Here's a story that may have slipped under your radar: During the Clinton administration, members of the Peace Corps in Botswana got together to protest the administration's policies for population control by funding abortions. Carrying signs to the capital city, several of these Peace Corps volunteers chanted, "It's a child, not a choice!" and "Stop pushing women to kill their babies!" At least one Botswana woman who was permanently injured by an abortion joined the protest.
This was a huge embarassment for the Clinton administration, which had recently been pushing in Congress for greater funding for health services in Africa, including abortions and birth control. There was an investigation at the top. First the volunteers were told they had freedom of speech and did not speak for the Clinton administration. Then, they were told that they would not be allowed to remain in the Peace Corps if they participated in future anti-abortion rallies overseas.
One peace corps volunteer, who wore a Peace Corps t-shirt to the rally, but claiming that he just forgot he was wearing it, was actually returned home and ejected from the Peace Corps.
Question: do you think the Clintonistas were right to act this way?
Okay, well, I just made that story up. Here's the real story. Of course, the source is The Nation, which is hardly a fount of responsible journalism. But I'm prepared to accept the story at face value.
Here's my question for you: if you volunteer for a government program overseas, in which you have most of your expenses paid by the government, to what extent should you be expected to keep your opinions to yourself? To what extent does the government have a right to demand certain things of your behavior while you're there on the taxpayer's dime?
And if you did wear a Peace Corps t-shirt at a political rally overseas, would that cross the line even if nothing else?
I know what I think, but I'd like to know your opinions.
...local Peace Corps officials sent an e-mail to all volunteers warning that the protest would "cause tarnish and embarrassment to the Peace Corps"
I wonder if that memo said it WOULD cause embarrassment or it COULD cause embarrassment. Can't really tell as that descriptor isn't in the quote. The article also says that those taking part COULD face administrative separation. It sounds to me like the Peace Corps was just reminding it's volunteers that they represent the United States, and that they will be held responsible for their actions. If it was a peaceful, civil protest with reasonable people, there would be few, if any consequences. However, if the march turned into some huge anti-American rally with violence and traitorous talk, those volunteers would lose their opportunity to represent America. This just makes sense. Of the three who showed up, none had any disciplinary action taken against them.
If all it takes is a memo to keep over 60 people from showing up, they couldn't have felt that strongly about it in the first place. Apparently, they believed more strongly in the tenet, Cover Your Ass.
First, I support unlimited abortion rights. I don't give a shit about rights of the so-called unborn any more than I do about rights of the so-called undead.
Second, employees of a United States agency posted overseas have no right to publicly protest the policies of the government that pays them. If they don't like these conditions they are free to seek employment elsewhere. Employees who violate such a policy against clear directives of their employers should be fired and shipped home, preferably at their own expense. I don't give a shit about freedom of speech for employees against their employers.
One thing about me. I have no patience with equivocation.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Peace Corps Volunteers are exactly that: volunteers. Not employees.
As for your opinions on the rights of the unborn: they are well-known. That's not the issue here, is it?
I think that it is the obligation of the Peace Corp to select and maintain volunteers who represent both the United States and the Peace Corps in a dignified manner.
The volunteers weren't truly silenced--they were made aware of possible consequences of actions that would be outside the bounds of their "employment" with the Peace Corps. I would face the same repercussions if I were to stage a protest against my own employer's company, and that reaction would seem to be pretty reasonable to me.
The abortion issue, though--well, that's probably a conversation for another post...
My last comment went through after your comment, Dean.
I understand and thought about the difference between volunteers and employees before I made the post, but still think that there's a level of responsibility taken on by the volunteers that make them responsible to the Peace Corps for the expense that the volunteers do incur by accepting positions. I think there's a big difference between volunteering at the local soup kitchen for a weekend, and accepting a position with the Peace Corps in which you are flown to another country, housed, and fed.
The volunteer Peace Corps is more like the volunteer Army--there are still very heavy responsibilities taken on by the volunteer.
I have to admit, though, I really think they should just have let the volunteers have their rally with the stipulation that the Corps would be in no way connected to the gathering.
Dean,
You're correct. Abortion is not the issue here, but only whether or not Peace Corps volunteers can publicly demonstrate in a foreign country against the policy of the country that sent them there.
And I say they cannot. Even though they are unpaid volunteers. They are there under the auspices of a program of the United States paid for with US taxpayer dollars. Frankly, I don't give a damn if these people have opinions that dovetail with those I espouse, or if they are in opposition to everything I stand for. I don't want them publicly mouthing off about US national policy in a foreign country. And if they insist on doing so, then I want someone in the Peace Corps that sent them there to tie a chain around their asses and yank them back home to their mamas and poppas.
I would feel the same if one of these people were to start preaching gun rights in some foreign country, and denouncing the US government for insufficiently supporting an armed citizenry, a matter that is truly dear to my heart.
What I want from them is that they just do their jobs and keep their traps shut. As long as they are somewhere overseas representing the United States, even in some minor volunteer capacity.
Clear enough? No ambiguities? No subjective thinking on my part?
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
So if the Bush administration decided to push for ethnic cleansing in Africa, or slavery in Arabia, US government employees would not have the right to protest that policy?
Casey,
There's no point in even speculating on that point because it's never going to happen.
You've asked a tough question, Dean. The same limitations are placed on folks in the Foreign Service. I don't think they should be obliged to mimic Administration policy without fail or flaw, but if you are representing your country and its government overseas, you should have the good sense and decency to voluntarily bear this in mind and act accordingly.
I was a former Peace Corps volunteer in Africa (93-95), and I agree with the official policy. Volunteers ought to stay out of local politics, and organizing local demostrations counts as politics.
The volunteers planning the peace demonstration were way out of line. Peace Corps volunteers are sent overseas to conduct a specific mission, and political advocacy isn't it. If you want to protest this or that, quit and go home.
You can always write letters to your Congressman, letters to the editors at home, anything along those lines, while you volunteer. But what you do in country is a different story. Organizing a political demonstration is simply out of line. And yes, wearing a Peace Corps t-shirt at a demonstration is in and of itself a problem.
In the Third World, the government tends to be afraid of student strikes and demonstrations of any kind ... you can provoke a disaster a lot easier than you might think.
The students at the university where I taught started a political strike against the government. Shut down the university, burning tires in the roads, everything.
A group of them came up to me to ask me questions about whether or not there country was a democracy by American standards. It was a tense moment, and students wanted to know my answer ... they wanted democracy, and they were ready to demonstrate against the government.
I gave them a non-sequiter answer, "It's the Third World ... " They burst out laughing. That's Africa. You say the right thing by accident some times. The strike continued for a while, then petered out. It ended up being about cafeteria food. I don't even know what my role was but I managed to stay apolitical. Not an easy trick sometimes.
Without knowing the specifics of the contract or agreement or whatever people sign when they join the Peace Corps, I'm thinking that Peace Corps volunteers shouldn't be protesting like that, but there's no reason why they can't. As US citizens, they're entitled to disagree with the government, but the fact that they're not on US soil means they're subject to the usual consequences as determined by the local government, and the US government is not necessarily obliged to bail them out.
Yup, agreed that official representatives of the United States who are posted abroad (whether military, Foreign Service, or Peace Corps) ought not be participating in political demonstrations.
dsl angebot dsl dsl dsl tarife dsl flatrate isdn xxl dsl bestellen dsl dsl flatrate dsl dsl dsl angebote 1&1
I enjoyed reading this thoughtful article. Great work.
Interesting, well researched and informative, but I'm not sure I totally agree