Enhanced Cadet Protection Policy for '14 - ROUND 2

[Ned]

I think were the common sense starts breaking down is when we start making comparisons between the CAP Senior Member/Cadet relationship and the Teacher/Student relationship

Not surprisingly, that's where I think common sense actually starts coming together.

However, is the senior member in a composite squadron that has nothing at all to do with cadets except for occasional encounters on missions or in the hallway "teaching" that adult cadet?  Not in any direct sense. 

I think I agree as far as that goes.  But even the school district bus drivers, attendance clerks, and janitors are forbidden to have inappropriate relationships with the students they are supposed to be serving. 

There are a lot of reasons, but most of them essentially boil down to the inherent power differential between senior member officers and cadets.  Especially in a paramilitary organization like ours, where every senior outranks every cadet and the cadets literally swear to "obey my officers."  (Interestingly, seniors only swear to "abide by the decisions of those in authority.")

The existence of a significant power differential raises the risk of abusive relationships, particularly in youth-serving organizations.  It is essentially inherent.  Just ask the Scouts.  Or the Catholic church.  Both organizations have done immeasurable good in this world, but have also had issues with leaders abusing their youth.  As a result, they have updated and modified their CPP-equivalent policies, just as we are in the process of doing.

Another issue is that roles and relationships change fairly frequently in CAP.  If we had a rule to the effect of 18+ cadets can date seniors, but only if they are in another unit or not in their immediate change of command, it will become very complicated very quickly in CAP Land where duty assignments can change fairly often. ("Hey, I was the assistant logistics officer last week, but now I am the DCC."  Or "I may be just the group PD officer, but I am also your TAC officer at encampment this year.")  There is an advantage to a bright line rule in this regard.

So, what about other equally valid teacher/student relationships that can exist between other senior members?  If one senior member is teaching another ground team tasks there is certainly nothing prohibiting them from meeting outside of CAP without supervision.  Can a Wing ES Training Officer not meet outside of CAP with someone that may be participating in the training programs that they have helped organize and lead?

As I noted above, cadet / senior relationships have an inherent power differential.  Senior - senior relationships, much less so.  Heck, there are a fair number of seniors right on this very board who do not appear to recognize much authority even in senior corporate officers.  And realistically, the average cadet is a little over 14; the average senior is something like 48.  There are some obvious maturational differences between the two groups, and we should general lean toward protecting our cadets.

I can't say I have ever heard of a senior-on-senior hazing incident.  Mostly because seniors simply wouldn't put up with it.  But cadets are vulnerable to both hazing and abusive relationships in ways that seniors are not.

But if it helps, I have worked on some anti-nepotism and fraternization guidelines for seniors as well.  But they deserve their own thread.   

[Ned]

So, given the unique nature of our cadet program, my outlandish suggestion would be to reinvent the CPP as a Youth Protection Policy for cadets under the age of 18, with another set of rules established to deal specifically with the 18-21 year old cadet cohort.

Thoughts?

Major, what sort of rule differences would you suggest?

What would you change about the policies on physical abuse for the 18-21 crowd?

Similarly, what would you change about our hazing policies that would apply to the same age group?

Be as specific as you can.

[a2capt]

Well, there's no Senior Protection Policy

So the 18-21 crowd should fall into our group, where able, with the local laws of Majority Age defining the legal adult. 

[NC Hokie]

So, given the unique nature of our cadet program, my outlandish suggestion would be to reinvent the CPP as a Youth Protection Policy for cadets under the age of 18, with another set of rules established to deal specifically with the 18-21 year old cadet cohort.

Thoughts?

Major, what sort of rule differences would you suggest?

What would you change about the policies on physical abuse for the 18-21 crowd?

Similarly, what would you change about our hazing policies that would apply to the same age group?

Be as specific as you can.

Forgive me, but I think you're being a little disingenuous here.  I've yet to see any angst over hazing and physical abuse, but, since you asked, I wouldn't change any of those policies.

I would give strong consideration to the following changes for majority (18-21 year old) cadets:

- Resist micromanaging the relationships between majority cadets and senior members.  Punish abuse of authority or inappropriate currying of favor, but stay out of mundane things like studying, going to the movies, or sharing a dorm room.  I'll admit that dating relationships could create problems, but that's what local leadership is for, right?

- Remove the requirement for parental permission to participate in CAP activities.  An adult is an adult, even if they are a cadet.

- Prohibit romantic relationships with minor cadets, including those that started when both cadets were minors.  This addresses a legal oversight in the current regulations that should have been dealt with long ago.

I'm sure that others could add to this list, but those are the issues that have bothered me the most about the draft CPP.

I'll close with this...

We all agree that cadets ought to be protected, but our efforts to do so must recognize the fact that we have two distinct classes of cadets that require different types of protection.  We need to be careful to address each class in an appropriate manner that ensures the protection of ALL of our members.

[a2capt]

The issue with the removal of parent permission could get sticky when activities cross state lines and age laws differ.
Of course, that could also be covered during the whole "you got your Wing CC to sign this" phase.

[NIN]

I submit to you does anybody who does not understand that the cadet / senior member relationship is similar to the student / teacher relationship either has not spent a lot of time in cadet programs, where does not understand the dynamic.

There are many state laws that define varying degrees of criminal sexual conduct. one of those degrees involves what was referred to as " inherent authority " I believe, which speaks to the balance of power between leaders and subordinates.

I wouldn't have much available to me in the way of case law, but I think if you went back and looked at previous situations where adult members of an organization were charged with criminal sexual conduct against their youth charges, you'd see that pretty frequently that aspect of the relationship, the power dynamic, is cited in the charges.

Part of the new CPP is designed to keep people from just " looking the other way " when others are acting inappropriately.

Many many years ago, a squadron commander that I knew was carrying on a relationship with a 16 year old cadet in his unit. Many people knew about it, and everybody sort of looked the other way. In retrospect, it was completely creepy and wrong, even though the young lady's parents we're supposedly okay with it. Later on, this commander got cold feet, and decided that maybe this wasn't the best course of action ( you think? ) and ended things. In the aftermath, mom and dad complained to the Wing Commander, specifically cited the law regarding the student / teacher power dynamic. The Wing Commander did not have a whole lot of choice there.   there were at least a half dozen people who knew about this situation. Technically they should all have said something to the commander because of the very least, there were boundary violation-style warning signs far in advance of anybody knowing what was going on.

The other thing to think about: we brief the heck out of cadet protection all throughout a cadet's time in CAP, including when they turn 18. If you want to play adult games you going to have to pay adult prices. You don't like the fact that as a cadet  you can't date your senior member friend, tough. Adult life is full of hard choices..

[Ned]

Major Hess, thank you for responding in a thoughtful manner.

I would give strong consideration to the following changes for majority (18-21 year old) cadets:

- Resist micromanaging the relationships between majority cadets and senior members.  Punish abuse of authority or inappropriate currying of favor, but stay out of mundane things like studying, going to the movies, or sharing a dorm room.  I'll admit that dating relationships could create problems, but that's what local leadership is for, right?

One way to think of it is that we are giving the local leadership the tools they need to manage the issue at the local level. 

Without some rules, it is inevitable that at least some local leadership may feel there is nothing they can or should do about inappropriate relationships (romantic or otherwise).  When we first started engaging the old National Board on this issue, some of them directly told us they saw no problems with 25 year old seniors sleeping with 16 year old cadets, which was one of the examples we were using at the time based on actual incidents.  Undoubtedly varying regional traditions in the US about things like the "age of consent" were in play, but after a full discussion the "bright line rule" about seniors not dating cadets was adopted by a large majority of our leadership.  If local leadership alone was sufficient to protect our cadets, we would not need a CPP in the first place.  Local leadership is critical, but not enough by itself to prevent the harms we all seek to prevent.  Leaders need a program and a framework of rules for support.

And even when cadets and seniors engage in otherwise mundane activities like the ones you mentioned (sharing a door room, movies, studying) it significantly raises the risk of an problematic (in the sense of causing problems at the unit) or even an abusive relationship.

- Remove the requirement for parental permission to participate in CAP activities.  An adult is an adult, even if they are a cadet.

From a legal perspective considered alone, there are some issues.  But there is more to it than legal issues.

(As a young legal officer, I was always amused by our F31, which requires parents to certify that Cadet Bagodonuts "is my minor child or ward."  Which plainly isn't true for the majority of 18 year old cadets. We should not make Mom lie under penalty of perjury.  (BTW, I just tell Mom to line through that sentence if it does not apply.)  And a parent of an 18 year old cannot sign releases that purport to affect the 18 year old's interests in any event.   So I have periodically re-engaged NHQ legal and CP types.  So far, the only change is that the applicant also has to sign a release.)

But we need to remember that this simply isn't an issue with over 90% of our cadets to start with.  And for the rest, supporting and involving the parents of even a 19 year old cadet is not a bad thing.  It is almost always a good thing.

So, while I think it does far more good than harm, this is not the particular CP hill I want to die on.

- Prohibit romantic relationships with minor cadets, including those that started when both cadets were minors.  This addresses a legal oversight in the current regulations that should have been dealt with long ago.

I certainly agree that it romantic relationships between cadets of any age can be problematic.  Probably every CP senior has seen the negative effects such things can cause a unit.  We've had a few examples discussed here on CT, and over at CadetStuff.

And I also agree that the problem is more difficult as the cadets age through the program.  Which is why we make cadets take CPP training at age 18 (and allow it at age 17) -- to help educated them about the problem and the negative  effects it can have. 

The logistics of prohibiting dating only for the 18+ crowd is a little daunting.  (And similar to what we would have to do if we allowed seniors to date cadets).

Part of the problem is that many of us have trouble identifying exactly when a relationship "begins."  (But we probably all know exactly when it ends.  )

Part of it is that some people might not be very forthcoming about declaring when they are in (and out of) a relationship.

I don't want to be the guy at the unit who is in charge of identifying and tracking relationships at the unit to make sure then end at midnight of the older partner's birthday.

We all agree that cadets ought to be protected, but our efforts to do so must recognize the fact that we have two distinct classes of cadets that require different types of protection.  We need to be careful to address each class in an appropriate manner that ensures the protection of ALL of our members.

I'm still not sure why we might think that we have "two distinct classes" of cadets that require protection.  I would argue that none of our cadets deserve less protection than the others. To me, at least, here is nothing magic about an 18th birthday that suggests to me that someone needs less protection at 0001 than he / she needed at 2359. 

Which is why high schools and colleges treat their 18 year old students pretty much exactly the way they threat their 17 year old students.

[LSThiker]

A bit off topic, but I was thinking about this with the talk regarding cadet hood and adulthood.  Why did NHQ remove pregnancy as a reason to terminate a cadet's membership back in the early 2000s?

[Luis R. Ramos]

I don't know, off the bat, seen as punitive?



Flyer

[Ned]

Several reasons - it probably never should have been a reason to kick an active cadet out of the program in any event.

First was the practical difficulties in enforcing the rule - if the cadet doesn't cooperate, it can be hard to prove that a cadet is (or was) pregnant.  Similarly, it was for all practical purposes impossible to prove that a male cadet had contributed to a given pregnancy.

Second, we probably should not have a policy that appears to encourage or reward early termination of pregnancies.

Third, it makes little sense to punish a cadet and remove them from the program at a time when they might most benefit from our structure and education.

Fourth, the appeared in some instances to punish victims of crimes.

But there are plenty of threads on the topic.

[Luis R. Ramos]

Duplicated post...

Flyer

[LSThiker]

Several reasons - it probably never should have been a reason to kick an active cadet out of the program in any event.

First was the practical difficulties in enforcing the rule - if the cadet doesn't cooperate, it can be hard to prove that a cadet is (or was) pregnant.  Similarly, it was for all practical purposes impossible to prove that a male cadet had contributed to a given pregnancy.

Second, we probably should not have a policy that appears to encourage or reward early termination of pregnancies.

Third, it makes little sense to punish a cadet and remove them from the program at a time when they might most benefit from our structure and education.

Fourth, the appeared in some instances to punish victims of crimes.

But there are plenty of threads on the topic.

That is right.  Now I remember all of those points.  Thanks for jogging my memory

[RiverAux]

As I noted above, cadet / senior relationships have an inherent power differential.  Senior - senior relationships, much less so.  Heck, there are a fair number of seniors right on this very board who do not appear to recognize much authority even in senior corporate officers. 

There is very little, if any difference between the power any senior member holds over another and that of any senior member over a cadet.  I as a random senior member have no authority to tell anyone in CAP, whether cadet or senior, what to do, and I think just about everyone knows it. 

I doubt there are any 18-21 year old cadets who don't understand the inherent lack of any real authority found in senior member status, let alone in senior member grades.  I would buy into the concept that under-18 cadets might perceive senior members having more authority than they actually do, but I think people forgot just how very focused young adults are about their new-found rights. 

However, I think any real "abuse of authority" violation is more than adequately handled by other regulations and isn't really relevant to the conversation here. 

[Ned]

There is very little, if any difference between the power any senior member holds over another and that of any senior member over a cadet.  I as a random senior member have no authority to tell anyone in CAP, whether cadet or senior, what to do, and I think just about everyone knows it.

Don't sell yourself short.  You have a great deal of authority over every single cadet.

And they know it.  Because that is the way we train them.  And because they swear to "obey my officers."  (Note that the oath does not say "obey only CP rated officers in my direct chain of command.")

As just one example, if you came across a hazardous situation where a cadet's health or safety was endangered you have not only the authority, but the duty to take immediate action to correct it.  Including the authority to order a cadet to do (or not to do) something.

Same thing if you should come across a hazing situation.


And this is true even if some 19 year old cadet tries to assert some sort of "new found rights" and thinks that you are just some unimportant senior member.  Because your authority over cadets does not stem from the mistaken opinion of some random cadet, but from our regulations and doctrine.

That's the authority over cadets we give CAP every CAP officer.  Because we are literally charged with caring for some of our nation's most valuble assets -- our cadets.

[RiverAux]

Okay, if you want to  bring up a technical phrase in the cadet oath that mentions officers....

In regards to "obey my officers." I feel compelled to go Clintonesque and note that the use of the word "my" certainly implies the officers within their actual chain of command and wouldn't apply to EVERY CAP officer.  Perhaps I could be charitable and apply it to other officers within their unit, even if not within their chain of command. 

And to go even more Clintonesque, not all CAP senior members are officers.  Using your theory, CAP cadets are not required to obey commands from CAP NCOs or "SMWOG" [I forget whether flight officers are technically officers under CAP regs and don't feel like looking it up]

[a2capt]

I was going to go there, too - OTOH, there is an "O" in NCO, and the Senior Member startout .. that's about the only gray area. The rest are too far into it.

[Alaric]

There is very little, if any difference between the power any senior member holds over another and that of any senior member over a cadet.  I as a random senior member have no authority to tell anyone in CAP, whether cadet or senior, what to do, and I think just about everyone knows it.

Don't sell yourself short.  You have a great deal of authority over every single cadet.

And they know it.  Because that is the way we train them.  And because they swear to "obey my officers."  (Note that the oath does not say "obey only CP rated officers in my direct chain of command.")

As just one example, if you came across a hazardous situation where a cadet's health or safety was endangered you have not only the authority, but the duty to take immediate action to correct it.  Including the authority to order a cadet to do (or not to do) something.

Same thing if you should come across a hazing situation.


And this is true even if some 19 year old cadet tries to assert some sort of "new found rights" and thinks that you are just some unimportant senior member.  Because your authority over cadets does not stem from the mistaken opinion of some random cadet, but from our regulations and doctrine.

That's the authority over cadets we give CAP every CAP officer.  Because we are literally charged with caring for some of our nation's most valuble assets -- our cadets.

We could just do away with the Cadet program and then we wouldn't need to worry about it  /jk

[SamFranklin]

Keep the cadets, close CAPTalk, problem solved eh?

[LSThiker]

Overall, I think the confusing part is that it seems CAP just has a lot standards based on age but none of which makes a unified picture.  I understand federal laws, insurance companies, and other corporates can dictate a lot.  But there just seems to be a lot of variation in age restrictions (which I understand there are variations in age restrictions for things like age of consent, age of majority, drinking age, smoking age, etc)

For example:

Cadets 18 years of age and older can be qualified to serve as mission pilots

Members under 21 years of age, but at least 18 years of age, may be permitted to operate general purpose CAP owned vehicles (sedans, station wagons, 7-passenger vans or pickup trucks). They may not carry passengers or tow trailers. They must also have written or electronic approval from their unit commander to do so.

So apparently you cannot drive a CAP vehicle with people, but you can fly an airplane with people in it.  Or with CPPT, you can fly an airplane and be a PIC but still cannot have a meeting outside of CAP.  Which is funny when you think about it really.  An 18 year old cadet can have ultimate responsibility of an airplane and its occupants, but cannot have a study group with another college student that happens to be a senior member.

A qualified senior member must directly supervise cadets less than 18 years of age.

This implies that a senior member is not required to directly supervise cadets over the age of 18 years.  But not the case with new CPPT.

Cadets 18 years of age and older can be qualified to serve as ground team leaders

But you can still assign senior members as GTMs that still have authority over them.
Or even the we trust you to lead a ground team at the age of 18 (Senior Member) but unfortunately you cannot drive the vehicle.

Cadet use of golf type utility vehicles will be restricted to cadets 18 years of age or older with verification of a valid driver's license and then only with approval of the national/ region/wing commander (as appropriate for the level of activity being performed) or commander's designated representative.

So 18 year old cadets can drive golf carts and other vehicles without parental permission, but still need parental permission to attend activities and have meetings.

Cadets under 18 shall not be exposed to conditions in which their health is jeopardized by exposure to decomposing bodies and hazardous materials.

Again, this implies that we can expose cadets over 18 years old to such possibilities (although I am sure that is not exactly the intent).  But reading this strictly, we can possibly exposed cadets over the age of 18 years to decomposing bodies, but still again need parental permission to meet outside CAP.


***I understand each and every one of these situations and the reasons why.  I really do, so there is no need to go through each individually and explain why.  However, looking at things from the surface, it just seems like there is no real consensus (especially the 18 year old mission pilot) on how we treat 18-21 year members.  Overall, I think it creates an odd and sometimes quite confusing picture.