Some people at my univeristy are currently making a push to require some kind of "service learning" course in our general education program.

Here are some of the themes I see in this service learning concept:

1. They view communities as disfunctional groups in need of "fixing" by the annointed experts. Communities don't need to be "fixed". Real problems exist in all communities and some of these problems can be partially dealt with. Helping others with their problems is certainly a noble goal, but "fixing" them is not.

2. Only certain kinds of service will count under their concept. For example, any service that is done in a for-profit environment is not service in their eyes. So internships don't count. Similarly, any service that doesn't fit into their ideological framework will not count. I'm sure (despite protests to the contrary) that a student who wants to do say a gun education program in coordination with the NRA would be frowned upon. Meanwhile, working with Planned Parenthood no doubt would be "uplifting."

3. Their narrow conception of service is fundamentally anti-human. In their eyes, any service that is fun, exciting, profitable etc--in short any service that is also in the interest of the student--is wrong or if not wrong it isn't service. They essentially insist that the students learn through suffering. In fact, "Suffering Learning" would be a more accurate term. My take: Any concept that requires human suffering is just plain anti-human. We humans aren't built in a manner that allows us to voluntarily suffer. We can be forced to suffer yes, but we like to avoid suffering if possible. These ideologues are asking us to go against our very nature.