her days, even her weekends, to making sure the kids of Southside have the best and most nurturing experience in their early years.  She walks the walk and talks the talk of what a caring and trustworthy leader should be.  She does all of this without fanfare– just consistent, quality care and leadership.  I think Shelia is a gem in Richmond’s nonprofit community and I hope that other Jepsonites will get to experience leadership like Shelia’s during the 150 Days of Service.    

  

“Why Not?” – Making the Most of Service Opportunities

Maybe the kick-off of the Jepson School's 150 Days in a Lifetime of Service campaign is just what I needed to get reengaged in service to others. Although I've had every intention to find a cause to which I could devote my time and energy in recent months, the truth is that I've fallen back on a variety of excuses not to: I just moved to a new city (Charlotte, NC) with my wife; we're looking for a house; I just started a new job in June; I'm traveling for business; I just want to relax with friends on the weekend; it's football season€¦ the list goes on.

The funny thing is that this is the first time in six years that I don't have a weekly or biweekly commitment to serving others. Like many Richmond alumni, I moved to Washington D.C. after graduation and settled into a routine of working hard, going out Thursday through Saturday nights, playing sports on the weekend, and sleeping in whenever I could. It wasn't until 2002, when my good friend Jeff Thompson (Jepson class of 2000) and his then-girlfriend-now-wife Elizabeth Hopfinger (also Jepson class of 2000) moved to D.C. that I finally found something worthwhile to do with my Tuesday nights.

You see, Elizabeth took a leadership position with a faith-based organization for teenagers with special needs in Northern Virginia. She organized bi-weekly "club nights" with games, skits, music, and inspirational talks. You'll also be proud to hear that on alternate Tuesdays she would host "Leadership Development" night for a handful of special needs teens. (I think she still owes the Jepson School some royalty fees for borrowing its curriculum!) I was living with Jeff in Arlington, Virginia at the time, and one night he and Elizabeth asked me if I wanted to come to "club" and see what it was all about.

I figured, "Why not?" and showed up at the house of a family in the community promptly at 6:30 p.m. What followed next could best be described as sheer bedlam as about 40 teens – so excited to finally have an accepting and encouraging social environment in which to interact – laughed, shrieked, clapped, bounced and howled. It was amazing to watch, and more than a little intimidating for a newcomer.

I had never worked with people with special needs before. I hadn't even been around them much. I did my best to befriend a few of the kids I met, but still felt like I was a complete outsider. Elizabeth asked me if I would be a "buddy" to Marjorie, a very sweet 16-year-old girl with special needs, for the rest of the evening.

Just as the group formed lines to begin an egg-carry relay on the lawn, I realized that Marjorie – a young woman of few words – didn't have an egg. I gave her a plastic spoon and told her to hang tight for a moment while I set out to find her an egg so she could participate. Just as soon as I found her an egg, one of the other volunteers grabbed me to assist with another teen who needed help. About ten minutes passed before I made my way back outside. There I found Marjorie, standing in the exact same spot I had asked her wait, smiling broadly, and still holding the plastic spoon in her hand with her arm bent at a right angle. It was as if we had consented to an unspoken game of Simon Sez, and I had forgotten to break the spell.

I quickly realized that Marjorie was just happy to be someplace where she could be herself and have fun with other teenagers – both typical teens and those with special needs. Any apprehension and self-consciousness I felt when I arrived had disappeared – it was all about making sure Marjorie and her friends were having a good time.

With only a few exceptions, I didn't miss a Tuesday night club for three years in the Washington D.C. area and then two more in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, where I moved in 2006. The friends I made throughout those five-plus years were among the most genuine and accepting I'll ever encounter. And in the end, it began because I answered, "Why not?" when friends asked me if I wanted to help them serve others.

I'm all out of excuses here in my new community. It's time for me to find new service opportunities, to meet new people and make new friends, and to get reacquainted with the Jepson spirit. On behalf of myself and Jonathan Zur, who is co-chairing the 150 Days in a Lifetime of Service virtual community engagement campaign, I hope you'll join me and say, "Why not?"