Posted on 02/03/2002 2:03:07 PM PST by thinktwice
Edited on 04/14/2004 10:05:00 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
President Bush's announcement that he has formed the USA Freedom Corps to be an umbrella for AmeriCorps, the Senior Corps, the Peace Corps and the newly formed Citizen Corps (to help with homeland security) has already convinced some long-time advocates of mandatory national service that their day has come.
(Excerpt) Read more at ocregister.com ...
"When President Bush discussed a USA Freedom Corps during his State of the Union address, many assumed it was the usual call for more volunteerism.
"But the president's plans are more ambitious -- and maybe ominous.
"When Republiscans took Congress in 1994 they tried briefly to eliminate Clinton's Americorps, the latest effort to channel the healthy American spirit of volunteering into service to the state.
"Now President Bush is calling for 200,000 new "volunteers" to beef up 40,000 full-time paid "volunteers" in Americorps and 500,000 part-time volunteers in the Senior Corps. Freedom Corps already has a 33-page policy statement and wants $560 million.
"Volunteering implies choosing whom to serve. The president wants government to choose for us.
"Can calls for a mandatory 'bullets or bedpans' national service corps be far behind?"
No matter how it's phrased it's still slavery to the State.
In my opinion an implementation of 'mandatory service' would rise to the level of the phrase “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government”
What the heck has happened to civil liberties around here?
What about the "right to be left alone"?
The idea of national service being made compulsory ties in nicely with "school to work" programs, whereby the elites will decide what classes children take, what they will major in, and what careers they will be allowed to train for. Molding freeborn human beings into corporate "human resources"...just what schools should do, right????
by Ziva
[Note: This was published in a local paper as a letter-to-the-editor.]
Teaneck High School recently announced plans to make "public service" a requirement for graduation from high school. I strongly object to this action. Besides being an unwarranted infringement on the lives of students, it would also discourage true future voluntarism.
What is public service in high school? Is it the kind of work that people do voluntarily for no compensation? By providing high school credit and making it a requirement for graduation, the student would actually be receiving something of value. The student would then not be volunteering for its own sake but rather to receive her already-earned high school diploma.
Or is public service the kind of social work which is often paid for? Then the student is in a state of involuntary servitude. His labor is forcibly being taken from him, and he is also not paid. The government does not have the right to extract uncompensated work from people, regardless of how noble the goals may be. Another consequence is that other people may be deprived of paid work, possibly workfare. Do we really want to take entry-level paid jobs away from people trying to get off welfare?
What constitutes public service? Is it picking up trash in the park, filing papers for an advocacy group, or working in the office of a congressional candidate? These are all examples of public service for high school students. Why are these activities any better for students than working after school for money, getting tutored, or participating in a school play? Why can the school require the first type of work, while allowing students to select (or volunteer) for the others?
The school cannot require students to attend after-school clubs, many of which do perform useful work. If a student cannot be compelled to write for the school newspaper or photograph football games or be a Big Brother, why should they be compelled to perform any other kind of work in the interest of "public service?"
Who determines what is is acceptable public service? Much of public service has political overtones. It has been shown at the college level that teachers often inject their own political agenda into the classroom, penalizing students who do not share the teacher's outlook. How much more vulnerable are high school students to such manipulation!
One safe way to minimize the politically coercive element of "public service" is to let parents choose the school they want for their children. That way, the parents' values and the school's values are more likely to be aligned. School choice puts parents in control of the educational influences for their children.
Voluntarism is certainly an honorable, compassionate, important and often fulfilling activity. Sometimes it can even provide useful experience. These values are severely compromised when voluntarism is no longer voluntary. Mandatory "volunteerism" is truly a self-evident contradiction.
It can even be counter-productive. The ostensible reason given for requiring public service from high school students is to encourage future volunteer activity. If the social engineers want the students to volunteer years after high school, this approach often backfires. That is, compulsion has been demonstrated to drive away the very people it was supposed to attract.
Doug Bandow of the Cato Institute says "there may be no better evidence of the imperialist tendencies of politicians than their attempt to take the voluntary out of voluntarism. People should serve those around them. But they should do so because they believe it to be right, not because the government pays or makes them do so."
There is an option available to fulfill the goal of encouraging public service among students. Colleges have a fraternal service organization called Alpha Phi Omega. It is essentially a student-run self-selected Good Samaritan club. Why not extend the concept to the high school level?
In fact, there are currently a number of clubs at Teaneck High School that do perform certain types of public service on a strictly voluntary basis. If students wish to create other service opportunities, I am certain the school would support them.
In addition, Senior Service is a voluntary activity available to successful seniors. Because it is voluntary and does not detract from education, it is another example of a more reasonable approach to encouraging service.
Mandatory volunteerism, however, just diverts valuable school resources to support an ineffective educational fad. Neither Teaneck nor any other municipality should be a part of it.
I wonder how long before one will not be allowed to earn a GED without some kind of unpaid community service? I'll bet they'll try to close off that escape avenue, if enough young people try to use it .
I have a strange feeling that only PC, leftist volunteer work would "count" to these folks.
You're right-on on this one. These alarmists make me laugh. I bet half of them don't even remember their mother's birthday or Mother's Day even.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.