As you've probably noticed from previous posts, I have been dealing with teaching the compulsory civic engagement component here at the University of Maryland in my own special way.
On the topic of being "civically engaged," I stumbled upon an article at Touchstone (via Pewsitter) that tries to tackle Charles Hitchens' assertion that religion is inherently bad and leads to bad citizenship.
According to this article:
Civic engagement—reading the newspaper and voting, for example—and participation in voluntary associations also increase with frequent church attendance. For every one voluntary association—like a civic club or PTO—among the non-religious, there are 2.4 such associations among those who attend religious services more than once per week.
Thus, Smith concludes: “Religious involvement is associated with, and probably promotes, civic engagement. . . . Those participating in a faith community are more likely to vote, belong to voluntary associations, and carry out altruistic acts than the nonreligious.”
So, essentially, it sounds like Maryland is trying to beef up the secular civic engagement to turn the tide.
(I can tell you now, however, that the only students who seem interested in civic engagement are the ones who were already involved before they got here.)
As I said in a civic engagement focus group, it seems to me like the University of Maryland could use its money more efficiently by helping groups that are already civically engaged, rather than dumping money in programs that try to force students to become engaged.
Comments