Rev. Dr. Sofía Betancourt, in her UUA Officer Report “Holding the Heart of Unitarian Universalism,” asserts that “The vision for the future of youth and emerging adult ministry is just beginning to become clearer. Knowing that we need to strengthen the containers for this ministry at the congregational and local levels…” This is challenging to achieve because the Association does not control these containers. However, the Association does control the “container” known as “Youth Caucus.” UUA Secretary John Simmonds shared that there are 6 confirmed youth in attendance - 3 online only and 3 business-only. Therefore, to achieve the goals set forth by Rev. Dr. Betancourt on behalf of the UUA, I move that the Association provide the resources to recruit, train, and cultivate youth leadership and attendance to support no fewer than 200 youth at GA 2027 in San Jose and at GA 2028 online. Our youth are our present – not our future. We are better when the “Youth” are in the “House.” Our sacred duty to our collective children is to provide the requisite skills, support, guidance, and resources so we can follow them into the future of which they dream.
Submitted by Debra Boyd of First UU Church, Columbus, OH.
I really like the specific benchmark of 200 youth in this one. (I think it’s great that two different people saw this issue and submitted resolutions. I wonder if the board will suggest combining them, since they don’t conflict with each other.) I can say on the Article II commission, having youth representation was valuable and important.
I’ll vote for both (“porque no los dos?”). I like the wording of the other one, but if it comes down to it, I think having a specific goal or benchmark is the most important thing. Even if they can’t get to exactly 200, having a defined goal is important to have a target to work for.
I feel somewhat conflicted about this; my concern is that the language of “recruit, train, and cultivate” seems to focus on transforming our youth to fit the needs of our faith, when I think what really needs to happen is for us to transform our faith to fit the needs of youth (“If you build it, they will come”).
I also think the ‘quota’ of 200 youth is a bit troubling; it sets us up to have a “pass/fail” metric, and I’m concerned that a push to hit a particular head count goal could result in youth being cajoled to participate, rather than instilling true excitement about participating in our faith.
my participation in LRY was important in developing my beliefs and connection with UU. We put on youth Sunday service and i had to deeply think about god. we visited services of different religions and discussed them. the conferences exposed me to new ideas and new youth and adults, and made me think deeply about these new experiences. i marched against nuclear war with the quakers and LRY.
Between my reading of this responsive resolution and my understanding of how responsive resolutions function in our governance… if we meet the goal, then great! we get to celebrate. If we don’t… then at least we tried and directed the UUA to put money and time and resources into the goal. Like, there is no violation or failure or penalty for not reaching the goal – other than the existing negative impacts of not having as many youth involved in our associational democracy and national gathering, of course!
I’m very comfortable setting a goal at 200, fully knowing we may not be able to achieve it.
I also think, for everyone voting yes, we should not juts say “See, we voted to direct the UUA to do this” but take your affirmative vote as a pledge that you will work within your congregation to effect a similar cultural change and also to get as many youth as you can (especially to serve as delegates if they are so inclined) to GA 2027!