"The Coming Draft" by Philip Gold, 2006

Philip Gold's subheading to his book is "The Crisis in America and Why Selective Service Is Wrong for America." He obviously is a military supporter, he served himself. He obviously wants to see an increase in military enrollment and participation on the part of the American people. However, the crux of his work hinges on his absolute opposition, dare I say hatred, of the idea of conscription and the draft.

After laying out the history of the draft in the United States, as well as the history of the military itself, derived from the idea of citizen soldiers and the militia, Gold consistently espouses his support for the military while simultaneously supporting the notion of conscientious objection for all.

How does this literature connect to our discussion of service and the notion of universal service, whether it be through the military or otherwise? Mostly, the connection is made clear when Gold discusses the founding fathers of the U.S., their ideas derived from the Greeks and the Romans, and how the connection between citizenship and service is a founding principle of this country. And according to Gold, its maintenance and restoration is critically important, particularly right now.

Gold is not an optimist, at present, about the condition of the planet or the human population. He deems the future of the United States, the future of the world, and his outlook is not self-assured. The fears and challenges he invokes regarding the military and the new kind of international conflict, Wars of Ways as opposed to Wars of Ideology, require a new kind of participation, or at least reflection on an old form of participation.

Without getting too heavily into the military aspect, and whether or not our nation is equipped to defend itself in the 21st century, I would like to ponder Gold's suggestion that to become more fully human is the goal of the future, and that is what many of these conflicts may surround, human rights and welfare. The question of whether war is an appropriate solution for human rights and welfare issues is a separate issue.

Gold asserts that becoming more human, being fully human, is the goal behind citizenship. Citizenship in a free society is the path to full humanity, and what it means for an individual to fully live one's life. Gold references the founders of the U.S. and that to them, citizenship meant active participation in the public realm. And, more importantly, that it did not negate the value of individual relationships with family, school, community, church, work, but in fact citizenship stemmed out of those relationships. The founders acknowledged the importance of relationships in a person's life, for both the sake of their own, and the sake of the greater good. Because it was through strong personal relationships that a person feel compelled to step into the public realm and participate.

Participation in the public realm ensured, for the founders, that the common defense would be provided for. Ultimately, at the origins of this nation, the common defense was the most important, and unifying cause.

According to Gold, "Few dilemmas plagued the Founders more deeply than how to nurture and sustain civic virtue" (Gold, p. 178). One may look at the philosophical origins of citizenship in the U.S. and find similarities today. How to nurture and sustain civic virtue may not be at the top of our political leaders list; however, Gold makes the argument that without it, we are by default making the statement that we no longer value our common survival. If that is the case, then so be it, but it is unlikely, if posed as a question to any elected official or average Joe Citizen, the response would be to abandon our survival.

So what then? Gold asserts that what we, as a citizenry, as a people, are lacking are good enough reasons to serve. He does not place the obligation on the government to provide those reasons, though he does not oppose any attempts. He plants government in the legal realm and these necessary reasons for our survival in the moral realm. Thus, Gold places the responsibility on the people, to come up with good reasons to serve, whether it be militarily or generally. He then, however, places the responsibility on governement to make service happen.

This is where the idea of universal service opportunities connects to Gold. If we can identify our current reality, and identify what is lacking in terms of our present citizen participation, civic virtue, and service on behalf of our common defense, then we may be able to come up with reasons to serve. Maybe even "good reasons to serve." Service here defined as supporting or bolstering our common defense or our common good.

What are good reasons to fight? What are good reasons not to fight? What are good reasons to serve? What are good reasons not to serve? And how can we convert these reasons into opportunities? This, according to Gold, is where government steps in, turning good reasons into real opportunities.

Being true to Gold's arguments, these opportunities would not be administered through conscription.

Gold, P. (2006). The Coming Draft. New York: Ballantine Books.

“Pushing the Envelope on Youth Civic Engagement: A Developmental and Liberation Psychology Perspective”

Watts, R. J., & Flanagan, C. (2007, June 29). Pushing the envelope on youth civic engagement: A developmental and liberation psychology perspective. Journal of Community Psychology, 35(6), 779-792. Retrieved from EBSCO database. doi:10.1002/jcop.20178

Watts and Flanagan use liberation and developmental psychological theory to critique current literature and organizational models for solely promoting individual outcomes, and maintaining the status quo when it comes to engaging youth in civic participation. They are particularly critical of this form of youth civic engagement in relation to youth of color and marginalized youth.

Liberation and developmental psychological theory poses the idea of youth action and civic engagement on behalf of human rights and social justice as a model for engaging youth civically and building individual identity. They note that liberation psychology is a growing part of the psychological field, and has made its greatest strides in Latin America.

They state that there is an increasing body of empirical data that shows that the untapped resource of youth engagement in advancing social and political values. They also argue that by focusing less on individual youth development and more on collective issues and social justice, youth will advance on an individual basis in forming identity and a sense of well being and belonging.

They offer “a framework for empirical research on youth activism that emphasizes liberation.... There are four components: (1) World view and social analysis, of which critical consciousness is a central part, (2) Sense of Agency, which is empowerment and efficacy (self, collective, political), (3) Opportunity Structure, which takes into account the resources available to shape and permit action based on one’s analysis, and (4) Societal Involvement Behavior (SIB)” (Watts, 2007, pgs.784-785).

SIB is where the idea of service comes into play. This article promotes sociopolitical activism, but acknowledges community service and civic engagement as other options. They reference the idea of “adultism” a few times in the article, noting there is a lack of shared respect and power among adults and youth that would need to shift in order for these ideas to take root.

The statement, “A thoughtful interrogation of authority is essential to good citizenship,” summarizes this article (Watts, 2007, p.782).

The authors/researchers are posing extremely interesting questions of youth involvement and participation, as well as youth organizing, activism, and impacting real social change. They do a good job at introducing liberation psychology as a framework to “push the envelope” as their title alludes. The empirical data is lacking; however, I am intrigued by their framework and how it could contribute to our framework of youth service in terms of engaging youth as citizens.

Research Methods Described in “Does Service Affect Citizenship?” By James Perry and Michael Katula, 2001.

As Professor Rhodes suggested last week, I went back to revisit the Perry article to look at their research method, and identify how they found their empirical data in order to answer the question, “Is there a connection between service and citizenship?” (Perry, 2001, p.330)

Ultimately, the study focuses on 37 empirical studies related to service and citizenship, mostly involving youth and college-aged students. The research method involved in collecting and honing in on these 37 studies took almost one year, and began with a very broad search that continuously narrowed.

The research method involved several stages:
1. Created search terms. Initially they threw out a wide net. They searched for proper names of service related organizations like Americorp, Learn and Serve America, as well as faith-based, university-based, and community-based programs. They kept their search broad in order to capture as many related sources as possible. They kept a list of terms.

2. Databases used: Dissertation Abstracts International, ERIC (education), Education Abstracts, PAIS (public affairs), IPSA (International Political Science Abstracts), SocioFile (sociology), PsycINFO (psychology), and Philanthropic Studies Index (Perry, 2001, p.334).

3. Scrubbed databases. The search identified thousands of sources. From this point they began to focus their terms. They eliminated Education Abstracts and Philanthropic Studies for duplication and difficulty issues. They focused down further.

4. Bibliographic database used: ProCite. Here they incorporated there nine databases into one.

5. Identified key words. From thousands of sources, they scaled their search down specifically to citizenship and service empirical studies, 219 in total. They kept the source material from the lesser qualified studies for further research. Citations were reviewed to obtain the final 37.

Perry and Katula identify, review, and outline 37 studies on service and citizenship through the lenses of citizenship related cognitive understanding, citizenship attitudes, citizenship skills, institutional change, philanthropic and civic behaviors, and political behavior (Perry, 2001).

The authors are hesitant to draw conclusions based on few studies and small numbers; however they do summarize three points. “Service appears to influence favorably citizenship-related cognitive understand. . . . Service and volunteering appear to positively influence later giving and volunteering. . . . The type of service that produces the most consistent positive results is service learning” (Perry, 2001, pgs.359-360).

What I find most interesting is what Perry and Katula were unable to answer. The research appears to be practically negligible when it comes to looking at service in relation to citizenship and political behavior. As well, they note that that “the research sheds little light on the relationship between the attributes of service and citizenship outcomes” (Perry, 2001, p.361). They conclude more empirical research needs to be collected and studied on the characteristics of those who serve and the attributes of service (Perry, 2001).

I find the relationship between service and citizenship in relation to politics and the political process, to be an interesting idea to research further. I will incorporate that in my search terms as I scour these and other databases, I have found on my own through the UT Library system.

Interactive Timelines on the Web

While searching the internet for interactive timelines, it became apparent that if our National Service PRP wants to build a website with an interactive timeline, we are going to need technical help.

One idea is to approach the Computer Science department at UT, and see if we can work with a student who is working in Flash to see if we can team up to create an interactive timeline on national service.

Here are some interactive timelines we could look to as models:

Black History Timeline
http://www.biography.com/blackhistory/black-history-timeline.jsp

Hewlett Packard
http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/abouthp/histnfacts/timeline/

Corrections in Canada
http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/history/flash/index_e.html

National Constitution Center
http://www.constitutioncenter.org/timeline/flash/cw.html

Home Depot
http://corporate.homedepot.com/en_US/Corporate/common/Timeline/timeline.html

National Service Timeline Organized by Themes

working draft

Legislative/Presidential Initiatives
• 1917 Selective Service Act passed giving power to the President to draft men for military service
• 1940 Selective Training and Service Act passes authorizing the military draft
• 1944 G.I. Bill formed under FDR Administration to provide education assistance to veterans
• 1961 Peace Corp founded under Kennedy Administration
• 1964 Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA), Job Corps, Neighborhood Youth Corps, National Teacher Corp, and College Work Study Program founded under Johnson Administration
• 1965 Older Americans Act passed
• 1969 Retired Senior Volunteer Program authorized under Title VI of the Older Americans Act
• 1969 Committee on Volunteer Action formed under Nixon Administration recommending more local and private structures for national service
• 1973 Domestic Volunteer Service Act passed authorizing Foster Grandparent Program, the Retired Senior Volunteer Program, and the Senior Companion Program
• 1977 Young Adult Conservation Corps (YACC) established under Carter Administration
• 1990 National and Community Service Act signed by President Bush authorizing grants to schools, nonprofits, and youth corps
• 1992 National Civilian Community Corps established to deal with post-Cold War military resources
• 1993 National and Community Service Trust Act passes under Clinton Administration creating AmeriCorps and the Corporation for National and Community Service
• 1993 VISTA and National Civilian Community Corp merge with AmeriCorps
• 1993 Foster Grandparent Program, Retired and Senior Volunteer Program, and Senior Companion Program combine to form Senior Corps
• 1994 AmeriCorp's first class begins under Clinton Administration
• 1994 Corporation for National and Community Service begins operations
• 2002 USA Freedom Corps formed under G.W. Bush Administration
• 2007 Reauthorization of HR 2857 The "GIVE Act" in Congress
• 2007 The U.S. Public Service Academy proposed in Congress

Service Related Precedents
• 1736 First volunteer firefighting company founded by Benjamin Franklin
• 1910 American philosopher William James envisions non-military national service in his essay "The Moral Equivalent of War"
• 1917 Selective Service Act passed giving power to the President to draft men for military service
• 1961 Peace Corp founded under Kennedy Administration
• 1976 California Conservation Corps formed as first state level youth corps

Economic Crises/Domestic Unrest
• 1933-1942 Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) operates under FDR Administration
• 1935 Works Progress Administration (WPA) formed under FDR Administration
• 1964 Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA), Job Corps, Neighborhood Youth Corps, National Teacher Corp, and College Work Study Program founded under Johnson Administration
• 1966 Urban Corps founded

Volunteer Bureaus
• 1919 First Volunteer Bureau founded in Minneapolis, MN
• 1932 National Committee on Volunteers formed, begins to sponsor more Volunteer Bureaus
• 1939 Twenty-eight Volunteer Bureaus exist
• 1951 Eighty-one Volunteer Bureaus exist in U.S. and Canadian cities
• 1969 One hundred and fifty Volunteer Bureaus exist nationwide
• 1977 More than 300 Volunteer Centers exist in U.S.
• 1990's Five hundred and one Volunteer Centers exist in U.S.

Non Profit Service
• 1830's Religious groups lead community work through The Great Awakening
• 1881 American Red Cross founded
• 1887 First United Way founded
• 1903 Cooperative Education Movement founded at University of Cincinnati
• 1910 Rotary Club founded
• 1916 Kiwanis Club and Lions Club founded
• 1980's Increase in private and local control of volunteer centers and organizations
• 1989-1990 Points of Light Foundation,a nonprofit to promote volunteerism and Office of National Service in White House founded by George H.W. Bush Administration
• 1990 Teach for America founded by Wendy Kopp

Historical Overview Impacting Service
• 1914-1918 World War I
• 1929-1939 The Great Depression
• 1939-1945 World War II
• 1947-1991 Cold War
• 1955-1968 Civil Rights Movement
• 1959-1975 Vietnam War
• 1964 War on Poverty/The Great Society
• 1990-1991 Persian Gulf War
• 2001 September 11 attacks increase patriotism and impact volunteerism
• 2003-present Iraq War