Mensa was created as a do-it-yourself organization, a roundtable of equals working to build a vision. Each member's vision was by necessity a little different. When members wanted an event, community service activity, publication, leadership training, whatever; they were encouraged to take the initiative, do the planning, and accomplish their goal. They were encouraged to find others with similar perspectives to work with them. In recent years we have seen the gradual fading of this philosophy. As a result, local groups are being placed under increasing pressure to "provide" community service activities for their members, to "provide" separate and special activities for younger members, to comply with the latest volume of requirements of all aspects of local group existence, gatherings and Minimum Standard Bylaws—to conform to a nationally defined model. Each group must abide by an ever-increasing, changing and bewildering set of requirements defined by the central organization. Innovation and creativity are no longer met with recognition and reward; at best they are met with skepticism. Nationalization of originally local ideas such as Project Inkslinger, officer training sessions, and CultureQuest has resulted in conformity, mediocrity and, in many instances, much higher cost and much lower participation. Rather than applauding local groups and members who dare to think outside the box and who take the initiative to see that their visions of Mensa are realized, our leadership often gives us criticisms, disparagement and fabrications that discredit actual accomplishments. This is good if we as members want a centralized organization that dictates each step so all local groups conform to a national model. This is good if the majority of us want many functions performed by a paid staff (necessarily resulting in large dues increases and lack of diversity). This is good if we want others to do our thinking and planning for us. If this describes our vision of Mensa, then we are going down the proper path. This is bad if we want to adhere to the original philosophy of Mensa as a roundtable society. This is bad if we want to belong to a society composed of diverse volunteers attempting to achieve the three purposes espoused in our Constitution. If we do not want a top-down organization with all local groups structured and functioning in the same manner, we have taken a wrong turn. It has been my observation that members who are having fun and who believe they are accomplishing something cannot be driven away. Their membership means something to them; it's more than just an item on their resumé or a membership card. They feel like they have bonded with other members, contributed, and usually managed to involve new members in the process. Yet these same members can barely be forced to act when it's a matter of completing a required form or participating in a nationally codified activity. What can we do? As local members and officers, we can encourage and become a cheerleading squad when another member suggests an idea. We can help facilitate the realization of their idea through logistics, publication, and working with them. If there are problems with the suggestion, but the idea itself is good, we can provide input to help eliminate potential problems. We can speak up, both locally and nationally. But, please, remember to communicate when positive things are accomplished, as well as when you disagree. I've been in the AMC hot seat before, and positive words can mean a great deal. Each of us has a somewhat different vision of Mensa. What's yours? What are you willing to do to make your vision a reality? Diversity and autonomy allow divergent Mensas to exist in harmony. Diversity enables each of us to have the Mensa we, as individual members, want. —LeAnne Porter |