Back to index
back
"Title"
My Experience with Clark's Catastrophic
Community Calamity for Kids, Part 2

by Nathan Kleinberger

continued from previous page
The public pool near Clark
Neighborhood geese play in the lifeguard-less swimming hole at Crystal Park.
(pic by Jody Gray)

 About half-way through the movie the kids started getting hungry but me and my co-counselor in the theater assured the kids food was on the way. The food never came. I ran to Jack's office and asked him what to do. He said he empathized with the kids, however, if we feed the kids at the food service they are going to want food from us everyday. I asked him should we let them starve. He replied he was sorry. I suppose I agreed with him, sort of. Yet, the whole thought of the kids going home hungry disgusted me. The three of us discussed the issue and we told the kids they were on their own for food. I wanted to cry. This was not right.

 I really did not understand how we could have had a camp for inner-city kids without a breakfast and lunch program in the first place, but living or dying on whether the food service showed up was just wrong. All the kids went home and I did not blame them. I would have too, in disgust.

 The weather also created a problem we were trying to avoid: What happens if it rains? We never really answered this question. We just prayed it didn't, and, of course, it felt like it rained all summer. And finally, it was becoming clear that one of my co-counselors was becoming a problem.

 I was troubled to learn that first thee people who applied for the job were hired. The former Dean of Students arbitrarily hired three students without any consideration if they had worked with kids in the past. I happened to have a lot of experience, Mike had some experience, and Julie had no experience at all. The best we could hope for that Mike and Julie would use common sense, and their best judgement while dealing with the kids. Mike did, Julie was less than successful.

 She created constant problems with issues like authority, public outbursts, and a lack of motivation to participate with the kids. During the first week, Julie was having the kids paint on the picnic tables. Mike and I had just returned from a game of baseball when we noticed that the kids had painted all over the table itself. In a mild state of disbelief, I told her that we can not have the kids paint on the benches because it is not our property. She took this to be undermining of her authority.

 Julie started getting flustered and I told her we should discuss this issue after camp. I knew if she blew up at me it would undermine all of our authority because it would make us look argumentative in front of the kids. She ignored my warnings and told me to do something to myself that I did not think was humanly possible. After camp we discussed the incident and she agreed she was wrong to blow up, but she added that Mike and I needed to be more sensitive to her feelings. We agreed we would. This situation got to be a lot worse.

 There were countless other times where we had problems with Julie. She especially took issue with me. This even got to the point where Mike and I were playing "good cop/bad cop." It became painful apparent that not only could she not handle the kids, nor I, but she was completely unreliable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 Mike and I approached Jack about Julie. We had discussed this issue a number of times with Jack in the past, but it was getting to the point that the counselors had a complete breakdown of communication.

 Numerous kids complained that she had grabbed and hit them. We were skeptical, because if it happened repeatedly we would have seen it; however, if this were true, we would have to fire her immediately. Mike and I had a private meeting with Jack and he listened to what we had to say. He said he was in a tough position because he understood our complaints, however, he had never seen any of these incidents and it would be difficult to fire her on conjecture. Besides, there was only two weeks left of camp and he repeated what he had all summer: "just get through with it." I was angry, but I accepted his position and lived with it. Though it started out as a joking remark, "just get through it" became a motto for the summer.

 From the hiring process through the last day of camp, the University Park Camp was doomed. It was never quite determined who would be running the camp this year. The past two years it was run by Linda Brown-Connors, director of The University Center, but she was going to be involved with orientation and did not have time for both. The camp was pushed over to the Dean of Students office, but then Catherine Maddox-Wiley resigned. She did her duty advertising the camp and hiring the counselors; she did not care that she did a mediocre job: she wanted it done with and she wanted to leave Clark as soon as possible.

 Even after the three of us were hired, it was still unknown who would run the camp. Jack Foley decided to take on the camp because no one else would. He knew there were a lot of problems with the camp: he admitted it the first day by saying "just get through with it," but not to the extent that anybody imagined.

 With the huge Housing and Urban Development (HUD) grant Clark received and with part of the University Park Neighborhood Restoration Project (UPNRP), Jack says he has plans to completely overhaul the camp in the future. Without a building, and from all the problems this year, I am skeptical, but I have to give him the benefit of the doubt.

 If I was in his position, I would put the camp on hiatus. All that would be lost is three work-study jobs, and the fifteen or so kids in the program,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


who would have ended up attending the Boys and Girls Club camp that they attend in the evening anyway.

 No one individual can take blame for the debacle this year, so I believe Clark University should take the responsibility. In the grand scheme of things the camp is a very small part of Clark University. It disturbs me, however, to think that Clark University can treat a summer camp as if it was an investment in a business in Central America.

 Kids are not commodities, plain and simple. Kids are people just like we are people. You can not run a token camp just to report that Clark is "contributing the community." If a camp is run at all, it needs to be run right. It needs to have a staff who has worked with kids before, it needs specialists in arts and crafts, sports, and who are lifeguard certified, and it needs people who are CPR and First-Aid trained in case of emergencies. It also needs a facility so the counselors can keep the campers in a contained area, so they can not come and go as they please. The only people who really knew what went on at the camp were the counselors, and even that's iffy.

 If the University is going to make a real effort to run the camp, it needs be more involved. Someone from the university must be an integral part of the functioning of the camp so it is aware from a legal, and practical point of view. There needs to be outreach to the community to promote the camp, months in advance, to have parents actually register their kids and being involved. A hiring committee should be formed to screen, and interview and hire the most qualified counselors for the job, not the first three who walk through the door.

 Finally, the camp needs to establish an ethos or mission statement. This year's camp had no sense of purpose, direction, or focus. Essentially the three of us worked as babysitters for the six week program. A camp, like anything, needs structure, and focus, and this had neither. Clark must realize these are people they are dealing with and they can not be written off for the sake of impressing the community.

 I am ashamed and disgusted with being associated with the program this year. If the University Park Camp is going to run in the future, it needs to be completely overhauled, so it's not just a big liability. I hope Jack Foley restructures the camp, but then, any change from this year is an improvement.