Giving Back to Your Country

Afew months ago, Sen. Sam Nunn (D-Ga.) and Rep. Dave McCurdy (D-Ok.) introduced a bill that would establish a national program of voluntary service. The Citizenship and National Service Act of 1989, if enacted, would mobilize the nation's youth to help meet important national military and civilian needs, while at the same time promoting upward mobility through expansion of federal support for higher education, job training or housing for the program's volunteers.

In principle, the Nunn/McCurdy proposal has met with much support on Capitol Hill and across the country. Not since John F. Kennedy's 40 Inaugural Address and the institution of the Peace Corps have leaders actually asked young people to give something back to their country in return for the benefits they receive. The general consensus is that a program such as the Citizens Corps is necessary to motivate young people to become active again in public service and the political system.

The program, however, has met some criticism, particularly from students and higher education officials. One major criticism suggests that the proposed shift in student aid allocations runs counter to the ideals established by the Civil Rights movement, which allowed everyone to have an equal opportunity to afford college. Daniel Baer concludes in a Crimson editorial that "the Nunn bill would do more to upset equality of educational opportunity than anything since Plessy v. Ferguson.

Unfortunately, the flaws in this argument are manifold: the ideal of universal educational opportunity has never been achieved, and many gains during the 1970s were cut back by the Reagan administration. Since 1980, costs for public and private colleges have risen by 40 percent after inflation, while federal student aid has grown by only 3 percent. Moreover, the emphasis of student aid has shifted from grants to loans, which account for 66 percent of all aid, compared to 21 percent in 1976.

As a result of soaring costs and fear of indebtedness, a growing majority of lower- and middle-class young people are unable to afford college under the current system. The recent decline in Black and Hispanic enrollment demonstrates that the current student aid programs are not adequate to assure equal opportunity in education. And it seems very unlikely, with looming budget cuts and our political fear of tax hikes, that any new student aid programs are on the horizon.

THESE facts make the Nunn/McCurdy plan all the more compelling. A revolutionary program that can be accepted by a majority in Congress is needed to redress the problems with the current system. Participation in the Citizens Corps may be the only way in which some young people can afford higher education. Moreover, participating students will not have to find other sources of income or have lingering debts plaguing their future; the money they earn is up front and can pay for major portions of tuition costs at most colleges and universities. National service vouchers redress the regressive impact of current federal programs which allow only the most fortunate of low-income youth the opportunity to pursue their education.

A final criticism is that under the Nunn/McCurdy plan, rich students are excluded, thereby polarizing society's class structure. Mr. Baer asks "how can we as a democratic nation take seriously a policy that explicitly exempts the rich from requirements made of the citizenry?" This is a valid concern, something that the Citizens Corps does not address.

Unfortunately, there is no real mechanism that policy makers can devise to force the Dan Quayles of society to particpate. Any equivalent of a draft would not fly on Capitol Hill. While Nunn/McCurdy's "burden" might thus fall somewhat more on the unfortunate, it also provides them with opportunies they would not otherwise have--to earn themselves the college educations they are not provided by our present system.

THERE are, however, ways in which the government can help encourage student particpation across the social spectrum. Additionally, current initiatives on Capitol Hill, such as President Bush's YES program and a bill proposed by Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), offer financial support for part-time voluntary service programs. Moreover there are new private service programs evolving every day as a result of the renewed emphasis on public service. One example is Operation HOPE, a new nationwide student organized service project that will involve students on over 700 campuses. With more programs like these on the horizon, there will be endless opportunities for students of all classes to join in community service.

Those responsible for the Nunn/McCurdy legislation understand that the bill will undergo many amendments and alterations before it is finally voted upon, and they are more than willing to listen to student concerns and ideas. I would urge Mr. Baer and other critics not to dismiss the bill out of hand but rather to help shape it into its most positive form. The present bill is not perfect, but if we work together, we can make it more nearly so. The future of the country is at stake.

Jonathan Miller '89 is the Executive Director of College Democrats of America.