CPPT: Females required when cadet females present?

Started by Stonewall, December 24, 2008, 03:24:37 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

jimmydeanno

Quote from: davidsinn on February 06, 2009, 03:12:23 PM
That's true. To be qualified though you still need level 1.

Quote from: 52-16 1-3.C(2)
(2) All senior members must complete the screening process outlined in CAPM 39-2, Civil Air Patrol Membership, and complete Cadet Protection Program Training (CPPT) before working with cadets (see CAPR 50-17, Senior Member Professional Development Program). Members who have not completed CPPT, as recorded in e-Services at www.cap.gov, will not act as the primary supervisor at cadet activities, or associate with cadets in any way without the in-person supervision of a senior member who has completed CPPT and the screening process (see CAPR 52-10, Cadet Protection Policy).

Don't need level one.  To work with cadets [alone] you need to pass the screening and complete CPPT.
If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law. - Winston Churchill

davidsinn

Quote from: jimmydeanno on February 06, 2009, 03:45:41 PM
Quote from: davidsinn on February 06, 2009, 03:12:23 PM
That's true. To be qualified though you still need level 1.

Quote from: 52-16 1-3.C(2)
(2) All senior members must complete the screening process outlined in CAPM 39-2, Civil Air Patrol Membership, and complete Cadet Protection Program Training (CPPT) before working with cadets (see CAPR 50-17, Senior Member Professional Development Program). Members who have not completed CPPT, as recorded in e-Services at www.cap.gov, will not act as the primary supervisor at cadet activities, or associate with cadets in any way without the in-person supervision of a senior member who has completed CPPT and the screening process (see CAPR 52-10, Cadet Protection Policy).

Don't need level one.  To work with cadets [alone] you need to pass the screening and complete CPPT.

I stand corrected.
Former CAP Captain
David Sinn

maverik

Quote from: DC on February 06, 2009, 02:49:30 AM
Quote from: SARADDICT on February 06, 2009, 01:01:01 AM
I would like to input here:

When I was a wee little commie (new term i made up for comms  ;)) I had to do MRO training.  Now that being said I was paired with a senior member from the local church and it was perfectly fine  and no awkward moments.. heck even the wing commander stopped by to chat.  Here's the best part we also had a female cadet that needed the training did the wing commander bust in saying "CPP VIOLATION AOOGA AOOOGA(something I got from MY wing)?" No he stopped by and said good work now that is a prime example showing that 52-10 works as is.

Also what considers a senior member "qualified"?
You are aware that the term 'commie' is generally known to Americans as a derogatory term for a Communist, right? Generally used during the Cold War to refer to the Soviets....

Just thought I'd ask....

Yes I am aware and find myself constantly explaining it to people but I still like it.
KC9SFU
Fresh from the Mint C/LT
"Hard pressed on my right. My center is yielding. Impossible to maneuver. Situation excellent. I am attacking." Ferdinand Foch at the Battle of the Marne

Rotorhead

Quote from: SARADDICT on February 06, 2009, 09:26:19 PM
Quote from: DC on February 06, 2009, 02:49:30 AM
Quote from: SARADDICT on February 06, 2009, 01:01:01 AM
I would like to input here:

When I was a wee little commie (new term i made up for comms  ;)) I had to do MRO training.  Now that being said I was paired with a senior member from the local church and it was perfectly fine  and no awkward moments.. heck even the wing commander stopped by to chat.  Here's the best part we also had a female cadet that needed the training did the wing commander bust in saying "CPP VIOLATION AOOGA AOOOGA(something I got from MY wing)?" No he stopped by and said good work now that is a prime example showing that 52-10 works as is.

Also what considers a senior member "qualified"?
You are aware that the term 'commie' is generally known to Americans as a derogatory term for a Communist, right? Generally used during the Cold War to refer to the Soviets....

Just thought I'd ask....

Yes I am aware and find myself constantly explaining it to people but I still like it.
It might make sense, given the generally-understood meaning of the term and the fact that you're in the USAF auxiliary, to simply stop using it.
Capt. Scott Orr, CAP
Deputy Commander/Cadets
Prescott Composite Sqdn. 206
Prescott, AZ

Gunner C

^^^^
Not a generally good word to use around CAP, USAF, and the military.  ;)

lordmonar

As a 22 year communications specalists.....the proper term Is "Comm Weenie".
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

srg9832

I know no one has commented on this in a long time but for those asking the question about a regulation or rule like this it is against the Civil Air Patrol non-discrimination policy . I figured someone on here may have required a solid answer to the question about this rule being wrong or right and so I asked and got the answer for you.Talk with your wing IG or Legal Officer and if that don't work region and if that don't work contact nationals. The phone list is here: http://www.capmembers.com/cap_national_hq/nhq_contacts.cfm

I also want to ask the question as to why it is a good idea to have a female senior member there. It does not add any more protection than having a second senior member. A regulation such as this does not account for people of the same gender being together nor does it account for the likelihood that second senior runs off with a male cadet or female. Adding a female does not add any extra protection with the exception of maybe making the female cadet feel more comfortable. In most instances it allows both seniors to be female, and then what would you do with the male cadets?

Bottom line is the CPPT is there so that members are educated to not put ourselves into a situation where become compromised. If you feel uncomfortable then you are likely wrong in the way you interact with cadets.  More than likely if someone who has this type of rule they have been in, or heard of a senior's story, where the senior put themselves in a compromising position but claimed that is was because of gender. That or if you were the senior, you don't understand that what you did was wrong. You blame the action of what the cadet did in order to rationalize how you acted. (See chapter 7-9 of the old "Leadership 2000 and Beyond Volume 2" Book for cadets.) Trust me I've seen many accusations in my wing and in the end the senior did something stupid and wouldn't admit they did anything wrong. It's the case almost 99% of the time. As someone said on this forum once, "Lets stop treating cadets like they are an IED" and treat them as equals (regardless of rank) with the respect and dignity that they deserve.

~7

Eclipse

Quote from: srg9832 on September 04, 2011, 04:55:59 PM
I know no one has commented on this in a long time but for those asking the question about a regulation like this it is against the Civil Air Patrol non-discrimination policy . Talk with your wing IG and if that don't work region and if that don't work contact nationals. The phone list is here: http://www.capmembers.com/cap_national_hq/nhq_contacts.cfm

It is not a violation of non-discrimination (or anything else) if a unit cannot find a senior member comfortable with chaperoning a mixed-gender activity,
and all the IG's, directives, and training in the world will not change that.

Misinformed CC's and staff harboring wives tales are one thing, but at the end of the day, we can't force a member to do anything outside their personal ORM.

"That Others May Zoom"

JC004

We do not need to be resurrecting old topics to cross-post items.