BOG June minutes

[Persona non grata]

AGREED

[keystone102]

Does anyone know what is the breakdown by gender and race/ethnicity of our Cadet and Senior membership?

[Ned]

Does anyone know what is the breakdown by gender and race/ethnicity of our Cadet and Senior membership?

We do not collect data on race or ethnicity, but we can probably come up with numbers for gender.  Last time I checked it was something like 80/20 male.

[NC Hokie]

Does anyone know what is the breakdown by gender and race/ethnicity of our Cadet and Senior membership?

We do not collect data on race or ethnicity, but we can probably come up with numbers for gender.  Last time I checked it was something like 80/20 male.

Wait...if we don't collect that kind of data, how do we begin to justify the need for a diversity committee?

[lordmonar]

Does anyone know what is the breakdown by gender and race/ethnicity of our Cadet and Senior membership?

We do not collect data on race or ethnicity, but we can probably come up with numbers for gender.  Last time I checked it was something like 80/20 male.

Wait...if we don't collect that kind of data, how do we begin to justify the need for a diversity committee?

Maybe one of the action items the Diversity Commitee is to figure out how to collect that data.

[NC Hokie]

Maybe one of the action items the Diversity Commitee is to figure out how to collect that data.

Put a check box on the membership application and do the same on the renewal forms to collect data on existing members.

Am I on the committee now? 

[Major Lord]

Ned,

In that your response indicates that there is no demonstrable need for a diversity committee, and in light of the incredibly disproportionate line item request indicated, I think its totally reasonable to question the intentions of such a committee. I am sure how you can see how I might have read your statement on professionals on the committee as lawyerly parsing, and no offense was intended.  Albeit, my well known Shakespearean views on lawyers, you are one of the few exceptions, and I am not just saying that because you could issue an arrest warrant and that you married my son. ( but not in a gay way)

I for one would love to see the justification for the establishment of a committee with a desired budget in the millions of dollars in advance of such a program even shown as desirable or necessary. Diversity Committees are often used to establish race-based policies ( previously known as "racist policies") which would be offensive to the conscience of many CAP members, and a foolish waste of funds. If all CAP Policies had seen the clear light of day and subjected to ample debate and reflection by the members. we might have prevented such boondoggles as our NASCAR fiasco. Even a cursory look at CAP's population shows a widely diverse command structure, and many members of alternative lifestyles at the highest levels of command ( shall I compile a list?) and minority representation. Spending any of our dues as a sop to such special interest groups is unacceptable. You yourself have admitted to me that race and gender have been used as criteria for encampment staff selection, a practice that I believe most would find abhorrent. I would hate to see such a mindset migrate outside the People's Republic of California.

We have an IG mechanism in place with the authority and responsibility to investigate discriminatory practices and hostile environments. Why do we need a committee of people who by training, profession,  or temperament, see race, gender, and sexual preference disparities where none are even alleged to exist? Dude, Really!

Major Lord

[Briski]

Why do we need a committee of people who by training, profession,  or temperament, see race, gender, and sexual preference disparities where none are even alleged to exist? Dude, Really!

I get what you're saying, but who's even on the Diversity Committee? Can we really make judgments regarding their training, professions, and temperaments if we don't even know who they are?

I'm sure there's a list of committee members somewhere, but I don't think it's fair to jump to conclusions about the kind of person who would be interested in serving on the Diversity Committee.

I'm glad to see that more detailed information will be provided to the BoG at their next meeting, so they can make a more informed decision. It seems to me that, so far, the system might actually be... uhh... working. 

[RADIOMAN015]

The number is correct?  So we can put the typo issue to rest either way.

Let me start by pointing out that - at the request of the NB - Capt Levin has put together one of the most outstanding teams I have ever seen to address what is always a difficult and contentious subject.  Many of the committee members are outside experts with good track records of success.

And they have worked long and hard putting together proposals to ensure that CAP is both a meritocracy and a diverse organization.  Much work remains to be done by the committee before final proposals are ready to be vetted and perhaps implemented by CAP.

Having said all that, the figure in the report is accurate, and represents the committee's estimate for the diversity initiatives.  As I mentioned, the committee understands that it will be an "unfunded" request.  They know as well as you and I that CAP does not have a million dollars lying around.  I understand that the committee will be seeking outside grants and funding to cover some or all of the amount.

Well this is the way I see it.  First we will be required to gather stats at the local unit level on EVERY category listed in the objective (I especially like the gender identification one, maybe I can wear a dress one day to the squadron meeting if I'm confused when I wake up that day -- but in all seriousness that category is going to be the real "hornets nest" for the organization, based upon where the poor soul  is in the physical change process  )  and report it (eventually e service will be modified for members to enter this information on their own, with likely some of the categories being blocked from view except from perhaps a National HQ level).   Than what will happen is "someone" will decide how to break up various geographic areas and get and idea of the various minority categories represented.  Than just a comparison index will be made using some high level calculations that none of us will understand.  This will identify local units (or could be macro by wings) that are below (or above) the thresholds of various minority classes/index in the diversity plan.    Than we likely will have some sort of training session on diversity (this may come earlier).  On those units (wings) below the threshold the volunteers at the local (wing) level may have to come up with some sort of plan on how to reach certain desired minority membership levels.

Looking in my crystal ball, it will basically end up being another CAP paper chase exercise.  Why   There's X amount of time (and money) at the local (wing) level, so when the volunteers runs out of available time (remember that IF a CAP member doesn't want to do something for whatever reason/or is just uncomfortable than they aren't available) and/or it's costing too much money, the "special/targeted recruitment" program will be dead, pure and simple.  HOWEVER, again we will have our plan and it will look good/we will have made our attempt; some awards given out to the committee members for their hard work (which they will deserve :clap:) and life will go on in Civil Air Patrol. 

I don't think we need to spend over $1 million dollars (even if it is grant money) on this "paper chase"
RM           

[JC004]

Give me the million.  You won't BELIEVE what I could get done with a million dollars for CAP...   

People are right that this is and will be a hot issue.  People get in a huff about it and go nuts without facts.  I remember one time a student at my organization made some crazy statement that something was racism.  Fact was we had more black students than white students, so her whole thing was invalid.  And there was no telling her that she didn't make any sense.  But people get started and go craaaaaaazy. 

[jimmydeanno]

A diversity committee, IMO, has nothing to do with race, but instead opening the CAP doors to previously untargeted segments of the population.

If we had data that showed that CAP was comprised of 90% white males over the age of 65 who's income was >100K/year, I would wonder what our organization was doing that didn't appeal to females, other races, lower income levels, and younger populations.  What about CAP only draws that certain segment of the population?

Is it policy? (Why does the KKK only appeal to white Christians?)
Is it politics? (Why don't poor people like Republicans?)
Is it perception? (CAP?  Oh, that flying club of old guys, got it.)
Is it members only recruiting like members? (Wouldn't it be cool if I had a flying club of all my old retired military buddies?)
Is it expense? (Are we closing the doors to potential low-income cadets because of uniform costs, membership dues, etc?)
Is it mission?  (Do we only do things that a small segment of the population is going to want to do anyway?  Do different groups of people typically volunteer in different ways?)

As a business, and non-profit corporation, exposing the organization to other segments of the population has real fiscal realities, and can help us accomplish our missions to greater effect.  More members can result in new connections, funding sources, as well as people to continue providing a great program.

Sometimes, getting those people in the door requires that initiatives be done.  Perhaps pilot programs where you have a targeted segment (say low income inner-city students), where you offer lower membership fees and provide uniforms.  Collect some data and we find out that it isn't that the segment dislikes CAP, but couldn't afford to participate, so they didn't.

I don't think we have discriminatory policies, but we do have a lack of diversity.  Just looking at my unit, which has 50 members, we have 1 Black cadet, 1 Hispanic cadet, 5 Female cadets and 25 white male cadets.  All of our Seniors are white, upper-middle class, split 50/50 male/female.

The area we live in is actually 60% Black, 15% Hispanic, 5% Asian, and 20% White.  When I think of diversity, I would expect that our organizational breakdown would be representative of the community that we are servicing.  So, what are we, or aren't we doing that is discouraging more racial diversity, income diversity, etc?

[Thom]

A diversity committee, IMO, has nothing to do with race, but instead opening the CAP doors to previously untargeted segments of the population.

<snipped a bunch of Good Reasons to have a strong Diversity Policy/Committee/Program/etc.>

I don't think we have discriminatory policies, but we do have a lack of diversity.  Just looking at my unit, which has 50 members, we have 1 Black cadet, 1 Hispanic cadet, 5 Female cadets and 25 white male cadets.  All of our Seniors are white, upper-middle class, split 50/50 male/female.

The area we live in is actually 60% Black, 15% Hispanic, 5% Asian, and 20% White.  When I think of diversity, I would expect that our organizational breakdown would be representative of the community that we are servicing.  So, what are we, or aren't we doing that is discouraging more racial diversity, income diversity, etc?

I agree, almost completely, BUT I would caution you on your last statements. There is a serious sinkhole to be found when you try to make sure that any group's makeup EXACTLY matches that of the surrounding community.

There are numerous reasons that your group will never quite match the general populace, some socio-economic, some cultural, some merely the nature of limited outreach in communities larger than a tiny village.

So, while seeking Diversity is good, and knowing that you have a group that is very unrepresentative of the surrounding community is helpful, you cannot simply target a membership that perfectly mimics that community. You'll never get exactly there, and it is a waste of effort to try.

So, aim for what you can achieve, and don't stress over the exact numbers.

Diversity is an ongoing process, not a set of target numbers. (At least it should be...)



Thom

[jimmydeanno]

A diversity committee, IMO, has nothing to do with race, but instead opening the CAP doors to previously untargeted segments of the population.

<snipped a bunch of Good Reasons to have a strong Diversity Policy/Committee/Program/etc.>

I don't think we have discriminatory policies, but we do have a lack of diversity.  Just looking at my unit, which has 50 members, we have 1 Black cadet, 1 Hispanic cadet, 5 Female cadets and 25 white male cadets.  All of our Seniors are white, upper-middle class, split 50/50 male/female.

The area we live in is actually 60% Black, 15% Hispanic, 5% Asian, and 20% White.  When I think of diversity, I would expect that our organizational breakdown would be representative of the community that we are servicing.  So, what are we, or aren't we doing that is discouraging more racial diversity, income diversity, etc?

I agree, almost completely, BUT I would caution you on your last statements. There is a serious sinkhole to be found when you try to make sure that any group's makeup EXACTLY matches that of the surrounding community.

There are numerous reasons that your group will never quite match the general populace, some socio-economic, some cultural, some merely the nature of limited outreach in communities larger than a tiny village.

So, while seeking Diversity is good, and knowing that you have a group that is very unrepresentative of the surrounding community is helpful, you cannot simply target a membership that perfectly mimics that community. You'll never get exactly there, and it is a waste of effort to try.

So, aim for what you can achieve, and don't stress over the exact numbers.

Diversity is an ongoing process, not a set of target numbers. (At least it should be...)

Thom

Thom,

I agree that a perfect match is unobtainable.  However, large disparities do make one question what is going on.  My real point is that people's perceptions of diversity initiatives revolve around quota systems, and programs that put people into positions only because they possess a particular trait (race, income, etc).  These perceptions put a negative light on diversity and the value that it can add to our organization.

Nevertheless, I will continue to support, well thought out, diversity initiatives that will improve the organization.

--------

General Comment:  I don't think that the "rejected" funding requests are a good barometer of the direction the organization is going.  Anyone can request money.  What would you come up with if someone said, "I need a projected cost to put all squadrons in a permanent meeting facility."  Of course the budget request would be $300 million, but it wouldn't get approved. 

Diversity initiatives could easily come up to $1 million.  Travel could include things like examining meeting locations of inner-city units, compared to suburban squadrons, cultural differences in different regions (Montana vs. Puerto Rico), hotel stays, food, etc.  Gathering real-life data isn't cheap. 

Additionally, I would suspect that future requests from the diversity committee would have similar large numbers.  Providing free membership for economically challenged groups isn't cheap.  Advertising isn't cheap.  And so on.

[Ned]

I find that the selection of reference benchmarks to be a interesting topic.

Surely the cadet program should probably mirror the unit's local community, but it is more difficult to identify referents for some senior specialties.

It seems likely that the CAP mission pilot community, for example, should be similar to the universe of 200+ hour civilian airmen; and not necessarily the local community (which is going to be 99% non-pilots.)  My Google-fu powers are weak this morning, but I suspect that the demographics of high hour civil airmen trends toward Caucasian males.

And because wing commanders are drawn primarily from the mission pilot community, this may tend to inevitably skew the demographics of the NB as a result.

Similarly, things like legal and medical officers will likely track the local lawyer and physician demographics, which again may not be representative of the community at large.

All of this, and much, much more is on the plate of the diversity committee as they study our organization and suggest ways to conduct better outreach, remove barriers, etc.

[a2capt]

Seeking out, removing barriers, etc., are all great.

Though I think they should revisit keeping existing members a bit more, first.

Think about it. Less traveling, less blown coin, and since they obviously got recruited in the first place, if they only stayed, those recruiting dollars would have been better spent.

[RiverAux]

The minutes for the June BOG meeting are on the members website.
http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/BoG_2011_06_draft_0E43656D5EB4A.pdf

I would like to thank the BOG for getting these minutes out in a prompt fashion.  It wasn't long ago that they and our other governing bodies were incredibly slow about this stuff.  Keep it up guys.

[Major Lord]

I refute the presumption that the Cadet population is, or should be, a demographic reflection, or makeup, of the "community". First, Cadets must come from a family with the financial resources to support engagement in CAP activities, eliminating a substantial portion of the lower socioeconomic candidates. Second, CAP self-selects cadets, or if you wish, we tend to recruit "profiles";  High-performing,  patriotic, self-starters with a desire for consolidation into a larger organizations' Ethos. Looking at a Bell curve distribution of todays' "yoots" , I think you will find that a typical CAP cadet belongs to quite a narrow subset of the adolescent community, and that attempts to Broaden the Ethos" so as to merely improve our recruiting may help to temporarily boost our membership, but in the long run, it will continue the trend we have already seen in the cadet program. By watering it down to comply with some new set of politically correct standards, we are just going to produce a generation of counterfeit cadets. ( We won't last long as the new "rainbow Girls") It seems we create or enhance  committees to patch the real or perceived holes in our organization stemming from failures of leadership.

An underlying assumption in the idea that we should be a reflection of the community, ignores the obvious facts that not all cultures share the same values. Some subcultures find CAP ( if they are even aware we exist) as inimical to their culture. You won't see a lot of Hmong tribesman or Russian Immigrants in the Sacramento area Squadrons, even though Russian is one of the fastest growing cultures and languages within the Sacramento public schools. If the idea that a Diversity committee is to ensure that the leadership level is free from discrimination, this also represents a de facto vote of no-confidence in our existing leadership, and a consequently, a tacit admission that our I.G. system is incapable for reasons of competence or political influence, to act appropriately and independently.

Major Lord

[jimmydeanno]

I refute the presumption that the Cadet population is, or should be, a demographic reflection, or makeup, of the "community". First, Cadets must come from a family with the financial resources to support engagement in CAP activities, eliminating a substantial portion of the lower socioeconomic candidates. Second, CAP self-selects cadets, or if you wish, we tend to recruit "profiles";  High-performing,  patriotic, self-starters with a desire for consolidation into a larger organizations' Ethos.

High-performing, patriotic, self-starters come from all walks of life.  Your comment about cadets being required to come from a family "with the financial resources" is exactly the type of thing that a diversity committee could help to remedy.  There is no reason that all CAP cadets should come from middle-class families or greater.  Discounting the youth's motivation simply based on their socio-economic status is wrong.

The volunteer nature of CAP is always going to be a gateway that will help to avoid the recruiting of people who don't want to be in CAP.  I've never met a cadet who didn't want to be a cadet.  I've seen them quit because of the financial burdens and poor leadership found at local units.

Looking at a Bell curve distribution of todays' "yoots" , I think you will find that a typical CAP cadet belongs to quite a narrow subset of the adolescent community, and that attempts to Broaden the Ethos" so as to merely improve our recruiting may help to temporarily boost our membership, but in the long run, it will continue the trend we have already seen in the cadet program.

Do you think this narrow subset is a result of CAP's policies and the way we operate, or do you think it's because of the youth?  Are you advocating maintaining the status quo, or implementing positive change for the organization?  Afterall, you said that we already have eliminated "a substantial portion of the lower socio-economic candidates."  So, if encampment were free, uniforms were free, membership was $10 instead of $50, or we had a "free membership" option, wouldn't that help bring the "high-performing, patriotic, self-starters" from that demographic into our program?

If our mission is to "transforms youth into dynamic Americans and aerospace leaders," shouldn't we be targeting those youth who aren't that already?  It seems that the narrow segment we already have quite possibly may already be "dynamic Americans."

By watering it down to comply with some new set of politically correct standards, we are just going to produce a generation of counterfeit cadets. ( We won't last long as the new "rainbow Girls") It seems we create or enhance  committees to patch the real or perceived holes in our organization stemming from failures of leadership.

It has nothing to do with watering anything down. It's about removing artificial barriers from our organization so that we can expose as many people as possible to what we have to offer.  Financial burden has nothing to do with one's motivation or desire to learn what we offer. 

There are some thing we, as an organization, can't change.  However, with core values like Integrity and Respect, it seems to me that we should do everything in our power to help people become members. 

I didn't know that CAP was only supposed to be available to wealthy, white, upper-middle class, retirees...oh wait...

[Major Lord]

This is America, you are free to choose to establish a scholarship and carry the financial burden for anyone who can't afford it if you wish. Please let us know where to send contributions. I have personally funded dues and uniform costs for many cadets, and I have found overwhelmingly that if these are given away, they don't value them. Surprised?

The fact that poor kids can't generally go very far in the program should be no surprise, its an expensive "hobby", but a worthwhile one. Its sad, and its unfair. Its too bad that a lot of good kids don't get into Harvard or play for the NFL, and you are free to use your money however you wish

I state that we self-select not as an indictment of CAP as some kind of a racist flying club, but as a simple and obvious observation that like- draws-like. If you thinks its unfair, and we should be better represented, you are free to spend your money and time to recruit however and whomever you wish. Go with God.

Diversity Committees have one purpose, ( besides filling high paid government parasitic jobs) and that is to create racist, sexist, and bigotted policies as a method of "leveling the field" by creating limitations, generally punitive, upon the group that is perceived as the cause of the imbalance. Its as if you were to tell me that we are establishing a KKK committee, but it would only be advisory and I should not worry about those wooden crosses in the back of the pickup truck. We have seen where this has gone before. How for instance, would the diversity committee solve the low income cadet problem? Look to the "Free Uniform" program as a good example of how well we can administrate any program.....

[SamFranklin]

Major Lord, you say "like draws like." You're right. Therefore, the organization should try to enlarge its reach. We have to work against the inertia that consistently produces a CAP peopled only by eskimos. This type of outreach is good (1) for the organization itself, by growing its numbers, (2) for individuals, as the organization serves more people who would like our programs but have not had a chance to participate, and (3) for society, as the organization becomes more inclusive and representative of America and it's noble aspiration, "E Pluribus Unum."  Notice that as the membership grows, no one is punished, no one loses their job, no negatives at all, despite your assertion that there's only one purpose in diversity programs.

I believe CAP is a single team, so the "me" and "you" aspect of your post is disappointing.  ("You are free to spend your money and recruit...") A diversity committee is about "us." Like it or not, our leaders have decided that we, as an organization, will explore ways to enlarge our reach. Personally, I'm skeptical about our ability to do that, but I'm giving the leaders a chance to prove me wrong. I hope they will.

BTW, your cheap shot against the Free Cadet Uniform program is not supported by the data, which shows that cadets who receive free uniforms are 30% more likely to renew than cadets who don't. But it's easier to just rail against hypothetical poor kids who don't appreciate your generosity. As a taxpayer, I say that's money well spent.