Point Counterpoint: Mandatory civil service may be in America's future
Jason Arnold and Jonathan Sullivan, Staff Writers
Issue date: 3/8/05 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 1
|
Jason Arnold: At this time in our nation's history, a number of disturbing trends have risen in our society, and voter apathy remains a factor in our national elections. Within our military, there has never been a more disparaging gap between the powerful and the weak. While most of the privileged and affluent remain at home or go off to college, people with less money and fewer options find little choice but to join the military. Mandatory civil service would be a way of fighting these disparities.
Jonathan Sullivan: While it is true the impoverished are disproportionately represented in the armed services, there are benefits to this arrangement. Just as federal Pell Grants exist to assist young people in paying for education, the military is a great path to an education for those who cannot afford a traditional university. If one serves in the military, the government provides a free college education. One's living expenses are paid for during the period of service and the individual earns a wage that can be either invested or saved. It is a very good career path, as costly student loans and credit cards are avoided.
J.A.: All good points, but the fact remains that the military is unfairly represented in more ways than just monetarily.
Minorities, in addition to citizens living below the poverty line, compose a larger part of our military forces than anyone else. According to The Houston Chronicle, blacks account for 20 percent of the nation's armed forces, but just 12 percent of the total nationwide population. Recruiters are even more likely to go door-to-door in poor neighborhoods than those of higher classes. Civil service, which can include military intelligence and governmental posts, would make it so the larger groups would make their fair contribution to our nation.
Additionally, civil service would not impose upon or delay college education. If anything, it would serve as another form of education - teaching individuals trades and skills they could use not only in the real world, but also in college. Likewise, it would still provide the means - monetary and otherwise - to achieve one's goals.
J.S.: Recruiters in the past few years have received a large amount of undue criticism for their "discriminatory" hiring practices. There is nothing discriminatory or racist about spending resources in areas that are more likely to produce new recruits. Traveling to suburban areas is not prudent because a high percentage of these upper-middle class children attend college rather than join the military. On the other hand, those living below the poverty line are less likely to attend college; as such, they are more likely to view the military as a viable option after high-school graduation.
Furthermore, the volunteer army works. According to The New York Times, there are 1.4 million active-duty soldiers in the military, along with 865,000 reserves. With more than two million troops, what need is there for mandatory military service? The current burden on our military is because of the imperialistic foreign policy doctrines of President Bush. It would be grossly unfair to impose civil service in order to fill a void created by an unnecessary military campaign.
J.A.: The volunteer army is working for the moment, but who knows how long that will last? Instituting mandatory civil service would have other benefits as well. Only about 50 percent of voting-age citizens actually participate in our country's national elections. Because of the close results of recent presidential elections, it is now more important than ever that as many citizens as possible vote. Mandatory civil service would greatly aid election turnout and discourage voter apathy because each citizen would have a stake in the direction of his or her nation.
J.S.: Unfortunately, apathy is a side effect of democracy. In fact, one could argue apathy is the essence of freedom. While I can't understand why so many people in this country are not interested in American politics, I respect their right to be disinterested. Imposing guidelines on how citizens should live their lives is an aspect of an authoritarian society rather than a democratic one. If we as Americans wish to be free, we must accept different people with differing views. If some people object to serving in the military, they should not be forced to perform civil service unless there is a shortage of able-bodied volunteers.
In addition, mandatory civil service would force many people to participate in activities they do not agree with. Operation Iraqi Freedom was the catalyst for some of the most massive war protests in world history. Compulsory service would coerce some of these protesters to essentially support a war they vehemently disapprove of.
J.A.: That's one way to look at it, but I think that's a point these types of people wouldn't have to worry about. If there was the possibility each and every citizen had to serve our government in some capacity, a war as vehemently opposed by some as the war in Iraq may never have to happen. Every citizen would have reason to get out and vote - doing so would require both parties to migrate to the true center of American politics. War-hungry politicians would be forced to answer to a larger constituency.
Operation Iraqi Freedom has unintentionally shown something about the nature of our politics. It appears to me of the people who do vote, many are directly unaffected by what our nation's leaders decide to do overseas. Too many people support the war in Iraq without feeling its consequences. Mandatory civil service would leave no one unaffected by the direction of our nation's foreign policy. Every family would feel the sting of war. The president would need to have a very strong reason to involve our country in conflict around the globe.
J.S.: Though I agree with the reasoning that it would discourage cowboy foreign policy of war-mongering presidents, I still do not believe the benefits of civil service outweigh the costs.
I believe the answers to voter apathy and the political problems we face lay within the public rather than the government. Though I object to the course the United States has been on during this administration, creating a civil service program is not the remedy. It is up to us as citizens to educate ourselves and stay abreast of current affairs. If we exercise our freedom of apathy, then we lose our right to complain when our elected leaders take us on a path we disagree with.
J.A.: Too often, people complain about our leader's policies and do nothing about it, while the people who try to make a difference are powerless to do so. Mandatory civil service would be the best solution to combat this unfortunate fact. If each citizen's freedom was directly affected by a vote, you can be assured that each one would exercise his or her freedom.
The fact that making such service mandatory for everyone is all the more reason to embrace it. In doing so, no one - rich or poor, white or black - would be able to escape shouldering the burden of our nation's defense.
-Jason Arnold is a political science senior.
-Jonathan Sullivan is a finance junior.
-This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Daily Aztec. Send e-mail to letters@thedailyaztec.com. Anonymous letters will not be printed - include your full name, major and year in school.
