// blog

National Service: An Immoral Ideal

By Lucy Hugel     Jun 20 2009 - 7:10 pm
Frustrated Student
Handcuffs

This spring the President signed into law The Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act. You should pay special attention to this law because much of it specifically targets young adults. Secondary schools, for example, are offered federal funds in exchange for developing their “service-learning” curricula, encouraging more high schools nationwide to develop service requirements. Under such programs, while studying, taking the SATs, and pouring energy into extra-curricular activities or part-time jobs, increasing numbers of students will also have to perform mandatory service.

And this policy will not be limited to high schools. Service requirements will also be instituted at an increasing number of universities as federal funds from this bill entice them to create or expand their own service initiatives. Because the bill encourages integrating “service-learning” into the curriculum, many universities will develop academic programs dedicated to inculcating a service mentality. In addition, students will be encouraged to work in a “Summer of Service” and to make longer commitments to Americorps.

What do all these initiatives mean to you? They mean more than just spending a summer in a soup kitchen or a year in a South American village, although these are not small matters. Many students need that time to work to pay down their students loans or to take summer classes. Should such requirements be instituted at your school, you may find yourself torn between doing what’s best for your scholarship, career, family, or finances—and giving one of these up to fulfill a service requirement.

And yet this new law has been hailed as a great example of bipartisanship because across the political spectrum there is a consensus that Americans, especially young Americans, should be willing to serve, to do more for others. In other words, everyone seems to agree that you have an obligation to sacrifice for others. But do you? And should the government be forcing you to do so?

Today many Americans accept such a duty and believe that making others one’s primary focus in life is noble. According to this view, you should focus not on the highest pinnacle you can achieve or what brings you the greatest fulfillment, but on how you can best serve others. Following this premise, service programs aim to harness and exploit the virtues of youth—energy, idealism, motivation, and passion—by means of yoking them to the burden of everyone on the planet who has an “unmet human need.” No amount of energy or resources is enough to fill this yawning abyss, and the consequence of such a system will be the sapping of virtue and ability.

It will be the best in you that will be exploited, and it will be the best of you that will be the most harmed. Today, one can do amazing things at a very young age; those of you who have a drive to learn, to create, to produce, to innovate—you will lose the most under this system. Not only because of the hours, weeks, or years that may be stolen, but because of something irreplaceable that may go with them—that benevolent feeling of being in control of your own path.

When you are forced to relinquish your time for service requirements, you’re being told that your life doesn’t really belong to you. Your hobbies, friends, and career aspirations all must take a back seat to unchosen obligations. Those who are tempted to argue that young people having less time for personal interests is not a big deal, or who attempt to justify national service initiatives by saying that some get a value from such work are ignoring the basic principle. It is fine that some people choose to do a bit of volunteering, but that cannot justify forcing everyone to do so. Each individual should have the freedom to decide to what he devotes his time and energy.

This attempt to conscript the lives of young Americans is the proposal of politicians who believe they are better qualified to decide how you spend your time than you are—and that they have the right to do it. But the purpose of government is to protect our rights, not to decree by legislative vote how we spend our time or what morals we should adopt in our private lives. Accepting service as the ideal will damage the lives of young people while simultaneously undermining the proper moral foundation of America: the right of each individual to make his own life and happiness his primary concern.

Bookmark/Search this post with:
13 Comments

Comments

Very good article. It doesn't take a lot for voluntary service to become mandatory. It's not just a matter of financial slavery either though. Its also a matter of idealogical slavery as the largely liberal school system trains its students to think that way from the moment they enter it.

Submitted by findthetiger129 (not verified) on 7 July, 2009.

It may be "voluntary" now, but that is just done temporarily to make it palatable to the public. All stutdents will be enlisted one day for the "common good" to serve the political powers, whether they be Dems or Repubs.

Submitted by Andrew Panken (not verified) on 6 July, 2009.

I'm really dismayed by the number of young people who feel that everyone should be required to do public service. Being young, I guess they feel that they've got plenty of time to work on their personal goals, if they have any.
What they forget is that today could be their last day on earth. If today is your last day on earth, do you want to spend it on what gives you joy, or on serving others?

Submitted by Mike (not verified) on 27 June, 2009.

A note to Tom: Service learning has become mandatory in many US High Schools. I do not mind my son choosing service projects that fit with his goal of becoming an Eagle Scout--which is entirely voluntary--but I do mind mandatory service requirements.

In our area there are many kids who need to work to help out their families (yes, in high school) and they need to study. The service requirement will mean that they must give up one of these values--and that it will likely be studying. This could interfere with their chances of going to college and bettering themselves and their circumstances. Far be it from us to tell them they must sacrifice their goals for those of some guy in Washington!

Submitted by Elisheva Levin (not verified) on 25 June, 2009.

Anthony makes a good point. A little historical perspective could shed some light on the subject. When I was going to a state college 30 years ago, $1000.00 was enough to see me through 2 semesters, buy books, pay lab fees with a bit left over at the end of the year. They were just beginning to float the idea of government sponsored student loans. After all, they said, it was unconscionable that students actually had to work to put themselves through school!

My youngest brother attended the same institution 20 years later. At $6000.00 per semester. And that didn't include books. And he still had to work part time. The result? Students still have to work to make ends meet, the 3rd party payer system has inflated college tuition in the same way it has inflated medical costs, students come out of school with debt loads that MD's would have been proud to call their own and they've made it impossible for a person to work his way through school without gov't assistance.

Ted Kennedy's eponymous act will enhance this financial slavery. And add ideological slavery to the mix as well.

The Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act. He'd have been more honest if he had merely declared that his goal was "To Serve Man."

Submitted by c andrews (not verified) on 25 June, 2009.

What a wonderfully written article. Thank you!

Submitted by Katrina (not verified) on 25 June, 2009.

"It will be the best in you that will be exploited, and it will be the best of you that will be the most harmed. Today, one can do amazing things at a very young age; those of you who have a drive to learn, to create, to produce, to innovate—you will lose the most under this system. Not only because of the hours, weeks, or years that may be stolen, but because of something irreplaceable that may go with them—that benevolent feeling of being in control of your own path."

The reason why this is immoral cannot be stated any better. This law is a consequence and a furtherance of altruism's hold on American Culture. Any student who values his time, his studies, and his self-determination should speak out against this law and advocate that happiness and success is the single moral purpose of a man's life, which, thankfully, Miss Lucy Hugel has done here.

Submitted by Daniel J Casper (not verified) on 25 June, 2009.

While the funding of the program is an issue, the main issue is the program itself. To enshrine service to others is a philosophical and historical disaster. To make it mandatory, which is the path, is slavery. The funding, whether through taxes, debt, or inflation is just plain ol' looting.

Teacher (and politician). Leave those kids alone.

Submitted by Andy (not verified) on 25 June, 2009.

Tom,
You've written that those who wish to volunteer, will 'receive financial benefit from the government. What prices are being jacked up?' Good question. Where does the 'government's' money come from? Either taxes or inflation. So, either taxes pay for the programs or the government simply prints more paper and our currency is devalued- making prices go up. Further, the point of the article is that the government ought not 'be providing a leg up' to anyone but protecting the individual rights of her citizens (when 'government' gives a leg up, who is really providing that?)
Thanks for a good article Lucy.
Cheers.

Submitted by A. Chambers (not verified) on 22 June, 2009.

tom, parents cannot opt out of funding public schools (i.e. out of paying the portion of their local, state, and federal taxes that is used for education funding), and this tax burden often means they cannot afford to send their children to private schools. So how do you propose they allow their children to "decide not to participate" in public high schools' mandatory service requirements for graduation?

Submitted by KLB (not verified) on 21 June, 2009.

Jacked up prices? What are you talking about? The people who are willing to donate some of their time to a cause they believe in will receive financial benefit from the government. What prices are being jacked up? If you're talking about taxes, then find me the specific tax proposal used to fund this. If you're going to make such a blanket and inane statement that "well if money is diverted to this program than the cost of other programs will go down" then maybe we should abolish ALL government spending and incentive. This is merely the government providing a leg up to people who normally couldn't get there and in exchange getting something back in return.

Submitted by tom (not verified) on 21 June, 2009.

Not true. The people who want to opt out will have to deal with the jacked up prices due to government meddling. Government funding always jacks up prices because they have no incentive to make sure the funded amount is right.

And anyway, the income tax was (and some say still is) voluntary. That slowly changed over time, didn't it?

Submitted by Anthony Martin (not verified) on 20 June, 2009.

This is not mandatory service. This is service in exchange for something from the government, and it's optional. You are only required to serve after you've accepted the government funding. If you do not want to serve, you do not have to participate. If you decide to participate, and accept the benefits, then you have to put in the time/service.

Submitted by tom (not verified) on 20 June, 2009.