HAZING at encampment--WHAT is it?

[jeancalvinus]

greetings all,

Our squadron had some cadets spend a good deal of time before encampment studying what does and does not constitute hazing. When the encampment got under way, the cadet commander had them doing things they were certain were not allowed, but as the senior members present did nothing, they went along with it.

I am not starting this discussion in the interest of re-writing existing CAP policy. I am starting it in the interest of getting straight answers as to what is and isn't hazing.

example #1: Cadet commander (allegedly) shows up (a day or two after encampment has started) and starts swearing right away, with liberal use of F-bombs. these were directed at both the trainees, and the cadet senior staff. The senior members were swearing at the cadet trainees, and the cadet staff as well. is this hazing, yes or no. I asked this question on the knowledge base and all I got was waffling in response. 

example #2: cadet commander (allegedly) unhappy with trainee PT, and so he has the cadet staff repeat PT  with the trainees until well after lights out time. hazing, or not? 

example #3: cadet commander (allegedly) grabs cadet staff by the arm and threatens to kick his a*s over the unsatisfactory performance of the staff member. hazing, or not? 

example #4: cadet staff has trainees do extra (individual) PT. hazing, or not? 

there are more (alleged) examples from this particular encampment, but these will suffice for now. Could someone give me a straight answer? 

By the way, some of you may have been to or are aware of the encampment in question. I left out the state and location purposely, as not to get sidetracked with the personalities involved. I just want to know if the examples above do constitute hazing or not. So let us please leave the location and the names out of the discussion.

Jean

[Eeyore]

I would say that yes, they are all definitely forms of hazing.

Even though you weren't there, you still have a responsibility to report any incidents. Take it to your Squadron CC to send up the chain.

In a case like this, I think there should be an investigation into both the cadet and senior leadership at the encampment. Absolutely unacceptable from the cadet staff, and even more unacceptable if the adults at the encampment knew about it.

[Ned]

greetings all,


(. . .)
I am starting it in the interest of getting straight answers as to what is and isn't hazing.

Fair enough.

But before trying to answer your questions specifically, remember that there are lot of rules that govern our conduct when dealing with cadets.  Not everything we could do wrong is hazing.  IOW, something might well be improper, but not simply because it is hazing, but because it is simply wrong under one or more of our other rules and regulations.

example #1: [People swearing at cadets and other staff members.]  Is this hazing, yes or no.

It is always improper to swear at another CAP member, but we do not have enough information to determine whether or not these instances of swearing were also hazing.

Swearing at another member is always going to be a violation of our Core Value of Respect.  This Core Value requires all of us to "treat each other with fairness and dignity."  Obviously, swearing at another is failing to uphold this important Core Value.

Swearing is also a violation of CAPR 52-16, paragraph 1-4(h), which  tells us that CAP cadets "require an atmosphere of mutual respect and courtesy to learn and grow as leaders.  Accordingly, CAP cadets must treat each other and their senior member leaders with common courtesy and respect.  CAP Cadets will not intentionally mock or insult other members (. . .)."

Our definition of hazing is found in CAPR 52-10 which forbids any member to (among other things)  be cruel or abusive to a cadet, or to humiliate them.

While it is certainly possible (and perhaps even likely) that swearing at a cadet at encampment might well be abusive or humiliating and thus constitute hazing, it is important to know the circumstances before coming to a final conclusion as to whether is was hazing or not.

But since we already know that it was improper and in violation of other regulations, we really don't need to come to a final conclusion on hazing to know that it was improper in any event.

example #2: cadet commander (allegedly) unhappy with trainee PT, and so he has the cadet staff repeat PT  with the trainees until well after lights out time. hazing, or not? 

Again, we don't have enough information to know whether or not this would constitute hazing.  If the cadets did not perform their assigned PT to standard, then it may not be hazing to have them repeat the exercises that were done imporperly.  Just as with any other learning situation in CAP, it can be helpful to repeat or practice a given activity to learn to do it well.

Of course, I can easily imagine circumstances where such an activity could begin to cross the line into hazing.  We just don't have enough information to give you a simple "yes or no" answer.

example #3: cadet commander (allegedly) grabs cadet staff by the arm and threatens to kick his a*s over the unsatisfactory performance of the staff member. hazing, or not? 

As with the first example, even if we cannot determine whether this particular instance amounted to demeaning or humiliating conduct such as to amount to hazing, we already know that it is improper conduct because if violates the Core Value of Respect, and CAPR 52-16.

example #4: cadet staff has trainees do extra (individual) PT. hazing, or not? 

I hate to be a weasel here, but we simply do not have enought information.

While it may well be hazing, it could also simply be proper training if the individual PT assigned was related to a given cadet's PT performance.  While it would be improper to make a cadet run laps because she/he failed to shine their shoes properly, it may well be proper to make a cadet run laps to help them run laps better.

there are more (alleged) examples from this particular encampment, but these will suffice for now. Could someone give me a straight answer? 
Jean

Jean,

It sounds like you are genuinely concerned about the conduct at the encampment.  And it certainly sounds like you should be.

My suggestion would be to discuss what happened with Cadet Program officers, starting at your squadron.  The Squadron Commander (or Deputy Commander for Cadets) should be an experienced, knowledgeable CP officer who can explain the rules clearly, and help both of you understand if what happened is serious and requires immediate attention.

If for some reason you cannot discuss the matter comfortably with the squadron CP folks, you may discuss it with your Wing Director of Cadet Programs.

As always, if after discussing it with experienced CP folks, you believe that hazing or other improper conduct occurred that is not being satisfactorily addressed, you can make an IG complaint that will be investigated by neutral officers.

Again, I'm sorry that I wasn't able to give you the "yes or no" answers you were seeking, but I hope I was able to be of some help.

Ned Lee
Lt Col, CAP
National Cadet Advisor
(Cool job, crummy job title.)

[jeancalvinus]

The parents of the Cadets involved have been in conversation with the IG, but as of yet, nothing has been filed. Beyond that, I can't say anything without it becoming easy to determine where this encampment took place.

Allegedly, a tape of some other forms of hazing I did not mention was made at the encampment and posted online. Shortly thereafter, it was forwarded to National HQ.

I am confident that national HQ is aware of the situation. But my intent in posting was not to do anything but determine if these types of actions do indeed constitute hazing. A very senior CAP member allegedly was informed of the situation and said it was all overblown (not the exact wording, but it is pretty much what he said). this confused me, hence the post.

I thought someone somewhere said something about zero tolerance, but this whole scenario has me confused.

[jeancalvinus]

Ned,

great answer, and straight to the point  :clap:. It does make sense that some conduct does not have to be hazing for it to be against CAP regulations. that is of course more to the point.

I also appreciate the precision of your response to each item.

The Squadron Commander, DCC, and the FO are all concerned about what happened, but are giving the parents time to file their IG complaint.

Thanks very much again

Jean

[CadetProgramGuy]

greetings all,

Our squadron had some cadets spend a good deal of time before encampment studying what does and does not constitute hazing. When the encampment got under way, the cadet commander had them doing things they were certain were not allowed, but as the senior members present did nothing, they went along with it.

I am not starting this discussion in the interest of re-writing existing CAP policy. I am starting it in the interest of getting straight answers as to what is and isn't hazing.

example #1: Cadet commander (allegedly) shows up (a day or two after encampment has started) and starts swearing right away, with liberal use of F-bombs. these were directed at both the trainees, and the cadet senior staff. The senior members were swearing at the cadet trainees, and the cadet staff as well. is this hazing, yes or no. I asked this question on the knowledge base and all I got was waffling in response. 

example #2: cadet commander (allegedly) unhappy with trainee PT, and so he has the cadet staff repeat PT  with the trainees until well after lights out time. hazing, or not? 

example #3: cadet commander (allegedly) grabs cadet staff by the arm and threatens to kick his a*s over the unsatisfactory performance of the staff member. hazing, or not? 

example #4: cadet staff has trainees do extra (individual) PT. hazing, or not? 

there are more (alleged) examples from this particular encampment, but these will suffice for now. Could someone give me a straight answer? 

By the way, some of you may have been to or are aware of the encampment in question. I left out the state and location purposely, as not to get sidetracked with the personalities involved. I just want to know if the examples above do constitute hazing or not. So let us please leave the location and the names out of the discussion.

Jean

PM Sent

[AirAux]

Unfortunately, some members and leaders believe that hazing is in the eyes of the beholder and therefore, nothing will be done until an official complaint is filed.  I believe this is wrong and that any leader has the duty to investigate/report any suspected activity.  I have seen too many cadets treated wrongly (hazed) that wouldn't file an official complaint out of fear of reprisal (the old honor/snitch, nobody likes a tattletale syndrome) and then they just lose interest in CAP and drop out.

[jeancalvinus]

AIRAUX

And as these families continue to contemplate whether or not to actually send their IG complaint up, that is their number one fear: my son will be seen as a wimp. This is also the number one fear of one of the cadets, but in the time since the encampment no one has called him that.

here is an even better question, and one that hadn't occurred to me until recently: whether or not the parents go forward, should the SQUADRON file an IG complaint? This is a very sticky wicket, as there is someone SQUARELY in the chain of command who thinks the above incident way overblown and a minor issue.

be that as it may, should we look at the parents filing of the complaint as incidental, and view it as our moral (not to mention regulatory) obligation to do a formal investigation of our own, and then send this up the chain (which clearly gives the higher authority who does not agree with the severity of the incident a second chance to address it)? or should we go to the IG instead? being an ex-military man myself, I default towards sending it up the chain first, to give higher authority a chance (again) to work through this. when it happened, the higher authority NEVER spoke to the cadets involved, but only to the cadet commander of the encampment and the senior members involved.

[ZigZag911]

From CAPR 52-10 

1. Reporting Requirements

b. Physical Abuse. Physical abuse is defined as any conduct whereby someone physically strikes or assaults another in any way. The unit commander will immediately notify the wing commander who will immediately notify the region commander, the wing legal officer, and the General Counsel. The wing commander will consult with the wing legal officer before directing an investigation or administrative action. In cases where physical injuries are involved, follow the notification and reporting procedures in CAPR 62-2, Mishap Reporting and Investigation. Members who have observed or believe they have been subject to physical abuse may file a complaint in accordance with CAPR 123-2, Complaints.
c. Hazing. Hazing is defined as any conduct whereby someone causes another to suffer or to be exposed to any activity that is cruel, abusive, humiliating, oppressive, demeaning, or harmful. Actual or implied consent to acts of hazing does not eliminate the culpability of the perpetrator. Examples of hazing include using exercise as punishment or assigning remedial training that does not fit the deficiency (such as making a cadet run laps for having poorly shined shoes). Hazing, as defined in this policy, is considered a form of physical abuse and the reporting procedures for physical abuse must be followed.
d. Reporting to State Agency. There may be a mandatory requirement to report certain types of physical, sexual or emotional abuse to a designated state agency. Requirements vary from state to state. Members having knowledge of abuse must follow reporting requirements under their state's laws. Your wing legal officer can help you to know what laws apply.
************************************************

The Required Staff Training mandated for senior and cadet staff members at encampments (and, since the recent ICL from Nat'l CC, most other overnight cadet activities) makes it pretty clear that at least some of what was described would be almost certainly be considered hazing.

If this is the case, the wing CC, region CC and Nat'l GC ought to be involved by now, so it shouldn't be necessary for the cadet, his parents, or the squadron to file an IG complaint.

[AirAux]

And yet, I repeat, from vast years of experience, nothing will be done, no waves will be made, until, and not before, an official complaint is made.  This stuff is swept under the rug way too often and the cadet program and CAP suffer because of it.  According to my belief and I think Reg's, anyone that knows of, or suspects hazing has the duty to report it.  This is at the heart of the honor code.   By allowing this to happen and continue, we are enabling and condoning dispicable behaviour.  We all need to do the right thing and insist that those among do also.

[jeancalvinus]

I have to tread carefully here, but someone in authority beyond squadron level was involved early on. They are the one who stated that the parents concern was overblown. Interestingly, they allegedly did not dispute that some of the incidents listed above occurred (I say some, because I do not know if every single one of those incidents was brought to their attention. there were other incidents not listed as well).

I do appreciate the quote from the 52-10. Question is, what does a lower unit do if higher command thinks the incident not worth reporting? In the service a unit can, upon further reflection, decide that they believe higher has erred in not further addressing the matter, and can therefore go to the IG. The question then becomes, did higher err, and upon what grounds do we say that they did? The cadet commander of the encampment was allegedly relieved, then reinstated as cadet staff in a lower billet. He was not permanently removed from the staff, which may or may not be required (I sure do not know). The parents believe that the zero tolerance policy requires that the cadet commander be removed from training staff, and sent home from the encampment. I am not sure what the policy is. And if that IS the policy, what latitude does a senior commander have in handling the situation? Do butt-chewings all around suffice? does the fact that the alleged perpetrator has been an exemplary cadet before this give him latitude to be lenient and keep the kid there to finish the encampment ? Does the senior staff that tacitly approved the atmosphere of improper conduct get no more than a butt chewing as well? Does the "zero tolerance" policy permit this? Or does it not apply here?

Zigzag your reply really helped crystallize the issues in question here (regarding reporting). I guess it boils down to, do we leave the matter in the hands of the higher authority (all of whose actions we are of course not privy too) and how he has already handled the situation? In doing so, do we ask the parents not to file a complaint with the IG? If they insist on doing so, do we help them, or stand by and say it is their issue to address? Whatever the resolution has been to this point, the parents (and we as squadron staff) have heard nothing on the subject, other than the higher authority allegedly telling one of the parents (via voice mail) that they considered the matter to be closed. If so, we have 2 cadets who went to an encampment, served as cadet staff, left because of the incidents listed above, and are left to wonder how this will or will not affect them going forward. If they were to ask me, I would say it will have no effect, but I can only speak for the squadron level. I would hope that would be the same for higher, but cannot say for sure.

The parents believe an offense has occurred (a serious one at that), and that no justice has been done for their sons. I do not know how to answer that assertion, as again, we do not know the resolution.

I do know that going forward, our cadets will be well versed in proper conduct at encampment, as well as here at the squadron.

jean

[Larry Mangum]

Jean,

If you believe that hazing occurred, then you need to file a complaint, it is that simple. It will be investigated and if substained corrective action will be taken.  At the very least it will make people think about their actions. 

Just because someone higher up thought it was being over blown, does not mean they are right.

[Ned]

Essentially by definition, the first responsibility for prevention of hazing lies with the leaders on scene and the chain of command, not the "after the fact" complaint system.  It is always best to have matters handled within the chain of command if at all possible.  Of course, the complaint / IG system exists as a vital back up in the event of an error or conflict of interest.  Both sytems work to ensure that our members are protected.




CAP successfully conducts a vigorous and challenging cadet program using a military model.  And we have done so since the dark days of WWII.  And literally hundreds of thousands of our cadet alumni have become leaders in our community. 

The DoD definition of hazing that CAP wisely adopted in our own Cadet Protection policy provides a "line in the sand" that defines the outer limit   One way to think of it is like a speed limit on the freeway.  It establishes the absolute maximum speed that can never be exceeded.  But sometimes even going the speed limit can be dangerous and improper depending on traffic conditions and weather.  (Think congested traffic and fog, for instance.)

Similarly, sometimes the military intensity level can be inappropriate even if it doesn't amount to hazing.  Example:  the military intensity level of encampment is typically different than that employed during a normal weeknight squadron meeting.  The simple fact that the intensity level may be different does not mean that everything that happens at encampment is hazing.  Nor does it mean that cadets cannot be challenged in a way appropriate to their experience and training.

Our program was never intended to be a "stress free" experience for our cadets.  And the modern program was deliberately designed to serve as a "leadership laboratory" where young leaders can stretch their wings and test their limits.  And sometimes young leaders make mistakes.  Heck, that's part of the learning process.

And of course we also need to protect and nurture our cadets.  No one should be traumatized or hazed as a cadet.  Abuse, swearing, and humiliation are always improper and are actually counterproductive in any event.


Just as it  is always wrong to try to recreate some "hardcore fantasy" where screaming and yelling at cadets locked in a brace is the norm, it  is also wrong to reduce the intensity level to zero and have some sort of "military optional" environment.

It is not always easy to set the right tone at a given activity.  That is the reason we have experienced adult CP leaders physically present at every cadet activity.




Jean, my advice is to engage the local CP officers at your squadron in a continuing discussion.  It sounds like the offending cadet commander was fired.  That's a pretty strong statement, and a very strong consequence.  It sounds like you (and the other parents) are concerned that that was "not enough."  Keep talking to those directly involved until you feel comfortable that you have the information you need as a parent.

Finally, I am a little confused about your references to a "zero tolerance" policy.  Our national policy is pretty clearly expressed in the CPP regulation, 52-10, and the 52-16.  (I linked to both of them in my first post.)  And while I hope the the regulations taken together express "zero tolerance" against abuse, I have never heard of them referred to with that particular label.  I am a little concerned that you might be referring to some other document or policy beyond the 52-10 and 52-16.

I am sure that there are no other national level policies or documents in this area, and I'm just as sure that there are no specific policies that govern who gets sent home (or any specific punishments) beyond the investigation and reporting procedures contained in the 52-10.

Of course wings and regions are free to add additional protections for their cadets and perhaps an intermediate commander has drafted additional policy in this area.

Ned Lee

[Rotorhead]

I left out the state and location purposely, as not to get sidetracked with the personalities involved. I just want to know if the examples above do constitute hazing or not. So let us please leave the location and the names out of the discussion.

Jean

You also use the term "allegedly," which suggests you do not have first-hand knowledge of the situation, in most of your posts.

If you do not, you need to be careful what you post and say.

If you do, then file a complaint.

[jeancalvinus]

If first hand knowledge means I was there and saw it myself, then no, I do not have firsthand knowledge. 

However, I have spoken to the parents and to the cadets, and according to them it did happen. I also spoke to a senior member who was there, and he also said it happened.

by any objective standard something did happen, but the use of the term "alleged" is because I haven't (and probably won't) speak to the other cadets (they are not at my squadron), nor to the senior members who were directly involved in cadet training and "allegedly" let this stuff pass.

As to being careful, I have left out names, dates, and the location of the encampment. I have not given the name or location of my squadron. I would say I have, and am still, taking your advice to "be careful."

It is good advice, by the way. Thanks for your feedback. I am still not totally clear on whether or not to file a complaint with the IG or go back up the chain or leave it to the higher authority. There are good arguments all three ways. I am mtg tonite with the other seniors and we will discuss it. Much of the feedback from here will prove useful in the discussion.

thanks to all

jean

[Rotorhead]

As to being careful, I have left out names, dates, and the location of the encampment. I have not given the name or location of my squadron. I would say I have, and am still, taking your advice to "be careful."

What I meant was, you're not doing anyone any favors if you're spreading these stories around as second- or third-hand information.

I can guarantee you, you already have at least one fact wrong, someplace in your recounting of the story, for that reason.

Ultimately, it isn't up to you to fix the problem, if there is one. You weren't involved, but you've already chosen a side based on hearing one version of what happened.

I'd bet the other side has a different story to tell.

[AirAux]

To reiterate, if you suspect hazing, you have a duty to report it.  Depending upon your position, you may or may not have a duty or the authority to investigate it, but any senior member suspecting hazing has a duty to report same.  It just doesn't get any simpler than that..

[jeancalvinus]

Rotorhead,

I am a bit confused as to what you're objecting to. Your point about only hearing one side is well taken, and I have been posting accordingly. I will assume your guarantee of my getting a fact wrong somewhere is in fact an assumption on your part, as you haven't talked to everyone involved either. But I do not need to talk to everyone involved to know that something took place, as there was corrective action taken, which I know second hand (second hand in the sense that i wasn't there. You weren't at Bunker Hill during the revolutionary war, but you can confidently assert it took place, based on first hand reports. i am doing the same here).

Of COURSE the other side has a different story to tell, even if they do not dispute the facts in question. there may be things that the cadets from my squadron did to make the situation worse. There may be things the cadet commander did which were not as bad, or didn't happen at all, or were worse than reported. same with the senior members involved. But the fact that something occurred isn't really in dispute. At all. It is merely a question of "how bad was it" (which can go either way) and "who was involved" and "who else was involved" and "what was done about it" or needs to be done still.

I agree 100% with your concerns about pre-judging without sufficient fact, committing libel, etc. I am definitely taking a side: the side of is this really hazing/ improper conduct, what can be done about it (if anything, it is possible all has been done), and how do we prevent it going forward. However, as i said,, something did happen, and anyone can make a judgment that it was not what should have happened. That does not constitute taking a side.

I assume if this were a verbal conversation, we would probably be far more in agreement than you may think. I am being VERY careful how I phrase things, and what particulars I leave out. i appreciate your concerns, as I share them.

I do wonder if you have some knowledge of the situation, based on some of what you are saying. Not saying you were there, I just am wondering if you indeed know what i am talking about. if so, please play along and keep the particulars out as well. I trust you will, your posts seem to indicate that is a big concern of yours (mine too).

thanks for the feedback

[RiverAux]

As this was a wing activity, there isn't anything your squadron folks are going to be able to do to resolve the issue, so I would recommend filing a complaint to the Wing Commander. But, before you do, think about what results would make you happy?  Do you want the cadets and seniors involved kicked out?  Counseled?   

[BrandonKea]

As this was a wing activity, there isn't anything your squadron folks are going to be able to do to resolve the issue, so I would recommend filing a complaint to the Wing Commander. But, before you do, think about what results would make you happy?  Do you want the cadets and seniors involved kicked out?  Counseled?

Not sure jumping straight to the Wing King™ would be the best idea.

"Members should follow the chain of command. Commanders and members should make every attempt to resolve problems, conflicts, and disputes within CAP at the lowest level possible."

IG maybe?

[jeancalvinus]

RiverAux,

We had a senior meeting tonight, and after much discussion, we are leaving it to the cadet parents to decide whether or not to file an IG complaint. Your point about it being a wing activity is a good one. Anyway, as the encampment cadet commander involved was counseled and relieved, we are going to assume that all that is going to be done is done. As to the senior members involved, they aren't at our squadron, so we will have to leave that to higher to attend to (and trust that they have/ will).

What do I want done? Counseling, of course. Anything further (demotion, kicked out, suspended) is up to whoever has already handled it (or if the IG complaint goes forward, whoever will handle it). I don't want blood, I just want this type of thing to stop in CAP. I am disappointed by how many folks think a cadet can't be made without swearing in his face, depriving him of sleep, or roughing him up a little (not to mention the mickey mouse/ dunce cap like things that sometimes happen). We in CAP are not the military, we do not have an offensive (or defensive) mission, we carry no guns, and do not swear an oath to defend the constitution. Should we stress cadets? yes, but within the bounds of the regulations. It IS possible. We just have to rely somewhat on the cadets pride to motivate him, unlike the military, there isn't much of anything you can do with a recalcitrant cadet. Which is fine, if he doesn't want to train, he can go home.

If he DOES want to train, we have just the tools to develop him and make him a leader of men.

Jean

[Daniel]

I wonder....
Sending a cadet out of medical after giving him a laxative hazing or not?

[BrandonKea]

I wonder....
Sending a cadet out of medical after giving him a laxative hazing or not?

We might need a few more details to be able to answer that one.

[Daniel]

What sort of information?

[BrandonKea]

What sort of information?

The circumstances by which you think this is hazing, for one.

[Daniel]

Cadet with noted irritable bowel syndrome

Flight sargeant confronts cadet after he returns to medical in a command voice about why he didn't tell him about his lack of bowel movements sooner.

When he looks to be enbarassed and says 'I'm waiting for the laxative to kick in" in a quiet voice.

Flight sargeant says its nothing to be ashamed about

[BrandonKea]

Cadet with noted irritable bowel syndrome, 6 hours after he is given the laxative he soils himself.

Why was he given a laxative? Did he request it?

[Daniel]

Cadet with noted irritable bowel syndrome, 6 hours after he is given the laxative he soils himself.

Why was he given a laxative? Did he request it?

I editted.

[BrandonKea]

Cadet with noted irritable bowel syndrome

Flight sargeant confronts cadet after he returns to medical in a command voice about why he didn't tell him about his lack of bowel movements sooner.

When he looks to be enbarassed and says 'I'm waiting for the laxative to kick in" in a quiet voice.

Flight sargeant says its nothing to be ashamed about

Doesn't sound like hazing. Sounds like the Flight Sergeant was concerned about the cadet having a health issue, and he probably was a little upset that the cadet didn't come to him with it. Was the cadet wrong? Absolutely not, the cadet had every right to go to the Medic with the issue. The cadet should have (hopefully) advised the Flight Sergeant that he needed to see the Medic. If asked why, he could have said he would just like to discuss that with the Medic.

The Flight Sergenant seems borderline insensitive, but this is not hazing.

[PA Guy]

I think there is probably more to the story but based on what is posted:
Poor communication skills? Maybe
Lack of sensitivity? Maybe
Hazing? No

[Daniel]

one last thing

The cadet had to fight him to fall out when it was 'time'

[BrandonKea]

one last thing

The cadet had to fight him to fall out when it was 'time'

Still not hazing. If it was that bad, the cadet should have just fallen out on his own. Some things are easier to explain later.

Also, if you want honest feedback on this kind of thing, give us the information all up front. Playing the "trump card" game on CAPTalk is annoying.

[Daniel]

ahh well. The cadet was cool with it, his parents weren't so much though.

[RiverAux]

As this was a wing activity, there isn't anything your squadron folks are going to be able to do to resolve the issue, so I would recommend filing a complaint to the Wing Commander. But, before you do, think about what results would make you happy?  Do you want the cadets and seniors involved kicked out?  Counseled?

Not sure jumping straight to the Wing King™ would be the best idea.

"Members should follow the chain of command. Commanders and members should make every attempt to resolve problems, conflicts, and disputes within CAP at the lowest level possible."

IG maybe?

The IG system really sees itself as a back-up route to resolving issues not really the first place you go, at least thats what I got from a quick reading the Complaints regulation and a few other things on their web site.  Whether you go to IC or Wing commander probably doesn't make a lot of difference, but the Wing Commander is really the guy that has some authority.  I see the IG as the person you go to when the person in authority isn't doing what they should be doing.  6 of one, half a dozen of another though.

Incidentally, you can send anonymous complaints to the IG.

[BrandonKea]

As this was a wing activity, there isn't anything your squadron folks are going to be able to do to resolve the issue, so I would recommend filing a complaint to the Wing Commander. But, before you do, think about what results would make you happy?  Do you want the cadets and seniors involved kicked out?  Counseled?

Not sure jumping straight to the Wing King™ would be the best idea.

"Members should follow the chain of command. Commanders and members should make every attempt to resolve problems, conflicts, and disputes within CAP at the lowest level possible."

IG maybe?

The IG system really sees itself as a back-up route to resolving issues not really the first place you go, at least thats what I got from a quick reading the Complaints regulation and a few other things on their web site.  Whether you go to IC or Wing commander probably doesn't make a lot of difference, but the Wing Commander is really the guy that has some authority.  I see the IG as the person you go to when the person in authority isn't doing what they should be doing.  6 of one, half a dozen of another though.

Incidentally, you can send anonymous complaints to the IG.

Well idealy this would be brought to the Encampment commander. I guess the question is what role does the encampment commander play after the encampment is over. Likely, the issue would be brought up to the Wing Commander, and likely, and investigation would be started, usually through the IG. Just my .02, ya'll may be right too.

[jeancalvinus]

Update:

The parents of one the cadets pulled him out of CAP this week. The encampment experience was the chief reason why. I am very saddened by this.

I do realize people quit organizations all of the time, sometime for good reasons, sometimes for bad ones. I also know that you cannot keep all cadets involved. However, it is frustrating that a cadet who volunteers to go to an encampment as staff, gets treated this way and quits the program.

I think keeping the idea that we are all volunteers at the forefront of our thinking will go a long ways towards preventing this kind of thing in the future. The cadet commander was brought in from out of state, showed up late, and then tried to come in and "whip the staff into shape." This of course showed some immaturity, he failed to keep in mind that his cadet staff were all volunteers and had given up their own time to be at the encampment.

When parents complain to me about other senior members, I try and remind them about the volunteer factor to try and temper their complaints a bit (unless of course the complaint s a legal issue).

Jean

[Airrace]

Hazing is - Any action taken or situation created intentionally:
that causes embarrassment, harassment or ridicule risks emotional and/or physical harm to members of an organization or team whether new or not regardless of the person's willingness to participate.

Still confused? Ask yourself these questions:

Would I feel comfortable participating in this activity if my parents were watching?

Would we get in trouble if the Dean of Students walked by?

Am I being asked to keep these activities a secret?

Am I doing anything illegal?

Does participation violate my values or those of my organization?

Is it causing emotional distress or stress of any kind to myself or others?

Sounds to me like your answer is yes this can be some type of hazing and should not be allowed!

[Ned]

Hazing is - [. . .[

While this is not a bad definition of hazing, (and the discussion questions are certainly worth considering), let's remember that CAP does have a (slightly) different definition of hazing.  Which we adopted verbatim  from the Department of Defense.

All CAP hazing questions must be measured against the DoD definition.


And a side note to Jean:

It is certainly tempting to consider our volunteer status while evaluating CAP activities, but the standards in this area are the same for all participants: paid or volunteer, full time or part time, adult or minor.

Poor leadership is no less poor because it is exercised by a volunteer. 

Rotten people skills are no less rotten . . .

Hazing done by volunteer is no less hazing than that performed by a professional.

You get the idea.



One of the major points of the cadet program is to teach leadership skills that will empower the cadet in all aspects of her/his life.  Whether they go on to leadership roles in the business world, civil government, the military, or their church, the standards will largely be the same.


I hope the parents and the (former) cadet will be able to reconsider after some time away and re-engage.  This program is a large and challenging one.  I hope that one bad experience at encampment will not be forclose future participation.


Ned Lee

[jeancalvinus]

Ned,

Good post. Perhaps I need to clarify: the volunteer aspect is what I wished the cadet commander kept in his view. He showed up, evaluated the cadet staff he was given to work with, decided they were deficient in their CAP knowledge (told them so), and began to treat them like they also were basic trainees. Instead of recognizing that they were what he had to work with, and being patient and focusing on the mission (get the basic attendees through the encampment), he tried to conduct a basic encampment and square away 40% of his staff at the same time (despite showing up 2 days late and not having any previous relationship with any of his staff, period). Had he kept in view that what he could accomplish was very much dependent on the existing skill set of his staff, he then could have addressed whatever deficiencies he thought were mission critical, and let the rest of them go. Keeping the volunteer aspect of things in view would have also enabled him to place a high priority on building a working relationship with the staff. Folks need to understand that sometimes you have to work with what is there, because there isn't time to get replacements, and even if there were, none may be available. So unless there is a legal or moral issue at stake, suck it up and develop your problem solving skills by getting the cadets through the training. often you learn along the way that your help isn't as unskilled as you thought (it can also go the other way of course).

I do know the cadet commander in question had been to at least one high visibility encampment and performed so well he was asked to come lead this one. It just goes to show that having great individual skills doesn't mean you have great trainer skills (or people skills). Just because because you've been through some tough, valuable training doesn't make you a duty expert on all things CAP. Gotta love the self confidence, but it seems it wasn't well founded.

Jean

[Spike]

Ya.... Cadet Commander coming in 2 days late is a no-go on the part of the Senior Encampment Commander.  If he or she could not find a cadet competent enough to be Cadet Commander, it was a setup from the start, so much so that there was no Cadet commander for 2 days.

I suspect changes will come down from Wing (if not region) for the next Encampment.  If you still have issues, I suggest you address them to the Wing/ Region IG.  Make sure your observations are taken note of.

Wow.....bringing in an out of Wing Cadet is like a slap int eh face to those Wing members that spent years moving up the chain of command at encampment. 

BAD MOVE all around. 

[PHall]

Ya.... Cadet Commander coming in 2 days late is a no-go on the part of the Senior Encampment Commander.  If he or she could not find a cadet competent enough to be Cadet Commander, it was a setup from the start, so much so that there was no Cadet commander for 2 days.

I suspect changes will come down from Wing (if not region) for the next Encampment.  If you still have issues, I suggest you address them to the Wing/ Region IG.  Make sure your observations are taken note of.

Wow.....bringing in an out of Wing Cadet is like a slap int eh face to those Wing members that spent years moving up the chain of command at encampment. 

BAD MOVE all around.

You assume there was somebody available in the Wing to do the job.

Sometimes the talent pool can be pretty shallow. Stuff like school and jobs can get in the way.

[Spike]

^ I am sure one of the numerous Cadet Staff members could have been asked to step up.  There is always a Cadet waiting to do it.  When was the last Encampment you went to where there were no Staff Cadets??  Never?!?!

[PHall]

^ I am sure one of the numerous Cadet Staff members could have been asked to step up.  There is always a Cadet waiting to do it.  When was the last Encampment you went to where there were no Staff Cadets??  Never?!?!

But was there someone available who had the knowledge and skills to run the thing?

It's one thing to be a Flight Commander, it's an entirely different thing to be the Commander.

I've been to Encampment Staff Selections where everybody who applied got a job because the applicant pool was thin and other years where we've had to turn good people away.

It seems to happen in cycles....

[Airrace]

 I agree one of the numerous Cadet Staff members could have been asked to step up.  There is always a Cadet waiting to step up. If there was no emergency reason why he was two days late then he should of been replaced prior to showing up. I wonder who was in charge for two days while he was gone!

[Ned]

Being an encampment commander is a difficult and thankless job.  And almost always done by In Addition to Other Duties by a unit commander or CP staff officer.

For running one of the largest activities in the wing/region (both in terms of personnel and budget), you might get a "thank you" from the CC and maybe even a Commander's Commendation or something.

And of course complaints, mishap investigations, and endless hearburn.

Which is often aggravated by people sharpshooting and second-guessing you on the internet.  For the world to see.  And usually done anonymously by people who weren't there and have no personal knowledge of the facts.

This thread started with an appropriate discussion of hazing, but has taken a turn towards taking pot-shots at an encampment commander's staffing decisions.

Any wonder we have difficulty getting people to stand up for this demanding assignment?

[jeancalvinus]

Ned,

Do not know if anyone else was available in the wing for the CC slot, BUT only 4 cadets from the wing showed up to be staff. When the 2 cadet staff members left after the incidents, they were down to 2 cadet staff (since the CC was relieved).

Forgive me for not emphasizing this, but I am very thankful that there were senior members from the wing available (and willing) to come and run/ administer the encampment.  I hope to try and help myself next summer (I have a CONSIDERABLE amount of experience with things of this nature). One thing is for sure, I hope to provide ALL staff with the proper guidance prior to encampment, even if I have to do net meetings. Not communicating expectations clearly and in a timely manner sets up cadets (and senior members) to fail.

Maybe the thing to do is create and then post some lectures on youtube for cadets to look at weeks prior to encampment. I could even include multiple examples of what constitutes acceptable/ unacceptable behavior. THAT would be a fun project for a squadron to do on a weekend when no other activity is available.

I'm glad there is folks who volunteer, even with all of the (sometimes necessary) red tape they have to go through.

[jimmydeanno]

One thing is for sure, I hope to provide ALL staff with the proper guidance prior to encampment, even if I have to do net meetings. Not communicating expectations clearly and in a timely manner sets up cadets (and senior members) to fail.

This is a great idea, and one that many encampment utilize already.  But in its simplest form is what CAP affectionately calls "Required Staff Training" or RST for short.

Here is the link from the CAPNHQ website: http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/cadet_programs/library/required_staff_training.cfm

In addition, many wings incorporate the RST into a staff training weekend or a few days prior to the encampment and discuss standards, staff organization, expectations, etc.

Thank you for your time.

[BrandonKea]

One thing is for sure, I hope to provide ALL staff with the proper guidance prior to encampment, even if I have to do net meetings. Not communicating expectations clearly and in a timely manner sets up cadets (and senior members) to fail.

This is a great idea, and one that many encampment utilize already.  But in its simplest form is what CAP affectionately calls "Required Staff Training" or RST for short.

Here is the link from the CAPNHQ website: http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/cadet_programs/library/required_staff_training.cfm

In addition, many wings incorporate the RST into a staff training weekend or a few days prior to the encampment and discuss standards, staff organization, expectations, etc.

Thank you for your time.

Emphasis on the fact that RST is nowhere near what an encampment staff needs for training. It is the basic, bare mininum of what must be briefed. I've been to encampments where this is ALL that was briefed, and, well, things didn't go well.

My third encampment, I was assigned a staff position of Flight Commander. About a week out, the encampment CC called and asked if I would be the Deputy Cadet Commander. We also had another C/1st Lt who was the XO who picked the job up a week before. (We ended up switching jobs as she had a bit more line experience than did I). So, while there may always be cadets wanting to step up... I've been on the other side of this too.

The next encampment I went to, one year later, several cadets were upset at the encampment leadership, and 2/3's of the squadron commanders quit. Also, we had a flight commander who was unable to continue her duties due to a medical issue. Did anyone want to step up and be a flight commander or squadron commander? Nope. I stepped in for about a day before they got their ducks in a row and rearranged everything and put me back in my job of "random task guru." The squadrons were effectively commanderless for 3 days of the encampment, until graduation when they were convinced to just do the pass in review.

Leadership means a lot to the people at an encampment. I agree with Ned, it is probably VERY difficult to find a dedicated Encampment CC who has the knowhow, want, ability, and vacation time to even think about taking on this daunting task. And again, the DISCUSSION was very good, until the attacks started.

[jeancalvinus]

This just in......"swearing at a cadet is not hazing."

Never expected THAT outcome. What an interesting thing this CAP organization is. I won't leave over this, but it sure is disappointing.

[CadetProgramGuy]

This just in......"swearing at a cadet is not hazing."

Never expected THAT outcome. What an interesting thing this CAP organization is. I won't give leave over this, but it sure is disappointing.

apparently integrity is no longer a core value....

[Eclipse]

The use of profanity is poor leadership, poor example, and unacceptable in CAP, especially concerning cadets.

But in and of itself its not necessarily hazing.  In fact, you'd be hard-pressed to identify any specific behavior that can consistently be identified as pure hazing 100% of the time.

What we need to do is address poor behavior and leadership directly and with common sense, and stop trying to apply the big stick of "hazing" to every incorrect technique, or worse, simple mistake of a bunch of inconsistently trained volunteers.

[Spike]

I think things like staffing issues would be solved if little Wings got together and held joint Encampments.  When your Encampment produces 30-60 Cadet Graduates, time to get together with other Wings. 

[jeancalvinus]

Eclipse,

Your point is well made, and taken. My question is why say "swearing at cadets is not hazing" instead of "this particular incidence of swearing at cadets did not constitute hazing."

Another thing I would be curious about is WHAT IF THE CADET RAISES AN OBJECTION TO THE SWEARING (in this particular instance, it was liberal and regular use of F-bombs)? If they object, are the cadet staff and senior members at liberty to ignore them and continue on?

Just curious.

[AirAux]

Where did you come up with this statement?  "This just in......"swearing at a cadet is not hazing.""  I need some particulars on this.  I think someone is misinformed.  It may not be hazing, but I bet I can get someone 2b ed on this..

[jeancalvinus]

I am of course trying to keep the location of this encampment out of the limelight, and as such must be quite vague on some of the particulars.

Under that guise, my answer is that this statement came from higher, and is official.

[Eclipse]

^ The problem with this and other things like it is that its too specific.  We weren't there, and if we were probably wouldn't be at liberty, or comfortable to discuss it in detail.

Bottom line, things like you're describing do sadly happen in CAP, and schools, and sports, and Boy Scouts, and just about anywhere else misinformed, incorrectly trained or poorly supervised people gather with authority over others.

If the things you are saying occurred, did, they were over the line and someone should have told them to knock it off.  After the fact, if it can be determined what really went on and it was what you describe, action should be taken to correct the understanding of the involved members, and possibly change the names on the staff roster for next year.

Sometimes that happens, sometimes it doesn't.   Throwing continued asterisks to the story at us to continue the thread starts to make it seem like you're just out to make this sound as bad as possible without being able to move on.

Don't become that "one-track" member who was wronged and can't frame any CAP involvement outside a reference to the "bad thing".  We have enough of those already.

The other thing that seems to be lost on some members, especially parents, and double-especially new parents - we're all volunteers, and the depth at position is pretty low.  That's not remotely an excuse for poor or illegal behavior, but far too many members who feel they were slighted, or worse, want an immediate Armageddon solution to the problem, when a simple conversation and attitude adjustment is all that's warranted (i.e. "Lighten up Francis.").

Perspective.  Not everything is hazing, and not all hazing is grounds for termination.  Fix it and move on.

[jeancalvinus]

Eclipse

I am sensitive to the issues you raise. I am not really trying to keep this thread going by throwing things out, but the update is accurate, and timely.

Not bitter at CAP, and definitely not one-track (look at my other posts in other topics). I have eyes wide-open to the problems inherent in these organizations, and joined anyway. My involvement thus far has been very rewarding, and I plan to continue.

The resolution to this problem is puzzling, but does include some very appropriate outcomes, which I outlined and am VERY happy with. Other outcomes, obviously not.

AMEN on the "Armageddon solution" mentality. Many of my cadets have it (especially on the issue of attendance). Good quote from Stripes. And yes, I agree, not all hazing (or improper behavior, or whatever label you want to put on it) is grounds for termination. Sometimes a simple corrective comment is good, or for more serious situation, a removal from training, or for even more serious, a reduction in cadet or senior rank.

For the record, I like CAP, I think it benefits the cadets (and senior members), and I plan to continue ENTHUSIASTICALLY. I am actively recruiting both cadets AND senior members, and hope to double our Cadet side in the next year (unit "historians" say we were once MUCH bigger, and I hope to return to that level). I myself hope to be knee-deep in a cadet encampment next year, on the operations side. I plan to insure cadet staff have training prior to the event, and want a training schedule in place 3 months out to make certain we all know what we are doing and what support we need. Many of the suggestions/ observations from this thread will be incorporated, Lord willing.

Good post. I like your view on this issue.

jean

[DG]

It is sometimes difficult to draw the line between teasing, common to teenagers, and hazing which goes beyond teasing to demeaning and humiliating behavior. Hazing is defined in Paragraph 1c (below) of CAP Regulation 52-10, CAP Cadet Protection Policy.  Incidents of possible hazing should be reported to the unit commander who is charged with making a determination if the incident meets the criteria for "hazing."

1c. Hazing. Hazing is defined as any conduct whereby someone causes another to suffer or to be exposed to any activity that is cruel, abusive, humiliating, oppressive, demeaning, or harmful. Actual or implied consent to acts of hazing does not eliminate the culpability of the perpetrator. Examples of hazing include using exercise as punishment or assigning remedial training that does not fit the deficiency (such as making a cadet run laps for having poorly shined shoes). Hazing, as defined in this policy, is considered a form of physical abuse and the reporting procedures for physical abuse must be followed.

[ZigZag911]

DG -- teasing ought to occur between equals.

Cadet basics can't tease back at cadet staff...there is a power imbalance....staff ought to be taught that generally this sort of behavior is undesirable...it might be different in a home squadron, where the players know one another better, but even then the seniors supervising cadet program need to keep an eye on what's going on, and step in where needed.

[DG]

DG -- teasing ought to occur between equals.

Cadet basics can't tease back at cadet staff...there is a power imbalance....staff ought to be taught that generally this sort of behavior is undesirable...it might be different in a home squadron, where the players know one another better, but even then the seniors supervising cadet program need to keep an eye on what's going on, and step in where needed.

ZigZag - Good point!

[AirDX]

Hate to resurrect a thread that's been at rest for over nearly a month, but I just read through this one.

A lot of regulations were bandied about, but conspicuous by its absence was any mention of the core values.

Seems to me that swearing AT a cadet by anyone is a lack of RESPECT.

Senior members or cadet staff standing by and taking no action while this was going on is a lack of INTEGRITY.

Keep an eye on the core values, and the rest will fall into place.

Integrity
Volunteer Service
Excellence
Respect

[jeancalvinus]

Please don't answer this post, its just a way to close this thread out.  I am posting this here as I don't want to start another thread, and I think the subject matter of this post is germane to this thread.

In addition to what AirDX said, I think a real practical step to insure fewer "incidents" at basic encampments is to have FEWER of them. By that I mean consolidation--instead of a few big ones and a bunch of small ones, why not have them by geographical area. That way, they would be big, and that would insure a lot visibility for the cadets involved as staff. With cadets coming from several states, there would be a wide variety of Senior Members there as well. To me, all of this equals a lot of limelight, and that would remove the temptation to be "overzealous" in instilling discipline.

I think we are headed this way anyway, it surely would allow pooling of resources and less duplication of effort. THIS IS A GOOD THING. The only drawback is that it will make encampments far enough away from some squadrons that more cadets will be unable to attend.

[Eclipse]

I think we are headed this way anyway, it surely would allow pooling of resources and less duplication of effort. THIS IS A GOOD THING. The only drawback is that it will make encampments far enough away from some squadrons that more cadets will be unable to attend.

You don't get to pick and choose when or if people respond to a post, especially as in this case where you have no idea what you are talking about.

There may be any number of ways that we can improve encampments, making them artificially less frequent or harder / more expensive aren't answers.

Having multiple encampments in a given wing or region isn't "duplication of effort", its an increase in opportunity.  Encampments aren't check boxes to Mitchell, they are learning and growth experiences for all parties involved, including the adults.

You don't limit opportunities for your members, especially cadets, because of some mis-informed idea that there is a whole-scale issue with leadership.  You address it where you find it, and accept that sometimes your ideas of "abuse" aren't shared by those in authority, in which case you are free to spend your volunteer time elsewhere.

[jeancalvinus]

Of course I don't get to pick and choose. I have been taken to task before for "continuing this thread" (which for some reason seems to be a bad thing). I said that to make clear I am fine with this dying off, we've looked at the hazing issue.

Sorry to be such a burr under your saddle Eclipse. I should also add that I wholeheartedly disagree with your categorical assertion that consolidating encampments is automatically bad. There IS duplication of effort (which of course is not always bad) when you run multiple encampments. I submit that the overall cost of training a cadet will go down with larger encampments, which is a better use of CAP resources. I also see that it will result in a higher cost to some cadets and to some staff as there will be a greater travel cost. This is not a good thing but it is something I am willing to see happen to get some uniformity in standards and qualifications. I see by your over 6000 posts that you have been doing CAP for some time and as such know quite a bit about it (haven't read your profile, for all I know you are the wing commander of some state), but let me just say that I am NOT speaking out my tailpipe here when I say that consolidated encampments are coming. Maybe not nationwide, but in some areas it'll happen quite soon., if for no other reason than simple economics. We are in a depression, and national organizations have to save $$$$. This is one way to do that. I also know that CAP has these issues (untrained staff providing subpar training and hazing cadets) and sincerely wants to change it. One solution is a lot more money thrown at the situation (something we don't have), the other is a wiser way to use less.

I do know something about training, I have done a bit of it in my time. I am not some youngster in his 20's or 30's. Sure don't know it all, but I do "have some idea what I am talking about."

Certainly my ideas of abuse are not shared by some in authority, BUT THEY ARE SHARED BY THE REGULATIONS. If those in command (in my area anyway) want to apply a more liberal reading of those regs, that is their purview. If I don't like it I can choose to stay put, whether or not some on this forum like it, and try to train those under my sphere of influence that CAP means what it says when it says that some actions are not allowed. I can also instill pride in being in CAP, something I am not deterred from doing,regardless of what happened at an encampment this summer.

You may be misreading my view of encampments. I don't see them as a check box of any kind, I see them as way to develop the cadets into more mature, better prepared, and better disciplined people (whether or not they go into the military). As such, we must insure those doing the training are all following the same playbook. I think consolidated encampments does just that. I also think it is possible to do that if things are left as they are, but it requires a greater commitment than some involved are currently giving to training and following the regs. When the SM and Cadets do that, it has  great effect (and I have witnessed the fruits of that). For some of these kids, it's the first time anyone held their feet to the fire and made them accountable for their actions. The results can be lasting and life changing.

As an aside, if they would release it, I would like to see stats from National regarding basic encampments and how many cadets were trained over each of the last 5 years, and where they were trained.

[Spike]

I am all for consolidating Encampments. 

If the travel costs go up.....well, the unit better start standing outside of a Walmart every month raising cash to send Cadets to the Encampment.

When an Encampment graduates 45 Cadets......time to merge with your neighbor Wing.

Good example is/ was the Tri-Wing Encampment where Delaware, Maryland and Virginia Wings got together to hold an Encampment.  Always a big Encampment. 

[NC Hokie]

NC Wing and NATCAP Wing got together on encampment this year.  Couldn't tell you what NATCAP folks thought but it seems to have gone pretty well on our end.

[ol'fido]

Big encampments, small encampments, consolidated encampments; it doesn't matter.

Core values training, RST, ethics training, staff contracts, etc. you are always going to have cadets and unfortunately seniors who somehow had their brains in lockdown or just don't get it. They think that Gunny on Full Metal Jacket is how it's supposed to be.

You tell them don't do this until you are blue in the face and they will snap to attention say "Yes, Sir!" and go forth and purposely ignore eveything you just said.

Lastly, you may think you've covered every base and someone will find a completely new way to screw up that you never thought of.

You just have to do the best you can do and train your staff the best you can train them. Then, when/if( more likely when) something does happen document it, report it if needed, take the appropriate action, exercise due diligence and deal with the consequences. You wil NEVER completely eliminate. All you cando is minimize.

[Ned]

You tell them don't do this until you are blue in the face and they will snap to attention say "Yes, Sir!" and go forth and purposely ignore eveything you just said.  (. . .) . You wil NEVER completely eliminate. All you can do is minimize.

Hmmm.  I suppose it is just a matter of perspective and perhaps semantics, but hazing is a relatively rare occurance at CAP encampments.

I agree that it still seems to occur on occasion despite all of the safeguards that we have emplaced (TAC officers, 52-10, RST, etc), but some people reading your comments might think that most encampments suffer from this problem.

In reality, it is a rare occurance.  The great majority of encampments do not have a single recorded incident.

And that is not an accident.  It is the result of highly trained and experienced seniors working with a professionally-oriented cadet staff to ensure that our cadets are challenged in a vigorous military environment; but without unacceptable risk of harm or hazing.

Ned Lee

[ol'fido]

Ned,
I'm not trying to say that it is a common occurence. You're right it isn't. What I'm trying to say is that no matter how well you prepare for it, or how organized, or how your organized, it can occur and usually in a way you weren't expecting. There is no magic bullet.

[Dieneces]

This was highly disappointing to read, and not for the reasons you might think.  First, as far as I can tell not a single person describing the events was actually there.  This means AT BEST everything was second hand.  Much was third or worse. 
Most of the "facts" given with regards to people's behaviors and actions are either completely wrong or, at best, extremely exaggerated. 
I would challenge that this bordered on inappropriate with how many statements were given as "fact".  This is how rumors get started.  Leave the fact finding to the appropriate wing and/or region officials.  They get sides of the story you won't hear, because most people involved will respect confidentiality and not talk about the incident(s) in question.

[jeancalvinus]

Higher authority does not dispute this account of events. Including higher authority that was THERE.

HOWEVER, personalities (names) were completely left out (as was region, state, etc). This is NOT inappropriate. Those items were left out as to have this discussion as to what really constitutes hazing/ cadet abuse/ violations of CAP policy/ etc. IN THAT VEIN this discussion is possible.

Since you were there, why not give us your side. You HAD to have been there to make the statement:

"Most of the "facts" given with regards to people's behaviors and actions are either completely wrong or, at best, extremely exaggerated. "

Numerous others that were there do not share your opinion. I don't have to be there or see the videotape in circulation to have a pretty fair grasp of what happened. It's like a newspaper article on the Viking's game last week, probably written by someone there. I will take their word for it that they won, and won't dispute that they won just because I wasn't personally there to witness it. And friends I tell based on that newspaper article are not going to dismiss what I say just because I wasn't there. They know I got an account from someone who was there.

The only thing that was really in dispute is whether or not what happened was a violation of CAP policies. For disposition, see above posts (left intentionally vague as to who or what billet said what in order to allow for free discussion).

[Dieneces]

Higher authority does not dispute this account of events.

Since you were there, why not give us your side.

Please, define the "high authority" of which you speak.

[jeancalvinus]

If you really have read this entire thread, you know that I have not done that, and will not do that. To do so would make me guilty of the very thing you baselessly accuse me of (not respecting confidentiality). Keeping all of those details out keeps this discussion public, while keeping the people/ places/ personalities out of it.

Something tells me that you are the one who will end up making something about this public right here in this forum, in such a way as to breach confidentiality. I will tell you here and now that it would be a bad move to do so. If you can restrain yourself from doing so, I would be happy to discuss particular points of contention.

If you cannot restrain yourself, and do post some particulars that allow for identification of individuals or region, wing, squadron, etc. do not expect me to confirm or dispute what you say.

Your point very much misses the point of this discussion anyway. Read the title of the topic and that should be clear.

[Dieneces]

Now you say "higher authority that was there" - I still ask, define this.  Not names - positions, billets, etc.  And for the record, its practically cheating to edit your post before my comment and then yell at me for my comment based on what you just edited into the comment previous.

"The only thing that was really in dispute is whether or not what happened was a violation of CAP policies. For disposition, see above posts (left intentionally vague as to who or what billet said what in order to allow for free discussion)." I said that discussion of this was best left to those who investigate such matters.

One thing to note about your analogy, is a published article is vetted and is as unbiased as possible.  When hearing sides, it is good practice to take all things said, even by your very best friends, with a grain of salt.  Stories get exaggerated and twisted and changed - and almost never intentionally - and sometimes they didn't even know all the facts, especially of earlier and later events.

Lets see, if I could not "contain" myself do you think I would have so vaguely stated what I did?  My response is definitely containing myself. "Something tells me that you are the one who will end up making something about this public right here in this forum, in such a way as to breach confidentiality." You have already been parading this out in front of a large audience with lots of defining details.  Just because you don't name names doesn't mean you haven't made it abundantly easy to identify.

[jeancalvinus]

Yet no one has, meaning either everyone is showing remarkable restraint, or there isn't enough details.

You were either there yourself or have talked with someone who was. This makes it easy for you to figure out, but not for the rest.

[Dieneces]

Ya.... Cadet Commander coming in 2 days late is a no-go on the part of the Senior Encampment Commander.  If he or she could not find a cadet competent enough to be Cadet Commander, it was a setup from the start, so much so that there was no Cadet commander for 2 days.

I suspect changes will come down from Wing (if not region) for the next Encampment.  If you still have issues, I suggest you address them to the Wing/ Region IG.  Make sure your observations are taken note of.

Wow.....bringing in an out of Wing Cadet is like a slap int eh face to those Wing members that spent years moving up the chain of command at encampment. 

BAD MOVE all around.

Just looking back though posts and saw this one was missed. 

This is one of the parts of the story severely distorted.  The cadet commander was about 12 hours late... and that was due to problems with the airlines and the c/cc spent the night in the air port.  I do not think this should be held against this person.  The 2 days late is an extreme of the exaggeration is this telling of events.  The c/cc had contact with all his main staff MONTHS in advance.  The two in question were moved up from at advanced flight just over a week before the encampment as that part was canceled due to small application numbers - and despite many phone calls and emails, never responded to the c/cc.  So it seems to me that the lack of communication with the c/cc and not knowing the c/cc's expectations was not the fault of the c/cc by any stretch. 

The blame game over issues like this is what causes half the problems at activities.  The "I may have messed up my job, but wait don't look at me, don't blame me - look at the faults in this person."  People seem to be very ready to abdicate their responsibilities on a moments notice - especially if they can point to a perceived flaw in someone else as a diversionary measure. 

Point two, bringing in an out of state cadet does not have to be seen as a slap in the fact.  What if no one is state applies or is qualified?  Sometimes the best man or woman for the job is from a different wing.  Why should that cadet be deprived of a role they might not be able to get in their own wing because of the competition?  Between equally or closely qualified cadets, the default should go to the in state cadet, but I don't believe that should get it solely based on the fact that they are from that wing.  Especially in the case of a joint encampment - as was the case.

[Dieneces]

Ned,

Do not know if anyone else was available in the wing for the CC slot, BUT only 4 cadets from the wing showed up to be staff. When the 2 cadet staff members left after the incidents, they were down to 2 cadet staff (since the CC was relieved).

Forgive me for not emphasizing this, but I am very thankful that there were senior members from the wing available (and willing) to come and run/ administer the encampment.  I hope to try and help myself next summer (I have a CONSIDERABLE amount of experience with things of this nature). One thing is for sure, I hope to provide ALL staff with the proper guidance prior to encampment, even if I have to do net meetings. Not communicating expectations clearly and in a timely manner sets up cadets (and senior members) to fail.

Maybe the thing to do is create and then post some lectures on youtube for cadets to look at weeks prior to encampment. I could even include multiple examples of what constitutes acceptable/ unacceptable behavior. THAT would be a fun project for a squadron to do on a weekend when no other activity is available.

I'm glad there is folks who volunteer, even with all of the (sometimes necessary) red tape they have to go through.

There were never that few cadet staff members.  This one is an outright blatant lie.  The day those two cadets left there were 4 cadets on staff, plus the demoted but not fired c/cc.  And within 6 hours, 3 cadets came to help finish the encampment.

[Patterson]

2009....2011.  2009.....2011.

OK....what?!?!  Lets let threads that made no sense to begin with die and never be brought back to life??

[SII-117]

Not to be evil, but the cadets responsible for this were in very direct noncompliance with a number of regulations, and this isn't something you can dismiss as a one-time mistake
Whoever was directly involved in this (i.e., swearing, arm-twisting, etc...), should be dismissed before they give CAP a bad name. The SM's should be investigated as well, because it's their job to make sure that stuff like this doesn't happen.

It really saddens me to hear of things like this. Encampment is hard, as well it should be, but it should be fun as well.
Cadets at encampment bond through friendship, but should not be forced to be afraid of their staff.
This isn't the Marines!
I am genuinely sorry for anyone who paid money to put up with that. The individuals responsible should be sorry as well, about the same time that someone submits a F2B on their behalf.

[SarDragon]

d00d - look at the date before you reply to posts.This one was pretty well dead a long time ago.