Page images
PDF
EPUB

We do not pretend to suggest that enough is known now about the possible operation of national service to justify starting a large-scale program overnight. On the other hand, I submit that enough is known about available young manpower, unmet service opportunities, and values to society and the individual of national service to justify a series of pilot projects and subsequent evaluations thereof. Only through this kind of experience can we determine whether and how to proceed with that program of national service.

Thus, we are convening in 2 weeks here in Washington the 1967 National Service Conference, which will bring together manpower experts, educators, sociologists, government officials, and persons from a wide variety of interests and organizations to debate the long-range potentialities and ramifications of the concept of national service. As a reflection of the diversity of backgrounds and viewpoints which must be included in a nationwide discussion of national service, I should like to put into the record the preliminary program of the 1967 National Service Conference.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Without objection, it is so ordered.

(The material referred to follows:)

1967 NATIONAL SERVICE CONFERENCE MAYFLOWER HOTEL, WASHINGTON, D.C.

APRIL 2-4, 1967

PRELIMINARY PROGRAM

Sunday, April 2, 1967

4:00 p.m.-6:00 p.m.: Registration.

7:00p.m.: Banquet-Welcoming Remarks: Donald J. Eberly, Executive Director, National Service Secretariat. Address : Dr. Margaret Mead, The American Museum of Natural History. Monday-April 3, 1967

9:00 a.m.: Workshop Groups. Impact of National Service:

National Service and Education.—Chairman: Harris Wofford, President, State University College at Old Westbury, New York. Research Panelists:

Michael B. Katz, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto “National Service as Popular Education: Historical Reasons for Pessimism." Dorothy M. Knoell, Urban College Study, State University of New York, “The Value of National Service as an Educational Interlude." Panel Members :

William Cannon, Chief, Education, Manpower and Science Division, Bureau of the Budget.

Mark C. Rosenman, Director of Youth and College Division, N.A.A.C.P.

National Service, Manpower and the Economy.-Chairman Herbert Striner, Director of Program Development, W. E. Upjohn Institute. Research Panelists: Charles S. Benson, Faculty of Education, University of California, Berkeley “The Real Costs of National Service" Roland M. Bixler, President, J-B-T Instruments, Inc., Member, Board of Directors, National Association of Manufacturers. Jacob Clayman, Industrial Union Department, AFI-CIO. Eli Ginzberg, Director, Conservation of Human Resources Project, Columbia University “Manpower Utilization and National Service."

National Service and the Military.-Chairman: The Honorable Donald J. Irwin, Member, House Armed Services Committee. Research Panelist : Roger Little, Department of Sociology, University of Illinois at Chicago Circle “The Armed Forces and National Service.” Panel Members : Paul Weinstein, Depart. ment of Economics, University of Maryland. Al Biderman, Senior Associate, Bureau of Social Science Research, Washington, D.C.

National Service and Society.-Chairman: Samuel D. Proctor, President, Institute for Services to Education. Research Panelists : Leon Bramson, Chairman, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Swarthmore College. "The

Social Impact of National Service.” Reed Martin, United States Youth Council "Youth and National Service.” Panel Members: Murray Ortof, University Settlement, New York City Mrs. Louis J. Robbins, President, National Council of Women of the United States.

12:30 p.m.: Luncheon Panel Discussion:

“Relationship Between National Service and Federal Programs." Chairman : Gene Lyons, Division of Behavioral Sciences, National Academy of Sciences National Research Council, on leave from Dartmouth College. Panelists: Al Carp, Director, Office of Selection, Peace Corps. Richard Graham, Director, National Teacher Corps. Jack Howard, Administrator, Neighborhood Youth Corps. Padraic Kennedy, Deputy Director, VISTA. David F. Squire, Deputy Director, Job Corps.

3:00 p.m.: Workshop Summaries : Reports on morning sessions by chairmen and general discussion. 7:30 p.m.: Informal Group Discussions : “Public Opinion"-Discussion leader-Sherman B. Chickering, Publisher, Moderator Magazine. “Research”-Discussion leader-David Gottlieb, Director of Plans and Programs, Job Corps. Tuesday, April 4, 1967

9:00 a.m.: Workshop Groups : Organization of National Service.

National Service: Voluntary or compulsory?-Chairman : Glenn A. Olds, Executive Dean, International Studies and World Affairs, State University of New York. Research Panelists: Robert Bird, Director of Service for Conscientious Objectors, American Friends Service Committee "The Case for Voluntary Service.” Edward F. Hall, Litchfield, Connecticut “The Case for Compulsory National Service." Panel Members: John De J. Pemberton, Jr., Executive Director, American Civil Liberties Union Jack J. Preiss, Professor, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Duke University.

National Service: Selection and Training.-Chairman: William G. Saltonstall, Chairman, Massachusetts Board of Education; Senior Advisor, Rodman Job Corps Center. Research Panelists: David Dichter, Director, Sports International and Youth for Development. “A Model for National Service Placement Centers." Joshua L. Miner, III, and Dyke V. Williams, Outward Bound, Inc. “National Service Summer Camps-A Time for Learning.” Panel Members: Leonard J. Duhl, Consultant, Department of Housing and Urban Development. Robert Perrin, Assistant Director for Inter-Agency Relations, Office of Economic Opportunity.

National Service: Activities and Criteria.-Chairman: Charles H. Stoddard, Director, The Citizens' Advisory Committee on Recreation and Natural Beauty. Research Panelists: William Delano, Secretary General, International Secretariat for Volunteer Service. “The International Dimension of National Service." John Naisbitt, Science Research Associates, Inc., Chicago, Illinois. “Education and Rehabilitation for National Service Participants." Felix Rimberg, Center for Community Studies, Temple University. “Implications of the Professional–Sub-Professional Relationship for National Service." Panel Members: Ruth M. Amen, Director of Program Development, Camp Fire Girls, Inc.

National Service: Organization.-Chairman: Robert E. Herzstein, Partner, Arnold and Porter, Washington, D.C. Research Panelists: Homer Hagedorn, Arthur D. Little & Co., William Josephson, attorney; H. Donald Wilson, Arthur D. Little & Co. “An Administrative Framework for National Service." Panel Members : Michael B. Goldstein, Executive Director, New York City Urban Corps. Thomas Scott, Program Associate, The Ford Foundation.

12:30 p.m. : Luncheon Panel Discussion.

“Relationship Between National Service and non-Federal Programs." Chairman: Otis Singletary, Vice President, American Council on Education. Panelists: Dr. Angelo P. Angelides, Coordinator of Professional Activities, Director of Medical Education, Langenau Hospital, Philadelphia. Ruth Hagy Brod, Director, Volunteer Coordinating Council of New York. Hyman Frankel, Director, Experiment in Higher Education, Southern Illinois University. Sidney Howe, Senior Associate, The Conservation Foundation.

3:00 p.m.: Workshop Summaries. Reports by workshop panel chairmen and general discussion. 5:00 p.m. : Closing Session. Concluding Address: The Honorable Jacob K. Javits, United States Senator.

Mr. EBERLY. Thank you.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I would like to ask you to run through, very briefly, how you see this system functioning after a boy is, as you say, rejected for military service. How do you see the procedure after that?

Mr. EBERLY. Well, I would actually see it beginning a bit before. When the young man reaches the age of 18, he registers for service. I would have the Selective Service System called the National Service System. I would give this young man a greater option of choice than he now has. He may commit himself to military service, he may commit himself to nonmilitary service, or he may permit his name to go into the draft pool.

Then in the draft pool, he would be selected for military service by the lottery, by selective service, whatever particular system of drafting was then in effect. Some presumably would be drafted. Others would not.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. This would be an alternative to the draft itself.

Mr. EBERLY. It would be virtually an alternative, in that persons who had committed themselves to nonmilitary service, and not in nonmilitary service, would be placed later in the order of call, so that in effect, they would only be drafted in an emergency. But they would not be excluded from being drafted, in case of emergency.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. But in effect, it will be somewhat similar to the general arrangements that have been made now in the Peace Corps? It varies, I understand, between different draft boards at present.

Mr. EBERLY. It varies a great deal, Mr. Chairman, and this is unfortunate.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. What I mean is, in California, there are draft boards which have even drafted Peace Corps personnel. This is part of the current reason why there must be an overhaul of the whole draft system.

Mr. EBERLY. That's right.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. But nonetheless, you don't see your proposal as a pure alternative for military service.

Mr. EBERLY. Not as a pure alternative, because it could happen that such a large number of young men would have participated in nonmilitary programs, and the time would come when we would need very large numbers for military defense, and we would not want to be caught off base. We would have to be able to draft them.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. What is your response to those who reject any kind of compulsion with regard to voluntary service in the Peace Corps, for example? If national service would not be an alternative, necessarily, but would in effect lower the order of call in the Armed Forces, then I would think it would have some compulsory effect on the reasons why someone would join the Peace Corps.

Mr. EBERLY. There would be an element of incentive there, Mr. Chairman, I agree, although the figures as I understand them from the Peace Corps in recent years, after the Vietnam buildup, have been that there have been no substantially greater percentage of males opting for the Peace Corps, although it has been, in effect, a 2-year deferment.

In other words, a person could gamble.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. You still have the compulsory aspect to it, do you not? I mean, you still have the fact that when the boy reaches 19, he will know that if there isn't a Vietnam buildup, or something like that, by going in the national service-or VISTA or the Peace Corpshe will be escaping from the draft, for all intents and purposes.

Mr. EBERLY. If the situations remain constant. We also have to examine the condition of zero draft. In this case, there would still be a national service program. The mechanism we recommend is a national foundation for volunteer service; there would be a funding operation. It would be essentially decentralized, so that schools, hospitals, conservation units, and so forth, would request persons in a national service program. There would be national service summer camps and placement centers, and these would provide experience and information and guidance, testing, to gradually identify those who come forward and want to serve with appropriate opportunities.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Well, now, could we get into the troubled area of costs. I understand that the cost, for example, of training a Peace Corps volunteer is about $10,000.

Mr. EBERLY. It is about $7,800, now.
Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. It is down.
Mr. EBERLY. It is going down slowly.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. What do you estimate the cost of the kind of program you champion ?

Mr. EBERLY. We estimate approximately $5,000 per man-year.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. And how many men are you talking about?

Mr. EBERLY. In 10 years, we are talking about-
Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Just, say, per year.
Mr. EBERLY. Maybe 2 or 3 million.
Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Pardon!
Mr. EBERLY. In 10 years, we are talking about 2 or 3 million.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Now let us just think through. We have about a million-eight, presently, that are turning every year.

Now if we say, of that million-eight, there are about 600,000 rejected, that leaves about a million-two who will be subjected to the draft. And your own suggestion is that you will be able to include in national service some who don't qualify, because of educational or medical deficiencies, and yet will be able to perform useful jobs within the society.

Mr. EBERLY. That is right. We estimate about half of that group that is not now qualified for military service would qualify for national service.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. That boosts it up about 300,000, to about a million-five who are eligible both for military service and nonmilitary service.

Mr. EBERLY. Those 300,000 are not eligible for military service, sir.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. No, but the total group is available for service.

Mr. EBERLY. That is right.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Of that, you get about 575,000 needed by the military in a non-Vietnam situation,

Mr. EBERLY. That order of magnitude.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Let us round it out at 600,000. So therefore, you are talking about a group of 900,000 per year.

Mr. EBERLY. Who would enter, but normally, their service would be at least 2 years, and possibly 212.

So that at any one time, there would be a 2-year group, so that among males alone, there might be 1.8 million, double your 900,000.

Senator Javits. Mr. Chairman, they wouldn't enter, they would be available.

Mr. EBERLY. That is right.

Senator Javits. So because these services will only absorb so much. For example, VISTA, 5,000 or 6,000, Peace Corps, at the most, 20,000.

Mr. EBERLY. At the present time, but I think both of these could be expanded. I worked with the Peace Corps in Nigeria, and I know the Nigerian requests always far exceeded the ability of the Peace Corps to provide the manpower needed.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Well would this 900,000 face an option as to whether they would go into service or not?

Mr. EBERLY. It would be at their option.
Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. It would be at their option?

Mr. EBERLY. This is consistent with the President's statement of a few days ago, in which he said he wanted to give the greatest amount of freedom to young people to choose how they would serve society.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. What number do you figure will be in at any one time? A million-eight, that will be in the national services?

Mr. EBERLY. Among males only, are we speaking ?

Senator KENNEDY Of Massachusetts. Well, yes. You could take both. I will ask you both.

Mr. EBERLY. If you want me to take both, then we get on the order of 3 million. But this is conjectural at the time. We won't know, until we have pilot programs, and find out if there are really this many openings. The availability of training and supervisory staff will constrain the growth of the program, . Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Now the cost of that, if you

take it over say, a 2-year period, works out to $15 billion.

At this point, I would like to insert in the record a possible buildup of a national service program in its first 3 years of operation, as suggested in “A Plan for National Service," prepared by the secretariat in November 1966.

(The information referred to follows:)

TABLE 2.-Proposed buildup of a national service program 18t 3 years

Volunteers in the field

End of

End of

End of 1st year

2d year

3d year

Education.
Health
Community service..
Conservation.
Libraries
Other....

10,000
10,000
5,000
3,000
1.000
1,000

30,000
30.000
15,000
15.000
5,000
5,000

90,000 90,000 50,000 50,000 10,000 10,000

Total..
Volunteers in national service summers..
Volunteers in national service placement centers.

30,000
10,000
10,000

- 100,000

30.000
30,000

300,000
100,000
100,000

« PreviousContinue »