Forced to Give for Money

TWO weeks ago, Sen. Sam Nunn (D.-Ga.) announced a bill that called for the creation of a National Service Corps. Under the Nunn plan, high school graduates who seek federal financial aid for college are required to work for one year in the military or in civilian community service for a nominal salary (about $100 per week). In turn, they would receive a $10,000 voucher for civilian community work or a $12,000 voucher for military service that could be applied toward college or vocational school.

On the surface, the Nunn plan has strong emotional appeal: students should give back to their society for the federal aid which they receive. They should earn their education and develop important values of citizenship and habits of the heart.

The general idea of civic participation--so well invoked by President John F. Kennedy's famous "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" address--kindles our feelings of patriotism, and re-affirms a populist sentiment that the creative powers of the individual can help solve the problems of a society.

While I believe in contributing to one's society for the benefits one has received, I do not think the Nunn plan will accomplish this goal. In order to finance this program, the government would have to cut all existing federal aid programs such as the Pell Grant, College Work Study and the NDSL, GSL and the SEOG loan and grant programs.

In order for middle- to lower-class students to receive federal aid, they would have to take one year off to work in the military or in a civilian corps--this is the only way they will receive government assistance. No longer will there be loans or grants.

THE Nunn plan will effectively separate those students who can go to college directly from those who cannot afford to go on account of financial constraints. In light of this, the plan is both coercive and discriminatory. Faced with the tremendous (and rising) costs of education and the possibility of receiving no federal aid, low-income students would have no choice but to join the army or sweep city streets if they want to afford a college education.

As proposed, the plan would pay less than minimum wage, so participants will not receive enough money during their year of service to fulfill many obligations. The plan would include people from 18 to 25 years of age, many of whom may be single parents, for instance, with no other income to support their families. Those older than 25 are excluded from the plan, and would have no way of receiving federal financial aid should they decide to go to college.

While the Nunn plan aims to promote civic-mindedness among all men and women, more affluent students will not be affected as financial aid is less of a concern. In a sense, as a result of class backround, one group can buy out of this community work requirement. This is a chilling reminder of draft practices in the 1960s and '70s, when most of those who actually served in Vietnam came from lower-income families.

On a more practical level, the Nunn plan seems to defeat its own purposes. Though it aims to give value to community work, it will in reality make community work less dignified. As lower income students are coerced into community service, they will perform with a detrimental resentment, much like the convict who receives a term of 90 hours of community work as penalty.

No doubt this resentment will have a harmful effect on the community: imagine someone participating in the big brother program not because he wants a little sibling, but because he needs the money. The Nunn plan will take the "volunteerness" out of community work, and the whole notion of "one thousand points of light" as the driving incentive becomes monetary. It would be a sad outcome if community work is associated only with those who have to work, those who are poor.

WHILE the many weaknesses of the Nunn plan lie in the implementation and application of a popular sentiment--giving something back to the community in return for one's financial aid--approval of the Nunn plan would represent a dramatic shift in the way we have viewed federal financial aid in the last 20 years.

Since the Civil Rights movement, financial aid has been granted based on need. Congress held the belief that no one should have limited access to higher education because of class. Under the Nunn plan, financial aid would be singularly granted to those who perform government-approved activities.

There are alternative ways to encourage students to give in return for what they get. The government can financially support the development of campus community service organizations, encourage universities to grant academic credit for carefully administered community work and forgive loans for those who go into community work with lower salaries after graduating from school.

In addition, work-study currently has many students cleaning bathrooms and performing other tasks for universities, even though the fund is supposed to go directly towards work for the community. Administrators should use the money as it was intended, by encouraging work-study recipients to perform work more related to the community outside of their college. In general, present federal aid programs are crucial to the low-income student and should be left intact, if not expanded.

The time is ripe for some form of public service initiative spearheaded by the federal government. I strongly believe that there is great enthusiasm for college public service nationwide. Let's not put a damper on this movement by placing a dollar value on community work, and making public service a condition for receiving financial aid.

Any form of financial assistance should not coerce but rather enable one to perform public service. One must not forget that this movement and this rise in volunteerism emanate from a free will to contribute to society, and each contribution, large or small, depends on the heart of the individual.

Commentary

The Crimson hopes to run a regular Commentary section, featuring columns from faculty members and representatives of student organizations. If you are interested in the submitting such a piece, please contact the Editorial Chair or send the proposed column to The Crimson.

Van L. Truong '89 is the former president of Phillips Brooks House and a Rockefeller Fellowship recipient.