Nathan's view of hazing

[Spike]

Even if nothing happens to a cadet, organizations have lost this law suit. Why play a losing game.

There it is right there!  That is the whole basis to CAP members having any discussion of PT = hazing.  Some of you "old timers" should remember a day when there was no such thing as politically correct, affirmative this or yellow cards for telling a drill instructor his yelling was causing mental anguish. 

The current generation and the future generations are becoming weak and self centered.  Reports call it the "me first, never you" attitude.  I have kids straight out of college banging down my door for a job and they are brazen enough to dictate to me how, when and for how long they will work.  Last time I looked, I was the employer they the employees.  It is a growing problem and major companies like Microsoft and GE are catering to these kids by setting up game rooms, allowing 30 minute naps and come or go work shifts.  We are looking at the future of a civilization who is too weak and lazy to do what needs done and it appears it boils down to not being able to yell at kids (cause if you do, you get child services called on you). 

[Eclipse]

We are looking at the future of a civilization who is too weak and lazy to do what needs done

What needs to be done?

The work environments at Microsoft, Google, and the rest are in response to market forces, not a weakening of the employee base.  It is a leveling of the playing field in that being an employee gives you bargaining power and doesn't automatically mean you are an indentured servant.

The ones dictating their terms to you either have something you need (that's called "capitalism"), or learn quickly where their real place in the universe is (for now).

At many tech companies employees all but live in their workspaces, are tethered to their jobs by smartphones, and work/life is a blend that is hard to separate.

You need to find a different place to hang this hat.

[Ned]

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.

Really?  Why do you say that?

I spent some time working the Lexis/Nexis database and was unable to find a single verdict that included "pushups" or any other routine calisthenics-type exercises.

I did find a few schools that lost some money when football players were literally PT'd to death in hot and humid ernvironments, but nothing even vaguely resembling Nathan's proposed use of pushups as corrective PT.

Closer to home, pushups were "legal" in our cadet program for the majority of its 60+ years of existence, and yet somehow we have managed to remain "judgment-free" for all the decades we employed them.

Coincidence?  I don't think so.

Obviously reasonable minds differ on this subject, and there are lots of good reasons on both sides of the discussion.

But let's not throw the "LAWSUIT!" flag without some basis for supposing it might actually happen under any reasonable guidelines that Nathan or others might propose.

Ned Lee
Former CAP Legal Officer

[Nathan]

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.

Uh... I like CAPTalk too... but are you honestly saying that if a few guys arguing on a message board can't come up in only 8 pages to rewrite the hazing section of the cadet program and ensure that it is justified under the currently accepted hazing definition that it is therefore impossible? I'm imaging this thread, in verbal conversation form, might have taken 30 minutes to an hour. I think the meeting for the committee rewriting CAPR 52-16 would be a little longer than that.

I work at a prison boot camp for adult felons. We use "corrective" PT in that program so I know the dark side of this and we don't want to start down that slippery slope with cadets. It is better to err on the side of caution and ban it altogether than wait for the first nitwit to push the envelope.

If they are going to push the envelope, they're going to do so whether or not we're giving them permission to use push-ups. That's the part of the argument I don't get. The rule-breakers are going to break the rules regardless of whether or not the rules say 5 push-ups or no push-ups.

I have seen this from the military side of the house, bootcamp, and CAP so I know whence I speak. Eclipse, Redfox24, and some of the others that have worked at encampments know how a otherwise reasonable and rational super cadet can crawl inside the stupid box with this sort of thing. Let's leave things as they are and find more intelligent methods of "correcting" our cadets. Remember, the first definition of discipline is "training".

The condescending attitudes are getting a little old. Does this mean that my 8 years of cadet programs experience and 7 encampments don't count for anything at all? Believe it or not, I have seen the results of what happens when cadets push the line too far, which is why I think it would be much, MUCH better to give cadets a regulated, monitored line, rather than simply expecting them not to start down the path at all.

And this is a TOOL that can be used. It's not evil within itself, no more so than any other possible punishment can be. It, like the loss of honor points, or a 2b, or a stern talking to, can be taken into the realm of hazing. Push-ups are no more tempting to abuse. It's the power to punish that gets to people's heads. If we have a problem with that, then we need to take all authority away from cadets, period. But that's not something I'm going to advocate, and I doubt that anyone else will either, given that we are a leadership program, and are supposed to be teaching cadets how to utilize power effectively, not avoid it just because it COULD lead to bad leadership...

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.

First of all, if you had read the original justification, we are trying to AVOID emotional coercion. What we use now, in the form of chastizing, loss of honor points, deprivation of attendence to fun activities, demotions, and 2b's all lead to emotional harm far worse than a few push-ups ever will. I'm not going to write that argument out for the fifteenth time, so I figure if you're interested in joining the current conversation, you will read what has already been written.

Second of all, once again, if someone pushes past rules designed to regulate push-ups, it is not going to make a difference whether we are regulating 0 push-ups or 30 push-ups. They're going to push regardless of what we say. Ideally, we would be able to track these people down and, ironically, punish them appropriately. But since we clearly aren't capable of doing that perfectly, push-ups would serve a secondary goal of regulating a practice that can be harmful if pushed too far. Hence, we could, in theory, be doing a lot more good than bad by actually allowing and dictating a safe program for implementing push-ups than we are by trying to outright ban them.

Third, technically, we have no NEED for it. As I said, I'm not trying to break down the door with this issue. But I think it is something that will replace practices we currently use that tend to lower morale and cause far more emotional damage than push-ups can. Once again, if you're interested in reading that argument, you're free to look over the few pages of information I've already written about it.

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.

I wasn't talking about "well being." We're talking about pain. I'm assuming you are aware of the difference. Even as a CNA, I am. So if you have quotes that prove that emotional and physical PAIN are always linked, I would actually like you to quote them, as it would go against pretty much everything I've learned about the subject during my studies toward a psychology degree. As I said, I acknowledge that the two are related in many cases, but never in ALL cases. Otherwise, nobody would ever exercise, or take a hot shower, or, hell, go in for acupuncture.

Second, are you absolutely sure that all organizations have "lost this law suit"? I can think of at least one major cadet organization off the top of my head that is very successful, and allows punitive PT to be administered by cadets.

[BillB]

What this thread boils down to, is 52-16 was written with little or no input from members in cadet programs IN THE FIELD. As Ned says pushups were normal in the cadet program from 1942 to the latest revision to 52-16. Other changes the appointing rather than the election of CAC Representatives, meaning Commanders at all levels appointed cadets that would not tend to rock the boat or are Commanders "pets". The voice of the cadets is quieted as they could not bring problems to higher levels.
The wearing of earned rank at encampments very often meant that a C/CMSgt at their first encampment might be under a Flight Sgt that was only a Cadet Senior Airman. Cadets in the flight didn't know who to listen to. Encampments are a whole different part of CAP that is more military and structured than a cadets home Squadron.
The National Commander needs to appoint a committee (including Ned) and people with a vast experience in cadet programs to rewrite 52-16.

[Spike]

^ Right on.  I never understood the policy on not allowing Cadets to remove their insignia at Encampments.  How does that hurt a Cadet??  We made all of the Cadets remove them when we flew in the back of helicopters, never once did I see a Cadet cry over it.  (Honestly, they did not need to remove them, but the Crews always "would like them to take them off".

Honestly, I have the Cadets decide between themselves who the CAC reps will be.  I appoint them on paper, but the cadets "elect between themselves" in any manner they wish.

One good example everyone here has left out is what takes place at certain national activities.  Having been to Hawk Mtn as a guest staying for three days I saw cadets run the obstacle over and over because they were not completing it in "a predetermined time".  Our leaders obviously had no problems with this (Gen Courter).  Cadets ran sprints on the parade field for not running as a group on the daily run, our leadership was fine with this (Gen Courter).  Cadets are thrown into a pit of water (sometimes cold water) when they make "expert ranger" (Hazing!). 

At Encampments, bunks are torn apart when not made in the proper fashion (hazing).  Cadets stand guard duty and should they have fallen asleep they are made to stand a second shift (hazing).  In Squadrons I have visited, cadet stand in line to practice reporting and when not done properly the cadet is sent to the back of the line to try it again (used to embarrass, Hazing). 

Promotion scores are told to cadets when other cadets can hear if they passed or failed, this is a form of "mental anguish" (hazing).  Cadets are forced to correct test to 100% (might be hazing).  Cadets with better attendance are allowed to go on Orientation flights when there are not enough seats and others are "left behind" (a case for hazing??)

We can go on and on, but one persons idea of hazing is another persons idea of how people are to be treated.

I agree a committee should be formed to come up with something very specific and not so vague.  It is vague, or we would not be having this conversation.   

[Ned]

What this thread boils down to, is 52-16 was written with little or no input from members in cadet programs IN THE FIELD. As Ned says pushups were normal in the cadet program from 1942 to the latest revision to 52-16.

Minor quibble.  I think you are referring to the 52-10 (CPP), not the 52-16.

As it turns out, the latest revision to the 52-16 is in the final days of staff coordination and should be posted for comment fairly shortly.  We have had a lot of input from the field, and of course the public comment period will produce more valuble input.  The new draft has specific language concerning making CP challenging for every cadet at every activity.

Based on this thread and some stuff over on CadetStuff we have begun work on a revision to the 52-10, but we don't have anything ready for submission yet.

Ned Lee
National Cadet Advisor
(Cool job, crummy job title)

[arajca]

^ Right on.  I never understood the policy on not allowing Cadets to remove their insignia at Encampments.  How does that hurt a Cadet??  We made all of the Cadets remove them when we flew in the back of helicopters, never once did I see a Cadet cry over it.  (Honestly, they did not need to remove them, but the Crews always "would like them to take them off".

It falls into the temporary promotion/demotion issue. I've had the pleasure of explaining to cadets who had received 'field' promotions for encmapment that it does not count outside of encampment and they need to put their proper grade on. This applies to cadet NCO's as well as cadet Officers.

Removing them for a helicopter flight at the suggestion of the crew (probably for safety reasons) is very different from removing them at encampment for uniformity.

[Fuzzy]

Even if nothing happens to a cadet, organizations have lost this law suit. Why play a losing game.

There it is right there!  That is the whole basis to CAP members having any discussion of PT = hazing.  Some of you "old timers" should remember a day when there was no such thing as politically correct, affirmative this or yellow cards for telling a drill instructor his yelling was causing mental anguish. 

The current generation and the future generations are becoming weak and self centered.  Reports call it the "me first, never you" attitude.  I have kids straight out of college banging down my door for a job and they are brazen enough to dictate to me how, when and for how long they will work.  Last time I looked, I was the employer they the employees.  It is a growing problem and major companies like Microsoft and GE are catering to these kids by setting up game rooms, allowing 30 minute naps and come or go work shifts.  We are looking at the future of a civilization who is too weak and lazy to do what needs done and it appears it boils down to not being able to yell at kids (cause if you do, you get child services called on you).

Ok, ok we'll get off your lawn already...

[Spaceman3750]

Last time I was at NESA in '06 (as a cadet) for BGSAR most of us (cadet enlisted) removed our grade insignia voluntarily (someone came up with the idea that we're all students and equal and therefore our grade didn't matter, which has merit). It seemed to work well, nobody had a problem with it and it helped us work better as a team. The exception was, of course, cadet officers and SMs because theirs is sewn on.

[lordmonar]

Except for the fact that you were out of uniform. 

I went to NESA for GTL in 2007.  One of the cadets who had gone to First Responder the first week had take off his rank....we made him put it back on.  He said he was told to take it off for safety.

There is no discretionary rank in CAP.....wear your rank.

[BillB]

Prior to Oct 06, the reason many Wing encampments required cadet rank for doolies to be removed was to make all cadets in the flight equal. No matter how many stripes you earned, as a Doolie you were just as equal to the cadet next to you. I haven't seen cadet staff given higher rank for an encampment for many years. Cadets wwore their earned grade at the final banquet or pass in review so that when they returned home they were wearing their earned rank.
Many years ago cadet staff were given grades up to C/Col as an encampment rank, but that concept died sometime in the 1950's early 60's.

[Gunner C]

My last encampment was in 1970 - we had discretionary rank.

[RiverAux]

I did find a few schools that lost some money when football players were literally PT'd to death in hot and humid ernvironments, but nothing even vaguely resembling Nathan's proposed use of pushups as corrective PT.

You know, we keep referring to the military as an example of a place where PT is used as a punishment for adults, but what about junior high and high school sports programs?  These are voluntary extracurricular youth activities where kids are routinely punished for various infractions with some form of physical activity.     
 

[SarDragon]

I did find a few schools that lost some money when football players were literally PT'd to death in hot and humid ernvironments, but nothing even vaguely resembling Nathan's proposed use of pushups as corrective PT.

You know, we keep referring to the military as an example of a place where PT is used as a punishment for adults, but what about junior high and high school sports programs?  These are voluntary extracurricular youth activities where kids are routinely punished for various infractions with some form of physical activity.     

+1

There are way too many examples out there where this practice has gone horribly awry, under the ?supervision? of ?trained professionals?, to the point of death.

As for the existence of "dropping" and other forms of physical punishment (bloomin' dip-dips come to mind) back in the '60s and '70s, it was aggressively discouraged in the groups in South Jersey. the whole time I was a cadet in NJWG.

I do not recall discretionary rank being used at my NJWG encampment in '66.

[Gunner C]

NJWG was much bigger than AKWG.  At my first encampment in 1968. the cadet commander was a C/MSgt (got his Mitchel the next month). 

That encampment was, BTW, really old school.  Bunks overturned.  Close-quarters, high dB verbal admonishments, SMs didn't smile (except for the commander).  By the time I attended my 4th in 1970, it had cooled down considerably.  However, we cadet officers were brought up in that environment so there was what would be called hazing these days.  We were advised by two AF AD former TIs.  They showed us what was good technique and what wasn't.  Importantly, they taught us what was going overboard.  But that was then and this is now.

[RiverAux]

I did find a few schools that lost some money when football players were literally PT'd to death in hot and humid ernvironments, but nothing even vaguely resembling Nathan's proposed use of pushups as corrective PT.

You know, we keep referring to the military as an example of a place where PT is used as a punishment for adults, but what about junior high and high school sports programs?  These are voluntary extracurricular youth activities where kids are routinely punished for various infractions with some form of physical activity.     

+1

There are way too many examples out there where this practice has gone horribly awry, under the ?supervision? of ?trained professionals?, to the point of death.

I think you got the idea that I was using high school sports as a negative example, when in fact I was brining it up as an area where such punishments are widely accepted by everyone. 

[Ned]

+1

There are way too many examples out there where this practice has gone horribly awry, under the ?supervision? of ?trained professionals?, to the point of death.

Can you point us to one of the examples you found where someone was "pushupped" to death?

That would really help the discussion.

Just one would be fine . . .

[Nathan]

+1

There are way too many examples out there where this practice has gone horribly awry, under the ?supervision? of ?trained professionals?, to the point of death.

Can you point us to one of the examples you found where someone was "pushupped" to death?

That would really help the discussion.

Just one would be fine . . .

I would probably need more than just one case to be convinced that there is a significantly larger number of cases of abuse with punitive PT than there is with any other punitive measure, and therefore be convinced that we are justified in separating it out with regards to the CPP.

For instance, pointing out Chernobyl doesn't really make a case against using nuclear power. It just proves that we need to be careful using it because, like any sort of power plant (nuclear or otherwise), one slip-up can become a messy situation.

Similarly, one case of someone going over the line with punitive PT doesn't really make a case against using it, at least to me. All it means is that one bad apple used it incorrectly and people got hurt because of it. It doesn't mean that CAP should be more scared of the risk of abuse from punitive PT than it should be from abusing regular PT, or drill, or mentoring, or C&C, or whatever other aspect of authority with which a member may be involved.

I don't doubt that there are cases out there of punitive PT going too far. I'm just not sure where you're planning on taking the train of thought that would lead us further into the discussion.

[SarDragon]

+1

There are way too many examples out there where this practice has gone horribly awry, under the ?supervision? of ?trained professionals?, to the point of death.

Can you point us to one of the examples you found where someone was "pushupped" to death?

That would really help the discussion.

Just one would be fine . . .

I have no specific examples available. I do recall that there have been a number of heat related  high school athlete deaths due at least in part to over zealous "coaching". These may or may not necessarily be totally germane to this discussion.

YMMV.