Barack Obama wants to make federal funds contingent on schools and colleges requiring students to perform community service. He proposes 50 hours a year in middle and high school and 100 hours a year in college.
“These are the voices that will tell you — not just what you can’t do — but what you won’t do,” Obama said. “Young Americans won’t serve their country — they’re too selfish, too apathetic or too lazy. This is the soft sell of the status quo. The voice that tells you to settle because settling isn’t that bad.”
Actually, many young people volunteer voluntarily — often through their church, sometimes in political campaigns like Obama’s. Others work after school to help pay the rent, cover their expenses or save for college. In college, many students risk academic failure because they’re spending too much time working and not enough studying.
A Colorado superintendent, Cindy Stevenson, wondered how service would be defined. Who decides what counts?
“The difficulty is, when you start making it a graduation requirement,” she said. “That’s when individual value systems among parents and different groups in the community . . . you can get an awful lot of conflict.”
If schools want service to be “service learning,” they need to devote teacher time to designing programs and following through; it will take class time too. Is this the best use of time and energy? It depends on the subject, but probably not.
In my unmandated volunteering, I’ve run into groups of kids who are putting in their service hours; they go through the motions and make sure someone signs their “hours” sheet. I also work with some terrific teens who volunteer willingly on a team that prepares a meal for the homeless. One girl’s specialty is cutting up donated cakes and pies. Has she learned geometry? Compassion? Teamwork? She had the skills and values from the start.
Matt Yglesias is dubious about mandating service in order to build civic spirit.
It seems worth noting that the best “service” initiatives around, like the Peace Corps and Teach For America, aren’t so much “service” as they are public sector jobs that are simply structured as to operate outside the normal contours of recruitment and employment. There’s nothing wrong with that, but the relevant test should be effectiveness of outcomes (does TFA help kids learn, does the Peace Corps help build the American brand) not whether or not it’s creating an awesome servicey spirit.
The only way to get everyone to serve meaningfully is to draft every 18-year-old into the military or into a civilian job designed to mimic military service. That would build a unified spirit — hatred for the draft — but it would burden the Army or National Guard with unwilling, unfit, short-term soldiers.
Update: Do we need a U.S. Public Service Academy to train young people for government jobs?
We aren’t just talking about the involuntary volunteering of high school and college age kids who are already old enough to be in the work force, but about middle school children- aren’t there child labor laws in this country?
It is simply immoral, dishonest, and obscene to try to teach kids that something which is mandatory is voluntary. Talk about opportunities to learn to distrust and dislike the government….. Wait…. Hell, let’s go for it!
If we have a universal draft, get everybody. No exceptions. But don’t put them in the military. As of this point, only just over a quarter of the relevant age group qualifies, anyway.
Tighten up the borders and have the draftees doing stoop labor in the fields. Clearing brush in the forests. Picking up trash along the highways.
Do not, under any circumstances, stuff them into the military.
MargoMom said: “It’s awfully hard to tell if the animosity is towards Obama, the concept of community service or the idea that there can be any requirements levied on individuals by the government.â€
It’s definitely the last one, but you’re turning it into a straw man. The real question is this: Can the government tell a free citizen that he must spend 100 hours of his or her life doing only government approved activities?
The answer should be blatantly obvious. But since it’s apparently not, I’ll say it: In a free society, the government cannot require free citizens that they must spend a certain amount of time doing government approved activities.
The government in this society does not tell people that the have to work to produce taxes, nor do they tell people with a particular skill that they must employ that skill for the national good. There’s a thin line between proscribing certain behavior and requiring certain behavior, and Obama’s proposal crosses it.
That’s why the pro-liberty folks here are annoyed with his proposal, and it’s an absolutely legitimate gripe.
“In a free society, the government cannot require free citizens that they must spend a certain amount of time doing government approved activities.”
I presume that this would include school attendance.
Of course it includes school attendance. Most compulsory education laws state that parents must provide children with an education, but does not require it to take place in a gov’t school.
Compulsory attendance laws sit right on the edge of the line, in my book, but there is the point that the apply to minors. As I’ve said before, Obama’s proposal would apply to free citizen adults in college. The last time a free citizen was told by the government to be a specific place to do a specific thing without consent was the last time we had draftees in the Army.
I thought we as a society had outgrown that. I guess I was wrong.
S & Q:
If education is not unconstitutional (because it is not REQUIRED to take place within a government school), then requirement for service in order to achieve a diploma from a government school would also, following your argument, not be unconstitutional.
I don’t know what profession Quincy is in, but many fields require a time of unpaid or barely paid participation in service learning in order to receive a credential. These would include the medical profession, teaching, social work, mental health, etc. Of course, one could seek a university that receives all its funding from non-governmental sources and grants credentials without the governmental endorsement. Not sure who would be willing to employ you, but hey, it’s a free country, right?
The many people who are defending this national service proposal with statements like “my school system does this and it works fine” or “my kid had to do this and it was good for him” are missing the point. If your school system wants to do this, then fine, but there’s a difference between letting schools choose to do this and empowering the federal government to force “service” upon high school and college students.
If Obama wants to give passionate speeches encouraging young people to go volunteer in their communities, that’s great. But compulsory service overseen by the federal government? No way.
Margo/Mom –
I’m not sure whether you’re being obtuse just to get a cheap shot in at me or whether you really don’t get this, but there is a tremendous difference between a profession that I *choose* requiring work and the federal government using the force of law to *mandate* that I work. “Choose” and “mandate”, what part of the difference between these two words isn’t clear?
Oh, while you’re talking about constitutionality, you do realize that compulsory attendance laws for *adults* would be unconstitutional under the 13th Amendment, right? Right?
Psrent 2 I stand corrected. Like any soviet the power they have. It’s the legal authority they lack.
little-e elizabeth,
I agree with others that many of us have NO problem with volunteering. My problem is that I fully expect the gov’t schools to count only certain volunteering as meeting the graduation requirement. I seriously doubt the public schools would be happy if many of their graduating seniors want to claim their Sundays helping teach Sunday school, or an Eagle Scout project.
As for college, I think this is the same as those PC classes many entering freshmen have to take. My wife and I finished our bachelors while on active duty in the Air Force. How the hell were we supposed to do volunteer work when it was hard enough to schedule classes around deployments and shift work???
Quincy–it was YOU who said, “Obama’s proposal would apply to free citizen adults in college.” Now unless I am sadly mistaken, no one is currently, or proposed to be, required to attend college. There is no mandate for colleges (or states, for that matter) to accept Federal dollars and whatever strings come along with them. Each of these things is a choice.
If you don’t like the terms, like I said, it’s a free country. There are plenty of folks who advertise no-hassle degrees of many kinds. You are free to purchase whatever they are peddling. The problem is, you may have some difficulty selling your credentials in the market-place.
mjtyson:
You are, of course, aware that the US Department of Education, through its Office of Civil Rights, is charged with ensuring that members of the Boy Scouts of America (this would include Eagle Scouts) are not discriminated against. I’m not making this up. Look into it.
Margo/Mom –
I did, and I also never said it was unconstitutional. I said it violated the principle of a free country. I still have yet to be convinced otherwise. (And here’s a hint, calling me selfish just because I’m pro-liberty and anti-government won’t do it.)
For the government to use its power of taxation and wealth redistribution to force anyone seeking a college education at a college that accepts federal funds is problematic in and of itself, but when one considers the fact that almost every college accepts federal money, the situation ends up kinda like this:
“There are plenty of folks who advertise no-hassle degrees of many kinds. You are free to purchase whatever they are peddling. The problem is, you may have some difficulty selling your credentials in the market-place.”
So, either submit to 100 hours a year of servitude or be shut out of the government-funded college monopoly? Is that really your idea of a free country? I seem to remember people on the left railing against a little company up in Washington state called Microsoft for misusing its monopoly power when it bundled the Internet Explorer browser with Windows 95, even though users still had the choice to run any other browser they so wished.
So, either Obama would be misusing the fact that it’s nigh impossible to find a college that doesn’t accept federal money to enforce “community service” or Microsoft was absolutely within the bounds of propriety to offer IE integrated into Windows. Which is it?
There is no mandate for colleges (or states, for that matter) to accept Federal dollars and whatever strings come along with them. Each of these things is a choice.
Also, on the Microsoft thing, there was never any mandate for PC manufacturers to all load MS Windows, that was a choice too. Still doesn’t negate the fact that by controlling 95% of machines, Microsoft had a lot of power. So, by your logic here, Microsoft was perfectly in the right do to whatever it wanted with Windows and that the entire anti-trust suit was pure bunk.
If you don’t think that’s the case, then why hold a corporation that cannot legally force people to do business with them to a higher moral standard than the government, which can?
OK, Quincy, put the tin foil back in your hat. You caught me. I am in league with all the folks who are conspiring against you.
Wow, Margo, your comeback there was just dynamite. I’ll have to remember it the next time someone blows a gaping hole in my logic.
I’m confused.
If a parent thinks that volunteering is a good idea for their child, why is a govt/school requirement relevant?
Is the precious little darling out of control? That doesn’t sound like much of a qualification for commenting on how other people’s children should be handled.
Service learning is at least marginally related to a specific educational goal of the student.
Perhaps the advocates of “mandatory voluntary work” will tell us what student-specific educational goal is being addressed. (This will be interesting because the requirement doesn’t seem to have any student-specific requirements other than “unpaid labor” in some acceptable field.) Or, do I have it backwards? Is the work supposed to define the student’s education or goals?
I wonder if shaking down biz for donations to political causes (Obama’s “community service”) is going to be acceptable. (Of course it is, as long as the causes are acceptable.)
Some of this discussion has been legalistic, and certainly that is relevant, but it seems to me that the idea, mandatory voluntarism, ought to be rejected on grounds that it is ineffective, and probably counterproductive, to any worthwhile educational goals. Whether or not it’s in violation of our basic legal or moral principles probably can never be settled to everyone’s satisfaction.
Another angle which I think would be worthwhile to consider is motivation. Why does the idea appeal to Obama, or why does he think it would appeal to voters? I am not suggesting that we should accept or reject the idea based on motivation. Indeed I think quite the opposite. The idea should be accepted or rejected on its merits. (And in my humble opinion rejection wins hands down.) But motivation is still a fair subject to speculate about, and it may be productive to do so.
It seems to me that the motivation for proposing a service requirement for students is more of a mindset than anything else. I call it the “let’s do it together” mindset. This requires some explanation and development, which, of course, I did a few years ago – at length. Here’s a link: http://www.brianrude.com/let’s-do.htm
Opps! That link won’t work. This one should: Let’s Do It Together
Despite the fact that this thread has gone off into some really offtopic tangents (Microsoft, for instance, really appears to be searching for a different conversation), I do think it is important to “stick to the facts.” The originial article referenced provided some indication of the proposal (which does not refer to “volunteer work,” but “community service”):
Service proposals
* Asking people to join the military, with goals of adding 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 Marines.
* Increase AmeriCorps ranks from 75,000 to 250,000.
* Double the size of the Peace Corps.
* Expand USA Freedom Corps to create online network where people can browse volunteer opportunities.
* Launch new Social Investment Fund Network to include faith-based groups, private sector and government.
* Goal of 50 hours of service a year for middle and high school students and 100 hours of service for college students.
* Launch training for military veterans in “green” jobs.
* Expand YouthBuild Program, which puts young Americans to work building affordable housing.
Experiential learning certainly does have educational benefit. I clicked a few links to look at some of the listings on the USA Freedom Corps site. There are a wide variety of partners, curricular tie-ins, and a listing of opportunities by zip code. Certainly history and civics were pplentiful among the educational goals, but opportunities tied to physical education, the arts, research, technology, health as well as some of the “softer” skills (collaboration, oorganization, planning, etc) were also present. Some partners were religious organizations.
It is also interesting that the proposal built upon the earlier efforts of several Presidents: Kennedy/Johnson (who launched and developed the Peace Corp; and VISTA, the forerunner to Americorps), Bush (who built USA Freedom Corps–which appears to be derivative of the earlier Thousand Points of Light concept), Carter (who was instrumental in Habitat for Humanity–similar to Youthbuild). It is pretty hard to detect a partisan trend in this one.
“Green” jobs. Like rickshaw operators to replace gas burning taxis?
Margo/Mom.
Practically anything is acceptable if it is not mandatory. That’s the crux of the problem. The other stuff is window dressing.
Except for the civilian security corps, or whatever the hell he’s calling it.
FYI, the Posse Comitatus act forbids federal troops from acting in criminal matters. They can’t even put down a riot absent a declaration of martial law. That’s why the Guard, a state army, is first on scene and the regulars so rarely used.
The huge civilian security corps will probably devolve to a quarter million snitches not covered by the Posse Comitatus act. Great.
Just a quick question: Is there anybody here who really thinks this is a good idea if it impacted YOU? Didn’t think so. Thanks for the response.
Margo,
You keep missing the point with quite startling consistency. Perhaps you’d have better results if you deliberately tried to miss ‘em?
The point being? That requiring community service as a part of education is somehow fundamentally different than requiring students to log in seat time, to study particular subjects, or to garner an education at all?
Per Quincy:
“Choose†and “mandateâ€, what part of the difference between these two words isn’t clear?
R:
I reiterate. Given the many MANDATES that are already deeply entrenched in (public) education today, how is this one different?
Margo –
You say: “The point being? That requiring community service as a part of education is somehow fundamentally different than requiring students to log in seat time, to study particular subjects, or to garner an education at all?”
The federal government has no power to require anyone to seek an education. The states only have the power to require minors seek an education. No one can force an adult into a classroom.
Besides that, it comes back to the coerciveness of the federal government’s monopoly position in higher education. If they fund almost all (99.99%) the colleges, and therefore have regulatory authority over them, then it can reasonably be said that the requirement is being placed on anyone seeking a college education.
I’ll grant you that no one has to get a college education. But that’s not the point. The point is that the federal government is abusing a monopoly power it created for itself to extract 100 hours per year from every person seeking a college education. If there were a reasonable alternative to federally-funded colleges, I wouldn’t be complaining.
Oh, and if you can’t see the parallels between Microsoft using its monopoly power and the way Obama’s proposal would use the federal government’s, you’re just not looking hard enough.
R:
I reiterate. Given the many MANDATES that are already deeply entrenched in (public) education today, how is this one different?
Here’s a hint, none of them are right simply because they exist, and none of the federal mandates exist in the Constitution.
Hmm, so you’ve now admitted that this is forced, unpaid labour (“mandated service”), the opposite of volunteerism? That’s a start.
Second: You can’t argue that the existence of other mandates justifies this one. Not so?
Third: Considering the squawking from the Left about the “unfunded” mandates of NCLB, I would’ve expected you to attack this with great vigour.
R:
I led off with a description of my personal distaste for both the term and the concept of “volunteerism.”
I would argue that the educational benefits of community service justify its inclusion in school curriculum–just as the carnegie unit, as a rough measure of equivalency has justified mandates regarding “seat time,” and the benefits of an educated citizenry have justified mandated education (and the public health benefits of combatting disease have justified mandated innoculations, the dangers of untrained drivers have justifed mandated drivers tests, etc). It is analogous to many of these other mandates that most who have posted here appear to have no problem with (begging my earlier suggestions that perhaps the problem was the source, or something inherent within the particular concept of community service).
While you may identify me as a member of the “Left,” with a certain set of pre-ordained attitudes (such as unfunded mandates of NCLB), I regard my opinions to be my own, with complete freedom to disagree (as I do) with those who charge that NCLB is an unfunded mandate.
When I saw this, I immediately thought of the practical issues…who is going to get middle schoolers to and from volunteer work? I didn’t have a car until I graduated from college (living in a semi-rural area). I did some tutoring and organized/worked on some food drives, but my walking-distance options were limited. Maybe my time in various musical groups would count, but really it would seem unfair for me to count stuff I enjoy (or even teaching it to kids) the same as picking up trash.
I’m now a mostly-at-home mom and I do more volunteer work than ever – tutoring and other work, all through my church. I also cook for sick folks, college church groups, etc. I’m thrilled to be able to do this, but the fact that I didn’t do as much when I was younger was not because I didn’t care – it was a lack of a car and other resources. Even if there were no other issues, I’d be hesitant to dump more obligations on folks who may not have the resources to handle them (and don’t get me started on how this might affect my community college students, who work and raise kids while taking classes).
Margo.
Would the benefits of community service be obvious to and in those who strongly disliked it?
Both my kids were involved in various community service activities when in school. But if it were mandated, I’d insist they put up a stink. I’d pull them out of school.
IMO, the wonderfulness of the draft is most obvious to those who were not drafted. You get to know a lot of people from all over the country. Ditto college. Different socio-economic classes. Ditto, plus, in late adolescence, most people aren’t mature enough to take any lessons.
The exception is the determined liberal kid from a white background who goes into the Army neutral and comes out racist. There’s an epiphany for you.
“and the public health benefits of combatting disease have justified mandated innoculations, the dangers of untrained drivers have justifed mandated drivers tests, etc”
So these measures, which legitimately protect the public from harm (communicable diseases and death/injury due to unfit drivers) fall into the same category as a community service mandate? Wow.
I think I understand why people fall for this ****. They can’t tell the difference between government proscribing things that would cause others injury and mandating things for people’s own good.
“I would argue that the educational benefits of community service justify its inclusion in school curriculum…”
What educational benefits? I doubt that this would amount to anything more than checking a box.
As I said earlier: choice vs. forced unpaid labour.
And for the record, I believe in volunteering, but I’ll resist any attempt to force me to “do good”.
> I would argue that the educational benefits of community service justify its inclusion in school curriculum
What are the “educational benefits” of Meals on Wheels as distinct from those of working at McDonalds?
If they have the same educational benefits, then why not let kids work at McDonalds to satisfy their “community service” requirement?
I note that cleaning up parks is also community service. If the mandate is expanded to include doing my yard-work (which is just as educational), I’ll support it.
There’s the unspoken assumption of Obama and supporters that “community service” is a better way to spend time compared to other things a person could spend that time doing. That is what really goads me. That Obama and others have the audacity to not only elevate their own particular interests into moral goods, but then to make their interests our mandatory interests. I should not have to “prove” to anyone that any of my time is spent in a morally or ethically proper way. It’s oddly puritanical.
Good point, MJT.
Like the Puritans, they do not intend to leave you alone, not in the smallest part of your life.Like the Puritans, they appeal to a superior power–then God’s word, now their idea of the common good, against which none can argue–but the penalty now will probably be bankruptcy through legal fees than hanging.
Margo-
I’d say that you analogies are a bit off the mark. In the cases you cited, the mandates had measureable effects that could not be reached though other measures.
Immunizations drastically improved public health and are safe and effective… and the same effect could not be achieved through any other way. Piecemeal implementation of immunizations by cities, counties, or states would be ineffective also… the mandate must be universal.
The Carnegie unit was established as a way to provide some evidence of learning in a nation that had tremendous growth in secondary education. Without some sort of universal standard, every new student would have to be individually evaluated for entrance to a school. Also, it is the concept of the Carnegie unit that allows for authentic or alternative forms of assessment to high-stakes testing… without it, all college-bound seniors would have to depend upon some sort of entrance examination.
Driving licenses are also required for basic public safety and health, and the same effect could not be achieved through other methods.
As for mandated community service… it does not have a measureable goal (how do you measure appreciation of volunteer work?) nor is a federal mandate required for it to occur (as many other have pointed out). In fact, the only measureable factor would be the amount of money the government would theoretically save by forcing citizens to perform basic labor.
Service learning and educational internships (doctors, teachers, etc.) are different because their goals are measureable and usually test an individual’s knowledge of certain fields.
And as for your “straw-man” argument against the examples of possible exceptions to acceptable community service… there is a huge body of evidence for over-regulation in just about every established law we have. There will be some types of “service” that most people would consider as volunteer work that will not be counted for one reason or another, either due to a lack of imagination or malice on the legislators’ part.
2 more questions – what about for real work like bagging groceries or working at Dunkin donuts? Secondly – wouldn’t the schools have to add more beaurocracy to track this volunteering? Since this isn’t most schools forte would they expect the teachers to do it? Or would the magical hopesy unicorns do it?