Not Your Mom

RECENTLY, A CHORUS of educators and lawmakers has cried out that the national needs to provide young people with more oppurtunities for public service. A myriad of local, national, and university programs, designed to increase the number of public service jobs and the funding for them, have been introduced over the past year.

To the proponents of these measures, which can have nothing but a positive impact on the nation--Thank you.

But to Rep. Robert Torricelli (D-N.J.) and Sen. Gary Hart (D-Co.), who have proposed a mandatory draft of all 18 year olds into civil or military service--No thanks.

This well-intentioned plan not only violates civil liberties, but it is a false panacea which fails to address the root of the problems which Hart and Toricelli aim to solve.

A primary reason for the plan, Torricelli said Tuesday night at a speech at the Kennedy School, is to make sure our social programs don't stagnate because of lack of money. There is no constituency left to raise taxes, Torricelli explained, so America would substitute a draft of five million 18 year olds for a tax on all Americans.

But why can't we just raise taxes, which have been cut so drastically in this decade?

Look what happened to Walter Mondale, the last politician who told Americans he would raise taxes, the New Jersey Democrat said. When a member of the audience said he respected Mondale for that move, Torricelli responded, "I'm sure his wife and children respect him, too."

That's not leadership; it's evidence that lawmakers have given in to the Reagan reactionary movement. This country is the wealthiest on this planet, and there can be no excuse for not being able to provide enough money to aid the needy. Taxes should be raised, corporations should pay their fair share, and politicians should convince Americans that this is how things should be.

It is ironic that Torricelli wants to draft the spirit of citizenship of one group of Americans, 18-year-olds, because he is afraid to ask another, more powerful group to pay taxes.

By making the labor-for-tax argument the main reason behind the need for the universal draft program, Hart and Torricelli turn what could have been an attack on the Reagan right into a retreat.

The second argument for the measure is the values of citizenship it would teach all Americans.

THERE IS NO QUESTION that all Americans should heed the call of President John F. Kennedy '40 to ask what they can do for their country. It is also just as necessary that the country provide the means and oppurtunites for citizens to serve.

That's why it is heartening that President Derek C. Bok last year set aside one million dollars in a fund for students interested in volunteer community work and that last week he joined 74 other university presidents in endorsing a Brown University-based public service program.

A proposal by Rep. Leon E. Panetta (D-Cal.) will also help young Americans interested in volunteer work. He has proposed a National Youth Volunteer Act, which would grant matching funds to local public service programs. The bill, which is currently in a house subcommittee, has received the endorsement and support of President Bok.

But while serving the nation may be a valuable ingredient of citizenship, I doubt a mandatory volunteer is someone who will be receptive to learning citizenship values. We take out the garbage for our mother, but pretty begrudgingly, or I least I did. And if it's not your mother...

A draft is a severe restriction on civil liberties, much more so than taxes, especially when the nation is not facing a national crisis. It is with good reason that the American Civil Liberties Union opposes the plan.

But, I hope lawmakers will continue to increase the oppurtunities for those who wish to serve, perhaps through a civil service G.I. bill.

There are also inherent benefits for those who serve, Hart and Torricelli point to the job skills and training disadvantaged youth may gain.

Even if this argument is so, and judging from the results of local civilian volunteer programs such as New York City's City Volunteer Corp it probably is, we cannot substitute a draft for a proper education system.

The reason minority youths cannot find jobs or read and write is because too little money is spent to teach them how. A draft won't solve this problem in our society, and it will divert our attention from the root of the problem.

BUT THE MILITARY PORTION of the universal national service program fails totally.

A peacetime military draft does not stand for public service. Rather, it is symbolic of a society which is gripped by fear. Claims that the draft would bolster our needy conventional forces miss the point that what we need to bolster during times of peace is our diplomatic and aid forces.

The first time someone tested the constitutionality of America's peacetime military draft was during the undeclared war in Vietnam. The courts at that time ruled that a draft when the nation was at peace was constitutional. Without that ruling America's involvement in Indochina would have been very limited.

The claim by Hart and Torricelli that a draft is inevitable is pessimistic. A draft is only inevitable if a war is inevitable, and neither should ever happen.

The most persuasive point those in favor of the draft make is that it would be an equalizing force on a military. Currently the military is principally composed of lower class and minority youths, they argue. And that should not be.

But for less fortunate Americans, now that the Pentagon spends more money on salaries and benefits, such as the new G.I. bill, military service has become a pragmatic way to get training and go to college.

If our nation goes to war all citizens regardless of class should participate, but now we fortunately are at peace.

But a draft would spread money so thin that needed scholarships and technical training would be limited. The universal draft may be an egalitarian tool, but it eliminates a very pragmatic tool to provide money, training, and scholarships for those who need it.

Even in Torricelli's plan there is a danger of stratification. Because people choose civil or military service and will enter military service if they don't have the skills for the civil service they choose, this system has a chance to become just as stratified.

Illiterate youths will once again be forced to turn to the Army because social programs will not accept them. Middle class and rich kids will once again have the option to avoid military service by deferring to go to law or medical school and then using those skills in an appropriate civil service.

It might get tougher to get into law school.