Editor:

I would like to provide an alternative perspective to the opinions espoused by Liz Carlston (“Incentives to give service defeats the purpose,” April 6). Her views are shared by a fair few, including some members of Congress. These views are, however, a reflection of a clear misunderstanding of the term “service” and its role in society, particularly in America.

With no doubt, altruistic service should be8212;and is8212;promoted across the nation. The number of volunteers in this country has grown considerably and continues to do so. And there can be no substitution for the acts of kindness that come from the pure motive to do good things for other human beings.

At a certain point, however, good works must go beyond simple altruism. To relegate “service” to only those acts which are preformed for free is an incredibly narrow view of what service can do for society. Moreover, that narrow view ignores completely the notion of service through civic engagement, and of doing those good works in the broader context of national duty.

What the Serve America Act does is extend the opportunity to serve one’s community, and to be recognized for doing so. The Act would increase the number of people who could receive a considerably small stipend or education grant for doing the kinds of work that would otherwise not get done.

I would urge anyone looking at the Serve America Act to do so with an open view of the meaning of service. Where a nation puts its money speaks volumes. This is one area we can certainly justify spending a little bit more.

Sabrina King,
Student President, Bennion Community Service Center
Senior, Political Science