Skip to main content

When service becomes conscription....

What I find remarkable in all the coverage of Senator Barack Obama's discussion of his proposed national service agenda is that almost nobody ever quotes the part where the volunteering becomes, well, mandatory....

From the actual text of his speech in Colorado:

Finally, we need to integrate service into education, so that young Americans are called upon and prepared to be active citizens.

Just as we teach math and writing, arts and athletics, we need to teach young Americans to take citizenship seriously. Study after study shows that students who serve do better in school, are more likely to go to college, and more likely to maintain that service as adults. So when I'm President, I will set a goal for all American middle and high school students to perform 50 hours of service a year, and for all college students to perform 100 hours of service a year. This means that by the time you graduate college, you'll have done 17 weeks of service.

We'll reach this goal in several ways. At the middle and high school level, we'll make federal assistance conditional on school districts developing service programs, and give schools resources to offer new service opportunities. At the community level, we'll develop public-private partnerships so students can serve more outside the classroom.


I've got nothing against encouraging volunteerism--I have encouraged my own kids with all sorts of dire consequences, but, hey, they're my kids.*

Last I looked, the government was not their parents.

So what happens when their school is required to have a service program or lose Federal education funds?

I get a note sent home that says, "Greetings...." for the kids?

Then I send back my reply that says, "Sorry. No thanks. We'll choose our own forms of service in the Newton family, thank you."

What happens then? One parent, one child, no problem. What about fifty or 100 parents and their children? What happens to the school district where enough parents refuse to place their children at the service of the State so as to endanger consolidate grant funding under Title I? At a guess, some school boards move to make pseudo-service a graduation requirement.

It will happen, because in this I'm completely with J. D. Tuccille at Disloyal Opposition:

If I'm covered by the proposed national service requirement, I plan to refuse to comply. If I'm not covered, I plan to counsel those who are covered to refuse, and to help them do so.


*I have a strong foreboding that many non-Libertarians who read this will see a refusal to participate in required "service learning" as another example of Libertarian selfishness. Quite the contrary. From Scouts to Church groups to bell-ringing for the Salvation Army and many others, we have raised our children to see that they have a social obligation to service. But it is not, damn it, the government's role either to mandate such service or to direct it into specific channels.

Comments

Anonymous said…
I figure that one can either refuse to serve, or make that service objectionable - just treat it like it is...

Show up in slave chains and black-face - maybe a T-shirt with the 13th Amendment on it, overprinted with "Doesn't apply to students" - or "I'm only here for the financial aid money"

You get the idea... Or perhaps, depending on the rules for "servitude" do a service that involves protesting the rules requiring the service...

ART
Drew80 said…
One of the problems of such a "service" program, of course, is defining precisely what is and what is not an acceptable "service". Will volunteer work in a nursing home be sanctioned and volunteer work in a church be unsanctioned?

These creepy, 60's-tinged ideas of Obama are very unsettling--and, of course, indescribably retrograde.

Andrew
Anonymous said…
Okay... even though I think volunteering is great, I don't like the mandate. (okay, maybe I sorta do, Although, I don't see this becoming mandatory for the very reasons you state)

Funny, one of the things I liked most about Obama's healthcare plan was that it wasn't mandated. Go figure.

Now, don't get excited... I'm still lovin' me some Obama! ;-)
Pandora
If I were an Obama supporter this wouldn't be enough to push me away either, because you know what? It ain't going to happen. Americorps has been a joke since it started, and in the budget situation a Prez Obama would inherit, guess what? This is going to be non-essential, and it's not going to get done.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...