Col Mary Feik Scholarship only for females?

[RiverAux]

I agree with the idea that the scholarship should not be administered by CAP in any way.  I suppose if the Foundation wants to do the work, thats fine, but CAP itself shouldn't be involved in something along these lines other than verifying that a person is indeed a CAP member of a certain rank and therefore eligible. 

[Spam]

So then to bring it back logically to the central issue: does it not violate the core value of integrity first to ignore the clearly stated CAP policy of not using sex as a criterion to refuse participation in a program administered by CAP?

Answer: clearly, yes. A correction to the scholarship is necessary, to open it back up to the 2014/15 criteria. A review is necessary to remove any other conflicts with current policy, regardless if they reduce dollars available for a preferential population which is, clearly, against policy, and to contact sponsors to ask them to approve an open and fair competition in accordance with CAP policy as stated.

(Search your feelings, Ned, you know it to be true)!

If we stand by our written policies, that is, and are truly for gender equality per the approved CAP written policy of record, that is, as opposed to a "they got theirs, now go get all you can, regardless of policy or any ethical principles" (i.e. jeders) policy, that is. Our policy is equal access, not guaranteed access, nor preferential outcomes for protected groups.


As an aside, I'd like to encourage us to avoid the left/right wing labels. We should be one on this. Charlton "NRA" Heston, about as gun-shakin' right wing as you could ask, marched in arms with Dr. King and with leftist Sydney Poitier. This is about a level playing field, and the American value of equal opportunity versus preferential treatment for ANY ONE. We need to be one on demanding equal access for all, equal review for all, and equal standards for all, per our policy, coupled with an enthusiastic AE education program to encourage cadets of ALL BACKGROUNDS TYPES AND PREFERENCES (with CAP being neutral, without advocacy, on this) to seek careers in aerospace.


Heston in the D.C. March for Jobs and Freedom, August 28, 1963.

V/R
Spam

[Alaric]

So then to bring it back logically to the central issue: does it not violate the core value of integrity first to ignore the clearly stated CAP policy of not using sex as a criterion to refuse participation in a program administered by CAP?

Answer: clearly, yes. A correction to the scholarship is necessary, to open it back up to the 2014/15 criteria. A review is necessary to remove any other conflicts with current policy, regardless if they reduce dollars available for a preferential population which is, clearly, against policy, and to contact sponsors to ask them to approve an open and fair competition in accordance with CAP policy as stated.

(Search your feelings, Ned, you know it to be true)!

If we stand by our written policies, that is, and are truly for gender equality per the approved CAP written policy of record, that is, as opposed to a "they got theirs, now go get all you can, regardless of policy or any ethical principles" (i.e. jeders) policy, that is. Our policy is equal access, not guaranteed access, nor preferential outcomes for protected groups.


As an aside, I'd like to encourage us to avoid the left/right wing labels. We should be one on this. Charlton "NRA" Heston, about as gun-shakin' right wing as you could ask, marched in arms with Dr. King and with leftist Sydney Poitier. This is about a level playing field, and the American value of equal opportunity versus preferential treatment for ANY ONE. We need to be one on demanding equal access for all, equal review for all, and equal standards for all, per our policy, coupled with an enthusiastic AE education program to encourage cadets of ALL BACKGROUNDS TYPES AND PREFERENCES (with CAP being neutral, without advocacy, on this) to seek careers in aerospace.


Heston in the D.C. March for Jobs and Freedom, August 28, 1963.

V/R
Spam

Please explain the net benefit of your position.  If we are getting the money from a donor (as opposed from the Air Force) and they put restrictions on it we (CAP) have two choices; comply or tell them thanks but no thanks.  If we comply, then you believe we have violated our core values; if we tell them no thanks there is no scholarship so no one benefits.  Focused scholarships are common in academia which have similar non-discrimination policies.  The US Government has non-discrimination policies but gives preference to veterans when applying for jobs.  I think people are getting way to wrapped around the axle on this,

[Nuke52]

So then to bring it back logically to the central issue: does it not violate the core value of integrity first to ignore the clearly stated CAP policy of not using sex as a criterion to refuse participation in a program administered by CAP?

Answer: clearly, yes. A correction to the scholarship is necessary, to open it back up to the 2014/15 criteria. A review is necessary to remove any other conflicts with current policy, regardless if they reduce dollars available for a preferential population which is, clearly, against policy, and to contact sponsors to ask them to approve an open and fair competition in accordance with CAP policy as stated.

(Search your feelings, Ned, you know it to be true)!

If we stand by our written policies, that is, and are truly for gender equality per the approved CAP written policy of record, that is, as opposed to a "they got theirs, now go get all you can, regardless of policy or any ethical principles" (i.e. jeders) policy, that is. Our policy is equal access, not guaranteed access, nor preferential outcomes for protected groups.


As an aside, I'd like to encourage us to avoid the left/right wing labels. We should be one on this. Charlton "NRA" Heston, about as gun-shakin' right wing as you could ask, marched in arms with Dr. King and with leftist Sydney Poitier. This is about a level playing field, and the American value of equal opportunity versus preferential treatment for ANY ONE. We need to be one on demanding equal access for all, equal review for all, and equal standards for all, per our policy, coupled with an enthusiastic AE education program to encourage cadets of ALL BACKGROUNDS TYPES AND PREFERENCES (with CAP being neutral, without advocacy, on this) to seek careers in aerospace.


Heston in the D.C. March for Jobs and Freedom, August 28, 1963.

V/R
Spam

Hear, hear!  :clap:

No one on CAPTALK has yet, or even could possibly, counter the words Spam writes above.  No one.  Period.  You know it's true, but go ahead and try--let's see it...

Misdirecting to the weak and irrelevant "but, but, but, that'd take away money from the girls..." argument is not the same thing.  Even if it would mean reducing CAP-administered funds to female cadets, his argument is rock solid.  You cannot deny it.  Prove me wrong...

[Pace]

We certainly could tell the donor to keep their money, but why would we refuse money given benevolently? The only purpose it would serve is to pat ourselves on the back at the detriment of at least one cadet. How is that right? It's not a CAP program. It isn't authorized or codified in any specific regulation or bylaw. It's about a donor giving us money in a targeted way to benefit specific cadets. It's their money, they do indeed make the rules. How are we better off as an organization for refusing a cadet this opportunity?

[THRAWN]

We certainly could tell the donor to keep their money, but why would we refuse money given benevolently? The only purpose it would serve is to pat ourselves on the back at the detriment of at least one cadet. How is that right? It's not a CAP program. It isn't authorized or codified in any specific regulation or bylaw. It's about a donor giving us money in a targeted way to benefit specific cadets. It's their money, they do indeed make the rules. How are we better off as an organization for refusing a cadet this opportunity?

Since it's their money, and they get to make the rules, then CAP should not be administering any part of the program, to include applications. No cadet will be refused any opportunity if the donors do what all other donors do and run their own programs. CAP can advertise the dickens out of it, but that should be the limit of the organization's involvement.

[Nuke52]

So then to bring it back logically to the central issue: does it not violate the core value of integrity first to ignore the clearly stated CAP policy of not using sex as a criterion to refuse participation in a program administered by CAP?

Answer: clearly, yes. A correction to the scholarship is necessary, to open it back up to the 2014/15 criteria. A review is necessary to remove any other conflicts with current policy, regardless if they reduce dollars available for a preferential population which is, clearly, against policy, and to contact sponsors to ask them to approve an open and fair competition in accordance with CAP policy as stated.

(Search your feelings, Ned, you know it to be true)!

If we stand by our written policies, that is, and are truly for gender equality per the approved CAP written policy of record, that is, as opposed to a "they got theirs, now go get all you can, regardless of policy or any ethical principles" (i.e. jeders) policy, that is. Our policy is equal access, not guaranteed access, nor preferential outcomes for protected groups.


As an aside, I'd like to encourage us to avoid the left/right wing labels. We should be one on this. Charlton "NRA" Heston, about as gun-shakin' right wing as you could ask, marched in arms with Dr. King and with leftist Sydney Poitier. This is about a level playing field, and the American value of equal opportunity versus preferential treatment for ANY ONE. We need to be one on demanding equal access for all, equal review for all, and equal standards for all, per our policy, coupled with an enthusiastic AE education program to encourage cadets of ALL BACKGROUNDS TYPES AND PREFERENCES (with CAP being neutral, without advocacy, on this) to seek careers in aerospace.

Heston in the D.C. March for Jobs and Freedom, August 28, 1963.

V/R
Spam

Please explain the net benefit of your position. 

Net benefit, hmmm, oh I don't know, maintaining our integrity, upholding our core values, not improperly advancing the interests of one protected group at the expense of another?

If we are getting the money from a donor (as opposed from the Air Force) and they put restrictions on it we (CAP) have two choices; comply or tell them thanks but no thanks.  If we comply, then you believe we have violated our core values; if we tell them no thanks there is no scholarship so no one benefits. 

Baloney!  Good try with the false-dilemma fallacy, but no.  Might I interest you in a nice straw-man argument?  We have several available that are extremely popular with the CAPTALK crowd...

It is not a binary decision.  CAP could--and certainly should--have said, "Dear Donor(s), thank you ever so much for your ever-so-generous donation and interest in providing the gift of flight to our budding "Dynamic Americans and Aerospace Leaders."  We sincerely appreciate your offer, we truly do, it's just that we have this policy whereby we don't restrict participation in our programs for reasons of gender.  Could you perhaps reconsider allowing cadets of both sexes to be eligible for your very generous scholarship?  If not, we completely understand and will be thrilled to link to your scholarship's contact and application information on our website (http://www.capmembers.com/cadet_programs/library/scholarships/other-scholarship-opportunities/)--the very same way we do for a number of other very generous, non-CAP-administered scholarships." 

And if these accommodations were still unacceptable to the donor(s), that ONLY via an officially CAP-administered program advancing the interests of girls and excluding the participation of boys would they donate the money, well, that would certainly raise my concern of the true intent behind their donation...  What was it that Col Lee said about, "Groups that advocate odious philosophies or unlawful actions would certainly be declined"?  It could certainly be argued in that case that that quacking sound you here is a duck.

We certainly could tell the donor to keep their money, but why would we refuse money given benevolently? The only purpose it would serve is to pat ourselves on the back at the detriment of at least one cadet. How is that right? It's not a CAP program. It isn't authorized or codified in any specific regulation or bylaw. It's about a donor giving us money in a targeted way to benefit specific cadets. It's their money, they do indeed make the rules. How are we better off as an organization for refusing a cadet this opportunity?

No, wrong. 

Even Col Lee said:

... But AFAIK, the Feik Scholarships are the only NHQ-administered grants / scholarships that are not gender-neutral.  [Emphasis mine.]

If it is administered by CAP NHQ, it is a de facto CAP program, just not a de jure CAP program. 

Fine, "it's their money, they make the rules."  Yes, as to their intended recipient--NOT as to our CAP policies of non-discrimination in CAP-administered programs. 

"How are we better off as an organization for refusing a cadet this opportunity?"  Nicely done, sir!  Ever so delicately wrapping a false dilemma in a straw man...  You've proven yourself a top performer in our CAPTALK Logical Fallacies Division!

Focused scholarships are common in academia which have similar non-discrimination policies.

Ah yes, academia, that venerable bastion of "do as I say, not as I do" and "you can have all the free speech you want, so long as you agree with me" and "don't you dare invade my 'safe space' with your hateful truth."  I seem to remember from my time in "academia" reading this little book called Animal Farm--highly recommended if you haven't yet had the pleasure--and its brilliant doctrine of "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."  And if you haven't seen this played out in academia, then you, sir, have never been to academia.

I do commend your skills in attempting to misdirect the question via flawed logic, but let's give 'er another try on actually disputing Spam's point, shall we?

[stitchmom]

.  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.

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? 

Fairness is incredibly important to us.  We have made huge strides in ensuring that encampment is the same for young men and women.  CPP revisions have been made that have the effect of increasing safety for both young women young men.  We thought we had eliminated the "party dress" exception to the 39-1 for cadets.  (Although it sounds like we still need to make that clearer.)

Here's that link to PayPal again for anyone wanting to further increase flight training opportunities for our cadets.

Thank you all for the discussion.  We will be looking at the website to make sure the donor's restriction is more prominent.

Ned Lee
National Cadet Program Manager

Either they take applications directly or it goes to fund that doesn't exclude cadets based on race.

Secondly so what if there 0 female or black pilots in the world as far as CAP is concerned?  Is it part of CAP to make sure they have proper AA/Diversity figures as far as cadets and cadets who attend flight school?

[Pace]

We certainly could tell the donor to keep their money, but why would we refuse money given benevolently? The only purpose it would serve is to pat ourselves on the back at the detriment of at least one cadet. How is that right? It's not a CAP program. It isn't authorized or codified in any specific regulation or bylaw. It's about a donor giving us money in a targeted way to benefit specific cadets. It's their money, they do indeed make the rules. How are we better off as an organization for refusing a cadet this opportunity?

No, wrong. 

Even Col Lee said:

... But AFAIK, the Feik Scholarships are the only NHQ-administered grants / scholarships that are not gender-neutral.  [Emphasis mine.]

If it is administered by CAP NHQ, it is a de facto CAP program, just not a de jure CAP program. 

Fine, "it's their money, they make the rules."  Yes, as to their intended recipient--NOT as to our CAP policies of non-discrimination in CAP-administered programs. 

"How are we better off as an organization for refusing a cadet this opportunity?"  Nicely done, sir!  Ever so delicately wrapping a false dilemma in a straw man...  You've proven yourself a top performer in our CAPTALK Logical Fallacies Division!

1. I wrote regulated and codified, not administered. I have yet to find a specific mention of thr Feik scholarship in any of our governing documents.
2. Agree to disagree with you philosophically here. I would much rather a cadet receive an opportunity than not. We do have other scholarships that include everyone. Considering CAP is administering it, I doubt that I am alone in this belief.

Nothing more to be said, I think.

[Nuke52]

We certainly could tell the donor to keep their money, but why would we refuse money given benevolently? The only purpose it would serve is to pat ourselves on the back at the detriment of at least one cadet. How is that right? It's not a CAP program. It isn't authorized or codified in any specific regulation or bylaw. It's about a donor giving us money in a targeted way to benefit specific cadets. It's their money, they do indeed make the rules. How are we better off as an organization for refusing a cadet this opportunity?

No, wrong. 

Even Col Lee said:

... But AFAIK, the Feik Scholarships are the only NHQ-administered grants / scholarships that are not gender-neutral.  [Emphasis mine.]

If it is administered by CAP NHQ, it is a de facto CAP program, just not a de jure CAP program. 

Fine, "it's their money, they make the rules."  Yes, as to their intended recipient--NOT as to our CAP policies of non-discrimination in CAP-administered programs. 

"How are we better off as an organization for refusing a cadet this opportunity?"  Nicely done, sir!  Ever so delicately wrapping a false dilemma in a straw man...  You've proven yourself a top performer in our CAPTALK Logical Fallacies Division!

1. I wrote regulated and codified, not administered. I have yet to find a specific mention of thr Feik scholarship in any of our governing documents.
2. Agree to disagree with you philosophically here. I would much rather a cadet receive an opportunity than not. We do have other scholarships that include everyone. Considering CAP is administering it, I doubt that I am alone in this belief.

Nothing more to be said, I think.

1.  Yes, yes you did.  And I wrote that by being administered by CAP it is a de facto CAP program.  (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/de-facto?s=t)  I didn't write anything disputing that they weren't "regulated" or "codified" by NHQ.  [a Straw Man argument]

2.  My hat's off to you, sir:  SEVEN--count 'em--SEVEN logical fallacies in one statement, bookended by two thought-terminating clichés.  You've got some skillz, no doubt!  [For those of you reading along at home who are not as gifted as our exemplar here, please try to keep up (www.logicalfallacies.info):  1.  Begging the Question, 2.  Another Straw Man, 3.  False Dilemma, 4.  Appeal to Consequences, 5.  Red Herring, 6.  Appeal to Authority, and 7.  Appeal to Popularity.]

Agreeing to disagree or not, you still haven't disputed Spam's points on their merits.

[Pace]

If you have that deep of a passion for this, take it up your chain of command. Maybe they'll listen. Good luck to you in the operational world, sir.

[Nuke52]

If you have that deep of a passion for this, take it up your chain of command. Maybe they'll listen. Good luck to you in the operational world, sir.

Thank you. 

My only regret is that not all of our members have a passion for gender equality at NHQ and in the programs they administer.

[foo]

[For those of you reading along at home who are not as gifted as our
exemplar here, please try to keep up (www.logicalfallacies.info):  1.  Begging the Question, 2. 
Another Straw Man, 3.  False Dilemma, 4.  Appeal to Consequences, 5.  Red
Herring, 6.  Appeal to Authority, and 7.  Appeal to Popularity.]

Not to mention what we teach cadets in the Learn To Lead curriculum (Volume 2, Chapter 5 "Critical Thinking"). I think we all could benefit from a review of that material.

http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/Vol2LetterLowFinal_8BDFDB373E830.pdf

[Ned]

See, this is why cadets can't get nice things.   

As is often the case here on CT, this is devolved into one of our classic "I think X" and "But you're wrong, I think Y (and I really, really believe it)."

"OK, then, you prove it."

"No, you have to prove it because I know I'm right."

"Well then, the leadership must be sexist."

Sigh.


We have trouble as a group talking about important (and to be fair, unimportant) issues civilly.

Agreeing to disagree or not, you still haven't disputed Spam's points on their merits.

Part of the problem is that Jeff didn't really make many "points"; in his latest post he mostly asked rhetorical questions.  It is always hard to dispute a rhetorical question because it contains relatively few facts or assertions.  What he actually said was:

So then to bring it back logically to the central issue: does it not violate the core value of integrity first to ignore the clearly stated CAP policy of not using sex as a criterion to refuse participation in a program administered by CAP?

Answer: clearly, yes. [

He's answered his own question, and the answer is "clear."  Anyone who disagrees is obviously "unclear."

Folks, at its heart this is a semantic dispute about what "discrimination" and "a program" mean in the context of CAPR 36-1, that Jeff quoted several pages ago.  Allow me to reiterate.

Civil Air Patrol Policy of Nondiscrimination. It is Civil Air Patrol policy that no member
shall be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or subjected to discrimination in
any CAP program or activity on the basis of race, sex, age, color, religion, national origin, or
disability (formerly handicap). It is Civil Air Patrol policy that no applicant meeting CAP's
minimum age requirement will be denied membership in CAP on the basis of race, sex, age,
color, religion, national origin, or disability (formerly handicap).

"Discrimination:"  As Alaric pointed out a while ago, the most common and applicable definition of "discrimination" for this situation  is to treat a person or group of persons worse than another similarly-situated group.  No one has pointed to anything concerning our flight scholarship program that suggests that males are in a worse position this year than last.  Indeed, if N scholarships were available to men last year and the same N scholarships are available this year, it is hard to imagine how "exactly the same" = "worse."  To use the language of the regulation, they have not "been denied the benefits of, or been subjected to discrimination  . . .  in a CAP program."


"Program:"  If the Feik scholarships were the only flight scholarships I would wholeheartedly agree with the dissenters here.  But the Feik scholarships are just a part of the larger flight scholarship program that we have administered for decades.  Restated, if you artificially cut out the Feik scholarship and define it as the "program" you would be correct that our non-discrimination policy would probably prohibit it.  But if you consider the Feik scholarship as part of the existing larger flight scholarship program, than there does not appear to be a problem since our flight scholarship program is open to everyone.  (Including seniors.)

Thus in the view of the CAP leadership, there is no improper discrimination based on gender inherent in the Feik Scholarship.

So, bottom line is that reasonable minds can differ on this, and I respect the sincere opinions expressed here.  But I don't think either side will ever be able to "prove" their correctness to the satisfaction of the other side.

Finally, let me drop a pearl of wisdom that my beleaguered sainted mother used to tell us"  "Just because something nice happens to your brother does not mean that something bad is happening to you."


Peace.


Ned Lee

[Майор Хаткевич]

Must be nice to live in a black and white world, with no gray, based on what you feel makes it one or the other.

[Nuke52]

I wouldn't know anything about living in a black-and-white world, but I sure do appreciate the ability to see when things are black and white.  I'm also pretty happy I don't live in that world where your feelings that something is or is not a particular way are they only sense I have upon which to rely.  Critical thinking comes in handy, one might try it some day...

[Spam]

OK, fair enough, here's some points:

The FEMALES only restriction came in only this year.

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

[Майор Хаткевич]

OK, fair enough, here's some points:

The FEMALES only restriction came in only this year.

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

It's actually impossible to figure out if any males lost any scholarships without hard numbers.

[Spam]

We wont have them yet until this years selection results come in.

By definition, they'll be "less than", even if only one Feik is awarded to a female.

V/R,
Spam

[Майор Хаткевич]

We wont have them yet until this years selection results come in.

By definition, they'll be "less than", even if only one Feik is awarded to a female.

V/R,
Spam

That's not how numbers work.