According to the New York Times, the White House has instructed domestic agencies about “9/11 Anniversary Planning”:

These guidelines also acknowledge that Americans will expect government leaders to explain what steps have been taken to prevent another 9/11-style attack and to encourage Americans to volunteer in their communities this Sept. 11. [They] also ask something of Americans that has been lacking in Washington: ‘We will also draw on the spirit of unity that prevailed in the immediate aftermath of the attacks.’

I wish I could read the instructions themselves. (Googling for them produces outraged headlines on right-wing sites, like: “Obama even regulates how to commemorate the 9/11 terror attacks.” In fact, the Chief Executive gave instructions to employees who report to him within the federal government.)

Meanwhile, I’ve also been getting press questions about the relationship between 9/11 and volunteering, service, or national unity. People ask whether the original attacks increased service, whether that effect has worn off, and whether leaders took advantage of the opportunity to enhance service. These are my main thoughts:

1. Volunteering rose between 2002 and 2004 and then fell off somewhat after 2005. We don’t know much about the trends before 2002 because relevant survey questions were not asked regularly, but we do know that high school students’ volunteering rose through the 1980s and 1990s. The changes in national rates since 2002 have not been dramatic. If 9/11 had an effect, it probably wasn’t large.

source: CIRCLE

2. Volunteering is not mainly a reflection of motivation. It is more a function of opportunity, organization, and recruitment. The neighbors you see picking up trash on the local playground are not there primarily because they had an urge to serve and looked for something to do. They are there because: 1) there is a playground, 2) somebody organized a clean-up, and 3) they were asked to participate. Motivation matters at the margin, especially to get the organizers going. It is not the main factor in explaining volunteer rates.

Thus I wouldn’t expect 9/11/01 to produce a vast wave of extra volunteering by motivating people, nor would I explain the modest decline after 2005 as a result of waning enthusiasm. I suspect budget cuts hurt from 2006-10. After all, if the playground is closed, the volunteer coordinator is laid off, or the community newspaper shuts down, that will suppress volunteering rates.

3. There is, and always has been, a non sequitur in this argument: The United States was attacked by dangerous terrorists, so volunteer at your neighborhood school. The problem is not that civic engagement lacks value or relevance at a time of crisis. The problem is with the standard modes of “volunteering,” which miss the kinds of problems that 9/11 represents (national security, a destroyed section of a great city, relations with the Muslim world, civil liberties).

In a period of rampant professionalism, we assume that paid experts must address those really serious problems, while volunteers can read to kindergartners. Reading to kindergartners is good, but it has nothing to do with 9/11 except symbolically. And the meaning of the symbol troubles me. It is supposed to be about caring and unity, but to me it conveys passivity and marginalization. It’s as if the government said: “We’ll ‘explain what steps have been taken to prevent another 9/11-style attack’; you show you care by volunteering in your community.”