I have come back to this thread after my initial short reply because I think that this thread deserves some attention from everyone, and Kathy and her coauthor deserve more than a little credit.
I will not deny that FIRST is a good program. It changed my life for the better. However, I feel that the culture of FIRST has changed since I started in 2001, and not for the better.
I would call this the "perversion" of "gracious professionalism," it is easy to defend the program while waving the GP flag. I do not like the flag. I do not use the flag. I do not like using the term "gracious professionalism," anymore because it has become this euphemism for the "FIRST party line."
I'm not going to go into my criticisms of FIRST - that's a whole different thread, and believe me, with some of the posters on this site I'd be worried about being firebombed. I will say this though: the power of denial is quite powerful indeed. It is healthy and important and normal to debate and criticize. The worst thing you can do if you love something is to deny the problems it has. I have the feeling that people are not understanding or otherwise ignoring aspects of the program when I look some aspects of FIRST. I can definitely see the "cult-like" mentality.
Just look at the text of "Dean's Homework" - It's all about raising awareness for FIRST, and not about inspiring and recognizing science and technology. Huh?
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/papers/2063
I think it is important that people keep things in perspective. FIRST is a tool for achieving a mission, which is to get more students interested in science and technology. That's it. FIRST is just the name of a program. It's just one program among many robotics programs.
I do not have brand loyalty for FIRST, because with a program like FIRST, what you get out of it depends on what you put into it. It is unhealthy to swear loyalty to the institution while ignoring the idealogical foundation under it.
I would carry the same ideals I would carry into FIRST into any competition, public or private. The foundation is going to be there - the institution is free to change.
People should always be critically evaluating what they are putting resources into. We should have a culture that encourages critical thinking and encourages debate and transparent policies. This is something we need to strive for. If the ship we are on is beyond our criticism, then it is impossible for us to have input as to where we are sailing. It could be a tropical paradise or a sand bar. Either way I want to question the navigator.
As I've said in other posts, I don't really care about what's popular - I couldn't care less about the green dots next to my name. No one should. Graciousness does not equate to idolatry.