[DANGER: WALL OF TEXT APPROACHING]
So I was being interviewed for a position at a CAP activity a couple of years ago, and was told by one of the interviewing members that I should be more careful about what I post on the internet. He was referencing a position I took on this board in defense of the POSSIBILITY of using push-ups in a non-malicious fashion. To that end, I told him that I was not ashamed of what I wrote, and was still willing to defend that position (and I did).
Another topic on this forum has recently begun to call out the definition of hazing again, and, somewhat contrary to CAP's position, I wanted to state what I think actually makes sense in the ideal world where we have leaders who can take a situation on a case-by-case basis, and not have to rely 100% on regulations that may not fit an individual situation perfectly.
I wanted to start off by stating, at least in my eyes, the main problem being that we have not managed to find a good way of relating physical hardship to mental suffering. Hazing is, at the end of the day, about avoiding MENTAL harm to the cadets. Granted, and obviously, this is closely related to committing physical harm to a cadet. But in a world where we could push a REASONABLE person to be in physical pain, but not mental pain, then that would technically not necessitate a label of hazing. The reasons that we might do this are up for debate, but we can look at PT as the easiest and most visible example.
I think that establishing this point early on is vital, because, as I say again, a person who is physical pain, but not in mental pain, is not NECESSARILY being hazed just by virtue of discomfort. This type of pain arises from exercise, hot showers, massages, and even that quackery known as acupuncture. The key note is that, within a REASONABLE limit, this pain does not translate into psychological pain. In fact, when kept out of extreme ranges, people actually seek it out because, either immediately or later on, it makes them feel better. That may not translate over to CAP perfectly, but I wanted to make sure that this point is solidified, because if you aren't on-board with that, then you probably won't be able to look at the rest of my post objectively.
I have never had a problem with push-ups as a "punishment", more conveniently labeled as "reinforcement" to make myself look better. As a good, law-abiding CAP cadet and later senior member, I did not exercise... uh, exercise as a punishment, per the regulations. However, were the day to come where we could make a case for the use, I would certainly back a proposition to open up that option.
Is it because I'm a sadistic, power-tripping oo-rah military wannabe? I don't think so. Most people who know me would hopefully attest to that. Rather, in a controlled, regulated environment, I don't think that the "physical-psychological link" that would translate exercise into mental torment is there in a reasonable person. I think that if we were able to regulate exercise (henceforth "push-ups" for simplicity) as a form of reinforcement, then it could actually be a better supplement to the average CAP activity counseling methods than ones that are currently used. By the way, that brings me to the caveat stating that what I am about to describe is best applied to an encampment environment, but with modification could probably pass at the squadron level. I'll cover that later.
Here's the reason I would make such a statement, and I will take a liberty by speaking through my experience at multiple encampments as a cadet. As I stated, a set of push-ups within reasonable limits should not cause psychological harm, and therefore, would serve as a better reinforcers than many of the other tools used instead (covered soon). For instance, a dirty floor during inspection? Five push-ups. What happens inside the cadets' minds? I promise it isn't, "Wow... I feel like a horrible failure." Rather it's, "Wow. That wasn't too much fun. Don't want to do that again. Let's stop doing push-ups and get the floor clean."
Why is this the case? Because push-ups, within a reasonable limit, fit the cadets' EXPECTATION of a punishment. No matter how much we want to say that we aren't the military and we shouldn't be playing Gunny Hartman, you're going to have a rather difficult search finding an encampment where a significant number of cadets did NOT think we would be that harsh going in. In fact, encampment is considered "cadet boot camp." The cadets EXPECT to be doing PT. They expect it to be a challenge. In fact, based on my experience at several encampments, the expectation that a cadet holds of an encampment is usually far harsher than the encampment turns out to be.
This doesn't mean I'm advocating turning our encampments into mini-Hell Week. There are definitely more important things to be doing than yelling and doing push-ups. But it's not going to break the cadets' psyches to be dropped a few times a day for a set of five. In fact, at least in my area, there is quite a movement to have the encampments be MORE "militaristic." For many (myself included, in my early cadet days), if it didn't feel that militaristic, I felt like I was kind of getting jipped out of a reason to wear a uniform. That may have been immature, and I'll let you decide that, but at the end of the day, I WANTED to feel like a badass that went through a week of what I felt to be a challenging, militaristic environment.
What does this mean, then? It means that the punishment doesn't actually hurt the cadet in any way (when utilized properly), but STILL REGISTERS as a punishment. That's what's great about it. The cadet knows that this is a measure that means, "Hey, do better." But it doesn't actually do anything psychologically to the cadet in any way. There is, when utilized properly, no humiliation, no singling-out, and no morale damage. Why? Because, like I said, the average cadet expects it as part of the military experience, and when used by a responsible person, it doesn't do anything more than get their hands a little dirty. Not only that, but when I was dropped for push-ups 8 years ago, I always thought, "Cool. I'm having to do push-ups with my flight because I screwed up. Just like the real military!" Weird? Maybe. Common? In my experience, yes.
Of course, that in itself isn't a reason to allow a regulated push-up reinforcement system. It NOT hurting the cadets psychologically doesn't mean that it's worth using. So, to make my point, I'm going to look at the other supplementary systems used.
The first would be the "honor flight" system. It's great. I like it a lot. It's hard to get cadets to have the motivation to constantly succeed as a team without giving them something to work for. In fact, at many encampments, it's the ONLY tangible reward to work toward. What I have seen happen numerous times is the loss of "honor points" toward honor flight for some issue. These issues are usually trivial, because anything major generally ends up at the feet of the flight commander, not the flight. Such issues include being late (usually the fault of the flight staff), inspection issues, or minor conduct issues that (hopefully) relate toward the behavior of multiple cadets in the flight (instead of just one or two).
I love awarding honor points, but have never taken them away. The reason is that because, by at least my own personal definition of hazing, to do so causes some degree of psychological harm in the form of morale detriment. I will promise you, for all to see, that a flight that loses honor points and therefore loses a chances for the sometimes sole tangible award for encampment is FAR more psychologically harmed than the flight that has to do a set of push-ups. When someone takes away honor points, it DEPRIVES of a reward. That's where low morale comes to play. Low morale leads to blaming, in-fighting, apathy, and all sorts of fun issues commanders LOVE dealing with.
What other methods are used? Extra chores. Generally accompanies honor points. Sure, why not? Having a flight work KP a few times isn't bad for them. The chores aren't the issue. Rather the issue comes at the COST of the extra chores. What time are they giving up? Are they having to wake up earlier than everyone else, technically as a punishment? Are they giving up their precious little free time? Shorter meals? Less time to prepare for inspection, therefore probably making the problem worse? God forbid you actually take away something they're looking forward to. Once again, as a commander of an encampment, my job is to provide these cadets with a GOOD experience. If I'm taking away the times that they are supposed to learn from, or times they are using to relax and prepare for the next day, just in order to carry out a punishment, well... not my idea of good commanding. I had the opportunity to plan out almost every minute of an encampment once, and I can tell you that there was not a single slot on my Excel sheet I would have wanted any cadet missing for any reason other than medical issues. Maybe other encampments just don't have their schedules booked solid like mine was.
My point is that when you set a goal for a cadets (get honor flight, get a good inspection, whatever), then DEPRIVING them of the ability to reach that standard is going to be psychologically MUCH worse for them than adding on to the standard. If you had to bike to a finish line down a road, would you rather have slopes and curves added to the course, or have different parts of your bike removed?
In most of the trivial issues in which we would want to use on-the-spot "reinforcement", push-ups seem to be, to me, at least, a much healthier option for team morale than most of the other methods utilized, which involve taking away from the encampment experience. Not only that, but CAP has generally had the problem of "approved" punishments being limited to either telling the cadet that they've naughty, or 2bing them out of the program. The middle option is what has led to the creation of these "depriving" methods of punishment. I don't blame the people who use them, because for people who you don't want to kick out, and who aren't responding to you telling them to knock off their tomfoolery, there really isn't a whole lot of guidance. As I said before, push-ups will still register as a reinforcement to most cadets, and serve as the much-needed middle-severity option between a slap on the wrist and serious, SM-only type punishment options.
Some caveats:
1) If your first response is to try to get me to lay out a detailed, ready-to-submit plan of how to implement physical reinforcement into the program, then you can be disappointed, because I don't have one. As of right now, it's not my job to try to make major changes to cadet program implementation, and I don't have the desire to take the significant amount of time and research that would be necessary to come up with the perfect plan when no such plan is likely to be considered anyway. I can say it would involve regulating the frequency per-hour and per-day of exercise, what types of exercise could be used, and a structured, thoughtful training plan for any cadets that were to use this with significant senior supervision. But, GASP, it would actually require commander discretion in the majority of cases. Shocking that we actually expect commanders to use good judgment when we have all of these convenient regs telling us exactly what we can and cannot do, but they have to earn their pay somehow. And, uberGASP, we might actually have to use common sense (rare as it is)! For instance, a set of five push-ups? Most twelve-year old girls (the minimum standard we expect for upper-body strength) can pull this off, according to our PT requirements. If not, set it at three. 50 push-ups? That's hazing territory. Smarter people than me can feel free to figure out the best number, but, like I said, common sense would certainly make the situation SO much easier. Remember that it's not important that the cadets have sore arms from the push-ups. It's just important that they DO the push-ups. The message is MORE than enough.
2) The next argument I anticipate is that there would be no way to supervise this program, and violations would occur a lot. In which case I say, "Yes. You're right." And then, I would follow with, "Wake up and get out of under your rock." Of COURSE there would be violations. I know this, because there are violations of the system we have NOW. The people who want to go on power trips and abuse cadets with physical exercise are going to do it whether or not we have a regulated system in place. I would argue that, should we give the newly-minted flight sergeants a way to direct that new sense of authority in a regulated, supervised way, it would likely cause far less of the extreme situations that would make a SEAL tired. If you want to get a hold on the problem with abusive PT, then give those people a way to get it out of their system safely and in such a way that isn't going to hurt the cadets. But just saying "STOP!" and expecting something to happen isn't working now anyway.
3) Although this should have been mentioned earlier, I'm too lazy to go back and figure out a way to put it in, so I'll just say it now. For individual situations, PT is NOT the way I would suggest handling the issue. A cadet should not be made to do PT alone, whether in front of the flight, the commander, or whoever, unless this person is doing an individual PT test. This is a TEAM activity, and to deviate from that would follow with the part of CAP's hazing definition I agree with, which talk about humiliating and singling-out a cadet. I am not advocating PT in lieu of regular mentoring sessions, nor am I saying that PT should be used without good leadership abilities. A flight still needs to be told HOW to fix the issue, and, in my opinion, have any sort of reinforcement executed on subsequent, similar mistakes. As I have always said, a person working for me can make any mistake he or she makes, but only once.
4) Won't this add more red tape, which I was arguing against? Well... yes and no. Yes, in that it would probably give us a page or so to CAPR 52-16, and probably a few more pages of safety info. Snore. However, I would hope that, once in place, the number of purported hazing incidents would go WAY down. This is not to say that I think that any suspected hazing should go unreported. I am saying, however, that when we coddle cadets, they are going to expect to be coddled, which would lead to anything BUT coddling to seem offensive. We stop coddling, we set new expectations. Hence, hopefully less issues of people thinking they're being hazed when they aren't, hence, less reason to worry about parents eating us when we have clearly stated that their little cadet might actually not be completely physically comfortable whenever he or she is in uniform. Remember, the physical discomfort does not equal MENTAL discomfort. When we define our own hazing ideas so conservatively, we can certainly cause someone to think hazing is going on by definition, rather than really believing that anyone is being harmed. I can give at least two examples of this from my own personal experience, and I would be surprised if you didn't have some of your own.
5) As I stated, this approach serves the needs best of encampments and other higher-intensity CAP activities. Because weekly meetings are not DESIGNED to be that highly stressful of an environment, I think that the situations are few where using PT for anything other than testing at the squadron level would be warranted, especially since the "team" environment of encampment is so much more fluid due to membership fluctuations. In addition, squadrons would be FAR more difficult to regulate in ensuring compliance with policy, and while I covered that in caveat 2, I still would say that, given the number of drill movements that seem to appear and disappear between squadron and encampment, I would be worried about any real standard being maintained at the squadron level. That said, I wouldn't be opposed to extending the policy to the squadron, but it would require some different perspectives of reinforcement that I'm just not ready to think about until this even becomes more than a rant from my head.
Now, I suppose you can begin telling me that I must be a narrow-minded leader who isn't creative enough to teach cadets anything without making them do a thousand push-ups. >:D
EDITED: a few times for typos...
Nathan,
In educational models.....punishment is something you do to stop unwanted behavior, reinforcement is something you do to keep wanted behavior.
PT for violations is a punishment, pure and simple. Using the wrong words for it does not make it any better.
If you are having violations when you have a black and white regulation that says "don't do it" how many violations are you going to have if you have vague guidelines of when and where you can use it?
This is a backward argument. We need to monitor our activities to stop those violations.
Finally....what is the need? Yes in some situations by adding physical discomfort can better gauge a trainee's ability to work in stressful situations....but is that something we want to do in CAP? Is it really needed. Heck even the AD USAF does not use PT in their training environment.
Bottom line.....in CAP, there are few places where that level of stress is needed. There are better ways of training. The chances of abuse are too great.
Sure there are a lot of cadets who expect it, sure there are a lot of cadets who want it....but there are just as many or more who don't want it. The few places where it is warrented it is used (PJOC for one). As a normal tool at encampment....I just cringe at the thought of Turning some of my cadets loose on a bunch of 12 year olds!
Quote from: lordmonar on December 28, 2009, 10:53:26 PMin CAP, there are few places where that level of stress is needed. There are better ways of training. The chances of abuse are too great.
+1
Quote from: lordmonar on December 28, 2009, 10:53:26 PM
Sure there are a lot of cadets who expect it, sure there are a lot of cadets who want it....but there are just as many or more who don't want it.
Cadets who expect PT as punishment have been failed by their CAP leaders in properly framing the program.
Whatever the FMJ technique cadets might "want", or leaders think is "necessary", the proper training is not provided by CAP.
DI's, TI's, and RDC's, have been through BMT themselves, and hands-on trained and evaluated in proper technique and disciplinary measures.
Not so in CAP, where the general reaction to anything is yelling, and/or throwing things/banging things, etc., in an increasing tone, until someone with a clue puts a stop to it.
Further, the military is specifically training its people, especially the enlisted personnel, to unquestioningly obey the orders of their superiors immediately and without filter, because lives may be at stake if actions are delayed.
We don't do or need that in CAP, either.
Another issue is consistency of training - most of the reasons you'd "drop" someone at an encampment is because of a uniform, rack, or behavioral infraction. In most cases, the
reason for that infraction is because of poor, inconsistent, or conflicting training at his home unit. The proper remediation is not punishment for the failure(s) of other leaders, but correction of the behavior.
Finally, as mentioned above, we have a thick, solid, bright line of behavior today, and despite that, many leaders in CAP can't seem to adhere properly. You dim-down that line and you're asking for trouble.
The definition of hazing is kind of like the definition of leadership in that everyone has their own interpretation of it and they they think they know either when they see it. All I know is that where you have hazing there is no leadership and where you have leadership there is no hazing.
Quote from: olefido on December 29, 2009, 01:06:11 AM
The definition of hazing is kind of like the definition of leadership in that everyone has their own interpretation of it and they they think they know either when they see it. All I know is that where you have hazing there is no leadership and where you have leadership there is no hazing.
+1
So then Eclipse, does that make the ACA (http://www.goarmycadets.com/) a bad organization with bad leaders and a wrong approach to youth leadership education because they may use PT from time to time as a disciplinary instructional tool? Because from your posts I'm gathering your standpoint is that there's no value in physical remedial training in any form. I just want to be clear on your viewpoint here.
No, it makes them different.
With no operational component, everyone involved is focused on the training of the cadets, and as such, the training of the senior members is much different as well. There's little chance that some random Senior member pilot with a good movie collection and little military experience will accidentally become a unit leader because he was the only one around.
The entire purpose of the organization is different, with military-style training and preparation for future service being much more the focus and point of membership.
I would also like to believe that any organization that allows and encourages PT for disciplinary issues also trains their members in proper utilization, techniques, and limits, though I have no personal knowledge of this either way.
The bottom line here is that in CAP it is simply not allowed, and the main reason is that over the years members used PT for discipline in a way that was excessive and/or "overly creative" in someone's eyes, and we were told to knock it off. Despite the fact that its been outright banned for more than a decade, we still hear regularly that cadet and senior leaders do it anyway.
So considering the knowledge that we, as an organization, still can't properly enforce a clear, bright, line, these arguments that it's "not so bad", or "what the cadets are expecting" are spurious. There's simply no justification for it within our program. None of the goals of our program are helped by cadets who obey unflinchingly on a moment's whim, or have huge, 50-caliber arms, especially in light of the fact that the USAF no longer does this, and in general the practice is discouraged in all but the most hard-core military training.
Quote from: lordmonar on December 28, 2009, 10:53:26 PM
Nathan,
In educational models.....punishment is something you do to stop unwanted behavior, reinforcement is something you do to keep wanted behavior.
PT for violations is a punishment, pure and simple. Using the wrong words for it does not make it any better.
I know. I just also know that people get jittery when using the word "punishment", and while I am well aware of the correct word to use (at least from the psychological point of view) I wanted people to actually read what I was writing without having the automatic negative bias that "punishment" tends to create.
Quote from: lordmonarIf you are having violations when you have a black and white regulation that says "don't do it" how many violations are you going to have if you have vague guidelines of when and where you can use it?
This is a backward argument. We need to monitor our activities to stop those violations.
I don't recall advocating vague guidelines. I want precise guidelines. I'm just not the one who wants to provide that level of precision on a message board. :)
Quote from: lordmonarFinally....what is the need? Yes in some situations by adding physical discomfort can better gauge a trainee's ability to work in stressful situations....but is that something we want to do in CAP? Is it really needed. Heck even the AD USAF does not use PT in their training environment.
As I stated, the "need" isn't so much a need as it is an improvement over what we have. The only options available to us in most situations involve depriving people of their ability to accomplish, which is pretty detrimental to morale and overall is much more psychological harmful than push-ups. Push-ups, if used correctly, are not psychologically harmful, and in some cadets, may actually serve to motivate them if for no other reason than by feeling MORE militaristic.
Quote from: lordmonarSure there are a lot of cadets who expect it, sure there are a lot of cadets who want it....but there are just as many or more who don't want it. The few places where it is warrented it is used (PJOC for one). As a normal tool at encampment....I just cringe at the thought of Turning some of my cadets loose on a bunch of 12 year olds!
Erm... why is it more warranted at PJOC or Hawk Mountain than it is at an encampment? From what I've heard about those activities, they use push-ups for pretty much the same reasons and on a far more extreme scale than what I'm talking about. What makes it okay at only some activities if the rationale is the same?
As I said, using it CORRECTLY is the important part of this. I'm not saying that we should just tell a bunch of new C/SSgts that they can use their cadets to push the earth closer to the sun. I'm saying with the proper training, supervision, and guidelines, it can be a useful tool. Pointing out where it can go wrong when I've already stated where it can go wrong is just preaching to the choir.
Quote from: EclipseCadets who expect PT as punishment have been failed by their CAP leaders in properly framing the program.
Really? I thought it was because they had an idea of what military life is like, and were wearing a uniform. At least, that's why I thought I was being dropped when I was a cadet.
Quote from: EclipseWhatever the FMJ technique cadets might "want", or leaders think is "necessary", the proper training is not provided by CAP. DI's, TI's, and RDC's, have been through BMT themselves, and hands-on trained and evaluated in proper technique and disciplinary measures.
Not so in CAP, where the general reaction to anything is yelling, and/or throwing things/banging things, etc., in an increasing tone, until someone with a clue puts a stop to it.
So if we had a DI write the program out, it would be okay? I just so happen to know a couple, and at least one of which who would be happy to write that sort of curriculum out. After all, if there is a PROPER technique, and the military has been using it and producing the discipline it has, then there's got to be something to it. CAP has every reason to use that resource. Which points me to your next paragraph...
Quote from: EclipseFurther, the military is specifically training its people, especially the enlisted personnel, to unquestioningly obey the orders of their superiors immediately and without filter, because lives may be at stake if actions are delayed.
We don't do or need that in CAP, either.
That's true. Of course, if we follow that logic too far, then we can also question the purpose of drill, since I've personally never bought the "teamwork" aspect. The military uses BDU's for camoflauge (or at least used to), so we can throw that out as well and just go to BBDUs. And I suppose since we don't have to raise the visors on our helmets anymore, then saluting is purposeless as far as CAP is concerned.
And no, I'm not trying to make this a slippery-slope argument. I'm merely pointing out that certain things WORK for the military. Regardless of the fact that, yes, the military is many a time trying to build killers, it's also building computer nerds, doctors, cooks, and janitors, all of whom have to go through the SAME training, and few of whom are ever expected to kill people.
It's not always about building killers or unquestioning loyalty. Doing push-ups does not a killer make, Eclipse. I would imagine we would need to stop bringing cadets to the firing ranges if we wanted to avoid that (or just stop being militaristic at all). Doing push-ups is just a training tool we have unnecessarily, in my opinion, restricted from our tool box.
Quote from: EclipseAnother issue is consistency of training - most of the reasons you'd "drop" someone at an encampment is because of a uniform, rack, or behavioral infraction. In most cases, the reason for that infraction is because of poor, inconsistent, or conflicting training at his home unit. The proper remediation is not punishment for the failure(s) of other leaders, but correction of the behavior.
Which I addressed when I said, in Caveat 3...
Quote from: IAs I have always said, a person working for me can make any mistake he or she makes, but only once.
I predicted a few responses I knew you've used in the past in these types of debates. I was hoping you'd catch my pre-preemptive replies. ;)
Quote from: EclipseFinally, as mentioned above, we have a thick, solid, bright line of behavior today, and despite that, many leaders in CAP can't seem to adhere properly. You dim-down that line and you're asking for trouble.
You can think that, and there isn't anything I can say to convince you otherwise. I, on the other hand, believe that if we allowed more flexibility in the rule, it would give those people who want to do push-ups badly enough to break the rules at least a way to do it WITHIN the rules and hopefully far more safely than when they are not regulated or monitored. I guess it's the same idea as legalizing drugs, except that I would be a little suspicious of anyone comparing push-ups to drugs. :)
Quote from: Nathan on December 29, 2009, 04:18:47 AMI know. I just also know that people get jittery when using the word "punishment", and while I am well aware of the correct word to use (at least from the psychological point of view) I wanted people to actually read what I was writing without having the automatic negative bias that "punishment" tends to create.
By using the wrong terminology you ruin your creditability.
Quote from: Nathan on December 29, 2009, 04:18:47 AMI don't recall advocating vague guidelines. I want precise guidelines. I'm just not the one who wants to provide that level of precision on a message board. :)
So worse then vague guidelines....you got none. If you want to sell your point of view you got to have some sort of idea of what those guidelines are going to be. How we are going to teach those guidelines to our CP members. And how we are going to monitor compliance.
Quote from: Nathan on December 29, 2009, 04:18:47 AMAs I stated, the "need" isn't so much a need as it is an improvement over what we have. The only options available to us in most situations involve depriving people of their ability to accomplish, which is pretty detrimental to morale and overall is much more psychological harmful than push-ups. Push-ups, if used correctly, are not psychologically harmful, and in some cadets, may actually serve to motivate them if for no other reason than by feeling MORE militaristic.
I don't think it makes us more "militaristic'. If we use our parent service, the USAF, as an example...they don't use this sort of corrective action in their standard training program. Positive punishment (the addition of something to stop bad behavior...doing push ups for screw up) is not as affective as positive reinforcement. I can correct bad behavior with out telling people to do push ups.
Quote from: Nathan on December 29, 2009, 04:18:47 AMErm... why is it more warranted at PJOC or Hawk Mountain than it is at an encampment? From what I've heard about those activities, they use push-ups for pretty much the same reasons and on a far more extreme scale than what I'm talking about. What makes it okay at only some activities if the rationale is the same?
I never said anything about HMRS...I feel that they don't need to use it there at all. At PJOC....the purpose of the course is to Orient cadets to the PJ career field....and their training includes a lot of push ups. Also in that context the PJOC program is run by professionals who know when to knock it off.
Quote from: Nathan on December 29, 2009, 04:18:47 AMAs I said, using it CORRECTLY is the important part of this. I'm not saying that we should just tell a bunch of new C/SSgts that they can use their cadets to push the earth closer to the sun. I'm saying with the proper training, supervision, and guidelines, it can be a useful tool. Pointing out where it can go wrong when I've already stated where it can go wrong is just preaching to the choir.
I agree....but I personally don't think is is possible to properly train the majority of the rank and file CAP member to properly supervise and conduct PT as a punishment tool. We can't get them to follow simple rules like "DON'T DO IT" or "Don't wear white shocks with our uniform". You will have to go a long way to prove to me that the general rank and file is ready to accept the responsibility to have this sort of power.
Quote from: Nathan on December 29, 2009, 04:18:47 AM
Really? I thought it was because they had an idea of what military life is like, and were wearing a uniform. At least, that's why I thought I was being dropped when I was a cadet.
Nope...spent 22 years in the USAF and never once had to do a push up as a form of punishment. Weeded a lot of sidewalks, painted a couple of buildings and lost a lot of "off duty time" but never one had to do a single push up.
Quote from: Nathan on December 29, 2009, 04:18:47 AMSo if we had a DI write the program out, it would be okay? I just so happen to know a couple, and at least one of which who would be happy to write that sort of curriculum out. After all, if there is a PROPER technique, and the military has been using it and producing the discipline it has, then there's got to be something to it. CAP has every reason to use that resource. Which points me to your next paragraph...
Won't help....the problem is not the standard so much but the maturity of the audience. I don't think the average cadet...even those that end up on encampment staff are ready to accept that sort of maturity. And the lessons the cadets take back to their home units will be garbled even more. It is at this level where I have my problems as opposed to at encampment.
Quote from: Nathan on December 29, 2009, 04:18:47 AMYou can think that, and there isn't anything I can say to convince you otherwise. I, on the other hand, believe that if we allowed more flexibility in the rule, it would give those people who want to do push-ups badly enough to break the rules at least a way to do it WITHIN the rules and hopefully far more safely than when they are not regulated or monitored. I guess it's the same idea as legalizing drugs, except that I would be a little suspicious of anyone comparing push-ups to drugs. :)
Yes....that makes sense....you can't be expected to follow the rules...so we'll give you some more room so that maybe you will be safer.
Can I use that argument the next time I get caught doing 55 in a 35 zone. "But Judge if you just give me more guidelines and let me drive fast is certain circumstance....I won't drive 55 in school zones."
I don't think so.
The rules are there to protect our cadets and our program....we don't make arbitrary rules just for the heck of it.
click on Nathan's profile.
Speaks volumes.
Quote from: cap235629 on December 29, 2009, 05:52:13 AM
click on Nathan's profile.
Speaks volumes.
You have something against people from Kansas?
(I am just kidding here, I'm not sure I get what's in his profile your referring to)
It must be because he's (only?) 21.
Quote from: SarDragon on December 29, 2009, 06:54:39 AM
It must be because he's (only?) 21.
yes
age
maturity
experience
no children of cadet age
more than likely a prior cadet
good chance has never been in the actual military
When I was 21 the only thing I had in that list was military experience. I see the world a whole lot differently now
The Air Force doesnt do PT? I have seen Air Force folks doing PT.
Quote from: lordmonar on December 29, 2009, 05:51:07 AM
By using the wrong terminology you ruin your creditability.
Spoilsport. :)
It was a half-hearted attempt at sarcasm, but yes, I acknowledge that the correct term would be "punishment." I have no problem using the term, so long as we can acknowledge that CAP does, in fact, punish people, and that using the term "punishment" does not mean that we're doing anything new in terms of how we've been running the cadet program.
But ruining credibility? Come on.
Quote from: lordmonarSo worse then vague guidelines....you got none. If you want to sell your point of view you got to have some sort of idea of what those guidelines are going to be. How we are going to teach those guidelines to our CP members. And how we are going to monitor compliance.
Uh...
You didn't really pick up on the post. Was it too long?
I specifically said that there would be guidelines in place, and that they would be written by people who have the time and energy to research the safety aspects that would be necessary to implement such a program. Not IF it would be safe. I don't think that's a question. Rather, at what point can we call it hazing? At what point would a cadet start translating the physical effort into mental pain?
I COULD go through and write out a detailed, fourteen-page proposition, complete with rules, psychological resources, and so on. But I have ABSOLUTELY no reason to do that, knowing that my ideas are not going to make it off this board. If there was even an inkling of interest from national, AND if I had any part in that movement, then I would have no problem assisting in coming up with a change to CAPR 52-16 that would allow this change. But until that work is shown to pay off, I'm not going to do it. It really wasn't the point of what I wrote anyway. Just because I'm not going to sit here and write out specifics for you to pick apart doesn't mean that the logic behind the idea isn't sound.
Quote from: lordmonarI don't think it makes us more "militaristic'. If we use our parent service, the USAF, as an example...they don't use this sort of corrective action in their standard training program. Positive punishment (the addition of something to stop bad behavior...doing push ups for screw up) is not as affective as positive reinforcement. I can correct bad behavior with out telling people to do push ups.
Sure. We all can. That's no problem. But we don't. I could turn this back around and tell YOU to come up with a plan of action to specifically train people to use "positive reinforcement", but I suspect you don't have the time or desire, right? ;)
But the "more militaristic" term is not that it is necessarily representative of the ACTUAL military (which is why I used the term in quotes most of the time, except, apparently, where you quoted). It's rather how the cadets PERCEIVE the military to act. If they feel like they're in hardcore military training, it doesn't matter so much if they are. It will still motivate them to be proud that they're going through the same challenge they perceive the real military folks to be going through. And, as I said, push-ups, if used correctly, are not harmful. So with a low risk of detriment for most cadet, a moderate chance of benefit, and a fair certainty that less morale harm will be caused by this than by, say, loss of honor points, then I think it doesn't matter if the USAF does things exactly the way we do.
Quote from: lordmonarI never said anything about HMRS...I feel that they don't need to use it there at all. At PJOC....the purpose of the course is to Orient cadets to the PJ career field....and their training includes a lot of push ups. Also in that context the PJOC program is run by professionals who know when to knock it off.
I apologize. I was assuming that when you were talking about PJOC, you were using activities that are regularly known to use push-ups as a justification to use them.
But regardless, I'm not sure that the term "professionals" applies to the PJ's as trainers so much as it does search and rescue experts. I don't know for certain, so I am asking. Are they TRAINED as DIs? How do they know when to knock it off? Who tells them? Just because they're good PJ's doesn't mean that they have any idea when to draw the line with 12-20 year old cadets. What makes them more qualified than any other SM with military background?
I'm not trying to argue against my own case. I'm saying that if we can trust people OUTSIDE of CAP to use physical punishment (which it is, no matter how you want to spin the "training" aspect of it), then I'm not entirely sure why you don't think we could have any current or former military guy write this up for a CAP reg and be just as qualified.
Quote from: lordmonarI agree....but I personally don't think is is possible to properly train the majority of the rank and file CAP member to properly supervise and conduct PT as a punishment tool. We can't get them to follow simple rules like "DON'T DO IT" or "Don't wear white shocks with our uniform". You will have to go a long way to prove to me that the general rank and file is ready to accept the responsibility to have this sort of power.
Actually, we trust the "rank and file" members with cadet safety every single time we put them at encampment. They have the medical records, they have access to the cadets from a position of authority. Every time they go camping, we are trusting these members with the cadets' lives and safety.
Is there going to be a violation of the proposed rule? Absolutely. Are there violations now, when there is no such rule? Yep. The people who are going to break the rules are going to do it anyway. If they're going to drop cadets for 100 push-ups, then they are going to do it regardless of whether or not there is a rule saying no more than a set of five per hour. Regardless of what happens, those people still need to be found out and taken care of.
Quote from: lordmonarNope...spent 22 years in the USAF and never once had to do a push up as a form of punishment. Weeded a lot of sidewalks, painted a couple of buildings and lost a lot of "off duty time" but never one had to do a single push up.
Fair enough, but, as I said, it's the perception that matters more than reality for most younger cadets. Of course I know now that the military isn't at all like I thought it was when I was fourteen. But would I have felt nearly as cool or motivated during encampment if I was sent to weed sidewalks instead of doing some hardcore push-ups? No way.
I'm not saying that we should feed a stereotype. But we should be raising morale, not lowering it. Maybe you think differently when you look back at your 22 years, but I can say that I would much rather have done a few sets of push-ups than weeded a sidewalk, and I would have wasted a LOT less time in the process. In my opinion, if I have enough blank time that a cadet has time to go weed a sidewalk, then I'm not doing my job. But I suppose that's just the difference between the several weeks of boot camp, and the one week of encampment. We have to do more with less time. Push-ups seem like they would be far more effective than wasting time doing chores.
Quote from: lordmonarWon't help....the problem is not the standard so much but the maturity of the audience. I don't think the average cadet...even those that end up on encampment staff are ready to accept that sort of maturity. And the lessons the cadets take back to their home units will be garbled even more. It is at this level where I have my problems as opposed to at encampment.
I can agree with you here. Which is why I don't think I'm the guy qualified to figure out the best training plan. And yes, it would have to be an experiment to see if the cadets could handle that sort of responsibility. But my theory is that, as time has proved over and over, professionals train professionals. If the cadets using the PT were doing it right, then the cadets BEING PT'd would therefore be trained just by experience of how to do it professionally. This goes for many things in CAP. Obviously, it doesn't work 100% of the time, but the main issue would be the start-up. If we got it running smoothly, most of the professionalism issues, with proper senior supervision, would work themselves out the same way experience training seems to work things out.
Quote from: lordmonarYes....that makes sense....you can't be expected to follow the rules...so we'll give you some more room so that maybe you will be safer.
Can I use that argument the next time I get caught doing 55 in a 35 zone. "But Judge if you just give me more guidelines and let me drive fast is certain circumstance....I won't drive 55 in school zones."
I don't think so.
The rules are there to protect our cadets and our program....we don't make arbitrary rules just for the heck of it.
Actually, we do that all the time. Isn't the point of this board to debate such arbitrary rules? :)
Regardless, the only reason that this isn't allowed is trust of our members to do things right. As I said, coddling cadets makes them expect to be coddled. Stop doing so, and they'll stop expecting it. It's not a case of relaxing our standards just because some people don't want to play by the rules. It's the idea that we can open up a tool that the military itself has found useful in instilling discipline, and hopefully allowing us to regulate these PT issues, rather than (ineffectively) just telling people to cut it out.
Quote from: cap235629 on December 29, 2009, 08:02:57 AM
Quote from: SarDragon on December 29, 2009, 06:54:39 AM
It must be because he's (only?) 21.
yes
age
maturity
experience
no children of cadet age
more than likely a prior cadet
good chance has never been in the actual military
When I was 21 the only thing I had in that list was military experience. I see the world a whole lot differently now
That is beyond condescending, especially for you to be stating things that you aren't sure of, and have no way of verifying. You could just, you know, ask what my qualifications are.
Age? 21. I suppose that makes me fairly young compared to you old guys.
Maturity? Not sure how to grade this myself.
Experience? 8 years in cadet programs. Earned the Spaatz award, planned thoroughly and executed a wing encampment as a cadet, numerous awards. Senior member Captain now with senior rating in cadet programs. Hopefully that counts for something toward this particular topic.
Childen? None. Waiting to be done with medical school first.
Prior cadet? Yeah, you got that one. Not sure if that makes me LESS qualified to talk about cadet issues, but whatever.
Not in the actual military? True. Couldn't make it past MEPS for the jobs I was "promised" due to color-blindness. I was offered other jobs, but they had a high chance of deployment, and that would get in the way of the whole "trying to be a doctor" thing. Still, I'm not sure that my lack of experience in the military necessarily makes me less qualified to talk about the cadet programs in CAP, in which, if I may make an assumption based on YOUR profile, I have more experience...
So don't make this personal. Really. It was a pretty low blow of you to take a stab
ad hominem when I said nothing in my post that would even remotely warrant it.
Quote from: flyguy06 on December 29, 2009, 09:01:18 AM
The Air Force doesnt do PT? I have seen Air Force folks doing PT.
Not as punishment. We do PT to improve phisical fitness.
I always thought hazing was a form of initiation and had nothing to do with punishment.
Well, you are a Captain and senior rated in the Cadet Program due to your cadet achievements and not due to anything you have done as a senior member which brings forth some credibility issues for some seniors. I am concernedf that you are a medical student that advocates utilizing PAIN when dealing with cadets. Lastly, I question your closed mindedness regarding accupuncture. Until you have more medical experience than you now have you shouldn't be labeling anything as "quackery". This might be an indication of your lack of maturity. JMHO
N. Harmon, you definately need to look at the CAP definition of hazing..
Quote from: AirAux on December 29, 2009, 05:00:39 PM
Well, you are a Captain and senior rated in the Cadet Program due to your cadet achievements and not due to anything you have done as a senior member which brings forth some credibility issues for some seniors. I am concernedf that you are a medical student that advocates utilizing PAIN when dealing with cadets. Lastly, I question your closed mindedness regarding accupuncture. Until you have more medical experience than you now have you shouldn't be labeling anything as "quackery". This might be an indication of your lack of maturity. JMHO
1) The only reason I pointed out my senior rating and rank is because (per the label) it is representative of my experience, at least as far as CAP is willing to acknowledge. I have 8 years of experience in cadet programs, working at nearly all echelons (even as a cadet). This is a cadet programs issue. I think that my experience is, if nothing else, at least valid to allow me to be, you know, not ignored.
2) Not a medical student yet, to be fair. But regardless, I did not say that I was endorsing pain. I said that physical pain and emotional/psychological pain, while closely related in many situations, are not always so. Which means that cadet can go through physical discomfort and actually enjoy the experience. Much like, as I mentioned, exercise. But saying that I am advocating pain is pretty much a straw-man argument. Try again.
3) Actually, I have this hobby, which is the study of "alternative medicine." It is only because I am a fairly open-minded person that I actually DO the research into these things and read what the literature says. I would start annoyingly linking to every study I know that proves acupuncture is garbage, but I don't, because it has NOTHING to do with this topic. Although, if you're interested, feel free to hit me up via email, and as long as you're okay reading dry, monotonous research, we can make a day out of it.
I find it immensely interesting that MY maturity has been questioned, when I have been twice attacked on a personal level by such people calling me immature without any sort of obvious warrant. To be fair, I have absolutely no problem debating against lordmonar. I've interacted with him enough to know he's a fair poster, and so far, he has gone to the considerable trouble to attack my arguments. I don't mind that. In fact, if I am wrong, that's the way it's going to be proven, and I don't mind being wrong.
You and Hess have decided to attack my character. Is it because the post is a little too long? I would imagine so, since my "prior cadet" status was guessed. Anyone who actually read the post would have seen me state it a few times. That can only lead to the conclusion that my original post was not READ by those attacking my character, which begs the necessity for the attack. Did it seem like I was getting dogpiled, and someone just wanted to get in a cheap-shot?
Seriously. Personal attacks are, dare I say, immature. If you have a reason to disagree with my argument, then state it. It really shouldn't matter whether I am a C/Amn or a Col in the USAF (which is why I don't post my rank). You have something to argue, then do so. Otherwise, go pick a fight with someone else.
Quote from: olefido on December 29, 2009, 01:06:11 AM
The definition of hazing is kind of like the definition of leadership in that everyone has their own interpretation of it and they they think they know either when they see it. All I know is that where you have hazing there is no leadership and where you have leadership there is no hazing.
+1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 :clap:
Quote from: Eclipse on December 28, 2009, 11:06:23 PM
Cadets who expect PT as punishment have been failed by their CAP leaders in properly framing the program.
Whatever the FMJ technique cadets might "want", or leaders think is "necessary", the proper training is not provided by CAP.
DI's, TI's, and RDC's, have been through BMT themselves, and hands-on trained and evaluated in proper technique and disciplinary measures.
Not so in CAP, where the general reaction to anything is yelling, and/or throwing things/banging things, etc., in an increasing tone, until someone with a clue puts a stop to it.
Further, the military is specifically training its people, especially the enlisted personnel, to unquestioningly obey the orders of their superiors immediately and without filter, because lives may be at stake if actions are delayed.
We don't do or need that in CAP, either.
Another issue is consistency of training - most of the reasons you'd "drop" someone at an encampment is because of a uniform, rack, or behavioral infraction. In most cases, the reason for that infraction is because of poor, inconsistent, or conflicting training at his home unit. The proper remediation is not punishment for the failure(s) of other leaders, but correction of the behavior.
Finally, as mentioned above, we have a thick, solid, bright line of behavior today, and despite that, many leaders in CAP can't seem to adhere properly. You dim-down that line and you're asking for trouble.
+1,000,000,000 :clap:
Quote from: AirAux on December 29, 2009, 05:04:24 PM
N. Harmon, you definately need to look at the CAP definition of hazing..
Oh, I know what
CAP's definition of hazing is. I just don't agree with it. It's non-standard terminology, and is embarrassing to me when I tell parents of prospective cadets about our high-speed protection policy that has the looks of having been written by a 9th grader (no offense to ninth graders in present company).
Seriously. Had it not been specifically listed as an example of hazing, would you really consider giving exercise as punishment as fitting the (CAP) definition of "conduct whereby someone causes another to suffer or to be exposed to any activity that is cruel, abusive, humiliating, oppressive, demeaning, or harmful"?
Like Nathan Scalia, I too am a former cadet now SM Captain with a senior rating in cadet programs. I also planned and managed cadet activities, and even was the senior cadet in charge of an operational NCSA. I'm a bit older, but don't really think age matters much given that much experience with the cadet program.
By the way, acupuncture is bunk, and if you don't think so; click this: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?cat=8
The use of PT as punishment by itself is not hazing. But you have to agree that PT as punsihment has been an element of hazing in the past.
The inclusion of the no PT as punishment in the CPP stems from this fact.
It was include because frankly a lot of adults could not keep their eye on the fact that we are supposed to be keeping our cadet safe from both physical and mental abuse.
I would like to add the ability to use PT as punishment in our program.....as a lot of ex-militry people know....it is a short cut in corrective training and when used properly is an effective tool.
But.........(there is aways a but :))
The level of maturity needed to use it properly is not something commonly found in a teenager.
The level of supervision in CAP is wholefully lacking.
The level of knowledge of the cadet program by even master rated CP people is sometimes disheartening.
The educational value of this type of correction is not worth the potential for abuse.
And that is the bottom line.
Pro: Some cadets expect and want to get dropped because they think it is "miliatary".
Pro: In some situations it serves a useful tool for correction, attention getting and improves phisical fitness.
Con: To easy to use in the wrong situations
Con: Not all (I dare say the majority) of cadets don't want it or expect it.
Con: Too hard to train leaders (cadets and seniors) in the proper use of this technique.
Con: Too hard to supervise (at all levels) those who have been taught it.
Con: Too much potential for harming cadets, retention and the rest of the aims of the Cadet Program.
Do any of those points NOT apply to things we do instead of PT?
Examples...
A C/Col I know (who probably should not have made it to C/Col) punished a flight at encampment by making them mop their floor during a break time. Then, when he found out how fast they had gotten it done, he trampled through their barracks with muddy boots and made them clean it again.
Two cadets were caught running around doing spirit missions at night. The commander said he would deal with it in the morning, but handed them over to the cadet staff to deal with. The cadets were made to clean the kitchen until the morning, with no sleep.
The potential for abuse is in ANY situation, and it all is hinged on SM supervision and proper training of cadets. The difference, as far as I see it, is that a set of five push-ups as a rule-of-thumb is MUCH easier to "traditionalize" than some other method of punishment, ie chores. The only way to make 5 push-ups harder is to increase it to ten, or twenty, or a thousand. But with chores, or losing honor points... well, that's more subjective of a punishment, and MUCH more prone to abuse than a set of push-ups.
I don't doubt that there are problems in any situation. I'm just stating that if we're worried about the ability to effectively use punishments, and that our audience isn't going to be capable of being creative enough to be particularly compassionate in doing so, then PT is a far safer way to go. A cadet told to do a thousand push-ups has a much better chance of knowing he or she is being hazed and reporting it than a cadet who is made to clean the barracks for fifteen hours.
I think some members of this board are confused about the air force use of Pt for punishment. The air force still uses Pt as punishment (or reinforcement or whatever fancy name you want to give it) in basic training and Technical schools. Once you reach your first base, Pt is banned as a punishment, and can only be done as group pt or during pt test (or designated pt time during duty hours).
I think (maybe) that Nathan is advocating for the use of a more militaristic basic encampment that includes pt. I haven't made up my mind on this yet so...
The cheap shots at his age have bothered me. I am 22 and have a lot of real world experience. I spent 12 months in Iraq doing combat convoys, crossed trained into a different job in the air force. Married at 18 (no children), was a cadet captain before I joined the active duty AF. Did a stent as a tech school instructor, attended CPET, and graduated first in my class out of both tech schools I attended. There's more, but I'll stop. Once again this is a problem in cap. The idea from the old guys, that the new guys can bring nothing to the table is wrong. Please don't judge someone on their age alone, for you have no idea what this person knows or has done in their life.
Quote from: N Harmon on December 29, 2009, 05:49:33 PM
Quote from: AirAux on December 29, 2009, 05:04:24 PM
N. Harmon, you definately need to look at the CAP definition of hazing..
Oh, I know what CAP's definition of hazing is. I just don't agree with it. It's non-standard terminology, and is embarrassing to me when I tell parents of prospective cadets about our high-speed protection policy that has the looks of having been written by a 9th grader (no offense to ninth graders in present company).
Actually, that was a 9th grader at the DOD, since CAP adheres to and enforces the same exact policy as the DOD.
Quote from: N Harmon on December 29, 2009, 05:49:33 PM
Seriously. Had it not been specifically listed as an example of hazing, would you really consider giving exercise as punishment as fitting the (CAP) definition of "conduct whereby someone causes another to suffer or to be exposed to any activity that is cruel, abusive, humiliating, oppressive, demeaning, or harmful"?
Yes, in fact, its a perfect textbook example.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 29, 2009, 07:12:29 PM
Quote from: N Harmon on December 29, 2009, 05:49:33 PM
Seriously. Had it not been specifically listed as an example of hazing, would you really consider giving exercise as punishment as fitting the (CAP) definition of "conduct whereby someone causes another to suffer or to be exposed to any activity that is cruel, abusive, humiliating, oppressive, demeaning, or harmful"?
Yes, in fact, its a perfect textbook example.
Fair enough. Would you like to justify, then, how a set of push-ups qualifies as "conduct whereby someone causes another to suffer or to be exposed to any activity that is cruel, abusive, humiliating, oppressive, demeaning, or harmful" for CAP? I had to add the "for CAP" in there, since none of the military branches seem to believe that PT fits the definition, and I am assuming that by citing the DOD using this definition, you were asserting the credibility in relation to push-ups.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 29, 2009, 07:12:29 PM
Actually, that was a 9th grader at the DOD, since CAP adheres to and enforces the same exact policy as the DOD.
Can you point out a single DoD policy that uses the same circular logic of defining three different types of abuse (in our case; sexual, physical, and hazing) and then going back and saying one of them is actually just a different form of another? Can you point out a single DoD policy on hazing that fails to specifically state that "administrative corrective measures" are NOT hazing; despite CAP's policy saying that it is?
Quote
Quote from: N Harmon on December 29, 2009, 05:49:33 PM
Seriously. Had it not been specifically listed as an example of hazing, would you really consider giving exercise as punishment as fitting the (CAP) definition of "conduct whereby someone causes another to suffer or to be exposed to any activity that is cruel, abusive, humiliating, oppressive, demeaning, or harmful"?
Yes, in fact, its a perfect textbook example.
So, which of those would punitive PT fall under? Certainly it would not be cruel, abusive, demeaning, or harmful if you can do PT for non-punitive reasons. Is it humiliating? Oppressive? Which one? How is it a textbook example of any of them?
Quote from: Nathan on December 29, 2009, 07:16:07 PM
Fair enough. Would you like to justify, then, how a set of push-ups qualifies as "conduct whereby someone causes another to suffer or to be exposed to any activity that is cruel, abusive, humiliating, oppressive, demeaning, or harmful" for CAP? I had to add the "for CAP" in there, since none of the military branches seem to believe that PT fits the definition, and I am assuming that by citing the DOD using this definition, you were asserting the credibility in relation to push-ups.
Nathan, you and I both know that "PT" is not hazing - the fact that you're trying to somehow make this the argument for others says you're running out of steam. No one here is saying PT, done for the purpose of fitness, is hazing or wrong.
PT is PT, period.
However using pushups to help a cadet use the word "Sir" properly, or measure his badges is just silly.
Something else being missed here and on CS - we don't "own" our cadets 24x7, yet you're suggesting the use of a technique from a service which does. A TI, and the military in general, is responsible for providing for the welfare of a recruit or trainee 24x7, for all needs, physical and emotional, for the duration of BMT, and generally years after.
Techniques which are potentially humiliating or harmful are backed up by training and observation - we don't do that in CAP. We drop a kid in front of his buddies, maybe he can't do them right (which makes it worse), and then he's sent home 20 minutes later to stew about it outside the protection of the environment which caused the issue, and perhaps with no support at home or further pressures, etc.
You may well be surprised at just how fragile young people actually are, especially adolescents, and not everyone has the support structure or framework to deal with disappointment and failure in a positive way - not to mention the social network nonsense where a cadet can then go home, log on and get more grief from his "buds" about screwing up.
I have to deal with this all the time as an encampment CC and a parent. Those "harmless" pushups, may be all it takes to cause a cadet to quit CAP or much worse, and since CAP can't provide the 24x7 basis of support to move past the issue, we need to stay away from it completely.
Wishing kids weren't as they are today won't change where the are.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 29, 2009, 07:31:49 PM
However using pushups to help a cadet use the word "Sir" properly, or measure his badges is just silly.
The only point I make is that it being silly and ineffective, and NOT leadership does not make it hazing.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 29, 2009, 07:31:49 PM
\Nathan, you and I both know that "PT" is not hazing - the fact that you're trying to somehow make this the argument for others says you're running out of steam. No one here is saying PT, done for the purpose of fitness, is hazing or wrong.
PT is PT, period.
However using pushups to help a cadet use the word "Sir" properly, or measure his badges is just silly.
Maybe, maybe not. That's what we're trying to decide. As I said, the push-ups are not inherently harmful if used properly, and can be less harmful than deducting honor points, chores, or whatever other time-wasting activities we use instead. PT just registers as a punishment without actually making the cadet less likely to achieve some goal, which is much better than most methods used now. And if I'm running out of steam, it's because I'm having to repeat this point over and over again with no counterargument as to why THIS point is incorrect. :)
Quote from: EclipseSomething else being missed here and on CS - we don't "own" our cadets 24x7, yet you're suggesting the use of a technique from a service which does. A TI, and the military in general, is responsible for providing for the welfare of a recruit or trainee 24x7, for all needs, physical and emotional, for the duration of BMT, and generally years after.
Techniques which are potentially humiliating or harmful are backed up by training and observation - we don't do that in CAP. We drop a kid in front of his buddies, maybe he can't do them right (which makes it worse), and then he's sent home 20 minutes later to stew about it outside the protection of the environment which caused the issue, and perhaps with no support at home or further pressures, etc.
You are correct. We don't own our cadets 24x7. And this would be important if the way you are viewing this technique was the same way I am. But, given that you seem to think that I am advocating dropping a cadet in front of everyone (a clearly humiliating experience), I would imagine that you didn't read my caveats. I said that this is NOT supposed to be a form of individual punishment. PT is and always will be a team activity, whether during testing or otherwise. There is no excuse for having a cadet doing push-ups on his own in front of a flight, commander, or whatever.
Once you change that aspect of your perception of this, then there isn't any need for "follow up" or "observation", because there is no humiliation. There is simply a registering of "I was punished. I will not do this again" with no harm, physical or psychological. In fact, because we don't "own our people" like the military does, that makes an even GREATER case for using a quick, superficial punishment like a set of push-ups rather than the other methods we use, which affect morale. Being the reason that a flight lost honor points, and therefore didn't get honor flight, is HUGELY demoralizing. I've had to mentor cadets in tears due to this exact issue.
So read the post again, and see what I am saying. I am NOT advocating hazing. I am NOT advocating humiliation, physical pain or torture, singling out, or demoralization. In fact, I see push-ups as a way to stem off these problems, as I think that the majority of what we have open to us as an option, which includes restraining cadets from things they WANT to do in CAP, goes far more into the area of hazing potential than push-ups ever could.
Quote from: N Harmon on December 29, 2009, 07:38:25 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on December 29, 2009, 07:31:49 PM
However using pushups to help a cadet use the word "Sir" properly, or measure his badges is just silly.
The only point I make is that it being silly and ineffective, and NOT leadership does not make it hazing.
In a coffee house or committee discussion about what
should be CAP policy, perhaps, however based on current rules, you are incorrect.
Quote from: Nathan on December 29, 2009, 07:42:40 PM
So read the post again, and see what I am saying. I am NOT advocating hazing.
No, you are looking to
redefine hazing to allow what is currently considered a harmful practice to no longer
be hazing - basically the same thing.
Bottom line, you believe push-ups are an effective tool for discipline and training. You add 3000 words of caveats and asterisks because you, yourself, recognize the inherent issues with abuse and incorrect technique, yet you will persist in this assertion despite the fact that adults with far more experience than you, including those with significant experience as military trainers, and current doctrine of military training itself disagrees with you.
I don't think there's much room for a discussion there.
Quote from: NCRblues on December 29, 2009, 06:59:01 PM
The cheap shots at his age have bothered me. I am 22 and have a lot of real world experience. I spent 12 months in Iraq doing combat convoys, crossed trained into a different job in the air force. Married at 18 (no children), was a cadet captain before I joined the active duty AF. Did a stent as a tech school instructor, attended CPET, and graduated first in my class out of both tech schools I attended. There's more, but I'll stop. Once again this is a problem in cap. The idea from the old guys, that the new guys can bring nothing to the table is wrong. Please don't judge someone on their age alone, for you have no idea what this person knows or has done in their life.
Nathan and I have had "discussions" in the past where his personality, experience and maturity have been abundantly clear. Rather than rehash them I posted a comment to have people draw their own conclusions. I like you was a married veteran at age 21. I knew from personal experience that Nathan was not and did not in any way mean to paint all younger senior members with the same brush. If I offended anyone by doing so I apologize.
I really enjoyed the film "Full Metal Jacket".
Even when it first came out in 1987 (I was a squadron CDC then) my cadet officers (and BTW, I was one too back in the day!) also enjoyed it...understanding several things:
1) it was a work of fiction
2) whatever facts it was based on were from an earlier time
3) the individuals depicted in the movie were training for COMBAT
Corrective actions in CAP need to focus on the problem...in other words, must be remedial rather than punitive.
We're all entitled to our personal opinions -- but anyone who cannot accept and adhere to regulations should not be working with cadets ..actually, should not be in CAP.
And anyone that can't maintain discipline without physical punishment or mental degradation/humiliation of individuals is not much of a leader, let alone "officer".
Quote from: Eclipse on December 29, 2009, 07:43:40 PM
In a coffee house or committee discussion about what should be CAP policy, perhaps, however based on current rules, you are incorrect.
Huh? The CAP regulation does not say punitive PT is hazing because it's silly and ineffective. It is hazing because the reg says it is hazing. Nobody denies that
CAP's definition of hazing includes punitive PT. We're just pointing out 1) that is inconsistent with the military, and 2) the reasons to forbid punitive PT are less about cadet protection and more about effective leadership.
You made the claim that if punitive PT were not specifically mentioned in the regulation that it would otherwise be clearly known as it is a "textbook example". In re:35 you say it is harmful. How is punitive PT more harmful than regular PT?
Quote from: N Harmon on December 29, 2009, 07:57:48 PMIn re:35 you say it is harmful. How is punitive PT more harmful than regular PT?
As regular PT is not "harmful", and I never made the assertion it is, this question is unanswerable.
Quote from: N Harmon on December 29, 2009, 07:57:48 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on December 29, 2009, 07:43:40 PM
In a coffee house or committee discussion about what should be CAP policy, perhaps, however based on current rules, you are incorrect.
Huh? The CAP regulation does not say punitive PT is hazing because it's silly and ineffective. It is hazing because the reg says it is hazing. Nobody denies that CAP's definition of hazing includes punitive PT. We're just pointing out 1) that is inconsistent with the military, and 2) the reasons to forbid punitive PT are less about cadet protection and more about effective leadership.
You made the claim that if punitive PT were not specifically mentioned in the regulation that it would otherwise be clearly known as it is a "textbook example". In re:35 you say it is harmful. How is punitive PT more harmful than regular PT?
1) "inconsistent with the rest of the military" -- CAP is not military; cadets are not airmen, soldiers, sailors or Marines. Basic Encampment is not military basic training, but an orientation to CAP and the USAF which includes some curriculum elements of recruit training
2) ineffective leadership IS a hazard to cadets, as well as to CAP operational personnel
3) punitive PT often involves emotional degradation, which is generally a poor way to train anyone, particularly adolescents who are still forming personal identities...further there is the very real possibility of physically pushing the individual beyond capabilities (e.g., 'you'll do pushups till you drop!')
Quote from: Eclipse on December 29, 2009, 08:06:31 PM
As regular PT is not "harmful", and I never made the assertion it is, this question is unanswerable.
You made the assertion that punitive PT is harmful. I would like to know how. Like, what is it about the punitive nature that makes it harmful? It seems to me that the only way to make that case is to characterize the punitive PT in a way that would be equally as abusive even if it weren't punitive. For example, ZigZag911 asserted that an individual receiving punitive PT might be pushed beyond his/her capability. In such a case isn't it the manner of delivery and not the punitive nature that is to blame for that? Like, is it not just as easy to push individuals beyond capability in a regular PT setting?
The entire premise of this thread is indicative of one of the problems facing CAP. There is this underlying (and sometimes overt) emphasis on "punishment". I've seen it in the way we deal with incidents (pilots) all the way down to how cadets are "taught" at encampments. It's prevalent enough to consider it a cultural issue and one that apparently stems from ignorance.
I trust the people that foster these viewpoints have never been in a real world leadership and/or team environment because they very clearly don't understand it. It's particularly disturbing when these comments come from those that are supposedly in leadership roles, particularly if they are CC or DCC's. I mean, seriously – physical punishment?! Moreover, who the hell wants to be part of that organization?!
A primary goal of the cadet program is to develop leadership skills -- skills that transcend CAP. As leaders, our approach should be to teach, enable, and inspire cadets. Our goal is to effectively make the experience more valuable and pertinent to each cadet. It should build confidence. How does "punitive PT" align with these objectives? Answer: It doesn't...and it's foolish. There is clearly a role for PT but it has nothing to do with punishment.
So, yes, I will call you narrow minded...but I will not call you a leader.
Quote from: ZigZag911 on December 29, 2009, 07:53:21 PM
I really enjoyed the film "Full Metal Jacket".
Even when it first came out in 1987 (I was a squadron CDC then) my cadet officers (and BTW, I was one too back in the day!) also enjoyed it...understanding several things:
1) it was a work of fiction
2) whatever facts it was based on were from an earlier time
3) the individuals depicted in the movie were training for COMBAT
Corrective actions in CAP need to focus on the problem...in other words, must be remedial rather than punitive.
We're all entitled to our personal opinions -- but anyone who cannot accept and adhere to regulations should not be working with cadets ..actually, should not be in CAP.
And anyone that can't maintain discipline without physical punishment or mental degradation/humiliation of individuals is not much of a leader, let alone "officer".
:clap:
I think Nathan has presented a pretty good case (argued better than most proposals put forward here) and with proper regulation and training I wouldn't have a problem with it in encampment environments.
That being said, I wonder if getting this done would fall into the "more trouble than its worth" category? Writing the regs might not be that hard, but fighting the mindset behind our current system would be an incredibly hard battle. Quite frankly, with the "safety only" point of view gaining ascendency, I'm somewhat surprised CAP cadets are still doing PT and participating in ES and trying to make this change would seem to be tilting at windmills.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 29, 2009, 07:49:55 PM
Quote from: Nathan on December 29, 2009, 07:42:40 PM
So read the post again, and see what I am saying. I am NOT advocating hazing.
No, you are looking to redefine hazing to allow what is currently considered a harmful practice to no longer be hazing - basically the same thing.
Well... no. From the definition of hazing I see, push-ups do not fit the criteria. So no, I think the definition of hazing works, at least if it's followed the way it's written. I'm interested to know what the justification for disallowing punitive PT under the "hazing" definition is, since I cannot figure it out myself.
Quote from: EclipseBottom line, you believe push-ups are an effective tool for discipline and training. You add 3000 words of caveats and asterisks because you, yourself, recognize the inherent issues with abuse and incorrect technique, yet you will persist in this assertion despite the fact that adults with far more experience than you, including those with significant experience as military trainers, and current doctrine of military training itself disagrees with you.
I don't think there's much room for a discussion there.
Oh. Right.
The "trust in our sage wisdom" argument really gets old. It's a complete, 100% cop-out argument, and it really lends nothing to the discussion. You use it a LOT, and it never proves any point. It's just condescending. I have asked you multiple times to help me figure out how push-ups qualify as hazing, per the definition you so kindly pointed out that the DOD shares. If you are unable to do that, just own up and say you can't. But don't talk down to me because of your "greater experience." It doesn't make your argument correct on that basis alone.
Quote from: cap235629Nathan and I have had "discussions" in the past where his personality, experience and maturity have been abundantly clear. Rather than rehash them I posted a comment to have people draw their own conclusions. I like you was a married veteran at age 21. I knew from personal experience that Nathan was not and did not in any way mean to paint all younger senior members with the same brush.
Um... this must have been either a LONG time ago, or really, really trivial, because I don't really know what you're talking about. And, on a hunch, I have a suspicion that you wouldn't be discrediting my opinion due to my age or "lack of experience" if we were on the same side of this debate. Once again, if you have something about the argument to say, say it. But I haven't been personally insulting to you, and I don't see what benefit you're getting by trying to insult me. ::)
Quote from: A.Member on December 29, 2009, 09:41:33 PM
The entire premise of this thread is indicative of one of the problems facing CAP. There is this underlying (and sometimes overt) emphasis on "punishment". I've seen it in the way we deal with incidents (pilots) all the way down to how cadets are "taught" at encampments. It's prevalent enough to consider it a cultural issue and one that apparently stems from ignorance.
I really should shorten it, because I stated in there very clearly that I am not saying we should replace everything with PT. I still understand and regularly use mentoring, positive reinforcement, and so on. I am not advocating punishment over everything else, so the "emphasis" you're seeing just isn't there.
But I am not naive enough to think that there is never a situation warranting a punishment in CAP. And, as I've said, we are fairly limited in the punitive actions we are permitted to take, when punishment is in fact necessary. We can write out a 2b or go to demotion, or we can give them a slap on the wrist with little bite. Everything else is left to the creative commander, and that generally involves depriving the cadet of certain aspects of CAP, whether it is honor points, ability to attend certain activities, or whatever. We NEED a middle ground that doesn't deprive the cadet of the experience CAP is supposed to provide. Punitive PT is laughably trivial in terms of morale damage, when used properly, as compared to even a mild loss of honor points.
No offense, but the rest of your post was based off of the assertion that I am a punishment-focused leader, and that is not the case, so I'm not going to counterpoint anything more than that. I consider myself pretty well-versed in the leadership literature and theories, if not the practice. The focus of this THREAD was punishment, but that doesn't translate into my leadership style, just one aspect of it that all commanders will at some point need to exercise.
Quote from: Nathan on December 30, 2009, 01:47:30 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on December 29, 2009, 07:49:55 PM
Quote from: Nathan on December 29, 2009, 07:42:40 PM
So read the post again, and see what I am saying. I am NOT advocating hazing.
No, you are looking to redefine hazing to allow what is currently considered a harmful practice to no longer be hazing - basically the same thing.
Well... no. From the definition of hazing I see, push-ups do not fit the criteria. So no, I think the definition of hazing works, at least if it's followed the way it's written. I'm interested to know what the justification for disallowing punitive PT under the "hazing" definition is, since I cannot figure it out myself.
Nathan
Let me give it a try. This might not satisfy your or anyone else's questions but it is my point of view as an Encampment Commander.
Actual case.
Cadet Flight Leader is seen giving his flight push ups by Commandant of Cadets.
Commandant asks why.
CFL says that Cadet John Doe had the worst rack in inspection for third day in a row, his scores are going down. I dressed him down in front of the flight and told the flight that they would do push ups as a flight because of Doe's poor performance.
COC asks CFL don't you think that you might be crossing the line here toward hazing?
CFL oh no it's not hazing because I made the whole flight do it and I am using it as a teaching tool.
COC comes to me as Encampment Commander: What do you want to do?
Encampment Commander: Pull the CFL and have him go through some consulting on leadership and RST/CPPT AGAIN. Sees the error of his ways and returns to the flight as commander.
End of story..................
Is this hazing? Are the push ups in and of themselves hazing? I would say the act of push ups were not BUT when combined with everything else that happened I would say YES. At the very least by the regulations it is in a very grey area and my gut tells me that the grey area is where most of the problems occur because that is where you might not consider it hazing but someone else might. Does that make it hazing? Again not necessarily BUT..............
Now think about this.........
Cadet Doe calls home that night and tells mommy that he his being harassed because he cant make his bunk Mommy calls squadron commander and uses the magic word hazing. Squadron Commander does his part and calls Wing CC. Then I have to spend the night (till 2am) on the phone, and I do mean night, with the Wing Commander and the Gen Counsel at NHQ because Mommy says her kid has been harassed and wants to know what I have done about it.
The first thing the Wing CC and GC ask is WHY WHERE THEY DOING PUSH UPS?
This is why I don't let this stuff happen and why now that CFL gets relieved, sent home and a flag placed on his name that he won't be back next year. That is why my staff spends hours documenting what happened and why and where the break down occurred so that it doesn't happen again. This is why we screen our senior members very carefully so that they don't do or encourage the same thing.
Yes we spend many an hour documenting things that are not hazing or that are grey area events because YOU don't know when Mommy or Daddy are going to claim that Johnny was harassed/hazed/mistreated etc so forth at nausea. It's the world we live in and its also the balancing act we must follow with in the frame work of the rules and regulations.
And last but not least, as Encampment Commander I set the rules. And my rules are no push ups or anything related or similar as the sort as punishment. Period.
And as a cadet or senior at the encampment where I am commander, if you don't like it, don't come or go home. I don't know you Nathan, never have meet you and only know you through your post. Don't care really about any of the rest of the stuff that has been thrown in the discussion. But as a person who advocates your point of view I would be very leery of letting you attend my encampment. And if I was so persuaded by my staff to let you attend, you would be on a very short leash until it was determined if you could let your views be superseded by the encampment policy.
And as a squadron commander or group commander I wouldn't sign any member's paperwork for them to attend an encampment where such activities occur.
To be fair, your first example is a situation that violate our current rules as an argument against changing our rules. Doesn't make a lot of sense. Sure, they're wrong, but what does that have to do with this? Your second example illustrates that some parents will always complain no matter how benign the rule is.
I think Nathan's argument rests upon the implementation of very strict guidelines and rules about when such things could be done and about which everyone (including parents) would be informed up front.
Quote from: RiverAux on December 30, 2009, 03:47:26 AM
To be fair, your first example is a situation that violate our current rules as an argument against changing our rules. Doesn't make a lot of sense. Sure, they're wrong, but what does that have to do with this? Your second example illustrates that some parents will always complain no matter how benign the rule is.
Actually, it is the perfect example of why we will never again see PT of any sort allowed for punishment in CAP, because when people cannot be trusted to follow the most simple guidelines, ones that are made clear, repeated often, and have absolutely no wiggle room, NHQ is not going to be interested or inclined to even consider allowing for some latitude in this respect.
This is both a program issue (i.e. a lack of training, oversight, and consequences), and a people problem (people, ultimately, do whatever they want, regardless of what they are told to do).
During RST, you say, in short-syllable words, "PT may not be used as punishment under any cricumstances."
Then you spend 15 minutes answering the same questions over and over while cadets and seniors on staff search for some crack in the
armor of the above sentence.
Then you say it again as a closing..."PT may not be used as punishment under any cricumstances."
You reiterate it throughout other planning sessions. And of course this is supposed to be the mantra at the home unit as well.
And these are going to be cadets and seniors with multiple encampments and large activities, who likely have to sit through the same RST
2-3 times a year.
And then, inevitably, every year, at just about every encampment, at least one Flt Sgt, or Flt CC is standing in someone's office explaining
how the push-ups (or other) he was making his poorly-performing flight were "ok", and somehow, despite all the repetition, the TACs and some others in the chain let it go as well, because they "weren't sure", or worse "thought they could use it..." (assuming it wasn't a senior idea to start).
Quote from: Eclipse on December 30, 2009, 04:46:59 AM
Actually, it is the perfect example of why we will never again see PT of any sort allowed for punishment in CAP, because when people cannot be trusted to follow the most simple guidelines, ones that are made clear, repeated often, and have absolutely no wiggle room, NHQ is not going to be interested or inclined to even consider allowing for some latitude in this respect.
This is both a program issue (i.e. a lack of training, oversight, and consequences), and a people problem (people, ultimately, do whatever they want, regardless of what they are told to do).
During RST, you say, in short-syllable words, "PT may not be used as punishment under any cricumstances."
Then you spend 15 minutes answering the same questions over and over while cadets and seniors on staff search for some crack in the
armor of the above sentence.
Then you say it again as a closing..."PT may not be used as punishment under any cricumstances."
You reiterate it throughout other planning sessions. And of course this is supposed to be the mantra at the home unit as well.
And these are going to be cadets and seniors with multiple encampments and large activities, who likely have to sit through the same RST
2-3 times a year.
And then, inevitably, every year, at just about every encampment, at least one Flt Sgt, or Flt CC is standing in someone's office explaining
how the push-ups (or other) he was making his poorly-performing flight were "ok", and somehow, despite all the repetition, the TACs and some others in the chain let it go as well, because they "weren't sure", or worse "thought they could use it..." (assuming it wasn't a senior idea to start).
First point: You either are very unlucky, or your wing has profoundly stupid people in it. I have not had the same problems you have as consistently as you seem to have them.
Second point: When it does happen, it's going to happen REGARDLESS. This is what I can't figure out about your argument, so please, read this next part carefully, and help me figure out your point.
You say that people are going to break the rules, and they can't be trusted. Fine. I'm following you. Then you say that when people break the rules, it can result in hazing. Yes, I'm still with you. Then you use the example that when you tell people NOT to use PT, they still use it. Good example to illustrate the above point.
Then, somehow, you expect me to understand the conclusion that "therefore, regulated PT is out of the question, because the rules are going to be broken, and it will result in hazing."
Uh... what????
You went to all the trouble to tell me that rules are being broken now, and hazing is happening now, and somehow, that's supposed to be a reason that we should keep things they way they are? That's somehow telling me that trying to allow push-ups in a regulated fashion is going to somehow make the situation worse? Why? This is the part I'm not figuring out.
From what you're saying, the push-ups are happening anyway. And when they do happen, it's either a problem because it's real hazing, or it's a problem because it's hazing per CAP (but not necessarily following the DOD definition of hazing, which I am STILL waiting for you to justify as a proper label for push-ups). So my solution is to get rid of the garbage that we label hazing by allowing it in a REGULATED manner, hopefully resulting in at least a few of the problem people being trained to use PT correctly instead of in a hazing manner. Is it going to stop the people who are hazing now? No. Is it going to make it easier for them to haze? No...
I don't mean to sound like I'm trying to be insulting, but you've been jumping around, pointing out flaws that I can't figure out. So I'm going to take the blame and say that I am obviously missing something here, and I hope for my sake that I'm not the only one confused about what you're trying to prove. So here is what I want to know, very clealy written out. Feel free to label, if you want.
1) Please, please, please explain how a set of five push-ups is properly labeled as "conduct whereby someone causes another to suffer or to be exposed to any activity that is cruel, abusive, humiliating, oppressive, demeaning, or harmful." I can't figure it out, and I'm not sure what CAP's justification is. Since you seem to be so sure that push-ups are hazing, I have the utmost confidence you can (finally) do this simple task, which is so fundamental to your argument (I think).
2) Please tell me how, under the assumption that you complete task 1 above, push-ups being regulated is going to make our current hazing worse, when the hazing is occurring from rule-breakers anyway. It is of my opinion that if push-ups are allowed, then it will control those who want to do push-ups with regulations that make it SAFER for our cadets, and the people who still won't play ball are the ones who are breaking the rules now anyway.
3) Please justify to me how we, the general CAP population, in all of our stupidity and incompetence, cannot be trusted with a simple "five push-ups her hour, 10 sets per day" rule (or whatever) addition to 52-16, when we are the SAME senior member population who are in charge of ensuring cadets' safety during all CAP activities, the same population that flies cadets in aircraft, and drives cadets, and holds cadet medication, and teaches discipline, leadership, drug abstinence, etc.
Not only that, but also let me know how a cadet who is in actual danger of being hurt by PT is not going to be smart enough to just, you know, STOP doing push-ups and immediately report the behavior to one of the few shining beacons of hope among senior members (which I'm assuming you are, right?). Because the rest of us are apparently sitting around with our thumbs in our mouths, trying to figure out if it's spelled "hasing" or "haseing" and clearly not doing our jobs.
EDIT: Ranting typos...
EDIT AGAIN: Because I was being kind of a prick.
Its easy.
When you draw a line and people cross it, you don't move the line further out so they when its inevitably crossed they are in even more trouble then before.
Beyond that, I'm done.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 30, 2009, 05:32:59 AM
Its easy.
When you draw a line and people cross it, you don't move the line further out so they when its inevitably crossed they are in even more trouble then before.
Beyond that, I'm done.
Alright... except that was one of the points I asked you to clarify anyway, so I guess it's nice we don't have to go "beyond that."
How are we moving the line "farther out?" The people who are dropping cadets NOW are dropping them for thirty push-ups a set. If we set the line at five, then the people who will be hazing will still be dropping cadets for thirty push-ups a set. This isn't a situation that seems like it would get built upon. Rather, chances are high that the people who ARE dropping for thirty now would be dropping for five should such a rule come out. If they don't, they're still breaking the rules, and they're crossing the line from push-ups into the "suffering" part of your hazing definition.
Nathan,
You ask: (1) Please, please, please explain how a set of five push-ups is properly labeled as "conduct whereby someone causes another to suffer or to be exposed to any activity that is cruel, abusive, humiliating, oppressive, demeaning, or harmful."
The very words used in the definition of hazing are very broadly defined. They are purposely set up to be defined by the abused, not the abusee. A lot of this is based upon and derived from civil rights as defined in the U.S. They are used this way to protect the smallest and weakest and this includes psychologically. To be called in front of one's peers and made to do some task (such as push-ups) can be considered to be demeaning by some and humiliating by others. It's not unheard of for a cadet to be remiss in some task because they were requested (or told) to do something else when they should have been doing the first thing. For this person to be "punished" is unjust to say the least and possibly abusive. A cadet once left his watch in the restroom and had to stand in front of his squadron and sing "I'm a little tea pot, short and stout, here is my handle, here is my spout", while going through the accompaning motions. Hazing? Only if the cadet that sang thinks so? How about the cadet in ranks that decided to never go to another encampment based upon this observation? We are a volunteer organization and people as young as 12 are entrusted to our care. We are not here to break down and unify a group of 18-24 year olds as happens in active duty. The reg's are what they are. If you want to change them, there are channels to do so. However, as a legal officer, if I get a complaint from any cadet or parent that you have dropped them for punishment and they consider it hazing, get ready for at least a suspension until we work it out. This is not an area to fool around in and is considered very serious by those of us with a lot of experience. We don't need a black eye with the public or a public relations problem because of your interpretation of a well accepted regulation. All of our cadets are not equal and are not to be considered equal. We are here to offer our cadets a meaningful experience, weither they are 100% GI Joe or a cadet with psychological or physical handicaps. Several seasoned members have tried to explain the folly of your premise and you refuse to see the light. This may be attributed to a lack of overall experience in the program or a lack of maturity. Either of these are to be expected of someone of you age and level of senior member experience, however, there is no reason to not accept the opinions of those that know more than you. I am not attacking you personally, I am saying that you don't appear to have the experience or maturity to listen to reason..
Quote from: capchiro on December 30, 2009, 02:17:31 PM
Nathan,
You ask: (1) Please, please, please explain how a set of five push-ups is properly labeled as "conduct whereby someone causes another to suffer or to be exposed to any activity that is cruel, abusive, humiliating, oppressive, demeaning, or harmful."
The very words used in the definition of hazing are very broadly defined. They are purposely set up to be defined by the abused, not the abusee. A lot of this is based upon and derived from civil rights as defined in the U.S. They are used this way to protect the smallest and weakest and this includes psychologically. To be called in front of one's peers and made to do some task (such as push-ups) can be considered to be demeaning by some and humiliating by others. It's not unheard of for a cadet to be remiss in some task because they were requested (or told) to do something else when they should have been doing the first thing. For this person to be "punished" is unjust to say the least and possibly abusive. A cadet once left his watch in the restroom and had to stand in front of his squadron and sing "I'm a little tea pot, short and stout, here is my handle, here is my spout", while going through the accompaning motions. Hazing? Only if the cadet that sang thinks so? How about the cadet in ranks that decided to never go to another encampment based upon this observation? We are a volunteer organization and people as young as 12 are entrusted to our care. We are not here to break down and unify a group of 18-24 year olds as happens in active duty. The reg's are what they are. If you want to change them, there are channels to do so. However, as a legal officer, if I get a complaint from any cadet or parent that you have dropped them for punishment and they consider it hazing, get ready for at least a suspension until we work it out. This is not an area to fool around in and is considered very serious by those of us with a lot of experience. We don't need a black eye with the public or a public relations problem because of your interpretation of a well accepted regulation. All of our cadets are not equal and are not to be considered equal. We are here to offer our cadets a meaningful experience, weither they are 100% GI Joe or a cadet with psychological or physical handicaps. Several seasoned members have tried to explain the folly of your premise and you refuse to see the light. This may be attributed to a lack of overall experience in the program or a lack of maturity. Either of these are to be expected of someone of you age and level of senior member experience, however, there is no reason to not accept the opinions of those that know more than you. I am not attacking you personally, I am saying that you don't appear to have the experience or maturity to listen to reason..
Wow, why do I have the feeling you were talking about me.
I actually agree with most of what you said. Hazing is subjective ans since it is its best just not to do any of it period. I could stare at somebody for a longtime and they could say its hazing.
You say we are not trying to break down a group of 18-24 year olds and trying to unify them. That was a basic training reference. What do you feel our goal is? Are we justto have a boy scout type organization where cadets come and play games and have fun? I am not trying to sound facicious. That is a legitimate question. With this new positon I have I have to be totally objective and follow the rules to the tee. I realize that and am prepared to do that. But I am curious what you think our goal in the cp is. I used to think it was to train leaders. pilots and future SAR professionals. I like to get others opinions as well.
Quote from: Nathan on December 30, 2009, 05:24:11 AM
First point: You either are very unlucky, or your wing has profoundly stupid people in it. I have not had the same problems you have as consistently as you seem to have them.
Second point: When it does happen, it's going to happen REGARDLESS. This is what I can't figure out about your argument, so please, read this next part carefully, and help me figure out your point.
You say that people are going to break the rules, and they can't be trusted. Fine. I'm following you. Then you say that when people break the rules, it can result in hazing. Yes, I'm still with you. Then you use the example that when you tell people NOT to use PT, they still use it. Good example to illustrate the above point.
Then, somehow, you expect me to understand the conclusion that "therefore, regulated PT is out of the question, because the rules are going to be broken, and it will result in hazing."
Nathan
First point: No, we are not unlucky. In 15 encampments I have only had to speak to the GC once and it was determined that is was not hazing. No, we don't have stupid people in our wing at our encampments. We average 5 different wings a year at our encampment. Last year it was 7. We have incidents each year where cadet "officers" venture into the grey area and it is not restricted to one wing patch.
So this point holds no water with me and is insulting to me as a commander. So unless your wing and all wings are stupid your discussion is venturing into name calling and your loosing me. I would say that this will be my last post to you.
Second point: So in your words there is nothing to stop it when it is going to happen? If that is the case then you have just made the point that we cannot adopt your philosophy because someone will abuse it.
Unless your a farmer you wont understand this analogy but here it goes.
I have two hens who get out of the hen house every day. You know I don't know how they do it but they do. So by your argument I should just leave the door to the hen house open because I cant stop two hens from getting out? And let the foxes and coyotes in? Risk loosing my income because I cant stop two hens? That is why there is a door. To protect them and to keep them from following the example of a bad example.
And yes Nathan I do have chickens............
The failure is not at the encampment but at the local unit where these people come from: they are not taught, they are not mentored, they are not monitored and they are not properly vetted by the unit commander or DCC who signs there letters of recommendation and application. The rules are in place to keep the masses from following the bad example of a few people.
Last point: regulated PT is already part of the program. The use of PT as punishment is NOT part of the program in any shape of form. If you want to change the rules, push it up the chain and do it right. If you want to be part of an IG/GC investigation, do your own ideas and take the consequences like a man when they happen.
I would invite you to come and be a part of an encampment to see what the Commander and COC have to go through in making these tough decisions but I doubt you would want to come to a wing that is full of stupid people.
Good luck Nathan, your going to need it.
Quote from: flyguy06 on December 30, 2009, 02:36:57 PM
But I am curious what you think our goal in the cp is. I used to think it was to train leaders. pilots and future SAR professionals. I like to get others opinions as well.
As stated in 52-16 (my emphasis added):
QuoteThe mission of the Civil Air Patrol Cadet Program is to provide the youth of our nation with a quality program that enhances their leadership skills through an interest in aviation, and simultaneously provide service to the United States Air Force and the local community.
52-16 further elaborates on this:
Quote
Opportunities in the Cadet Program.
The Cadet Program permits every cadet to
(1) develop self-discipline, teamwork, and confidence through the study and practice of leadership in an Air Force environment;
(2) develop the knowledge, skills, and attitudes necessary for understanding aerospace principles and the total impact of aerospace power upon society;
(3) participate in a variety of special activities and programs;
(4) develop a personal ethical foundation and an understanding of the moral issues of our time through discussion and debate; and
(5) become physically fit and develop a lifelong habit of regular exercise.
To paraphrase:
1) Leadership
2) Aerospace Education
3) Activities
4) Moral Leadership
5) Physical Fitness
As I mentioned in a previous post, as leaders we need to be able to effectively teach, enable, and inspire cadets. We need to ensure cadets develop the skills needed to effectively meet the opportunities above. To that end, we should view ourselves as removers of roadblocks -- not ones to throw up more silly meaningless ones. There are plenty of very effective ways to challenge and develop cadets without 'smokin' 'em' left and right.
Quote from: RedFox24 on December 30, 2009, 02:32:47 AMBut as a person who advocates your point of view I would be very leery of letting you attend my encampment. And if I was so persuaded by my staff to let you attend, you would be on a very short leash until it was determined if you could let your views be superseded by the encampment policy.
That seems a bit overly judgemental on your part. You're equating the questioning of a regulation's wisedom as being the same as advocating the violation of the same regulation.
Why can't someone express an opinion without it being characterized as a willingness to violate the rules?
Quote from: capchiro on December 30, 2009, 02:17:31 PMTo be called in front of one's peers and made to do some task (such as push-ups) can be considered to be demeaning by some and humiliating by others.
Indeed, leaders are taught to "praise in public, and punish in private" so if the push-ups are made to be done in public then that would be as demeaning and humiliating as if the cadet was dressed down in front of his/her peers. Again, it's the method of delivery and not the punitive nature itself which makes the act abusive.
Question for everybody: Do you believe there is such a thing as a
minor violation of the Cadet Protection Policy as it is written?
I always follow the regs, even if I don't agree with them. It also comes down to the cadet, if they are new, or "thin-skinned" you need to correct them in different manner than "thicker skinned" cadets. This is not a poor reflection on cadets, just as observation of people as a whole.
One thing that I do to correct bad behavior is to assign them to give a class on what the infraction was. Say a cadet wore his headgear inside, and didn't wear it outside, would it be impropper for me to assign him a 5 minute class on propper headgear wear to our basic flight of cadets?
Quote from: N Harmon on December 30, 2009, 03:37:41 PM
Question for everybody: Do you believe there is such a thing as a minor violation of the Cadet Protection Policy as it is written?
Edited after re-reading your question again.
Some offenses are more serious than others. Certain violations may even require involvement by law enforcement.
As it pertains to the policy itself, you are either compliant or you're non-compliant. The regulation does not allow for a middle ground and none of the violations are defined as "minor". In all cases, at even the report of a violation, the member is suspended from CAP.
The bottom line is that physical training doesn't reflect or correct the infraction. If a cadet doesn't make his bed correctly or at all, or his uniform is messed up. Doing pushups doesn't teach him how to fix his bed or correct his uniform. It does make him tired, sweaty, and possibly PO'd. Having everyone in the flight do pushup's for anothers infraction is even worse. There are ways of training cadets that directly address the problem, use them instead.
Quote from: N Harmon on December 30, 2009, 03:37:41 PM
Question for everybody: Do you believe there is such a thing as a minor violation of the Cadet Protection Policy as it is written?
No.
You either violated it or you didn't. The
consequences of the violation are up to a corporate officer to decide based on the findings of an IG.
Lt Col Siequist,
I've been hoping a legal officer would respond to this thread. Thank you.
Quote from: capchiro on December 30, 2009, 02:17:31 PM
The very words used in the definition of hazing are very broadly defined. They are purposely set up to be defined by the abused, not the abusee. A lot of this is based upon and derived from civil rights as defined in the U.S. They are used this way to protect the smallest and weakest and this includes psychologically. To be called in front of one's peers and made to do some task (such as push-ups) can be considered to be demeaning by some and humiliating by others.
Clearly, this is the way that CAP interprets the definition.
But I'm puzzled. We are using the standard DoD definition of hazing, but we are obviously interpreting the same definition in a significantly different way than the DoD.
Clearly, every branch of the armed forces (including the Air Force) uses PT as punishment during at least their basic training programs. The Air Force also uses PT in this manner after basic training while airmen are enrolled in their tech schools.
How can they do that?
If we are using the same definition, why aren't we interpreting it in the same way?
This is a genuine question.
Similarly, the armed forces use a lot of yelling and "personal criticism" of their trainees. Isn't that also inconsistent with our interpretation of their definition?
If we use the interpretation you described above, how can we get away with publicly commenting on a cadet's uniform at an inspection? Telling a cadet that she/he "didn't properly center your ribbons over the pocket" and have hair improperly protruding under the front of the flight cap
should be a little embarrassing, because it is a truthful statement that a cadet failed in a task that she/he could do better. That's pretty much the definition of embarrassing.
Are you saying we cannot point out uniform errors?
Again, this is a serious question, not some sort of attack.
Finally, you pointed out that ultimately abuse is defined by the abusee. IOW, if she/he felt subjectively embarrassed or demeaned, than a CPP violation has occured regardless of the intent of the abuser.
Given that some cadets have hidden disabilities and emotional concerns, is this really a workable standard? Wouldn't we be better off with some sort of "reasonable person" standard?
And again, aren't we obviously using a dramatically different interpretation of the DoD definition in this regard that the DoD does?
Is that a good thing or a bad thing?
Quote from: Ned on December 30, 2009, 05:25:09 PM
Clearly, every branch of the armed forces (including the Air Force) uses PT as punishment during at least their basic training programs. The Air Force also uses PT in this manner after basic training while airmen are enrolled in their tech schools.
They do? If so, that's a change in policy because they didn't when I went through BMT and tech school. My first-hand knowledge of this is getting pretty dated, I went through boot and tech school in 1984-85, so it is possible things have changed. But, for the record, the AF did not use PT as punishment at BMT or tech school when I went through. We used the infamous form 341 instead.
Can't speak for the other services.
Quote from: Ned on December 30, 2009, 05:25:09 PM
But I'm puzzled. We are using the standard DoD definition of hazing, but we are obviously interpreting the same definition in a significantly different way than the DoD.
Similarly, the armed forces use a lot of yelling and "personal criticism" of their trainees. Isn't that also inconsistent with our interpretation of their definition?
If we use the interpretation you described above, how can we get away with publicly commenting on a cadet's uniform at an inspection?
Given that some cadets have hidden disabilities and emotional concerns, is this really a workable standard? Wouldn't we be better off with some sort of "reasonable person" standard?
And again, aren't we obviously using a dramatically different interpretation of the DoD definition in this regard that the DoD does?
Hmm last time I looked we are all CIVILIANS in CIVIL Air Patrol. We are not in the military. So I'm not so sure a DOD policy is what we should be using anyways, & CAPR 52-10, para 1c seems pretty clear on the subject to me -- no physical punishment.
The cadet program is a youth development program, it is not a punishment giving program, and correction should be just that actual corrections.
Granted there's a fair amount of senior member "wanna bees military TI's" floating around in the organization and there's also the potential for cadet wanna be TI's. So one has to be always on guard for this behavior and quickly react to prevent any occurence.
Surely CAP's cadet program (and overall membership) suffers anyways because it really doesn't produce what is promised to most cadets and I think we loose a lot of the older cadets because they basically don't see the recurring marching and physical fitness training "running/marching in circles", and basicallly playing "army" as being worthy of their valuable availalbe discretionary time :-[.
RM
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on December 30, 2009, 06:23:05 PM
[Hmm last time I looked we are all CIVILIANS in CIVIL Air Patrol. We are not in the military.
Of course we are civilians. But the CAP cadet program has used military leadership instruction since it was established over 60 years ago, and is designed to be a challenging and vigorous program.
QuoteSo I'm not so sure a DOD policy is what we should be using anyways, & CAPR 52-10, para 1c seems pretty clear on the subject to me -- no physical punishment.
I certainly agree that the DOD definition is not the only definition of hazing in the world (just Google and see). All things being equal, we should probably adopt a definition that speaks more to a military enviornment than one that is aimed an educational instution like a college simply because it is a better "fit" with what we do in CP.
But reasonable minds could certainly differ on exactly what definition who could have chosen.
And you are certainly correct that para 1-c in the 52-10 tells us that we simply cannot use PT as punishment. So we don't.
But my question to LtCol Siequist was - from a legal perspective - why are we using a different interpretation of DoD definition than the DoD itself uses? IOW, if we are using the DOD definition and
they don't think it prevents using PT as punishment, why do we? But the 52-10 clearly says that the DOD defintion means "no PT as punishment."
QuoteI think we loose a lot of the older cadets because they basically don't see the recurring marching and physical fitness training "running/marching in circles", and basicallly playing "army" as being worthy of their valuable availalbe discretionary time :-[.
RM
The problem here is that the older cadets are probably right to leave if all their squadron does is march around and play army. Heck, I'd leave too if that was all my unit offered.
The responsibility is on the unit CP leadership to engage and challenge all of the cadets. And we have a terrific program that allows them to do so. Older cadets should be the ones planning the unit training schedule and implementing it under senior guidance. They should be mentoring younger cadets. Older cadets should be solidly engaged in group, wing, and national-level activities.
Personally, I think that the work we do with our older cadets is among the best things that we do.
Quote from: Ned on December 30, 2009, 06:42:39 PM
The problem here is that the older cadets are probably right to leave if all their squadron does is march around and play army. Heck, I'd leave too if that was all my unit offered.
The responsibility is on the unit CP leadership to engage and challenge all of the cadets. And we have a terrific program that allows them to do so. Older cadets should be the ones planning the unit training schedule and implementing it under senior guidance. They should be mentoring younger cadets. Older cadets should be solidly engaged in group, wing, and national-level activities.
Personally, I think that the work we do with our older cadets is among the best things that we do.
+1 - Again poor local execution, not the program itself.
Further, if all an older cadet is doing is showing up to meetings and marching, that's a failure of the cadet to accept the responsibility to be training the next generation and participating in larger activities outside the squadron.
Quote from: capchiro on December 30, 2009, 02:17:31 PM
Nathan,
You ask: (1) Please, please, please explain how a set of five push-ups is properly labeled as "conduct whereby someone causes another to suffer or to be exposed to any activity that is cruel, abusive, humiliating, oppressive, demeaning, or harmful."
The very words used in the definition of hazing are very broadly defined. They are purposely set up to be defined by the abused, not the abusee. A lot of this is based upon and derived from civil rights as defined in the U.S. They are used this way to protect the smallest and weakest and this includes psychologically. To be called in front of one's peers and made to do some task (such as push-ups) can be considered to be demeaning by some and humiliating by others. It's not unheard of for a cadet to be remiss in some task because they were requested (or told) to do something else when they should have been doing the first thing. For this person to be "punished" is unjust to say the least and possibly abusive. A cadet once left his watch in the restroom and had to stand in front of his squadron and sing "I'm a little tea pot, short and stout, here is my handle, here is my spout", while going through the accompaning motions. Hazing? Only if the cadet that sang thinks so? How about the cadet in ranks that decided to never go to another encampment based upon this observation? We are a volunteer organization and people as young as 12 are entrusted to our care. We are not here to break down and unify a group of 18-24 year olds as happens in active duty. The reg's are what they are. If you want to change them, there are channels to do so. However, as a legal officer, if I get a complaint from any cadet or parent that you have dropped them for punishment and they consider it hazing, get ready for at least a suspension until we work it out. This is not an area to fool around in and is considered very serious by those of us with a lot of experience. We don't need a black eye with the public or a public relations problem because of your interpretation of a well accepted regulation. All of our cadets are not equal and are not to be considered equal. We are here to offer our cadets a meaningful experience, weither they are 100% GI Joe or a cadet with psychological or physical handicaps. Several seasoned members have tried to explain the folly of your premise and you refuse to see the light. This may be attributed to a lack of overall experience in the program or a lack of maturity. Either of these are to be expected of someone of you age and level of senior member experience, however, there is no reason to not accept the opinions of those that know more than you. I am not attacking you personally, I am saying that you don't appear to have the experience or maturity to listen to reason..
This is a fine answer, but doesn't really answer the question for one sole reason. It's the typical legal officer answer. :)
Basically, saying that it COULD turn into a hazing incident only justifies the currently set rule, but doesn't take into account anything else it could justify. For instance, what if CAP banned drill because it made cadets in wheelchairs feel left out, and besides, it doesn't really do anything for civilians anyway? In such a world where I were to advocate bringing back drill, your post, nearly unedited, could protect the fact that we don't have drill.
Likewise, in such a world where we didn't wear uniforms because not all cadets felt comfortable in them, or we didn't use "sir" because older cadets felt humiliated having to call younger cadets by a title indicating superiority, your argument could be used to defend such practices. After all, if the definition of hazing is always defined by the victim, then is there ANYTHING that we do that couldn't, if taken too far, be considered hazing?
I think PT is no different than my above examples. In a world where we allowed PT (or in the ACA, for instance...), it might seem silly that we would say, "But it could lead to hazing" in order to argue that we should get rid of it. That's the problem. Your argument only works when it agrees with what the people in charge say. Otherwise, it means nothing on it's own, at least as far as my legally untrained mind can figure out.
Quote from: RedFox24 on December 30, 2009, 03:31:54 PM
First point: No, we are not unlucky. In 15 encampments I have only had to speak to the GC once and it was determined that is was not hazing. No, we don't have stupid people in our wing at our encampments. We average 5 different wings a year at our encampment. Last year it was 7. We have incidents each year where cadet "officers" venture into the grey area and it is not restricted to one wing patch.
So this point holds no water with me and is insulting to me as a commander. So unless your wing and all wings are stupid your discussion is venturing into name calling and your loosing me. I would say that this will be my last post to you.
Uh, I think you need to read it again. It's like saying, "Why am I getting my hours cut?" "Either God hates you, or you aren't working hard enough." It's not REALLY implying that God hates you.
I wasn't REALLY implying that the people of his wing were of poor quality (which, if you read the rest of my post, was made pretty clear). I was simply saying that for all the problems he seems to have in getting his people to listen to anti-hazing rules, I have never experienced such problems as consistently as he had.
So if you ARE having that many problems, then yes, you're unlucky. Unless you really are a bad commander. But that's not what I'm assuming. But getting offended about it is a clear indication that you missed the point.
Quote from: RedFox24Second point: So in your words there is nothing to stop it when it is going to happen? If that is the case then you have just made the point that we cannot adopt your philosophy because someone will abuse it.
Um... no. That's not the point.
In Eclipse's words, abuse happens all the times. Apparently the CAP population can't be trusted to follow more than two words linked together, and so no matter what, even with our current rules, members are going to break them. To him, that's a fact of life, and in many situations, that seems to be the case (although I disagree with the severity of the problem as he sees it).
But yes, in my own words, abuse WILL HAPPEN under the system, as it happens under ANY system. And if we allow push-ups, people will make them do MORE push-ups than they should, just as they are doing RIGHT NOW. People who are breaking the rules now aren't dropping people for five push-ups an hour. They're likely doing a LOT more. So the "hazing" aspect of it, at worst, does NOT change with a new system, and at best, gives those who are dropping cadets now a way to do so that is safe and productive for the cadets.
Stop cherry-picking aspects of my argument that you disagree with, and at least TRY to see the whole picture. Otherwise, you're just tricking yourself into seeing points that aren't there.
Quote from: RedFox24I would invite you to come and be a part of an encampment to see what the Commander and COC have to go through in making these tough decisions but I doubt you would want to come to a wing that is full of stupid people.
::) Why don't you talk with Eclipse about the "stupid people" argument, and get back to me. Since he was the one insisting that few CAP members are capable of following even the most basic instructions. That wasn't me, outside of a sarcastic "assuming the persona" rant.
Ned,
In response to: "But I'm puzzled. We are using the standard DoD definition of hazing, but we are obviously interpreting the same definition in a significantly different way than the DoD." I don't have a clue as to what DOD has or is doing. That is not within my pay range and there is no need for comparison between us and DOD.
In response to: "Finally, you pointed out that ultimately abuse is defined by the abusee. IOW, if she/he felt subjectively embarrassed or demeaned, than a CPP violation has occured regardless of the intent of the abuser." No one said a CPP violation has occured. What has been said is that a cadet has the right to file a complaint alleging "hazing" and it is considered very seriously. So seriously that the member accused will normally be suspended until investigation takes places and a decision is made as to whether a violation has occured and how serious it is. The intent of the abuser has little to do with whether or not someone has been hazed. It is a very perilous situation and that is why we draw a very hard line between allowing anything even remotely resembling hazing.
We are not here to improve the appearance of our cadets by embarrassing them or yelling at them. As has been said, we are here to remove road blocks and obstacles and assist them where needed. If a 12 year old shows up without a haircut and his reason is because his Mom didn't receive her child support form the Dad and she didn't take him for the haircut, yelling at him is not the way to go. If you take him aside and ask him why he didn't have a haircuut, you might find a whole different set of circumstances than what you orginally perceived. Compassion goes a lot farther in this organization than drill sargeant mentality. We have these youngsters 2-2 1/2 hours a week and yet there is so much we can do for them in this short amount of time. There is no place for fear of retribution for minor misperceptions.
In response: "Given that some cadets have hidden disabilities and emotional concerns, is this really a workable standard? Wouldn't we be better off with some sort of "reasonable person" standard?" Unfortunately, we do not have that privilege. We are priviliged to work with some of the smartest, most talented youngsters in the world while at the same time working with some of the disabled and emotionally needy youngsters in the world. It is a tight rope to work on and it requires a great amount of discretion and perception to do so successfully. If you wish to be a part of this team, you must come to accept what we do and have to work with and then make up your mind to do the best with what you have and be careful of how you handle all situations. This team is not for everyone. It is for a select group of highly motivated and talented people. We are not the DOD and we serve a much broader range of people both physically and psychological. We, for the most part, do an extremely good job at what we are tasked to do. We are not tasked to turn each 12 year old into a ground team SAR guru. As one of the above posts pointed out what we are tasked to do, I won't repeat it. However, if you are kind and considerate and follow the reg's you can end up with some amazing results. And if you decide to drop cadets for push ups or yell at them, get braced, because you will eventually end up on the short end of the stick..
I have to agree that a reaonable person standard would be much more usefull. Otherwise where does it end, as Nathan pointed out if the definition is totally in the eye of the abusee just about anything we do could be looked upon as hazing....
I was embarased because my flight was anounced as last place in inspection
The picture of me in my boonie hat was posted on this site and people made fun of me for wearing it and not knowing the regs and not being smart enough to know I was wrong....and everyone of my freinds read it and I dont want to go back to CAP now
I am proud to be a graduate of the BFE search and Rescue school, and people on the board trash the school every chance they get and I am offended by thier opinion and the way they talk about people
The instructor wears their 3 diamonds sewn to the inside of their hat and and displays it during classess and tells everyone how wonderful it is to be a Spaatz, yet I tried and failed and I fell me mocked everytime I have to see them.
All real (or slightly altered) examples I have run into in CAP or have been brought to me, yet I am sure not a one of the "guilty" thought they did anything wrong, let alone hazed somebody....
mk
Quote from: NEBoom on December 30, 2009, 05:52:35 PM
They do? If so, that's a change in policy because they didn't when I went through BMT and tech school. My first-hand knowledge of this is getting pretty dated, I went through boot and tech school in 1984-85, so it is possible things have changed. But, for the record, the AF did not use PT as punishment at BMT or tech school when I went through. We used the infamous form 341 instead.
I went through basic training and tech school at Lackland AFB in 2003-04. I have been stationed at Lackland ever since, and have an extensive amount of experience working within the training environment there.
My first experience with PT (push-ups to be specific) as a form of punishment occurred on Day of Training 3. I was appointed dorm chief and not 4 hours later was dropped for the actions of another trainee in the flight. It usually consisted of 25 push-ups at a time. PT as a form of punishment continued consistently through the remainder of the school.
Moving across the street to tech school, the team (roughly 110 students) were all dropped by the military training leader (MTL) during the first week. We were down for 5 minutes. After that, all discipline was accomplished through use of 341's which resulted in loss of phase privileges, extra duty on the weekend, letters of counseling, etc.
Moving on ... to answer some question as to DoD policy: Today, the Department of Defense policy on hazing defines it as:
Quote
Hazing is defined as any conduct whereby a military member without proper authority causes another military member, regardless of service or rank, to suffer or be exposed to any activity which is cruel, abusive, humiliating, oppressive, demeaning, or harmful
As compared to the Civil Air Patrol policy on hazing, defined as:
Quote
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.
So, ask yourself:
Is being told to do push-ups because you or another member under your charge failed to meet the prescribed standards cruel, abusive or harmful? My opinion is: Not if the amount of push-ups is less than or equal to the minimum you are required to do for organized PT.
Is being told to do push-ups because you or another member under your charge failed to meet the prescribed standards humiliating or demeaning? Sure, it very well can be. So can being called out in front of your peers, being made to appear before a disciplinary board of members whom you respect, being suspended from CAP meetings, being demoted, having promotions withheld, or any other form of disciplinary action available.
Is being told to do push-ups because you or another member under your charge failed to meet the prescribed standards oppressive? I don't believe so.
In other words, using PT as a measure of disciplinary action is truly no worse than other methods of discipline if used appropriately and with moderation. I do agree that "appropriate and with moderation" is the limiting factor that we will probably never be able to impress on members, and I also agree that punishments should fit the deficiency. I have heard arguments that using PT is an effective way to capture a member's attention, to realize the error of their ways, and motivate them towards correcting their deficiency. I dunno about that ... when I was dropped for one of my airmen's failure to do what's expect of them, it frankly just pissed me off.
So, let's talk about punishments fitting the deficiency. I have an example from not too long ago at a certain organized cadet corps where a group of first year students, following a horribly failed first class B uniform inspection, were ordered back into ACU's until they learned how to properly wear their service uniform. Would anyone not agree that causing them to be singled out among their peers, with a more permanent measure than a simple 30-second PT session, was "cruel, abusive, humiliating, oppressive, demeaning, or harmful"?
There are infinite arguments on both sides of the fence for the use of PT as a motivational and/or disciplinary tool, and it can go on forever. However, as an experienced, career cadet programs officer (squadron/group/wing), I know what the regulations say and I'm not going to open myself up to the liability of deviating from those regulations, regardless of whether I agree with them.
Now, let me side-step a minute and talk about Nathan. I've known him for quite a few years. I take personal issue with some of the contributors here that went to attack his credibility based on age, experience or lack thereof, and immediately draw the conclusion that he is going to go out and conduct himself in a manner consistent with the discussion he brought up here rather than the regulations that he swears to abide by every year. This place is intended to facilitate discussion of hypotheticals by people with a broad experience set, yet within the first ten posts it was turned into a mob against the person who questions policy. Good work guys.
Quote from: capchiro on December 30, 2009, 02:17:31 PMThe very words used in the definition of hazing are very broadly defined. They are purposely set up to be defined by the abused, not the abusee.
A cadet, given the choice between some push-ups or being demoted, will probably choose the push-ups. If hazing is defined by the
abused as to which is more humiliating, I think most cadets are going to find demotions to be much more humiliating than push-ups. Do you agree?
Speaking as a recently past tech school instructor, PT is able to be used as punishment all the way up to being assigned to your first base. Tech school instructors go through some of the same classes the basic training T.I's attend, and one of them is the proper use of physical punishment. (Remedial training is what they call it).
In basic training, yes 341's are issued, and taken for infractions but also individual and mass pt punishments are doled out for minor infractions (i.e. column left was ordered, someone when right, everyone on their face for 50 pushups).
In tech schools, Pt is not used in the class room environments but in field work it is used regularly (it also depends on the instructor's). There is a limit to the amount of time you are allowed to utilize pt as punishment. For example in push up's, I could only have kept someone on their face for two minutes before I was forced to either end the pt, or make them do another exercise, usually flutter kicks.
Nathan, while I agree and believe that most cadets come, and want a more militaristic experience, I do not believe PT should be administered as punishments to our cadets. I have run into way to many senior members and cadets that think they are drill instructors at basic training. I would be all for a more militaristic encampment (with strict guide lines of course) that cadets could volunteer to go to, and be briefed beforehand that this encampment will be tougher than normal, but punitive pt has no place in cap. Good luck sir.
It doesn't matter what we agree to, it is a matter of Reg's. National says we don't use PT for punishment and so we don't. If you don't agree, use the proper channels and attempt to change the Reg's. I am not sure if we should be airing this on a public forum. Their are active cases of hazing being investigated in CAP as we speak and I am not sure we should give ammunition to either side in that they will say, well, your leaders are arguing about whether this is okay or not and some cadets will say, I read on Captalk that some Major said we could do it or should be allowed to do it. We should present a united front to the public and keep our individual differences among ourselves especially when we are dissatisfied with Reg's. JMHO
Quote from: capchiro on December 30, 2009, 08:39:43 PM
It doesn't matter what we agree to, it is a matter of Reg's. National says we don't use PT for punishment and so we don't. If you don't agree, use the proper channels and attempt to change the Reg's. I am not sure if we should be airing this on a public forum. Their are active cases of hazing being investigated in CAP as we speak and I am not sure we should give ammunition to either side in that they will say, well, your leaders are arguing about whether this is okay or not and some cadets will say, I read on Captalk that some Major said we could do it or should be allowed to do it. We should present a united front to the public and keep our individual differences among ourselves especially when we are dissatisfied with Reg's. JMHO
That's an odd statement to make...
First off, I'm not making a call to action. I'm asking for some discussion over whether or not our interpretation of the hazing criteria involving push-ups is the correct one. If it leaders to (unlikely) action, so be it, but I'm not saying that what we have makes our program a bad one. I am simply saying that we might have a way to make it better, and I wanted to hear what dissenting and supporting voices might have to say about that.
Whatever we say on this forum holds no regulatory bearing, so if a cadet wants to say that nasty Captain Scalia said that push-ups are okay, then the cadet is lying. I am NOT saying that we should ignore current regulation, nor am I saying that I have broken this regulation in the past or intend to do so in the future.
And no, that's not me just covering my ass over this. I do believe in the necessity of following regulations. But that doesn't mean that the regulations are always correct or even well-thought out, which is why I was interested in hearing people's thoughts. Your argument here is the same one that you made earlier. Just because it COULD lead to bad things doesn't mean that it will, nor does it mean that the same logic couldn't be applied to nearly everything that goes on in this forum. Arguing uniform issues doesn't mean that members are saying to ignore CAPM 39-1...
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on December 30, 2009, 06:23:05 PM
Quote from: Ned on December 30, 2009, 05:25:09 PM
But I'm puzzled. We are using the standard DoD definition of hazing, but we are obviously interpreting the same definition in a significantly different way than the DoD.
Similarly, the armed forces use a lot of yelling and "personal criticism" of their trainees. Isn't that also inconsistent with our interpretation of their definition?
If we use the interpretation you described above, how can we get away with publicly commenting on a cadet's uniform at an inspection?
Given that some cadets have hidden disabilities and emotional concerns, is this really a workable standard? Wouldn't we be better off with some sort of "reasonable person" standard?
And again, aren't we obviously using a dramatically different interpretation of the DoD definition in this regard that the DoD does?
Hmm last time I looked we are all CIVILIANS in CIVIL Air Patrol. We are not in the military. So I'm not so sure a DOD policy is what we should be using anyways, & CAPR 52-10, para 1c seems pretty clear on the subject to me -- no physical punishment.
The cadet program is a youth development program, it is not a punishment giving program, and correction should be just that actual corrections.
Granted there's a fair amount of senior member "wanna bees military TI's" floating around in the organization and there's also the potential for cadet wanna be TI's. So one has to be always on guard for this behavior and quickly react to prevent any occurence.
Surely CAP's cadet program (and overall membership) suffers anyways because it really doesn't produce what is promised to most cadets and I think we loose a lot of the older cadets because they basically don't see the recurring marching and physical fitness training "running/marching in circles", and basicallly playing "army" as being worthy of their valuable availalbe discretionary time :-[.
RM
Actually radioman, at least from the cadets I have met, you are incorrect. Yes, we are Civilians in the Civil Air Patrol, however the cadet program is based on milityary traditions and we use the military as a vehicle to teach leadership. SO I would say that the cadet programis a military based program whereas the senior member program is not.
And to speak to your other point, most cadets i talk to inthe SER like theth emilitay aspect and feeling of CAP. Its why 90% of them joined. In fact, when they find out how watered down the military part is, they usually gert disgruntled and leave. Again, this is what I see and hear in my small part of CAP. They like theinspections, they like the Drill, they like the whole being in charge thing.. One cadet told me "If I wanted to be a Boy Scout, I would have joined the BSA"
I'm just sayin this is what I see and hear.
Quote from: Nathan on December 30, 2009, 08:53:28 PMJust because it COULD lead to bad things doesn't mean that it will...
Considering humanity in general, I would never agree with that. The idea that putting a Social on your drivers license was never considered to be something that
could lead to something bad, but it did. There are probably millions of other concepts that also led to something bad.
If something can lead to bad things, it eventually will. Someone always abuses something when it's an option.
Hawk,
Anything can lead to something bad.
I think the issue is cadet program officers need to train senior cadets in managing discipline. This whole hazing thing stated, in my opinion, when some cadet officers and NCO's took things way out of hand. They weren't trained effectively. Too many times, we get some "CAP mom" to run the cadet program because "heck, she's gonna be here anyway to wait on her kid" and since many of them don't really have any military background ( I said some not all, so please don't flame me) they just let the cadet officers run things and they make sure nobody gets hurt.
We need cadet program senior members thatare former cadets and truly understand theprogram or recent military types who can teach drill and leadership. Our senior members that work with cadets have great intentions and they mean well. but some of them act like a "grandpa or grandma" figure rather than training them to be leaders.
I have no kids in CAP. I work with cadets because I know what theprogram did for me and leadership development and I want to give back to my community. I want to teach youths to be leaders and lead others. The personality of many cadets that join CAP is that they like the "in your face" type of stuff. that's why they join. and when they don't get that, they leave. Now we have a lot of younger cadets ages 12 and 13. i DONT recommend that type of training environment for them
But for older cadets. like I always say it worked for me in college ROTC. whats the difference in doing it that way in CAP? No i am not advocating being a drill sergeant to cadets. Thatcrap isn't really necessary. We are teaching them to be self starters and self thinkers. Not privates or soldiers. But teach them something and just don't sit back on the sidelines and watch, get involved in the training.
The senior cadets should train the junior cadets AND the senior members should train the senior cadets.
Quote from: Hawk200 on December 30, 2009, 09:05:14 PM
Quote from: Nathan on December 30, 2009, 08:53:28 PMJust because it COULD lead to bad things doesn't mean that it will...
Considering humanity in general, I would never agree with that. The idea that putting a Social on your drivers license was never considered to be something that could lead to something bad, but it did. There are probably millions of other concepts that also led to something bad.
If something can lead to bad things, it eventually will. Someone always abuses something when it's an option.
Fair enough. But it doesn't change the argument in the least.
If everything leads to something bad, then you'll have to prove somehow that regulating push-ups (which leads to push-up hazing) is better than NOT regulating push-ups (which leads to push-up hazing).
Ned: CAP interprets hazing more strictly than DOD because our cadet personnel, by and large, are minors.
Purely for comparison, I'd be interested in the practices and regulations of AFJROTC on this point...anyone familiar with them.
N Harmon: demotion is a punitive adverse membership action, but one that is intended to be remedial. What the demoting commander is saying to the member concerned is "You are not performing to the standards required of your earned grade; right now, at least, you don't deserve that grade till you realize the errors of your behavior and change accordingly."
Is the effect humiliating? Sure. Is that the point? I don't think so.
This isn't a game show; as a commander, I'd never offer alternative penalties. If disciplinary action needs to be taken, you take it.
If the member being punished had exercised good judgment, the punishment probably would not be necessary in the first place.
I have demoted cadets on occasion, never seniors. Seniors I either relieved (from command or staff position), or in several rare instances, 2Bed.
If I WERE to demote a senior, it would be as a not so subtle message to resign before we terminate your membership.
Quote from: ZigZag911 on December 30, 2009, 11:00:49 PM
Purely for comparison, I'd be interested in the practices and regulations of AFJROTC on this point...anyone familiar with them.
The AFJROTC policy (AFJROTCI 36-2001) is:
Quote
Hazing is strictly forbidden. It is defined as the practice of directing someone of lesser rank to perform a humiliating act which entails the surrender of dignity and self-respect or a hazardous act which exposes one to physical danger or bodily harm.
Requiring cadets to perform push-ups or any other physical activity as punishment is also forbidden. These activities may only be performed as part of a unit’s regular physical training/wellness program.
Harassment, such as improper or abusive language, and coercion of lower class cadets for personal gain, is strictly forbidden. Misuse of authority will not be condoned nor tolerated.
But also remember, in addition to this policy, as a co-curricular school program the AFJROTC organization is required to follow the school/school district's policies regarding student organizations.
FYI, the Young Marines allow yelling (at groups, not at individuals), but define "incentive physical training" as hazing and prohibit it. (Although not germane to this discussion, their cadet of the year had 9 rows of ribbons - wow!)
Quote from: ZigZag911 on December 30, 2009, 11:00:49 PM
Ned: CAP interprets hazing more strictly than DOD because our cadet personnel, by and large, are minors.
No, they don't.
CAP interprets hazing exactly the same way as the DOD by definition.
The only place you will find said definition is in the RST presentations required for encampments, and they use and quote the DOD policy.
Quote from: capchiro on December 30, 2009, 07:06:31 PM
Ned,
In response to: "But I'm puzzled. We are using the standard DoD definition of hazing, but we are obviously interpreting the same definition in a significantly different way than the DoD." I don't have a clue as to what DOD has or is doing. That is not within my pay range and there is no need for comparison between us and DOD.
Harry,
Just between us lawyers, you have to admit that it is interesting that we use the DoD definition and apparently choose to interpret it in a significantly different manner.
After all, a legislator can define an equine as a bovine , but that doesn't mean they're gonna get any milk.
I guess my point is that would be much cleaner to say "we use the DoD definition of hazing and we have an additional rule of 'no PT as punishment'", rather than pretending that the DoD's own definition itself means "no PT as punishment." (Which would certainly be a surprise to the definition's authors.)
QuoteWe are not here to improve the appearance of our cadets by embarrassing them or yelling at them.
Of course. But I'm sure you'd agree with me that our successful cadet program uses militarly training models, and has since its inception during WWII.
See, here's the problem. The words "embarass" and "demean" are too fuzzy to be helpful in the most common CAP situations. Especially when we admit that we don't use them in the same way as the DoD used them when they wrote the definition.
I'm sure we would all agree that some junior cadet NCO going all "Full Metal Jacket" on her flight by screaming and yelling profanities at individuals is acting inappropriately. And any senior worth his/her salt would intervene immediately.
But the problems don't arise at the extremes, because use of "embarass" and "demean" are ominously ambiguous in situations encountered every day at cadet units. And since the 52-10 defines any sort of hazing as physical abuse requiring immediate report and suspension of the members, we create a very real fear in our CP leaders. This fear, in turn, may lead to an innapropriate "demilitarization" of the program. And missed training opporunities caused by an excessively lax atmosphere may never be made up.
Example: During an open ranks inspection, the inspector may tell cadet X that her insignia have been placed incorrectly on her uniform. Cadet X may well be "embarassed" to have such a fault mentioned publicly during the inspection. (As a side note, Cadet X
should be embarassed for a simple error that she knows she should not have made.)
I ask you plainly - has Cadet X been hazed? Should the inspector be suspended pending an investigation?
Example: When my daughter received her Mitchell, I gave a brief speech about how proud of her I was. During the speech I pointed out that there was a time when she had difficulty doing simple facing movements. The point was to show how far she had come. She later mentioned that she found it slightly embarassing to be reminded of her early ineptness when it came to drill.
I again ask you plainly - did I haze my daughter? Should I have been suspended pending an investigation?
See, that's part of the problem Nathan is getting at. Once we depart from reasonable DOD interpretations of the DOD's own definition, it is difficult or impossible to know what is meant by the words. And if a reasonable member cannot predict in advance whether pointing out an error during an inspection - however professionally phrased and intoned - is or is not hazing, the regulation is worse than useless. It may actually act against the very thing it was designed to do - provide cadets with safe training in the CAP cadet program.
Thoughts?
Boy I wish I joined the Air Force instead of the Army if you can't get smoked. I have fond memories of the "pit" at C Co 795th MP BN at Fort McClellan. We were smoked on a regular basis and it wasn't confined to push ups. Bloomin Dip Dips, Steam Engines, Rifle Drills and the list goes on.... In fact if we didn't get smoked we wondered what was wrong! LOL... I was smoked as an individual and the platoon/company was often smoked en masse. This was NOT part of our daily PT program...... Oh and contrary to popular opinion, being cussed out was not uncommon either though technically against the rules. Other things happened as well but I knew what I had signed for.
and all of these behaviors have NO PLACE AT ALL IN C.A.P.!!!!!!!!!
Ned,
In response: "Just between us lawyers, you have to admit that it is interesting that we use the DoD definition and apparently choose to interpret it in a significantly different manner." Let me reiterate, I am a CAP legal officer, not a DoD legal officer. My job is to represent the Corporation in legal matters. I am not a part of DoD, I do not represent DoD, and I have absolutely nothing to do with DoD. That said, I know what our Reg's say about hazing and I know what National says about using push-ups or PT for punishment. We may use the same words to define hazing, but it is not within my domain to tell you what DoD means within their definition. We are part of an organization that makes up it's own Reg's and definition and it doesn't matter what anyone else does. The military uses the term cadet, however a military cadet is an entirely different animal than our cadet. Does that mean we are wrong? No, we are not the military and we are not the DoD. By joining CAP, I have agreed to abide by the CAP Reg's. I don't see why this appears to be a problem for so many? Their are many organisations I could join and they all have their own rules and Reg's. I have joined this one and as such, I will uphold it's Reg's. If they ever seem contrary to my own good sense, I will attempt to change them through proper channels or find a different outlet for my services.
Harry,
If you don"t want to venture outside the CAP domain for any reason, I guess I understand.
But you're a unique kind of guy - both a legal officer and a commander.
Could I get you to answer the questions I posed above concerning Cadet X and myself?
From a purely CAP standpoint, of course.
If you don't want to answer, could you let us know why?
Quote from: McLarty on December 30, 2009, 07:32:43 PM
I went through basic training and tech school at Lackland AFB in 2003-04. I have been stationed at Lackland ever since, and have an extensive amount of experience working within the training environment there.
My first experience with PT (push-ups to be specific) as a form of punishment occurred on Day of Training 3. I was appointed dorm chief and not 4 hours later was dropped for the actions of another trainee in the flight. It usually consisted of 25 push-ups at a time. PT as a form of punishment continued consistently through the remainder of the school.
Moving across the street to tech school, the team (roughly 110 students) were all dropped by the military training leader (MTL) during the first week. We were down for 5 minutes. After that, all discipline was accomplished through use of 341's which resulted in loss of phase privileges, extra duty on the weekend, letters of counseling, etc.
Very well, I stand corrected. Thanks.
Quote from: Ned on December 31, 2009, 12:59:29 AM
Quote from: capchiro on December 30, 2009, 07:06:31 PM
After all, a legislator can define an equine as a bovine , but that doesn't mean they're gonna get any milk.
Quote
Yes, but you can be cow kicked by a horse. :)
The hardest school I ever went through was Special Forces Selection. No harassment, no hazing. They made just made it hard. We put the pressure on ourselves. The most compressed high risk training was the HALO Jump Master Course. No harassment whatsoever. The fastest course I went through was Army Pathfinder. They didn't even raise their voices. But there was plenty of pressure. If we want professional training, keep the standards high. Yelling at people is a waste of energy and it doesn't make them smarter.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 31, 2009, 12:55:16 AM
CAP interprets hazing exactly the same way as the DOD by definition.
The only place you will find said definition is in the RST presentations required for encampments, and they use and quote the DOD policy.
CAP does
NOT interpret hazing exactly the same way as the DoD. From: http://milcom.jag.af.mil/ch07/hazing.doc
| | Hazing does not include authorized training of any sort, administrative corrective measures, or additional military instruction. |
CAP interprets hazing as including punitive PT. The DoD does not.
Quote from: Ned on December 31, 2009, 12:59:29 AM
See, that's part of the problem Nathan is getting at. Once we depart from reasonable DOD interpretations of the DOD's own definition, it is difficult or impossible to know what is meant by the words. And if a reasonable member cannot predict in advance whether pointing out an error during an inspection - however professionally phrased and intoned - is or is not hazing, the regulation is worse than useless. It may actually act against the very thing it was designed to do - provide cadets with safe training in the CAP cadet program.
Thoughts?
I think you're absolutely right. I think the problem is how the CPP is worded, and how that creates confusion over what it is really talking about. Cruelty, abusiveness, humiliating, oppressing, demeaning, harmful...these are all relative concepts that mean different things for different people. But then the regulation says an example is using PT as punishment, and that hazing is a form of physical abuse. A person new to CAP might read that and totally miss that it could also apply to handing out pink web belts to the flight with the poorest performance.
Thus we necessitate RST... repeatedly. And still have problems.
It could apply to any number of situations that cause an individual to feel humiliated, depressed etc etc....such as on spot corrections, addressing a flight for poor performance, comparing one flight to another (...why cant you be more like alpha flight...their barracks is squared away) annoucing CPFT times (everyone else, if you didnt hear your name called you failed the run)....simple things that good people in CAP do all the time without a second thought.
I think that is the inherant problem with CAP's hazng regulations.....they are written to vague that they are completely open to interpretation by the abusee (or thier "advocates"),I can see the merit of having some manuever room (it prevents defenses of the regulation said dont do this...I didnt do it that way so I am ok) RST doesnt train people to not do these things, it trains them to think, and understand that the need to be cautious of thier actions and what they say and how they say it that it could lead them unknowingly into a hazing incident.
mk
mk
Ned, in your two examples, it is not a question of whether either cadet has been hazed, it is a question of whether either cadet feels abused or hazed. If either cadet reported they had been abused/hazed then a very specific plan of action would have been initiated and the hazer would/should be suspended pending investigation. The investigation and reporting to a higher/deciding authority brings the reasonableness into the situation. If after investigation it is found there was no abuse/hazing then there was no abuse/hazing. There are certain areas that have been abused in the past and push-ups and PT as punishment are two of them. Therefore, National has determined these are just a straight forward no-no. We are not alone when it comes to groups with vague definitions to protect others. Look at race relations in the military. Look at sexual harassment laws, EEOC laws, hostile work environment, any discrimination laws, most juvenile laws, the list goes on and on. Anytime there is a potential for abuse, most likely a vague law/reg/definition has been adopted to offer the most protection in cases that may be unforeseen. There are cases of sexual harassment that have been filed when someone asked someone for a date or someone heard an off color joke that wasn't intended for them. Our Reg's are there to protect the cadets and give guidelines to all of our members. Our investigators and higher authorities are there to attempt to insure justice/reasonableness. So, when in doubt, don't violate the Reg's. Commander at the level of the violation don't determine "if" a violation has happened. They are required to report when and if they become aware of possible violations. They are also responsible for suspending the alleged violating party to protect the cadet from further abuse or potential threats from the accused.
Harry,
Thank you for your response. Your unique insight as both a legal officer and commander (not to mention a health professional) are invaluable.
Quote from: capchiro on December 31, 2009, 06:10:32 PM
Ned, in your two examples, it is not a question of whether either cadet has been hazed, it is a question of whether either cadet feels abused or hazed. If either cadet reported they had been abused/hazed then a very specific plan of action would have been initiated and the hazer would/should be suspended pending investigation.
Respectfully non-concur, and this illustrates the problem.
You state that the question is whether the cadet feels that she/he was hazed and makes a report.
But the regulation disagrees, and clearly states that hazing can occur even if the cadet doesn't feel that they were hazed. (52-10 (http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/R052_010_C5B73B2B78712.pdf), para 1c: "Actual or implied consent to acts of hazing does not eliminate culpability of the perpetrator.") The burden is not on the cadet to report whether they were hazed. As a practical matter, that is probably a good idea to prevent any post-event pressure being put on a reporting cadet.
So the question remains, in my two not-so-hypotherical examples: Were the cadets hazed?
The one thing we know already is that it doesn't matter if they thought so or not.
QuoteIf after investigation it is found there was no abuse/hazing then there was no abuse/hazing. There are certain areas that have been abused in the past and push-ups and PT as punishment are two of them.
Can't really disagree there, but note that it is commanders like yourself that make the final determination. What guidelines should commanders use in these situations?
Quote from: N Harmon on December 31, 2009, 03:07:46 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on December 31, 2009, 12:55:16 AM
CAP interprets hazing exactly the same way as the DOD by definition.
The only place you will find said definition is in the RST presentations required for encampments, and they use and quote the DOD policy.
CAP does NOT interpret hazing exactly the same way as the DoD. From: http://milcom.jag.af.mil/ch07/hazing.doc
| | Hazing does not include authorized training of any sort, administrative corrective measures, or additional military instruction. |
CAP interprets hazing as including punitive PT. The DoD does not.
"Authorized PT" is no more hazing in CAP than it is in the military.
PT as punishment in not "authorized PT". The services may define what is acceptable regarding PT, but the definition of
hazing is the same.
Nathan, lets assume for the sake of this thread that CAP comes up with a very strict, structured program that would allow the use of push ups or other PT in a limited fashion in encampment environments....
What sort of infractions do you believe would warrant such punishment?
Who would be authorized to order it? Senior member only? Cadet leaders (flight commanders, etc.)?
Quote from: RiverAux on December 31, 2009, 11:16:34 PM
Nathan, lets assume for the sake of this thread that CAP comes up with a very strict, structured program that would allow the use of push ups or other PT in a limited fashion in encampment environments....
What sort of infractions do you believe would warrant such punishment?
Who would be authorized to order it? Senior member only? Cadet leaders (flight commanders, etc.)?
Sorry I didn't get to this sooner.
As I said, I don't claim to have the research specified that would allow me to specify EXACTLY what would be the safe limitations for the average cadet, nor do I want to make that kind of commitment when I know very well that these ideas are probably not going to make it off the board.
It would be those specified limitations that would be the best predictor of who could utilize PT, what infractions would be punishable by PT, and so forth. For the purposes of this discussion, I've been utilizing a halfway-arbitrary "5-push-ups per set, 2 sets per hour, 6 set maximum per day." That could be way too easy, but I don't think a maximum of thirty push-ups a day spread over a minimum of three hours crosses anyone's moral boundaries, and 6 sets per day gives some ample flexibility to the user. But, like I said, I didn't do any research to back that up. That would just be my on-the-fly guesstimate for the purposes of discussion.
THAT being said, I think that the only reason people think this is a big deal is because people think that they're SUPPOSED to think it's a big deal. For instance, there are few times when I've seen cadets get hazed through "raised voice encouragement", and yes, while I have seen it deviate into hazing (where it was promptly corrected), cadets HAVE been shown to be capable of handling using a raised voice. In fact, I could imagine that had CAP banned the use of raising one's voice during encampment, the thread would be progressing much the same way it is now. :)
What I'm saying is that I think a cadet could handle this with as much experience as a cadet could handle raising his or her voice, or leading regular PT, or supervising a work detail. ANYTHING that someone can do from a place of authority can be abused, and it is EVERY DAY that we are teaching our cadets ways to use said authority in a respectful way. The solution is not to take power away from them under the assumption that they will abuse it. The solution is, like teaching cadets to drill, mentor, or give an order, teach the cadet the effective ways of using these tools.
And infractions, as I covered earlier, would be those that need a little more register than what usually occurs after a typical finger-wagging, but not so much punishment as to warrant something that would actually reduce morale, such as deprivation of participation at an activity, or loss of honor points. I'm afraid to point out any specific infraction, as I know that there are people who are going to choose to attack my situations rather than think critically and come up with one that might be more creative than mine.
But an example might include being late to opening formation. This I think is a fair example for a few reasons. First, from experience, this is not generally the sole fault of the flight commander, so the flight usually does feel responsibility for this. This is important, because ANY punishment (including, but not limited to push-ups) can do majorly bad things if the whole flight is confused as to why they are being punished. Second, generally, being late to opening formation is an inconvenience, but not a real problem for the commander. It doesn't really warrant a punishment that would cause any real unit morale issues (loss of honor points), especially since it's the beginning of the day. Third, again from experience, the issue is difficult to correct with simply telling them to be earlier, partly because the threat of another talking-to is laughable for even a preteen cadet, and partly because the brain, upon waking up, can usually find it pretty easy to justify sleeping in a little bit when the punishment for doing so is almost nil.
The push-ups, in this situation, would do EXACTLY what we need them to do. A set of five would register as a punishment, which is what we want. The cadets would have no question that they are in trouble. The push-ups would not be harmful to the cadets in a way that, say, forcing them to get up early the next day to work KP might (cadets are generally busy enough that free time is precious as it is). Finally, the WHOLE group, commander and sergeant included, is taking responsibility for the error, which prevents the humiliation and singling-out aspect of hazing, which is exactly what we're aiming for. Yes, everyone involved in the error is doing the push-ups, right to the flight commander (and don't give me the typical chat about even the C/CC being responsible; the C/CC should have better things to do than to physically wake every cadet up). The cadets knock out their five, stand up at attention, and their day goes on as normal. The next morning, they know that they don't want to be punished again (because they avoid the punishment, not specifically the push-ups), and they hopefully get up on time.
Cadets can absorb reprimands like a sponge. But few cadets are going to ignore warnings when they involve a tangible punishment, even if that tangible punishment does no physical, mental, or morale harm.
Quote from: Nathan on January 02, 2010, 11:09:25 PM
THAT being said, I think that the only reason people think this is a big deal is because people think that they're SUPPOSED to think it's a big deal. For instance, there are few times when I've seen cadets get hazed through "raised voice encouragement", and yes, while I have seen it deviate into hazing (where it was promptly corrected), cadets HAVE been shown to be capable of handling using a raised voice. In fact, I could imagine that had CAP banned the use of raising one's voice during encampment, the thread would be progressing much the same way it is now.
Then you'd be wrong. BTW - there's also no need to "raise your voice" during an encampment or other activity, either (except perhaps, to be heard, initially over the din of legit activities). Strutting around about how upset you are over "whatever", screaming like you're insane, when everyone in the room knows that ultimately they can just walk out the door and leave you yelling, just makes you look like an idiot with an anger management problem.
The most effective leaders I know speak in a tone, and with a posture, that requires you focus your attention on them, and if you ignore them, you do so at your own peril (of missing the opportunity, etc). Intimidation may get your troops moving up the hill, but its not leadership, and it sets a poor example.
As a parent, and a leader, I can promise you that while yelling may get a kid's attention, a 3000 psi stare direct in the eyes along with a few carefully crafted sentences about ethics, honor, or risk will get you the response you want a lot more than yelling or push-ups.
Frankly, cadets who need yelling or PT to understand our expectations probably need to find someplace else to spend their time.
As to your repeated use of the example of losing honor points instead of doing push-ups because that's "better"? No, that's the
point. If you're doing somehting to lose points towards honor flight, you don't get a "pass" based on pushups, washing the CC's car, or anything else.
You lose the points.
And maybe honor flight.
And
that, you'll remember - a lot longer than doing a few push-ups.
The last thing you want is to change the objective scoring of something like honor flight to a subjective exercise in whether you dropped them for push ups a few times instead of giving them points.
Explain that to mom.
Regardless, however, those of us opposed to PT for discipline are against it because we know its a bad idea, not because we're "supposed to be against it...".
Quote from: Eclipse on January 03, 2010, 12:01:08 AM
Regardless, however, those of us opposed to PT for discipline are against it because we know its a bad idea, not because we're "supposed to be against it...".
+1
Quote from: Eclipse on January 03, 2010, 12:01:08 AM
TW - there's also no need to "raise your voice" during an encampment or other activity, either (except perhaps, to be heard, initially over the din of legit activities).
Hmmm.
Bob, I have to non-concur with the notion that there is never (or almost never) an appropriate time to raise one's voice at encampment.
(Bear with me here.)
QuoteStrutting around about how upset you are over "whatever", screaming like you're insane, when everyone in the room knows that ultimately they can just walk out the door and leave you yelling, just makes you look like an idiot with an anger management problem.
Sure, put to that extreme I can only agree.
QuoteThe most effective leaders I know speak in a tone, and with a posture, that requires you focus your attention on them, and if you ignore them, you do so at your own peril (of missing the opportunity, etc).
Sure, I've known effective leaders like that, too.
QuoteIntimidation may get your troops moving up the hill, but its not leadership, and it sets a poor example.
Well, as a former Infantry officer, I've had to get my troops moving up the hill, both literally and figuratively. And sometimes that gets done with a raised voice by good leaders.
(To be fair, it sometimes gets done with a loud voice by bad leaders, as well.)
And, of course, there is a lot more to it than mere "intimidation." Sometimes it sounds like encouragement. Sometimes it sounds like urgent directions given to the troops.
But when literally moving troops up the hill, it pretty much was never "posture-based" communication.
QuoteAs a parent, and a leader, I can promise you that while yelling may get a kid's attention, a 3000 psi stare direct in the eyes along with a few carefully crafted sentences about ethics, honor, or risk will get you the response you want a lot more than yelling or push-ups.
And as a fellow parent and leader (including in the military) I can promise both you and Nathan that on occasion a raised voice is entirely appropriate and an important part of our Leadership Laboratory in CP is learning when and how to do so.
I'm confident that we agree that going "Full Metal Jacket" on the cadets is always inappropriate. But it is equally inappropriate to treat encampment like a week in the library.
There is a reason that intitial military training looks and sounds pretty much the same across cultures and over time. Because military discipline and leadership have stood the test of time, and are crucial in producing effectiver leaders.
There's a reason that while only about 10% of Americans are veterans,
over two-thirds of our Presidents have been veterans. Because military leadership training produces civilian leaders.
Crucial military skills like working as part of a team, attention to detail, motivating subordinates to reach goals in stressful situations, managing time effectively, etc., have been taught by sergeants - sometimes with a raised voice - to military newbees for thousands of years.
Our cadet program has been a military-based leadership program for over 60 years. And military leadership training is fairly distinctive, and sometimes includes things like group PT, marching, uniform inspections, and yes, loud voices.
It may surprise you to hear that I actually support the current restriction against using PT as punishments, for many of the reasons listed in this thread. (But I agree with Nathan and others that such a rule is not inherent in the DoD hazing definition - the 52-10 is simply poorly written on that point. It should not claim that the restriction is based on the DoD definition, we should simply add it as an additional rule, like our AFJRTOC counterparts.)
But it is a military-based program. With alll that that entails. Don't cheat our cadets out of a vigorous and challenging program by pretending that the military leaders never, ever raise their voices in appropriate situations.
A former Region Commander once told me that one of the purposes of an Encampment was to correct the sorry training found in many Squadrons. If this means talking in loud voice, so what? Over the years National has come up with regulations in the cadet program that make little sense, and often reverse acts that have a long history in CAP as well as the military. There is a middle of the road and CAP seems to have gone off on the shoulder just to avoid potential problem areas. For some unknown reason the plans that National comes up with are not what cadets join CAP for. In fact I am aware that the National CAC has opposed several parts of 52-16 and were ignored. The mistake is adults make the regulations with little or no consideration of what theprogram is or what the cadets want in the program. Basically no one listens to cadets since they are only children. Bad concept.
Quote from: BillB on January 03, 2010, 01:22:57 PM
A former Region Commander once told me that one of the purposes of an Encampment was to correct the sorry training found in many Squadrons. If this means talking in loud voice, so what? Over the years National has come up with regulations in the cadet program that make little sense, and often reverse acts that have a long history in CAP as well as the military. There is a middle of the road and CAP seems to have gone off on the shoulder just to avoid potential problem areas. For some unknown reason the plans that National comes up with are not what cadets join CAP for. In fact I am aware that the National CAC has opposed several parts of 52-16 and were ignored. The mistake is adults make the regulations with little or no consideration of what theprogram is or what the cadets want in the program. Basically no one listens to cadets since they are only children. Bad concept.
Amen. What all these "lawyers" and reg nazis dont realize is the cadets,which are our customers,the ones hat pay their membership dues like a lot of this stuff. But nobody is listening to the customer.
All I can say is I have worked onstaff at encampments and the cadets had a great time. When they see me at other activities they stop me and thank me and ask if I will be at the next encampment.
Just because adolescents want something doesn't mean it's good for them!
There is a vast difference between letting cadets conduct the program (including having some input to policy) under adult supervision, and allowing them to do whatever they want whenever they want to.
In my younger days I must admit I was a 'yeller'. I worked with a youth group (non-CAP) for about 10 years, hollering quite a bit in the first couple of years.
What the kids noticed even before I did was that when I was really angry I did not get louder --I got incredibly quiet when speaking!
Guess when they actually paid attention?
Zing Zag,
I think I saisd it wrong. Let me try it this way. I don't consider them to be adolescents. I think that's one of the problems. A lot of older senior members (and we have a lot of 50 plus year Olds) look at cadets as children and play that "grandfatherly" role. Telling them old world war two stories or "back when I was in the military we did...." I don't look at cadets as my "kids" I look at cadets as future leaders. Kids dont search for missing people. Kids aren't certified in First Aid. Kids don't fly airplanes by themselves. those activities take a certain kind of maturity. CAP cadets are not your typical teenagers. I want to train them.
When I say I yell, I don't mean that I yell in an angrily manner. What I meant to say was I yell in a motivating voice. not an angry voice. Everyone has a different style. I believe in motivating cadets by getting them fired up and excited. They love it. I remember this cadet remembered me cause we were on a bus trip and we called cadence the whole time driving to the event. he remembered me leading it. I didn't know him but it made me feel good that I had a positive effect on this young man.
I also hold cadets to the standard and do not accept anything less. Again from "my" experiences I sometimes see thatcadets will pay proper customs and courtesies to senior members they know, but not to SM's they don't know. I will correct that real quick. Am I disrespectful to the cadet? No. But Am I stern? If the cadet is an NCO or officer, yes , if he is an Amn, no.
No, I am not training combat soldiers. but I am training leaders. Young people who may someday lead a ground team. Young people who may someday fly an airplane by themselves. I know the cadet program I went through in 1984 helped me prepare for basic training. I just want to do the same to some young man or woman.
I do not believe in hazing. It is not neccessary. Nor is it legal. I do believe in challenging youths though. I believe we need to teach our cadet officers how to lead. We need to teach them what factors tolook at when selceting a cadet staff. Not just picking "thier" friends or people they "think are squared away. We need to teach them how to conduct staff meetings. How to manage junior cadets. Thats what I think my job as a cadet programs officer is. I dont deal directly with cadet Amn unless I have to.
Ned covered most of it, but I figured I'd offer my words on it and not try to piggyback off of his legal expertise. :)
Quote from: Eclipse on January 03, 2010, 12:01:08 AM
Then you'd be wrong. BTW - there's also no need to "raise your voice" during an encampment or other activity, either (except perhaps, to be heard, initially over the din of legit activities). Strutting around about how upset you are over "whatever", screaming like you're insane, when everyone in the room knows that ultimately they can just walk out the door and leave you yelling, just makes you look like an idiot with an anger management problem.
You think in pretty black-and-white terms, which kind of makes it difficult to debate with you sometimes. You equate "raising one's voice" with "screaming like you're insane", and I'm not entirely sure whether that's an attempt at a straw-man argument, or whether you really have never, ever experienced anybody capable of raising their voice and not haze someone in the process.
There is a striking difference between your take on raising your voice, and raising one's voice to provide encouragement, a sense of authority and confidence, and the "militaristic atmosphere", as far as the cadet program is concerned. For the record, I'm not one who generally raises my voice, partly because I'm not very good at it when I do. However, there are some people who can call out orders or, yes, even instill responsible discipline within the troops with a raised voice, and, magically, can do it within the rules of CAP.
How laid-back are you aiming for our program to be, exactly? You interpret the DOD hazing definition as banning punitive PT when the military (the guys for whom it was written) does not, and then go further to believe things are hazing that not even the conservative CAP regulations define as such. It's fine if you believe that the perfect style of leadership is in no way related the way the military has been training people for a while now, but is a CAP encampment really the best place to implement such a relaxed leadership style?
Quote from: Eclipse on January 03, 2010, 12:01:08 AMThe most effective leaders I know speak in a tone, and with a posture, that requires you focus your attention on them, and if you ignore them, you do so at your own peril (of missing the opportunity, etc). Intimidation may get your troops moving up the hill, but its not leadership, and it sets a poor example.
Actually, technically, intimidation IS leadership, but not a very good style. Regardless, I am assuming you think that punitive PT and raising one's voice is intimidation only because you are thinking somewhat extremely. Honestly, have you NEVER been to an encampment where such leadership was utilized effectively by cadets? I'll say it again (at the risk of people misunderstanding again...) that either you have been very unlucky in your CAP ventures, or the discipline in your wing is lacking when it comes to hazing. I am inclined to think the former, because I have not had so many encounters with these problems as you seem to have had.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 03, 2010, 12:01:08 AMAs a parent, and a leader, I can promise you that while yelling may get a kid's attention, a 3000 psi stare direct in the eyes along with a few carefully crafted sentences about ethics, honor, or risk will get you the response you want a lot more than yelling or push-ups.
Not sure I agree here. For one, for such things to be effective, it almost always has to be a one-on-one face time with someone higher ranking than the flight leaders, and it usually takes more than a couple of seconds to implement. For most situations, this is not practical.
Second, I'm not entirely sure what actions you think would warrant a set of push-ups, but I can go back to my earlier example of a flight arriving late at opening formation. Is such an action REALLY indicative of the need of a discussion of honor and ethics? Were they being either unethical or dishonorable? I'm sure that if I tried, I could come up with a doozy of a speech that would render cadets incapable of ever being late to opening formation ever again, but I would rather save that type of speech for something a little more serious (like flight in-fighting). I'm pretty sure a set of five push-ups would be far more effective and efficient in this type of case. We're not talking about correcting serious discipline issues with punitive PT.
Quote from: EclipseAs to your repeated use of the example of losing honor points instead of doing push-ups because that's "better"? No, that's the point. If you're doing somehting to lose points towards honor flight, you don't get a "pass" based on pushups, washing the CC's car, or anything else.
You lose the points.
And maybe honor flight.
And that, you'll remember - a lot longer than doing a few push-ups.
Yeah, you'll remember it well after encampment, well after it's actually WORTH anything. It doesn't do a cadet much good to know not to be late to opening formation months after failing to earn honor flight, does it?
I don't doubt that there are instances where cadets may warrant losing honor points. Personally, I would stick with the namesake and go for situations where cadets are not being "honorable." What situations seem to lack honor? Making a jodie that puts down other flights in a manner a little less than in the spirit of fun, spirit missions involving cadets being deprived of some aspect of encampment (failing an inspection because their boots were muddied up), some sort of flight-wide lie, etc. Those are situations where a flight is not being "honorable", and therefore doesn't deserve the title of honor flight.
But honor points getting taken away for showing up late somewhere? For lacking C&C beyond the first verbal correction? Eh... not sure if it's worth taking away what is sometimes the sole motivation for a cadet to excel at encampment. You take away enough honor points, especially early on, and the cadets will have NO REASON to listen to you any more. After all, what else can you do? Take away more honor points, and put them even further away from what is probably an unachievable objective anyway?
If I mess up and given the choice of doing ten push ups And getting up or being written up. I Will take the ten push ups. They are temporary. Write ups are permanently in one's file. You actually do more damage to a persons career by writing them up then you do with having them do ten push ups. But that's just my opinion.
I agree with nathan's comments.
**LONG POST**
First let me start by stating that I have been investigated on hazing Charges. I was cleared of these charges, and I regret my poor leadership at the time.
Now.......
Ned
Quote
See, here's the problem. The words "embarass" and "demean" are too fuzzy to be helpful in the most common CAP situations. Especially when we admit that we don't use them in the same way as the DoD used them when they wrote the definition.
Rest cut for brevity
Gotta tell you that by the very use of the definition, you have committed hazing. We all are for the most part looking at hazing as a physical affliction of pain. (i.e. 'Blood Wings', Pushups, ect......) What if we ask Cadet X to write a paper on the safety after a safety violation? Did we just cause emotional harm to this Cadet?
SARMED states –
"think that is the inherant problem with CAP's hazng regulations.....they are written to vague that they are completely open to interpretation by the abusee (or thier "advocates"),I can see the merit of having some manuever room (it prevents defenses of the regulation said dont do this...I didnt do it that way so I am ok) RST doesnt train people to not do these things, it trains them to think, and understand that the need to be cautious of thier actions and what they say and how they say it that it could lead them unknowingly into a hazing incident."
Yes they are vague...That's the issue. Hazing should not be an open interpretation of the vague definition. If you don't want PT for any other reason than for PT, instead of saying "No PT for Punishment", say "No PT outside of designated PT time as dictated by the posted schedule"....
I just spent a half hour reading this thread, and I have to say, fellows, I think I lost a half-dozen IQ points in the process.
What did I learn?
* The AF doesn't do pushups, or maybe they do. Or they don't do them at or after a first base assignment (is this a "first base" assignment, or your "first base assignment"? I'm confused. I know we don't permit "first base" at CAP activities... Leave the hucklebucking for home, kids!). Or maybe you're supposed to fill out some form while you're doing it? I got lost in there. Someplace.
* The DoD's definition of hazing is either wrong or its incomplete, or our interpretation is wrong or incomplete. Which one is it? Next thing you know, we'll be trying to re-define the word "is." Crikey, do we have to go thru that again?
* Nathan is apparently a closed-minded, young punk with no experience and even less Cadet Programs credibility and since he is either unmarried or does not have kids, he is unqualified to speak on any subject here. Amazing what you glean from the words between the lines in people's posts. Nathan: I knew you were a punk years ago, BTW, I just needed some confirmation from the fine folks here. Mission Accomplished! (mind you: I was a young punk, unmarried and lacking in progeny during my first THREE tours as a unit commander, and nobody died or wound up hazed because I hadn't knocked anybody up or made a trip down the aisle, so I'm really unsure what, if ANYTHING, the aforementioned criteria have to do with the discussion at hand except that that the OP, Nathan, doesn't meet those criteria and therefore his opinions are worthless.. Right? Nice way to try to minimize a guy's position. Why don't you pick on the state he comes from, or his chosen career field? Oh, whoops, too late..)
* The people who seem to have the most problem with IPT (incentive physical training) are the people who either a) were never in the military; or b) were in a military service that is only considered a military service because its members receive a paycheck from the Department of Defense and not for any military-like traits it could posses. (yes, thats the AIR FORCE I'm cracking wise about, guys.) Seriously: If I drew a line between the camps: "no, no PT outside of organized PT EVER.." and "Pushups for corrective training might not be a bad thing, if done correctly," and then said "OK, which one of these people was in the Army, Navy or Marine Corps?" there would be very few "line crossers." (mind you: if you used the phrase "CAP is not a military service" or "CAP is not part of the DoD" then you're not allowed to also say "CAP is not the Army, Navy or Marine Corps," because, you know, if either of the first two statements is true, then clearly CAP would also be incapable of being either the Army, the Navy or the Marine Corps. And we don't want you repeating yourself. Again.)
* That this discussion is only marginally more lame than the 3,000 other topics about sock colors, boot laces and which way the propellor is supposed to face on your ribbon rack.
*sigh* Can we talk about something, I dunno, more constructive? Cuz this topic has veered off into the weeds far enough that it needs an off road vehicle permit.
(perhaps a better, more constructive topic in this realm may be about the definition and/or redefinition of hazing, for example, within CAP, to more closely mirror that of the DoD and provide better, more clear, less mamby-pamby guidance to CP leaders than it currently does. That might be at least a tiny bit more constructive.)
Well NIN, I can help clear up one of your things.
The air force, during basic training and tech schools utilize pushups, sit ups, and a myriad of other PT functions as punishments.
Upon reaching you first duty station (where you are no longer in training, you are actually performing you job) Pt as a punishment is banned.
Quote from: BillB on January 03, 2010, 01:22:57 PM
The mistake is adults make the regulations with little or no consideration of what theprogram is or what the cadets want in the program.
I agree that there are plenty of people involved with cadet programs that really don't understand it - often because they've never taken to the time to actually read about it - and as a result have no business being involved. However...
Quote from: BillB on January 03, 2010, 01:22:57 PMBasically no one listens to cadets since they are only children.
I disagree with this and in my experience actually find that a big part of the problem is too many seniors let cadets run the program without proper oversight. Many cadets, particularly those that have been around awhile, think they know what the program is about but have never read 52-16. Yet, for some unknown reason, these same cadets are given too much influence and silly practices are carried on simply because "that's how we've always done it". This is a direct result of the previous comment.
I love your wit NIN. ;D But I don't think I would categorize this thread in the same light as those awful uniform threads. This "is" actually an important issue.
NCRBlues,
relax, he was making a joke. No need to be sensitive and come back with some rationale to prove that the AF does do push ups for punishment. he was just being light hearted A little interservice janking. Calm down. A lot of folks on here take everything wayy to seriously and feel the need to defend every adverse thing said. It was a joke for cryin out loud.
But wow, sit ups for punishment
Drill Sergeant: Drop down and give me 20 situps
Gotta say, I never heard that one before. lol
Quote from: NCRblues on January 04, 2010, 08:54:19 AM
Well NIN, I can help clear up one of your things.
The air force, during basic training and tech schools utilize pushups, sit ups, and a myriad of other PT functions as punishments.
Upon reaching you first duty station (where you are no longer in training, you are actually performing you job) Pt as a punishment is banned.
And PT as a punishment is never banned. If a Colonel wanted to, he could form a squad of Majors and PT hem till the cry and be within his legal rights. Would it be professional? Probably not. Legal? oh yeah.
52-16 is a guide. If you are runing your cadet program strictly by this guide you are doing your young folks a disservice. If all we did was run the program literally by the regs where is the human factor?
Quote from: flyguy06 on January 04, 2010, 02:04:36 PM
52-16 is a guide. If you are runing your cadet program strictly by this guide you are doing your young folks a disservice. If all we did was run the program literally by the regs where is the human factor?
Wrong answer. REGULATIONS are how we run the program. They are not 'guides'. They are not optional. They set the baseline standard. Pamphlets are guides.
Quote from: flyguy06 on January 04, 2010, 02:04:36 PM
52-16 is a guide.
No, it's not. It's a regulation.
Quote from: flyguy06 on January 04, 2010, 02:04:36 PMIf you are runing your cadet program strictly by this guide you are doing your young folks a disservice. If all we did was run the program literally by the regs where is the human factor?
There is plenty of room for creativity and personal style while adhering to the regulations.
Quote from: arajca on January 04, 2010, 03:25:51 PM
Quote from: flyguy06 on January 04, 2010, 02:04:36 PM
52-16 is a guide. If you are runing your cadet program strictly by this guide you are doing your young folks a disservice. If all we did was run the program literally by the regs where is the human factor?
Wrong answer. REGULATIONS are how we run the program. They are not 'guides'. They are not optional. They set the baseline standard. Pamphlets are guides.
Follow on for flyguy06: You're right. If you run your cadet program strictly by this [regulation] you are doing your young folks a disservice. I agree. But, I expect 100% adherence to CAPR 52-16 AND THEN a lot of creativity from both seniors and cadets to enhance the program beyond the bare minimums while still maintaining the required standard.
[Edit: Yeah, what A Member (no, not 'a member', A Member) said]
Flyguy06,
A little motivational 'acting' can be a very positive thing, hold the cadets' attention, focus their minds on the subject at hand.
I fully agree that we should not treat them like 'children' -- couldn't stand that myself WIWAC!
But we need to recognize that both legally and practically cadets ARE adolescents and lack the requisite maturity and experience to make adult judgments reliably & consistently.
Of course this is true for many adults, but I guess we have to draw a line somewhere!
Let's close this subject with the following
CAPR 52-10 defines hazing as:
c. Hazing. [/size]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. Actual or implied consent to acts of hazing does not eliminate the culpability of the perpetrator. Examples of hazing include using exercise as punishment or assigning remedial training that does not fit the deficiency (such as making a cadet run laps for having poorly shined shoes). Hazing, as defined in this policy, is considered a form of physical abuse and the reporting procedures for physical abuse must be followed.
If you can't accept the CAP definition of hazing, ask your Legal Officer or IG for theirs, I'm sure they have more than enough experience to explain it to you.
Quote from: arajca on January 04, 2010, 03:25:51 PM
Quote from: flyguy06 on January 04, 2010, 02:04:36 PM
52-16 is a guide. If you are ruining your cadet program strictly by this guide you are doing your young folks a disservice. If all we did was run the program literally by the regs where is the human factor?
Wrong answer. REGULATIONS are how we run the program. They are not 'guides'. They are not optional. They set the baseline standard. Pamphlets are guides.
Again, you are looking at semantics. And taking every word literal. if we took your logic, we wouldn't need leaders. Just people that can memorize regs.
Here is an example. The regs say that if a cadet fails to progress that I am to kick him out of CAP. That thought has never even crossed my mind. First of all if I did that, it would wipe out every cadet in my squadron. Secondly, in my community,I understand why cadets aren't testing on a regular basis. The cadets in your comunity maynot have the same challenges that we do and vice versa.
Quote from: ZigZag911 on January 04, 2010, 05:20:46 PM
Flyguy06,
A little motivational 'acting' can be a very positive thing, hold the cadets' attention, focus their minds on the subject at hand.
I fully agree that we should not treat them like 'children' -- couldn't stand that myself WIWAC!
But we need to recognize that both legally and practically cadets ARE adolescents and lack the requisite maturity and experience to make adult judgments reliably & consistently.
Of course this is true for many adults, but I guess we have to draw a line somewhere!
Of course. I think a lot of this stems from the lowered age of cadets to 12. I liked it better when the min age was 13. I guess we also have a lot of mddle school aged cadets and yes you have to treat them differently han you do a 16 year old cadet. But still, these folks (who pay their money) want a military like program and I think its my duty to provide that within the CAP regs. A militray like programs teaches the leadership skills they will need. Coddling and papmering do nothing for their development. And dont take that statement to the extreme. Just because I am anit coddling does not mean I am pro hazing. I find hazing dispicable. anyone who hazes anyone is not not using good leadership skills.
Now the point of this thread is what defines hazing? Its subjective. Please do not cut and paste the def from 52-16. I have read it. Its vague. Its subjective. Bottom line is use common sense.
Quote from: Cecil DP on January 04, 2010, 05:43:02 PM
Let's close this subject with the following
CAPR 52-10 defines hazing as:
c. 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. Actual or implied consent to acts of hazing does not eliminate the culpability of the perpetrator. Examples of hazing include using exercise as punishment or assigning remedial training that does not fit the deficiency (such as making a cadet run laps for having poorly shined shoes). Hazing, as defined in this policy, is considered a form of physical abuse and the reporting procedures for physical abuse must be followed.
If you can't accept the CAP definition of hazing, ask your Legal Officer or IG for theirs, I'm sure they have more than enough experience to explain it to you.
Can't say as I disagree that thats the CAPR 52-10 definition of hazing.
I think the bone of contention, after wading thru 3/4 of this thread, is that the CAPR 52-10 definition of hazing is so broadly written that looking crosseyed at a cadet could be considered hazing if someone wanted to push it.
And a broadly written definition for something thats fairly easy to narrowly define is going to have a chilling effect on the ability of cadet program leaders to effectively do their jobs, execute the mission and provide an effective and challenging program that is not hidebound by unnecessary and poorly-understood rules.
Frankly, it would be quite easy to sit on your hands and do zip, except point to the 52-10, because in your particular locale someone higher on the food chain got it in their head that something as commonly held as a uniform inspection could be called hazing under that broadly written definition.
So maybe we should consider this first: What is a more workable, legitimate, easy to understand and difficult to misinterpret defintion of "hazing" that would be suitable for CAP (or other cadet organizations) that also meets the letter of intent of the DoD policy? Mind you, I did not say "way to allow pushups as a disciplinary tool." I said "hazing definition."
We're all smart cadet program leaders of one stripe or another here. Even Nathan, inexperienced, unmarried and closed minded as he is.
So maybe we can come up with a far more usable, workable, less prone to mis-interpretation definiton of "hazing" for the purposes of the cadet program.
And I'm not even talking about either outright banning or outright allowing IPT under such a definition. Because if the definition is correctly written, the words "Pushups" or "incentive physical training" or "corrective physical training" (or words that mean essentially the same thing) would never even be in the definition. This isn't about "pushups" or "dying cockroaches." This is about hazing.
So how about it, folks? Anybody game to take a stab at a *better* mousetrap?
You bring up an exellent point. According to this definition. haveing an in ranks inspection and saying "you're boots are dirty" could be haxing (you didnt say anyone elses boots were dirty in public) or looking at a cadet in way he doesnt like. It may be the way you look at everyone.
Some common sense has to come into play. You cant be a reg nazi. We need leaders, not reg interpreters. Thats what lawyers are for. We need leaders that are going to inspire. Have fun.
Quote from: flyguy06 on January 04, 2010, 05:46:07 PM
Here is an example. The regs say that if a cadet fails to progress that I am to kick him out of CAP.
We're getting off topic here but the regs (52-16 or any other) do not say that! (which again further illustrates my earlier point...)
52-16 merely provides the option to do so. If there are excessive (to be defined by cadet program administrator), unexcused (excused do not count) abscences a cadet may (although we are not required to do so) be terminated from the program. This is an example of a regulation that allows for the administrator (DCC) to provide further definition.
To quote 52-16, Section 1-5 (b) (my emphasis added):
Quote from: CAPR 52-16Attendance. Cadets are required to participate actively in their local unit if they are to progress in the Cadet Program. Excessive, unexcused absences may be cause for termination from CAP (see CAPR 35-3, Membership Termination). Any school-related activity is considered an excused absence. Cadets are responsible for notifying the unit about school activities in advance. School-related absences do not excuse cadets from the pre-requisites needed to earn promotions.
Quote from: A.Member on January 04, 2010, 07:07:35 PM
Quote from: flyguy06 on January 04, 2010, 05:46:07 PM
Here is an example. The regs say that if a cadet fails to progress that I am to kick him out of CAP.
We're getting off topic here but the regs (52-16 or any other) do not say that! (which again further illustrates my earlier point)
52-16 merely provides the option to do so, if needed. If there are excessive (to be defined by administrator), unexcused (excused do not count) abscences a cadet may (although we are not required to do so) be terminated from the program.
To quote 52-16, Section 1-5 (b) (my emphasis added):
Quote from: CAPR 52-16Attendance. Cadets are required to participate actively in their local unit if they are to progress in the Cadet Program. Excessive, unexcused[/u] absences may be cause for termination from CAP (see CAPR 35-3, Membership Termination). Any school-related activity is considered an excused absence. Cadets are responsible for notifying the unit about school activities in advance. School-related absences do not excuse cadets from the pre-requisites needed to earn promotions.
GEEEEEEZ. i was merely using an example. I didnt expect anyone to disect it I was trying to make a point. You took my one "example" and made a big thing out of it. It really didnt warrent it though.
Quote from: flyguy06 on January 04, 2010, 07:13:11 PM
Quote from: A.Member on January 04, 2010, 07:07:35 PM
Quote from: flyguy06 on January 04, 2010, 05:46:07 PM
Here is an example. The regs say that if a cadet fails to progress that I am to kick him out of CAP.
We're getting off topic here but the regs (52-16 or any other) do not say that! (which again further illustrates my earlier point)
52-16 merely provides the option to do so, if needed. If there are excessive (to be defined by administrator), unexcused (excused do not count) abscences a cadet may (although we are not required to do so) be terminated from the program.
To quote 52-16, Section 1-5 (b) (my emphasis added):
Quote from: CAPR 52-16Attendance. Cadets are required to participate actively in their local unit if they are to progress in the Cadet Program. Excessive, unexcused[/u] absences may be cause for termination from CAP (see CAPR 35-3, Membership Termination). Any school-related activity is considered an excused absence. Cadets are responsible for notifying the unit about school activities in advance. School-related absences do not excuse cadets from the pre-requisites needed to earn promotions.
GEEEEEEZ. i was merely using an example. I didnt expect anyone to disect it I was trying to make a point. You took my one "example" and made a big thing out of it. It really didnt warrent it though.
You chose to provide the example...and further illustrated my point that some people do not read or fully understand 52-16. Your statement was incorrect. Plain and simple. Considering the context of the discussion that is important to note. Further it served as evidence to the additional point that the regulations provide plenty of room for the DCC to manuever within it's structure.
I'll take a stab at it.
Remove the first sentence (current definition of hazing). Rearrange/edit the remaining text as follows:
"Hazing is defined as the assignment of physical exercise or assigning remedial training that (i) is cruel, physically abusive, or physically harmful, or (ii) does not fit the nature of a given deficiency. Actual or implied consent to acts of hazing does not eliminate the culpability of the perpetrator. Hazing is considered a form of physical abuse, and the reporting procedures for physical abuse must be followed."
This eliminates a lot (but not all) of that whole "touchy, feely" aspect. How exactly does one go about defining words like 'humiliating', 'oppressive', and 'demeaning'. We still keep the more serious aspects like 'cruel', 'abusive', and 'harmful', focusing primarily on the physical nature of hazing, and by inserting "or" between (i) and (ii), we still catch those smaller punitive and supposedly corrective tasks/assignments that, while not physically harmful, are really not related to addressing any offense or finding.
Cadet shows up with scuffed-up and dirty boots after being given verbal notice the week before? Toss them a shoe-shine kit right before Opening Formation and say, "Report to the C/First Sergeant after Closing Formation for inspection." Under the current definition, this would be hazing (humiliating, demeaning, oh, the horror, ..), 'cause, you know, you should really take the cadet aside, counsel him in private, so as to protect his sensibilities and self-esteem. :-[ Under the revised definition, not hazing. He gets his boots shined during the mid-meeting break, and hopefully learns that it is smarter to shine your boots and get your uniform in order before showing up. And the other cadets (mostly low-speed) think, "Heck, I want to make sure I'm squared away before each meeting, or I could end up being that cadet."
Thoughts?
As for the 'failure to progress' issue, see also 35-3, Membership Termination
SECTION A - CADETS
3. Causes To Terminate Cadet Membership:-
b. Failure to progress satisfactorily in the CAP cadet program.
And
52-16, Cadet Program Management
2-3. Progression.
c. Failure to Progress. Cadets who fail to progress in the Cadet Program by completing at least two achievements per year may be terminated from the program (see CAPR 35-3, Membership Termination).
Quote from: Bobble on January 04, 2010, 07:19:35 PM
I'll take a stab at it.
Remove the first sentence (current definition of hazing). Rearrange/edit the remaining text as follows:
"Hazing is defined as the assignment of physical exercise or assigning remedial training that (i) is cruel, physically abusive, or physically harmful, or (ii) does not fit the nature of a given deficiency. Actual or implied consent to acts of hazing does not eliminate the culpability of the perpetrator. Hazing is considered a form of physical abuse, and the reporting procedures for physical abuse must be followed."
This eliminates a lot (but not all) of that whole "touchy, feely" aspect. How exactly does one go about defining words like 'humiliating', 'oppressive', and 'demeaning'. We still keep the more serious aspects like 'cruel', 'abusive', and 'harmful', focusing primarily on the physical nature of hazing, and by inserting "or" between (i) and (ii), we still catch those smaller punitive and supposedly corrective tasks/assignments that, while not physically harmful, are really not related to addressing any offense or finding.
Cadet shows up with scuffed-up and dirty boots after being given verbal notice the week before? Toss them a shoe-shine kit right before Opening Formation and say, "Report to the C/First Sergeant after Closing Formation for inspection." Under the current definition, this would be hazing (humiliating, demeaning, oh, the horror, ..), 'cause, you know, you should really take the cadet aside, counsel him in private, so as to protect his sensibilities and self-esteem. :-[ Under the revised definition, not hazing. He gets his boots shined during the mid-meeting break, and hopefully learns that it is smarter to shine your boots and get your uniform in order before showing up. And the other cadets (mostly low-speed) think, "Heck, I want to make sure I'm squared away before each meeting, or I could end up being that cadet."
Thoughts?
This is an interesting post that brings me back to some of my original points (wow!).
My first is that, except in the cases of the mentally ill or comatose, any sort of hazing is going to be defined by the EMOTIONAL tole it takes. There is no "physical" aspect to hazing, except in how it connects to the mental well-being of cadets.
If this was not the case, and we could define hazing as any physical act, then push-ups themselves would have to be banned. After all, if the mental connection is not taken into account, then the act of doing push-ups is hazing, whether or not it is in a PT testing environment. Clearly, this is not the case as far as CAP is involved. Rather, we are concerned that if we make a cadet do push-ups outside of regular testing environments that this will cause emotional damage, which is where the hazing can be defined.
Where we seem to have disagreement is as to when a cadet might be emotionally damaged. Cadets are, as far as CAP is concerned, not hazed or damaged mentally during PT testing. Okay. Now, when we bring it into the realm of discipline, they somehow are, despite the fact that the number of push-ups I suggest (sets of 5, two sets per hour, 6 per day), is LESS per set than ANY physical fitness testing requirement, and the total amount per day is LESS than many tests require in ONE SET. Yet, somehow, the act of physically doing push-ups is being equated with mental harm, and therefore is hazing. I cannot see the logic in a cadet doing push-ups for PT NOT being hazing, especially given the solo nature of test scores, while doing a few push-ups as a group IS considered emotionally damaging and is hazing.
The other problem of the definition I have is the "actual" consent in terms of hazing, although I do think that we need to think along those lines. I understand that we're thinking along the same lines one thinks about statutory rape. However, I think that, once again, we take it to a different level when we're painting with as broad of a brush as we do with hazing.
For instance, it was a bit of a tradition at a squadron I visited for the cadet staff to honor the basic cadets by, after a PT session where 80% of the cadets passed, dropping down and doing 25 push-ups in front of the squadron at the meeting's end (after formation). The cadets, in response to the tradition, would drop with the staff under the mindset of "doing things as a team", and, as a squadron, WITHOUT an order, the entire cadet group would knock out 25 as a congratulations for a job well done.
I saw this and thought it was excellent that the cadets had such great camaraderie as to manage something like this, and wish I had seen it at my squadron. I am not bringing this up as an example of the PT use I have been advocating, because I realize it is not. Rather, I'm bringing it up because, as defined by hazing, the cadets gave actual consent to doing PT outside of the testing environment, while in CAP uniform. So, technically, they were being hazed.
Likewise, during a bivouac, I and the cadet staff went for a short jog in the morning before the cadets got up. Nobody had to participate, but I was going regardless, and I invited the staff to join me if they wanted to be awake and energetic by the time it came to wake the cadets up. So, every morning, three cadets, all of a lower rank than me, gave implied consent to "do PT" with me by running a mile. Was I hazing them?
I mean, where IS the line drawn? Can PT testing REALLY only be used during testing times? If so, then is opening each morning at encampment considered hazing? After all, the cadets are doing PT, and they aren't being tested. They are giving either real or implied consent (and some aren't even giving consent at all). Can we punish a cadet for refusing to participate in PT that is being led by a cadet when that PT is not being used in a testing environment?
I am not overlooking that cadets will often follow the orders of the higher-ups regardless of whether or not they are legal or safe orders. However, I think that using such a strong take on the definition hamstrings our leaders. Not only that, but (this is important),
it gives CAP leaders the right not to listen to anything cadets have to say about the issue, as they are not capable of knowing what they can and can't handle.That's a big issue with me. We train the cadets to think on their own and handle themselves in some pretty tough situations. I'm sure .... would have some things to say about that. Yet, in saying that cadets can never agree to anything that we define to be hazing, and in allowing ourselves to define hazing as whatever we want, we effectively cut ourselves off of communication on how to best protect the cadets from the cadets themselves. Now, in many situations, this is justified. A cadet may or may not understand certain aspects of safety that only a mature mind could.
But is a cadet really not capable of understanding when he or she is being exercised out of spite rather than just discipline? Are cadets really not going to be able to tell when their arms hurt? I mean, it seems like the cadets themselves, in an excuse to try to be lazier and make the program easier on themselves, would be the ones advocating a "no push-up rule." But the people who we are trying to protect from the high-intensity encampments that a simple thing like a set of push-ups can create are, in many cases, the ones asking for it.
But, because cadets can never, ever decide what might be hazing or what might be harmful to them, then we don't have to listen to them at all. And I think that has been and will be the major divide in this issue as long as it is an issue.
Quote from: Nathan on January 04, 2010, 08:33:21 PM
I mean, where IS the line drawn? Can PT testing REALLY only be used during testing times? If so, then is opening each morning at encampment considered hazing? After all, the cadets are doing PT, and they aren't being tested. They are giving either real or implied consent (and some aren't even giving consent at all). Can we punish a cadet for refusing to participate in PT that is being led by a cadet when that PT is not being used in a testing environment?
You make an interesting point, except:
Quote from: CAPR 52-16 para. 1-2(c)
The fitness program encourages units to provide drills, games and other activities that promote physical fitness. Commanders should schedule time for cadet fitness training; simply administering the fitness tests described below is not sufficient (see CAPP 52-18, Cadet Physical Fitness Program, for suggested activities). Physical exercise in the Cadet Program will be used only to improve cadets’ physical fitness while increasing confidence, teamwork and determination. Fitness training will not be used as a form of punishment or as a vehicle to teach remedial discipline.
Quote from: CAPR 52-16 Figure 5-1
Encampments: Required Minimum Course Content
3b. Physical Fitness: Cadets will participate in fitness activities such as team sports, calisthenics, and exercise games that will motivate them to develop a lifelong habit of regular exercise. Sportsmanship will be encouraged, as well as cadets’ efforts to achieve their personal best. Cadets will be instructed how to safely participate in fitness activities. Additionally, the importance of physical fitness will be related to Air Force missions, civilian aerospace careers, and a cadet’s total well-being.
Universal Aerospace Leader Competencies:
Aerospace Leadership: Health and Wellness
Emphasis mine.
Quote from: McLarty on January 04, 2010, 08:46:33 PM
Quote from: Nathan on January 04, 2010, 08:33:21 PM
I mean, where IS the line drawn? Can PT testing REALLY only be used during testing times? If so, then is opening each morning at encampment considered hazing? After all, the cadets are doing PT, and they aren't being tested. They are giving either real or implied consent (and some aren't even giving consent at all). Can we punish a cadet for refusing to participate in PT that is being led by a cadet when that PT is not being used in a testing environment?
You make an interesting point, except:
Quote from: CAPR 52-16 para. 1-2(c)
The fitness program encourages units to provide drills, games and other activities that promote physical fitness. Commanders should schedule time for cadet fitness training; simply administering the fitness tests described below is not sufficient (see CAPP 52-18, Cadet Physical Fitness Program, for suggested activities). Physical exercise in the Cadet Program will be used only to improve cadets' physical fitness while increasing confidence, teamwork and determination. Fitness training will not be used as a form of punishment or as a vehicle to teach remedial discipline.
Quote from: CAPR 52-16 Figure 5-1
Encampments: Required Minimum Course Content
3b. Physical Fitness: Cadets will participate in fitness activities such as team sports, calisthenics, and exercise games that will motivate them to develop a lifelong habit of regular exercise. Sportsmanship will be encouraged, as well as cadets' efforts to achieve their personal best. Cadets will be instructed how to safely participate in fitness activities. Additionally, the importance of physical fitness will be related to Air Force missions, civilian aerospace careers, and a cadet's total well-being.
Universal Aerospace Leader Competencies:
Aerospace Leadership: Health and Wellness
Emphasis mine.
Fair enough, although I would still argue that the definition of "exercise games" is still capable of crossing into the realm of "hazing" as defined by CAP. I know Eclipse likes to point to the "clear line" that seems to separate hazing from not hazing, but where is that line during an "exercise game" of front-back-go? What's the clear line that decides when an exercise circuit has become hazing?
In fact, I would argue that this would leave even MORE room open for hazing. After all, isn't a military bearing test with the consequence of failure being a lap around the track technically both punitive PT AND "calisthenics" or an "exercise game?"
Vague, vague, vague. There aren't many clear lines in the regulations, so I have to imagine that such lines exist on an individual basis.
Quote from: flyguy06 on January 04, 2010, 05:46:07 PM
Here is an example. The regs say that if a cadet fails to progress that I am to kick him out of CAP. That thought has never even crossed my mind. First of all if I did that, it would wipe out every cadet in my squadron.
As has already been pointed out, the regulations provide the command
option of dropping a cadet from the program if they fail to progress. I agree that's an action of last resort- I've threatened in my squadron but never actually had to do it. However, if you've got a situation where
none of the cadets in your squadron are able to progress to C/A1C in 12 months, perhaps it's time to seriously consider dropping the "2B bomb" on the worst offenders. After all they are soaking up taxpayer money for the FCU program, O-flights, etc. Is it too much to ask that they attend regularly and pass a relatively easy test every six months in exchange for the privilege of calling themselves CAP cadets? JMHO...
Quote from: BlackKnight on January 04, 2010, 11:56:14 PM
As has already been pointed out, the regulations provide the command option of dropping a cadet from the program if they fail to progress. I agree that's an action of last resort- I've threatened in my squadron but never actually had to do it. However, if you've got a situation where none of the cadets in your squadron are able to progress to C/A1C in 12 months, perhaps it's time to seriously consider dropping the "2B bomb" on the worst offenders. After all they are soaking up taxpayer money for the FCU program, O-flights, etc. Is it too much to ask that they attend regularly and pass a relatively easy test every six months in exchange for the privilege of calling themselves CAP cadets? JMHO...
Just sayin', but I'd be more worried about the leadership of that squadron than the cadets.
Alrighty then. that makes sense to me
Quote from: flyguy06 on January 05, 2010, 01:17:17 AM
Alrighty then. that makes sense to me
I did not mean to offend and apologize for doing so.
From the outside, 0% compliance with the progression standard looks like a systemic failure, not a failure on the part of the cadets. If it looks like a systemic failure, you start looking for solutions at the top; dropping the "2B bomb" in such a case is the WORST thing you can do.
In your specific situation, it appears that the systemic failure is an environmental one, which is totally out of CAP control. An outsider wouldn't know that until meeting (or discussing the issues) with the leadership.
Quote from: Ned on December 30, 2009, 05:25:09 PM
How can they do that?
If we are using the same definition, why aren't we interpreting it in the same way?
This is a genuine question.
Speaking as someone who is a mandated reporter the age of the recipient is the defining factor. A military recruit is considered of age to make the
informed consent to join the service. The recruit accepts the contact and the responsibilities / consequences inherent in the commitment. A cadet, by virtue of being a minor can not consent to such.
Speaking also as a clinician in answer to a previous to a previous point - you can
never divorce physical pain from mental pain. They are inherently linked. One of the critical points of the healing process is to address the mental anguish that comes from physical pain. The point of the pain / work in a punitive way is to use a physical action to elicit an emotional and or cognitive response. The point of physical pain in a punishment scenario is emotional coercion. This why the precise standard is set in 52-10 page 2 section c. An adult military recruit is assumed to understand this. A cadet - by virtue of being a minor - can not consent to this.
Essentially the current regulation sets a reasonable person standard. The difference between the DoD application and CAP is the age of consent. I would argue that because we are a civilian organization and dealing with minors we need to hold that bar much higher.
Quote from: Ned on December 30, 2009, 05:25:09 PM
Clearly, every branch of the armed forces (including the Air Force) uses PT as punishment during at least their basic training programs. The Air Force also uses PT in this manner after basic training while airmen are enrolled in their tech schools.
How can they do that?
If we are using the same definition, why aren't we interpreting it in the same way?
Punitive PT is not hazing, per se.
PT as punishment is specifically prohibited via 52-16 and 52-18 as violations of the CAP Cadet Protection Policy.
52-10 holds up punitive PT as one
example of Hazing, but does not define punitive PT
as hazing.
Punishing a whole squad with extra pushups is verboten, not because hazing, its just against the rules. Period.
Redefine "hazing" all you want, that won't change the prohibition of disciplinary PT as a concept.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 13, 2010, 08:06:51 PM
Punitive PT is not hazing, per se.
( . . .)
52-10 holds up punitive PT as one example of Hazing, but does not define punitive PT as hazing.
I'm satisfied at this point, we are probably just down to semantics.
My issue is that if you are correct that "punitive PT is not hazing, per se" then punitive PT cannot be an example of hazing. IOW, punitive PT cannot be an example of something it is not.
In my mind, at least, I believe that the author(s) of this paragraph are simply guilty of sloppy drafting. They should have said something to the effect of "We use the DoD definition, and we have an additional rule that we never use punitive PT."
I think I can fix this when we next update the 52-10. Which we should probably do - if for no other reason - because it sounds like the DoD has modified their definition. And we should continue to be in line with them, plus any additional protections we choose to add (like punitive PT.)
Thank you for your work with our cadets. It is appreciated.
Quote from: Ned on January 13, 2010, 10:13:20 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on January 13, 2010, 08:06:51 PM
Punitive PT is not hazing, per se.
( . . .)
52-10 holds up punitive PT as one example of Hazing, but does not define punitive PT as hazing.
I'm satisfied at this point, we are probably just down to semantics.
My issue is that if you are correct that "punitive PT is not hazing, per se" then punitive PT cannot be an example of hazing. IOW, punitive PT cannot be an example of something it is not.
I would say its not a "good" example of hazing, because its a practice already prohibited elsewhere, just as 100 other behaviors are that could be hazing, but aren't necessarily.
We could all think of 10 ways to haze a cadet that do not involve PT in any way, and likewise we could all come up with PT for punishment
that would not meet the hazing criteria.
Quote from: flyerthom on January 13, 2010, 07:42:29 PM
Speaking as someone who is a mandated reporter the age of the recipient is the defining factor. A military recruit is considered of age to make the informed consent to join the service. The recruit accepts the contact and the responsibilities / consequences inherent in the commitment. A cadet, by virtue of being a minor can not consent to such.
I doubt there are many military recruits out there who have any more idea of what to expect of the military when they sign up than there are cadet-aged youth with such knowledge.
The other part that you missed is that our cadets don't sign any sort of contract. Informed consent would be a big deal if the cadet couldn't back out of CAP, or could not refuse just to sit on his butt without any consequence except us sending him home. A military recruit does not have the luxury of doing that sort of thing. There IS no contract with CAP. Regardless of whether or not punitive PT is allowed, the cadet is still always allowed to say no, and the only consequences that would occur would be within CAP. And, if the cadet says no to what is judged to be hazing, then the consequences are going to the leader, not the cadet.
Quote from: flyerthom on January 13, 2010, 07:42:29 PMSpeaking also as a clinician in answer to a previous to a previous point - you can never divorce physical pain from mental pain. They are inherently linked. One of the critical points of the healing process is to address the mental anguish that comes from physical pain. The point of the pain / work in a punitive way is to use a physical action to elicit an emotional and or cognitive response. The point of physical pain in a punishment scenario is emotional coercion. This why the precise standard is set in 52-10 page 2 section c. An adult military recruit is assumed to understand this. A cadet - by virtue of being a minor - can not consent to this.
In your field of work as a "clinician", then yes, physical and mental pain cannot be thought of as "divorced." Treating the whole body, and all that.
But speaking in absolutes that it can NEVER be divorced is extreme. As I said, exercise is an obvious example. It physically is always going to be painful. Exercise only works because it forces the body to adapt to conditions that are harsher than it is used to, hence, it requires undergoing strain and pain. However, this ultimately can make people mentally feel BETTER. Heck, some people feel terrible if they DON'T exercise.
In the same vein, if we are going to be avoiding all possible sources of mental pain, then we can't have the cadets waking up early anymore. Nor can we assign them to flights with people they may not like. Nor can we make them undergo the stress of testing. And so forth.
Besides, I think you're taking the term "pain" a little far. I am not encouraging leaders to put their cadets into pain. That's where it is crossing the line. Rather, I said that while in many cases, physical and emotional well-being are linked directly, this is not always the case, ESPECIALLY in the case of exercise, and when we use common sense, most of us can figure out that five push-ups aren't going to put cadets in any physical pain anyway. I was just making a point to cover that base early on.
Quote from: Nathan on January 14, 2010, 09:15:52 PM
In the same vein, if we are going to be avoiding all possible sources of mental pain, then we can't have the cadets waking up early anymore. Nor can we assign them to flights with people they may not like. Nor can we make them undergo the stress of testing. And so forth.
I don't know that those are very good examples of "mental pain".
And not all physical exercise is painful, either. At least not for a reasonably healthy person working within their abilities.
Nathan, at this point you are splitting hairs. If we can't come up with a definition of hazing and a reasonable "corrective" PT directive in 130+ posts that we can all agree on then it ain't gonna happen.
I work at a prison boot camp for adult felons. We use "corrective" PT in that program so I know the dark side of this and we don't want to start down that slippery slope with cadets. It is better to err on the side of caution and ban it altogether than wait for the first nitwit to push the envelope.
I have seen this from the military side of the house, bootcamp, and CAP so I know whence I speak. Eclipse, Redfox24, and some of the others that have worked at encampments know how a otherwise reasonable and rational super cadet can crawl inside the stupid box with this sort of thing. Let's leave things as they are and find more intelligent methods of "correcting" our cadets. Remember, the first definition of discipline is "training".
The key point isn't the word pain - it's the infliction of emotional coercion via a physical tool whether it's push ups or a pink pistol belt. And what is the limit; 5 push ups, 10 push ups? Korery Stringer and his coaches thought he push just a little more. The point is the use of a physical punishment can and will be used in a detrimental manor. CAP is not trained to effectively use it. We're not DI's or correction officers and encampments are not designed to be boot camps. We have no need and no training for it.
And yes physical and emotional well being are always linked. I'll quote Potter and Perry from nursing, and look up any other cites if needed. CAP can not afford legally to pursue a route of physical punishments. That trail has been run and lost by other organizations before. Even if nothing happens to a cadet, organizations have lost this law suit. Why play a losing game.
Quote from: flyerthom on January 15, 2010, 03:04:09 AM
Even if nothing happens to a cadet, organizations have lost this law suit. Why play a losing game.
There it is right there! That is the whole basis to CAP members having any discussion of PT = hazing. Some of you "old timers" should remember a day when there was no such thing as politically correct, affirmative this or yellow cards for telling a drill instructor his yelling was causing mental anguish.
The current generation and the future generations are becoming weak and self centered. Reports call it the "me first, never you" attitude. I have kids straight out of college banging down my door for a job and they are brazen enough to dictate to me how, when and for how long they will work. Last time I looked, I was the employer they the employees. It is a growing problem and major companies like Microsoft and GE are catering to these kids by setting up game rooms, allowing 30 minute naps and come or go work shifts. We are looking at the future of a civilization who is too weak and lazy to do what needs done and it appears it boils down to not being able to yell at kids (cause if you do, you get child services called on you).
Quote from: Spike on January 15, 2010, 03:16:00 AMWe are looking at the future of a civilization who is too weak and lazy to do what needs done
What needs to be done?
The work environments at Microsoft, Google, and the rest are in response to market forces, not a weakening of the employee base. It is a leveling of the playing field in that being an employee gives you bargaining power and doesn't automatically mean you are an indentured servant.
The ones dictating their terms to you either have something you need (that's called "capitalism"), or learn quickly where their real place in the universe is (for now).
At many tech companies employees all but live in their workspaces, are tethered to their jobs by smartphones, and work/life is a blend that is hard to separate.
You need to find a different place to hang this hat.
Quote from: flyerthom on January 15, 2010, 03:04:09 AMCAP can not afford legally to pursue a route of physical punishments. That trail has been run and lost by other organizations before. Even if nothing happens to a cadet, organizations have lost this law suit. Why play a losing game.
Really? Why do you say that?
I spent some time working the Lexis/Nexis database and was unable to find a single verdict that included "pushups" or any other routine calisthenics-type exercises.
I did find a few schools that lost some money when football players were literally PT'd to death in hot and humid ernvironments, but nothing even vaguely resembling Nathan's proposed use of pushups as corrective PT.
Closer to home, pushups were "legal" in our cadet program for the majority of its 60+ years of existence, and yet somehow we have managed to remain "judgment-free" for all the decades we employed them.
Coincidence? I don't think so.
Obviously reasonable minds differ on this subject, and there are lots of good reasons on both sides of the discussion.
But let's not throw the "LAWSUIT!" flag without some basis for supposing it might actually happen under any reasonable guidelines that Nathan or others might propose.
Ned Lee
Former CAP Legal Officer
Quote from: olefidoNathan, at this point you are splitting hairs. If we can't come up with a definition of hazing and a reasonable "corrective" PT directive in 130+ posts that we can all agree on then it ain't gonna happen.
Uh... I like CAPTalk too... but are you honestly saying that if a few guys arguing on a message board can't come up in only 8 pages to rewrite the hazing section of the cadet program and ensure that it is justified under the currently accepted hazing definition that it is therefore impossible? I'm imaging this thread, in verbal conversation form, might have taken 30 minutes to an hour. I think the meeting for the committee rewriting CAPR 52-16 would be a little longer than that. ;)
Quote from: olefido on January 15, 2010, 01:18:46 AM
I work at a prison boot camp for adult felons. We use "corrective" PT in that program so I know the dark side of this and we don't want to start down that slippery slope with cadets. It is better to err on the side of caution and ban it altogether than wait for the first nitwit to push the envelope.
If they are going to push the envelope, they're going to do so whether or not we're giving them permission to use push-ups. That's the part of the argument I don't get. The rule-breakers are going to break the rules regardless of whether or not the rules say 5 push-ups or no push-ups.
Quote from: olefido"I have seen this from the military side of the house, bootcamp, and CAP so I know whence I speak. Eclipse, Redfox24, and some of the others that have worked at encampments know how a otherwise reasonable and rational super cadet can crawl inside the stupid box with this sort of thing. Let's leave things as they are and find more intelligent methods of "correcting" our cadets. Remember, the first definition of discipline is "training".
The condescending attitudes are getting a little old. Does this mean that my 8 years of cadet programs experience and 7 encampments don't count for anything at all? Believe it or not, I have seen the results of what happens when cadets push the line too far, which is why I think it would be much, MUCH better to give cadets a regulated, monitored line, rather than simply expecting them not to start down the path at all.
And this is a TOOL that can be used. It's not evil within itself, no more so than any other possible punishment can be. It, like the loss of honor points, or a 2b, or a stern talking to, can be taken into the realm of hazing. Push-ups are no more tempting to abuse. It's the power to punish that gets to people's heads. If we have a problem with that, then we need to take all authority away from cadets, period. But that's not something I'm going to advocate, and I doubt that anyone else will either, given that we are a leadership program, and are supposed to be teaching cadets how to utilize power effectively, not avoid it just because it COULD lead to bad leadership...
Quote from: flyerthomThe key point isn't the word pain - it's the infliction of emotional coercion via a physical tool whether it's push ups or a pink pistol belt. And what is the limit; 5 push ups, 10 push ups? Korery Stringer and his coaches thought he push just a little more. The point is the use of a physical punishment can and will be used in a detrimental manor. CAP is not trained to effectively use it. We're not DI's or correction officers and encampments are not designed to be boot camps. We have no need and no training for it.
First of all, if you had read the original justification, we are trying to AVOID emotional coercion. What we use now, in the form of chastizing, loss of honor points, deprivation of attendence to fun activities, demotions, and 2b's all lead to emotional harm far worse than a few push-ups ever will. I'm not going to write that argument out for the fifteenth time, so I figure if you're interested in joining the current conversation, you will read what has already been written.
Second of all, once again, if someone pushes past rules designed to regulate push-ups, it is not going to make a difference whether we are regulating 0 push-ups or 30 push-ups. They're going to push regardless of what we say. Ideally, we would be able to track these people down and, ironically, punish them appropriately. But since we clearly aren't capable of doing that perfectly, push-ups would serve a secondary goal of regulating a practice that can be harmful if pushed too far. Hence, we could, in theory, be doing a lot more good than bad by actually allowing and dictating a safe program for implementing push-ups than we are by trying to outright ban them.
Third, technically, we have no NEED for it. As I said, I'm not trying to break down the door with this issue. But I think it is something that will replace practices we currently use that tend to lower morale and cause far more emotional damage than push-ups can. Once again, if you're interested in reading that argument, you're free to look over the few pages of information I've already written about it.
Quote from: flyerthomAnd yes physical and emotional well being are always linked. I'll quote Potter and Perry from nursing, and look up any other cites if needed. CAP can not afford legally to pursue a route of physical punishments. That trail has been run and lost by other organizations before. Even if nothing happens to a cadet, organizations have lost this law suit. Why play a losing game.
I wasn't talking about "well being." We're talking about pain. I'm assuming you are aware of the difference. Even as a CNA, I am. So if you have quotes that prove that emotional and physical PAIN are always linked, I would actually like you to quote them, as it would go against pretty much everything I've learned about the subject during my studies toward a psychology degree. As I said, I acknowledge that the two are related in many cases, but never in ALL cases. Otherwise, nobody would ever exercise, or take a hot shower, or, hell, go in for acupuncture.
Second, are you absolutely sure that all organizations have "lost this law suit"? I can think of at least one major cadet organization off the top of my head that is very successful, and allows punitive PT to be administered by cadets.
What this thread boils down to, is 52-16 was written with little or no input from members in cadet programs IN THE FIELD. As Ned says pushups were normal in the cadet program from 1942 to the latest revision to 52-16. Other changes the appointing rather than the election of CAC Representatives, meaning Commanders at all levels appointed cadets that would not tend to rock the boat or are Commanders "pets". The voice of the cadets is quieted as they could not bring problems to higher levels.
The wearing of earned rank at encampments very often meant that a C/CMSgt at their first encampment might be under a Flight Sgt that was only a Cadet Senior Airman. Cadets in the flight didn't know who to listen to. Encampments are a whole different part of CAP that is more military and structured than a cadets home Squadron.
The National Commander needs to appoint a committee (including Ned) and people with a vast experience in cadet programs to rewrite 52-16.
^ Right on. I never understood the policy on not allowing Cadets to remove their insignia at Encampments. How does that hurt a Cadet?? We made all of the Cadets remove them when we flew in the back of helicopters, never once did I see a Cadet cry over it. (Honestly, they did not need to remove them, but the Crews always "would like them to take them off".
Honestly, I have the Cadets decide between themselves who the CAC reps will be. I appoint them on paper, but the cadets "elect between themselves" in any manner they wish.
One good example everyone here has left out is what takes place at certain national activities. Having been to Hawk Mtn as a guest staying for three days I saw cadets run the obstacle over and over because they were not completing it in "a predetermined time". Our leaders obviously had no problems with this (Gen Courter). Cadets ran sprints on the parade field for not running as a group on the daily run, our leadership was fine with this (Gen Courter). Cadets are thrown into a pit of water (sometimes cold water) when they make "expert ranger" (Hazing!).
At Encampments, bunks are torn apart when not made in the proper fashion (hazing). Cadets stand guard duty and should they have fallen asleep they are made to stand a second shift (hazing). In Squadrons I have visited, cadet stand in line to practice reporting and when not done properly the cadet is sent to the back of the line to try it again (used to embarrass, Hazing).
Promotion scores are told to cadets when other cadets can hear if they passed or failed, this is a form of "mental anguish" (hazing). Cadets are forced to correct test to 100% (might be hazing). Cadets with better attendance are allowed to go on Orientation flights when there are not enough seats and others are "left behind" (a case for hazing??)
We can go on and on, but one persons idea of hazing is another persons idea of how people are to be treated.
I agree a committee should be formed to come up with something very specific and not so vague. It is vague, or we would not be having this conversation.
Quote from: BillB on January 15, 2010, 12:02:23 PM
What this thread boils down to, is 52-16 was written with little or no input from members in cadet programs IN THE FIELD. As Ned says pushups were normal in the cadet program from 1942 to the latest revision to 52-16.
Minor quibble. I think you are referring to the 52-10 (CPP), not the 52-16.
As it turns out, the latest revision to the 52-16 is in the final days of staff coordination and should be posted for comment fairly shortly. We have had a lot of input from the field, and of course the public comment period will produce more valuble input. The new draft has specific language concerning making CP challenging for every cadet at every activity.
Based on this thread and some stuff over on CadetStuff we have begun work on a revision to the 52-10, but we don't have anything ready for submission yet.
Ned Lee
National Cadet Advisor
(Cool job, crummy job title)
Quote from: Spike on January 15, 2010, 05:21:24 PM
^ Right on. I never understood the policy on not allowing Cadets to remove their insignia at Encampments. How does that hurt a Cadet?? We made all of the Cadets remove them when we flew in the back of helicopters, never once did I see a Cadet cry over it. (Honestly, they did not need to remove them, but the Crews always "would like them to take them off".
It falls into the temporary promotion/demotion issue. I've had the pleasure of explaining to cadets who had received 'field' promotions for encmapment that it does not count outside of encampment and they need to put their proper grade on. This applies to cadet NCO's as well as cadet Officers.
Removing them for a helicopter flight at the suggestion of the crew (probably for safety reasons) is very different from removing them at encampment for uniformity.
Quote from: Spike on January 15, 2010, 03:16:00 AM
Quote from: flyerthom on January 15, 2010, 03:04:09 AM
Even if nothing happens to a cadet, organizations have lost this law suit. Why play a losing game.
There it is right there! That is the whole basis to CAP members having any discussion of PT = hazing. Some of you "old timers" should remember a day when there was no such thing as politically correct, affirmative this or yellow cards for telling a drill instructor his yelling was causing mental anguish.
The current generation and the future generations are becoming weak and self centered. Reports call it the "me first, never you" attitude. I have kids straight out of college banging down my door for a job and they are brazen enough to dictate to me how, when and for how long they will work. Last time I looked, I was the employer they the employees. It is a growing problem and major companies like Microsoft and GE are catering to these kids by setting up game rooms, allowing 30 minute naps and come or go work shifts. We are looking at the future of a civilization who is too weak and lazy to do what needs done and it appears it boils down to not being able to yell at kids (cause if you do, you get child services called on you).
Ok, ok we'll get off your lawn already...
Last time I was at NESA in '06 (as a cadet) for BGSAR most of us (cadet enlisted) removed our grade insignia voluntarily (someone came up with the idea that we're all students and equal and therefore our grade didn't matter, which has merit). It seemed to work well, nobody had a problem with it and it helped us work better as a team. The exception was, of course, cadet officers and SMs because theirs is sewn on.
Except for the fact that you were out of uniform. :(
I went to NESA for GTL in 2007. One of the cadets who had gone to First Responder the first week had take off his rank....we made him put it back on. He said he was told to take it off for safety.
There is no discretionary rank in CAP.....wear your rank.
Prior to Oct 06, the reason many Wing encampments required cadet rank for doolies to be removed was to make all cadets in the flight equal. No matter how many stripes you earned, as a Doolie you were just as equal to the cadet next to you. I haven't seen cadet staff given higher rank for an encampment for many years. Cadets wwore their earned grade at the final banquet or pass in review so that when they returned home they were wearing their earned rank.
Many years ago cadet staff were given grades up to C/Col as an encampment rank, but that concept died sometime in the 1950's early 60's.
My last encampment was in 1970 - we had discretionary rank.
Quote from: Ned on January 15, 2010, 04:09:34 AM
I did find a few schools that lost some money when football players were literally PT'd to death in hot and humid ernvironments, but nothing even vaguely resembling Nathan's proposed use of pushups as corrective PT.
You know, we keep referring to the military as an example of a place where PT is used as a punishment for adults, but what about junior high and high school sports programs? These are voluntary extracurricular youth activities where kids are routinely punished for various infractions with some form of physical activity.
Quote from: RiverAux on January 16, 2010, 11:14:36 PM
Quote from: Ned on January 15, 2010, 04:09:34 AM
I did find a few schools that lost some money when football players were literally PT'd to death in hot and humid ernvironments, but nothing even vaguely resembling Nathan's proposed use of pushups as corrective PT.
You know, we keep referring to the military as an example of a place where PT is used as a punishment for adults, but what about junior high and high school sports programs? These are voluntary extracurricular youth activities where kids are routinely punished for various infractions with some form of physical activity.
+1
There are way too many examples out there where this practice has gone horribly awry, under the ?supervision? of ?trained professionals?, to the point of death.
As for the existence of "dropping" and other forms of physical punishment (bloomin' dip-dips come to mind) back in the '60s and '70s, it was aggressively discouraged in the groups in South Jersey. the whole time I was a cadet in NJWG.
I do not recall discretionary rank being used at my NJWG encampment in '66.
NJWG was much bigger than AKWG. At my first encampment in 1968. the cadet commander was a C/MSgt (got his Mitchel the next month).
That encampment was, BTW, really old school. Bunks overturned. Close-quarters, high dB verbal admonishments, SMs didn't smile (except for the commander). By the time I attended my 4th in 1970, it had cooled down considerably. However, we cadet officers were brought up in that environment so there was what would be called hazing these days. We were advised by two AF AD former TIs. They showed us what was good technique and what wasn't. Importantly, they taught us what was going overboard. But that was then and this is now.
Quote from: SarDragon on January 16, 2010, 11:25:29 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on January 16, 2010, 11:14:36 PM
Quote from: Ned on January 15, 2010, 04:09:34 AM
I did find a few schools that lost some money when football players were literally PT'd to death in hot and humid ernvironments, but nothing even vaguely resembling Nathan's proposed use of pushups as corrective PT.
You know, we keep referring to the military as an example of a place where PT is used as a punishment for adults, but what about junior high and high school sports programs? These are voluntary extracurricular youth activities where kids are routinely punished for various infractions with some form of physical activity.
+1
There are way too many examples out there where this practice has gone horribly awry, under the ?supervision? of ?trained professionals?, to the point of death.
I think you got the idea that I was using high school sports as a negative example, when in fact I was brining it up as an area where such punishments are widely accepted by everyone.
Quote from: SarDragon on January 16, 2010, 11:25:29 PM
+1
There are way too many examples out there where this practice has gone horribly awry, under the ?supervision? of ?trained professionals?, to the point of death.
Can you point us to one of the examples you found where someone was "pushupped" to death?
That would really help the discussion.
Just one would be fine . . .
Quote from: Ned on January 17, 2010, 12:54:41 AM
Quote from: SarDragon on January 16, 2010, 11:25:29 PM
+1
There are way too many examples out there where this practice has gone horribly awry, under the ?supervision? of ?trained professionals?, to the point of death.
Can you point us to one of the examples you found where someone was "pushupped" to death?
That would really help the discussion.
Just one would be fine . . .
I would probably need more than just one case to be convinced that there is a significantly larger number of cases of abuse with punitive PT than there is with any other punitive measure, and therefore be convinced that we are justified in separating it out with regards to the CPP.
For instance, pointing out Chernobyl doesn't really make a case against using nuclear power. It just proves that we need to be careful using it because, like any sort of power plant (nuclear or otherwise), one slip-up can become a messy situation.
Similarly, one case of someone going over the line with punitive PT doesn't really make a case against using it, at least to me. All it means is that one bad apple used it incorrectly and people got hurt because of it. It doesn't mean that CAP should be more scared of the risk of abuse from punitive PT than it should be from abusing regular PT, or drill, or mentoring, or C&C, or whatever other aspect of authority with which a member may be involved.
I don't doubt that there are cases out there of punitive PT going too far. I'm just not sure where you're planning on taking the train of thought that would lead us further into the discussion. :)
Quote from: Ned on January 17, 2010, 12:54:41 AM
Quote from: SarDragon on January 16, 2010, 11:25:29 PM
+1
There are way too many examples out there where this practice has gone horribly awry, under the ?supervision? of ?trained professionals?, to the point of death.
Can you point us to one of the examples you found where someone was "pushupped" to death?
That would really help the discussion.
Just one would be fine . . .
I have no specific examples available. I do recall that there have been a number of heat related high school athlete deaths due at least in part to over zealous "coaching". These may or may not necessarily be totally germane to this discussion.
YMMV.
Quote from: Gunner C on January 16, 2010, 11:35:02 PM
We were advised by two AF AD former TIs. They showed us what was good technique and what wasn't. Importantly, they taught us what was going overboard. But that was then and this is now.
Therein lies the very significant difference.
Quote from: Ned on January 15, 2010, 04:09:34 AM
But let's not throw the "LAWSUIT!" flag without some basis for supposing it might actually happen under any reasonable guidelines that Nathan or others might propose.
Ned Lee
Former CAP Legal Officer
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3735/is_200201/ai_n9035275/ (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3735/is_200201/ai_n9035275/)
Quote from: Ned on January 17, 2010, 12:54:41 AM
Quote from: SarDragon on January 16, 2010, 11:25:29 PM
+1
There are way too many examples out there where this practice has gone horribly awry, under the ?supervision? of ?trained professionals?, to the point of death.
Can you point us to one of the examples you found where someone was "pushupped" to death?
That would really help the discussion.
Just one would be fine . . .
http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=66299 (http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=66299)
Quote from: Nathan on January 15, 2010, 07:15:37 AM
The condescending attitudes are getting a little old.
QuoteFirst of all, if you had read the original justification,
You were saying...
The legal article is posted as well as just one example of PT death let alone the Korey Stringer Case. The bottom line is we are not trained or skilled in the use of PT as punishment. Doing it because some cadets think it is more military or fun is flat out risky.
Quote from: flyerthom on January 17, 2010, 03:55:13 PM
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3735/is_200201/ai_n9035275/ (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3735/is_200201/ai_n9035275/)
http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=66299 (http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=66299)
Tom,
Thank you for finding the articles, but I think both of them rather strongly support Nathan's position.
The first article is a law review article exactly on point - a professional discussion of institutional liability for hazing in both academia and professional sports. Some of the descriptions were horrific, and the authors do a pretty good job of describing the legal standards involved.
And law review articles - by their very nature - are exhaustively researched and are fact checked by the journal before publication.
But as horrible as those incidents were, not one of them is remotely like anything Nathan is proposing. None of them involved simple calisthenic-type exercises done in moderate amounts. All of them were degrading and harmful practices such as forced consumption of adulterated food stuffs or invasions of basic human dignity such as full-body shaving and naked locker-room antics. The only description of pushups were the ones done naked over warm beer with subsequent consumption of the beer. (Eeeewwww). If anything remotely like these things happened to me, I'd sue, too. If anything remotely like these things ever happened in CAP, you or any other responsible officer would immediately stop it.
The point is that the authors couldn't find a single case where simple pushups had ever been found by a court to be hazing, or that any such silly lawsuit had ever been filed.
I must admit I'm a little puzzled about the second article, which describes a tragic death occuring during a military battalion run when a 42 year old soldier collapsed and died. I don't know anything about your military background, but as a retired Army guy I can assure you that battalion runs are common, and have nothing to do with hazing.
You're a medical professional and know probably better than I do that, sadly, sometimes people collapse and die during strenuous physical exertion. Particularly folks over 40 years of age like the soldier in the article. This is the main reason that the Army requires a comprehensive "over 40 physical" (yes, that's what they call it) including an EKG before anyone 40+ can participate in strenuous exercise.
I'm just not sure how this tragedy illuminates our discussion one way or another, unless you are urging that CP should not include any running or physical activity at all.
Bottom line, based on your research it seems clearer than ever that there is no reasonable possibility of litigation based on the use of pushups in any sort of reasonable disciplinary program.
I'm not sure that is what you intended, but it does help the discussion.
Ned Lee
(Former CAP legal officer)
I think Tom's examples do help and you helped point it out. Just as people over the age of 40 have a tendancy to collapse during physical exertion, so do youngsters, especially in the 12-14 age group. Anyone under the age of 18 relies on others to make serious decisions for them. They are not considered competent. For this very reason, they can't consent to hazing or to being overstressed through exercise, nor can they be counted on to make such decisions over others. Therefore the stringent/rigid regulations regarding hazing and PT as punishment.
Quote from: AirAux on January 17, 2010, 09:12:22 PM
I think Tom's examples do help and you helped point it out. Just as people over the age of 40 have a tendancy to collapse during physical exertion, so do youngsters, especially in the 12-14 age group. Anyone under the age of 18 relies on others to make serious decisions for them. They are not considered competent. For this very reason, they can't consent to hazing or to being overstressed through exercise, nor can they be counted on to make such decisions over others. Therefore the stringent/rigid regulations regarding hazing and PT as punishment.
I have no idea why you say that 12-14 year olds are in any way physically comparable with a 40 year old. When I was in the 12-14 age range, I was doing mandatory PE class at school. If I had collapsed during PE, it would have been due to a medical issue that had been ignored either due to me not disclosing the issue or my PE teacher's incompetence, not because of the danger of doing physical exertion as a teenager. 12-21 year olds are likely in the best shape they will ever be.
Second, cadets are allowed to undergo stress by parental permission. If not, then we would not be permitted to do ANY sort of PT at all, regardless of the purpose of the PT. Being dropped for five push-ups is not more stressful than running a mile for testing purposes. Cadets are not allowed to legally consent, but when their parents cosign the membership applications, they are giving CAP the permission to supervise exercise and other sorts of "strenuous" activities. If they are not, then we have a lot more to worry about than punitive PT. The number of push-ups I am advocating per set is less than any PT requirement, and the total amount per day is only 30, spread out over the course of a MINIMUM of three hours. Most 12-year olds can do that, and I would even bet than most 40 year-olds can do that.
Third, nobody is advocating letting cadets "haze" one another. When they start hazing a cadet, then things have gone too far. But the act of doing push-ups cannot be considered hazing. It is just an act. The context needs to be taken into account. With that in mind, push-ups are no more dangerous than allowing a cadet to make a schedule, call out drill, or conduct a mentoring session.
The opposition needs to stop taking the idea of doing push-ups to the extreme by insisting that we are "hazing" or "overstressing" cadets. That is not what I am advocating. If a cadet cannot do five push-ups, then said cadet is in less shape than we expect a 12 year old female C/Amn to be. There is nothing more distressing about push-ups than there is about any other tool that we use. In fact, I would argue, from my experience as a member of a group punished by both push-ups and a loss of honor points as a cadet, that I would rather do a set of five push-ups every day of the week than to lose honor points and with it the motivation to succeed as a flight.
Well then
How does that 'ol Aerobics book handed out in approx 1974-1980 shake out for that good 'ol CAP PT program
We used to "USE" the drop an d "gimee" 20 for old times sake, such as one of the C/COL (me) would just look at a NBB type from the day
Like wise when I went to PJOC in 1978 (probably the 2nd time it 'twas held for CAP) I fully expected the comraderie from the NBB types when it was a hmph hmph a REAL program and a lil , shall we say, tougher.... iwent down for my 20, 40, 60 those CAP evenings back in 1978 'cuz it was the fun coming from those programs. Best shape I was in BEFORE ARMY BCT..... Go ahead and over analyze the CAP PT program and the hazing....... CAP needs to put the fun back into dis "fun"ctiion.
Let's get some more articles from the CAP law side of the fence that go and prove all this "STUFF" were being ICL'd and have so called "regulations" about. Prove it in CAP articles and more than just the two provided in the threads.
U drop and give me twenty fits for the fun in CAP, oh wait a minute that was 1978 ..... oh wait a minute...izzat hazing?
Wow the CAP of 2010? Better go active duty and see how many out house lawyers are driving by giving the DI's their "twenty."
Wow I can believe 8 pages of CAP discussion on dropping for twenty.......moe paralysis of the analysis >:D >:D >:D >:D
And yet we never tire of beating a dead horse, do we. It is what it is..
Quote from: heliodoc on January 17, 2010, 09:36:31 PM
Well then
How does that 'ol Aerobics book handed out in approx 1974-1980 shake out for that good 'ol CAP PT program
We used to "USE" the drop an d "gimee" 20 for old times sake, such as one of the C/COL (me) would just look at a NBB type from the day
Like wise when I went to PJOC in 1978 (probably the 2nd time it 'twas held for CAP) I fully expected the comraderie from the NBB types when it was a hmph hmph a REAL program and a lil , shall we say, tougher.... iwent down for my 20, 40, 60 those CAP evenings back in 1978 'cuz it was the fun coming from those programs. Best shape I was in BEFORE ARMY BCT..... Go ahead and over analyze the CAP PT program and the hazing....... CAP needs to put the fun back into dis "fun"ctiion.
Let's get some more articles from the CAP law side of the fence that go and prove all this "STUFF" were being ICL'd and have so called "regulations" about. Prove it in CAP articles and more than just the two provided in the threads.
U drop and give me twenty fits for the fun in CAP, oh wait a minute that was 1978 ..... oh wait a minute...izzat hazing?
Wow the CAP of 2010? Better go active duty and see how many out house lawyers are driving by giving the DI's their "twenty."
Wow I can believe 8 pages of CAP discussion on dropping for twenty.......moe paralysis of the analysis >:D >:D >:D >:D
I have to agree - when I went to NBB in '85 (India Flight), it was "fun" getting dropped for push-ups. While I can't say I enjoy doign push-ups, the really fun part was the bragging rights that went with it when I got back home - heck even before got back home. Use newbies at the end of NBB were "looking back" fondly at gettign through the thing.
I see nothing wrong w/ push-ups as discipline, heck it would even improve the PT conditioning of the cadets. Just set reasonable limits based on the current CPFT standards.
Serious question, since push-ups are part of the PT test, can I just tell the entire Squadron to drop and do 20 push-ups when one Cadet does something stupid??
Spike, a dead serious answer to your question, if you do, and I see it or hear about it, I will immediately report it to higher authorities and request an IG investigation. I would expect the same from any other honorable, duty bound member..
I have honestly never understood why there's so much to-do about this. If nobody is getting injured (and I do see the need for reasonable restrictions to prevent this from happening) then I fail to understand why there's such a problem. Really, I'd be quite surprised if someone comes into a military-style program like CAP *not* expecting to be told to drop-and-give-20 occasionally.
Quote from: AirAux on January 17, 2010, 11:45:20 PM
Spike, a dead serious answer to your question, if you do, and I see it or hear about it, I will immediately report it to higher authorities and request an IG investigation. I would expect the same from any other honorable, duty bound member..
Well, somebody's gotta clerk the shoes.
Wow, misread the message above. Gotta get new glasses.
Then I saw what I thought it said when I went to the previous screen:QuoteThe next time I get asked what a "shoe clerk" is, I'm quoting this post.
I guess my vision's better than I thought.
Quote from: Gunner C on January 18, 2010, 12:06:26 AM
Wow, misread the message above. Gotta get new glasses.
Then I saw what I thought it said when I went to the previous screen:
QuoteThe next time I get asked what a "shoe clerk" is, I'm quoting this post.
I guess my vision's better than I thought.
I frequently reword things for no good reason.
Quote from: Spike on January 17, 2010, 10:48:28 PM
Serious question, since push-ups are part of the PT test, can I just tell the entire Squadron to drop and do 20 push-ups when one Cadet does something stupid??
Erm, no. That's not what I am talking about. Singling cadets out for punishment in a public venue is hazing, and no example I have given advocates that. ANY time that punishment is going to take place in public, it has to be non-specific in regards to the target, ie, a whole flight. If a cadet feels singled out for public humiliation, then that's crossing the line regardless of what punishment is used.
Heh. In my first squadron, if you turned the wrong way on a facing movement, my flight sergeant would give you a pet rock. You would have to give it a name and carry it around with you for the rest of the night.
Can't do that now, it's hazing. ::)
Quote from: raivo on January 18, 2010, 06:37:55 AM
Heh. In my first squadron, if you turned the wrong way on a facing movement, my flight sergeant would give you a pet rock. You would have to give it a name and carry it around with you for the rest of the night.
Can't do that now, it's hazing. ::)
You take it too far, and it is hazing. You're publicly singling out a cadet for screwing up, and the result is a punshment designed to make obvious to everyone the cadet's failure. Sounds humiliating.
I did a variation of this, though, as a teaching tool. If someone was not able to figure out which way was right or left, then at some point, out of sight, I would hand them a small pebble and tell them to keep it in their right hand. Whenever I called a "right" facing command, he or she was to turn toward the rock.
It worked out pretty well, did not single the cadet out, and fixed the issue.
Nathen, you're putting an adults defination of what is hazing, not a teenagers. For years, I gave a pet rock to a cadet that was new and had problems which is right or left. It wasn't a punishment, but a teaching tool. And did the other cadets make fun of the mistake? No, since most of them owned a pet rock in their past. A few years ago I wan into a former cadet who was a Captain in USAF and she proudly told me she still had her pet rock.