CPPT: Females required when cadet females present?

[Stonewall]

Yeah, as a 3 time DCC and 1 time CC, with 17 years as a senior member, I have simply played by the rules set for by 52-10, no more, no less, and have had nothing but thriving programs for cadets of both genders.  No one ever felt excluded and not a single incident, complaint, charge or issue under my watch.

It's easy folks.  No need to make extra rules.

[Eclipse]

Another part of this is the "unexpected consequences" of such a policy - every time an individual senior happens to walk through a room where an individual cadet happens to be sitting its a "major CPPT violation".

Every private conversation between a senior and a cadet is a "major CPPT violation", etc., etc, ad infinitum.

I've had a situation where a disgruntled member, grasping to take down anyone else that he could with him, started doing exactly the above.  Thankfully, it was a woeful misunderstanding of the regs (which was related to his other issues), but had something been in place as an SOP, I would most likely have had to address those allegations as well.

Operating with a CYA mentality towards exposure to false allegations and / or protecting the cadets is fine, a best practice in fact, but putting formal or informal unit SOP's in place regarding same is a bad idea.  It handcuffs operations and opportunities, and sets the wrong idea and example regarding interaction with adults.  In fact it can backfire into a situation where you place life-long mistrust of superiors, especially superiors of the other gender, into a cadets mind.

Here's another one; O-Flights - you get them out to the airport, with the last flight being one cadet of each gender and a male pilot.  The day runs long and the male cadet has to leave.  You're going to send the female cadet home without a ride because of the Unit SOP?

And relaxing a standing rule can be even worse than not having one if some "bad" does happen.

[EMT-83]

Interesting that I disagree with almost every word written above. I think sticking your head in the sand is far more dangerous. I have no problem explaining why I walked through a room occupied by a single cadet.

Having a few simple rules in place and letting everyone know what's expected should be enough.

Cadet protection needs to be part of our corporate mentality. I've seen some great posts here, with many points of view expressed and no one flamed. Just the type of discussion this type of forum is designed for.

[Stonewall]

Having a few simple rules in place and letting everyone know what's expected should be enough.

Isn't it enough?  Don't we already have this?  Mandatory CPPT training for all seniors as outlined in 52-10.  As jimmydeano said above, the legal guys at NHQ and the AF think what we have at a national level is good enough, why change what has already been laid in stone?

I think our current NHQ CPPT regulations are perfect the way they are now.  I don't think we need to get excited over it or let it run our lives, and we certainly don't need to live in fear.

[EMT-83]

We have situations in our particular area that we need to be sensitive to - the local high school where a dozen girls joined a "pregnancy pact", a state trooper recently arrested for sexually assaulting two young girls, and the ongoing clergy scandal. The list goes on and on. Parents and cadets need to think of CAP as a safe environment.

Like I said before, it's a crazy world we live in. I can't imagine any of my senior members having the ability to harm a cadet. Most of our male seniors have military/police/fire backgrounds, and would likely do serious damage to anyone caught messing with a cadet. Our female seniors are all mothers with children who are current or past cadets, I doubt that any are closet lesbians or cougars on the prowl. Having said that, I want procedures in place to help prevent the unthinkable from happening.

I think that there holes in 52-10 that need to be filled in, specifically one-on-one contact between cadets and seniors of any sex and cadets of the opposite sex.

[lordmonar]

It is true that we need to be sensitive to our community environment.  Also we do need to practice CYA and err on the side of caution when it comes to protecting our cadets, our selves and our organisation.

But....we also have a mission.   If we paint ourselves into a corner with too many rules then we begin to fail in our mission.

One on one rules are just those kinds of rules that will makes us fail in our mission.  Use common sense, try to keep the TWO PERSON INTEGRITY rule as much as possible just to CYA...but don't let the mission fail because of it.

[Eclipse]

We have situations in our particular area that we need to be sensitive to - the local high school where a dozen girls joined a "pregnancy pact", a state trooper recently arrested for sexually assaulting two young girls, and the ongoing clergy scandal. The list goes on and on. Parents and cadets need to think of CAP as a safe environment.

By your "area" do you mean your specific geographic location?  Because everything you've mentioned is an issue on one level or another everywhere, with the exception of the pregnancy pact which was basically an urban legend combined with inflammatory media:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-06-22-pregnancy-pact_N.htm

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/regional/general/view/2008_06_25_Preg_pact_story_unravels/srvc=home&position=0

...and really doesn't have anything to do with CPT in CAP...

[Ned]

I think that there holes in 52-10 that need to be filled in, specifically one-on-one contact between cadets and seniors of any sex and cadets of the opposite sex.

The problem is that there are all sorts of situations that pretty much require one-on-one contact between cadets and seniors:

• Performance counseling sessions (praise in public, correct in private)
  
  
• Test corrections and feedback
  
  
• Mentoring
  
  
• Chaplain's Interviews or Counseling
  
  
• Health Information reviews with a CAP HSO
  
  
• Orientation Flights
  
  
• And a bunch of others I can't think of right now

Seriously, as others have pointed out, these kinds of hypertechnical "there must be multiple CPPT-cleared seniors within line of sight at all times" rules tend to operate to the detriment of the women generally by singling them out.  Even if the rule as written is facially gender-neutral, as a practical matter it operates to restrict the opportunities of young women far more often than young men simply because of our skewed gender ratio for cadets.

"Separate but equal" is a pretty thouroughly discredited philosophy, even when well intended.


Because we cannot reasonably forsee all possible issues at local units, we set some simple ground rules ("Always at least one senior and at least two seniors at overnights") but leave the implementation up to folks with common sense and wisdom -- our CP leaders at the local level.


Be fair to all of your cadets, at all times.


Ned Lee

[EMT-83]

By your "area" do you mean your specific geographic location?

All occurred in our city, or very close by. Not an urban legend.

The relevance to CAP is acts committed by adults trusted to work with youths. Um , not the "pregnancy pact", that was teens being teens.

[Eclipse]

By your "area" do you mean your specific geographic location?

All occurred in our city, or very close by. Not an urban legend.

The relevance to CAP is acts committed by adults trusted to work with youths. Um , not the "pregnancy pact", that was teens being teens.

Understood, but don't feel special, we've got that nonsense here, too...

[NC Hokie]

I think that there holes in 52-10 that need to be filled in, specifically one-on-one contact between cadets and seniors of any sex and cadets of the opposite sex.

The rules already address this; here's the relevant quote from CAPR 52-10:

Ensure that at least two "approved" senior members are present at all overnight cadet activities. Encourage at least two senior members to be present at all cadet activities (with the exception of chaplain counseling or cadet orientation flights).  This policy is for the protection of the senior members as well as the cadets.

The clear intent is that there should be no one-to-one contact between cadets and seniors, regardless of gender.  Find another senior, find another cadet, or cancel the activity.

Also, it is NOT wrong for a senior to be alone with cadets at a non-overnight cadet activity, but he needs to be aware of the situation and be careful that he is never alone with any one cadet apart from the rest of the group.  Remember, the regs say that mixed-gender activities are NOT a problem, but being alone with a cadet is.

[lordmonar]

Yes...we understand 52-10....but then you get the over zelous types who interpet "encourage at least two senior members to be present at all cadet acitivites" to mean that senior members can't ever be alone in the same room with a cadet.

Take a typical meeting....the cadets are in the class room with the other senior member. SM B is in the office working working on SIMS or some such and then a cadet walks in to get to the files.  Some would jump up and down saying "CPP Violation!"

Or let's take that one step further same two SM and the cadet comes in for a CAPF-50 session.  Do we stop all acitity so the other SM can be present?

When I do the CPP breif for Level one....I give them the basic rules of thumb.....but I let them know that they are rules and thumb and not hard and fast show stoppers.

I had a similar conversation with one of my Senior Members about test adminstration.  She was told by the old Testing Officer that it was a "rule" that a parent can't oversee her/his own children's test.   While that is a good rule of thumb to stop the "CAP Parent Sysndorm" it is NOT a true "Test Adminstration Rule" as laid out by the regulations.

Same deal for the 52-10.  Let's err on the side of caution...but remember that we have a mission to do.

[Duke Dillio]

If you don't think it is close to home, consider that an ex-member of this forum was arrested for child porn.....

I just don't understand why anyone would argue with this.  I've been in two different regions where they have the female senior/female cadet rule.  Also, just because you don't know what happened doesn't mean that nothing happened.  Case in point, I found out three months after the fact that during a squadron FTX, there were some female cadets that were "tent hopping."  Obviously I didn't get all of the information but it was enough for me to act on it.  Now, the senior staff for the activity determines tent locations and the seniors are parked right in the middle.  It might not stop the activity but it just might deter it.  Or how about my ex-girlfriend sleeping with another senior during a CAP activity?  We have these kinds of rules to stop the stuff we don't know about...

[lordmonar]

If anyone thinks the rules will stop anything is mistaken.

Sure we will reduce it....but kids are ingenious little buggers and they out number the senior staff 10 to 1 (or more)!

The problem is...some will impose rules that stop operations...and that is a problem.

We should all be vigilant and we should use common sense to keep our cadets safe....beyond that we do the best we can.

[jeders]

If there were cadets that were "tent hopping", then that is a failure of the seniors to supervise, not a failure of the regs.

As far as your ex sleeping with another senior, that's entirely a personal issue and would never be fixed by any change to Cadet Protection Policy (I assume your ex was also a senior member)

[SoCalCAPOfficer]

I insist that one of our female senior members remain until that ride comes. 

...and if they don't?

Which one gets disciplined?  The senior who has to get home, the female cadet for being "female", or the non-member parents for being late?

And its OK to be alone with a male cadet or for a female staffer to be alone with a male cadet?

I fully understand the sentiment and idea, but in practice its difficult to enforce. 

The problem rarely arises.  However the couple of times it has happened and I asked a female senior member to remain, they understood and there was no problem.   If they said no, then my next step would be to make sure another male senior member remained.

No it is not OK to be alone with any Cadet male or female, and Female members should not be alone with a male cadet either.   When I say "alone" , I mean in a closed room with the door shut.  If a cadet of any gender walks into the admin office where the door is open for all to see in, then of course they can go talk to the admin officer.

Regarding O-Flights, that is a different matter.  There is not much danger of a pilot pulling over to molest a cadet as would be the case in a car ride home.  I am a legal officer as well as a Sq CC therefore, I may tend to be more cautious, but I believe in using common sense also.   Cadet Protection has to be my number one job.

[Stonewall]

I've been in two different regions where they have the female senior/female cadet rule. 

I hope you're not talking about MER, because for as long as I was there, it was not a stupid rule.  Those who inflict the requirement of a same gender senior member present for same gender cadets to participate are doing nothing but slowing us down.

Like I said, I've abided by CAPR 52-10 to the letter and nothing has ever happened under my watch.  I will continue to do things the way I do and continue to be successful.  Only thing that will slow me down is an over zealous rule maker who doesn't have a grasp on how to be a good cadet programs leader.  I dare someone to tell me I run an unsafe program or take too many risks.  The fact is I do not coddle cadets, regardless of gender.  I treat them as cadets and I treat them equally. 

I would love for someone to have denied cadets like Steffanie Brainerd, Andalebe Yussuf, Liz Chock or Megan McIntosh the opportunity to partake in an overnight activity because there wasn't a female senior member.  Those women who are in their twenties and thirties now would laugh at you straight to your face.

CAPR 52-10 works without additional measures inflicted by someone trying to compensate.  Let the program work as it has for many years longer than most of us have been in CAP.

[Duke Dillio]

^^^MER didn't have the rule that I know about.

PCR and RMR both had supplements that required a female senior present for pretty much any activity involving female cadets.  I don't know if these supplements are still in effect because they are not listed on the websites anymore.  The point here is that you can always follow the reg to the letter but it can't hurt to "add on."

As for the shot about not having enough senior supervision, unless you are going to keep someone up all night to stop it from happening there isn't much more you can do other than the things that we have already implemented.  We had six officers there with about 12-14 cadets.  If someone wants to do something like that, there isn't much you can do.  They will find a way. 

[Stonewall]

The point here is that you can always follow the reg to the letter but it can't hurt to "add on."

YES!  Sometimes it can hurt.

[ADCAPer]

This issue raises it's head every now and again, but no one is ever able to produce any of the "legal" supplements or waivers that are supposed to exist; not a copy of a letter, not a link to a web page, nothing. Beyond that, all of these so called Unit Policies that some people are so fond of are nothing more than a discrimination suit waiting to happen.

CAPR 52-16, 1 Oct 2006 - This regulation defines the purposes of the Civil Air Patrol Cadet Program and identifies policies that govern its administration. Supplements and waivers are not authorized, except as specifically noted, or when approved by National Headquarters.

ALso, it would seem that National would post any of these "approved" waivers or supplements (if they really do exist) somewhere on the National Web Site, like they do with the "approved" operations supplements.