Proposals for the United States to implement mandatory national service, a requirement that people serve in the military or complete other works of service, trace back to the 1800s. [1] Modern propositions for compulsory service envision that young Americans could join the military or do civilian projects such as teaching in low-income areas, helping care for the elderly, maintaining infrastructure, and much more. [2]
Public opinion on mandatory national service is split: 49% favor one year of required service for young Americans, while 45% are opposed. Among adults ages 18 to 29, 39% are for the proposal and 57% are against. [3] Is mandatory national service a path to unity and prosperity in these especially divided times, or an unconstitutional and unjust plan foisted on the nation’s youth by older generations?
Pro 1
Mandatory national service would foster unity and bring people from diverse backgrounds together. The partisan divide in the United States has never been greater: Pew Research tracked an increase in partisan differences from 15 percentage points in 1994 to 36 points in 2017. [4] Dan Glickman, JD, former US congressman from Kansas, believes that mandatory service would be a solution to our "current dysfunction" because "National service, be it in the military, Peace Corps, or other public or private sector opportunities, breaks down the barriers of race, class, income, geography, and even language. Young adults are granted the opportunity to see their peers and fellow Americans as a member of their team." [5]
Around 30 countries have compulsory military service. [6] Switzerland, which has four official languages and three major ethnic groups, bridges its divides with a mandatory national service program. The European nation is identified as one of the happiest countries in the world by the United Nations. [7]
Con 1
National service doesn't need to be mandatory because the volunteer system is booming. 28% of millennials already do volunteer work, for a total of 1.5 billion community service hours annually. [9] Several voluntary civilian service programs already exist, such as AmeriCorps, Teach for America, and the Peace Corps, in addition to limitless volunteer opportunities throughout the country. [10] Since AmeriCorps was founded in 1993, over 800,000 participants have completed more than one billion service hours. [11] Applications already outpace funding and capacity, meaning that forcing more people to participate would be difficult. [12] There are 15 qualified would-be volunteers for every available AmeriCorps spot. [13]
Pro 2
Compulsory service would save the government money and provide benefits to all citizens. National service programs are a proven cost-effective method to address critical needs in the country. [16] A report from the Center for Benefit-Cost Studies in Education found that youth national service programs in the United States cost a total of $1.7 billion annually and returned a value of $6.5 billion, creating a social benefit of 3.95 times more than the cost. For every one dollar of taxpayer money spent on youth service programs, over two dollars of savings resulted. [17]
The National Park Service estimates that using a civilian conservation corps to maintain national parks saves an average of 65% and as much as 87% on backlogged projects.
Con 2
Mandating national service violates the constitution and would infringe on the freedom to choose what to do with our lives. The 13th ********* to the US Constitution states, "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States." [22]
Pro 3
Performing national service would help young people mature and serve as a bridge to adulthood. 98% of students who took a gap year between high school and college reported that the deferment helped them develop as people and 97% said it increased their maturity. [25] Gap year students tend to have GPAs that are .1 to .4 higher than their peers. [26] Compulsory service would allow all young people with the pursue personal development before starting college or entering the workforce.
Con 3
A mandatory service program would be manipulated by the rich and unfairly harm others. Wealthy people have been able to manipulate American institutions for decades, buying their way into elite universities and avoiding the military draft. [30][31] A national service program would be similarly exploited. Conor Friedersdorf, staff writer at The Atlantic, said that compulsory service programs "will be gamed by the wealthy, the well-connected, the folks with the social capital to figure out how things work -- and national service will be set up in a way that serves their ends and reflects their values and preferences." [32]
I abbreviated some of the pros and cons, you can read the entire article in the link below.
Public opinion on mandatory national service is split: 49% favor one year of required service for young Americans, while 45% are opposed. Among adults ages 18 to 29, 39% are for the proposal and 57% are against. [3] Is mandatory national service a path to unity and prosperity in these especially divided times, or an unconstitutional and unjust plan foisted on the nation’s youth by older generations?
Pro 1
Mandatory national service would foster unity and bring people from diverse backgrounds together. The partisan divide in the United States has never been greater: Pew Research tracked an increase in partisan differences from 15 percentage points in 1994 to 36 points in 2017. [4] Dan Glickman, JD, former US congressman from Kansas, believes that mandatory service would be a solution to our "current dysfunction" because "National service, be it in the military, Peace Corps, or other public or private sector opportunities, breaks down the barriers of race, class, income, geography, and even language. Young adults are granted the opportunity to see their peers and fellow Americans as a member of their team." [5]
Around 30 countries have compulsory military service. [6] Switzerland, which has four official languages and three major ethnic groups, bridges its divides with a mandatory national service program. The European nation is identified as one of the happiest countries in the world by the United Nations. [7]
Con 1
National service doesn't need to be mandatory because the volunteer system is booming. 28% of millennials already do volunteer work, for a total of 1.5 billion community service hours annually. [9] Several voluntary civilian service programs already exist, such as AmeriCorps, Teach for America, and the Peace Corps, in addition to limitless volunteer opportunities throughout the country. [10] Since AmeriCorps was founded in 1993, over 800,000 participants have completed more than one billion service hours. [11] Applications already outpace funding and capacity, meaning that forcing more people to participate would be difficult. [12] There are 15 qualified would-be volunteers for every available AmeriCorps spot. [13]
Pro 2
Compulsory service would save the government money and provide benefits to all citizens. National service programs are a proven cost-effective method to address critical needs in the country. [16] A report from the Center for Benefit-Cost Studies in Education found that youth national service programs in the United States cost a total of $1.7 billion annually and returned a value of $6.5 billion, creating a social benefit of 3.95 times more than the cost. For every one dollar of taxpayer money spent on youth service programs, over two dollars of savings resulted. [17]
The National Park Service estimates that using a civilian conservation corps to maintain national parks saves an average of 65% and as much as 87% on backlogged projects.
Con 2
Mandating national service violates the constitution and would infringe on the freedom to choose what to do with our lives. The 13th ********* to the US Constitution states, "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States." [22]
Pro 3
Performing national service would help young people mature and serve as a bridge to adulthood. 98% of students who took a gap year between high school and college reported that the deferment helped them develop as people and 97% said it increased their maturity. [25] Gap year students tend to have GPAs that are .1 to .4 higher than their peers. [26] Compulsory service would allow all young people with the pursue personal development before starting college or entering the workforce.
Con 3
A mandatory service program would be manipulated by the rich and unfairly harm others. Wealthy people have been able to manipulate American institutions for decades, buying their way into elite universities and avoiding the military draft. [30][31] A national service program would be similarly exploited. Conor Friedersdorf, staff writer at The Atlantic, said that compulsory service programs "will be gamed by the wealthy, the well-connected, the folks with the social capital to figure out how things work -- and national service will be set up in a way that serves their ends and reflects their values and preferences." [32]
I abbreviated some of the pros and cons, you can read the entire article in the link below.
Comment