Col Mary Feik Scholarship only for females?

[BillB]

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.

[Garibaldi]

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.

[Nuke52]

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:

[Alaric]

^ 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

[Ned]

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.

[stitchmom]

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?

[stitchmom]

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.

[FW]

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.

[Ned]

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.

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

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

[FW]

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 

[Alaric]

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

[Nuke52]

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
.

Pretty sad, really.

[Pace]

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
.

Pretty sad, really.

PM sent. The personal jabs will stop.

[Nuke52]

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
.

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!

[Spam]

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

[Pace]

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.

[Nuke52]

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!

[Pace]

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"!

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. 

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.

[Thonawit]

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

Cadets 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.

[jeders]

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

Cadets 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.