Social responsibility is under attack. At a corporate level, companies are opting to cut back on charitable ventures to meet revenue quotas. Corporate social responsibility is now—perhaps alongside jobs—the first to go under the knife. At a collegiate level, staff and faculty cuts seem imminent. Pomona’s students rallied last week to preserve the jobs of part-time staff workers, calling for a cut in executive salaries to compensate for increase in the workers’ wage budget. Volunteers at Frank and Frary urged fellow students to sign petitions asking the administration to save these jobs. At an individual level, families are faced with paying gas bills or donating to Parkinson’s research. With the national unemployment rate approaching nine percent, millions of Americans are more concerned with finding meals and surviving on credit than with fighting deforestation or ending corn subsidies. Yet in the midst of this crisis we, as individuals and as a nation, are continually called to live out socially responsible lives. How do we reconcile our individual necessities with the needs of our nation and planet?

I sat down with Nick Hubbard to add to an already wide dialogue on the subject.

Nick: I think that the issue with Pomona’s staff is a perfect microcosm of social responsibility in society at large. When the economy is going well and we are flush with cash, acting on our beliefs of social responsibility is not a problem. It is only when we have to make ends meet that we face tough choices. Unfortunately, calling on individuals to support the less needy when they themselves face hardships seems rather callous. This is the problem that I have with a lot of groups on campus. They presume that individuals who are better-off can and should make sacrifices to support the less needy, and that belief doesn’t change to accommodate an inconvenient truth like the recession we now face.

John: It seems that you are suggesting that there isn’t some sort of obligation—moral or otherwise—to help those needing assistance. In a recession, I agree it is often much more difficult to part with money when daily necessities seem overbearing, but some degree of altruism or sacrifice for others should not necessarily be out of the picture. My family, for example, has been fiscally constrained by the recession, but my parents continue to give money to charities and religious organizations. I think, yes, we do not fully appreciate the constraints of the recession on campus, but to put socially responsible activism on the back burner until better times denies the continued importance of issues like workers’ rights or protecting the environment.

Nick: I’m not saying that there’s no moral obligation to help others—far from it. I’m saying that asking people to make additional monetary sacrifices during a recession is not at all the best way to go about promoting responsible social behavior. Philosophically, this may not fit with a purist’s definition of altruism. I agree that truly charitable citizens give to others regardless of their own need. But unfortunately, we are not a nation of genuine altruists—if we were, problems such as income inequality and poverty would not exist. Everybody has a point at which they start looking out for themselves rather than others. I’m saying that, if you want to actually address issues of social responsibility now rather than put them on the back burner, it is much more effective to ask people for their support in a less costly way. The facts of the recession mean that on the national level, Americans would much rather sign petitions than make donations right now. We need to address society’s problems with the same passion, but with different methods that reflect economic realities.

John: Sure, current campus-wide initiatives—asking students to petition the executive board or sending a letter to Nancy Pelosi—seem detached and ineffective. What methods do you suggest, though? Even with revolutionary new strategies, it is hard to imagine how national-scale issues can be adequately dealt with by student organizations. Obama’s campaign may have built from a grassroots level, but that level of organizational power is hard to replicate especially with Pomona’s limited resources.

To go back a bit further, I also think you forget that any new approach necessarily will be costly—not necessarily in dollars, but in time. Petitions may not take time to sign, but they take time to organize and submit. Whether or not simply signing a petition qualifies you as “socially responsible” is a whole different discussion. This costliness exists regardless of whether the nation is in a recession or not.

The problem, more acutely, is not the methods used to promote activism—although overall I agree, there certainly is need for revision and adaptation—but that individuals have to choose to be socially responsible. In other words, if I were to decide that I wanted to drive a Prius or actively support the DREAM Act, I would have to make that decision myself. Some cajoling might push me in that direction, but ultimately my major life choices are not determined by protestors or community organizers. Blown up on a national scale, that means that individuals need to be impelled externally and compelled internally to change. Unfortunately, most average citizens are more concerned about putting food on the table than the size of their carbon footprint—especially during a recession.

Nick: I think you answered your own question when you said that it is hard to imagine how national problems can be dealt with by student organizations. Realistically, anything we do on campus is simply a drop in a much larger bucket. I would prefer that campus activism, however minute of an effect it ultimately has, go into something other than simply raising money and awareness from like-minded liberal arts students. If you truly believe in something, go out into the community and break that 5-C bubble—find some citizens who do not share your views and convince them to support your cause. We do not have to replicate the Obama campaign, but there is no reason we should limit canvassing to sitting at tables in Frary and Frank.

You touched on a larger issue, though, and that is the concept of personal responsibility. How much should we sacrifice—in time, money, or effort—to serve selfless ends? I think you are right when you say that this is a decision that needs to be made at the individual level. But society plays a larger role in determining how much of a sacrifice is needed to be considered “socially responsible.” You suggested that the bar for what constitutes a sacrifice should be set relatively high. I believe the opposite; why preclude anyone from joining a cause simply because they are unwilling to sacrifice some requisite amount of personal happiness? After all, to a certain extent we all choose to elevate our own happiness over the welfare of others. It seems morally reprehensible—after all, if I had half a soul, I would realize that the money I spend on Coors Light every Friday could buy books for 52 African schoolchildren, right? That is a terribly sobering fact. But seriously, we all make this trade-off on a daily basis. Who can honestly say that they forgo every personal pleasure in order to help the less fortunate? Some give up relatively more than others, but I think that if we are conscious of the responsibilities we have, it should be incumbent upon individuals to donate their time and money as they see fit. Society should not compel altruism, nor should it lay moral judgments upon individuals who choose to look after themselves rather than others. Judge not, lest ye be judged.