Nathan's view of hazing

[Eclipse]

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.

[Ned]

Lt Col Siequist,

I've been hoping a legal officer would respond to this thread.  Thank you.

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?

[NEBoom]

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.

[RADIOMAN015]

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

[Ned]

[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.

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.

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."

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

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.

[Eclipse]

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.

[Nathan]

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.

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

[capchiro]

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..     

[sarmed1]

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

[Nick]

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:

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:

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.

[N Harmon]

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 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?

[NCRblues]

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.

[capchiro]

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   

[Nathan]

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...

[flyguy06]

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.

[Hawk200]

Just 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.

[flyguy06]

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.

[Nathan]

Just 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).

[ZigZag911]

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.