Post the most ridiculous CPP misinterpretation you have seen

[lordmonar]

So if you are planning an overnight outing and you have 10 male cadets signed up, only 1 female cadet signed up and 2 or 3 male senior members ,what do you do? 
Do you take the 1 girl along and assume any potential risks and possibly a CPP infraction? 
Do you exclude her citing CPP but hold the event for the boys? 
Or do you cancel the entire event because you decide that per CPP, you cannot take the girl and you believe the following?

EXCLUDING GIRLS from and activity is sexual discrimination......If you can't include the girls.....YOU CAN'T DO IT at all or we set ourselves up for a lawsuit and/or grief from the USAF and other potential donors.

You plan accordingly.  You can't (according to the new CPP) do the event with out a female SM present.....and you can't exclude the girls. 
If you can't do it....you can't do it.  No different then if you your only CAP driver can't make it.....you can't take the CAP van.

I don't make the rules....I only try to live by them.

What risk an individual member is willing to take is kind of up to them.
Yes it is a catch 22......but there you go.

[Eclipse]

I agree with NIN and Ned.

However...

The regs won't magically make people who are comfortable with the situation appear, nor can it force someone not comfortable with a given situation
to serve as a staff member.

In an occasional case, someone might have to be excluded, and if that cadet's parent don't like it, they can join CAP, get CPT cleared, and
be there next time.

Don't the most recent draft of the CPT rules contain language about gender requirements on overnights?  I've been gone all weekend camping and admit I'm too
tired to look.

[lordmonar]

I agree with NIN and Ned.

However...

The regs won't magically make people who are comfortable with the situation appear, nor can it force someone not comfortable with a given situation
to serve as a staff member.

In an occasional case, someone might have to be excluded, and if that cadet's parent don't like it, they can join CAP, get CPT cleared, and
be there next time.

Don't the most recent draft of the CPT rules contain language about gender requirements on overnights?  I've been gone all weekend camping and admit I'm too
tired to look.

As Ned pointed out......you want to be the guy on CNN explaining how you wouldn't let little Jenny go on the SAREX outing because you were not comfortable with including girls?

I pointed out through my chain of command the issues that the DRAF CPP rules is going raise in ES GT issues.  Unless the change the wording with the non-discrimitory policies to allow X or Y to trump excluding the girls or the boys from an event....we got what we got.

[Eclipse]

As Ned pointed out......you want to be the guy on CNN explaining how you wouldn't let little Jenny go on the SAREX outing because you were not comfortable with including girls?

I have no problem with that, whatsoever.

"This is an all-volunteer organization, and Jenny's parents weren't interested in helping.  Love the show Anderson."

There's 100 places and situations where CAP should always aspire to do things right, but just an in the case where someone with
certain special needs might not be allowed to participate, such as someone in a wheel chair who isn't allowed on a military O-ride
or can't do an activity because billeting is on the third floor and there's no elevator, once the staff have done their best to accommodate
the situation, then it simply is what it is, and you don't cancel everything because of it - CAP has neither the funding nor personnel to
force accommodation like public schools, corporations, or even the military, especially not if the general trajectory will be to allow units
to self-actualize on recruiting and mission goals.

"Unable to accommodate" does automatically not equal "discrimination".

If that's the go-forward attitude, we really are cooked.

[Ned]

You're not seriously suggesting that being female is some sort of disability, are you?

Again, just follow the reg and you have your answer.

And the answer is not to intentionally discriminate against some of our best and brightest cadets based on their genetics.

Really, it is that simple.

(And a note to the masses:  the draft CPP reg is just that - a draft.  Continue to follow our current rules and regs unt such time, if any, that the regulation changes.)

[Eclipse]

You're not seriously suggesting that being female is some sort of disability, are you?

I neither said that, nor implied it.

We both know that was simply another example where circumstance mat prevent CAP from accommodating someone with a specific / special need.

"Wishing we were all things to all people."  doesn't make it happen even if that wish is in the form of a CAPR.

I also agree, however, that we should just follow the reg. With that said, if the reg puts an onerous requirement on a unit or activity, then
the onus can be pushed to higher HQ and they can sit with Anderson and explain why an activity that effects 100 other people was canceled for
one participant, which is the other swing of the "Jenny can't go" pendulum.

[lordmonar]

Eclipse.....if you plan an activity for 100 cadets......and don't plan for making sure all our members can participate...........you are doing it wrong.

It is more likely scenario where Squadron X with 6 cadets, two active CP seniors are suddenly faced with one female cadet.....and not knowing the reg, not being properly trained, living in a region where the CPP rules are full of myths, half truths and "good ideas" presented as hard laws......gets our organization screwed up.

As this whole thread points out.....even with the regs being fairly clear.......we still have people who "were told" or "thought that it meant" or "I just want to err on the side of 'safety'" something that is not required and then we end up going down the another cliff.....with the best intentions.

So......To be clear.   

Females (by the Current CPP) do not EVER have to have a female SM present on the activity.  They don't even require separate sleeping, bathing, restroom accommodations.  We just need two cleared seniors present.

On to the next DOOFUS move.

Edited for spelling errors.   

[Eclipse]

Fair enough.

[Garibaldi]

Females (by the Current CPP) do not EVER have to have a female SM present on the activity.  They don't even require separate sleeping, bathing, restroom abominations.  We just need two cleared seniors present.

On to the next DOOFUS move.

restroom abominations? *shudder*

[lordmonar]

  Fracking Auto Correct! 

Accommodations......if you please.

Although.....some of the facilities I have been to.....could be called abominations.

[BuckeyeDEJ]

It's not "sex." It's "gender."

Now back to your regularly scheduled CAPTalk discussion about uniforms... oh, wait, this isn't a uniform thread, is it?

[PHall]

  Fracking Auto Correct! 

Accommodations......if you please.

Although.....some of the facilities I have been to.....could be called abominations.

OFF TOPIC....


"Real" men don't use Auto Correct or Auto Suggest.



/OFF TOPIC

[Ned]

I neither said that, nor implied it.

Well, your example was that of a wheelchair bound cadet and you spoke extensively about "accommodation," so perhaps my error may be forgiven.

Following the regulations is not an "accommodation."  It's just obeying our common sense rules that are based on something like 70 years of running a cadet program for young Americans.

One typically hears the language of "accommodation" when discussing physical disabilities and legal responses under the ADA.

So I'm glad that we agree that it is improper to deny cadets participation in any activity simply based on gender.

Thank you for your work with our cadets.  You are shaping the future of our country.

Ned Lee

[Luis R. Ramos]

Buck-

As usual, it degenerated to the uniform topic. You made it possible...

Flyer

[lordmonar]

  Fracking Auto Correct! 

Accommodations......if you please.

Although.....some of the facilities I have been to.....could be called abominations.

OFF TOPIC....


"Real" men don't use Auto Correct or Auto Suggest.



/OFF TOPIC

I'm not a pilot so I'm already not a "real man" 

[NIN]

It wasn't entirely CPP, but it was couched as such:

Trip to a large air museum, 3-4 hr drive in CAP vans.   The ride is in civvies (well, jeans and squadron shirts or polo)

Project officer dresses down one young lady for wearing a civilian shirt that is "too revealing" (it covered her midriff and went over the tops of her jeans) and cites CPP (huh?).

Then a cadet complains that he was "yelled at" (his definition of "yelling" and mine are dissimilar) by the project officer for "talking to female cadets in the van on the trip."

Apparently one van (not the one I was in) was admonished that there should be no cross communication between the males & females during the trip.

*sigh*

[a2capt]

Flashbacks of elementary school field trips. "Everyone get in the bus. Sit boy-girl-boy-girl and no talking."
Everyone must stay seated. No exceptions.
Except the person that stood in the aisle the whole way, blocking the view out the front with their larg.. yelling at anyone that flinched, or even looked like they were going to talk.

Yes, I hated school in Dade County, FL.

I'd be shocked if a unit maintains a progressing roster from year to year, with that kind of environment.

[NIN]

I'd be shocked if a unit maintains a progressing roster from year to year, with that kind of environment.

It was 10-ish years ago. The project officer is no longer in CAP, but the two cadets who got talking tos left CAP pretty immediately thereafter the trip, and I had to sit down the project officer and have a counseling about the appropriate application of personal values in a group setting. Especially personal values that a) have no bearing on the mission or the execution of the program; or b) fall outside the norm of EVERYBODY else.

This is the kind of thing where you hear "Oh, LT Smith wouldn't allow the female cadets to go on the bivouac. His church doesn't think women should do that kind of thing." or "My commander doesn't believe women should wear pants, so the squadron mandate is that female cadets and seniors wear the skirt combo in blues.  He can't do anything about BDUs, though.."

The sphincter tightening around such decisions is legendary.

[Peeka]

The sphincter tightening around such decisions is legendary.

I just learned about those things.... 

[Eclipse]

Following the regulations is not an "accommodation."  It's just obeying our common sense rules that are based on something like 70 years of running a cadet program for young Americans.

One typically hears the language of "accommodation" when discussing physical disabilities and legal responses under the ADA.

We accommodate people all the time.

The only people who have an issue with this word are special interest groups trying to make hay where none exisits.