Should public high schools require community service hours?

[nclib]

I have mixed feelings about this. My public school did and I benefitted from my experiences. However, I wonder whether forcing this requirement will cause someone to be more altruistic.

[MaC]

hell no, for several reasons

1.Schools should not require students to do the same work prisoners do
2.Because schools are more like prisons, this will greatly increase the drop out rate.
3.Depressing high school students is like shooting fish in a barrel, this does nothing to help them if it is enforced.
4. Altruism is something one cannot learn in school, it's more or less something that a person develops through good character.  It's something that cannot be taught.

[John Dibble]

I'm against involuntary servitude that isn't punishment for a crime.

[David S]

No way!!
There are no provisions in the constitution for the state to make servants of the people, and in fact involuntary servitude is prohibited by the 13 th amendment.
This is a foot in the door approach to making everyone a servant of the state. The bureaucrats picked on high school kids first for several reasons. 1) Most are not informed enough to realize they are being made servants. 2) Most are not old enough to vote so they cannot throw out the politicians who are enslaving them. 3) The politicians are holding the student's diploma's so if the student refuses to comply he can't graduate. That is an extremely harsh penalty for a child who simply refuses to submit to involuntary servitude. He won't be able to attend college, or get any kind of a decent job.

If you agree to inflict this on your children what will you say when government tells you that you must perform service too? After all whats good for your kids should be good for you too right?

If you don't think the bureaucrats plan to expand this program to include everyone just read some of John Kerry's comments on national service:

. "My aim is nothing less than to make national service a way of life for each new generation of Americans. So I will set a goal within the next decade of enlisting five hundred thousand young people a year in Service for College—more than one out of seven young Americans working side by side, in many different ways, but with a common commitment to our best hopes and values."
Kerry, John. "A New Era of National Service." Manchester, New Hampshire. May 19, 2003.

. "Today, I propose not only to build on that tradition, but to go beyond it—because today, our challenges are different and our commitment must be even greater. We need a new era of service—not an effort for one time, one purpose, or one group—but a permanent and national endeavor. For America now, service is not just an option, but an obligation of citizenship."
Kerry, John. "A New Era of National Service." Manchester, New Hampshire. May 19, 2003.

[??????????]

My wife's high school required it, she said it didn't bother her, and kept her out of the house most of the  year, something she was glad about.  She grew up volunteering around her community,and has already gotten our oldest started in small things.   It can't hurt, and hey if it helps the community.....mores the better.

[Rob]

No. It's a horrible requirement.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

I vote no.

In fact it's unconstitutional. Unfortunately the Supreme Court didn't see it that way.

[dazzleman]

I think it should be up to local school boards.

My school effectively required a community service project of some type senior year (though they didn't call it that), and I found it to be a good experience.  It was billed as independent study, but it required doing something beneficial outside of school and keeping a log of the experience, as well as periodic reviews with an advisor and a paper 2x during the year.

I don't understand the doctrinaire opposition to this.  It's hardly indentured servitude, it's beneficial to both the students and the community, and it even helps with college admissions.  It's not as if anyone wants the students to be required to smash rocks in the hot sun 80 hours per week.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

It's not as if anyone wants the students to be required to smash rocks in the hot sun 80 hours per week.

My high school probably would have wanted that.

[patrick1]

You should have every right to be a lazy and selfish bastard.  I hate when governments coerce you into your better natures.  Doing the right thing for the wrong reason is not good policy, IMO.

[dazzleman]

It's not as if anyone wants the students to be required to smash rocks in the hot sun 80 hours per week.

My high school probably would have wanted that.

Based on what you've said, I assumed that they actually did do that to you.  I'm disappointed to hear that they didn't.

[Ebowed]

No.  Requiring community service just to graduate is borderline fascism.

[Platypus]

hell no, for several reasons

1.Schools should not require students to do the same work prisoners do
2.Because schools are more like prisons, this will greatly increase the drop out rate.
3.Depressing high school students is like shooting fish in a barrel, this does nothing to help them if it is enforced.
4. Altruism is something one cannot learn in school, it's more or less something that a person develops through good character. It's something that cannot be taught.

Will I bother?

[Josh/Devilman88]

No... Teens already  have a butt load of homework to do. Also we have a life too.

[David S]

My wife's high school required it, she said it didn't bother her, and kept her out of the house most of the  year, something she was glad about.  She grew up volunteering around her community,and has already gotten our oldest started in small things.   It can't hurt, and hey if it helps the community.....mores the better.

I have no problem whatsoever with people volunteering to do community work. You can donate your time, talents, energy , or money to whatever wothwhile cause you desire. You have always had this right. But you don't need government to do that. The only thing the government can add to it is coercion; if you don't do it we won't let you graduate, or in a more extreme form such as the communist approach, if you don't do it we put you in jail or we kill you.

None of those things is the mark of a free society.

[David S]

I think it should be up to local school boards.

I don't understand the doctrinaire opposition to this.  It's hardly indentured servitude, it's beneficial to both the students and the community, and it even helps with college admissions.  It's not as if anyone wants the students to be required to smash rocks in the hot sun 80 hours per week.

The collectivists operate by incrementalism. When the income tax was started the top rate was only 7%, and very few people had to pay income tax at all. But in 31 years the top rate had risen to 94%. Today the top rate is less than that but virtually everyone pays income tax. The lowest bracket is now 10%.

Social Security was started in the 30's. Then in the 60's Medicare and Medicaid were added and recently Bush added prescription drugs. Medicare and Medicaid now cost  100 times as much as they did when they were started.

My point is that once you allow government to require service from the people, there is no limit to how far they can take it. That is a great danger. Once the precedent is set the number of people who must provide service can be expanded and the hours they must serve can be increased to whatever limit the bureaucrats want. Also since service is a government requirement there will be penalties for not complying. The penalty for students who don't comply is harsh; you don't graduate. What might it be for adults who don't comply?

[A18]

Fun fact: even in 1918, only 5 percent of the population paid federal income tax (up from 1 percent in 1913), and yet the income tax funded one-third of the cost of World War I.

[dazzleman]

I think it should be up to local school boards.

I don't understand the doctrinaire opposition to this.  It's hardly indentured servitude, it's beneficial to both the students and the community, and it even helps with college admissions.  It's not as if anyone wants the students to be required to smash rocks in the hot sun 80 hours per week.

The collectivists operate by incrementalism. When the income tax was started the top rate was only 7%, and very few people had to pay income tax at all. But in 31 years the top rate had risen to 94%. Today the top rate is less than that but virtually everyone pays income tax. The lowest bracket is now 10%.

Social Security was started in the 30's. Then in the 60's Medicare and Medicaid were added and recently Bush added prescription drugs. Medicare and Medicaid now cost  100 times as much as they did when they were started.

My point is that once you allow government to require service from the people, there is no limit to how far they can take it. That is a great danger. Once the precedent is set the number of people who must provide service can be expanded and the hours they must serve can be increased to whatever limit the bureaucrats want. Also since service is a government requirement there will be penalties for not complying. The penalty for students who don't comply is harsh; you don't graduate. What might it be for adults who don't comply?

You make good points and I am distrustful of increased governmental power.  Still, I think this is a small matter.

Also, some power has flowed away from the government.  The military draft was a staple of American life for over 3 decades, until the mid 1970s.  When the draft was ended, it was assumed that it would be reactivated if there was ever a war.  But we've had three wars, and no draft.

[Nym90]

It should be encouraged, but not required.

[David S]

I think it should be up to local school boards.

I don't understand the doctrinaire opposition to this.  It's hardly indentured servitude, it's beneficial to both the students and the community, and it even helps with college admissions.  It's not as if anyone wants the students to be required to smash rocks in the hot sun 80 hours per week.

The collectivists operate by incrementalism. When the income tax was started the top rate was only 7%, and very few people had to pay income tax at all. But in 31 years the top rate had risen to 94%. Today the top rate is less than that but virtually everyone pays income tax. The lowest bracket is now 10%.

Social Security was started in the 30's. Then in the 60's Medicare and Medicaid were added and recently Bush added prescription drugs. Medicare and Medicaid now cost  100 times as much as they did when they were started.

My point is that once you allow government to require service from the people, there is no limit to how far they can take it. That is a great danger. Once the precedent is set the number of people who must provide service can be expanded and the hours they must serve can be increased to whatever limit the bureaucrats want. Also since service is a government requirement there will be penalties for not complying. The penalty for students who don't comply is harsh; you don't graduate. What might it be for adults who don't comply?

You make good points and I am distrustful of increased governmental power.  Still, I think this is a small matter.

Also, some power has flowed away from the government.  The military draft was a staple of American life for over 3 decades, until the mid 1970s.  When the draft was ended, it was assumed that it would be reactivated if there was ever a war.  But we've had three wars, and no draft.

Speaking of the draft:
A bill to reinstate the draft was introduced in January of 2003. The House Bill was H.R. 163 and the companion Senate bill was S. 89. It was called the Universal National Service Act. It actually went far beyond reinstating the draft. It would have required everyone between age18 and 26 (including women) to perform 2 years of service. Some people would be required to do military service, some would do civilian service in support of the military, and some would be for “other purposes”.
According to census bureau data there are about 30 million people in that age bracket, so this bill could have put one tenth of the nation’s population in the service of the government. That’s way more than is needed in the military so most of these people would end up in some form of civilian service for the government. This is involuntary servitude, something which was banned by the 13th amendment along with slavery! Even without the 13th amendment there is nothing in the constitution which says the government can make servants of the people.

The Senate bill was introduced by Ernest Hollings and the House Bill was introduced by Charles Rangel and cosponsored by a host of Liberal Democrats. 

The Republicans did not support the bill. Possibly the sight of their Democratic counterparts getting roasted by their constituents for proposing it, convinced the Republicans to stay away from it.

[A18]

Um, no. The Republicans have never supported a draft. That bill was introduced by a Democrat in order to raise fears about the possibility of one, and hurt Republicans politically.