Because America Deserves our Best: The Initiative to Create a U.S. Public Service Academy

I write tonight to bring attention to an initiative that has slowly but steadily begun building solid support in both houses of Congress for the past several years.

This idea, which I believe will change our image of American public service, was not produced by a think tank or by a D.C. focus group.  

I am proud to announce my full and aggressive support of the creation of a United States Public Service Academy.  

Having been involved with Teach for America in Houston for some years now, I come into contact with scores of TFA alumni who now serve as business and community leaders in all areas.  One such alumnus is Shawn Raymond, now a Houston-based attorney, who with fellow TFA alum Chris Myers Asch began pursuing this inspiring cause.

Their mission in creating a U.S. Public Service Academy?

(as quoted from www.uspublicserviceacademy.org)
"The mission of the United States Public Service Academy is to build a corps of civilian leaders who have the moral character, academic training, and leadership experience necessary to serve the American people honorably and effectively, and who are committed to devoting their lives to public service."

The Academy is to be modeled after the United States’ prestigious military academies.  Like our military academies, the PSA will be academically rigorous and will require a significant post-graduate service commitment. A rigorous admission process (complete with congressional nomination) will admit 1275 stellar candidates each year for a four year course of study. This one, however, will produce a public corps of civilian leaders in such capacities as education, law enforcement, emergency response, and others targeted specifically to meet critical national needs.

As these founders point out, our nation faces critical shortages in these areas of public service. It is, as many of us have come to realize, legitimately a matter of national security as well as domestic health. Despite this fact, no federal public service academy is in existence today.  How do we best serve our country? By stepping up, as Raymond and Asch have done, to prioritize service to our fellow citizens just as highly as we prioritize military prowess.

As young thirty-somethings, these founders believe  Public Service Academy can be a powerful reflection of the patriotism and commitment of our nation’s young citizens; we have what it takes, they believe, and the job is up to us.

Senator Hillary Clinton has agreed to help craft and introduce this legislation; others of the same caliber, and from both sides of the aisle, are catching on.  What will make the difference?  Strong and swift public support organized by we the activist community.  

I am interested in beginning a discussion about how to build support for a PSA; this is truly one of the BEST and most inspiring ideas I have heard of in my life.  In addition, it’s distinctly sensible and imminently possible.

TALK AWAY!

www.uspublicserviceacademy.org

•  wow texas blue,

  that sure is a great idea. although it was dumb to make the title soo long that the KEY PHRASE (uus public service academy) didn't get oon the front page. silly bear.

  by Texas Blue on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 07:54:53 PM PDT

•  *criickets chirp*

  i knowi know, COLBER REPORE is more innteresting.

  by Texas Blue on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 08:00:45 PM PDT

•  Talk About Fundamentalist Hijacking Potential

  I just can't trust anything in this country any more.

  by Gooserock on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 08:02:24 PM PDT

  •  exactly. can't be TOO like the military, right

    by Texas Blue on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 08:04:44 PM PDT

•  If the Right

  can have leadership training, so can we?  I know that's not exactly what you mean, but nonetheless, it sounds good.

  by Statius on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 08:17:12 PM PDT

  •  bipartisan support has been an uphill battle,

    so I hear. It's interesting, on their webiste they strategically quote Bush 41: "Public service is a noble calling and we need men and women of character to beleievee in their communities, in thier states, and in their country." take that, wingnuts!

    by Texas Blue on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 08:20:36 PM PDT

•  Congressional nomination

  opens it to abuse as a shakedown for campaign contributions. Also partisan tilt, ie you can't get in if your delegation skews the other way.

  by ben masel on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 08:40:52 PM PDT

  •  I think the military academies...

    ...operate via congressional nomination, though.

    Not 100% sure, but I think they do.  And, if that's the case, I wouldn't see why the Public Service Academy shouldn't be able to operate the same way, with the same safeguards in place.

    by WayneNight on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 09:36:48 PM PDT

    •  Think there's no corruption or partisanship

      in admissions to the Military Academies?

      by ben masel on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 10:30:47 PM PDT

  •  all problems that occur alreaedy in military ones

    by Texas Blue on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 10:28:44 PM PDT

    •  So why replicate it?

      by ben masel on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 10:31:42 PM PDT

      •  because there is more to the process

        than its detractions. glass half full, you might say

        by Texas Blue on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 10:32:37 PM PDT

      •  there are few reasons

        that could ever be strong enough to dissuade the creation of a service academy. it's just too strong an idea, in my opinion.

        by Texas Blue on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 10:33:35 PM PDT

        •  So are you going to replicate every

          stupid tradition from the military academies? Institutionalised bullying by upperclassmen?

          by ben masel on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 10:51:41 PM PDT

          •  maybe youu didn'tt read the public srvice part?

            by Texas Blue on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 10:31:25 AM PDT

          •  btw military academies are EXTREMELY effective

            by Texas Blue on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 10:31:50 AM PDT

•  Wow, this is a brilliant...

  ...idea.  Someone should make sure that this is an idea that ALL of the Dem presidential candidates take a position on.

  Any idea where the Public Service Academy would be located?  Personally, I think that the D.C. Area would probably make sense.

  by WayneNight on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 09:35:20 PM PDT

  •  shawn raymond was pusshing houston

    as a location but taht is because he's from houston and is a member of the business community. D.C. is a good idea too i thtink

    by Texas Blue on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 10:28:03 PM PDT

    •  No offense to Shawn Raymond...

      ...or anything, but I think that D.C. would be a more ideal location for a public service academy.

      After all, that's where many, if not most, of the major public service organs of the national government are located. Placing the academy there would be ideal, because it would create access to those organizations, and it would create extra internship opportunities for the academy students.

      by WayneNight on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 12:33:23 PM PDT

•  How do you enforce the commitment

  after graduation?

  by ben masel on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 10:56:58 PM PDT

  •  Treat the tuition

    as a loan that will be forgiven after the commitment is completed (essentially like that; it would have to be done in such a way that the free tuition doesn't turn into taxable income).

    by ebohlman on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 12:07:33 AM PDT

    •  And if its a rich kid they can walk?

      by ben masel on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 12:39:36 AM PDT

      •  this is reality. take a bite

        by Texas Blue on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 10:30:21 AM PDT

      •  the realitty is

        yoou NEED rich people to prop up insttitutions like tthhiis onoe, and you doo yyour best too keep their inifluence in check.

        by Texas Blue on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 10:30:51 AM PDT

      •  Likely you'll have a few students...

        ...who do that, but, by and large, why would someone attend a Public Service academy if they're not interested in a career in public service?  

        Seriously... If they want to just go out and make money, I think they'd just go to a place like Harvard or Yale and major in business.  I doubt there would be many people who'd go through all of the time, effort, and aggravation to get into a service academy that's not likely to even have many courses focused on what they really want out of life (making money).  You have to stop and think about the incentives they'd have.

        I'm willing to consider a method other than congressional nomination - IF you can prove to me that congressional nomination for the military academies is somehow rife with partisanship and corruption.  

        However, I'm a bit perplexed by your seemingly overwhelming hostility to this idea.  Public service is something that should be encouraged.  Our society already places way too much emphasis on going out and making "quick cash" over spending your life, or even a portion of your life, helping society.  A public service academy might be a good way to try to achieve more balance in the kind of goals our society promotes.  It could be the "Peace Corps" for whoever the next Democratic president is.

        by WayneNight on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 12:41:40 PM PDT

        •  Critique /= hostility.

          Playing devil's advocate til you get it right.

          by ben masel on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 01:01:43 PM PDT

•  LOTS of potential problems

  Look at France with ENA:  everybody who is anybody in gov't, biz, whatever, came from ENA.  Turns it all into an old boy network even before the boys (and girls) are old.  There's enough nepotism & cronyism in the civil service as it is.

  This is not to say that such objections couldn't be handled if the product was thoroughly thought through.  It would be interesting to get a better look at what these folks have in mind, so I can throw rocks more specifically (I've always liked rock).

  And, please, not Houston and probably not DC.  No way would I have considered something like this if it was in TX (I was brought up in LA & am still kind of allergic to heat/humidity/extreme conservatism).  Put it somewhere more or less unobjectionable, relatively non-political, Atlanta or Albequerque or something.

  by flagpole on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 08:40:12 PM PDT

  •  I agree. Potential Elitism is the problem here.

    A point to remember concerning the military academies is that they tend to focus on science, technology, and leadership... for MILITARY reasons. (I do not mean to imply that other fields of study are not available, only that the "hard" fields are emphasized) There is nothing at all wrong with this. It is in fact a good thing because there is much less room in the "hard" subjects for ideological doctrine to be imposed, i.e. the laws of nature work the same regardless of whether you are democratic or republican politically, and these subjects are of particular military utility. I'm not sure the same can be said with regard to political science, history, or even economics as these subjects are much more susceptible to the influence of political doctrine.

    Additionally, within the officer corps of the military there is a well known bias toward academy educated officers over non-academy educated officers that is nothing less than a form of elitist old-school style discrimination. It is not quite absolute in its effects, but, in my opinion, it is detrimental to the proper functioning and accountability of our military.

    I favor the idea of public/military service for our nation as a benefit to our society in general. How then to implement it and avoid the inherent problems of the military academies? Simple, really, make education a benefit of public service... military or civilian, guarantee an individual's educational costs regardless if those costs come before, after, or during a term of public service. (think Northern Exposure here) Making this work would require some form of general assignment labor pool though in which individuals would have to agree to work in jobs that might not require skills in their particular field, but would require the general skills inherent in a 4 yr degree, for instance. For those unskilled and not yet college educated a general assignment labor pool would be needed as well. This pool would be something similar in scope to the work programs of the 1930s, but with a different purpose and focus. Perhaps a cross between Americorps and the forest service/smoke jumpers alliance kind of thing. Hard to say what shape the final program would take, but it would have to emphasize public service and not become JUST a form of welfare (though it would probably function to reduce those rolls somewhat as well).

    Our government requires a certain diversity of education to function properly. That diversity would be harmed by an elitist Public Service Academy, however it is in the nation's best interest to make education a standard benefit to public service.

    by zedaker on Sat Feb 10, 2007 at 12:04:57 PM PDT

•  Support Public Service - Not Public Servitude

  I'm all for actual salaries or for education loan forgiveness or for other support to people who go into public service - like Teach America.

  But, we have a foundational belief in a government of the people, by the people and for the people.  So the governed determine the extent of their obligation to the State, and the State has no organic existence or right to demand service from its citizens.

  This is very different from the institutional philosophies of Europe where the Government is entitled to demand service and obedience from the governed.

  Thus, as both a big "D" Democrat and a little "d" democrat, I encourage the use of public funds and the bully pulpit of public opinion to encourage public service, I utterly oppose mandatory National Service or similar schemes.

  A Draft is a different animal.  It is an extreme measure required by war.  It is purpose driven.  It is temporary.  It is coupled with other public sacrifice.  And, I believe, as part of a Draft, some Draftees could be required to perform jobs other than combat.  So as a fairness measure, if a Draft was necessary to fill the ranks in Iraq, the non-combat cohorts could (and should) be required to  perform National Guard type jobs in constructing and improving the national physical and technical infrastructure.  So bridges, trails, schools, tutoring, community health care, environmental remediation etc...... would be appropriate assignments.

  by 22state on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 09:43:33 PM PDT

•  Right goal, but not so hot an idea

  This idea does not begin to address the scale of the need to recruit a new generation of civil and public servants to replace the Baby Boomers who have already begun to retire and will be retiring in ever-increasing numbers at the local, state, and federal levels.  The cumulative effect of retirements is already undermining the effectiveness of the one federal agency with which I am familiar.

  The notion of raising prestige and standards is a great idea, but the analogy with military service is flat-out wrong.

  This needs to become a national priority, and I believe it will become one when we elect a Democratic president in 2008.  The remedies are presidential leadership, engagement of all universities and colleges, and continual reform of government employment systems.

  Bushco and the Repubs have been only to happy to privatize government and break what they can't privatize.  It's up to the Dems to rebuild efficient, effective government agencies.

  The PSA initiative does not aim nearly high or broadly enough and may not even be helpful.

  by Neighbor2 on Sat Feb 10, 2007 at 07:17:58 AM PDT

•  good idea

  Academic universities are discipline based, and only do a so-so job of training students for the applied work. There are individual programs sprinkled throughout academia that try to meet needs such as this one, but they often struggle because ultimately professors are under pressure to publish in the primary reserach literature, not to serve the world.

  An institution like this one has the potential to establish a gold standard of public service training.

  Also, many eighteen year olds are idealistic and interested in service, but by the time they graduate they are preoccupied with paving a path for themselves in the work world, and the desire to serve is sublimated for decades, or permanently. Programs like this one can segue students directly into the work world in a service capacity, allowing them to both make a living and serve.

  by heartofblue on Sat Feb 10, 2007 at 11:41:08 AM PDT

•  No, no, no, please

  Not another bureaucratic gatekeeper!

  What people don't understand about the federal civil service:

  To get in (unless it's political) you need to be smart and have really, really good credentials.  

  Once you get in -- if you're typical -- the system proceeds to frustrate and sour and wear you out.

  Because after all the fuss about qualifications, the system does not reward sharp, dedicated professionals who get results so much as it does the gifted manipulators and those whose natural talent is threading the bureaucratic maze. (This problem is not unique to government bureaucracies, of course.)

  The red tape on the outside is nothing compared to the red tape on the inside. People who joined the goverenment in the hope of exercising their skills to do good things stereotypically end up alienated, cynical and counting the days to their pension.  

  Rising managers who hope for bigger things and feel they need more education often take a Masters in Public Administration (which does not necessarily require a B.A. first). Managers aiming for the Senior Executive Service have their own training and apprenticeship program.

  One group of people currently underserved are those who start out at clerical level and are promoted, or hoping for promotion, from within. The government also used to help pay for motivated individuals in this situation to take night courses. There once was a formal "upward mobility program" for some such individuals, which went into abeyance a while ago.  This kind of assistance could usefully be restored. It does not require a special institution.

  For specialized training, there are already seven existing federal academies.  

  But the problems with federal service generally are not caused by lack of education, information or skills. They are due to crummy management.

  And the crummy management does not result from uneducated managers.  It has a variety of causes including outdated organizational rules and structures; many-layered, crisscrossing and even contradictory management control systems; a recent hollowing-out and loss of depth in many agencies; and the game of political football.  

  Restoring a vital and useful civil service is a problem similar (though not identical) to the problem of rejuvenating an aging corporation.  There just are no quick fixes.  Simply wielding the ax a lot -- the typical "conservative" solution -- will not do it.  And education -- the typical, hopeful "liberal" solution -- is only a band-aid in this case. This is a long-term effort that requires careful thought -- unfortunately, not a strong point in our quick-fix-oriented political system.  

  As a start, civil servants need to be able to feel:

  Pride in what they are able to do
  Connected with the people they serve
  Genuinely appreciated and fairly rewarded

  This is not going to happen when their own bosses are hostile to their very existence, as has been the case for many over the part 6 years.  

  Institutionalizing this additional bureaucracy in the name of "education" sounds nice, but at best it is irrelevant; at worst, it will exacerbate the alienation.  

  by Clio2 on Sun Feb 11, 2007 at 08:11:43 AM PDT

  •  Addendum, sorry

    I fired off the above without fully grasping the idea of the Academy proposed.  

    I'm sorry, but my reaction is even stronger.

    This is proposing that the Federal government run a public college:

    --As a substitute for tuition grants or loans
    --To fill entry-level Federal jobs more cheaply

    There is already a program for doctors, I believe, that it pays tuititon at existing educational institutions in exchange for future work at "hardship" posts not coveredby for-profit doctors. It might make sense to expand this principle to cover some other needed specialities.

    But heavens, talk about potentially turning the government service into a special caste ever more alienated from the people.  

    No, no please.  

    by Clio2 on Sun Feb 11, 2007 at 08:25:12 AM PDT