Diversity Committee

[FW]

After reading the above description about the committee, I think I understand the true nature of it's existence.  If I am right, the answer will be coming in the next 5 or six weeks..... I will say nothing more on this topic.

[NC Hokie]

Exceptionally qualified candidates who do not share all the characteristics listed below are welcome to apply. Volunteers who serve on this committee will share most of the following qualification requirements:
 Be executive leaders (CEO/President/Chair/Vice Chair/VP/Chief Officer etc.)
 Be nationally recognized for their promotion of Diversity
 Be willing to attend at least four in-person meetings during the next twelve months
 Be willing to attend at least one conference call not to exceed 90 minutes each month
 Civil Air Patrol Major rank and above
 Attained the Garber Award
 Three or more years as a Civil Air Patrol senior member in good standing. Senior members with outstanding diversity credentials will be considered on an individual basis.

Why do I have the feeling that these characteristics were chosen with a specific set of people in mind?

[JC004]

Why do I have the feeling that these characteristics were chosen with a specific set of people in mind?

Not specific...diverse.  Sheesh.

[alamrcn]

I can't believe that every post here is pretty much in agreement on this! And now that the diverse membership of CAP Talk have unified, we can dissolve the committee 

I live in a smaller metro of 100k people, and our city has a nationally recognized "Diversity Council" in place. It was even featured on the Today Show! All I've learned out of the many tax-paid community events and required programs in our public schools is this...

1. It makes people of privilege or wealth feel warm and fuzzy about themselves.

2. It gives minorities special attention and a different set of "rules" to live by.

3. Any decision or action made based on the differences of a person or group, even with good intentions, is STILL racism!

"How about just doing CAP stuff."   :clap:

[davidsinn]

I don't care weather another member is black, brown, white, red, yellow or green. I don't care if they are male or female. I don't care what their choice of romantic partner is. All I care about is: can you do the job you agreed to do and are you causing trouble or not? And no I don't consider somebody else being offended at your race/gender/orientation, as you causing trouble. That's the other person causing trouble in that case.

[Strick]

They are looking for a select group of people with the same quals to head up a commitee about diversty..............how about a new squadron commander, a cadet, a AEO memeber, es officer, Cafdet programs officer, pilot, nurseectc.........they Type of people that make up CAP!!!!!!!!!!!!

[indygreg]

Huge waste of time!!

[Lancer]

Someone needs to learn how to spell/proofread. 



EDIT - That was fast. 

[Майор Хаткевич]

So...this is strange...

I don't have any statistics on this, but how many Wing Commanders and up are/have been a "minority" in the last few years?

I know the last wing commander we had was African American, no one made a big deal about it (nor should they have).

What about units? I know a number of "Minority" units due to location/population make up. It's kinda natural. How do you solve this? Tell people that they can't join unit A because their X-race quota is met, but units B and F are in need of more Xs?

This just creates problems all around.

If we were to establish units in "deep urban" locations, that's all fine and dandy by me. But what about socioeconomic factors? CAP isn't free. It's not as expensive as a Football team or Cheer-leading, but it's not cheap either. So what do we do? Do we waive/discount their membership dues? Do we also issue them BDUs for the cadets for free? Do we also sponsor those cadet's activity fees? Do we send them to NCSAs for free? Where do we get the money for it?

I'm only 20, I'm all for "equality, diversity, etc", but what will this solve?


On a final note, I know ILWG Spring Encampment let a Russian cadet be the C/Commander, so I think we're ok on that front.

[Major Lord]

If the purpose of a "Diversity Committee" is to ensure that CAP as a group is not discriminating against individuals based on race, creed, religion, sexual orientation, etc., I can almost understand it. Almost, since I reject ab initio the idea that CAP has this as a problem. If on the other hand, the idea is to implement recruitment efforts to build a membership that more closely reflects the ethnicity profile of the general population, I find the idea of racial quotas and preferences racist, bigoted, un-American, and repulsive. 

Major Lord

[Flying Pig]

I like how they make it seem like there are minority members standing in line for command and staff level positions who may be getting passed over based on race, creed or ethnic issues.  In my experience when a unit is looking for a commander the member who missed the meeting that night usually finds themselves as the next commander!

[vento]

...In my experience when a unit is looking for a commander the member who missed the meeting that night usually finds themselves as the next commander!

LOL, very true!
BTW, did you miss a meeting one and found yourself "volunteered"? 

[Johnny Yuma]

CAP, Incorporated - Solving problems they invented.

The only real issue CAP really has is bringing the cadet program into the inner cities, but in all honesty that's nothing more than NHQ adopting some best practices from some of the wings that already have units in urban areas, like NYWG and National Capitol Wing.

In 20 years, KSWG's had 2 female commanders, 2 black commanders (one as Tuskeegee airman), an Okie, a West Pointer and a couple bozos of the first order and then some. We were freaking diverse long before someone told us we had to be, fer crissakes!

[jimmydeanno]

A few comments in favor of this committee and its requirements.

1) The criteria sets the stage for actual professionals who know WTH they're talking about to do the job properly.  Imagine having people at the National level that actually have the ability to think strategically and have experience doing it.  Our NHQ staff is not the place to develop people with potential to do the job.  At this point, I would argue that we need people who can already do it.

2) Diversity doesn't necessarily mean that it's an "affirmative action" program designed to fill the halls with unqualified minorities just for the sake of political correctness.  If I were on the committee;

a) I would take a look at our demographics and wonder why our NB is comprised of 95% white old men. 

b) Why are the millennials and Gen-Xers the most under-represented generation in our organization?

c) How is this going to affect our leadership in years to come? 

d) Why isn't our program appealing to minorities? 

e) Is there something about the way we present ourselves that is causing people from certain social classes or backgrounds to not join?

f) Why are the majority of our members ISTJs?  How do we get more INFPs to balance us out?

g) Does that particular personality type make an effect on the regulatory nature of our organization?  Is it too regulatory and therefore unattractive to people who are a bit different?

All those examples above include expanding out diversity without even bringing into consideration the "we need more black dudes on the National Board."

[SarDragon]

Your eloquence is exemplary!

Bravo!

:clap: :clap: :clap:

[JC004]

...
b) Why are the millennials and Gen-Xers the most under-represented generation in our organization?
...

I'd be happy to discuss that with you.  I've been pressing that issue for some time now.

[a2capt]

This whole Diversity thing ... sometimes makes me wonder if they don't mean "Divisive" instead. Sure seems like at times when this gets pushed, thats exactly what ends up happening.

[dwb]

b) Why are the millennials and Gen-Xers the most under-represented generation in our organization?

You already answered that:

our NB is comprised of 95% white old men.

In all seriousness, the reason our NB is old white men is because middle class retirees are the only ones who can afford to be a Wing CC.

Think about it: you need to attend two board meetings per year, plus the Wing/Region CC Course once, plus the weekly teleconferences with the CAP/CC, plus tend to the hundreds (if not thousands) of E-mails and dozens of phone calls you'll get every month.

And that's just your responsibility to the upper echelons, it doesn't even factor in building a Wing staff, attending conferences and other local activities, overseeing the operations of the Wing, fighting with the Region for A/C and vehicle assets, etc.

Wing Commanders tend to be older because they're the people with the time on their hands.  They're predominantly white and male because that was the primary demographic in the professional/managerial roles amongst Baby Boomers.

Where you need to look are to the Group Commanders (for Wings that have them) and the "Director of X" personnel at the Wing level.  Those are the people next in line for corporate officer roles.  And I think you'll find that they're a more diverse group.  At least, they are in my Wing.  Then again, New York is a diverse population; we're obviously going to have more minorities in leadership positions than, say, Nebraska.

[Star-Maker]

I'm surprised that people are so strongly against this.  It could be done well or badly, IMO.

What would be wrong with, for instance, improving recruitment efforts among demographics that are underrepresented in CAP?  Maybe this committee can figure out whether there's reasons that these groups are underrepresented that are nobody's fault, but accidents of history that could be fixed (e.g. CAP mostly being advertised by word of mouth in a relatively segregated city).

One potential area that I would think this committee could look into, is socioeconomic diversity.  It costs a lot to actively participate in CAP, at least the ES stuff I've done.  Maybe there are ways to alleviate that.

Personally, I would love to see more women join.  Maybe this is a local thing, but when I go to senior-side squadron meetings, I am the only woman there 90% of the time (the other 10% of the time our Legal Officer is there).  I was the only woman in my mission scanner class.  I was the only woman in my ICS-300 class.  I have been the only woman at a SAREX before, and I was the only woman on my recent ELT-hunting mission.  I'm not sure I've been to a CAP function that was more than 25% women.  Maybe there is no reason that women aren't joining.  But maybe there is one!  And if it turns out to be a legitimate problem or misunderstanding or lack of knowledge that could be fixed, it might increase the size of our talent pool.

Lack of diversity can be self-perpetuating.  A prospective member of [group] looks around and sees very few members of [group] in the local squadrons.  The prospective member starts to wonder if there's something about the organization that drives members of [group] away.  S/he doesn't know that there's anything wrong, and hasn't seen anything wrong in the meetings that s/he has checked out, but s/he perceives an increased risk that something is wrong.  And, since s/he is going to be investing a lot of time, money, and energy in this, maybe s/he decides to find a different service organization where there's not this potential risk.

I largely agree with jimmydeano's post.  Also, I turn up in most of the "underrepresented" classes that he mentions or implies, including INFP. 

[FW]

Being against "diversity" is like being against "safety".   Having a committee to figure out ways to improve our gene pool is a good idea HOWEVER, if it is a front for some political goal, I think it would be a great disservice to CAP and it's members. 

BTW; has anyone read "CAP Insights" on the subject?

Ok, so now I'll shut up....