Proposal #52: When I'm twenty-wow-wow-one.
I propose that we redefine JB so that the age 21 (rather than 26) is the upper age limit; after the age of 21 a CISVer should no more be called "junior" nor take part in JB-meetings or JB-boards.
Rationale
In CISV we define someone under the age of 26 as a "junior" – regardless of if he/she is active in the junior branch (or not) and what type of leadership in entrusted upon him/her in CISV. In example, in CISV, 21 is the age limit for when we are allowed to act as leaders in international programmes, more and more of the leadership in the organisation is entrusted to younger CISVers (in example as Trustees) and a majority of our programmes are run by leaders and staff under the age of 26.
Respectfully submitted, Anonymous*
*the author of this proposal is known to the editor, but wishes to remain anonymous
10 Comments:
I'm not sure I understand this proposal... The rationale just elaborates on the proposal. Can anyone clarify?
In general, I think any sort of age-based description of JB (or anything else) is pretty silly, useless and, in fact, a form of prejudice.
I recommend everyone to visit http://www.ijb.cisv.org/mwiki/index.php/JB_Essentials and check if this is only suitable for under 21es. Or 26s for that matter.
ah! and also I think that every proposal (in life) that says "[include group/identity here] should not take part of [include meeting here]" is quite... yeah, you got it. not useful.
i think we should stop labelling...why JBers are up to 25 is to encourage the people of this age group to work and not limit anyone of another age...isn't it?
i think we should stop caring about anything but the work done!!!we are all global citizens and working for the same cause no matter how old we are!!!
My understanding is that this proposal is neither about excluding people from activities nor about labeling. It is another angle at the neverending "who and what is a junior" question.
If CISV was a typical "youth organisation", we would not have any JB: CISV would be an organisation for AND by youth. Traditionally we are not a "youth" organisation, but on many levels this is beginning to happen: The latest success of youth inside CISV is the dramatic reducation of average age in the IEC (international executive committee = the bosses of CISV). I'm not sure if anybody realized, but I think this is by far the youngest IEC ever.
So if people around 30 are running CISV at the top level, why should there be a seperate branch for people around 25?
this proposal isn't useful cause no matter the age of the JBer, what really matter is what he/she do to help his/her JB. We have to think in what we are doing and if people older than 21 wants to help, they are welcome. People around 25 can also help JBers with they life experience. So, I can't see a good reason to agree with this proposal
This post has been removed by the author.
What I think is important in this proposal is not so much the age cut off but more the idea of lowering the age of a Junior, something I actually don't completely disagree with.
Although in CISV one of our major claims to fame is the leadership experience given to youth, it seems in many cases this is not entirely true. Although I don't know everyone here commenting I would guess we are all 'older' JBers, probably over the age of 20 at least. I don't really consider myself 'a youth', I'm sure a lot of you don't either and I doubt many people would look at work a 23 year old JBer is doing and say 'wow, it's so nice to see that youth learning leadership skills for the future when they grow up'.
What I'm getting at here is I think by lowering the age of JB to match the age you can start being a leader, bigger leadership roles would be put on younger members. Is this a good thing? Perhaps not always, I'm not completely sure myself, but at the same time with the age of 'cut off' being well into the 20s I think we are eliminating potential for our younger members to continue their learning experiences in many situations. Would you vote for an IJR who was 16? I don't know if I would but I also don't think that under our current system it would be a situation to ever arise (come to think of it we may have it specifically limited).
Ultimately there is always a hierarchy associated with age that is pervasive in many aspects of daily life, including CISV, and perhaps the best way to make the JB more inclusive is to eliminate some of the upper age tiers.
There is no doubt however, this would change the face of the JB. With age often comes experience and abilities to take on more responsibility, so I guess what it comes down to is what do we want to sacrifice?
Kalenne, thanks for elaborating this notion, you are really making a good point with your IJR-analogy. Why aren't we seeing IJR candidates 16y old?
Well, nick to answer your question, I think we do not see 16 IJR candidates because of a simple practical issue. I do not think a 16 year old would be able travel as much as an IJR does. Not because of an issue of them being capable of actually producing quality work. There is also an issue of maturity that comes inherent to age, and considering the type of task IJR's carry out, they need to be mature to assume responsibility.
But I think this question may go the other way... why do we limit the age of what we define as a junior to 25?
For some countries the definition of youth goes up to 30 years old.
My thought has always been if we are set out to be an inclusive organization why do we have to draw this line in the sand? My stand is that we can always benefit from the experience and wisdom of others, specially people that have already been where we are.
Some times I feel JB'ers think they are doing these incredible discoveries, but sometimes you talk to "seniors" and you find out that it is like discovering warm water.
Basically my point is...
If CISV is all about empowering youth...
Why do we need a Junior Branch?
Just to elaborate a bit more before this proposal drowns in a sea of new proposals:
- CISV at the moment is NOT a youth organisation. It's not a "for-youth-by-youth-kinda-organisation".
As far as I can sense, there is no intension, or better no necessity for CISV to become a classic youth organisation. So one of the many purposes of JB is to make sure that those who are active as leaders, participants, etc are represented in the organisational structures.
- Another main purpose of JB is to offer "training" grounds. Basically JB is the youth orgsnisation within the organisation. JBers organize activities for other JBers. A chance for young people to take responsibility and experience empowerment.
If I look at the proposal one more time, I think that for these two issues, I can see a valid point in reducing the JB-max-age down to 21.
If you look at it from the exclusion angle, of course its silly. So don't :).
Post a Comment
<< Home