New CPP Codified - Updated 52-10

[lordmonar]

Only if you offered the program to just the girls.    Yes, it sucks.   But that is the way it is.   If you offer a program to the boys you have to either include the girls or you have to offer separate but equal programs to the girls.

If you can't.....you can't offer it to anyone.

"Sorry guys, I know we've be planning this activity for six months now and everybody was excited to go, but Lt. Lady broke her ankle last night so she can't go.  That means we have no female Senior Members available, so we have to cancel.  Sorry."

(All the cadets in the squadron stare at Cadet Isagirl.)

Yeah, this won't make any problems at all.  Nope.

Yep.....your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to recruit, train and equip your squadron to be able to accomplish all assigned missions.

Basic bottom line............we can't exclude the girls and we can't do a co-ed overnight with out co-ed supervision. 

- But we can't recruit female SM
- But our one female SM can't make it.
- But we planned this for 2 whole weeks!
- But that's not fair!

Sorry....these are all leadership hurdles that need to be planned for and overcome.

So.....every commander and CDC right now, today, should be looking at their operations and their manning.   They got six months to get enough people to cover these requirements.......or they need to start re planing their events.

No one said it was going to be easy. 

[a2capt]

Makes me really wonder .. how did we get this far?

[Ed Bos]

Yep.....your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to recruit, train and equip your squadron to be able to accomplish all assigned missions.

Basic bottom line............we can't exclude the girls and we can't do a co-ed overnight with out co-ed supervision. 

- But we can't recruit female SM
- But our one female SM can't make it.
- But we planned this for 2 whole weeks!
- But that's not fair!

Sorry....these are all leadership hurdles that need to be planned for and overcome.

So.....every commander and CDC right now, today, should be looking at their operations and their manning.   They got six months to get enough people to cover these requirements.......or they need to start re planing their events.

No one said it was going to be easy.

Your can-do attitude isn't inappropriate. Kudos for maintaining a positive attitude.

My frustration here is two-fold.

A) This situation is a self-generated problem, not a solution that makes cadets safer by any measure presented, and

B) Even if we have a 50/50 ratio of male & female seniors available, that does not mean the notional situations discussed here are any less possible. Not every overnight activity has 4+ senior members (at least 2of each sex) available to ensure coverage in case of a drop-out... And now we are LESS able to pursue our mission in the name of a requirement that apparently started out as a rumor generated and sustained out of ignorance, bias, and the notion the somehow two adults are less capable for ensuring the safety and well-being of cadets of the opposite sex.

All this, despite the training in CPPT, RST, TLC, et cetera that we provide.

I will continue to pursue recruiting high-quality senior members and cadets of both sexes, and I truly hope I never find myself in a situation where I don't have the optimal coverage at an activity. But I think the add-on if this requirement is a poor decision for the reasons stated.

[Panache]

Only if you offered the program to just the girls.    Yes, it sucks.   But that is the way it is.   If you offer a program to the boys you have to either include the girls or you have to offer separate but equal programs to the girls.

If you can't.....you can't offer it to anyone.

"Sorry guys, I know we've be planning this activity for six months now and everybody was excited to go, but Lt. Lady broke her ankle last night so she can't go.  That means we have no female Senior Members available, so we have to cancel.  Sorry."

(All the cadets in the squadron stare at Cadet Isagirl.)

Yeah, this won't make any problems at all.  Nope.

Basic bottom line............we can't exclude the girls and we can't do a co-ed overnight with out co-ed supervision. 

- But we can't recruit female SM
- But our one female SM can't make it.
- But we planned this for 2 whole weeks!
- But that's not fair!

Sorry....these are all leadership hurdles that need to be planned for and overcome.

Meanwhile, we loose Cadet Isagirl when she drops out of the program because she's feeling guilty over the fact that the squadron's long-awaited trip to the State Fair was cancelled.

[lordmonar]

Meanwhile, we loose Cadet Isagirl when she drops out of the program because she's feeling guilty over the fact that the squadron's long-awaited trip to the State Fair was cancelled.

Why would anyone blame her?  If they are it is because unit leadership is not managing their program very well. 

These are all excuses that just will not fly.

I know it is a pain in the buttocks......but Title VI is clear and if we start busting Title VI the USAF would be forced to drop us like a lead balloon!
The ACLU is not going to care about how hard it is for you to recruit female senior members (in fact they probably will just add that to the class action suit).  The press is not going to care about how difficult it is to get anyone to volunteer for CAP.   All they are going to care about is how a Federally Funded Youth Organization told Cadet Isagirl she could not go to the state fair.

[Ed Bos]

Does Title VI require co-ed leadership?

[lordmonar]

Oops....I kept saying Title VI....I meant Title XI

Title IX is a portion of the Education Amendments of 1972, Public Law No. 92‑318, 86 Stat. 235 (June 23, 1972), codified at 20 U.S.C. sections 1681 through 1688, co-authored and introduced by Senator Birch Bayh; it was renamed the Patsy Mink Equal Opportunity in Education Act in 2002, after its House co-author and sponsor. It states (in part) that:

    No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_IX

And a recent case makes me think that they are not kidding.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wendy-n-powell/athletic-boosters-beware-_b_5060862.html

[NIN]

Oops....I kept saying Title VI....I meant Title XI

And what you really meant was Title IX

[Tim Day]

Yep, because what we really need to do more of is keep making things harder for CCs and CDCs by uncoordinated regulation changes.

[Tim Day]

I'm not sure my squadron would ever have a valid excuse for not having a female adult leader present on an overnight activity. But we're large and we're diverse, maybe significantly larger and more diverse than the average squadron. I could see us running into an issue where we don't have a male adult leader available.

I think a good start toward a re-write would be:

b. Co-Ed Supervision. The staff of adult leaders supervising an overnight activity must should include adults of the same gender(s) as the participating cadets. Co-ed cadet activities may not proceed without a co-ed adult staff unless the organizing unit commander or designee provides a written CPP violation mitigation plan to cadets, adult leaders, and parents involved in the overnight activity. A copy of these procedures must be provided to the next echelon in the chain of command.

We could take the [or designee] out and specify that this can't be delegated below CC or CDC if we really want to elevate the level of supervision / responsibility.

The plan could involve parent contacts, curfew hours, reporting procedures, or other best practices. 

This would make it much more desirable to simply have the right mix of gender among the adult leaders while allowing those squadrons without the right mix of available (it's a scheduling issue, not just a recruiting issue) genders to continue overnight activities yet mitigate the obvious risk. It also gives the next echelon an opportunity to say hey, Capt Sally Senior from Someother Squadron needs to get her GTM3 signed off and is willing to camp out with you.

[sarmed1]

This will be interesting for NESA... There wasn't a single female SM staff member last year at AGSAR. There was one student, but I would call that a fluke. Does husker cancel that school next year? Do we have to convince a logistics or transportation female staff member to come sleep in the woods with us?

I wonder as far as the technicallity of the issue... "there is A female member present at the activity".....she may be physically located near where the female cadet is, but she is AT the activity"

I wonder how often this one will get pencil whipped....to save activities

CAP must put a lot of faith in their male senior members (note sarcasm) .... "yup we are pretty sure you are on the up an up....but we dont trust you entirely with them teenage girls around; so haven a woman around 'll keep you in line"

Anecdotally I have seen more instances of female teachers overstepping their bounds with male students than the other way around.  Or (though I am sure media sensationalized) male organizational leaders who abuse thier positions with male youth members......

I guess we can assume that there was concrete evidence of male senior to female cadet issues that we cant trust two senior memebrs to follow the rules; why else would they revive this rule after years of it being a non-issue

mk

[Alaric]

I forsee the formation of far more Senior and Cadet Squadrons as smaller composite squadrons cannot meet the requirements of the new regulations for various events. 

[Eclipse]

Meanwhile, we loose Cadet Isagirl when she drops out of the program because she's feeling guilty over the fact that the squadron's long-awaited trip to the State Fair was cancelled.

Why would anyone blame her?  If they are it is because unit leadership is not managing their program very well. 

A: You are pretending you don't know how adolescents work to try and make your argument, for that matter how humans work.
A group of 12-15 year old boys aren't going to engage in a reasoned Title IX discussion when their beloved annual
bivouac or trip to Wright Patt is canceled, they will simply blame Cadet Isagirl.

Cadet Isagirl is likely already having acceptance issues being the only or one of a few females in the unit,
this doesn't make that situation better.   Nor does it encourage an otherwise capable Unit CC from
recruiting female cadets.  Human beings work that way, and as we are constantly reminded, this
is a volunteer situation.

B: The only "management failure" here is at the National level in enacting unreasonable, unnecessary rules that
handcuff operations.  A unit CC can spend a year recruiting and never get a female senior member interested in CAP, or could get
7 female pilots from the local Earhart Club at the FBO, and none are interested in supervising
cadets they are not personally involved with, or have no flexibility for overnight activities.  How often
do we hear male pilots say the same thing?

How do you "manage" a personnel situation which does not exist?  Poach females from neighboring units?
Force female parents and relatives to join along with their children?  Again, NHQ is trying to make us work like
the USAF, forgetting we don't actually have the ability to force anyone to do anything.

C: This presupposes, despite decades of evidence to the contrary, that a male leader cannot adequately
care for a female member, which I'm sure will sit well with the hundreds if not thousands of single fathers
of female cadets we have involved in this organization.

It also sets up the very real situation in which a male unit CC cannot supervise his own child on an overnight
activity, since the gender bias in supervision doesn't accommodate even that situation as an option.
As I write this I can think of at least one unit in my wing in this very situation - dad is the commander and
he has one son and one daughter in the program.   Both kids are top-tier cadets, active in
all three missions and will likely have a shared Spaatz ceremony - but dad can't supervise his daughter?

Frankly, if this does come back to a Title IX challenge, so be it.  It won't be out of the Unit CC's pocket
since he's just following the rules.  If NHQ is going to continue to put these kinds of situations in place,
then maybe it's only writing big checks that will get their attention.

[Panache]

Meanwhile, we loose Cadet Isagirl when she drops out of the program because she's feeling guilty over the fact that the squadron's long-awaited trip to the State Fair was cancelled.

Why would anyone blame her?  If they are it is because unit leadership is not managing their program very well. 

Kids are kids.  "Okay, Cadets, it's nobody's fault."  That'll convince them.

[lordmonar]

Oops....I kept saying Title VI....I meant Title XI

And what you really meant was Title IX

[darn] Lysdexia!   

[NC Hokie]

C: This presupposes, despite decades of evidence to the contrary, that a male leader cannot adequately
care for a female member, which I'm sure will sit well with the hundreds if not thousands of single fathers
of female cadets we have involved in this organization.

FTFY

It also sets up the very real situation in which a male unit CC cannot supervise his own child on an overnight
activity, since the gender bias in supervision doesn't accommodate even that situation as an option.
As I write this I can think of at least one unit in my wing in this very situation - dad is the commander and
he has one son and one daughter in the program.   Both kids are top-tier cadets, active in
all three missions and will likely have a shared Spaatz ceremony - but dad can't supervise his daughter?

This, IMHO is the greatest absurdity of all.  It's SO nice to know that NHQ doubts my ability to adequately supervise my own child during an overnight activity. I guess supervising all of her overnight activities since she was born isn't enough to prove my ability in this area.

[lordmonar]

Meanwhile, we loose Cadet Isagirl when she drops out of the program because she's feeling guilty over the fact that the squadron's long-awaited trip to the State Fair was cancelled.

Why would anyone blame her?  If they are it is because unit leadership is not managing their program very well. 

A: You are pretending you don't know how adolescents work to try and make your argument, for that matter how humans work.
A group of 12-15 year old boys aren't going to engage in a reasoned Title IX discussion when their beloved annual
bivouac or trip to Wright Patt is canceled, they will simply blame Cadet Isagirl.

Cadet Isagirl is likely already having acceptance issues being the only or one of a few females in the unit,
this doesn't make that situation better.   Nor does it encourage an otherwise capable Unit CC from
recruiting female cadets.  Human beings work that way, and as we are constantly reminded, this
is a volunteer situation.

B: The only "management failure" here is at the National level in enacting unreasonable, unnecessary rules that
handcuff operations.  A unit CC can spend a year recruiting and never get a female senior member interested in CAP, or could get
7 female pilots from the local Earhart Club at the FBO, and none are interested in supervising
cadets they are not personally involved with, or have no flexibility for overnight activities.  How often
do we hear male pilots say the same thing?

How do you "manage" a personnel situation which does not exist?  Poach females from neighboring units?
Force female parents and relatives to join along with their children?  Again, NHQ is trying to make us work like
the USAF, forgetting we don't actually have the ability to force anyone to do anything.

C: This presupposes, despite decades of evidence to the contrary, that a male leader cannot adequately
care for a female member, which I'm sure will sit well with the hundreds if not thousands of single fathers
of female cadets we have involved in this organization.

It also sets up the very real situation in which a male unit CC cannot supervise his own child on an overnight
activity, since the gender bias in supervision doesn't accommodate even that situation as an option.
As I write this I can think of at least one unit in my wing in this very situation - dad is the commander and
he has one son and one daughter in the program.   Both kids are top-tier cadets, active in
all three missions and will likely have a shared Spaatz ceremony - but dad can't supervise his daughter?

Frankly, if this does come back to a Title IX challenge, so be it.  It won't be out of the Unit CC's pocket
since he's just following the rules.  If NHQ is going to continue to put these kinds of situations in place,
then maybe it's only writing big checks that will get their attention.

All true.....
So how does that help your commanders tomorrow?

In stead of spinning "but, what if..." stories......why not be thinking of various stratagies where we can help our peers and subordinate officers over come these leadership obsticles.

Haven't recruited a female in over a year.........time to call wing and ask for help....because come October you need to have enough females to cover you.....or you are going to have to curtail overnight activities.

That's the bottom line.

As for any problems with the regulation.......well there is the first option of up-channeling any changes you think need to be made to NHQ.  Option b is to look for loop holes or option c....as you suggest just ignore it and do what you want.

[Brit_in_CAP]

From Ned:

...and the regulation does not suggest or permit some cadets to be denied a CAP activity simply because of their gender.  Indeed, discrimination based on gender alone would be a violation of other CAP policies and regulation.

Our policy on the effective date of the revised regulation, is that all overnight coed activities have coed supervision.  This means that units that do not have senior staff (to include CSMs) of both genders have nearly six months to recruit and train the necessary senior members.

And if you cannot find coed supervision, then you have to suspend or cancel an activity. That to me is "suggesting or permit[ing] some cadets to be denied a CAP activity simply because of their gender." Being male.

Between Scylla and Charybdis

Indeed.  I agree with Eclipse all the way through the thread. 

[Storm Chaser]

i. Favoritism & Gifts. Favoritism is to be avoided as much as is reasonably possible. Adult leaders are expected to make a good faith effort to avoid favoritism and to support each individual cadet in their sphere of responsibility with an appropriate amount of individualized attention. Further, adult leaders will not bestow gifts upon cadets. Adult leaders wishing to provide financial support to an individual cadet will do so via a donation through the unit and in a manner that keeps the donor's identity unknown to the cadet.

Emphasizing the bold statement, does this mean that recognizing a cadet for reaching a certain milestone (Mitchell, etc.), or for doing outstanding work, by giving them a challenge coin is forbidden after 1 October?

I understand the intent of the section as written, but if all cadets have the opportunity to someday receive a challenge coin to further recognize their hard work and achievement, this segment of the regulation seems too much.

I guess ordering these from Vanguard will be unnecessary soon.

http://www.vanguardmil.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=6_422_2222&products_id=15148

http://www.vanguardmil.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=6_422_2222&products_id=15096

You missed the next sentence.    Adult Leaders can't bestow gifts.......but the unit can.

I just gave a cadet a small gift from Vanguard that cost me $2.50 in recognition of his help and dedication. He was happy with the small gesture. In no way did this appear as favoritism. It seems a bit unreasonable that now this is going to be prohibited come October with the new regulation.

[NIN]

Indeed.  I agree with Eclipse all the way through the thread.

The apocalypse is indeed upon us!