Proposal #5: Under 25?
I propose a change in Junior Branch's terms of reference that excludes the age limit of 25 years old.
Rationale:
Junior Branch has never, in fact, been an age group. It has always been a life-style, a way of seeing things in CISV, a group of people, a community or even a think-tank. None of these things (and the other ones you can think about) depends on age.
CISV is an organization that, in its essence, is against prejudice. Considering this, to assume that everyone over 25 don't fit the community Junior Branch is just... prejudice. There are many people that are more then 25 that can really benefit the community and CISV as a whole participating in Junior Branch. I' m sure you can think about an example. Why just kick people out when they can still contribute to accomplish the goals?
Junior Branch has got concepts clear enough to allow some freedom in the structure. Maybe some changes on the terms of reference would be needed to keep the group tight, but that's easy.
This proposal would enable people to be more active in discussions and questioning CISV's habits at the same time they work in regular committees, if they are interested. Why not through more people, more ideas on this community? This would also touch the "double structure" issue, enabling people to participate in the part of the organization they feel home, regardless the age.
Marcos (BRA)
7 Comments:
If I'm not mistaken, the entire concept of CISV is that the best prospect for peace begins through intercultural friendships established at an early age -- in childhood.
The Junior Branch is about giving young people the opportunity to take positions of responsibility. There are not many organizations that provide children and youth the ability to plan their own projects. This must be preserved.
My fear is that too often CISV becomes a self-help group for adults a bit too emotionally attached to their village experience. I would hope that adults involved in CISV participate in order to further our organizational mission -- to provide the greatest number of intercultural experiences to as many children as possible, not to be a JB as long as possible.
But instead we have a growing administrative burden at the international level that raises participation fees while the number of actual programs stagnates . . . or even drops.
We need the Junior Branch, just like we need adults ready to take responsibility for following the mission and values of the organization.
For me, out of the Swedish perspective, the JB structure is a semi-autonomic forum/arena given extra powers and freedoms. In return this creates a dual benificial tension between the two arenas (the ordinary structure and the jb structure).
The arenas co-exist and provokes, promotes ideas towards and check up eachother.
The important thing is that the JB structure is seen as an important think-tank or growing school and not a group of kids to which the chapter can outsource their mosaic (LW), fundraising and informational activities.
However, and not mentioned here by me, is the always very interesting discussions of age and with that the focus on responcibility.
/ Adam
It's interesting to see, how this is the second proposal touching a core idea of junior branch. Obviously something in CISV is in the middle of change and the concept of JB is up for discussion - which is good.
In the end, I think Marcos is making some very good points here. Nevertheless the "JB-dilemma" calls for individual solutions: Big NAs with an administration mostly run by parents definetly need a JB. Small NAs, run by young people anyway, can try to avoid a double structure, and would then rather create a group that exists beyond age limit, with all the advantages that JBs have at the moment: freedom of "self-governance", strong social identity, etc etc.
However, on the international level, I strongly believe that the age limit is one of the strongest factors for JB-identity - and should stay for now. Besides, anybody beyong the age of 25 has always been welcome in the JB-crowd, if desired.
I think that before we discuss about changing age-boundaries we should be clear about what the outcome of the second discussion here at Devils was. JB yes or no? In the contributions here I can read a clear yes to JB and also a clear yes to the age limit. I agree with both.
well, what I think is that we should (always?) avoid not absolutely useful structural limits - specially the ones age based.
Adam's point on the dialetics between the two structures is a very good one, it makes a lot of sense to me on this topic even if I think that this wouldn't be really touched by this proposal.
Nick, you are right. What I think is that age limit is not a reasonable enough jb-identity core. My original idea is that JB moves towards building an identity based on what JB is, wants to be or whatever... (innovation, critical analisys, think-tank...)
This identity would allow "officially" the over-25 folks to hang around, permit the dialetic relation with the other structure (as Adam said) and generally do what we are doing.
I also agree with Nick that the solutions should be essentially individual. That's why we should break those "not so useful" international obstacles.
To the anonymous, the idea is definetely not to get rid of junior branch - it's about idenitity definition. The characteristic of being open to everyone (specially youth) would for sure be part of it, since it's an essencial part of the whole thing...
Cheers
There are some clear distinctions between the cisv adult and cisv JB boards, at least in Canada. Juniour branch was created to give leadership opprotunities to young people. Because of this age cut-off, there seems to be a rift between the adult and JB sectors, where misunderstandings can occur, resulting in conflict.
We need adults to take a more responsible role, but we still need that JB connection.
There need to be adults involved in JB, just as there need to be Juniors involved with the adults.
With different perspectives, we can further this organization, and have a clearer understanding not just of what makes up CISVJB and CISV adults, but what makes up cisv.
JB is about continuing opprotunity, and the only problem I see with abolition of the restriction, is the threat that taking leadership in JB may seem farther and father out of reach for younger members, deffinitly the oppposite of what we are trying to acomplish, im sure you would all agree.
conclusion no age=people don't feel like they are getting kicked out of a major section of CISV, but make sure your juniour branch is still being run by juniours, for juniours.
Hi all,
Well, some of the statements that are in the proposal are very true: there is much to gain from people over 25 in JB activities. But, in essence, I think that the age rule, although very arbitrary and at first glance just stupid, does something very important for CISV: it keeps things in motion. The things is, we have a lot of talented and great people joining more and more activities each year, but think about a situation in which some people will keep coming for the JB meetings for 10 or even 20 years... Although people are great, we need to get fresh minds and ideas every couple of years and to help the younger JB also do more and take part. And, of course this is also a good way to get our older, wiser and best JBs to become more dominant in committees and activities that are not just JB activities.
Haim from israel
Post a Comment
<< Home