A Bush presidency may promise to save Americans a few extra dollars each year, but it will also threaten to deprive federal programs of much-needed funds. Gov. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney propose the "slash-and-burn" approach to anti-poverty programs like Head Start. And a Bush presidency will not only make things tougher for Head Start programs across the country — it will also make the work of Student Volunteers Council members more necessary.
For several years, the SVC has been associated with the Mercer County Head Start Program, which provides young children from low-income families with an education supported by social services and parental involvement. Head Start is the only federally funded program within SVC — and is therefore the SVC program that will be most directly affected by the outcome of the election. During the presidential debates, Bush described the federal government's role like this: "Change Head Start into a reading program."
But Bush's anti-government rhetoric is founded on a shallow knowledge of the programs that would suffer when his ideas are implemented. Edward Zigler, Yale psychology professor and member of the committee that created Head Start, responded, "The governor seemed to have no sense that health and nutrition are connected to reading ability, and that the very strength of Head Start as a predictor of school success lies in its comprehensive nature." In an under-funded program where the volunteers include teenage parents and the four-year-old students tell stories about police shootings, Princeton can help.
As a congressman, vice presidential candidate Dick Cheney voted against authorizing funding and reauthorizing community block grants for Head Start. When Cheney recently defended his votes against Head Start, he said, just because "something has a fancy title doesn't mean it merited support." Fancy title? He then placed his votes in the context of "big deficits," suggesting he would rather slash funding for anti-poverty programs directed toward pre-schoolers than cut back any other area of fiscal mismanagement.
One of the great dangers of a Bush presidency, however, is the effect it will have not only on the budgets of federal programs, but on the spirit of community activism in our generation.
While events like the Vietnam War, Watergate, Iran Contra and the Clinton impeachment may have made students skeptical of politicians and wary of a career in politics, our generation has become involved in community-service programs in record numbers. A recent study of college freshmen shows more students are choosing teaching as a career than at any time in the last quarter-century. The reason cited: "To make a difference."
Part of this activism is derived from the leadership of President Clinton. Amid the economic boom and unparalleled prosperity of recent years, he made a poverty tour throughout America, highlighting the areas in gravest need. Amid a growing — though healthy — skepticism about the role of government, he increased federal funding for programs like Head Start and created AmeriCorps, a national community service program that engages more than 40,000 Americans, including activists from this campus. President Clinton restored America's faith in government after that faith had been maligned by the anti-government rhetoric of the Reagan-Bush years.
What will happen to this vigorous spirit of community activism if we now regress to a Bush-Cheney term in which the same anti-government rhetoric will be spoken by some of the same people as in earlier years? It will be harder for programs to achieve their goals if they are funded by an administration that does not believe in their potential. And it will be harder for Americans to believe in the potential of government programs if the leaders of that government do not believe in that potential.
We must keep strong our generation's commitment to America's communities. And we must view a Bush presidency as a challenge to that commitment — and meet it with energy and daring. Adam Frankel is from New York. He can be reached at afrankel@princeton.edu.
Read More
Sitting in at Princeton: proud past, shameful present
Keith Wailoo“To be sure, university leaders of the past were critical of students’ employment of sit-ins as a protest tactic, but they were willing to meet, debate, and — occasionally — even listen and change course.”
“To be sure, university leaders of the past were critical of students’ employment of sit-ins as a protest tactic, but they were willing to meet, debate, and — occasionally — even listen and change course.”
The ‘fun’ model just isn’t sustainable: a plea against hookup culture
Julianna Lee“Understanding and practicing commitment is key in forming and maintaining these relationships. Trust is essential. Making sacrifices for each other and for the family is necessary. If we don’t practice these skills now, we can’t expect to suddenly become good at them when the right time comes.”
“Understanding and practicing commitment is key in forming and maintaining these relationships. Trust is essential. Making sacrifices for each other and for the family is necessary. If we don’t practice these skills now, we can’t expect to suddenly become good at them when the right time comes.”
Faculty letter to U. admin calling for VP Calhoun’s resignation
Guest Contributors“We demand the immediate resignation of VP Calhoun, in whose leadership we have lost all faith following her untruthful and, in our opinion, deliberately misleading representation of student protesters, that has proven to be the real threat to the Princeton University community.”
"We demand the immediate resignation of VP Calhoun, in whose leadership we have lost all faith following her untruthful and, in our opinion, deliberately misleading representation of student protesters, that has proven to be the real threat to the Princeton University community."
