Col Mary Feik Scholarship only for females?

[THRAWN]

Col, the bar has still been lowered for the female cadets (requiring only the wright brothers)As the father of a female cadet I don't want her to feel  that she is in any way inferior to the male cadets, especially in an intellectual way. Can you suggest how I explain this to her?

(All, please don't look into any hidden meaning. This is an honest question they I would appreciate the groups help with.)

This is a great question. Especially in light of all that's going on within the DoD. Combine that with the fact that there are 2 women running for President, are running corporations, etc...I'd give my input my since I haven't started my own scholarship fund or filed and IG complaint, I really don't have the right to speak up.

[xray328]

Think about it this way:

If X females get the Feik Scholarship, then X males have a higher chance at the regular flight scholarships.

If the requirements for X females = X males

This has turned more into not lowering the bar for the females in the hopes of raising a female cadet that believes she is equal to males in the eye of aviation, CAP, and the military.

Goes along with the reason why female cadets shouldn't wear party gowns to the ball.

[xray328]

Seems timely:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/family-fighting-female-world-war-ii-pilots-laid/story?id=36101302

[Ned]

Col, the bar has still been lowered for the female cadets (requiring only the wright brothers)As the father of a female cadet I don't want her to feel  that she is in any way inferior to the male cadets, especially in an intellectual way. Can you suggest how I explain this to her?

By coincidence, I am also the father of a female cadet.  Well, former cadet.

I'm not sure, however, that I agree with your premise.  The great majority of our flight scholarships will be awarded to cadets (male and female) who have earned the Mitchell award under the rules that have been in place for a while.  Restated, since most female cadets will apply for and receive scholarships under the traditional program, I can't really agree that the "bar has been lowered."

In this instance, a particular generous donor came forward and offered scholarships, but to honor Mary Feik, asked that they be offered to female cadets and that we cast the net a bit more broadly to make more cadets eligible.  Thus the 15 year vs 16 year criteria, and the Wright vs Mitchell.  It was, and is, a generous, praiseworthy gift of flight for our cadets.

If my daughter were to ask me about this, I would encourage her to apply for any scholarships that she is eligible for.

(We actually did have a small family fight when she declined to apply for an CAP academic scholarship.  Her reasoning was that it was a significant amount of work (the application) that would not measurably benefit her since I was paying for her school already.  Grrr.  Should have offered to split it with her.  Lesson Learned.)

If you or your daughter are not comfortable applying for the Feik Scholarship, then she should not apply for it.  She is welcome to compete with all other male and female cadets in the traditional flight scholarship application.  And I sincerely hope she gets the gift of flight from us.

A couple of minor notes:
1.  Senior members are indeed eligible to compete for flight scholarships.  See the flight scholarship page for details.
2.  The application deadline for everyone is rapidly approaching -- January 15th!

Ned Lee
National Cadet Program Manager

[xray328]

Thank you sir.  In no way do I mean to disrespect the donor or their intention. I am very appreciative of any gift that is bestowed upon the cadets, male or female. And I understand the idea behind this is to get more females flying, I just worry that in doing so we lower that bar and end up with unintended consequences.

[Spam]

Jeff,

I'm a legal kind of guy and I'm not seeing it.  CAP offers flight scholarships to all of our cadets.  Males get something like 80% of all the flight scholarships.  If we are discriminating against males, we are not doing a very good job at it.

And to respond to your intended-to-be-provocative race question, if the Tuskeegee Airmen Foundation or the Organization of Black Aerospace Professionals (OBAP) came to CAP and wanted to offer flight scholarship money for cadets, but restricted it to African American cadets because they are underrepresented as pilots and cadets, I would recommend to the leadership that we accept the money and get more cadets flying.  Cadets who would otherwise not get any funding.

But, reasonable minds can certainly differ on this and other topics.  You should consider filing a gender discrimination complaint with the IG.  (If you are successful, you will, of course, be depriving some cadets of flight training.)

I think the conversation would be different if we were offering a kind of scholarship or perhaps an activity that was restricted solely on a suspect criteria.  Like the old Stewardess Orientation Course.  But here, as I mentioned, all cadets may apply for flight scholarships.

We actually have discussions on this and similar topics in the shop fairly frequently.  Should we continue to offer PJOC when some of our cadets are restricted from participating based solely on a disability?  Should we have different PT standards for cadets based solely on gender? 

...

Of course, I defer to your clearly superior legal background, Ned!  Yet, I respectfully disagree that a higher percentage of successful male applicants to a gender neutral standard criteria set equates to an imbalance that needs to be addressed through discriminatory means which are clearly in conflict with our policy. For the main flight scholarships, I would say that the standards seem fair and neutral, regardless of this repeated insistence that males are seemingly getting a better deal because of a higher acceptance rate.

(*Side discussion, there... how can we specifically target underrepresented females and minorities to APPLY and WIN scholarships and to be motivated to pursue STEM/aviation careers - against the exact same criteria as males. I routinely beat that drum teaching at encampment, giving STEM/AE classes, etc. and would be very strongly interested in discussing ways to engineer some curriculum for that, if anyone else would be interested).


Organizations do discriminate routinely based on sensible criteria - safety related or performance based criteria, for example. We discriminate when we down select someone who cant pass a check ride, or an eyesight exam. So, I have to ask, why in 2015/16 are we adding a new discriminatory filter for gender, for race, or for any other category unless there is some compelling reason to go against our stated NON discrimination policy.


Where a given activity (e.g. PJOC, Ground Team work, etc.) imposes a mission-related physical restriction, I believe that we should make every attempt in accordance with the spirit of the federal guidelines to provide reasonable accommodation for the differently abled. See, for example, our comments in this forum this year on disabled cadets attending encampment - where we can, we always should. I've signed off a legally blind GTM in the past, who turned out to be able to physically hack the other aspects of the work, with a ranger buddy assist. We've pursued an IG complaint against an IC who discriminated against females flying or going on sorties on actual SAR missions. In short, we level the field as much as possible.


I can't however see anything "disabled" about being female that requires the unusual step of providing either segregated funding OR entry standards lower than that currently accepted for males.


So, if your perspective is only about the money... I see your point. Grab the cash, fly the cadets, and go get more cash. However, from my perspective, the discriminatory STRINGS linked to the cash DO matter from an ethical and integrity first standpoint, when considering the clearly stated CAP policy. CAP (not the CAP Foundation shell corporation for donations, but CAP) is openly advertising and sponsoring this through administering the scholarship material/links.  To imply that there is no conflict with our policy because of some vague insulation from the Foundation (which is nested within us and whose web site is within ours), and to then openly state that we'd happily accept and sponsor further funds which are restricted on the basis of race seems a bit disingenuous.


Will I submit an IG complaint? No, I don't have a dog in the fight, as my cadet dependents aren't applying, so I don't think I meet the criteria to file. Please don't imply though, Ned, that any of our honest questions about this are targeted efforts of mean ass Grinches that want to deprive women of flight training, though.


I'd hoped that we would in 2016 be shrugging off the special protected classes of all types, and adhering to the level playing field policies which grew out of the civil rights movement. I guess I should grow up.


Thanks for the replies, though. I'm having a similar family discussion with my oldest (male, Mitchell, 4.x GPA) who isn't applying since we cant afford flight training beyond what a CAP flight scholarship would provide, and he doesn't want to start and stop. Grr... 


V/R,
Spam

[Ned]

It sounds like we are in substantial agreement on the main points:


1.  We should get cadets flying as often as we ethically can.

2.  STEM training for our cadets is important, and CAP is rapidly growing our STEM education.  Just look at the STEM kits available to units and the CyberPatriot and robotics programs.

A final note:  This particular scholarship program is not funded though the CAP Foundation, but by an individual donor.  I am a former board member of the Foundation and would agree that it does not normally attach conditions to the funds made available to CAP for academic or flight scholarships.

[xray328]

 :clap:

Jeff,

I'm a legal kind of guy and I'm not seeing it.  CAP offers flight scholarships to all of our cadets.  Males get something like 80% of all the flight scholarships.  If we are discriminating against males, we are not doing a very good job at it.

And to respond to your intended-to-be-provocative race question, if the Tuskeegee Airmen Foundation or the Organization of Black Aerospace Professionals (OBAP) came to CAP and wanted to offer flight scholarship money for cadets, but restricted it to African American cadets because they are underrepresented as pilots and cadets, I would recommend to the leadership that we accept the money and get more cadets flying.  Cadets who would otherwise not get any funding.

But, reasonable minds can certainly differ on this and other topics.  You should consider filing a gender discrimination complaint with the IG.  (If you are successful, you will, of course, be depriving some cadets of flight training.)

I think the conversation would be different if we were offering a kind of scholarship or perhaps an activity that was restricted solely on a suspect criteria.  Like the old Stewardess Orientation Course.  But here, as I mentioned, all cadets may apply for flight scholarships.

We actually have discussions on this and similar topics in the shop fairly frequently.  Should we continue to offer PJOC when some of our cadets are restricted from participating based solely on a disability?  Should we have different PT standards for cadets based solely on gender? 

...

Of course, I defer to your clearly superior legal background, Ned!  Yet, I respectfully disagree that a higher percentage of successful male applicants to a gender neutral standard criteria set equates to an imbalance that needs to be addressed through discriminatory means which are clearly in conflict with our policy. For the main flight scholarships, I would say that the standards seem fair and neutral, regardless of this repeated insistence that males are seemingly getting a better deal because of a higher acceptance rate.

(*Side discussion, there... how can we specifically target underrepresented females and minorities to APPLY and WIN scholarships and to be motivated to pursue STEM/aviation careers - against the exact same criteria as males. I routinely beat that drum teaching at encampment, giving STEM/AE classes, etc. and would be very strongly interested in discussing ways to engineer some curriculum for that, if anyone else would be interested).


Organizations do discriminate routinely based on sensible criteria - safety related or performance based criteria, for example. We discriminate when we down select someone who cant pass a check ride, or an eyesight exam. So, I have to ask, why in 2015/16 are we adding a new discriminatory filter for gender, for race, or for any other category unless there is some compelling reason to go against our stated NON discrimination policy.


Where a given activity (e.g. PJOC, Ground Team work, etc.) imposes a mission-related physical restriction, I believe that we should make every attempt in accordance with the spirit of the federal guidelines to provide reasonable accommodation for the differently abled. See, for example, our comments in this forum this year on disabled cadets attending encampment - where we can, we always should. I've signed off a legally blind GTM in the past, who turned out to be able to physically hack the other aspects of the work, with a ranger buddy assist. We've pursued an IG complaint against an IC who discriminated against females flying or going on sorties on actual SAR missions. In short, we level the field as much as possible.


I can't however see anything "disabled" about being female that requires the unusual step of providing either segregated funding OR entry standards lower than that currently accepted for males.


So, if your perspective is only about the money... I see your point. Grab the cash, fly the cadets, and go get more cash. However, from my perspective, the discriminatory STRINGS linked to the cash DO matter from an ethical and integrity first standpoint, when considering the clearly stated CAP policy. CAP (not the CAP Foundation shell corporation for donations, but CAP) is openly advertising and sponsoring this through administering the scholarship material/links.  To imply that there is no conflict with our policy because of some vague insulation from the Foundation (which is nested within us and whose web site is within ours), and to then openly state that we'd happily accept and sponsor further funds which are restricted on the basis of race seems a bit disingenuous.


Will I submit an IG complaint? No, I don't have a dog in the fight, as my cadet dependents aren't applying, so I don't think I meet the criteria to file. Please don't imply though, Ned, that any of our honest questions about this are targeted efforts of mean ass Grinches that want to deprive women of flight training, though.


I'd hoped that we would in 2016 be shrugging off the special protected classes of all types, and adhering to the level playing field policies which grew out of the civil rights movement. I guess I should grow up.


Thanks for the replies, though. I'm having a similar family discussion with my oldest (male, Mitchell, 4.x GPA) who isn't applying since we cant afford flight training beyond what a CAP flight scholarship would provide, and he doesn't want to start and stop. Grr... 


V/R,
Spam

[Spam]

It sounds like we are in substantial agreement on the main points:


1.  We should get cadets flying as often as we ethically can.

2.  STEM training for our cadets is important, and CAP is rapidly growing our STEM education.  Just look at the STEM kits available to units and the CyberPatriot and robotics programs.

A final note:  This particular scholarship program is not funded though the CAP Foundation, but by an individual donor.  I am a former board member of the Foundation and would agree that it does not normally attach conditions to the funds made available to CAP for academic or flight scholarships.

Yes, I think we are in substantial agreement on the fundamentals, sir. I'm serious about the interest in working up a module on underrepresented groups in aerospace; I posted a suggestion on this to the Cadet Blog last year, suggesting an AE module called "The Changing Face of Aerospace", pointing out career paths and opportunities for all cadets, regardless of background or sex.


Glad to head about the Foundations approach. I would then doubly hope that as this is a directly hosted scholarship, the no males need apply restriction this year would be lifted in the interest of fair access, in accordance with the stated CAP policy.


Curious me... towards the long term goal, do we have figures on male/female application numbers vs. acceptance rates for scholarships? If we have a preponderance of male awardees by application with similar rates, that would indicate a valid target for education and training to increase interest and applications for underrepresented cadets. If the acceptance RATE is unequal, that should bear some further scrutiny, if you follow my line... We should look at the metrics for why are females not applying, vs. not being accepted, in short, in an effort to improve their case via other than discriminatory means or via lowered standards.


Cheers
Spam

[Offutteer]

There are other flight scholarships available that CAP doesn't sponsor, but they list them as they are made aware of them; http://www.capmembers.com/cadet_programs/library/scholarships/other-scholarship-opportunities/

[jeders]

Col, the bar has still been lowered for the female cadets (requiring only the wright brothers)As the father of a female cadet I don't want her to feel  that she is in any way inferior to the male cadets, especially in an intellectual way. Can you suggest how I explain this to her?

xray, as the father of a female cadet myself, if my daughter were to ever ask I would explain it this way. Life is inherently unfair. There is not one thing in the world of nature nor of man that is completely fair, and that's ok. Throughout history, females have been at a disadvantage to males in the world of aviation. While this is being corrected in many places, it's still not completely fair. Now your gender is allowing you an advantage which will better level the playing field and you had better take advantage of it while you can; because if you don't, someone else will.

[Live2Learn]

Just wanted to verify that the Col Mary Feik flight scholarship is only for female cadets? 

No mention of it here:

http://www.capmembers.com/cadet_programs/?introducing_the_col_mary_feik_cadet_flight_scholarship&show=entry&blogID=1438

But it's in capital letters here:

http://www.capmembers.com/cadet_programs/library/scholarships/flight-scholarships/

My state has a majority of members of the appellate courts who are female, the majority of students in law school are female, the immediate past governor was female, the member of the US House from my (very conservative!) congressional district is female, both US senators are female, the CEOs of an increasing number of medium and small corporations are female, the heads of many State and Federal agencies are female, female test scores are increasingly outstripping those of male high school students in my community. 

I know of several young men unable to find jobs because they lack certain skills... and not because of trying.

Does CAP really need advertise a blatantly discriminatory scholarship that is based on the premise that females only need apply?  Imagine the reverse?  No wait!  I know of several organizations that are in the dust bin of history because they wished to limit their membership to only men.  How is a female only scholarship fundamentally different from those organizations that were found to be discriminatory and in violation of law???

IMHO, it is inappropriate and contrary to CAP's non-discriminatory policy to use any CAP resources to advertise this scholarship.

[Nuke52]

.  CAP is administering a benefit that upon review is openly and clearly discriminatory against male cadets, when we clearly are forbidden to do so for, quote, "any CAP program or activity" per R36-1 [ . . .]

Regardless of the intent to target funds to a specific group, legally this violates policy. Would CAP accepted scholarship money to the links listed if it were privately offered but tied to a provision that only white cadets were allowed to apply, and named the "White Cadet Flight Training Fund"? Probably not. Equally, a "FEMALE" only provision is clearly in contravention of our policy, regardless of a desire to target females for flight training.

I'm a legal kind of guy and I'm not seeing it. 

Col Lee, pardon me if I'm not understanding you correctly here, but as "a legal kind of guy," you're "not seeing" discrimination with the Feik scholarship?  I freely admit I am not "a legal kind of guy," but I know the definition of the English word "discriminate."

CAP offers flight scholarships to all of our cadets.  Males get something like 80% of all the flight scholarships.  If we are discriminating against males, we are not doing a very good job at it.

Actually, according to the results of a search for "cadet demographics" on CAP's national website (and for those of you "cite!" types:  http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/F2_Electronic_Almanac_E15E6CAA25AA1.pdf, slide 3), we are doing at least a semi-decent job of discriminating against male cadets.  CAP's own statistic says that 82% of cadets are males.  I understand you qualified your statement with, "something like," but you're an honorable man and I'll take you at your honorable word:  If males are 82% of the cadets yet they're only getting 80% of the flight scholarhips... well, I think reasonable minds can all agree on how those dots connect and who is factually over-/under-represented with flight scholarship awards...  But please correct my math if I'm off track here.

And to respond to your intended-to-be-provocative race question, if the Tuskeegee Airmen Foundation or the Organization of Black Aerospace Professionals (OBAP) came to CAP and wanted to offer flight scholarship money for cadets, but restricted it to African American cadets because they are underrepresented as pilots and cadets, I would recommend to the leadership that we accept the money and get more cadets flying.  Cadets who would otherwise not get any funding.

As to Spam's "intended-to-be-provocative race question," of course it was intended to be provocative; he wanted to provoke an answer--one which you completely dodged.  I have absolutely no doubt that if the donors you suggested offered flight scholarship money, with the provision that only cadets of their race receive it, that CAP would take the money...  But that wasn't the question, and you know it.  If you are the "straight shooter" people here believe you to be, please acknowledge here, in this forum, that we all know there are some groups who are encouraged to discriminate in favor of their own and others who are prohibited.  We can leave the "who's" and "why's" for a different discussion.

Further, when you talk of these under-represented groups, "Cadets who would otherwise not get any funding," are you implying that these under-represented groups are not getting a fair shake when applying for the CAP scholarships which are open to all cadets?  If so, I'd say your shop has some immediate work to do in removing that illegal discrimination from CAP practices.

You should consider filing a gender discrimination complaint with the IG.  (If you are successful, you will, of course, be depriving some cadets of flight training.)  [Emphasis mine.]

Wow.  Just wow.  Did the National Cadet Program Manager and a Superior Court judge just tell a fellow officer that if his gender-discrimination IG complaint were substantiated (i.e., "successful") that he--the officer who pointed out to the IG, and was responsible for the righting of, an IG-substantiated injustice due to gender discrimination--he would be the one "depriving ... cadets of flight training"?  Not the organization, which had been found by its own IG to be improperly discriminating against a protected group and had to rectify their policy?  I'm certainly no great legal mind by any stretch, but I'm having a very hard time reconciling that statment by an officer on the National staff with our organization's core values...

I assure you that I am second to no one in my desire to see CAP fund the flying of as many cadets of every demographic as is possible, but the language I'm reading in that last quoted passage seriously shakes my faith in the ethics of an organization that, by policy, prohibits the very discrimination it is "administering."

YMMV.

[xray328]

Col, the bar has still been lowered for the female cadets (requiring only the wright brothers)As the father of a female cadet I don't want her to feel  that she is in any way inferior to the male cadets, especially in an intellectual way. Can you suggest how I explain this to her?

xray, as the father of a female cadet myself, if my daughter were to ever ask I would explain it this way. Life is inherently unfair. There is not one thing in the world of nature nor of man that is completely fair, and that's ok. Throughout history, females have been at a disadvantage to males in the world of aviation. While this is being corrected in many places, it's still not completely fair. Now your gender is allowing you an advantage which will better level the playing field and you had better take advantage of it while you can; because if you don't, someone else will.

I feel like that would reinforce the idea that she is somehow weaker. As in "society is making things easier for you now." I want to encourage her to work harder to fight that stereotype.

I think my best option is to have her apply only once she gets her Mitchell so she's earned it the same as everyone else. The world isn't going to go easy on her because she's a girl, in fact it will be just the opposite.

[SarDragon]

To repeat, since no one responded the first time:

I've been to several HS graduations over the years, and have seen many targeted scholarships given out, primarily for students pursuing degrees in specific programs - journalism, STEM, medicine, you name it. I also belong to another organization with a scholarship program that also uses similar criteria. Some are even based on where you live.

AFAIK, there are no rules or laws preventing a donor from targeting his donation.

[jeders]

Col, the bar has still been lowered for the female cadets (requiring only the wright brothers)As the father of a female cadet I don't want her to feel  that she is in any way inferior to the male cadets, especially in an intellectual way. Can you suggest how I explain this to her?

xray, as the father of a female cadet myself, if my daughter were to ever ask I would explain it this way. Life is inherently unfair. There is not one thing in the world of nature nor of man that is completely fair, and that's ok. Throughout history, females have been at a disadvantage to males in the world of aviation. While this is being corrected in many places, it's still not completely fair. Now your gender is allowing you an advantage which will better level the playing field and you had better take advantage of it while you can; because if you don't, someone else will.

I feel like that would reinforce the idea that she is somehow weaker. As in "society is making things easier for you now." I want to encourage her to work harder to fight that stereotype.

I think my best option is to have her apply only once she gets her Mitchell so she's earned it the same as everyone else. The world isn't going to go easy on her because she's a girl, in fact it will be just the opposite.

Emphasis mine. If society wants to make it easier, than let it. Now if you want to needlessly make life harder for her, that is your choice; but it is NOT a good life lesson. People who are successful in life take advantage of what life hands them.

To repeat, since no one responded the first time:

I've been to several HS graduations over the years, and have seen many targeted scholarships given out, primarily for students pursuing degrees in specific programs - journalism, STEM, medicine, you name it. I also belong to another organization with a scholarship program that also uses similar criteria. Some are even based on where you live.

AFAIK, there are no rules or laws preventing a donor from targeting his donation.

Sorry, I didn't respond because I agreed with what you said, there is nothing wrong here. And to add to this, there are targeted opportunities because life is not fair. Take advantage of every opportunity that you can and make the best of every situation. If someone wants to make things a little easier for you, don't be thick-headed and pass it up.

[THRAWN]

To repeat, since no one responded the first time:

I've been to several HS graduations over the years, and have seen many targeted scholarships given out, primarily for students pursuing degrees in specific programs - journalism, STEM, medicine, you name it. I also belong to another organization with a scholarship program that also uses similar criteria. Some are even based on where you live.

AFAIK, there are no rules or laws preventing a donor from targeting his donation.

And if the donor wants to target their donation, they should administer their own program. The issue is that it looks like CAP is endorsing a program that is designed to apply only to female cadets. That's not inclusive by any definition.

[THRAWN]

Col, the bar has still been lowered for the female cadets (requiring only the wright brothers)As the father of a female cadet I don't want her to feel  that she is in any way inferior to the male cadets, especially in an intellectual way. Can you suggest how I explain this to her?

xray, as the father of a female cadet myself, if my daughter were to ever ask I would explain it this way. Life is inherently unfair. There is not one thing in the world of nature nor of man that is completely fair, and that's ok. Throughout history, females have been at a disadvantage to males in the world of aviation. While this is being corrected in many places, it's still not completely fair. Now your gender is allowing you an advantage which will better level the playing field and you had better take advantage of it while you can; because if you don't, someone else will.

I feel like that would reinforce the idea that she is somehow weaker. As in "society is making things easier for you now." I want to encourage her to work harder to fight that stereotype.

I think my best option is to have her apply only once she gets her Mitchell so she's earned it the same as everyone else. The world isn't going to go easy on her because she's a girl, in fact it will be just the opposite.

Emphasis mine. If society wants to make it easier, than let it. Now if you want to needlessly make life harder for her, that is your choice; but it is NOT a good life lesson. People who are successful in life take advantage of what life hands them.

To repeat, since no one responded the first time:

I've been to several HS graduations over the years, and have seen many targeted scholarships given out, primarily for students pursuing degrees in specific programs - journalism, STEM, medicine, you name it. I also belong to another organization with a scholarship program that also uses similar criteria. Some are even based on where you live.

AFAIK, there are no rules or laws preventing a donor from targeting his donation.

Sorry, I didn't respond because I agreed with what you said, there is nothing wrong here. And to add to this, there are targeted opportunities because life is not fair. Take advantage of every opportunity that you can and make the best of every situation. If someone wants to make things a little easier for you, don't be thick-headed and pass it up.

So you're all for lowered standards of performance for females in this case?

[SarDragon]

To repeat, since no one responded the first time:

I've been to several HS graduations over the years, and have seen many targeted scholarships given out, primarily for students pursuing degrees in specific programs - journalism, STEM, medicine, you name it. I also belong to another organization with a scholarship program that also uses similar criteria. Some are even based on where you live.

AFAIK, there are no rules or laws preventing a donor from targeting his donation.

And if the donor wants to target their donation, they should administer their own program. The issue is that it looks like CAP is endorsing a program that is designed to apply only to female cadets. That's not inclusive by any definition.

CAP just stuffed it under their umbrella, just like the other folks I mentioned stuffed donations under theirs. If you fit a specific demographic, you get a potential benefit.

[THRAWN]

Then maybe CAP should pay more attention to what they are stuffing and where. If they stuffed all of the flight scholarships under the umbrella there would be a list fifty times as long as is presented.