InstaPundit, OverLawyered, and Coyote point to the Obama transition site, which says:
The Obama Administration will call on Americans to serve in order to meet the nation’s challenges. President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in underserved schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps. Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year. Obama will encourage retiring Americans to serve by improving programs available for individuals over age 55, while at the same time promoting youth programs such as Youth Build and Head Start.
This sounds like mandatory community service ("require") for millions of 12-to-20-something-year-olds, but whether it's mandatory or voluntary, I'm curious: How would unions react to this? I take it this means somewhat fewer jobs and less overtime for their members, especially since many government organizations of the sort in which these community servants will serve are unionized workplaces.
If, for instance, college students help out in schools, I take it there'd be fewer jobs for teacher's aides. Moreover, the loss of such possible union jobs will be roughly proportional to the public value that the community servants will provide: If the college students require more supervision than they provide value, that might mean more union jobs, but it will also mean that they won't do much good to the institution they're supposedly serving.
Is this a political difficulty that has already been resolved with past community service proposals? Is there some obvious way of finessing it, for instance by making sure that the community servants will only go to institutions that unions are for some reason not interested in organizing? (For instance, say what you will about mandatory military service, it's unlikely to run into this sort of particular obstacle, at least so long as the military sticks with military service and doesn't take over traditionally unionized civilian programs.)
I should stress that this need not be a normative argument against the propriety of mandatory community service (though I'm certainly open to such normative arguments), but only a question about the likely politics of the matter. I should also stress that these questions really are just questions — I'm not remotely expert on the subject, and it might well be that there are very simple and satisfactory answers to them that I just haven't thought of.
UPDATE: After I posted this, the site was changed to read, in relevant part, "Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by setting a goal that all middle school and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year and by developing a plan so that all college students who conduct 100 hours of community service receive a universal and fully refundable tax credit ensuring that the first $4,000 of their college education is completely free." This might or might not mean the service isn't mandatory -- but, as I said, the question about likely union reaction seems to me to be relevant even when the service isn't mandatory.
I seem to recall that the "volunteers" will be paid.
stormtrooperscommunity organizers.Maybe Obama's plan will allow "volunteering" for the union to count as community service. Even if it doesn't, enough of the "volunteers" will be doing the grunt work for lefty organizations like ACORN, PIRG, BAMN, et al that the unions will be persuaded that the community service will help put more Democrats in office, office holders who will do the unions' bidding.
(Seriously, I can't wait to see what he says about this.)
IIRC, though, in most places teachers aides aren't unionized, or at least not under the teachers' unions, so I don't see that particular one as a big issue.
Well, there is this thing I learned about in school called freedom. I thought it was a good concept.
The Mormons and the Boy Scouts already do a lot of this. Will their service count?...Or do they belong to the wrong groups?
I'm a little cynical but as I've considered this, it would make perfect sense for some of this service to include keeping their school clean like they do in Japan. And graffiti cleanup would be a nice bonus. 15 min. to a half hour of cleaning per day and you'd meet the 50 or 100 hour goal.
Of course, I hope none of those kids come up to an actual Marine and say something like, "My Corps is better than your Corps!" Because I don't think Classroom Corps will teach anyone how to defend against an angry Marine.
Yes. Leverage the school with the funding, the school leveraging the students so the school can acquire the money.
Mandatory, in practice.
Same as the health plan- leverage the institutions with federal funds against the health of the patients. At some point, the patient is required to maintain a certain level of health/lifestyle to satisfy the disbursement of the funding. In practice, live as the government tells you, or no funding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corvee
And what of the military?
Congrats, you must be very proud.
For kids in rural areas (where I grew up) attending public schools that are needed to work at home or kids in any location otherwise with the same obligations, this would be a ridiculous requirement. For me: Spring = planting season. Summer = maintenance. Fall = harvest, and throughout the rest of the year I was doing things like lettering in football, basketball and baseball, i.e. being a NORMAL kid.
This is just an indication as to how out of touch Obama is with reality. There is NOTHING wrong with public service (I strongly think it should be encouraged), but not everyone has the benefit of private high schools and their funding/infrastruction, Columbia/Harvard education and U of Chicago employment. For someone who rode the populist wave into the Presidency, he's absolutely clueless as to the daily life of a middle-American.
"If, for instance, college students help out in schools, I take it there'd be fewer jobs for teacher's aides. Moreover, the loss of such possible union jobs will be roughly proportional to the public value that the community servants will provide: If the college students require more supervision than they provide value, that might mean more union jobs, but it will also mean that they won't do much good to the institution they're supposedly serving."
For background I serve on two Boards of Education, so will provide the info I am aware of.
It depends on how they would help out. More and more districts are moving away from teacher's aides and to teacher's assistants per NCLB. In several states teacher aides are classified in the noncompetitive class of the civil service. Depending on the district, teacher aides and other paraprofessionals also have collective bargaining agreements with school districts.
Teacher Assistants are another matter. In many localities they are members of the teacher collective bargaining unit. Additionally, NCLB has specific requirements for teaching assistants. For example, teaching assistants that are paid f or with Title I, Part A funds are required to have one of the following:
1) Completed two years of study at an institution of higher education; or
2) Obtained an associate’s (or higher) degree; or
3) Met a rigorous standard of quality and be able to demonstrate, through a formal State or local academic assessment, knowledge of and the ability to assist in instructing, reading, writing, and mathematics (or, as appropriate, reading readiness, writing readiness, and mathematics readiness).
- see here.
Additionally, under NCLB teaching assistants working in a program supported with Title I Part A funds available under the act can do any of the following:
(1) provide one-on-one tutoring if such tutoring is scheduled at a time when a student would not otherwise receive instruction from a teacher;
(2) assist with classroom management, such as by organizing instructional materials;
(3) provide instructional assistance in a computer laboratory;
(4) conduct parental involvement activities;
(5) provide instructional support in a library or media center;
(6) act as a translator;
(7) provide instructional support services under the direct supervision of a highly qualified teacher.
[Title I, Section 1119(g)(2)] - see here.
I can't reasonably see teacher's unions allowing duties and tasks they currently perform being delegated to teaching assistants or aides without negotiating that via collective bargaining agreements.
Speaking to the practicality of community service, many districts already have a civics requirement already high school seniors as part of a civics requirement. Every year, you see a few seniors who choose to attend Board of Education meetings trying to keep awake (they wake up at the end of the meeting when they need to get their attendance slips signed). I'd like students to focus on mastering core competencies that will be needed to succeed in college, the skilled trades or the military. I'm not convinced that the community service will help students be more successful. That is not to say it would not be an asset, but I'd like to see some peer reviewed research that bears this out.
I just came over from Derbyshire's musings at NRO in which he compares the national servce proposal to both Hitler and Stalin.
For a moment I thought that the electoral ass-whuppin' might cause some of the right-wing nutjobs to pause and reflect that their rhetoric and opinions have not, shall we say, furthered the election of Mr. McCain. But no. No chance of that.
So, please do carry on with the discussions.
Otherwise, we are in the "from my cold dead hand" category of defiant political disobedience.
do you have a point related to the post at hand? Is there a chance of real intellectual discussion, or you another Kos troll with the "wow the Conspiracy are nutjobs" post with no substance. Please, if you post again, make a freaking point. This isn't Kos.
you-don't-even-let-it-start...
What would be the power for this? Conditioning federal school funding on implementing such a program? That would require congress to act at least. The thing seems utterly insane.
I think this is probably how such a program would be implemented. For what it's worth, an informal poll of the one school board I serve on indicated that BOE Members would be willing to forgo the Title I Part A funds if the receipt of funds is conditional on such a service requirement and the district believes it would hinder students achieving mastery in core competency areas such as ELA, History, Math, Science, etc.
So sorry that my (rather obvious) point escaped you. Let me try to speak more slowly: the inane hyperventilation demonstrated in the comments in this thread (and elsewhere such as the Derbyshire column) are prime examples of why the nutter-right is drilling itself into utter irrelevance. Do you understand that now? Or is it too meta for you?
Do you think the community service requirement would be looked on favorably by unions?
Or more generally, is it (the community service requirement, in case it isn't obvious) a good (or even Constitutional, as opposed to simply political) idea?
Those aren't difficult questions, why are you ignoring them?
-all that aside, but to this point- when the government sets up an agency, let's say a charity-type operation, private versions of the same tend to wither, leaving only the government version.
As to union reactions to the "volunteers"- the answer is to organize them.
But my compliments to you, your single minded focus on the narrow confines of EV's post - while blinding yourself to the larger (and much more important) question of whether this is a discussion that folks should be having at all - tells me that you excelled at coloring in the lines in grammar school.
Allow the union to set community service work rules (who gets which service job, when), then add card check, and there's a strong incentive for people to join.
Why would anyone question having a dicussion about anything? What are you afraid of discussing?
Did I just read that post correctly? If so, we're in worse shape than I originally thought. I pray (and I'm an atheist) that you aren't an American.
Indeed. More generally, conscripting people for a week or two per year of community servitude would seem to be a pretty inefficient way of getting things done; in many cases the value extracted would be less than the cost of supervision.
The efficiency of conscripts would likely be a tiny fraction of the efficiency of enthusiastic volunteers.
Focusing on educationg to start, are there lots of jobs for "teacher's aides" now? I don't remember any such positions when I went to school 15-20 years ago. I assume that the intent is for the college-age "volunteers" to provide individualized help to students as they do problems in class or whatever, and to sit there pointlessly while the teacher is lecturing.
More broadly, it's never been clear what community service the "volunteers" will be doing. Organizing millions of people to do something or other also is likely to be a high cost of the program (though also a good way to hand out patronage jobs, go Chicago way!) This is one of those idea that I guess sounds good to someone somewhere on paper but the administrative details sounds like a nightmare (setting aside any constitutional issues).
There's been at best two comments even touching on the union issue in this thread. Many more comparing the plan to Nazis and Stalinists. Commontheme makes a valid point.
No reason to feel bad or respond to trolls I guess. But sometimes I forget and have to remind myself.
The "volunteers" would be a constant source (turnover) of those monies being turned into each local's general fund.
The unions might love that, and the government pays it.
Obama said they will be paid at min wage rate or something along those lines - part of the pay could go to union reps to provide guidance and services to the student 'volunteers'.
these kids will learn the goodness of unions and collective bargaining from a young age and will graduate into regular labor unions as adult workers.
He/she makes a valid point when he/she addresses my initial comment, unless you think it invokes Godwin's law.
<<<
I used to think that, too.
We can discuss it should we meet somewhere in a re-education camp. Learn a tap-code.
I don't think you understand what a "pun" is. Beyond that, while I'm sure Commontheme can speak for his/herself, he/she was responding to the majority of the comments on his thread.
And how would this work with GED high school degrees?
I can see the prisoners in prison working on their high school GEDs passing the test but having to do 100 hours of community service stamping out license plates for the gubmint to actually get their diploma.
Are students, schools, or states entitled to federal aid for education? Assuming the answer is no, why is there a 13th amendment problem with putting a service requirement on receipt of that money? If college students don't like it, don't take the money. If states don't like it, they don't have to take the federal funds.
Re: "Mandatory, in practice." In practice? Are libertarians interested in defining financial inequality as a freedom problem? Because "mandatory, in practice" sounds suspiciously like defining freedom in a positive, "Four Freedoms" manner. I don't think anyone opposed to the national service plan should be interested in following that logic where it takes you.
Impressive. That's one of those things (like Obama's dodge of the question at his press conference about whether and when he'll propose raising taxes on the top 5%) where I'm not sure whether I should be more worried or less.
Prof. Slater, since you entered the thread and have a background in labor law, I'm sure you'll be more useful than the rest of us in analyzing Prof. Volokh's question. So what's your opinion?
I don't care what you think, I care whether or not commontheme has a position on the matter.
Then again, I change my mind. What's your position? Why are you posting? Care to answer the 2 questions I posted above? Are they not reasonable questions?
i don't see much of whacky discussion here - so i don't see your point either. if someone at NRO was comparing Obama to Hitler or stalin, what is the purpose of complaining here? go comment about it where you see that argument.
Regarding the main question of the post, such volunteers cannot perform the functions of regular employees except in exceptional circumstances, so I think there will be no effect of taking away employment from unionized labour. There will be a reduction of unemployment of unskilled labourers, but these are rarely unionized.
Volunteers are usually assigned to jobs based on the connections between their school and the organization taking them up, not based on skills and qualifications. Moreover, the jobs they are used for are very different from the unskilled "for-profit" jobs young people usually take. Thus, the main effect is to reduce the availability of labour for jobs currently filled with high-school students ("flipping burgers").
OK, I don't think unions will have a problem with this, because I don't think the volunteers will do what union workers do.
Do you think generally its a good idea? If you don't want to respond I understand, but I think its a legitimate question, particularly with an upcoming administration that many people (myself and virtually all of my family and friends included) believe was not properly questioned on ANY issue, but to this thread's point this issue.
To be honest, I'm not thrilled about mandatory service, nor am I appalled by it -- assuming what is meant by "mandatory" is "conditiong certain funds" on it.
That's not viable on a large scale. The economic distortion of large (often full ride) scholarships provides too massive of a difference for the market to adjust to, while often mandating against both the provider of the service and the purchaser of those services can not avoid the mandates involved.
The result is a drastically increased cost for all of these services, on a universal level. There's a reason that school courses cost so much compared to past levels.
screenshot from earlier today
The state of Maryland already requires service learning (75 hours total for each student during middle school &high school), and has for the past 15 years...
I think the difference is the Obama plan states 50 hours per school year. That's 75 hours total for middle through high school for Maryland vs. 350 hours total for middle school through high school for the Obama plan. I'm not sure how well the Obama plan scales, as you would have many more students and the resulting compliance paperwork, supervision of students, etc. Additionally, there will be legal issues. For example, will organizations who use student volunteers be indemnified against claims arising from a student being injured while volunteering or who cause a loss where they volunteer? If so, who pays for that? The district? Insurance companies are increasingly becoming even more risk averse than in past years (e.g. schools removing playground equipment due to potential injuries, etc.).
There are potential unintended consequences of large scale efforts such as this. And as stated prior, my belief is that the first priority for students is mastery in the core competencies needed for graduation and entry in college, the skilled trades, or the military.
it won't be a matter of the student refusing the money, the government won't provide the money to the school if it's requirements aren't met.
Notice now that with respect to high school students, it says "setting a goal" instead of "require" (although it is not clear whether Obama proposes to make service a graduation requirement or not -- it sounds like a great idea to make it such a requirement to me) and with respect to college students note that there is definitely no requirement. If you don't want to do service, don't. If you do service, you are eligible for a tax credit though.
Overall, I think it is truly hilarious that so many commentators are hyperventilating over this. Yeah, I am sure that 50 hours of community service over a whole entire year will just absolutely KILL young people. I mean, that is like a whole entire hour a week. The horror! The horror! Kill me now! Its worse than a draft into the military!
Hey, don't forget. You can always move to Canada...
With respect to Eugene's point, I don't imagine that unions will have big objections to community service. It is not as though there is not enough work that could be done.
You know, if you spend some time tutoring someone, that doesn't necessarily mean a teach aide is now out of a job. Overall, there are too many struggling students and not enough help, not vice-versa.
The basic flaw in Volokh's point is his assumption that the amount of work that could be productively done is FIXED. That isn't the case.
Speaking of one group whose name apparently hasn't crossed the lips of our incoming President-Elect during the campaigh: The Boy Scouts of America - which provides literally millions of totally free hours of service annually in a myriad of projects that range from environmental conservation, to food bank collections, to senior citizen aid, to mentoring at-risk children, to almost any age-appropriate community task you can think of. And has as one of its program goals instilling a lifelong spirit of helpfulness and cheerful service in its members. But hey, since BSA isn't too popular with some of the POTUS-Elect's "base," I guess we shouldn't be surprised if he pretends it doesn't exist.
Ironically, one of Scouting's traditional service projects, through BSA's National Capital Area Council, is to provide volunteer ushers at official Presidential Inauguration events. But this time I understand the Inaugural Committee seems to be working hard to not even acknowledge BSA's offers of free help. Hmmm...
Now excuse me. I'll be off to the corner quietly clinging to my God and guns, quivering at the prospect of the union thugs personally presenting me with my pre-filled-out checkoff card, and waiting for my Whatever-Corps draft notice to arrive in the mail...
I for one, don't think the issue is that it will kill them, as so much that it will be a colossal waste of time and resources. Someone has to oversee these kids (on the government's payroll), some entity will have to insure their safety (on the government's payroll), some administrative body will have to administrate this HUGE endeavor (yadda yadda yadda). Its not as if there aren't available opportunities for kids to contribute, heck I have an acquaintance who is a young associate at a decent regional law firm who is trying to do pro bono work and the market is saturated with attorneys doing likewise. Americans volunteer a lot as it is, do we need the least able (at least from an experience standpoint) of us to be forced into it at the taxpayers' expense?
Others can disagree.
There are also potential unintended consequences to your decision to get up and go to work in the morning.
You could get hit by a car. You might mess up at work and get fired, whereas if you called in sick, you would still have a job the next day. The building you work in might be attacked by terrorists (if only you had stayed home!).
Oh, there are also possible unintended consequences of staying home. Your house could catch fire and you could be injured or get smoke inhalation. Oh, also, your house could get robbed and you might be murdered because you were home.
I guess there are "potential unintended consequences" no matter what you do.
Why certain conservatives/libertarians think the phrase "unintended consequences" is somehow a conclusive debate-ending phrase is beyond me.
Yeah, there are potential unintended consequences to this program. Just like every other action and inaction in life.
So freakin what?
Blasphemy!!!!!!
And I do! I think it is good for young people to get in the habit of serving others. Whether or not they are advantages or disadvantaged.
We live in a society. And a country. And we are bound to each other. And we should serve each other.
I do not think service is a waste of time.
I guess you could say the same about public education. Maybe we should do away with it! Of course, I am sure some will disagree.
By the way, overseeing these kids and ensuring their safety are the one and the same concept. Are you like trying to make one point into two to score rhetorical points or what?
And, I guess it is a HUGE endeavor, when considered in the aggregate. But, that could be said for ANY national program whatsoever. 1 hour a week per middle school and high school student is not a very big burden.
Regarding Commontheme, I believe the proper strategy is to not feed the troll. Should fix the problem.
I hope, as a fan of Grove City College, that the Obama administration goes out of its way to encourage higher education types to opt out of federal funding altogether. No ROTC, no Pell Grants, no Stafford loans, no research funding. He should make it a 1000-hours-per-year requirement.
I'm only bound to those who I choose to, I don't bind myself to felons or those that otherwise commit senseless crimes, or to people that choose not to work, or to people that don't respect the property, efforts and contributions of others.
When you give me a country with 300 million people that none fit into the above paragraph, I might start to reason with you.
Actually, the Boy Scouts has a HUGE bureaucracy associated with it. And, contrary to your strange assertion to the contrary, it is not actually FREE. It costs volunteers their time. Trips costs actual money. Uniforms cost money. Badges cost money. Lots of things cost money.
There is no such thing as a free lunch.
Hey, I think the Boy Scouts are great. And it seems to me that doing activities in the Boy Scouts might be a great way for someone to meet their community service requirement. (Wow! Imagine these things working together...)
But, as great as the Boy Scouts is, it is not a bureaucracy free organization nor is it free. The resources that are invested in the Boy Scouts could be invested elsewhere. There is no such thing as a free lunch!
Good, come do my lawn, it will take you less than an hour a week, its not a big burden. Come-on you're bound to me and it will benefit the "community".
Mandatory service is an oxymoron.
FYI, I'll address this point. My father has been a public school teacher (and NEA member) for 40 years so I have some knowledge on this, insuring (not ensuring) field trips and other school functions have become a huge cost in his district (at age 63 he still teaches) to the point that they are almost eliminated. I'm not sure if this is a national issue, but even if its concentrated in local districts it would seem to me that any effort that may be contemplated that would have Americans' children engaging public service would certainly need some sort of major insurance policy in the event of any harm.
Programs can be made "voluntary" with just a little common sense. For example sex ed is taken by over 99% of our kids. The program is not particularly good or exciting, but the alternative is writing a paper and "everybody" does the class. Middle schoolers don't want to be different. Same with schools that require community service; there are ways to satisfy the requirement without much trouble. Where the idea will break down is if the implementation doesn't allow the Boy Scouts or working on some politically incorrect program. Or, for the young adults, requiring unionization which would be politically disastrous. Are the Democrats that stupid?? One of our charter schools requires service, which can include working on school bond campaigns. I always secretly hoped someone would try to claim credit for working in opposition just prove their freedom. I was secret in my hopes since I chaired one of these campaigns. No one ever did.
The bigger problem for me is that many want to require so many things from kids they would have no time for any life. English, math, history, science of course. Community service fits in with foreign language, PE(sports and non-competitive) , art (2D and 3D) music (vocal and instrumental) sex and drug ed, how to get along with others, economics (balance checkbook and macro) computers, shop (doesn't exist anymore around here) home skills (sewing cooking etc.), geography, civics, etc. Others think kids should have some time to play on their own or read books for fun. Also, as mentioned, for many kids just mastering English and math doesn't go too well.
A program that allows and encourages community service could be a good thing, but there are many ways it can go bad. Seems most posters here assume it will go bad. (I fear you're right.)
Wrong! If you disobey the law, society will punish you. You are part of society, like it or not. If you don't like this society, you can go to another. But it is highly unlikely you could survive without some involuntary associations that you did not choose. (Maybe you could live in Antartica... I doubt you would survive there without the help of others, though.)
I don't bind myself to felons or those that otherwise commit senseless crimes,
Oh really? Maybe the license plate on your car was made by a felon. Maybe the guy serving you lunch is an ex-felon. And, just maybe, the guy who commits a crime that harms you is a felon. It kind of sounds like you and these felons that have some chance of colliding in life and affecting each other.
Hey, some people who choose not to work are felons, and I have already established above that you are in the same society as felons. QED.
Some felons don't respect the property, efforts, and contributions of others. But, you still impact and are impacted by them.
The bottom-line is this. We clearly do not disagree (unless you are truly deranged) that you impact and are impacted by others whether you like it or not. (In other words, you are bound to others, whether you like it or not.) You aren't some lone atom with 8 electrons in your outer shell.
You are an American. Start acting like it.
Also, I joked around in the comments here about designing a "national service cap and trade system", so you can free up your gifted kid to do something creative by having your troublemaker kid do double the mandated amount of service.
Cheers!
F*ck you. I hope your lawn dies.
I will volunteer for a good cause that I choose. I don't have a particular duty to maintain your particular lawn. However, I certainly do have duties to the wider community.
Is that concept somehow difficult for you?
I mean seriously, you make yourself into a joke. Oh yes, if we think that community service is good, it means that we think that you should get free lawn care. Huh?
I've heard a rumor that if you don't like the society you're in you can try to change it. I've also heard you can argue against new ideas that you think will be bad for society. Confirm/deny?
The difference is you change my words, sure if someone murders my wife I'm "impacted" by that action, but I'm not bound to that individual to change their ways.
Yeah I'm an American, as is my wife. We work, we pay our taxes, we don't commit crimes, we donate and volunteer for the charities of our choice.
We're part of the problem with America?
Wow! An actually thoughtful and well-reasoned objection to community service other than 1) "I do not owe society anything whatsoever" or 2) "community service is slavery!"
Maybe you libertarians could learn from this commentator how to make reasonable arguments.
I think this is a serious issue that needs to be addressed. And, while I acknowledge that some of our kids have WAY too many things going on, I think that community service of some sort is important enough to put into the schedule. But, I really respect this particular objection. It is practical and pragmatic, rather than hyperventilating and ideological.
Coercing another to perform a task is wrong. It is the act of choosing to perform a service that elevates it to a duty, embues it with meaning, etc.
For any given service you or your friends, or the federal government deems worthy of mandating, someone will have the same reaction you did to doing my lawn.
Anyway, it's a small law. Can I expect your help? Or do I need the government to persuade you a little bit?
"inane hyperventilation"
So you're putting your money on inane condescension instead. Good luck with that.
If the government mandates community service, or gives a financial incentive for community service, how do you know your definition of a "good cause" will fall under the government's definition of "community service." What if the government decides to require you to do something besides what you (or another person) considers to be a "good cause," or limits your choices to what you consider to be "bad causes."
Good, go have some kids & schedule them to your heart's' content. But hands-off everybody elses'!
Take your meds and go back to Kos. Why does Obama and his supporters want to force people to do things?
Ok, community service is a great goal. But forcing people to serve isn't the why to go. It's the first step down a long road to slowly taking away liberty.
Well, to the extent that we can implement programs that prevent murders (including the death penalty) you clearly have an interest here.
I would be willing to impose the death penalty on someone if I thought the deterrent effect were such that your wife or someone elses wife was not murdered. (i.e. the death penalty would act as a deterrent).
The reason I would contemplate such a penalty is because I think that those who murder are bound and owe something to the rest of society. Because they impact and are impacted by others.
Its really simple.
This is such a vague statement, I don't know what to make of it. Are you part of a problem that exists in America? Yeah. We all are. Do you use gasoline? Well, then your consumption (when aggregated with the consumption of others) raises the price we all pay. And increased prices of this fungible commodity then goes to fund Middle Eastern terrorists. Okay. So, you do contribute to problems in America. I am sure you also contribute to solutions.
By the way. Guess what. You can disagree with me on just about everything involving politics, and I am not going to think your a "bad person" merely because you see the world differently. Thank God people see the world differently!
That said, the idea that you are not bound to anyone else is just absurd and a total denial of reality. You have duties to society.
Seems pretty straight forward to me, least for public school students.
If you wish to graduate from a public school you must complete X number of hours of community service. They are, of course, free to decline. Just as they are free to decline to take algebra or gym.
Well, I am assuming that the program will be reasonable.
If the definition of community service includes only mowing the lawns of politicians and nothing else, then I would be opposed.
I am pretty damn sure that the definition will be broad enough to include plenty of choices regarding how one serves. And, if it wasn't, THEN I would oppose it.
Yeah, there are potential unintended consequences to this program. Just like every other action and inaction in life.
So freakin what?
I'm not saying it is a bad idea. I'm saying that if we're going to commit to this program, there needs to be more information.
And every one of the examples you give does not consider the fact that students are minors and while they are participating in school related functions, the school has a degree of responsibility and liability. Insurance companies that insure schools have decreased over the past 10-15 years. In some states, there are only two insurance companies that provide such insurance for schools. Just came back from a conference in New York State and New York has two insurance companies that provide P&C insurance to schools - Utica Mutual Insurance Company and the New York Schools Insurance Reciprocal. Insurance isn't cheap and companies are getting more finicky on what they will accept in the way of risk.
School boards have a fiduciary responsibility to perform due diligence when it involves taxpayer money. That means a thoughtful decision making process that considers all relevant factors.
and:
With respect to Eugene's point, I don't imagine that unions will have big objections to community service. It is not as though there is not enough work that could be done.
Specifically referring to my earlier example of college students volunteering at a school district, you're not thinking as a member of a collective bargaining unit. If you don't think that unions will object to this, ok, but I believe you're incorrect. Being directly involved with negotiating two collective bargaining agreements over the past three years (on the district negotiating team for one of these), I can relate that unions will use whatever advantage they can to get the best deal for their union membership. I'd expect them to do nothing less and that's appropriate. If work is being taken away from teachers and being performed by volunteers, my experience is that the union will not just bargain that away without getting something in return.
"More generally, conscripting people for a week or two per year of community servitude would seem to be a pretty inefficient way of getting things done"
It's not about getting things done, its about moral formation. This is part of the liturgy of the established church of media/school/law Progressivism.
"Calculated Risk" officially crossed over at 9:53pm, although he/she/it had some real ROTFL misreadings of other posts well before then that led to a fair number of unintentionally hilarious and un-witty responses.
Please troll elsewhere.
Confirm. But you could also leave! If you wanted.
I think even the most hardcore anarchists and libertarians would agree that they have "duties to society" (such as not committing unprovoked physical violence against someone else)? But the question is, what should those duties be? And more specifically to this post, the question is whether some kind of mandatory or government-incentivized service community service should be one of those duties. Simply saying "duties to society" over and over can't answer that question.
Oh I agree with this entirely.
What are the duties that we have to each other? I didn't say it was an easy question, did I?
That questions like this are hard is part of the reason why we have democracy, right?
My position is that having community service as a graduation requirement is fine. I can understand and respect arguments to the contrary.
But, this hyperventilation and whining is over the top.
Yes indeed! But, I don't see any reason for you to think that I am actually a closet libertarian or someone who doesn't actually believe in community service.
"My father has been a public school teacher (and NEA member) for 40 years so I have some knowledge on this, insuring (not ensuring) field trips and other school functions have become a huge cost in his district (at age 63 he still teaches) to the point that they are almost eliminated."
Maybe Obama can lean on his ABA buddies to move beyond the John Edwards raping the common good for fun and profit model of lawyering...
Good, come do my lawn.
F&#k You. I hope your Lawn Dies.
Haha
I think it's truly hilarious they changed this well thought out policy position on Friday night.
Now mandatory is good.
Like we didn't see that coming.
You were going to object.
Remember?
Your word.
Something like that.
Now I know what's it feels like to have been a Republican the last eight years. (Except, of course, your side really did spirit people away to secret prisons where they were tortured, with you believe those commie liberals at the Washington Post.)
Look there's a problem- there is increasing atomization in American society, less a feeling that we're a nation, together, made stronger by our individuality, and more a feeling that we're a bunch of individuals that happen to live in this nation. Serving in some form (whether it is in the Military, the Peace Corps, or some unspecified national service commitment) is arguably a way to begin to address that problem. The feeling of shared sacrifice, of bonding, of accomplishment, and of cameradrie that you can get is hard to replicate, and might help with the atomization of our civic and civil society.
That said, I have problems with this. The first, of course, is that anything given to teens that is mandatory tends to be disliked and reviled. The second is that it smacks of fascism (in the sense that you are organizing the people to serve the state in a nationalistic fashion). Finally, I worry that this will become a financial boondoggle.
I think the 13th Am. is a non-starter (see prev. S.Ct. precedent). So there aren't legal problems with this sort of conditional (dependent upon Fed. funds) service. I think it is a good-faith attempt by President-elect Obama to attempt to get more social cohesion in our society- few would argue that volunteer work (or paid community work) is a bad thing. I worry about the practical effects of such a proposal, and wish we had more discussion about that.
I blame video games. I propose the government ban video games. If that doesn't work and we still feel atomized, then I propose mandatory church attendance.
Look, some ideas aren't worth serious discussion. Mockery is better than giving them legitimacy by presenting serious discussion. That's what is so great about this election: lots of new ridiculous liberal ideas to mock.
Which reminds me of this year's D.C. local government "summer youth jobs" program that started as a modest way to get teens off the streets, but somehow ballooned into roughly a $40 million boondoggle, and still didn't have enough money left over after the bureaucracy was fed to actually give the promised stipends to the kids they were supposed to help. With our luck, the first Cabinet-level Secretary of the Department of Community Services will be the clown who ran the D.C. program.
But if you can't beat 'em, join 'em! Maybe I'll form an SBA set-aside corporation and bid for the lucrative contracts to administer a couple of the newly-minted "Volunteer Corps." My big fear is that even with the small business bidding head-start, I could still lose the contracts to Lockheed-Martin, Northrup-Grumman or Blackwater, who will have lateraled into "promising new markets" as their current ca$h cow DoD contracts dry up.
I've got a 22 year old daughter that works 30-35 hours a week and goes to school full time. She was an enthusiastic Obama supporter. I absolutly guarantee she will turn on a dime and enthusiastically vote Republican if they try to make her do community service.
Elections have consequences, lets let the Democrats turn themselves loose.
We live in a society. And a country. And we are bound to each other. And we should serve each other.
You're right. A fairly large number of people, most particularly the young students at elite colleges who were so passionately for Mr. Obama, have not had much of that humanizing and humbling social experience of directly serving another human being, in return for which you get some meager financial incentives, the amount of which is determined by (1) how many hours you volunteer, and (2) the quality of your efforts to understand and meet the actual needs of those you serve, and (3) whether you volunteer in an area of greater need, i.e. where relatively few other people volunteer.
This experience, which many of us from an older generation have actually had quite a lot of, particularly in rough economic times, is called getting a job.
Some lackey said that.
Of all the complaints that have been lodged against this community service boondoggle, it appears to have occurred to almost no one to suggest that this simply is not a matter that should be addressed by the federal government one way or another, that educational service requirements are the province of local school boards and college administrations, that we need a national policy on school-related community service like we need a national policy on recess or spring break.
The federal government has too many pressing concerns (e.g., conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, the present financial crisis) and too many other valid spending priorities that it must address with our finite resources to involve itself in the management of teenagers' extracurricular activities.
If libertarians and conservatives cannot make a cogent counteragument in favor of limited government with respect to a national community service program, and instead waste time ranting about involuntary servitude and fascism, then we deserve to be in the wilderness.
And thank God.
No, that's progressive tax rates. The few carry the many.
At best, this is a sign of how little he values free enterprise (and military service). At worst, it is how he plans to indoctrinate our young pioneers.
What are the duties that we have to each other? I didn't say it was an easy question, did I? Calculate3d risk
I don't see this as a tough question. We have the obligation to conduct our affairs in a manner commensurate with being productive and law-abiding members of society. We have the obligation of taking care of ourselves and our families to the extent possible. We have the obligation to not prey on our neighbors and weaker members of society. We have the obligation to conduct our affairs honestly and without fraud. We have the obligation to pay our taxes, and in my opinion, to accept reasonable societal impositions placed on our liberties -- reasonable people differ as to what constitute reasonable impositions. We should endeavor to not place an undue burden on society in general, realizing that we hate to see our neighbors in dire circumstances, we should not unduly risk becoming a burden, but, shit happens.
How does this relate to mandatory/coercive service programs? In my opinion, advocates of mandatory/coercive service programs are asking that some people be required to give free stuff/free labor for the benefit of others or as a benefit for society as a whole. This strikes me as a very greedy attitude: gimmee, gimmee, gimmee. Something for nothing -- free lunch (from the perspective of the individual providing the labor) If there are tasks that need to be performed, if there are service that need to be rendered, and it is the obligation of society or of the government to provide these services, then they should be identified, argued for, and funded. Just like roads and parks and bridges to nowhere, somewhere, and everywhere. If funding for these tasks cannot be obtained as normal I have serious doubts that these tasks are sufficiently important to our society that we should compel those who cannot fight back to perform them.
But, the other aspect to the program is the indoctrination aspect. Our children, apparently, need to be indoctrinated in the idea that giving free stuff and free labor, at the direction of government functionaries, is a good idea -- a valid government purpose. I don't believe that such indoctrination of a partisan political philosophy is appropriate. It may not be possible, either. It may just create cynical attitudes among the conscripts.
So, for those who think that mandatory/coercive government service is a good idea: what, exactly, is it supposed to accomplish. As far as indoctrination, exactly what values are hoped to be instilled in the children taking part in the program and why are those worthy values for the government to instill via force/coercion.
What service tasks are going to be accomplished, why are these tasks appropriate tasks (as opposed to others) and how much is the accomplishment of these tasks worth -- please be specific.
Finally, all the good things that you claim will arise from forcing/coercing children to give away their labor. How do you know the program that you want to implement has any chance at all of success?
We went through this all before with Clinton. Clinton wanted a 100% mandatory service program for young adults. I think he wanted a year or two service. Of course, that idea went nowhere and we ended up with Ameri corps which, as I understand it, costs a lot of money for what it accomplishes. The only good thing about it is that it's voluntary and almost vanishingly insignificant.
I just glanced over the site explaining the Maryland program (75 hours total). It looks like those hours are divided up among thinking about serving, actually doing something, and then contemplating what was done and it appears that almost all the students satisfy the requirement completely during school hours. Perhaps it's a more serious program than the site suggests, but it appears to me to be pretty effete.
(B) Once required to do public service, I do hope Heritage and FIRE will hold open many research positions for their young troops. Try to deny their legitimacy if ACLU or ACORN is an option.
Repeated studies have shown that conservatives consistently give a greater portion of what they have to charity than do liberals. See, for instance, here .
The difference is that Conservatives belive that they should give of what they have, and should be able to control where they give it themselves. Liberals believe in giving away *other* people's money and pretending they are the ones sacrificing.
Hell, if I could have got $4,000 by "serving the community" while at undergraduate school I would have done it. Unfortunately I had to drive around Atlanta during the summer in a non-air-conditioned car with smelly pizzas to "serve the community" - or as we capitalists call it: making money.
$15 an hour was the best I could do.
$4,000 for 100 hours of work? ... that a plumbers wage ... Joe the plumber (he's not going away!)
Of course you are completely wrong, laughably so.
365*(24-9)=5475 hours a years you could theoretically work and still bathe and eat in a rudimentary fashion. And here we're talking abut the work being done for the reasons approved of by a centralized political bureaucracy, so those hours will necessarily be less well spent than they might.
Yes it is far worse than the draft. It is--not that I can see that you have any worth mentinioning--the principle of the thing. The draft is at least vaguely constitutionally justified by the capacity of the feds to call out the militia--no such thing exists here.
We are bound nationally to the constitution, and owe each other nationally solely what that document authorizes the federal government to require of us. Nothing more can be just or legitimate.
And they actually are volunteers, they are not deferring to a central authority and it's blandishments, that does make all the difference.
No one has made the first argument and it certainly is involuntary servitude, to the extent it compelled.
No, society won't punish me, government will. Or it will attempt to. Heck, if I can figure a way out of this idiocy of Obama's much of society will celebrate me. Admit or deny?
Then put it into your schedule as you see fit.
@ flyerhawk
The national government has no power to compel this, therefore it should not.
RPT wrote:
This is not about not giving back, it is about opposing unjust authority.
@ Hedburg
I completely agree, what we owe each other in regard tot he prescriptions of the national government is not hard to discern in this regard--they have no constitutional authority to do it. Let them get an amendment first.
@ Second Amendment Sister
It's less and less a state-by-state issue with this isn't it? All that centralization without benefit actual power given to do it.
Except in the ideas of these majoritarian troglodytes.
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, &pfpp
That would be super-awesome.
Is this change something we should believe in?
It is a common observation amongst the 40 and over group of workers and parents that I belong to that too many young people are wasting away, getting in the way, being obnoxious, messy and disrespectful.
We also observe that there are many things that need to be done that just aren't getting done. In my area there have been devastating forest fires, there is Ike and Katrina. on a mundane level we see worn out and deteriorating parts of town. The list goes on.
It seems entirely appropriate for my government to try to do something about these things. Work with young people and fix up the place. Of course it would be good if we could pay young people but unfortunately the current government blew all our money helping the young people of Iraq.
Awesome comment!
Although $4000 of free college tuition for 100 hours is a pretty nice hourly wage as compared to traditional "volunteering."
bill gsnorph, you don't think $4000 is payment???
Heck the government could pay all of the obnoxious youth you talk about $20 per hour and get twice as many hours from them!
Of course it seems appropriate to you - you're not planning on doing any of the work. I'm sure higher taxes on other people seem appropriate as well. Perhaps it's appropriate for the rest of us to subsidize your lifestyle?
It's funny you should use the word appropriate in this context, given the other meanings of the word.
Well, at least it would be a good lesson for these kids - make sure you control the government, so you can be the one to order people about instead of the other way around.
William, I don't know that they are pretending even that.
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, &pfpp
Yeah! And their music's too loud, their clothes and hairstyles are funny, and they don't have to walk uphill to work both ways!
Tn the waist deep drifts of snow.
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, &pfpp
[oh wait, maybe it would be better for Biden to deliver this. He's more comfortable with Plagiarism]
Did not Hitler and Stalin and others require the young to "serve" for the good of the country?
I am most likely wrong but this sounds like something that Bill Ayers back in the 60's wanted to do when they took over the country. Does any one remember that also?
I would be interested in the comments from all those libertarian lawyers out there.
The article also has an interesting mention of three failed lawsuits brought against the Maryland program:
Secondly-this really shouldn't be something the Federal government should put its hands into. If a local school board wants to require community service, let them decide for themselves, and set the standard for what hours are reasonable for that community.
And last-just who is going to determine what is or isn't acceptable volunteerism for the purpose of the community service requirement. Does church work count? What if that church work involved several hours of evangelism oriented volunteer work? What about volunteering to be a tech person or usher at a community play? I think this is where it becomes difficult-just what is community service and who gets to decide.
I also am not so sure requiring community service provides a sense of community-my guess is that for most kids it provides a sense of resentfulness for being made to do it. Forced charity isn't charity.
That said I am not completely opposed to community service requirements provided the program-from the number of required hours to what is deemed acceptable service-be made at the local level.
Will those be part of your permanent file? Will employers be allowed to look at them, or will they be sealed until you say something about the government? Thinking of Joe the Plumber and a couple of Obama's opponents.
But, anyway, has anybody seen Oren?
I couldn't do it in daylight, because the union would consider it taking bread from the mouths of the working man.
I couldn't use weed killer because if a tennis ball hit the crack, and a kid picked up the tennis ball and put it in his mouth....
I couldn't use brine or gasoline because the stuff would get into the water table.
If I used a weed whacker, I would have to wear steel-toed boots, shin guards and a full face mask, and do it after the janitors had gone home, say after midnight.
Only a certified weed chemical guy could put the chemicals on, and the school's certified guy was too busy.
I could, though, pop for Chemlawn to do it.
Yeah, I can see this is going to be great.
I also see news reports of entire schools mutinying.
Don't know if you're still reading this (I was called away last night by my 5 year old son, to whom reading "Encylopedia Brown" was truly mandatory service, albeit one I enjoyed). Just wanted to say I appreciate the civility. I guess we don't disagree much, at least as to the substance of the proposal. If it turns out the plan is to jail folks who don't participate, dress them in brown shirts and have them engage in political activities, etc., I promise I will oppose it.
This entire plan was available on Obama's campaign site before the election. It's too bad that none of the other candidates running for office thought to mention it then.
After seeing criticism about how crazy it might be to compare this to the Hitler Youth, I read up on the origins of the Hitler Youth. I am now more disturbed than ever.
I agree with those folks who say that this requirement is common for private school graduation. "Private" being the key word. The bitter and sarcastic in my would point out that my figurative son is in military school, and as such is required to carry a weapon.
Sadly, this issue has been decided again and again in the courts. I am not a blogger, but Mr Volokh was kind enough to steer me to a site that pointed me to Immediato vs Rye Neck School District, which decided that mandatory community service was ok in public schools. The courts also cite other cases where forced citizen labor is a-ok with them.
My layman interpretation is that as long as the force isn't to benefit an individual, as in the mowing the lawns of other people, then it is ok to make us work for free.
Hard to reconcile this that this is the same political faction that doesn't believe that people should work for their welfare money.
I think you have the calculations wrong. Not only will these jobs not take union jobs, they will create a number. Each institution will be required to have a volunteer coordinator, a supervisor for each 7 or so kids, a person to report the glorious progress of the revolution, etc. This will be a boon to unions, especially in schools and government.
-dk
For us to wonder whether the unions will get upset over this we only have to assume that unions believe the lump-of-labor theory, not that it's true.
In the policies they support, notably protectionism, unions act as if they believe that theory.
-dk
-dk
A. How much of the $4,000 goes to the student, and how much to the university? Neatly label your supply and demand curves.
B. Suppose the rule was: "Universities will receive a $4,000 grant for every full time student who completes 100 hours of community service." How does this change your answer to "A" above?
I've often wondered about the call for volunteers to do things that could have been done by either union employees, or other contractors. For example, why was there no outcry about NetDay?
As to college students, it seems likely that there would be *some* net positive real work accomplished, so union objections are a potential problem. But, of course, that depends on how the additional labor is used. If it is under the control of administrators who are sympathetic to union members, they can probably find something that the union members wouldn't object to. Stories like RA's above come from the fact that schools aren't run by janitors, so the principal/janitor relationship is truly adversarial. Usually the principal/teacher relationship is less so.
"train the character of the kids"
You find that acceptable?
I recall the questions of teaching morality. Whose morality will we teach? Patriotism. What is patriotism and who gets to define it? Implication being that we shouldn't try...to teach it differently than the ed school lib version.
Now it's character. I await similar questions. No, I don't. Can't hold my breath that long.
More hyperventilation. This is actually funny.
Anyway, so much for slippery slope arguments. The problem with such argument is not that they are never applicable, but that they are simply abused way too much.
Case in point.
You know, the nihilism exhibited by libertarians really makes them more akin to postmodernists than anything else.
Maybe there should be a postmodernist-libertarian alliance instead of a conservative-libertarian alliance... Because libertarians seem to have much more in common with the nihilistic views of postmodernists than they have with either liberals or conservatives, both of whom believe in a moral order (even while having a different vision of it). Libertarians in contrast seem to deny any basic moral order.
Russell Kirk, a conservative said it well:
Yes indeed. What shall we teach our children about morality. According to Richard Aubrey, apparently the answer is: Nothing.
Welcome to a world without moral order -- the libertarian postmodernist utopia.
"Because libertarians seem to have much more in common with the nihilistic views of postmodernists than they have with either liberals or conservatives, both of whom believe in a moral order (even while having a different vision of it). Libertarians in contrast seem to deny any basic moral order."
Not really, but libertarians do have a problem in that they tend to portray themselves this way. Small government implies larger something else. What is that something else? Libertarians would benefit from focusing on that more in selling their ideals.
As for yours, CR, I take it that the problem you have with the mouth-breathing Christer hordes slavering to impose their religion on the rest of us poor trembling souls is not then so much the imposition as it is the particular religion imposed?
As an interesting aside, just about everyone ended up appreciating doing it. The example of a student doing 400 hours when only 100 was required is not an outlier. Often, people who start helping others through a mandate learn how rewarding it is, and continue the practice without compulsion.
If you wish to help other people, it's amazing how much you can do by skipping two hours of video games per week. From someone who worked through college while full time in a very challenging engineering program: finding two hours a week to volunteer is not a problem for anyone.
I find it hard to believe that people here are criticizing the value of spending time comforting a child who knows they are going to die.
You're missing the entire point. So, good for you, and leave everybody else alone.
My position is that we in fact do need to teach children something about ethics and morality. However, clearly, having the government try to force a particular religion on them would be unconstitutional.
Mandatory = forced.
Forced = involuntary servitude.
What's so hard to understand about that?
A lot is going to depend on the nature of the work. If its something that people have been or might conceivably be paid to do, then yes, there probably will be labor/union opposition.
It's not a question I've followed closely, you understand, but occasionally there are controversies big enough to notice. Then-NYC Mayor Giuliani had tremendous trouble over his "workfare" scheme a decade or so back because of fears that the "workfare" recipients would be doing the sort of work, for sub-minimal wages, that City workers and others "ought" to be doing for better pay.
A closer parallel might be the ongoing tussle over what work on the CA Park System may be done by unpaid volunteers, and what really ought to be done by State employees. This is a big deal, because there's tons of work to be done — stuff like picking up litter, maintaining foot and bike paths, clearing creek beds, ripping out invasive non-native plants, &c. — and a lot of it traditionally has been done by volunteers. But with CA now completely stripped of cash, public-employee unions are evidently worried that even more will go over to the volunteer sector, and stay there even when/if the state's finances improve.
A couple of people here have suggested that kids might work on the upkeep of their own schools, as they do in Japan. That, I think, will certainly not fly; unions aren't going to budge on school janitorial services, even where the actual state of the school suggests that whoever has been allegedly performing the work ought to be fired immediately.
I do understand the principle: If it is work that society needs done, then "society" ought to be paying someone to do it, rather than conscripting voteless citizens who have no choice in the matter. That said, it's difficult to think of enough work for millions of kids if it has to be (1) something that actually needs doing and (2) something that neither the state nor anyone else ought to pay to have done. Not to mention (3) possible to kids, (4) easy to transport them to and from; &c. I'll be interested to see what the Obama team actually comes up with.
In fact, if I weren't such a libertarian, I'd run out right now and trademark "chickendove" so I could collect outrageously large royalties from all the pundits for the next 4 years... but I've been told that taking advantage of a governmentally-conferred monopoly would be wrong (even without the First Amendment overlay). Especially a monopoly on such a perfect description!
For you? Whatever you want.
(To be pragmatic: whatever you want to the extent it doesn't involve coercian of another party, the definition of which requires debate, vigilance, property rights, and self-defense.)
The real problem with "mandatory volunteerism" isn't the kid who goes home and hops on his X-box for six hours. It's the kid who's actually doing something productive in his or her spare time, but gets no exception for that. Is the kid a writer or a pianist? Coding in Linux? Maybe the kid just has a whole ton of little brothers and sisters, and only one parent, and if the kid's off picking up litter, a babysitter has to come in? What if the kid's doing farm work (or even something like raising an animal with the FFA, competition horses, something like that?) What about the football player who also practices with a part-time theater and runs track in the off-season?
As has been noted, that isn't so much of a big deal for kids who don't do anything but waste time. The kids it hits hardest are the ones who've taken on responsibilities on their own.
Nobody's suggesting taking time away from the instructional day to do this volunteer work. That means that schooling is obviously more important, right? Why not just devote the extra time to education, if "the kids have it free anyway"? I'll tell you, the teachers' unions won't object to that!
Goals=mandatory. Just ask any government employee whose office failed to make the donation goal for the Combined Federal Campaign. I've seen division chiefs take cash out of their own pockets and make donations in the names of their subordinates in order to avoid the consequences of missing the "goal" for "voluntary" donations.
When the scout troop builds owl houses for a wildlife rescue group or clears a nature trail at a retirement center, will that fulfill part of the community service project for the students? What about a student who makes and sells craft items to raise money for a charitable organization? Can she count the time she spends at home making crafts as part of her hours, or does it only count if she does the work under the supervision of an organization that can certify service hours?
Exactly how will they require students to do this work? Will they make it a graduation requirement, or a requirement for college admission? What will happen to students who, for whatever reason, are not able to meet the requirement?
Community service is a great thing, but forced labor is something else entirely.
He wasn't missing the point at all. Your just an idiot.
This virtually guarantees that most private colleges will raise tuition by at least $4000 and that most public colleges either will raise tuition, see their state funding cut or both. Hasn't it dawned on anyone yet that all the programs to help people pay for college have ended up making college more expensive by removing some market pricing discipline, particularly on the supply side? Telling the universities that there's a ready pool of money available virtually guarantees that they'll do what they can to capture it.
"My position is that we in fact do need to teach children something about ethics and morality. However, clearly, having the government try to force a particular religion on them would be unconstitutional."
I agree on both counts. It follows that the "we" in your first sentence clearly cannot refer to your "the government" in the second. Which I believe is problematic for your argument.
Let me be more clear. Students need to be taught ethics and morality in public schools by government employees.
You know, as is currently the case and as has always been the case and as will always be the case.
The government need not be and should not be and is not neutral when it comes to matters of ethics and morality.
COmmunity service, like the new school architecture is associated with prisons. It's a legal term for alternative to incarceration. Schools go into "lock-down" more than the local prisons do. Students are driven around to work an hour at a shelter once a month. WHat does that develop? Nothing. It is not the long-term commitment that develops skilss, competence and relationships.
Students already HATE the community service that is shoved down their throats because the talk sounds all noble, but the reality is crap, spirit and mind- dulling crap.
America has had the finest tradition of volunteering in the world - fire departments, ambulances, libraries ... tons of real jobs that truly promote a community. This "community service" actually is in conflict with that tradition, by deverting people from real work, and crushing creativity and spirits. It's drudge slavery, nothing else. Big Brother pushing you around. Kids aren't stupid. They know when parents dump them on schools, they know when teachers don't bother to teach them, they know they are being dragged around for nothing, just ticking off hours for "community service." Do not blame the kids for being apathetic when adults have failed their duty to them. Now adults want to crush them further with more worthless obligations in the name of "building character." There is absolutely no value - in fact there is a value - NEGATIVE.
The education system in America has already become just a form of prison. That is a FACT. A big hole in which to pour money and warehouse kids.
Simply by requiring that the students be subject to Union rules while volunteering. Absolutely NO performance above the minimum required will be allowed. A Union member will be assigned to insure the rules are followed.
That way they'll be impossible to distinguish from normal Union members.
What morality and ethics a child should be taught are the sole and full responsibility of the parents/guardians, and the government is limited to describing in public schools the putative mechanism for its legitimacy, and for basic information of the laws.
As has only been the case for about 130 years, has had increasingly bad results the longer teachers have been in left-leaning unions, and will not continue in its current form once (presumably Republican legislators) make schooling vouchers the mechanism by which mandatory schooling is publicly supported.
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, &pfpp
"presumably Republican legislators"
Your presumption is unsupported by reality. It has been affluent Republican suburbanites who have blocked school choice. Disestablishing the present K-12 church known as Public Education will require a grand Madisonian compromise along the lines of the one found in the Bill of Rights vis-a-vis traditional religious institutions.
Universal Right (positive, in this case) + no prejudice in funding (i.e. it follows the student/family choice, not the institution)
JeanE, this is a great point. The government could undoubtedly turn this into a bureaucratic nightmare. But I think it's workable if it's nationally mandated but locally administered. Let each school decide how to accredit the hours; my school simply had a half sheet of paper that first got signed by an administrator saying the proposed was acceptable, an honor statement the student signed saying they actually did the work, and a signature from the sponsor. Then you did as many hours as you wanted and the sponsor would sign for. This avoids the problem of acceptable/not acceptable work, and leaves the judgement in the hands of a local school official. Sure, there is the minor potential for small scale abuse and the isolated sponsor who signs when no real work was performed, but overall it can be a workable and low-maintenance system.
Whether the government is capable of implementing a workable system is a completely reasonable question.
Wanumba, I strongly question if you have real examples of students who truly deserve to be in NHS dropping out for this reason. To quote the NHS mission statement from www.HNS.us:
"The National Honor Society (NHS) is the nation’s premier organization established to recognize outstanding high school students. More than just an honor roll, NHS serves to honor those students who demonstrate excellence in the areas of scholarship, leadership, service, and character."
Those students who drop out of NHS because they "hate" community service are exactly the types of personalities who don't fit the NHS mission statement, and don't deserve the honor associated with membership. It's not only about good grades. It's about recognizing students for academic AND civic excellence.
To me, this sounds like a juxtaposition of two problems. First, a local problem with you school's organization that you should probably start to address by voting in a more competent school board.
Second, NHS encourages students to find their own worthwhile service projects. In truth, finding worthwhile service is not difficult; call the local hospital, soup kitchen, animal shelter, or even your church (if one is religiously inclined.) There is no reason for a student to be asking their teachers for projects in the first place, unless they lack the leadership and self-initiative qualities that NHS is looking to reward.
As a broader statement, these sort of statements reek of the general attitude of promoting lax school standards in this country. If you think High School in the US is truly hard, you should take a look at what is required of our global competitors. Adding service requirements for graduation would be a strong step to making us more globally competitive, not less.
The thing that I notice is that the amount of organization and supervision required to implement and execute the program will probably devolve into micro management. My experience with micro management is that it eventually erodes moral to the point that sabotage, in one form or another, takes hold.
I could be wrong, after all, the Germans were very successful during the 30's and 40's and if they hadn't starting exterminating people no telling how long the world would have let them go on.
Community service is really a virtue, but it's tough to get people to try it; once they do, many discover it is rewarding and continue. There is a very significant potential to improve our county if more people just gave service a try.
The question under consideration can be posed: is high school the correct place to mandate students to learn the benefits of community service?
I would say that math and reading are also valuable skills, which are tough to get people to learn on their own. Is it inappropriate that a high school dictate that it's students must be able to read and compute at particular levels to graduate? Isn't the point of school really to teach skills that wouldn't be acquired otherwise?
Your assertion is denied by the very great effort generated by the teacher's unions and Democratic Party generally in their opposition to school vouchers. Additionally, when parent's object, it is commonly the cause that school vouchers pay dimes on the dollar to the per child expenditure of the public schools.
Parity, to which there is no honest objection, will eliminate the opposition you mention.
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, &pfpp
So, if your father is a pimp and your mother is a crack dealer, your just screwed?
Your idea doesn't work for people with parents/guardians lacking proper ethics and morality themselves.
Not only that, it is entirely anti-historical. Ethics and morality have always been taught in the schools, is currently taught in the schools, and will continue to be taught in the schools. And that is as it should be.
As far as the school vouchers idea -- I am all for it -- assuming adequate funding. Yet another good idea from Milton Friedman. The man deserves credit. But regardless, those who remain in the public schools still would need to be taught ethics and morality.
Whose view of ethics and morality? Its obvious that people don't necessarily agree on these. That's the rub.
This is why I really like vouches and school choice. Parents then have the option of moving kids from schools that they believe are failing kids in one way or another.
Free to Choose.
I am sympathetic to this view, but don't think one can or should go this far. If one does, it would seem reasonable to ban Aristotle's work "Ethics" from high school libraries on the basis that the state shouldn't be paying for kids to read what anyone else thought about the subject. Such a view would also largely make advanced placement classes dealing with systematic philosophy impossible since ethics is one of the major areas there.
I think I would draw the line differently:
1) Schools can and should teach good socialized behavior. Students learn how to interact with other students and schools should be able to make and enforce such rules even though they are inherently based on a system of ethics. Furthermore, if one student is caught stealing from another, I think it is reasonable to tell the student that what they did wasn't right in addition to normal punishment routines. However, this mandate should be limited to how to get along with others in a public environment.
2) Schools can and should make viewpoints on ethics available. If teaching systematic ethics in a philosophy class, the school is going to be presenting a number of viewpoints. The goal though is not to get the students to accept these viewpoints uncritically but rather to think about them critically. There is no reason why this should be seen as infringing on parental rights.
3) Civics classes are also important and largely fall under a penumbra of the two ideas listed above. They should be scoped to discuss socialized aspects in a public environment (law traditions, how our government is organized, etc) along with viewpoints on various matters (ideally, conflicting viewpoints).
I don't think that it is the role of the schools to indoctrinate ethics and morality in kids beyond a simple role of how to get along with others in a public environment. However, this does involve some ethics instruction whether this is overt or otherwise, and it is foolish to think that schools could get along without it.
We have three kids in NHS and all their friends are NHS and when this requirement hit, they ALL said, "What's the point? Why are we busting ourselves just to get MORE work?" Parents are stunned, "NHS is supposed to be recognition for accomplishments, like we had when we got it, not MORE WORK." They are already working hard! Half of those kids are trying to early graduate, and work jobs after school to pay for their college. They don't do the community service hours - tough - they are out of NHS. And this is ON TOP OF regular school "community service" hours. And all "community service" is at the teachers' whims, serving their pet projects, not what is useful for the talents and development of the student.
Anyone now dare suggest kids are just being lazy if they object? The schools are already oppressing kids by dumping work they should be doing in class onto homework. That's 7 hours of class, followed by three-four hours of homework, and where is time for sports or theatre or work or volunteering? Who realizes that this means working until midnight and 1 am for kids who are trying to keep their grades up? Now let's add TWO hours of travel time for every game our kids play in sports - four hours round trip per game to be on a team. Something has to give. This is screwing the good kids, they drop from exhaustion, they give up and say they don't care naymore. There is no requirement for sports to graduate, but there is already now for "community service." Fifty hours of photocopying lazy teachers' worksheets becomes more valuable than learning the discipline of sports, teams, hard work, sacrifice. The slackers don't even bother and still get advanced. Perverse incentives. With all the community services requirements, why are local volunteering organizations begging for help? Because the schools are too lazy to make the connections, it's just control of kids for more hours of the day.
Because for the lazy teachers,who hand out papers and then sit at their computers while students figure out what to do, "community service" is just one more burden on them so they reduce it to the least effort FOR THEM possible - go-fer busy-work. Worse, teachers use this as a way to further control other people, a form of classroom tyranny - "You are stuck. I control your degree." It's everything you'd expect from protected bureaucrats already. Hey! We're progressive! Let's make it worse!
So, we have plenty of boots on the ground feedback on the reality of the failed US school system and how this REALLY plays out between the kids and the schools. Kids aren't dropping out of school for no inexplicable reason. They hate it and they're right. It isn't education, it's oppression. By adding these extra hours, children have less personal time to pursue hobbies, quiet time for reflection, rest, family, all sorts of things that help develop them to be healthy, well-rounded people.
To argue that kids SHOULD do government-mandated "community service," it PRESUMES they aren't ALREADY doing something important. What arrogance!
It's all noble sounding,all the right words and soothing theory, but it's a fraud. Involuntary servitude -it just makes servants for teachers. Where's the push for actual academics in the schools? Our kids are sitting in high school classes right now with classmates who have never been trained to take notes. As in they can hardly hold a pencil in their hands,much less write down a concept with it. It's jaw-dropping shocking. Ten years of fill-in-the-blanks and multiple-choice and solid middle and upper middle class kids cannot write to save their lives. They can't find Guatemala on the map, how could they, they've never even heard the name, much less know it's a place. Guatemalan kids, despite the lack of funds, can read and write better than our kids because they aren't rich enough yet to wander off the solid foundational pillars of an education - reading, writing and arithmetic to fool around with fluff and nonsense. Lazy US teachers argue computers will do all that for them. Yeah, until the power cuts out. Then what? And the power WILL cut, we've been PROMISED that.
So, before shoving this down the throats of children, why not demand to try it out first on adults who loftily promote it? See how they like being arbitrarily tasked to be a grunt to some petty overlord, stressing them after 40 hours of work, commuting, child raising, shopping, taking care of grandma, any recreation or maybe even after the hours required for a community college course needed to rise to a higher pay grade? The screams would start 4,3,2... But "it'll build character for the kids..."
Not everyone believes you should be punished if you lie to the police. Its still against the law. Not everyone believes that you should have to respect property rights. They are still prosecuted for theft. Not everyone thinks that prostitution should be illegal. They will still be criminally prosecuted.
Like it or not, part of living in society means that value systems that not everyone is going to agree with must be adopted.
End of story.
This libertarian idea that we can all have our own morality and ethics or that all views on morality and ethics are equally valid is nonsense.
What morality and ethics should we teach our children? Short of religious indoctrination and within limits, we should teach our children the morality and ethics that the majority in a local community feel should be taught.
The answer is not the nihilistic libertarian answer. We can't all agree on everything, so we should teach them nothing. And besides, all views on morality are equally valid.
You don't have to believe that we can all have our own morality to admit that people disagree on a number of moral issues, which means that teaching 'morality' in schools is a difficult issue.
This itself is a position on ethics and a sort of ethical indoctrination.
By not teaching about ethics and morality, you are sending a message about how important that subject is. You are also advancing a postmodernist view that all views on ethics and morality are equally valid.
This isn't "neutral."
You simply cannot avoid these issues, no matter how hard you try.
Again, any instruction on this subject should obviously fall short of anything religious. But, it is quite clear that ethics and morality need to be taught in school. Perhaps even above and beyond all other subjects.
I don't deny it is a difficult issue. However, I believe like other difficult issues, it should be resolved through the democratic process.
Ethics and morailty are taught by parents.
Schools were set up to teach reading, writing and arthimetic, necessary skills needed to be able to function well in society.
US Schools have dumped the three pillars that all other studies, science, history, geography, philosophy, art, music EVERYTHING are based on.
Too many parents have absorbed the 1960s me-me-me progressive mantra that children are a burden on parents, women's self-fulfillment, the planet, whatever so they dump the kids without care on schools which the Left uses to indoctrinate into progressive mind-sets, as in children are property of the state, not the family, tools to be used to further the desires of the State. The longer the school day, the better it is for parents to allow them to do what they want. Schools oblige as babysitters, babysitting is easier than actually teaching. Unhappy children get Ritilin to drug them into submission. Good students are always "smart" bad students are always "stupid," never does teaching a child a skill and making sure he or she learns it enters the conversation anymore. The entire education structure pretends that transferring knowledge isn't possible - children are just "gifted" in "different ways." Or not gifted as the case may be. They are "poor" or "disadvantaged" to explain no learning after ten years.
Children used to be wealth, and raising chidlren an honorable and worthwhile responsibily of life.
Actually, the first thing schools were set up to do was teach children to read the Bible.
Now, I think that particular goal is now unconstitutional since the First Amendment has been incorporated against the states. However, it does illustrate the original origins of schooling in the teaching of morality and ethics.
Your conception of the historical function of schooling is false and entirely without historical support.
TP,
Do some research on the demographics of school choice opposition. Of course the bonehead unions are against, but their political power on this question is tenuous with Obama in the White House. Whatever Annenberg was, it wasn't union-friendly.
1- It's a PR disaster among the relevant age group; the very same age group without whom Obama would not have won.
2- 13th ammendment arguments would be made. Whether these arguments would be valid I don't know, they would have public impact though.
A payed, voluntary scheme with a tax credit doesn't sound like a bad idea at all though. The community gets service ( in ways that won't upset the unions I'm sure.) the students get dough and college tax credit and the people get a warm glow at the thought that the young'uns are gaining valuable life experience or whatever.
Thus I think Obama probably has in mind a voluntary program, surely he's savvy enough for that. The stuff that's been released is ambigious sure, but given that Obama seems to NOT be a blundering idiot I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
I'll take money from your parents and only give it back to you if you do what I say. Not coercion?
The valuable life experience is gained from VOLUNTEERING. You won't likely get as much out of it if you are forced to do something you don't want to do. Also, many of my friends whose kids' schools already require this say there is much cheating that occurs. You also assume there is enough "good and noble" work to go around. Many kids will do meaningless things and will be more cynical as a result.
And what about he poorer kids who don't have access to as much 'safe' volunteering as middle and upper class kids? My friend who teaches in a school with poorer kids worries that you'll have 11-12 yr olds put in places where there is not enough good supervision, leading to dangerous situations for them.
'....fully refundable tax credit ensuring that the first $4,000 of their college education is completely free."....'
Since when is giving someone 4K of taxpayer (that is you and me) money "completely free?"
Above and beyond that, I have thought about this much over many years. As a retired military professional, the concept of the draft is a boon and a bane. I think mostly a bane. Do I think it is a good thing for young people to do public service? Well, of course I do or I wouldn't have spent the best years of my life doing that. I think it would help young people to realize that they "own" the problems and the cures. "ownership" is an important concept, no matter what you are talking about.
BUT..... make no mistake, this sounds like D R A F T! Whether paid or not, any involuntary national or local service (other than for punishment) is as much a draft as the Vietnam era draft. I think he is treading on extremely thin ice here.
Oh, and for the record, I know that a military draft is a terrible idea under all circumstances, bar none. If the young people don't volunteer for the military when it is obvious they are so badly needed, then they don't deserve to live in a free country and won't be if they were *that* badly needed...... their country and its freedoms will be gone. They should stick that in their collective hash pipe and smoke on it for a few minutes :) :)
Aside from ideological points, how would you feel if the Bush administration was in charge of "voluntary" service? I often remind my liberal (and conservative, but less so) friends that any government program initiated will inevitably fall into the hands of the other party, and someone you disagree with at any turn.
Practically speaking Obama will be in and out of office but the next president might have this "service" requirement at their disposal to leverage against the next generation. What if this program included Double payment for Jr. Military service, credit for religious proselytizing. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you would be all geeked up at someone getting 4 grand to attend Oral Roberts by volunteering at Westboro Baptist Church.
We are already are DOING it and a bunch of out of touch people think it's just being discussed. Obama just wants to EXPAND it.
Our schools can't teach reading OR writing OR math and they are going to locate and devise and supervise "community service?" A high school of three thousand kids and they ALL have a "community service" requirement? That's three thousand jobs to supervise. Or not. Lying, cheating and so forth will prevail, teaching people to dodge and disregard laws - a great lesson to learn in a nation established on Rule of Law. Cheating already exists as lazy teachers put three hours down for 1/2 hour of kids emptying their wastebasket, and NOT for the kid's sake, but because the teacher gets points for high hour totals for the kids under her supervision. Our kid got community service hours for data keying in ALL the community service hours for each student in the school for the teacher who was supposed to be doing it and got instuctions on padding the numbers. Yeah, THAT's the character-building experience! Ideology prevails. Teachers hauled kids by the busload out of class to go rally for illegal immigration rights and gave them all "community service" hours. Guarantee: a kid, using the same precedent going to a pro-life march would be marked, "absent without excuse."
How does this new requirement for "community service "for people of ALL AGES..." tie in with the Rangel draft bill:
H.R. 4752 109th Congress:
"To provide for the common defense by requiring all persons in the United States, including women, between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES."
The last version of the bill was only 18-26, it's now 18-42 and Obama is now talking "ALL AGES." Who's gonna drive grannie to her community service hours required by the state? How many hours does a mother with children and grannie to care for have to put in to the state, too? But, "it's for the children." Start there because people froth all about "ethics" and "morals", then expand it.
NO BODY is going to be exempt from forced labor of some kind. This has nothing to do with building character or work ethic or anything of the sort for the children, it's totalitarian drudge control, and an eviceration of families and the free market.
An infallibility card will be required to be considered a valid debater, right? Got kids in community service? No? Too bad, your opinion then is bunk, cause you don't know what's going on.
Folks, it's a travesty how much adults in this country have ignored their responsibility to raise their children. They are giving their children to the State via the schools, of their own free will, so the State will raise them to be tools of the State.
Gads, even the Soviet citizens were forced to do this, but we are exercising our liberty to impose servitude on those whom we should love the most.
You indeed are going out on a limb.
I do not see any reason why volunteering at a Baptist Church could not be counted as valid volunteer service. As long as the service meets objective criteria (to avoid chores your do around the house anyway counting as "community service" for example) and is freely chosen (volunteering for the Baptist Church better not be the only available option) I do not see a problem.