Below is a copy of my speech regarding the petition regarding mandatory volunteerism, which was presented at the 1-14-99 SDMT meeting.
Is there a problem in volunteerism that needs to be addressed
by this committee? I am unable to identify a volunteerism problem
at Pine View beyond the destructive mandatory volunteerism
proposal currently before this committee. We currently have
adequate means of encouraging volunteerism; the Mandatory
Volunteerism proposal fails to meet Pine View's needs.
Sarasota schools already offer ½ elective credit in Voluntary
School/Community Service for each 75 hours of service, up to 150
hours. The current non-coercive incentive system apparently works
well; many students do volunteer. Notably, the elective credit is
for Voluntary Service. Passage of a mandatory service proposal
would repudiate our longstanding tradition of favoring true
volunteerism, or as our mission statement says, "tradition
of… social responsibility." Of course, encouraging
social responsibility means exactly that; we must encourage
students to be responsible, i.e., reliable and capable of making
moral decisions. True responsibility is not encouraged by
reducing students to objects of resource extraction. Denigration
of students as mere means to an end objectifies and dehumanizes
the students; it is wrong.
In fact, objectifying students negates the foundation for the
proposal, that is, that volunteerism positively impacts the one
donating time. To accept the mandatory volunteerism proposal
requires an extraordinary exercise in doublethink. In order to
further our "tradition of social responsibility," we
would remove responsibility from the student. We would objectify
students to help them. For the greatest exercise in doublethink,
we would mandate volunteerism. An Orwellian perversion of
reality, indeed! Awarding elective credit for "Volunteer
Service" for service effectively coerced because it is
required for graduation certainly reaches the height of
absurdity. Words mean things. Elective credit does not mean
required for graduation. Volunteer does not mean mandated;
volunteer service does not mean required service.
To replace our proven volunteer system with a morally dubious
coerced service program is not only wrong, it is counter
productive. Volunteering because of internal desire is naturally
superior to serving because of coercion. The choice to volunteer
is essential to the volunteer experience; an attack upon that
choice attacks the joy with which volunteerism is associated.
Naturally, without coercion, the overall level of happiness is
far greater, as both parties derive satisfaction and benefit from
the service. Coercing service not only demeans and objectifies
the ones coerced, but it also demeans the service. By reducing
students to objects of resource extraction, student service is
reduced to a resource to be extracted, much like income tax.
Thus, the proposal may destroy the luster attached to community
service, for such service would no longer be considered a moral
act, but rather, a task that must be done, such as paying a tax.
Let us preserve the character and spirit of volunteerism, that is, true, uncoerced volunteerism. Although we may all value volunteerism, we must not force our ideals upon others. Forcing ideals upon others is rarely successful; in our case, we may only succeed in encouraging our students to find creative ways to undermine volunteerism. We must demonstrate concern for Pine View's stakeholders, the parents and students, by noting their opposition to "mandatory volunteerism." For example, Mr. Larry Helmuth, having thought that mandatory volunteerism was defeated during his tenure as School Advisory Council chairman, expressed surprise that mandatory volunteerism was even being considered. On behalf of the many students who have signed my petition opposing the proposal, which I will now read, I urge you to reject the coerced service proposal.