CAP Relationships

[iniedrauer]

This has been a very controverisal topic in Civil Air Patrol circles. So I'm gonna throw the question out here and come back with my opinion after I get some replies.

The question: What is your opinion on CAP Relationships (Guy/Girl), and what restrictions should be placed and/or enforced to ensure that everyone stays professional?

[cnitas]

My rules are:
1.  No PDAs.
2.  No cadet-senior relationships.

You are fooling yourself if you think you can control much of anything else.

[Eclipse]

Cadet / senior = bad idea, prohibited by regulation.

Cadet / cadet = bad idea, discouraged by many commanders.

senior / senior = semi-bad idea, however adults should have the ability to show discretion and good judgment.

[jimmydeanno]

Which CAP circles? Is that like the proverbial "they."

Seriously though, I met might wife in CAP as a cadet.  We dated while we were both cadet age.  Got married and now we still do CAP together.  So I think my opinion is rather skewed from the norm.

Cadet to Cadet relationships, IMO, are fine and normal so long as they stay outside the meeting or activity.  Sometimes they have negative effects should the relationship not work out - usually one of the two ends up leaving CAP.

Senior to Senior relationships, IMO, are fine and normal so long as they stay outside the meeting or activity.  I know a bunch of people who are married and both in CAP, but the married ones are usually OK until their kid gets to be a cadet.

Senior to Cadet relationships, IMO is the most controversial of all because of the varying age of seniors.  If you have a 19 year old cadet and a 19 year old senior member, I think there is a big difference between that and a 65 year old senior member and a 17 year old cadet (legal ramifications obvious).  The first scenario, IMO, isn't necessarilymorally wrong but can have negative connotations, implications and results.  Better off to just keep with the "Seniors can't have relationships with cadets" rule and call it a day.  If they want to be together so badly either the cadet can turn senior, or the senior can take an exodus for a little while.

YMMV.

[FW]

Cadets having relationships with each other?  I've never heard of such a thing  :angel:.  To be serious, I have no problems with cadets getting together outside of CAP to enjoy things together; whether as a group or as a couple. 

Senior to Senior activities;  none of our business unless is affects CAP activities.

Senior to Cadet -  Ya gotta be nuts even thinking about it.

[Michael]

I will speak only for cadets on this one.

Cadet to cadet relationships wreak havoc on the corps.  Way too many uncontrolled variables are introduced.

Things get worse if one of them holds any kind of position.

For field grade cadet officers (C/Lt Col, C/Maj etc) it probably would be ok, in my opinion.

[jeders]

I met my fiancee in CAP and so I also have a slightly skewed view on this.

That being said, I think that there is nothing wrong with cadets dating cadets, AS LONG AS they keep their relationship out of CAP. No PDA, no improper command influence, no sneaking off in the dark to make out after lights out.

Seniors in a relationship, no problem. Especially since most times that there are two seniors in a relationship in CAP it's because they're married. Again though, they should keep their relationship separate from CAP.

As far as seniors/cadets. That's one where I have to agree that it should just not happen ever, no matter what. If you have a 20 y/o cadet dating a 19 y/o senior, it just opens the door to bad things. Admittedly, when I was a cadet I was dating a senior member because she was two weeks older than me and we were both turning senior.

[DNall]

Cadet to cadet happens, but I highly discourage it, at least within the same unit. If they can be in neighboring units then that's more acceptable, especially as they pass 18 & are cadet officers. Extra care does have ot be taken though & it does have to stay out of CAP.

Cadet to senior is obviously a non-starter. That includes the 18yo FO. That should be covered in the initial member interview.

Adult to adult is a bad idea most times. You see married couples in the military at times, but they aren't in the same unit/chain of command. Here they absolutely are, and they never leave the area for their whole careers. You get the one spouse in a position of power & the other at a subordinate or superior unit (just an example, don't read into it). Conflict of interest is rampant, lots of real & imagined inpropriety occurs. You get political power groups based around those family units. It gets out of control in a big big way.

Far as dating, I've seen that go real bad. One, the other, or both leave CAP. Accusations of sexual harrassment, etc.

I do understand married couples sharing CAP together. That's great, but it has to be with some strict limits, very strong integrity, and very obvious/transparent about both. I tend to discourage any other kind of relationship then that.

I find it a lot harder in the national guard, where I don't have so many restrictions, and many more opportunities (obviously more girls in my age group), but I've abstained out of professionalism, and not without some serious temptation. I just don't think it's right. Not everyone abides by that philosophy. I just worry about me & my people. I don't have time for anything else.

[mikeylikey]

......a 65 year old senior member and a 17 year old cadet (legal ramifications obvious).  

YIKES!   Wow, crazy images running through my head.   

[MIKE]

1-4. h. Respect for Others. CAP cadets require an environment 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 insult or mock other members, and will not use racial, cultural, or ethnic slurs at any time.
(1) Decorum. Cadets will conduct themselves in a professional and appropriate manner at all times while in uniform and at CAP meetings or activities. Cadets will not engage in inappropriate touching or public displays of affection by kissing, hugging or holding hands (or similar conduct) while in uniform.
(2) Fraternization. The Air Force has always prohibited unduly familiar personal relationships between leaders and followers to avoid favoritism, preferential treatment, or other actions that undermine order, discipline, and unit morale. Similarly, it is important for CAP members to avoid unduly familiar relationships with other members, while recognizing that proper social interactions and appropriate personal relationships are necessary to unit morale, esprit de corps and effective mentoring. It is not inherently improper for cadets to have personal or romantic relationships with other cadets, however, relationships between cadets of substantially different ranks, or between cadets within the chain-of-command, are discouraged. Because seniors have intrinsic supervisory authority over cadets, senior members will not date or have an intimate romantic relationship with a cadet at any time, regardless of the circumstances.

[SDF_Specialist]

I think we've all seen what happens when cadets get together for a little puppy love. I for one just have to laugh at the whole situation when that happens. Before you know it, they are broken up, then the female cadet is going for another male cadet, which in turn, causes quite a bit of jealousy between the two male cadets, then all hell breaks loose. What's a commander to do? I don't know, but I'll find out at the upcoming UCC. I think it's a bad idea all the way around. Cadets and cadet, cadets and seniors, even senior and senior (at times that is ). My wife didn't like CAP only because she had to give up the general grade she had at home to be the second lieutenant who was junior to her first lieutenant hubby (me). Yeah, I paid for it every evening after the meetings.

[lordmonar]

You can't ban cadet v. cadet or senior v. senior relationships....you might as well try to empty the sea with a teaspoon.

So....you control it on a case by case basis.  If you see a relationship that is disruptive to the unit...you approch the individuals....lay out exactly what is wrong and how it effects the unit...you explain how you want the "duty behavior" to change and press on from there.

Any hard and fast rule is doomed to fail.

NOTE....this is not the Senior V. Cadet rule....the bright line on that issue was finally settled with the last revision of 52-16.

That one is simple....if you see it 2b the senior...end of story.

[SDF_Specialist]

That one is simple....if you see it 2b the senior...end of story.

Why not 2b the cadet as well? Cadets learn common sense at meetings (or at least they should). The cadet knows just as well what they are getting into be engaging in a relationship with a senior. It takes two to tango.

[FW]

That one is simple....if you see it 2b the senior...end of story.

Why not 2b the cadet as well? Cadets learn common sense at meetings (or at least they should). The cadet knows just as well what they are getting into be engaging in a relationship with a senior. It takes two to tango.

It may take "two to tango", but the senior member is the one who should know better; yes, even an 18 y.o. senior.
 I had to deal with a couple of these "relationships" over the last 20 or so years in CAP.  One ended up with a 60 year sentence for a child molestation conviction and really bad press for the BSA.  (CAP was spared the bulk of bad press because of our cooperation with the FEDS and State LEA's).  Another ended up with the senior being 2b'd and the cadet in therapy for a few years.
In CAP, a senior member has a "supervisory role" over cadets.  This is a position of perceived power and should not be taken advantage of.  It is the same role a teacher has over a student.  Any relationship other than professional is considered a form of abuse and is not tolerated.  IMHO, CPPT and 52-16 are the most important publications in our dealings with cadets.  We can be friendly, not friends;  caring but not loving.  role model not object of desire.  As I've said before:  Don't even think about it!

[jeders]

I'd have to agree with Recruiter. If it's a relationship which both people entered into consensually I say 2b both of them. Now if the senior pressured the cadet into a relationship, then obviously you wouldn't 2b the cadet.

Also, if you have a cadet and senior in the same age range (18-21 for the cadet) I would give the option of the cadet turning senior if it was a real relationship, not the senior pressuring the cadet. Otherwise I would 2b both.

[SDF_Specialist]

I'd have to agree with Recruiter. If it's a relationship which both people entered into consensually I say 2b both of them. Now if the senior pressured the cadet into a relationship, then obviously you wouldn't 2b the cadet.

True. Peer pressure can be a tough thing to not give into. But don't we preach to our cadets that if they are uncomfortable with a situation, they should talk to the commander, or another senior?

Also, if you have a cadet and senior in the same age range (18-21 for the cadet) I would give the option of the cadet turning senior if it was a real relationship, not the senior pressuring the cadet. Otherwise I would 2b both.

I have a problem with this. If you have a cadet who is 19 years old, and her boyfriend who is a 19 year old senior, who's to say that she won't cry wolf when they break up, and get him in a lot of trouble? Also, vice versa on that situation. These are very vindictive ages for the youth. I know, because I was 19 only four years ago. This is just my opinion, but I believe that 18 is where the cadet program should end for cadets.

[Eclipse]

That one is simple....if you see it 2b the senior...end of story.

Why not 2b the cadet as well? Cadets learn common sense at meetings (or at least they should). The cadet knows just as well what they are getting into be engaging in a relationship with a senior. It takes two to tango.

It may take "two to tango", but the senior member is the one who should know better; yes, even an 18 y.o. senior.

Yep, comes with the different shirt and pay raise.  It might not be fair, but little in life is.  Something to think about before converting...

[FW]

"True. Peer pressure can be a tough thing to not give into. But don't we preach to our cadets that if they are uncomfortable with a situation, they should talk to the commander, or another senior?"

Sounds good in theory.  And, that's how it is supposed to work.  However, when dealing with this type of "relationship",  reality is quite different.  Cadets are victims by definition in the vast majority of these cases.  Counseling is the rule. 2b'ing a cadet out of hand in this is a sure way to get involved in a lawsuit - or worse.  And, if that happens, you may not be protected by CAP.  I, for one, am not interested in "what ifs or who did what".  With this type of dilemma, I follow the rules to the letter and let our Chaplains, Legal officers and CAP/GC work it out.

Unfortunatly, I've dealt with this stuff, as a commander, and as a counselor.  It's not an easy situation.  And it's why I stress these rules we have be taken very seriously.

[SDF_Specialist]

"True. Peer pressure can be a tough thing to not give into. But don't we preach to our cadets that if they are uncomfortable with a situation, they should talk to the commander, or another senior?"

Sounds good in theory.  And, that's how it is supposed to work.  However, when dealing with this type of "relationship",  reality is quite different.  Cadets are victims by definition in the vast majority of these cases.  Counseling is the rule. 2b'ing a cadet out of hand in this is a sure way to get involved in a lawsuit - or worse.  And, if that happens, you may not be protected by CAP.  I, for one, am not interested in "what ifs or who did what".  With this type of dilemma, I follow the rules to the letter and let our Chaplains, Legal officers and CAP/GC work it out.

Unfortunatly, I've dealt with this stuff, as a commander, and as a counselor.  It's not an easy situation.  And it's why I stress these rules we have be taken very seriously.

A lawsuit for being 2b'ed from CAP? Being a member of CAP is a privilage, not a right. But if you mean the other way around, which you probably do, I don't see where CAP would protect you. You violated CPPT, there for relinquished your right to be a member of CAP. If the cadet willingly engaged in the relationship, then 2b the cadet too.

[FW]

I humbly beg to differ.  I'll try to be clearer.

Membership may be a privilege however, terminating a cadet for a Senior's CPPT violation can be considered retaliation, discrimination, or even worse.  Since we are dealing with someone's child.  One could be in deep do do, and with out protection.

As it has been explained to me on many occasions, most cadets (those under 18) can not legally give consent.  Seniors who engage in inappropriate relations with a cadet can not get away with saying it was consensual;  neither can the cadet.  Cadets over 18 can give consent but we have the dilemma of  supervisor/supervised.  Can you, as a commander, prove mutual consent.  Nope.  The reason this stuff comes up is due do something going wrong.  It becomes dirty and very messy.  I wouldn't even try to sort it out.  Just follow the rules and take direction from the people who are supposed to deal with this stuff.

As I've said, more than once:  Don't even think about it!

[JohnKachenmeister]

Cadet to cadet:   Cool, and will provide you with some great memories when you get to be a falling-apart old man like me.  My old cadet girlfriend just looked me up on the internet and sent me an e-mail a few months ago.  Brought back warm thoughts of Cokes together in the Day Room, coughing our lungs out in the Cadet Smoking Lounge, and sneaking to the darker parts of the Encampment Area to rub my 1505 khakis against her blue cords!  Not to mention "Hang On Sloopy" repeated a thousand times over the PA system (The band that recorded it... The McCoys... was from Dayton, Ohio as were most of the Wing Encampment Staff)!

Officer to officer:  Likewise cool, but from my point of view, unlikely.  There simply are not that many attractive single girls serving as CAP officers.  This is a non-issue, as I see it.

Officer to cadet:  Death.  Very inappropriate regardless of relative age.     

[W3ZR]

(edit)If you have a cadet who is 19 years old, and her boyfriend who is a 19 year old senior, who's to say that she won't cry wolf when they break up, and get him in a lot of trouble? Also, vice versa on that situation. These are very vindictive ages for the youth.

That is an excellent point to enlighten your members why relationships are frowned upon.

No woman or man (fairness act ) is worth losing everything you worked for in CAP
or any other organization for that matter.

I have belonged to a couple of organizations that have been thrust into turmoil
due to fraternization among the ranks. It is just bad business all the way around.

[lordmonar]

That one is simple....if you see it 2b the senior...end of story.

Why not 2b the cadet as well? Cadets learn common sense at meetings (or at least they should). The cadet knows just as well what they are getting into be engaging in a relationship with a senior. It takes two to tango.

If we accepted the possiblity that the cadet was as culpable in a cadet on senior relationship and held them to the same level of responsibility.......then we would have to entertain the possiblity that that same cadet was mature enough to handle such a relationship and then then whole purpose of the bright line for cadet/senior relationships would be invalidated.

[lordmonar]

Also, if you have a cadet and senior in the same age range (18-21 for the cadet) I would give the option of the cadet turning senior if it was a real relationship, not the senior pressuring the cadet. Otherwise I would 2b both.

One of the reasons why I advocated if we went to a bright line Cadet/Senior relationship rule we also have to make a bright line between seniors and cadets.

Pick an age...18/21 or spit the difference 19.5  .

[SarDragon]

My wife didn't like CAP only because she had to give up the general grade she had at home to be the second lieutenant who was junior to her first lieutenant hubby (me).

You know, I never had a problem with that. Ever. When we were both on AD, I was very senior to her, in the same grade, and it was just something we worked with. Fortunately, we spent very little time in the same CoC.

As CAP members, it's Major Dave and 1Lt Margie at the meeting, and everywhere else, it's Houseboy and COMNAVHOMEPAC.

[afgeo4]

Hate to throw an odd situation into the mix, but I've actually seen this:

Cadets have a properly managed relationship for years and succeed in CAP. The relationship is well known, but is a non-issue on performance or unit cohesion.

One cadet is 2 years older than the other. Turns 19 and becomes a FO. The other cadet is still 17. Both are of legal age (in this state), but now they are in violation of CPPT. What do you do if you're the unit commander?

[FW]

To me, it's simple.  Counsel the 19 yo. to wait a year and then have both turn senior together.  It is then a happy situation.   Otherwise.  I would "assume" the 19 yo wants to end the relationship and turning senior would be the easy way out.

[LittleIronPilot]

To me, it's simple.  Counsel the 19 yo. to wait a year and then have both turn senior together.  It is then a happy situation.   Otherwise.  I would "assume" the 19 yo wants to end the relationship and turning senior would be the easy way out.

What amazing, convoluted, and strange things we do when it comes to human relationships and when they run into the "wall of paper" that regulations and such are.

[Eclipse]

Not being a lawyer, but having some life experience with these kinds of things, I would say that its not out of the question that older cadets and younger seniors could, possibly, have had a justification for an internal request for dispensation, and/or  an external civil suit based on an established relationship which was barred by a change in the rules.

And then maybe not.

There are also any number of other common sense solutions to this situation, including delaying conversion for the older cadet, having both convert, or some similar derivative.

But beyond that, the rules are clear.  As noted, and thankfully, CPPT violations are handled above the head of a unit CC, so the subsequent actions are out of that CC's hands.

As far as my opinion goes, if we are talking about cadets who are over the age of their respective state's majority, then in 99% of cases they know exactly what they are doing, and should be subject to termination the same as the senior.

If we're talking about a cadet who is legally a minor, than this is a situation of abuse, both in law and in fact, in which case whether or not the cadet should be terminated is a judgment call and I would say in most cases no.

Regardless, though, the rules are VERY clear, and though we joke about it, its one of the things members hear on a regular basis and have no excuse about not knowing.

Having been involved in several of these situations, I can tell you that when they go South, they destroy the esprit-de-corps of the unit, cadet and senior CAP careers, and run programs right off the rails.

[Gunner C]

Cadet to senior is obviously a non-starter. That includes the 18yo FO. That should be covered in the initial member interview.

I'm assuming that you're talking about an 18 y/o FO who is dating a cadet not, for instance, a 23 y/o capt who is dating a FO.

[Gunner C]

There simply are not that many attractive single girls serving as CAP officers.  This is a non-issue, as I see it.
   

OUCH! 

[DC]

Here is a question, though not about romantic relationships.

What if two cadets a close friends, then one of the cadets goes senior and becomes the DCC. They keep the appropriate distance during activities, but get together to both dicuss CAP (the cadet is C/CC) and just hang out outside of CAP meetings.

This isn't really affected by CPP or anything, but on a level of professionalism how well does this fly?

[Eclipse]

^ There are no rules prohibiting friendships between seniors and cadets, the advice against that is a CYA situation.

CYA, by definition, is subjective to the comfort level of those involved.

[Johnny Yuma]

IMHO: Telling 2 individuals over the age of majority who they can date and who they cannot is walking well over a line that CAP, INC. knows better not to walk over. I don't care if they're cadet, senior or what.

The incredibly simple solution is no more cadets at 18. They can join at what, 12 now? That's 6 years to complete a program they can conceivably complete in 3.

I'd also reinstate the Senior transition program under new guidelines. If a cadet turns 18 and has at least their Mitchell they transition over to the Sr. member program, continue the Cadet training track and earn their flight Officer promotions upon completion of Aerhart (for FO), Eaker (TFO) and Spaatz (SFO). Once they turn 21, they receive 2LT, 1LT or Captain based on their previous achievement. Members in the Senior transition could hold Sr. member staff positions and work with cadets but would no longer participate in cadet activities.

[Eclipse]

I'd also reinstate the Senior transition program under new guidelines. If a cadet turns 18 and has at least their Mitchell they transition over to the Sr. member program, continue the Cadet training track and earn their flight Officer promotions upon completion of Aerhart (for FO), Eaker (TFO) and Spaatz (SFO). Once they turn 21, they receive 2LT, 1LT or Captain based on their previous achievement. Members in the Senior transition could hold Sr. member staff positions and work with cadets but would no longer participate in cadet activities.

How is a senior member going to earn cadet achievements?  Once they convert, they no longer participate on the same level, and are charged with supervision, not participation in the CP. 

I support end the CP at 18, but don't see how this suggestion works.

[flyerthom]

Officer to officer:  Likewise cool, but from my point of view, unlikely.  There simply are not that many attractive single girls serving as CAP officers.  This is a non-issue, as I see it. 

Maybe it's job burnout showing but in my experience there are some people who would take a wood pile to dinner and a show if they thought there was a rat in it 

I see many married couples in CAP. One would hope adults could accept the responsibility required to do this correctly. In the example of a FO and same age cadet, well one would hope again that clear thought would prevail. The FO should be able to delay the move to FO if the relationship is important. If not that person should be willing to accept the consequences.

[Johnny Yuma]

"True. Peer pressure can be a tough thing to not give into. But don't we preach to our cadets that if they are uncomfortable with a situation, they should talk to the commander, or another senior?"

Sounds good in theory.  And, that's how it is supposed to work.  However, when dealing with this type of "relationship",  reality is quite different.  Cadets are victims by definition in the vast majority of these cases.  Counseling is the rule. 2b'ing a cadet out of hand in this is a sure way to get involved in a lawsuit - or worse.  And, if that happens, you may not be protected by CAP.  I, for one, am not interested in "what ifs or who did what".  With this type of dilemma, I follow the rules to the letter and let our Chaplains, Legal officers and CAP/GC work it out.

Unfortunatly, I've dealt with this stuff, as a commander, and as a counselor.  It's not an easy situation.  And it's why I stress these rules we have be taken very seriously.

A lawsuit for being 2b'ed from CAP? Being a member of CAP is a privilage, not a right. But if you mean the other way around, which you probably do, I don't see where CAP would protect you. You violated CPPT, there for relinquished your right to be a member of CAP. If the cadet willingly engaged in the relationship, then 2b the cadet too.

I think a few reality checks should be pointed out here:

1. CPPT is nothing more than CYA for CAP, Inc. There's plenty of legal protection for the NB and NEC as corporate officers and NHQ staff as employees. However, Joe member, that means YOU, are out of your own limb when Jenny the 20 year old cadet and Bob the 22 year old 1LT fiancee' sue CAP, Inc. and you as the unit CC who initiated the 2B on Bob.

2. The age of majority in almost every state is 18. Telling people over the age of majority who they can or cannot engage in relationships with UNLESS one party upgrades their membership (and pays more money in dues) isn't going to play well in a court of law, the media or the Court of Public Opinion.

3. The CAP cadet over the age of majority is better protected by CAP's Sexual Harassment policies than by CPPT.

[Johnny Yuma]

I'd also reinstate the Senior transition program under new guidelines. If a cadet turns 18 and has at least their Mitchell they transition over to the Sr. member program, continue the Cadet training track and earn their flight Officer promotions upon completion of Aerhart (for FO), Eaker (TFO) and Spaatz (SFO). Once they turn 21, they receive 2LT, 1LT or Captain based on their previous achievement. Members in the Senior transition could hold Sr. member staff positions and work with cadets but would no longer participate in cadet activities.

How is a senior member going to earn cadet achievements?  Once they convert, they no longer participate on the same level, and are charged with supervision, not participation in the CP. 

I support end the CP at 18, but don't see how this suggestion works.

Simple: They continue all the academics on the cadet side for the 3 top milestones as well as the Senior member program.

[Eclipse]

1. CPPT is nothing more than CYA for CAP, Inc. There's plenty of legal protection for the NB and NEC as corporate officers and NHQ staff as employees. However, Joe member, that means YOU, are out of your own limb when Jenny the 20 year old cadet and Bob the 22 year old 1LT fiancee' sue CAP, Inc. and you as the unit CC who initiated the 2B on Bob.

You're entitled to your opinion about whether the rules are a good idea, but you are off-base on the lawsuit.

First, since membership is voluntary and based on acceptance of the corporation's rules and regs, there would be no standing for a lawsuit.  This particular reg is non-discriminatory and based on some common sense issues within our program.

Second, when a unit CC follows the rules and procedures they are fully protected by the corporation in regards to lawsuits, that's the whole point.

This may be a difficult situation for the members affected, but the only risk to a CC is >not< following the rules and looking the other way, and then the risk is only internal.

[Ned]

I think a few reality checks should be pointed out here:

1. CPPT is nothing more than CYA for CAP, Inc. There's plenty of legal protection for the NB and NEC as corporate officers and NHQ staff as employees. However, Joe member, that means YOU, are out of your own limb when Jenny the 20 year old cadet and Bob the 22 year old 1LT fiancee' sue CAP, Inc. and you as the unit CC who initiated the 2B on Bob.

As long as we are dealing with "reality checks," let me point out that no one in the history of CAP has ever sued and recovered a nickle for CAP initiating appropriate disciplinary action for a senior dating a cadet.

As in never, ever.

In over 60 years in any of the  50 states, the District of Columbia,  or Puerto Rico.


OTOH, sadly, there have been situations where seniors victimized cadets and people in power (including squadron commanders) stood by and did nothing to protect our cadets.  This HAS resulted in things like lawsuits and prison sentences.

2. The age of majority in almost every state is 18. Telling people over the age of majority who they can or cannot engage in relationships with UNLESS one party upgrades their membership (and pays more money in dues) isn't going to play well in a court of law, the media or the Court of Public Opinion.

While I appreciate you service to CAP and our cadets, I think you may be a little bit out of your depth in discussing such legal matters.

It probably will not surprise you to learn that the age of "majority" is not really an issue here.  (The age of "consent" to sexual activities varies fairly widely amongst the areas inhabited by 52 wings and our overseas squadrons.)

But much more importantly, every major organization in the United States has similar rules to protect vulnerable members, employees, and customers.  CAP was long overdue in publishing ours.

• Every public high school in the nation has rules to prevent teachers and administrators from dating students.  Including students over the local age of consent.  Including students over 18.  Because it is wrong and antithetical to the mission of the school for people with power (school officials) to manipulate students for sex.
  
  
•   The UCMJ prohibits a number of relationships between adults that undermine good order and discipline of the service.  People can and do go to prison for these relationships.
  
  
• Every major corporation has rules designed to protect workers from sexual harassment by bosses and coworkers.
  
  
• Most states also have statutes that regulate intimate relationships between consenting adults -- for instance psychiatrists may be punished for having intimate relationships with patients, even consenting patients. 
  
  
• Every single major youth organization I could find also prohibits intimate relationships between youth members and leaders.  Check out the Scouts Explorer and Venturing websites, and you will see that it is absolutely prohibited for a Scouting leader to have sex with Explorers and/or members of a Venturing Crew who happen to be 18 or older.

So, the overwhelming weight of the law supports youth organizations protecting their students, not the other way around.

3. The CAP cadet over the age of majority is better protected by CAP's Sexual Harassment policies than by CPPT.

What do you mean here?

ALL of our policies -- the 52-16, CPPT, and just plain common sense --- work together to protect our cadets so they can concentrate on the primary mission of the cadet program rather than defend themselves from sexual overtures from "adult" leaders.

Ned Lee
Former CAP Legal Officer

[Tim Medeiros]

I'm interested to see peoples thoughts on relationships that span regions, ie I once had a relationship with a fellow cadet (I was a cadet at the time) from KSWG, I lived in FLWG, it went well for a while and to this day we are still friends, and there is still something there, though I've held off bringing back our relationship since her unit commander has yet to submit the paperwork to transfer her to senior membership (due to her current active duty status), though if she doesn't renew this month that'll be a non-issue.

[Eclipse]

I'm interested to see peoples thoughts on relationships that span regions, ie I once had a relationship with a fellow cadet (I was a cadet at the time) from KSWG, I lived in FLWG, it went well for a while and to this day we are still friends, and there is still something there, though I've held off bringing back our relationship since her unit commander has yet to submit the paperwork to transfer her to senior membership (due to her current active duty status), though if she doesn't renew this month that'll be a non-issue.

The day she went Active Duty she was no longer a cadet, so give her a call...

[SJFedor]

If she's AD, she needs to automatically head for the dark side, or if nothing else, the Unit/CC should be putting in a 2B for cadet termination (not for cause, mind you, just for technicality)

I was in the same boat. WIWAC, I was dating a girl who was in my squadron back in PA. When I made the decision to go to the dark side, she had to come along with or forefit her membership.

And in fact, I'm still dating this girl, 4 years and 1 move to Tennessee, and we're still here. As the people in the south call it, we're "Living in sin".

They can work out as long as it's professionally conducted. Never, not once, did our personal life affect CAP, and that was because, when we first started this (her age 16, me age 17) we were mature enough to sit down and discuss the proper way to handle and conduct ourselves while involved with CAP. Leave all the personal issues and problems at the door when you put on the uniform: they'll be waiting for you when you get back.

Younger cadets (13-15y/o range) would probably be better off to refrain from engaging in relationships w/ one another, just based on the volatility, emotional overflow, and drama that those teenage relationships tend to draw (and yes, the 16-18 y/os can do it too, but, only speaking from my experience, most of that was done by age 16-17).

[Johnny Yuma]

1. CPPT is nothing more than CYA for CAP, Inc. There's plenty of legal protection for the NB and NEC as corporate officers and NHQ staff as employees. However, Joe member, that means YOU, are out of your own limb when Jenny the 20 year old cadet and Bob the 22 year old 1LT fiancee' sue CAP, Inc. and you as the unit CC who initiated the 2B on Bob.

You're entitled to your opinion about whether the rules are a good idea, but you are off-base on the lawsuit.

First, since membership is voluntary and based on acceptance of the corporation's rules and regs, there would be no standing for a lawsuit.  This particular reg is non-discriminatory and based on some common sense issues within our program.

I disagree. It treats one 18 year old in the organization different than another 18 year old in the organization, the only difference being one pays higher dues.

Second, when a unit CC follows the rules and procedures they are fully protected by the corporation in regards to lawsuits, that's the whole point.

That's not a point I'd want to test.  Corporations are organized solely to protect it's officers and agents working on behalf of the corporation. The CAP corporate officers are the NB and NEC, the agents are the CAP, INC. employees. 

This may be a difficult situation for the members affected, but the only risk to a CC is >not< following the rules and looking the other way, and then the risk is only internal.

If you really want to trust that thinking, great.

[lordmonar]

Well back in the day when we discussed the bight line vs the gray line in cadet/senior relationships....

The main reason why CAP did not make the bright line rule was because the laws in various states were so different and we do not have a bright line definition of what is a cadet.

It is obvious that a 25 year old Senior dating a 14 year old cadet is wrong....but then we come to the situations of cadets dating one turning senior....

Okay one day....no someone has to quit or get 2b'ed.

Then there is the situation of say a 20 year old cadet dating an 18 year old senior member!

My point of view was always to leave the rule as it was and to deal with relationships on a case by case basis using local laws as a guide.

But that option is closed to us now.

[Eclipse]

^I'm getting lost in the quotes so...

An 18 year old senior >IS< different from an 18 year old cadet, but definition and duties, which is, again, why cadets should really consider this before converting.  Too many don't understand this and think they just change their grade insignia and lose a few ribbons and everything is the same.

Senior members are tasked with >oversight< of cadets, when you accept that responsibility, the rules change, whatever your age.  I have had several situations recently where dark-side converts learned that the hard way when their friends, who were also cadets, found that the new senior had a responsibility to report inappropriate behavior and actions, and lived up to that responsibility to the detriment of friendships.

I have no idea where this narrow view that the only people protected by CAP regulations are employees and board members but I firmly disagree, anyone in a position of authority if responsible for and protected by the same regulations.

[Johnny Yuma]

I think a few reality checks should be pointed out here:

1. CPPT is nothing more than CYA for CAP, Inc. There's plenty of legal protection for the NB and NEC as corporate officers and NHQ staff as employees. However, Joe member, that means YOU, are out of your own limb when Jenny the 20 year old cadet and Bob the 22 year old 1LT fiancee' sue CAP, Inc. and you as the unit CC who initiated the 2B on Bob.

As long as we are dealing with "reality checks," let me point out that no one in the history of CAP has ever sued and recovered a nickle for CAP initiating appropriate disciplinary action for a senior dating a cadet.

As in never, ever.

In over 60 years in any of the  50 states, the District of Columbia,  or Puerto Rico.


OTOH, sadly, there have been situations where seniors victimized cadets and people in power (including squadron commanders) stood by and did nothing to protect our cadets.  This HAS resulted in things like lawsuits and prison sentences.

Most folks don't have the cash to pay the legal fees to do this I grant the point, but...

I notice that the quote was "sued and recovered a nickle", as in that no one has recovered money from CAP. Is that because CAP won the case, is appealing, settled out of court or just ignoring the court order to pay?

Let's just talk CPPT, shall we?

CPPT hasn't been around for 60 years, it's been around for less than 20. IIRC, CAP, Inc. got scared because the Boy Scouts were losing their shirts over pedophiles in their org, they were fighting something like 100 suits while CAP, Inc. only had to deal with 4 at the time.

CPPT basically has said over the years that if you believe that their was cadet abuse you (or the cadet) was to report it to a CAP, Inc. officer for handling. That means that CAP, Inc. would investigate and determine if there was abuse and how to handle it.

We were briefed, both times I went through CPPT, that the civil authorities shouldn't be called, CAP, Inc. would do that if necessary. Even mandatory reporting in states that had those laws was to be ignored, that wasn't changed in the CPPT until a year or so ago.

Sorry, I'm a "humpty dumpty was pushed" kind of guy. It doesn't take too much to see that CPPT is CYA for CAP, Inc. and a game plan to do damage control on behalf of the organization

2. The age of majority in almost every state is 18. Telling people over the age of majority who they can or cannot engage in relationships with UNLESS one party upgrades their membership (and pays more money in dues) isn't going to play well in a court of law, the media or the Court of Public Opinion.

While I appreciate you service to CAP and our cadets, I think you may be a little bit out of your depth in discussing such legal matters.

It probably will not surprise you to learn that the age of "majority" is not really an issue here.  (The age of "consent" to sexual activities varies fairly widely amongst the areas inhabited by 52 wings and our overseas squadrons.)

But much more importantly, every major organization in the United States has similar rules to protect vulnerable members, employees, and customers.  CAP was long overdue in publishing ours.

• Every public high school in the nation has rules to prevent teachers and administrators from dating students.  Including students over the local age of consent.  Including students over 18.  Because it is wrong and antithetical to the mission of the school for people with power (school officials) to manipulate students for sex.
  
  
•   The UCMJ prohibits a number of relationships between adults that undermine good order and discipline of the service.  People can and do go to prison for these relationships.
  
  
• Every major corporation has rules designed to protect workers from sexual harassment by bosses and coworkers.
  
  
• Most states also have statutes that regulate intimate relationships between consenting adults -- for instance psychiatrists may be punished for having intimate relationships with patients, even consenting patients. 
  
  
• Every single major youth organization I could find also prohibits intimate relationships between youth members and leaders.  Check out the Scouts Explorer and Venturing websites, and you will see that it is absolutely prohibited for a Scouting leader to have sex with Explorers and/or members of a Venturing Crew who happen to be 18 or older.

So, the overwhelming weight of the law supports youth organizations protecting their students, not the other way around.

I'm sure you can tell us in which jurisdiction that 18 is not the legal age of adulthood. IIRC the 26th amendment pretty much secured that it was 18.

There is a big, big difference in a predatory sexual relationship and a consensual one. If the organization treated all 18-21 year olds the same I would agree with you. We don't.

High schools are compulsory education and attendance, so extra protections to the students is required. We aren't.

We also are not the U.S. military and not subject to UCMJ. Even if we were, it would be a moot point as they have no 18-21 yo issues except for drinking.

Professionals are also allowed client privilege, which require extra protection.

Businesses have SEXUAL HARASSMENT policies, which is unwanted advances or behavior. I haven't seen one that put restrictions on who they can date.

As a former charter member of an Explorer Post  I wouldn't be using the Boy Scout's Exploring/Venturing program as an example of chaste behavior. BTDT.

Besides, CAP's CPPT is discriminatory. Two 18 year old cadets dating outside of CAP isn't a 2B offense. Two 18 year old Senior members dating outside CAP isn't a 2B offense. To 18 year olds, one Senior, one cadet, dating outside of CAP is a 2B offense UNLESS THE CADET GOES SENIOR MEMBER AND PAYS MORE IN DUES?

Do you really want to try and reconcile that in front of a jury, counselor?  Especially if the dating was found to be 100 percent off CAP time. I'd say you'd be dealing with privacy issues in court as well.

3. The CAP cadet over the age of majority is better protected by CAP's Sexual Harassment policies than by CPPT.
[
What do you mean here?

ALL of our policies -- the 52-16, CPPT, and just plain common sense --- work together to protect our cadets so they can concentrate on the primary mission of the cadet program rather than defend themselves from sexual overtures from "adult" leaders.

Ned Lee
Former CAP Legal Officer

This is simple!

The cadet over 18 IS A LEGAL ADULT. Get It???

The cadet over the age of 18 and legally capable of making his/her own decisions should be protected from unwanted advances per CAP's sexual harassment policies not unlike any other CAP member over the age of 18 who is being harassed in the same way.

CPPT treats the cadet who is over the age of 18 and legally capable of making their own decisions about their interpersonal relationships the same as a 12 year old who cannot.   

[Eclipse]

The cadet over 18 IS A LEGAL ADULT. Get It???

The cadet over the age of 18 and legally capable of making his/her own decisions should be protected from unwanted advances per CAP's sexual harassment policies not unlike any other CAP member over the age of 18 who is being harassed in the same way.

CPPT treats the cadet who is over the age of 18 and legally capable of making their own decisions about their interpersonal relationships the same as a 12 year old who cannot.

Yep. Works for me.

Cadets over 18 are afforded opportunities to participate in activities not open to senior members, many of these involve their being in ranks with 12-year-olds.  Most of these involve them being treated on one level or another as adolescents, including less personal responsibility for their actions.

Those opportunities have a price - compliance with CAP's regs in totality.

And this barracks lawyerifyin' you're doing is silly.  As long as an organization's rules are made clearly available to everyone, and administered the same for everyone, there is no case for discrimination.

[FW]

"This is simple!

The cadet over 18 IS A LEGAL ADULT. Get It???

The cadet over the age of 18 and legally capable of making his/her own decisions should be protected from unwanted advances per CAP's sexual harassment policies not unlike any other CAP member over the age of 18 who is being harassed in the same way.

CPPT treats the cadet who is over the age of 18 and legally capable of making their own decisions about their interpersonal relationships the same as a 12 year old who cannot"

I get it, Johnny.  What I don't get is the failure to understand age is not the issue.  The issue is the relationship between a cadet and senior member.   If I follow your argument, it would be ok for consentual relations between teachers and students, doctors and patients and ministers and congregants.  As long as we're all adults, we're all ok.
This view is not widely accepted by  the powers that be.  Teachers get fired - students get counseled.  Doctors lose their license - patients get lots of bucks.  Ministers are defrocked - congregents get a new minister.  This, is our society.  It is, for right or wrong, the way it is.

[JAFO78]

Now while I have not read all the posts on this topic I will toss in my .2.  I meet my wife when she joined CAP as a senior, the same as I.  Some other seniors in our unit did not like the idea that we dated. But we kept our dating separate from squadron activities.

We did marry, but after a year we had both did not renew our membership, mostly because we wanted to start a family and changes with work shifts also played a major part.

Looking back over the last 22 yrs I have spent with my wife, I am happy.

Now cadets are a different story, more like a soap opera, and thats all I will say about that.

[iniedrauer]

The majority of CAP members agree with the "it's fine if it stays out of CAP" deal.  However, a relationship of that degree is not something that can be "turned off" during meetings or CAP events.

When there is a relationship between a leader and follower, the treatment of those individual(s) will change regardless of what's encouraged by the commanders or even regulations.

I have seen some great relationships in CAP, but on the other hand I've seen cadets make out in uniform (btw, it was a C/2nd Lt and a C/SrA).  There has to be a line drawn, but it can't be all or none.

[Johnny Yuma]

The cadet over 18 IS A LEGAL ADULT. Get It???

The cadet over the age of 18 and legally capable of making his/her own decisions should be protected from unwanted advances per CAP's sexual harassment policies not unlike any other CAP member over the age of 18 who is being harassed in the same way.

CPPT treats the cadet who is over the age of 18 and legally capable of making their own decisions about their interpersonal relationships the same as a 12 year old who cannot.

Yep. Works for me.

Cadets over 18 are afforded opportunities to participate in activities not open to senior members, many of these involve their being in ranks with 12-year-olds.  Most of these involve them being treated on one level or another as adolescents, including less personal responsibility for their actions.

Those opportunities have a price - compliance with CAP's regs in totality.

And this barracks lawyerifyin' you're doing is silly.  As long as an organization's rules are made clearly available to everyone, and administered the same for everyone, there is no case for discrimination.

This line of thinking of your is dangerous. With this logic, then  CAP, Inc. would have complete control over the life decision of every member, including yourself.

Don't vote for the candidate of CAP's choice, out you go. CAP doesn't like your selection of car, 2B. Can you tell us where it ends?

I am more afraid of an 18-20 year old cadets intermingled with cadets that are 2/3 their age than I am cadet Jenny, 20, dating 1LT Bob, 23 adn you should be, too. Yet that is condoned, the other isn't. In fact I know parents who have pulled their kids from CAP just for that reason.

The organization's "rules" protect no one but CAP, Inc. and run roughshod over some basic human and privacy rights that I would not want to try and defend in court. If you really think CAP, Inc. will protect Joe Senior member from a lawsuit stemming from legal action by all means believe that dream. I don't. 

[CASH172]

I think we all saw what happened to the most well-known cadet to cadet relationship in CAP.  It showed us how what happens outside of the meetings can have very big impacts on CAP. 

[lordmonar]

Johnny Yuma,

I don't really understand why you are so upset about this.

I agree that a person over 18 is an adult....but a cadet is a cadet.

And the rule is no cadet on senior dating.  End of story.

If you want to help fix the problem...then we have to fix the over 18 cadet thing...and make it so they are an adult in both CAP's and the law's eyes.

They made it a bright line in the sand...because there were too many people out there using "but it was consensual and it's not illegal" (in some states the age of consent is as low as 14!!!)

So we ended up with situations where in one wing we were burning a 20 year old senior for dating some 16 but in another state we had to allow that relationship.

So the new 52-16 spelled it out......NO SENIORS are to date cadets.  Right wrong or indifferent that is the rule.

Don't tell me about the cadet is 18 and an adult...because I got to deal with Active Duty Airman under 21 who are drinking....so if 18 if full adult...why do we have a 21 drinking age....because it is the law.  End of story.

[Ned]

I notice that the quote was "sued and recovered a nickle", as in that no one has recovered money from CAP. Is that because CAP won the case, is appealing, settled out of court or just ignoring the court order to pay?

None of the above.  No one has even filed such a silly lawsuit.  (Suing CAP for following rules to protect cadets.)

Let's just talk CPPT, shall we?

Sure, but the "seniors don't date cadets, period" rule isn't in CPPT (the 52-10) but appears rather in CAPR 52-16 under the Respect for Others paragraph.

CPPT hasn't been around for 60 years, it's been around for less than 20. IIRC, CAP, Inc. got scared because the Boy Scouts were losing their shirts over pedophiles in their org, they were fighting something like 100 suits while CAP, Inc. only had to deal with 4 at the time.

That's a fair assessment.  BSA had signifcantly greater exposure than CAP for a lot of reasons.  But it was not the BSA experience, per se, that prompted the CPP, but the hard reality of the loss of our insurance coverage for molestation issues.

CPPT basically has said over the years that if you believe that their was cadet abuse you (or the cadet) was to report it to a CAP, Inc. officer for handling. That means that CAP, Inc. would investigate and determine if there was abuse and how to handle it.

Yup.

We were briefed, both times I went through CPPT, that the civil authorities shouldn't be called, CAP, Inc. would do that if necessary. Even mandatory reporting in states that had those laws was to be ignored, that wasn't changed in the CPPT until a year or so ago.

I can't speak for your instructor, but I sure never taught anyone to ignore state laws, certainly not a mandatory reporter.  I even taught the subject at the first National Legal Officers College.

Sorry, I'm a "humpty dumpty was pushed" kind of guy.

Obviously.

It doesn't take too much to see that CPPT is CYA for CAP, Inc. and a game plan to do damage control on behalf of the organization

You're cetainly entitled to your opinon.

The actual purpose, of course, is to protect our cadets from predators.  The happy side effect is protection of the corporation and our seniors.  Perhaps it is a bit of a "chicken and the egg" thing.

I'm sure you can tell us in which jurisdiction that 18 is not the legal age of adulthood. IIRC the 26th amendment pretty much secured that it was 18.

I'm sorry I wasn't clear.  My point was that the age of "adulthood" is simply not relevant to the conversation.  In some respects, the age of "consent" may be.  Which is not the same thing, and is different than the age of adulthood in most states.

There is a big, big difference in a predatory sexual relationship and a consensual one. I

You talk about them as if they were different things.  In many cases, a predatory relationship is also a consensual one.  What's your point?

High schools are compulsory education and attendance, so extra protections to the students is required. We aren't.

Actually, very few high schools are compulsory after age 16.  I don't think any are compulsory after age 18, yet they protect their students based on their student status, not their age.

So does CAP.  (And the Scouts, and Campfire, most universities, and every other major youth organization in the country.)

We also are not the U.S. military and not subject to UCMJ. Even if we were, it would be a moot point as they have no 18-21 yo issues except for drinking.

I don't agree.  Try telling that to a West Point instructor convicted of fraternizing with a cadet.

Besides, CAP's CPPT is discriminatory. Two 18 year old cadets dating outside of CAP isn't a 2B offense. Two 18 year old Senior members dating outside CAP isn't a 2B offense. To 18 year olds, one Senior, one cadet, dating outside of CAP is a 2B offense UNLESS THE CADET GOES SENIOR MEMBER AND PAYS MORE IN DUES?

You can repeat that as often as you would like, but it will not make it true.  EVEN IF YOU TYPE IN CAPITALS!

(If for no other reason than the senior can go patron/take a year off/ or whatever and save a fortune in dues.)

Do you really want to try and reconcile that in front of a jury, counselor?  Especially if the dating was found to be 100 percent off CAP time. I'd say you'd be dealing with privacy issues in court as well.

Sure.  As an attorney, I've tried over 100 cases to a jury.  This would be a piece of cake.

(Of course, it would never make it to a jury in the first place.  That's what summary judgments are for.)

This is simple!

The cadet over 18 IS A LEGAL ADULT. Get It???

The cadet over the age of 18 and legally capable of making his/her own decisions should be protected from unwanted advances per CAP's sexual harassment policies not unlike any other CAP member over the age of 18 who is being harassed in the same way.

CPPT treats the cadet who is over the age of 18 and legally capable of making their own decisions about their interpersonal relationships the same as a 12 year old who cannot.   

I think I take your point.  I can only agree that cadets over the age of 18 are adults.

But that simply has nothing to do with a rational rule -- universally employed by every single other youth group and school out there -- that the adult leaders cannot have intimate relationships with their charges.

Thanks for the conversation.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Ned:

I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on TV.

As to CAP members being told to "Ignore" state law, yes, that has actually happened.

Like most things arising out of bureaucray, it was a stupid thing done by smart people for very good reasons.

CPPT says, in the event of a CPP incident, the local commander is to notify the Wing King immediately, and not take any action to investigate the offense locally.  The "Cause to be investigated" was, but certain trainers, interpreted to mean that local police/child protection authorities were not to be notified.

National confirmed this in a memo that indicated that, due to a wide disparity in state laws pertaining to who was required to report child abuse, that NHQ would take care of any required notifications, and local commanders were not to do so.

When this came out, I was a city police officer, and my squadron met in the jurisdiction where I was employed.  I decided that I would NOT follow this guidance.  My assessment was that my duty as a police officer was clear, I was required by state law to report any suspected child abuse.  I was not going to risk my job and jail time to kiss up to the NHQ lawyers. 

Fortunately, the only abuse case I got involved in was reported to me by a cadet, and involved a school custodian outside of the CAP context. 

There can be some ambiguity with regard to whether or not a CAP commander or officer is a "Person in loco parentis" under the law, and when it is unclear, once can rely on the NHQ lawyers for guidance.  In my case, there was no ambiguity.

[Johnny Yuma]

Don't tell me about the cadet is 18 and an adult...because I got to deal with Active Duty Airman under 21 who are drinking....so if 18 if full adult...why do we have a 21 drinking age....because it is the law.  End of story.

Because a bunch of handwringing crybabies called MADD decided they knew what was best for everybody.

IMHO the 26th amendment made anyone over 18 a legal adult, which should mean that they should be able to drink as well as possess everything else they've been denied until they're 21. Yet we do not give 18-21 year olds the same protection by the constitution that we do minorities and women under the 15th and 19th amendments.

[Ned]

IMHO the 26th amendment made anyone over 18 a legal adult, which should mean that they should be able to drink as well as possess everything else they've been denied until they're 21.

How odd.  I'm having a hard time imagining why anyone would think the 26th Amendment would have anything to do with adulthood or the age of majority.

"Adulthood" can be viewed as a constellation of rights and privileges, including the right to contract, own property, be free of parental control, etc., which society recognizes as vesting in autonomous adults.


The 26th amendment is about one thing, and one thing only -- the voting age.

It reads, in its entirety:

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.


Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Notice neither the word "adult" nor the words "age of majority" appear anywhere in Amendment. (Or anywhere else in the Constitution, for that matter.)

Because our Founders wisely allowed the several States to set the ages at which their citizens could exercise the various privileges of adulthood and be free of parental control.  For the large majority of our history, this was usually set at 21 years, but in most states is currently set at 18.  Interestingly, it is still 21 in Mississippi and Puerto Rico, and 19 in Nebraska and Alabama.

And states can set other ages for some activities, like 21 for handgun ownership, 16 for a drivers license, or even full majority at less than 18 if declared an "emancipated minor" by the court.  Of course, you have already noted the example which touches almost everyone -- purchase of alcoholic beverages. 

However, it is worth noting that even an mature 50-year-old cannot purchase alcoholic beverages in some 500 "dry counties" in the US.

And finally, remember the Constitution itself contains age-related disabilities.  One simply cannot be President unless you are 35 years of age -- see Art 2, section 1. 

Is the Constitution unconstitutional?

Now, back to your regularly scheduled topic.

Ned Lee
Former CAP Legal Officer

[lordmonar]

Well since we brought the Constitution into it.....if the 26th made the legal age of majority...with full rights and privlages......why does the President have to be 35?

ART II Section 1.

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

So there goes that particular argument right there.

Legal definitions aside....we are not the goverment...but a corporation.  We can make any rules we want.....and one of those rules is cadets are not "adults" no matter what age they are.  And another rule is senior members will not date cadets....again no matter what age they are.

It's the rule....live with it.

[afgeo4]

Cadet to senior is obviously a non-starter. That includes the 18yo FO. That should be covered in the initial member interview.

I'm assuming that you're talking about an 18 y/o FO who is dating a cadet not, for instance, a 23 y/o capt who is dating a FO.

A Capt dating a FO isn't an issue since FOs are senior members, so yeah, I mean an 18 year old FO dating a cadet.

[Eclipse]

This is so easy...

You are an "adult" (as far as CAP is concerned), when you are responsible for your own well-being and safety.

Seniors members are, cadets are not.

[Johnny Yuma]

(HEAVILY REDACTED)

Ned Lee
Former CAP Legal Officer

Every civil rights act passed by Congress was done to comply with the appropriate Constitutional Amendment, except for the 26th. In that case, we still live under "Separate but equal" decisions not unlike Jim Crow.

Yes, I'm comparing this to Jim Crow. Every citizen over the age of 18 has all the civil and legal responsibilites as every other citizens over the age of 21 yet are denied many of the rights and privledges and are in effect treated as second class citizens not unlike minorites were up until the 60's.

We deny 18-21 year olds specific rights in the name of public safety. Public Safety was also one of the many pathetic excuses for Jim Crow.

Like I've said before, CAP could make this a no-brainer by making the cutoff date for cadets at 18 where it probably should be anyway. This pretty much settles the Cadet/Senior relationship issue once and for all.   

[Johnny Yuma]

This is so easy...

You are an "adult" (as far as CAP is concerned), when you are responsible for your own well-being and safety.

Seniors members are, cadets are not.

This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of.

I know of one cadet (now a Senior) who, at the age of 18 joined the National Guard after his parents refused to sign the papers at 17. Once out of basic and Helicopter mechanic school ended up with a State technician's job drawing nearly 40,000/year wrenching on Blackhawks with no College. At 19 he bought his own house, paying his own bills and own health insurance.

All while being a CAP cadet as well.

Now, is this cadet, being obviously responsible for his own health and well being, UNDER YOUR DEFINITION ABOVE, an adult or not???

Or should we forbid all CAP cadets to own property, vote or any other right they have upon the age of 18 simply because we can as CAP, Inc.'s desire to "protect" them?

[lordmonar]

Johnny Yuma....

I hear you and I agree with you in a way.

But we come up with two very different conclusions.

You are right that at 18 you are considered a legal adult.

But CAP makes little or no distinction between an adult Cadet and a child Cadet.

How do we rectify this problem?

Make the mandatory age for senior member 18.......

[Ned]

Yes, I'm comparing this to Jim Crow.  [Folks under 18] are in effect treated as second class citizens not unlike minorites were up until the 60's.

Wow.  Did you really just play the race card in a discussion about something as simple as the age of majority?

I'm impressed.

Perhaps you can think of a way to work in something about how Nazi-like some seniors are for not letting letting other seniors have intimate relationships with cadets.


That would be just as helpful.

[Johnny Yuma]

Yes, I'm comparing this to Jim Crow.  [Folks under 18] are in effect treated as second class citizens not unlike minorites were up until the 60's.

Wow.  Did you really just play the race card in a discussion about something as simple as the age of majority?

I'm impressed.

Perhaps you can think of a way to work in something about how Nazi-like some seniors are for not letting letting other seniors have intimate relationships with cadets.


That would be just as helpful.

No, but Seniors snooping around other people's bedrooms looking for cadets is not only creepy but probably a privacy issue if that person is over the age of 18, cadet or not.

[lordmonar]

No, but Seniors snooping around other people's bedrooms looking for cadets is not only creepy but probably a privacy issue if that person is over the age of 18, cadet or not.

Now you are just being silly.....no one is going around snooping....but if we become aware of Senior on Cadet action.....that is another issue.

[FW]

Now that we have sex, race and the constitution mixed in with Nazi's on the side, I think we've heard just about everything on this subject.

How much longer are we going to beat this very dead horse before we find its head in someone's bed?  

[MIKE]

Equine heads on backorder.