National Diversity Officer - Volunteer Wanted.

[RiverAux]

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. 

[Duke Dillio]

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.

[FW]

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.

[NCRblues]

[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 

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?

[James Shaw]

Well I am sure that most on this thread don't have any plans to apply for the position based on responses. 

[FW]

Oh no FW... you have gone over to the dark side 

Can anyone point out a single problem at all?

Many think I am the dark lord already.  I can live with that...

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.

[lordmonar]

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.

[Flying Pig]

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.

[capmaj]

"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. 

[RiverAux]

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

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.

[lordmonar]

"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.

[Major Lord]

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

[davidsinn]

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.

[lordmonar]

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.

[davidsinn]

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?

[RiverAux]

Interesting that one of the desired requirements of those seeking this position is experience in handling budgets of 1 million or more. 

[RiverAux]

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

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 and it is in the Aux's current strategic plan:

4. 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

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).

[FW]

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. 

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?

[NCRblues]

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.

[Eclipse]

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^®.