CAP Talk

Greetings,

As many of you know, one of my CAP jobs is to help develop CAP doctrine for our cadet program.  I am currently finishing up a draft for a new pamphlet - the 52-10 Implementation Guide - which will attempt to explain why and how we can create a challenging and vigorous military environment for our cadets while avoiding crossing the line into hazing.

Part of that project is providing some tools to help leaders identify and define hazing in real-world CP situations.

All experienced CP leaders know the defintion of hazing found in CAPR 52-10, which was adopted directly from the Department of Defense defintion.  But I think it is fair to say that even after taking classes like RST, sometimes reasonable minds differ over whether a given situation is hazing or not.

I'd like to ask your help with an experiment.  I'd like you to take a look at this video and then analyze the scene and explain whether the situation would be hazing for CAP cadets, and why or why not.  The more detailed your response, the better.

(The scene is a 6 minute YouTube clip from a venerable movie - "The D.I.", starring Jack Webb as a Marine Corps DI.  Obviously CAP is not the USMC, but for the sake of this project, please imagine that this was an encampment and that the DI character is a cadet flight sergeant or flight commander addressing typical CAP cadets in the barracks.)

Remember, the question is not whether this is an efficient or suitable leadership style, but simply whether this would be hazing in a CAP situation.

Click Here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riYfFQMPIP0)


This is your chance to help develop national doctine.  Help me out.


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

Not hazing.

Not appropriate for use in CAP.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 25, 2010, 01:48:03 AM
Not hazing.

Not appropriate for use in CAP.

Not disagreeing necessarily with either statement.

But could expand a little bit on why you believe it is not hazing?

Well, as I just said on CS, getting into the why's and why nots of hazing in this context is going to be difficult, because the language is dated, the behavior potentially acceptable with military services, and the whole thing is inappropriate for CAP, but to my eyes he was randomly picking people and grabbing whatever he saw that was out of reg.

Any cadet close to this would be sent home, starting from the trash can nonsense.

I didn't personally really see anyone "singled out" per se, in a negative manner beyond correcting legit issues.

Near the end he was just asking a question - and it demonstrates why the line is so dangerous.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 25, 2010, 01:56:50 AM
Well, as I just said on CS, getting into the why's and why nots of hazing in this context is going to be difficult, because the language is dated, the behavior potentially acceptable with military services, and the whole thing is inappropriate for CAP, but to my eyes he was randomly picking people and grabbing whatever he saw that was out of reg.

Any cadet close to this would be sent home, starting from the trash can nonsense.

I didn't personally really see anyone "singled out" per se, in a negative manner beyond correcting legit issues.

Near the end he was just asking a question - and it demonstrates why the line is so dangerous.

+10

If this was a cadet doing this at our encampment, hes getting pulled and most likely wont go back, but to another place in the encampment.  Not hazing but in no way appropriate for CAP.

A sensitive person could say that the DI was using cruel and abusive langauge even though it is extremely mild -- "clowns", "girls" for example.  Does it rise to the level of hazing?  Possibly. 

I could see the earlier lines being translated into CAP terms.  "Because you were slow, you didn't get to the crash site, and THE PILOT IS DEAD!"

To explain a bit more,  You wanted opinions, so here are mine.

Not hazing because no one person was singled out in the context of our RST/CPPT training. 

Was it over the line for the real military?  Well I have no idea anymore what is PC and what is not PC in the real military so I cant speak to that.

Was if over the line for CAP, yes because, and I it my opinion based on my experience as a cadet 13 years old some 30 years ago at encampment, that from this point on those young cadets, a lot of them who have not been away from home, are going to be scared out of their minds for the rest of the day waiting for some idiot to bang a trash can or what ever because they think it is "real military". 

If we only had cadets 16 -18 yrs and older, sure, I still think it is unnecessary but would be more tolerable of it than at our current encampment where we have cadets from 13 on up. 

Outside of the trash can, the rest is fine for CAP, but again I think it is unnecessary.  We are not training combat troops.  We are not training members to respond without thinking to commands.  We are there to teach and instruct and I didn't see much instruction there. 

Ned, want to help things out a great bit, trash the current RST with its vague slides and wide open interpretation and get us a real RST with real situations to study and discuss instead of the junk we have to work with now,

Quote from: RedFox24 on January 25, 2010, 02:17:55 AMWe are not training combat troops.  We are not training members to respond without thinking to commands.  We are there to teach and instruct and I didn't see much instruction there. 

This should be on the top of staff applications for any CAP activity.

Clearly, its a trick question. Jack was the D.I.  and Joe Friday, and he is the only human in the world without sin......His shrine can be visited to this day.

However, I think that he avoided the Ad Hominem attacks that characterize a really good bit of hazing. Clearly, the context of his motivational and inspirational speech would be a bit over the top for CAP ( As a matter of fact, it is a "summer camp" sorry Joe!) Would some in CAP be offended by calling the lads "girls"? Sure. Would an overzealous safety person complain that they did not have adequate footware and reflective belts? Yes indeed. Joe would be capable of dialing his speech and conduct down to the level of the cadets if called upon to instruct them, but many of our Cadets and Seniors may have a little too much Movie-Marine in them to be allowed this much leeway in instructional technique. Leave this work to the professionals, not a 14 Y/O badger or a 65 Y/O POW camp internee.

Major Lord

This movie is over 50 years old. The DI was using the methods that were current for the time period. At no time was he using foul or offensive language to the recruits or physically mistreating them. A Drill Instructor's job is to get75-80 people to work as a team, instill discipline, and make men/women out of children. The methods seen in the movie were actually less harsh than I remember from my  PI boot camp in 1968.

Would it be appropriate with cadets? Of course not. The missions of the Cadet Program and the United States Marine Corps are in no way alike.
Was Jack Webb Hazing/ No

Would it be hazing in CAP? Yes

Quote from: Eclipse on January 25, 2010, 01:48:03 AM
Not hazing.

Not appropriate for use in CAP.

Except for obvious references to booze, killing the enemy, and the smoking lamp,

why inappropriate for cadets?

Risky, to be sure, because the leader / instructor must be polished so as not to stray into overzealous, and commit sin of inappropriate personal attack or inappropriate language, and how many of our cadets are so polished?

But Jack Webb is so very polished, he does not do that.

I think the trashcan is no big deal.  I did that once as a cadet at
Pathfinders because I saw it done on some other military show.
No one thought it was a big deal.  I was awaken the next morning
the same way.  No harm no foul.
The DI was not hazing.
Couldn't do this in modern CAP.

Trash cans, dropping for twenty, trashing bunks, tying boot laces to dress shoes, tossing bunks, flipping bunks over, jumping out form behingd trees, etc etc etc etc

No wonder I wasn't too shocked at BCT in 1983 only because someone ahead of me did this this CAP prior  and had some WW2, Korea, or Nam type of experience

Did I feel "HAZED"  NO way!!  I was great fun....   Today's cadet may or my not be ready for the DI's in The Army or Marines.

CAP DOES NOT teach how a DI is going to "feel" that day.  A future CAP cadet who hasn't had a little fun being hazed....welll  it MIGHT be a fun first day getting PAID to get hazed.

Hazing in CAP?  How about going around to the Army, Navy /Marines, and AF to get their take on it.  Then CAP can REALLY get the view where that word "hazing " is used or is it just another big deal in CAP to get wrapped around about an axle??

Bangin trash cans and latrine duty...may it never end.  CAP cadets could use a few rounds pushing a mop or scrubbing a latrine...it IS gonna happen in Basic...they going to scream hazing then??  CAP REALLY needs to lighten up and get a grip on itself and its "corporate political correctness."  If I was today's BCT DI and some one said they were in CAP... I'd give 'em two weeks of latrine duty right off the bat and TELL em, you are in pay status now and in a uniform that requires paying more attention to detail than worryin about bling and Corfam shoes... you will get time time to do those things AFTER the US Gumints toilets have been cleaned to standard..

Sound to harsh for you CAPers?   That IS way of the real military.  CAP would be doing a little bit of service to insight that world ahead of time.

CAP... get down and give me twenty.  Modern CAP hasn't really adopted any DoD type of hazing, even if they "think" they adopted it from the DoD.  CAP Corporate wishes it could emulate the RM, but has a real time doing anything over and above political correctness.  But I will admit, The RM has had to become PC over the years...so CAP by that has had to.  But more paralysis of the hazing analysis...Is there a Govt grant for this study?  "cuz I can give you a few RM Army BCT units that sure can hep ya with that study >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D ::) ::) ::) ::)

I know this is CT, but . . . topic, please.

An interesting variety of views.

I think we can all agree that it would be difficult for a 16 year old C/MSgt to pull off a decent Jack Webb impression, and this is an old film.  I selected the clip for this project because it is a) available, and b) it is not so obviously over the line one way or another.  Notice I did not use a clip from FMJ.  ;)

But the question remains:  Would this be hazing in a CAP context?  Why or why not?

Not Hazing.  Everyone felt like a terd, not a single person or select group. 

I do not like the phrase "you people" however.  It can be misinterpreted as being racist.  A mother hears that and files a lawsuit. 

Ned, I applaud your effort.  It is difficult to tell which way to go.  Will you give us your answer? 

Today what we watched would not happen in CAP.  Most Senior Members are afraid of CPPT and adverse actions, they would step in and stop it (at least I hope they would).

I am not afraid of CPPT - I just hate seeing bullies get off on "toughing" young kids.  You want to train Marines - enlist in the USMC and become a DI.  But take it out on adults - not kids.

It was like OTS day 1 all over again... /sob

Before I start this essay I'm about to pen, I'm going to preface it by saying that when I started CAP, it was run somewhat similarly to that video. (Actually, both the flight sergeants at my first squadron were Young Marines who happened to be FMJ fans... but I digress.) As the years went by, and I saw the dawn of the "anti-hazing" movement, my first impression was that CAP was getting "watered down" excessively. Interestingly enough, when I went through OTS, I found out that the DoD's definition of hazing was the same, but I felt that it was applied with a little more "common sense."

So, to start out, the DoD hazing policy defines hazing 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." In my experience, though, CAP has used that term very liberally, to the point that almost any type of correction could be construed as hazing (having your mistake pointed out in front of your flight is rather humiliating no matter how it's done, isn't it?) It's my opinion that, executed correctly, even appropriate amounts of "harsh" military-style discipline is OK in CAP.

Observations as I watch through it again:

- Calling people "little girls" and "idiots" is demeaning, first off. (And to avoid misinterpretation, I'll clarify that it's demeaning to females by implying that they're weaker.)

- About 2:30, the DI starts laying into one of the recruits for not shaving. Don't see a problem here - honestly, in any military-style program, you're going to get yelled at when you make a mistake. The key is to not cross the lines of making it a personal insult (ie, calling someone ugly for not shaving) and to keep it to an acceptable level (ie, don't rant at a single person for two minutes straight.)

- Afterward, when he starts to talk about how they're disorganized, etc., I think this is appropriate for a couple simple reasons: it has to do with their training performance, and it's done with a training objective in mind. At the early stages of training (be it a week-long encampment, or a 3-month-long commissioning program), there is nothing that a flight *can* do correctly - they will invariably be told that they were too slow, too careless, etc., etc. A large part of what determined whether a statement is acceptable, is the objective/intent. The intent needs to be focus on the training objective - which, at this point in the recruits' training, is going to be instilling in them an urgent sense that they need to work harder to improve, and keep trying to improve throughout their training. It should absolutely *not* be because the person chewing people out enjoys it. (I'll go ahead and admit that I was probably guilty of that when I was a cadet.)

Final thoughts: I don't think it's inappropriate to yell at cadets a bit as a group, or individually. Things to keep in mind when employing discipline:

- Discipline with the objective in mind. Remember, you're trying to build them up, work them harder, and make them better and faster and stronge... sorry, got carried away. You're not trying to destroy their self-esteem.
- Singling people out CAN be okay. But don't insult them ("ARE YOU TOO STUPID TO DRILL A FLIGHT?!"), focus on fixing the problem ("THIS FLIGHT NEEDS TO BE BACK ON THE DRILL PAD THIRTY SECONDS AGO, CADET!")
- There's safety in numbers. Someone is going to feel much more comfortable (and yet, not *too* comfortable) when they're hearing about how their flight did badly, and not how they personally did badly. Which ties into my next point:
- Quantity. There's only so much people that people can take. Most trainees in any sort of military basic training program have a military career in front of them, and *want* to be there badly enough that they'll make the staff wash them out before they'll leave on their own. CAP cadets are middle/high school students who have a lot of other things that they could do with their time. Their "breaking point" before they melt down, tell their flight staff exactly what they think of them, and storm out of the encampment is going to be a lot lower.

And, obviously, tying cadets up with duct tape and forcing them to smile for the camera like we've all seen in that Powerpoint is never acceptable.  ::)

I was in the USMC and then enlisted in the USAF.  I have on rifle drill teams.  The toughest drill instruction I had ever had (as in exactness, detail, and timing) was high school marching band (the Number One Marcihing Band in the State).  There was LOTS of yelling going on when you started as a freshman - but none of it was "personal".  Yes, you got yelled at as mistakes were pointed out such as not being in step, not doing the next manuver correctly, missing your movement cues, etc --- but it was only about pointing out your obvious mistakes so you could correct them.  Yes, you were yelled at, but that was because a normal taliking voice didn't carry on the field.  It was NOT about someone getting in your face to demean you. 

We are not training South Korean DMZ guards who take pride in taking a full face TKO punch from their NCO and getting back up like it never happened.

The problem with determining if something is "hazing" is the same as determining if something is sexual harassment -- much of it relies on the perception of the person being potentially hazed/harassed.

I do believe that CAP goes overboard with CPPT although as a parent I understand and concur with the reasons why the overreaction occurred.    I think a happy medium exists somewhere back towards what my cadet days were like.

For example: We had a SM who stripped down to his skivvies to go swimming on a hiking trip -- BZZZT - he got the 2B express.

However, if I was screwing up and was made to drop and push asphalt 20 times?  I didn't and don't consider that hazing, as long as it is being done to motivate and train rather than punish, insult, or demean.    Of course, if I was made to wear a pink hat with ruffles and sing Kumbaya in front of all the other cadets, that would be a different story.   (One that usually begins, "One time, we were at a bar..." -- But I digress..)

The Jack Webb model is not in favor in or out of the military. But reading the responses, It is hazing and it's not hazing, depending on the INDIVIDUAL reaction of the Senior members. And that is part of the problem. Senior members making decisions on what a 14 year old might think of a particular action.
Former cadets involved in the cadet program, look at Encampments as a "summer camp". When current cadets see Encampment Yearbooks from years ago, they say those encampments looked to be more fun. The fun has gone out of the modern Encampment to a large degree. For several years CAP used a photo in brochures of a cadet officer sticking a pencil in a poorly stiched Wing patch. Today this would be hazing. What wasn't shown was that the cadet officer two years before had the same thing done to him by another cadet. By the way the cadet officer later won the Spaatz.
Many in this thread indicate that CPPT has gone overboard. I can agree and disagree with that. The way CAP defines hazing harrasement etc, may go to far. But for a semi-military program, which the cadet program is, much is within bounds. One thing CPPT has produced is a fear in cadet officers and NCO asd well as Senior members that whatever they do might be seen as violating CPPT. The Jack Webb model violates all aspects of Cadet Protection by carrying it to far. But there is a place in the cadet program for a more military experience at summer Encampments, and that's what the cadets have indicated over the years they want. A more fun encampment.

Quote from: Spike on January 25, 2010, 04:47:28 AMI do not like the phrase "you people" however.  It can be misinterpreted as being racist.  A mother hears that and files a lawsuit. 

Puh-leazeeee!!!

Reading this comment makes me want to throw up.

He was addressing the group for crying out loud.

Lawsuit gets filed?  We need to respond and show it to be frivolous and not stop.

It is time we get a backbone and scoff at and react back to these frivolous accusations of racism.

Too many of these completely frivolous accusations get settled.  Fight the lawsuit and win, and believe me lawyers will stop bringing these cases.

Please find me a time machine and transport me back to a time when we did not have this insanity.  Or forward to a time when we have true equality.

One wonders how much of the CAP culture is the result of our self-induced estrogen poisoning. Lets assume that CAP has had a range of encampment experiences ranging from the level of Girl Scout Llama Camp ( hereinafter referred to as "GSLC") to the occasional psychotic full metal jacket ( hereinafter referred to as "FMJ"). In my experience, any credible allegation of hazing is met by CAP with an appropriate level of response. I suppose a number of cases have lead to membership terminations, but its safe to say this is rare, and if it occurs, usually represents a failure of a membership committee at some level to screen out the wack-wacks. ( which you will note is a major failure of membership committees, given the number of certifiable loons in the program)

The koom-bayh-yah, dope smoking peaceniks who see any resemblance or affiliation to the military as a personal affront, and in the words of one former President, "loathe the military", seem to be particularly vocal in the irrational phobia of hazing.

Why do I say this is irrational? Because the scope of the overreaction is totally disproportionate to the actual risk. When CAP has had a genuine problem, it has acted quickly and rationally to act upon the problem. How many times has CAP actually been sued, a member arrested , or a member received formal discipline for hazing? Show me a case number and I will believe it, but for the most part, its just oral tradition by our most fearful members. The RST PPT is a good example of political correctness run amuck. The assertion that a white cadet addressing a black cadet in ranks at an encampment is to be avoided to "avoid the appearance of evil" is  insulting to our dedicated members, and shows a profound lack of common sense.

If you want to develop a model for an acceptable level of intensity without crossing into the threshold of hazing, a study of member arrests, terminations, complaints, and a review of how conflicts were actually resolved would prove instructive. My guess is that this would have to be regional. An action viewed as normal in CAWG ( a good 5 on the FMJ scale) versus Hawaii ( a 3 on the GSLC index) would likely result in a disparity of outcomes.

On the other hand, Cadets (and seniors for that matter) seem to come away with critical life changing experiences in direct proportion to the challenges and emotional content of the experience. How many cadets have formed lifetime friendships or been changed forever as a result of an encampment? I would venture to say that more Cadets have benefited from the median FMJ experience than the Median GSLC experience. Courage is the most perishable of all our positive human attributes, and placing cadets in a  full body prophylactic of lawyer, hippie, and bedwetter, crafted protections does them a tremendous disservice, and betrays our affiliation to USAF and frankly, America.

Major Lord

Quote from: Spike on January 25, 2010, 04:47:28 AMI do not like the phrase "you people" however.  It can be misinterpreted as being racist.

(http://i46.tinypic.com/v8iyl5.jpg)

"What do you mean, 'you people?'"
"What do YOU mean, 'you people?'"

Ned, I think the best way to address this in the training materials is to give a couple of dozen examples of what CAP considers hazing and about the same number of examples of what we wouldn't. 

Quote from: raivo on January 25, 2010, 05:06:49 PM

Quote from: Spike on January 25, 2010, 04:47:28 AMI do not like the phrase "you people" however.  It can be misinterpreted as being racist.

"What do you mean, 'you people?'"
"What do YOU mean, 'you people?'"

Yes!!!

That is what we need.

Humor and proper perspective.

Young people will lead us.  Out of this insanity.

To true equality.

Thank you for providing some humor and proper perspective.

Ned,

Not hazing. Usage would require a small amount of discussion about the time period of the film and the different outlook on females versus men of that time period. Same for teh references to the smoking lamp and booze.

At no time did he personally attack a trainee either physically or mentally.  It is fact probably a good example of a DI attempting to convert individuals into a platoon.

Just my .02 cents

If the series of events shown in the movie involved CAP cadets at encampment, and occurred precisely the same, I would consider some parts to be hazing. To start, repeatedly forcing the basic members to jump into and out of bed using a loud, intimidating alarm, creates a chaotic stress environment that is difficult for adolescents to comprehend and adapt to.

After the DI's "cheerful good morning", the DI makes an implication that if he hears a basic member call him a bad name that he will do something to cause him to go to the brig. This type of threat is clearly hazing.

Aside from those two things, there were a few things that would not be appropriate for a CAP training environment, but would not be considered hazing. For example, asking Rodriguez what he would do if he were surrounded by an enemy force would not be hazing nor appropriate.

I think the drill instructor in this case could dispense with the hazing while still providing an effective military training environment. While the real military must push its recruits to the limits of their coping and adaptation abilities, there is no need for that in Civil Air Patrol. In fact, pushing such limits may be counterproductive, and harmful given the age groups of our cadets.

Quote from: N Harmon on January 26, 2010, 02:27:02 AM
If the series of events shown in the movie involved CAP cadets at encampment, and occurred precisely the same, I would consider some parts to be hazing. To start, repeatedly forcing the basic members to jump into and out of bed using a loud, intimidating alarm, creates a chaotic stress environment that is difficult for adolescents to comprehend and adapt to.

Good thing then they don't allow any adolescents in the military! Oh,...... wait,...... never mind.

Major Lord

Quote from: Major Lord on January 26, 2010, 03:11:29 AM

Quote from: N Harmon on January 26, 2010, 02:27:02 AM
If the series of events shown in the movie involved CAP cadets at encampment, and occurred precisely the same, I would consider some parts to be hazing. To start, repeatedly forcing the basic members to jump into and out of bed using a loud, intimidating alarm, creates a chaotic stress environment that is difficult for adolescents to comprehend and adapt to.

Good thing then they don't allow any adolescents in the military! Oh,...... wait,...... never mind.

Major Lord

Durn, I must be blind as I really missed seeing all the 11-16 year olds when I went through basic training.   But then I was in the United States, not Africa with their kid warriors....

Quote from: N Harmon on January 26, 2010, 02:27:02 AM
If the series of events shown in the movie involved CAP cadets at encampment, and occurred precisely the same, I would consider some parts to be hazing. To start, repeatedly forcing the basic members to jump into and out of bed using a loud, intimidating alarm, creates a chaotic stress environment that is difficult for adolescents to comprehend and adapt to.

Oh man, where have I heard a loud chaotic alarm before...... oh wait every fire drill that takes place at every encampment I have been to, and every school in this nation, and every federal building and on and on.... I guess this means we have to stop having fire drills at encampment because it might be hard for adolescents to comprehend fire=hot.  ::) give me a break.

Quote from: N Harmon on January 26, 2010, 02:27:02 AMI think the drill instructor in this case could dispense with the hazing while still providing an effective military training environment.

What IS a military training environment, then? One of the very things that makes military training environments military, is the type of discipline you see in that video. If you take that away, then the only "military" parts left are the uniforms and rank/command structure. Encampment is not just a summer camp with a tighter schedule and a uniform of the day.

Quote from: N Harmon on January 26, 2010, 02:27:02 AMWhile the real military must push its recruits to the limits of their coping and adaptation abilities, there is no need for that in Civil Air Patrol. In fact, pushing such limits may be counterproductive, and harmful given the age groups of our cadets

Personally, I think that our society's developed such a paranoia about harming our kids that we coddle them to the point of being far too overprotective. As I said before, there are certainly limits that we can't and shouldn't cross, but if we worry excessively that we might maybe possibly cause "psychological damage" to cadets years down the road ("I... I was having a dream... about [whatever teenagers dream about these days]... and my flight sergeant woke me up by banging on a trash can... it was horrible..."), we're going end up precluding ourselves from doing just about anything. If I may quote one of my favorite TV shows/characters, Detective Munch of Law and Order: SVU - "You watch over them twenty-four hours a day, you wind up with safe little neurotics." Most cadets I know who went to encampment, even the "hardcore" (by today's standards) encampments, absolutely loved it. Yes, you get yelled at, yes, you get woken up early, but you make a lot of great friends, see a lot of cool stuff, and learn a lot of new things, and at the end you get to say "I survived encampment. WHAT NOW?" Cadets are more mature than we give them credit for - we're training them in leadership, and expecting them to perform the cadet equivalent of USAF jobs, but we're worried that waking them up by banging on a trashcan is going to be harmful to them?

I think it might (emphasis on *might*) be a good idea for NHQ to have CAP-USAF get the input of some of the MTI instructors at Lackland. The DoD definition of "hazing" is the same for them as it is for us - why not ask the people who professionally train people to train recruits? I agree that cadets shouldn't be treated quite like recruits, but I would bet they have some good insights.

And since we're talking about discipline, have a related video! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQWW1Qp5O_A

Quote from: raivo on January 26, 2010, 08:03:17 AM
I think it might (emphasis on *might*) be a good idea for NHQ to have CAP-USAF get the input of some of the MTI instructors at Lackland. The DoD definition of "hazing" is the same for them as it is for us - why not ask the people who professionally train people to train recruits? I agree that cadets shouldn't be treated quite like recruits, but I would bet they have some good insights.

Well, let's also keep in mind that many of the recruit training programs (Navy Seal BUDS, to name one) have been similarly emasculated due to complaints made to Congress.    We may get the same kind of reminiscences about the "good old days" that we are partaking in here on CAPTALK.   I am sure that the party line is much the same as the CAP party line - "all that draconian stuff isn't necessary, coddling works".

Quote from: Short Field on January 26, 2010, 03:18:56 AM

Quote from: Major Lord on January 26, 2010, 03:11:29 AM

Quote from: N Harmon on January 26, 2010, 02:27:02 AM
If the series of events shown in the movie involved CAP cadets at encampment, and occurred precisely the same, I would consider some parts to be hazing. To start, repeatedly forcing the basic members to jump into and out of bed using a loud, intimidating alarm, creates a chaotic stress environment that is difficult for adolescents to comprehend and adapt to.

Good thing then they don't allow any adolescents in the military! Oh,...... wait,...... never mind.

Major Lord

Durn, I must be blind as I really missed seeing all the 11-16 year olds when I went through basic training.   But then I was in the United States, not Africa with their kid warriors....

The early adolescent falls in the age range of 11-14 years, the mid adolescent age range is 15-18 years, and the late adolescent age range is 19-24 years.

Major Lord

Quote from: N Harmon on January 26, 2010, 02:27:02 AM
If the series of events shown in the movie involved CAP cadets at encampment, and occurred precisely the same, I would consider some parts to be hazing. To start, repeatedly forcing the basic members to jump into and out of bed using a loud, intimidating alarm, creates a chaotic stress environment that is difficult for adolescents to comprehend and adapt to.

After the DI's "cheerful good morning", the DI makes an implication that if he hears a basic member call him a bad name that he will do something to cause him to go to the brig. This type of threat is clearly hazing.

Aside from those two things, there were a few things that would not be appropriate for a CAP training environment, but would not be considered hazing. For example, asking Rodriguez what he would do if he were surrounded by an enemy force would not be hazing nor appropriate.

I think the drill instructor in this case could dispense with the hazing while still providing an effective military training environment. While the real military must push its recruits to the limits of their coping and adaptation abilities, there is no need for that in Civil Air Patrol. In fact, pushing such limits may be counterproductive, and harmful given the age groups of our cadets.

Puh-leaze.

My sense is that cadets want to be treated as teenager military service aspirants.

Teenage soldiers and airmen working their way to be officers.  Properly uniformed in AF-style.  And NOT with any sugar coating.

Wannabes, which we hear so much about around here.

CAPers wanting to know the hazing ought to draw from the MTI and DI ranks and have CAP bring those folks in on all those NB, NEB, RSC ot other meeting as guest speakers and have the PROS tell CAP how it works and the pros and cons of getting a team of professionals together to get a common objective done.... CAP sometime still needs to bring its own professionals together.....some thing that can not be online, other than conference calls.

Maybe with all those NCSA's that SM's can attend, there could be a REAL TAC Officer course that CAPers could attend  (while all those other meetings are going on) and for those real hard core CAPers who wannabe a TAC.  I am sure TAC's are trained in the psychology of the development of a group.  Why do you suppose there is DI or a MTI school for Active Duty. 

NO CAP you can not create an online course for this stuff.........yoy have to WANT it and actually attend a school for this stuff

IT is time CAP dials up Lackland AFB, Fort Lost in the Woods, MO, Fort Dix, NJ, Fort Jackson,SC and other and get the real deal

Cadets get into this stuff and CAP then could put a little show on for the parents stating that while CAP is not a military service, it can provide the the information on the REAL playas that use "HAZING" that has been watered down by Congress by making a few phone calls

I know of a few squadrons that INVITE folks right out of BCT and MTI and at the same time, schedule a night with the parents of prospective cadets...I mean, how hard can this stuff be??  Only CAP, so far that I am familiar with, has made this an issue, while some of the membership is trying to be all military and stuff by dressing down folks with all the uniform violations, but yet, when it come to an issue, with hazing along the lines of military training, CAP becomes a "'fraidy cat" and can not deal with parents until there are issues.

CAP..... on the edge of always being reactive than proactive

Quote from: heliodoc on January 26, 2010, 01:47:59 PM
IT is time CAP dials up Lackland AFB, Fort Lost in the Woods, MO, Fort Dix, NJ, Fort Jackson,SC and other and get the real deal

Oddly enough, NHQ sent a representative out to the AF Academy last year to do exactly that - meet with school-trained MTIs and academy trainers to discuss how the professionals create and adjust an appropriate military intensity level for a given activity.  The goal was to capture the data and use it to create doctrine and training materials for CAP that will allow us to set a more challenging and uniform (no pun intended) cadet program.

And we can and should discuss "look and feel" questions in another thread.  It is an important discussion to have.

This thread is intended to gather some data about how CAP members view a specific situation and how our existing hazing definition would be applied in today's environment by a sample of CAP members. 

Feedback from this thread will be used to help design the training materials for cadet leaders.

Please continue the discussion - "If this had been done in a CAP context like an encampment, would it be hazing?  Yes or no, and why."

Ned Lee
National Cadet Advisor
(And Doctrine Developer)

Ned

From my .02 perspective and being from RM..

Why does CAP have to reinvent ANY sort of training materials when the RM has those training materials available?

CAP ought to go to Maxwell AFB library and look MORE and better research that probably already has been done...

What kind of research are you looking for?  How about trying: 1) some REAL educators on for size  2) Some real documentation from US armed services ...I am sure there is at least ONE  research pub on this very subject.

What are the specific situations?  Does the situation require banging trashcans?  How about that to simulate to cadets...the noisiness of a flight line or the klaxon  at the fire hall?  I mean what situations does CAP need to address allll this?   Heck, you might as well start a CAP SCIP  (School Community Improvement Program) where the neighborhood runs the the school district and because a few parents do not like the way the principal runs a school, they are run out on a rail.   Now granted there are needs to do that times.  But the principal is THE Sqdn CC, for lack of better terms and when the parents begin running the school district with less than a principals academic credentials.... well you get my point...

What are the sample CAP members?  Seniors or Cadets?  Is this a "new" CAP reg" or a rehash of today's almost current CAP Manuals?

Maybe CAP ought to  have parental involvement  'cuz it sure seems here that CAP is doing ALOT of damage control without it.  But these are perspectives.  I personally was not aware of the NHQ trip to USAFA.  Then there ought not too many problems on how CAP needs to go about this "little" hazing issue.  How many CAP lagal types can read alll the information supplied by the USAFA and what sort of Guv project does that become to have CAP legal involvement?  That should stall getting a document / manual out to the field for at LEAST 2-5 yrs for that paralysis of the analysis... 

When all that was done to my in the '70's and again during BCT...I wasn't callin' Mommy over the issue of the let alone some C/ MSgt dropping and giving me twenty.....

I say give ALLLLLL cadets an opportunity  to drop for 20 and get a trash can banged in the ear.   But CAP needs to address that in its "manuals" and probably should have a disclaimer in the preface or at the end of each chapter, a a Gold Seal parents association and all that CAP legal mumbo jumbo to keep everyone out of the bear trap and out of court..

Quote from: Major Lord on January 26, 2010, 03:11:29 AMGood thing then they don't allow any adolescents in the military! Oh,...... wait,...... never mind.

Quote from: Major Lord on January 26, 2010, 01:10:47 PMThe early adolescent falls in the age range of 11-14 years, the mid adolescent age range is 15-18 years, and the late adolescent age range is 19-24 years.

Most texts on the subject consider the transition from adolescence into young adulthood to occur between 16 and 19, with a few going as far as 20. A 24 year old cognitive adolescent might be considered mentally retarded. Let's be clear, recruiters are supposed to judge the mental maturity of potential recruits and exclude (or at least delay) those who lack the maturity to be of service. Whether they actually do that or not is entirely beside the point because it differs greatly from the basis by which Civil Air Patrol judges the appropriate maturity of cadets.

And that is the difference. A military instructor has to consider "is this appropriate for a bunch of adults who are allowed to quit whenever they want", vs "is this appropriate for a bunch of minors who while technically may be allowed to quit are under immense pressures to stay?"

Quote from: NCRblues on January 26, 2010, 06:34:04 AMOh man, where have I heard a loud chaotic alarm before...... oh wait every fire drill that takes place at every encampment I have been to, and every school in this nation, and every federal building and on and on.... I guess this means we have to stop having fire drills at encampment because it might be hard for adolescents to comprehend fire=hot.  ::) give me a break.

That is a mighty fine strawman you've built to rebut my argument, but you fail in one regard. Fire drills have the purpose of ensuring people are capable of evacuating buildings efficiently. In other words there is a reasonable safety benefit that outweighs any potential negative consequences.

Tell me, what would be the benefit of continually making cadets hop into and out of bed?

Quote from: raivo on January 26, 2010, 08:03:17 AMWhat IS a military training environment, then? One of the very things that makes military training environments military, is the type of discipline you see in that video.

You can teach discipline without hazing. Wouldn't you agree?

QuotePersonally, I think that our society's developed such a paranoia about harming our kids that we coddle them to the point of being far too overprotective.

I think that is a fair criticism, but some might argue it is better to be bit overprotective than underprotective.

The way I look at it is like this: If you're doing something and it has the potential to be hazing, but is legitimate training, then it should be permissible. In watching the beginning of the video where the DI has them jumping into and out of bed repeatedly I thought about how such a methodology might be applied appropriately.

The thing that came to mind was teaching cadets to come to attention when officers walked into a room. Would it be appropriate to repeat that a few times until done right? I think so.

But in this case, simply banging on trash cans and flicking the lights to make the recruits miserable? That is the type of initiation shenanigans that falls well within hazing.

Quote from: DG on January 26, 2010, 01:11:40 PM
My sense is that cadets want to be treated as teenager military service aspirants.

Good. Go and treat them as they want. They can pound ground team badges into their chests and make basics wear pink pistol belts, and whatever other childish crap they make up next. Later you can wonder why your "leaders" have a hard time leading people too.

"Hazing" appears to be defined more loosely all the time.

The current definition seems to be "anything that will make a cadet unhappy."

Encampment is not intended to be happy fun-time with singing around the campfire. It should introduce cadets to the military lifestyle, and that includes stringent discipline.

We're not doing them a service by ruling everything more harsh than a smile and a kind word to be hazing.

Ned, I have no problem with the video. It is harsh without being crude or cruel.

Anyone introducing a thread should know ahead of time how far afield the original posers query will go; That is to say, as wide as possible, and eventually, like all such posts, ending in a discussion of Uniforms and Hats. Lots of hats.

Focusing on the narrow question of Jack's ( may he live forever in the halls of Valhalla) soliloquy, I personally feel that none of his actions would rise to the level of hazing, but looking at it from the standpoint of the Advocatus Diaboli, I will address his possible sins as seen through the eyes of our most tender members:

1) "Little Girls". Sexually demeaning, Sexist, not generally constructive.
2) Exhibiting a pistol in a way not authorized by regulation, and intimidating.
3) "Burr-Headed Idiots" Demeaning, Non-constructive, and racially pejorative.
4) Threats of imprisonment for unspecified thought-crimes, malicious or retributive prosecution or discipline.
5) "Clowns" - Demeaning and non-constructive. Racist allusion to criminal street gang.
6) Brandishing  a menacing "Swagger Stick"- appears to be restraining himself from striking recruits.
7) "Filthy Mouth" Demeaning, ad hominem attack
8 "Chinese fire drill" Racist and bigoted. ( see "Burr headed", and "Clowns" in the context of establishing a pattern or hazing) 
9) "Mop-Head" Demeaning, ad hominem attack.

A parent or cadet making some or any of these complaints (to an IG)  would probably prevail on some of them, with additional guidance being sent to the members at large and personally in the form of over-broad set of guidelines. I doubt that anyone would swing from the Yardarm. ( Do we have any yardarms?)

Major Lord

I am curious to see what Ned's answer is, since he will be writing the new rules for all of US.

Actually, making cadets or trainees hop in and out of bed is an accepted training model in every branch of the military. It offers several different training scenarios. We are training the cadets to respond to air craft crashes, major disasters, and lost persons ext ext.

Are you really telling me that in any of those situations the cadets will not face a "loud noise" that will confuse them or stress them out? How about tornado sirens? This glove on approach to training these cadets is causing cap more problems than if we had a stricter basic encampment.

By having the cadet's move from a rested, unstressed position (i.e. lying down) to an active alert position we are forcing the cadets/trainees to confront stress's that they will face on a daily bases on caps missions.

We have cadets respond to natural accidents, to include tornados and earthquakes; do we truly think that no storm could hit an area twice? Or an aftershock could never hit the area where cap ground teams are working?

If we are not training cadets (that could and more than likely will participating in ES activities) to follow orders of senior members (that are the guardians of them at these missions) without question and with speed, than what is the point of training at all? The first time these cadets come upon something stressful they will simply leave? Stop working altogether? If they do that they are no longer an assets to assist in Es activities, they are liabilities to whoever is in charge of them.

By putting cadets through a simple training measure as banging a trash can (or loud noise) to wake them, we can see who could handle stressful situations like ES without life (or lives) on the line.

Quote from: NCRblues on January 26, 2010, 07:21:41 PM
Actually, making cadets or trainees hop in and out of bed is an accepted training model in every branch of the military. It offers several different training scenarios. We are training the cadets to respond to air craft crashes, major disasters, and lost persons ext ext.

No we're not. The CAP cadet program does NOT exist to train cadets to respond to aircraft crashes, major disasters and lost persons. Nor is the purpose of encampment to teach those things. I think you're grasping at straws here to justify the actions in that movie.

QuoteAre you really telling me that in any of those situations the cadets will not face a "loud noise" that will confuse them or stress them out? How about tornado sirens? This glove on approach to training these cadets is causing cap more problems than if we had a stricter basic encampment.

Again. It's all about whether the training has tangible benefits which outweigh the risks. When I was a cadet I recall another cadet banging his head waking up to a fire drill. Now, I have no problem explaining to a cadet's parent that little johnny has a bruise on his forehead because we had a fire drill, which was necessary to ensure everyone could evacuate the barracks. But I'll be god [darn]ed if I'm going to be explaining why little johnny jumps every time a book slams because he was treated to that sort of repeated behavior over and over again through the course of 9 days.

And I would like you to expand a little on how not having a stricter basic encampent is causing Civil Air Patrol more problems. What kind of problems? And how would a stricter basic encampment solve those problems?

QuoteBy having the cadet's move from a rested, unstressed position (i.e. lying down) to an active alert position we are forcing the cadets/trainees to confront stress's that they will face on a daily bases on caps missions.

Again. We're talking about the CAP cadet program, not Emergency Services training.

WOW

Still revolving around that video, eh CAP??

Let get the meat on the subject.... The military, in its own way has toned down

It only takes CAPers to center their life around a video and go one worrin about bigotry and racism, let's get on with it and make the training follow the DoD since CAPers are so willing to quote how much we are following thew DoD.

Ned, I am sure there is plenty of material to get a new manual going with little or no input from NHQ legal and WE ALL know they are going to put their $3.22 worth of weight into it

WOW CAP worryin about hazing and stress for cadets.......maybe they ought to be out of high school roaming the streets, huh?

Boy, CAP sure can go overboard on this issue can't it??   Answer:  Don't send em to encampment if you or their parents are afraid..

There is plenty of documentation on this issue....CAPers just LUUUUUUUUUUUUUUV to beat a deceased horse 'til it's beef jerky

Comments about leaders in CAP....verrry few!!

Quote from: heliodoc on January 26, 2010, 07:36:42 PM
WOW

Still revolving around that video, eh CAP??

That was the whole point of the thread in case you missed that.

Sorry, I did not miss that...

Seems to me that there has been threads to this very subject before...

"Hazing" in CAP's case is a little more broad than some ol war video. 

That I did not miss, either.  But thank you for reming=ding me!

Quote from: heliodoc on January 26, 2010, 07:47:51 PM"Hazing" in CAP's case is a little more broad than some ol war video.

No, but having a central frame of reference is important. As is talking about specifics. For too long "hazing" has been, with a couple of exceptions, something that one can't quite explain but knows it when he/she sees it. Well, here it is. You've seen it, and now tell Ned why it is or is not hazing.

Back to Ned's point, I think he was looking for an assessment of whether the segment in the video clip would constitute hazing, and to justify that opinion. The question of whether or not stress is an invaluable part of a basic military training or its cadet-flavored equivalent is a separable matter. Stress  is used to condition a cadet ( or other animal) to instantaneous obedience to orders. This is a major safety issue around things that go boom or fall out of airplanes, buts its not really directly relevant to the issue of Hazing. You can have a stressful environment without hazing, and you could even have a hazing environment without stress, although this would mean you are probably not very good at it.....

Major Lord

Quote from: N Harmon on January 26, 2010, 07:35:00 PMNow, I have no problem explaining to a cadet's parent that little johnny has a bruise on his forehead because we had a fire drill, which was necessary to ensure everyone could evacuate the barracks. But I'll be god [darn]ed if I'm going to be explaining why little johnny jumps every time a book slams because he was treated to that sort of repeated behavior over and over again through the course of 9 days.

I have yet to hear of any former or current CAP cadets developing PTSD symptoms from encampment. (extreme cases of actual hazing notwithstanding)

I believe that this was not a good experiment overall.  Hazing to one person is not hazing to another.  The context of the video is out of context with modern day, and modern day CAP. 

However, should NED show us a CAP video in which he believes there to be hazing going on and we comment on it, that would be a different story altogether. 

Perhaps the writing of an Encampment Manual that details the 5 W's, and dictates exactly how Cadets, Cadet Staff and Senior Staff should behave is more relevant.

Too me, that video we watched was very gentle compared to what happens in the real military.  Let me say though, as an Officer and a person who has held Command before, I watched what I would say because of the PC police running around in the Army.  I did not want to have to stand before my Battalion Commander and explain why I called a bunch of Soldiers "girls".

In CAP I do the same.  I make it very clear during my in-briefing with new Cadets and Seniors what I will tolerate and what I will not.  It is up to the Leadership in the Squadrons to make sure there is no Hazing.  I hate to say it, but most Cadets pick up on BAD PRACTICES at Encampments and Special Activities. 

Those are the places where NED and his team of Hazing Preventers need to start at. 

We keep talking about what is hazing or what acceptable levels of stress are, but I was taught that the purpose of CAP was to have FUN, be safe, and learn something. My job is stressful enough. When I go to a CAP activity, I don't want to cause stress or be under stress. I want to have FUN!Making some kidette do pushups or banging on a trashcan to wake a barracks bay up is not my idea of fun. Yes, I know we have to do some serious stuff once in a while, but why go out of our way to make it that way. You can be professional and cut a joke once in a while. When you make learning or training stressful, the only thing you teach the cadet is to do whatever makes the stress go away. That's not how I want to impact the cadets I work with.

Quote from: olefido on January 26, 2010, 11:12:33 PM
We keep talking about what is hazing or what acceptable levels of stress are, but I was taught that the purpose of CAP was to have FUN, be safe, and learn something. My job is stressful enough. When I go to a CAP activity, I don't want to cause stress or be under stress. I want to have FUN!Making some kidette do pushups or banging on a trashcan to wake a barracks bay up is not my idea of fun. Yes, I know we have to do some serious stuff once in a while, but why go out of our way to make it that way. You can be professional and cut a joke once in a while. When you make learning or training stressful, the only thing you teach the cadet is to do whatever makes the stress go away. That's not how I want to impact the cadets I work with.

Yep and a half.  Let's remember what the whole program actually is, folks.

Quote from: olefido on January 26, 2010, 11:12:33 PMbanging on a trashcan to wake a barracks bay up is not my idea of fun.

And in our case its an excellent way to get the OOD to come and ask us to leave...

Maybe it's just me, but as a cadet I loved that kind of stuff. Maybe not at the time, but I definitely looked back at it and said "Wow, that was actually pretty fun."

Quote from: raivo on January 26, 2010, 11:31:59 PM
Maybe it's just me, but as a cadet I loved that kind of stuff. Maybe not at the time, but I definitely looked back at it and said "Wow, that was actually pretty fun."

Same here. 

Stress is a part of life.  How does banging a trash can going to hurt anyone?  The only thing it does is tell everyone "time to get up".  Most I am sure want to wake up each Cadet by singing praises in their ear until they wake up smiling.  Well, that is not how life works.  My alarm clock is louder than what some of you want. 

It is also not bad to teach a sense of urgency.  Giving an allotted time limit to do a menial task is something most people deal with daily. 

^ Yep, requirement of time management, pressure regarding things that need to be done, expectations of performance, all good.

Banging on a trash can to show how much you've spent on Netflix, no.

Somehow the First Sergent standing up in the compartment and calling "Everybody up!" seems to work just fine.

Of course that doesn't read as well on film.   ::)

Quote from: olefido on January 26, 2010, 11:12:33 PM
We keep talking about what is hazing or what acceptable levels of stress are, but I was taught that the purpose of CAP was to have FUN, be safe, and learn something. My job is stressful enough. When I go to a CAP activity, I don't want to cause stress or be under stress. I want to have FUN!Making some kidette do pushups or banging on a trashcan to wake a barracks bay up is not my idea of fun. Yes, I know we have to do some serious stuff once in a while, but why go out of our way to make it that way. You can be professional and cut a joke once in a while. When you make learning or training stressful, the only thing you teach the cadet is to do whatever makes the stress go away. That's not how I want to impact the cadets I work with.

+10¹⁰⁰

Quote from: raivo on January 26, 2010, 11:31:59 PM
Maybe it's just me, but as a cadet I loved that kind of stuff. Maybe not at the time, but I definitely looked back at it and said "Wow, that was actually pretty fun."

Well as a cadet many moons ago I loathed the cadet staff and Seniors who did that kind of stuff to me no matter what the activity.  And all these years as a senior, I have no respect or use for those members who are still in the program whom I run into from time to time. I don't want them around me our my units personal.

The funnest times and most educational times in CAP has been when I was mentored and taught. 

^ RedFox, holding a grudge for so long will give you an ulcer. Are you really trying to say that your fondest memories of CAP are being mentored?  Mine would surely not be be that.  You must have had a pretty lame Squadron if that's what you considered "funnest".   

Quote from: Spike on January 26, 2010, 10:40:56 PM
I believe that this was not a good experiment overall. Hazing to one person is not hazing to another. 

That appears to be the result here, and I think we can all agree that it is a significant problem.

Pretty much everyone agrees that hazing is always inappropriate, and should be strictly forbidden in CAP.  Indeed, we have written a fairly strict regulation to forbid it, which calls for immediate suspensions and investigations to protect our cadets from harm.

We have a standard definition - borrowed directly from our DoD partners - and a mandatory three hour class explaining the definition, and helping leaders identify situations where it occurs and what actions to take when it does.  (I am referring to RST classes for activities lasting over 4 nights.  My educated guess is that a majority of our active CP leaders have taken RST at least once.)

And yet, to judge by the response to this thread, reasonable CP leaders still cannot agree that a particular military scene is hazing or not.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is a problem.

If CP leaders cannot use their common sense and apply the standard CAP definition to a given situation with a modicum of consistency, then we have failed to define and communicate our standard effectively.  Without a decent consensus of what is or isn't hazing - and severe sanctions against members for engaging in the illusive activity -  the tendency for reasonable members will be to avoid anything that might be hazing.  And that is just a race to the bottom.

Just based on what folks have posted here, it is reasonable to expect substantially different levels of "military intensity" at different units and activities across CAP today, simply because we cannot agree on what it "should" be. 

It is almost as if each leader is saying "I think the appropriate level of military intensity at encampment is X and I think 'hazing' is when some other guy does X + 2."


I guess I'm saying that it may less important whether I think that the scene contains hazing, than the fact that folks I respect (y'all) cannot even come close to agreeing on whether it does or not.  And seem to have multiple strong opinions on the subject, no two of which seem similar.

Now I'm going to have to give a great deal of thought on how to effectively define a "military intensity level"and communicate it to the field in language so plain and simple that everyone understands and can effectively implement a challenging cadet program that is consistent from unit to unit and activity to activity.

Yuck.

It seems to me that there's a fundamental difference of opinion on what the purpose of an encampment is, and exactly how "militarized" it should be.

Though, reading back, that seems a little off-topic for the discussion. As far as whether it's hazing, I'll stand by what I said in my first post.

Quote from: Ned on January 27, 2010, 01:49:27 AM
It is almost as if each leader is saying "I think the appropriate level of military intensity at encampment is X and I think 'hazing' is when some other guy does X + 2."

Better you than us.

You need to start with the word being used - in most cases the behavior is inappropriate, but not "hazing" in the traditional sense of a gateway ritual for newbs.  In most cases, infractions are more CPPT or common sense violations than "hazing".

What we have today is a subjective line based on a definition that no one can agree on which gets crossed regularly, both inadvertently and purposely.

What we need are objective definitions on appropriate behavior and videos or similar training that shows our leaders what they can do.  Just tell us what we can and should do.

We won't get any closer on agreements regarding "military intensity", but at least the line will be nice and bright with no excuse for crossing it.

I don't see it as hazing.

Some of it was not PC (in part because the film is dated)...the language was pristine pure too, I think, because of the time it was made...compare Jack Webb with R. Lee Ermey in 'Full Metal Jacket'.

I don't see it as appropriate for younger cadets, thus generally not at Basic Encampment or squadron activities...maybe at COS or a region CLS...the problem is, CAP does not have cadet officers or non-coms with the training, experience or maturity of a military DI!

We also don't "own" them in a controlled environment, providing for their every basic need 24x7 for 6-8+ weeks to several years.

We get them a couple hours a week, and maybe a week(ish) a year, then they go home to whatever personal, Twilight-fueled, drama
they live in day-to-day.

Some random, mis-fired remark about being a "girl", or "not measuring up", etc., that would garner nothing but a frown (or a laugh) from 99% of adjusted kids, could be the last straw in the decision about a cadet doing something irreversible.

The level of self-induced, Facebook-encouraged, angst kids deal with these days would make Stanley Kowalski's life seem like a paradise.

Okay, lets say that I accept Ned's premise that hazing hasn't been defined enough for reasonable senior members (and others) to agree on what is and is not hazing (I do actually).  And lets extend that a bit to behavior that isn't hazing, but may or may not be appropriate for CAP (waking them up banging on trash cans). 

This means that there is a fairly wide band of gray area of actions and behaviors that may or may not be hazing  or inappropriate depending on who is doing the judging about that particular incident. 

Obviously, this is not a great situation to put our folks in.

But, do we really think that much that happens in that gray band is a real problem that can cause real harm to kids or are we really just arguing about technicalities that wouldn't be a big deal in the real world? 

This is not a concept that can really be described in black and white in a stand alone sentence as we're dealing with human pscychology. 

The only way to deal with it is to give our best shot at a definition, but then give a bajillion concrete examples of what we don't want to have happen.  CAP has been doing this for almost 70 years and we know the sort of things that we really don't want to see happen, so lets specifically prohibit them. 

Quote from: Eclipse on January 27, 2010, 04:20:12 AMSome random, mis-fired remark about being a "girl", or "not measuring up", etc., that would garner nothing but a frown (or a laugh) from 99% of adjusted kids, could be the last straw in the decision about a cadet doing something irreversible.

This is a very slippery slope.

Since the topiuc has focused mainly on encampments, one thing overlooked is the age of the (politically incorect) Doolies. In the majority of cadets they are the 12 to 14 year olds attending their first encampment. They do not need the strict military environment that an older cadet would accept. (male) Cadets being called girls or ladies as a group would not consider that as demeaning. (but if you specify an individual as "a lady" it would be.
One year in the 60's a Florida Wing encampment put cadets into flights of their peer age groups as much as possible. The older cadets were in a more strict military environment, while the younger cadets were f=given some leeway. The main difference between an encampment of the 60's and today, the 60's encampment was run by Senior members, not cadets under some senior supervision. \
Even attending the required RST, cadet staff can't (or won't) understand the concept of hazing. This is where the untrained TAC come in. To prevent hazing. The problem with that, each TAC has his or her opinion of hazing based on their own morality., not a standard defination. And the comments of this thread proves that what is demeaning, or hazing is seen differently by individual members.

Quote from: Spike on January 27, 2010, 01:42:01 AM
^ RedFox, holding a grudge for so long will give you an ulcer. Are you really trying to say that your fondest memories of CAP are being mentored?  Mine would surely not be be that.  You must have had a pretty lame Squadron if that's what you considered "funnest".   

Spike I will try to explain it. 

I am not holding a grudge.  I don't TRUST those people and choose not to allow them to participate in activities I command or let my people participate with them in activities because they are not the role model I want portrayed to the cadets.  I don't want some cadet to go FMJ because some senior member thinks it "Fun".  Those people have not place in our program. 

Yes, when being instructed and learning something you want to learn by someone who cares about your development, not to be a trash can beater but a leader I would say that yes, those times and those seniors are my fondest memories.  I learned a lot about SAR, flying (which despite the fact that I dislike it tremendously I learned and loved when a Cadet), organizational skills, command, leadership and communications.

We had a blast as a squadron.  And olefido can testify to, we had leaders who were serious about their jobs in CAP but they were FUN, made things interesting, could cut a joke one in a while and they TRAINED AND MENTORED us. 

A lame and poor unit or activity in CAP is one where bullies and trash can beaters exist.  And those people should be run out of the organization with a vengeance before they destroy it any more.

Quote from: BillB on January 27, 2010, 12:08:36 PM
In the majority of cadets they are the 12 to 14 year olds attending their first encampment. They do not need the strict military environment that an older cadet would accept.

Interesting word choice.

Can you expand on your thoughts in this regard?

Quote from: Ned on January 27, 2010, 04:48:28 PM

Quote from: BillB on January 27, 2010, 12:08:36 PM
In the majority of cadets they are the 12 to 14 year olds attending their first encampment. They do not need the strict military environment that an older cadet would accept.

Interesting word choice.

Can you expand on your thoughts in this regard?

Has NHQ/CP ever looked at military boarding schools that take in teenagers the same age as our cadets? How do they handle hazing and discipline? I ask because we have one just 20 minutes away and there is another one about 2 hours away and it just occurred to me that they both have the same age range as we do.

Note: I'm not talking about the ones for bad eggs. I'm talking about the ones famous people send their kids to. We have the NY Yankees CJ2 land at our airfield quite often as some of their big wigs are alumni or have kids there.

Redfox's squadron sounds like it leans towards the "Girl Scout Llama Camp" end of the stress distribution curve. Perhaps he could give us a few examples of Cadets that have benefited in quantifiable ways. How many Spaatz Cadets has your Sq generated in the last 2-3 years? Cadets receiving Commissions in the Armed forces, or attending service academies? Elected to public office? Guest spots on "survivor"? Millionaires?

Major Lord

Quote from: Major Lord on January 27, 2010, 05:10:44 PM
Redfox's squadron sounds like it leans towards the "Girl Scout Llama Camp" end of the stress distribution curve. Perhaps he could give us a few examples of Cadets that have benefited in quantifiable ways. How many Spaatz Cadets has your Sq generated in the last 2-3 years? Cadets receiving Commissions in the Armed forces, or attending service academies? Elected to public office? Guest spots on "survivor"? Millionaires?

Major Lord

Lets see Major, in another thread according to you I am not a real Ham Radio operator and now my squadron is part of the girl scouts.  I see..........

Redfox,

No, that is not what I said, in either case. You are just being contrarian, as per your own self-description. You described a model of your squadron based on your hatred of the "FMJ" cadets and seniors you experienced as a cadet, and I was wondering how that model worked out for your current and recent cadets. I believe you mentioned "organizational skills, command, leadership and communications" and I would like to get a clearer idea of how these skills aided cadets in contrast to the paramilitary paradigm we have for training in CAP. I certainly meant no disrespect to the Girl Scouts in comparing them to your squadron.   

Major Lord

Quote from: RedFox24 on January 27, 2010, 03:03:16 PM
[A lame and poor unit or activity in CAP is one where bullies and trash can beaters exist.  And those people should be run out of the organization with a vengeance before they destroy it any more. 

+1  There are people I still despise after 40 years due to hazing and I will dispose them until the day I die.  Holding a grudge?  No, it was just that they showed what their real character was all about - and the flaws hidden within it.  I have no use for them in my life. 

I also worry about people who only follow the rules because they are afraid of punishment - not because they have accept the core values of the organization as their own.  Makes you wonder what they will do if they found a situation where they believed they wouldn't have to worry about being punished...

I'm copying this over from CS, since I think it's necessary to debunk an underlying assumption that seems to be present. It's slightly edited to remove the second-person references and make it more essay-like.

Quote from: MeMaybe it's just me, but I don't recall actively pursuing the agenda to indoctrinate cadets into a military lifestyle, especially since I have not been in the military and wouldn't be the authority on the best way to do that. Rather, I think that the military does certain things to train the recruits to respond to stressful situations, and I certainly think that has applications in CAP.

For instance, unless there are soldiers using push-ups as some sort of odd combat maneuver, the push-ups certainly don't indoctrinate any sort of military training. Yet, the military uses it, and has done so for quite a while. So while you can be against it, you can't say that just because the military uses it makes it "military indoctrination." Likewise, waking cadets up in a less-than-motherly way seems to be common practice in the military, but, at least for non-combat troops, this is unlikely to be actively useful in the day-to-day operations of the military. In fact, at least from my conversations with current USAF guys, the day-to-day, non-combat life of the USAF folks (which makes up the vast majority) doesn't deal with ANY of the "hazing" practices that is called out as "military indoctrination." Yet, they still had to deal with it in BMT. I doubt it's because the USAF trained their people to deal with a mortar attack in the middle of the night, but rather because they believe there is some value in the training that even applies to the day-to-day, civilian-type jobs that many people in the USAF hold.

If this is the case, then why can't this training work for ACTUAL civilians? If we aren't teaching them small unit tactics and how to throw a grenade, then can it actually be said that the techniques discussed as "hazing" are military indoctrination just because the military trains their people with it? That seems like a fallacy. We aren't indoctrinating cadets to medical school by making them get up early. We aren't indoctrinating them into a job in aerospace by teaching them aerospace material. We aren't indoctrinating them to join the clergy by offering religious services during encampment.

The bottom line is that we are SUPPOSED to be training these people to have flexibility and preparation in choosing what they want for their life. I can think of no activity at any encampment I have been to, nor can I think of any practice I have ever advocated, that trains people to be good soldiers, and therefore can be classified as "military indoctrination."

http://www.girlscoutsnorcal.org/documents/PP_Llama.pdf

Is this patch authorized?

Major Lord

Ned raised a good point about how we cannot even agree on what hazing is. When I think of the first encampment I attended as a TAC Officer, I was surprised by the attitude of some of the other TAC's when bunk's got ripped apart and overturned and gear thrown in the hallway.  They were offended and I was not, after all, having gone through basic, I had seen a lot worse then that done to basics.

But upon later reflection, I realized they were right. Encampment is suppose to give them a taste of what it is like to be in the military and not for preparing them to serve in a hostile environment where instant adherence to orders and team work can make a difference between life and death.  Based upon that there is no justification for trashing their personal space or belongings. 

That is why I actually liked the clip, ignoring the dated derogatory slurs used by Jack Webb, watch how he interacted with them. I might have missed something, but I never saw him violate their personal space or possessions, yet he clearly communicated to them that their performance needed to improve.  Now go watch some of the clips on utube of cadets at encampments and decide which is worse.

Back to my point, our backgrounds play a huge role in how we perceive the definition of hazing.

I've watched RDC's instruct new recruits on rack-making - its a several hour process, reinforced and mentored by the RDC and PO's.

When they get it "wrong", there's consequences, but they don't include tossing the rack (though they weigh about 500 pounds, so that's a factor).

In CAP, we take a cadet who may have never made his bed himself, ever, show him once or twice how to set things up, and then the next morning start throwing things.

We can't emulate the consequences of failing in a a full-time training environment without providing the full-time training.

So i want to ask this question, not to argue but i truly wonder about it.

What if this cadet that has been shown how to make a bunk has been unable (or even unwilling) to do it properly? How long does the flight cadet leadership, and (eventually) tac's spend on this one child? When do we call it a day? How many times can we tell him how to do it before we are done?

Then if nothing else works do we send them home? then what do we do when mom or dad calls poed because we sent their "angel" home because he/she could not make a bed?

Like i said, just wondering what others feel and even if some consider this hazing?

Instructing a failing cadet on proper procedure is not hazing, its what we do.

If they can't get it right but are really trying, eventually its just a few points during the inspection.

No one is going home for a bad rack.

Now, if he tells you to go "salute yourself, I'm not doing it", then its a direct conversation with the commandant and the commander and a potential ticket home, but that's a disciplinary action unrelated to the objective evaluation of his rack.

If mom and dad don't like it they are free to discuss it with the Wing CC and file a complaint if they are so inclined.  The IG will investigate
and find it was justified and everyone moves on.  BTDT.

Waht is the real purpose of Encampment anyway??  Seriously, I have been to many Encampments, yet it seems debatable what the real purpose is.  I honestly think we can do without Encampment in today's CAP. 

Just to make sure there is no Hazing happeneing, I vote to stop all Encampments until a clear set of isntructions on how to properly conduct one is published.

See CAPR 52-16, Page 40.

Or this thread for a discussion of same: http://forums.cadetstuff.org/viewtopic.php?f=43&t=13650&p=262240#p262240

Quote from: Spike on January 28, 2010, 01:40:18 AM
Just to make sure there is no Hazing happeneing, I vote to stop all Encampments until a clear set of isntructions on how to properly conduct one is published.

Or just stop members from attending who believe their personal defiintion of Hazing leaves too much grey area for them to function well.   

Thanks for the feedback and discussions so far.

They have been truly helpful.

Now, I'd like you to take a look at another relatively short( 11 min) video and discuss.

This is one of few films I have ever found that attempts to explain how military stress/intensty/training (pick your favorite word) translates into being a better pilot.

It is a US Navy training film - "Pressure Point", which describes the Aviation Officer Candidate Program, at least as it was circa 1990. 

Questions for discussion:

1.  In your view, by analogy does this film do a decent job at explaining why encampment has a strong military atmosphere?  Why or why not?

2.  If so, how could we capture the reasoning in a short paragraph or two?


Rules:  Try to forget for a moment that this is an old US Navy training film.  Stretch your imagination a bit, squint at the screen at try to think how it might apply to CP. 

Click Here (http://www.archive.org/details/Pressure_Point) for the 1990 version I would like to discuss.


(For you history buffs, Click here (http://shock.military.com/Shock/videos.do?displayContent=196017) for the original and less politically-correct 1973 version.)


Discuss.

1) Strong military atmosphere?  What we watched was a film for making civilians into Officers.  At Encampment we are not making Cadets into anything.  Encampments are run in a quasi-military fashion, because that is how it has been done for 60 years.  We can just as easily provide the required hours of instruction in a nonmilitary manner, but it would most likely not be fun.  By the time many Cadets get to Encampment they have been in the Cadet Program for months, if not years.  The local units have taught drill, customs and courtesies.  However, when a Cadet reports to Encampment they are treated like they are fresh off the street kids that just joined CAP days before.  This is the time that most Cadets learn how to do things the "wrong way".  We all have heard the phrase "well at Encampment we did it like this", and have to correct those Cadets back at the Squadrons.  One individual told me that "yelling at Basic Cadets at Encampment is expected and OK, but yelling a the same Cadets at the local unit is not OK".  When asked why he thought this, the answer I got was "because that is what is expected at Encampment, but here at the unit it is hazing".

Ned, we are not training our Cadets to to be anything at Encampment.  We are exposing them to the classroom instruction mandated by 52-16.  We do through fun activities into the course, but they can be done in a nonmilitary environment as well. 

The short time we have Cadets at Encampment is not long enough to make them into Awesome Cadets.  We provide the background that the Cadets can go back to the Squadron and use to further their understanding of what they were taught.  In my opinion, Encampment is a tool that may at one time been needed in CAP (1950-1970), when it was totally different than it is today.  I can provide the exact some classes at the local squadron level that are conducted at Encampment.  We are neither making Cadet Officers (like the precursor to CLS did), nor are we making "enlisted Cadets".  The idea of Encampment can only work if it is conducted within a few weeks of actually joining CAP.  Having Cadets attend Encampment that have been in CAP 4 or 5 years is a waste of time.  They most likely already know the "basics" that Encampment is supposed to teach.

I never liked how Encampments are conducted or the requirement for the Mitchell.  It is a project in making Staff Cadets feel better about themselves.  Most Encampments have customs all their own that have been passed down thought the decades for no real reason other than "it has always been done that way".  I attended 7 Encampments since joining in 1994, and at none of them has anyone really explained why there is a guidon, or what the purpose of morning formations are for.  If we want to play the military game, lets at least explain what all the military stuff is to those Cadets attending.  Standing in formation and reading an SOP booklet 2 inches from your face in the sun teaches nothing but the idealogy that "when I staff Encampment I will make my Basic Cadets do this too". 

I say again that Encampment needs a regulation all its own.  Something needs to be writtent that says "do this at this time, and this is why".  A Cadet can go to Encampment in California and then an Encampment in New York and walk away from both having learned two different ways of doing everything. 

So, if this response was on a tanget line, I apologize.  To answer the Question, The film does NOT do a decent job at explaining why Encampment has a strong Military Atmosphere.  I understand the idea behind the video, but it does not relate to CAP at all.  What endeavors do CAP Cadets get into in CAP that requires the, "citizen to Soldier" training model??  Like stated earlier, we are not preparing Soldiers or Airman.  CAP is not a combative organization (anymore).  Stress is a part of life, but to overstress a person to the edge of breaking and then rebuilding them in the military ideology is what is required of the Armed Forces, not CAP.  We don't break Cadets down, physically or emotionally.  It is neither warranted or required. 

CAP Encampments try to have a strong military atmosphere, but most come up very short, because the leaders themselves do not have a strong basis in the military environment.  Most things at Encampments come from either "outdated traditions" or something that a person finds in popular media, like television shows or movies.  Neither source is good for the modern day Cadet program.

   
 

Quote from: Ned on January 28, 2010, 04:30:00 PM
1.  In your view, by analogy does this film do a decent job at explaining why encampment has a strong military atmosphere?  Why or why not? 

How about finding a USAF based film instead of one of the sister services?  We are the aux of the USAF, not the Army Aux, nor the Marine Corps Aux, or the Navy Aux.  If people wanted to join the Coast Guard Aux, they could do so.  However, trying to make the USAF Aux into another service's Aux is not the answer.  Find how the USAF trains people and discuss it.

Quote from: Spike on January 28, 2010, 06:53:59 PMStrong military atmosphere?  What we watched was a film for making civilians into Officers.  At Encampment we are not making Cadets into anything.  Encampments are run in a quasi-military fashion, because that is how it has been done for 60 years.  We can just as easily provide the required hours of instruction in a nonmilitary manner, but it would most likely not be fun.

I think this is one of the more common misconceptions about encampment (or CAP entirely, for that matter). We aren't training cadets using militaristic training methods because we want to make them into soldiers. We do it because it WORKS. Despite the fact that a great, great number of military members never do anything involving direct combat, and in fact have quite "civilian"  jobs, all members are still required to go through BMT, do PT, learn teamwork, etc. It's certainly not because these are going to help them program computers, or fly airplanes, or even fight.

It's because using these methods assists in teaching the recruits basic skills on how to succeed in pretty much anything. You screw up, there's a consequence you don't like. It's better to be early than on time in many situations. Pay attention to detail. Dress sharply. Look out for your team. These are the lessons that are being taught, and it works FAST.

Frankly, the military has a lot longer to train their people in these skills than we have with the cadets, if we're going to compare BMT to encampment. We have only a week, so we would definitely benefit from the "military atmosphere," if that correlates into teaching cadets these types of skills.

Quote from: SpikeBy the time many Cadets get to Encampment they have been in the Cadet Program for months, if not years.  The local units have taught drill, customs and courtesies.  However, when a Cadet reports to Encampment they are treated like they are fresh off the street kids that just joined CAP days before.  This is the time that most Cadets learn how to do things the "wrong way".  We all have heard the phrase "well at Encampment we did it like this", and have to correct those Cadets back at the Squadrons.  One individual told me that "yelling at Basic Cadets at Encampment is expected and OK, but yelling a the same Cadets at the local unit is not OK".  When asked why he thought this, the answer I got was "because that is what is expected at Encampment, but here at the unit it is hazing".

You can't hold the encampment model responsible for the failures of the people implementing it. I can give you just as many GOOD stories about encampment as you can give me bad ones.

Quote from: SpikeNed, we are not training our Cadets to to be anything at Encampment.  We are exposing them to the classroom instruction mandated by 52-16.  We do through fun activities into the course, but they can be done in a nonmilitary environment as well. 

I disagree on so many levels. We can, as you say, carry out the classroom instruction pretty much anywhere you want. There's a reason we don't. The reason is because the cadets can look at PowerPoint slides all day. It's useless if they don't have an opportunity to practice those skills, and encampment is a perfect place to do that.

You honestly don't think that we're training our cadets to "be anything" at encampment? We're training them to be good freaking cadets. Sometimes it works well, sometimes not so well, but the goal remains the same.

Quote from: SpikeThe short time we have Cadets at Encampment is not long enough to make them into Awesome Cadets.

I have at least two cadets at my former squadron I would love to introduce you to. They were terrible cadets before encampment. They had no focus, no discipline. After they returned from encampment, they were definitely above-average, and later became great cadets. It's definitely saying something when a cadet who got close to getting kicked out of the program later went on to become an excellent cadet officer, and that change seemed to occur during his basic encampment.

And while I don't know the statistics, Ned might know the numbers in terms of retention comparing those who attend encampment versus those who do not. Needless to say, there is surely a reason cadets tend to stick around longer after having attended encampment.

Quote from: SpikeWe provide the background that the Cadets can go back to the Squadron and use to further their understanding of what they were taught.  In my opinion, Encampment is a tool that may at one time been needed in CAP (1950-1970), when it was totally different than it is today.  I can provide the exact some classes at the local squadron level that are conducted at Encampment.  We are neither making Cadet Officers (like the precursor to CLS did), nor are we making "enlisted Cadets".  The idea of Encampment can only work if it is conducted within a few weeks of actually joining CAP.  Having Cadets attend Encampment that have been in CAP 4 or 5 years is a waste of time.  They most likely already know the "basics" that Encampment is supposed to teach.

Completely wrong. The "classes" of encampment are trivial compared to the environment. Encampment is a great place to do some cool activities that might be tough to schedule at a weekly meeting, but the absolute most important aspect of encampment is the fact that the cadets are in an environment where the skills they LEARNED from those classes and experience are constantly being put to the test.

If you have a basic cadet, it's true that they are going to be absorbing a lot more information as compared to the C/CMSgt basic, who probably knows most of the academic knowledge already. But what the C/CMSgt usually ends up doing is acting as a sort of support around which the younger, lower ranking cadets rally. He's the guy who, despite not being a staff member, knows his stuff and acts as a source of knowledge. In THAT regard, he's still practicing mentoring and leadership. The C/2d Lt may not have an opportunity to be responsible for twelve cadets for a whole week outside of encampment. Without encampment, I, even as a C/Col, would NEVER have had the chance to plan a week long encampment and be responsible for ensuring that over 100 cadets met the requirements to graduate.

The lessons might be the same, but the experience gained in getting to put those skills to use will NOT come up in a squadron meeting, or even in most NSCA's. Encampments are absolutely necessary for this.

Quote from: SpikeI never liked how Encampments are conducted or the requirement for the Mitchell.  It is a project in making Staff Cadets feel better about themselves.

Well... yeah. Anyone who gets to lead a large number of cadets for a whole week SHOULD feel good about themselves. I certainly felt proud after my run as a C/CC of an encampment.

I say again. C/Officers are expected to be leaders. It is IMPOSSIBLE to know how to be a leader by sitting in classes. The only way is to go into an environment where leadership is tested and reinforced. This does not happen on a grand enough scale for Phase III leadership without encampments in CAP.

Quote from: SpikeMost Encampments have customs all their own that have been passed down thought the decades for no real reason other than "it has always been done that way".  I attended 7 Encampments since joining in 1994, and at none of them has anyone really explained why there is a guidon, or what the purpose of morning formations are for.  If we want to play the military game, lets at least explain what all the military stuff is to those Cadets attending.  Standing in formation and reading an SOP booklet 2 inches from your face in the sun teaches nothing but the idealogy that "when I staff Encampment I will make my Basic Cadets do this too".

As I have said before and will say again, the incorrect implementation of a good idea does not make the idea bad. It just makes the implementation bad. We can sit here and argue all day the merits of guidons and drill and military games, but the overall point is that even if those are "bad", it doesn't negate the value of the encampment experience itself. So I'm not entirely sure what point you're trying to make by complaining about what you didn't like about some encampments.

Quote from: SpikeI say again that Encampment needs a regulation all its own.  Something needs to be writtent that says "do this at this time, and this is why".  A Cadet can go to Encampment in California and then an Encampment in New York and walk away from both having learned two different ways of doing everything.

That's true, and to a point, I agree with you. However, while I agree that standardization is necessary, I also feel that creating too bright of a line hamstrings our leaders. If one encampment prefers to do a full pass-and-review, and another encampment wants a small graduation banquet instead, then I really don't have a problem with that. The cadet isn't being harmed with either option.

Now, if you're complaining about things like drill and C&C, then, once again, your problem is with the people, not the encampment model. The drill movements are laid out in a regulation, which you are welcome to review. If someone learned something different, then that is the fault of whoever taught the drill movement. Likewise, if someone learns C&C that is not defined in the CAPP 151, you first have to decide whether it is a detrimental issue (which I have found that most instances of 'extra' C&C are not), and then, once again, blame the person who taught incorrectly.

The only way you could hold the encampment model responsible for someone learning the wrong things is if there was a regulation that said either, "Cadets will be taught incorrect drill at encampment", or "The commander must appoint ignorant, incompetent, or rebellious staff members to positions requiring the instruction of drill."

Quote from: SpikeStress is a part of life, but to overstress a person to the edge of breaking and then rebuilding them in the military ideology is what is required of the Armed Forces, not CAP.  We don't break Cadets down, physically or emotionally.  It is neither warranted or required.

You're absolutely right, but where you came under the impression that anyone is advocating this is beyond me. Nobody has talked about "overstressing" cadets or psychologically reformatting them. We are simply talking about different tools we might use during encampment. Of course, if they are found to be useless or harmless, then there is no need to consider their use. But if there were many of those types of tools on the table for discussion, I don't think the controversy would be as fierce as it has been so far.

[quote="Spike"'CAP Encampments try to have a strong military atmosphere, but most come up very short, because the leaders themselves do not have a strong basis in the military environment.  Most things at Encampments come from either "outdated traditions" or something that a person finds in popular media, like television shows or movies.  Neither source is good for the modern day Cadet program.[/quote]

With your conclusion, I'll follow with mine. The "military atmosphere" isn't something we need to be concerned with, so long as we aren't trying to train our cadets to become soldiers. Most of the techniques that we have discussed (stress, yelling, punitive PT) do NOT make people into soldiers. They are simply tools used for a variety of purposes, such as discipline, time management, etc. A person does not need a "strong basis" in the military to figure out how to use these skills correctly. They simply have to know where the limit is. It does not take me having served in the military to know that yelling a cadet into tears is hazing, and that raising your voice to show a sense of urgency and authority is not. These are skills that ANYONE can learn. The problem is only that CAP has been too hesitant to bother coming up with any sort of guidelines or training that would dictate the appropriate way to use these tools, as they do with things like mentoring, demotions, etc.

Quote1.  In your view, by analogy does this film do a decent job at explaining why encampment has a strong military atmosphere?  Why or why not?

Yes it does (putting a cadet in place of the candidate):

• It shows that the training isn't just "an initiation" (but it certainly has that portion) but it is the beginning of changing the way a cadet thinks.
• It puts a set of standards in front of a cadet for them to master quickly.

Quote2.  If so, how could we capture the reasoning in a short paragraph or two?

The purpose of a military atmosphere is to prepare a cadet to:

• Get the cadet's attention. 
• Get the cadet to react quickly with what he has been trained to do.
• Train the cadet's mind to pay attention to detail
• Teach the cadet there are consequences to each and every action
• Teach the cadet that he is always a member of a team and his actions affect not only him but those around him
• Prepare the cadet to be a member of a team
• Prepare the cadet for the next step - to be a leader

On a personal note, I am here today directly because of the military training I received as a cadet.  I was on my third or fourth solo flight on downwind.  I put the flaps to 10 deg, released the flap switch and went through my GUMPS checklist.  As my eye scan went back through the airspeed indicator, it was just moving through 60 and the stall warning came on.  I reacted without thinking, just as I was trained:  nose down, power, checked flaps.  there is was, the switch had stuck and the flaps were all the way down.  I returned them to the 10 deg position and continued with the approach.

I had been trained as a cadet to react instantly.  I was also the first in my class to solo and the first to make my solo cross country, even though some had 10 plus hours before they got there.  My cadet training also prepared me for college, basic training (graduated 1st in my class) and a host of other things.  To this day, my life is still build on the foundation that was laid as a 14 y/o cadet at an encampment with a SM officer in my face, rolling over my bunk.

Are we training cadets for something? Hell yes!  Whether they are going into the military or they're going into business, the self discipline they will learn at an encampment will last them for a lifetime.

The problem is, we don't have a program to train TACs.  The films we saw showed DIs.  These guys are pros.  But we can train to a standard for TACs that is appropriate in CAP that will

• Ensure each cadet will get a challenging experience
• A TAC will know the difference between FMJ and real training

If this is accomplished in a controlled environment, we'll turn out cadets who are second to none.  Yes, there will be those who will either quit before the encampment, because they heard it was hard, or those who will quit afterwards, because it's not their cup of tea.  Either way, we need to look at the end product.  Do we want a well trained and disciplined cadet going into life or just a former cadet who went to "summer camp" a couple of times at an air force base?

Am I sanctioning abuse?  Heck no!  But we do need to return to some semblance of military training, or we can just put the cadets into polo shirts and give some of them glider training.

Interesting arguments.  One of the arguments against making encampment more military "basic" training that has been missed in this discussion so far, is that one of the major reasons that basic training is made so stressful is to eliminate those who cannot adapt to military life or cannot handle the stresses they may encounter while serving. In CAP, the weeding out of individuals who cannot adapt to "CAP " should have already been accomplished well before a cadet gets to encampment.  In reality Encampment should probably  be more like Technical School. 

For those of you who have not been to an AF Technical School, you still live in a dorm; you have formations, and you usually march to school.  Your room is inspected, but people are not in your face, like they are during basic training.  Instead, your "Senior Training Adviser" is there to advise your fellow students who are appointed flight commanders and to council you when necessarily.

As to the argument that you can get everything in a local squadron, that you can in an encampment, that simply is not true.   An encampment is probably the only time a cadet NCO or cadet Officer will get to fully use their knowledge of drill and ceremony with large formations. Trust me, on that.  When it comes to the academics and exposure to how other units carry out training, the squadron cannot compare either.  With encampment you get a much broader base of instructors and experiences to draw from.  Lastly, the networking that both the seniors and cadets establish, stand all of the parties in good stead through out their years in the program.

What is needed is to not eliminate encampments, but rather what type of atmosphere is correct for them.

Quote from: Who_knows? on January 28, 2010, 08:21:05 PM
Interesting arguments.  One of the arguments against making encampment more military "basic" training that has been missed in this discussion so far, is that one of the major reasons that basic training is made so stressful is to eliminate those who cannot adapt to military life or cannot handle the stresses they may encounter while serving. In CAP, the weeding out of individuals who cannot adapt to "CAP " should have already been accomplished well before a cadet gets to encampment.  In reality Encampment should probably  be more like Technical School. 

Are there really a lot of people who "wash out" of basic training? I have been under the (possibly mistaken) impression that it's pretty hard to fail out. Even those who can't do the PT end up in the PT conditioning flight/squad/whatever. Generally, even people who TRY to wash out don't make it.

I haven't been through BMT. Is this impression wrong?

I went through BCT at Ft. Sill from 7-08 thru 9-08.  In my battery, 2 washed out because they were mentally un-fit (Tried to commit suicide), two were medically discharged.  One refused to train.  I couldn't hit the magic "23" needed to qualify with the m-16.  5 out of 160 soldiers washed.  If you give it all of what you got, you'll do well.  Same for cadets.

Quote from: Nathan on January 28, 2010, 09:19:43 PM
Are there really a lot of people who "wash out" of basic training? I have been under the (possibly mistaken) impression that it's pretty hard to fail out. Even those who can't do the PT end up in the PT conditioning flight/squad/whatever. Generally, even people who TRY to wash out don't make it .

Most flights lose someone - either a wash-back or an elimination.  Today, they allow fairly easy self-eliminations because it is very cost effective.

Quote from: Nathan on January 28, 2010, 09:19:43 PM
I haven't been through BMT.

Yep.

Quote from: Short Field on January 28, 2010, 10:23:12 PM

Quote from: Nathan on January 28, 2010, 09:19:43 PM
I haven't been through BMT.

Yep.

Yet he is very knowledgeable about military training, philosophy and doctrine from what I gather reading his posts.  We that served or are currently serving probably don't know as much about the military as a former Cadet Colonel.  His view is mostly from a Cadet viewpoint, things are a little different when you are a Commander of a Squadron that has more Cadets than some Encampments. 

I am not saying Nathan is not awesome, but is still too close to his transfer date from Cadet to Senior. 

Quote from: Nathan on January 28, 2010, 09:19:43 PM

Quote from: Who_knows? on January 28, 2010, 08:21:05 PM
Interesting arguments.  One of the arguments against making encampment more military "basic" training that has been missed in this discussion so far, is that one of the major reasons that basic training is made so stressful is to eliminate those who cannot adapt to military life or cannot handle the stresses they may encounter while serving. In CAP, the weeding out of individuals who cannot adapt to "CAP " should have already been accomplished well before a cadet gets to encampment.  In reality Encampment should probably  be more like Technical School. 

Are there really a lot of people who "wash out" of basic training? I have been under the (possibly mistaken) impression that it's pretty hard to fail out. Even those who can't do the PT end up in the PT conditioning flight/squad/whatever. Generally, even people who TRY to wash out don't make it.

I haven't been through BMT. Is this impression wrong?

My basic flight had 63 men in it. 44 graduated and that total included 3 set-backs. So yes people definitely do wash out.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/01/rutgers_sorority_members_hazin.html

Now that's Hazing!

Major Lord

Quote from: Spike on January 28, 2010, 10:57:22 PM
I am not saying Nathan is not awesome, but is still too close to his transfer date from Cadet to Senior.

Which somehow makes me LESS qualified to discuss cadet programs issues than anyone else, even senior members with less time in CAP than I have in CP.

Just don't get carried away on the "Military Training" and "Military Atmosphere" stuff until you have been through it.  Even Spaatz Cadets have to go through Basic Training - and get the same advanced rank as my brother when he enlisted for six years. 

Quote from: Ned on January 28, 2010, 04:30:00 PM
1.  In your view, by analogy does this film do a decent job at explaining why encampment has a strong military atmosphere?  Why or why not?

2.  If so, how could we capture the reasoning in a short paragraph or two?

I'm not sure that the comparison really works for a general cadet encampment at all. 

Now, if you used that video to demonstrate why attention to detail and following orders can save yours and others' lives are important in relation to emergency services missions to those going to Hawk Mtn or NESA or one of the flight encampments, it would translate great. 

I have no idea what the "military environment" is like at Hawk or NESA, but from what I've heard here it is almost non-existent at the flight academies, where it would be an almost exact fit for this video. 

Quote from: Short Field on January 29, 2010, 12:39:15 AM
Just don't get carried away on the "Military Training" and "Military Atmosphere" stuff until you have been through it.  Even Spaatz Cadets have to go through Basic Training - and get the same advanced rank as my brother when he enlisted for six years.

It IS possible to figure things out about a certain subject without having been a part of it. I can say I know quite a bit about WWII without having fought it, and that I know quite a bit about chemistry without being a Ph.D.

My point is that the conclusions I came to about the military were based on logic, not experience. Granted, experience has the capability of beating logically-based conclusions. Logically, I concluded that it is unlikely for there to be a combat-related skill that is taught through punitive PT. So, why does the military use punitive PT? My guess is the same reason that we would use punitive PT; it's a teaching tool.

Now, I may be wrong in my conclusion, and I'll even make it easy. If I am wrong, then I'm wrong in one of two places. The first place I can be wrong is where I say that push-ups aren't used in combat. In my admittedly modest bit of knowledge of modern warfighting, I cannot fathom a combat scenario (or even non-combat scenario) where a soldier would perform a set of push-ups as a skill used to further the mission. If your experience is contrary to my logic, then please correct me, and show me where I went wrong. But just telling me I'm wrong because I wasn't in the military doesn't even make sense.

The second place I could be wrong is where I assume that the military would use punitive PT the same way I would imagine any good leader would, if they were using punitive PT. They're using it to supplement their teaching. Now, if I am wrong here, then please correct me.

But it doesn't take "military experience" to talk about why the military might use certain acknowledged training methods, and it certainly doesn't take military experience to think of new and possibly better ways to run the cadet program.

Quote from: Nathan on January 29, 2010, 01:54:14 AM
It IS possible to figure things out about a certain subject without having been a part of it. I can say I know quite a bit about WWII without having fought it, and that I know quite a bit about chemistry without being a Ph.D.

Frankly, that is a presumptuous attitude of the young which is replaced by "reality" as you get older.
In fact, in the past you have asserted that you can't really understand what it is like to be a cadet unless you have been one.

Quote from: Nathan on January 28, 2010, 11:34:58 PM

Quote from: Spike on January 28, 2010, 10:57:22 PM
I am not saying Nathan is not awesome, but is still too close to his transfer date from Cadet to Senior.

Which somehow makes me LESS qualified to discuss cadet programs issues than anyone else, even senior members with less time in CAP than I have in CP.

Yes.  You may have good hands on experience and can speak from first-hand knowledge on being a cadet, however in terms of leading adults, running large activities, raising children, or balancing the wants of a cadet vs. the requirements of the program, you've got some calendars to burn before you will be treated as any sort of expert.

This is the circle of life.  You believe you know everything, and have some special insight that all those before you somehow missed.

We know better.    The indignity you are feeling right now confirms that.

Quote from: Nathan on January 29, 2010, 01:54:14 AM

The first place I can be wrong is where I say that push-ups aren't used in combat. In my admittedly modest bit of knowledge of modern warfighting, I cannot fathom a combat scenario (or even non-combat scenario) where a soldier would perform a set of push-ups as a skill used to further the mission. If your experience is contrary to my logic, then please correct me, and show me where I went wrong. But just telling me I'm wrong because I wasn't in the military doesn't even make sense.

You are wrong.  Pushups build chest, shoulder, arm and back muscles.  Those muscles are required for a person to endure in combat.  Though you will not do pushups to fight the enemy, the endurance of those muscles will help you push an object further, carry a heavier pack, help you march longer and most other things that require upper body strength.  Since Rome, Armies have had soldiers do pushups to strengthen their body to fight the rigors of combat.  You may be wrong because you have not been in the military.  During the beginning of all basic training in all armed services, the recruit knows exactly why pushups are done.  The Army does this by reading the Army Physical Fitness Test instructions to everyone before a PT test.  In it, those instructions explain what the test is for and what it measures. In the front of most PT regs/manuals it explains why it is necessary to prepare the body for combat, and what exercises are specific to doing that. 

I was not a Cadet Colonel, but was a Cadet.  I am a successfull Squadron Commander with many years of the best leadership training available to anyone on this planet (The US Military).  I have been in the deep end of the pool where pushups did mean the difference between life and death.  Where the ability to carry your buddy to safety depended on if you could throw him or her over your back.  Just because we are "older" does not mean we have left our touch with reality and connection to the Cadet Program behind.  Do not forget it is the Senior Member who is charged with conducting that program, who mentors young Cadet Colonels and is the driving force behind every thing Cadet related.

You may know more than a Ph.D relating to chemistry, but you do not have that title.  When you achieve that you will be taken seriously by your peers.  You stated you did not fight in World War Two, yet you know a bit about it.  Frankly you know facts and figures, but you do not know "it".  No one knows "it" unless they have been in "it".  You can never understand where those who served in the armed Forces are coming from, nor what having a Ph.D in chemistry really means until you have "it".  All you can understand is the data, the numbers and formulas and the general accepted ideas that you hear about or read about.

Perhaps spending some more time on the Senior Side of CAP will enlighten your perceptions.  As you spend that time you will come to realize that although you worked hard as a Cadet, there were many more Senior Members working harder to give you your chance to work hard.

Good luck on your Ph.D.

Since what Eclipse said is covered pretty much in this post, I'm just going to address Spike and hope it covers all the bases.

Quote from: Spike on January 29, 2010, 02:34:37 AM
You are wrong.  Pushups build chest, shoulder, arm and back muscles.  Those muscles are required for a person to endure in combat.  Though you will not do pushups to fight the enemy, the endurance of those muscles will help you push an object further, carry a heavier pack, help you march longer and most other things that require upper body strength.  Since Rome, Armies have had soldiers do pushups to strengthen their body to fight the rigors of combat.  You may be wrong because you have not been in the military.  During the beginning of all basic training in all armed services, the recruit knows exactly why pushups are done.  The Army does this by reading the Army Physical Fitness Test instructions to everyone before a PT test.  In it, those instructions explain what the test is for and what it measures. In the front of most PT regs/manuals it explains why it is necessary to prepare the body for combat, and what exercises are specific to doing that.

Which means you're cherry picking what I said and not looking at the overall context, or even reading the title of the thread. It's pretty obvious why PT tests are done. Nobody cares about that. We're talking about "hazing analysis", and I was talking about punitive PT, as stated earlier in the post. If it is necessary for me to assign context to everything I say, that's fine, but I'm hoping that our reading skills can carry us through this debate... 

Quote from: SpikeI was not a Cadet Colonel, but was a Cadet.  I am a successfull Squadron Commander with many years of the best leadership training available to anyone on this planet (The US Military).  I have been in the deep end of the pool where pushups did mean the difference between life and death.  Where the ability to carry your buddy to safety depended on if you could throw him or her over your back.

See above. I'm not talking about PT push-ups. I'm talking about punitive push-ups. That was pretty clear from the context of the post and the thread.

Quote from: SpikeJust because we are "older" does not mean we have left our touch with reality and connection to the Cadet Program behind.  Do not forget it is the Senior Member who is charged with conducting that program, who mentors young Cadet Colonels and is the driving force behind every thing Cadet related.

That is true, and although I would argue that the ideal is a cadet-run program with minimal senior oversight, you're right that it is the seniors who are overly responsible. However, what that DOES mean, as demonstrated by this conversation, is that seniors generally don't have to feel like they have any competition in deciding what is best for the cadets and what might make a better environment. When seniors can easily blow off cadets due to "not having BTDT" or "not having the wizened experience of 1000 years of SM experience", then the ONLY input we have into what the cadets want is by looking at what the SENIORS think the cadets want. There is no reason for the senior members who have run 100 encampments to care what a mere cadet might think. Senior members have NO need to, you know, LEARN anything, right?

I find it a bit amusing that I'm the one getting accused of being a know-it-all. (That was mainly directed at you, Eclipse). :)

Quote from: SpikeYou may know more than a Ph.D relating to chemistry, but you do not have that title.  When you achieve that you will be taken seriously by your peers.  You stated you did not fight in World War Two, yet you know a bit about it.  Frankly you know facts and figures, but you do not know "it".  No one knows "it" unless they have been in "it".  You can never understand where those who served in the armed Forces are coming from, nor what having a Ph.D in chemistry really means until you have "it".  All you can understand is the data, the numbers and formulas and the general accepted ideas that you hear about or read about.

You're missing the point. If I need to tell someone who won the Battle of Midway, I didn't have to fight it. If I wanted to explain to someone how to do an acid-base reaction, I don't need to have a book published on it. I can know enough about it to make something applicable to MY life, even if I'm not THE expert in the subject matter. I don't HAVE to know it all.

Likewise, because I have not been in the military, I would not be able to speak subjectively about the stress involved in BMT, or the exact reasoning behind certain practices, because I wasn't the guy who started them. But I can make logical deductions and inductions. And until I'm proven wrong, there is no reason for me to change that belief. Now, if you can tell me that somehow PT, yelling, and other techniques used by the military that are considered "hazing" in CAP somehow directly correlate into training a soldier and NOT a civilian (as if we were teaching cadets how to lay mines), then you will have proved a point. But until you do, there is no reason to call techniques used by the military to train soldiers "military indoctrination" if such skills can be used to train cadets to be doctors, or lawyers, or teachers, or janitors, and excel at it the same way that the training causes recruits to excel at being soldiers.

EDIT: For what it's worth, I'm not sure why we're spending so much time attacking my credentials to have an opinion on this. Seems like an indication of a weak argument, but if you want to do that, the least you could do is create a new thread specifically telling me that I'm an ignorant punk and not hijacking this one.

Quote from: Nathan on January 29, 2010, 02:59:48 AM
EDIT: For what it's worth, I'm not sure why we're spending so much time attacking my credentials to have an opinion on this. Seems like an indication of a weak argument, but if you want to do that, the least you could do is create a new thread specifically telling me that I'm an ignorant punk and not hijacking this one.

Don't be a hater Nathan.  I did not attack your credentials.  I have no idea of your credentials, I only know you were never in the Service, and did not fight in World War Two nor have a Ph.D.  However you brought into play the idea that people with no actual "in knowledge" of a subject are better at knowing the subject. 

I would like to point out that should I have called you an "ignorant punk" and you were still a Cadet, that may be considered hazing to many here.  Thank you for that fine example!   :clap:       

Quote from: Spike on January 29, 2010, 05:05:45 AM

Quote from: Nathan on January 29, 2010, 02:59:48 AM
EDIT: For what it's worth, I'm not sure why we're spending so much time attacking my credentials to have an opinion on this. Seems like an indication of a weak argument, but if you want to do that, the least you could do is create a new thread specifically telling me that I'm an ignorant punk and not hijacking this one.

Don't be a hater Nathan.  I did not attack your credentials.  I have no idea of your credentials, I only know you were never in the Service, and did not fight in World War Two nor have a Ph.D.  However you brought into play the idea that people with no actual "in knowledge" of a subject are better at knowing the subject. 

I absolutely did not make any such assertion. I was stating how irritating it is that people who were in the military use it as some sort of trump card, especially when the person who is speaking is a cadet or a former cadet. Mainly, that my ideas are what you should be going after, not my validity in speaking about how to better improve our program.

Guys - topic, please.

You can start your own "Nathan is an inexeperienced doofus" thread.  ;)


So, . . . Pressure Point?

Quote from: Spike on January 28, 2010, 06:53:59 PM
By the time many Cadets get to Encampment they have been in the Cadet Program for months, if not years.  The local units have taught drill, customs and courtesies.

That's not been my experience.

I've seen many, many cadets at Encampment who don't know basic C&Cs, don't know how to stand at attention, and can't execute a proper facing movement, despite the fact that we warn the CCs that their cadets should know this stuff before arriving.

Also, a preponderance are in their first or second year as cadets.

Quote from: Ned on January 29, 2010, 06:11:59 AM
So, . . . Pressure Point?

1.  In your view, by analogy does this film do a decent job at explaining why encampment has a strong military atmosphere?  Why or why not?

This film does do a great job at explaining why encampment has a strong military atmosphere, because it shows how the skills developed at encampment are necessary and apply to further training and activities of Civil Air Patrol. When I was a cadet preparing to attend my first encampment, I was told that the purpose of basic encampment was to teach me how to conduct myself properly at other CAP activities. And this was true as the following year I attended a NCSA, and knew from experience how to conduct myself.

2.  If so, how could we capture the reasoning in a short paragraph or two?

CAP encampments present highly disciplined training environments that teach cadets the basic skills necessary to conduct themselves properly during a multi-overnight CAP activity.


I would also like to say I did not observe any hazing in the Pressure Point video. The Marine DI did an outstanding job of providing a demanding military training environment without stepping over the line.

Quote from: Rotorhead on January 29, 2010, 01:17:10 PM

Quote from: Spike on January 28, 2010, 06:53:59 PM
By the time many Cadets get to Encampment they have been in the Cadet Program for months, if not years.  The local units have taught drill, customs and courtesies.

That's not been my experience.

I've seen many, many cadets at Encampment who don't know basic C&Cs, don't know how to stand at attention, and can't execute a proper facing movement, despite the fact that we warn the CCs that their cadets should know this stuff before arriving.

Too true - the "wet Curry" syndrome is all too common, and up until 04, there were plenty of cadets each year with "wet id cards".
Even as it is, we get a few each year who go to graduation in a white shirt/ black pants because their FCU hasn't arrived, and I probably
Photoshop 3 or 4 nametapes or namebadges  because they are wearing a borrowed uniform.

We want them there, because encampment attendance is a good delimiter of retention, but its a challenge with the younger, newer ones.
In fact, cadets really shouldn't be in CAP "years" before their first encampment - this nonsense of Chiefs in basic ranks because they couldn't be bothered for 2-3+ years is ridiculous.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 29, 2010, 03:09:53 PM

Quote from: Rotorhead on January 29, 2010, 01:17:10 PM

Quote from: Spike on January 28, 2010, 06:53:59 PM
By the time many Cadets get to Encampment they have been in the Cadet Program for months, if not years.  The local units have taught drill, customs and courtesies.

That's not been my experience.

I've seen many, many cadets at Encampment who don't know basic C&Cs, don't know how to stand at attention, and can't execute a proper facing movement, despite the fact that we warn the CCs that their cadets should know this stuff before arriving.

Too true - the "wet Curry" syndrome is all too common, and up until 04, there were plenty of cadets each year with "wet id cards".
Even as it is, we get a few each year who go to graduation in a white shirt/ black pants because their FCU hasn't arrived, and I probably
Photoshop 3 or 4 nametapes or namebadges  because they are wearing a borrowed uniform.

We want them there, because encampment attendance is a good delimiter of retention, but its a challenge with the younger, newer ones.
In fact, cadets really shouldn't be in CAP "years" before their first encampment - this nonsense of Chiefs in basic ranks because they couldn't be bothered for 2-3  years is ridiculous.

Once again Bob, your hitting the nail right on the head.   +1000000.  :clap:  Worse yet is when they showed up with their tennis rackets and their rank, name tape and cutouts still in plastic sack from the Bookstore.  But those days of hell are somewhat past us..........some what.  But this is from a Girl Scout so it doesn't count. ;D

Excellent points. In order for a commander to send a cadet to encampment, the cadet must have completed Achievement 1, with the concurrence of the commander, the person ultimately responsible for promotions in a squadron, and the approving authority for a cadets application  to an encampment. To complete the achievement, the cadet must, among other requirements, have mastered rudimentary drill and ceremony, and possess  a complete uniform. Commanders sending a cadet to encampment unprepared, have either willfully gundecked the promotion, or ignorantly approved the cadets' participation on the assumption that a lower echelon adequately trained and certified the cadets progression. A fresh Curry cadet should have the requisite information clearer in his mind, then say the elderly C/Chief hibernating until he turns senior...Sending a cadet who is not prepared by maturity, physical strength, or objective testing is a failure of command, not a failure of the cadet.

So my question is, which model of Squadron is more likely to send an ill-prepared cadet to an encampment? A squadron scoring high in the Girl-Scout Llama camp index, and deeply worried about a kids "self esteem" or a Squadron leaning more towards the Jack Webb, R. Lee Ermey, model?

Major Lord

I'll jump into this one, Major. The squadron that had the cadets showing up with their ranks still in the  plastic no longer exists but these cadets weren't showing up just as c/Amn. They had ranks that varied from c/Amn to c/SSgt and their commander was literally handing them out as they got on the bus. Fortunately, he finally went away to screw up somebody else's day.

As to the Girl Scouts vs. Jack Webb part of the post:

1) I have seen Hooah Hooah Ranger BS squadrons that turned into just plain old Mitchell mills and where the command style was threats and intimidation.

2) That supposed Girl Scout squadron we supposedly belong to was Squadron of Merit for GLR in 80 and the National Squadron of Distinction in 82. So let's not have any more of the Girl Scout comments.

3) It doesn't matter what type of squadron you have if you don't follow the cadet program. Everybody has differrent leadership styles. Maybe the Hooah Hooah ranger BS style works for you. Ours works just fine for us.

I am not advocating for the Girl Scout model or the Jack Webb model. CAP is a horse of a different color, and we need to find a happy medium. Also, I never called your Sq a Girl Scout troop. Your friend is strangely defensive.  I am however openly skeptical of those who reject the paramilitary model that CAP is based on, and find the Phil Donahue mindset generates more "tolerance" of rank flimflammery then the "attention to detail" mindset might. On the other hand , a Jack Webb/R. Lee Ermey SQ would be a dismal failure as soon as the parents saw what was happening. There is a continuum of styles across the organization, and some are producing good results, and some, well......

Major Lord
p.s. If you guys can get me a deal on the thin-mints and peanut butter cookies, I will forgive the little green hats...

Quote from: Major Lord on January 29, 2010, 05:02:01 PM
So my question is, which model of Squadron is more likely to send an ill-prepared cadet to an encampment? A squadron scoring high in the Girl-Scout Llama camp index, and deeply worried about a kids "self esteem" or a Squadron leaning more towards the Jack Webb, R. Lee Ermey, model?

Major Lord

I'm gonna vote for the latter, but in reality, I don't think either would work for everyday squadron-level life.

I'll skip the former, because it clearly isn't realistic. But the the constant scrutiny of the latter would become tiresome to cadets (I think) who attend week after week.

Quote from: Major Lord on January 29, 2010, 11:40:11 PM
I am not advocating for the Girl Scout model or the Jack Webb model. CAP is a horse of a different color, and we need to find a happy medium. Also, I never called your Sq a Girl Scout troop. Your friend is strangely defensive.  I am however openly skeptical of those who reject the paramilitary model that CAP is based on, and find the Phil Donahue mindset generates more "tolerance" of rank flimflammery then the "attention to detail" mindset might. On the other hand , a Jack Webb/R. Lee Ermey SQ would be a dismal failure as soon as the parents saw what was happening. There is a continuum of styles across the organization, and some are producing good results, and some, well......

Major Lord
p.s. If you guys can get me a deal on the thin-mints and peanut butter cookies, I will forgive the little green hats...

Ok, I am going to try this one time.

I am strangely defensive because I don't like bullies and those who get their jollies off on picking on little kids, cadet or senior.  I am defensive because I have seen cadets be abused by people who get their jollies off on advocating push ups for punishment at encampments, seen them deny cadets the use of the bathroom and had them mess themselves.  Not let cadets shower and have time for personal hygiene because they aren't "air force" enough.  Seen them denied food because their bunks were not made right.  Yes major, I have seen this at encampments and I have made it my mission to rid this crap from my wing and the units I have commanded. 

I am strangely defensive because I was bullied as a kid and I am not going to allow it to happen to anyone in my charge. 

A squadron, group or encampment can be professional, attention to detail and "military" without being FMJ, Jack Webb, Gunny Highway or whom ever you all think are bad @## and "real military".  I honestly can't understand all the junk some advocate because some cadet thinks its cool or military or what ever.  I don't get it.  Really, I don't.  I just don't get it. And I most likely never will.   I don't see that it serves any purpose other than training Spec Ops guys or something else like that.  And we don't do that in CAP.  I serve at the pleasure of the Wing Commander and as long as I am commander of the encampment or in a command position in that encampment I will not tolerate or allow such BS to occur.  We have work to long and hard to kill that mentality and legacy the last 10 years.  And when the Commander says I am done, then I will salute, step aside and carry on.  Until that time I will fight tooth and nail to kill the stupidity that is breed and perpetrated in some units by seniors and cadets who think CAP is the SEALS or Green Berets or isn't "military" enough. 

I am defensive because I don't get the attitude that because were not "like you" or we don't to things like "the military" that we are some how part of the girl scouts or inferior in the way we carry out the cadet program.  Again I don't get it. 

Our home squadron was professional, it was defiantly attention to detail, it had the look and feel of the "military" without all the crap that goes along with hazing, yelling, trash can beating, bullying and mind games that a lot of folks think is CAP or military.  Our senior members were coal miners, judges, school superintendents, farmers, electricians, school teachers, lawyers, business men, white collar and blue collar, former Army, Air Force, Marines and Navy.  Vets from WW II, Korea and Viet Nam.  All of them had one thing in common:  to teach and mentor the cadet to be the best they could be.  They lead by example not by the FMJ model.  They lead from the front.  They were professional in every detail.  They had a drive to see each cadet do well, to learn the material, to experience the material and then to teach the material.  There was never any yelling.  There was never any trash can beating. There was never anyting but professionals teaching cadets to be professional.

Our squadron produced: Spaatz cadet, to many Earhart's to count, way to many Mitchells to count, 1 USAF Academy Grad, Members who went on to be members of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines.   Several were officers, a few were aviators, some did "top secret" stuff.  Some cadets went on to be police officers, correction officers, EMT/paramedics and officers in the EMA.  Several own and operate their own businesses.  One administrated a multi million dollar business.  A couple went on to teach and work at a university.  Several served in Gulf War I and II.  We had "the" ground team in our wing for several years competing in several Wing, Region and National SAR COMPS.  And as olefido noted we squadron of distinction and squadron of merit. 

You know something major, the best complement I ever got when I commanded that unit was when former cadets came back to visit on leave from their branch of service or from college and said that they thank us all for what we taught them: How to play "the BS game", how to organize and be squared away, how to think beyond the next command, how to make it in the real world.  Many were leaders in their respective basic training classes or units because they were ahead of the game. 

You know the most cherished memory is when the USAFA grad came home and told me and olefido that the BS games at the academy were easy because of what he had been taught at the local squadron and on our training exercises.  He is still serving today in theater. 

Yes major, I got the sarcasm of the girl scout troop and real ham radio operator comment.  It was really unnecessary and did nothing to contribute to the thread but I got it.  And you continue to carry it forward, so be it.  Go ahead and call all these people girl scouts, you can make fun of us if you think we are "phil donahue" or what ever else you want.  I really don't care cause you weren't there, you didn't contribute, you didn't participate, you didn't experience it and you cant understand.

You can say were not "real military".  And you know what, were not real military, were CAP.  And all of those "real military want a be" members, both cadet and senior, are what gives CAP a bad name and cause the problems that require RST, CPPT, and endless death by powerpoint safety/hazing/abuse/what ever. 

And the thing that disappoints me the most is that in typing this response to you I have allowed my emotions to come out and flood the page and in doing so have let down those who mentored me.  To them I am sorry.  But to no one else.

I am done here, there is nothing left to contribute to this thread. 

Rotorhead,

I agree completely, but I think its safe to say that while either extreme would be awful, we need to be somewhat to the center -right side of the curve, given our basic military model. Starting out lax and flakey is a much harder situation to correct then being too Gung Ho and learning to dial it down. Gundecking promotions and accepting that a member was handing out rank to their cadets just before an encampment to me seems to fall into the left end of the distribution curve. Also, the context of an encampment is very different than day-to-day squadron life. The encampment experience can and should rock a young persons world, but bringing that level of intensity back to the squadron would be way over the top.

Major Lord

Quote from: Major Lord on January 30, 2010, 02:33:29 AM
Rotorhead,

I agree completely, but I think its safe to say that while either extreme would be awful, we need to be somewhat to the center -right side of the curve, given our basic military model. Starting out lax and flakey is a much harder situation to correct then being too Gung Ho and learning to dial it down. Gundecking promotions and accepting that a member was handing out rank to their cadets just before an encampment to me seems to fall into the left end of the distribution curve. Also, the context of an encampment is very different than day-to-day squadron life. The encampment experience can and should rock a young persons world, but bringing that level of intensity back to the squadron would be way over the top.

Major Lord

Concur 100%

Redfox,

It sounds like you have seen some actual, OTG hazing. If any member saw what you described, they would be obligated to report it immediately. In my decade or so of CAP, I have never seen anyone go as far as you have described. When you reported these activities, how did CAP respond?

Major Lord

Quote from: Major Lord on January 30, 2010, 02:43:09 AM
Redfox,

It sounds like you have seen some actual, OTG hazing. If any member saw what you described, they would be obligated to report it immediately. In my decade or so of CAP, I have never seen anyone go as far as you have described. When you reported these activities, how did CAP respond?

Major Lord

Neat me to the question again!  I would also like to ask Refox if he stepped in to intervene when he saw the violations.  Not stopping a violation when you are in a position to stop it makes you just as guilty!!

Spike,

Ahhhh, you correctly saw through my clever little trap.....

Major Lord

Although you did say you were out of the debate, I feel like if you choose to make points, then I should be okay discussing them, even if you don't reply.

Quote from: RedFox24 on January 30, 2010, 02:32:15 AM
I am strangely defensive because I don't like bullies and those who get their jollies off on picking on little kids, cadet or senior.  I am defensive because I have seen cadets be abused by people who get their jollies off on advocating push ups for punishment at encampments, seen them deny cadets the use of the bathroom and had them mess themselves.  Not let cadets shower and have time for personal hygiene because they aren't "air force" enough.  Seen them denied food because their bunks were not made right.  Yes major, I have seen this at encampments and I have made it my mission to rid this crap from my wing and the units I have commanded.

If you saw hazing, I hope you reported it. What is being advocated isn't the right to haze cadets. Hazing happens when things get pushed too far, whether it be push-ups, yelling, drill, cleaning standards, whatever. You can't blame the act for the people to push it too far, and it's hard to know what is too far when there are no guidelines out there for safe use. 

Quote from: RedFox24I am strangely defensive because I was bullied as a kid and I am not going to allow it to happen to anyone in my charge.

So was I. And I wouldn't allow bullying either. But actions in themselves aren't bullying, no more than "killing" is wrong. The context means everything. Killing in self defense isn't bad when compared to killing for no reason. And punitive PT isn't bad when compared to hazing. The context matters.

Quote from: RedFox24A squadron, group or encampment can be professional, attention to detail and "military" without being FMJ, Jack Webb, Gunny Highway or whom ever you all think are bad @## and "real military".  I honestly can't understand all the junk some advocate because some cadet thinks its cool or military or what ever.  I don't get it.  Really, I don't.  I just don't get it. And I most likely never will.   I don't see that it serves any purpose other than training Spec Ops guys or something else like that.  And we don't do that in CAP.  I serve at the pleasure of the Wing Commander and as long as I am commander of the encampment or in a command position in that encampment I will not tolerate or allow such BS to occur.  We have work to long and hard to kill that mentality and legacy the last 10 years.  And when the Commander says I am done, then I will salute, step aside and carry on.  Until that time I will fight tooth and nail to kill the stupidity that is breed and perpetrated in some units by seniors and cadets who think CAP is the SEALS or Green Berets or isn't "military" enough. 

I don't think that doing push ups or yelling makes people into special operations soldiers. If so, then every football team out there would be an excellent source of military firepower. We aren't training cadets in small unit tactics. We'd be using tools that the military uses to make people excel at whatever they do, not just fighting. In that regard, there isn't anything "military" about most of the techniques under discussion.

Quote from: RedFox24I am defensive because I don't get the attitude that because were not "like you" or we don't to things like "the military" that we are some how part of the girl scouts or inferior in the way we carry out the cadet program.  Again I don't get it. 

I haven't personally made that comparison, but I think the point is that if we don't use different tactics in teaching leadership, then there is no reason for someone to join this leadership program as opposed to, say, a church youth group, or the Rotary club, or the boy scouts. Those are perfectly civilian in their implementation, and aim to teach many of the same things we do. Just in a different way. We ARE a different program, and we should embrace that.

Quote from: RedFox24Our home squadron was professional, it was defiantly attention to detail, it had the look and feel of the "military" without all the crap that goes along with hazing, yelling, trash can beating, bullying and mind games that a lot of folks think is CAP or military.  Our senior members were coal miners, judges, school superintendents, farmers, electricians, school teachers, lawyers, business men, white collar and blue collar, former Army, Air Force, Marines and Navy.  Vets from WW II, Korea and Viet Nam.  All of them had one thing in common:  to teach and mentor the cadet to be the best they could be.  They lead by example not by the FMJ model.  They lead from the front.  They were professional in every detail.  They had a drive to see each cadet do well, to learn the material, to experience the material and then to teach the material.  There was never any yelling.  There was never any trash can beating. There was never anyting but professionals teaching cadets to be professional.

No one says that doesn't work. But it doesn't work for everyone in all situations, and certainly doesn't prepare them for every situation they may encounter. Sometimes, things ARE urgent, and there IS a bad punishment for failure. All we'd be doing is adding tools to our toolbox.

Quote from: RedFox24Our squadron produced: Spaatz cadet, to many Earhart's to count, way to many Mitchells to count, 1 USAF Academy Grad, Members who went on to be members of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines.   Several were officers, a few were aviators, some did "top secret" stuff.  Some cadets went on to be police officers, correction officers, EMT/paramedics and officers in the EMA.  Several own and operate their own businesses.  One administrated a multi million dollar business.  A couple went on to teach and work at a university.  Several served in Gulf War I and II.  We had "the" ground team in our wing for several years competing in several Wing, Region and National SAR COMPS.  And as olefido noted we squadron of distinction and squadron of merit.

That's great. I'm not going to get into a pissing contest with you over this, but I will go so far as to say that (without hazing), our wing tended to be a little more toward the "pseudomilitary" standard of cadet program, at least for a while, and my squadron has produced three Spaatz cadets, several Eakers, sent three people into the USAFA, a couple of guys into special operations, numerous EMT's, etc etc etc. I don't think that telling us all the great things your squadron has done is going to make a point that a more aggressive cadet program makes a squadron any less capable of doing great things than a squadron like yours. 

Quote from: RedFox24You know something major, the best complement I ever got when I commanded that unit was when former cadets came back to visit on leave from their branch of service or from college and said that they thank us all for what we taught them: How to play "the BS game", how to organize and be squared away, how to think beyond the next command, how to make it in the real world.  Many were leaders in their respective basic training classes or units because they were ahead of the game.

Same here. Once again, it doesn't prove anything. 
 

Quote from: RedFox24You can say were not "real military".  And you know what, were not real military, were CAP.  And all of those "real military want a be" members, both cadet and senior, are what gives CAP a bad name and cause the problems that require RST, CPPT, and endless death by powerpoint safety/hazing/abuse/what ever.

Uh, that goes both ways. You can say that the "real military wannabes" are the ones who give us a bad name, but I had a much harder time as a recruiter because of the image that CAP ISN'T like the real military. We had a lot of cadets drop out because of what we WEREN'T allowed to do, because we WEREN'T "hardcore" enough. You can't blame it all on one side of the field. The death-by-powerpoint comes from the people who are generally too scared to let us do anything at all for fear of being sued. Case in point, at my year of NBB, we weren't allowed to do fire drills because the safety officer said it would be too dangerous to do it in the middle of the night, and someone might break a leg. Right...

I don't want to pick on Redfox. Clearly, he has some very powerful emotions attached to this issue. I think his arguments tend to highlight the differences between the passive versus proactive leadership style. In the softer Squadron, we see a model of leadership based on protecting the Cadet from abusive members, based primarily on the Leaders fears and remembrances of humiliation at the hands of bullies, he has attempted to create a cocoon of safety and protection around his cadets. In principal, taking care of your cadets is a good thing, and I agree with you that bullies should not be tolerated (" It is better that they should have a mill stone tied around their necks and tossed into the lake than to hurt one of my little ones" J.C.)

The proactive, or military mindset, teaches cadets to react to bullies in a manner that discourages them from future attacks. This grabbing of the bull by the horns is seen as too confrontational by the passive command staff model.

In both models, we are looking at a "zero tolerance" policy for bullies. Just two different ways to achieve the same goal. I will leave it to you to decide which method better prepares a Cadet for real life.

Major Lord

A CAP encampment should not resemble FMJ, nor "Hell Week" in Navy SEAL training, nor the similar physical and mental stress testing faced by
USAF PJ candidates.

It should teach teamwork, leadership, followership, personal responsibility,attention to detail.

Accomplishing this sometimes requires motivation, individual attention, team building events and the like.

It may require a bit of over the top 'acting' by the leaders/instructors, for instance, the flight commander's shock and dismay at the condition of cadets' quarters.

Obviously, any encampment staff needs thorough training for seniors & cadets -- RST is a starting point, not simply a box to mark on a checklist.

And cadet leaders need constant guidance and monitoring by senior leaders, particularly when interacting with cadet trainees. "The line" leading to humiliating or harming a cadet can be approached inadvertently or unintentionally; the senior's role is to call a time out and steer the cadet leader back on track before things get too far.

Quote from: ZigZag911 on January 30, 2010, 05:25:28 PM
A CAP encampment should not resemble FMJ, nor "Hell Week" in Navy SEAL training, nor the similar physical and mental stress testing faced by
USAF PJ candidates.

It should teach teamwork, leadership, followership, personal responsibility,attention to detail.

Accomplishing this sometimes requires motivation, individual attention, team building events and the like.

It may require a bit of over the top 'acting' by the leaders/instructors, for instance, the flight commander's shock and dismay at the condition of cadets' quarters.

Obviously, any encampment staff needs thorough training for seniors & cadets -- RST is a starting point, not simply a box to mark on a checklist.

And cadet leaders need constant guidance and monitoring by senior leaders, particularly when interacting with cadet trainees. "The line" leading to humiliating or harming a cadet can be approached inadvertently or unintentionally; the senior's role is to call a time out and steer the cadet leader back on track before things get too far.

If it helps anyone understand my position, I am 100% in agreement with this post.

Ned,
I found Pressure Point entertaining.  It brought back a lot of memories
of Army Basic.  The DI was very professional in teaching "paying attention to detail".  I didn't see any hazing in this video.
I think those that have been through "basic" will remember the training they received in "basic".  Those that haven't may feel that
the Jack Webb or Pressure Point videos are to harsh. 
I learned from "basic":
Pay attention to detail.
You better listen, no one else will take care of it for you.
It pays to be a winner, you don't want to be last.
You can be replaced.
The mission will be accomplished with or without you.
Mission is ALWAYS more important than the individual.
I never felt like I was hazed in the military.  We all were treated
the same.   I never felt hazed in CAP as a cadet

52-10 explicitly addresses only sexual and physical abuse. The definition of hazing applies to "another" (read individual), causing many to rationalize that "As long as I do it to ALL of them and don't single anyone out, then it's okay."

That said, I feel that the events in the DI video clip are in no way applicable to a cadet encampment, and I think it can be dangerous to compare encampments to Basic Training or Boot Camp because they serve completely different purposes.

Having been enlisted in the Army and completing Basic Training (in the mid 80s) I understand the necessity of "breaking them down to build them up" because the Drill Sergeants are responsible for MAKING soldiers. It is not the duty of encampment staff to MAKE cadets -- they are already cadets when they arrive. It's this difference that causes me to question whether screaming and yelling is actually abusive, rather than if it meets the definition of hazing. If there is another purpose, and screaming and yelling is warranted and/or necessary, I would be very interested in learning what that is.

What greatly concerns me is the young airman who says to himself "I can't wait to come back next year as Staff so I can scream and yell at the cadets," and the senior members who seem amused by watching it happen. I feel very uncomfortable sending one of my senior cadets to serve as Staff at an encampment knowing they will be told to yell at the basics, as it goes against EVERYTHING they've learned at the squadron level about leadership.

Having been hazed at an encampment, I have to say that the Jack Webb video was not hazing.  Not every action he was taking in that scene would be appropriate to CAP.  I would hope that no one would ask a cadet to kill 500 enemies.  I would see that stepping up to a cadet and asking a relevant question for a quick answer helps them think on their feet, so to speak.  The addressing of their training (outdated insults aside) wasn't handled poorly or cruelly.  He did not get in their faces and use his command voice, a la Gunny Hartman/FMJ. 

And aside from the repetitive up and down of the trashcan scene, which is tedious at best and not effective or relevant at encampment, banging on a trashcan to get attention or as a wake up call is not hazing.  I've had cadets that "EVERYBODY UP" or similar did not wake up.  And I'd left my alarm clock at home, so a couple of loud taps on a metal trashcan from across the room is just as effective as a loud beeping noise.  Notice, however that I didn't say that you should bang it in their ear, nor excessively or repetitively.  That would be inappropriate.  And if you disagree, I submit that I've been to encampments that we cadets were in rooms with doors expected to be shut during the night.  Banging on a trashcan in a squad bay type dorm is no different that walking up and down the hallway banging on doors to wake the cadets up inside.

As far as cadets going to encampment and finding a military environment, shouldn't they be going to the unit meetings and finding a military environment?  Yes, it's going to be more intense than your normal two hour weekly meeting for the simple fact that you're at an activity that is like unit meetings for 24 hours for five (plus) days.  No, there is no reason for it to be pedal to the firewall, all go no quit, FMJ for a week, but it will seem more intense than normal because of the length of time.  That's the perception.  We are a military program, cadets should expect a longer military experience because that's the nature of being at it for so long.  No, it's not boot camp, no it's not Hell Week, but by gawd I remember feeling like it had been at the end of the week.  That was my perception.

I went to three different wings for encampments over my cadet career.  And I only saw once (because I was the target) anything that would be considered hazing at any of them.  That scenario was handled properly (without sending any cadet home or undue punishment) and professionally, and it became a learning experience for both sides of the equation.  And I have never felt that the encampment as a whole was destroyed by that. 

My guess is now, however, that the things I experienced as a cadet might be construed as hazing by timid or politically correct officers.  I never felt they were, punitive PT and all.  I was a better cadet for having experienced it. 

In reality I do not think it is hazing.

Definition form yourdictionary.com: ☆ to initiate or discipline (fellow students) by forcing to do ridiculous, humiliating, or painful things

In no way is he doing anything "humiliating." Or at least on the scale that is done by Gunnery Sergeant Hartman on Full Metal jacket. Kinda hard to explain my view so here are some videos:

Hazing -

CAUTION: LANGUAGE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IXB-DQj5VM&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IXB-DQj5VM&feature=related) - 3:39
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVA-cqASg8k&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVA-cqASg8k&feature=related)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1trZQcY7gts&feature=fvw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1trZQcY7gts&feature=fvw) - I dont think there is any "language."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzQBx2Ij2xk&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzQBx2Ij2xk&feature=related)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAV2B1nNnR4&aia=true (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAV2B1nNnR4&aia=true)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqnaBeV5Isk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqnaBeV5Isk)

One thing I want to point out with the Drill Sergeants, Drill Instructors, ect. They take classes so they are supposed to know when they are pushing someone TOO far and when they may snap, ect.