Charitable acts are, for the most part, great. However, helping someone in need can sometimes walk a fine line between providing aid and creating negative connotations for the recipient.
Bloggers and citizens have argued both sides of the case over the last few weeks in heated discussions over Homeless Hotspots (HH), which launched and met its end as a program at South by Southwest (SXSW) earlier this March.
The premise of this innovation was to encourage donations to the homeless of Austin—a widespread problem directly affecting over 800 of those living in the city—while also providing a useful service to many SXSW attendees.
The program coordinators gave 13 Austin residents who have found themselves without homes mifi hookups, which generate wifi and make them a “hotspot” for Internet access. Those needing immediate and convenient web service could stand near one of the providers and use their signal for the suggested donation of $2 for every 15 minutes, or $8 for an hour.
Additionally, those 13 residents with the mifi wore shirts reading, “I’m {insert name here}, a 4G hotspot,” and below this phrase users could find the necessary SMS code to access the Internet. Donations were made to the specific person providing the service via a PayPal account and these same people were also paid an additional $20 a day.
Let us first examine the positives of this innovation: HH provides a sort of income for (in a way), or at the very least more incentives to donate to, people in need. It also provides the imperative service of Internet to the many busybodies of SXSW.
The HH website also quotes many participants as saying they enjoyed the opportunity to speak with people and engage with them in more than the typical, brief exchange of a request for spare change or the dropping of a dollar bill in a cup.
However, there remain some questionable aspects to this program. First and foremost: the name.
Alliteration is a wonderful syntactical tool, but the word “homeless,” with all its perceived negative connotations, was the wrong choice here. Regardless of the reason for finding oneself without a home, the title of “homeless” is largely viewed as demeaning.
Others have also had qualms with the hotspotters wearing a promotional t-shirt. Those against it say it dehumanizes those wearing them and makes them seem more like an object than a person.
Yes, the mifi-wearers were being used as a service and take on a semi-role as an object for use, but how are these t-shirts much different from a uniform for more conventional jobs?
Where is the big difference between a down-on-their-luck Austin resident providing wifi in a designated T-shirt and the girls sporting tightly-fitting Jameson Whiskey tops at State Street bars getting paid to hand out free shots?
We oftentimes find ourselves in a disconcerting situation when crossing paths with someone asking for money. Are they going to use it for food or drugs? Have they tried to find work or are they just looking for handouts?
The sad truth is it is difficult to tell the circumstances that made someone homeless without speaking directly to the person, which almost never happens. We are all guilty of turning a blind eye to problems that seem far too big to try to take on with one small act of kindness. It can be overwhelming and at times attempting to address the situation can bring on a maelstrom of criticism as it did with HH.
Was HH executed with enough care and foresight? No. But at least the people behind the program are taking steps to bring awareness to a widespread problem that receives little attention. They have started the conversation, now it is up to us to finish it.
Please send feedback to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
