Checking the National website today I found this about a new National Staff position.
http://www.capmembers.com/cap_national_hq/national_staff_position.cfm (http://www.capmembers.com/cap_national_hq/national_staff_position.cfm)
Interesting new duty position. I would be interested to know how this duty position came about.
"Diversity Committee Travel $ 1,097,500"
Remember that line item from the BoG June minutes?
Someone's gotta blow that wad ;)
I have belonged to CAP for about a year. I have never posted to this board but this bit of news just kills me. Wouldn't this money be much spent in Cadet Activities nationally? Which would drive membership nationally? Which would probably help our "diversity" in the long run?
Oh .....another reason to not rejoin. Really? The budget for this is over $1,000,000.00? ( I like writing it out)
Quote from: Flying Pig on January 05, 2012, 06:34:59 PM
Oh .....another reason to not rejoin. Really? The budget for this is over $1,000,000.00? ( I like writing it out)
Folks,
As we discussed in another thread or two, the Diversity Committee budget request was
not approved. Obviously we do not have an extra million dollars to spend on any new initiatives, however worthy.
Indeed, even the members of the Diversity Committee did not expect it to be approved, as they intend to seek outside donations in cash or in kind to meet their transportation needs. The amount requested represented their good faith estimate of the amount they needed to accomplish the tasking given to them by the NB.
Remember, the request was not approved and not funded.
Those of you that are concerned about costs to the membership should feel re-assured that the Diversity Officer will be a volunteer position, and not a paid consultant or paid member of the NHQ staff. This is an important initiative that will be able to capitalize on the skills and abilities of our volunteers in developing recommendations for actions that can improve CAP by expanding our membership base and increasing our services.
Ned Lee
As an all volunteer organization, are we not just wasting our time on this "diversity" stuff?
We can not help who shows up to help out. White, Black, Mexican, Spanish, Jewish, Catholic..... I don't care who shows up as long as they do a good job.
"I'm sorry Bob, we can't accept your application this week, we have to meet our quota of minorities"
I guess I am just not sold on the idea...but oh well I don't call the shots.....yet.
What do quotas have to do with diversity?
Ned, if you insist on coming here and pointing out that the NB isn't comprised of a bunch of fools, someone will have to talk Mike about your CT status.
Quote from: EMT-83 on January 05, 2012, 08:05:33 PM
What do quotas have to do with diversity?
Ned, if you insist on coming here and pointing out that the NB isn’t comprised of a bunch of fools, someone will have to talk Mike about your CT status.
NCRBlues is the only one that mentioned quotas, not Ned.
Edit to fix quote.
Quote from: EMT-83 on January 05, 2012, 08:05:33 PM
What do quotas have to do with diversity?
Ned, if you insist on coming here and pointing out that the NB isn't comprised of a bunch of fools, someone will have to talk Mike about your CT status.
I don't think Ned said anything about quotas. Your comment was uncalled for.
Quotas are not what diversity is about. Improving the program so, all who are attracted to CAP can activly participate and enjoy the benefits of membership is.
The problem we have is figuring out how we can accomplish this without comprimising our assigned missions. As Gen Carr said; "We are not a social club".
Quote from: FW on January 05, 2012, 09:01:34 PM
Quotas are not what diversity is about.
You can forgive those of us from the corporate world a bit of a "Yeah, right" attitude about that. While never the "intent" of the program, diversity programs almost inevitably end up with hard or soft quotas as an end result.
Ned did not say anything about quotas. I did, because I am not sold on the idea of the NEED for "diversity" anything in CAP. Even when you read the job description it is vague at best.
Like the above post said, when I see "diversity" I read "eventual quota" or "more hoops to jump through".
Quote from: FW on January 05, 2012, 09:01:34 PM
Quotas are not what diversity is about. Improving the program so, all who are attracted to CAP can activly participate and enjoy the benefits of membership is.
The problem we have is figuring out how we can accomplish this without comprimising our assigned missions. As Gen Carr said; "We are not a social club".
Sir, what is it about our program that certain ethnic groups can not participate fully, and enjoy the full benefits?
Quote from: RogueLeader on January 05, 2012, 09:32:35 PM
Sir, what is it about our program that certain ethnic groups can not participate fully, and enjoy the full benefits?
Exactly! I don't think I could have put it better myself.
One need only look around and get the feeling that CAP is not the most diverse organization in the USA.
So a diversity initiative is all about asking exactly the question you posed. Hopefully, we can find out the answers and see if we can make some adjustments.
Thanks again for putting it so well.
CAP's program has been pretty consistent for 70 years and at least for the last several decades has been fully open to anyone interested in joining. If our program doesn't appeal to certain groups it is unlikely that a few minor tweeks in the recruiting process or overall program are going to make any significant difference because the basic program remains the same.
Quote from: Ned on January 05, 2012, 09:43:42 PM
Quote from: RogueLeader on January 05, 2012, 09:32:35 PM
Sir, what is it about our program that certain ethnic groups can not participate fully, and enjoy the full benefits?
Exactly! I don't think I could have put it better myself.
One need only look around and get the feeling that CAP is not the most diverse organization in the USA.
So a diversity initiative is all about asking exactly the question you posed. Hopefully, we can find out the answers and see if we can make some adjustments.
Thanks again for putting it so well.
That is assuming that there are groups that can't. I would have to have evidence that some can't. In my relatively limited time, (7.5 years) and 4 wings; that is not the case. YMMV.
Quote from: JeffDG on January 05, 2012, 09:10:15 PM
Quote from: FW on January 05, 2012, 09:01:34 PM
Quotas are not what diversity is about.
You can forgive those of us from the corporate world a bit of a "Yeah, right" attitude about that. While never the "intent" of the program, diversity programs almost inevitably end up with hard or soft quotas as an end result.
Probably true however, the intent of a "diversity program", IMO, is to create an environment which is welcoming to all who have a desire to join. To some extent, I think we already do a great job however, there is more we can do. For example; extending/improving our ACES Program, School Programs and, cadet programs (programmes for you Jeff) would do much in attracting members outside of our "usual circles". Partnering with a broader range of aviation groups would also lend to a more diverse membership. To me, diversity means a strong organization; not "who's on first".
Quote from: RogueLeader on January 05, 2012, 09:32:35 PM
Quote from: FW on January 05, 2012, 09:01:34 PM
Quotas are not what diversity is about. Improving the program so, all who are attracted to CAP can activly participate and enjoy the benefits of membership is.
The problem we have is figuring out how we can accomplish this without comprimising our assigned missions. As Gen Carr said; "We are not a social club".
Sir, what is it about our program that certain ethnic groups can not participate fully, and enjoy the full benefits?
IMHO, nothing in CAP is an impediment for anyone. Of course, I'm kind of prejudiced..... :angel:
Quote from: RogueLeader on January 05, 2012, 10:11:37 PM
[That is assuming that there are groups that can't.
Well, if you do not think that there are groups that
"can't", surely you would agree that there are some groups that
"don't." (It bears repeating that our demographics do not tend to reflect America as a whole.)
Does it make sense to take a look to see if we have inadvertantly placed barriers or disincentives that may discourage full participation by everyone?
Actually, I think that the membership dues and associated costs are the biggest reason why we are missing out on people. Some people just can't afford to put money into something that some call a "kid's game..."
BTW, that was my mother's quote when she was trying to tell me that I needed to get away from CAP.....
We do not have a "diversity" problem. We have a cost problem.
Is it shocking that inner city kids do not flock to CAP? I should hope not.... eating Vs. CAP...... eating wins every time....
Is it shocking that poor rural area kids do not flock to CAP? Not to me.... helping out on the family farm Vs. CAP.... farm and family win every time....
Anything short of 100% of cost for EVERYTHING "cap" covered will not fix it. That will never ever happen, so why bother poking a stick at it?
We all know the problems, and we do our best to help out the ones that want to play, but can't afford too. I personally have just under a 1k invested in cap this year alone so far (yup in the 5 days since the year changed). I spend that because I can, others can't spend anything. A "diversity" committee is just going to remind us that we have "working poor" in this country....
Quote from: PA Guy on January 05, 2012, 08:40:41 PM
Quote from: EMT-83 on January 05, 2012, 08:05:33 PM
What do quotas have to do with diversity?
Ned, if you insist on coming here and pointing out that the NB isn’t comprised of a bunch of fools, someone will have to talk Mike about your CT status.
I don't think Ned said anything about quotas. Your comment was uncalled for.
Should have used quote tags. No, Ned didn't say anything about quotas.
I do get the feeling that there are members of this board that would prefer Ned didn't spoil their conspiracy theories with the truth.
I apologize if anyone thought I was taking a shot at Ned: my intentions were just the opposite.
Money is by far the biggest obstacle for diversity. There is nothing else that I can see keeping anyone out. In my own unit we help out a few cadets who need assistance from time to time. I myself have on more than one occasion funded meals or gear when the need arises. You have to do what you have to do to ensure a cadet can participate and is not left out when others buy mickey D's or grab snacks at a pit stop...or a piece of gear cant be bought that is needed...
That said after paying my own way and funding my own child (who is a COSTLY cadet)... we dont need more "diversity"/ if it brings more disadvataged people without funding to CAP. I am already broke now!
I dont mean to seem cold or callous but everything has a cost and if we already have cadets needing a helping hand within the organization (WE DO!) why do we want to troll for more to help out? Units have a hard enough time with the status quo without becoming more "diverse" whic in my book equates to more people who cant afford to participate.
We do not discriminate or turn anyone down now; even those needing a helping hand but why in our right mind would we actively SOLICIT that???
cmon be reasonable and think about it
I can only agree that cost is a huge factor, and indeed may be the largest single factor. And if that is the case, there may not be much that can be done in that regard.
My WAG, however, is that - even after adjusting for economic status - our demographics are still skewed. I don't have any sort of figures to back that up, however. Just my personal observations after looking around several dozen NB meetings, and probably a hundred or so encampments and NCSAs.
Thus I am not sure that cost is the only significant factor that limits full participation. And that is sort of the point of a Diversity Committee/Officer. To do the necessary homework to ensure that we have removed any inadvertant barriers to full participation.
Remember, at this point we have a volunteer Diversity Committee studying the issue and are seeking a volunteer Diversity Officer. There is no significant cost to studying the issue. No big budgets, no paid staffers, no paid consultants. We want "to be reasonable and think about it" a little.
Just volunteers like you and me, trying to improve our program.
That is almost certainly a Good Thing.
Ned Lee
I have no problem with bringing more cadets into the fold beleive me. Just dont want to see a "quota" for those with family incomes below "xxxx" as it is I think some cadets are misled by the program in a way about cost from day one which is a shame. National would be doing a bigger service providing ABU's OOPS BDU's than a blues uniform. The BDU is where the action takes place that cadets love to participate in and we dont provide that yet in most units 50% or more of the time and activities are spent in that not blues...
If we want to increase membership/ diversity then a national outreach to schools especially middle schools needs to be ramped up in a BIG way yes there is a program but in reality it is not happening and it should!
Thanks for what you do Ned and as I said I am not opposed to exploring more opportunities but we need to make better utilization of what we have now and those diversity numbers would improve.
Quote from: Ned on January 05, 2012, 11:47:10 PM
I can only agree that cost is a huge factor, and indeed may be the largest single factor. And if that is the case, there may not be much that can be done in that regard.
My WAG, however, is that - even after adjusting for economic status - our demographics are still skewed. I don't have any sort of figures to back that up, however. Just my personal observations after looking around several dozen NB meetings, and probably a hundred or so encampments and NCSAs.
Thus I am not sure that cost is the only significant factor that limits full participation. And that is sort of the point of a Diversity Committee/Officer. To do the necessary homework to ensure that we have removed any inadvertant barriers to full participation.
Remember, at this point we have a volunteer Diversity Committee studying the issue and are seeking a volunteer Diversity Officer. There is no significant cost to studying the issue. No big budgets, no paid staffers, no paid consultants. We want "to be reasonable and think about it" a little.
Just volunteers like you and me, trying to improve our program.
That is almost certainly a Good Thing.
Ned Lee
One would think so...
Finding alternative significant funding streams is the way to address costs to the members. A strong CAP Foundation could play a major role in this. There are ways to overcome cost issues; we just haven't been able to be successful in adressing them...yet.
I agree with Ned. There is nothing wrong with a group of volunteers studying the issue in an orderly way. I certainly prefer this to doing nothing. After all, membership numbers have been about the same for the last 30 years or so. It's time to figure out how we can enlarge our net; to catch more kinds of
victims members. :D
Agreed, there is certainly nothing wrong with "widening the "net" to grow our member numbers. And if that is the purpose I certainly would not mind seeing that happen or even becoming involved myself more so than I am now.
We need to do a better job of promoting ourselves and find ways to gain positive attention. CAP in my area has very little media coverage and virtually no prescence in schools or various recreation departments throughout the local communities. I have spoken to several recreation directors about cadet progams and they had never heard of cap. The single sheet recruiting flier is not exactly the best we could do to promote our programs is it? Why not tailer a pamphmet to those who run schools and recreational programs for youth if we are serious about increasing our membership? Make it a downloadable format so members such as myself can input local contact information and print off a few to pass around if we want to become known? Ordering bundles of National Preprinted items is nice for an airshow- but to be able to target area specific things like principals, school committees, town managers, etc a template with graphics that could be customized as well as a cohesive branding effort would make sense.
WIWAC 25 years ago member numbers were the same and the same problems existed- not much has changed except I have gotten A LOT older :(
And for those of you who say PAO's are not doing their job---- I say that is NOT the case! PAO's make effort and do contact the media but unless it is one of the BIG THREE/ dirty laundry, politics, or in the national eye there just is not a lot of interest in stories like what CAP does or can offer. The media does not exactly like to give away free publicity- they would rather have people pay to promote an organization unless you meet the aforementioned big three criteria IMHO
Just curious here if our "diversity ratio" is much different than other pay-to-play youth organizations, such as Boy/Girl Scouts, or adult clubs, such as a flying club, red cross, other SAR groups, etc?
Personally, my squadron is extremely diverse, with many different races from Asian to Indian, Hispanic to Arabic. I'd even go so far as to say the ratio of minorities in our squadron is much, much higher than in the local community at large. I'm also aware of several different faiths, and heaven knows when the SM's start talking politics, it gets heated. In other words, there is no problem with diversity here, and we've done absolutely nothing to make it that way. Someone shows up and wants to participate, give them an application, end of story.
That said, will I do a recruiting event at some of the inner city high schools in the area? No. Why? Same reason I wont work an ELT mission in those areas. I'd prefer not to get shot, and fact of the matter is that some of those areas would just be flat dangerous for me to drive down the street.
Quote from: RiverAux on January 05, 2012, 10:04:12 PM
CAP's program has been pretty consistent for 70 years and at least for the last several decades has been fully open to anyone interested in joining. If our program doesn't appeal to certain groups it is unlikely that a few minor tweeks in the recruiting process or overall program are going to make any significant difference because the basic program remains the same.
And that is the reason why we need a Diversity Officer.
It is open to everyone. We are represented just about everywhere.....and yet our members don't represent our communities.
So....a National Diversity Officer (I would assume) lead a team of professionals that go out into the field and find out what about our program is NOT attracting a more representitive membership. They would have to do a lot of traveling (hence the big travel budget request) because each area is different and the solution for Huston, TX won't work in Tampa, FL or in Los Angeles, CA.
If a few minor tweeks to the recruiting program don't work.....maybe we need to do a MAJOR tweek to it.
The National Diversity Officer (again I would assume) would also work with other National Program Officers and make suggestions to how they can change their programs to appeal to a more diverse audiance.
If the goal of "diversity" was merely to ensure the establishment of a color/creed-blind organization, it would be a fine thing. Anyone who has had the slightest contact with the implementation of "diversity" programs knows that these have generally the exact opposite effect. Diversity programs seem to turn into politically-correct political reeducation programs, with the goal of providing redress for real and imaginary slights against any group screaming loud enough. We have a broad spectrum of racist laws in America designed to promote one group ahead of another, and we can see how it creeps into the culture elsewhere. One example is how a crime against a protected minority is worse than a crime against any other American citizen, when any real American knows that a victim of a homicide is just as dead as any other. Racial quotas, racial admissions preferences, extra-legal "consent decrees" are all foreseeable consequences of establishing a body that accepts the idea of "diversity" as a synonym for "unity" ; These are separate species. Of course, anyone calling the BS card on these programs is immediately tarred as a racist/sexist/homophobe. Aside from just not rejoining CAP, I don't know what kind of recourse we would have to ensure that CAP drops this kind of carp ( dyslexic license) and focuses on carrying out our actual missions instead of flying the rainbow banner over Maxwell.
Major Lord
I believe that it is a forwad thinking approach. I have no real opinion about the budget, but the position of Diversity Officer / Diversity Specialist has grown in alot of larger corporations.
Back in the day when we had segregated Squadrons, I was a Group Commander with a town with two Squadrons one black, one white. The black cadets were intersted in the military aspects, the white cadets interested in flying. The black cadets droppedout after two years or less because of costs of uniforms, encampments, supplies and equipment. The white cadets were better off financially. The costs of CAP are a major block for diversity. Does this extend to Senior membership? You can bet it does as black adults have jobs, normally, at least in this area on the low end of the money available and also time available for any organization. A farm worker doesn't have time to devote to CAP or most often the funds needed. The income status of blacks is a drawback to taking part in an organization such as CAP or even the Red Cross.
I can't see how a National Diversity Officer can change the interests in minorities or their funding problems.
Quote from: FW on January 05, 2012, 09:01:34 PM
Quotas are not what diversity is about. Improving the program so, all who are attracted to CAP can activly participate and enjoy the benefits of membership is.
The problem we have is figuring out how we can accomplish this without comprimising our assigned missions. As Gen Carr said; "We are not a social club".
Alot of what is done within Diversity Training and the field with respect to it seems so complicated but is so basic, it is almost scary. We of course cannot and do not force people to participate if they don't want to. What the "Diversity Officer" (to me) would do is make sure that if ANYONE wants to partipcate and progress than we try to help them in the best way possible. This is of course is almost the same as the EOO Officer but with a proactive approach from the beginning.
This would have to be approached in a specific order:
1) Recruiting
2) Personal Development
3) Professional Development
IMHO
Quote from: BillB on January 06, 2012, 12:16:19 PMI can't see how a National Diversity Officer can change the interests in minorities or their funding problems.
That is one of the purposes of a NDO....I would think. Advising local commanders on how to increase intrests in minorities, helping to overcome road blocks to their participation, and cross telling these solutions to other commanders.
It is not a hit on anyone who has "given up" on trying to reach minorities. We are all very busy and we are going to focus our efforts on what gives us the best return on our investment. However, if we can get some outside help, a little education and insight in ways to expand our membership diversity.
If you do what you have always done, you will get what you have always got.
I think this will be a good but challening position. It will require the person to work with alot of different people and specialties.
Quote from: caphistorian on January 06, 2012, 01:59:09 PM
Quote from: FW on January 05, 2012, 09:01:34 PM
Quotas are not what diversity is about. Improving the program so, all who are attracted to CAP can activly participate and enjoy the benefits of membership is.
The problem we have is figuring out how we can accomplish this without comprimising our assigned missions. As Gen Carr said; "We are not a social club".
Alot of what is done within Diversity Training and the field with respect to it seems so complicated but is so basic, it is almost scary. We of course cannot and do not force people to participate if they don't want to. What the "Diversity Officer" (to me) would do is make sure that if ANYONE wants to partipcate and progress than we try to help them in the best way possible. This is of course is almost the same as the EOO Officer but with a proactive approach from the beginning.
This would have to be approached in a specific order:
1) Recruiting
2) Personal Development
3) Professional Development
IMHO
Hmmm, sounds like the Sq Commanders job? I may have done that once or twice to include paying for peoples memberships (cadets) and providing encampment scholarships through fund raisers and free uniforms donated by AFROTC and AFJROTC units. I never had a cadet who wanted to participate, not be able to participate. Adults on the other hand? I did not advocate paying for an adults initial membership. After youve been in, I had no issues with the Sq helping out a valuable member with a loan. I had members who would have benefited from specialized training but did not have the money to attend. The Sq made a way for it to happen and the member paid it back over time.
Ive had serious financial issues arise during my time in CAP, and at one point left CAP for a couple years until things got back in order. CAP is available to anyone. Diversity is not an issue. There are demographics that may be poorer or under employed in areas of the nation. That is not a problem CAP can resolve.
I have a heart for kids. You will reach these kids by recruiting at schools and recruiting out of HS JROTC units, church youth groups. I could really care less about what races of adults are represented in CAP. If you want it, you'll find a way. As I have said before, I've had adults who were great additions to my unit who I went out of my way to assist them and I knew their situation.
Lets not dance around the elephant in the room. CAP is expensive. CAP wants to find out how to make CAP more affordable for certain groups of people hoping it will make the program more accessible for certain demographics. CAP will develop into those who can pay for activities and membership, supporting those who cant. In time I see CAP having race based scholarships and "grant" type programs for certain demographics. Everyone else does, CAP will soon follow.
I remember back when I was in the Marines. The Regiment Commander and the Sgt. Maj came and started talking about officer opportunities and started talking about the Marines wanting to encourage more commissioning opportunities for minorities and Marines who did not have their degrees. What I missed was that it was specifically for minority Marines with no college. I was to excited to worry about details. They concluded with "If you are interested in commissioning opportunities, please head over to the chow hall after your dismissed. We will have Marine Officers available to assist you step by step in applying for these programs"
Man!! I was excited. I was the first guy in line at the chow hall. Followed by about 5 other "white" Marines. All of us were Sq Leaders and generally solid young Marines.
I walked in and was greeted by a black female Marine 1Lt. I introduced myself. She was polite but asked what I needed. I was a little stunned. "I was in formation and they talked about commissioning plan for Marines with no college." "Oh" she said. "OK, we are specifically here for Marines who fall into minority categories. If your interested in commissioning opportunities you can get a hold of your career counselor through the normal routes." Yeah.....OK because grunts have the time for that sweetie (this was long before online college).... Did I mention no "minority" Marines showed up to the event? So theres my take on "diversity". Forgive my lack of applause over CAPs recent addition. I cant wait to see whos gets left out so CAP can pursue their diversity goals.
And don't get me started on my wife's experiences working for the Forest Service. Those people have the "diversity" thing MASTERED!!! Getting your degree paid for and a guaranteed job after you graduate is a pretty sweet deal for those who are able to check certain boxes on their applications.
Quote from: Flying Pig on January 06, 2012, 06:26:17 PM
Lets not dance around the elephant in the room. CAP is expensive.
As I said, I am sure that the expense is certainly a factor, and perhaps even the largest single factor.
But I am fairly sure there is more going on. I'm just not sure what it is, since I agree with the observations made here that we are generally pretty welcoming to almost anyone who shows up and can afford to participate.
But, if cost were the only significant factor, I would not expect to see a gender disparity of 80-20 in the cadet program, for instance. I don't think we can make a case that young women in a given community are inherently less able to afford the costs of the cadet program than their similarly-situated brothers.
For gender in CP, there is something else going on. I don't think anyone would seriously dispute that women benefit from leadership training, aerospace education, character education, and physical fitness on pretty much the same basis as men. And I'm pretty sure that Ameilia Earhart, Jaqueline Cochran, Bessie Coleman, and Mary Feik would agree. (Actually, I've spoken with Mary Feik on this issue, so I
know she agrees.)
Now I suspect that this comment will draw multiple replies and I'll wager a cold beverage at the next NB meeting that there will be significant disagreement among experienced and reasonable CAP officers about exactly
why we do not attract as many young women as young men.
Diversity Committees and Officers help us find the actual answers to such questions.
Quote from: Ned on January 06, 2012, 07:17:34 PM
Diversity Committees and Officers help us find the actual answers to such questions.
In my experience, they usually dont find the answers. They just find a way to make it more accessible, ie. quotas, grants to certain groups, race based scholarships or sponsorships. I was approached once by an African American church that wanted to provide "scholarships" to cadets. When I told them that was a great idea, but that the command staff would decide who got the scholarships, they were only interested if the selectee was chosen from only black cadets. They were promptly shown the door.
While trying to usher in one group, they alienate another. Instead of just saying, here are the requirements, and sorry, but here is how much it costs too. If there is anything done to alleviate any costs, it wont be across the board, it will be for only certain groups.
Pretty soon we will be more like law enforcement than we know. African American Police Officers Assoc, Hispanic American Police Officers Assoc, Gay Lesbian Bi Sexual and Transgendered Officers Assoc, German American Police Officers Association, and the list goes on for every group you can name. There is nothing diverse about it. It gives the impression of diversity and unity only because people usually arent bold enough to call it what it is.
When in fact, it segregates people even further. They say "Sure we are diverse just look at how many groups we have!" Oh, but you cant be in my group unless you are ___________. Its the natural progression. People always associate racial cliques with prisons and gangs. Civilized people do it to. We just dont shoot people to do it to get the point across. I was actually approached by the IGAPOA http://www.igapa.com/ (http://www.igapa.com/) I laughed at the guy and told him to keep his stupid business card and that I wasn't interested in dressing like a stupid outlaw biker. He didnt like that. But I didnt really care what he liked or didnt like.
Have fun CAP. Your going to get exactly what your not looking for.
I'm of the opinion, Fight Discrimination. There are laws for that. Enforce them hard if need be.
Affirmative Action is basically discrimination to me. Diversity has often more than not it seems lead to similar actions.
If the "white" people keep "black" people out, they howl about it. Rightfully so.
If the "black" people keep "white" people out, they're allowed to cite preservation of culture and it's looked past.
A girl fights to get in the Boy Scouts, but a boy could never get into the Girl Scouts on the same grounds.
Thank goodness CAP is open to all who show up and have the drive to participate.
Ned,
I would take a venture to say that the "gender" difference in CAP is the same as in the military. Fewer women want to play G.I. Joe (Jane I guess in this instance). A lot less girls want to put on combat boots and BDU's compared to males (I think you will have to speak to god on that one Ned, not much a diversity officer can do).
You can talk all about the leadership and aerospace education you want, but, we do those things in military uniforms that limit the free expression of the teenage/young adult female in question. It is not a mystery to me why we have less female cadets.
Quote from: NCRblues on January 06, 2012, 09:08:30 PM
Ned,
I would take a venture to say that the "gender" difference in CAP is the same as in the military. Fewer women want to play G.I. Joe (Jane I guess in this instance). A lot less girls want to put on combat boots and BDU's compared to males (I think you will have to speak to god on that one Ned, not much a diversity officer can do).
You can talk all about the leadership and aerospace education you want, but, we do those things in military uniforms that limit the free expression of the teenage/young adult female in question. It is not a mystery to me why we have less female cadets.
If any committee comes up with a better explanation for the gender inequity than that I'll eat my hat.
Well, I would also put this observation into the mix. While a male and a female prospective cadet will have to pay the same dues to start with, uniform costs will vary significantly. In every squadron that I have been in, we always had extra uniforms for the male cadets. When a new male cadet joined, he was immediately issued a blue uniform. If a female cadet joined, she had to wait for her voucher uniform or someone would have to take her over to the nearest MCSS. There was no discrimination involved here, just simply that we didn't or couldn't carry female uniform parts. BDU's were different as we generally had lots of those in stock but the blues took a while to sort out.
If we need to pay (certain) individuals to join; we lose our identity as a volunteer organization dedicated to serving our communities. It would be the wrong way to go, IMO. However, funding programs which allow all interested to participate freely is something else entirely. There are much better ways than giving "scholarships" or "grants" to individuals for showing up.
I understand what corporations and government agencies do in the name of "diversity". Membership in CAP is technically open to all. However, personal "preferences" may interfere with this. No one knows, now, if this is true or not. No one really knows how our cultural biases effect us when it comes from dealing with "others" when it comes to CAP. I think it is worth studying.
Obviously, if there was a "need" to form the committee and, appoint a NDO, there is a problem which should be addressed.
[quote author=FW link=topic=14458.msg261435#msg261435 date=1325902887
Obviously, if there was a "need" to form the committee and, appoint a NDO, there is a problem which should be addressed.
[/quote]
Oh no FW... you have gone over to the dark side >:D
Not a single person who supports the initiative has shown that there is ANY problem. Even if this is just a "study", hours will have to be spent on this, that could be spent finding new missions, recruiting new members or helping that c/Lt. Col study to get his/her triple diamond.... An hour on the "diversity" is an hour lost doing our missions.
Can anyone point out a single problem at all?
Well I am sure that most on this thread don't have any plans to apply for the position based on responses. :-X
Quote from: NCRblues on January 07, 2012, 02:43:01 AM
Oh no FW... you have gone over to the dark side >:D
Can anyone point out a single problem at all?
Many think I am the dark lord already. I can live with that... 8)
However, there is nothing wrong with willing volunteers spending their time doing what they consider important. If one wants to spend time doing this, great. Yes, I know that many members will recoil at filling out a survey form or, thinking some "bleeding heart" will hound them. I get it. I've been dealing with CAP members for more than half my life. And, from personal experience, I know we could be better in getting more to participate in CAP.
Quote from: GoneAway on January 06, 2012, 11:21:38 PM
Well, I would also put this observation into the mix. While a male and a female prospective cadet will have to pay the same dues to start with, uniform costs will vary significantly. In every squadron that I have been in, we always had extra uniforms for the male cadets. When a new male cadet joined, he was immediately issued a blue uniform. If a female cadet joined, she had to wait for her voucher uniform or someone would have to take her over to the nearest MCSS. There was no discrimination involved here, just simply that we didn't or couldn't carry female uniform parts. BDU's were different as we generally had lots of those in stock but the blues took a while to sort out.
Well there you go! You have pointed out one factor why it may be more expensive for a female to be a cadet then a male.
So now we come up with a way to mitigate the situation.
Suggestions:
1. Allow both male and female cadets to wear the male service dress.
2. De-emphasise the need to wear uniforms.
There may be many many more....once you are done brainstoriming...pick the best solution and run with it.
If we had a NDO...coordinating and sharing these solutions....we don't have 500+ units flopping around in the dark duplicating each other's efforts.
It isnt more expensive to join as a female. They get a free uniform like everyone else. The issue cited about the female cadets has nothing to do with diversity. Its a logistics problem. Lets not dump every issue CAP has under the diversity tree.
"Obviously, if there was a "need" to form the committee and, appoint a NDO, there is a problem which should be addressed."
With all do respect to the good Colonel, (and I mean that seriously!) at one time CAP "Needed" a race car and we all saw how that worked out. As Ned said earlier, this was discussed at high levels in the recent past. Yet it appears as if this "problem" is something that the general membership has not seen on the 'street' level. Are there any statistics or factual situations that can be cited to prove that there actually is such a pervasive problem in CAP that we need to create another Directorate to fix it? Or is the 'problem' one that can be better addressed by change-outs in sections of the CLC's or Unit Commander Courses that CAP is offering. Maybe instructional blocks that make this more of an 'awareness topic'.
Just asking.
If we assume that the interest of minorities in becoming pilots is a good stand in for the potential for these groups to join CAP, then we shouldn't be surprised at what we have when even the USAF, which has recruiting abilities and incentives that we can't even dream about, can't get the percentage of minority pilots above 2%. http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/p010364.pdf (http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/p010364.pdf)
Some findings of this report:
1. Minority students from more affluent backgrounds and those with the best academic records have little interest in joining the military. (In other words, the ones that can afford to join CAP and would probably do the best aren't interested).
2. Some aspects of the military are seen in a negative light by some minority communities.
3. Minorities interested in the military, tend to be more interested in Army enlisted careers since they offer more vocational opportunities.
4. Two items from the report that perhaps can be addressed by CAP is that minorities tend to be unfamiliar with aviation and flying in general and that they tend to see it as a dangerous career. In fact CAP could be seen as a way of addressing the AF's minority pilot issue. This is where something like the ACE program could be a big help. Or dedicating some money towards Young Eagle type flights in CAP planes for non member cadet-age kids. Imagine if the AF allocated enough funding for flying even 10-20 kids from a minority school. The word of mouth from that could really gin up some interest in CAP and aviation in general.
Quote from: capmaj on January 07, 2012, 05:09:25 PM
"Obviously, if there was a "need" to form the committee and, appoint a NDO, there is a problem which should be addressed."
With all do respect to the good Colonel, (and I mean that seriously!) at one time CAP "Needed" a race car and we all saw how that worked out. As Ned said earlier, this was discussed at high levels in the recent past. Yet it appears as if this "problem" is something that the general membership has not seen on the 'street' level. Are there any statistics or factual situations that can be cited to prove that there actually is such a pervasive problem in CAP that we need to create another Directorate to fix it? Or is the 'problem' one that can be better addressed by change-outs in sections of the CLC's or Unit Commander Courses that CAP is offering. Maybe instructional blocks that make this more of an 'awareness topic'.
Just asking.
Diversity is not something that would be seen as a problem at steet level.
At street level you are concerned with getting the mission done and running a good program. That is as it should be.
Hence the National Diversity Officer......and not a mandate for every squadron to have one!
Diversity....in the context that I use it.....means making sure that we don't have any formal, informal, procedural or othe road blocks to making sure our programs are reaching the widest possible audiance.
If you the National Population as a base line....CAP does not reflect that base line.
This is not a good thing, nor a bad thing.....it is simple a starting point to begin to determen what that is.
We don't have 50% women in CAP....okay.....is there something we can do to make it more attractive to them? The answer may simply be no. It may simply be that most of the women in the US don't really care about what CAP does. The only follow up question to this is....are they any road blocks to those women who do want join CAP.
The same question and investigation can/should be done for each minority group that you are concerned with.
At this point....no one is suggesting quotas, no one is suggesting that we are going to do selective promotions, or affirmitiave action type policies.
They are simply looking for a guy who wants to take on the job of seeing if CAP can expand it's community base.
The subject of diversity once again brings up fuzzy logic from those who should know better. The natural consequence of assuming that any group is under-represented in CAP leads us down the road of social engineering. The social re-engineers see nothing wrong with for instance, raising the costs for white male members to subsidize the poor Inuits, who are sadly under-represented in CAP , as well as Quakers ( who will be ignored since they fall into the "generally white" enemy class) . If any engineering should take place, it should be in the form of making CAP more satisfying for those who are drawn to its membership by market forces, instead of creating a new set of racist recruitment rules to encourage people not otherwise inclined to join CAP. People come to CAP largely to associate with those who share a commitment to public service, duty, and airplanes. The transparent goals of "diversity" to create a more warm and caring CAP, capable of holding hands and singing "Kumbahyah" with the minority,lesbian, gay, and transgender communities as innately desirable groups is not what most CAP members came for. We have more than adequate representation of "oppressed groups" at the highest levels of CAP, evidence of non-discrimination, Quod erat demonstrandum. The argument that mere discussion of a perceived issue is proof of need is preposterous, frankly. Remember not too long ago we were discussing teen suicide education in CAP? Just more politically correct clap-trap, right up there with race cars and the need for meteor protection risk management assessments.
Major Lord
What I want to know is how does being more "diverse" help us accomplish our missions? Does a member's ethnicity, gender or orientation effect their ability to do the mission?
If we don't appeal to a segment of the public, then so what? I joined because CAP because it appeals to me. If you change it to appeal to a different demographic then it no longer appeals to me and I'll just end up leaving.
As long as we are not discriminating against someone then we should not be wasting time and money on this useless example of PCism. If someone is discriminating then we have rules against that and processes to deal with them.
Quote from: davidsinn on January 07, 2012, 08:06:47 PM
What I want to know is how does being more "diverse" help us accomplish our missions? Does a member's ethnicity, gender or orientation effect their ability to do the mission?
If we don't appeal to a segment of the public, then so what? I joined because CAP because it appeals to me. If you change it to appeal to a different demographic then it no longer appeals to me and I'll just end up leaving.
As long as we are not discriminating against someone then we should not be wasting time and money on this useless example of PCism. If someone is discriminating then we have rules against that and processes to deal with them.
You assume a=b.
If you just look at CP....our mission is to educate and train the youth of america......all of them.....or as many of them as we can at least.
If women are under represented in out cadet membership....there is an area where we can improve.
This does not mean we got to change standards. This does not mean we got to subsidies anyone. This does not mean we got to recruit one girl for every boy.
Those are strawman non-sequiter arguments.....about a noble endevor to look at way to improve our diversity.
How is diversity good? Well if people from all walks of life, social, racial, economic, ethnic back ground are members of CAP then:
Recruiting is eaiser.
Membership numbers increase.
More people know about us....which means more public support.
Interanally brining in more points of view may help us solve other problems.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 07, 2012, 08:30:37 PM
If women are under represented in out cadet membership....there is an area where we can improve.
Why? Is one kind of person more valuable than another? Why not put our money into better recruiting in general and not tailor it to a specific type?
Interesting that one of the desired requirements of those seeking this position is experience in handling budgets of 1 million or more.
The CG Aux did something similar a few years ago and put together a large report focused on age diversity within the Aux (which is also somewhat of an issue within CAP's senior member program). http://www.auxnaco.org/anaco_sa/_documents/CG%20Auxiliary%20survival%20in%2021st%20Century.pdf (http://www.auxnaco.org/anaco_sa/_documents/CG%20Auxiliary%20survival%20in%2021st%20Century.pdf)
Nice report and many of the conclusions are probably accurate, but it never had much of an impact that I saw because no concrete recommendations came out of it and there was very little follow-up.
CG Aux does have a diversity department of its own: http://cgaux.org/leadership/diversity-inclusion/index.php (http://cgaux.org/leadership/diversity-inclusion/index.php) and it is in the Aux's current strategic plan:
Quote4. Diversity
a. Strategy: Continue an aggressive recruiting program to increase the diversity of membership will ensure the long-term growth of the organization. Expanding the recruiting efforts to new communities in our local areas of responsibility will reap new members that will add to the mosaic of talents in our organization and will add to the agility of our human resources component. Unintended disincentives to recruitment and retention of members with needed competencies must be identified and eliminated.
and there is a specific diversity plan: http://cgaux.org/leadership/diversity-inclusion/documents/AUX_Strategic_plan.pdf (http://cgaux.org/leadership/diversity-inclusion/documents/AUX_Strategic_plan.pdf)
All of you worried about quotas and related issues shouldn't get all worked up. It has little practical impact on real Aux life (which says something about the usefulness of the department).
Quote from: Major Lord on January 07, 2012, 06:49:49 PM
The argument that mere discussion of a perceived issue is proof of need is preposterous, frankly. Remember not too long ago we were discussing teen suicide education in CAP? Just more politically correct clap-trap, right up there with race cars and the need for meteor protection risk management assessments.
Major Lord
Both the current and previous National Commanders felt a need to study the issue of diversity in CAP. To my knowledge, there is no proof CAP, as an organization, is knowingly impeding anyone from enjoying the benefits of membership. However, until 2010, no one brought it up. How this relates to the failed potential of the NASCAR sponsorship or, ORM escapes me. However, there is a distinct difference between "political correctness" and insuring we are open to all
interested individuals.
Quote from: Major Lord on January 07, 2012, 06:49:49 PM
it should be in the form of making CAP more satisfying for those who are drawn to its membership by market forces, instead of creating a new set of racist recruitment rules to encourage people not otherwise inclined to join CAP. People come to CAP largely to associate with those who share a commitment to public service, duty, and airplanes. Major Lord
OK. This is a good baseline from which to work with. The question those who want to have a NDO (probably) is; how do you accomplish this and reach the widest possible demographic?
We already reach a huge demographic. Our turnover rate at one year is through the roof for SM's and cadets alike. Money is the issue, plain and simple.
This is a volunteer organization. No matter how much a "NDO" whines and cry's, your not going to get SM's to go into the inner cities and recruit. Its just not going to happen. We are wasting our time and energy on something worthless. We need to be out looking to new revenue funds to augment the tax payer's dime. We need to be out looking for new missions. We need to be out with the local CERT teams and police/fire departments. For every dime we spend on "diversity", that's another dime that could go to REALLY expand the amazing program we already have.
Inner city kids are not going to join for a hundred reasons.
Teenage girls are not going to show up in droves for many reasons.
Family farm kids are not going to be as active as kids that don't have to plow fields and harvest.
Working poor families wont turn out in droves because they cant afford to pay to play.
Quote from: NCRblues on January 07, 2012, 09:09:48 PM
We already reach a huge demographic. Our turnover rate at one year is through the roof for SM's and cadets alike. Money is the issue, plain and simple.
I disagree - money is a side issue at best.
The issue of churn is failure to actually run the program and
do something. People don't quit when they feel their time is well spent.
The fix for the entity of CAP's issues is to actually start working the program, and stop making up artificial challenges and missions that get in the way of
actually performing the big 3 missions.
A significant portion of our already thin resources is wasted on non-core activities that check some box upstream and serve zero purpose in the Grande Scheme
®.
FWIW, and I'm not trying to necessarily challenge the need for a diversity officer position at NHQ or not. I don't have all the facts, but I have my own personal observations. I've been with 2 wings, and visited a few others, and the "diversity problem" really doesn't seem like a "problem" at all, but more a "diversity preference". Here in OKC, my squadron has NO issue with diversity. We have someone from what seems like every walk of life, nationality, and a fairly strong female presence both on the cadet and senior side. Latino, African-american, native-american, Indian, Israeli, Pacific-island, Asian, and of course the majority are white, but that isn't due to lack of interest in those of different nationalities, but the fact that well, its Oklahoma. The state as a whole just doesn't have a hugely diverse population. My squadrons demographic actually reflects the states demographic. I noticed this same trend when I was in CAWG. The squadron reflected the local area's demographic.
Is this true for every squadron and every wing? No probably not, but its again just my observation. I've made no changes to the squadrons recruiting program, and really don't see a need to specifically reach out to a particular audience based on race. I do see a need to reach out in general to the entire community and educate people on what CAP is, and what we do, and how everyone can serve the community through this awesome organization. So, again this is all opinion based, and perhaps CAP may benefit from a diversity officer, it may not, though I'd have to ask what would it mean if diversity becomes a priority. It was brought up before, and I have to agree that with this, we will see "quotas" popping out, be it hard or soft. What is the overall goal of diversity? Is it just to have more of it, or will we actually start seeing numbers, and eventually regulated numbers... and what happens when you don't meet those numbers? We still have to remember this is a volunteer organization. People will join if they want to, for their own reasons, and will leave for their own reasons as well.
If there is a legitimate "problem" in relationship to diversity, and it is negatively impacting CAP, and our ability to perform our missions, then by all means lets find a solution and see what happens, but as I said, I don't really see it so much of a problem as it is a preference by some who feel we need to be a more diverse organization. I don't disagree and am all for diversity, but we really need to ask what kind of resources and time should we really be putting into this.
Hmm may I suggest the group visit the Air Force website on "diversity" to see how the USAF defines it, it is not just based upon race/gender
See: http://www.af.mil/diversity.asp (http://www.af.mil/diversity.asp)
Also a differing opinion of AF "diversity" definition:
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2011/08/airforce-new-regs-defining-diversity-080611w/ (http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2011/08/airforce-new-regs-defining-diversity-080611w/)
Do you think CAP will adopt this same definition of "diversity" and if we do, have we really achieved a lot of "diversity" already ???
What I find interesting is that the staff work prior to the the BOG/NEC even allowed this $1,000,000, i say again one million, I say again $1,000,000 request to even go forward. Tell me when the last time in CAP you've seen $1,000,000 request submitted to improve the current cadet or aerospace education programs with additional initiatives (surely on the aerospace education end I can think of at least three initiatives for OUR members) ???
Review the initial webpage on www.gocivilairpatrol.com (http://www.gocivilairpatrol.com) - Here's my concern: Does that picture of the three young 'minority' class members represent the entire membership "diversity" in CAP ??? :( Surely we should include that picture but wouldn't it be proper to have the pictures constantly changing when on that home page to reflect, our older (or should I say real old) members ??? Our physically challenged members ??? and just some typical white male & female members (representing the average age in CAP) ??? :(
My guess on this -- look for mandatory "diversity" training at your local squadron in the future. Also I wouldn't be surprised to see some sort of report from the squadron level up channeled called "Diversity Outreach Activities". Furthermore, don't be surprised if you see some sort of informal quota system being employed for certain CAP leadership positions that are under represented by certain diversity classes. In other words if you are a white male with the same record up against one of these "selected under represented" diversity class members, they will get selected every time until those in power determine that the proper diversity mix has been achieved. :( >:D (which I think also happens in many government agencies (local, state, federal) already, and to a lesser extent in private corporations).
RM
Quote from: davidsinn on January 07, 2012, 08:49:38 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on January 07, 2012, 08:30:37 PM
If women are under represented in out cadet membership....there is an area where we can improve.
Why? Is one kind of person more valuable than another? Why not put our money into better recruiting in general and not tailor it to a specific type?
What's wrong with helping girls?
If we are offering our product to everyone....and we want them to take it (in the case of CP).....why is it a bad thing to wonder why we don't reach more girls?
It is not that we are looking for girls....instead of boys....we want them both.
As for putting our money into recruiting.....a) what money? B) is that not what we do now. We do some low budget, ad hoc recruiting, with no market analysis....and we are not drawing in a representitive population.
Now...I am not saying that is a good thing or a bad thing.......it just may be that girls, just are not into the CAP thing.....and we may find that the changes necessary to make them like CAP would just change us too much.....so we accept the fact that girls will always be under represented.
-----and I think that is where you and I differ. I don't see a NDO in and of itself a bad thing....someone looking into this issue. No one has proposed any policy changes, no one has suggest any sort of actions that need to be taken. It is way too soon.
Now if the NDO goes off the deep end and starts mandating quotas or demanding that all CP officers have to bi-lingual or any other of that stupid BS.....well then that's a differnt story....I'll be in the mod with my torch and pitch fork ready to storm the castle.
All I am saying is let's give it a chance before we automatically start nay-saying it because some organisations don't have the moral fortitude to maintain standards.
I think it is a good thing we have someone look into this....because I know for a fact that there are large and small pockets of discrimination...intentional and accidental out there. And that needs to be fixed.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 08, 2012, 01:07:46 AMWhat's wrong with helping girls?
Who says they need (or want) help?
Quote from: Eclipse on January 08, 2012, 01:16:04 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on January 08, 2012, 01:07:46 AMWhat's wrong with helping girls?
Who says they need (or want) help?
How are they disadvantaged? They get free blues. Bdus are the same.
I bet you JROTC units have about the same diversity. Some people don't like the "military".
Before someone grumps: Our uniforms make us look like military.
The real question is: Do we want some of these kids? Inner city isn't a good place to go, (we all agree on that, if I'm not mistaken) so why do we want those kids in CAP?
Quote from: Extremepredjudice on January 08, 2012, 01:28:58 AM
The real question is: Do we want some of these kids? Inner city isn't a good place to go, (we all agree on that, if I'm not mistaken) so why do we want those kids in CAP?
(Emphasis added.)
No, we do not agree.
Why would we not want urban cadets? What kind of young men and women would not benefit from leadership training, aerospace education, character education, and physical fitness?
The military recruits from the city as well as sub-urban and rural areas. What do we know that they do not?
Is "inner city youth" a secret code for something I should know?
Its incredibly ironic to me that liberals don't see how condescending the viewpoint is that women or girls, or racial or sexual minorities may require the help of us highly competent white males. So let me ask? Will they pay attention to race,color, creed or sex, when they hire this new "Political Officer"? You bet they will. This is a post designed to be visible, not functional, but it can cause huge damage just the same. This group foisted Pineda on us, even though he was the least qualified and most corrupt ( well, at least in the top three) NATCOM's we ever enjoyed. But at least CAP could play the race card to show just how darn fair we were! Many a'good CAP member fell by the road under his auspices, and many have never received justice for the treatment carried out at his hands, under the often less than watchful eyes of National Staff.
Major Lord
Quote from: Ned on January 08, 2012, 01:44:24 AM
Is "inner city youth" a secret code for something I should know?
Yup. Gang's are more prevalent. Drugs are more prevalent. Murder rates are higher. Cases of rape and "knock out game" are higher in "inner city youth".
I went TDY to Scott AFB one time, and the local police asked military members (specifically AF members, because of the blue uniforms) to not wear their uniform when attending functions in st. Louis. Why you ask? Well, a couple gangs in the "inner city" was shooting at anything that looked like a police officer. Shocking, I know. ::)
Sorry, but that is not the type of cadets I want to actively recruit. Now im sure I will get jumped and someone will say "not all of them are bad" or " those are the cadets that need CAP the most". But, lets be honest, CAP is not a reform program. Kids in inner cities by our join age of 12 are already into drugs/gangs and other things.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 08, 2012, 01:16:04 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on January 08, 2012, 01:07:46 AMWhat's wrong with helping girls?
Who says they need (or want) help?
Read the WHOLE farting post! If they don't want or need CAP....then fine....but who knows one way or the other....because we have never had an NDO to look into the matter! Which is the point of my post!
For once, I actually agreed with RM. I also am a firm believer that "inner city" is not the best target for recruiting. That's not to say they are all drug dealers and gang members, it just doesn't have good returns on investment resources. We ought to let them know that we are there, but let them come to us.
Some interesting information on demographics of the JROTC program can be found in this report: https://www.usarmyjrotc.com/jrotcRes/downloads/8_Library/DTICReports/walls.pdf (https://www.usarmyjrotc.com/jrotcRes/downloads/8_Library/DTICReports/walls.pdf)
I wonder how CAP school-based unit demographics match up against JROTC (which seems to be pretty well integrated in terms of both gender and race)?
Quote from: lordmonar on January 08, 2012, 02:32:30 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on January 08, 2012, 01:16:04 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on January 08, 2012, 01:07:46 AMWhat's wrong with helping girls?
Who says they need (or want) help?
Read the WHOLE farting post! If they don't want or need CAP....then fine....but who knows one way or the other....because we have never had an NDO to look into the matter! Which is the point of my post!
The first sentence was enough.
The idea that any "group" needs "help", when that "help" is decided and suggested from outside the "group" is an elitist mentality that challenges the very idea it is proposing to fix.
There's been a chaired committee for about a year at the national level. What have they come up with?
Are we appointing an NDO because we don't know if we need an NDO? So we'll appoint one and see if we need one?
Quote from: Major Lord on January 08, 2012, 01:55:05 AM
Its incredibly ironic to me that liberals don't see how condescending the viewpoint is that women or girls, or racial or sexual minorities may require the help of us highly competent white males. So let me ask? Will they pay attention to race,color, creed or sex, when they hire this new "Political Officer"? You bet they will. This is a post designed to be visible, not functional, but it can cause huge damage just the same. This group foisted Pineda on us, even though he was the least qualified and most corrupt ( well, at least in the top three) NATCOM's we ever enjoyed. But at least CAP could play the race card to show just how darn fair we were! Many a'good CAP member fell by the road under his auspices, and many have never received justice for the treatment carried out at his hands, under the often less than watchful eyes of National Staff.
Major Lord
Are you serious? Do you have any idea what your rant sounds like when read out loud? Do you really think Gen Carr is condescending? Gen Courter? They voiced the need. They voiced the policy. The NB agreed with them. So did the BoG.
In the political realm, the object is power, money and control. In CAP, we need members to do the work and serve our communities. There is no "power" except to put up with the day to day BS a commander deals with regularly. There is no money; we volunteer. Control; yeah sure....
Pineda became the National Commander after Gen Wheless resigned. He was the elected vice commander by acclamation when losing to Gen Wheless by just a couple of votes. No one was "foisted on us". And, to suggest his failings were due to some ethnic or cultural norm is insulting and, just gives credence to having a NDO.
IMHO, the real damage to CAP is caused by members who fail to take our core values seriously. I have no problem discussing ways to expand our outreach; even in the inner city. How national staffers spend their time is, well, up to the commander. And, this is what Gen Carr wants. No one has to like it and, no one is forced to pay membership dues.
Quote from: FW on January 08, 2012, 04:08:00 AM
Quote from: Major Lord on January 08, 2012, 01:55:05 AM
Its incredibly ironic to me that liberals don't see how condescending the viewpoint is that women or girls, or racial or sexual minorities may require the help of us highly competent white males. So let me ask? Will they pay attention to race,color, creed or sex, when they hire this new "Political Officer"? You bet they will. This is a post designed to be visible, not functional, but it can cause huge damage just the same. This group foisted Pineda on us, even though he was the least qualified and most corrupt ( well, at least in the top three) NATCOM's we ever enjoyed. But at least CAP could play the race card to show just how darn fair we were! Many a'good CAP member fell by the road under his auspices, and many have never received justice for the treatment carried out at his hands, under the often less than watchful eyes of National Staff.
Major Lord
Are you serious? Do you have any idea what your rant sounds like when read out loud? Do you really think Gen Carr is condescending? Gen Courter? They voiced the need. They voiced the policy. The NB agreed with them. So did the BoG.
In the political realm, the object is power, money and control. In CAP, we need members to do the work and serve our communities. There is no "power" except to put up with the day to day BS a commander deals with regularly. There is no money; we volunteer. Control; yeah sure....
Pineda became the National Commander after Gen Wheless resigned. He was the elected vice commander by acclamation when losing to Gen Wheless by just a couple of votes. No one was "foisted on us". And, to suggest his failings were due to some ethnic or cultural norm is insulting and, just gives credence to having a NDO.
IMHO, the real damage to CAP is caused by members who fail to take our core values seriously. I have no problem discussing ways to expand our outreach; even in the inner city. How national staffers spend their time is, well, up to the commander. And, this is what Gen Carr wants. No one has to like it and, no one is forced to pay membership dues.
Sir, you think inner city kids are the correct fit for CAP?
Kids that are probably in a gang, associated with drugs (whether they be pushers or users [I got offered coke by a 11 yr old, so don't think 12 yr olds aren't pushing]), rape, prostitution, murder, need I go on?
If those are the kind of kids you are okay with than I am scared. Membership is a privilege. Personally I don't think CAP would benefit from those types of kids.
Like it has been said, we are not a community outreach program.
I agree with FW that the most damage to CAP is done by members who forget the core values....
That being said, here is why I think some of us on captalk are worried about an NDO.
#1. An officer appointed to look into "problems" that no one see's.
#2. Lack of explanation about scope and chain of command.
#3. Bad experiences with "diversity" initiative in our normal day to day life's.
#4. Lack of explanation of WHY this is needed.
#5. Funds, how much this "diversity" initiative will get
I think that sums it up....anyone else?
Quote from: FW on January 08, 2012, 04:08:00 AMIMHO, the real damage to CAP is caused by members who fail to take our core values seriously
The irony ...
Quote from: NCRblues on January 07, 2012, 02:43:01 AM
Can anyone point out a single problem at all?
Sure. Walk in to your average squadron as a newcomer. You are greeted (or more likely ignored) by a bunch of 55+ year old white males. If you are female, and/or younger than 30, it's not a welcoming environment.
And I have nothing against 55+ y.o. white males. As of last November, I am one.
This image is a problem. It's a tough one, because it's precisely those older guys that have the money and the time to play CAP. That's the case in almost any volunteer organization. However, if there's something we can do to get younger blood in and retain it, and perhaps be more representative of the demographics of the country, let's look at it. THat will only make us a stronger organization, more connected to our communities.
Quote from: Extremepredjudice on January 08, 2012, 06:21:57 AM
Kids that are probably in a gang, associated with drugs (whether they be pushers or users [I got offered coke by a 11 yr old, so don't think 12 yr olds aren't pushing]), rape, prostitution, murder, need I go on?
No, you need not go on, because it's just that type of prejudicial thinking that needs to go out the door.
Every child that lives in a city is not what you describe. In fact, the vast majority are just trying to make their way in life just like you and I. I spent a couple of years volunteering with some folks teaching science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) enrichment after school down in the inner city, in what's one of the bottom feeder high schools out here.
I met a bunch of wonderful kids. A lot of second generation immigrants who wanted to make the most of what their parents were sacrificing for them. No gangs, no drugs, and they stayed as far from them as they could. And they graduated with GPAs high enough to get scholarships to places like UMass, Harvey Mudd, Creighton, the Illinois Institute of Technology.... good schools.
Don't paint with a broad brush like that, it just shows you don't have a clue.
Quote from: NCRblues on January 08, 2012, 06:33:41 AM
That being said, here is why I think some of us on captalk are worried about an NDO.
#1. An officer appointed to look into "problems" that no one see's.
#2. Lack of explanation about scope and chain of command.
#3. Bad experiences with "diversity" initiative in our normal day to day life's.
#4. Lack of explanation of WHY this is needed.
#5. Funds, how much this "diversity" initiative will get
I think that sums it up....anyone else?
#1. Apparently our governing bodies and chain of command see a problem. That's good enough, even if you personally don't see it.
#2. It's spelled out pretty clearly in the job description - a staff officer reporting to the national commander.
#3. Hasn't bothered me. I read stories in the paper, but other mismanaged programs doesn't mean this one has to be.
#4. See #1.
#5. The only item I see in the job responsibilities that will cost money is the "Participate in Aerospace/STEM related conferences" item, and the travel budget has been squashed already, so much for that. I'm sure there will be some expenses for that eventually though.
This is coming, you all can howl and push your heads in the sand, or you can watch and try to get your input heard, and control the situation. I choose the latter.
Quote from: Extremepredjudice on January 08, 2012, 06:21:57 AMSir, you think inner city kids are the correct fit for CAP?
Kids that are probably in a gang, associated with drugs (whether they be pushers or users [I got offered coke by a 11 yr old, so don't think 12 yr olds aren't pushing]), rape, prostitution, murder, need I go on?
If those are the kind of kids you are okay with than I am scared. Membership is a privilege. Personally I don't think CAP would benefit from those types of kids.
Like it has been said, we are not a community outreach program.
That's a pretty wide brush you are using to tar a whole group of people. While the inner city environment can be harsh and unfriendly, all of the people who live there aren't. There's a percentage getting all the publicity that makes the whole group look bad. I'd guess that there success stories out there of inner city cadets becoming successful in CAP, and after, in spite of their beginnings.
No one that would be part of this type "focus" is pre-destined to a life. It is a matter of choices and alternatives. CAP may be an alternative for them. To suggest that a specific area or group does not want or have the desire is short sighted.
For me CAP was an alternative to what other kids were doing in my neighborhood. Alot of them stayed in trouble and eventually went through the juvenile justice system. CAP as a cadet for me was an alternative to that life. I stayed out of trouble and CAP was part of that. My parents could not afford the expenses associated with it or the uniforms and such. It was the local unit and a CAP SM who made sure that I had the choice and a ride. I lived 20 miles from the Albany Composite Squadron and my parents worked too much to be able to take me to a meeting.
I was a terrible student in middle and high school and didn't have any real direction. It seemed like I was pre-destined to live the same life that the people in my neighborhood did. CAP did not completley change that but it did have an impact on my future because someone in CAP card enough to give me an alternative.
Quote from: Extremepredjudice on January 08, 2012, 06:21:57 AM
Sir, you think inner city kids are the correct fit for CAP?
Kids that are probably in a gang, associated with drugs (whether they be pushers or users [I got offered coke by a 11 yr old, so don't think 12 yr olds aren't pushing]), rape, prostitution, murder, need I go on?
If those are the kind of kids you are okay with than I am scared. Membership is a privilege. Personally I don't think CAP would benefit from those types of kids.
Like it has been said, we are not a community outreach program.
Actually, we are a "community outreach program". It is our mandate to spread the word on the benefits of aviation and aerospace power to the masses. It is our mandate to have a cadet program which develops the youth of america into successful citizens of our great country. Need I go on?
Have you read about our "ACES" program? How well inner city youth from 5-11 thrive in it. How parents are so happy there is an alternative to the life you and some others discribe. Maybe you don't understand the school programs we have in many inner city school districts which give some proper structure to those who may not get it anywhere else. Then, there are inner city squadrons which constantly turn out successful young adults on society.
From what I read, the NDO will advise the commander on expanding our outreach, attend conferences and speak on the many benefits we can provide to all interested. I don't see anything wrong with this.
Is the phrase "Inner city kid" a codeword as Ned asks rhetorically? Of course it is. But its not about race or other "protected class", its about poverty, and insofar as it effects recruitment, it also has to do with proximity to Air Bases and Airports, all key factors not just in recruiting, but in more importantly, in retention. If ponying up the initial monies to launch a kid with poor parents into the Cadet program was sufficient, it would be great. My personal experience in personally funding cadets without the financial means to join and remain in CAP is poor. Every cadet I have personally funded because I thought that they could get through the rocks and shoals of initial membership and uniform costs has quickly dropped out; The burdens of transportation, and lack of support from their parents and communities were major factors in failure.
An ugly but poignant reality is that much of the failure of the "inner city" inhabitants is their refusal or reluctance to assimilate into the culture of success, read, write and speak the English language, and focus instead on remaining hyphenate-Americans, clinging to "Gangsta" or other harmful cultures and separatist ideals. This clinging to failure is reinforced by an education system that benefits from the establishment of a permanent welfare class. Its going to be much harder to recruit Cadets (and Senior members) from a subculture that wears Che Guevara T-shirts, and knows more about Malcolm X than they do about Horatio Alger. Of course, these are broad generalities, but you can see how the effect of culture makes all the difference in determining which kids will be successful and which kids are essentially doomed.
Do you really want to bring Cadets from the ghetto into CAP? It could be done; simply steer candidates to a military or parochial primary education system. On the other hand, having a primary education ( military school) run by the same people who focus on diversity, suicide prevention, NASCAR, and other politically correct nonsense is unlikely to produce a result much different than the system employing third rate, tax-feeder teachers who can generally only find employment in the very worst schools in America. Personally, I think a Voucher System would nearly eliminate the need for public primary education as we know it, but Teachers Unions represent teachers, not children. I suppose that's why Unions are called "Organized" crime.....
Major Lord
Major, may I take the shovel from your hands now? Methinks you are digging a deep hole. In the city I usually deal with, we have Spaatz winners, lawyers, doctors, engineers, pilots and AF officers all coming out of these "inner city" squadrons. Even in environments where drive by shootings are the norm and, english is a second language, we do succeed. That is not what we are discussing. And, trying to implicate one class of people have no hope to succeed in CAP or life is ridiculous.
IMO, one of the reasons we have not grown in numbers is to refuse to open up our minds to what wee can accomplish. It's not just about the mission. It's also about being open in who we work with; in spite of means, beliefs and looks.
"inner city kids" are vastly more likely to join gangs, commit crime and eventually go to prison that any other portion of American society. That's not my ideas, that is what the FBI and in turn the government we (sometimes but not all the time) work for says. For those that say I (and others) are using a broad brush, well, I guess you need to call up the FBI and ask them not to publish crime statistics anymore. My local area has one of the lowest crime rates around. The major city only a few miles east has one the highest, because of gangs, murders and drugs.......
How do you get "inner city kids" to join, or more female to join or more non-Christians to join by sending a NDO to STEM conferences??
This just does not make a whole lot of sense to some of us.
We can't afford to expand the CP as it is. Cadets already in the program and already in uniform struggle to pay the rising cost of some things in CAP as it is. If we recruit more "inner city kids" how are they going to pay? How do you keep those "inner city" kids from up and leaving when the non- inner city cadets go off to a 150$ encampment, or a 350$ NCSA (not to mention the cost of travel to those) and the inner city cadets can't afford to play anymore? I can't pay it.....can you? How long is that sustainable? Is it even good for the organization?
Sure not all inner city kids are bad! Nothing is absolute.
The inner city kids that seek out CAP are going to be the ones we want.
Guess what? They did it by themselves. Not with a NDO helping them.
If you think I'm predjudice, than I'm not going to change your opinion. I just think CAP needs to thinkcarefully about who it lets in.
WhydoyouguysalwaysassumethatIamlikethisnatziorsomething.watchyoutakethatthewrongway! ::)
Quote from: NCRblues on January 08, 2012, 05:25:56 PMWe can't afford to expand the CP as it is. Cadets already in the program and already in uniform struggle to pay the rising cost of some things in CAP as it is. If we recruit more "inner city kids" how are they going to pay? How do you keep those "inner city" kids from up and leaving when the non- inner city cadets go off to a 150$ encampment, or a 350$ NCSA (not to mention the cost of travel to those) and the inner city cadets can't afford to play anymore? I can't pay it.....can you? How long is that sustainable? Is it even good for the organization?
I don't see how these issues are related.
Expansion of the program really has no relation to the cost per person for uniform or activities.
Are there capacity issues at some of the venues? Sure, that just means we need to run more activities at the same places or
find more places.
Generally the per-person cost is fairly fixed based on consumables - 20% more people just means 20% more t-shirts, and 20-% more meals, it doesn't raise the cost per person.
Now, if you want to make an issue that increased cadets means an increase in the number of adults in the program to supervise and run things, that's a fair discussion, but that presupposes a recruiting effort that is wildly successful and so unexpected as to catch everyone off-guard.
I also don't understand why "diversity" means "cadets" in this discussion. The NDO will be charged with diversity across the board, not just recruiting cadets.
In my experience cadet, as a DCC and as a SqCC, its not just the kids who lack the interest. Its their parents who lack the interest also. Lets face it. A lot of moms and dads have way more to worry about than getting their kids to CAP once a week. When my son was a cadet, keeping him interested in CAP was a struggle. And I was the SqCC!! It was very expensive. He ultimately decided after a year that CAP wasn't for him. I was strangely disappointed and relieved at the same time. I have a pretty decent job and it was a hassle financially.
My Sq was located in one of the worst areas in Fresno. We recruited at all of the local school, got free uniforms from a local JROTC unit from a contact my Deputy for Seniors made, and we all but BEGGED kids to join. The JROTC commander at one of the minority schools we recruited at heavily (Hmong Cambodian and Laotian) even gave internal incentives for JROTC cadets who wanted to join CAP. Nothing. The kids were just not interested. They were in ROTC because it was a class that counted for graduation. We had been to other High Schools to recruit as well, again....I think we maybe pulled in 1 or 2. Recruiting at Airshows. Maybe a few more. Interesting thing though, we werent targeting minorities, we were just going after anyone who would listen. We just wanted kids to join, believing that once they did, their parents would too. It did not end up being the case. In todays society, people just dont have time to dedicate to CAP across the board.
I dont think we are to far off from the demographics of the US Air Force, an organization that dedicated hundreds of full time members to the cause and millions of dollars to "diversity". And they actually offer a pay check, benefits and a free place to live! And they are saying that over 73% of the force is white. So instead of CAP dumping this money into it, maybe CAP could get with the AF and find out why minorities aren't even joining the military?
http://www.usamilitaryjobs.com/2011/01/06/u-s-military-demographics-what-the-air-force-of-2011-looks-like/ (http://www.usamilitaryjobs.com/2011/01/06/u-s-military-demographics-what-the-air-force-of-2011-looks-like/)
"Race of Airmen The following percentages, which are selfreported, cover Air Force military members' racial information. 0.66 percent reported their race to be American Indian or native Alaskan 2.7 percent reported their race to be Asian 14.45 percent reported their race to be black or African American 1.06 percent reported their race to be native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 73.28 percent reported their race to be white 5.49 percent declined to report their race
Ethnicity "Hispanic or Latino" is now considered an ethnic, not a racial, category that is registered separately and in addition to the above racial categories. 5.3 percent of Airmen call themselves "Hispanic/Latino" 80 percent "not Hispanic/Latino" – 14.07 declined to respond"
Quote from: Eclipse on January 08, 2012, 05:56:33 PM
Quote from: NCRblues on January 08, 2012, 05:25:56 PMWe can't afford to expand the CP as it is. Cadets already in the program and already in uniform struggle to pay the rising cost of some things in CAP as it is. If we recruit more "inner city kids" how are they going to pay? How do you keep those "inner city" kids from up and leaving when the non- inner city cadets go off to a 150$ encampment, or a 350$ NCSA (not to mention the cost of travel to those) and the inner city cadets can't afford to play anymore? I can't pay it.....can you? How long is that sustainable? Is it even good for the organization?
I don't see how these issues are related.
Expansion of the program really has no relation to the cost per person for uniform or activities.
Are there capacity issues at some of the venues? Sure, that just means we need to run more activities at the same places or
find more places.
Generally the per-person cost is fairly fixed based on consumables - 20% more people just means 20% more t-shirts, and 20-% more meals, it doesn't raise the cost per person.
Now, if you want to make an issue that increased cadets means an increase in the number of adults in the program to supervise and run things, that's a fair discussion, but that presupposes a recruiting effort that is wildly successful and so unexpected as to catch everyone off-guard.
I also don't understand why "diversity" means "cadets" in this discussion. The NDO will be charged with diversity across the board, not just recruiting cadets.
No, I don't think you understood what I meant.
Ill expand a little than.
If your squadron is like mine, you have a mixture of well off cadets who can afford to run off to expensive things like NCSA's and encampments without a second thought, and poor kids who have to plan a long time ahead to be able to even think about an encampment, let alone an NCSA. How do you keep those poorer cadets motivated? How do you get those cadets to advance? Now that ECI 13 is done, how do you get those cadets (if they stay in long enough) to c/Lt. Col, when they can't afford to go to COS or RCLS? You can only get so many grants or scholarships. I can only pay for so many cadets before I am broke.
Pushing more people into CAP that can't afford to play is going to force undue strain and stress on the members who support the organization already. I was not saying more cadets would = higher prices. I just want to know how this is going to be sustainable.
Quote from: NCRblues on January 08, 2012, 06:18:50 PMIf your squadron is like mine, you have a mixture of well off cadets who can afford to run off to expensive things like NCSA's and encampments without a second thought, and poor kids who have to plan a long time ahead to be able to even think about an encampment, let alone an NCSA. How do you keep those poorer cadets motivated? How do you get those cadets to advance? Now that ECI 13 is done, how do you get those cadets (if they stay in long enough) to c/Lt. Col, when they can't afford to go to COS or RCLS? You can only get so many grants or scholarships. I can only pay for so many cadets before I am broke.
If your experience is that you had a gaggle of cadets piled up at Chief because they could not get to an encampment, you have a valid argument but
it doesn't match my experience, and that still doesn't change the actual equation, it just presents a challenge that has been around for a couple decades in CAP. And for the record, there are thousands of dollars in scholarships every year that go unspent, and a lot that go unapplied for because people can't be bothered.
The expense of NCSA's and encampments is not a major factor for the majority of cadets, and certainly not one in the first 1-3 years for most.
In my universe, the challenges to recruiting and retention were that the squadrons weren't doing anything worth bothering with, and/or the
local kids just weren't interested, which is a societal problem related to the entitlement mentality of this society, and not specifically linked to
gender or ethnicity.
Kids these days think a high ranking on MW3 is "hard core", but when faced with the realities and expectations of paramilitary organizations,
just look the other way.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 08, 2012, 06:30:35 PM
Quote from: NCRblues on January 08, 2012, 06:18:50 PMIf your squadron is like mine, you have a mixture of well off cadets who can afford to run off to expensive things like NCSA's and encampments without a second thought, and poor kids who have to plan a long time ahead to be able to even think about an encampment, let alone an NCSA. How do you keep those poorer cadets motivated? How do you get those cadets to advance? Now that ECI 13 is done, how do you get those cadets (if they stay in long enough) to c/Lt. Col, when they can't afford to go to COS or RCLS? You can only get so many grants or scholarships. I can only pay for so many cadets before I am broke.
If your experience is that you had a gaggle of cadets piled up at Chief because they could not get to an encampment, you have a valid argument but
it doesn't match my experience, and that still doesn't change the actual equation, it just presents a challenge that has been around for a couple decades in CAP. And for the record, there are thousands of dollars in scholarships every year that go unspent, and a lot that go unapplied for because people can't be bothered.
The expense of NCSA's and encampments is not a major factor for the majority of cadets, and certainly not one in the first 1-3 years for most.
In my universe, the challenges to recruiting and retention were that the squadrons weren't doing anything worth bothering with, and/or the
local kids just weren't interested, which is a societal problem related to the entitlement mentality of this society, and not specifically linked to
gender or ethnicity.
Kids these days think a high ranking on MW3 is "hard core", but when faced with the realities and expectations of paramilitary organizations,
just look the other way.
I agree, it is hard to compete with MW3.... I mean who does not love taking down international terrorist and ending ww3 single handily in a day? >:D
If you know of any scholarships that are not used, send them my way. I have 2 whole squadrons of 70 plus cadets that come from VERY poor working areas south of me. Out of both of those squadrons, 5 cadets got to go to a local winter encampment because the wing paid there way. The rest was told "next time". I can use all the money I can get to send kids to encampment/NCSA's.
Quote from: FW on January 08, 2012, 03:51:03 PM
Major, may I take the shovel from your hands now? Methinks you are digging a deep hole. In the city I usually deal with, we have Spaatz winners, lawyers, doctors, engineers, pilots and AF officers all coming out of these "inner city" squadrons. Even in environments where drive by shootings are the norm and, english is a second language, we do succeed. That is not what we are discussing. And, trying to implicate one class of people have no hope to succeed in CAP or life is ridiculous.
IMO, one of the reasons we have not grown in numbers is to refuse to open up our minds to what wee can accomplish. It's not just about the mission. It's also about being open in who we work with; in spite of means, beliefs and looks.
No one in their right mind would suggest that successful people get out of the ghetto. They do so because they are willing to integrate, not to segregate, themselves. You can keep the shovel; its probably hard to move all that Kool-Aid around with your bare hands. No one in CAP that I have ever met gave a rodents hindquarters about "Means, beliefs and looks" (well maybe "looks", some CAP members look pretty good, and some look pretty awful) Yes, it just about the mission(s), and that outgoing mission includes people of all races, colors, and creeds, but not to the exclusion of others, and not at the expense of others. I agree with you that CAP's stagnation is one of the factors in stunting our growth, but there is much more to it than that.
Major Lord
Quote from: NCRblues on January 06, 2012, 09:08:30 PM
Ned,
I would take a venture to say that the "gender" difference in CAP is the same as in the military. Fewer women want to play G.I. Joe (Jane I guess in this instance). A lot less girls want to put on combat boots and BDU's compared to males (I think you will have to speak to god on that one Ned, not much a diversity officer can do).
You can talk all about the leadership and aerospace education you want, but, we do those things in military uniforms that limit the free expression of the teenage/young adult female in question. It is not a mystery to me why we have less female cadets.
I think you hit the nail right on the head with that one. In 2008 females comprised 18% of the officer rank and 20% of the enlisted rank - exactly the numbers Ned is seeing in CAP.
We pat ourselves on the back as to "how far we've come" in the last century in regards to the rights of women and minorities, and
work hard to dispel any myths about lack of opportunity in CAP, and then you see the reality of the real universe:
http://www.hulu.com/watch/317572/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-george-lucas (http://www.hulu.com/watch/317572/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-george-lucas)
Is CAP a part of the problem or a part of the solution? Can we do much to help? Is it our role? I don't know.
I think there are legitimate questions and conversations to be had about the method and personal motivations
about some of the personalities involved, and whether volunteer paradigms like ours have the capability or mandate
to make a difference without impacting the real work of our missions.
"Questions" doesn't equal "indictments", but unfortunately in this TMZ / Facebook Drama culture, we can't seem
to be able to have academic discussions about important topics without lionizing those who disagree with us.
I do know, however, that until situations like this are corrected, the conversation isn't and can't be over if we're really
going to represent the values that we print in the pamphlets.
After cathing up on 5 pages of thread, this seems to be a Recruiting and Retention issue. Instead of creating another position to work on a job that technically should already be done, why don't we just emphasize to our R&R Officer that they need to be looking at the demographics of their Squadrons, Wings, or Regions and push themselves to go out and recruit these minority groups. It doesn't matter whether its gender or ethnically motivated.
I know that as a squadron recruiter I go out of my way to make sure to try and encourage the female candidates both cadet and senior to join. In fact at one time, I had more females than males. But just like the total number of members, that changes constantly.
I don't think that we need to overwork our people, but I don't think a reminder to do your ENTIRE job is a bad start here.
Just a thought.
-Medic
Looks like we have a NDO appointed see:
http://www.capvolunteernow.com/todays-features/?cap_names_national_chief_diversity_officer&show=news&newsID=12526 (http://www.capvolunteernow.com/todays-features/?cap_names_national_chief_diversity_officer&show=news&newsID=12526)
Personally, I don't anything about the individual appointed, other than what is printed in that article.
RM
Don't what about him. I think there's a word missing.
Quote from: MICT1362 on January 10, 2012, 05:05:58 PM
After cathing up on 5 pages of thread, this seems to be a Recruiting and Retention issue. Instead of creating another position to work on a job that technically should already be done, why don't we just emphasize to our R&R Officer that they need to be looking at the demographics of their Squadrons, Wings, or Regions...
^
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v228/J-RAD/nailhead.jpg)
As was mentioned in an earlier post, all I see coming out of this new position is yet a new series of useless reports and meaningless/ineffective training.
NHQ seems to be sidetracked on their priorities. A new duty position was not needed - at best this should be a temporary project position (even that is a stretch).
Perhaps NHQ should work on securing/defining actual mission objectives so that people have something to hang their hat on each week. Our ES mission has virtually disappeared. How will we reinvent ourselves relative to that fact? There are plenty of truly meaningful missions that we can perform for USAF and the country (and I'm not talking about laying wreaths). If people don't see a real purpose/value in the use of their time they will not come...and, if by chance they do, they certainly won't stick around long.
Rather than create more meaningless bureaucracy, NHQ needs to start solving some actual problems.
When asked about his appointment as national chief diversity officer, he said, "In this new role, I hope to do two things: First, help CAP tell its story on how it helps America's youth, and second, ensure CAP is a diverse and inclusive organization.
Congrats. CAP has been doing that for 60 years.
How do we become more diverse? I know of no one I have met in CAP during two decades that would ever stop another person from joining based on factors other than those layed out as "Basic Qualifications".
CAP is not a charity. How will our Leadership go about for paying to implement and sustain this new undertaking? This will be another example in a long line of recent financially irresponsible mistakes made by CAP. This can only take away from our current members pockets. Any organization attempting this "right our wrongs" action end up dumping more and more money into it year after year.
We have equipment and facilities that need investing in, Cadets that are paying way to much to go to Encampments and cutbacks to our missions due to a Federal Budget that is laughable at best.
Take care of the current issues now, save the "make us look and feel good" stuff later!!
Oh great, a Harvard guy married to a lawyer......It sounds like a "two guys walk into a Bar" joke. Nothing in his Bio (other than his photo) suggests he has any special qualifications for the job. I will be waiting with 'bated breath for the spectacular results in accomplishing his mission. In fact, I think merely creating the position has saved or created over 20,000 new members, and I can prove it with these analysis I happen to have right here.....wait, it was around here somewhere, maybe under my "global warming proofs" or my "confirmed Yeti sighting" documentation....
Major Lord
Quote from: Major Lord on February 19, 2012, 12:13:57 AM
Nothing in his Bio (other than his photo) suggests he has any special qualifications for the job. I will be waiting with 'bated breath for the spectacular results in accomplishing his mission.
Well, that's probably because the bio that was posted online wasn't his application for the position, and you're not on the selection committee.
I know him and he's a very good choice for the position. I also know that he has several other special qualifications that weren't published as part of his bio, and the characteristics you're referring to in his photo have nothing to do with those qualifications. Remarks like yours are not in keeping with the Core Values, and you ought to be ashamed of yourself.
Quote from: Patterson on February 18, 2012, 11:49:14 PM
How do we become more diverse? I know of no one I have met in CAP during two decades that would ever stop another person from joining based on factors other than those layed out as "Basic Qualifications".
There's more to diversity than race, and there's more to CAP's accessibility than having some individual, "stop another person from joining."
Quote from: Patterson on February 18, 2012, 11:49:14 PM
CAP is not a charity.
Actually, CAP
IS a charity. http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/TAXLTRNEW_28FEB2011_ABAEAB2E9C773.pdf (http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/TAXLTRNEW_28FEB2011_ABAEAB2E9C773.pdf)
I'm sure you don't think this is a priority, but expanding our recruiting is always a priority, and making sure we're a relevant organization all across the country is important.
Major Lord
Your being short sighted. Im waiting for the sliding scale for membership dues based on yearly income Based on all of my pay cuts this year and my benefit cost increases I figure CAP will be paying me to rejoin! Encampment cost for my kids will be more managable because Ill have my CAP EBT card that my kids will swip at the time they arrive at in processing. In order for this "Diversity" officerto prove his worth there will need to be demographics data collected and there will need to be programs started and increases in the memberships of identified groups. There has never been a problem with diversity in CAP. The only barrier to membership I have ever seen in my 20 yrs in CAP is cost and location. Some people dont live near units OK, sorry. Cant help that unless you start a unit. Cost? Well, we need to bring that down across the board. Diversity isnt a factor in either.
Quote from: Flying Pig on February 19, 2012, 04:59:32 PM
Major Lord
Your being short sighted. Im waiting for the sliding scale for membership dues based on yearly income Based on all of my pay cuts this year and my benefit cost increases I figure CAP will be paying me to rejoin! Encampment cost for my kids will be more managable because Ill have my CAP EBT card that my kids will swip at the time they arrive at in processing. In order for this "Diversity" officerto prove his worth there will need to be demographics data collected and there will need to be programs started and increases in the memberships of identified groups. There has never been a problem with diversity in CAP. The only barrier to membership I have ever seen in my 20 yrs in CAP is cost and location. Some people dont live near units OK, sorry. Cant help that unless you start a unit. Cost? Well, we need to bring that down across the board. Diversity isnt a factor in either.
Why all the acid?
You don't see a need for ensuring CAP is representative of the communities it supports, that's your perspective.
I don't see the problem with 1) making sure we remain relevant as we move into the future, and 2) trusting that the leadership that identified this need and seeks to address it isn't pushing some nefarious agenda to waste your money and the organization's resources.
Quote from: Ed Bos on February 19, 2012, 07:35:12 AM
Quote from: Major Lord on February 19, 2012, 12:13:57 AM
Nothing in his Bio (other than his photo) suggests he has any special qualifications for the job. I will be waiting with 'bated breath for the spectacular results in accomplishing his mission.
Well, that's probably because the bio that was posted online wasn't his application for the position, and you're not on the selection committee.
I know him and he's a very good choice for the position. I also know that he has several other special qualifications that weren't published as part of his bio, and the characteristics you're referring to in his photo have nothing to do with those qualifications. Remarks like yours are not in keeping with the Core Values, and you ought to be ashamed of yourself.
Not even remotely ashamed of myself! So he has "Special Qualifications" that they chose not to share in the press release? Don't you think that in the name of diversity, fair play, and full disclosure, that his actual qualifications for the job be included in the published selection criteria? You know, having undisclosed job selection criteria takes us down that slippery slope towards "race" or other special interest based selection processes? I think that secret policies, especially as they relate to how we handle issues of "race", creed, etc, are an actual violation of Core Values, and have the taint of institutionalized bigotry about them. "race" policies are de facto "racist" policies. I will be happy to see how his functions improve our effectiveness in actually carrying out our missions, but his mission statements are sufficiently vague as to prevent the establishment of a baseline. My guess is that they will lead to "race" based quotas and recruiting goals. ( I place "race" in quotes because there is only one "race" of humans currently extant, and ethnicity is so murky as to be beyond practical hyphenate description; I am confident that his goal will not be to ensure we have sufficient numbers of Lutherans as opposed to Buddhists) You are quite right, I am not on the selection committee or any other committee, but if your goal is to suppress the opinions of the membership and their completely historically justified skepticism of NHQ and their many capricious and irresponsible actions by invoking any mention of sensitive issues, I suggest you examine your own values and core values. I submit that being too timid to discuss matters openly, even the large elephant in the room, disqualifies a persons viewpoints from consideration in any argument. What can be taboo in discussions of reality? Reality Exists!
Flying Pig: I hope your lungs are in tip-top condition; You will need that for the breath holding mastery required in your goal of a sliding scale!
Major Lord
Quote from: Ed Bos on February 19, 2012, 07:32:20 PM
You don't see a need for ensuring CAP is representative of the communities it supports, that's your perspective.
No one has ever explained why this is important. Why can't we just be who we are? I'm in CAP because it meshes with my values. If you change is significantly to mesh with someone else's values then it no longer has a draw to me and I'll leave. People and cultures are different. You can not appeal to everyone and it would be stupid to waste our limited time on something that distracts from the mission, which by the way is NOT diversity nor safety.
Quote from: Ed Bos on February 19, 2012, 07:32:20 PMYou don't see a need for ensuring CAP is representative of the communities it supports, that's your perspective.
I don't see the problem with 1) making sure we remain relevant as we move into the future, and 2) trusting that the leadership that identified this need and seeks to address it isn't pushing some nefarious agenda to waste your money and the organization's resources.
Who has quantified that we aren't?
The start of this conversation is the definition of diversity.
Ethnic? Gender? Cultural? Financial? Other? Once that is answered, does pursuing that definition help accomplish the mission?
Quote from: Major Lord on February 19, 2012, 07:37:32 PM
Not even remotely ashamed of myself! So he has "Special Qualifications" that they chose not to share in the press release?
Yes he does, you'll have to take my word on that, or query him yourself for additional information.
Quote from: Major Lord on February 19, 2012, 07:37:32 PM
Don't you think that in the name of diversity, fair play, and full disclosure, that his actual qualifications for the job be included in the published selection criteria?
No, I think the choice to highlight a few of his qualifications and omit others in a 350 word press release has nothing to do with diversity, fair play, full disclosure, and the selection criteria used to fill this national staff position.
Quote from: Major Lord on February 19, 2012, 07:37:32 PM
You know, having undisclosed job selection criteria takes us down that slippery slope towards "race" or other special interest based selection processes?
What criteria are you referring to? AFAIK, they chose the most capable individual for the job.
Quote from: Major Lord on February 19, 2012, 07:37:32 PM
I think that secret policies, especially as they relate to how we handle issues of "race", creed, etc, are an actual violation of Core Values, and have the taint of institutionalized bigotry about them.
I think you're being reactionary and ridiculous here. There's no secret policies, and in fact, the CAP nondiscrimination program (ref: CAPR 36-1) specifically states that our policy is to prevent discrimination based on, "race, sex, age, color, religion, national origin, and disability."
The problem I have here is that you intimated that the only reason this volunteer (just like you and I) was chosen for this position was because of his photo... Which I am sure he did not include with his application for this position.
Quote from: Major Lord on February 19, 2012, 07:37:32 PM
"race" policies are de facto "racist" policies. I will be happy to see how his functions improve our effectiveness in actually carrying out our missions, but his mission statements are sufficiently vague as to prevent the establishment of a baseline.
Cut the man a break, he was just hired a few days ago. If you were in his shoes I'm sure your "mission statements" would also be a little "vague" until you talked to your boss and got a handle on your new position.
Quote from: Major Lord on February 19, 2012, 07:37:32 PM
My guess is that they will lead to "race" based quotas and recruiting goals. ( I place "race" in quotes because there is only one "race" of humans currently extant, and ethnicity is so murky as to be beyond practical hyphenate description; I am confident that his goal will not be to ensure we have sufficient numbers of Lutherans as opposed to Buddhists)
You're focusing on "race" and indicating that's what "THEY" want to focus on. Cut it out, realize that you're the one who keeps harping on race, and let's all get on with supporting a fellow volunteer with what's undoubtedly going to be a uniquely challenging position. For instance, what ideas do you have to recruit more women into CAP? That's certainly a diversity issue that's relevant and going to be something that needs to be addressed by Lt Col Cousins.
Quote from: Major Lord on February 19, 2012, 07:37:32 PM
You are quite right, I am not on the selection committee or any other committee, but if your goal is to suppress the opinions of the membership and their completely historically justified skepticism of NHQ and their many capricious and irresponsible actions by invoking any mention of sensitive issues, I suggest you examine your own values and core values.
No, my goal is no to suppress anything, my goal is to point out your baloney.
Quote from: Major Lord on February 19, 2012, 07:37:32 PM
I submit that being too timid to discuss matters openly, even the large elephant in the room, disqualifies a persons viewpoints from consideration in any argument. What can be taboo in discussions of reality? Reality Exists!
Timid? I called you a bigot publicly, and pointed out that the issues that this position was created for aren't solely based on race. I'm not concerned with taboo, I'm concerned with your frank disregard for showing respect to another person because
you think that he may have been hired based on race. Your version of reality is troubling, and the elephant in the room is that you (and others in this thread) are going on about what I believe you think amounts to reverse racial discrimination, when in fact there's nothing at all to support that.
Quote from: Eclipse on February 19, 2012, 08:08:24 PM
Quote from: Ed Bos on February 19, 2012, 07:32:20 PMYou don't see a need for ensuring CAP is representative of the communities it supports, that's your perspective.
I don't see the problem with 1) making sure we remain relevant as we move into the future, and 2) trusting that the leadership that identified this need and seeks to address it isn't pushing some nefarious agenda to waste your money and the organization's resources.
Who has quantified that we aren't?
The start of this conversation is the definition of diversity.
Ethnic? Gender? Cultural? Financial? Other? Once that is answered, does pursuing that definition help accomplish the mission?
Good point, I think CAPR 36-1 makes a great starting point for that sort of discussion, but I agree, financial status might make a great addition to thinking about diversity.
As far as who made the decision to pursue diversity? Our leadership. Does anyone have access to the minutes for the meetings where they created the position? That may have a few more answers for all of us.
I agree completely with the above post by David and Eclipse ( and how often does that happen?) The initial premise that we have a "problem" at all is the function of an unproven and nebulous political perspective. I reject the idea Ab Initio that "reflecting the community around us" is intrinsically a "good" or desirable thing. Isn't what holds us together as an organization the shared values we hold, not a need to homogenize the organization to accept any and all outside values? In other words, candidates should be coming to CAP because they share a common set of values with CAP, not because CAP needs external cultural influences to stay fresh. In every instance where Race-Based policies have been the law of the land, their existence deprived other individuals of equal opportunities. That is the very text-book definition of racism. In the worst case, these policies lead to genocide, and holocaust. Ask a Gypsy or a Jew how they feel about race-based policies.
Major Lord
Quote from: davidsinn on February 19, 2012, 08:03:07 PM
Quote from: Ed Bos on February 19, 2012, 07:32:20 PM
You don't see a need for ensuring CAP is representative of the communities it supports, that's your perspective.
No one has ever explained why this is important. Why can't we just be who we are? I'm in CAP because it meshes with my values. If you change is significantly to mesh with someone else's values then it no longer has a draw to me and I'll leave. People and cultures are different. You can not appeal to everyone and it would be stupid to waste our limited time on something that distracts from the mission, which by the way is NOT diversity nor safety.
I also didn't receive the email from the National Board, personally explaining to me why they chose to create this position. And CAP meshes with my values too. And I bet it meshes with a lot of people's values.
But (and I'm just spit-balling here) I bet someone thought that:
- increasing our membership,
- creating units in places that currently don't have units,
- training more cadets,
- training more ES responders,
- expanding Aerospace Education to audiences that don't receive it currently,
... are all part of our Mission. And maybe investigating and increasing diversity might be a way to help pursue those goals.
And now the CAP leadership has been equated to Hitler. Well, I'm done. Thanks Godwin.
Quote from: Ed Bos on February 19, 2012, 08:25:51 PM
Quote from: davidsinn on February 19, 2012, 08:03:07 PM
Quote from: Ed Bos on February 19, 2012, 07:32:20 PM
You don't see a need for ensuring CAP is representative of the communities it supports, that's your perspective.
No one has ever explained why this is important. Why can't we just be who we are? I'm in CAP because it meshes with my values. If you change is significantly to mesh with someone else's values then it no longer has a draw to me and I'll leave. People and cultures are different. You can not appeal to everyone and it would be stupid to waste our limited time on something that distracts from the mission, which by the way is NOT diversity nor safety.
I also didn't receive the email from the National Board, personally explaining to me why they chose to create this position. And CAP meshes with my values too. And I bet it meshes with a lot of people's values.
But (and I'm just spit-balling here) I bet someone thought that:
- increasing our membership,
- creating units in places that currently don't have units,
- training more cadets,
- training more ES responders,
- expanding Aerospace Education to audiences that don't receive it currently,
... are all part of our Mission. And maybe investigating and increasing diversity might be a way to help pursue those goals.
well, lets be frank and open here. We tend to dance around a situation. So, if that is what you bet someone in "leadership" (I hope I don't get into trouble with Ned again for my quotation marks around that word) said than lets break that one down, shall we?
#1. Increasing our membership - Well with the term "diversity officer" that would indicate to me and basically anyone else with a brain that functions that we will look to minorities. Not a bad thing in general, but can get out of hand if quotas and other forced recruitment policies are implemented.
#2. Creating units in places that currently don't have units- Looking at the lists of squadron's nation wide, it becomes very obvious that MANY of our nations large (and statistically dangerous) population centers do not have CAP squadrons. So, speaking open and honest and not dancing around the issue, we are talking about "inner cities". Plain and simple, this is not going to happen. Folks in BDUs or a blue uniform are not generally received well inside inner cities, and in fact several times during my time on AD we were told to not go into some of the large cities in uniform because of the threats of violence against uniformed members. Plus another problem with inner cities is the level of income. CAP is expensive, it's unfortunate, but very true.
#3.training more cadets- Maybe that's what they said out loud, but that's not what they were thinking. We are very politically correct, so what they were thinking is "training more minority cadets". Again, not necessarily bad things, as long as new forceful recruitment policies or quotas do not come into play.
#4.Training more ES responders- So, I guess these would come from the new squadrons in inner cities, other than that I am not sure why that would be on the diversity officers plate. I for one can not believe that would work. Again, the level of income has to come into play here. I hope this diversity mandate does not end up funneling money into the "inner city" squadrons. I for one would be very angry because we have cadets and SM's who already can no longer afford to play with CAP because of the rising cost of things.
#5.expanding Aerospace Education to audiences that don't receive it currently- Millions of people do not even know what CAP is, let alone know we "teach" A.E. So really what this says is "expanding A.E. to minority populations who generally are not part of the general aviation community, and show very little interest in becoming so for many reasons". Again, why? We already struggle to educate the members we already have due to lack of funds and lack of members who truly understand the A.E. program.
Overall, I am very leery of this "diversity officer". I just have a feeling that this will force more work on the already overburden squadrons/groups/wings. I hope that a quota system will not be instituted. Several of the wings are going to struggle with minority recruitment if that is the case. You can't recruit many minorities in PoDunk town (farm village) Missouri or Kansas or Nebraska or the Dakotas or Minnesota.
Ed,
Hitler is hardly the king of genocide. I would lean more towards Stalin as holding that title. Your arguments are compelling, lacking only facts and reason, but you make up for these with plenty of allusions to inside information, goals and benefits you assign to CAP that are not in evidence, and assurances of the good intentions of the people who are foisting the leftist ideological principals of "diversity". You allude to Godwin's so-called "law", which is in fact a tool used to avoid being compared to National Socialists, or Hitler, but these are inescapable comparisons, and generally trotted out by those with similar Utopian goals. If these philosophical shoes are too tight, I suggest you don't wear them. You have called me a "Bigot"; You are absolutely right, I am a bigot! If the definition of bigotry supposes the idea that some values and cultures are superior to to others, than I am in fact a "bigot". I believe for instance, that America is a bastion of freedom and justice, and that liberty is intrinsically good. I think that putting Jews in the gas chamber is bad, and that cutting the heads of opposing ball team players ( Aztec) is not the mark of a culture morally comparable to America. I would not call you a "racist" since the newest definition of the term ( by Sociologists) applies only to individuals or groups with power over others. I do characterize policies based on other than abilities as immoral and unjust, ( In the vein of M.L. King's Color Blind society) but that's another argument. I don't really care if your candidate for Political Leadership Officer is qualified, or chosen without regard to race, color, gender, sexual orientation or creed. The very fact that you would like to spend a million dollars of CAP members money so that some nebulous, politically correct and completely subjective goals are met is evidence of irrationality on the face of it. Like any CAP member, I can discuss anything I want anywhere I want ( unless the mods fear imminent public duals!) I won't take your wager on NHQ's motives, but if they are as you say, I am sure that we will see dramatic results (of one kind or another) soon. A child could find simpler remedies to low recruitment than introducing the thought-crime to CAP. Does anyone in their right mind actually believe that CAP's recruitment problem is primarily a problem of diversity? ( And only those in their right mind need address this) Are NASCAR, Rainbows, and Unicorns the best we can hope for from our leadership? ( that was a rhetorical question; quod erat demonstrandum)
Major Lord
I laugh when I hear about diversity, and especially when people spout "strength through diversity". Who ever came up with that lame idea never served a day in the infantry. Which is by far the melting pot of diverse groups of people. We weren't a well oiled machine because we had some guy in a suit making sure that we all knew we were different. True unity can only be created by making sure the cream rises to he top during shared experiences of adversity, shared history and tradition.
Race, creed, ethnicity are never mentioned. True unity is not created by appointed volunteer. Yes, we all knew we were different. So what? How does that help insure I dont have to carry your load on a hump?
Politically Correct Diversity, which is what this new CAP assignment is about, thrives on pointing out everyones differences and then calling it "unity." I prefer the method I used. It was all inclusive regardless of where you came from. I didn't need to point out that the top runner in the platoon was a black kid who was a freaking genetic mutation of male fitness. I didn't need to point out that the best rifle shot was some southern Georgia white kid who always had a chew in his lip. They let their actions speak.
Have you ever worked or been in a pre-school? Kids don't know they are different until you start pointing it out.
I spent 8 years in the infantry. Never once did I have any racial issues, have to mediate disputes between cultural backgrounds or ethnic backgrounds. Everyone was the same, held to the same standard and were promoted and progressed based on those standards. If you did stack up, you didn't re-enlist, or we found a way for you to go hand out basketballs at the gym for your last year.
We already have Recruiting and Retention Officers. We already have Public Affairs Officers. We already have laws and policies enforced by Commanders, Deputy Commanders and Legal Officers. Why do we now need a "Diversity Officer"? Ive been in full time, paid government service for 20years. 2 branches of the military and 3 law enforcement agencies. The new CC now needs a "Diversity officer" because of an agenda that cant be accomplished by the other two jobs. Don't know what it is, but thats why. Id be happy to tell him to his face. The guy has an agenda.
People can be critical of recruiting officers and PAOs, and we all know they are critical of commanders when they try to implement things but NOBODY can be critical of the Diversity Officer without being called a racist or any other list of names. Diversity Officers, by the very nature of their title have pretty much carte blanche to do whatever they want and nobody ever calls them on what they really are because they are promoting "acceptance". Their job is to identify specific groups, identify why they are special and why they need certain considerations and how to get them those considerations based on how they are different. It always ends up with the standards changing to include one group on the backs of another. And all while yelling unity.
In my experience with diversity, I have only seen it bring division. Obviously some here have a different view of it. But in all my experiences you are more than free to have your opinion about "diversity" unless it conflicts with what the diversity rep tells you. Then, your closed minded, arrogant or a racist. I just want you to come to work, do your job, do it well, and promote you based on your performance. If you suck, I want you gone. If you suck, I want you to man (or woman) up, accept your not cut out for whatever it is and fix it. Not find ways through the backdoor.
One of my last drills in the Army Reserves was spent sitting in a seminar called "Harness the Rainbow and Celebrate Diversity" It was taught by a black female Major and a male Asian Captain, telling the rest of us how they were different. They started going around the room asking people their backgrounds. They got to my Plt Sgt, who was a black male, Special Forces tabbed, Ranger Qual'd MSgt. He responded, "Im an American Soldier". The Major went right on to the next person. Those weren't the answers she was looking for. It didn't fit her agenda.
You know......really didnt give it much thought at all Major until you forced me to sit here and listen to you tell me how special you were. I dont like you because your a back office paper pushing slug. I said to myself.
What do I want? I want people/commanders to stop pointing out everyones differences to me like I am in pre-school learning my shapes and colors. I want you to rest on YOUR past and what you bring to the table. Not make me sit and listen to a history class about the Tuskegee Airmen like it will have any affect on how I view the black Soldier Sailor or Marine sitting next to me. If your a Navajo Indian in the Marines, guess what? I know all about the Wind Talkers. Bring me a real one and Ill sit and listen all day long in sheer humble reverence because those guys were awesome. But guess what else I know........I know the 19 yr old Marine sitting in class with me wasn't one of them! Dont tell me the story like its going to change the view I have of someone who may be from the same cultural background.
How long before the National Diversity Officer appoints Region, Wing, Group and Squadron Diversity Officers? Everyone kingdom builds. I am seeing a new Specialty Track in the works. No, Im not trying to be funny. The issue Ed brought up about how does CAP attract more women? I disagree. Its not a "diversity issue". Its a recruiting and a PAO issue. Members join squadrons. As the Squadron Commander, I will address the needs with my Recruiting Officer, who will then go to the PAO to make it happen. I dont need a guy at National telling me to do it. Any issue you point out to justify the D.O., I can point out that CAP has already addressed it. Its typical bureaucratic redundancy. We have recruiting and retention and public affairs, but "diversity" makes us all feel good. Again, anything and everything can fall under diversity. Next thing we will find ourselves researching Form 91 failures by race and gender. Hey, its a diversity issue. Because we are in the business of people ANYTHING can be labeled diversity. Sorry. Im not drinking the Kool-Aid.
If I ever become the boss, I am putting my creed above my office door:
Achieve unity by taking responsibility for your circumstances. Dont rest on the laurels of those who came before you. Dont look for exceptions based on your race, creed, sex, color or ethnicity.
It really is that simple.
"back office paper pushing slug" BOPPS....it has a ring to it! And less risky than REMF! Most excellent; it should be the on the CAP Form 101!
Major Lord
In many cases the groups not really represented in our membership comprise many groups that have been mentioned here rolled into one person. In our area, the majority of my cadets are white, upper-middle class. The majority of my seniors are white, upper-middle class. As a squadron commander, it is my obligation to try to push the goals and objectives into the community that my unit serves.
Considering that the local population is 70% black, it seems that I'm not reaching about 70% of the local population with CAP's message or influence. To me, that is a failure of mine to accomplish the responsibility that I have to our organization. A diversity officer, or even just someone with understanding of the local population, would be greatly beneficial to help develop programs that can enable me to reach those people I'm missing.
Most of the time, it comes down to money. Membership dues and initial uniform costs are usually a show stopper for most of the black kids in my area, considering that for many of their families it would equate to an entire week's paycheck. Food or CAP? The choice seems pretty simple. It's not that they don't want to do what CAP has to offer, it's that it's unobtainable.
There are numerous statistics that show that the opportunities that youth are presented with growing up directly affect their success as adults. Locally, I'm am trying to raise money from local businesses to start a fund that would pay for every new cadets membership fees and initial uniform costs.
It has nothing to do with quotas, or putting people in positions that aren't capable of doing the job, but instead meeting our obligation and responsibility to serve the communities we are in - the entire community, not just the upper-middle class white community in the area. We may not be a charity in the sense of the local food bank, but if two of our missions involve education, we aren't educating many people if we don't do something to reach those who need it.
Quote from: jimmydeanno on February 21, 2012, 09:08:10 PM
A diversity officer, or even just someone with understanding of the local population, would be greatly beneficial to help develop programs that can enable me to reach those people I'm missing.
Quick question.
How can a NATIONAL diversity officer understand your local areas problems? I would venture to guess every "local area" has a different set of problems, sometimes unique and sometimes not.
And, if NHQ mandates that each squadron/group/wing have a diversity officer, lets be honest we all know how that will end. It will be given to the first sucker who walks into the door in the majority of cases. So, I am just not understanding how this will help at all.
The only thing that can really be done at the national level is to define the problem and sent the mandates, any action will have to happen at the units.
Quote from: Eclipse on February 21, 2012, 10:16:27 PM
The only thing that can really be done at the national level is to define the problem and sent the mandates, any action will have to happen at the units.
And I happen to think the entire role seems to be built on the unsupported belief that we need to increase membership numbers. I ask, to what purpose? Just so that we can say we have a larger organization? We shouldn't try to be all things to all people but let's say we attract more members...what will they do? Dangle the carrot and have them sit around, waiting for non-existent missions? That is the reality right now.
I said it before and I'll say it again, NHQ is focusing on the wrong issues - and that is problematic. How we will improve the missions we have - Cadet Programs and Aerospace Education? What is our long term strategy for ES/Operations? I'm not convinced bigger is better until they solve this root problem because even if one is successful at attracting more members, those members won't stick with the program very long unless they feel their time/effort is not providing value.
Quote from: A.Member on February 21, 2012, 11:25:40 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on February 21, 2012, 10:16:27 PM
The only thing that can really be done at the national level is to define the problem and sent the mandates, any action will have to happen at the units.
And I happen to think the entire role seems to be built on the unsupported belief that we need to increase membership numbers. I ask, to what purpose? Just so that we can say we have a larger organization? Let's say we attract more people...what will they do? Sit around and wait for non-existent missions?
There will never be any "new" missions until we increase our numbers. You cannot market a capability you do not have.
We need to increase our numbers, train-up our people and raise expectations, and then, and
only then, pursue "new" missions (most of which won't be all that "new").
This idea that people are quitting because there are no missions is backwards.
There is more than enough opportunity for us to "get into the fight", probably more than we'd really want, but excuses, low expectations, and lack of coherent vision hold us back from pursuing them. And most of that last sentence is a local problem, not a national one.
Quote from: Eclipse on February 21, 2012, 11:31:40 PM
Quote from: A.Member on February 21, 2012, 11:25:40 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on February 21, 2012, 10:16:27 PM
The only thing that can really be done at the national level is to define the problem and sent the mandates, any action will have to happen at the units.
And I happen to think the entire role seems to be built on the unsupported belief that we need to increase membership numbers. I ask, to what purpose? Just so that we can say we have a larger organization? Let's say we attract more people...what will they do? Sit around and wait for non-existent missions?
There will never be any "new" missions until we increase our numbers. You cannot market a capability you do not have.
We need to increase our numbers, train-up our people and raise expectations, and then, and only then, pursue "new" missions (most of which won't be all that "new").
This idea that people are quitting because there are no missions is backwards.
There is more than enough opportunity for us to "get into the fight", probably more than we'd really want, but excuses, low expectations, and lack of coherent vision hold us back from pursuing them. And most of that last sentence is a local problem, not a national one.
I disagree. We have more than enough members and potential interest to address many important missions. The problem is keeping the interest while we wait for strategic direction from National. You don't grow people on a promise to bring new missions/new activity - once we have enough members. That notion is absurd.
Where we do agree is the fact that some (emphasis on some) missions can be derived locally...but only with support up the chain, which is, at best, inconsistent across the organization. That is a National issue...that requires strategic vision and a roadmap for the membership. We also agree on the need for raising the bar; raising our expectations - across the board. However, I call that quality over quantity.
Quote from: A.Member on February 21, 2012, 11:40:19 PMI disagree for the most part. We have more than enough members and potential interest.
Maybe in your wing, but in mine, which is one of the larger ones, far too many units have anything more than about 20 members, which is probably
about 1/2 to 1/3 of what a fully-functional unit should have.
And in the larger ones, as much as 1/3 are empty shirts. Couple that with partial engagement and attention from 1/2 the membership and we are where we are.
At current engagement levels, we need to increase our
adult membership by at least 50% in order to be taken seriously as an ES resource, or increase the engagement level of the existing membership by the same factor.
Any place you have members double-billeted in key roles, you see the problem. Any unit where the CC is also listed anywhere else on the staff roster is a problem. Any place where the same person is listed in a role for more than one echelon is the problem.
Solved only with people.
Quote from: A.Member on February 21, 2012, 11:25:40 PM
And I happen to think the entire role seems to be built on the unsupported belief that we need to increase membership numbers. I ask, to what purpose? Just so that we can say we have a larger organization? ( . . .) I said it before and I'll say it again, NHQ is focusing on the wrong issues - and that is problematic. How we will improve the missions we have - Cadet Programs and Aerospace Education?
Is it really a "unsupported belief" that we can accomplish more if we had more members?
It just seems fairly intuitively true. Kinda like "if I had more money, I could buy more stuff."
Our members are the "capital" that enable us to accomplish our Congressionally-mandated missions.
And your response just seems internally inconsistent. For example, the largest single program in CAP in terms of members involved and hours expended is our Cadet Program.
And for the CP, at least, "bigger is indeed better" essentially by definition.
Similarly, it seems just as true that having more members by definition improves our AE mission. More members receiving aerospace education invariably improves the mission of education more people on aerospace topics.
I must be mission something obvious, but it also makes sense to me that having more trained and ES-rated members can only improve our readiness to perform ES.
Quote from: NCRblues on February 21, 2012, 09:43:26 PM
How can a NATIONAL diversity officer understand your local areas problems? I would venture to guess every "local area" has a different set of problems, sometimes unique and sometimes not.
Certainly they could look at our organization from the 30K foot level. I would venture to guess that the problems in my area are the same that affect places like Detroit, New Orleans, New York City, Atlanta, Dallas, and a myriad of other urban centers. Someone at the national level that can help develop programs that local units can subscribe to for assistance or guidance.
They could help provide insight and advice to National Board members to address the issues that they face in their wings. A subject matter expert if you will, the same as employing a finance subject matter expert when you want to make sure that your finances are in order. Many "local" problems are not unique, and someone with a national picture can offer solutions that you just can't see with your head down in the quagmire.
Quote from: jimmydeanno on February 22, 2012, 12:13:54 AM
Quote from: NCRblues on February 21, 2012, 09:43:26 PM
How can a NATIONAL diversity officer understand your local areas problems? I would venture to guess every "local area" has a different set of problems, sometimes unique and sometimes not.
Certainly they could look at our organization from the 30K foot level. I would venture to guess that the problems in my area are the same that affect places like Detroit, New Orleans, New York City, Atlanta, Dallas, and a myriad of other urban centers. Someone at the national level that can help develop programs that local units can subscribe to for assistance or guidance.
They could help provide insight and advice to National Board members to address the issues that they face in their wings. A subject matter expert if you will, the same as employing a finance subject matter expert when you want to make sure that your finances are in order. Many "local" problems are not unique, and someone with a national picture can offer solutions that you just can't see with your head down in the quagmire.
Really? How? The diversity officer is going to come with some special skill that none of us have? Why is this issue something your PAO and Recruiting Officer cant handle? By placing a title on someone magically ordains them with insight beyond our level of understanding? All we are doing is putting a politically correct name, and creating a redundant layer to something CAP already has. Public Affairs and Recruiting.
Well, its obviously a skill that we're lacking if we cant seem to push onto the markets we're trying to. We don't currently have programs or assistance in working those issues. I don't care what you want to call it, I'm just looking for the skills to help me get around the.challenges I face. One of them is diversity. Strangely, the 55 year old white male seems to not be good at recruiting anyone except people just like him. Maybe its time to try something different.
Quote from: Ned on February 21, 2012, 11:48:02 PM
Quote from: A.Member on February 21, 2012, 11:25:40 PM
And I happen to think the entire role seems to be built on the unsupported belief that we need to increase membership numbers. I ask, to what purpose? Just so that we can say we have a larger organization? ( . . .) I said it before and I'll say it again, NHQ is focusing on the wrong issues - and that is problematic. How we will improve the missions we have - Cadet Programs and Aerospace Education?
Is it really a "unsupported belief" that we can accomplish more if we had more members?
Accomplish more what?! Yes, there is absolutely no evidence to support that belief for the organization right now.
We have 60,000 members according to National (by comparison, the United States Air Force, which actually has responsibility for defending the nation currently has ~330,000 Active, ~68,000 Reserve, and ~95,000 Guard airman; and those numbers will soon be cut). How many more members are needed to accomplish whatever it is you think we can't accomplish now with our current membership?
If Eclipse's estimate that 1/3 of that membership is an empty shirt is true (I think the percentage could be higher), why is it that 1/3 of our membership ineffective? Shouldn't that raise some big red flags at National? If so, does adding members really raise effectiveness of the organization? Suggesting as much is tantamount to just throwing in so many numbers so as to drown out the problem, rather than actually solving it.
Simply adding members can't and won't solve the core issues facing the organization. That needs to start with a true strategic vision and roadmap for the organization by leadership at National.
Just to make sure I am not mistaken let me ask a question. Where is the CAP National Headquarters located?
I was always under the impression it was located at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama. If so, I am curious if anyone in our CAP Senior Leadership ever connected with the Air Force there regarding this matter.
The Air University, in particular the PME school system located there has done extensive research on this subject and continues to address the Diversity Issue for the Air Force. Perhaps CAP can ask them for assistance, or would that be going "too far" away from our ever growing division between the two organizations.
The unavoidable tendency for so-called "Diversity" programs is the implementation of "affirmative action" programs, indisputably racist policies. Let me quote from a recent article concerning the Supreme Courts soon-to-be-revisited review of affirmative action:
In 2007, Alito joined with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas to strike down affirmative action programs in public high schools in an opinion that concluded, "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."
The last sentence is so self-evident as to be profound. Just take a look at how race-base policies have served the minorities in America so far....from allowing their kidnapping worldwide and forcible submission into slavery, to the Dred Scott decision, all the way up to creation of a permanent welfare class, where entire groups of people have rejected the blessings of their god-given rights to the bounty of America's liberty, and chosen instead to feed from the table scraps of their leftist masters, and beg for more....this is no way for a man to live, and the ideology that promotes it should be refuted by all men of conscience.
Major Lord
One cannot right the wrongs of the past by imposing punishment on those who did not perpetrate them in the present and future.
Quote from: A.Member on February 22, 2012, 07:34:49 AM
Accomplish more what?!
Oh, come on. As a legal-type guy, I don't mind arguing for argument's sake, but this is just silly.
More cadets = more cadets trained. Our single largest Congressionally-mandated mission.
More members = more people who receive our internal AE and are available for external AE. Another one of those things Congress created us to do.
And of course, more trained and rated ES folks means greater ES capability. Not only for our traditional SAR missions (which save a fair number of lives last year, IIRC), but also to be available for disaster relief when needed. Things like Katrina and Deepwater Horizon.
Sure, I don't have a controlled double blind study to prove the hypothesis "If CAP were 8% larger, then we would save 8% more lives each calendar year." But that is just a silly, lazy argument. Feel free to recruit a couple of PhDs and study what you perceive to be a problem and let us know how it goes.
In the meantime, we will train cadets, educate ourselves and the public, and continue to save lives as directed by the Congress of the United States.
And recruit more folks to help us in these missions.
The "empty shirt" problem is important, but certainly not confined to CAP. It affects every organization that counts on trained personnel to accomplish a mission. As an Army officer, we managed the same issue. There is always a percentage of folks who are not "MOS qualified" (new personnel who haven't had training, transfers from other specialties, etc) and/or "present for duty" (deployed, at school, on leave, TDY somewhere, on medical profile, AWOL, being processed for discharge or transfer, etc). Not to mention simple unit vacancies (not having people in designated slots.)
I served in both MP and Infantry battalions and we
never, ever had over 85-90% of our authorized positions present, able, and trained to perform missions. And usually less. And those were folks who were under contract, paid to be present, paid to train, and could receive severe sanctions (including prison) for failing to show up.
Even if Bob is correct and 33% of our folks are unavailable at any one time, that is not all that bad when compared to other organizations.
More people also means less effort to sustain operations for everyone.
Quote from: Ned on February 22, 2012, 05:21:44 PMEven if Bob is correct and 33% of our folks are unavailable at any one time, that is not all that bad when compared to other organizations.
That's not exactly what I said. My assertion is that as much as 33% on the whole, and more in specific areas, are empty shirts - absolutely not involved beyond writing a check once a year, and I'm not talking about Patrons, I'm referring to "active" members who haven't been seen in 5+ years.
Move the conversation to members who are only partially or marginally engaged, and the conversation gets a lot worse.
But the second part is "OK" from the perspective that CAP is a volunteer organization and isn't supposed to be staffed by a small group of people working longer hours pro-bono than they do in their paid universe. The point is a large number of people with diverse skills coming together
and holding a corner so everyone can be successful but not have to give up every waking spare moment to drag things along via brute-force.
CAP is not a fraternal organization where the mission is membership and fellowship, but a lot of people treat it that way, and anyone who would
present that our current levels of membership and member engagement are "fine", really doesn't understand the question, or is in the group
who artificially and purposely limit their scope specifically to maintain the "club" atmosphere.
As an organization, we have 60,000 members. They are not distributed evenly and I'm not privy to comprehensive membership break down by state. However, for the sake of argument that can be broken down evenly to 1,200 members per Wing. Such numbers could allow for distribution of 12 full squadrons of 100 members each for every Wing, pretty healthy squadron numbers by most measures. Placed properly, geographically they are able to provide reasonable accessibly and coverage for even the largest states, save for possibly Alaska. Of course, in reality the breakdown isn't nearly so clean, however, the point is still is enough to speak to the question of membership capability.
Consider the ES mission using the numbers above. Of the 1,200 members per Wing, roughly half are cadets. That leaves 600 seniors per Wing. Take out a 1/3 for the empty shirts. That leaves 400. Maybe another 25% of those are new/not qualified in ES. That leaves 300 ES mission ready volunteers per Wing (it's actually a higher number since cadets can participate in a number of ES activities).
Now, how many real ES missions have you been called out on over the past year? In our squadron, which has 80+ members, we (as a squadron) were called out on a total of 0 missions in 2011. Zilch. Zip. Nada. We have 7 fully qualilfied aircrews and most members hold at least 2 ES ratings. In two and half years, I've flown one actual mission, which equals the total number possible based on notification/opportunities received! There certainly are other Wings with higher activity levels but this non-activity is a theme I hear more and more. So, tell me, how does adding more people make our unit or Wing any more mission capable? 300 volunteers cannot meet the current annual ES needs of a few missions per year? Really? And, granted I went to public school, but I believe zero times any number still equals zero.
In our squadron, the issue is one of people showing up, realizing there are no missions, having nothing to do of real value, and eventually leaving. Our unit is in no means unique in this respect. What is the average length of membership? I don't know the answer but someone at NHQ should. I suspect the answer to all is it's not long at all. Of the cadets that sign membership papers, how many cadets with the program for more than a year? more than 2 years? These are all issues of retention and driven from a lack of strategic vision from NHQ.
Once the core challenges facing the organization are addressed and we are actually trending in a direction in which demand is beginning to meet and/or exceed our resource availability, then we can talk about how to increase the membership levels.
Your numbers may divide the pie evenly, but they don't tell the whole story. For starters they pre-suppose that every "eligible" adult is even interested in ES, which we all know they aren't. They also pre-suppose that there is any sort of even distribution of qualifications, or that those qualifications are
a result of any plan more structured than "because we felt like it".
The lack of missions is a local failure. Period. Local might be defined as the Wing, or Group, but it's generally the unit, even though members at the units like to blame anything but themselves. The units (are supposed to) have the personnel, the trainers, the resources, and the intuitive to execute the missions. Most wings have evolved into a wing-heavy emphasis on response, training and plans because of the failure of unit CC's to execute on their mandates.
Don't get me wrong, saying it doesn't fix it. I failed too. Why? Lack of people. At some point even the most motivated, experienced, incentivized members simply run out of steam, hours, or both. And when the same 20% of the membership is performing all the activities in a wing, ES, Cadet Programs, unit activities, and all the administrivia required to run a professorial-level organization, at some point people start dropping back to the simpler, more objective events and tasks, and the more difficult things like being a manager instead of a wrench turner, wrangling meetings with local agencies, and generally doing the task of leading instead of doing, fall by the way side.
Again, the fix is people.
My wing has more than enough missions, both of the historical nature, and those we see in the pipe, to keep those who still show up busy, and much more is left on the table because of he lack of the ability to respond properly. In this era of cash-strapped agencies and towns, not to mention the
flood of HLS money for those who qualify, if you can't play, it's because you have chosen not to.
To pick those mission off the table takes qualified people who are willing to sacrifice more than the bare minimum amount of time to proficiency and
experience, while also mentoring the next wave.
And this idea that cadets are a factor in ES response just needs to stop. I am a staunch advocate of cadets being involved, but the harsh reality is
that even the top performers are only a small percentage of the ranks, and the practical limitations of both CAP and the customers limits their effectiveness (and that just is, what it is, and is not going to change). By all means get them involved, but they are not, and cannot be, our primary "force".
We need adults to accept the mantle on ground ops, especially in actual SAR ops to ever be considered a legitimate response asset in comparison to our peers. The best thing we can do for our cadets is to get our adults in gear and give them something to be a part of. No adults, no cadets, regardless of how well the cadets are trained.
Getting back to your 400 - that's a ridiculous number for a state-wide response, especially when you consider that most disasters that we could help with are short-term situations that last a day or two and then are over. Having 400 people at your disposal is great, having 400 people
spread out over an area the size of my wing, where the furthest points between active units require a 6-7 hour drive is no way to scale your responders. 400 ES people per group wold be a much more reasonable goal and workable number.
Having 10 each of BD's, SC's, and IC's, instead of 10 people sharing all the jobs, means your people can contribute an OPS period and go home, instead of having to commit their entire bank of free time to CAP. That, alone, changes the paradigm and would increase our effectiveness. Home many other agencies that purport to execute on our scale have basically the same names on the REMF list as the operators list? Answer? None.
How many agencies would see a state or region-level director spend 1/2 the day administering 40-60 field offices, and then the rest of the day
strapped to an airplane doing the very job of those offices, instead of the people in those offices? Answer? None, except on TV, where inexplicably
Admiral Kirk can run an entire Starfleet Division, and still be the only person qualified to strap on a phrase and save the universe.
In the real world the REMF and operator pool rarely mix, even in some of the smallest departments and agencies.
The fix is people, and lots of them.
Quote from: A.Member on February 22, 2012, 10:21:31 PMNow, how many real ES missions have you been called out on over the past year?
To answer the question directly, about 20-30 in the wing, including probably about 10 missing person searches which went multiple days, and far more ELT's then I would have thought. We're busy, but historically have not done a very good job of letting each other know what we are doing.
Pushing back your two years, I can't quite touch week(ish) long deployed one we had, but I can look to double the above, plus 2 evals, 2 GTE's, and a whole lot of practice weekends.
Then my wing has two encampments, a flight academy, and about 4-5 major cadet training activities.
How much time do you think people have when the same 20% are doing everything? More people means things get spread out better.
One more thing.
No actual missions doesn't the time is wasted. There have been thousands and thousands of people in the military and ES over the years who trained
up and never got the call, never fired a shot in anger, never flew in combat, never made anything more than a traffic arrest, never saved a life, and never extinguished anything more than a practice fire.
That doesn't mean their time was wasted. It means they were lucky enough to never need their training.
We train to be ready. We hope we are capable when the bell rings, and hope the bell never rings.
If, when the bell rings in your area, you see missions and work that you know your people could be involved in, but they simply aren't able to
go, the the failure is local in making the connections with the agencies who would invite you.
If, If, when the bell rings in your area, there simply just isn't anything your people could actually do, for whatever reason from lack of interest to politics, then so be it. Time to move on to the Condo Board or the Pet Shelter, but don't insinuate your situation is anything but local, and don't think for a minute CAP has anything close to "enough" people.
(And as Ned said, there can never be "enough" cadets, since some of the mission is growing the corps)
Quote from: Eclipse on February 22, 2012, 10:58:55 PM
The lack of missions is a local failure. Period. Local might be defined as the Wing, or Group, but it's generally the unit, even though members at the units like to blame anything but themselves. The units (are supposed to) have the personnel, the trainers, the resources, and the intuitive to execute the missions. Most wings have evolved into a wing-heavy emphasis on response, training and plans because of the failure of unit CC's to execute on their mandates.
That's a great academic argument...and also a great myth. The reality is that without support up the chain, including Region and National, a local unit will not be consistently successful in their endeavor for any meaningful duration. I've seen this first hand.
Quote from: Eclipse on February 22, 2012, 10:58:55 PM
My wing has more than enough missions, both of the historical nature, and those we see in the pipe, to keep those who still show up busy, and much more is left on the table because of he lack of the ability to respond properly.
Kudos to your Wing. Perhaps your SD is engaged. Maybe you've got competent Region leadership. Whatever the case, embrace it because the trend certainly appears headed in the other direction.
Quote from: Eclipse on February 22, 2012, 10:58:55 PM
Having 400 people in a group at your disposal is great, having 400 people
spread out over an area the size of my wing, where the furthest points between active units require a 6-7 hour drive is no way to scale your res ponders.
With strategic placement of units, most members are within 1 1/2 hours of their unit. How many truly statewide responses have you been involved in? In my 10+ years, I can count on one hand. In those cases, we've had more than enough local ground team members and aircrew...well, that's easy.
Quote from: A.Member on February 22, 2012, 10:21:31 PM
In our squadron, which has 80+ members, we (as a squadron) were called out on a total of 0 missions in 2011. Zilch. Zip. Nada.
Well, I'm sorry that more people weren't endangered to provide you with a sense of self worth.
But the fact that there were no fires in the past year does not mean that there is a problem with the volunteer fire department.
Indeed, most people would think a lack of fires is generally a Good Thing.
The issue you are attempting to reach only becomes a problem if CAP were called and we could not respond because we did not have qualified aircrews and selfless volunteers like yourself.
If it helps, think of it this way. When there finally is a fire, it just seems better if the volunteer fire department has more trained and available firefighters rather than fewer.
But we all hope there isn't a fire, don't we?
There are many CAP units in high tempo areas like California that fly many, many missions each year.
QuoteIn our squadron, the issue is one of people showing up, realizing there are no missions, having nothing to do of real value, and eventually leaving.
If members are not valued, given meaningful and challenging training, and respected by using their time efficiently and wisely, then I suspect there will indeed be a turnover problem.
That's why we try to have the best commanders and staff officers available to lead their units effectively.
Heck, if all my squadron ever did was sit around waiting for the bell to ring, I'd leave too.
Restated, this sounds like a local command issue rather than a systemic problem.
QuoteOf the cadets that sign membership papers, how many cadets with the program for more than a year? more than 2 years?
Our first year retention figures for cadets is about 40%; more if we get them flying and/or to encampment. We actually track this stuff pretty carefully and put in out in a variety of formats (teach it at TLC, requests for input from CAC's, etc.) It is not a secret.
While a 40% retention figure may "sound bad" to some, it appears to be right in line with other youth groups and programs. Young people in the 12-18 range often change their interests. After all, even if we retained every single cadet for every single year of potential membership we cannot get over about 85% retention until we figure out a way to stop the ageing process.
This is not to say that we cannot do better. We can and should. The NHQ CP shop strongly believes that retention is primarily related to the quality of the weekly unit meetings. If your meetings suck, your retention sucks. If you have good meetings, you have much better retention. To aid in this, they have a laser-focus on supporting Tuesday nights. They have revised the texts and curriculum recently, provided a series of "hands-on" aerospace and leadership activities designed for meeting nights, and even put "squadron in a box" on line to provide dozens of model lesson plans and activity guides for meeting nights.
But the key is trained, supportive squadron leadership. To support squadron leadership, NHQ has revised the CP specialty track, created and fielded the Training Leaders for Cadets course, and revised the CI and SUI guides to provide more meaningful criteria. Just last year, NHQ developed and implemented the Quality Unit Awards to recognize and encourage successful cadet and composite units.
For CP, "its all about Tuesday night."
And that came about because of strategic vision from our senior leadership.
And perhaps coincidentally, cadet membership has increased over 10% since we began focusing on meeting nights.
Ned Lee
CP Enthusiast.
Quote from: Eclipse on February 22, 2012, 11:12:09 PM
(And as Ned said, there can never be "enough" cadets, since some of the mission is growing the corps)
It's interesting that you and particularly Ned, given his profession, say that.
When I read Title 36 of the U.S. Code, this is what I see:
QuoteThe purposes of the corporation are as follows:
(1) To provide an organization to -
(A) encourage and aid citizens of the United States in
contributing their efforts, services, and resources in
developing aviation and in maintaining air supremacy; and
(B) encourage and develop by example the voluntary
contribution of private citizens to the public welfare.
(2) To provide aviation education and training especially to
its senior and cadet members.
(3) To encourage and foster civil aviation in local
communities.
(4) To provide an organization of private citizens with
adequate facilities to assist in meeting local and national
emergencies.
(5) To assist the Department of the Air Force in fulfilling its
noncombat programs and missions.
Which part is the states our mission is to grow membership? And to which level shall we grow it?
Quote from: Ned on February 22, 2012, 11:27:47 PM
Quote from: A.Member on February 22, 2012, 10:21:31 PM
In our squadron, which has 80+ members, we (as a squadron) were called out on a total of 0 missions in 2011. Zilch. Zip. Nada.
Well, I'm sorry that more people weren't endangered to provide you with a sense of self worth.
Interesting, do all our potential missions require that lives be in danger?
Quote from: Ned on February 22, 2012, 11:27:47 PM
That's why we try to have the best commanders and staff officers available to lead their units effectively.
Really, Ned? Really? Were you able to write that with a straight face. If so, I need to come visit this utopia of yours.
Quote from: A.Member on February 22, 2012, 11:36:40 PM
Which part is the states our mission is to grow membership?
Like I said, as a legal guy, I don't mind pointless arguments.
So let me help you a bit. You are correct that the phrase "growing the membership" does not appear in the legislation, the AFI, or the SOW.
Of course, it doesn't appear in the legislation that created the United States Air Force, the Red Cross, or the Peace Corps, either.
Why do you suppose that is so?
Is it possible that you are confusing the mission with the means to get the mission done?
And as others have carefully explained, sometimes "growing the membership" is indeed synonymous with mission in matters like the Cadet Program.
But mostly the size of the membership is a tool to accomplish other assigned and implied missions.
QuoteAnd to which level shall we grow it?
To 147, 232 in a three phase program with specified intermediate objectives all supported by 17 staff studies and a 116 slide PowerPoint briefing that members need to click through on Eservices right after their safety class. 8)
(And we do have a pretty good record of picking the best commanders and staffers
available. If you feel that some commanders and staffers are inadequate to the task, doesn't that suggest that we need to have
more trained and qualified
members available to take on these roles?)
Ned already said it better, above.
Quote from: Ned on February 22, 2012, 11:57:25 PM
If you feel that some commanders and staffers are inadequate to the task, doesn't that suggest that we need to have more trained and qualified members available to take on these roles?
Absolutely. It also suggests that National has not built an effective training and evaluation program for developing and placing it's leaders. It certainly does not suggest that adding more numbers to the mix will solve that problem.
As I said before, your basic methodology seems to be one of flooding the issue with numbers in hopes of drowning out the problem rather than actually taking steps to address and resolve it; in effect lowering the bar, rather than raising it. That's an unfortunate viewpoint for the organization. Tell me, if you were being robbed at gunpoint and you were to close your eyes, would the robbery cease to happen as well?
Quote from: A.Member on February 23, 2012, 01:26:28 AM
Quote from: Ned on February 22, 2012, 11:57:25 PM
If you feel that some commanders and staffers are inadequate to the task, doesn't that suggest that we need to have more trained and qualified members available to take on these roles?
Absolutely. It also suggests that National has not built an effective training and evaluation program for developing and placing it's leaders. It certainly does not suggest that adding more numbers to the mix will solve that problem.
Right. Because we all know having only one choice for every job opening is the way corporations and the military handle command appointments and
filling important jobs.
No point in bringing in a lot of people to choose from when we might, accidently, totally by chance, find someone who is "perfect" for the job, and then they will accidently, totally by chance, find a replacement when their term is up or they look to a new challenge.
Oh, wait, there's no one to replace them, because they were the only choice and we've already had plenty of members.
Also, having "enough members" insures that those who excel are stuck in whatever job they trip over and do 1/2-well because there is no one to replace them.
I concede the point.
Quote from: Eclipse on February 23, 2012, 02:17:01 AMRight. Because we all know having only one choice for every job opening is the way corporations and the military handle command appointments and filling important jobs.
Right and we operate just like how real businesses or the military operate. Easy to confuse them. I sometimes forget. My bad. ::) Fact is, if we were a real corporation that had to generate revenue to survive...we wouldn't.
In the real world, if a business does not have a qualified candidate, they leave a position open until they find one. Kind of a novel concept, huh?
If you're going to pick pieces of either side of the discussion just to continue on your point, there's not much further this can go.
You can't argue in one place that things are fine, and then followup with a statement that current ops are the problem.
Quote from: Eclipse on February 23, 2012, 03:04:24 AM
You can't argue in one place that things are fine, and then followup with a statement that current ops are the problem.
I've said at least 4 times in this thread and numerous times in others that National's lack of strategic vision and a roadmap, particularly as pertains to the ES mission, is a problem. I've also argued quality over quantity from day one. Sorry if that consistent message confuses you.
The appointment of a Nationaol Diversity Officer is part of a "roadmap". Our LTO's show us were the road leads. Ask your wing commander about the map and the destination. It's there somewhere.....
Problem1: most members have no idea where we are going as an organization. It's why we on CT have such a great time opining on such matters.
Problem 2: membership numbers haven't really changed since 1970. Membership demographics? We don't have any idea how they've changed over the years; we can only guess.
Problem 3: governance. The nature of our "business" is kind of unique or, is it? What will the BoG do to improve the way we are govened and led so, we can grow and improve our "product"?
I could go on about uniforms, AE, ES, CP and, the funds resources needed to deal with all however, that's for another day... maybe the new NDO will help figure it all out... yeah, that's the ticket... ;D
FW is correct on all 3 items he mentions.
1. This is a failure to communicate to the membership from ABOVE the National Board level.
2. Demographiocs have changed greatly since 1970. First a larger Afro-American population moving to smaller towns and more rural areas (cite, 2010 Census) Also moch larger hispanice population throughout the country inclcluding northnern states. Add to this a larger percentage of females entering colleges and not marrying at early age but rather going into career fields.
3. This is in the process of being answered by the BoG commissioned Governence Study.
However FW should have added one area that needs answeres. Namely, what are the missions of CAP? I'm not referring the AE, CP oe ES, but rather what types of missions in each of those areas is an area that CAP can be of value to customers and stakeholders.
Quote from: Eclipse on February 22, 2012, 11:12:09 PM
One more thing.
No actual missions doesn't the time is wasted. There have been thousands and thousands of people in the military and ES over the years who trained
up and never got the call, never fired a shot in anger, never flew in combat, never made anything more than a traffic arrest, never saved a life, and never extinguished anything more than a practice fire.
That doesn't mean their time was wasted. It means they were lucky enough to never need their training.
We train to be ready. We hope we are capable when the bell rings, and hope the bell never rings.
If, when the bell rings in your area, you see missions and work that you know your people could be involved in, but they simply aren't able to
go, the the failure is local in making the connections with the agencies who would invite you.
If, If, when the bell rings in your area, there simply just isn't anything your people could actually do, for whatever reason from lack of interest to politics, then so be it. Time to move on to the Condo Board or the Pet Shelter, but don't insinuate your situation is anything but local, and don't think for a minute CAP has anything close to "enough" people.
(And as Ned said, there can never be "enough" cadets, since some of the mission is growing the corps)
I don't think most people are interest in attending a lot of training (hours), spending money for equipment/supplies/uniforms for NOTHING that will ever happen. On the ES side I've given example (in a post in that area) that require much less training than CAP, no uniform BS, and very little administrative mumbo jumbo. The strategic direction for these programs are primarily at the community level. CAP as an organization doesn't seem to have a published strategic plan.
As far as recruiting "minorities" the biggest draw back is the cost of membership in CAP and likely lack of transportation resources to where many of the current units are located (check the price of gas recently, what does your squadron van get for MPG ???). Even some of our retirees who are CAP members no longer can afford to do very much flying or do any long distance travel because of the costs involved.
Of course we all know what one of the new strategic goals is going to be, don't we ??? :angel:
RM