SC spring CTW

[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.