Peace Corps Report

The official appointment of R. Sargent Shriver as director of the Peace Corps--coinciding as it does with the publication of Shriver's report on the Corps--is a welcome piece of news. The report is especially encouraging, for it combines both restraint and flexibility in its suggestions, qualities badly needed if the enterprise is to be something more than a modern Children's Crusade. Shriver emphasizes the needs of the underdeveloped countries--teachers and technical skills--and he underplays the kind of "soft" Peace Corps proposals that have reminded some critics of the white man's burden all over again; teaching English and vocational training somehow sound a little more probable than imparting ideals of democracy or civilizing natives.

Shriver's statement that the term of service for volunteers might, in some cases, be extended from two to three years suggests a practical grasp of possible snags in the near future: it may well be that the two-year term of service will shortly be abandoned altogether in favor of the longer term. Many have raised doubts that volunteers can be adequately trained and used in two years. Especially as the difficulties in languages and cross-cultural communication become more graphic, these doubts may prove prophetic.

Throughout Shriver's report runs a constant and generous theme: that the program is a service to nations undergoing impossibly difficult birth pains. He provides for adapting the Corps to U.S. aid and technical assistance programs. If a host nation suggests particular U.S. assistance projects, for example, the Corps could recruit, train, and administrate personnel for everything from large-scale teaching programs to construction works requiring skilled labor.

Undoubtedly Shriver is wise in not pressing for a formal draft exemption for Corps volunteers. It would be politically foolish to do so. And given the uncertainties surrounding the future of the Corps, it is still impossible to say whether service in its ranks would be more useful to the United States than service in the army.

One recommendation Shriver did not comment on in his brief report was that the Peace Corps not limit its activities to underdeveloped nations. The idea is that the Corps could also do work in this country--much in the manner suggested by Senator Humphrey's proposed revival of the CCC. Obviously, the amplifications of such an extension of the Corps idea are tricky and by no means easy to predict; the recession, for example, creates both an opportunity for successful large-scale Corps work in this country and the possibility that too many people will be reminded of times they would rather forget. Certainly the time for considering such an extension of the Corps is now, when the entire program is still unshaped.

All in all, Shriver has begun well. As the Peace Corps starts to operate and real troubles develop, Shriver's report will still be of use. It will be a constant reminder of practicality, restraint, and modesty of aim for a program which needs these things above all.