Nathan's view of hazing

[flyguy06]

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.

[A.Member]

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):

Attendance. 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.

[flyguy06]

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):

Attendance. 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.

[A.Member]

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):

Attendance. 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. 

[Bobble]

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).

[Nathan]

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.

[Nick]

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:

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.

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.

[Nathan]

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:

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.

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.

[BlackKnight]

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...

[NC Hokie]

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.

[flyguy06]

Alrighty then. that makes sense to me

[NC Hokie]

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.

[flyerthom]

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. 

[Eclipse]

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.

[Ned]

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.

[Eclipse]

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.

[Nathan]

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.

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.

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.

[Eclipse]

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.

[ol'fido]

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".

[flyerthom]

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.