Hazing

[flyguy06]

On the other board about the Grog and hazing got me to thinking about hazing as a whole and I wanted to get youguys comments.

I personally think CAP has gone way too far with the hazing policies.

Here is a very radical question. What was ecer wrong with making cadets do push ups? I think the problem was older cadets taking it out of hand or not being taught the correct way to administer punishment.

I mean think about it. If given a choice which would you prefer if you mess up? You can either do 20 push ups and the issue be done with or you canget written up and have the incident in your permanant record. Personally I would rather do the push ups and be done with it.

Just because you yell at a cadet or senior or make them do pushups doesne mean you have something personal against them.  I and many of my friends joined CAP as cadets because we wanted that hard nosed dicsipline. We wanted somebody up in our face giving us direction. We wanted to get ready for the military. Is this the wrong attitude to have?

I dont think there was anything wrong with push ups if administered properly.I dontthink there is anything wrong with yelling if administered properly. The problem is we as Senior Member cadet leaders have failed in directing our senior cadet staff. We just give them the ball and let them run with it without giving them guidence.

[CASH172]

You really said it yourself as to why we don't allow dropping cadets, cadet staff do not have training to do so.  Military instructors do their jobs as their jobs and do it almost everyday.  Most of our cadets will do their encampment-style job once a year and they don't get anywhere near the same kind of training that military instructors do. 

Also, CAP is not an organization dedicated to prepare teenagers for the military.  The Cadet Program does have a military component to it, but it is not the sole purpose of the CP. 

[RiverAux]

Outside of boot camp, who in the AF is getting dropped for push ups for minor infractions on a regular basis?  Why would it be useful to our cadets on a regular basis then?  I can perhaps seeing it be used at encampments where you are talking about a short-term very military oriented experience where there is a lot of senior member supervision going on.  Even then I probably would only want fairly experienced cadets to be given authorization to do it and only under very limited and strictly prescribed circumstances.

[flyguy06]

You really said it yourself as to why we don't allow dropping cadets, cadet staff do not have training to do so.  Military instructors do their jobs as their jobs and do it almost everyday.  Most of our cadets will do their encampment-style job once a year and they don't get anywhere near the same kind of training that military instructors do. 

Also, CAP is not an organization dedicated to prepare teenagers for the military.  The Cadet Program does have a military component to it, but it is not the sole purpose of the CP. 

I hear what you're saying, but doing push ups really has little to do with preparing someone for the military.  I live in the inner city of Atlanta. there is a provate christian school for boys where the Headmaster makes them drill, do push ups, come to attention for teachers. Its not about preparing teenagers to fight wars. Its about teaching teenagers respect for adults, attention to details, and pride in oneself.

[flyguy06]

Outside of boot camp, who in the AF is getting dropped for push ups for minor infractions on a regular basis?  Why would it be useful to our cadets on a regular basis then?  I can perhaps seeing it be used at encampments where you are talking about a short-term very military oriented experience where there is a lot of senior member supervision going on.  Even then I probably would only want fairly experienced cadets to be given authorization to do it and only under very limited and strictly prescribed circumstances.

Because the definition of a cadet is an officer in "training" All cadets from Spaatz on down to airmen are in "training? thats another issue I dont think a lot of Senior Members get. A C/COl is just a cadet just like a C/amn. I see them all the same. My job as DCC is to train them to be leaders. Many Seniors will let C/officers run the show. I give them guidence, direction, and motivation and evaluate "how" they are running the show and correct as they go along. I dont just leave it totally up to the cadet.

When I was in college ROTC, O was 19-21. We had leadership roles and responsibilities, but we also had a active duty captain who mentored us because we didnt know it all. SO if I as a 20 year old cadet needed mentoring wouldnt a 16 year old cadet need even more?

[flyguy06]

Folks, let me ask you to ponder a question.

Why do you think Drill Sergeants yell and scream and make recruits do push ups? I bet most of you dot know. It not to show them who is baddest. Its not about exerting your rank or authority. thats the furthest reason.

In these types of situations, we are dealing with people. And people are differnt. they come from differnat backgrounds, differant cultures, differant experiences.
You have folks from very affluent lifestyles.You have folks from humble lifestyles, males, females, blacks, whites, hispnaics,

A Drill Sergenats job is to take all these diverse groups of people and make them into a team. wheather that be a fighting team or a team of Admin clerks doesnt matter. The point is they build them into a team by treaing them all the same way. The break them down to one level. So the guy who is used to having everything  is no better than the guy wh o had to work for evrything in  his life. The Drill Sergeants break them down to one level and build them backup into a team.

Now CAP is similar. I quarantee the cadets I dealwith inthe city are very differant teenagers than the ones in the subards. So, in order to get both groups to work as one, I have to treat them all the same.

And guess what? All cadets dont repsond to the kindler, gentler CAP. its unfortunant but true.
Now, of course I am not suggesting treating casdets like soldiers. We are not building combat warriors here. Of course not. But what I am suggesting is not treaing them with kid gloves like I have seen nn so many squadrons

[Nathan]

I've been dropped by some unnamed officers back in my earlier days as a cadet. Although it was against the rules at the time, I really didn't mind it. I'm not some ooh-rah hardcore "runs fifteen miles a day in the snow" kind of cadet. But I did join CAP for a more military feel, and when I was dropped for push-ups, it was during my time when I was being trained. Since then, I've moved up in rank and now couldn't get dropped by many people even if the rules did allow it due to my seniority in position to most other cadets in the nation.

So, given that most cadets SHOULD theoretically be staff members by C/SSgt, then it wouldn't really be a whole lot different than the military's idea of training. Granted, we do not have the same mission as the military, and I will be the first one to tell everyone that we are NOT the military. But being paramilitary in nature, and having a program decided to emulate the military in many ways, I honestly don't see the problem dropping cadets for push-ups during their training days, so long as it's generally as a group.

Granted, the problem has already been stated that the cadets don't have any training or ability to drop cadets with any guarentee that they won't lose their heads. However, if we were to be careful about implementing it, we could teach cadets what the proper time and method for physical discipline would be in their initial training by putting them through it, and with proper senior supervision, it could become just another tool that we use both to teach and to increase the military-like feel many cadets join CAP for in the first place.

[flyguy06]

I've been dropped by some unnamed officers back in my earlier days as a cadet. Although it was against the rules at the time, I really didn't mind it. I'm not some ooh-rah hardcore "runs fifteen miles a day in the snow" kind of cadet. But I did join CAP for a more military feel, and when I was dropped for push-ups, it was during my time when I was being trained. Since then, I've moved up in rank and now couldn't get dropped by many people even if the rules did allow it due to my seniority in position to most other cadets in the nation.

So, given that most cadets SHOULD theoretically be staff members by C/SSgt, then it wouldn't really be a whole lot different than the military's idea of training. Granted, we do not have the same mission as the military, and I will be the first one to tell everyone that we are NOT the military. But being paramilitary in nature, and having a program decided to emulate the military in many ways, I honestly don't see the problem dropping cadets for push-ups during their training days, so long as it's generally as a group.

Granted, the problem has already been stated that the cadets don't have any training or ability to drop cadets with any guarentee that they won't lose their heads. However, if we were to be careful about implementing it, we could teach cadets what the proper time and method for physical discipline would be in their initial training by putting them through it, and with proper senior supervision, it could become just another tool that we use both to teach and to increase the military-like feel many cadets join CAP for in the first place.

I agree. Also you have to seperate the cadet Program from the Senior member program. They are in effect vastly differant. The Senior member program is not military but the cadet program is by its nature a military program. D and C, wearing a military uniform, rank structure are mandatory requirements to be in the cadet program. They are not for the Senior Member program. So you see how they are different.

What I think has happpend and this is just my opinion, is Senior members have gotten so caught up in ES they have neglected the CP and basically told the cadets to run it themselves. Thats how things got out of hand.There was no real guidence from Seniors on how to lead, and discipline, All Senior Members cared about was getting ES qualified and mission GT qualified. They didnt emphasize leadership, my conduct or other things. They usually got some CAP "mom" to be the DCC and she was usually only there cause her child was there so she didnt really understand how to teach those subject and the cadets ended up running things thenselves.

We need more dedicated young Senior Members that want to work with cadets not that want to be on a Ground Team. But that actually want to prepare cadets for military leadership. and service to our nation.

[afgeo4]

Members of the military are adults. Cadets are children. Children don't know how to properly handle public embarrassment and that can cause some great harm to them. Adults generally handle such situations differently. Also... the military is a job. The member wants to be there and understands that some things will have to be sacrificed to get there. Being a cadet isn't a job. Being in CAP isn't a job. It's an adventure sans pay. If we sacrifice something for it, it is strictly because we choose to, not because our commander does.

[Nathan]

Members of the military are adults. Cadets are children. Children don't know how to properly handle public embarrassment and that can cause some great harm to them. Adults generally handle such situations differently.

There are many cadets of military age. Are you suggesting that 18 year old cadets don't know how to drop someone for pushups, but an 18 year old soldier does (assuming that there is a huge maturity difference between 16 and 18 anyway)?

[Eclipse]

Members of the military are adults. Cadets are children. Children don't know how to properly handle public embarrassment and that can cause some great harm to them. Adults generally handle such situations differently.

There are many cadets of military age. Are you suggesting that 18 year old cadets don't know how to drop someone for pushups, but an 18 year old soldier does?

Neither does and neither should - there are very few 18 year old RDC's, TI's, or DI's.

[Nathan]

Members of the military are adults. Cadets are children. Children don't know how to properly handle public embarrassment and that can cause some great harm to them. Adults generally handle such situations differently.

There are many cadets of military age. Are you suggesting that 18 year old cadets don't know how to drop someone for pushups, but an 18 year old soldier does?

Neither does and neither should - there are very few 18 year old RDC's, TI's, or DI's.

What about 20 year old? And is a 16 - 20 year old capable of being taught the proper way to use physical exercise as a learning tool?

I would venture to say so, but then again, I'm just a 19 year old.

[ZigZag911]

Anyone who can't get a cadet's undivided attention  -- or train a cadet staff member how to do so -- without resorting to illicit techniques like "drop and give me ____ # of pushups" -- needs a serious refresher in leadership methods.

[Eclipse]

What about 20 year old? And is a 16 - 20 year old capable of being taught the proper way to use physical exercise as a learning tool?

I would venture to say so, but then again, I'm just a 19 year old.

Anyone can be trained to do anything - the question being is the training coming from a competent authority or the local video store.

The majority of senior members fly by the seat of their pants and do what they think is right based on their experience as ex-military, cadets, parents, or ...none.

And since little guidance or training is provided to seniors on where the "line" is,
it is simpler and safer for everyone to simple prohibit the behavior.

[afgeo4]

Members of the military are adults. Cadets are children. Children don't know how to properly handle public embarrassment and that can cause some great harm to them. Adults generally handle such situations differently.

There are many cadets of military age. Are you suggesting that 18 year old cadets don't know how to drop someone for pushups, but an 18 year old soldier does (assuming that there is a huge maturity difference between 16 and 18 anyway)?

I'm suggesting that our program has to account for 12 year olds just as much as 18 year olds.

Just about all cadets forget that our program, although mainly filled with cadets age 15 to 18, has 12, 13, and 14 year olds in it as well. There is one program and it has to take into account everyone age 12 to 21 and what we end up with is a common denominator for all of those. What the most safe and logical method is that will work for everyone.

[flyguy06]

Members of the military are adults. Cadets are children. Children don't know how to properly handle public embarrassment and that can cause some great harm to them. Adults generally handle such situations differently. Also... the military is a job. The member wants to be there and understands that some things will have to be sacrificed to get there. Being a cadet isn't a job. Being in CAP isn't a job. It's an adventure sans pay. If we sacrifice something for it, it is strictly because we choose to, not because our commander does.

Here is the contradiction I have with that statement. I argue that "cadets" are not children. But if we use your statement and say they are children then we shouldnt let them go on Ground Teams either. But folks on this board love to argue that cadets should let on GT missions. Well, if they are mature enough to look for possoble deceased remains or if they are mature enough to fly a Cessna 172 by themselves, then they should be mature enough to handle discipline other cadets.

Thats my whole point. Cadets are not like regular teenagers their same age. They are trained to look for lost people. they are trained to rescue  people and provide first aid. They are trained to fly airplanes and react to inflight emergencies. "kids" dont do these things. cadets do. so I dont look at CAP cadets as your average teenager.

[Nathan]

All I'm saying is that if we expect a cadet to be disciplined enough to represent this nation as a professional in uniform, to be responsible for the safety and well being of other cadets, and the other "adultish" responsibilities we bestow upon cadets, then I don't see why this particular form of discipline can't be taught to them along with all of the other things we teach during leadership classes.

Physical punishment is NOT bad leadership. I don't care what all of our CAP books have to say about it; in reality, it's simply a liability issue for the program that CAP would rather not take the time to properly address. If they have cadets dishing out push-ups, they follow the slippery-slope argument into having cadets hurt themselves during insane amounts of PT because some 12 year old cadet has his shoelaces crossed left over right instead of right over left.

I've seen people say that push-ups are bad leadership, which is stupid. Push-ups don't have anything to do with the leadership; they're a punishment, and that is something that CAP is solely lacking in ability to implement. According to leadership books and the regulations, our ways of punishing cadets are pretty much mentoring or 2b. There isn't a lot of wiggle room in the middle. We are allowed to use rewards, which explains the sickening number of ribbons cadets have to wear. But the problem is not with the cadets that respond to rewards. We don't usually have a problem with those. It's the cadets who don't respond to mentoring, but aren't screwing up badly enough to be kicked or demoted.

And then I'll get this response, "Yeah, we really need to be dropping the unmotivated cadets for push-ups. That'll help."

The point is to not let them get unmotivated. The military is all about motivation during that boot camp stage (from what I understand about it). If you aren't motivated, you have to find a way to get motivated, because otherwise, it's going to be a suck few weeks.

Many cadets join for the military hooah that, shockingly, they see on television. I know I did. For me, I got it, and I was pretty happy. Having been a cadet for quite a while now, I've seen a couple of things in terms of how to handle the situation, both endorsed by CAP and not.

A) Mentoring works for a select few cadets. It works for cadets who care enough to listen to what you have to say and honestly have a desire and motivation to improve, and it works for cadets mature enough to even care that you're talking to them. For cadets like me, who was given a firm (non-parental abuselike) beating when I did something bad, I wouldn't have even realized I had done something wrong if all that happened was that I was talked to and told not to do it again at 12 years old. Maybe I was an idiot, I don't know.

B) Dropping for push-ups does not teach anything in itself, but rather is used as an effective deterrant. Nobody really ENJOYS doing push-ups. Rather, push-ups are used to show that their is consequence for doing something wrong, which mentoring doesn't as effectively convey. I'm not going to try to name a situation where PT might be effectively utilized for punishment purposes, because I know someone's going to nitpick that to death and attempt to split hairs, but I can say something along the lines of, "The cadets miss x number of points on their room inspections, and do x number of 8-count bodybuilders." The lesson? Well, think of the lesson that inspections teach. Inspections teach attention to detail, because in the real world, military or not, carelessly skipping over details can lead to bad things. The bad thing in this case is push-ups, but luckily, that's as bad as it gets.

C) Moving on from the point directly above, I find that revoking awards is even WORSE than direct punishment, a concept that I know many of the leadership officers here will gasp and cross themselves over, but there is a reason. Copying from the situation above, let's say that the cadets missed x number of points on their room inspection, so that puts them 20 points behind the next flight for honor flight. What does this accomplish? Depending on how close they are, it could motivate them to move on, but competition only works so long as the scores are actually competitive. I know at Cadet Officer School, our flight was rocking on the points towards Honor Flight until we ended up beginning falling behind for a reason I can't remember. While we were pretty content as a flight, we did lose the motivation to try anymore, because we knew there was no way to win back the glory we had. Our volleyball games became progressively less intense, our speeches became less energetic, etc. We weren't last in points, but we weren't first. The same thing happens to all cadets. If you take away things they were looking forward to, then all you have is a bunch of depressed cadets who, rather than focusing on the fun they could have been having, are instead mourning the loss of their break time because they have to clean dishes.

D) 2b. Yeah... I'm not going to delve into this, but anything that forces a cadet out of the program is not something I'm a big fan of.

As you can see, I find that having one, very temporary punishment works much more effectively than depriving someone of rewards. Let them have all the fun they want and that you can give them (keep in mind that this is mainly encampment-speak; push-ups are harder to implement outside of that enviornment). I would far much prefer to give them a little discomfort for their mistakes and get it over with than to take away something they want badly.

If you want to build motivated cadets, then make punishments swift, predictable, and brief, and once they're done, move on and let them correct the mistakes. Mentoring doesn't work for everyone, ESPECIALLY in a team setting, which is what encampment is, and taking away rewards only moves to demoralize the cadets over time and cause them to stop caring about getting better, because either you're taking away things they want and depressing them, or you're taking away things they don't want and they have no reason to change.

That's not to say that the rewards and punishment can't be used consecutively. But CAP sorely lacks a useable, short-term punishment that can be implemented, and I don't think that PT is an unviable option. It would take time and a LOT of training to implement, and I would say that only encampment settings would be appropriate for the type of intensity that using PT for punishment would entail, perhaps taught during RST (though I wouldn't be opposed to a properly-trained squadron utilizing it appropriately). But I truly do believe that the discipline of cadets would go up once they realize that there are consequences for their actions other than a talking-to.

After all, how many times are YOU allowed to screw up in your job with literally no reprecussion than someone telling you to do better next time?

[BillB]

Hazing and making a cadet drop for pushups are part of CPPT. However, CPPT doesn't apply to the large majority of cadets, in fact they are not required to take CPP training until they are 18. As often mentioned by cadets, teenagers join CAP for the military aspect not found in Scouting. I also agree that making a Cadet Airman drop and do pushups does not really have a place at Squadron meetings. But an Encampment is a different animal. There, it's very military and doing the pushups has been in the cadet program since the 1940's. On average, most cadets do not mind doing the punishment, the only ones horrified by the idea are seniors with little experience in the Cadet Program.

[Eclipse]

The prohibition against hazing and punitive physical activity applies to >ALL< members, regardless of status, age, or formal training.

For those that have not received formal training, the onus is on the adults to insure neither of the above occurs.

But an Encampment is a different animal. There, it's very military and doing the push ups has been in the cadet program since the 1940's.

No, an encampment is not a different animal, in fact encampment leaders (and anyone else running any event that runs 4 overnights or more), are specifically required to attend "Required Staff Training', which is mandated to be a separate day, specifically attached to the encampment or activity, and which includes, by the same mandate, a 2-part anti-hazing and CPPT refresher.

Encampment environments are more prone to hazing and other similar problems because many of the cadets and seniors involved may be in leadership roles for the first time in their lives.

[flyguy06]

The prohibition against hazing and punitive physical activity applies to >ALL< members, regardless of status, age, or formal training.

For those that have not received formal training, the onus is on the adults to insure neither of the above occurs.

You missed the point of my thread. I am not arguing that it is a fact not to do push up. I am clear on that. I am arguing that I dont agree with it. Now wheather I agree with it or not I wilalways follow the rules. I am just trying to state why I do not agree with it and see if anyone agrees with me. I understand the rules, I just dont agree with them. But its ok, one day when I become the National Commander, it will all change. 

[flyguy06]

Hazing and making a cadet drop for pushups are part of CPPT. However, CPPT doesn't apply to the large majority of cadets, in fact they are not required to take CPP training until they are 18. As often mentioned by cadets, teenagers join CAP for the military aspect not found in Scouting. I also agree that making a Cadet Airman drop and do pushups does not really have a place at Squadron meetings. But an Encampment is a different animal. There, it's very military and doing the pushups has been in the cadet program since the 1940's. On average, most cadets do not mind doing the punishment, the only ones horrified by the idea are seniors with little experience in the Cadet Program.

I wish you could come to my squadron wher etalking nice and aaking cadets to do something doesnt always work the way you think it does. Again, it goes back to the background of the cadets and the community you serve.

[BlackKnight]

I dont think there was anything wrong with push ups if administered properly.I dontthink there is anything wrong with yelling if administered properly. The problem is we as Senior Member cadet leaders have failed in directing our senior cadet staff. We just give them the ball and let them run with it without giving them guidence.

As a DCC, I find yelling and physical punishment of cadets to be an inefficient means of discipline.  It works, but I believe there are better methods. We teach our cadet officers and NCOs to develop "command presence" such that they rarely have to raise their voices.  Except when working with the newest cadet basics, I can usually enforce discipline with a directed glance without having to say a word.  So can my cadet officers.   It takes a lot more time and effort to develop this command environment but I believe the results are well worth it.  It sets the cadet corps up for the "laisse-faire" leadership environment where everyone is competent in their jobs and can be depended upon to execute their tasks without step by step direction. When I observe something that needs correction I mention it to the cadet commander and it gets addressed.  I council our senior staff that we're the CAP, not the "See Cadets".  [As in "I see a cadet and I'm going to discipline them"].

We have a training flight for the cadet basics.  We use a bit more "noise" with them to help build esprit de corps.  We've never had to resort to physical punishment, although there are times when a cadet may be asked to do some additional drill practice, accompanied by his element leader or flight sergeant. On occasion I've taken cadet basics aside and offered them the choice of complying with CAP customs and courtesies or turning in their uniform and going home.  In nearly every case those cadets changed their attitude and became some of our most reliable and courteous members.

[BlackKnight]

...However, CPPT doesn't apply to the large majority of cadets, in fact they are not required to take CPP training until they are 18.

I've wondered why CPPT is required only for members over 18.  Perhaps it's a legal complication- agreements being unenforcable on minors, etc.  Or perhaps it's that CAP doesn't have the inclination to develop appropriate age-based variants of CPPT. 

I cover the Cadet Protection rules with all our cadets heading off to encampment for the first time, regardless of age.  I explain to them that most of the staff at the encampment are "learning" too.  They're learning leadership, and they will sometimes make mistakes and overstep the limits.   I explain that as cadet doolies it's important they know what those limits are.  That way, they remain mentally "in control" because the ultimate decision to file a complaint rests with them.   Human nature being what it is, they can take a lot more "abuse" and enjoy encampment a lot more (from day one) because they know there are procedures available to protect them if they decide they have to use them.

[flyguy06]

I dont think there was anything wrong with push ups if administered properly.I dontthink there is anything wrong with yelling if administered properly. The problem is we as Senior Member cadet leaders have failed in directing our senior cadet staff. We just give them the ball and let them run with it without giving them guidence.

As a DCC, I find yelling and physical punishment of cadets to be an inefficient means of discipline.  It works, but I believe there are better methods. We teach our cadet officers and NCOs to develop "command presence" such that they rarely have to raise their voices.  Except when working with the newest cadet basics, I can usually enforce discipline with a directed glance without having to say a word.  So can my cadet officers.   It takes a lot more time and effort to develop this command environment but I believe the results are well worth it.  It sets the cadet corps up for the "laisse-faire" leadership environment where everyone is competent in their jobs and can be depended upon to execute their tasks without step by step direction. When I observe something that needs correction I mention it to the cadet commander and it gets addressed.  I council our senior staff that we're the CAP, not the "See Cadets".  [As in "I see a cadet and I'm going to discipline them"].

We have a training flight for the cadet basics.  We use a bit more "noise" with them to help build esprit de corps.  We've never had to resort to physical punishment, although there are times when a cadet may be asked to do some additional drill practice, accompanied by his element leader or flight sergeant. On occasion I've taken cadet basics aside and offered them the choice of complying with CAP customs and courtesies or turning in their uniform and going home.  In nearly every case those cadets changed their attitude and became some of our most reliable and courteous members.

I understand but its a little different working with cadets in the inner city where verbal words have very little meaning. The cadets dont mean to be insulent. Its just the background they are accustomed to. Its all good though.

Discipline worked for me and  think I turned out alright. But we will always follow the rules and regs (until they change) 

[DNall]

This is going to take a minute, plz just stick with me. I want you to look at things from another perspective...

CAP exists because the AF funds & supports it. It cannot exist in any form without that support. They do not decide to take those needed taxpayer funds away from legitimate military needs & give them to CAP because it's a nice community service program. They do so for real & meaningful mission objectives. They expect to get their money's worth & will make funding decisions based on the results.

The cadet program was founded to prepare teens to enter the AAF, specifically by growing the pool of qualified candidates they could draw from. It exists today for the same reason. CAP sends more individuals (per capita of our program size) to service academies & the military in general than any other organizaiton in the US. If it did not deliver such numbers of highly qualified people to the military, it would not be supported & would be shut down.

AE supports two AF objectives. When directed at cadets & externally to other kids, it produces aerospace minded individuals inspired to seek a career in military aviation. When directed at adults, both internally & externally, it produces aerospace minded taxpayers more supportive of AF budgets & more free to say so at the gressroots level than anyone in the military is.

And ES exists because it saves the govt money to task those missions to CAP rather than fund the same resources & training to each individual state. That cost savings over CAP's history adds up to enough to pay for the entire F22 program from R&D to purchase of the planned final airframe. That's the only reason CAP does ES, and if it ever is not the case (due to offset DHS funding & mission shift) then it will go away.

To the AF & Congress, CAP is all about a cost benefit analysis. They don't give one crap why you volunteer, that you think you're doing some good, or what you say your objectives are or are not. They allow CAP to exist, and have allowed it for 60-odd years, because they are getting something out of it. That, and not how CAP describes itself or what it sets into policy, is ultimately our real mission & the sole determiner of our support & survival.


I just want you to keep that in mind when you say we are not training people to be in the military. You're right, we're not training people to go into combat. But, we will take them into the field where real lives depend on performing with the same teamwork, character, discipline, attention to detail, situational awareness, and professionalism that are required in combat. We are teaching them those same basic military skills that will one day serve them in the military. If they choose not to serve in that capacity, then those same skills will be of equal benefit on another career path too, but that's not why the program is here. We don't force or pressure people into the military. We give them an opportunity to be part of a military program & gain the tools they need to be successful in life.

Hazing has absolutely no place in that process. But, any discipline measure can be hazing or can be highly constructive depending on how it's used. Taking the one tool out of the box doesn't reduce hazing, it just takes away a tool to reach different personalities. I'd actually argue that it makes it harder to spot hazing & correct the leader before the situation gets out of hand.

Not having the training is not an adequate excuse. I don't need to drop a cadet to succeed, and he doesn't need to be dropped to succeed, but not having the leadership training that'd make it an acceptable practice sets too many of our members up for failure. I believe that leadership failure results in cadets we don't reach & lose to attrition, and to more hazing that goes on under our noses. I don't think we're really doing justice to our people right now, and that's one of the biggest things I'd like to see changed about CAP.

[ZigZag911]

I wish you could come to my squadron wher etalking nice and aaking cadets to do something doesnt always work the way you think it does. Again, it goes back to the background of the cadets and the community you serve.

It is possible to be stern, blunt, and effective without raising one's voice or engaging in verbal abuse.

Sometimes cadets need to be chastised or corrected regarding their behavior.

The focus should always be on the action.

Consequences should be clear.

Don't make empty threats.

In fact, don't make any threats....make simple statements of "cause and effect".

Then apply the standards fairly and without favoritism.

Finally, the squadron  commander and the squadron senior staff need to set unit disciplinary policy within the parameters of CAP regulations.

Then the DCC and cadet staff need to develop a  plan for applying the policy, securing the unit commander's approval before putting it into effect.

[Eclipse]

It is possible to be stern, blunt, and effective without raising one's voice or engaging in verbal abuse.

Sometimes cadets need to be chastised or corrected regarding their behavior.

The focus should always be on the action.

Consequences should be clear.

Don't make empty threats.

In fact, don't make any threats....make simple statements of "cause and effect".

Then apply the standards fairly and without favoritism.

A great primer on dealing with cadets, and one's children as well.  I've found that yelling simply escalates the volume level and tension, while rarely achieving one's ultimate goal.

A direct look in the eye with the consequence bad behavior is all you generally need, but you also have to follow through (at least most of the time), or they will learn you are a paper tiger.

[RiverAux]

CAP sends more individuals (per capita of our program size) to service academies & the military in general than any other organizaiton in the US.

Source citation please....

[mikeylikey]

CAP sends more individuals (per capita of our program size) to service academies & the military in general than any other organization in the US.

Source citation please....

Actually the JROTC programs do.  You can go to each Academies website and see statistics for each class in attendance. 

PLUS what makes sending Cadets to the Academies so great?  I would bet that CAP sends more Cadets to College ROTC programs than the Academies. 

If you said more Cap Cadets become military Officers than anyother Cadet organization, I may believe you.

[dwb]

I think CAP's hazing policies remove options from the "leadership toolbox" that aren't terribly effective anyway.  Even without CAP's hazing policies, hazing doesn't have a place in the organization, given its goals, core values, and membership pool.

IMO, most often, people who gripe about hazing are doing one of two things: 1. trying to make the organization something it isn't, or 2. frustrated because they can't find the right approach to motivating a difficult cadet.

The people who have misconceptions over what the CAP cadet program is (and therefore is not) are often difficult to convert.  This isn't the Young Marines, it's not Scared Straight, it isn't even a Boot Camp Prep School.

I know how it can be to work with difficult cadets.  I'm not so old that I don't remember being a cadet NCO or junior cadet officer, working one-on-one with cadets that aren't "getting it".  And, as tempting as it can be to drop someone for push-ups just to shut them up for a little while, or loudly chew them out in front of their peers, it's ultimately not useful.

That being said, I do have a problem on occasion with the interpretation of the hazing/abuse policies.

People who say "well, you can call anything hazing" are mistaken, plain and simple.  They join the crowd that says "you can't punish anyone for anything", which is also incorrect.  Those attitudes are counterproductive because they result in a watering down of the cadet experience.

[SamFranklin]

^ Helpful and wise advice from a grownup. Thanks.

[mikeylikey]

Hazing is bad!

[Briski]

Forget makin' cadets do pushups for punishment, there are some senior members I'd like to smoke...

[Eeyore]

^Agree

[Dragoon]

I will always obey CAP rules.  However, I believe that appropriately applied, mild physical punishment (like 10 pushups for an inspection violation or failure to salute) isn't particularly humiliating and is extremely good at getting a young person's undivided attention, which enhances learning.

Personally, I'm more concerned with someone being personally demeaning in public - not in a funny way like calling you a "maggot" but in a personally way like insulting your intelligence, competence, or perhaps parents in front of your peers - than I am about knocking out a quick 20 in a parking lot.

Whenever I got dropped as a cadet, I knew it wasn't personal - I'd done something wrong.  And within the hour, someone else was going be be dropped.  So it was hard to feel singled out.

And, as others have pointed out, I'd rather do a few pushups than have someone skip straight to written counseling or demotion/2B, which seems to happen all too often today.

Of course, there's always the worry about a lawsuit in today's world where "emotional damages" can result in $$$$, so we probably made the right corporate choice by banning anything the least bit stressful.

(and yeah, I recognize I'm a dinosaur.  Sorry for being old.  It WILL happen to you, too!  )

[mikeylikey]

^ The only thing wrong with that is there are people that will abuse that, have abused that and that is the reason it is no longer allowed. 

I am all for physical fitness to include PU's.  In ROTC Land I will drop cadets to get their attention.  IF they are disruptive during class I have no problem doing that.  BUT in CAP, I would never dream of doing that.  My ROTC Cadets are adults, where as my CAP cadets are Children.  Big difference!

[Dragoon]

And yet, speaking as a parent.  It seems it's the younger ones that often need the more direct methods of discipline - they simply don't have the reasoning skills yet to respond to truly understand why their behavior is unacceptable,  but they DO get "if I do this I'm gonna get in trouble."

The older my kids get, the less often I have to even raise my voice. 

But yeah, I only got dropped about twice in ROTC. But each time it had the desired effect....

I've always assumed that it was abuse of the pushup in CAP that killed it. But in discussions with National folks, I've yet to uncover a single lawsuit related to pushups in CAP.  If there was so much abuse, you'd think somebody would have taken us to court about it.

I think we just adopted the kindler gentler approach because the general culture was heading that way, and many of our new senior members in the 80s had no prior military experience.  So military style discipline was a bit foreign to them.

[JayT]

I've always assumed that it was abuse of the pushup in CAP that killed it. But in discussions with National folks, I've yet to uncover a single lawsuit related to pushups in CAP.  If there was so much abuse, you'd think somebody would have taken us to court about it.

I think we just adopted the kindler gentler approach because the general culture was heading that way, and many of our new senior members in the 80s had no prior military experience.  So military style discipline was a bit foreign to them.

If you were getting shot at, would you wait until you got hit to duck?

[Nathan]

IMO, most often, people who gripe about hazing are doing one of two things: 1. trying to make the organization something it isn't, or 2. frustrated because they can't find the right approach to motivating a difficult cadet.

1. Of course we are trying to make the organization into something it isn't. You can't make an organization into something it already is. We have a problem with the way the program is now, and wish to change it.

2. True. And the way we deal we deal with difficult cadets now rarely works, at least in my opinion.

The problem is that the way we deal with difficult cadets now has not shown promising results, and rather seems to just show the cadets that we can't control them. CAP seems to, instead of trying to fix "broken" people to instead shove them out in a gentle way or a 2b. So when we come across one of those cadets that doesn't respond to the treatment outside of hazing definitions, then they either leave on their own accord, or they are 2b'd out of the program. Those are our options.

I'm not saying that we need to break cadets down Marine-style into their most animalistic state and then rebuild them. We aren't trying to create soldiers. But we are trying to create disciplined citizens who work well under stress and are capable of serving their community with an inner strength they didn't know they had. That doesn't sound a whole lot different than the goal of military basic training, and push-ups work out great for them.

I don't know if anyone actually read my earlier post in this thread, but I mentioned that our ideas of mentoring cadets only works on those who respond to that sort of treatment. Cadets are VERY different. I'm not saying throw the mentoring out completely. I'm a big fan of it, and even if push-ups were allowed, I would most likely never make use of them and let someone else do it. But, at least in my eyes, push-ups are effective in that they show real consequence to actions rather than us just wagging our finger and asking them not to do it again. Ten push-ups will not kill them, nor will fifty spread out through the day. But they learn that the more attention they pay to detail, the less push-ups they do. Kind of like in the real world. And in this case, push-ups are far kinder than what they can expect to get for screwing up in real life.

Mentoring ONLY works if you have some way to back it up. Really. You can't tell someone that what they're doing is wrong if you can't show them that any negative outcome results from their action. Push-ups are very, very trivial, but the cadets get the idea that they did something wrong, now they are dong a quick punishment for it that they won't even feel in two minutes, and then they go on about fixing their punishments. People say push-ups are ineffective, but I would love to see the documentation on that, considering that CAP hasn't recently allowed push-ups to be field tested for effectiveness.

JMHO

[BillB]

I joined the cadet program when it was totally military. (mid 1940's) The Air Force supported the cadet program as an introduction to military life and hopefully enlistment in the Air Force. In the 21st century, that program no longer would be applicable to the kinds of 12-16 year olds that join CAP. By the same token, the watering down of the military style training the modern cadet gets doesn't show good results. If you got 200 cadets together and asked would they want more military style discipline, you probably would get 150 say yes (this was done at an encampment four years ago and the results were approximately as given here as an example)
Many cadets fail to renew or drop out due to the lack of military training allowed under CPPT. (exit interviews cofirmed this) I'm not talking about Rambo type military training, but rather strict military standards. CAP has gone to the extreme of CPPT for fear of legal action. Somewhere there has to be a middle road. One possible answer is a National Committee of former cadets from several different periods of CAP history. In otherwords cadets from the 1950's, 60, 80's etc. And at the same time include current cadet officers (Earhart and Spaatz) Find what worked and see if it would apply to the modern era cadet program. With retention rates hovering at 50%, it's obvious that to the teenagers, CAP doesn't measure up to their expectations.

[ZigZag911]

I don't understand some of these comments.

It is entirely possible to set and maintain high standards without being abusive.

In fact, a unit in which there is hazing will, as a general rule, be less effective than one properly conducted.

That great American sage, Michael Corleone, expressed it best in "The Godfather":
"It isn't personal, Sonny -- it's business."

How often I have said that through the years, to students, parents, cadets, seniors.....such a simple statement of fact: here are the rules; here are the requirements; here is the area in which you did not meet these expectations -- here (and this is critical!) is how we are going to teach you how to succeed from now on!

Don't do anything to anyone that you would not proudly view on the six o'clock news in Grandma's parlor!

[Nathan]

It is entirely possible to set and maintain high standards without being abusive.

You are absolutely correct. So prove push-ups are abusive, because so far, I haven't seen the proof.

What I do believe is that absurd amounts of push-ups can be abuse, as well as absurd amounts of drill, or saluting, or fire drills.

A push up is not abuse. It is a tool that is very effective if used properly, just as every other tool we have, so long as it's used properly. If it wasn't, then we wouldn't have so many other cadet programs or military services using them and seen to be significantly more disciplined as a whole than we are.

We have a lot of methods open to us, but none so far are effective for everyone. I'm not saying push-ups would be, but I am saying that push-ups are generally disliked by everyone, and therefore would be effective means of avoidance training.

[mikeylikey]

^ I think I heard the ACA uses push-ups.  There seems to be no problems there. 

[RiverAux]

I am of the school that thinks that if someone does not want to follow CAP's rules, then they should leave.  If someone makes some minor infraction and talking to them about it doesn't solve the problem, then I don't want them around whether they are a senior or a cadet.  We're not here to whip problem kids into shape. 

[Nathan]

I am of the school that thinks that if someone does not want to follow CAP's rules, then they should leave.  If someone makes some minor infraction and talking to them about it doesn't solve the problem, then I don't want them around whether they are a senior or a cadet.  We're not here to whip problem kids into shape. 

That's true, we aren't here to whip them into shape. But we are here to build model citizens.

This is EXACTLY the mentality that I was talking about earlier. I find it so interesting that instead of working to build model cadets using a practice which CAP has deemed taboo for whatever reason, we are willing to just let cadets go.

Does no one else find that a bit... substandard?

Not all people can come in completely disciplined and all ready to go as a sharp cadet. I, for one, came into the program knowing that I was undisciplined, and I wanted to learn professionalism. And I did. Had my commander had the attitude of throwing someone out that didn't want to follow the rules, then I would have been gone a long time ago, because I have screwed up on the rules more than I would like to admit.

No, we don't throw people out for making mistakes. My personal rule is that they can make as many mistakes as they want, so long as I only see each mistake once. After that, it's carelessness, which is something we teach cadets to avoid.

I personally work to build cadets into disciplined members of CAP, not to get rid of everyone who already isn't. And I'm willing to keep a cadet as long as he or she is willing to stay, so long as they don't do anything completely 2b-worthy. If the cadet has the motivation to take their punishment and move on, then they are learning, and that's what I ask.

So... keeping that in mind, I still say that our current options for dealing with trivial problems is unsatisfactory. Trivial problems leave us saying, "Fix it... or... uh... else...", or taking something away from them that they wanted, which only further demoralizes them. A quick set of ten push-ups says, "Okay, here's your cough medicine, so choke it down and try not to leave your head hanging out the window again, otherwise you get the medicine again."

I just fail to see how this isn't completely clear...

[Briski]

Here are a few issues I see with authorizing the use of PT for punishment:

1. I know very, very few 13-year-olds who I would trust with that level of power. I've seen plenty of 22-year-olds let it go straight to their head and go overboard with it. While it is a self-fulfilling prophecy (treat them like young adults and they'll behave like young adults), that depends entirely on how the local leadership utilizes the concept of the self-fulfilling prophecy. And frankly, I know plenty of SMs who I'd be pretty concerned about letting make cadets do pushups.

2. If you make a restriction like "only SMs can drop cadets," then you get too much hands-on SM involvement. In the ideal CP world, it would be extremely rare to see cadets doing pushups anyway, because the SMs should be going to the cadets in charge when they see a cadet issue that needs to be dealt with.

3. It doesn't actually solve the problem. Because all too often, they didn't understand why they were pushing... which means the cadet just knocked out 10 or 20, but the problem was not solved because the cadet has still not been properly trained.

4. It becomes a crutch. It's so much easier to say "get in the front leaning rest" than it is to take the time to stop and ask the cadet what was going through his/her brain housing group. If we're trying to train cadets to think like leaders, but we're enabling them to use PT as a crutch, what happens when they leave our program and are stuck in a rut? As manager of a Wal-Mart, what methods for motivation do they know to help them lead cashiers and stock gurus who are getting paid minimum wage?

Am I saying that PT for punishment as a leadership tool is altogether innappropriate? Nope. I've even used it myself in other settings. But I think for our purposes, in the CAP CP, it's better that we not allow this tool.

[RiverAux]

If a cadet needs some form of physical punishment to get the point across that they did something wrong and need to modify their behavior, then I think they are beyond what CAP should be doing.  Would I kick a cadet out for a few uniform violations?  No, of course not.  There are ways of dealing with that.  But, when you start getting cadets backtalking and outright refusing to do something, then they aren't going to do push ups just because you tell them too.  The thing you have to remember is that we can't force them to do pushups either.  If they don't want to do them our only alternative is to kick them out.  So, putting push ups or something like that in there just delays solving the problem. 

[Nathan]

I hope this doesn't seem too confrontational, because I think this debate is long overdue for CAP.

1. I know very, very few 13-year-olds who I would trust with that level of power. I've seen plenty of 22-year-olds let it go straight to their head and go overboard with it. While it is a self-fulfilling prophecy (treat them like young adults and they'll behave like young adults), that depends entirely on how the local leadership utilizes the concept of the self-fulfilling prophecy. And frankly, I know plenty of SMs who I'd be pretty concerned about letting make cadets do pushups.

Right now, I know of absolutely no 13 year olds I would trust with the ability to perform unending push-ups, which is why your assumption of the premise is incorrect.

First off, I would never want to see this happen the way Pineda made changes. This would happen experimentally in nature at first, then have some regulatory backing, then show up in the rest of the publications, like NHQ's oh-so-handy Cadet Staff Training Guide or whatever it's called. Then, hopefully after this generation has been trained, the next generation will experience it, and then use it based on how it was used on them.

And the idea of unlimited push-ups, as far as I know, doesn't even go far in the military. I was speaking with a friend of mine in the Air Force and another in the Army, and they were telling me that DI's are now limited as to how many push-ups a recruit can do in one set, and how many throughout the day one recruit can do. If this were regulated the same way in CAP, then it would completely eliminate the ability for a cadet to go crazy on push-ups, and hopefully encourage the cadet not to use them too frequently, otherwise, they will have similar offenses to the ones they had caused cadets to push for before and will have to try something else, which I would imagine could be embarrassing.

Me, personally, I would avoid push-ups altogether, and would likely never implement them myself, but I don't feel it's necessary to completely remove the tool from the box. For certain situations, it would be helpful to do a quick set. That set causes no real pain, no real humiliation, and is regulated... and does much more for morale than detracting free time will, and will be more effective in high-stress enviornments than "mentoring" will.

Keep in mind, please, that push-ups, to me at least, would have the most effect in an encampment-style activity. I cannot see many situations where it would be necessary to use them at the squadron. In a perfect world, I wouldn't hold them back from squadrons altogether, but for the purposes of realism, let's focus on encampments.

2. If you make a restriction like "only SMs can drop cadets," then you get too much hands-on SM involvement. In the ideal CP world, it would be extremely rare to see cadets doing pushups anyway, because the SMs should be going to the cadets in charge when they see a cadet issue that needs to be dealt with.

True. And like I said, the cadets SHOULD be handling it. The senior members would only enforce the regulatory cap on the push-ups, much the same way they would enforce the time a cadet goes to bed so sleep deprivation can't be used as hazing.

3. It doesn't actually solve the problem. Because all too often, they didn't understand why they were pushing... which means the cadet just knocked out 10 or 20, but the problem was not solved because the cadet has still not been properly trained.

I don't know why you think this. Whenever I was dropped, I had full awareness as to why. "Scalia, your team is late. Were you waiting for an invitation? Everyone drop, and then go back and try again at a speed that doesn't remind me of diseased livestock!" And I was faster, not because I was depressed, but because I didn't want to do push-ups again. And for the rest of the week, I was on time everywhere. And now I know why I have to move faster, but if the C/CC at the time had sat me down and said, "Look, Scalia, we're on a strict schedule here. We really need you to be on time next time, alrighty?", I don't think it would have been nearly as effective...

And please don't think for a second that I would advocate dropping a cadet by himself. I can't think of any justified situations for that off the top of my head. Team push-ups are the way to go, especially since they ensure that the team looks out for each other.

4. It becomes a crutch. It's so much easier to say "get in the front leaning rest" than it is to take the time to stop and ask the cadet what was going through his/her brain housing group. If we're trying to train cadets to think like leaders, but we're enabling them to use PT as a crutch, what happens when they leave our program and are stuck in a rut? As manager of a Wal-Mart, what methods for motivation do they know to help them lead cashiers and stock gurus who are getting paid minimum wage?

Maybe, but once again, if you have a regulatory cap on the push-ups, this problem goes away. As I stated, being a leader does not mean you can't drop for push-ups. I was dropped all the time, and I still followed my leaders, not out of fear, but for the same reasons I followed any leader. Once again, push ups are NOT bad leadership. They have NOTHING to do with leadership.  They are merely a tool a leader has at disposal. And, at least in my experience, they are FAR more effective in high-stress enviornments, far less demoralizing, and pose absolutely no threat to the cadets' physical or mental well-being so long as regulatory protections are in place.

Honestly, I don't know exactly what the ACA's rules on push-ups are, but given that they've been around longer than CAP and have been utilizing push-ups for this long, I can't honestly see an argument calling push-ups inefficient leadership tools an effective argument. If anything, the ACA has MORE disciplined cadets than we do. I doubt it's completely because of the push-ups, but I also can't say that the push-ups and military disciplinary methods they use are completely blameless.

[Nathan]

If a cadet needs some form of physical punishment to get the point across that they did something wrong and need to modify their behavior, then I think they are beyond what CAP should be doing.  Would I kick a cadet out for a few uniform violations?  No, of course not.  There are ways of dealing with that.  But, when you start getting cadets backtalking and outright refusing to do something, then they aren't going to do push ups just because you tell them too.  The thing you have to remember is that we can't force them to do pushups either.  If they don't want to do them our only alternative is to kick them out.  So, putting push ups or something like that in there just delays solving the problem. 

You're looking at two ends of a spectrum. One is them trying hard in order to fix themselves, and one is them completely flipping you off. Trying hard deserves mentoring. It means they are ready to learn, and don't need a whole lot more than encouragement and teaching to get along. Outright disrespect may call for a 2b. But the gray area is the cadet who isn't all of the way motivated, and while he may enjoy CAP, he doesn't see the need to change his uniform, because he know you won't kick him out for it, and he knows that all you will ever do is tell him to fix it next week. It's not outright disrespect; it's just laziness.

And, once again, let's keep in mind that push-ups would be most useful at encampment, so that's my main scenario that I'm arguing in. So we either mentor the cadet or send them home. Or, as a group, they drop and do a set of ten, and then decide, "Hey, I don't like doing sets of ten push-ups, let's try to be to chow on time next time." Simple, effective, and no damage. And mentoring would have done nothing on most of the cadets.

Cool, huh?

[SAR-EMT1]

In the past we have had new cadets/ would be cadets / parents
show up and REQUEST the" PT approach"

You must remember many, not all, but many cadets join to fly OR to be part of a program that is paramilitary in nature and will prep them for ROTC/BMT. (Sometimes both)  They do not join CAP to 'become model citizens'

I have had cadets quit the local JROTC or BSA and join us hoping CAP is a "step up" only to quit soon after disillusioned and return to JROTC.

[Dragoon]

I've always assumed that it was abuse of the pushup in CAP that killed it. But in discussions with National folks, I've yet to uncover a single lawsuit related to pushups in CAP.  If there was so much abuse, you'd think somebody would have taken us to court about it.

I think we just adopted the kindler gentler approach because the general culture was heading that way, and many of our new senior members in the 80s had no prior military experience.  So military style discipline was a bit foreign to them.

If you were getting shot at, would you wait until you got hit to duck?

I certainly wouldn't waste time ducking until incoming fire was imminent.  That's just cowardice.

If you've watched the NB operate, they often tend to put new restrictions on members without a true analysis of the cost/benefit.  Remember when you werent' allowed to taxi closer than 10 feet to an object without wing walkers?  That shut down CAP ops at half the GA airports on the country.  Happily they figured it out.

I don't think it's wise to always assume CAP policy is based on established fact and good staff work.  It's often more of a hip shoot.

[Dragoon]

If a cadet needs some form of physical punishment to get the point across that they did something wrong and need to modify their behavior, then I think they are beyond what CAP should be doing.  Would I kick a cadet out for a few uniform violations?  No, of course not.  There are ways of dealing with that.  But, when you start getting cadets backtalking and outright refusing to do something, then they aren't going to do push ups just because you tell them too.  The thing you have to remember is that we can't force them to do pushups either.  If they don't want to do them our only alternative is to kick them out.  So, putting push ups or something like that in there just delays solving the problem. 

Actually, when I was a cadet, this kind of stuff worked rather well.  It could correct a cadet who was "testing the limits" without resorting to kicking them out. I was dropped a few times.  It worked.

Remember, if there was no need for punishment, teachers would not hold detention or assign lines to write.  Coaches would not give out laps for not paying attention.  We'd just tell teenagers what was wrong and they'd obey.

On the abuse factor, It's all in how you take it, I suppose.   For me it was always just "part of the game."  No big deal.  Suck it up and drive on.  It's not like someone's kicking you in the face.

[jimmydeanno]

I think it is funny that many of you are making the comparison that a few push ups would correct behavior that would be equivalent to having to kick the cadet out.  Don't you think that if the action is bad enough to even consider kicking a kid out of the program it probably isn't something that would be fixed by push ups?

I have never had an experience in CAP where I would even need to utilize some form of physical punishment.  What's the point?  When the cadets join you tell them that they are evaluated based on their performance and attitude.  If they do something stupid it affects their abilities to get promoted or do cool things - seems to work for me.

I mean seriously, what kind of squadrons are you people running where you have cadets that are consistently trying to "push the limits?"  What limits could they be possibly pushing?  I think in most cases they really aren't that big of a deal and are more than likely just part of being a cadet - getting your flight late to a class because you accidentally drilled them across the parking lot and had to walk farther than you anticipated?  Didn't fill out a CAPF 50 correctly?  Didn't conduct the call down roster like they should have? Didn't submit the schedule on time?

WIWAC, I used to see people get dropped for stupid things like "you didn't do a left face correctly, do 50 push ups." or "You didn't salute, there's 25 push ups."  I really couldn't care less if I was dropped for some pushups, it'd just make me resent whoever made me do them.

The argument for push ups seems to be that cadets will do what you want them to / what they're supposed to because they don't want to do push ups.  I think that a cadet will do what they supposed to because they want to - because they have the drive to do it, not because you make them do push ups.  If the cadet wants to change, they will, if they don't, they won't - push ups won't change that.

[Dragoon]

I think it is funny that many of you are making the comparison that a few push ups would correct behavior that would be equivalent to having to kick the cadet out.  Don't you think that if the action is bad enough to even consider kicking a kid out of the program it probably isn't something that would be fixed by push ups?

I think the point is that some corrective action, early on, may help fix things BEFORE it gets to the state requiring a 2B.




You're right that there are other punishments, like suspension from activities and denying promotion. Those help as well.

I mean seriously, what kind of squadrons are you people running where you have cadets that are consistently trying to "push the limits?"  What limits could they be possibly pushing?

Normally teenage stuff - talking in class, failing to salute a cadet officer they don't particularly like, horesplay, dressing a bit sloppily and hoping to "get by" , being the class clown.   Nothing serious, just kids seeing how much they can get away with.  You know, like we used to do when we were that age.

Heck, we had to deal with a Cadet Captain who trashed a hotel room during IACE.  Teens acting out.

I think it helps to pick the correct tool for the task at hand.  If there's a training or comprension problem, you train.  But if there's an attention or discipline problem, training won't help.   Some sort of quick "attention getter" works wonders.  And sometimes just talking doesn't cut it - teenagers get lectured all day long, and many become a bit jaded. 

Clearly your experiences show the downside - some people take this sort of thing personally.  I guess I never did. 

Again, though, we can (and are) running CAP without this tool.  It's a different CAP. but times change.

[Nathan]

I think it is funny that many of you are making the comparison that a few push ups would correct behavior that would be equivalent to having to kick the cadet out.  Don't you think that if the action is bad enough to even consider kicking a kid out of the program it probably isn't something that would be fixed by push ups?

... I don't think I've seen anyone say that we could drop for push-ups instead of kicking out. In fact, I have made specific arguments saying that push-ups would NOT fill that goal. Push-ups, as I've said multiple times, would be for the typical "not paying attention to detail" offenses. You know, typical cadetisms. If a cadet went and trashed the barracks, or was caught having sex with another cadet, or slapped a subordinate, or something like that, OF COURSE push-ups would be a stupid idea. That's 2b material. Push-ups are JUST ANOTHER TOOL to use BEFORE the kicking out phase.

That was kind of my whole point...

WIWAC, I used to see people get dropped for stupid things like "you didn't do a left face correctly, do 50 push ups." or "You didn't salute, there's 25 push ups."  I really couldn't care less if I was dropped for some pushups, it'd just make me resent whoever made me do them.

If you didn't take the hint to change your ways after being dropped for push-ups, I would certainly think that you wouldn't have changed if the officer in question pulled you aside and asked you politely to change...

Almost every cadet in my squadron and at encampments I've been to have wanted to feel "more hardcore." I recently had an entire flight at encampment ask me if they could waive their rights to protection from unauthorized PT so that they could get dropped every now and then.

In truth, it seems that, in my experience and the experience of many here, cadets WANT to feel more military. It's why they join and want to put on a uniform. And when we do a lot of finger-wagging instead of something distinctly more military, ie push-ups, then they seem to become disillusioned and fade away.

I'm sorry that you personally don't like push-ups. That's kind of the point. And if you were being dropped for fifty push-ups at a time, that would probably be considered out of bounds, which is why I, being restated, would call for regulated push-ups. You can only do a certain amount within a day and within a set, just like USAF basic training is doing. There, problem solved.

The argument for push ups seems to be that cadets will do what you want them to / what they're supposed to because they don't want to do push ups.  I think that a cadet will do what they supposed to because they want to - because they have the drive to do it, not because you make them do push ups.  If the cadet wants to change, they will, if they don't, they won't - push ups won't change that.

At surface level, yeah, that's the argument. If you go further than skin deep, though, what we're doing is teaching the cadets that there is a consequence for not paying attention to detail. Mentoring does NOT do that. A cadet screws up, and they get talked to. If you want to talk about an inefficient punishment for most cadets, that's it. Push-ups teach a cadet that there are consequences to their actions, and if their actions are against what we ask their actions to be, then consequences insue. It's not just a CAP thing, either. In the real world, when they screw up, they're going to have consequences MUCH besides getting a finger wagging. I think that the push-ups is quick, to-the-point, and much less painful than what they will find in the real world.

Also, I don't know why everyone is assuming that this would be a radical change. It really wouldn't. We wouldn't be replacing our current system with one of pure physical punishment; rather, push-ups would simply become an option, and a very regulated option, at that. If a cadet would respond better to mentoring, great. Use mentoring. Only extremely motivated cadets respond to mentoring. For cadets that need immediate, physical motivation, use push-ups. These cadets aren't hard to find; they are usually the ones trying to earn every ribbon CAP can give out because they look cool. And, once again, push-ups would be done at an encampment setting as a team. Period.

[Falshrmjgr]

Well, for what it's worth, it might be salient to point out that physical fitness is a culture.  And frankly, the execution of a set number of exercises of any type, providing that there was a challenge, is a psychological and physical benefit.

I dislike the notion of push-ups as "punishment."  Punishment is punishment for acts that involve intent.  Push-ups, and similar exercises are corrective training.  Now I realize that may sound like semantics, but consider this:

The goal of corrective training is to give someone incentive to avoid a mistake.  It promotes attention to detail.  In this regard, the intent of the trainee is relevant.  Did they INTEND to do something wrong? (Other than in a comical attempt to provoke a response such as every trainee falling in with their shirts on backwards.)  The order "Left Face" was given.  The trainee executed a "right face."  Do ten push-ups and let's try it again.  The trainee learns that there is a cost/benefit relationship with mistakes.  Can this be taken too far?  Absolutely. But it is a motivational technique, and one that is effective.  As stated previously, group methods are generally preferable as they build esprit de corps.  Once the motivational effect is lost, it then becomes detrimental to the trainee(s) and is hazing.

Conversely, punishment is reserved for those actions that demonstrate intent.  Examples include disrespect, violence or threat of violence toward any other member, harassment, etc.  Push-ups for those actions are completely inappropriate in that it would be detrimental to the good order, morale, and discipline of the group.  Push-ups and similar corrective training have to be reserved for incidents that come under the heading of "trivial and unintentional."  Otherwise they lose their effectiveness as a training tool.  The message should be one of encouragement and discipline, not of punishment or power.

To look at the motivations of a teenager who joins CAP, generally it boils down to a young person who wants to have something  to take pride in.  And pride comes from having a challenge and meeting it.  If we do not challenge our cadets, and build a culture of accomplishment and respect for their abilities, we waste their time and ours.  Push-ups are an effective method for accomplishing this when used appropriately.

One key benefit of push-ups as a training tool is that it immediate, it is tangible, and it does not have long-term repercussions.  The mistake is identified, it is discouraged, it is done.  No "this will go on your permanent record," no "this will adversely affect your promotion opportunity."

Now having said all of this, it is incumbent on us as leaders to enforce the laws and regulations as they are now.  In other words, this is an argument, not a proscription. 

[ZigZag911]

You are absolutely correct. So prove push-ups are abusive, because so far, I haven't seen the proof.

CAPR 52-10, 1 (c) Hazing: "...Examples of hazing include using exercise as punishment or assigning remedial training that does not fit the deficiency (such as making a cadet run laps for having poorly shined shoes). Hazing, as defined in this policy, is considered a form of physical abuse and the reporting procedures for physical abuse must be followed."

That's it in black and white.

This is a free country, you are free to disagree....as long as you comply during the tenure of your CAP membership.

That is one of the nice things about this organization: we don't have to like regulations, as long as we follow them!

[jimmydeanno]

As stated previously, group methods are generally preferable as they build esprit de corps.  Once the motivational effect is lost, it then becomes detrimental to the trainee(s) and is hazing.

I watched a nice documentary on hazing a few weeks ago and they keyed in on something I thought was interesting.  The psychoanalysts and such stated that group methods are preferred because it makes the person feel as though they are betraying the team and are therefore less likely to report abuse/hazing.  The ones that commit the hazing like to use this method as an added layer of protection to ensure that their misdoings don't get out.

Look at Greek Fraternities and their pledging rituals - many of them are hazing but go unreported for the reason above.  The members probably don't like what is being done to them but the peer pressure and that fear of betraying the team comes into play.  Then, when they are placed in the leadership roles they want the new pledges to experience what they did.  Quite often the rituals are amplified slightly from the previous time and on and on.  In extreme cases, people die.

I don't think that most of the CAP adult leadership has the skill or experience or training to use push ups or any other form of "physical motivation" as an effective tool in their leadership toolbox.  Most can't even put their clothes on correctly.  Then pass that onto the cadets who want to "feel more military" but have no experience as to what the military feel is even like except what they see in movies and it becomes a mess.  I never served in the military, my wife has been in for 5 years now.  Even at basic they didn't make her do any push ups except for PT.  In my experience of living on a military base for a few years I've never seen any military member get dropped for push ups - ever.

To me a sense of accomplishment and achievement doesn't involve "whew, I didn't have to do push ups today." But rather, I did a good job over the last few months so I earned my next stripe.

Just some thoughts.

[Nathan]

You are absolutely correct. So prove push-ups are abusive, because so far, I haven't seen the proof.

CAPR 52-10, 1 (c) Hazing: "...Examples of hazing include using exercise as punishment or assigning remedial training that does not fit the deficiency (such as making a cadet run laps for having poorly shined shoes). Hazing, as defined in this policy, is considered a form of physical abuse and the reporting procedures for physical abuse must be followed."

Incorrect. CAPR 52-10 does not define abuse. That is simply CAP's definition of hazing, and it decided that any and all PT outside of PT testing is "abuse." That does not MAKE it "abuse", rather just the way that CAP is interpreting it.

CAP itself has yet to prove that PT is abuse. Of course, it doesn't really have to, considering that the rules are the rules, but that's what these debates are all about. There are many who think that CAP is wrong, and that push-ups are NOT abuse, but CAP is categorizing them as hazing simply because of... well, whatever reason it is that they decided.

In other words, we're waiting for some reason as to why push-ups are abuse, because so far, I have seen FAR more benefits to push-ups than negative.

So where's your proof that push-ups are abusive again?

[jimmydeanno]

They aren't saying that push-ups for punishment are abusive.  They're saying that they are hazing.  They defined that:

Hazing is defined as any conduct whereby someone causes another to suffer or to be exposed to any activity that is cruel, abusive, humiliating, oppressive, demeaning, or harmful...

I could see it being humiliating and oppressive for a C/Flt Sgt to tell a cadet to put his face in the dirt and start pushing while the rest of his flight watches because he turned the wrong direction...

[ZigZag911]

"Incorrect"?

I think you mean, "I disagree", don't you?

That citation, is, in fact, CAP's definition of physical abuse.

This is CAP.

Anyone else's definition both irrelevant and immaterial.

However, I believe if one chose to do the research, more than a few states prohibit
corporal punishment in schools....and I further believe that the same research will indicate that assigning exercises as punishment is considered a form of corporal punishment in those states.

Now, let me go on a bit: in my long years of CAP membership, cadet (Earhart) and senior, I have on occasion seen the old 'drop and give me 20'.

In most instances it was power-trip for immature cadet officers or cadet NCOs.

On a few occasions, in my own cadet days, it constituted a power-trip by immature seniors.

I can only recall one or two instances when it was carried to the point that it humiliated or otherwise caused emotional distress to cadets.

The problem was that it set a very negative tone in several areas:

1) exercise was reduced to punishment, when we were trying to teach a healthy lifestyle
2) leadership turned into a childish game of "gotcha"
3) the relationship between leaders/led turned into "them against us".

The issue, however, is not whether I 'prove' what abuse is or not.

For our purposes, it is a given, according to regulations, that assigning exercise as punishment is physical abuse.

I have yet to read a compelling argument in this thread for changing that regulation.

[Pace]

Every time I've seen this debate it ultimately boils down to this:

Besides the CAP black and white that makes it hazing, PT is not inherently abusive.  It can be motivational, it can be used as a means of effective correction, and it builds physical condition.  I have seen it used properly and effectively outside of CAP, as have many others.

The problem is the potential abuse and resulting legal ramifications if little Timmy gets hurt because 14 year old C/SSgt Joey didn't know how to properly use PT as a form of correction, not to mention the "emotional abuse" that people are so quick to jump to these days.   All it takes is one person to ruin it for everyone else, and this is an area that is all too likely to be abused by CAP members, cadets and seniors.  NHQ seems to agree.

[Nathan]

I could see it being humiliating and oppressive for a C/Flt Sgt to tell a cadet to put his face in the dirt and start pushing while the rest of his flight watches because he turned the wrong direction...

*sigh*

And, once again, push-ups would be done at an encampment setting as a team. Period.

They aren't saying that push-ups for punishment are abusive.  They're saying that they are hazing.

Right. Hazing by CAP standards. And CAP standards have little to no known evidencial backing. That's what I'm asking for. So far, I've seen lots of stories of cadets asking for push-ups as a disciplinary measure. Where's the evidence against it? If there is none, then perhaps CAP should think of changing its idea of hazing.

Incorrect?

I think you mean, "I disagree", don't you?

That citation, is, in fact, CAP's definition of physical abuse.

This is CAP.

Anyone else's definition both irrelevant and immaterial.

Negative. Just because CAP says that push-ups are hazing doesn't mean they are. Just because CAP thinks that BBDU's are acceptable uniforms doesn't mean they are. Just because CAP thinks mustaches are okay for cadets doesn't mean they are. It's all opinion; the goal is to try to figure out why the opinion is in place (in terms of empircal evidence) and change it if the evidence doesn't match.

In most instances it was power-trip for immature cadet officers or cadet NCOs.

On a few occasions, in my own cadet days, it constituted a power-trip by immature seniors.

Which, once again, is the purpose of regulating the push-ups the same way the military is.

I guess nobody feels that reading the posts you're arguing against is important these days...

The point is that push-ups in the past WERE unregulated and led to power-trips and feelings getting hurt, causing them to become even MORE unregulated. If you put in a few words now saying, "You can only do so many for these types of offenses and have a cap of 50 for the day", then all of your problems disappear. Hell, I would bet even the illegal push-ups we see these days disappear if cadets are allowed to do it in a controlled, supervised setting.

Once again, think encampment, my friend.

And once again, I can bring up the fact that the ACA's cadet program does not have too different of a mission than ours, and they use push-ups and other "taboo" methods of discipline not found in CAP. Their cadets aren't constantly crying, they have the same age limits (as far as I remember), and so on. So why can it work for them and not for us?

There are WAY too many situations where push-ups work great in CONTROLLED settings (like the ACA) for you to be making arguments about UNCONTROLLED push-ups and saying that all push-ups are bad because of them.

[Briski]

This is going to be long, because I have a lot of stuff to quote and arguments to refute. :-)

First off, I would never want to see this happen the way Pineda made changes. This would happen experimentally in nature at first, then have some regulatory backing, then show up in the rest of the publications, like NHQ's oh-so-handy Cadet Staff Training Guide or whatever it's called. Then, hopefully after this generation has been trained, the next generation will experience it, and then use it based on how it was used on them.

This assumes that this generation will be trained properly across the board.

Large percentages of our members still can't read and interpret the regulations properly on other major issues... heck, the first squadron I was a member of didn't even administer the friggin' CPFT until 2003 (meaning they had at least one cadet earn the Spaatz Award, only having taken a PT test for the Spaatz Award itself).  Just run a Google Images search for CAP, and look at all the crazy uniforms being worn improperly.

What I'm getting at is quality control.  I doubt there's a person who has participated in this discussion who would never even dream of violating the regulations regarding restrictions on the use of incentive physical training (IPT).  If the regs say sets of 10, no more than 30 per cadet per hour, only at encampments/NCSAs/weekend leadership schools, none of us would violate that.  But what about our comrades who choose not to hold themselves to the same level of professionalism?

If this were regulated the same way in CAP, then it would completely eliminate the ability for a cadet to go crazy on push-ups, and hopefully encourage the cadet not to use them too frequently, otherwise, they will have similar offenses to the ones they had caused cadets to push for before and will have to try something else, which I would imagine could be embarrassing.

What you're saying works perfectly, in theory.  But unfortunately, in real life, it doesn't always work so nicely.  Just like you have cadets pushing the limits to see what they can get away with in sloppy uniform wear, lax customs and courtesies, etc., you will have cadet leaders pushing the limits to see how far they can get away with in making other cadets do pushups.

Frankly, if a cadet leader is going to let the power go to his/her head (and it's very easy to do), it's also pretty likely that he or she will get into the mindset of "they'll never catch me." 

3. It doesn't actually solve the problem. Because all too often, they didn't understand why they were pushing... which means the cadet just knocked out 10 or 20, but the problem was not solved because the cadet has still not been properly trained.

I don't know why you think this. Whenever I was dropped, I had full awareness as to why. "Scalia, your team is late. Were you waiting for an invitation? Everyone drop, and then go back and try again at a speed that doesn't remind me of diseased livestock!" And I was faster, not because I was depressed, but because I didn't want to do push-ups again. And for the rest of the week, I was on time everywhere. And now I know why I have to move faster, but if the C/CC at the time had sat me down and said, "Look, Scalia, we're on a strict schedule here. We really need you to be on time next time, alrighty?", I don't think it would have been nearly as effective...[/quote]

It's really good that your experience with this kind of thing was handled professionally, because all too often it isn't.  It's good that you had leaders who knew how to implement the PT tool in an effective manner, so you could watch them and then emulate their example when you moved up into higher leadership positions.

But what about atmospheres that are not so professional?

It becomes a cycle.  If you have good leaders and the followers choose to follow their example, you generally get a good result.  But in situations where it becomes a matter of ego and the leaders begin doing things just to be mean, the result is that the followers get into the mindset of "man, my Flt Sgt is such a jerk, I can't wait to get my hands on those new Basics when I'm on Cadet Staff..."

Team push-ups are the way to go, especially since they ensure that the team looks out for each other.

Until the team figures out who the weakest link is, the one who is always getting them all smoked, and decides to police their own.

Maybe, but once again, if you have a regulatory cap on the push-ups, this problem goes away.

Again, assuming everyone follows the pushup regs more closely than they follow the rest of the non-pushup regs.

And, at least in my experience, they are FAR more effective in high-stress enviornments, far less demoralizing, and pose absolutely no threat to the cadets' physical or mental well-being so long as regulatory protections are in place.

This depends 100% on how they are implemented.  It sounds like you had a good experience with it, where they were used professionally.  That's awesome.  I've had those experiences, too.  Unfortunately, it's safe to say that not everyone would have a good experience.  Especially since there are some encampments who seem to be notorious for pushing the CPP thing as it is, even without crossing the IPT line.

Honestly, I don't know exactly what the ACA's rules on push-ups are, but given that they've been around longer than CAP and have been utilizing push-ups for this long, I can't honestly see an argument calling push-ups inefficient leadership tools an effective argument.

The ACA is a very different program.  They certainly have some good stuff goin' on, but just because it works for the ACA, doesn't mean it'll work for CAP.

If anything, the ACA has MORE disciplined cadets than we do.

I don't mean this sarcastically, and I'm not taking offense... but can you back this statement up?  Honest curiosity here.  I'd think it would take an awful lot of time spent observing a cross-section of CAP units vs. ACA units, as well as encampments vs. annual training, to be able to determine this... but again, I don't know.  Which is why I asked. :-)

In the past we have had new cadets/ would be cadets / parents
show up and REQUEST the" PT approach" 

Yeah, I've heard this too. I hate it when parents think my program will be a good replacement for their crappy parenting skills.

(Oh, yes I did.  I went there.)

Clearly your experiences show the downside - some people take this sort of thing personally.  I guess I never did.

Okay, kind of not really what you were getting at, but it is related in a way: all too often, it does become personal.

I've seen it happen more times than I wish to count.  It's only a matter of time until IPT becomes another tool in an experiment in social Darwinism, and people are singled out.  Even if the regs clearly say "not to be applied to individuals."

I watched a nice documentary on hazing a few weeks ago and they keyed in on something I thought was interesting.  The psychoanalysts and such stated that group methods are preferred because it makes the person feel as though they are betraying the team and are therefore less likely to report abuse/hazing.  The ones that commit the hazing like to use this method as an added layer of protection to ensure that their misdoings don't get out.

Wow... that's actually very true.  It's so much harder to stand up for yourself and your buddies when you know the regs are being violated, but you're the only one willing to stand up.  The person who did the right thing for all involved ends up with a stigma, not the "leader" who had the lapse in integrity to begin with.

I don't think that most of the CAP adult leadership has the skill or experience or training to use push ups or any other form of "physical motivation" as an effective tool in their leadership toolbox.  Most can't even put their clothes on correctly.  Then pass that onto the cadets who want to "feel more military" but have no experience as to what the military feel is even like except what they see in movies and it becomes a mess.

Again, you're absolutely right.  If it's a military DI/TI/DS, with over a decade of real military experience and several months' worth of training to be a DI/TI/DS, there's a certain level of respect that comes just from their experience and rank.  We don't have anything comparable to this in the CAP CP.

Because when the person who's making you do pushups is only a couple months or years older than you, if that... well, they have to work a heck of a lot harder to earn any amount of credibility. 

The problem was that it set a very negative tone in several areas:

1) exercise was reduced to punishment, when we were trying to teach a healthy lifestyle
2) leadership turned into a childish game of "gotcha"
3) the relationship between leaders/led turned into "them against us".

I've seen all of these side effects happen, too.  Specifically 2 and 3 (which are the worst of the three problems to begin with), more often than I've seen them not occur.

It all goes back to how the local leadership handles it, man.  This includes local leadership SM supervision.  When someone can guarantee me pre-packaged SMs who come fully equipped to already be good leaders who can provide the proper amount of relatively-hands-off supervision and, more importantly, the skills to mentor the cadet leaders so they understand how to properly utilize this leadership tool, then I'll support it.

Like I said before, I'm not saying that PT never has its place as a tool for leaders to use.  All I'm saying is that our primary mission in the CP is to train leaders and good citizens.  Even if they do choose to go into the military, more often than not, this is not a real, concrete leadership method they can use on real people in the real world.

[Nathan]

But what about our comrades who choose not to hold themselves to the same level of professionalism?

These people don't need regulations telling them they can drop cadets. They're already doing it right now, regulatory or no.

The goal is that if we allow it, then hopefully they will at least stay in our regulations, since they would be doing it anyway. If we don't allow it, then it would happen anyway, but this time without the guidance from CAP as to what could be safe and what isn't.

Frankly, if a cadet leader is going to let the power go to his/her head (and it's very easy to do), it's also pretty likely that he or she will get into the mindset of "they'll never catch me." 

Probably, but then again, see answer one. The people who would violate rules anyway are right now violating the rule that push-ups aren't allowed. I know; I was dropped all the time. Those people we have to worry about anyway. But don't you think that if these people were given some guidance that at least SOME of them would adhere to that guidance, since they were going to do push-ups anyway?

It becomes a cycle.  If you have good leaders and the followers choose to follow their example, you generally get a good result.  But in situations where it becomes a matter of ego and the leaders begin doing things just to be mean, the result is that the followers get into the mindset of "man, my Flt Sgt is such a jerk, I can't wait to get my hands on those new Basics when I'm on Cadet Staff..."

Encampments are generally at the smallest consisting of the entire wing. I would imagine that, even in the worst wings, there is going to be SOMEBODY there observing the rules and ensuring that cadets aren't hazed. That's the point of TAC officers. The TAC officers will come from all over the state, and sometimes the region. If the TAC officers aren't doing anything to keep the boundaries safe, then I can guarantee you that the problem isn't with the push-ups, but with the wing itself, and that even without push-ups, there are many more safety violations going on that we aren't seeing that need to be addressed. The push-ups are just a tool; if the wing is really bad enough that nobody is willing to stop cadets from being hazed, then there's a bigger problem that needs addressing.

Until the team figures out who the weakest link is, the one who is always getting them all smoked, and decides to police their own.

Maybe, and that's generally the first thought that comes to mind. But I've actually seen this happen worse in situations where push-ups are NOT an option. Cadets dislike losing honor flight or getting extra KP duty far more than they dislike push-ups. They'll find out who the weakest link is anyway, only this time, the weakest link is costing them morale. When the weakest link is only getting them dropped for push-ups, I've found that cadets generally tend to work much better together, because at least they aren't experiencing long-term problems. It's more of a, "Hey, that sucked, so don't screw up again." There's few ways to get a limping cadet LIKED, but push-ups aren't going to worsen the problem any more than any other punishment would.

Again, assuming everyone follows the pushup regs more closely than they follow the rest of the non-pushup regs.

And, while it's a good point, once again, the people who won't follow the regs then aren't following the regs now. The difference is that if you don't follow the regs concerning push-ups (if a push-up regulation was made), then you would turn the exercise into hazing, unlike most regulation breaks, and I think fewer people would be willing to venture into that territory. If they do, then, once again, the push-ups aren't the problem.

Unfortunately, it's safe to say that not everyone would have a good experience.  Especially since there are some encampments who seem to be notorious for pushing the CPP thing as it is, even without crossing the IPT line.

Keeping in mind the rest of this post, if you regulate it, it won't be a problem for 95% of CAP. And the 5% it is a problem for, they were a problem to begin with and were threatening the safety of cadets far before push-ups would be allowed.

The ACA is a very different program.  They certainly have some good stuff goin' on, but just because it works for the ACA, doesn't mean it'll work for CAP.

I'm curious why you think this. I looked into the ACA for a while before I started Pre-med, and found them to be very professional, but not a whole lot different in the mission they were trying to achieve. They seem to be more disciplined than us, but I would imagine that we want to be disciplined as well. In fact, we should be MORE disciplined than they are, since we are actually participating in missions where lives are on the line AND are an official auxiliary, which they are not (at least for a few more months).

I don't mean this sarcastically, and I'm not taking offense... but can you back this statement up?  Honest curiosity here.  I'd think it would take an awful lot of time spent observing a cross-section of CAP units vs. ACA units, as well as encampments vs. annual training, to be able to determine this... but again, I don't know.  Which is why I asked. :-)

This isn't something that's easy to back up without having looked into it. I don't know if you've ever studied the ACA's program, but as I said above, I looked into it and was on my way to starting a unit before I got too busy to dedicate time to it anymore. I do know that the cadets are able to participate in activities such as SCUBA and skydiving, something which CAP would laugh right out of the board meeting because apparently our cadets are not professional enough to handle it. I'm just saying that sometimes CAP has a habit of severely underestimating our cadets while the ACA doesn't seem to have that problem. Our cadets can act like idiots, yes, but perhaps that's because we treat them like idiots who might break a bone if they do a few push-ups. Treat them like professional, disciplined troops, and you'll have them, as I have personally witnessed with the ACA.

That, for me, was an important paragraph, so I hope you read it.

[JayT]

I do know that the cadets are able to participate in activities such as SCUBA and skydiving, something which CAP would laugh right out of the board meeting because apparently our cadets are not professional enough to handle it. I'm just saying that sometimes CAP has a habit of severely underestimating our cadets while the ACA doesn't seem to have that problem. Our cadets can act like idiots, yes, but perhaps that's because we treat them like idiots who might break a bone if they do a few push-ups. Treat them like professional, disciplined troops, and you'll have them, as I have personally witnessed with the ACA.

That, for me, was an important paragraph, so I hope you read it.

When have you ever had skydiving and SCUBA denied because 'cadets aren't professional' enough?

I've seen it denided because of safety, etc etc, but never because it's because our cadets 'aren't professional enough.'

[Nathan]

I do know that the cadets are able to participate in activities such as SCUBA and skydiving, something which CAP would laugh right out of the board meeting because apparently our cadets are not professional enough to handle it. I'm just saying that sometimes CAP has a habit of severely underestimating our cadets while the ACA doesn't seem to have that problem. Our cadets can act like idiots, yes, but perhaps that's because we treat them like idiots who might break a bone if they do a few push-ups. Treat them like professional, disciplined troops, and you'll have them, as I have personally witnessed with the ACA.

That, for me, was an important paragraph, so I hope you read it.

When have you ever had skydiving and SCUBA denied because 'cadets aren't professional' enough?

I've seen it denided because of safety, etc etc, but never because it's because our cadets 'aren't professional enough.'

The point is that safety is related to professionalism. The more professional the cadets, the less we have to worry about safety.

Apparently, SCUBA and skydiving is safe enough for the ACA cadets who just happen to have a greater level of discipline than us, but is deemed too dangerous for our cadets to partake in, despite both wearing a military uniform, having the same overall goals, and including the same age range.

[JayT]

The point is that safety is related to professionalism. The more professional the cadets, the less we have to worry about safety.

I gotta through the BS flag here dude, unless you can provide me with a document that says something to that effect from NHQ.

Safety concerns have nothing to do with professionalism in my opinion. Would I want cadets to do SCUBA and sky diving? Sure. But in recent years, the ATC and the AAFC have both cut their sky diving programs because of safety/insurance/etc etc, and both of our brother programs overseas certainly have both a close relationship with their parent services, and professional cadets.

Sorry guys, but the generation before ours was a little too sue happy. Blame them.

[Nathan]

I gotta through the BS flag here dude, unless you can provide me with a document that says something to that effect from NHQ.

NHQ doesn't decide things like that; it's common sense. If you can expect a cadet to be professional enough to not goof around while underwater, then we can expect them to be safe during a SCUBA activity. It's the same idea in activities not even relating to safety. If you can expect a cadet not to goof around, then you can let them represent you at a cadet competition, or a drill competition, or a parade, or something of the like. When safety is involved, though, NHQ doesn't even give it a try.

Perhaps I'm just more trusting of our cadets than NHQ, but not in a sense that I think we should just launch into these activities right away. Rather, I'm saying that when you treat someone professionally (ie, NOT babying them with mentoring and so on), then they will begin to get more professional. If you drop them for push-ups, that teaches discipline in a different way than mentoring, and as has been argued above, an arguably more efficient, faster, and less detrimental method to morale. The ACA pulls it off, and in return, they seem to be able to trust their cadets to handle activities that CAP doesn't.

There's not a DIRECT parallel, but it does seem to me that if you treat your cadets in a more "militaristic" manner, then they seem to be more capable of acting with the professionalism we often associate with the military, and therefore get to do more "militaristic" activities, such as those done by the ACA.

I'm not trying to recruit for the ACA, but I do respect them and have seen what their cadets are capable of, and I think statements like, "CAP isn't capable of doing that" is ridiculous. CAP is completely capable of doing the EXACT same activities that the ACA can, and have the EXACT same professionalism we see in the ACA. Right now, we are obviously doing something wrong, because we aren't near that point yet, and I personally believe that it's because we don't treat the CAP cadet program as the paramilitary program that it is.

I don't think that the funding is an issue, either. It's the rules preventing the funding in the first place. I can guarantee you that if I went to my meeting tonight and said, "Cadets, we have the opportunity to jump from a C-130 in a couple of months. We need X dollars to do it, and we'll need some help for fund-raising activities toward this goal. Who wants to help?" that I would have quite an overwhelming response.

The money is there for the people who want to do it. It's the rules in place now telling us that it's "too dangerous" that are keeping us from achieving that goal.

YMMV

[Briski]

(ie, NOT babying them with mentoring and so on)

I think you have a skewed perception of the entire idea behind the art of mentorship...

[DNall]

Corrective discipline is an essential part of leadership. PT is a good thing. PT as a tool for corrective discipline is a good thing.

What is NOT a good thing is when a cadet or officer misuses corrective discipline. That's called maltraining, and is unacceptable in the military just as it is anywhere else (call it hazing if you want).

When a cadet on a power trip takes offense to what some younger cadet does, drops them for pushups, makes a fool of them in front of everyone else, makes it personal... The pushups are not the hazing part of that scenerio. The leadership failure is not about doing or not doing pushups, it's about that young leader abusing his power & his subordinates.

Disciplinary PT is not the problem, bad training, bad leadership, and bad supervision are. So you regulate out the pushups, fine. You still have that same incompetent cadet leader using some other creative tool to maltrain his subordinates. That's still hazing, and we haven't done anything whatsoever to correct the problem. All we have done is take effective tools away from people that do know how to correctly use them.

I got no problem with PT as a disicpline tool. I dropped a couple soldiers this weekend for acting stupid at drill. They got the point & stopped the behavior. Took 60 seconds & we all went on our way. I didn't make them feel isolated from the group, I didn't make them believe anyone (including myself) thought less of them as soldiers or individuals.

When a parent baby's their kid to the point they become spoiled little brats with no discipline, that parent is a failure, and that kid is a drain on society. A lot parents send those same kids to us because they need structure & discipline that they aren't getting at home. We cannot baby up our program. It just becomes worthless & counterproductive. We have a responsibility as leaders to train our people right, and that includes disciplining them correctly. We have a responsibility to ensure we train our junior leaders to do the same, or they aren't leaders at all & we're just setting them up for failure in the real world.

[Nathan]

(ie, NOT babying them with mentoring and so on)

I think you have a skewed perception of the entire idea behind the art of mentorship...

I think you have a skewed perception of the entire idea behind push-ups.

Negative, I have absolutely no problem with the IDEA of mentorship. I have a problem with the way mentoring is implemented, kind of the same way that you have a problem with the way push-ups are implemented. Mentoring on its own is great; however, since most people don't know how to use it, then it's useless. They assume mentoring is just "talking to them", which results in no corrective actions, just the confirmation that nothing will happen but being told to stop should they do it again. It doesn't work, and is potentially as dangerous as misusing push-ups.

I think the mentoring program is great, and I think that push-ups could be just as great. However, both programs are misused due to a lack of training. That, and the fact that we over-use mentoring because that is really the only option except a 2b that most commanders seem to have available to them.

Two different methods of leadership. Poorly implemented, both are useless. Properly implemented, both will become effective tools, each for different situations.

[Briski]

Negative, I have absolutely no problem with the IDEA of mentorship. I have a problem with the way mentoring is implemented, kind of the same way that you have a problem with the way push-ups are implemented. Mentoring on its own is great; however, since most people don't know how to use it, then it's useless. They assume mentoring is just "talking to them", which results in no corrective actions, just the confirmation that nothing will happen but being told to stop should they do it again. It doesn't work, and is potentially as dangerous as misusing push-ups.

Then you aren't talking about mentorship. You're talking about informal counseling.  The difference is that while mentorship often requires the use of informal counseling in order to accomplish its mission, it is an on-going process that has nothing to do with disciplinary action.

Yes, mentorship often works towards a change in attitude, but mentorship is an overarching relationship.  The focus is on long term growth and development, not short term "cut that crap out."

I think the mentoring program is great, and I think that push-ups could be just as great. However, both programs are misused due to a lack of training.

Unfortunately, you're right on.  My biggest beef with the professional development programs is that while the very foundation of the CP is leadership development, all too often we simply take for granted that because someone is over 18 or 21, obviously s/he has enough life experience to just automatically make him/her ready to lead and mentor cadets.  And we've all seen cadets who could lead circles around the senior members who were theoretically supposed to be overseeing the leadership training of those cadets...

That, and the fact that we over-use mentoring because that is really the only option except a 2b that most commanders seem to have available to them.

I also agree that informal counseling as a leadership tool is often overused.  Just like any other motivational technique, overuse leads to ineffectiveness.  Just like pushups, yelling, physical rewards, and verbal encouragement.  The mentality becomes, "If all they're going to do is sit me down and talk to me..." just like I can speak from personal experience regarding the mentality of "If all they're going to do is yell and make me push...."

The difference is, in my (admittedly limited) experience, people are far more likely to overuse pushups than they are informal counseling.  While both certainly have the potential to be overused, pushups are simply more fun.  And that's where we get into trouble: the moment a disciplinary action becomes fun is the moment it puts people in danger.

Now before people take that one personally, obviously not everyone falls into that trap, or pushups would never be appropriate as a leadership tool (and anyone who has been reading my posts should know that this has not been my argument).  While an extreme example, the same kind of power struggle illustrated by The Stanford Prison Experiment apply here.

Could it be overcome with quality leadership training?  Sure, some instances of misuse of authority and abuse of power could be mitigated.

But again... quality control.  I'm sure we've all seen pictures/videos and heard plenty of stories of people going overboard at encampments and other activities.  If they're following the regs, then the staffs for those activities went through the same RST (and SMs and cadets 18+ went through the same CPPT) that we have.  So how come they still choose to go overboard, even though they've been through the same training?

In the end, if you want to see a long-term change in behavior, you need to earn the respect of your followers. Maybe you can do this with pushups, maybe you can't. Of all the leaders who ever made me do pushups, the only ones who were truly effective in adjusting my attitude were the ones who I respected before they made me push. And then, the change came because I respected them... not because they made me push.

And that's the entire goal of leadership, yes? To get people to follow you because they want to, and not because they don't want to do pushups for not following you?

[Nathan]

Then you aren't talking about mentorship. You're talking about informal counseling.  The difference is that while mentorship often requires the use of informal counseling in order to accomplish its mission, it is an on-going process that has nothing to do with disciplinary action.

Eh, I'm talking about whatever passes as mentorship these days.

Yes, mentorship often works towards a change in attitude, but mentorship is an overarching relationship.  The focus is on long term growth and development, not short term "cut that crap out."

Perfect! That's what I've been saying all along. Use the push-ups for the short term stuff, and use the mentorship on the long-term stuff. Mentorship short-term is useless, and push-ups long term is useless. Used appriopriately, they are both valuable tools to be used in different situations, and since we don't really have a "cut that crap out" response besides "short term mentoring", I think it would be beneficial to EVERYONE (yes, even those being dropped) to learn how to properly implement push-ups to fill that goal.

The difference is, in my (admittedly limited) experience, people are far more likely to overuse pushups than they are informal counseling.  While both certainly have the potential to be overused, pushups are simply more fun.  And that's where we get into trouble: the moment a disciplinary action becomes fun is the moment it puts people in danger.

You are absolutely right in everything you said, except that you didn't take into account that the push-ups would be regulated. For instance, let's say no more than fifty a day (just for example), ten in a set, one set an hour, and every time it happened, someone trained in CPPT (cadet, senior, whatever) HAD to be present. Any deviation from this is considered hazing and could be grounds for disciplinary action (such as a 2b).

There, problem solved. If someone is going to ignore the rules, then they would have dropped those cadets with or without permission from NHQ. Otherwise, we're left with people who follow the rules and use push-ups responsibly.

Not that I've ever seen anyone get hurt from push-ups, mind you. I've seen people get tired, but even with extreme amounts of push-ups, I've never actually seen any short or long term injury come from push-ups.

While an extreme example, the same kind of power struggle illustrated by The Stanford Prison Experiment apply here.

Could it be overcome with quality leadership training?  Sure, some instances of misuse of authority and abuse of power could be mitigated.

But again... quality control.  I'm sure we've all seen pictures/videos and heard plenty of stories of people going overboard at encampments and other activities.  If they're following the regs, then the staffs for those activities went through the same RST (and SMs and cadets 18+ went through the same CPPT) that we have.  So how come they still choose to go overboard, even though they've been through the same training?

As a psych major, I've studied Zimbardo and his experiment, and can tell you that it doesn't accurately translate over for a couple of reasons:

A) To my knowledge, there was no law enforcement actually present to assist in ensuring the experiment happened the way it should. The goal of the experiment was to test and see if people would fit into roles that they were given, but nobody seemed to understand that if you don't know what the role is, then you use your own assumptions and what you see on TV to fill that role. That's what happened at Stanford. The kids playing the cops didn't know law, the rules of a prison, how to handle those who were misbehaving, and so on. CAP has ALL sorts of training on this. Cadets are trained to be leaders, to follow the rules, etc. If push-ups were TAUGHT, rather than us just throwing the cadets into the wind and telling them to go for it, then the chances of something like this decrease DRAMATICALLY.

B) While law enforcement would have been helpful to teach the cop imitators how to run a prison, it would have also been useful to have SOME sort of control or check over the experiment. There was none. The experiment was done at a time when there was no real psychological ethics guideline in place, and theoretically, the "prisoners" were not permitted to leave the experiment (although I think one did, if I recall correctly). There was no one to watch out or stop safety violations, as there certainly would be in CAP.

C) The scenario the kids were placed in is very different than any scenario found in CAP. The prisoners were expected to be treated like scum. That's the way the system is supposed to work. In CAP, we are training leaders, not jailers. Our cadets are not trained to be abusive towards those they are placed in charge of, and all cadets have at some point been in the situation of their subordinates (unlike a jailer).

Read this next part, it's important.

I realize you used the experiment as an EXTREME example of the possibility of hazing, but keep in mind that the experiment proved exactly what it set out to prove. If you give the people the tools and tell them they need to fit a role, they will. In the Stanford experiment, the cops fit the roles they percieved cops to fill, and the prisoners filled the role they perceived prisoners to fill. The experiment worked beautifully in that regard. What went WRONG is the fact that the "cops" had no idea how to be cops, and that's when the hazing begun. They had not been trained how to use their tools; rather, they were just given the uniforms and nightsticks, and told to have fun.

We would not be doing this with push-ups. We would not give the cadets the tools until they were ready to use them (as we do with almost everything in CAP). When they are ready to command a flight, then they get flight sergeant. When they are ready to take the Spaatz, we give them the test. When they are ready to use push-ups, we will give them the push-ups. If they are trained how to use what they are given, the Zimbardo experiment shouldn't ever find its way into CAP.

[ZigZag911]

Discipline is supposed to increase incrementally.

A minor (or first) infraction may call simply for remdial instruction or informal counseling.

If matters don't improve, or deteriorate, at some point formal counseling (with a written record) is necessary, stating the problem, the required solution, and the consequences attendant on non-compliance.

This could (and often should) be joined with other remedial training or disciplinary action, within the parameters of CAP regulations.

And it applies equally to seniors as to cadets; there is absolutely no constructive  way to discipline someone unless they undersand what they've done wrong, and how to fix, and what will happen to them if they don't!

[Briski]

Nathan, I shot you a PM.

[COL Land]

Quick input from the ACA, since we are referenced above:

   a.  Skydiving and SCUBA Diving:  As with CAP, we must be mindful of Risk Management.   Take a look at http://www.cadetstuff.org/archives/000400.html for the position of ACA in regards to these activities.   Bottomline:   We don't offer these programs as an official training event within ACA; however, we do encourage our members to pursue these opportunities.   In fact, eight of our Cadets from Fort Rucker, Alabama earned their SCUBA Device just two months ago.   (I also have Basic Jump wings...never again! )

   b.  Push-ups:  We have very strict guidelines IRT to the administration of push-ups, based on the training, rank and qualification of the Cadet NCO, adult NCO or officer, as well as the Cadet/recruit receiving the push-ups (only E5 and below and only during Annual Training).  We feel that push-ups are appropriate for very quick, on-the-spot, situations which require that we get the attention of the Cadet/recruit.   Push-ups are certainly not a suitable substitute for clear violations of our Cadet Code of Discipline < http://www.acacadets.org/pdf/acainst1626-1.pdf >.  A Cadet NCO can never administer push-ups without a qualified adult present.   

  c.  Discipline:    I've said it several times, ACA (slowly being referred to as USACC - U.S. Army Cadet Corps, as the Navy and Marine programs stand-down), is not necessarily a better mousetrap, just a different one.   We have a different mission, in part, from the Civil Air Patrol, and conduct business somewhat differently.   I've met some very disciplined and professional CAP Cadets and Officers, as well as others who - in my opinion - would not fit into the USACC culture.  There are some who are dis-enrolled from ACA for the same reasons.   "Hard Core or Out the Door!" is the corps' motto...but, we sometimes must reel in exactly what "hard core" means, especially when dealing with Cadets.   Rest assured, like any organization dealing with young people, we have our challenges.

C/LTC (or is it COL?) Scalia...it seems that you've "drank the Kool-aid"...will we see you at OCS this summer?    Either way, thanks for the props! 

"Please return to your regularly scheduled programming!"

Respectfully,

JOSEPH M. LAND, SR.
LTC(P), AG, USACC
Chief of Staff
American Cadet Alliance National Headquarters

"ADVENTURE BEGINS HERE!"

[Nathan]

C/LTC (or is it COL?) Scalia...it seems that you've "drank the Kool-aid"...will we see you at OCS this summer?    Either way, thanks for the props! 

It's not C/Col yet... I missed two questions on my Aerospace portion of my test. As soon as I fix that inconvinience, then I'll be pinning on my third diamond.

And I would love to attend OCS, or at least swing by and visit. As mentioned, pre-med is quickly taking up all of my time, even for CAP stuff... I'll see if there's still interest in my area and if I can get a group of people working on setting something up.

And for this conversation; I think both points have been made. Briski and I may continue our epic "Lord of the Rings" style battling via PM, but as for my part, I think my point is pretty much made. PM if you feel you need clarification.

[Briski]

And for this conversation; I think both points have been made. Briski and I may continue our epic "Lord of the Rings" style battling via PM, but as for my part, I think my point is pretty much made. PM if you feel you need clarification.

Yeah, and I'm officially back at school now, which has the uncanny ability to vastly decrease the amount of time I have to participate in internet forums.