SC spring CTW

[Robert]

So i was Charlie flight sergeant for the recent CTW in South Caroline. The first sergeant was explaining the whole "left hand makes and l" thing. when he finished he asked my flight what letter the left hand made. no one responded, so he made them sing their ABC's. every other flight turned and watched them sing. it was pretty funny but embarrassing.

[lordmonar]

What is the the Left Hand Makes an I thing?

[Robert]

left hand makes an L.  it where if you raise your left hand you can make a proper L. you can't do that with your right hand. it's a great way to teach cadets  their left and right.

[xray328]

First off, if 12 year olds (not to mention older cadets) don't their know left from their right you have a problem.  I'm guessing cadets were turning the wrong way during facing movements? There are better ways to handle that.  Second, that's hazing so you need to knock it off.

[Eclipse]

A rock in the left pocket might be a preferable means to help this.

[Holding Pattern]

Second, that's hazing so you need to knock it off.

It sounds like an intensity level mismatch to me:

Inexperienced cadet leaders on occasion may try to set an inappropriate military intensity level for a given class or block
of instruction. They may allow a class to be too lax; or perhaps they will be overly strict. Good mentors may allow the
situation to continue for a while to allow the cadet leader to learn from the experience, then provide guidance on how to
better set the intensity level next time. This might mean that some cadets were required to stand at attention in
formation for longer than was otherwise necessary; or the cadet leader may have been inappropriately harsh in his
criticism. That is part of the learning experience for the students, as well. Not every mismatch between the training to
be conducted and the proper military intensity level amounts to hazing.

But, if you do believe still that it is hazing, I am certain you are aware of your responsibility to report.

[Holding Pattern]

A rock in the left pocket might be a preferable means to help this.

In the pocket? what happened to carrying the rock in the left hand?
(Note: no, this didn't happen to me in CAP.)

It's also worth noting that putting cadets on the spot can result in sudden pauses from otherwise bright cadets.

[xray328]

Second, that's hazing so you need to knock it off.

It sounds like an intensity level mismatch to me:

Inexperienced cadet leaders on occasion may try to set an inappropriate military intensity level for a given class or block
of instruction. They may allow a class to be too lax; or perhaps they will be overly strict. Good mentors may allow the
situation to continue for a while to allow the cadet leader to learn from the experience, then provide guidance on how to
better set the intensity level next time. This might mean that some cadets were required to stand at attention in
formation for longer than was otherwise necessary; or the cadet leader may have been inappropriately harsh in his
criticism. That is part of the learning experience for the students, as well. Not every mismatch between the training to
be conducted and the proper military intensity level amounts to hazing.

But, if you do believe still that it is hazing, I am certain you are aware of your responsibility to report.

Does having the cadets sing the ABC's meet a learning objective?  Did it teach them anything?  No.

It was used to embarrass/humiliate them.  That's very clearly prohibited in the 52-10...

"What is hazing? Civil Air Patrol
defines hazing as, any conduct
whereby someone causes another
to suffer or be exposed to any
activity that is cruel, abusive,
humiliating, oppressive,
demeaning, or harmful." (CAPR 52-
10, CAP Cadet Protection Policy).

[754837]

Evidence of the "wimpification" of the cadet program...

BTW, my wife has to look for her wedding ring to determine which hand is left & right and she is truly a genius!

[Holding Pattern]

Second, that's hazing so you need to knock it off.

It sounds like an intensity level mismatch to me:

Inexperienced cadet leaders on occasion may try to set an inappropriate military intensity level for a given class or block
of instruction. They may allow a class to be too lax; or perhaps they will be overly strict. Good mentors may allow the
situation to continue for a while to allow the cadet leader to learn from the experience, then provide guidance on how to
better set the intensity level next time. This might mean that some cadets were required to stand at attention in
formation for longer than was otherwise necessary; or the cadet leader may have been inappropriately harsh in his
criticism. That is part of the learning experience for the students, as well. Not every mismatch between the training to
be conducted and the proper military intensity level amounts to hazing.

But, if you do believe still that it is hazing, I am certain you are aware of your responsibility to report.

Does having the cadets sing the ABC's meet a learning objective?  Did it teach them anything?  No.

It was used to embarrass/humiliate them.  That's very clearly prohibited in the 52-10...

"What is hazing? Civil Air Patrol
defines hazing as, any conduct
whereby someone causes another
to suffer or be exposed to any
activity that is cruel, abusive,
humiliating, oppressive,
demeaning, or harmful." (CAPR 52-
10, CAP Cadet Protection Policy).

Like I said, if you still believe it is hazing, you have a responsibility to report it.

[THRAWN]

Evidence of the "wimpification" of the cadet program...

BTW, my wife has to look for her wedding ring to determine which hand is left & right and she is truly a genius!

Actually, if anything, it is evidence that drill is not being taught correctly. Do it by the numbers, use the script, and do it again and again until it's done correctly. Making an individual or in this case a group of individuals look like fools is a failure of leadership and a breakdown in the core values.

[Eclipse]

Evidence of the "wimpification" of the cadet program...

Right.  Because we all know how effective yelling at an adolescent is, especially one who knows he doesn't need to tolerate it.
An excellent way to insure they don't come back.

This is why RST is mandated for encampments and similar activities, and probably should be mandated for anyone running
anything called "training".  As a weekend activity, this would not have been a requirement, but certainly a good idea.

We just had these exact discussions last weekend.

The flight is being singled out, and forced to humiliate themselves in a way which does not in any way impart the skill to
meet the objective.  Smells like hazing to me.

[xray328]

Agreed.  And I don't think I need to report anyone.  We don't need to drop the hammer every time a cadet makes a mistake. 

Moving forward "Robert", these types of things aren't tolerated and I suggest the cadet that did this look to his or her leadership for more effective ways of teaching the cadets drill.  Putting a rock in your pocket for instance helps the cadets remember which way to turn and no ones been embarrassed.  We simply say "Look everybody, common mistake.  We all get frazzled when learning drill, lets all grab a rock and put it in our pockets so it helps us not make that mistake again."

[Ned]

While internet discussion essentially by definition lack context and background, nothing described so far sounds remotely like hazing to me.

Younger cadets (and even younger military recruits) sometimes have laterality issues (some hesitancy in determining left from right), and CAP drill and ceremonies (not to mention uniforms) can effectively address the issue.

While I haven't heard of the "left hand makes an L" technique before, it makes sense and might help some troops who have some trouble in this regard.  It doesn't sound any different than the "rock in your left hand or pocket" methods as a teaching aid.

And if singing the alphabet song helps a flight to recognize to recognize the "left hand makes an L," then that could also be part of an effective technique.  (Note it was directed to a flight, rather than an individual.)

It sounds a little overboard to start tossing in the "hazing" word based on what little we know here.  Remember, hazing is a form of abuse, and abuse, by definition, requires "an imminent risk of serious harm." (CAPR 52-10, para 1-2(b))  Not everything that could be mildly embarrassing is hazing.  Far from it. 

Here, while I don't have the hard data handy, I suspect that every single one of us has sung the alphabet song without suffering "immanent harm."

But let's continue to discuss successful training methods to help younger cadets determine left from right in CAP C&C.


Ned Lee
National Cadet Program Manager

[xray328]

Col, all due respect, but CAP's definition of hazing is when something is done to embarrass a cadet, among other things.  What purpose does singing the "ABC" song serve other than to embarrass the cadets involved? This was done to humiliate them because they didn't know their left from their right. They sang the "ABC" song to make them appear like "babies" that didn't know their left from their right.  Singing the song didn't teach them anything about that.

Again sir:

" Civil Air Patrol
defines hazing as, any conduct
whereby someone causes another
to suffer or be exposed to any
activity that is cruel, abusive,
humiliating, oppressive,
demeaning, or harmful." (CAPR 52-
10, CAP Cadet Protection Policy)."

This isn't because I believe it to be, it's because CAP has clearly defined it. Lets make sure we're all on the same page here, either it's tolerated or it's not.

[Eclipse]

Beat me to it.  The key word here being demeaning, and that the "remediation" does not serve the training goal.

If nothing else, this would certainly not be considered a "best practice" , or in keeping with the guidance NHQ has provide
for implementation of Cadet Protection.

(Note it was directed to a flight, rather than an individual.)

So it's impossible to haze more then one cadet at a time?

[Ned]

Col, all due respect, but CAP's definition of hazing is when something is done to embarrass a cadet, among other things.

It could be, I suppose, but usually not.  If I am inspecting a cadet and tell her/him in a normal speaking voice that their insignia is 1/4 inch off, have I hazed the cadet?  Obviously, every good cadet should be slightly embarrassed that their insignia is off.

But that doesn't mean they are being hazed.  Similarly, if I tell a cadet that they did not pass their test, or their run time was slower than last time, I have not hazed them, even if they subjectively feel slightly embarrassed.

Can I imagine changing the facts and coming close to hazing someone?  Maybe.  Suppose I shouted it out loud to the flight, something like "Cadet Jones has once again failed to pay the slightest bit of attention to the uniform tonight.  What a miserable excuse of a cadet!" 

Maybe.  Or if I knew that Cadet Jones was already tearful and took advantage of the moment to further add stress instead of taking the time to care for the cadet.

But to reduce the wise CPP to "we can never stress cadets or say anything that someone might take as demeaning" suggests that leaders are not investing common sense and wisdom into their leadership.

What purpose does singing the "ABC" song serve other than to embarrass the cadets involved?

That's not how I took it (see previous comment about lack of context).  It sounded to me as part of the lesson about "left hand makes an L".  Singing the alphabet song places that lesson in context and helps visualize the training aid.

This was done to humiliate them because they didn't know their left from their right. They sang the "ABC" song to make them appear like "babies" that didn't know their left from their right.  Singing the song didn't teach them anything about that.

Neither you or I were there, of course, but I must non-concur.  There is nothing to suggest that the entire flight had issues with laterality.  Accordingly, it seems unlikely that they were "humiliated" by having to sing a song that they have sung hundreds of times in their youth.  And, we disagree about whether or not it can help with "left hand makes an L" lesson point.  I think it is a reasonable way to reinforce the point.  Obviously you disagree, and certainly reasonable minds can differ on the most effective way to teach something.  But even if it was ineffective, it seems a leap to suggest that anyone was "humiliated."

Again sir:

" Civil Air Patrol
defines hazing as, any conduct
whereby someone causes another
to suffer or be exposed to any
activity that is cruel, abusive,
humiliating, oppressive,
demeaning, or harmful." (CAPR 52-
10, CAP Cadet Protection Policy)."

This isn't because I believe it to be, it's because CAP has clearly defined it. Lets make sure we're all on the same page here, either it's tolerated or it's not.

Indeed, that is our definition.  But perhaps more importantly, we didn't write it.  It was adopted verbatim from our colleagues at the Department of Defense.  It is hard for me to imagine that the DoD interprets their definition in the way that you do.  I doubt seriously that a MTI or DI would be in serious risk of imprisonment if they tried to teach a young recruit left from right by pointing out the "left hand makes an L" and asking them to sing the alphabet song to reinforce the point. 


Further and perhaps more importantly, the definition is one part of a larger regulation, that also includes the language I quoted above about "immanent risk of harm." 

We even have an entire publication devoted to helping leaders understand the CPP in general, and hazing in particular.  CAPP 52-23, Cadet Protection Program Implementation Guide.

Chapter 11 provides a framework for analyzing a given situation if there is a question of hazing.  Key principles include:  "Normal authorized training rarely, if ever, amounts to hazing," and "Leaders should assess how the questioned actions would affect a reasonable cadet of similar age, gender, and experience under the same or similar conditions."

Here, there are simply no facts that would suggest that cadets would objectively feel humiliated by the lesson to the point where they faced a risk of immanent harm.


Ned Lee

[xray328]

Sir, nothing about singing the ABC song would of taught the cadets left from right. The only purpose that could of served was to humiliate the cadets in front of a group of their peers.  There's just no other reason to have them sing that song except to embarrass them. The OP stated that it was funny and embarrassing and that in itself makes it wrong. I don't understand how you can use the ABC song to teach someone that L is for Left.  You're really reaching there IMO.

The reg states that hazing is anything that is "humiliating or demeaning."   It would of been no different than to of had the cadets all suck on their left thumbs again, like babies. Taking it a step further, could we have cadets do the Full Metal Jacket - Gomer Pyle deal where there cadets wear their hats backwards and suck their thumbs at the back of the pack?  Clearly there's no immanent risk of harm there either.

And it doesn't matter where CAP got the definition of hazing.  We've adopted it as our own when we say that "Civil Air Patrol defines hazing as..."

I'm not sure where the "immanent risk of harm" is in the reg either but the accepted definition is the one I've repeatdily quoted.  And lets not forget that harm can certainly be in a psychological form.

Heck, I've witnessed parents getting upset because they had their cadets alarm clock taken away when it was accidentally on the packing list at encampment because their cadet was being "setup to fail."  Why would you even want to come close to hazing a cadet?  It just doesn't serve any purpose in a training environment in the same way yelling at them doesn't.  It's a bullying tactic and it needs to stop.

In your example, telling a cadet their name tag is off, when done in a private and respectful way to correct them in that area is far different than what we're talking about here.  I hope you can see the difference.  What happened to critique in private - praise in public?  I can tell you this, I will never purposely embarrass a cadet, especially in front of a group of their peers.  With CPP being at the forefront I chose to stay far away from that line. 

[Holding Pattern]

Sir, nothing about singing the ABC song would of taught the cadets left from right. The only purpose that could of served was to humiliate the cadets in front of a group of their peers.  There's just no other reason to have them sing that song except to embarrass them. The OP stated that it was funny and embarrassing and that in itself makes it wrong. I don't understand how you can use the ABC song to teach someone that L is for Left.  You're really reaching there IMO.

An entire flight couldn't answer a question about the alphabet. A recitation of the alphabet, in the context of a formation, facing movements, and an entire flight missing an answer... maybe first principles are to be revisited? The item you brought up, in and of itself, is not a teaching opportunity. Put in context, it could be. It may not be ideal, but it is a bit of a pill to swallow to declare it hazing.

The reg states that hazing is anything that is "humiliating or demeaning."   It would of been no different than to of had the cadets all suck on their left thumbs again, like babies. Taking it a step further, could we have cadets do the Full Metal Jacket - Gomer Pyle deal where there cadets wear their hats backwards and suck their thumbs at the back of the pack?  Clearly there's no immanent risk of harm there either.

The regs also cover reporting of hazing, which you don't seem interested in doing. Why do you care about calling this hazing according to the regs (but ignoring the CAPP guidance on identifying hazing that I quoted) but NOT about reporting it if you genuinely feel it was hazing (reporting cadet protection issues, which hazing falls under, is something you need to do)?

And it doesn't matter where CAP got the definition of hazing.  We've adopted it as our own when we say that "Civil Air Patrol defines hazing as..."

It does matter. That is how you understand the context of what the definition is trying to convey. That, and the CAPP I referenced earlier...

I'm not sure where the "immanent risk of harm" is in the reg either but the accepted definition is the one I've repeatdily quoted.  And lets not forget that harm can certainly be in a psychological form.

Heck, I've witnessed parents getting upset because they had their cadets alarm clock taken away when it was accidentally on the packing list at encampment because their cadet was being "setup to fail."  Why would you even want to go close to hazing a cadet?  It just doesn't serve any purpose in a training environment in the same way yelling at them doesn't.  It's a bullying tactic and it needs to stop.

This is covered in that aformentioned CAPP.

In your example, telling a cadet their name tag is off, when done in a private and respectful way to correct them in that area is far different than what we're talking about here.  I hope you can see the difference.  What happened to critique in private - praise in public?  I can tell you this, I will never purposely embarrass a cadet, especially in front of a group of their peers.  With CPP being at the forefront I chose to stay far away from that line.

You may perhaps recall that this was an entire flight of cadets, not a cadet. Are you going to tell me that an entire flight of cadets, you would break up and individually coach each one instead of as a group?

[xray328]

StarFleet I'll do what I was taught to do and that's to not purposely embarrass a cadet as it goes against every leadership lesson I've ever seen in both CAP and out.  If the OP stated it was embarrassing, I'll take them at their word.  I wasn't there and neither were you.  I'm not going to report anyone over it because again, I wasn't there to witness it, and it seems pretty low on the "reporting" scale.  I think a simple reminder that's it's not something we condone would be enough.  I feel that we can use common sense in what we need to report and what we see as a cadet making a mistake.   CAP needs to get together on this though.  We're being taught one thing at the local RST and told something else by the executive leadership. The policy seemed pretty clear up until today.

CAP Publications define hazing exactly as I quoted, that came directly from the Commander Course material.

And the fact that this was done to an entire flight of cadets makes it even worse.  A flight was publicly embarrassed in front of several other flights of their peers.  The context is clear when the OP said it was both funny and embarrassing. These cadets weren't being "coached" either, not at all.

The CPP was revised, from my understanding, because there was too much grey area regarding what was acceptable and what wasn't. Either embarrassing cadets is allowed, or it isn't.  And stop saying "in this context", the OP already stated that it was embarrassing.

[Holding Pattern]

StarFleet I'll do what I was taught to do and that's to not purposely embarrass a cadet as it goes against every leadership lesson I've ever seen in both CAP and out.  If the OP stated it was embarrassing, I'll take them at their word.  I wasn't there and neither were you.  I'm not going to report anyone over it because again, I wasn't there to witness it, and it seems pretty low on the "reporting" scale.  I think a simple reminder that's it's not something we condone would be enough.  I feel that we can use common sense in what we need to report and what we see as a cadet making a mistake.   CAP needs to get together on this though.  We're being taught one thing at the local RST and told something else by the executive leadership. The policy seemed pretty clear up until today.

CAP Publications define hazing exactly as I quoted, that came directly from the Commander Course material.

And the fact that this was done to an entire flight of cadets makes it even worse.  A flight was publicly embarrassed in front of several other flights of their peers.  The context is clear when the OP said it was both funny and embarrassing. These cadets weren't being "coached" either, not at all.

The CPP was revised, from my understanding, because there was too much grey area regarding what was acceptable and what wasn't. Either embarrassing cadets is allowed, or it isn't.  And stop saying "in this context", the OP already stated that it was embarrassing.

Then you need to preach what you teach: Reach out to the SC spring CTW coordinators with your hazing complaint. You also should stop critiquing the individual on a public forum and do that in private via the same channel if you don't believe it rose to the level of hazing and is just a coaching opportunity, for as you said: "What happened to critique in private - praise in public?"

[xray328]

Again, I don't think it needs to be reported. It should of been taken care of by the leadership at the activity, assuming that the report was both witnessed, accurate, and correct. Do you honestly think that a senior member from another state that wasn't even at the activity has the duty or responsibility to file a report from a mystery cadet on captalk about something like this? Something the National Cadet Program Manager has already stated his opinion on? Is that actually what you're suggesting I do?

Point here is simple. Don't embarrass cadets on purpose, call it what you want, it's not appropriate.

[Holding Pattern]

So to be clear, you don't think hazing needs to be reported when you identify it?

[Holding Pattern]

Do you honestly think that a senior member from another state that wasn't even at the activity has the duty or responsibility to file a report from a mystery cadet on captalk about something like this?

To be abundantly clear: You made a judgement of hazing and stated we should "take the cadet at his word," and you used his initial statement as sufficient evidence of hazing.

Either this is true and a report should be filed, or maybe, just maybe, this wasn't a hazing incident and was instead a cadet leader that simply needs coaching. Words have meaning. Throwing down the H word is a serious accusation.

[xray328]

Doesn't matter what I think at this point.  The National Cadet Programs Manager, a Colonel who is in a much higher position than I, as I am sure you are Starfleet doesn't seem to think it's hazing.  That being the case I don't think filing a report is the appropriate thing to do here.  My concern has been elevated to the highest levels and I have been told I am wrong.  I leave the battle both confused, defeated, and unsure of exactly how the CAP CPP applies here.  I guess all I can do is stay far way from that line so I don't have to worry about crossing it.

[Holding Pattern]

I leave the battle both confused, defeated, and unsure of exactly how the CAP CPP applies here.

Well, let's take a look at the record. First, let's pull the regs, pamphlets, and courses relevant to the situation. Then we'll dissect the first post of this thread. We'll review the definitions and examples to compare against the OP and see if you can emerge as an elucidated erudite that is both victorious and sure of exactly how CAP CPP applies here.

Regardless of the outcome, it should be a productive exercise, yes?

[xray328]

Starfleet, I've stated my argument and why I believe I'm correct. The powers at be have told me I'm wrong, I'm not going to fight that battle.  As a senior member I thought I understood how CPP applies to this situation, as I've been taught.  My understanding is that we aren't to embarrass cadets, the OP stated it was embarrassing. I thought that was a pretty simple case.  Again, the most knowledgable authority on the subject, a trusted California Superior Court judge and Colonel in this program trusted by the National Commander to direct the cadet program has given his opinion on the subject.  I think that's enough.

[Holding Pattern]

Starfleet, I've stated my argument and why I believe I'm correct. The powers at be have told me I'm wrong, I'm not going to fight that battle.  As a senior member I thought I understood how CPP applies to this situation, as I've been taught.  My understanding is that we aren't to embarrass cadets, the OP stated it was embarrassing. I thought that was a pretty simple case.  Again, the most knowledgable authority on the subject, a trusted California Superior Court judge and Colonel in this program trusted by the National Commander to direct the cadet program has given his opinion on the subject.  I think that's enough.

I'm not a fan of appeals to authority figures. I like to know that my conclusions of an event are based on the facts, the regs, and the supporting materials of the regs.

Just because someone has a higher grade and a stack of certs/degrees/jobs doesn't automatically make them correct.

[Ned]

I thik we have pretty much run this one to ground.  Thank you for the respectful discussion.

Just one last clarifying note:  My position is NOT that "it's OK to deliberately embarrass cadets."

My position is more subtle, but important:  Mere embarrassment rarely, if ever, amounts to hazing. 

Hazing is serious stuff.  People get suspended and investigations done.

Again, thanks for the discussion.

[Fubar]

Guys, you're arguing with the gentleman who literally wrote our book on hazing.

[stillamarine]

Guys, you're arguing with the gentleman who literally wrote our book on hazing.

And apparently interprets said book incorrectly.

[PHall]

Guys, you're arguing with the gentleman who literally wrote our book on hazing.

And apparently interprets said book incorrectly.

How can the guy who wrote the book interpret it incorrectly?

[Майор Хаткевич]

Guys, you're arguing with the gentleman who literally wrote our book on hazing.

And apparently interprets said book incorrectly.

How can the guy who wrote the book interpret it incorrectly?

Again sir:" Civil Air Patroldefines hazing as, any conductwhereby someone causes anotherto suffer or be exposed to anyactivity that is cruel, abusive,humiliating, oppressive,demeaning, or harmful." (CAPR 52-10, CAP Cadet Protection Policy)."

Indeed, that is our definition.  But perhaps more importantly, we didn't write it.Ned Lee

[SarDragon]

I encountered a meme on Facebook today that I think has a lot to do with the interpretation of hazing.

1944: 18-year-olds storm beaches, jump from planes, and charge into almost certain death. 2015: 18-year-olds need a safe place. Because words do hurt.

What might be "very embarrassing" these days was usually just a little hiccup 20 or 30 years ago.

[xray328]

I agree.  Still need to follow the rules though. A lot of what we've been told or taught seems "soft" but we  can't pick and choose what rules to follow especially when it comes to CPP. They've got us walking on egg shells and I understand why,  but when we're told something as simple as "don't do things to humiliate cadets" then are told "well this wasn't that bad"...

[FW]

" Civil Air Patrol
defines hazing as, any conduct
whereby someone causes another
to suffer or be exposed to any
activity that is cruel, abusive,
humiliating, oppressive,
demeaning, or harmful." (CAPR 52-
10, CAP Cadet Protection Policy)."

Is "embarrassment"= to the above? I don't think so. 

That said, if someone feels they were abused, or witnessed abuse, there are proper channels to go thru.  The system is in place to protect cadets.  Better to "over report" than not. Good judgement is key in these situations.

I think  it's a good idea to have such (academic) discussions during a squadron meeting with a legal officer and a chaplain or CDO present.  We could all use the knowledge to improve our skills.  It helps to color in those shades of grey. 

[Майор Хаткевич]

" Civil Air Patrol
defines hazing as, any conduct
whereby someone causes another
to suffer or be exposed to any
activity that is cruel, abusive,
humiliating, oppressive,
demeaning, or harmful." (CAPR 52-
10, CAP Cadet Protection Policy)."

Is "embarrassment"= to the above? I don't think so. 

That said, if someone feels they were abused, or witnessed abuse, there are proper channels to go thru.  The system is in place to protect cadets.  Better to "over report" than not. Good judgement is key in these situations.

I think  it's a good idea to have such (academic) discussions during a squadron meeting with a legal officer and a chaplain or CDO present.  We could all use the knowledge to improve our skills.  It helps to color in those shades of grey.

hu·mil·i·at·ing

(h)yo͞oˈmilēˌādiNG/

adjective




causing someone to feel ashamed and foolish by injuring their dignity and self-respect.
"a humiliating defeat"

• 
  

  [/size]em·bar·rass·ing
  
  əmˈberəsiNG/
  
  adjective
  
  
  
  
  causing embarrassment.
  "an embarrassing muddle"
  

  [color=rgb(135, 135, 135) !important]synonyms:[/color]humiliating[color=rgb(135, 135, 135) !important], shaming, [/color]shameful[color=rgb(135, 135, 135) !important], mortifying, [/color]ignominious[color=rgb(135, 135, 135) !important]; [/l][/q][/t][/color]

[PA Guy]

Let's say during an in ranks uniform inspection the inspector tells a cadet that their collar insignia are not pinned on correctly. This done in a calm matter of fact way and the inspector moves to the next cadet Does that rise to the level of hazing? Not in my book but I get the  impression that some on here would consider it hazing. No one likes to be corrected so I'm guessing the cadet would have some degree of embarrassment. 

[Eclipse]

Let's say during an in ranks uniform inspection the inspector tells a cadet that their collar insignia are not pinned on correctly. This done in a calm matter of fact way and the inspector moves to the next cadet Does that rise to the level of hazing? Not in my book but I get the  impression that some on here would consider it hazing. No one likes to be corrected so I'm guessing the cadet would have some degree of embarrassment.

Not an apt comparison.

You're describing a proper, discrete correction as modeled and trained by NHQ.

The behavior in the OP is none of those.

It does not use any technique modeled or trained by NHQ.

It does not, as directed by NHQ CPPT training, remediate the problem,  nor model the correct behavior, it simply calls out the flight publicly.

Splitting hairs about whether this was directed at "single cadet" in an attempt to make it "not hazing", is what
misguided leaders do when they have an entire flight do "incentive PT" because one of the flight's members is struggling.
If you don't think that flight would become know as the "alphabets", you haven't spent time around adolescents.

Those of us who have been around for a while remember the duct-tape chair from RST of the recent past.
Duct taping every cadet in an activity into their own chair in an effort not to "single out" any one cadet doesn't make
that action an appropriate training technique.

At a minimum, from what was provided, it is an inappropriate and misguided training technique done by someone who
did not receive the messages sent during CPPT / ORM / Wingman / RST classes.

[CAPDCCMOM]

HOLY COW!!!!! We are turning the Cadet Program into Aunt Fannie's Finishing School for Precious Snowflakes!!!

Everything under God's Sun is being called "hazing", and we wonder why uniform standards and participation levels are so out of whack? You look at a Cadet cross-eyed and you are getting complaints from the Parents, or an over zealous Senior Member. Telling a Cadet that they need a haircut is not "Hazing", pulling out the clippers at the meeting and shaving their head is "Hazing".  Calling the Cadets to Attention if they are goofing around to get them back on focus is not "hazing", making them hold the folding chair at arm's length, until I get tired, is "Hazing". BTW the mentioned examples are things that I and my fellow Cadets went through in NJROTC.

edited because Spell Check Hates me

[Eclipse]

Everything under God's Sun is being called "hazing", and we wonder why uniform standards and participation levels are so out of whack? You look at a Cadet cross-eyed and you are getting complaints from the Parents, or an over zealous Senior Member. Telling a Cadet that they need a haircut is not "Hazing", pulling out the clippers at the meeting and shaving their head is "Hazing".  Calling the Cadets to Attention if they are goofing around to get them back on focus is not "hazing", making them hold the folding chair at arm's length, until I get tired, is "Hazing".

Agreed, and irrelevant to this conversation.

BTW the mentioned examples are things that I and my fellow Cadets went through in NJROTC.

1. CAP is not NJROTC, which makes that statement irrelevant to this conversation as well.

As stated by several, something "not being hazing" doesn't automatically make it "OK".

[THRAWN]

From NED: "Indeed, that is our definition.  But perhaps more importantly, we didn't write it.  It was adopted verbatim from our colleagues at the Department of Defense.  It is hard for me to imagine that the DoD interprets their definition in the way that you do.  I doubt seriously that a MTI or DI would be in serious risk of imprisonment if they tried to teach a young recruit left from right by pointing out the "left hand makes an L" and asking them to sing the alphabet song to reinforce the point. "

It's been said about 5 zillion times in this calendar year alone that CAP is not boot camp. Making the comparison is comparing bowling balls and hand grenades. There is a huge difference in teaching children and training military recruits. What works for one is inappropriate with the other.

It is interesting to note that during discussions like this, highly experienced, trained and skilled CP field officers use their judgement and the black and white letter of the regulation only to be told by HQ personnel that they are misinterpreting the rules. This is a prime example that there is an ever widening delta between the field and HQ staff. In this case, the words in the regulations are clear. The training that is received during RST supports the regs.

[Holding Pattern]

I'll reiterate that I hope that everyone that thinks this is hazing is following said RST and filing an abuse complaint, as is required when you hear of abuse.

But I will also reiterate CAPP 52-23 17 February 2015, Page 19 (That RST that is mentioned repeatedly)

http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/P052_023_7B9F3810999BF.pdf

Principles of Hazing Analysis:
1. Normal authorized training rarely, if ever, amounts to hazing.
2. Not every mismatch between training intensity and subject matter amounts to hazing.
3. Leaders should assess how the questioned actions would affect a reasonable cadet of similar age, gender, and
experience under the same or similar conditions.
After considering the principles above, consider the following factors concerning the training environment, the
members involved, and the specific actions in question in order to reach a conclusion:
The Training Environment and Intensity Level
• What was the nature of the activity? Was it an activity focusing on military skills such as an encampment or drill
and ceremonies school?
Such activities are designed to sustain an overall higher intensity level than a typical squadron meeting. While
squadron meetings may use Level 1 intensity for formations and PT, normally the majority of squadron time is spent at
Level 2 or Level 3 intensity.
• Did this take place on a military facility or a civilian establishment?
There is a distinct difference between a barracks and a unit meeting space such as a community center or church
basement.
• Was the training academic in nature or focused on basic military skills?
Typically, higher intensity levels are normal during basic military skills instruction.
• Was there a high ambient noise level such as on a flight line?
Vocal directions and instructions may have to be shouted in a noisy environment to be heard. However, shouting the
same directions and instructions in a quiet classroom would be inappropriate and may be abusive or demeaning.
The Members Involved
• Was this between a senior member and cadet(s), or between cadets?
Senior members are held to higher standards of conduct than cadet officers and NCOs who are still learning to lead.
• Was there a substantial difference in grade?
A cadet airman may be more easily intimidated and subject to abusive behavior from a cadet officer than from a
peer.
• Did the members differ significantly in size, age, etc?
12- and 13-year-old cadets may be more easily intimidated and subject to abusive behavior by older and/or
physically larger cadets.
• Was the cadet unusually susceptible?
Was the cadet ill, sleep deprived, suffering from a diagnosed mental disability, experiencing a recent loss in the
family, etc.? Did the other party know of it?
The Specific Actions in Question
• Was there inappropriate shouting or yelling?
Raised voices that are not reasonably related to being heard by the recipient or used briefly to focus or motivate a
cadet's actions may be a factor suggesting abuse.
• Was there inappropriate language used?
Offensive, vulgar, or demeaning language is never appropriate and may rise to the level of prohibited abuse.
• How close together were the members?
Members standing extremely close together (e.g. a violation of the cadet's "personal space") may tend to show that
the questionable conduct may be more serious than the same words said from a longer distance.
• Did a member touch another member? Was it deliberate? What was the nature of the touching?

If there is still confusion on this, I'll reiterate that it is time to treat this as a functional exercise instead of making snap judgements that it is hazing and then refusing to report abuse.

[PA Guy]

Let's say during an in ranks uniform inspection the inspector tells a cadet that their collar insignia are not pinned on correctly. This done in a calm matter of fact way and the inspector moves to the next cadet Does that rise to the level of hazing? Not in my book but I get the  impression that some on here would consider it hazing. No one likes to be corrected so I'm guessing the cadet would have some degree of embarrassment.

Not an apt comparison.

You're describing a proper, discrete correction as modeled and trained by NHQ.

The behavior in the OP is none of those.

It does not use any technique modeled or trained by NHQ.

It does not, as directed by NHQ CPPT training, remediate the problem,  nor model the correct behavior, it simply calls out the flight publicly.

Splitting hairs about whether this was directed at "single cadet" in an attempt to make it "not hazing", is what
misguided leaders do when they have an entire flight do "incentive PT" because one of the flight's members is struggling.
If you don't think that flight would become know as the "alphabets", you haven't spent time around adolescents.

Those of us who have been around for a while remember the duct-tape chair from RST of the recent past.
Duct taping every cadet in an activity into their own chair in an effort not to "single out" any one cadet doesn't make
that action an appropriate training technique.

At a minimum, from what was provided, it is an inappropriate and misguided training technique done by someone who
did not receive the messages sent during CPPT / ORM / Wingman / RST classes.

Geez, some things never change.

[Eclipse]

Continuing to assert that "if you think it's hazing you have to report it" is just a misguided distractor from the conversation.

No one here has enough information to actually file a formal complaint, though certainly the conversation may well
prompt others who were involved to reconsider the situation and do so - which is not something I am suggesting, since the
cadet's characterization in the OP may well be 180 off form reality.

There is no expectation from NHQ that every random bit of hearsay found on the internet is supposed to be turned into work for
an IG, but saying that doesn't necessarily mean this, as presented, didn't rise to hazing, nor make the technique "OK".

The behavior as characterized in the OP fails #1 and parts of #3 in the quote verbiage from RST.   it is not an "authorized technique",
and it probably did not consider how a young 12-year old  who may have never been properly taught how to march, would react.
This kind of thing is certainly not going to help the retention issue.

The proper local response by a properly trained CP leader should have been to "knock it off", with a word to the trainer to "never do that again",
and everyone moves on.

[Holding Pattern]

It is interesting to note that during discussions like this, highly experienced, trained and skilled CP field officers use their judgement and the black and white letter of the regulation only to be told by HQ personnel that they are misinterpreting the rules.

The same rules that require filing an abuse complaint upon coming across evidence of hazing? The same field officers that have told me they don't think reporting needs to be done?

[Holding Pattern]

Continuing to assert that "if you think it's hazing you have to report it" is just a misguided distractor from the conversation.

No one here has enough information to actually file a formal complaint, though certainly the conversation may well
prompt others who were involved to reconsider the situation and do so.

There is no expectation from NHQ that every random bit of hearsay found on the internet is supposed to be turned into work for
an IG, but saying that doesn't necessarily mean this, as presented, didn't rise to hazing, nor make the technique "OK".

The behavior as characterized in the OP fails #1 and parts of #3 in the quote verbiage from RST.   it is not an "authorized technique",
and it probably did not consider how a young 12-year old  who may have never been properly taught how to march, would react.
This kind of thing is certainly not going to help the retention issue.

No, it is quite relevant. The rules state what to do when you come across hazing. Several field officers called this hazing. Several field officers are declining to report it.

What should the takeaway be there? Why is it ok to not report abuse when several field officers think this is a cut and dried case of hazing?

[Luis R. Ramos]

All this discussion has merely pointed out is that there is a wide understanding or misunderstanding of what constitutes hazing or not despite wide training and publications. Maybe if those that think it is hazing, as Starfleet suggests, would report it. And we get from NHQ a widely publicized report might provide some clarification on what is and what is not hazing.

[THRAWN]

It is interesting to note that during discussions like this, highly experienced, trained and skilled CP field officers use their judgement and the black and white letter of the regulation only to be told by HQ personnel that they are misinterpreting the rules.

The same rules that require filing an abuse complaint upon coming across evidence of hazing? The same field officers that have told me they don't think reporting needs to be done?

One person said that they did not report. One person does not speak for all of us. Don't make assumptions.

[Eclipse]

What should the takeaway be there? Why is it ok to not report abuse when several field officers think this is a cut and dried case of hazing?

I don't suppose you've considered it's already been reported as such, but that fact is not for public consumption?

[THRAWN]

All this discussion has merely pointed out is that there is a wide understanding or misunderstanding of what constitutes hazing or not despite wide training and publications. Maybe if those that think it is hazing, as Starfleet suggests, would report it. And we get from NHQ a widely publicized report might provide some clarification on what is and what is not hazing.

It's being misunderstood because people are really trying to make it more complicated than it is. The rules are clear. There are about 20 words in the definition. Use those words.

[Holding Pattern]

What should the takeaway be there? Why is it ok to not report abuse when several field officers think this is a cut and dried case of hazing?

I don't suppose you've considered it's already been reported as such, but that fact is not for public consumption?

No one here has enough information to actually file a formal complaint,

If no one here has enough information to actually file a formal complaint, then it follows that no one here has enough information to make a determination that the OP was a victim of hazing.

You can't have it both ways.

[Eclipse]

OK.

[Holding Pattern]

The proper local response by a properly trained CP leader should have been to "knock it off", with a word to the trainer to "never do that again",
and everyone moves on.

I realize that I forgot to address this specifically:

This is the correct thing to do when a leader makes a training error. The rules on what to do about hazing do not indicate this to be the correct response.

[Garibaldi]

All this discussion has merely pointed out is that there is a wide understanding or misunderstanding of what constitutes hazing or not despite wide training and publications. Maybe if those that think it is hazing, as Starfleet suggests, would report it. And we get from NHQ a widely publicized report might provide some clarification on what is and what is not hazing.

It's being misunderstood because people are really trying to make it more complicated than it is. The rules are clear. There are about 20 words in the definition. Use those words.

I've been reading this with half and eye, because I can't believe how ridiculous this has gotten.

There is a HUGE difference between "I turned right when the flight sergeant called 'left face'. He made me hold my left hand up for a time. I was so embarrassed" and "The flight sergeant ripped me a new one, implied my intelligence level was that of an earthworm. That was embarrassing."

Hazing is in the eye of the observer and the "victim". By all means, if the cadet(s) involved felt that their feelings were hurt by having to hold a rock or sing the ABC song (which I never really understood in this context.  What purpose did THAT serve?), then they should approach someone in charge and say so, or the observer(s) should have stopped the thing then and there.

To give an example, I went to an encampment once as an observer/driver. I was not a TAC nor was I in the chain of command (Probably was 2012). The cadets were doing a rock climbing wall, and the Nat'l Guardsmen in charge of the activity wanted to make it a little more fun, so it was set up that the two flights would see who could finish faster.

"Well, what's the penalty for losing?" someone asked.

Like a dummy, and not really thinking it all the way through, I said "Well, let's say...something harmless...the losing flight has to sing the 'I'm a Little Teacup' song. Complete with dance."

The cadets agreed to do so. Other ideas had been proposed and shot down, and mine was deemed the most harmless. I made sure that it was to be a 100% unanimous decision, but we all know how that goes, peer pressure and all that, plus an unknown SM Major making the request.

When we got back to the barracks, I was pulled aside and told that one of the other seniors was going to the encampment commander to levy hazing charges against me. Naturally, I was taken aback. Hazing? How so?

"Well, they felt that singling out the losing flight and making them sing that song was demeaning."

I thought about it for a minute, nodded my head, and left the barracks, headed for the commander's office. We discussed it, at length, if memory serves, with him pointing out how it could be construed as a hazing event. It was eventually agreed that it was probably, at the very least, a dumb idea. Since I was not able to devote the full week, and was leaving the next morning, the matter was dropped.

But it begs the question, as mentioned before. Was what happened at this CTW hazing, if it involved more than one person? The answer is completely different to different people. Obviously, another SM thought what I suggested, and what happened, constituted hazing, while others disagreed. And it could have been that one cadet was fearful of opposing the majority, since all these cadet officers had been less than nice all week so far, and didn't know how to say "no" when his peers were saying "OK".

Most times, the "hazing" can be stopped with a simple "KNOCK IT THE **** OFF!" and no more needs to be said.

Other times, it needs to be booted up the chain and an investigation started. Thankfully those times are few and very far between.

I don't claim to be a great SM officer. I've done and said some dumb things (even here), but the point is we learn. We learn by our and our peers' mistakes. I have, and continue to do so.

[Eclipse]

The proper local response by a properly trained CP leader should have been to "knock it off", with a word to the trainer to "never do that again",
and everyone moves on.

I realize that I forgot to address this specifically:

This is the correct thing to do when a leader makes a training error. The rules on what to do about hazing do not indicate this to be the correct response.

My sponsor made me promise not to turn academic internet discussions into arguments regarding things they aren't about.

If you really believe that this academic discussion hinges on "if it's hazing you must report, and if you don't report, it's not hazing" based purely on
what is presented here, so be it, you've made your point clear.

The trouble from all sides is that, in order to make their point, they are inferring more here then what is on the page.

I've already made the allowance, several times, that while this may not have risen to the level of a sustainable hazing complaint, it's
clearly an inappropriate training technique.

The trouble with the thread, is that Ned tried to justify the "it's not hazing" with the very definition of hazing from CAP / DOD that
support the idea that it is.

So there's about 2 different discussions here, intertwined but not interdependent.

[Luis R. Ramos]

There are about 20 words in the definition. Use those words.

We are, and coming up with different interpretations.

Which just proves again that "Common sense, is not common after all."


Will we see now a thread of "This is not an issue of common sense?"

[Holding Pattern]

The proper local response by a properly trained CP leader should have been to "knock it off", with a word to the trainer to "never do that again",
and everyone moves on.

I realize that I forgot to address this specifically:

This is the correct thing to do when a leader makes a training error. The rules on what to do about hazing do not indicate this to be the correct response.

My sponsor made me promise not to turn academic internet discussions into arguments regarding things they aren't about.

If you really believe that this academic discussion hinges on "if it's hazing you must report, and if you don't report, it's not hazing" based purely on
what is presented here, so be it, you've made your point clear.

If you are going to put my words into a quote, you can do me the service of quoting the words I actually said.

Continuing to assert that "if you think it's hazing you have to report it" is just a misguided distractor from the conversation.

No one here has enough information to actually file a formal complaint, though certainly the conversation may well
prompt others who were involved to reconsider the situation and do so.

There is no expectation from NHQ that every random bit of hearsay found on the internet is supposed to be turned into work for
an IG, but saying that doesn't necessarily mean this, as presented, didn't rise to hazing, nor make the technique "OK".

The behavior as characterized in the OP fails #1 and parts of #3 in the quote verbiage from RST.   it is not an "authorized technique",
and it probably did not consider how a young 12-year old  who may have never been properly taught how to march, would react.
This kind of thing is certainly not going to help the retention issue.

No, it is quite relevant. The rules state what to do when you come across hazing. Several field officers called this hazing. Several field officers are declining to report it.

What should the takeaway be there? Why is it ok to not report abuse when several field officers think this is a cut and dried case of hazing?

The underlined is my concern. There are people here that have declared this to be one or more of the following things

1. Not the proper intensity for the event
2. Not the proper method of training
3. A breakdown of core values
4. Hazing.

1,2,3, can be resolved with a something as simple as a "knock it off."
4, by regulation, can't be.

I'll also remind everyone of this pertinent post right after the definition in the RST that is being left off:
http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/P052012_v2_CB7C1728E3202.pdf

Definition of Hazing
The Civil Air Patrol Cadet Program has adopted the standard Department of
Defense policy on hazing:
"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."
While CAP has adopted the DoD definition of "hazing", it's important to note
that CAP interprets the definition differently because the Cadet Program has
different training goals. CAPR 52-10 Cadet Protection Policy provides more
specific guidance on some of these differences.

So while the DoD definition may seem to be cut and dried, perhaps people should revisit the CAPR and CAPP for CAP's interpretation.

THEREFORE,

Anyone simply using the DoD definition and NOT using the context of the CAPR and CAPP for defining hazing in CAP is doing it wrong.

[FW]

It's becoming obvious to me there is confusion about the CPP.  There seems to be a real need to clarify things from above, and to provide more learning opportunities. We need more understanding of its principles and enforcement, before adult members just stop dealing with cadets.

[Майор Хаткевич]

What should the takeaway be there? Why is it ok to not report abuse when several field officers think this is a cut and dried case of hazing?

Wrong. Based on presented information, it appears to cross the line. As others have stated, we don't know all the facts, we only heard one side, and we weren't there.


I would personally tell my cadets to knock it off if it ever happened. Does it cross into hazing? Maybe. I wasn't there. I don't know the tone. I don't know how the staff member presented and delivered it. I've had cadets turn right/left on the left/right commands. I've shown them the whole "your left index/thumb make an "L"" thing as a cadet AND a SM. I then proceeded to call a succession of left/right faces, and told them not to anticipate the command of execution and listen to the words I say. I would NEVER make them sing the alphabet to get the point across. It's plain stupid to think it would, besides trying to embarrass the cadets.

[Майор Хаткевич]

It's becoming obvious to me there is confusion about the CPP.  There seems to be a real need to clarify things from above, and to provide more learning opportunities. We need more understanding of its principles and enforcement, before adult members just stop dealing with cadets.

Won't happen. The only people who really complain about CPP are those that were already looking to avoid cadets. I know that most of us who chose to work with cadets are there to give back, not to complain about CPP.

[Holding Pattern]

What should the takeaway be there? Why is it ok to not report abuse when several field officers think this is a cut and dried case of hazing?

Wrong. Based on presented information, it appears to cross the line. As others have stated, we don't know all the facts, we only heard one side, and we weren't there.


I would personally tell my cadets to knock it off if it ever happened. Does it cross into hazing? Maybe. I wasn't there. I don't know the tone. I don't know how the staff member presented and delivered it. I've had cadets turn right/left on the left/right commands. I've shown them the whole "your left index/thumb make an "L"" thing as a cadet AND a SM. I then proceeded to call a succession of left/right faces, and told them not to anticipate the command of execution and listen to the words I say. I would NEVER make them sing the alphabet to get the point across. It's plain stupid to think it would, besides trying to embarrass the cadets.

Please note that my statement was based on my initial entry into the thread after someone just flat out stated "That's hazing."

I am in agreement with the many people in this thread that see this as a coaching opportunity to the cadet that gave the order.

I am in disagreement with the many people that are reading the DoD policy in isolation, which the RST specifically says not to do.

[Майор Хаткевич]

What should the takeaway be there? Why is it ok to not report abuse when several field officers think this is a cut and dried case of hazing?

Wrong. Based on presented information, it appears to cross the line. As others have stated, we don't know all the facts, we only heard one side, and we weren't there.


I would personally tell my cadets to knock it off if it ever happened. Does it cross into hazing? Maybe. I wasn't there. I don't know the tone. I don't know how the staff member presented and delivered it. I've had cadets turn right/left on the left/right commands. I've shown them the whole "your left index/thumb make an "L"" thing as a cadet AND a SM. I then proceeded to call a succession of left/right faces, and told them not to anticipate the command of execution and listen to the words I say. I would NEVER make them sing the alphabet to get the point across. It's plain stupid to think it would, besides trying to embarrass the cadets.

Please note that my statement was based on my initial entry into the thread after someone just flat out stated "That's hazing."

I am in agreement with the many people in this thread that see this as a coaching opportunity to the cadet that gave the order.

I am in disagreement with the many people that are reading the DoD policy in isolation, which the RST specifically says not to do.

Your statement specifically said

Why is it ok to not report abuse when several field officers think this is a cut and dried case of hazing?

That was what I addressed.

[Holding Pattern]

What should the takeaway be there? Why is it ok to not report abuse when several field officers think this is a cut and dried case of hazing?

Wrong. Based on presented information, it appears to cross the line. As others have stated, we don't know all the facts, we only heard one side, and we weren't there.


I would personally tell my cadets to knock it off if it ever happened. Does it cross into hazing? Maybe. I wasn't there. I don't know the tone. I don't know how the staff member presented and delivered it. I've had cadets turn right/left on the left/right commands. I've shown them the whole "your left index/thumb make an "L"" thing as a cadet AND a SM. I then proceeded to call a succession of left/right faces, and told them not to anticipate the command of execution and listen to the words I say. I would NEVER make them sing the alphabet to get the point across. It's plain stupid to think it would, besides trying to embarrass the cadets.

Please note that my statement was based on my initial entry into the thread after someone just flat out stated "That's hazing."

I am in agreement with the many people in this thread that see this as a coaching opportunity to the cadet that gave the order.

I am in disagreement with the many people that are reading the DoD policy in isolation, which the RST specifically says not to do.

Your statement specifically said

Why is it ok to not report abuse when several field officers think this is a cut and dried case of hazing?

That was what I addressed.

You addressed the statement, the context of which was someone who had declared something to be abuse, and then went on to say they didn't believe they needed to report it.

Also covered in the RST, Page 6, "The Bystander Effect."

Context is critical. If you disagree with the assertion that this was abuse, then my post was not directed toward you.

[Майор Хаткевич]

What should the takeaway be there? Why is it ok to not report abuse when several field officers think this is a cut and dried case of hazing?

Wrong. Based on presented information, it appears to cross the line. As others have stated, we don't know all the facts, we only heard one side, and we weren't there.


I would personally tell my cadets to knock it off if it ever happened. Does it cross into hazing? Maybe. I wasn't there. I don't know the tone. I don't know how the staff member presented and delivered it. I've had cadets turn right/left on the left/right commands. I've shown them the whole "your left index/thumb make an "L"" thing as a cadet AND a SM. I then proceeded to call a succession of left/right faces, and told them not to anticipate the command of execution and listen to the words I say. I would NEVER make them sing the alphabet to get the point across. It's plain stupid to think it would, besides trying to embarrass the cadets.

Please note that my statement was based on my initial entry into the thread after someone just flat out stated "That's hazing."

I am in agreement with the many people in this thread that see this as a coaching opportunity to the cadet that gave the order.

I am in disagreement with the many people that are reading the DoD policy in isolation, which the RST specifically says not to do.

Your statement specifically said

Why is it ok to not report abuse when several field officers think this is a cut and dried case of hazing?

That was what I addressed.

You addressed the statement, the context of which was someone who had declared something to be abuse, and then went on to say they didn't believe they needed to report it.

Also covered in the RST, Page 6, "The Bystander Effect."

Context is critical. If you disagree with the assertion that this was abuse, then my post was not directed toward you.

If I'm correct, x-ray is a relatively new senior member, and just completed RST this past weekend. Could this be hazing? Maybe. Does he have to report it? No - because of what I've already said.


Do I agree it's Hazing with a big H? Probably not. I'd lean more towards:

b. Mismatched Goals & Intensities.
(1) An inappropriately high level of training intensity does not meet this regulation's definition of abuse or hazing unless it causes serious physical harm or serious emotional harm. Inappropriate yelling, using exercise as punishment, and creating an overly-stressful environment and other conduct listed in CAPP 52-23 are examples of inappropriately high training intensities that will be treated as boundary concerns.

[Holding Pattern]

In that case I'm glad that it seems we are interpreting it the same way.

It gives me a higher confidence that I'm reading the CAPRs and CAPPs appropriately. And that we should cover hazing in more detail during RST and/or other meetings.

[Eclipse]

Do you really believe that mandatory hazing reporting includes complaints that start with "I heard it on the internet"?

[Майор Хаткевич]

In that case I'm glad that it seems we are interpreting it the same way.

It gives me a higher confidence that I'm reading the CAPRs and CAPPs appropriately. And that we should cover hazing in more detail during RST and/or other meetings.

I think I'd rather people go over rather than under on this issue.


The stop for me would be when looking at the reg. "Holy smokes, I've got to report C/SSgt Doh-Fus to the Wing King? Is what he did really that serious? Let's take a look at the regs. Oh, here it is, the flight isn't physically injured or emotionally scared, he just did something stupid. A boundary violation? Well, he just got a course adjustment by me a few minutes ago, so I'd say we're in the clear here."

[Holding Pattern]

Do you really believe that hazing mandatory reporting includes complaints that start with "I heard it on the internet"?

I've seen several incidents on captalk get reported to NHQ that were far less serious than a hazing allegation. And if I did see a cadet post something that I thought rose to the level of abuse (given or received), I would in fact report it and the source, then leave it to the local investigators to sort it out. The only exception would be (and has been, in one case) when I find out the event was already reported.

Cadet Protection is in fact serious business.

[Eclipse]

Cadet Protection is in fact serious business.

I don't think anyone here is arguing that point.

The very fact of the minutia and deconstruction that takes place in these conversations is a likely indication
of people who are more vigilant then the average member.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Cadet Protection is in fact serious business.

I don't think anyone here is arguing that point.

The very fact of the minutia and deconstruction that takes place in these conversations is a likely indication
of people who are more vigilant then the average member.

This times 100. While CT seems to get a bad name in some circles, those who participate here, are probably more engaged/invested than 90% of the membership overall. After all, if I'm not too into this, why waste my time on a forum?

[xray328]

I think part of this is how they are defining hazing.  Before I posted on this I googled "CAP policy hazing" and this came up:

http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/Hazing_SG_14CADEDE0C136.pdf

If you look at page 2 there's no mention that the cadets need to be in fear of physical harm etc.  Then it goes on to say that public humiliation is also taboo, again all under the hazing section.

If you take what the OP said at face value, he was embarrassed = humiliated, publicly.  We could also say it was demeaning I guess.

If we agree on that (and if you don't I guess the rest isn't valid) I don't see how we can say it doesn't meet "hazing" by CAP's definition.

Maybe CAP needs to change its definition, or at least ensure all its publications use the same definition?  Clearly the above linked (paper, publication, whatever)  is missing verbiage that some posters have added  (cadets needing to fear physical harm for instance.)

[Holding Pattern]

I think part of this is how they are defining hazing.  Before I posted on this I googled "CAP policy hazing" and this came up:

http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/Hazing_SG_14CADEDE0C136.pdf

If you look at page 2 there's no mention that the cadets need to be in fear of physical harm etc.  Then it goes on to say that public humiliation is also taboo, again all under the hazing section.

If you take what the OP said at face value, he was embarrassed = humiliated, publicly.  We could also say it was demeaning I guess.

If we agree on that (and if you don't I guess the rest isn't valid) I don't see how we can say it doesn't meet "hazing" by CAP's definition.

Maybe CAP needs to change its definition, or at least ensure all its publications use the same definition?  Clearly the above linked (paper, publication, whatever)  is missing verbiage that some posters have added  (cadets needing to fear physical harm for instance.)

From that link:

As a functional matter, the Civil Air Patrol treats hazing accusations in the same way
as it treats accusations of physical abuse. Specific guidance is provided in CAPR
52-10.

CAPR 52-10 says:

e. Hazing. Hazing is defined as any conduct whereby someone causes another person to suffer
or to be exposed to any activity that is cruel, abusive, humiliating, oppressive, demeaning, or harmful.
1. By definition, hazing is a form of abuse.
2. Questions of hazing often pertain to the intensity level of military-style training in Cadet
Programs. Training intensity is evaluated in context. For example, a training intensity that is too stern
and demanding for a unit meeting may be appropriate at an encampment. See CAPP 52-23 for guidance
on training intensity.

CAPP 52-32 says:

Inexperienced cadet leaders on occasion may try to set an inappropriate military intensity level for a given class or block
of instruction. They may allow a class to be too lax; or perhaps they will be overly strict. Good mentors may allow the
situation to continue for a while to allow the cadet leader to learn from the experience, then provide guidance on how to
better set the intensity level next time. This might mean that some cadets were required to stand at attention in
formation for longer than was otherwise necessary; or the cadet leader may have been inappropriately harsh in his
criticism. That is part of the learning experience for the students, as well. Not every mismatch between the training to
be conducted and the proper military intensity level amounts to hazing.

And then it has a dedicated chapter to hazing analysis:

Chapter 11 When Intensity Over-Reaches: A Leader's Guide to Hazing Analysis

3 pages on the subject. I'll spare everyone quoting the 3 pages again, but I've posted the relevant sections, and others have posted other relevant points as well. Here is the link to the CAPP:
http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/P052_023_7B9F3810999BF.pdf

Also:

embarrassed = humiliated

No. It does not.

[xray328]

It shouldn't require numerous links and pages upon pages of regulations to define. We've said we don't humiliate them or do things that demean them (among other things.) That part seems simple, but maybe not.

[xray328]

Google humiliated, one of the synonyms are embarrassed

[Holding Pattern]

Google humiliated, one of the synonyms are embarrassed

And yet the word embarrassed wasn't used for a reason in the regulation. Why is that, do you suppose?

[Eclipse]

Demeaning was, and that is a subjective term as well.

You're forming an objective conclusion about subjective terms. One person's "demeaning" is another's "Tuesday".

That's why you avoid the behavior altogether, or correct it when you see it.

As characterized, this would likely be considered at least a "boundary violation".

[xray328]

Embarrass:

To make (someone) feel confused and foolish in front of other people

Humiliate:

to make (someone) feel very ashamed or foolish

[xray328]

And we need to remember it's the "victim" that decides that (victim seems like an awfully strong word here though)

[Eclipse]

And we need to remember it's the "victim" that decides that (victim seems like an awfully strong word here though)

I've always found that, in and of itself troubling as well.

12 years olds aren't in a position to understand something which may haunt them for years later.

Considering the inconsistency of CAP training and leadership, insuring an understanding of where the line is can be a challenge.
When you're 12, a lot of stuff just bounces off your head without any seepage. They nod, they sign, the sometimes echo
back without any actual understanding.  They haven't entered a development phase where abstracts ideas like "demeaning"
are comprehensible in a useful way.

You tell somebody to do something, they are "too dumb to figure it out", that makes you look bad, your reaction
is to make them look bad in retaliation.  The long term planning there is "lunch".