Hazing

[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...