AmeriCorps celebrates its twenty anniversary on September 12th. The New York Times celebrates the program in an editorial in today’s Sunday edition and urges the administration to expand the program as the President had once promised. Certainly, AmericCorps is an excellent program and deserves the highest praise given in this editorial. To read the editorial, here is the link:
The New York Times editorial is entitled “Broken Promises on National Service.” Peace Corps is not named in the editorial. Yet, the term “National Service” has traditionally included Peace Corps. In speaking of President Obama’s commitment to AmeriCorps, the editorial writer does note the President’s inclusion of “and other national service programs.”
Certainly, in speaking of “national service”, Obama did include the Peace Corps:
06/30/2008, Independence, MO, Remarks of Senator Barack Obama:
“…We should expand AmeriCorps and grow the Peace Corps. We should encourage national service by making it part of the requirement for a new college assistance program, even as we strengthen the benefits for those whose sense of duty has already led them to serve in our military.”
Does the failure to name the Peace Corps in this editorial matter? Perhaps not. But perhaps it may inadvertently contribute to the impression that the Peace Corps no longer exists or is no longer relevant. Perhaps when Peace Corps celebrates the 53rd anniversary of the signing of the Peace Corps Act on September 22nd, the Times will recognize this pioneer national service program. Perhaps not.
The New York Times has a public editor who can be contacted about all its published items. To read more about the current public editor and the function of the position, here is the text to link to: http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/about-the-public-editor/
To contact the public editor, here is the contact link: http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/contact-the-public-editor/