Col Mary Feik Scholarship only for females?

[Holding Pattern]

Threads like this remind me about how hard we work to scare people away from giving us money.

[FW]

How many CMFSs are granted each year? When you consider how many total flight scholarship that are available, and the historical distribution, will the ratio between male and female recipients really change significantly?

[Spam]

Threads like this remind me how far we have to go to stop being sexist and racist, and to transition to a society which awards based on merit, and the content of a persons character rather than their skin or genitals.

Money vs. principles.

V/R
Spam

[Ned]

If we can all stop trying to claim the moral high ground for a minute, we may actually be making some progress in this discussion.

I think we all need to start with a common set of facts, and I believe there has been some confusion.

OK, fair enough, here's some points:

The FEMALES only restriction came in only this year.

Non-concur.  The women-only restriction has always been in place for the Feik scholarship.  I double checked with the CP corporate crew and the actual scholarship committee that makes the awards.  I understand that was the donor(s)' intent from the beginning.

(We can save for later the argument about what if the donor had originally provided funds for a gender-neutral scholarship, and changed their minds in the out years.  I think the analysis is the same, but we don't need to go there.  If it is proper for a private donor to earmark funds for women, it is hard to imagine that they forever lost the ability to do so simply because they had previously generously provided funds on a gender-neutral basis.)

Last year, we had N regular scholarships for all cadets (equal shot gender neutral) plus X number of Feik scholarships (equal shot gender neutral).

This year, we have N regular scholarships for all cadets (equal shot) plus X number of Feiks (newly segregated for FEMALES only).

That's a net loss of access of X scholarships for males.

That's discrimination, in that males are denied consideration for the program.

V/R,
Spam

So if your premise is incorrect (Feik scholarship funds criteria have been changed), I suppose it is too much to hope that you will now agree it is not improper  for a private donor to fund flight scholarships earmarked for female cadets.

[Spam]

My statement was based on the original 2014 announcement of the scholarship, as cited herein, which did not make any distinction between cadets, and the criteria announced this year (also as cited beforehand) which added the word "FEMALE" in all caps, as if someone felt the need to emphasize the point via corrective action/annotation. If the females only provision has been there from the beginning as you state, sir, it was NOT clearly stated, and thus there's been an unannounced back room selection process going on which hasn't been apparent to the membership, which is another concern. Again:

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

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


Agreed: it is completely proper for private organizations to earmark scholarships for, and to discriminate on the basis of, sex.
Agreed: we need to stimulate underrepresented groups to pursue aviation careers.
Agreed: we should seek and promote additional funds for cadets.


Disagreed: it is completely improper for CAP to sponsor or administer funds restricted for a group (sex, in this case) as clearly named in CAPR 36-1.
Disagreed: that we should ignore R36-1 compliance in favor of getting funds thus de facto sanctioning sexist or other discriminatory values.
Disagreed: (with jeders) that we should set an example for cadets that ethics don't matter as long as "I got mine", male, female, homosexual, heterosexual, native born or legal immigrant, black, white, Muslim or Christian or Jew. Disagree on the grounds that self interest and looking for the main chance at the expense of fairness and clearly stated CAP regs violates Core Values.


Yes Sir, as fallible and broken as I am, I do claim the moral high ground, on this issue at least.
Please come join me. We're on the same team with the same overall long term goals.


V/R,
Spam

[lordmonar]

It is improper for us to as mister the funds..... But it is proper for us to accept the funds.   

It is either dirty money or it is not. 

You can't have it both ways and say you are standing in principles. 

If it is wrong for CAP to target one group it is wrong for any group to target just one group. And any such monies are tainted and should be refused.   

[Spam]

If that was a reply to my points, then I don't think I'd claimed we should do either. I agree with you - refuse it, unless we can convince them to make it open to all.

Read my point carefully - I hope I haven't made it murky... but I was agreeing with the previous counter claim that if the Feik sponsor wishes to earmark their scholarship, that's their right, as long as CAP does not administer or sponsor it or touch it.

Thanks,
Spam

[lordmonar]

If that was a reply to my points, then I don't think I'd claimed we should do either. I agree with you - refuse it, unless we can convince them to make it open to all.

Read my point carefully - I hope I haven't made it murky... but I was agreeing with the previous counter claim that if the Feik sponsor wishes to earmark their scholarship, that's their right, as long as CAP does not administer or sponsor it or touch it.

Thanks,
Spam

Or our cadets benefit from it?

The right and proper response is not just a nicely worded "thanks but no thanks" to the donor...but also an injunction to our members not to use money from that scholarship for any CAP function and that membership with said organization is not congruent with our core values.


If you are gonna pull the "principles" card........and paint it black and white you can't do anything less....because Principles!

[stitchmom]

It is improper for us to as mister the funds..... But it is proper for us to accept the funds.   

It is either dirty money or it is not. 

You can't have it both ways and say you are standing in principles. 

If it is wrong for CAP to target one group it is wrong for any group to target just one group. And any such monies are tainted and should be refused.

That is a big jump there.

[GroundHawg]

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/

Anyone know why U of North Georgia and Virginia Tech have been omitted from CAP's directory under "Major Military Colleges"? Both are

There are also 5 Military Junior Colleges that could be listed but are not. Why?

[Garibaldi]

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/

Anyone know why U of North Georgia and Virginia Tech have been omitted from CAP's directory under "Major Military Colleges"? Both are

There are also 5 Military Junior Colleges that could be listed but are not. Why?

Good question. University of North Georgia used to be Georgia Military College, so maybe by changing the designation it changed the type of school?

[Nuke52]

So if your premise is incorrect (Feik scholarship funds criteria have been changed), I suppose it is too much to hope that you will now agree it is not improper  for a private donor to fund flight scholarships earmarked for female cadets.

Ned, please.  That's really disappointing of you.  You're better than that. 

No one here has said what you just claimed, and you know it.  What has been said is that it is improper for NHQ to administer a flight scholarship earmarked for female cadets that prohibits (i.e., discriminates against) male cadets from applying for or receiving those funds.  Name one--ONE--other scholarship administered by NHQ that discriminates by gender.  You said previously you didn't know of any others.  There's a reason for that:  because it is an improperly discriminatory action for CAP NHQ to take. 

Your straw man claim that, "it is too much to hope that you [i.e., Spam/Jeff] will now agree it is not improper for a private donor to fund flight scholarships earmarked for female cadets," is not only beneath someone of your position, but--as you WELL know--a complete misrepresentation of Spam's argument.  He, I, and others have said from the beginning that any donor wanting to fund the flying of cadets from a particular demographic group should be welcomed to do so--perhaps with CAP advertisement/linking to, but under their own administration (i.e., they collect the applications, decide on recipients, and distribute the funds).  No one has said otherwise, and for you to imply otherwise is disingenuous (at best).

I appreciate your work with our cadet program, but this last post of yours makes me wonder if you are willfully ignoring the meaning of the words you are reading.  And your previous post--where you told Spam/Jeff that if a future gender-discrimination IG complaint by him were successful (i.e., substantiated by the IG), that it would be Jeff who was responsible for depriving cadets of scholarship funds--makes me question your judgment.

I'm sure YMMV.

However, to show I'm a good sport and to put my money where my mouth is...  Here is my pledge as a private donor to fund for at least the next ten years a flight scholarship administered by CAP NHQ--for a demographic group of my choice...  Upon mutual agreement of the terms, I will send a start-up donation of $100 to help defray CAP's administrative costs, and for every year CAP NHQ selects a qualified applicant meeting the agreed upon demographics, I will send another $900 to fund the cadet's training.  That's $1000 for every year you select a qualified cadet for at least the next ten years, i.e., a pledge of at least $10,000.  Of course, if you decline, "you will be depriving cadets of flight scholarships." 

My initial terms are that the flight scholarship, administered by CAP NHQ, be advertised with the same emphasis and prominence the female-only Feik scholarship currently receives, and I will promise you upfront my chosen demographics will NOT discriminate against female cadets.

So, how about it?

[lordmonar]

It is improper for us to as mister the funds..... But it is proper for us to accept the funds.   

It is either dirty money or it is not. 

You can't have it both ways and say you are standing in principles. 

If it is wrong for CAP to target one group it is wrong for any group to target just one group. And any such monies are tainted and should be refused.

That is a big jump there.

Not if you are playing the "principle" card.

[Nuke52]

It is improper for us to as mister the funds..... But it is proper for us to accept the funds.   

It is either dirty money or it is not. 

You can't have it both ways and say you are standing in principles. 

If it is wrong for CAP to target one group it is wrong for any group to target just one group. And any such monies are tainted and should be refused.

Pat, come on.  I certainly hope you used better logic and problem solving skills than this when you were a SNCO on active duty.  Or is that why you are no longer... -- never mind.  Forget I said that--it's irrelevant.

If you cannot see the failure of your logic ("is or is not," "can or cannot," the classic False Dilemma), as someone who works with our cadets (and thanks for that, by the way), please, please go back and read Learn to Lead, Vol 2, pp. 40-49, specifically p. 48 for False Dilemmas, before any of our cadets are further inculcated with this patently deficient line of reasoning.

If that was a reply to my points, then I don't think I'd claimed we should do either. I agree with you - refuse it, unless we can convince them to make it open to all.

Read my point carefully - I hope I haven't made it murky... but I was agreeing with the previous counter claim that if the Feik sponsor wishes to earmark their scholarship, that's their right, as long as CAP does not administer or sponsor it or touch it.

Thanks,
Spam

Or our cadets benefit from it?

The right and proper response is not just a nicely worded "thanks but no thanks" to the donor...but also an injunction to our members not to use money from that scholarship for any CAP function and that membership with said organization is not congruent with our core values.

Oh, Pat.  My goodness you guys are band of one-trick ponies.  If at first your fallacies don't succeed, fallacy, fallacy again! 

"An injunction"?  :clap:  Bravo, sir!  I applaud your flair for the over-the-top.  Because it's improper for CAP NHQ to administer a gender-discriminatory scholarship, "an injunction" is most certainly in order...  Thanks for laugh, old chap, thanks for the laugh!

If you are gonna pull the "principles" card........and paint it black and white you can't do anything less....because Principles!

Firstly, you and your "it's totally cool for CAP NHQ to discriminate--I mean, administer--against males" crowd are the only ones painting things black and white.  (Perhaps it's the only critical-thinking tool in your possession?)  The rational people on the other side of the argument are proposing the middle ground:  CAP welcome the donation (and link to it) under whatever criteria the donor(s) desire, but have the donor(s) administer the scholarship themselves.  I challenge you to quote one single place where anyone here has argued for what you claim we've argued.  Go ahead.  You can't, Mr. Black-and-White.

Principles, ah principles...  Yes, clearly "principles" are something we shouldn't be teaching our cadets (or, at least, I hope you're not teaching our cadets the values you've been espousing here).  "The principles card"?  Really?  As though a "principles card" were something bad, something to be manipulated, for one's own gain...   Wow, how far we've slid.  I really had more respect for you than that, Pat, I really did.

As a former AF SNCO, I assume you recited, at one point or another, the SNCO Creed.  Is your position that it's okay for CAP NHQ to exclude a portion of the cadet population from a CAP-administered program simply because of their gender in line with "promot(ing) the highest standards of conduct, appearance, and performance"? 

Well, it's your mirror, you go ahead and look yourself in the face in it every morning...

[lordmonar]

Respect

[Garibaldi]

Wow. Overreact much? This went from a simple inquiry to all out flame war, with Nuke52 holding all the flamethrowers. I'm out.

[Nuke52]

Wow. Overreact much? This went from a simple inquiry to all out flame war, with Nuke52 holding all the flamethrowers. I'm out.

No flames, just standing up for my very strong belief in gender (among other demographics) equality.  I assure you, I would be just as passionate if this were a male-only scholarship administered by CAP NHQ:  wrong is wrong.

[JayT]

For some of you to pretend that their opposition to a female only scholarship is more than simple misogyny is absolutely stunning.

[PHall]

Tick, tock......  This thread either needs to either given a "Time Out" or just plain locked.
The civil discourse ended a couple of pages ago.

[Nuke52]

For some of you to pretend that their opposition to a female only scholarship is more than simple misogyny is absolutely stunning.

For some of you to pretend to not understand the simplest of words written here and to libel us as misogynists is absolutely... expected.

Unless you have a reading-related learning disability, NO ONE, repeat NO ONE, has said a female-only scholarship is improper or wrong.  Only that a gender-restricted scholarship (and I repeat, again, for the reading impaired) administered by CAP NHQ is improper and wrong. 

ETA:  If the scholarship in question were simply linked to by NHQ (as is the Ninety-Nines' and other scholarships) and not administered by NHQ (was that clear enough for you, JayT?), I would be among its biggest fans.  In fact, I will again put my money where my mouth is.  (Unlike you JayT, where's your donation?)  If NHQ stops administering the Feik scholarship and treats it the same way as it does the Ninety-Nines, AOPA, Spaatz Association, and other scholarships (advertising and linking to, but NOT administering), I hereby pledge my $100 per year for the next 10 years to the Feik scholarship.  Is that enough "misogyny" for you JayT?  Man up!  Where's your $1000???