![[Critical Mass]](/archives/cmlogo.gif)
![[dot]](/archives/cmdot.gif){kind=small}
September 11, 2008
![[feather]](/archives/feather.gif){kind=small}
Only some kinds of service
Service learning is all the rage in higher ed these days, and Columbia University is part of the national trend toward making it mandatory. You might say that takes the "volunteer" out of "volunteer work." But there you have it. And good things do come of it when it's done right.
This morning's New York Times features an article about Columbia's engineering program, which has for the past six years made service learning part of the curriculum. Engineering majors do all kinds of hands-on work in Harlem--they have built wheelchair-accessible swings, they have helped build a wind-powered greenhouse at a local high school, they have helped invent trash cans designed for the disabled. And so on. The students get good applied experience, and the community gets good benefits. Other Columbia departments are taking note, and considering following suit.
The push for service learning requirements has been especially intense in the wake of 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina. Not surprisingly, the New York-based Columbia and the New Orleans-based Tulane are leading the way. This fall, Tulane became the first university to require every students to complete a service learning requirement before graduation.
So what's not to love? The details. That's where the devil always is.
First, consider this quote from Jack McGourty, associate dean of Columbia's engineering school. "We obviously want to create engineers and applied scientists who are technically adept, but also effective in this global society," said he told the Times. "We want to create students who are socially aware."
Second, consider this fact. In 2005, Columbia's students passed a referendum overwhelmingly in favor of restoring ROTC, which had been banned during the Vietnam era, to campus--but the University Senate, which is composed of faculty, alumni, administrators, and some student representatives, rejected the referendum on political grounds, citing opposition to DADT. Despite a strong majority of students who want to see ROTC return to Columbia as part of a larger roster of civic-minded opportunities for students, ideology carried the day. The Senate members' wish to make Columbia policy reflect their personal anti-military sentiment was more important than a student-driven initiative to facilitate student service. And the trustees, who had the final say but did not, apparently, have spines, let the Senate recommendation stand.
Add the McGourty quote to this interesting fact, and you get a double standard that rises to the level of institutional hypocrisy. Columbia can be justly proud of the innovative service component of its engineering program. But the university should be ashamed at how selective and politically loaded its definition of service is.
If Columbia is really serious about integrating service learning into the undergraduate experience, it can bring back ROTC, and offer it alongside a wide range of other opportunities for students to give to community and country.
Trackback Pings:
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.erinoconnor.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/1525
Comments:
One cannot say "ideology carried the day," as if the ROTC supporters were free of ideology. What one can say is that one ideology was chosen over another. And that is the case with any decision.
If DADT is the real reason for opposing ROTC, then I'm sympathetic. I hope discrimination is not a conservative value. I'd like to think, in fact, that we could all agree, this late in history, that an organization that refuses to hire someone based on who s/he takes to bed is at fault, that merit should the basis for all such decisions. Opposing discrimination is of course an ideology, but I didn't know it mapped onto a simple left/right political binary.
I disagree that one ideology triumphed over another. Ideology triumphed over student choice, and respect for students' rights to decide for themselves what they want to do with their college years. Columbia is, for political reasons, keeping one such choice at arm's length, and making it hard for kids who want to undertake it.
As for DADT, don't oversimplify. I think it's dumb, too. I dislike homophobia, too. I am glad Ellen and Portia were able to tie the knot, and I think the current DADT policy is poisonous and destructive as hell. But the military did not choose this policy for itself--Congress did. If academics want to stage a protest, they should direct it at Congress--and they should be aware that it was Sam Nunn--a Democrat--who led the opposition to lifting the ban on gays in the military, that it was a coalition of Republicans and Democrats who sought to repeal the ban, and that it was Bill Clinton who dropped the ball--and broke a promise.
It's also worth noting that some schools have provisions to ensure that outed cadets who lose their ROTC scholarships get covered for the same amount by the institution. That's a form of protest I can endorse, because it supports the students instead of using them as political pawns.
I'm all for repealing DADT. But I think it's nonsensical and shortsighted to punish college students--by depriving them of choice, opportunity, and the money to go to college--for the sake of misplace and misguided protest.
For the record, a 2005 Boston Globe poll found that 79% of Americans have nothing against gays serving in the military. A 2008 poll showed similar results, with 80% of Dems, 75% of independents, and 66% of conservatives saying openly gay people should be allowed to serve in the military. So while there may be some minor liberal/conservative correlation, it's also true that a strong majority of everybody, no matter what their politics, thinks it's time for DADT to end.
As Erin points out, DADT was established by Congress. Would Columbia ban on-campus interviews for jobs or internships with Congressmen and Senators? Of course not.
This is about anti-military prejudice, which is closely linked to class prejudice.
It should be mentioned that currently serving and ex-military personnel themselves prefer the DADT policy and the traditional military code protections promoting group solidarity, discipline, and morale by wide margins. And Congress generally defers to military advice on what internal rules best serve our military branches.
On Congress deferring to military advice: "In December 2007, 28 retired generals and admirals urged Congress to repeal the policy. They cited evidence that 65,000 gay men and women are currently serving in the armed forces, and that there are over 1,000,000 gay veterans." That's Wikipedia; the article cites other recent calls from top military personnel to revisit the policy.
Yes, I consulted the Wikipedia article as well, where it is related that in an Army Times poll repealing the DADT policy received only a 25% favorable response by currently serving military personnel.
My earlier posting was not so much to argue in favor of the current policy (though I must admit I do favor it, though not strongly), but merely to mention in brief the support the DADT policy has among veterans and currently serving military personnel. One advantage of its repeal, however, would be to remove one argument from the repertoire of the anti-military factions at colleges and universities.
Post a comment:
