According to the April 26th issue of the Economist, "the nature of volunteerism is that it is voluntary, and therefore last as long as the volunteer feels inclined to pursue it. Volunteerism is great at building barns, scrubbing graffiti from walls and even teaching motivated children. But the summiters at Philadelphia have bigger ambitions than that." So, the editors of the Economist look at our Leaders, and question their motives, wonder why?
One of the stated goals of the volunteer movement is to teach some fifteen million children to read by the third grade. Now that's a noble task that one can't quarrel with. Implicit is the assumption that our teachers are doing a lousy job and can't be trusted to do that for which they are being paid. This is ridiculious! Let's recognize the underlying motive for what it is, to destroy the educational system as we know it. Teachers will become administrators rather than educators. It's obvious that volunteerism will required a whole, new cadre of bureaucrats to direct the activity of those enlisted. Imagine if you will a classroom filled with one-on-one volunteers, "aiding" a beleaguered teacher. Who's in charge here? Who's the authority figure that the students look to for answers, discipline and praise? What is the actual role of the publically paid teacher? If this seems too far fetched, consider Maryland's experiment in this arena. The Maryland school system requires, YES REQUIRES, voluntary service, some 40 hours of it in order to graduate from a public school! That's voluntary? They report that 90% of the seniors completed the volunteerism requirements. Wonder what happened to the other 10%, have they been barred from the workforce, from entering colleges and universities, military service, or remanded to another year of school so they can fulfill the voluntary (?) requirements?
Business is being coerced into providing volunteers. If you work for one of these firms, imagine what happens to your job security if you say, well, I just don't think I will volunteer to pick up trash this Sunday.
Suppose our voluntary military services took the same tact. All citizens would have to volunteer for service otherwise they would be unable to participate in some desired activity (as an example, maybe get a job, drive a car, own a home, &c.).
Our country's leaders need to spend some time in the school library and study the meaning of voluntary, intentional, deliberate, willful or willing. In a nutshell they mean done, made, brought about, given, or the like, of one's own free will, and not by compulsion or coercion. Voluntary implies not only freedom from constraint, but freedom from the control of any influence that might suggest, prompt, or incite action. In law, voluntary implies, doing so with out legal obligation or compulsion to act. Consider if you like, two people who voluntarily get nmarried, i.e., by free choice. No shot-gun weddings please!
How can you be a volunteer, if you are being compensated (pay, promise of reduced taxes, scholarships, &c.) Take for example the President's volunteer (?) Americorps, the old Peace Corps, or if you will, the armed forces. All of these participants are paid, granted not very well, but nevertheless are compensated for their volunteerism. Now probably the best word to describe the individuals involved in the above is not volunteer but mercinary. This way it puts the emphasis right up front. Being compensated for doing something that is perhaps distasteful to others. Or as in the Civil War, we could go back to the practice of paying someone to serve for us. As example, wealthy Yankees paid for enlistees to serve in their stead. Of course, many of those so chosen found ways to enlist, skip the military and return to guy another draft (?) dodger. If our current President had used this ploy to avoid the draft and the unpleasant consequences, why no one could have criticized him for his actions. It's no wonder our current crop of students are confused, their elders can't seem to remember the meaning of words that should be perfectly obvious.
At least in the minds of folks in the Midwest, to volunteer is nothing more than doing what is needed, when needed and otherwise one just goes about your business and don't mind the business of others. You need only look at the 1997 flooding in North Dakota, Minnesota, South Dakota and Canada to see that volunteerism is alive and well. But to mandate volunteerism should stick in the craw of everyone.
ABOUT Joe Wortham