HAZING at encampment--WHAT is it?

[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.