Slavery!

by hilzoy

Jonah Goldberg strikes again:

"There's a weird irony at work when Sen. Barack Obama, the black presidential candidate who will allegedly scrub the stain of racism from the nation, vows to run afoul of the constitutional amendment that abolished slavery.

For those who don't remember, the 13th Amendment says: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime ... shall exist within the United States."

I guess in Obama's mind it must be a crime to be born or to go to college.

In his speech on national service Wednesday at the University of Colorado, Obama promised that as president he would "set a goal for all American middle and high school students to perform 50 hours of service a year, and for all college students to perform 100 hours of service a year."

He would see that these goals are met by, among other things, attaching strings to federal education dollars. If you don't make the kids report for duty, he's essentially telling schools and college kids, you'll lose money you can't afford to lose. In short, he'll make service compulsory by merely compelling schools to make it compulsory."

Maybe in the schools Jonah Goldberg attended, they didn't require things like homework, or attendance, or reading, or math. It would explain a lot. (The idea that he wasn't asked to work his way through all those analogies in preparation for the SATs alone would probably explain most of the "arguments" in Liberal Fascism.)

For the rest of us, though, there have always been lots of compulsory things in schools. If this counts as slavery, children have been enslaved since compulsory schooling began.

I can't wait for Jonah Goldberg's sudden discovery that some children are told -- told!! -- to clean their rooms.

UPDATE: Obama's actual plan is here. END UPDATE

Comments

[gwangung]

I would suggest a google search of public interest scholarships and, at least, differentiate between the requirements of those programs and what you think is being proposed here.

[Carleton Wu]

If service is such a great thing, why force it on those that need scholarships? Why not just have a national service that EVERYONE is required to join. (Miltary and/or Americorp?)

It's terrible to have a compulsory program (or, so you've argued). Yet, it sure would be nice if the libs here were advocating one- so you'd have an argument to make against them!
So you ever-so-subtly *suggest* that it's so good it ought to be compulsory- who knows, maybe someone will agree with you and you can go back to condemning it.

Do you have an argument against voluntary programs? Other than "they're so good they ought to be compulsory, but that would make them repugnant so they ought not exist at all"?

[majun]

Both my children have had "community service" requirements in middle school and high school. The middle school requirement was for 40 hours over three years and the HS requirement was 60 hours over four years. My son graduated without any problem, having volunteered at the zoo for a couple of summers. My daughter is going into her junior year and will have to pick up the pace a bit, but shouldn't have too much trouble making her 60 hours. The overly broad definition that they give to "community service" is such that nobody I know has a problem with it. It is already common in many public schools and mandating such service at the federal level is probably as good an idea as any of the candidates have had this campaign season.

[Eric Martin]

Jerry,

Let me try it this way:

If offering students a break on tuition through work study programs is such a great thing, why force it on those that need money for school? Why not just have a university work program that EVERYONE is required to join.

[Nell]

It's been awhile since I attained a scholarship, but in general, there were NO strings attached.

In addition to Eric's examples, there's also the precedent of the medical school aid that obligates those who accept it to practice for a certain number of years in underserved areas. I'd have thought Northern Exposure would have made that a fairly well-known case of scholarships with strings.

[jerry]

And why wouldn't continued service in the band or on the basketball team be deemed less onerous than community service?

Because it's not compulsory? Because you can quit the team? Because athletic scholarships often come with other perks including special housing, special meals, and other special programs?

Regarding military scholarships, I believe there is a point in time at which the student can drop ROTC, no harm no foul (or there used to be.) Beyond that while military service is compelled, it is at Officer grade, and is considered an elite career.

But in all these cases, if you don't see that these activities are a) on behalf of the student's immediate best interest and not just some vague society goal, and b) that these are specialized very restricted scholarships that are not the norm and are not being forced on people due to financial circumstances. Even in the case of ROTC, et. al., the fallback is to obtain a non military, no compulsory service scholarship. Whereas in the Hilzoy plan, the base level for everyone is compulsory service.

[Jay_B]

If service is such a great thing, why force it on those that need scholarships? Why not just have a national service that EVERYONE is required to join. (Miltary and/or Americorp?)

Put yourself in this position. Imagine making a nonsensical First Amendment argument against service in a thread that's already dedicated to mocking the notion that a federal service program is in violation of the 13th Amendment outlawing slavery -- then, after post upon post is put forth arguing that this anodyne proposal is neither an infringement on speech nor forced servitude -- coming out and saying "well, what's wrong with forced servitude?"

[jerry]

Why not just have a university work program that EVERYONE is required to join.

Why not just have a year of national service?

To Nell, there's a difference between doctoring in your chosen specialty up in the wilds of Alaska and being told you need to find 100 hours of service where you provide your time and energy and resources to groups that have no relationship to you or what you want to be doing.

Look, why 100 hours? What's wrong with making it 1000 hours? Or 2000 hours? Why force only students who can afford no alternative into this? Why not make this a condition all students must meet? Why not make it a requirement to obtain the vote for any citizen?

[BushYouth]

Most high schools in my area require community service to graduate. Some libertarian shithead equated it with slavery here:
http://tinyurl.com/5vezdh
And someone refuted it here:
http://tinyurl.com/5b957t

Jonah's sooooo current. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Eric Martin]

Because it's not compulsory? Because you can quit the team?

And still keep your scholarship? Not in many cases.

Regarding military scholarships, I believe there is a point in time at which the student can drop ROTC, no harm no foul (or there used to be.)

There are many other breaks that are attached to military service that do not involve ROTC.

Beyond that while military service is compelled, it is at Officer grade, and is considered an elite career.

And community service is considered very noble work.

on behalf of the student's immediate best interest and not just some vague society goal

That is a subjective judgment that is far less conclusory that you would suggest. There is definite immediate value in community service. And playing a sport for an NCAA team may actually greatly hurt a student in that it takes a student away from studies, puts pressure on their bodies and can lead to serious debilitating injury.

The benefit to the university, however, is much easier to see.

that these are specialized very restricted scholarships that are not the norm and are not being forced on people due to financial circumstances

No forcing. That's just not here. Also: what are the very generalized, unrestricted scholarships? And why didn't I get any of those ;(

[jerry]

Jay_B, while I realize you just stepped down from the Supreme Court and I have not, though you have posted mightily here, I may not agree with your personal conclusion that the first amendment aspects are trivial, and of no concern to progressive liberals. Some of us progressive liberals feel very strongly about our civil rights and have joined organizations dedicated to protecting all of them, not just the ones some group of commenters in a blog agree are good ones to protect.

And a year of national service is not forced servitude any more than 100 hours is. In fact, it's presumably less, since you are paid for national service and not paid for those 100 hours.

So I don't know how you can claim that a national service proposal for all is servitude but forcing poor kids to give 100 hours free for their scholarships is not.

[Carleton Wu]

Because it's not compulsory? Because you can quit the team? Because athletic scholarships often come with other perks including special housing, special meals, and other special programs?

Are you saying that special meals would make it Ok?

Beyond that while military service is compelled, it is at Officer grade, and is considered an elite career.

Thus falling under the "elite career" exception to the first amendment.

are not being forced on people due to financial circumstances

Do you think of jobs as being forced on people due to financial circumstances? It's a pretty weird worldview, but hey- dance with them's what brang ya.

Look, why 100 hours? What's wrong with making it 1000 hours? Or 2000 hours? Why force only students who can afford no alternative into this? Why not make this a condition all students must meet? Why not make it a requirement to obtain the vote for any citizen?

Can you, please, present arguments against the actual points in contention? Do you have to invent fantastical scenarios? Why not eternal slavery to public service!

This is like arguing against the death penalty by saying "why not just execute jaywalkers!"

[Eric Martin]

Just to clarify: I know people that got breaks on their tuition by signing a promise to serve in the Reserves post-graduation.

There is no wiggle room or period that they can say, no thanks.

[hilzoy]

"Whereas in the Hilzoy plan, the base level for everyone is compulsory service."

No. In the Obama plan, which is what I thought we were talking about, there are: (a) a plan for college students, which you have to take if you want a certain type of financial assistance, but otherwise not; (b) "public-private partnerships" to expand opportunities for service (no hint of compulsory anything); (c) a requirement that middle and high schools "develop service programs", which might or might not be compulsory, and which there's no reason to think wouldn't be flexible enough to deal with students who for one reason or another can't do it, if they were compulsory.

My point in the post was: even if these programs were mandatory for middle and high school students -- which I see no evidence is true, though it might be -- it would not be "slavery", any more than being "forced" to do your homework, or to pass math.

Honestly: you'd think some people were unclear on the difference between a "goal" -- as in "I will set a goal for all American middle and high school students to perform 50 hours of service a year" -- and a requirement. Also, between asking schools to start a program and asking them to start a mandatory program.

We can all speculate about how the details of Obama's plan might be filled in. But before I started writing op-eds in the LATimes about how it's just like slavery, I'd want a bit more evidence than my own fevered imagination.

[Carleton Wu]

I may not agree with your personal conclusion that the first amendment aspects are trivial...

It's also the personal conclusion of the American judicial system, afaict. Got any cites to the contrary?

[college prof]

Um, we do this already, though on a much smaller scale and not for service organizations. It's called a "work-study award." I had one in college and I remember hearing that I was free to decline it, but, well, I needed the money.

I think it would be better for college students to work for service organizations than as baristas, waiters, telemarketers, etc., to fund their educations.

If you think about this in a deeper historical context, it bears some resemblance to Depression era works projects. I don't think anyone made involuntary servitude claims about those programs.

[Eric Martin]

So I don't know how you can claim that a national service proposal for all is servitude but forcing poor kids to give 100 hours free for their scholarships is not.

This is an argument that reduces the entire economic system to absurdity. Poor kids are not forced to do anything for their scholarship.

Just as poor kids aren't forced to play sports or join the military.

But are you really arguing that because poor kids might find greater incentive to performs certain tasks to receive the financial benefit, we shouldn't offer those benefits?

That's taking the argument awfully far. Which it seems you need to do quite frequently.

[hairshirthedonist]

Aren't we talking about an optional way of getting some financial assistance for college?

jerry: Why force only students who can afford no alternative into this?

No one is forcing anyone into anything. If such a program didn't exist at all, you'd have nothing to object to, and it would be the same situation for "students who can afford no alternative" as simply refusing the option. Giving someone a potentially benefitial option that the don't now have isn't forcing anyone into anything.

And your "why not make them do horrible thing X?" argument is just plain silly.

[jerry]

So sadly for myself, I was never given the acquaintance with atheletic scholarships *I* feel I should have been.

Because it's not compulsory? Because you can quit the team?

And still keep your scholarship? Not in many cases.

I have no idea what happens, but my guess is you don't get a scholarship next year, but if you quit for a variety of reasons mid-season, what you currently have isn't taken away. Now that's my conjecture and no more than that. And I will happily concede I could very well be wrong about that. But a compulsory service is not going to be easy to get out of, regardless of any problem you have in your personal life, from trying to make your grades, to death in a family, to illnesses, to any of these various factors that might lead someone to drop off the team or need to drop out of the service program.

The thing has giant bureaucracy with faceless minions and zero tolerance policies written all over it.

I would prefer my kids, when in school:
a) study
b) relax so that they can a) study

If part of b) is that they voluntarily undertake service work, good on them. But I want their time in school spent on their needs first and time for extracurriculars, whatever they may be, able to be shitcanned for the good of their studies.

Usually us liberal progressives are not fond of regressive taxes, but what else is a compulsory service attached to a scholarship but a highly regressive tax that the rich kids won't be paying?

[jerry]

which might or might not be compulsory, and which there's no reason to think wouldn't be flexible enough to deal with students who for one reason or another can't do it, if they were compulsory.

I think there's plenty of reason in today's zero tolerance high schools to believe these programs would not be flexible enough.

Carleton, I cited one up above. Boston St. Patrick's Day Parade.

[KCinDC]

Look, why 100 hours? What's wrong with making it 1000 hours? Or 2000 hours?

Indeed, and why 12 years of public school? Why not 50? Or 100?

Why a 25% tax bracket? Why not 75%? Or 150%?

Why a 4-year presidential term? Why not 25? Or 50?

Clearly all laws, regulations, and constitutional provisions that involve numbers should be abolished, except perhaps if those numbers are universal constants.

[gwangung]

Usually us liberal progressives are not fond of regressive taxes, but what else is a compulsory service attached to a scholarship but a highly regressive tax that the rich kids won't be paying?

Commonplace.

I urge you to do some additional research.

[Gary Farber]

"According to Goldberg, Obama would mandate that schools -- middle schools, high schools, and colleges -- impose a community service requirement on their attendees in exchange for federal dollars."

Yes, according to Goldberg. Of course, as anyone who can read can see, that's not true. News. Plan.

Show me the part where it's mandatory that any students engage in service, Von. What are you talking about? Cite?

His proposal was laid out in basic form in December. Show me the mandatory for students to participate part, please.

"What if a student refuses or fails to do the service -- will he or she get expelled?"

No.

"What about students working their way through college (and, nontraditional students, e.g., parents with kids); will they have to take on the added burden of 100 hours of community service a year?"

No. Why are you making this stuff up, and why can't you be bothered to answer your own questions; this took me two minutes to find and link too. Why can't you bother to do this, yourself, first, before making up straw men?

[jerry]

There are lots of people, liberal as well as conservative, that do argue for national service programs. You can stamp your feet up and down, but you can't change teh googlable facts: http://www.google.com/search?q=national+service+program and http://www.google.com/search?q=national+service+program+debate

At least a national service program would be fair and not regressive.

[hairshirthedonist]

Clearly all laws, regulations, and constitutional provisions that involve numbers should be abolished, except perhaps if those numbers are universal constants.

That's it! e to the power pi hours of community service! I just hope they don't try to get anyone to do i hours of community service. You might have to enter another dimension.

[Eric Martin]

Usually us liberal progressives are not fond of regressive taxes, but what else is a compulsory service attached to a scholarship but a highly regressive tax that the rich kids won't be paying?

But the poor kids that would have access to this new scholarship will be better off than without.

100 hours of community service isn't much for $4000. As someone mentioned above, that's $40 an hour. That's more than many good professional jobs pay!

I don't know how well off you were in college, but I would have been dancing in the streets at such an offer. I would have been begging to be whipped with this cruel regressive tax thing that wasn't really a tax but a scholarship!

And Jerry, if you're so poor that you will feel compelled to do the 100 hours to get the $4000 scholarship, you were already working a job that was interfering with your ability to:

a) study
b) relax so that they can a) study

For less than $40 an hour.

You act as if the perpetrators this mean scholarship idea came along to punish poor people who were otherwise all set with college tuition and the like.

It was all paid for until these scholarship folks came along and offered, gasp, money for a little community service! Irresistible money that they need but already had or something...

Nooooo1!!!!11!!!!!!!!!!!

[Turbulence]

I think there's plenty of reason in today's zero tolerance high schools to believe these programs would not be flexible enough.

Note that many school districts around the country already have mandatory service programs. It is not some radically new idea that no one has ever tried before. If you can point to actual cases of students getting screwed by the inflexibility of these systems, or better yet, enough cases to constitute a pattern, that might mean something. But endlessly speculating on potential problems that might exist while working very hard to ignore the fact that many students have already passed through these programs doesn't strike me as very useful.

For the record, I took a service learning class in high school. If I hadn't taken that class, I would have had to have taken another class to provide an equivalent number of credits. If something went wrong in my life and I couldn't finish the class, I would have been in exactly the same place as if I couldn't finish my math class or physics class. I would have had to cut a deal and work something out. FWIW, my experience was that the class was very flexible: when my car died and I was unable to get to my normal place of service, the staff helped me find something that was walking distance until I could get transportation issues sorted out.

Of course, real world experience is probably less useful than uninformed speculation.

[hilzoy]

"Indeed, and why 12 years of public school? Why not 50? Or 100?"

-- Maybe a thousand! [/mccain]

[Jay_B]

I may not agree with your personal conclusion that the first amendment aspects are trivial, and of no concern to progressive liberals.

OK.

Some of us progressive liberals feel very strongly about our civil rights and have joined organizations dedicated to protecting all of them, not just the ones some group of commenters in a blog agree are good ones to protect.

Not OK. You are making a specious argument and, simultaneously, breaking your arm to pat yourself on the back. If you show me any kind of threat to First Amendment for having high school kids volunteer, I'll listen. But all you keep coming up with are absurd analogies which don't exactly reflect the courage you think you possess.

And a year of national service is not forced servitude any more than 100 hours is. In fact, it's presumably less, since you are paid for national service and not paid for those 100 hours.

Um...you are paid in the form of a tax credit -- $4,000 in fact. Which is just $800 less than I made as a VISTA volunteer in for the entire year of 1990.

So I don't know how you can claim that a national service proposal for all is servitude but forcing poor kids to give 100 hours free for their scholarships is not.

What? You are just pulling things out of your heroically Constitutional, utterly brave ass on this. "Force" is a key word here, and one you are ridiculously misuing. A "national program for all" based on the notion of mandated service would probably run afoul of the Constitution, giving everyone a chance to cut college costs via volunteer service is an attractive offer -- and DOES NOT constitute "forcing poor kids" to do anything.

[KCinDC]

I still remember the outrageous infringement of my First Amendment rights I experienced in college when in the work-study program I was forced to report to the library at 8am and help with updating the card catalog. I should have called the ACLU.

[cleek]

Maybe a thousand! [/mccain]

I never said "a thousand" ! [/mccain]

[bartkid]

>Are there any conservative political writers who are worth reading?

No. This has been another edition of easy answers to rhetorical questions.

[hairshirthedonist]

If something went wrong in my life and I couldn't finish the class, I would have been in exactly the same place as if I couldn't finish my math class or physics class. I would have had to cut a deal and work something out.

That's all well and good, but wouldn't it be better if someone came up with a Perfect World Plan so we wouldn't have to worry about such things. Short of that, we probably shouldn't do anything. Too risky.

[Gary Hussein Farber]

"Again, not the issue. The issue is whether community service should be a mandate of the Federal Government."

Von, if you're not just making this up out of whole cloth, please give a cite to where Obama has called for this. Thanks.

"Is that all you have? Do you want to talk substance now?"

Indeed: please cite a substantive source for your imaginative fantasies and reasons for questions about Obama's proposals. A cite from, you know, Obama. Thanks!

"Where does Obama state that schools have to create programs but don't have to require students to participate in them?"

WHERE DOES HE STATE THAT STUDENTS ARE REQUIRED TO PARTICIPATE IN ANY PROGRAMS?

You're just making this up out of whole cloth.

Can I equally ask where John McCain has stated that he doesn't want all Democrats to be mandated to dig three tons of coal with their hands every year?; how about if I ask where you've stated that you don't believe that the moon is made of green cheese? Since when is making stuff up and demanding that people give cites to their denials of what you've made up a legitimate approach to discussion?

[jerry]

Gary,

As I think Von said and I said, the arguments here are based on the theory that both Goldberg and Hilzoy are correct that this program has compulsory aspects. And I think both of us said that the reporting here is probably wrong. And Hilzoy acknowledges much of the filling in of this plan is speculation.

If you want to rail about Goldberg getting the facts and the plan wrong, that's a good comment to make, but it is somewhat different than an argument that says "Assuming that both Goldberg and Hilzoy are correct that there are compulsory elements to this, this is why compulsory elements are wrong."

Your upset over people not finding out what you were able to find out within two minutes should also be directed at Hilzoy.

My particular argument here is that progressive liberals who claim to defend the first amendment and want education for all should not be too happy with Hilzoy's agreement that a compulsory service plan is a good thing,

[hilzoy]

"Hilzoy's agreement that a compulsory service plan is a good thing,"

jerry: will you please point out where, exactly, I said that? Or, alternately, stop putting words in my mouth?

[Brian]

First, I think that public service is not unreasonable as a part of education. My counterexample would be making funding contingent on teaching math and english- is that so unreasonable?
Second, I would object to the loyalty oath on it's own merits, regardless of the enforcement mechanism. I would object to it as an innovation of my local school board.

The difference is that math and English don't have [or aren't supposed to have] an ideological component.

If anything and everything a kid decides to offer up as his community service is going to be accepted under the plan, then I wouldn't have a problem with it. If kids can put down that they posted on libertarian blogs for 40 hours and that's their community service, awesome. But if they can't - if the high school is going to be making distinctions based on what the school administration thinks is and is not "community service", then it's absolutely analogous to the loyalty oath, and not to teaching math and science. Any distinction by the school board as to what does, and what does not, constitute "community service" will ultimately be either moral or ideological [and I would hold that to be a distinction without a difference anyway] and withholding a government benefit [a high school diploma] on such a basis would, in my view, violate the students' First Amendment rights.

Think of it this way: if a school has a social studies class that teaches about citizenship, and requires you to pass a test to prove that you know the material in that class, that would not violate anyone's First Amendment rights. But if a school didn't just test about "citizenship", but required some overtly political act - say, volunteering to work a voter registration table in the town park, or collecting ballot petition signatures - and if you refused to do any of the choices you were failed in the class, that to me would violate the First Amendment, because it would be compelling a political statement in order to obtain a government benefit.

And ultimately if any bounds whatsoever are set on the definition of community service, we have a situation analogous to that.

As people note above, programs of this kind already exist and apparently no one has been sued yet. But I think we will see lawsuits in due time. If there can be lawsuits over whether kids can hand out candy to other kids in school, there will be lawsuits over this eventually.

[hairshirthedonist]

Compulsory elements? Like oxygen, nitrogen and carbon?

[jerry]

Well, my lunch hour is over.... So enjoy.

Eric, in college, I earned $15 an hour at an internship as an engineer. While I was called an intern, my basic job requirements were the same as an entry level engineer. Upon graduating, I joined that company, and based on my internship, they gave me one of the higher starting salaries of my class.

Yes, working that job (or any job) caused my grades to suffer, but I was working a job that I felt directly contributed to my degree and career through the technical skills and the various networks formed.

Is $20 < $40 per hour? Yes, but there were other benefits. As well as opportunity costs. The scholarship seems to top out at $4,000 but working as an intern throughout the school year earned me about double or triple that as I recall, and yes, taking the 100 hours out of the internship may have made the internship a no go with the company.

But again, if this is a voluntary thing with lots of flexibility, that's one thing and good on anyone that takes advantage of it, or makes it possible.

If this turns into the compulsory plan that Hilzoy seems to believe is justified that's entirely different.

I am not as sanguine as Hilzoy that "goals" do not become "requirements", especially amongst the zero tolerance middle school/high school bureaucrats.

Back to the mineshaft.

[jerry]

Okay, first I'll close my italic. Sorry.

[Brian]

Whoa, sorry about the tag failure, folks.

My bad.

[hilzoy]

deitaliacto!

[Phil]

If there really was a Godwin's Law, it would say that attempts at speech and thought policing mean you lose the argument.

But there really is a Godwin's Law, and that's not what it says.

?????

Am I the only person who can make neither heads nor tails of this?

Usually us liberal progressives are not fond of regressive taxes, but what else is a compulsory service attached to a scholarship but a highly regressive tax that the rich kids won't be paying?

If there's one thing I know about rich people, it's that they get and stay rich in part by not spending their own money. If rich kids can save themselves $4,000 in college costs by volunteering for 100 hours of community service, not only will they jump at the chance, their families will very nearly insist on it.

[Gary Hussein Farber]

"So schools are going to be required to to create a program that but, once creating the program, don't need to have anyone participate in it?"

Yes.

"Isn't that the worst of all worlds?"

No.

This differs from the Bush-run Americorps, or the Peace Corps, or allowing military recruiters in schools, or the Girl Scouts, or Boy Scouts, or a million other volunteer programs, in what significant way? The only difference is that it mandates that schools make such programs available to kids to voluntarily join or not join, if the schools want certain tax credits/funds.

What's the problem here? No actual student is forced to do anything, contrary to the repeated non-fact-based, non-fact-checked, statements made in this thread.

This is ginned-up hysteria based on straight lies. Nice technique to, at best, fall for.

[jerry]

Maybe in the schools Jonah Goldberg attended, they didn't require things like homework, or attendance, or reading, or math. It would explain a lot. (The idea that he wasn't asked to work his way through all those analogies in preparation for the SATs alone would probably explain most of the "arguments" in Liberal Fascism.)

For the rest of us, though, there have always been lots of compulsory things in schools. If this counts as slavery, children have been enslaved since compulsory schooling began.

You seem to believe Hilzoy, that a little compulsory forcing is a good thing that people should not be upset with.

(And at this point, I apologize, I seem to have no idea how to fix the tags.)

[cleek]

My particular argument here is that progressive liberals who claim to defend the first amendment and want education for all should not be too happy with Hilzoy's agreement that a compulsory service plan is a good thing,

WTF ?

the college student part isn't compulsory, so that can't be what you're worried about.

so it must be the high school and middle school part...? but high school and middle school are already compulsory, with many compulsory components within (you must take phys ed, so many credits of math, English, foreign language, etc.). all of those have administrators (we call them teachers), who have bosses (principals), who report to other people (school systems, school board).

how would a community service requirement different from any other school requirement?

[Phil]

The difference is that math and English don't have [or aren't supposed to have] an ideological component.

Um, clearly you haven't been paying attention to high school English classes for the last 60 years or so.

[Jonah the Whale]

But, but, but

ISLAMO-FASCISM!!!

ISLAMO-FASCISM!!!

[Davebo]

Well, I've read teh 120 plus comments on this thread and I'll I've gained from it was a better understanding of the meaning of Steely Dans album title Pretzel Logic.

[Jay_B]

My particular argument here is that progressive liberals who claim to defend the first amendment and want education for all should not be too happy with Hilzoy's agreement that a compulsory service plan is a good thing

?????

I give up.

1. Education is compulsory
2. Compulsory public education isn't JUST to educate the individual, it also serves to benefit society as a whole
3. The State already sets curriculum guidelines and mandates for public education
4. High schools across the country already have compulsory community service plans as part of their curriculum
5. Community service benefits society as a whole
6. Community service can be a learning tool just as much as "history" or "art" or "calculus" can be
7. The collegiate portion of this plan is incentive-driven and not part of already-compulsory high school

[John]

We had to do 40 hours of service to graduate high school. I hadn't realized that this constituted slavery. Also: are people completely insane? Unless you want to attack the constitutionality of selective service, which I assume no Republicans want to do, it is very difficult to explain how mandatory service would be any more unconstitutional than the draft.

[John Thullen]

You know what I hate:

I hate being forced by society to have a job so that I can buy groceries, gas, and medical care.

I love though how it's framed as my choice.

"Hey, no one's forcing you to work. No one's forcing you to pick cotton. No one's forcing you to stay on the plantation. Go ahead, run. No one's forcing you to force us to hunt you down with dogs and hang your slave butt."

I'm put-upon, and a slave to boot.

Thing is, I can't even identify what level of society this mandate originates from.

It comes from all directions. The bottom, local part of society seems just as convinced of it as the top, Federal part.

Americans hate being a slave by Federal mandate. They love being slaves via private mandate.

A slave is a slave.

Now get back to work!

[Carleton Wu]

what else is a compulsory service attached to a scholarship but a highly regressive tax that the rich kids won't be paying

Except for the part where, instead of taking money away, the government will be handing money (or credits) out.
Ice cream trucks are like tanks, except they hand out ice cream instead of bullets. An important and tasty distinction.

Carleton, I cited one up above. Boston St. Patrick's Day Parade.

And I pointed out that allowing one group to exclude another has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with compulsory service. In no way, shape, or form.
Forcing a group to allow a openly homosexual minority- carrying signs about that homosexuality- to join another group obviously implicates the first amendment.

But it doesn't have anything to do with your argument.

"Assuming that both Goldberg and Hilzoy are correct that there are compulsory elements to this, this is why compulsory elements are wrong."

That was all well and good until von decided to use the lack of a clarification by Obama about these assumptions to suggest that the middle school programs would be mandatory.
Other than that, it's not a bizarre argument to make, just speculative.

You seem to believe Hilzoy, that a little compulsory forcing is a good thing that people should not be upset with.

You seem to believe, jerry, that there should be no compulsory aspects to education. Which is a fine libertarian position to take (fwiw, Id like to get rid of public schools but that's a whole nother discussion). But certainly not a mainstream one.

[Davebo]

And one final comment to Von et all.

Do you favor repealing the Solomon amendment? (no federal funding for universities that don't allow ROTC programs)

[Gary Farber]

"As I think Von said and I said, the arguments here are based on the theory that both Goldberg and Hilzoy are correct that this program has compulsory aspects."

And yet "compulsory aspects" is a glossing phrase with no meaningfully clear content, and, further, Hilzoy wrote no such thing.

"My particular argument here is that progressive liberals who claim to defend the first amendment and want education for all should not be too happy with Hilzoy's agreement that a compulsory service plan is a good thing,"

Insofar as I can parse this into English, I'll note again that Hilzoy has said no such thing, and that if there's some "first amendment aspect" to Obama's proposals, you've yet to point out what that might be.

"But again, if this is a voluntary thing with lots of flexibility, that's one thing and good on anyone that takes advantage of it, or makes it possible."

Yeah, that's where the facts started. Lotta wasted time on everyone's part, either telling lies, falling for lies, not fact-checking lies, and others having to spend time refuting lies, in the meantime, to get back to where the facts started.

And in five minutes, someone will probably come along, and write "I haven't had time to read all the comments, but this mandating students do compulsory service is just terrible!"

Hilzoy, might you possibly consider adding a link in your post to Obama's actual words and proposal, to try to forestall this discussion repeating? If so, thanks!

[Michelle]

I'm not a conservative, but I appreciate P.J. O'Rourke immensely. Not only is he a brilliant writer, he is also not obnoxiously married to his ideology at all costs (like, say, Christopher Hitchens, another "intellectual" conservative). I am a total 180 degrees around from him on views such as taxation and the Iraq mess, but I appreciate that O'Rourke can be self-effacing and self-critical of the conservative movement, and even have a sense of humor about some of its foibles. That's a refreshing contrast to the self-important blowhards who are so excruciatingly sensitive when held to criticism that you just wanna call the waaaahmmbulance on them.

[hilzoy]

"You seem to believe Hilzoy, that a little compulsory forcing is a good thing that people should not be upset with."

No: I believe that compulsory things in high school, whether good or bad, are not slavery.

There is a difference.

[Hogan]

Do you think of jobs as being forced on people due to financial circumstances?

Good Lord, yes.

[jim]

There's an important difference encouraging, and requiring. If Obama's plan is encouraging this goal with rewards rather than requiring this goals with compulsion, then of course there's absolutely no problem with it.

And it's absurd to imagine that Obama is actually suggesting some sort of civilian draft going down to middle-school kids.

[Kathryn]

My daughter's Catholic High School requires 25 service hours per year in order to graduate. Most Catholic schools have some sort of service requirement. I find it interesting most conservatives (see the Rush Limbaugh profile in the NYT Magazine) support vouchers for religious schools that often have these requirements.

I guess the short version of this post should be "Rush Limbaugh supports slavery."

[Gary Farber]

"You seem to believe Hilzoy, that a little compulsory forcing is a good thing that people should not be upset with."

I'd suggest that quoting people's words is a good technique for presenting what people "seem to believe," and that making up your own version and attributing it to them is not at all as good a technique.

I suggest that you wouldn't enjoy other people applying that technique to what you "seem to believe."

"(And at this point, I apologize, I seem to have no idea how to fix the tags.)"

By closing the tag. In HTML. Try here if you're unaware of how to close a simple tag.

[Gary Hussein Farber]

"Unless you want to attack the constitutionality of selective service, which I assume no Republicans want to do, it is very difficult to explain how mandatory service would be any more unconstitutional than the draft."

WTF does "mandatory service" have to do with Obama's proposal?

[Brian CB]

I got a kid going to private college this fall. She qualifies for Federal work-study, which pays like, 8.10 an hour. Before taxes. She can only work 300 hours a year. So, 4000/100 looks like a better deal, even if you have to wait to use the credits. I assume they don't expire for 10 years or so.

Give me some of that slavery.

[Hogan]

So, to sum up, Obama's proposal violates the Thirteenth Amendment rights of middle schools.

There's an important difference encouraging, and requiring.

I think that's the central point here: whether there is such a difference. It's a standard line of, shall we say, anti-liberal* argument that goals = quotas = mandates, so that any time the federal government expresses a positive desire and offers incentives for, say, more public service, we're on the slippery cliff that leads straight to the gulag.

* since "conservative" seems to have become a dehumanizing, delegitimizing smear.

[KCinDC]

Brian, since the plan says the credit is "fully refundable", presumably you don't wait to use it. You get a refund on your income tax if you don't owe $4,000 (which most college students won't).

[Gary Farber]

"Not only is he a brilliant writer, he is also not obnoxiously married to his ideology at all costs (like, say, Christopher Hitchens, another 'intellectual' conservative)."

1) I can't tell if your intent is to assert that Hitchen is "like" O'Rourke in "not [being] obnoxiously married to his ideology at all costs," or if your intent is to assert that Hitchens is, as an alternative to O'Rourke, "not obnoxiously married to his ideology at all costs."

2) Hitchens is a conservative? Do you have a cite to either a metric by which we can establish this, or to a self-declaration by him? Because this is news to me, at least. Since when?

[Ugh]

I don't think that the idea that the "goal" will somehow morph into a "mandate" is too far fetched. If he's conditioning federal funds on schools "developing service programs", presumably there has to be some sort of mechanism to ensure that the school have, in fact, developed such programs. It's not too much of a stretch to think that one of the ways of testing that is to ask "how many hours of community service did the average student at your school perform last year?"

How do schools get that number up? By making service mandatory.

[KCinDC]

Gary, I was a little surprised to see Hitchens described as a conservative as well, but plenty of people, mainly on the right, have been using position on the Iraq war (or sometimes support for Bush) as the only metric for determining who's conservative or liberal for some years now.

[Nombrilisme Vide]

Dear Chris Matthews,

I believe you owe your viewers an explanation as exactly what you meant by equating 'white folks' with 'regular folks'.

Would you care to enlighten us? With particular attention to explaining exactly what makes non-white folks so non-regular?

No long-standing cultural tradition of eating bran? Reduced economic access to prunes?

[Hogan]

I don't think that the idea that the "goal" will somehow morph into a "mandate" is too far fetched.

Sure. What I'm questioning is the jump from "not too far fetched" to "inevitable."
It's a good idea to use the "worst possible implementation" scenario as part of assessing any policy proposal, but only a part.

[Gary Farber]

"...but plenty of people, mainly on the right, have been using position on the Iraq war (or sometimes support for Bush) as the only metric for determining who's conservative or liberal for some years now."

Yes, people make all sorts of unjustified and false assumptions about all sorts of things.

I tend to question that sort of thing.

The idea that Hitchens is a conservative, of any sort, couldn't possibly be held by anyone with more than the faintest bit of knowledge of him.

On service programs: "It's not too much of a stretch to think that one of the ways of testing that is to ask" do you have such a program?

Problem solved!

[Tony Dismukes]

It seems like the word "service" is confusing for some folks. Perhaps it would be clearer if we used another term which is just as accurate: job.

Obama is proposing that college students be offered a part time job lasting 100 hours and paying $40/hour. Of course, students wouldn't have to accept such a job, but it sounds like a much better deal than the work-study job I had during college.

Now, I have on rare occasions encountered folks who expressed the opinion that having to work at a job for a paycheck is equivalent to slavery, but they usually aren't claiming to represent a conservative viewpoint. (Usually they aren't talking about $40/hour jobs either.)

[Gary Hussein Farber]

"Obama is proposing that college students be offered a part time job lasting 100 hours and paying $40/hour."

Wow. I'd like that kind of job. Do you have a cite on this proposal?

Update: "UPDATE: Obama's actual plan is here."

No, that's his speech. His plan, as I wrote, is here.

Presumably any final plan will be written by Congress.

[Worst. President. Ever.]

Fine, Jonah is ridiculous and insane. Whoo-hoo. Worst president ever.

Is that all you have? Do you want to talk substance now?

Yes, von, and the substance I want to talk about is this:

Nobody, conservative or liberal, should "argue" by ramping up idiotic namecallingso as to make actual policy discussion impossible.

Remember when conservatives were proclaiming that those of us who had the good judgement to oppose the Iraq invasion before it even started were traitors, or appeasers, or Islamofascists, or naive liberals, or naive pacifists, or dirtyfuckinghippies, etc.?

This is a perfect example of what I'm objecting to.

Now conservatives and liberals, may have different opinions of Obama's proposal, or the war in Iraq, etc. etc.

That's fair ball.

But ridiculous, over-the-top allegations--- of the kind that Goldberg and his ideological brethren are fond of making--- do nothing to promote honest discussion of the issues.

In fact, they make honest discussion of issues impossible.

THAT is my point.

You find it to be trivial? Tough shit.

[just me]

I don't get too worked up over the idea of requiring community service in exchange for money, although I do have concerns about it coming from the federal level. Mostly in who is administering it-and who approves what is or isn't community service. Also, will it require another layer of government people looking at paperwork.

But I don't see a huge issue in providing a tax credit for community service-especially if what qualifies is fairly lenient in the sense of what counts. My husband worked 40-50 hours a week as a full time college student while supporting his wife and four pre school aged kids. He actively volunteered as a teacher and nusery worker at our church-if those hours count as community service he would have easily made the 100 hours. But if he had to work for some government approved agency on their schedule-getting the hours would have been next to impossible. And while the tax credit is a nice thing, it only comes in April. When you have to put food on the table in October the check coming in April isn't going to do much for you.

That said-every high school around here has some community service requirement. My daughter will have to do 50 hours in her junior and senior years (hours in freshmen and sophomore years don't count). The middle school required 30 hours during 8th grade year only.

But the school is pretty open about what can count. My daughter met her required hours by tutoring 5th graders in math one afternoon a week during school hours. They will take church work. Some kids volunteered to work concession stands for baseball/softball leagues or umpiring. Shoot one of my coworkers daughters got her hours by coloring and cutting lamination work for games and other things for several teachers at the elementary school.

But like I said-my big questions are who administers these programs and who determines what does or doesn't count as community service (especially the college one since it isn't actually a college program but something you attach to your tax form).

[Tony Dismukes]

Gary - ""Obama is proposing that college students be offered a part time job lasting 100 hours and paying $40/hour."

Wow. I'd like that kind of job. Do you have a cite on this proposal?
"

From his speech - "For college students, I have proposed an annual American Opportunity Tax Credit of $4,000. To receive this credit, we’ll require 100 hours of public service."

$4000/100 hours = $40/hour. To be sure, the payment comes in terms of a tax credit rather than a paycheck, but the result is pretty much the same.

Since I know you read the comments upthread, I'm pretty sure you could figure out where I was getting that figure from. Did you have some specific nitpick with how I phrased my comment?

[AndyS]

Did anybody read Obama carefully? What's mandated is that schools develop service programs. There's no mention of mandatory participation.

"At the middle and high school level, we’ll make federal assistance conditional on school districts developing service programs, and give schools resources to offer new service opportunities."

[von]

I can't speak to the conservative meme -- I am not a conservative.

I, too, wonder about this. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, even if being a duck is no longer in with the Kool Kidz, it's still a duck.

Well, you can call me conservative if you like, but people who do call themselves conservatives disagree. Classic liberal is a better label, if labels are needed.

But ridiculous, over-the-top allegations--- of the kind that Goldberg and his ideological brethren are fond of making--- do nothing to promote honest discussion of the issues.

In fact, they make honest discussion of issues impossible.

I disagree. Goldberg has an argument that doesn't involve Nazis or fascists or the 13th amendment. You don't have to agree with Goldberg to agree with the argument; you don't even have to mention Goldberg.

The way to have honest discussion, in my view, is to have it and try to ignore the exaggerations and stupidity. I do it all the time when dealing with folks to the left of me. ;-)

[Gary Hussein Farber]

From his speech - "For college students, I have proposed an annual American Opportunity Tax Credit of $4,000. To receive this credit, we’ll require 100 hours of public service."

$4000/100 hours = $40/hour.

Okay, thanks.

[Gary Hussein Farber]

"Did anybody read Obama carefully?"

Yes.

"What's mandated is that schools develop service programs. There's no mention of mandatory participation."

Yes.

"The way to have honest discussion, in my view, is to have it and try to ignore the exaggerations and stupidity."

That would be useful. Also, not making stuff up, and asking where it's been denied.

"I disagree. Goldberg has an argument that doesn't involve Nazis or fascists or the 13th amendment. You don't have to agree with Goldberg to agree with the argument; you don't even have to mention Goldberg."

What's the argument? One that doesn't involve making up stuff, or repeating made up stuff, preferably.

[von]

$4000/100 hours = $40/hour.

FTR, this calculation is not supported. It's a $4000 tax credit, which does not necessarily mean a $4000 in-pocket payment. Usually, it simply means that if your tax bill is reduced by $4000. I've see no indication that Obama is proposing a credit that results in a payout where a tax bill is <4000 ('tho it may be the case).

[von]

c) a requirement that middle and high schools "develop service programs", which might or might not be compulsory, and which there's no reason to think wouldn't be flexible enough to deal with students who for one reason or another can't do it, if they were compulsory.

The simple question, Hilzoy is whether we think it's wise for the Federal government to be doing any of these things.

[von]

What's the argument? One that doesn't involve making up stuff, or repeating made up stuff, preferably.

Such an argument has been going on, abeit intermittently, throughout dozens of comments on this thread alone.

[Matthew H]

I think what some people are missing is this:

I don't have any kids. I pay taxes that help my neighbor's kids go to school. This really isn't any different than if I paid the neighbor directly to help him send his kids to school.

If the parents send the kids to a private school where they're spending their own money, fine. They don't have to have a community service requirement. They can do whatever they want.

But if my neighbor is spending MY money to send HIS kids to school, I think I oughta get something out of it other than keeping them off the damn lawn for a few hours. You wanna talk about slavery? I work my butt off, have to give some of my money to my neighbor, and I get nothing for it. That's slavery. (That's also hyperbole)

If I give money to my neighbor, and in return the neighbor's kids mow my lawn, that's called work. If I give money to the government to educate the little punks, and in return they're made to help my town, it's the same thing. They don't have to do the community service. They just have to do it if they want me to pay for their education. Otherwise, they can go to a private school. Or be home-schooled. I don't care.

About time I actually got something for those taxes.

[Carleton Wu]

I, too, wonder about this. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, even if being a duck is no longer in with the Kool Kidz, it's still a duck.

Bear in mind, you're talking about someone who iirc said he'd likely vote for Obama over any of the GOP primary candidates other than McCain...

[Peter Principle]

One wonders if Goldberg's serial idiocies in the LA Times might not have something to do with this:

The most troubled big newspaper in U.S. is cutting off 250 jobs, including an unprecedented 150 positions in editorial, to bring its expenses down in line with declining revenues.

Forbes, July 2

OK,OK -- I know the real problem is Sam Zell and his botched takeover of Tribune Corp. But still . . .

[Worst. President. Ever.]

You don't have to agree with Goldberg to agree with the argument; you don't even have to mention Goldberg.

Sadly, no.

See the title of this thread? "Slavery"

This thread is all about Jonah Goldberg's use of idiotic, dishonest rhetoric.

It matters not whether or not you agree in principle with Jonah Goldberg about the subject under discussion.

Jonah Goldberg's use of idiotic, dishonest rhetoric is the point of the whole thread.

[Tony Dismukes]

"It's a $4000 tax credit, which does not necessarily mean a $4000 in-pocket payment. Usually, it simply means that if your tax bill is reduced by $4000. I've see no indication that Obama is proposing a credit that results in a payout where a tax bill is <4000 ('tho it may be the case)."

I looked through Obama's proposal and found this:

Barack Obama will make college affordable for all Americans by
creating a new American Opportunity Tax Credit. This fully refundable credit will ensure that the first $4,000
of a college education is completely free for most Americans, and will cover two-thirds the cost of tuition at the
average public college or university. Recipients of this credit will be required to conduct 100 hours of public
service a year, either during the school year or over the summer months

I'm no expert on taxes, but "fully refundable" sounds to me like you get a refund for the balance if your tax bill is less than $4000. Can anyone confirm that one way or another?

[Turbulence]

I'm no expert on taxes, but "fully refundable" sounds to me like you get a refund for the balance if your tax bill is less than $4000. Can anyone confirm that one way or another?

Wikipedia says:

Refundable or non-wastable tax credits can reduce the tax owed below zero, and result in a net payment to the taxpayer beyond their own payments into the tax system, appearing to be a moderate form of negative income tax.

So I think your analysis is correct.

[MtnConservative]

Are there any leftist writers out there who aren't self-serving, narcissistic, Orwellian governmental votaries; and that are worth reading (especially the ones able to differentiate between verity and versimilitude)?

.............(crickets sounding).............

[trilobite]

Community service can be a learning tool just as much as "history" or "art" or "calculus" can be.

Exactly right. Actually, considering the use I got out of calculus or art after high school, a lot more of a learning tool.
Work builds character, I hear. At least, that used to be the conservative position. Oh, and wasn't there also something about how we should do good deeds for the poor ourselves instead of handing it over to faceless bureaucracies?

Seriously, haven't we all wondered why we wasted so much time in public school on abstract knowledge with no real world application and never learned, e.g., how to balance a checkbook, evaluate mortgage terms, or navigate the workplace? A few hours a month of community service is a step in the right direction of putting kids in touch with the real world.

[trilobite]

MtnConservative, if I were Hilzoy, I believe I'd be offended.

Except if I were her, I'd be way too well-balanced to care.

[Adam A]

Tony: you are right.

That is what a "tax credit" means. A tax credit reduces your tax burden, and if that burden is zero, you get what ever is left in the form of a refund. Anything called a "tax credit" works this way. "Tax deductions" work to reduce your tax burden, but they can only bring it to zero.

These are technical terms which are explained at length in the documentation of the 1040 that you receive every year. I'm assuming that Obama is aware that "tax credit" has a technical meaning when he used. I think that the "fully refundable" line that Tony found supports that assumption.

[Carleton Wu]

MntConservative,
Get rid of the crickets and learn how to use a semicolon, then we'll talk.

[Jesurgislac]

Carleton Wu: Bear in mind, you're talking about someone who iirc said he'd likely vote for Obama over any of the GOP primary candidates other than McCain...

And so? How does this not make Von conservative? If he's supporting McCain over Obama, that's a conservative decision: he wants 8 more years of a President as much like George W. Bush as possible, given term limits.

I'm willing to accept that Von has changed his self-identification and is now a liberal, or a socialist, or a Guardian-reading leftie commie pinko, even. But I've never seen any sign of this other than Von's recent declarations in threads about embarrassing conservative behavior that he's not conservative.

[MtnConservative]

Carleton Wu,

Phobic towards Euscyrtus concinnus, perhaps?

And you don't think that was a conjunctive adverb? Perhaps a transitional phrase?

Or do you simply hate semicolons?

Do you have any lists for me?

[Davebo]

Usually, it simply means that if your tax bill is reduced by $4000. I've see no indication that Obama is proposing a credit that results in a payout where a tax bill is <4000 ('tho it may be the case).

Which is why it's hopefully a good thing you don't do your own taxes (or anyone's for that matter) because you can't seem to grasp the difference between a tax credit and a tax deduction despite the fact that it was explained up thread.

Perhaps those 300 economists who signed off of McCain's economic plan could explain it for you.

chirp chirp chirp

But seriously, I don't mean to belittle you. As a non Republican making excuses for the GOP nominees idiotic statements on economic policy has got to be a drag.

[jdog]

Does military conscription count as involuntary servitude?

[Mandy]

Great post!