By Valeria Iuleva
Do you still think that poverty is somewhere very far away? Many students and faculty, who participated in the Poverty Simulation, curated by Prof. Lipinski in terms of his Civic Engagement Mandel Academy class, shared very opposite opinions on November 12 at Metro Campus.
Civic engagement class, led by Prof. Lipinski (a certified curator of similar simulations, who organizes them for different communities, also outside of the college) was supported by the Psychology club: this big and impactful event needed a lot of hands. It all started with brainstorming sessions and preparations of small details: registration forms, flyers and their distribution, oral invitations of fellow students. On a deeper level, students were trained to perform their “roles” – volunteers weren’t just hosting the event but created and were actively shaping the frame during the simulation. What does it finally look like for those registered as “guests”?
When I came to the third floor of MCC building on the Metro campus, I saw a line. Every registered person was assigned a persona there and then guided to find a sitting place. Guests were divided into different groups: some were sitting with many neighbors and chatting easily, while the others were sitting all alone. Every person had their portfolio under the chair; someone was looking at it in advance or just trying to relax. While more people were coming, the atmosphere was getting more tense.
Professor Lipinski started the event with an emotional introduction, sharing poverty facts and numbers for the U.S. and Ohio state, particularly, described the mechanism or the simulation fully and gave the time to study the “persona’s portfolio” – the cases are real-life based examples of circumstances people face daily. Someone was assigned the role of a senior person, who needed to navigate medical aid services, someone else was just a child facing starvation and being neglected. Someone was mafia, making a living harming others, another one just came out of prison and needed to find money to get out of homeless shelter to build a new life. Volunteers were distributed between different “organizations” – hospitals, markets, fast-cash points, social services, daycare and schools, real estate and labor agencies.
Every character had its “survival goals”, which they must deal with in three weeks (3 rounds of 15 minutes each). After the first signal, people and volunteers rushed to their lives: I saw panic and frustration on many faces. One volunteer, representing social services, shared that almost no one was coming to her, because people, being frustrated, tried everything else: finding a job, selling assets, stealing money and documents, but didn’t think of coming to the specialized institutions to get help. “People are frozen and didn’t know where to start”, she shared. Didn’t they believe in social organizations’ help, or didn’t they just think about it in a rush?
After the first round, I, as my character, was completely lost. I discussed things with my partner, so we shortly created some strategy. The second week started after the beep, and people rushed again. With more understanding, with more panic, with fewer assets and solutions in many cases. Prof. Lipinski commented on this time length choice: “Running out of time as if a week really lasted fifteen minutes (that’s how it goes in real life)”. Some people at this point faced the first and most crucial choices: to look after children or to go for work, to do drugs to have some “escape plan” or to ask for help overcoming huge shame? One feedback really touched me, it was shared by a member assigned to be a child: “Being 14-year-old, I couldn’t afford to stay a child, because I had to think about adult staff and become strategic to survive”. My partner in this experience met with me after the second “week” ended. She was doing great, using some social services. I sold everything I could to get some cash, but we could afford only food for the ongoing week, and had nothing to convert to money anymore. At this point, she said, “It doesn’t make me feel good”.
The third round – final one – started for me with a feeling that I didn’t achieve anything. I have not succeeded in finding money or a place to live. I couldn’t work anymore, the subsidy for the rent was not covering enough for me to afford it. And I needed to cover other expenses. I got rid of the previous debts, and that’s it. No perspectives. Someone passing me said out loud: “It feels like you have nothing to do”. That’s what felt most of members and volunteers too.
After the third round, the area was reorganized, so everyone was sitting in a big circle. It forced people, who was looking at each other, and were in a better living situation in their real lives in most cases, feel the emotions of others. Some people shared their insights, but many shared their memories – and how vulnerable they felt again. Poverty simulation was more than a simulation for everyone here: some people stepped into “someone else’s shoes,” making tough decisions, while others were sharing personal stories, feeling support and relief from the past traumas. Volunteers shared that it was nervous and demanding, but a very transformative experience. As a group for the day, we all understood the most important thing: poverty led to a change of mindset, and “survival mode” made justice and consequences look different.
We were all The People in this room: students and stuff with totally different stories and contexts. People who learned something real about vulnerability, insecurity and difficult choices that day.
