The heated democratic primary race forces voters to redefine their moral values. To what extent does experience improve a leader's decision-making ability? Would a respectable president meet with America's global enemies? Should federal legislation require citizens to purchase health insurance? With Americans largely reengaged in the political process, one candidate's proposal ought to instigate an additional ethical quarrel. How would compulsory service impact higher education and life in the United States?
Although Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton propose financially similar student tuition credit programs, only the former binds compulsory service to his proposition. Recently, while delivering a victory speech in Madison, Wisconsin, Obama explained, "I'll make college affordable with an annual $4,000 tax credit if you're willing to do community service,or national service. We will invest in you, but we'll ask you to invest in your country." The junior Senator's populist logic might enchant militiamen in Zurich, but can his plan appeal to Congress or the American public? And, more importantly, will college students want to serve?
Mr. Obama's program -- soon to be dubbed "ObamaCorps" -- would essentially obligate economically disadvantaged students to serve America in return for $4,000 each year. His costly proposal, however, welcomes all non-graduated U.S. citizens who study full-time, not only the financially insecure. Therefore, relatively wealthy students could -- offsetting tuition costs -- effectively use ObamaCorps resources to finance the ultimate spring break. Countless undergraduates would spend the tuition credit not on education but on scuba diving in the Java Sea. Those less intrigued by tsunamis, volcanoes and spawning billfish might bank the $16,000 over the course of four years.
Senator Obama, even if not the most experienced candidate, recognizes the diverse financial motivations that would attract individuals to his program. While providing books and groceries for some students, particularly those enrolled in community colleges, ObamaCorps resources would subsidize Bornean voyages for others. Perhaps isolating the plan's financial surface, however, blinds one to the depths of Obama's intent. His astute machination may actually persuade even the most affluent undergraduates to serve -- in soup kitchens and on the battlefield -- for fear of underachievement.
Now that would be change to believe in.
For instance, what if professional schools and employers fancy ObamaCorps"endorsed applicants? Considering their cravings for socially conscious and empathetic students, medical, law and business schools would certainly give a nod to program alumni. Large corporations would follow suit. ObamaCorps would considerably raise the service expectations bar, rendering Tucker Fellowships less impressive than attendance in your sophomore summer 9L.
For unspecified reasons, Obama has not yet announced how many hours per week participants might serve. For the typical Dartmouth student, finding time would be tough. "We will definitely use our education to contribute to the future of America. Why should the U.S. government force students to serve?" one '08 female asked when I raised the issue of compulsory service. "Even Bosnia doesn't do that anymore...do they?" she continued. While ObamaCorps would not mandate military service, the program's philosophical foundation appears to disregard infamous American individualism.
"We will invest in you, and you will invest in America," Senator Obama asserts. Conceivably, ObamaCorps could integrate military or community service into the education of nearly all undergraduates. Would this reduce our propensity to engage in foreign conflicts? How might a generation sensitized to the needs of the poor change life in the United States and abroad? Indeed, unshackling his brainchild, the inspirational Obama has released a philosophical Medusa that, unfortunately, may swim countercurrent to core American values. Are we ready for pseudo-compulsory service?
