Just wanted to verify that the Col Mary Feik flight scholarship is only for female cadets?
No mention of it here:
http://www.capmembers.com/cadet_programs/?introducing_the_col_mary_feik_cadet_flight_scholarship&show=entry&blogID=1438 (http://www.capmembers.com/cadet_programs/?introducing_the_col_mary_feik_cadet_flight_scholarship&show=entry&blogID=1438)
But it's in capital letters here:
http://www.capmembers.com/cadet_programs/library/scholarships/flight-scholarships/ (http://www.capmembers.com/cadet_programs/library/scholarships/flight-scholarships/)
Interesting. Is there a comparable program for only male cadets? Or blonde cadets? Or left handed cadets? Seems rather exclusionary.
Yes, female cadets only. At TLC several years ago I heard some statistics that the population of new student pilots is somewhere around 50/50 male/female (a little more male, but not much). However, the population of new actual pilots is something like 85/15 male/female. I believe this scholarship is intended to try and correct that.
Quote from: jeders on January 05, 2016, 04:18:52 PM
Yes, female cadets only. At TLC several years ago I heard some statistics that the population of new student pilots is somewhere around 50/50 male/female (a little more male, but not much). However, the population of new actual pilots is something like 85/15 male/female. I believe this scholarship is intended to try and correct that.
Then there should probably be scholarships set aside for other underrepresented populations as well.
Quote from: THRAWN on January 05, 2016, 04:31:56 PM
Quote from: jeders on January 05, 2016, 04:18:52 PM
Yes, female cadets only. At TLC several years ago I heard some statistics that the population of new student pilots is somewhere around 50/50 male/female (a little more male, but not much). However, the population of new actual pilots is something like 85/15 male/female. I believe this scholarship is intended to try and correct that.
Then there should probably be scholarships set aside for other underrepresented populations as well.
Probably; but just because there aren't, doesn't mean that we shouldn't have one for this underrepresented group.
Quote from: THRAWN on January 05, 2016, 04:14:58 PM
Interesting. Is there a comparable program for only male cadets? Or blonde cadets? Or left handed cadets? Seems rather exclusionary.
Most likely the restrictions were imposed by the donor(s). CAP has never self restricted funds for scholarships based on anything other than merit.
What's the ratio of male to female cadets that are eligible to apply? When I was in glider/power I can only remember 2 or 3 females in our class...not sure if that's because of financial reasons, a lack of interest, or if that's just the ratio of males to females.
Are there any other well known avenues for paying for the National Powered Flight Academy for a 16 year old male in the NCO ranks, scholarships etc?
Quote from: jeders on January 05, 2016, 04:49:33 PM
Quote from: THRAWN on January 05, 2016, 04:31:56 PM
Quote from: jeders on January 05, 2016, 04:18:52 PM
Yes, female cadets only. At TLC several years ago I heard some statistics that the population of new student pilots is somewhere around 50/50 male/female (a little more male, but not much). However, the population of new actual pilots is something like 85/15 male/female. I believe this scholarship is intended to try and correct that.
Then there should probably be scholarships set aside for other underrepresented populations as well.
Probably; but just because there aren't, doesn't mean that we shouldn't have one for this underrepresented group.
Sure it does. Favoritism, actual or perceived, shouldn't be sanctioned by the organization. Want to offer scholarships? Great. Want to offer scholarships to only one group? Not fine.
Quote from: FW on January 05, 2016, 04:53:28 PM
Quote from: THRAWN on January 05, 2016, 04:14:58 PM
Interesting. Is there a comparable program for only male cadets? Or blonde cadets? Or left handed cadets? Seems rather exclusionary.
Most likely the restrictions were imposed by the donor(s). CAP has never self restricted funds for scholarships based on anything other than merit.
Then the donation should have been returned with a polite note explaining that merit, not gender, is the deciding factor in this organization.
How about just removing the restrictions on the general scholarship? Or have it at least equal to the Feik? Make them both require C/SSgt or higher. As it stands the females only need to be C/SSgt while the other general scholarship requires the Mitchell.
Let's open it up to SMs while we are at it.
8)
On a serious note:
The idea that we must create a scholarship for every under-represented group instead of just one seems a bit overboard.
Quote from: xray328 on January 05, 2016, 05:12:08 PM
How about just removing the restrictions on the general scholarship? Or have it at least equal to the Feik? Make them both require C/SSgt or higher. As it stands the females only need to be C/SSgt while the other general scholarship requires the Mitchell.
You mean leveling the playing field? Kind of sounds like that's the way that it should be...
Quote from: Starfleet Auxiliary on January 05, 2016, 05:13:13 PM
Let's open it up to SMs while we are at it.
8)
Why? It's a cadet scholarship.
Quote from: THRAWN on January 05, 2016, 05:15:10 PM
Quote from: Starfleet Auxiliary on January 05, 2016, 05:13:13 PM
Let's open it up to SMs while we are at it.
8)
Why? It's a cadet scholarship.
It's also a female scholarship. Are you saying we can't correct for just gender, but age is a bridge too far?
Exactly. Females can be funded through the generosity of the Col Mary Feik until that is depleted, then any additional females and all male cadets get funded from the general scholarship.
I don't understand why females only need to be C/SSgt. I get why you wouldn't want to just hand over money to new cadets but I think the Wright Brothers should be proof enough that these cadets are serious about the program. Only 25% or so achieve it.
Quote from: Starfleet Auxiliary on January 05, 2016, 05:15:59 PM
Quote from: THRAWN on January 05, 2016, 05:15:10 PM
Quote from: Starfleet Auxiliary on January 05, 2016, 05:13:13 PM
Let's open it up to SMs while we are at it.
8)
Why? It's a cadet scholarship.
It's also a female scholarship. Are you saying we can't correct for just gender, but age is a bridge too far?
There are (maybe were) scholarships of this type for SMs. If this is a female scholarship, where is the male scholarship? Or black scholarship? Or Polish scholarship? Having a cadet only scholarship is not exclusionary. Having a female scholarship is.
Quote from: xray328 on January 05, 2016, 05:16:33 PM
Exactly. Females can be funded through the generosity of the Col Mary Feik until that is depleted, then any additional females and all male cadets get funded from the general scholarship.
I don't understand why females only need to be C/SSgt. I get why you wouldn't want to just hand over money to new cadets but I think the Wright Brothers should be proof enough that these cadets are serious about the program. Only 25% or so achieve it.
The minimum should be Mitchell. Earn scholarships. No value in setting the bar low...
Quote from: THRAWN on January 05, 2016, 05:21:47 PM
Quote from: xray328 on January 05, 2016, 05:16:33 PM
Exactly. Females can be funded through the generosity of the Col Mary Feik until that is depleted, then any additional females and all male cadets get funded from the general scholarship.
I don't understand why females only need to be C/SSgt. I get why you wouldn't want to just hand over money to new cadets but I think the Wright Brothers should be proof enough that these cadets are serious about the program. Only 25% or so achieve it.
The minimum should be Mitchell. Earn scholarships. No value in setting the bar low...
I have no issue with that, but it shouldn't be set low for one gender and higher for the other.
I'm not looking to fight an uphill battle here though. Does anyone know of any other flight scholarships? My son is 16, currently a C/SSgt, just graduated from the NCO Leadership Academy and would like to fly at an NSCA next summer. Looks like the NER is the only one that will work based on his available dates. He's #1 in his class with a 4.75 GPA if that helps (maybe an academic scholarship?)
Xray, PM'd ya.
Here is a list of the CAP flight scholarships (and one publicized by CAP from the spaatz association): http://www.capmembers.com/cadet_programs/library/scholarships/flight-scholarships/ (http://www.capmembers.com/cadet_programs/library/scholarships/flight-scholarships/)
Thank you both
Quote from: THRAWN on January 05, 2016, 05:20:06 PM
Quote from: Starfleet Auxiliary on January 05, 2016, 05:15:59 PM
Quote from: THRAWN on January 05, 2016, 05:15:10 PM
Quote from: Starfleet Auxiliary on January 05, 2016, 05:13:13 PM
Let's open it up to SMs while we are at it.
8)
Why? It's a cadet scholarship.
It's also a female scholarship. Are you saying we can't correct for just gender, but age is a bridge too far?
There are (maybe were) scholarships of this type for SMs. If this is a female scholarship, where is the male scholarship? Or black scholarship? Or Polish scholarship? Having a cadet only scholarship is not exclusionary. Having a female scholarship is.
There are scholarships for everyone. It just so happens that the one being discussed here is just for females. There is nothing preventing you or anyone else from scraping together money to help other underrepresented groups increase diversity in flight. Because that is the point, to increase diversity in flight.
I've been to several HS graduations over the years, and have seen many targeted scholarships given out, primarily for students pursuing degrees in specific programs - journalism, STEM, medicine, you name it. I also belong to another organization with a scholarship program that also uses similar criteria. Some are even based on where you live.
AFAIK, there are no rules or laws preventing a donor from targeting his donation.
Quote from: THRAWN on January 05, 2016, 05:20:06 PM
...
If this is a female scholarship, where is the male scholarship? Or black scholarship? Or Polish scholarship? Having a cadet only scholarship is not exclusionary. Having a female scholarship is.
Careful THRAWN... Saying things like that out loud is bound to draw the ire of the lefty crowd and get you kicked out of PC-Unicorns-and-Rainbows Land...
It's certainly an interesting issue. I hope that this discussion generates interest and that a lot of our cadets apply for this terrific opportunity for flight training.
There is no stronger advocate for gender equality in CP than I. And I have been fighting this battle (among others) for decades as we improve the CP.
That said, CAP has a long and colorful history of gender differences. WIWAC, we actually had region and national special activities entitled "Stewardess Orientation Course." I was not eligible to apply based solely on my gender. :'(
Of course, we also had Jet Orientation Course where cadets were actually able to fly in then-current jet trainers. Male cadets only, however. Female cadets had to be content with the "Jet Age Orientation Course," which had no flying, but a lot of career orientation.
Similarly, IACE historically has distinguished between male and female cadets (and escorts) depending on the requirements of the host country. The female slots were always more competitive.
I suspect we all realize that this is now the 21st Century and all, and most of that is behind us. But in this case, a donor wanted to create a flight scholarship in honor of Mary Feik, and given how under represented women are as cadets and pilots, restricted the funds to female cadets only. Restated, these are not appropriated funds or corporate funds, but a purely private donation by an incredibly generous person.
I suppose we could have refused the money and left our cadets with that much less opportunity for flight training. I suspect some of you feel we should have. Perhaps those of you who feel that way would like to match the gift so we can make additional training available to male cadets (who already get something like 80% of the flight scholarship money.)
Please send your generous donations to:
Dr. James E. Dotherow
Director of Development
Phone: 334-953-7748, Ext. 225
Fax: 334-953-5296
Email: jdotherow@capnhq.gov
105 S Hansell Street Bldg. 714
Maxwell, AFB, AL 36112-6332
Or go directly to our development landing page (http://civilairpatrol.mylegacygift.org/) and make a Paypal donation.
I look forward to your help in providing additional flight training scholarships to our cadets.
Ned Lee
National Cadet Programs Manager
This is an interesting topic. The intent of the scholarship is praiseworthy in that it addresses a historically imbalanced training segment, yet... this isn't allowed under current policy. I'd frankly not noticed that scholarship provision before, and to me, it pretty clearly violates the EEO intent of CAPR 36-1. 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:
http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/R036_001_D6D80CB431788.pdf (http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/R036_001_D6D80CB431788.pdf)
CAPR 36-1 13 DECEMBER 2012
NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS CIVIL AIR PATROL
CAP REGULATION 36-1
13 DECEMBER 2012
Nondiscrimination
CIVIL AIR PATROL NONDISCRIMINATION PROGRAM
2. 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).
http://www.capmembers.com/cadet_programs/library/scholarships/flight-scholarships/ (http://www.capmembers.com/cadet_programs/library/scholarships/flight-scholarships/)
"COL MARY FEIK CADET FLIGHT SCHOLARSHIP
Due To the generosity of our CAP membership, CAP is able to offer flight scholarships to help cadets attain a private pilot's license.
Special Eligibility Requirements
1. Must be a current FEMALE CAP cadet".
This discriminatory stipulation was not posted in the original announcement last year, so I wonder why it was only added this year:
http://www.capmembers.com/cadet_programs/?introducing_the_col_mary_feik_cadet_flight_scholarship&show=entry&blogID=1438 (http://www.capmembers.com/cadet_programs/?introducing_the_col_mary_feik_cadet_flight_scholarship&show=entry&blogID=1438)
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.
By my reading of this clearly stated policy of record, no, CAP should not ever accepted funds. regardless of the source, with such stipulations if we want to maintain our integrity. I do hope that NHQ will be contacting the sponsors to discuss a change, as we move to put ALL sex related discrimination behind us on the dustbin of history, and select applicants based on their abilities and on the content of their character, as Dr. King aptly phrased it.
V/R,
Spam
Quote from: xray328 on January 05, 2016, 04:57:19 PM
What's the ratio of male to female cadets that are eligible to apply? When I was in glider/power I can only remember 2 or 3 females in our class...not sure if that's because of financial reasons, a lack of interest, or if that's just the ratio of males to females.
Are there any other well known avenues for paying for the National Powered Flight Academy for a 16 year old male in the NCO ranks, scholarships etc?
Have they changed the requirements for the Powered Flight Academy? When I was a cadet you had to have you Mitchell to even apply, but I aged out of being able to attend (18) before I got my Mitchell (started CAP very late).
Cadet Requirements:
Age 16 by activity start date
Must have encampment credit when you apply
Additionally:
Cadets that have earned the Wright Brothers Award are encouraged to apply for the Col Mary Feik Flight Scholarship to help pay for this activity!
Seems like that should state:
Female cadets that have earned the Wright Brothers Award are encouraged to apply for the Col Mary Feik Flight Scholarship to help pay for this activity!
The kicker here is that my 13 year old daughter (C/SSgt) is starting her glider training locally in the spring and doesn't qualify at all.
Ned explains things clearly. CAP is, most likely, not providing (they are administering it) the scholarship. That is being done thru the "CAP Foundation", which is a separate 501C-3 non profit Corp. Dr. D is the Executive officer. The Donor has every right to limit the recipients. CAP is not "breaking" any regulation. Public Institutions throughout the country grant scholarships to "special" groups all the time. There are even scholarships for lefties...
We have a capable COO, CFO, and Corporate Legal Counsel which goes over this "stuff" on a regular basis. If you wish, give their office a call. I'm sure they would be happy to explain things further, LOL. Even, better, give Dr. D a call. I'm sure he'll be delighted to explain things; just make sure you have your credit card available. >:D
Quote from: xray328 on January 06, 2016, 12:45:33 PM
Cadets that have earned the Wright Brothers Award are encouraged to apply for the Col Mary Feik Flight Scholarship to help pay for this activity!
Seems like that should state:
Female cadets that have earned the Wright Brothers Award are encouraged to apply for the Col Mary Feik Flight Scholarship to help pay for this activity!
I had an irate parent point this out to me last night. I hope that Ned sees this and passes this on to the appropriate NHQ staffer.
Quote from: xray328 on January 05, 2016, 05:25:10 PM
Does anyone know of any other flight scholarships? My son is 16, currently a C/SSgt, just graduated from the NCO Leadership Academy and would like to fly at an NSCA next summer.
For a second there I thought you were genuinely concerned with the equality of all our cadet members. >:D
::)
My whole reason for posting this was just to see if the Mary Feik was in fact only available for female cadets because if that was so we'd have to look at other avenues for funding the activity. Period.
There have been some very good points brought up here though. If the donor wants this money to go to females only, fine. My only issue is that I think the bar needs to be raised to the same requirements as the male cadets, they need to of earned the Mitchell (or lower the bar for the males). The requirements need to be equal. The inference is that female cadets don't need to work as hard as the males do to get an equal benefit.
The inference I got was that the scholarship was the "Mary Feik" And was fittingly tied in to the "Feik Award" completion. I see no problem with targeting young women to receive the benefits or that the requirements are different from those that are provided by CAP (different pot of money). To paraphrase Col Lee -If you want males to get the same rules. Put your money where your mouth is.
But it's not. The Mary Feik is for C/SrA. The scholarship is for C/SSgt (Wright Bros).
As to the rest, I see so much wrong with that on so many levels.
Well, xray, at the least, it does gets females used to having the bar lowered for them throughout a career in the military and in aviation... is that an intended outcome, I wonder?
(bit of sarcasm there, sorry; I was involved with the Kara Hultgreen MIB... and had hoped we were growing out of this organizational behavior).
V/R,
Spam
Quote from: Spam on January 06, 2016, 03:49:12 PM
Well, xray, at the least, it does gets females used to having the bar lowered for them throughout a career in the military and in aviation... is that an intended outcome, I wonder?
(bit of sarcasm there, sorry; I was involved with the Kara Hultgreen MIB... and had hoped we were growing out of this organizational behavior).
V/R,
Spam
It's not sarcasm if it is true. This is the lesson that is being taken away from this. I'm floored that the organization that brought the names Willa Brown, Nanette Spears and Louisa Spruance Morse into aviation history would "administer" something like this. Don't get me wrong, I think that scholarships for cadets are great things. If the organization is going to give its endorsement, explicit or perceived, it should be to programs that are color and gender blind. This does not attract women to aviation. It just clearly demonstrates to them that the only way that they will be able to compete is with a set of loaded dice. Maybe CAP could advertise this, along side of other scholarships, and leave the administration to the donors themselves.
Quote from: THRAWN on January 06, 2016, 04:34:42 PM
Quote from: Spam on January 06, 2016, 03:49:12 PM
Well, xray, at the least, it does gets females used to having the bar lowered for them throughout a career in the military and in aviation... is that an intended outcome, I wonder?
(bit of sarcasm there, sorry; I was involved with the Kara Hultgreen MIB... and had hoped we were growing out of this organizational behavior).
V/R,
Spam
It's not sarcasm if it is true. This is the lesson that is being taken away from this. I'm floored that the organization that brought the names Willa Brown, Nanette Spears and Louisa Spruance Morse into aviation history would "administer" something like this. Don't get me wrong, I think that scholarships for cadets are great things. If the organization is going to give its endorsement, explicit or perceived, it should be to programs that are color and gender blind. This does not attract women to aviation. It just clearly demonstrates to them that the only way that they will be able to compete is with a set of loaded dice. Maybe CAP could advertise this, along side of other scholarships, and leave the administration to the donors themselves.
Whether it is true or not is debatable. Regardless of personal opinion, which I am not saying I agree or disagree with some of the points made here, is arguing about this particular topic on CAPTalk really going to make any difference? Is anyone from NHQ or the Foundation really going to say, "hey, they (CAPTalk) make some good points so we are going to change this"? Doubt it. The only way to properly address personal issues regarding this topic is through the Chain of Command or direct with NHQ.
Sure some changes, particularly in the CP realm, were the result of CAPTalk, but I doubt any change to this program is going to happen through CAPTalk discussions.
Think about it this way:
If X females get the Feik Scholarship, then X males have a higher chance at the regular flight scholarships.
Quote from: Spam on January 06, 2016, 02:59:14 AM
. 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 (http://www.capmembers.com/index.cfm)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
Col, the bar has still been lowered for the female cadets (requiring only the wright brothers)As the father of a female cadet I don't want her to feel that she is in any way inferior to the male cadets, especially in an intellectual way. Can you suggest how I explain this to her?
(All, please don't look into any hidden meaning. This is an honest question that I would appreciate the groups help with.)
Quote from: xray328 on January 06, 2016, 05:42:37 PM
Col, the bar has still been lowered for the female cadets (requiring only the wright brothers)As the father of a female cadet I don't want her to feel that she is in any way inferior to the male cadets, especially in an intellectual way. Can you suggest how I explain this to her?
(All, please don't look into any hidden meaning. This is an honest question they I would appreciate the groups help with.)
This is a great question. Especially in light of all that's going on within the DoD. Combine that with the fact that there are 2 women running for President, are running corporations, etc...I'd give my input my since I haven't started my own scholarship fund or filed and IG complaint, I really don't have the right to speak up.
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on January 06, 2016, 04:58:42 PM
Think about it this way:
If X females get the Feik Scholarship, then X males have a higher chance at the regular flight scholarships.
If the requirements for X females = X males
This has turned more into not lowering the bar for the females in the hopes of raising a female cadet that believes she is equal to males in the eye of aviation, CAP, and the military.
Goes along with the reason why female cadets shouldn't wear party gowns to the ball.
Seems timely:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/family-fighting-female-world-war-ii-pilots-laid/story?id=36101302
Quote from: xray328 on January 06, 2016, 05:42:37 PM
Col, the bar has still been lowered for the female cadets (requiring only the wright brothers)As the father of a female cadet I don't want her to feel that she is in any way inferior to the male cadets, especially in an intellectual way. Can you suggest how I explain this to her?
By coincidence, I am also the father of a female cadet. Well, former cadet.
I'm not sure, however, that I agree with your premise. The great majority of our flight scholarships will be awarded to cadets (male and female) who have earned the Mitchell award under the rules that have been in place for a while. Restated, since most female cadets will apply for and receive scholarships under the traditional program, I can't really agree that the "bar has been lowered."
In this instance, a particular generous donor came forward and offered scholarships, but to honor Mary Feik, asked that they be offered to female cadets and that we cast the net a bit more broadly to make more cadets eligible. Thus the 15 year vs 16 year criteria, and the Wright vs Mitchell. It was, and is, a generous, praiseworthy gift of flight for our cadets.
If my daughter were to ask me about this, I would encourage her to apply for any scholarships that she is eligible for.
(We actually did have a small family fight when she declined to apply for an CAP academic scholarship. Her reasoning was that it was a significant amount of work (the application) that would not measurably benefit her since I was paying for her school already. Grrr. Should have offered to split it with her. Lesson Learned.)
If you or your daughter are not comfortable applying for the Feik Scholarship, then she should not apply for it. She is welcome to compete with all other male and female cadets in the traditional flight scholarship application. And I sincerely hope she gets the gift of flight from us.
A couple of minor notes:
1. Senior members are indeed eligible to compete for flight scholarships. See the flight scholarship page (http://www.capmembers.com/cadet_programs/library/scholarships/flight-scholarships/)for details.
2. The application deadline for everyone is rapidly approaching -- January 15th!
Ned Lee
National Cadet Program Manager
Thank you sir. In no way do I mean to disrespect the donor or their intention. I am very appreciative of any gift that is bestowed upon the cadets, male or female. And I understand the idea behind this is to get more females flying, I just worry that in doing so we lower that bar and end up with unintended consequences.
Quote from: Ned on January 06, 2016, 05:30:41 PM
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?
...
Of course, I defer to your clearly superior legal background, Ned! Yet, I respectfully disagree that a higher percentage of successful male applicants to a gender neutral standard criteria set equates to an imbalance that needs to be addressed through discriminatory means which are clearly in conflict with our policy. For the main flight scholarships, I would say that the standards seem fair and neutral, regardless of this repeated insistence that males are seemingly getting a better deal because of a higher acceptance rate.
(*Side discussion, there... how can we specifically target underrepresented females and minorities to APPLY and WIN scholarships and to be motivated to pursue STEM/aviation careers - against the exact same criteria as males. I routinely beat that drum teaching at encampment, giving STEM/AE classes, etc. and would be very strongly interested in discussing ways to engineer some curriculum for that, if anyone else would be interested).
Organizations do discriminate routinely based on sensible criteria - safety related or performance based criteria, for example. We discriminate when we down select someone who cant pass a check ride, or an eyesight exam. So, I have to ask, why in 2015/16 are we adding a new discriminatory filter for gender, for race, or for any other category unless there is some compelling reason to go against our stated NON discrimination policy.
Where a given activity (e.g. PJOC, Ground Team work, etc.) imposes a mission-related physical restriction, I believe that we should make every attempt in accordance with the spirit of the federal guidelines to provide reasonable accommodation for the differently abled. See, for example, our comments in this forum this year on disabled cadets attending encampment - where we can, we always should. I've signed off a legally blind GTM in the past, who turned out to be able to physically hack the other aspects of the work, with a ranger buddy assist. We've pursued an IG complaint against an IC who discriminated against females flying or going on sorties on actual SAR missions. In short, we level the field as much as possible.
I can't however see anything "disabled" about being female that requires the unusual step of providing either segregated funding OR entry standards lower than that currently accepted for males.
So, if your perspective is only about the money... I see your point. Grab the cash, fly the cadets, and go get more cash. However, from my perspective, the discriminatory STRINGS linked to the cash DO matter from an ethical and integrity first standpoint, when considering the clearly stated CAP policy. CAP (not the CAP Foundation shell corporation for donations, but CAP) is openly advertising and sponsoring this through administering the scholarship material/links. To imply that there is no conflict with our policy because of some vague insulation from the Foundation (which is nested within us and whose web site is within ours), and to then openly state that we'd happily accept and sponsor further funds which are restricted on the basis of race seems a bit disingenuous.
Will I submit an IG complaint? No, I don't have a dog in the fight, as my cadet dependents aren't applying, so I don't think I meet the criteria to file.
Please don't imply though, Ned, that any of our honest questions about this are targeted efforts of mean ass Grinches that want to deprive women of flight training, though.
I'd hoped that we would in 2016 be shrugging off the special protected classes of all types, and adhering to the level playing field policies which grew out of the civil rights movement. I guess I should grow up.
Thanks for the replies, though. I'm having a similar family discussion with my oldest (male, Mitchell, 4.x GPA) who isn't applying since we cant afford flight training beyond what a CAP flight scholarship would provide, and he doesn't want to start and stop. Grr...
V/R,
Spam
It sounds like we are in substantial agreement on the main points:
1. We should get cadets flying as often as we ethically can.
2. STEM training for our cadets is important, and CAP is rapidly growing our STEM education. Just look at the STEM kits available to units and the CyberPatriot and robotics programs.
A final note: This particular scholarship program is not funded though the CAP Foundation, but by an individual donor. I am a former board member of the Foundation and would agree that it does not normally attach conditions to the funds made available to CAP for academic or flight scholarships.
:clap:
Quote from: Spam on January 06, 2016, 06:46:26 PM
Quote from: Ned on January 06, 2016, 05:30:41 PM
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?
...
Of course, I defer to your clearly superior legal background, Ned! Yet, I respectfully disagree that a higher percentage of successful male applicants to a gender neutral standard criteria set equates to an imbalance that needs to be addressed through discriminatory means which are clearly in conflict with our policy. For the main flight scholarships, I would say that the standards seem fair and neutral, regardless of this repeated insistence that males are seemingly getting a better deal because of a higher acceptance rate.
(*Side discussion, there... how can we specifically target underrepresented females and minorities to APPLY and WIN scholarships and to be motivated to pursue STEM/aviation careers - against the exact same criteria as males. I routinely beat that drum teaching at encampment, giving STEM/AE classes, etc. and would be very strongly interested in discussing ways to engineer some curriculum for that, if anyone else would be interested).
Organizations do discriminate routinely based on sensible criteria - safety related or performance based criteria, for example. We discriminate when we down select someone who cant pass a check ride, or an eyesight exam. So, I have to ask, why in 2015/16 are we adding a new discriminatory filter for gender, for race, or for any other category unless there is some compelling reason to go against our stated NON discrimination policy.
Where a given activity (e.g. PJOC, Ground Team work, etc.) imposes a mission-related physical restriction, I believe that we should make every attempt in accordance with the spirit of the federal guidelines to provide reasonable accommodation for the differently abled. See, for example, our comments in this forum this year on disabled cadets attending encampment - where we can, we always should. I've signed off a legally blind GTM in the past, who turned out to be able to physically hack the other aspects of the work, with a ranger buddy assist. We've pursued an IG complaint against an IC who discriminated against females flying or going on sorties on actual SAR missions. In short, we level the field as much as possible.
I can't however see anything "disabled" about being female that requires the unusual step of providing either segregated funding OR entry standards lower than that currently accepted for males.
So, if your perspective is only about the money... I see your point. Grab the cash, fly the cadets, and go get more cash. However, from my perspective, the discriminatory STRINGS linked to the cash DO matter from an ethical and integrity first standpoint, when considering the clearly stated CAP policy. CAP (not the CAP Foundation shell corporation for donations, but CAP) is openly advertising and sponsoring this through administering the scholarship material/links. To imply that there is no conflict with our policy because of some vague insulation from the Foundation (which is nested within us and whose web site is within ours), and to then openly state that we'd happily accept and sponsor further funds which are restricted on the basis of race seems a bit disingenuous.
Will I submit an IG complaint? No, I don't have a dog in the fight, as my cadet dependents aren't applying, so I don't think I meet the criteria to file. Please don't imply though, Ned, that any of our honest questions about this are targeted efforts of mean ass Grinches that want to deprive women of flight training, though.
I'd hoped that we would in 2016 be shrugging off the special protected classes of all types, and adhering to the level playing field policies which grew out of the civil rights movement. I guess I should grow up.
Thanks for the replies, though. I'm having a similar family discussion with my oldest (male, Mitchell, 4.x GPA) who isn't applying since we cant afford flight training beyond what a CAP flight scholarship would provide, and he doesn't want to start and stop. Grr...
V/R,
Spam
Quote from: Ned on January 06, 2016, 07:04:04 PM
It sounds like we are in substantial agreement on the main points:
1. We should get cadets flying as often as we ethically can.
2. STEM training for our cadets is important, and CAP is rapidly growing our STEM education. Just look at the STEM kits available to units and the CyberPatriot and robotics programs.
A final note: This particular scholarship program is not funded though the CAP Foundation, but by an individual donor. I am a former board member of the Foundation and would agree that it does not normally attach conditions to the funds made available to CAP for academic or flight scholarships.
Yes, I think we are in substantial agreement on the fundamentals, sir. I'm serious about the interest in working up a module on underrepresented groups in aerospace; I posted a suggestion on this to the Cadet Blog last year, suggesting an AE module called "The Changing Face of Aerospace", pointing out career paths and opportunities for all cadets, regardless of background or sex.
Glad to head about the Foundations approach. I would then doubly hope that as this is a directly hosted scholarship,
the no males need apply restriction this year would be lifted in the interest of fair access, in accordance with the stated CAP policy.
Curious me... towards the long term goal, do we have figures on male/female application numbers vs. acceptance rates for scholarships? If we have a preponderance of male awardees by application with similar rates, that would indicate a valid target for education and training to increase interest and applications for underrepresented cadets. If the acceptance RATE is unequal, that should bear some further scrutiny, if you follow my line... We should look at the metrics for why are females not applying, vs. not being accepted, in short, in an effort to improve their case via other than discriminatory means or via lowered standards.
Cheers
Spam
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/ (http://www.capmembers.com/cadet_programs/library/scholarships/other-scholarship-opportunities/)
Quote from: xray328 on January 06, 2016, 05:42:37 PM
Col, the bar has still been lowered for the female cadets (requiring only the wright brothers)As the father of a female cadet I don't want her to feel that she is in any way inferior to the male cadets, especially in an intellectual way. Can you suggest how I explain this to her?
xray, as the father of a female cadet myself, if my daughter were to ever ask I would explain it this way. Life is inherently unfair. There is not one thing in the world of nature nor of man that is completely fair, and that's ok. Throughout history, females have been at a disadvantage to males in the world of aviation. While this is being corrected in many places, it's still not completely fair. Now your gender is allowing you an advantage which will better level the playing field and you had better take advantage of it while you can; because if you don't, someone else will.
Quote from: xray328 on January 05, 2016, 04:08:15 PM
Just wanted to verify that the Col Mary Feik flight scholarship is only for female cadets?
No mention of it here:
http://www.capmembers.com/cadet_programs/?introducing_the_col_mary_feik_cadet_flight_scholarship&show=entry&blogID=1438 (http://www.capmembers.com/cadet_programs/?introducing_the_col_mary_feik_cadet_flight_scholarship&show=entry&blogID=1438)
But it's in capital letters here:
http://www.capmembers.com/cadet_programs/library/scholarships/flight-scholarships/ (http://www.capmembers.com/cadet_programs/library/scholarships/flight-scholarships/)
My state has a majority of members of the appellate courts who are female, the majority of students in law school are female, the immediate past governor was female, the member of the US House from my (very conservative!) congressional district is female, both US senators are female, the CEOs of an increasing number of medium and small corporations are female, the heads of many State and Federal agencies are female, female test scores are increasingly outstripping those of male high school students in my community.
I know of several young men unable to find jobs because they lack certain skills... and not because of trying.
Does CAP really need advertise a blatantly discriminatory scholarship that is based on the premise that females only need apply? Imagine the reverse? No wait! I know of several organizations that are in the dust bin of history because they wished to limit their membership to only men. How is a female only scholarship fundamentally different from those organizations that were found to be discriminatory and in violation of law???
IMHO, it is inappropriate and contrary to CAP's non-discriminatory policy to use any CAP resources to advertise this scholarship.
Quote from: Ned on January 06, 2016, 05:30:41 PM
Quote from: Spam on January 06, 2016, 02:59:14 AM
. 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.
I'm a legal kind of guy and I'm not seeing it.
Col Lee, pardon me if I'm not understanding you correctly here, but as "a legal kind of guy," you're "not seeing" discrimination with the Feik scholarship? I freely admit I am not "a legal kind of guy," but I know the definition of the English word "discriminate."
Quote
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.
Actually, according to the results of a search for "cadet demographics" on CAP's national website (and for those of you "cite!" types: http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/F2_Electronic_Almanac_E15E6CAA25AA1.pdf (http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/F2_Electronic_Almanac_E15E6CAA25AA1.pdf), slide 3), we
are doing at least a semi-decent job of discriminating against male cadets. CAP's own statistic says that 82% of cadets are males. I understand you qualified your statement with, "something like," but you're an honorable man and I'll take you at your honorable word: If males are 82% of the cadets yet they're only getting 80% of the flight scholarhips... well, I think reasonable minds can all agree on how those dots connect and who is
factually over-/under-represented with flight scholarship awards... But please correct my math if I'm off track here.
Quote
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.
As to Spam's "intended-to-be-provocative race question," of course it was intended to be provocative; he wanted to provoke an answer--one which you completely dodged. I have absolutely no doubt that if the donors you suggested offered flight scholarship money, with the provision that only cadets of their race receive it, that CAP would take the money... But that wasn't the question, and you know it. If you are the "straight shooter" people here believe you to be, please acknowledge here, in this forum, that we all know there are
some groups who are encouraged to discriminate in favor of their own and
others who are prohibited. We can leave the "who's" and "why's" for a different discussion.
Further, when you talk of these under-represented groups, "Cadets who would otherwise not get any funding," are you implying that these under-represented groups are not getting a fair shake when applying for the CAP scholarships which are open to all cadets? If so, I'd say your shop has some immediate work to do in removing that illegal discrimination from CAP practices.
Quote
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.) [Emphasis mine.]
Wow. Just wow. Did the National Cadet Program Manager and a Superior Court
judge just tell a fellow officer that if his gender-discrimination IG complaint were substantiated (i.e., "successful") that
he--the officer who pointed out to the IG, and was responsible for the righting of, an IG-substantiated
injustice due to gender discrimination--
he would be the one "depriving ... cadets of flight training"? Not the organization, which had been found by its own IG to be improperly discriminating against a protected group and had to rectify their policy? I'm certainly no great legal mind by any stretch, but I'm having a very hard time reconciling that statment by an officer on the National staff with our organization's core values...
I assure you that I am second to no one in my desire to see CAP fund the flying of as many cadets of
every demographic as is possible, but the language I'm reading in that last quoted passage seriously shakes my faith in the ethics of an organization that, by policy, prohibits the very discrimination it is "administering."
YMMV.
Quote from: jeders on January 06, 2016, 10:06:53 PM
Quote from: xray328 on January 06, 2016, 05:42:37 PM
Col, the bar has still been lowered for the female cadets (requiring only the wright brothers)As the father of a female cadet I don't want her to feel that she is in any way inferior to the male cadets, especially in an intellectual way. Can you suggest how I explain this to her?
xray, as the father of a female cadet myself, if my daughter were to ever ask I would explain it this way. Life is inherently unfair. There is not one thing in the world of nature nor of man that is completely fair, and that's ok. Throughout history, females have been at a disadvantage to males in the world of aviation. While this is being corrected in many places, it's still not completely fair. Now your gender is allowing you an advantage which will better level the playing field and you had better take advantage of it while you can; because if you don't, someone else will.
I feel like that would reinforce the idea that she is somehow weaker. As in "society is making things easier for you now." I want to encourage her to work harder to fight that stereotype.
I think my best option is to have her apply only once she gets her Mitchell so she's earned it the same as everyone else. The world isn't going to go easy on her because she's a girl, in fact it will be just the opposite.
To repeat, since no one responded the first time:
I've been to several HS graduations over the years, and have seen many targeted scholarships given out, primarily for students pursuing degrees in specific programs - journalism, STEM, medicine, you name it. I also belong to another organization with a scholarship program that also uses similar criteria. Some are even based on where you live.
AFAIK, there are no rules or laws preventing a donor from targeting his donation.
Quote from: xray328 on January 06, 2016, 10:17:17 PM
Quote from: jeders on January 06, 2016, 10:06:53 PM
Quote from: xray328 on January 06, 2016, 05:42:37 PM
Col, the bar has still been lowered for the female cadets (requiring only the wright brothers)As the father of a female cadet I don't want her to feel that she is in any way inferior to the male cadets, especially in an intellectual way. Can you suggest how I explain this to her?
xray, as the father of a female cadet myself, if my daughter were to ever ask I would explain it this way. Life is inherently unfair. There is not one thing in the world of nature nor of man that is completely fair, and that's ok. Throughout history, females have been at a disadvantage to males in the world of aviation. While this is being corrected in many places, it's still not completely fair. Now your gender is allowing you an advantage which will better level the playing field and you had better take advantage of it while you can; because if you don't, someone else will.
I feel like that would reinforce the idea that she is somehow weaker. As in "society is making things easier for you now." I want to encourage her to work harder to fight that stereotype.
I think my best option is to have her apply only once she gets her Mitchell so she's earned it the same as everyone else. The world isn't going to go easy on her because she's a girl, in fact it will be just the opposite.
Emphasis mine. If society wants to make it easier, than let it. Now if you want to needlessly make life harder for her, that is your choice; but it is NOT a good life lesson. People who are successful in life take advantage of what life hands them.
Quote from: SarDragon on January 06, 2016, 11:01:00 PM
To repeat, since no one responded the first time:
I've been to several HS graduations over the years, and have seen many targeted scholarships given out, primarily for students pursuing degrees in specific programs - journalism, STEM, medicine, you name it. I also belong to another organization with a scholarship program that also uses similar criteria. Some are even based on where you live.
AFAIK, there are no rules or laws preventing a donor from targeting his donation.
Sorry, I didn't respond because I agreed with what you said, there is nothing wrong here. And to add to this, there are targeted opportunities because life is not fair. Take advantage of every opportunity that you can and make the best of every situation. If someone wants to make things a little easier for you, don't be thick-headed and pass it up.
Quote from: SarDragon on January 06, 2016, 11:01:00 PM
To repeat, since no one responded the first time:
I've been to several HS graduations over the years, and have seen many targeted scholarships given out, primarily for students pursuing degrees in specific programs - journalism, STEM, medicine, you name it. I also belong to another organization with a scholarship program that also uses similar criteria. Some are even based on where you live.
AFAIK, there are no rules or laws preventing a donor from targeting his donation.
And if the donor wants to target their donation, they should administer their own program. The issue is that it looks like CAP is endorsing a program that is designed to apply only to female cadets. That's not inclusive by any definition.
Quote from: jeders on January 06, 2016, 11:37:30 PM
Quote from: xray328 on January 06, 2016, 10:17:17 PM
Quote from: jeders on January 06, 2016, 10:06:53 PM
Quote from: xray328 on January 06, 2016, 05:42:37 PM
Col, the bar has still been lowered for the female cadets (requiring only the wright brothers)As the father of a female cadet I don't want her to feel that she is in any way inferior to the male cadets, especially in an intellectual way. Can you suggest how I explain this to her?
xray, as the father of a female cadet myself, if my daughter were to ever ask I would explain it this way. Life is inherently unfair. There is not one thing in the world of nature nor of man that is completely fair, and that's ok. Throughout history, females have been at a disadvantage to males in the world of aviation. While this is being corrected in many places, it's still not completely fair. Now your gender is allowing you an advantage which will better level the playing field and you had better take advantage of it while you can; because if you don't, someone else will.
I feel like that would reinforce the idea that she is somehow weaker. As in "society is making things easier for you now." I want to encourage her to work harder to fight that stereotype.
I think my best option is to have her apply only once she gets her Mitchell so she's earned it the same as everyone else. The world isn't going to go easy on her because she's a girl, in fact it will be just the opposite.
Emphasis mine. If society wants to make it easier, than let it. Now if you want to needlessly make life harder for her, that is your choice; but it is NOT a good life lesson. People who are successful in life take advantage of what life hands them.
Quote from: SarDragon on January 06, 2016, 11:01:00 PM
To repeat, since no one responded the first time:
I've been to several HS graduations over the years, and have seen many targeted scholarships given out, primarily for students pursuing degrees in specific programs - journalism, STEM, medicine, you name it. I also belong to another organization with a scholarship program that also uses similar criteria. Some are even based on where you live.
AFAIK, there are no rules or laws preventing a donor from targeting his donation.
Sorry, I didn't respond because I agreed with what you said, there is nothing wrong here. And to add to this, there are targeted opportunities because life is not fair. Take advantage of every opportunity that you can and make the best of every situation. If someone wants to make things a little easier for you, don't be thick-headed and pass it up.
So you're all for lowered standards of performance for females in this case?
Quote from: THRAWN on January 06, 2016, 11:38:08 PM
Quote from: SarDragon on January 06, 2016, 11:01:00 PM
To repeat, since no one responded the first time:
I've been to several HS graduations over the years, and have seen many targeted scholarships given out, primarily for students pursuing degrees in specific programs - journalism, STEM, medicine, you name it. I also belong to another organization with a scholarship program that also uses similar criteria. Some are even based on where you live.
AFAIK, there are no rules or laws preventing a donor from targeting his donation.
And if the donor wants to target their donation, they should administer their own program. The issue is that it looks like CAP is endorsing a program that is designed to apply only to female cadets. That's not inclusive by any definition.
CAP just stuffed it under their umbrella, just like the other folks I mentioned stuffed donations under theirs. If you fit a specific demographic, you get a potential benefit.
Then maybe CAP should pay more attention to what they are stuffing and where. If they stuffed all of the flight scholarships under the umbrella there would be a list fifty times as long as is presented.
Quote from: THRAWN on January 06, 2016, 11:39:55 PM
So you're all for lowered standards of performance for females in this case?
No, I'm increasing access in a way which doesn't cost CAP a penny. I'm for helping an under-served populace in a way which doesn't make it any harder for anyone else. You seem to want to needlessly restrict access to ensure that females remain an under-served minority in aviation. I hope and am fairly certain that that's not the case, but that is how you come across.
Remember, these scholarships are not just for CAP flight academies. They are for any flight training.
Quote from: jeders on January 06, 2016, 11:57:11 PM
Quote from: THRAWN on January 06, 2016, 11:39:55 PM
So you're all for lowered standards of performance for females in this case?
No, I'm increasing access in a way which doesn't cost CAP a penny. I'm for helping an under-served populace in a way which doesn't make it any harder for anyone else. You seem to want to needlessly restrict access to ensure that females remain an under-served minority in aviation. I hope and am fairly certain that that's not the case, but that is how you come across.
Remember, these scholarships are not just for CAP flight academies. They are for any flight training.
Thats an insulting insinuation that you know is not true. It makes no difference what it is used for. Basing qualifications on gender is discriminatory. If it was the opposite, CAP sure as shootin wouldnt be featuring it on their website or admimistering the scholarship.
What I find interesting is that there was no response in CAP's continued support of the Sally Ride Science Festival, which is only open to female students.
Most people jump on the "women are underrepresented in the STEM fields", which is not true any more except for Engineering and Computer Science. Women make up 60% of all bachelor degrees conferred today with nearly 60% of biology BS degrees going to women. They make up 45% of Math and Physical Sciences degrees. 85% of Health Professions are women and 77% of psychology majors are women. How many times do you hear people making fun of male nurses, but there is not a push to increase male nurses? In addition, females now account for more Doctorate Degrees. In the Health Sciences, 70% are women and Biological Sciences at 51%. Social and behavioral sciences is at 60% women.
Although, there are still some doctorate degrees where men dominate but women dominate at bachelor level. For example, physics and math.
Although not STEM, women dominate in Public Administration (social work, public policy, etc) at 82% and Education at 79%.
Of course, boys are less likely to graduate from high school than girls. These numbers seem to vary depending which study you look at. But, according to NCES, 84% of females will graduate high school and 77% of males in 2010.
Also, looking at GPAs, males continue to have lower GPAs than females in high school:
Male vs Female GPA
English: 3.12 vs 3.38
Math: 3.04 vs 3.15
Social Science: 3.27 vs 3.39
Science: 3.11 vs 3.24
Overall: 3.07 vs 3.24
I would like to point out that a 50%/50% is not necessarily good or bad. The world does not necessarily need to be 50/50. On the other hand, continued institutional gender discrimination (whether it is male or female) is bad. Nevertheless, may be we as a society need to stop pushing a 50/50 split and realize that boys and girls learn differently and have different interests.
http://www.randalolson.com/2014/06/14/percentage-of-bachelors-degrees-conferred-to-women-by-major-1970-2012/ (http://www.randalolson.com/2014/06/14/percentage-of-bachelors-degrees-conferred-to-women-by-major-1970-2012/)
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/09/14/doctorates (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/09/14/doctorates)
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014391.pdf (http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014391.pdf)
https://www.act.org/research/researchers/briefs/pdf/2014-12.pdf (https://www.act.org/research/researchers/briefs/pdf/2014-12.pdf)
Dont bring facts and statistics into this.
Quote from: Nuke52 on January 06, 2016, 10:10:21 PM
[Col Lee, pardon me if I'm not understanding you correctly here, but as "a legal kind of guy," you're "not seeing" discrimination with the Feik scholarship?
Your confusion is understandable. I was not as clear as I could have been. What I am not seeing is any sort of
improper discrimination or a violation of CAP regulations or policy.
I can only agree that on a superficial level, the Feik Flight Scholarship is not available to male cadets. My point was that is not improper for the donor to place those restrictions on the funds. Male and female cadets can still apply for all the scholarships that are available under the traditional system. Only the new, additional monies are restricted by the donor.
I suspect that we agree that discrimination, per se, is not improper even in CAP. Heck, we do it all the time. We discriminate against young people based solely on age (they can't join until they are 12 or in a middle school program, nor remain after their 21st birthday.) We discriminate against cadets who are not maintaining a satisfactory academic record in school. We discriminate against members who violate regulations or endanger other members. And so on.
For the purposes of this discussion, no cadet is being
deprived of anything based on gender. Exactly the same number of male -eligible scholarships that were available before the donor provided the restricted funds are still there. Not a nickel less. If the donor withdraws the restricted funds or we somehow rejected them, the results would be the same.
As others have pointed out, restricted scholarships are extremely common in education, including prestigious public institutions.
Here is one from my alma mater, the University of California at Irvine, that is restricted to persons of Jewish Heritage (http://www.ofas.uci.edu/content/TypesOfAid.aspx?nav=1&id=malcolmstaceymemorial). Reasonable minds can certainly differ as to the wisdom of these kinds of things, but they are not improper or illegal.
QuoteAs to Spam's "intended-to-be-provocative race question," of course it was intended to be provocative; he wanted to provoke an answer--one which you completely dodged. I have absolutely no doubt that if the donors you suggested offered flight scholarship money, with the provision that only cadets of their race receive it, that CAP would take the money... But that wasn't the question, and you know it. If you are the "straight shooter" people here believe you to be, please acknowledge here, in this forum, that we all know there are some groups who are encouraged to discriminate in favor of their own and others who are prohibited. We can leave the "who's" and "why's" for a different discussion.
I'm not entirely sure what you are asking here. But if you are suggesting that there may be some groups who hypothetically could offer scholarships with restrictions that we would consider improper, I can only agree. Groups that advocate odious philosophies or unlawful actions would certainly be declined.
But that is not even remotely close to what happened here. These were additional funds offered in honor of an acknowledged aerospace pioneer.
Thank you for your work with our cadets.
Ned Lee
On a side note, let us all be sure we are continuing the discussion in a calm, respectful way. I think there were something like five new posts while I was drafting this one, and some of them seem to have been made in haste.
Quote from: THRAWN on January 07, 2016, 12:03:46 AM
Basing qualifications on gender is discriminatory.
Yes it is, so what? I discriminate every single day and so do you. I choose Ford over Chevy, I choose Peterbilt over Freightliner, I choose Malt-O-Meal over General Mills (more sugar). We all discriminate all the time, and that's not a bad thing. Discrimination is only bad when it is used to deny something to someone. By discriminating in this case, we are increasing, not decreasing, access; meaning that the discrimination is good.
Hopping on the devil's advocate horse for a moment.
I don't honestly see what the big deal is. Sure, it's a "restrictive" scholarship, but not one that encompasses all aspects of CAP. It's not a CAP scholarship, not administered by CAP. It is simply one of the many scholarships available to CAP cadets.
How would it work if an organization came to us with a scholarship for Islamic students interested in ROTC? Or one targeted towards lower-income cadets interested in attending Embry-Riddle?
Perfectly honest opinion here, women have been getting the short end of the stick for centuries, and it's only now, within the last 30 years or so that things are changing. Why shouldn't there be a scholarship set aside for worthy female cadets? Some of the qualifiers in it are a bit restrictive, but let's face it: you have to have qualifiers or the award becomes meaningless.
Jeders has a point, but I disagree with some of it. I don't call having a choice of Ford over Chevy discrimination, but you can use your criteria for choosing one over the other as "your discriminating taste", to quote some 50's ads.
We did have an issue at the end of last year. It was proposed that the female cadets come up with an OTY award for them, but we quashed it as discriminatory towards the males, as we don't have a "male" cadet/NCO/officer OTY award.
So, in the interest of Unicorns and PC compliance. We would never want to have anyone left out. (Please note hint of sarcasm). If I hvae a male Cadet that identifies as a female, then he is allowed to apply for the Feik Scholarship and the "male" scholarships. >:D
Quote from: CAPDCCMOM on January 07, 2016, 03:19:31 PM
So, in the interest of Unicorns and PC compliance. We would never want to have anyone left out. (Please note hint of sarcasm). If I hvae a male Cadet that identifies as a female, then he is allowed to apply for the Feik Scholarship and the "male" scholarships. >:D
Now there's an idea [emoji5]
Quote from: CAPDCCMOM on January 07, 2016, 03:19:31 PM
So, in the interest of Unicorns and PC compliance. We would never want to have anyone left out. (Please note hint of sarcasm). If I hvae a male Cadet that identifies as a female, then he is allowed to apply for the Feik Scholarship and the "male" scholarships. >:D
Unicorns don't exist, ergo your attempt at using that simile are fallacious and seditious. >:D
On the Job Training is not real either but we still talk about it. :P
Quote from: Garibaldi on January 07, 2016, 02:37:54 PM
Hopping on the devil's advocate horse for a moment.
I don't honestly see what the big deal is. Sure, it's a "restrictive" scholarship, but not one that encompasses all aspects of CAP. It's not a CAP scholarship, not administered by CAP. It is simply one of the many scholarships available to CAP cadets.
How would it work if an organization came to us with a scholarship for Islamic students interested in ROTC? Or one targeted towards lower-income cadets interested in attending Embry-Riddle?
Perfectly honest opinion here, women have been getting the short end of the stick for centuries, and it's only now, within the last 30 years or so that things are changing. Why shouldn't there be a scholarship set aside for worthy female cadets? Some of the qualifiers in it are a bit restrictive, but let's face it: you have to have qualifiers or the award becomes meaningless.
Jeders has a point, but I disagree with some of it. I don't call having a choice of Ford over Chevy discrimination, but you can use your criteria for choosing one over the other as "your discriminating taste", to quote some 50's ads.
We did have an issue at the end of last year. It was proposed that the female cadets come up with an OTY award for them, but we quashed it as discriminatory towards the males, as we don't have a "male" cadet/NCO/officer OTY award.
CAP is administering it and managing the application process. Want to give away a pile of money to a specific demographic? Great. But CAP should not be involved other than to say that the fund exists.
As for the qualifiers, they are less restrictive than the others. Again, that's fine, but don't make it appear as if CAP is endorsing the program.
There are dozens of flight scholarships. If CAP is going to "feature" one like this on their website, why not the others? Let CAP manage and administer the CAP flight scholarship. Let the I Wanna Fly Like a Pteradon Foundation manage and administer their own. If CAP is going to list flight scholarships, then list all of the ones that they can find. Don't limit it just because it features the name of a CAP colonel.
Quote from: THRAWN on January 07, 2016, 04:03:21 PM
There are dozens of flight scholarships. [ . . . ] If CAP is going to list flight scholarships, then list all of the ones that they can find. Don't limit it just because it features the name of a CAP colonel.
Great idea!
In fact it is such a good idea, we already do it here on the CP website. (http://www.capmembers.com/cadet_programs/library/scholarships/other-scholarship-opportunities/), including listings for scholarships offered by the Ninety-Nines, AOPA, Girls with Wings, AFROTC, and others.
If anyone knows of other scholarship opportunities for cadets, drop us a line at NHQ and we'll link to it.
Scholarships for our cadets are important.
Ned Lee
Col, CAP
National Cadet Program Manager
I got this link from an inspector in my FSDO:
https://www.faa.gov/education/grants_and_scholarships/ (https://www.faa.gov/education/grants_and_scholarships/)
I did a bit of poking and found that some of the resources here may be right what you're looking for. The best part is that it includes a section on "grants". Free money.
This is one of the links that I found from that site: https://sites.google.com/site/money2fly/youth (https://sites.google.com/site/money2fly/youth) and it's a big list of youth related scholarships.
Quote from: jeders on January 07, 2016, 02:05:47 PM
Quote from: THRAWN on January 07, 2016, 12:03:46 AM
Basing qualifications on gender is discriminatory.
Yes it is, so what? I discriminate every single day and so do you. I choose Ford over Chevy, I choose Peterbilt over Freightliner, I choose Malt-O-Meal over General Mills (more sugar). We all discriminate all the time, and that's not a bad thing. Discrimination is only bad when it is used to deny something to someone. By discriminating in this case, we are increasing, not decreasing, access; meaning that the discrimination is good.
Jeders you are interchanging two of the definitions of discrimination (From the Cambridge Dictionaries Online)
discrimination noun
(WORSE TREATMENT)
› the treatment of a person or particular group of people differently, in a way that is worse than the way people are usually treated: Some immigrants were victims of discrimination.The law made racial discrimination in employment a serious crime.She claims she is a victim of age discrimination.
› politics & government Discrimination is also prejudice against people and a refusal to give them their rights.
discrimination noun (SEEING A DIFFERENCE)
› the ability to judge the quality of something based on its difference from other, similar things: He showed discrimination in his reading habits.
(Definition of discrimination from the Cambridge Academic Content Dictionary © Cambridge University Press)
Choosing a Ford over a Chevy is an example of the 3rd definition; holding women to a different standard than men is an example of the 1st
Quote from: Ned on January 07, 2016, 04:26:30 PM
Quote from: THRAWN on January 07, 2016, 04:03:21 PM
There are dozens of flight scholarships. [ . . . ] If CAP is going to list flight scholarships, then list all of the ones that they can find. Don't limit it just because it features the name of a CAP colonel.
Great idea!
In fact it is such a good idea, we already do it here on the CP website. (http://www.capmembers.com/cadet_programs/library/scholarships/other-scholarship-opportunities/), including listings for scholarships offered by the Ninety-Nines, AOPA, Girls with Wings, AFROTC, and others.
If anyone knows of other scholarship opportunities for cadets, drop us a line at NHQ and we'll link to it.
Scholarships for our cadets are important.
Ned Lee
Col, CAP
National Cadet Program Manager
I put up a link to some flight scholarships available in Georgia in another thread. Here is it again:
http://www.gbaa.org/scholarships (http://www.gbaa.org/scholarships)
$40,000 available.
Quote from: Alaric on January 07, 2016, 04:31:06 PM
Choosing a Ford over a Chevy is an example of the 3rd definition; holding women to a different standard than men is an example of the 1st
Except that we aren't holding women to a different standard as men. The general flight scholarship which is open to both genders requires a Mitchell Award. The Feik scholarship, which is an entirely different award with an entirely different set of standards and targeted to an entirely different set of individuals does not. Now if the general scholarship required Mitchel for males and Wright Brothers for females, then we would be setting different gender based standards, but that's not the case.
Quote from: Alaric on January 07, 2016, 04:31:06 PM
Jeders you are interchanging two of the definitions of discrimination (From the Cambridge Dictionaries Online)
That's exactly the point; people are throwing around the word discrimination as if it is automatically a bad thing. We must all remember that words have meanings and they are important.
Quote from: CAPDCCMOM on January 07, 2016, 03:19:31 PM
So, in the interest of Unicorns and PC compliance. We would never want to have anyone left out. (Please note hint of sarcasm). If I hvae a male Cadet that identifies as a female, then he is allowed to apply for the Feik Scholarship and the "male" scholarships. >:D
Now that right there is BRILLIANT! You're going to give the lefty crowd on here fits!
^^^^ Would I try to get leftist brains to explode ::)... No I am just trying to balance the field a little...in my own unique way >:D
CAPDCCMOM - I have been told on numerous occasions that I am so conservative that I make Rush Limbaugh look liberal...
That being said, We have a Cadet in our squadron who is male and identifies as female in our squadron. Is said Cadet eligible for the Feik Scholarship? Poses an interesting question that most don't want to touch with a 10' pole.
What is CAP policy about people who identify as the opposite sex wanting to apply for Scholarships for the sex they identify with?
Seems as though we had this conversation not too long ago...had to do with a survey, if my formerly nicotine stained brain recalls correctly...
And this is now a valid question. How to we as an organization fairly slot, and award scholarships like this in cases like this? Just how is the CAP CP prepared to deal with it?
I'm not sure we can discuss that rationally without having the ban hammer dropped.
We are not prepared to deal with this. And that is going to be a real problem.
I am more conservative than Atilla the Hun, and even I can see that things are changing quickly. We no longer live in a time where people stay in the shadows. People are "out" as it were. We have to be ready. We have a Core Value at stake here, Respect for the Individual.
Quote from: Garibaldi on January 07, 2016, 08:52:27 PM
I'm not sure we can discuss that rationally without having the ban hammer dropped.
Why? How many leaders and commanders are on this board? How many decision makers read and comment? It's an important enough issue that it's on the news just about every day. If it can't be discussed in an open forum, where will it be discussed? Leaving politics and religion out of it, CAP needs to have a clear policy on this. All kidding aside, MOM brings up a great point that really needs some attention.
I just want to point out that my position has been consistent on this from day one:
CAP should be neutral on, and should stay out of the business of promoting, encouraging, favoring or discriminating between sexes and sexual preferences, period, and should base all selections for duty assignments, awards, memberships, and scholarships, among other benefits - on performance.
Its my belief that that is consistent with the official policy as referenced.
Still waiting on an argument better than jeders' Main Chance. (from Oxford, "Look or be looking for an opportunity to take advantage of a situation for personal gain, typically a financial one: 'a developer with an eye on the main chance').
V/R
Spam
Updated/corrected:
to add "performance".
to add "Main Chance" definition.
Quote from: Spam on January 07, 2016, 09:07:24 PM
I just want to point out that my position has been consistent on this from day one:
CAP should be neutral on, and should stay out of the business of promoting, encouraging, favoring or discriminating between sexes and sexual preferences, period, and should base all selections for duty assignments, awards, memberships, and scholarships, among other benefits.
Its my belief that that is consistent with the official policy as referenced.
Still waiting on an argument better than jeders' Main Chance.
V/R
Spam
I agree and there needs to be a way to do that. Is there no way that applications can be designed to eliminate the PII? No names, no gender, just the record of the applicant?
Quote from: CAPDCCMOM on January 07, 2016, 09:04:56 PM
We are not prepared to deal with this. And that is going to be a real problem.
I am more conservative than Atilla the Hun, and even I can see that things are changing quickly. We no longer live in a time where people stay in the shadows. People are "out" as it were. We have to be ready. We have a Core Value at stake here, Respect for the Individual.
You're right. CAP is in no way prepared for this. We've collectively buried our heads about social issues like this until it smacks us in the face. There needs to be a proactive approach on how to deal with these issues before somebody gets into a situation that they will have a hard time getting out of.
Quote from: THRAWN on January 07, 2016, 09:06:55 PM
Leaving politics and religion out of it, CAP needs to have a clear policy on this.
C'mon guys, give us a little credit here.
It should be no surprise to anyone that no shortage of CAP committees and senior leadership have already met, discussed it, and produced reports and recommendations. The national commander appointed a high level committee (I can't remember the exact title) composed of senior CAP leaders, cadets, parents, chaplains, and others to help us arrive at a fair and reasonable policy. And we continue to study the issue. We are sending senior corporate staff and volunteer leaders to a conference next month to see how we can continue to make our terrific CP as inclusive as possible while preserving the essential military nature, and in a way that is respectful of parents and stakeholders.
But as I've said each time this comes up, it really deserves its own thread and discussion rather than coming up tangentially in a scholarship thread.
Quote from: THRAWN on January 07, 2016, 09:06:55 PM
Quote from: Garibaldi on January 07, 2016, 08:52:27 PM
I'm not sure we can discuss that rationally without having the ban hammer dropped.
Why? It's an important enough issue that it's on the news just about every day. If it can't be discussed in an open forum, where will it be discussed? Leaving politics and religion out of it, CAP needs to have a clear policy on this. All kidding aside, MOM brings up a great point that really needs some attention.
Who at NHQ is going to be the arbiter of what constitutes a male or female member? What criteria do we use? Can they use the bathroom of the gender they "identify" with, regardless of their plumbing? How do we react when Cadet Bubba and Cadet Red Neckerson take the cadet in question out back for some "frontier justice" because they are morally offended? What will stop some genius male cadet from identifying as a female so s/he can shower with, dress around, and be around female cadets?
It's not our fight. It's going to go much higher than CAP-USAF. I believe DoD has policies in place, or will soon, regarding the treatment of transgendered service members, but as we are not beholden to DoD for the most part as civilian members of a voluntary organization, it's going to take a lot of red tape and civil suits that CAP won't want to deal with.
Personally, I hope CAP finds a way to work around it, but I don't think it'll happen. Obviously, we cannot discriminate (that word again!) against people due to gender, sexual orientation, religion, color, creed, or whatever, but this issue really isn't CAP's domain.
You're right, though, we eventually have to face it, because unlike even 10 years ago, this is a thing. Like it or not, it's going to be an issue.
"Due To the generosity of our CAP membership, CAP is able to offer flight scholarships to help cadets attain a private pilot's license." (emphasis mine)
More than one donor... More than one scholarship? CAP member donors giving CAP money to fund a CAP Scholarship (vetted and administered) for young women? OK, I get it, or is the media blurb incorrect?
If correct, how many other CAP "owned" scholarships are restricted?
I am glad CAP is trying to recruit more women to become pilots. I'm just wondering why CAP thinks this is the best way vs. going thru another outlet (like the Foundation)?
Quote from: FW on January 07, 2016, 09:38:45 PM
"Due To the generosity of our CAP membership, CAP is able to offer flight scholarships to help cadets attain a private pilot's license." (emphasis mine)
More than one donor... More than one scholarship? CAP member donors giving CAP money to fund a CAP Scholarship (vetted and administered) for young women? OK, I get it, or is the media blurb incorrect?
If correct, how many other CAP "owned" scholarships are restricted?
I am glad CAP is trying to recruit more women to become pilots. I'm just wondering why CAP thinks this is the best way vs. going thru another outlet (like the Foundation)?
Thanks for bringing this back on topic. :clap:
Quote from: FW on January 07, 2016, 09:38:45 PM
More than one donor... More than one scholarship?
Yes (technically), Yes.
QuoteCAP member donors giving CAP money to fund a CAP Scholarship (vetted and administered) for young women?
Exactly.
As a matter of policy, since the Foundation is a separate corporation, we can't run anything "through them." The Foundation raises money for CAP and donates it to us. CAP distributes the Foundation's donations as academic and flight scholarships. Similarly, the generous donors for the Feik Scholarships donated the money to CAP for us to distribute as flight scholarships with the restrictions we have discussed. The Feik Scholarship donor(s) happen to be members, but the procedure is the same either way.
It's been a while since I have seen the briefing, but there are several wings and regions that distribute fairly substantial grants / scholarships that are restricted by gender, residency, etc. But AFAIK, the Feik Scholarships are the only NHQ-administered grants / scholarships that are not gender-neutral. (Many are limited by age, and achievement level in the program, academic level, etc.)
Perhaps a recipient or two will respond and tell us about them.
Quote from: CAPDCCMOM on January 07, 2016, 03:19:31 PM
So, in the interest of Unicorns and PC compliance. We would never want to have anyone left out. (Please note hint of sarcasm). If I hvae a male Cadet that identifies as a female, then he is allowed to apply for the Feik Scholarship and the "male" scholarships. >:D
if he/she has government ID that says female......then yes for CAP's purposes she is female.
Quote from: Garibaldi on January 07, 2016, 03:38:57 PM
Quote from: CAPDCCMOM on January 07, 2016, 03:19:31 PM
So, in the interest of Unicorns and PC compliance. We would never want to have anyone left out. (Please note hint of sarcasm). If I hvae a male Cadet that identifies as a female, then he is allowed to apply for the Feik Scholarship and the "male" scholarships. >:D
Unicorns don't exist, ergo your attempt at using that simile are fallacious and seditious. >:D
Her use of non-existent unicorns is clearly a
metaphor because she does not use "like" or "as," ergo your attempt at using "simile" is fallaciouser and seditiouser. :P
Quote from: lordmonar on January 07, 2016, 10:05:57 PM
Quote from: CAPDCCMOM on January 07, 2016, 03:19:31 PM
So, in the interest of Unicorns and PC compliance. We would never want to have anyone left out. (Please note hint of sarcasm). If I hvae a male Cadet that identifies as a female, then he is allowed to apply for the Feik Scholarship and the "male" scholarships. >:D
if he/she has government ID that says female......then yes for CAP's purposes she is female.
And what if
-he- also had a government ID that says male??
Quote from: Garibaldi on January 07, 2016, 09:19:25 PM
Quote from: THRAWN on January 07, 2016, 09:06:55 PM
Quote from: Garibaldi on January 07, 2016, 08:52:27 PM
I'm not sure we can discuss that rationally without having the ban hammer dropped.
Why? It's an important enough issue that it's on the news just about every day. If it can't be discussed in an open forum, where will it be discussed? Leaving politics and religion out of it, CAP needs to have a clear policy on this. All kidding aside, MOM brings up a great point that really needs some attention.
Who at NHQ is going to be the arbiter of what constitutes a male or female member? What criteria do we use? Can they use the bathroom of the gender they "identify" with, regardless of their plumbing? How do we react when Cadet Bubba and Cadet Red Neckerson take the cadet in question out back for some "frontier justice" because they are morally offended? What will stop some genius male cadet from identifying as a female so s/he can shower with, dress around, and be around female cadets?
[Mods, if you think CAPTALK is better served with this tangential topic split off into its own thread, please do so...]
Clearly the "justice" you mention--violently placing one's hand on another--is absolutely unacceptable under any circumstance in CAP, and our reaction is just as clear: membership termination and fully cooperating with the police to attain the attacker's prosecution to the fullest extent of the law. But going back to a more reasonable scenario...
What
do we do when some clever, "formerly" male cadet takes the necessary, legal steps to gain CAP's official sanction to shower with the ladies? "What right do
you have to decide whether I really identify as female or am just doing it for the, erm, 'perks'?" is, of course, a smart and legally represented cadet's answer.
Yes, how to deal with transgender cadets is a serious issue, but it's also an issue that will eventually penetrate the senior realm if it hasn't already. What do you do with that new senior guy/self-identifying gal who just gives you a vibe that she might not really be all the woman she claims to be? Do you bed her down with the female seniors at encampment? How about when we switch positions on the topic and have a lady who identifies as a man? At the last encampment I attended, the male showers were communal/open bay. How many men really want the "self-identifying" woman in there showering with them? I guess that really depends...
Quote
You're right, though, we eventually have to face it, because unlike even 10 years ago, this is a thing. Like it or not, it's going to be an issue.
I agree, it's certainly something we need to wrap our arms around before the organization takes it right in the face.
Quote from: Nuke52 on January 07, 2016, 10:20:39 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on January 07, 2016, 10:05:57 PM
Quote from: CAPDCCMOM on January 07, 2016, 03:19:31 PM
So, in the interest of Unicorns and PC compliance. We would never want to have anyone left out. (Please note hint of sarcasm). If I hvae a male Cadet that identifies as a female, then he is allowed to apply for the Feik Scholarship and the "male" scholarships. >:D
if he/she has government ID that says female......then yes for CAP's purposes she is female.
And what if -he- also had a government ID that says male??
Use a primary ID with the latest issue date. If someone tries to "game" this with multiple IDs, notify the appropriate authorities. This isn't difficult.
Quote from: Nuke52 on January 07, 2016, 10:20:39 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on January 07, 2016, 10:05:57 PM
Quote from: CAPDCCMOM on January 07, 2016, 03:19:31 PM
So, in the interest of Unicorns and PC compliance. We would never want to have anyone left out. (Please note hint of sarcasm). If I hvae a male Cadet that identifies as a female, then he is allowed to apply for the Feik Scholarship and the "male" scholarships. >:D
if he/she has government ID that says female......then yes for CAP's purposes she is female.
And what if -he- also had a government ID that says male??
Then (If I were his commander) tell him to pick one and enter that gender into E-Services and go from there.
My point was.......last year when I had to deal with this issue at my squadron.......CAP's policy then was if they had a government issued ID that said XXXXX then that person could declare themselves in E-Services as XXXXXX. But then that was their gender and all rules (uniform, lodging, and I guess scholorship eligibility) would apply.
So....no switching back and forth to game the system.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 07, 2016, 11:56:56 PM
Quote from: Nuke52 on January 07, 2016, 10:20:39 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on January 07, 2016, 10:05:57 PM
Quote from: CAPDCCMOM on January 07, 2016, 03:19:31 PM
So, in the interest of Unicorns and PC compliance. We would never want to have anyone left out. (Please note hint of sarcasm). If I hvae a male Cadet that identifies as a female, then he is allowed to apply for the Feik Scholarship and the "male" scholarships. >:D
if he/she has government ID that says female......then yes for CAP's purposes she is female.
And what if -he- also had a government ID that says male??
Then (If I were his commander) tell him to pick one and enter that gender into E-Services and go from there.
My point was.......last year when I had to deal with this issue at my squadron.......CAP's policy then was if they had a government issued ID that said XXXXX then that person could declare themselves in E-Services as XXXXXX. But then that was their gender and all rules (uniform, lodging, and I guess scholorship eligibility) would apply.
So....no switching back and forth to game the system.
I have to agree that that is a very reasonable policy, but who are you (were you his commander) to tell him to pick
one? If the State of Nevada sees fit to issue him/her two legally valid IDs (in IL you could possess both a DL and a state ID) or if NV says he's male and CA says he's female, it's none of your consarn business telling someone who isn't your child/ward they can only have one legal identity...
Let's extrapolate a bit. A very possible outcome of this whole thing is as follows...
Our cadet was born as and identified as male when he joined at 12, but later identified as female at 14. Turns out, 14 is a very confusing age for a youth (especially with today's moral landscape), and she thought maybe she'd like to play football on the HS team. Unfortunately, her school district is in a horrible (i.e., conservative) town and only allows males on the boys' team, so she decided that because she liked football so much, she was probably really a he afterall and subsequently identified as male. After a season or two it becomes obvious that a football scholarship is not in her--I mean, his--future, but he can really crush it in baseball (especially against a bunch of girls playing
softball). So, our cadet re-re-identifies as a female (and the star of the softball team) and scores a full-ride--bonus!--to a nice
liberal arts college out
Left West. (The after-practice showers with his--darn it, I did it again--HER team mates is a pretty nice fringe benefit, too.) Finally, as those topsy-turvy college years come to an end, she realizes once "and for all" that she's grown into a fine, educated young man.
A bit of a fanciful scenario, sure, but you cannot deny that this whole gender bending thing is a slippery slope, with possibilities (perhaps less stark than this one) up and down that spectrum. And, as any good trans apologist will tell you (scream at you?), "Who are
you to judge how someone else gender-identifies today?!?" (or any other day, or if they identify back and forth, or, or, or...).
While you and I might "know" someone is gaming the system, are
you willing to stand your ground in a lawsuit alleging YOUR anti-trans intolerance and discrimination?
Quote from: Nuke52 on January 08, 2016, 01:44:33 AM
I have to agree that that is a very reasonable policy, but who are you (were you his commander) to tell him to pick one? If the State of Nevada sees fit to issue him/her two legally valid IDs (in IL you could possess both a DL and a state ID) or if NV says he's male and CA says he's female, it's none of your consarn business telling someone who isn't your child/ward they can only have one legal identity...
Well....actually Nevada would not do something like that. Once they issue a new one (with a new gender) then the old one is supposed to be destroyed. Ergo using two ID cards to game the system is a violation of CAP core values if not state law.
Again...I'm all for gender identity and equality. But I'm not for abusing the system.
And for "who are you to tell him to pick one"....if I'm his commander in CAP I am the first line of official representative of the organization.
I'm the one who is supposed to interpret and enforce the regulations. And it the case of a transgender individual.....it does not help me get my job done of running the programs entrusted to me.....and to make sure that we are being as inclusive and open to all individuals...if they are gaming the system. It does not help CAP, it does not help me.....and IMHO it hurts their cause of trying to get LGBT accepted by the mainstream.
QuoteLet's extrapolate a bit. A very possible outcome of this whole thing is as follows...
Our cadet was born as and identified as male when he joined at 12, but later identified as female at 14. Turns out, 14 is a very confusing age for a youth (especially with today's moral landscape), and she thought maybe she'd like to play football on the HS team. Unfortunately, her school district is in a horrible (i.e., conservative) town and only allows males on the boys' team, so she decided that because she liked football so much, she was probably really a he afterall and subsequently identified as male. After a season or two it becomes obvious that a football scholarship is not in her--I mean, his--future, but he can really crush it in baseball (especially against a bunch of girls playing softball). So, our cadet re-re-identifies as a female (and the star of the softball team) and scores a full-ride--bonus!--to a nice liberal arts college out Left West. (The after-practice showers with his--darn it, I did it again--HER team mates is a pretty nice fringe benefit, too.) Finally, as those topsy-turvy college years come to an end, she realizes once "and for all" that she's grown into a fine, educated young man.
A bit of a fanciful scenario, sure, but you cannot deny that this whole gender bending thing is a slippery slope, with possibilities (perhaps less stark than this one) up and down that spectrum. And, as any good trans apologist will tell you (scream at you?), "Who are you to judge how someone else gender-identifies today?!?" (or any other day, or if they identify back and forth, or, or, or...).
While you and I might "know" someone is gaming the system, are you willing to stand your ground in a lawsuit alleging YOUR anti-trans intolerance and discrimination?
Well...I can't help that. But if 12 year cadet "Jean" decides at 14 she wants to "john" and provides state ID with "John" on it.....he is now john. If John wants to apply for the Feik Scholarship and tries to be Jean again for the purpose of gaming the system.....I won't let him do it. I will make him go through the whole process again and legally change back to Jean.
I won't stop him from doing it....I'm just not gonna let him game the system. It violate the core value of integrity.
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.
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.
(http://www.cinemaretro.com/uploads/HESTON1961.jpg)
Heston in the D.C. March for Jobs and Freedom, August 28, 1963.
V/R
Spam
Quote from: Spam on January 08, 2016, 03:10:15 AM
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.
(http://www.cinemaretro.com/uploads/HESTON1961.jpg)
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,
Quote from: Spam on January 08, 2016, 03:10:15 AM
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.
(http://www.cinemaretro.com/uploads/HESTON1961.jpg)
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...
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?
Quote from: Pace on January 08, 2016, 11:12:55 AM
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.
Quote from: Alaric on January 08, 2016, 04:38:19 AM
Quote from: Spam on January 08, 2016, 03:10:15 AM
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?
Quote
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/ (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.
Quote from: Pace on January 08, 2016, 11:12:55 AM
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:
Quote from: Ned on January 07, 2016, 09:55:45 PM
... 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!
Quote
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?
Quote from: Ned on January 06, 2016, 05:30:41 PM
Quote from: Spam on January 06, 2016, 02:59:14 AM
. 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 (http://www.capmembers.com/index.cfm)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?
Quote from: Nuke52 on January 08, 2016, 02:01:26 PM
Quote from: Pace on January 08, 2016, 11:12:55 AM
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:
Quote from: Ned on January 07, 2016, 09:55:45 PM
... 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.
Quote from: Pace on January 08, 2016, 02:48:28 PM
Quote from: Nuke52 on January 08, 2016, 02:01:26 PM
Quote from: Pace on January 08, 2016, 11:12:55 AM
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:
Quote from: Ned on January 07, 2016, 09:55:45 PM
... 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 (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 (http://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.
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.
Quote from: Pace on January 08, 2016, 04:21:20 PM
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.
Quote from: Nuke52 on January 08, 2016, 03:55:48 PM
[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 (http://www.logicalfallaciesAnother 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 (http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/Vol2LetterLowFinal_8BDFDB373E830.pdf)
See, this is why cadets can't get nice things. 8)
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.
Quote from: Nuke52 on January 08, 2016, 03:55:48 PM
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:
Quote from: Spam on January 08, 2016, 03:10:15 AM
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.
Quote from: CAPR 36-1Civil 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
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.
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...
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
Quote from: Spam on January 08, 2016, 06:02:33 PM
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.
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
Quote from: Spam on January 08, 2016, 08:24:28 PM
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.
Threads like this remind me about how hard we work to scare people away from giving us money.
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?
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
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.
Quote from: Spam on January 08, 2016, 06:02:33 PM
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.)
QuoteLast 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.
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/?introducing_the_col_mary_feik_cadet_flight_scholarship&show=entry&blogID=1438)
http://www.capmembers.com/cadet_programs/library/scholarships/flight-scholarships/ (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
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.
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
Quote from: Spam on January 09, 2016, 04:59:38 AM
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!
Quote from: lordmonar on January 09, 2016, 03:59:08 AM
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.
Quote from: Offutteer on January 06, 2016, 08:03:14 PM
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/ (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?
Quote from: GroundHawg on January 09, 2016, 03:15:17 PM
Quote from: Offutteer on January 06, 2016, 08:03:14 PM
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/ (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?
Quote from: Ned on January 09, 2016, 03:08:16 AM
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?
Quote from: stitchmom on January 09, 2016, 12:55:28 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on January 09, 2016, 03:59:08 AM
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.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 09, 2016, 03:59:08 AM
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.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 09, 2016, 06:37:30 AM
Quote from: Spam on January 09, 2016, 04:59:38 AM
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!
Quote
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...
Respect
Wow. Overreact much? This went from a simple inquiry to all out flame war, with Nuke52 holding all the flamethrowers. I'm out.
Quote from: Garibaldi on January 09, 2016, 07:13:40 PM
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.
For some of you to pretend that their opposition to a female only scholarship is more than simple misogyny is absolutely stunning.
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.
Quote from: JayT on January 09, 2016, 08:48:54 PM
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???
Lock, please. This is getting ridiculous.
Quote from: PHall on January 09, 2016, 09:01:40 PM
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.
I disagree that the thread needs a lock, but I do agree that the civil discourse ended--the moment Ned, Hatkevich, Pat, and others began willfully misrepresenting our completely valid points and began taking the route of knowingly fallacious arguments and ad hominem cheap shots...
As long as I'm on a roll... And before someone locks this thread...
Come on, CAPTALKers! Where's your money?
I've already pledged $11,000 to (targeted) CAP cadet flight scholarships. Where's your pledge?
Who's in?
Quote from: Nuke52 on January 09, 2016, 09:14:13 PM
Quote from: JayT on January 09, 2016, 08:48:54 PM
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???
Wow, we got an Internet tough guy here! Some "lieutenant colonel" you must be.
Do your parents know you're offering to threw this much money out? That's a lot of money!
Quote from: JayT on January 09, 2016, 09:50:01 PM
Quote from: Nuke52 on January 09, 2016, 09:14:13 PM
Quote from: JayT on January 09, 2016, 08:48:54 PM
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???
Wow, we got an Internet tough guy here! Some "lieutenant colonel" you must be.
Do your parents know you're offering to threw this much money out? That's a lot of money!
Hmmm, so donating $1000 to the Feik scholarship is "threwing [sic] money out"? So in your mind, donating money to a female-only CAP flight scholarship is "threwing money out"? And you call
me the misogynist...
"Internet tough guy"--yeah, ad hominem, that's about all anyone could expect from a misogynist like you.
I guess we should put you down as a "no" then, huh? Too bad, you
do know that means
you're depriving some deserving female cadet a chance to learn to fly, right?
Nuke, JayT, everyone... I think a pause for air would be good here, teammates.
How about we return to this tomorrow, after a bit of voluntary down time to regain perspective.
V/R,
Spam
This is a simple fix, but it needs to come from National. The only scholarship fund that CAP should be administering is its own. All other scholarships can be advertised and promoted, but the donors themselves need to be responsible for the application process and the awarding of the money.
Quote from: Spam on January 09, 2016, 10:22:23 PM
Nuke, JayT, everyone... I think a pause for air would be good here, teammates.
How about we return to this tomorrow, after a bit of voluntary down time to regain perspective.
V/R,
Spam
Spam, that's a very reasonable request--thank you for posting it. I will cease from posting here further until tomorrow.
And in the meantime, once he's calmed down, JayT can apologize to the rest of the senior membership on CAP Talk for inferring that the typical CAP officer would need his parents' permission to donate money, as though a CAP SM were, by default, some sort of loser living in his parents' basement.
Cheers.
I thought we were making progress, but it appears that I was incorrect.
Since it appears that we cannot agree on the basic facts of the issue, but perhaps even more importantly since it appears that for many of the participants the particular facts are less important than the issues involved (restated, the facts don't matter - the principle is what it is), then I can only agree that we are done here.
The CAP leadership and I continue to believe that CAP's role in accepting and administering the Feik Scholarship fully complies with our regulations and polices (Specifically including CAPR 36-1), and results in a measurable benefit for our cadets.
Some of you vehemently disagree. We have exchanged views. I continue to believe that this is a dispute about the meaning of the words "discrimination" and "program" as they are used in the 36-1. (See my reply #113 above.) Some of you disagree with me about what we disagree about.
I will continue to watch the thread when I can and will try to respond to any new points or comments.
But as usual here on CT, the longer an argument goes on, the more personal and polarized it becomes and ultimately no one ever convinces anyone else of their respective positions.
But I do think it is important for us to be able to discuss it, as long as we can do so respectfully.
Ned Lee
I don't see what the big fuss is. If a donor wants to provide a scholarship for a specific group (in this case female cadets), then what's the problem? Some female cadets will benefit from these scholarships, while other cadets, both male and female, can apply to one or more of the other many scholarships available.
Why are we playing the discrimination card here? Scholarships sponsored by other institutions and organizations have criteria that make some people eligible and others not. Should a student with a great academic record feel discriminated because he or she doesn't qualify for a sports scholarship? Institutions, both public and private, for profit and non-profit, have scholarships targeted towards minorities or under represented groups. Even the military have such programs. Why is it suddenly wrong for CAP to do the same, especially when it's at the request of the donor?
If someone offers a donation, but states it can only be used for cadet activities and programs, wouldn't that be age discrimination if we apply the same argument about gender discrimination being discussed on this thread? No, it's not discrimination; it's a criteria.
The fact is that females are under represented in aviation. According to the FAA Airman Database, only 5.12% of airline or commercial pilots are women in the U.S. The U.S. Department of Labor reports that only 7.2% of those employed as pilots or flight engineers are female as of 2014. The Col Mary Feik Cadet Flight Scholarship is there to encourage female cadets to learn how to fly, give them an opportunity to earn a private pilot certificate, and perhaps spark an interest in a future aviation career. How is encouraging and supporting more females in aviation a bad thing? I really don't see anything wrong with this scholarship and I'm very surprised that many here do.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on January 10, 2016, 12:49:56 AM
I don't see what the big fuss is. If a donor wants to provide a scholarship for a specific group (in this case female cadets), then what's the problem? Some female cadets will benefit from these scholarships, while other cadets, both male and female, can apply to one or more of the other many scholarships available.
Why are we playing the discrimination card here? Scholarships sponsored by other institutions and organizations have criteria that make some people eligible and others not. Should a student with a great academic record feel discriminated because he or she doesn't qualify for a sports scholarship? Institutions, both public and private, for profit and non-profit, have scholarships targeted towards minorities or under represented groups. Even the military have such programs. Why is it suddenly wrong for CAP to do the same, especially when it's at the request of the donor?
If someone offers a donation, but states it can only be used for cadet activities and programs, wouldn't that be age discrimination if we apply the same argument about gender discrimination being discussed on this thread? No, it's not discrimination; it's a criteria.
The fact is that females are under represented in aviation. According to the FAA Airman Database, only 5.12% of airline or commercial pilots are women in the U.S. The U.S. Department of Labor reports that only 7.2% of those employed as pilots or flight engineers are female as of 2014. The Col Mary Feik Cadet Flight Scholarship is there to encourage female cadets to learn how to fly, give them an opportunity to earn a private pilot certificate, and perhaps spark an interest in a future aviation career. How is encouraging and supporting more females in aviation a bad thing? I really don't see anything wrong with this scholarship and I'm very surprised that many here do.
Great gravy. There is nothing wrong with the scholarship. There is something wrong with CAP ADMINISTERING the scholarship. This has been beaten to death, but if the donors want to give to women, great. Keep CAP out of the application and administration process. Handle it like the AOPA and EAA scholarships. Post 'em, let cadets know they exist and that ends CAP's participation.
Quote from: THRAWN on January 10, 2016, 12:56:17 AM
Great gravy. There is nothing wrong with the scholarship. There is something wrong with CAP ADMINISTERING the scholarship. This has been beaten to death, but if the donors want to give to women, great. Keep CAP out of the application and administration process. Handle it like the AOPA and EAA scholarships. Post 'em, let cadets know they exist and that ends CAP's participation.
Again.....there is nothing wrong with the scholarship....then why can CAP administer it?
That is where your position fails.
If the scholarship is good....it's good. If it is not good for CAP to administer....then the scholarship is bad.
You all can't have it both ways.....and us the "principle" card to justify the position.
My personal position is........The scholarship is a form a discrimination but the good out weights the bad....so we go with it.
We do it all the time and will continue to do it.
And with that....I'm out.....you all have fun.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 10, 2016, 01:03:10 AM
Quote from: THRAWN on January 10, 2016, 12:56:17 AM
Great gravy. There is nothing wrong with the scholarship. There is something wrong with CAP ADMINISTERING the scholarship. This has been beaten to death, but if the donors want to give to women, great. Keep CAP out of the application and administration process. Handle it like the AOPA and EAA scholarships. Post 'em, let cadets know they exist and that ends CAP's participation.
Again.....there is nothing wrong with the scholarship....then why can CAP administer it?
That is where your position fails.
If the scholarship is good....it's good. If it is not good for CAP to administer....then the scholarship is bad.
You all can't have it both ways.....and us the "principle" card to justify the position.
My personal position is........The scholarship is a form a discrimination but the good out weights the bad....so we go with it.
We do it all the time and will continue to do it.
And with that....I'm out.....you all have fun.
A more appropriate question is "Why SHOULD CAP administer it?" The organization should not. The issue is not with specific donors earmarking their dollars for a specific demographic. It has to do with CAP's involvement. There are plenty of funds that are directed toward specific demographics. The donors manage those funds and the administration of them. This fund should be no different.
Everyone, please consider this your first and last warning. No more personal attacks. Stay on topic. Any posts from here on out need to advance the topic, i.e. new and relevant comments/questions only.
To those who have made personal attacks, this is a direct violation of the membership code of conduct. Consider this a mass warning. In 10 years, I have never banned anyone until a few weeks ago. I don't want to pull that trigger again, but civil discourse is required here. If you can't argue constructively with people of differing views, leave this site and don't return.
Edit: grammatical error fixed
I feel uneasy with CAP offering a scholarship for a restricted segment of the membership (females, in this case). Historically, we've allowed donors to earmark contributions for a program, however restricting a donation to this magnitude was not allowed. Something about accepting federal funds comes to play when someone decides to take issue; maybe it isn't a problem.
If the donors saw fit to contribute to CAP, as Col Lee stated, the funds are now "Corporate". I'm probably missing something here, but how do we allow the use of Corporate funds to be restricted by sex? How is an Organization, which depends on federal funds, able to use Corpoate funds for this type of restricted use?
(It must be allowed, because we're doing it.)
Note: as this thread gets longer, I just end up with more questions... ::)
Quote from: FW on January 10, 2016, 03:29:52 AM
I feel uneasy with CAP offering a scholarship for a restricted segment of the membership (females, in this case). Historically, we've allowed donors to earmark contributions for a program, however restricting a donation to this magnitude was not allowed. Something about accepting federal funds comes to play when someone decides to take issue; maybe it isn't a problem.
If the donors saw fit to contribute to CAP, as Col Lee stated, the funds are now "Corporate". I'm probably missing something here, but how do we allow the use of Corporate funds to be restricted by sex? How is an Organization, which depends on federal funds, able to use Corpoate funds for this type of restricted use?
(It must be allowed, because we're doing it.)
Note: as this thread gets longer, I just end up with more questions... ::)
The same way public universities are able to offer focused scholarships and the US Government is allowed to give preferential hiring treatment for veterans.
^Nope. Public institutions work within "title 9" when sexual preference is involved. Government (local, state, and federal) gives preferences to veterans regardless of sex, race, or creed. Nice try though... :angel:
Quote from: FW on January 10, 2016, 04:07:26 AM
^Nope. Public institutions work within "title 9" when sexual preference is involved. Government (local, state, and federal) gives preferences to veterans regardless of sex, race, or creed. Nice try though... :angel:
Not a try, using the same argument that has been made here giving veterans preferential treatment in hiring is discriminatory (note that I have no issue with preferential treatment for those who have served our country) but the argument can be made that since many cannot serve in the military through no fault of their own (chronic illness, etc) why should they be at a disadvantage applying for jobs with our government, which is supported by everyone's taxes
Public institutions do offer scholarships to traditionally under served populations such as http://www.albany.edu/studyabroad/diversity-scholarship.php (http://www.albany.edu/studyabroad/diversity-scholarship.php) http://www.albany.edu/studyabroad/world-within-reach-scholarship.php (http://www.albany.edu/studyabroad/world-within-reach-scholarship.php)
http://www.scholarshipsforwomen.net/government/ (http://www.scholarshipsforwomen.net/government/)
Nice try on your part though :)
^ Excellent illustrations of programs which are open to all...
Your first link starts with this:
"Diversity Abroad Honors Scholarship Program (SUNY)
The Office of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (ODEI) has announced the Diversity Abroad Honors Scholarship Program. This scholarship is intended to support candidates with exceptional academic merit. Any UAlbany student is eligible for this scholarship, regardless of what study abroad program they are attending. "
Your second link describes this when describing funds "just for women":
"Funding Just for Women
Of course, there are many scholarships and grants which are aimed specifically at women and helping them achieve their goal of higher education.
The AAUW (formerly the American Association of University Women) offers several different grants, fellowship and financial awards to help females:
Change careers
Advance in the workplace
Re-enter the workforce
Enter a degree program in which participation by women has traditionally been low, such as architecture, computer science and engineering.
Other fellowships are further restricted to women of a specific age group and economic background.
The Jeannette Rankin Women's Scholarship Fund offers a scholarship to women who are accepted at or enrolled at a regionally or ACICS-accredited institution earning a "technical or vocational education, an associate's degree, or a first bachelor's degree." Scholarship recipients must be at least 35 years old and demonstrate financial need."
There are more examples in the article, however ALL RESTRICTED scholarships are from private foundations or institutions. The public options go to all qualified applicants based on merit or need.
The rest of the link describes possible funding for all who qualify. This is, IMHO, not what we're discussing. I'm sure there is a good explanation for what CAP is doing with Corporate funds, I just don't see the connection with the above.
As veteran preferences go; one could argue it is a continued "thanks" for services rendered. All veterans may take advantage. Those who "cannot serve", can find other "preferences", they just need know where to look.
Thanks for engaging... :angel:
QuoteA more appropriate question is "Why SHOULD CAP administer it?"
I would think that CAP NHQ has plenty of other things to spend their time on than administering a scholarship program that is not our own.
For example, they could spend any time that is currently going towards the Feik scholarship (which I do suspect isn't a huge amount of time, but it takes something) towards raising outside money for our own CAP scholarships that are open to ALL cadets.
As long as I can remember, CAP has had gender specific activities. This includes the Eastern Airlines, Delta Airlines Stewardess Schools (female only) to the Region Male Cadet Exchanges (several Regions had these). There were even Region Girls Exchanges. Florida had several All-Girl Squadrons in the 60's and 70's. In fact the Miami All-Girls Squadron won Region Drill Competition. So a scholarship for females only is nothing new. It does not violate the CAP core values as some indicate. It does provide females a scholarship opportunity where they are not competing with scores of male cadets, which also opens up slots in other scholarships to male cadets. As usual Neds comments are right on the money about the Feik Scholarships.
Quote from: BillB on January 10, 2016, 04:05:39 PM
As long as I can remember, CAP has had gender specific activities. This includes the Eastern Airlines, Delta Airlines Stewardess Schools (female only) to the Region Male Cadet Exchanges (several Regions had these). There were even Region Girls Exchanges. Florida had several All-Girl Squadrons in the 60's and 70's. In fact the Miami All-Girls Squadron won Region Drill Competition. So a scholarship for females only is nothing new. It does not violate the CAP core values as some indicate. It does provide females a scholarship opportunity where they are not competing with scores of male cadets, which also opens up slots in other scholarships to male cadets. As usual Neds comments are right on the money about the Feik Scholarships.
That was the good ol' days, where women were still segregated by what we menfolk said they could do. "Awwww, they want equal rights. Isn't that cute? When you're done get back in the kitchen and make me a sammich." If you'll notice, all those types of activities are gone, and if there is an all-female drill team, that's their choice. CAP isn't making them do it.
The underlying issue is that CAP is a champion of equality, not a detractor. The problem most people see is that this scholarship is administered by NHQ, which is supposed to be impartial with regards to sex, gender, faith, color, creed, shoe size, and so on. The foundation itself is not a CAP organization, so they can set up whatever rules they want. If CAP gets in the mix and administers an exclusive scholarship, then that's why people are running about arms akimbo, clutching their pearls and saying "my stars!"
I say let the boys apply as well. If the Feik organization wants to eliminate their applications, it's their right, but CAP shouldn't say they can't. Because that's exclusivity based on gender.
Quote from: Garibaldi on January 10, 2016, 04:13:38 PM
Quote from: BillB on January 10, 2016, 04:05:39 PM
As long as I can remember, CAP has had gender specific activities. This includes the Eastern Airlines, Delta Airlines Stewardess Schools (female only) to the Region Male Cadet Exchanges (several Regions had these). There were even Region Girls Exchanges. Florida had several All-Girl Squadrons in the 60's and 70's. In fact the Miami All-Girls Squadron won Region Drill Competition. So a scholarship for females only is nothing new. It does not violate the CAP core values as some indicate. It does provide females a scholarship opportunity where they are not competing with scores of male cadets, which also opens up slots in other scholarships to male cadets. As usual Neds comments are right on the money about the Feik Scholarships.
That was the good ol' days, where women were still segregated by what we menfolk said they could do. "Awwww, they want equal rights. Isn't that cute? When you're done get back in the kitchen and make me a sammich." If you'll notice, all those types of activities are gone, and if there is an all-female drill team, that's their choice. CAP isn't making them do it.
The underlying issue is that CAP is a champion of equality, not a detractor. The problem most people see is that this scholarship is administered by NHQ, which is supposed to be impartial with regards to sex, gender, faith, color, creed, shoe size, and so on. The foundation itself is not a CAP organization, so they can set up whatever rules they want. If CAP gets in the mix and administers an exclusive scholarship, then that's why people are running about arms akimbo, clutching their pearls and saying "my stars!"
I say let the boys apply as well. If the Feik organization wants to eliminate their applications, it's their right, but CAP shouldn't say they can't. Because that's exclusivity based on gender.
:clap:
Quote from: FW on January 10, 2016, 01:48:02 PM
^ Excellent illustrations of programs which are open to all...
Your first link starts with this:
"Diversity Abroad Honors Scholarship Program (SUNY)
The Office of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (ODEI) has announced the Diversity Abroad Honors Scholarship Program. This scholarship is intended to support candidates with exceptional academic merit. Any UAlbany student is eligible for this scholarship, regardless of what study abroad program they are attending. "
Your second link describes this when describing funds "just for women":
"Funding Just for Women
Of course, there are many scholarships and grants which are aimed specifically at women and helping them achieve their goal of higher education.
The AAUW (formerly the American Association of University Women) offers several different grants, fellowship and financial awards to help females:
Change careers
Advance in the workplace
Re-enter the workforce
Enter a degree program in which participation by women has traditionally been low, such as architecture, computer science and engineering.
Other fellowships are further restricted to women of a specific age group and economic background.
The Jeannette Rankin Women's Scholarship Fund offers a scholarship to women who are accepted at or enrolled at a regionally or ACICS-accredited institution earning a "technical or vocational education, an associate's degree, or a first bachelor's degree." Scholarship recipients must be at least 35 years old and demonstrate financial need."
There are more examples in the article, however ALL RESTRICTED scholarships are from private foundations or institutions. The public options go to all qualified applicants based on merit or need.
The rest of the link describes possible funding for all who qualify. This is, IMHO, not what we're discussing. I'm sure there is a good explanation for what CAP is doing with Corporate funds, I just don't see the connection with the above.
As veteran preferences go; one could argue it is a continued "thanks" for services rendered. All veterans may take advantage. Those who "cannot serve", can find other "preferences", they just need know where to look.
Thanks for engaging... :angel:
Yes indeed the first scholarship does say any Albany Student can apply, it then goes on to define what they mean by diversity and the first definition is
The Foundation for Education Abroad defines diversity in study abroad as follows:
Minorities
First Generation College Students
Students studying within STEM disciplines
Students with disabilities
If I was a cadet I could apply for the Feik scholarship, I just wouldn't get it as I am male. A student could apply for the Albany scholarship and if they were a white male with no disabilities that was the 4th generation to attend and study philosophy I wouldn't get it.
Thanks for engaging :)
Quote from: FW on January 10, 2016, 03:29:52 AM
If the donors saw fit to contribute to CAP, as Col Lee stated, the funds are now "Corporate". I'm probably missing something here, but how do we allow the use of Corporate funds to be restricted by sex? How is an Organization, which depends on federal funds, able to use Corporate funds for this type of restricted use?
(It must be allowed, because we're doing it.)
Fred,
I think simply referring to the money as "Corporate funds" may be an oversimplification and is the source of some of the confusion. The donors contributed (and CAP accepted) restricted funds. Donors are lawfully permitted to do so, and. as you know, that is a very common practice in charitable giving. CAP simply does not have the authority to spend the funds in any other way. Restated, it would be illegal for CAP to NOT spend the funds as directed by the donor. And as a practical matter, if CAP chose to spend money in a way that clearly violates the donor's understanding of how the money would be spent, we would probably not see another donation from that particular source. And once word gets around, other donors would become extremely cautious about giving to CAP.
Labeling the funds as "Corporate" or not can be a little distracting in this regard, because the real issue in this discussion is the restriction placed by the donor, not the "color of the money" at the time moment of the disbursement. In essence, we are simply holding the money in trust to be disbursed to cadets as directed by the donor.
And to answer your question directly, we can allow the these donor funds / corporate funds to be restricted by sex because it benefits our cadets and there is no law or CAP policy/rule that would make it improper to do so. And that includes CAPR 36-1 for the reasons I've explained above.
Of course, CAP has no obligation to accept a restricted donation. And presumably, if we decided that we could no longer live with the restriction, we could simply return the donation and thank the donor for their kind thoughts. And, as others have pointed out, we could encourage the donor to run the selection process themselves, and we could publicize the scholarship and even link to it on our website just like we do for other outside scholarships.
My point is that none of these alternatives are improper. Ultimately it comes down to the donor's preference. From what I know of the donor(s) in this case, they would prefer that we administer the scholarship. They have generously written a check and are not anxious to create a website, process applications, vet the applicants, and disburse the funds to recipients. Especially when all of that work simply duplicates what we are already doing for our cadets.
So if Mr. donor calls and says he wants a scholarship for white non-Hispanic male cadets from two parent families who live outside of city limits, and they can have a lower rank than the main scholarship open to all cadets, you would be OK with accepting those funds and administering it?
Quote from: Ned on January 10, 2016, 05:09:21 PM
Ultimately it comes down to the donor's preference. From what I know of the donor(s) in this case, they would prefer that we administer the scholarship. They have generously written a check and are not anxious to create a website, process applications, vet the applicants, and disburse the funds to recipients. Especially when all of that work simply duplicates what we are already doing for our cadets.
The donor not wanting to deal with administering the funds should have nothing to do if it's right for CAP to accept and administer it.
Ned,
I totally understand your explanation, and really don't have a major itch with it, however The CAP Foundation was created, in part, to deal with such issues.
In the woulda coulda world, CAP might have referred the donors to work with the Foundation in dealing with a restricted scholarship. Just my $.02.
Btw; there is nothing wrong with CAP restricting a restriction, it just a refuses the donation. As, I noted previously, we've not let funds be restricted to this level before.
Quote from: stitchmom on January 10, 2016, 05:50:58 PM
The donor not wanting to deal with administering the funds should have nothing to do if it's right for CAP to accept and administer it.
If you are saying "If it was somehow improper for CAP to accept and administer the funds with the gender restriction, then the donor's preferences concerning the mechanics of the distribution shouldn't matter," I can only agree. But it bears repeating that neither the leadership nor I believe it is improper to accept and administer these particular funds for the reasons I have described above. Therefore, we can and should consider the donor's preferences when it comes to disbursement procedures. It is always a good idea to keep donors as happy as possible.
Quote from: stitchmom on January 10, 2016, 05:47:31 PM
So if Mr. donor calls and says he wants a scholarship for white non-Hispanic male cadets from two parent families who live outside of city limits, and they can have a lower rank than the main scholarship open to all cadets, you would be OK with accepting those funds and administering it?
I think I explained above that the leadership could very well choose to accept some restricted scholarships and decline others, and it would not necessarily violate any CAP policies or regulations. For example, if the Tuskeegee Airman Foundation wanted to fund a scholarship for African American cadets because African Americans are under represented in the aviation community, the leadership, might choose to accept it. If the KKK offered to fund a scholarship restricted to cadets of European heritage for the purpose of ensuring that persons of European heritage remain over represented in the aviation community, I expect the leadership would likely decline the offer. Each donation and offer are examined on a case-by-case basis and measured against CAP policy and any other consideration the leadership chooses to employ
Quote from: FW on January 10, 2016, 06:01:18 PM
Ned,
I totally understand your explanation, and really don't have a major itch with it, however The CAP Foundation was created, in part, to deal with such issues.
In the woulda coulda world, CAP might have referred the donors to work with the Foundation in dealing with a restricted scholarship. Just my $.02.
Btw; there is nothing wrong with CAP restricting a restriction, it just a refuses the donation. As, I noted previously, we've not let funds be restricted to this level before.
.
Sir, I think the difference is the that the Foundation raises funds and then disburses them to us. We are the sole beneficiaries of their efforts on our behalf. The Foundation does not have a mechanism or infrastructure to administer individual scholarships. They could certainly receive restricted funds from a donor and pass them along to us, but I don't think that buys us anything since the funds would still be legally restricted. We'd be right back where we started this discussion.
The model has always been "On behalf of the Foundation, here are some funds for you (CAP) to use for scholarships." I suppose the Foundation could choose to set up some infrastructure and award some scholarships themselves, but any duplication of effort in terms of outreach, vetting, and the mechanics of distribution would be a waste of money that could have been used for the scholarships themselves, lowering the effective throughput of the original donors. Higher administrative costs would, in turn, affect things like ratings on Guidestar, Charity Watch, and others.
Ned Lee
Quote from: Ned on January 10, 2016, 07:03:04 PM
Quote from: FW on January 10, 2016, 06:01:18 PM
Ned,
I totally understand your explanation, and really don't have a major itch with it, however The CAP Foundation was created, in part, to deal with such issues.
In the woulda coulda world, CAP might have referred the donors to work with the Foundation in dealing with a restricted scholarship. Just my $.02.
Btw; there is nothing wrong with CAP restricting a restriction, it just a refuses the donation. As, I noted previously, we've not let funds be restricted to this level before.
.
Sir, I think the difference is the that the Foundation raises funds and then disburses them to us. We are the sole beneficiaries of their efforts on our behalf. The Foundation does not have a mechanism or infrastructure to administer individual scholarships. They could certainly receive restricted funds from a donor and pass them along to us, but I don't think that buys us anything since the funds would still be legally restricted. We'd be right back where we started this discussion.
The model has always been "On behalf of the Foundation, here are some funds for you (CAP) to use for scholarships." I suppose the Foundation could choose to set up some infrastructure and award some scholarships themselves, but any duplication of effort in terms of outreach, vetting, and the mechanics of distribution would be a waste of money that could have been used for the scholarships themselves, lowering the effective throughput of the original donors. Higher administrative costs would, in turn, affect things like ratings on Guidestar, Charity Watch, and others.
Ned Lee
Col.,
It's been a few years since I served as the Foundation's Treasurer, and may not know how things work today, however I do know that the original purpose of the Foundation was to provide for the welfare of CAP where it couldn't provide for itself. The founding members hoped the organization would develop to the point it could provide scholarships and grants due to a sustaining contributor base; relieving CAP the major burden of fundraising and worrying how to provide for those programs not covered by congressional grants. I don't think it would need a great infrastructure, and probably would not be difficult to get volunteers to help with the process. Giving aid and assistance to those who are deserving or in need is laudable, and since we're not talking millions (yet...) doable.
I do appreciate the efforts of CAP to deal with this matter, I just rather see it done without the drama..., but this is CAPTalk >:D
Quote from: Garibaldi on January 10, 2016, 04:13:38 PM
Quote from: BillB on January 10, 2016, 04:05:39 PM
As long as I can remember, CAP has had gender specific activities. This includes the Eastern Airlines, Delta Airlines Stewardess Schools (female only) to the Region Male Cadet Exchanges (several Regions had these). There were even Region Girls Exchanges. Florida had several All-Girl Squadrons in the 60's and 70's. In fact the Miami All-Girls Squadron won Region Drill Competition. So a scholarship for females only is nothing new. It does not violate the CAP core values as some indicate. It does provide females a scholarship opportunity where they are not competing with scores of male cadets, which also opens up slots in other scholarships to male cadets. As usual Neds comments are right on the money about the Feik Scholarships.
That was the good ol' days, where women were still segregated by what we menfolk said they could do. "Awwww, they want equal rights. Isn't that cute? When you're done get back in the kitchen and make me a sammich." If you'll notice, all those types of activities are gone, and if there is an all-female drill team, that's their choice. CAP isn't making them do it.
The underlying issue is that CAP is a champion of equality, not a detractor. The problem most people see is that this scholarship is administered by NHQ, which is supposed to be impartial with regards to sex, gender, faith, color, creed, shoe size, and so on. The foundation itself is not a CAP organization, so they can set up whatever rules they want. If CAP gets in the mix and administers an exclusive scholarship, then that's why people are running about arms akimbo, clutching their pearls and saying "my stars!"
I say let the boys apply as well. If the Feik organization wants to eliminate their applications, it's their right, but CAP shouldn't say they can't. Because that's exclusivity based on gender.
And PJOC is exclusivity based on fitness level and age, and all the other flight scholarships are exclusive based on rank, and most NCSAs exclude cadets based on age. As mentioned by Ned long ago we eliminate entire categories of people from events all the time
Quote from: Ned on January 10, 2016, 07:03:04 PM
Quote from: stitchmom on January 10, 2016, 05:47:31 PM
So if Mr. donor calls and says he wants a scholarship for white non-Hispanic male cadets from two parent families who live outside of city limits, and they can have a lower rank than the main scholarship open to all cadets, you would be OK with accepting those funds and administering it?
I think I explained above that the leadership could very well choose to accept some restricted scholarships and decline others, and it would not necessarily violate any CAP policies or regulations. For example, if the Tuskeegee Airman Foundation wanted to fund a scholarship for African American cadets because African Americans are under represented in the aviation community, the leadership, might choose to accept it. If the KKK offered to fund a scholarship restricted to cadets of European heritage for the purpose of ensuring that persons of European heritage remain over represented in the aviation community, I expect the leadership would likely decline the offer. Each donation and offer are examined on a case-by-case basis and measured against CAP policy and any other consideration the leadership chooses to employ
Yes, let's equivocate the Tuskegee Airman Foundation with the KKK... ::) I'm sure
both groups would really appreciate the analogy.
Your argument has just
(http://www.networkedinsights.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/fonz_shark.jpg).
Pretty sad, really.
Quote from: Nuke52 on January 10, 2016, 09:19:42 PM
Quote from: Ned on January 10, 2016, 07:03:04 PM
Quote from: stitchmom on January 10, 2016, 05:47:31 PM
So if Mr. donor calls and says he wants a scholarship for white non-Hispanic male cadets from two parent families who live outside of city limits, and they can have a lower rank than the main scholarship open to all cadets, you would be OK with accepting those funds and administering it?
I think I explained above that the leadership could very well choose to accept some restricted scholarships and decline others, and it would not necessarily violate any CAP policies or regulations. For example, if the Tuskeegee Airman Foundation wanted to fund a scholarship for African American cadets because African Americans are under represented in the aviation community, the leadership, might choose to accept it. If the KKK offered to fund a scholarship restricted to cadets of European heritage for the purpose of ensuring that persons of European heritage remain over represented in the aviation community, I expect the leadership would likely decline the offer. Each donation and offer are examined on a case-by-case basis and measured against CAP policy and any other consideration the leadership chooses to employ
Yes, let's equivocate the Tuskegee Airman Foundation with the KKK... ::) I'm sure both groups would really appreciate the analogy.
Your argument has just
(http://www.networkedinsights.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/fonz_shark.jpg).
Pretty sad, really.
PM sent. The personal jabs will stop.
Quote from: Pace on January 10, 2016, 09:30:37 PM
Quote from: Nuke52 on January 10, 2016, 09:19:42 PM
Quote from: Ned on January 10, 2016, 07:03:04 PM
Quote from: stitchmom on January 10, 2016, 05:47:31 PM
So if Mr. donor calls and says he wants a scholarship for white non-Hispanic male cadets from two parent families who live outside of city limits, and they can have a lower rank than the main scholarship open to all cadets, you would be OK with accepting those funds and administering it?
I think I explained above that the leadership could very well choose to accept some restricted scholarships and decline others, and it would not necessarily violate any CAP policies or regulations. For example, if the Tuskeegee Airman Foundation wanted to fund a scholarship for African American cadets because African Americans are under represented in the aviation community, the leadership, might choose to accept it. If the KKK offered to fund a scholarship restricted to cadets of European heritage for the purpose of ensuring that persons of European heritage remain over represented in the aviation community, I expect the leadership would likely decline the offer. Each donation and offer are examined on a case-by-case basis and measured against CAP policy and any other consideration the leadership chooses to employ
Yes, let's equivocate the Tuskegee Airman Foundation with the KKK... ::) I'm sure both groups would really appreciate the analogy.
Your argument has just
(http://www.networkedinsights.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/fonz_shark.jpg).
Pretty sad, really.
PM sent. The personal jabs will stop.
What "personal jabs"? Or as you put it in the PM, "personal attacks"?
Where is the "personal jab/attack" in my last post? I'm obviously a pretty dense guy, so please, you need to spell it out for me
very clearly.
I pointed out the deficiency in another poster's line of reasoning and didn't say a single thing about him as a person. I understand that Ned is CAPTALK royalty and NEVER to be questioned, but only the thinnest of skins (not that I'm attacking or jabbing anyone here as having one...) could possibly believe that to be a personal attack against him, only a critique of his statement.
So? Because my critical thinking and reasoning skills are so obviously lacking, please explain to me exactly where I committed a personal attack so that I can avoid ever doing it again.
Fellow CAPTALK'ers, if you see "suspended" or "banned" attached to my handle after this post, you'll know exactly how much the moderatorship here values and/or allows the free exchange of ideas.
Peace!
Colonel,
you could not have stated your position more clearly that you are directly trying to correct a ratio imbalance through rigging the game for some, rather than by fair selection for all. This response seems to clearly indicate that white male cadet preference is "odious" (to use your term), yet bigoted preference for other groups (gender or race) is acceptable, as long as they fall on the "right" side of the scale. Where there are clear mission related criteria to screen people for safety or skills, we're now saying that external genitals are selective criteria for a pilot scholarship administered by the organization that has a reg forbidding sex discrimination. So, from the point of view of many of us, this all seems to be reduced to the imposition of exclusion as a political tool, rather than actual adherence to administration of a fair and balanced program across the board IAW our regulatory language. Again:
"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)".
vs.
"Must be a current FEMALE CAP cadet".
Sir, there's zero mention of acceptable ratios, imbalances, racial or gender goals, or such corrective actions as you posit, sir, in the official language. Absent language in the policy authorizing "affirmative action" discrimination as authorized elsewhere in public law and in other academic and nonprofit organizations, to impose them here in CAP arbitrarily is CLEARLY a policy bust in that the existing policy itself is the sole guard and corrective mechanism against discrimination, if reinforced and guarded and applied, which it appears not to be the case here.
Pushing forward with any effort to impose corrective action measures like sex segregated scholarships is not allowable under currently written policy, and this scholarship should be recrafted.
I'm offering to help negotiate that, and to help draft STEM modules focused at recruiting underrepresented groups, as I've stated, if we're serious about advocacy of girls going into engineering and aerospace while still coloring between the lines of our written policy.
Respectfully Submitted (R/S),
Spam
I am not censoring free speech. If that were the case, I would have already shut down this thread 2 pages ago. My problem is that instead of sticking to the merits of your perspective and points you disagree with, you felt the need to post a picture intending to incite a rise out of those who disagree with you and add the line "pretty sad, really."
Your tone is also not appreciated in that you have been asked to be civil yet you clearly have no intention of doing so. When called out on your words, you cry free speech and censorship instead of realizing that such behavior is not productive discourse. I am not telling you to hold your point of view. I am stating to you and all that we will keep this professional. Any one of the posters who have disagreed with your merits (including me) could have posted the same demeaning comment, but we haven't because it's the merits that we dispute critically and professionally. You are an adult, you are a senior officer in this organization, and you are expected to be able to act accordingly, even on an internet forum. Stick to the merits of the discussion. The "personal attacks" will not be tolerated.
Ned, while I do respect him greatly, is no more or less protected than any other member here. If he had made the remark you made, he would have received the PM instead of you. He has yet to resort to such tactics and has repeatedly kept on point with the specifics that are in dispute in this thread.
I am not looking to suspend or ban you, but posting inflammatory comments will not be tolerated. Last warning.
Quote from: Pace on January 10, 2016, 10:39:29 PM
When called out on your words, you cry free speech and censorship instead of realizing that such behavior is not productive discourse.
You are an adult, you are a senior officer in this organization, and you are expected to be able to act accordingly, even on an internet forum. Stick to the merits of the discussion. The "personal attacks" will not be tolerated.
I have not anywhere "cried" free speech or censorship or anything else for that matter, and for you, "an adult and senior officer in this organization," to falsely and maliciously claim so is beneath the dignity of your position, both here on CAP Talk and in CAP in general. You have hurt my
feelings with this false accusation, sir, and I demand an immediate and public apology!
I certainly hope you and the leadership of this forum practice what you preach and demand the same standard of conduct from the moderators as you do the posters: your false and malicious "personal attack" against me that I "cried"
anything MUST "not be tolerated"!
BTW, I certainly hope you sent Ned a PM warning
him about equating the Tuskegee Airmen Foundation and KKK. No one, repeat
NO ONE, ever made any such ridiculous claim that the KKK would or should offer a scholarhip to CAP. His straw man argument invoking the KKK is not only deliberately misleading, but also defaming to infer that anyone would claim such. It is also a
VERY hateful and disturbing reference that for some of us should
NEVER be brought up, especially so flippantly. My personal background is such that
my people have been unfairly, violently, and frequently fatally attacked by the KKK throughout our history. To willfully bring that out as a reference is personally disrespectful to me, my family, and my every single person of my background. That, sir, is NOT "stick(ing) to the merits of the discussion," as you so sagely demand. It is also something that is certainly not appropriate of "an adult or senior officer in this organization," and I truly hope he has
also been duly chastened... An apology from Ned is also clearly deserved.
I assume this is my last CAP Talk post, because you've made clear you won't tolerate dissent and certainly can't tolerate when your hypocrisy has been laid bare. It's been, uh, grand...
Adios!
Quote from: Nuke52 on January 10, 2016, 11:36:04 PM
Quote from: Pace on January 10, 2016, 10:39:29 PM
When called out on your words, you cry free speech and censorship instead of realizing that such behavior is not productive discourse.
You are an adult, you are a senior officer in this organization, and you are expected to be able to act accordingly, even on an internet forum. Stick to the merits of the discussion. The "personal attacks" will not be tolerated.
I have not anywhere "cried" free speech or censorship or anything else for that matter, and for you, "an adult and senior officer in this organization," to falsely and maliciously claim so is beneath the dignity of your position, both here on CAP Talk and in CAP in general. You have hurt my feelings with this false accusation, sir, and I demand an immediate and public apology!
I certainly hope you and the leadership of this forum practice what you preach and demand the same standard of conduct from the moderators as you do the posters: your false and malicious "personal attack" against me that I "cried" anything MUST "not be tolerated"!
QuoteFellow CAPTALK'ers, if you see "suspended" or "banned" attached to my handle after this post, you'll know exactly how much the moderatorship here values and/or allows the free exchange of ideas.
I stand by my previous statement.
I'm really trying to give you the opportunity to conduct yourself within the membership code of conduct. We have rules. You broke them. You have been warned. You keep arguing instead of moving on and getting back on topic professionally. Let's not detract this thread any longer, please.
I was helping my son to find a summer encampment and came across the following from the Texas Wing Glider Encampment - http://www.ncsas.com/?tx_wing_glider_academy&show=career_fair&careerFairID=68 (http://www.ncsas.com/?tx_wing_glider_academy&show=career_fair&careerFairID=68)
QuoteCadets that are 15 or older and have earned the Wright Brothers Award are encouraged to apply for the Col Mary Feik Flight Scholarship to help pay for this activity!
What about Cadets under 15? The minimum age to solo in a glider is 14.
Quote from: Thonawit on January 11, 2016, 02:51:39 AM
I was helping my son to find a summer encampment and came across the following from the Texas Wing Glider Encampment - http://www.ncsas.com/?tx_wing_glider_academy&show=career_fair&careerFairID=68 (http://www.ncsas.com/?tx_wing_glider_academy&show=career_fair&careerFairID=68)
QuoteCadets that are 15 or older and have earned the Wright Brothers Award are encouraged to apply for the Col Mary Feik Flight Scholarship to help pay for this activity!
What about Cadets under 15? The minimum age to solo in a glider is 14.
15 is the age required to receive the Feik scholarship and has nothing to do with the requirements for soloing in a glider.
Quote2. 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).
We are looking at age based discrimination.
Quote from: Nuke52 on January 10, 2016, 11:36:04 PM
BTW, I certainly hope you sent Ned a PM warning him about equating the Tuskegee Airmen Foundation and KKK. No one, repeat NO ONE, ever made any such ridiculous claim that the KKK would or should offer a scholarhip to CAP. His straw man argument invoking the KKK is not only deliberately misleading, but also defaming to infer that anyone would claim such. It is also a VERY hateful and disturbing reference that for some of us should NEVER be brought up, especially so flippantly. My personal background is such that my people have been unfairly, violently, and frequently fatally attacked by the KKK throughout our history. To willfully bring that out as a reference is personally disrespectful to me, my family, and my every single person of my background. That, sir, is NOT "stick(ing) to the merits of the discussion," as you so sagely demand. It is also something that is certainly not appropriate of "an adult or senior officer in this organization," and I truly hope he has also been duly chastened... An apology from Ned is also clearly deserved.
I assume this is my last CAP Talk post, because you've made clear you won't tolerate dissent and certainly can't tolerate when your hypocrisy has been laid bare. It's been, uh, grand...
Adios!
Don't get bent out of shape on that one, he was trying to say it's their decision to evaluate the scholarship. I don't agree with it but he wasn't throwing in extra disrespect.
Quote from: Thonawit on January 11, 2016, 04:16:11 PM
Quote2. 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).
We are looking at age based discrimination.
Shall we inject some logic at this point. Using most literal interpretation of the criteria above the following could also be considered discriminatory:
Any event taking place on the Sabbath of a faith that forbids working on the Sabbath (Sorry, all SAREXs, Encampments, Color Guard competitions, etc) Not being a religious expert by any means, I can't name all of them but observant Jews cannot "work" (which has a special definition and includes things like turning on lights, writing, and carrying) from sundown on Friday to one hour after sundown on Saturday. Since a lion share of our organizations events happen on a Saturday (or are multiday events that include Saturdays) are we as an organization Anti-Semetic, I think not. Since at things like NCSAs and Encampments we feed people are we going to start making sure the food is Kosher? Halal? Vegan? Vegetarian? Do the facilities we use have the wherewithal to do so? Or should we just abandon these activities as not everyone can participate?
At some point does the potential member not have the responsibility to look at an organization and say, this is not something I can participate in as my religion, my medical issues, my whatever would not allow me to fully participate.
Getting to Thonawit's point. We limit participation by age everyday (at encampments, NCSAs, being a member of aircrew). Where is the hue and cry? At some point people have to use a little logic, or we as an organization need to say since we want to offend no one, everyone is allowed to participate in everything regardless of ability to be effective (See Police Academy). I look forward to the use of 12 year old scanners :)
Actually Alaric, DOD does require that Kosher and Halal meals be provided. We are also required to ensure that any religious denomination be allowed for Spiritual aid or comfort. I.E., if you have a Cadet that requests to see a Rabbi during Encampment, the Encampment Chaplain must use every effort to get a Rabbi. This is called Respect. Our Unit just completed our Annual Training on Anti-Discrimination policy, we can not be bias based on race, religion, color, creed, gender, National Origin, Sexual Orientation, age, disability or any other protected group. We must make every reasonable accommodation to be inclusive and transparent.
Quote from: CAPDCCMOM on January 11, 2016, 05:58:50 PM
Actually Alaric, DOD does require that Kosher and Halal meals be provided. We are also required to ensure that any religious denomination be allowed for Spiritual aid or comfort. I.E., if you have a Cadet that requests to see a Rabbi during Encampment, the Encampment Chaplain must use every effort to get a Rabbi. This is called Respect. Our Unit just completed our Annual Training on Anti-Discrimination policy, we can not be bias based on race, religion, color, creed, gender, National Origin, Sexual Orientation, age, disability or any other protected group. We must make every reasonable accommodation to be inclusive and transparent.
DoD requires that Kosher and Halal be provide to service people; I know for a fact that is not a requirement at for instance the NCSA I attend, I bring my own food. It is not required at encampments, and if it is we are failing since the kitchens are not kosher (I have no idea if the utensils for Halal food are required to be kept in a certain way). I do not disagree that the Encampment Chaplain would attempt to get a Rabbi, but the issue is that running events on Saturdays immediately excludes observant Jews, which in my mind is not discrimination, but one could interpret it as such
Quote from: Alaric on January 11, 2016, 07:09:28 PM
Quote from: CAPDCCMOM on January 11, 2016, 05:58:50 PM
Actually Alaric, DOD does require that Kosher and Halal meals be provided. We are also required to ensure that any religious denomination be allowed for Spiritual aid or comfort. I.E., if you have a Cadet that requests to see a Rabbi during Encampment, the Encampment Chaplain must use every effort to get a Rabbi. This is called Respect. Our Unit just completed our Annual Training on Anti-Discrimination policy, we can not be bias based on race, religion, color, creed, gender, National Origin, Sexual Orientation, age, disability or any other protected group. We must make every reasonable accommodation to be inclusive and transparent.
DoD requires that Kosher and Halal be provide to service people; I know for a fact that is not a requirement at for instance the NCSA I attend, I bring my own food. It is not required at encampments, and if it is we are failing since the kitchens are not kosher (I have no idea if the utensils for Halal food are required to be kept in a certain way). I do not disagree that the Encampment Chaplain would attempt to get a Rabbi, but the issue is that running events on Saturdays immediately excludes observant Jews, which in my mind is not discrimination, but one could interpret it as such
IF CAP held activities SPECIFICALLY in order to exclude members of different faiths, I'd give that some credence. Historically, members work Monday-Friday 8-5 (I'm not one of them, my work week starts on Thursday and ends Monday), so weekends are about the only practical time to have SAREXs and so on. This is not done to exclude, but to make it as easy for the 50,000+ members to participate outside of meetings.
Food-wise, I would assume that any encampment held on a DoD installation would already have a mechanism in place for feeding people with not only dietary restrictions (peanut allergies, etc), but religious exemptions. For someone needing/wanting a Rabbi, I'm fairly certain one can be summoned with little difficulty on a DoD installation, or perhaps from a synagogue nearby. The base chaplain will have that information.
Reasonable accommodation is just that: reasonable. If the member understands that hurdles were jumped, fire rings were jumped through, and mountains were moved to accommodate them and it didn't work out logistically, it sure would go over better than "Nah, we can't because reasons."
Quote from: Garibaldi on January 11, 2016, 07:40:09 PM
Quote from: Alaric on January 11, 2016, 07:09:28 PM
Quote from: CAPDCCMOM on January 11, 2016, 05:58:50 PM
Actually Alaric, DOD does require that Kosher and Halal meals be provided. We are also required to ensure that any religious denomination be allowed for Spiritual aid or comfort. I.E., if you have a Cadet that requests to see a Rabbi during Encampment, the Encampment Chaplain must use every effort to get a Rabbi. This is called Respect. Our Unit just completed our Annual Training on Anti-Discrimination policy, we can not be bias based on race, religion, color, creed, gender, National Origin, Sexual Orientation, age, disability or any other protected group. We must make every reasonable accommodation to be inclusive and transparent.
DoD requires that Kosher and Halal be provide to service people; I know for a fact that is not a requirement at for instance the NCSA I attend, I bring my own food. It is not required at encampments, and if it is we are failing since the kitchens are not kosher (I have no idea if the utensils for Halal food are required to be kept in a certain way). I do not disagree that the Encampment Chaplain would attempt to get a Rabbi, but the issue is that running events on Saturdays immediately excludes observant Jews, which in my mind is not discrimination, but one could interpret it as such
IF CAP held activities SPECIFICALLY in order to exclude members of different faiths, I'd give that some credence. Historically, members work Monday-Friday 8-5 (I'm not one of them, my work week starts on Thursday and ends Monday), so weekends are about the only practical time to have SAREXs and so on. This is not done to exclude, but to make it as easy for the 50,000+ members to participate outside of meetings.
Food-wise, I would assume that any encampment held on a DoD installation would already have a mechanism in place for feeding people with not only dietary restrictions (peanut allergies, etc), but religious exemptions. For someone needing/wanting a Rabbi, I'm fairly certain one can be summoned with little difficulty on a DoD installation, or perhaps from a synagogue nearby. The base chaplain will have that information.
Reasonable accommodation is just that: reasonable. If the member understands that hurdles were jumped, fire rings were jumped through, and mountains were moved to accommodate them and it didn't work out logistically, it sure would go over better than "Nah, we can't because reasons."
I didn't make my point well obviously. I don't think any of it is discrimination, I was pointing out that the same logic that is being used in this argument about the scholarship could be used to argue for Sunday SAREX's; 12 year old scanners, etc. And as an FYI I was at NER RSC a few years ago there is no Rabbi assigned there and very few synagogues in that area (Ft Dix). Nor was Kosher food an option in the dining hall, I brought my own.
Quote from: Alaric on January 11, 2016, 08:28:53 PM
Quote from: Garibaldi on January 11, 2016, 07:40:09 PM
Quote from: Alaric on January 11, 2016, 07:09:28 PM
Quote from: CAPDCCMOM on January 11, 2016, 05:58:50 PM
Actually Alaric, DOD does require that Kosher and Halal meals be provided. We are also required to ensure that any religious denomination be allowed for Spiritual aid or comfort. I.E., if you have a Cadet that requests to see a Rabbi during Encampment, the Encampment Chaplain must use every effort to get a Rabbi. This is called Respect. Our Unit just completed our Annual Training on Anti-Discrimination policy, we can not be bias based on race, religion, color, creed, gender, National Origin, Sexual Orientation, age, disability or any other protected group. We must make every reasonable accommodation to be inclusive and transparent.
DoD requires that Kosher and Halal be provide to service people; I know for a fact that is not a requirement at for instance the NCSA I attend, I bring my own food. It is not required at encampments, and if it is we are failing since the kitchens are not kosher (I have no idea if the utensils for Halal food are required to be kept in a certain way). I do not disagree that the Encampment Chaplain would attempt to get a Rabbi, but the issue is that running events on Saturdays immediately excludes observant Jews, which in my mind is not discrimination, but one could interpret it as such
IF CAP held activities SPECIFICALLY in order to exclude members of different faiths, I'd give that some credence. Historically, members work Monday-Friday 8-5 (I'm not one of them, my work week starts on Thursday and ends Monday), so weekends are about the only practical time to have SAREXs and so on. This is not done to exclude, but to make it as easy for the 50,000+ members to participate outside of meetings.
Food-wise, I would assume that any encampment held on a DoD installation would already have a mechanism in place for feeding people with not only dietary restrictions (peanut allergies, etc), but religious exemptions. For someone needing/wanting a Rabbi, I'm fairly certain one can be summoned with little difficulty on a DoD installation, or perhaps from a synagogue nearby. The base chaplain will have that information.
Reasonable accommodation is just that: reasonable. If the member understands that hurdles were jumped, fire rings were jumped through, and mountains were moved to accommodate them and it didn't work out logistically, it sure would go over better than "Nah, we can't because reasons."
I didn't make my point well obviously. I don't think any of it is discrimination, I was pointing out that the same logic that is being used in this argument about the scholarship could be used to argue for Sunday SAREX's; 12 year old scanners, etc. And as an FYI I was at NER RSC a few years ago there is no Rabbi assigned there and very few synagogues in that area (Ft Dix). Nor was Kosher food an option in the dining hall, I brought my own.
NO RABBI AT FORT DIX???? New Jersey. Oy. :o
Quote from: Alaric on January 11, 2016, 08:28:53 PM
Quote from: Garibaldi on January 11, 2016, 07:40:09 PM
Quote from: Alaric on January 11, 2016, 07:09:28 PM
Quote from: CAPDCCMOM on January 11, 2016, 05:58:50 PM
Actually Alaric, DOD does require that Kosher and Halal meals be provided. We are also required to ensure that any religious denomination be allowed for Spiritual aid or comfort. I.E., if you have a Cadet that requests to see a Rabbi during Encampment, the Encampment Chaplain must use every effort to get a Rabbi. This is called Respect. Our Unit just completed our Annual Training on Anti-Discrimination policy, we can not be bias based on race, religion, color, creed, gender, National Origin, Sexual Orientation, age, disability or any other protected group. We must make every reasonable accommodation to be inclusive and transparent.
DoD requires that Kosher and Halal be provide to service people; I know for a fact that is not a requirement at for instance the NCSA I attend, I bring my own food. It is not required at encampments, and if it is we are failing since the kitchens are not kosher (I have no idea if the utensils for Halal food are required to be kept in a certain way). I do not disagree that the Encampment Chaplain would attempt to get a Rabbi, but the issue is that running events on Saturdays immediately excludes observant Jews, which in my mind is not discrimination, but one could interpret it as such
IF CAP held activities SPECIFICALLY in order to exclude members of different faiths, I'd give that some credence. Historically, members work Monday-Friday 8-5 (I'm not one of them, my work week starts on Thursday and ends Monday), so weekends are about the only practical time to have SAREXs and so on. This is not done to exclude, but to make it as easy for the 50,000+ members to participate outside of meetings.
Food-wise, I would assume that any encampment held on a DoD installation would already have a mechanism in place for feeding people with not only dietary restrictions (peanut allergies, etc), but religious exemptions. For someone needing/wanting a Rabbi, I'm fairly certain one can be summoned with little difficulty on a DoD installation, or perhaps from a synagogue nearby. The base chaplain will have that information.
Reasonable accommodation is just that: reasonable. If the member understands that hurdles were jumped, fire rings were jumped through, and mountains were moved to accommodate them and it didn't work out logistically, it sure would go over better than "Nah, we can't because reasons."
I didn't make my point well obviously. I don't think any of it is discrimination, I was pointing out that the same logic that is being used in this argument about the scholarship could be used to argue for Sunday SAREX's; 12 year old scanners, etc. And as an FYI I was at NER RSC a few years ago there is no Rabbi assigned there and very few synagogues in that area (Ft Dix). Nor was Kosher food an option in the dining hall, I brought my own.
Not too sure what you mean by "the area", but I can think of about 6 or so within a 30 minute drive. What dining hall did you go to? They have the option, but needs to be coordinated. Bad on the school planners...
Quote from: jeders on January 11, 2016, 02:28:55 PM
Quote from: Thonawit on January 11, 2016, 02:51:39 AM
I was helping my son to find a summer encampment and came across the following from the Texas Wing Glider Encampment - http://www.ncsas.com/?tx_wing_glider_academy&show=career_fair&careerFairID=68 (http://www.ncsas.com/?tx_wing_glider_academy&show=career_fair&careerFairID=68)
QuoteCadets that are 15 or older and have earned the Wright Brothers Award are encouraged to apply for the Col Mary Feik Flight Scholarship to help pay for this activity!
What about Cadets under 15? The minimum age to solo in a glider is 14.
15 is the age required to receive the Feik scholarship and has nothing to do with the requirements for soloing in a glider.
I strongly suspect that the age 15 minimum age has to do with maturity levels.
What does that have to do with it? Minimum age for the activity is 14. It's not as if they're saying "ok you can go at 14, but we aren't paying until you're 15."
Also remember that the Col Mary Feik Scholarship is for ANY flight related training.....and not just NCSAs.
The link between the two is simply a reminder that "if you get selected you are eligible to use the Feik Scholarship money to pay for it."
Quote from: Nuke52 on January 10, 2016, 09:19:42 PM
Yes, let's equivocate the Tuskegee Airman Foundation with the KKK... ::) I'm sure both groups would really appreciate the analogy.
...
Pretty sad, really.
I think this straw man argument is indeed "pretty sad" and NOT what the Colonel said at all.
CAP is the Air Force Auxiliary and the Air Force and other government and non-profit institutions have similar programs. There's
nothing improper about it, as Col Lee has stated several times.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on January 12, 2016, 03:50:23 PM
Quote from: Nuke52 on January 10, 2016, 09:19:42 PM
Yes, let's equivocate the Tuskegee Airman Foundation with the KKK... ::) I'm sure both groups would really appreciate the analogy.
...
Pretty sad, really.
I think this straw man argument is indeed "pretty sad" and NOT what the Colonel said at all.
I know I used some pretty big words there, so you might want to look them up:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/equivocate (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/equivocate) [Although in hindsight, the synonym "prevaricate" may have been more accurate.]
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/analogy (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/analogy)
Umm, Mr. Pace, sir: I'm so, so sorry to bother you, sir, but Storm Chaser said my argument was "
pretty sad," sir, and my feelings are definitely hurt, sir, by his post which was "
intended to incite a rise out of" me, sir. I hope you're going to also warn
him both publicly and privately about "personal jabs" and "personal attacks"...
Flashback:
Quote from: Pace on January 10, 2016, 10:39:29 PM
... you felt the need to post a picture intending to incite a rise out of those who disagree with you and add the line "pretty sad, really."
... The "personal attacks" will not be tolerated.
... posting inflammatory comments will not be tolerated. Last warning.
But I'm not holding my breath.
Do you ever let up?
Lt Col Nuke52,
If my comments offended you in any way, please accept my apologies. It wasn't my intent to offend you.
Nevertheless, I think your argument is not a good one and your comparison is inappropriate at best. You know what Col Lee said (it's clearly stated in his multiple posts) and somehow twisted his example in your reply. I don't know if it was intentional or not. Maybe I jumped to conclusions when I read your post. But it's clear from the tone of your posts that you've taken this discussion personal. It shouldn't be.
I hope we can continue discussing our disagreements with respect and maybe even try to find a middle ground. Have a good day, sir.
Respectfully,
Storm Chaser
Quote from: Nuke52 on January 12, 2016, 07:10:43 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on January 12, 2016, 03:50:23 PM
Quote from: Nuke52 on January 10, 2016, 09:19:42 PM
Yes, let's equivocate the Tuskegee Airman Foundation with the KKK... ::) I'm sure both groups would really appreciate the analogy.
...
Pretty sad, really.
I think this straw man argument is indeed "pretty sad" and NOT what the Colonel said at all.
I know I used some pretty big words there, so you might want to look them up:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/equivocate (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/equivocate) [Although in hindsight, the synonym "prevaricate" may have been more accurate.]
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/analogy (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/analogy)
Umm, Mr. Pace, sir: I'm so, so sorry to bother you, sir, but Storm Chaser said my argument was "pretty sad," sir, and my feelings are definitely hurt, sir, by his post which was "intended to incite a rise out of" me, sir. I hope you're going to also warn him both publicly and privately about "personal jabs" and "personal attacks"...
Flashback:
Quote from: Pace on January 10, 2016, 10:39:29 PM
... you felt the need to post a picture intending to incite a rise out of those who disagree with you and add the line "pretty sad, really."
... The "personal attacks" will not be tolerated.
... posting inflammatory comments will not be tolerated. Last warning.
But I'm not holding my breath.
Enough. You just can't help but insult other people. And for the record, he was clearly quoting you.
This thread is over, and so is your membership on CAPTalk.