QuoteThe cadet oath, under your definition, would not apply to anyone with ANY other responsibilities that might trump those to CAP, and that is a little... out there. EVERYONE has responsibilities outside of CAP, especially cadets. Pregnancy and raising a child is just another responsibility that the cadet would have to weigh against all other options. It is NO different than having to make the decision as to whether or not they should go to CAP or study for their test, or see their grandfather who's in town, or take care of a sick sibling, or volunteer at a hospital. .

Here is your main fallacy, having a child is not like "studying for their test, or see their grandfather who's in town, or take care of a sick sibling, or volunteer at a hospital."  I suspect you may be either too young or not have had the experience of having a child or else you would know this to be true.  This is speculation and opinion on my part, strong opinion if you are SPAATEN Cadet Col. Nathan Scalia who is 20 years old (according to your profile).

I suspect, if the above is the case, that we are seeing this from two persepectives.  I, from the side of a father of two girls who witnessed their birth and who's life was profoundly changed and you as a Cadet and young person who likely sees it as a discriminaton against Cadets.

I was in the same boat as a Young Adult.  I realized this when as a lad I saw the 1979 movie "Over the Edge" and thought it was the best movie I ever saw because the kids rebelled and took over the town; but then saw it after teaching two year of school some 15 year later or so and was totally disgusted.

I think there can be a middle ground between us.  By the way, I am not pointing that out to say "whoa, I'm an old man and know more than you," I just think it is an interesting juxaposition between two different points of view from people who care deeply about CAP.

Quote from: Major Carrales on January 29, 2009, 06:23:26 AMI suspect, if the above is the case, that we are seeing this from two persepectives.  I, from the side of a father of two girls who witnessed their birth and who's life was profoundly changed and you as a Cadet and young person who likely sees it as a discriminaton against Cadets.

Let me help.

Just as you see Nathan as a youngster without sufficient experience, let me suggest that you may also be bumping up against your own limited experience.

I have not only witnessed the birth of my own two children, but have personally delivered a few belonging to other people.  I've raised my children who are now on their own and engaged in their own relationships.  My job responsiblities require that I intervene in the lives of many young people; some are young, some are struggling to succeed as parents, some are just plain struggling.

I've been through parenting classes and been certified as a foster parent by our local Department of Social Services. 

And of course, I have been rather actively involved in our cadet program for nearly 40 years.

Like you, I was profoundly changed by becoming a parent.

But from my perspective Nathan is absolutely right.  Terminating a cadet's membership for mere pregnancy or becoming a parent(or even just discouraging such a cadet) is depriving them of what may be the only positive aspect of their lives.  And human nature being what it is, as a practical matter will serve to toss out a lot more female than male cadets.  If that isn't discrimination, I'm not sure what is. 

I suspect you will see that when you get a little more life experience under your belt.

QuoteBy the way, I am not pointing that out to say "whoa, I'm an old man and know more than you,"

Yeah, me either.   

Joe, I sincerly appreciate your service in the cadet program.  If I seem harsh here, it is only because your position here seems inconsistent with your proven support and enthusiasm for cadets, even disadvantaged cadets.

(And all that stuff about the oath is just spoof-jamming.)

Quote from: Ned on January 29, 2009, 06:58:12 AM

Quote from: Major Carrales on January 29, 2009, 06:23:26 AM
I suspect, if the above is the case, that we are seeing this from two persepectives.  I, from the side of a father of two girls who witnessed their birth and who's life was profoundly changed and you as a Cadet and young person who likely sees it as a discriminaton against Cadets.

Let me help.

Just as you see Nathan as a youngster without sufficient experience, let me suggest that you may also be bumping up against your own limited experience.

I have not only witnessed the birth of my own two children, but have personally delivered a few belonging to other people.  I've raised my children who are now on their own and engaged in their own relationships.  My job responsiblities require that I intervene in the lives of many young people; some are young, some are struggling to succeed as parents, some are just plain struggling.

I've been through parenting classes and been certified as a foster parent by our local Department of Social Services. 

And of course, I have been rather actively involved in our cadet program for nearly 40 years.

Like you, I was profoundly changed by becoming a parent.

But from my perspective Nathan is absolutely right.  Terminating a cadet's membership for mere pregnancy or becoming a parent(or even just discouraging such a cadet) is depriving them of what may be the only positive aspect of their lives.  And human nature being what it is, as a practical matter will serve to toss out a lot more female than male cadets.  If that isn't discrimination, I'm not sure what is. 

I suspect you will see that when you get a little more life experience under your belt.

QuoteBy the way, I am not pointing that out to say "whoa, I'm an old man and know more than you,"

Yeah, me either.   

Joe, I sincerly appreciate your service in the cadet program.  If I seem harsh here, it is only because your position here seems inconsistent with your proven support and enthusiasm for cadets, even disadvantaged cadets.

(And all that stuff about the oath is just spoof-jamming.)

I've been a teacher for 11 years and seen and know only too well about what you speak.  I suspect I tried to argue the philosophical aspects of this as opposed to the more concrete matter, in the mix the two morphed. 

I try to seek understanding of all around me through debates on issues, at various levels.  It helps refine my core beliefs on things.  Sometimes, well, I guess I just dig too deep for that debate and end up in another matter altogether.  Real, "charge of the Light Brigade" stuff.


For the record, however, I will challenge you to cite any of my statements en re this matter that supported throwing them out.  My only point was that the reality of the situaton, based on what I have lived, proves that pregnancy generally spells the end of "cadetting" for the vast majority of those that develop the condition.  Furthermore, I presented the premise that elements of the cadet oath are not in line with the abilities of many of these persons to continue according to that oath.  I was very specific.  Again, I did not advocate throwing them "away;" but rather a reevaluation of what the oath means.  (and what it means to and for them.)

Again, these were conceptual things that became entangled with the more concrete elements of the thread to which your contentions were attached to replies to my threads.  Thus, you lumped me in with the others and hammered me into a corner, to which I replied in kind.

I believe in CAP, all its parts.  I believe in the cadet program, that it is a ladder up for many disadvantaged.

Quote from: jimmydeanno on January 27, 2009, 07:55:13 PM

Quote from: Strick on January 27, 2009, 07:39:24 PM
It is funny, we have to 2b a female cadet if she becomes pregnant but if your gay it's  OK!.   And yes I know some people think there is a difference but when I asked why we kick female cadets out for pregnancy, I WAS TOLD IT IS A MORALE ISSUE.

Pregnancy, Marriage, Joining the Military are all actions in which the cadet is participating in adult behavior - and IMO should not be a cadet.  Unfortunately this doesn't prohibit unmarried cadets with children from being cadets - but I think it should.

So, my thoughts about it are that it has nothing to do with morality but the cadets decision to participate in the adult world - so they should be treated accordingly and removed from cadet status.

But should we 2b her, or just change her over to Sr. Membership.....we have all those FO grades for a reason.  Where does it say you have to 2b a pregnant cadet??

Quote from: CPT Anderson on January 29, 2009, 11:57:58 AM
But should we 2b her, or just change her over to Sr. Membership.....we have all those FO grades for a reason.  Where does it say you have to 2b a pregnant cadet??

Under 18?

Assuming you ignore the 2001 NEC meeting's direction that 35-3 be changed, then yes, 2b is the only option.

Senior members must be at least 18 years old, and the last thing we need is cadet leaders, under 18, and who are not capable of the good decisions necessary to not get pregnant.

Just to clarify...

Quote from: Major Carrales on January 29, 2009, 06:23:26 AM
Here is your main fallacy, having a child is not like "studying for their test, or see their grandfather who's in town, or take care of a sick sibling, or volunteer at a hospital."  I suspect you may be either too young or not have had the experience of having a child or else you would know this to be true.  This is speculation and opinion on my part, strong opinion if you are SPAATEN Cadet Col. Nathan Scalia who is 20 years old (according to your profile).

Yep, that's me. I am C/Col Nathan Scalia, 20 years old, a Spaatzen. And no, I have no children under my belt. That may, in fact, make my view of the situation a little less... impassioned?

I completely and totally understand that the level of importance of any of the issues that I described in relation to raising a child is, for most people, not even a contest. However, my point wasn't to compare importance levels as they SHOULD BE to the parent. Rather, it was to make the point that the importance of the issue personally is completely irrelevant to the stance that CAP should take on the matter.

Child raising, working, schooling, and studying are all things that should, for the most part, come before CAP (just to name a few). However, at least one of these things happens in every single cadet's life at some point. And it is not up to CAP to make the ultimate decision as to the importance of the issue in relation with our organization. Otherwise, we would have to...

A) Evaluate every single job for it's importance. Are we going to kick cadets out for working at a hospital rather than working at McDonald's, since their work at a hospital is helping to save lives and therefore more important than most CAP activities?

B) Evaluate the degree the cadet is seeking. Should we force pre-med, law, and law enforcement out of CAP, but let the business, art, and theater majors stay in because their degree has a "less likely chance of being important in the real world?"

C) Evaluate the child's complete home situation. Should kids that live on a farm be forced to stay home to help, or children with multiple siblings and a single mother, since the mother may need help?

It is not CAP's job to determine for a cadet what he or she is capable of handling at home. At CAP, we have free reign of the duties she is assigned, of the staff positions she holds, of the grade she is promoted to... but to threaten her with termination from the program because she MIGHT have a child she MIGHT be raising alone and without support MAYBE without money and therefore MIGHT not be able to handle CAP? That doesn't make sense.

I really don't see why a commander wouldn't treat her like any other cadet with outside commitments. If the cadet can handle the commitments, like most cadets can (otherwise they wouldn't try anymore), then life goes on as normal. If the cadet is struggling with either CAP or something else outside of CAP that we are allowed by regulation to judge by, such as school grades, then the commander needs to talk with the cadet. If it does not seem like the issue can be resolved, the cadet is AT THAT TIME terminated from the program for the sake of the outside commitment.

But the important point here is that in every situation for 2b except for recognized criminal status, cadets are given a chance to prove to us that they cannot handle the responsibilities they have. It is not assumed. For the legal people out there, I feel completely satisfied using the "innocent until proven guilty" mentality when dealing with teenaged mothers.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 29, 2009, 02:04:11 PM
Senior members must be at least 18 years old, and the last thing we need is cadet leaders, under 18, and who are not capable of the good decisions necessary to not get pregnant.

I don't agree with the poster you are responding to about forcing a cadet to become a FO, but I once again question why you are okay assuming that all cadet mothers or pregnant cadets made a "decision" to get pregnant, that there was, in fact, anything truly or legally consensual about it. As Ned and I have said numerous times, there just isn't that much evidence to back up that kids are capable of truly consensual sex.

Quote from: Nathan on January 29, 2009, 02:30:58 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on January 29, 2009, 02:04:11 PM
Senior members must be at least 18 years old, and the last thing we need is cadet leaders, under 18, and who are not capable of the good decisions necessary to not get pregnant.

I don't agree with the poster you are responding to about forcing a cadet to become a FO, but I once again question why you are okay assuming that all cadet mothers or pregnant cadets made a "decision" to get pregnant, that there was, in fact, anything truly or legally consensual about it. As Ned and I have said numerous times, there just isn't that much evidence to back up that kids are capable of truly consensual sex.

Lets leave that nonsense on the table for the purposes of this discussion - the number of 14 years olds with 3 kids, rape victims, or mentally impaired victims effected affected by this is effectively zero.  This is 2009, not 1950.

The mean on this rule (which, btw is no longer in effect but for some reason everyone seems to just want to ignore the facts and argue) is the sexually-active 15 or 16 year old that decided it was time to "become a woman".  No, they likely did not intend to get pregnant, but in this day and age, by 15-16 you are well aware of how the plumbing works, how and where to get birth control (many schools dispense), and the cause and effect of sex-to-pregnancy.

The trouble is the odds, not everyone gets pregnant, and teenagers are indestructible.  The math from there is easy.

We should be discouraging this behavior with whatever consequences we have at our disposal, including hard life lessons.  It worked for hundreds of years, and now in the last decade or so we're deciding to "change the rules".

Quote from: Ned on January 29, 2009, 05:15:27 AM
I don't think that really matches up with your real-world example of the 10 year old sexual assault victim, but for the sake of argument let's look at your "proof."

Frankly, it is pretty weak.

I will agree with you that it's pretty weak "proof."  However, I can't find something on the web that points to all the girls I went to high-school who's quest it was to get pregnant or who actively tried to sleep with boys in the class (don't get me wrong, the guys are just as interested.) or the girls that I've been exposed to as an adult who express their desire to have a child - and while not as scripted or extreme as the Maury Show, the attitudes are similar - "I will do whatever I have to to get pregnant." 

Ned, I think that we can both agree - especially in your line of work - that youth do things they shouldn't, things that are morally reprehensible.  But, as I said before - the justice system of the United States seems to think that minors are capable of making reasoned, premeditated adult decisions in things like murder, robbery, sexual assualt, etc.  Why not pregnancy, sexual intercourse or other perverse sexual behavior?

I do not consider teen pregnancy to be a "youthful mistake" and I do not believe that every case of teen pregnancy is a sexual assault or rape and that they all need to be treated as though they are victims. 

QuoteOf course, the story does say that the males involved were 12 and 13 -- but what would a 13 year-old be doing in the fifth grade in the first place?  It doesn't make sense.

Off topic, I had a 20 year old in my junior class in high-school.  Kids stay back.

QuoteIf you honestly think that a 10 year old girl who gets impregnated during a sexual assault is some sort of vixen with loose morals, we are pretty far apart on this issue.

I think that a 10 year old girl who comes to the decision to participate in sexual promiscuity (for whatever reason) is not the kind of youth that I want to have in my unit.  The girl I use as an example, honestly did not see the problem with her having 2 children at such a young age. 

QuoteLet me suggest you take a look at the literature surrounding what the experts call Child Sexual Assault Accommodation Syndrome. (CSAAS)  It helps to explain how children appear to go along with monstrous sex crimes committed upon them.  Children react differently to sexual situations than adults, and their helplessness and lack of resistance often make them appear less credible to adults who simply cannot understand why a 10 year old would engage in sexual behavior unless they really "wanted to."

Ned, I think we have a disconnect here.  I am not trying to say that henious things do not happen to kids.  Child molestation, sexual assualt, etc are real crimes and I do not in anyway view the victims of these acts as miscreants, sexual deviants, etc.  That is what this information is talking about - victims of sexual abuse and the way children deal with the effects of the abuse.

What we are talking about is consensual sex between two like aged individuals resulting in pregnancy.  "Prom night" pregnancies, "I'm so in love with him I just have to have his baby" pregnancies.  Are you saying those are sexual assaults and rapes as well?

Reading this: http://www.aafp.org/afp/980915ap/petter.html (Data is a little dated)

Sexual assault represented 5.5% of violent crime in 1994 with just over 97K being forceable rape.  That means that ~.02% of the ENTIRE population was affected.  Then it goes on to say that between 1 and 5 percent of those result in pregnancy.  So we'll take the median at 2%.  So 1940 of those resulted in pregnancy.  It then says that half of the victims are adolescents (~.01% of the population).  So ~820 occurances of pregnancy resulting from sexual assault in 1994.

Unfortunately, I can't seem to find population data for the same year so we'll go with 2000.  Under 18 female population was ~36,000,000 according to the US Census.  So that gives us a .00022% proliferation rate for pregnancy in those under 18 from sexual assault.

CAP has around 25K cadets - apply that same rate to our cadets and you get 1.12 in the entire organization.  Of course other factors will reduce that number further including the environments these girls are in, etc.

Teen pregnancy as a whole though is different.  The US teen birth rate (15-19) in 2001 was 43 per thousand, or 4.3%.  I don't know what the breakdown is male female in CAP, but it'll give you a greatly higher chance of a pregnant cadet than the sexual assault victim.

My point here is that we create policy over statistical anomalies.  Because there might someday be a girl who was a victim of sexual assault who happened to become one of the .00002 % of the 12-21 year olds that CAP recruits.

Now obviously someone who is better with statistics than I will probably see many issues and considerations that I didn't take into account, but I think you get the point.

Teen pregnancy (under 18) has not been socially acceptable since 1800.  It is not normal or routine - it is a bad decision any way you slice it.  So if someone is choosing to participate in a pattern of behavior that is criminal in most states that results in pregnancy (proof of the action) I would argue that that person doesn't not fit the "be of good moral character" requirement to be a cadet.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 29, 2009, 02:47:43 PM
Lets leave that nonsense on the table for the purposes of this discussion - the number of 14 years olds with 3 kids, rape victims, or mentally impaired victims effected by this is effectively zero.  This is 2009, not 1950.

The mean on this rule (which, btw is no longer in effect but for some reason everyone seems to just want to ignore the facts and argue) is the sexually-active 15 or 16 year old that decided it was time to "become a woman".  No, they likely did not intend to get pregnant, but in this day and age, by 15-16 you are well aware of how the plumbing works, how and where to get birth control (many schools dispense), and the cause and effect of sex-to-pregnancy.

The trouble is the odds, not everyone gets pregnant, and teenagers are indestructible.  The math from there is easy.

We should be discouraging this behavior with whatever consequences we have at our disposal, including hard life lessons.  It worked for hundreds of years, and now in the last decade or so we're deciding to "change the rules".

Quote from: jimmydeannoI do not consider teen pregnancy to be a "youthful mistake" and I do not believe that every case of teen pregnancy is a sexual assault or rape and that they all need to be treated as though they are victims.

Both of these arguments are similar, and they both have a similar answer.

As it is true that SOME teenagers (but nearly zero children) will have consensual sex, get pregnant, and have children due to "making bad choices", to attack all cadet mothers under that blanket assumption is irresponsible.

We aren't going to assume that everyone who has burn injuries is a pyromaniac and did it to themselves. We aren't going to assume that any cadet involved in a car wreck must be at fault. We aren't even going to assume that any cadet that was arrested was at fault for the crime he or she is suspected of. That is up to the courts to decide, not us.

In the end, the cadet must be PROVEN guilty of the crime you are trying to accuse her of. This follows the same logic in CAP regulations, such as a cadet having to PROVE that their grades are plummeting, not us simply assuming it because they have a challenging courseload.

We CANNOT assume anything from pregnancy alone. It is simply the result of an act, and does not give us ANY information about the act itself.

So I ask both of you again, are you really willing to toss out possible crime victims who want to be cadets who may REALLY benefit from our program simply because they MIGHT have made a bad decision (as if the rest of us haven't)? Or are you ready to suggest that all female cadets must fill out a full questionnaire about their sexual activity, rape victim status, and cause of any current/past pregnancies? Otherwise, there is NO WAY to logically deduce that the cadet has actually done anything even theoretically worth getting booted for, and you're simply assuming their guilt.

Quote from: Nathan on January 29, 2009, 04:24:06 PM
So I ask both of you again, are you really willing to toss out possible crime victims who want to be cadets who may REALLY benefit from our program simply because they MIGHT have made a bad decision (as if the rest of us haven't)? Or are you ready to suggest that all female cadets must fill out a full questionnaire about their sexual activity, rape victim status, and cause of any current/past pregnancies? Otherwise, there is NO WAY to logically deduce that the cadet has actually done anything even theoretically worth getting booted for, and you're simply assuming their guilt.

Yes.  Nathan - this is an ad homium argument. 
(Assuming you continue to ignore that this is no longer allowed in CAP)

It is not a unit CC's responsibility to determine how or why a cadet is pregnant. Whether she was the victim of a crime, poor judgment, or the second coming, she's pregnant, she's out.

To start asking the questions you want to ask would require commanders to make subjective, morality-based decisions that are not allowed within the scope of this situation.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 29, 2009, 04:28:14 PM
Nathan - this is an ad homium argument. 

(Assuming you continue to ignore that this is no longer allowed in CAP)

It is not a unit CC's responsibility to determine how or why a cadet is pregnant, whether she was the victim of a crime, poor judgment, or the second coming, she's pregnant, she's out.

To start asking the questions you want to ask would require commanders to make subjective, morality-based decisions that are not allowed within the scope of this situation.

Eclipse....you are wrong.....pregnancy is not a basis to 2b anyone....as per the NB.

Quote from: lordmonar on January 29, 2009, 04:32:27 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on January 29, 2009, 04:28:14 PM
Nathan - this is an ad homium argument. 

(Assuming you continue to ignore that this is no longer allowed in CAP)

It is not a unit CC's responsibility to determine how or why a cadet is pregnant, whether she was the victim of a crime, poor judgment, or the second coming, she's pregnant, she's out.

To start asking the questions you want to ask would require commanders to make subjective, morality-based decisions that are not allowed within the scope of this situation.

Eclipse....you are wrong.....pregnancy is not a basis to 2b anyone....as per the NB.

Reread, Please.  That's what I've been saying all along, but people have been making the argument, I think just to argue, that because the reg wasn't updated timely, the original 1981 version of 35-3 is still in force, including the pregnancy clause for termination, which, in fact, it is not.

Nathan and others want to pretend the rule is still in effect, and then argue against it (and I'm not helping by engaging the same conversation).

In that context, I am indicating that a unit CC has no latitude in why a cadet is pregnant, if they are, they are out.
(up until the rule changed in 2001).

Why are the rules not in effect?  Since when are NB votes regulatory?  Doesn't it need to come out as a reg change, supplement, or ICL to be regulatory? 

Particularly when the NB votes and then years pass with no official written guidance.  As a squadron commander I am going to go to the latest reg posted online.  I am not going to read through 10 years worth of NB votes.

Seems like a Ranger Tab/ blue beret type issue to me.

Quote from: EclipseYes.  Nathan - this is an ad homium argument. 
(Assuming you continue to ignore that this is no longer allowed in CAP)

I'm not ignoring anything. The reg covering pregnant cadets, as far as I can see in my somewhat updated book, is still there and, due to the couple of stories shared both here and that I've heard elsewhere, still somewhat in effect and enforceable. Besides, I was under the impression that we were debating more about whether we should be booting out cadet mothers, not whether or not the nonexistent reg covering THAT situation is correct or not.

Quote from: EclipseIt is not a unit CC's responsibility to determine how or why a cadet is pregnant. Whether she was the victim of a crime, poor judgment, or the second coming, she's pregnant, she's out.

Right... it is the job of the commander to simply blindly follow a blanket rule without considering the context.

Oh, wait. I forgot that the commanders were actually supposed to command. Silly me.

We certainly wouldn't need commanders if a book could run a CAP unit...  

Quote from: EclipseTo start asking the questions you want to ask would require commanders to make subjective, morality-based decisions that are not allowed within the scope of this situation.

Subjective... morality based decisions... like the fact that the decision to get pregnant as a teenager is wrong? That seems pretty subjective to me, since I happen to know quite a few teenagers in my area alone who are doing fine as parents.

I am playing in your battlefield by simply assuming that teenaged pregnancy is "wrong" when the teenager actively makes a conscious, informed, consensual decision to have sex and get pregnant. Therefore, I'm arguing that the majority of pregnancy cases simply don't happen like that. But there are far more issues to consider on a moral battlefield.

Do we take issue with the fact that the cadet is pregnant? If so, what if she had sex with protection? Is that morally okay? No? Okay, well, now teenagers having sex is immoral. Okay, so what are you going to do about it? Punish the gender that is biologically disadvantaged when attempting to hide sex? How is that NOT sexist? You don't want to discriminate? Okay, then be prepared to write up a survey on the New Cadet Application to include sexual practices so that males can be equally discriminated against for their sexual activity.

You can simply assume that any pregnant cadet is "wrong" and therefore something we need to be fighting in CAP, but you're going to have to do a lot better than to declare your opinion of right and wrong in order for it to be valid enough to enforce as regulation. That is the job of a regulation.

And in that vein, we are certainly not required to obey regulations or orders that may be unethical. I would imagine that a sexist regulation certainly falls under that category, wouldn't you agree?

I think that it is time to put this to rest.  Everyone has their opinion on this, the regs need to be updated with the changes or an ICL printed, or commanders will still submit 2bs under this classification and National should reject it accordingly.  If they don't, the cadet involved has the appeal process which will quickly dismiss the 2b.

Let's lock this and move forward.

Quote from: swamprat86 on January 29, 2009, 04:43:12 PM
I think that it is time to put this to rest.  Everyone has their opinion on this, the regs need to be updated with the changes or an ICL printed, or commanders will still submit 2bs under this classification and National should reject it accordingly.  If they don't, the cadet involved has the appeal process which will quickly dismiss the 2b.

Let's lock this and move forward.

That's not what we're talking about. As far as I can tell (unless it's dissolved beyond recognition), this is a debate about whether cadet mothers should be removed from cadet status, which is NOT covered by regulation.

I have never really understood the point of locking a thread that other people don't think is going anywhere... just don't read it...?

Quote from: cnitas on January 29, 2009, 04:40:11 PM
Why not?  Since when are NB votes regulatory?  Doesn't it need to come out as a reg change, supplement, or ICL to be regulatory? 

Since the last revision of the constitution which grants them specific, immediate powers.

By the letter of the regs you are correct, certain actions, ICLs, and updates to regulations have expiration dates, and are supposed to be updated timely.  Further, ICL's and other memorandums issued by a former commander and not made regulatory generally expire when that CC leaves.

However in the near 10 years I have been in CAP, these requirements have been largely ignored, and rarely challenged, and when challenged a new ICL, etc., is issued and the challenge becomes moot.

To try and deny a decade of precedents so we can pick and choose which regs to follow is folly.  Its clear what the intention of the Board was, and a 2b for pregnancy would never be sustained by the MARB, assuming it wasn't caught by lower HQ first.

Unchallenged terminations of uninformed cadets do not stand as evidence to the contrary.

And was that revision before or after 2001?

Quote from: Nathan on January 29, 2009, 04:41:29 PM
And in that vein, we are certainly not required to obey regulations or orders that may be unethical. I would imagine that a sexist regulation certainly falls under that category, wouldn't you agree?

No.

The rules is the rules.  Period.

(again, this rule was rescinded, please stop ignoring that fact)

NHQ says CC's can terminate cadets for improper grooming, non-performance, lack of attendance, and other subjective issues.

NHQ says CC's will terminate cadets for pregnancy, military enlistment, marriage, felony conviction, and a few other objective criteria.  No filter, no morality, no option.  In essence they quit CAP when they knowingly violated one of these bright-line rules.