Hi Doug -- Yes, absolutely there are many ways to serve God and the church without holding an office. My concerns are global. One organization in my life where I can "act locally" is the CRC. I fully believe that if we model the culture we would like to see in the world, if we are a light to the world, we can have a positive influence regarding the mistreatment of women here and around the globe.
Yes, I understand that in the past there were people who in good faith, using a strong understanding of Scripture, defended the practice of owning slaves.
I also really do understand that having all women's voices be the same would not be any better than having all the men's voices be the same. I am someone who determined early on that because it was highly unlikely I would ever have an opportunity to serve the CRC as an officer, I could be a voice for other women without it being about me. I could put a magnifying glass on how I "feel" because I know I am not alone. If I can help be a voice of those who know they will be more effective by keeping quiet on such matters, then I have served in the role I feel called.
Fact: there is a good analogy to racism when it comes to the perception of women in our denomination.
Many of those who cared deeply have left the denomination for greener pastures, but when I see a slate of speakers like this http://www2.crcna.org/pages/summit_speakers.cfm in what is apparently a conference for both men and women, I feel like there is still a need in our church for someone like me to put a magnifying glass on it and suggest that we can do better as a light to the world. When we have a quota for minorities in leadership and not for women (I do not prefer quotas, please understand), but our statistics show we have a bigger issue incorporating women into our leadership, then it is good for us to have some voices that point this out, right? Thanks. --dawn
Doug - I definitely do not intend to characterize anyone other than myself and definitely do not intend to be demeaning. I think that it is OK for me to call my own sins the way I see them without calling out anyone else's sins. When I use the civil rights analogy, I really do not know if everyone who insisted that black people sit in the back of the bus was sinning by doing so. I also do not feel a need to judge them, even if I would think it was right for me to work to help society remove such an injustice. Similarly, I do not think of others being engaged in a sin when they lock women out of church offices. Not only do I not know if they are sinning, I do no think it is my place to be the judge.
I DO look at my own sins. By choosing to be a member of the CRC, I am engaged in doing something that I find to be abhorable and sinful. I am a member of a country club that does not permit black tee times. I am a member of an organization that refuses to seat women in a regional decision-making body. I am appalled by my behavior. I know that there are people who go around pointing fingers at others, but that is not me. I hope you can tap into that and understand that my analogies are to help others understand the burdens of those who are like me so that we can figure out how to move forward. I know that the culture of the CRC that puts me in this position is a problem for our denomination.
Are you able to understand that with my analogy to the civil rights movement, I am trying to shed light and not darkness? Can you see that I am telling you how some in the CRC must live, with this tear in their spirit because they can see so specifically how complicit they are in the wrongs against women in the world? Can you understand that I think that I am living with something that I know to be a sin in my life BECAUSE I am a member of the CRC? Is this how we want the CRC to function? If not, then let's do something different. That's what I'm saying. I am not pointing fingers at any person at all, other than myself. I am not making such suggestions to claim any victim status. I am a future-leaning person. I am looking toward the future in my denomination and I want to help paint a brighter future. Does that make more sense? --dawn
I think it is fantastic that there was such collaboration between the denominations at the level of classis. I think regional work across denominations can make big differences. Thanks for writing this up, Paul.
Now, I don't like being an Eeyore about it (everyone who knows me knows I'm much more like Tigger) but I sure would like to see us move our attention from classis. Classis is the last of our structures above the level of the church that can vote, as my classis did, not to seat women (yes, in 2012!!). I know, I know -- this story is so last millennium. We have women ministers, so let's get on with our kingdom work, right? Well, individuals can choose their church, so in many locations they can go to a CRC that does not discriminate against women. At the denominational level we permit women, at least in theory, to be leaders. We cannot choose our classis, however, while remaining within the denomination. So, some of us are inadvertantly members of a country club that does not permit tee times for black people (just an analogy) BECAUSE of the problems of our denomination that are at the level of classis. Please consider this -- how much would it tug on your conscience to have a membership at a golf course that did not permit tee times for minorities?
The classis structure is and will remain a significant issue because it is permitted to block women. Celebrating that there are classes that can be so inclusive as to have a joint meeting with a sister denomination doesn't change the fact that our sisters are still being denied a place at some classis meetings altogether and will be for the foreseeable future (our entire lifetimes, I would guess).
So, to answer your question "Is there an RCA classis near you that you can approach and begin to talk about relating with?" -- ha! That would definitely be "no" as NO ONE of my gender may even be seated at our own classis meetings. How 'bout them apples?
I would love, love, love to see the energy you and others are putting into the classical structure go, instead, into the structures of our system where women are welcomed. Even if your classis permits women, the structure is still critically ill and I wish that we would not pretend otherwise. If, on the other hand, this is part of a strategic plan to have classes share with Reformed classes, thinking that this might be a way to get women in through the back door, I do not think it will work. I do not think that was a consideration in doing this, but just in case someone might think this would be helpful to women, I really doubt it. Maybe I am missing something, but I do not see anything outside of an applecart-upset that will fix classis, as a structure. I recognize many classes do many good things, but they will continue to have this critical wound. I think we need to minimize the work and need for classis in order to lift up other structures that do permit full participation.
I realize that many who once cared about this topic have left the CRC, but how we treat women is part of the entire fabric of the world in its treatment of women. So, even if we do not care about the future for our own children, we shoud at least care related to the treatment of women world-wide and our part in that. If we are sinking our resources into our classes, we are saying that this structure is OK or that it can be reformed or that we are fine with classis Iokota telling women in 2012 to stay in the kitchen, for example.
What if next time you have a joint regional meeting that is not a "joint classis meeting" instead? The "classis brand" is broken. If we focus on regions, rather than classes, then those regions that shun women in their classis could ignore all of that and celebrate together and join in missions in a joint regional conference of CRC and RCA people. Because there seems very little hope of reforming classis and no sign that anyone is still working to lift the barriers, I would like to see classis stay as irrelevant as it typically is, or become even more irrelevant, and have us raise up better structures for our regional church work.
If, on the other hand, you think we can redeem this structure without blowing it up to do so, then please lay out a plan for that. Right now I cannot see the light at the end of the tunnel. If I could see how classis could be redeemed, maybe I would be more inclined to lend more of a rah, rah to this effort to make classis relevant. Otherwise everything going into classis right now looks like band aids and like some final attempt to lift up a dying patient. I really do think it is fantastic that you have great classical relationships, but I don't even like hearing the word anymore. Woolworths really had to go out of business, right?
I see many of the same issues you are seeing, but my analysis is a bit different. Organizations are prone to seek decentralization where there is centralization and centralization where decentralized. Back when each agency worked more on its own, with less centralization, there were significant issues too. One of those issues was that each agency bombarded church members with lots of mailings, each spending plenty to compete with the others. "We" as the denomination were giving money to agencies so they could each compete with the others for us to give them more money to compete with each other. This still happens, of course, but it has been good to have some better centralization in this regard.
There were other issues then too, some of which I saw too closely that are hopefully in the past and that I will not indicate here. Also, I can say with certainty that there were illegal activities taking place where I know the parties were told the activities were illegal and continued the practices knowingly and on purpose. A whistle blower could do nothing other than work like crazy to eliminate the illegal behavior across all of the agencies in a way that the denomination spent a lot more money than if there had been an ED at the time. It was so decentralized that I doubt you can find anyone who would know what I am talking about (but you can ask me offline). So, while I am sure that there are some centralized functions that could benefit, even if only from a Hawthorne type of effect, from decentralization, I would not be too quick to jump toward really significant decentralization to the local classis.
Classes have some of the biggest baggage in the denomination and often have significant differences of opinion within a loosely-formed, sometimes dysfunctional, group. For example, there can be churches that favor launching new churches and others that insist on very strict adherence to xyz within their classis in such a way that would hamper a new church. Some have decided against women and others for women while the classis then has the authority not to seat women. It might shock some to know that there are still many all-male classis in our denomination even in 2011.
I suggest that instead of going the route of putting more in the hands of classis, we could do something signficant with potentially much better results by doing what many companies do and eliminate the "middle management." So, I'll suggest that any decentralization be to the local churches. Churches might decide to work with another church, but if they get a denominational grant, for example, they could work with other churches of a like mind, without a classis in the middle. Local churches already have a means to function that works for their organizational culture. The denomination can help with economies of scale and we could completely eliminate classical interference (many new churches have stories about how a classis has tried to trip them up, for example) by eliminating classes or reducing their role rather than expanding it.
I do not see this as cut and dried, but I would favor a focus on local congregations, possibly with regional assistance coming from the denomination. This approach aligns with the healthy church initiative and would be good if there were a home missions push to encourage churches to birth daughter churches, for example. If we focus on making our churches and our denomination healthy with our limited resources, we could have less, rather than more, handled by the "middle management" of our classes. I realize this is a drastically different approach and that you are tasked with doing what might be considered to be a marketing function for classis with this blog, so this is likely the opposite direction you want to go, but what do you see as the downside to eliminating classes altogether? [Yes, I know it would be radical and we are a slow-moving organization, but sometimes it is worth doing an apple-cart upset.] If we do not go that route, then we really need to do something to make it much easier for a classis to get something done, and, of course, we must end the discrimination against women for some of us to have any interest in putting more money in the hands of these organizations. Make sense?
Good points, August. Classis does not act like middle management across the board, but it does serve as middle management in at least one way that trips my radar. A classis in our denomination can decide not to permit any Koreans, Hispanics, or Black people to participate in decisions that affect the church members in their area by not allowing them a seat at the classis meetings. Synod does not do this and churches can make sure they do not discriminate, but the classis can vote to discriminate in this way and make decisions while blocking groups of people from full participation in the church in this way.
No, wait, I have that wrong. It looks like these groups may send males, but only males, to such classis meetings. it is a much larger group in the denomination that the classes may block -- some classes in our denomination actually decide they will not permit any women to participate! WOW, Shocking, eh? Are we willing to be a member of a country club that does not permit tee times for black people, I mean for women? How badly does that tug at your conscience?
Has almost everyone who is wrenched by this either left the denomination or in a classis that no longer blocks women so that they think this issue is behind our denomination? Sadly it isn't. It is still one of the big issues our denomination has to cope with in order to be healthy. We really need to get beyond it. Granting more authority (in terms of budget dollars, for example) to these classes that have the authority to exclude women does not seem like the way to get beyond it.
We could be a light in this world, where in so many countries and households women are treated so poorly. We could also be an example of how we can have churches that discriminate side by side with churches that don't in the same denomination, but not by blocking women at the classis level. It might be very difficult for us to get beyond this issue in our midst without replacing classis with something else. So, that's my vote (and I remember when women could not vote in our churches). smiles. --dawn
To a quota of 25% minority should we add a quota of more than 50% female? For minorities who make up 10% of the denomination the proposal is 25%, so for women, perhaps 75% would be acceptable? I do not want quotas for either category but thought I would note that it seems this quota recommendation is not about justice or faithfulness to Scripture. This recommendation must be about something else, otherwise it has missed the mark in a big way with no gender figure. Is it about marketing, given the increased percentage of minorities in North America?
How will the definition of "minority" be determined over time? If white people of European descent are less than 50% of the North American population at some point, will that group then become a minority that is counted in that 25% quota?
I hope that synod will be wise enough to squash the quota concept altogether, but if they opt for quotas, then I look forward to hearing the gender-based quota figure. More than 50% of the leadership of the CRC being women could definitely drastically change the denomination. smiles.
Ken -- My point is that if this were about justice, then it would include a quota for women. It does not include such a quota, so either it should be changed to include a gender quota that is also greater than the percentage of women in the denomination or I will continue to figure this must be about something other than justice and correcting wrongs. Try putting up a woman against a minority male for a position and see who is more likely to get the job (hint: Hillary vs Obama in the last election).
Additionally, I would be interested in knowing how often a more qualified white male loses out to a less qualified minority or woman compared to those times in recent years when a more qualified minority or female has lost out to a white male. I suspect the later does not occur nearly as often as the former within the CRC. Do we really want to mandate that some high percentage (compared to the percentage of the whole) of minorities get jobs over a non-minority man or woman?
Let's say that we identify that we have 10% women in leadership positions and 10% minorities. Now approximately equally qualified non-minority female and minority male apply for the position. By this quota, the nod would go to the male, even though they would be represented appropriately (10% for 10%) while women would not be (10% for 50%).
I do not favor quotas like this at all, but see it as an affront to women to treat the gap of minority leadership without treating the gender gap as well. I would like to better understand why there is a recommendation for a minority quota without a recommendation for a gender quota. It is a terrible idea to address these issues with a quota, in my opinion, although if that is the direction the body wishes to go, then I can imagine going along with a 50-50 balance between men and women in leadership positions in the CRC.
Posted in: Classes that Won't Seat Women
Hi Doug -- Yes, absolutely there are many ways to serve God and the church without holding an office. My concerns are global. One organization in my life where I can "act locally" is the CRC. I fully believe that if we model the culture we would like to see in the world, if we are a light to the world, we can have a positive influence regarding the mistreatment of women here and around the globe.
Yes, I understand that in the past there were people who in good faith, using a strong understanding of Scripture, defended the practice of owning slaves.
I also really do understand that having all women's voices be the same would not be any better than having all the men's voices be the same. I am someone who determined early on that because it was highly unlikely I would ever have an opportunity to serve the CRC as an officer, I could be a voice for other women without it being about me. I could put a magnifying glass on how I "feel" because I know I am not alone. If I can help be a voice of those who know they will be more effective by keeping quiet on such matters, then I have served in the role I feel called.
Fact: there is a good analogy to racism when it comes to the perception of women in our denomination.
Many of those who cared deeply have left the denomination for greener pastures, but when I see a slate of speakers like this http://www2.crcna.org/pages/summit_speakers.cfm in what is apparently a conference for both men and women, I feel like there is still a need in our church for someone like me to put a magnifying glass on it and suggest that we can do better as a light to the world. When we have a quota for minorities in leadership and not for women (I do not prefer quotas, please understand), but our statistics show we have a bigger issue incorporating women into our leadership, then it is good for us to have some voices that point this out, right? Thanks. --dawn
Posted in: Classes that Won't Seat Women
Doug - I definitely do not intend to characterize anyone other than myself and definitely do not intend to be demeaning. I think that it is OK for me to call my own sins the way I see them without calling out anyone else's sins. When I use the civil rights analogy, I really do not know if everyone who insisted that black people sit in the back of the bus was sinning by doing so. I also do not feel a need to judge them, even if I would think it was right for me to work to help society remove such an injustice. Similarly, I do not think of others being engaged in a sin when they lock women out of church offices. Not only do I not know if they are sinning, I do no think it is my place to be the judge.
I DO look at my own sins. By choosing to be a member of the CRC, I am engaged in doing something that I find to be abhorable and sinful. I am a member of a country club that does not permit black tee times. I am a member of an organization that refuses to seat women in a regional decision-making body. I am appalled by my behavior. I know that there are people who go around pointing fingers at others, but that is not me. I hope you can tap into that and understand that my analogies are to help others understand the burdens of those who are like me so that we can figure out how to move forward. I know that the culture of the CRC that puts me in this position is a problem for our denomination.
Are you able to understand that with my analogy to the civil rights movement, I am trying to shed light and not darkness? Can you see that I am telling you how some in the CRC must live, with this tear in their spirit because they can see so specifically how complicit they are in the wrongs against women in the world? Can you understand that I think that I am living with something that I know to be a sin in my life BECAUSE I am a member of the CRC? Is this how we want the CRC to function? If not, then let's do something different. That's what I'm saying. I am not pointing fingers at any person at all, other than myself. I am not making such suggestions to claim any victim status. I am a future-leaning person. I am looking toward the future in my denomination and I want to help paint a brighter future. Does that make more sense? --dawn
Posted in: Uniting Christ's Body Through Classis
I think it is fantastic that there was such collaboration between the denominations at the level of classis. I think regional work across denominations can make big differences. Thanks for writing this up, Paul.
Now, I don't like being an Eeyore about it (everyone who knows me knows I'm much more like Tigger) but I sure would like to see us move our attention from classis. Classis is the last of our structures above the level of the church that can vote, as my classis did, not to seat women (yes, in 2012!!). I know, I know -- this story is so last millennium. We have women ministers, so let's get on with our kingdom work, right? Well, individuals can choose their church, so in many locations they can go to a CRC that does not discriminate against women. At the denominational level we permit women, at least in theory, to be leaders. We cannot choose our classis, however, while remaining within the denomination. So, some of us are inadvertantly members of a country club that does not permit tee times for black people (just an analogy) BECAUSE of the problems of our denomination that are at the level of classis. Please consider this -- how much would it tug on your conscience to have a membership at a golf course that did not permit tee times for minorities?
The classis structure is and will remain a significant issue because it is permitted to block women. Celebrating that there are classes that can be so inclusive as to have a joint meeting with a sister denomination doesn't change the fact that our sisters are still being denied a place at some classis meetings altogether and will be for the foreseeable future (our entire lifetimes, I would guess).
So, to answer your question "Is there an RCA classis near you that you can approach and begin to talk about relating with?" -- ha! That would definitely be "no" as NO ONE of my gender may even be seated at our own classis meetings. How 'bout them apples?
I would love, love, love to see the energy you and others are putting into the classical structure go, instead, into the structures of our system where women are welcomed. Even if your classis permits women, the structure is still critically ill and I wish that we would not pretend otherwise. If, on the other hand, this is part of a strategic plan to have classes share with Reformed classes, thinking that this might be a way to get women in through the back door, I do not think it will work. I do not think that was a consideration in doing this, but just in case someone might think this would be helpful to women, I really doubt it. Maybe I am missing something, but I do not see anything outside of an applecart-upset that will fix classis, as a structure. I recognize many classes do many good things, but they will continue to have this critical wound. I think we need to minimize the work and need for classis in order to lift up other structures that do permit full participation.
I realize that many who once cared about this topic have left the CRC, but how we treat women is part of the entire fabric of the world in its treatment of women. So, even if we do not care about the future for our own children, we shoud at least care related to the treatment of women world-wide and our part in that. If we are sinking our resources into our classes, we are saying that this structure is OK or that it can be reformed or that we are fine with classis Iokota telling women in 2012 to stay in the kitchen, for example.
What if next time you have a joint regional meeting that is not a "joint classis meeting" instead? The "classis brand" is broken. If we focus on regions, rather than classes, then those regions that shun women in their classis could ignore all of that and celebrate together and join in missions in a joint regional conference of CRC and RCA people. Because there seems very little hope of reforming classis and no sign that anyone is still working to lift the barriers, I would like to see classis stay as irrelevant as it typically is, or become even more irrelevant, and have us raise up better structures for our regional church work.
If, on the other hand, you think we can redeem this structure without blowing it up to do so, then please lay out a plan for that. Right now I cannot see the light at the end of the tunnel. If I could see how classis could be redeemed, maybe I would be more inclined to lend more of a rah, rah to this effort to make classis relevant. Otherwise everything going into classis right now looks like band aids and like some final attempt to lift up a dying patient. I really do think it is fantastic that you have great classical relationships, but I don't even like hearing the word anymore. Woolworths really had to go out of business, right?
Posted in: Drama Queen
I see many of the same issues you are seeing, but my analysis is a bit different. Organizations are prone to seek decentralization where there is centralization and centralization where decentralized. Back when each agency worked more on its own, with less centralization, there were significant issues too. One of those issues was that each agency bombarded church members with lots of mailings, each spending plenty to compete with the others. "We" as the denomination were giving money to agencies so they could each compete with the others for us to give them more money to compete with each other. This still happens, of course, but it has been good to have some better centralization in this regard.
There were other issues then too, some of which I saw too closely that are hopefully in the past and that I will not indicate here. Also, I can say with certainty that there were illegal activities taking place where I know the parties were told the activities were illegal and continued the practices knowingly and on purpose. A whistle blower could do nothing other than work like crazy to eliminate the illegal behavior across all of the agencies in a way that the denomination spent a lot more money than if there had been an ED at the time. It was so decentralized that I doubt you can find anyone who would know what I am talking about (but you can ask me offline). So, while I am sure that there are some centralized functions that could benefit, even if only from a Hawthorne type of effect, from decentralization, I would not be too quick to jump toward really significant decentralization to the local classis.
Classes have some of the biggest baggage in the denomination and often have significant differences of opinion within a loosely-formed, sometimes dysfunctional, group. For example, there can be churches that favor launching new churches and others that insist on very strict adherence to xyz within their classis in such a way that would hamper a new church. Some have decided against women and others for women while the classis then has the authority not to seat women. It might shock some to know that there are still many all-male classis in our denomination even in 2011.
I suggest that instead of going the route of putting more in the hands of classis, we could do something signficant with potentially much better results by doing what many companies do and eliminate the "middle management." So, I'll suggest that any decentralization be to the local churches. Churches might decide to work with another church, but if they get a denominational grant, for example, they could work with other churches of a like mind, without a classis in the middle. Local churches already have a means to function that works for their organizational culture. The denomination can help with economies of scale and we could completely eliminate classical interference (many new churches have stories about how a classis has tried to trip them up, for example) by eliminating classes or reducing their role rather than expanding it.
I do not see this as cut and dried, but I would favor a focus on local congregations, possibly with regional assistance coming from the denomination. This approach aligns with the healthy church initiative and would be good if there were a home missions push to encourage churches to birth daughter churches, for example. If we focus on making our churches and our denomination healthy with our limited resources, we could have less, rather than more, handled by the "middle management" of our classes. I realize this is a drastically different approach and that you are tasked with doing what might be considered to be a marketing function for classis with this blog, so this is likely the opposite direction you want to go, but what do you see as the downside to eliminating classes altogether? [Yes, I know it would be radical and we are a slow-moving organization, but sometimes it is worth doing an apple-cart upset.] If we do not go that route, then we really need to do something to make it much easier for a classis to get something done, and, of course, we must end the discrimination against women for some of us to have any interest in putting more money in the hands of these organizations. Make sense?
Posted in: Drama Queen
Good points, August. Classis does not act like middle management across the board, but it does serve as middle management in at least one way that trips my radar. A classis in our denomination can decide not to permit any Koreans, Hispanics, or Black people to participate in decisions that affect the church members in their area by not allowing them a seat at the classis meetings. Synod does not do this and churches can make sure they do not discriminate, but the classis can vote to discriminate in this way and make decisions while blocking groups of people from full participation in the church in this way.
No, wait, I have that wrong. It looks like these groups may send males, but only males, to such classis meetings. it is a much larger group in the denomination that the classes may block -- some classes in our denomination actually decide they will not permit any women to participate! WOW, Shocking, eh? Are we willing to be a member of a country club that does not permit tee times for black people, I mean for women? How badly does that tug at your conscience?
Has almost everyone who is wrenched by this either left the denomination or in a classis that no longer blocks women so that they think this issue is behind our denomination? Sadly it isn't. It is still one of the big issues our denomination has to cope with in order to be healthy. We really need to get beyond it. Granting more authority (in terms of budget dollars, for example) to these classes that have the authority to exclude women does not seem like the way to get beyond it.
We could be a light in this world, where in so many countries and households women are treated so poorly. We could also be an example of how we can have churches that discriminate side by side with churches that don't in the same denomination, but not by blocking women at the classis level. It might be very difficult for us to get beyond this issue in our midst without replacing classis with something else. So, that's my vote (and I remember when women could not vote in our churches). smiles. --dawn
Posted in: People of Color in Leadership Positions
To a quota of 25% minority should we add a quota of more than 50% female? For minorities who make up 10% of the denomination the proposal is 25%, so for women, perhaps 75% would be acceptable? I do not want quotas for either category but thought I would note that it seems this quota recommendation is not about justice or faithfulness to Scripture. This recommendation must be about something else, otherwise it has missed the mark in a big way with no gender figure. Is it about marketing, given the increased percentage of minorities in North America?
How will the definition of "minority" be determined over time? If white people of European descent are less than 50% of the North American population at some point, will that group then become a minority that is counted in that 25% quota?
I hope that synod will be wise enough to squash the quota concept altogether, but if they opt for quotas, then I look forward to hearing the gender-based quota figure. More than 50% of the leadership of the CRC being women could definitely drastically change the denomination. smiles.
Posted in: People of Color in Leadership Positions
Ken -- My point is that if this were about justice, then it would include a quota for women. It does not include such a quota, so either it should be changed to include a gender quota that is also greater than the percentage of women in the denomination or I will continue to figure this must be about something other than justice and correcting wrongs. Try putting up a woman against a minority male for a position and see who is more likely to get the job (hint: Hillary vs Obama in the last election).
Additionally, I would be interested in knowing how often a more qualified white male loses out to a less qualified minority or woman compared to those times in recent years when a more qualified minority or female has lost out to a white male. I suspect the later does not occur nearly as often as the former within the CRC. Do we really want to mandate that some high percentage (compared to the percentage of the whole) of minorities get jobs over a non-minority man or woman?
Let's say that we identify that we have 10% women in leadership positions and 10% minorities. Now approximately equally qualified non-minority female and minority male apply for the position. By this quota, the nod would go to the male, even though they would be represented appropriately (10% for 10%) while women would not be (10% for 50%).
I do not favor quotas like this at all, but see it as an affront to women to treat the gap of minority leadership without treating the gender gap as well. I would like to better understand why there is a recommendation for a minority quota without a recommendation for a gender quota. It is a terrible idea to address these issues with a quota, in my opinion, although if that is the direction the body wishes to go, then I can imagine going along with a 50-50 balance between men and women in leadership positions in the CRC.