Enhanced Cadet Protection Policy for '14 - ROUND 2

[Eclipse]

Well folks, it's swung. We've fully left the idea of protecting minors and are now allowing CAP, Inc. to pretty much restrict legal adults in not just a social setting but also injecting itself in areas such as other organizations, our employers and even academia. There is no logical reason for CAP, Inc. to inject themselves into the activities of legal adults outside of CAP and I can tell you from those in CAP that I've discussed this with that this part of the CPP will likely be met with noncompliance.

Plenty of organizations, for very good reasons, prohibit fraternization between employees, or between subordinates and superiors, or based on any number of factors.

"Non-compliance" = "non-membership", and frankly, if a simple, clear, and appropriate rule like this is too hard to comply with, for whatever reason, we don't need those people in
our organization.

You've already got rank and file generally looking the other way in regard to adult cadets and younger senior members dating as it stands now.

Really?  Where?  Those "rank and file" need to be "ex-members"

[Alaric]

In-Person Contact. Colloquially known as the "coffee shop rule." Adult members will not meet with cadets outside of official CAP activities without the prior approval of the cadet's parent. If in-person contact is necessary, a third person must be present, and the meeting must take place in a public space (e.g. restaurant, mall, etc.). In the case of relationships that existed prior to the cadet or adult member joining CAP (e.g.: next-door neighbor or family friend), the cadet's parent may exempt the adult member from this requirement. No special paperwork is needed to document any of these situations; oral acknowledgements from the parent(s) are sufficient.

So here you have adult member.  So this include cadets the age of majority, which is 18 for me.  The way I read this is that a cadet 18 years of age and a cadet 17 years of age cannot meet outside of CAP.    Also, what happens if it is a 20 year old cadet and a senior member.  Does this 20 year old cadet still need parental permission?  Or is he exempt because cadet refers to 17 and below here?  Are both cadets exempt because of 3-3 Cadet to Cadet relations?

So Ned, since you are a legal guy, can you help me understand this better?  Obviously I know this is still just a draft and has no base until fully published.

Good catch.  That's a typo in the draft. Should read as "adult leaders" instead of adult members for the "coffee shop" rule.

Score another point for allowing review and comment on draft regulations.

Just out of curiosity how does this work if the CAP relationship is not known. (for instance: I belong to a bookclub in my town in CT.  Another person in the club makes some cogent comments regarding the book we are reading.  After the meeting I suggest we adjourn to the coffee shop to continue our discussion.  I later find that this person is a 18 year old cadet in a different squadron then the one I am a member of, have I violated regulations?  Am I now supposed to ask any person I speak to a) if they are between 18 and 21 and b) if a is yes are they members of the Civil Air Patrol?

[Ned]

Just out of curiosity how does this work [ the coffee shop rule] if the CAP relationship is not known. (for instance: I belong to a bookclub in my town in CT.  Another person in the club makes some cogent comments regarding the book we are reading.  After the meeting I suggest we adjourn to the coffee shop to continue our discussion.  I later find that this person is a 18 year old cadet in a different squadron then the one I am a member of, have I violated regulations?

Robert,

Assuming there was not a third person present and/or you did not have parental permission to meet with cadet outside of authorized CAP activities, then the draft regulation would indeed have been violated.  Unknowingly, of course, but still violated.

It is entirely possible to violate CAP regulations unknowingly; it's just usually no big deal. Heck, I'll bet we've all done it many times.  I know I have.  Examples include missing a suspense on a report you didn't know you had to write, wearing  the old IACE ribbon because you didn't know it had been changed, addressing someone as "captain" because you didn't know they had been promoted to major, accidentally buying a prohibited item at AAFES, etc., etc. 

So how should you handle the situation in your hypo?

You handle it the same way that the Scouts and all other youth-serving organizations do.  Once you discover that the person is a cadet, you simply follow the regulation and arrange for a third person to be present at any meetings (which shouldn't be a problem for an active book club) and make sure you have the required parental permission.

If it were me, I would also advise the responsible commanders that I had met with the cadet and the circumstances.

But surely you can see the reason why it has to be written the way it is:  to avoid "willful ignorance." 

Gosh, you can't discipline me!  I didn't know the cadet was 15!  Honest.  Now that I think about it, I didn't even know the cadet was in CAP, and you can't prove otherwise.  So I'm home free.  Just like the last two times.

The draft regulation is intended to provide the framework and rationale to allow commanders to exercise their common sense and leadership to protect both cadets and seniors from harm.

I have faith in the wisdom of our volunteer leaders, especially those at the squadron level.  And particularly when the can see both the rule, and the reasons for it.

[Alaric]

Just out of curiosity how does this work [ the coffee shop rule] if the CAP relationship is not known. (for instance: I belong to a bookclub in my town in CT.  Another person in the club makes some cogent comments regarding the book we are reading.  After the meeting I suggest we adjourn to the coffee shop to continue our discussion.  I later find that this person is a 18 year old cadet in a different squadron then the one I am a member of, have I violated regulations?

Robert,

Assuming there was not a third person present and/or you did not have parental permission to meet with cadet outside of authorized CAP activities, then the draft regulation would indeed have been violated.  Unknowingly, of course, but still violated.

It is entirely possible to violate CAP regulations unknowingly; it's just usually no big deal. Heck, I'll bet we've all done it many times.  I know I have.  Examples include missing a suspense on a report you didn't know you had to write, wearing  the old IACE ribbon because you didn't know it had been changed, addressing someone as "captain" because you didn't know they had been promoted to major, accidentally buying a prohibited item at AAFES, etc., etc. 

So how should you handle the situation in your hypo?

You handle it the same way that the Scouts and all other youth-serving organizations do.  Once you discover that the person is a cadet, you simply follow the regulation and arrange for a third person to be present at any meetings (which shouldn't be a problem for an active book club) and make sure you have the required parental permission.

If it were me, I would also advise the responsible commanders that I had met with the cadet and the circumstances.

But surely you can see the reason why it has to be written the way it is:  to avoid "willful ignorance." 

No actually I think it is a huge overreach of the organization to think that their rules over ride US law. Here's an idea, lets treat the people who are over 18 like adults.  If that means we get rid of 18 - 21 year old "cadet" members so be it. An 18 year old does not need to notify or obtain permission of his/her parents to:

Vote; smoke; join the Military; travel; marry; leave the country; get a job; quit a job; etc.  As far as I am aware 18 year olds are protected by the US Constitution, which includes among others the right of free assembly.  A parent has no legal right to tell an 18 year old who they can or cannot associate with (at least not in the state of CT)

[NIN]

No actually I think it is a huge overreach of the organization to think that their rules over ride US law. Here's an idea, lets treat the people who are over 18 like adults.  If that means we get rid of 18 - 21 year old "cadet" members so be it. An 18 year old does not need to notify or obtain permission of his/her parents to:

Vote; smoke; join the Military; travel; marry; leave the country; get a job; quit a job; etc.  As far as I am aware 18 year olds are protected by the US Constitution, which includes among others the right of free assembly.  A parent has no legal right to tell an 18 year old who they can or cannot associate with (at least not in the state of CT)

Mmmm. I love popcorn.  Pat, Bob, Dave, you guys want me to pop some extra?  this is gonna be like a mini-series premiere.

[Ned]

No actually I think it is a huge overreach of the organization to think that their rules over ride US law.

Robert,

I actually agree with you that it would be "huge overreach for any organization to think that their rules over ride US law."

Thank Goodness CAP doesn't.

In fact, for CPP purposes,  we think it is so important to NOT overreach state or local laws that we put that in paragraph 1-1 of the draft regulation.  Check it out.  We wrote

Supremacy of Law.[. . .] If ever this regulation comes into conflict with state or federal law, the law shall supercede the regulation.

But I'm not sure that was what you were trying to say.

I think you were trying to say something like "If the Constitution and applicable state and federal laws allow 18 year-olds in Connecticut to hang out without their parents' permission, how can CAP have a rule that would restrict that on rare occasions?"  Or something like that.

And the answer is pretty simple, really.  Any organization can have rules that are more restrictive than law.  And almost all do.  And the members agree to abide by them.

For example, I suspect we would agree that normally it would be a "huge overreach for any organization" to tell you how to dress.  And yet, countless public and private organizations -- including CAP -- routinely tell their members how to dress, at least while participating with the organization.  Fraternal organizations, businesses, schools, youth groups, churches, etc., commonly restrict what you can wear when.  And their members / employees / patrons comply because they choose to do so.

Here's an idea, lets treat the people who are over 18 like adults.  If that means we get rid of 18 - 21 year old "cadet" members so be it. An 18 year old does not need to notify or obtain permission of his/her parents to:

Vote; smoke; join the Military; travel; marry; leave the country; get a job; quit a job; etc.  As far as I am aware 18 year olds are protected by the US Constitution, which includes among others the right of free assembly.  A parent has no legal right to tell an 18 year old who they can or cannot associate with (at least not in the state of CT)

That is the beauty of the Constitution, all right.  It protects not only 18 year olds in Connecticut, but minors and adults everywhere in the good old USA.  It even protects non-citizens.  And it protects the rights of organizations like CAP to set reasonable rules to protect their members.

I am certainly not an expert in Connecticut law, but as near as I can tell everything you have described about it is correct. 

It is just not very helpful to the conversation for a couple of reasons.  First, CAP has units in several states and commonwealths where the age of majority is not 18.  But far more importantly, the age of majority is simply irrelevant is this regard because the concepts of "aulthood" and "cadethood" are unrelated in the first place.



BTW, can a Connecticut 18 year old:

1.  Buy or carry a handgun?

2.  Buy a drink in a bar?

3.  Gamble, even in a Connecticut casino?

4.  Be elected to the US House of Representatives or the US Senate?


There are a lot of age-related restrictions in this country, not all of which relate to the local "age of majority."  But this is legal trivia unrelated to CPP.

[Alaric]

No actually I think it is a huge overreach of the organization to think that their rules over ride US law.

Robert,

I actually agree with you that it would be "huge overreach for any organization to think that their rules over ride US law."

Thank Goodness CAP doesn't.

In fact, for CPP purposes,  we think it is so important to NOT overreach state or local laws that we put that in paragraph 1-1 of the draft regulation.  Check it out.  We wrote

Supremacy of Law.[. . .] If ever this regulation comes into conflict with state or federal law, the law shall supercede the regulation.

In which case telling cadets or seniors they need permission to interact outside of CAP is illegal


[/quote]
But I'm not sure that was what you were trying to say.

I think you were trying to say something like "If the Constitution and applicable state and federal laws allow 18 year-olds in Connecticut to hang out without their parents' permission, how can CAP have a rule that would restrict that on rare occasions?"  Or something like that.

And the answer is pretty simple, really.  Any organization can have rules that are more restrictive than law.  And almost all do.  And the members agree to abide by them.

For example, I suspect we would agree that normally it would be a "huge overreach for any organization" to tell you how to dress.  And yet, countless public and private organizations -- including CAP -- routinely tell their members how to dress, at least while participating with the organization.  Fraternal organizations, businesses, schools, youth groups, churches, etc., commonly restrict what you can wear when.  And their members / employees / patrons comply because they choose to do so.

[/quote]

What you can wear at their events I am a member of the Shrine, the Masons, a volunteer with the Red Cross and a member of a shul, none of whom think they have the right to tell me who I can interact with outside the purview of their activities. or how to dress.

Here's an idea, lets treat the people who are over 18 like adults.  If that means we get rid of 18 - 21 year old "cadet" members so be it. An 18 year old does not need to notify or obtain permission of his/her parents to:

Vote; smoke; join the Military; travel; marry; leave the country; get a job; quit a job; etc.  As far as I am aware 18 year olds are protected by the US Constitution, which includes among others the right of free assembly.  A parent has no legal right to tell an 18 year old who they can or cannot associate with (at least not in the state of CT)

[/quote]
That is the beauty of the Constitution, all right.  It protects not only 18 year olds in Connecticut, but minors and adults everywhere in the good old USA.  It even protects non-citizens.  And it protects the rights of organizations like CAP to set reasonable rules to protect their members.

I am certainly not an expert in Connecticut law, but as near as I can tell everything you have described about it is correct. 

It is just not very helpful to the conversation for a couple of reasons.  First, CAP has units in several states and commonwealths where the age of majority is not 18.  But far more importantly, the age of majority is simply irrelevant is this regard because the concepts of "aulthood" and "cadethood" are unrelated in the first place.

[/quote]

BTW, can a Connecticut 18 year old:

1.  Buy or carry a handgun?

Yes, under certain supervised conditions (carry, not buy)

2.  Buy a drink in a bar?

No as the Federal government used its influence to raise the drinking age to 21 in all states

3.  Gamble, even in a Connecticut casino?

No, but not because of the gambling (they can buy lottery tickets), but because alcohol is served on the floor

4.  Be elected to the US House of Representatives or the US Senate?

No, as the constitution sets the age to be elected

There are a lot of age-related restrictions in this country, not all of which relate to the local "age of majority."  But this is legal trivia unrelated to CPP.
[/quote]

I have no intention of asking anyone outside of a CAP event if they are a member of CAP, in the same way I don't ask people what political party they belong to, what religion, or what sports teams they like.  If CAP thinks they have oversight over the membership to such an extent, or that they should, then the great sucking sound you hear will be members exiting.

[Ned]

In which case telling cadets or seniors they need permission to interact outside of CAP is illegal.

Are you sure?  I like a legal debate as much as the next guy.  (Probably more than the next guy, really.)  But this isn't even close.


Robert, I understand your position.  I really do.  It is one held by others in this very thread.  And, all things considered, it is not an unreasonable position
.

But it is not the mainstream position.  As I've said a couple of times, no national youth-serving organization allows the adult leaders to date the youth they are supposed to be training.

I'll extend the same invitation to you as I have to others -- please point us to an organization that does.


In the meantime, we encourage CAP seniors to lead, mentor, and inspire our cadets.  Which is sort of the whole point of being a senior in CP. 

You want to meet a bunch of cadets and take them to see "Lone Survivor" on a Saturday afternoon and then discuss small unit leadership and ethics on the battlefield?  Great!  Just have another senior and parental permission.  You want to meet with the cadet commander at Starbucks after the meeting to talk about prospects for flight commander job coming open?  Nothing wrong with that (as long as there is a second senior and Mom is OK with it.)

[Referencing organizations that tell you how to dress.] What you can wear at their events I am a member of the Shrine, the Masons, a volunteer with the Red Cross and a member of a shul, none of whom think they have the right to tell me who I can interact with outside the purview of their activities. or how to dress.

I have no reason to think you are incorrect about the Shrine, Masons, ARC, or even your schul.  They have every right to set their own rules.  Just like we do.

But, if you were a high school teacher or college professor, your boss would absolutely be able to tell you that you cannot date your students, even your adult students. 

If you were an FBI agent, you lose your "rights" to hang around with mafioso.  Even on your own time.  Especially on your own time.



The notion that "CAP can't tell me what to do on my own time" certainly sounds like it ought to be right.  Heck, it sounds ruggedly American, and most people would probably agree with it on a poll.

But like many slogans, it doesn't really make sense if you think about it for a bit.  We already have several non-controversial rules about what members can and can't do "on their own time."

• We require cadets to have good grades at school in order to participate as a cadet.  School is obviously done "on their own time."
  
• We terminate members who get convicted of a felony.  Conduct that was engaged in "on their own time" and (hopefully) away from CAP activities.
  
• A senior can't be an officer without a GED, or national commander without a BA.  Education that takes place "on their own time."
  
• If you were to drive to your commander's house at 0300 and start screaming in a loud voice in the street about how screwed up she is, I suspect not even your First Amendment rights would preserve your membership.

We already have reasonable rules in place that govern the conduct of members "on their own time."  This is no different.

I have no intention of asking anyone outside of a CAP event if they are a member of CAP, in the same way I don't ask people what political party they belong to, what religion, or what sports teams they like. 

You can relax, because nothing in the draft regulation says you have to something that silly.  And if it is any comfort, using the 2010 census data, less than .005% of the roughly 19,000.000 18-21 year olds walking down the street in the US are CAP cadets.  You'll be fine.

[Alaric]

In which case telling cadets or seniors they need permission to interact outside of CAP is illegal.

Are you sure?  I like a legal debate as much as the next guy.  (Probably more than the next guy, really.)  But this isn't even close.


Robert, I understand your position.  I really do.  It is one held by others in this very thread.  And, all things considered, it is not an unreasonable position
.

But it is not the mainstream position.  As I've said a couple of times, no national youth-serving organization allows the adult leaders to date the youth they are supposed to be training.

I'll extend the same invitation to you as I have to others -- please point us to an organization that does.


In the meantime, we encourage CAP seniors to lead, mentor, and inspire our cadets.  Which is sort of the whole point of being a senior in CP. 

You want to meet a bunch of cadets and take them to see "Lone Survivor" on a Saturday afternoon and then discuss small unit leadership and ethics on the battlefield?  Great!  Just have another senior and parental permission.  You want to meet with the cadet commander at Starbucks after the meeting to talk about prospects for flight commander job coming open?  Nothing wrong with that (as long as there is a second senior and Mom is OK with it.)

[Referencing organizations that tell you how to dress.] What you can wear at their events I am a member of the Shrine, the Masons, a volunteer with the Red Cross and a member of a shul, none of whom think they have the right to tell me who I can interact with outside the purview of their activities. or how to dress.

I have no reason to think you are incorrect about the Shrine, Masons, ARC, or even your schul.  They have every right to set their own rules.  Just like we do.

But, if you were a high school teacher or college professor, your boss would absolutely be able to tell you that you cannot date your students, even your adult students. 

If you were an FBI agent, you lose your "rights" to hang around with mafioso.  Even on your own time.  Especially on your own time.



The notion that "CAP can't tell me what to do on my own time" certainly sounds like it ought to be right.  Heck, it sounds ruggedly American, and most people would probably agree with it on a poll.

But like many slogans, it doesn't really make sense if you think about it for a bit.  We already have several non-controversial rules about what members can and can't do "on their own time."

• We require cadets to have good grades at school in order to participate as a cadet.  School is obviously done "on their own time."
  
• We terminate members who get convicted of a felony.  Conduct that was engaged in "on their own time" and (hopefully) away from CAP activities.
  
• A senior can't be an officer without a GED, or national commander without a BA.  Education that takes place "on their own time."
  
• If you were to drive to your commander's house at 0300 and start screaming in a loud voice in the street about how screwed up she is, I suspect not even your First Amendment rights would preserve your membership.

We already have reasonable rules in place that govern the conduct of members "on their own time."  This is no different.

I have no intention of asking anyone outside of a CAP event if they are a member of CAP, in the same way I don't ask people what political party they belong to, what religion, or what sports teams they like. 

You can relax, because nothing in the draft regulation says you have to something that silly.  And if it is any comfort, using the 2010 census data, less than .005% of the roughly 19,000.000 18-21 year olds walking down the street in the US are CAP cadets.  You'll be fine.

First of all, my example has nothing to do with dating.  I am much too old to want to date a teenager.  Mine was about interaction.  If the hidebound "nanny-state" regulation makers behind this believe that every interaction between two people is a date, perhaps we have the wrong people in charge.  My scenario was about 2 people discussing books.  Though I can easily extend that to discussing Masonry with a new brother, the sermon with a member of the synagogue.  If the regulation hounds believe that the adult leaders are waiting in the wings to pounce on the 18-21 year old cadet, maybe we need to change our screening criteria and otherwise treat adults like adults.

[NIN]

If I run into a cadet in the local coffee shop, I might even have a conversation with them.

Not against the rules.

I'd probably mention it to my CO, just to keep things above board.

One of my cadets works at the local Radio Shack.  The reason I won't shop there has nothing to do with him..

Another works as a bagger at the supermarket I frequent.  Am I to switch grocery stores? No.

(edited to make clear I don't frequent my supermarket as a bagger.. Darn English tripping me up!)

[Eclipse]

Though I can easily extend that to discussing Masonry with a new brother, the sermon with a member of the synagogue.  If the regulation hounds believe that the adult leaders are waiting in the wings to pounce on the 18-21 year old cadet, maybe we need to change our screening criteria and otherwise treat adults like adults.

They. Are. Not. Adults.  At least in as much as while it still says "cadet" on their ID card.

They want opportunities which are not open to adults, including but not limited to scholarships, activities where
they are not responsible for themselves or others, and training and mentorship.  The agreement is that if they want these,
they must accept the position as a "student".  At any point where they feel the loss of some options in regards to some interactions
and activities is too onerous, they can choose to become an "adult" in the CAP context.

The flip side is that on the "adult" side, it is our responsibility to protect both the cadet and the organization.
Not all harassment and inappropriate relationships is sexual.  It is also about program integrity and proper conduct.
A cadet who has a personal, non-CAP relationship with an adult leader may receive favoritism in the form of
undeserved promotions, activity staff appointment, those same scholarships, etc.

Your analogy about parents of 18-year old children applies, but not in the way you intended.
Certainly, in most cases, an 18 year old is free to disregard his parents' wishes, however he does so
at the risk of also losing his parents' support, both financial and otherwise.

Your other comments about the "nanny state" and how the feds have stepped in and taken rights from those
under 21 indicates you may have a more libertarian view, which is your right, but applying that in a CAP context
doesn't accept the practical reality of the world we exist in, nor the conduct of the vast majority of situations
where those over 18 are still considered "students" or otherwise subordinate.

[Alaric]

If I run into a cadet in the local coffee shop, I might even have a conversation with them.

Not against the rules.

I'd probably mention it to my CO, just to keep things above board.

One of my cadets works at the local Radio Shack.  The reason I won't shop there has nothing to do with him..

Another works as a bagger at the supermarket I frequent.  Am I to switch grocery stores? No.

(edited to make clear I don't frequent my supermarket as a bagger.. Darn English tripping me up!)

All of those scenarios are predicated on the idea you know they are cadets.  There are 8 cadets in my squadron, there are 350 cadets in my state.  Of the the 350, I can identify approximately 10 of them.  So unless the cadet at the coffee shop, radio shack, or supermarket is wearing his uniform, I'm not going to know of his/her affiliation

[Eclipse]

All of those scenarios are predicated on the idea you know they are cadets.  There are 8 cadets in my squadron, there are 350 cadets in my state.  Of the the 350, I can identify approximately 10 of them.  So unless the cadet at the coffee shop, radio shack, or supermarket is wearing his uniform, I'm not going to know of his/her affiliation

And until you do, the only people who will be aware of any issue is the NSA.

However at the point where either of you realizes the other is involved in CAP, then it's time to disengage.

[NIN]

All of those scenarios are predicated on the idea you know they are cadets.  There are 8 cadets in my squadron, there are 350 cadets in my state.  Of the the 350, I can identify approximately 10 of them.  So unless the cadet at the coffee shop, radio shack, or supermarket is wearing his uniform, I'm not going to know of his/her affiliation

So? I can't tell you how many times I've interacted with people who were in some special status and I never knew (cop, judge, child sex offender, CIA agent, etc). When it was time to know, and there was a reason, we knew.

Same thing with a cadet. If you have a conversation about a book at a book store with a cadet, and he doesn't know you're in CAP and you don't know he's in CAP, whats the issue?  You can't know EVERYTHING.

Years ago a buddy of mine (former cadet, then SM) was going to college.  This was in the early days of the CPP.

He said "I gotta check for wing patches when I meet a chick at a party!"

[Alaric]

Though I can easily extend that to discussing Masonry with a new brother, the sermon with a member of the synagogue.  If the regulation hounds believe that the adult leaders are waiting in the wings to pounce on the 18-21 year old cadet, maybe we need to change our screening criteria and otherwise treat adults like adults.

They. Are. Not. Adults.  At least in as much as while it still says "cadet" on their ID card.

They want opportunities which are not open to adults, including but not limited to scholarships, activities where
they are not responsible for themselves or others, and training and mentorship.  The agreement is that if they want these,
they must accept the position as a "student".  At any point where they feel the loss of some options in regards to some interactions
and activities is too onerous, they can choose to become an "adult" in the CAP context.

The flip side is that on the "adult" side, it is our responsibility to protect both the cadet and the organization.
Not all harassment and inappropriate relationships is sexual.  It is also about program integrity and proper conduct.
A cadet who has a personal, non-CAP relationship with an adult leader may receive favoritism in the form of
undeserved promotions, activity staff appointment, those same scholarships, etc.

Your analogy about parents of 18-year old children applies, but not in the way you intended.
Certainly, in most cases, an 18 year old is free to disregard his parents' wishes, however he does so
at the risk of also losing his parents' support, both financial and otherwise.

Your other comments about the "nanny state" and how the feds have stepped in and taken rights from those
under 21 indicates you may have a more libertarian view, which is your right, but applying that in a CAP context
doesn't accept the practical reality of the world we exist in, nor the conduct of the vast majority of situations
where those over 18 are still considered "students" or otherwise subordinate.

Point by point

According to the law they are adults, that cadet card is not for instance going to get them tried as a juvenile if they commit a crime.

Student and adult are not antonyms, I am currently a student, and am old enough to have a child that would be a senior member.

Ned is  the one who keep mentioning dating, not I.  Cadets may also receive (or be victims of) favoritism due to the fact they are members of the same church, their parents are friends of the commander, or any other flawed reason commanders show favoritism.  Since most scholarships and activity appointments are done by committee here I don't know how much an individual's favoritism would influence but it could.

Your analogy about parents of 18-year old children applies, but not in the way you intended.
Certainly, in most cases, an 18 year old is free to disregard his parents' wishes, however he does so
at the risk of also losing his parents' support, both financial and otherwise.

Yes that would mean he/she was making an adult decision, not wishing to be dependent on his/her parents.  Many young people do that and when the parents say something along the lines of "as long as you live under my roof"  they stop living there

Your other comments about the "nanny state" and how the feds have stepped in and taken rights from those
under 21 indicates you may have a more libertarian view ...

I didn't say anything about the feds stepping in, I was speaking strictly of the overreach of this organization.  If you are going to quote me, then please be accurate

[Eclipse]

According to the law they are adults,

Yes they are, within a somewhat limited lane, and mostly irrelevant to the conversation. 18 year old "adults" also pay 50%+ more for car insurance.
There has to be a number somewhere, but on the whole, society does not consider people under 21 as "adults". 

Yes that would mean he/she was making an adult decision, not wishing to be dependent on his/her parents.  Many young people do that and when the parents say something along the lines of "as long as you live under my roof"  they stop living there.

And any 18-year old cadet wishing to make "adult decisions" in a CAP context, is also free to transfer to adult status.  Otherwise, the only option is to abide or leave.
Perfectly legal and reasonable.

Were CAP so inclined, it could require all pilots be 35, and all seniors retire at 60. Both reasonable and legal.
If it affected membership or readiness, they might see fit to adjust.

In this case, the number of people with issues will not be statistically significant, and in many cases it may well
weed out members with other issues in regards to decision making.  Certainly the general public will view them
as reasonable since they are in line with the practice, as Ned says, of every other similar organization and
youth development group.

Even if your points were valid, there is no advantage to CAP being an outlier in this regard.

[Panache]

In which case telling cadets or seniors they need permission to interact outside of CAP is illegal

How can it be "illegal" if membership in CAP is voluntary, and either the cadet or the SM can quit at any time they want if they wish to pursue a cadet-SM relationship?

If you wish to be in CAP, you abide by the rules they set.  If you don't want to follow their rules, you can leave the organization.

[NIN]

<snip>
Cadets may also receive (or be victims of) favoritism due to the fact they are members of the same church, their parents are friends of the commander, or any other flawed reason commanders show favoritism.  Since most scholarships and activity appointments are done by committee here I don't know how much an individual's favoritism would influence but it could.

So could cadets under the age 18.

Either I'm missing your point, or you're not making a really understandable argument here.

[Eclipse]

This is what the draft actual says:

Professional & Prior Relationships.
1. Relationships Developed Through CAP. Most adult leaders come to know cadets only through their mutual
CAP membership. The purpose of this section (§2-5) is to ensure that the adult leader's and cadet's relationship
remains professional if they interact outside of CAP activities. Adult leaders are not to develop personal, peer-to-peer
relationships with cadets they meet through CAP, but to maintain a degree of professional distance similar to
the social expectations that guide teachers interacting with their students, or military officers with their trainees.

2. Prior & Professional Relationships. Nevertheless, some adult leaders and cadets will enter CAP already
possessing a personal relationship with one another, as in the case of family relatives, neighbors, and acquaintances,
for example. CAP presumes that those prior relationships will continue, so the adult leader's interactions with the
cadet outside of CAP activities in a non-CAP capacity are not bound by this regulation. Similarly, professional
relationships sometimes develop between an adult leader and a cadet, as in the case of physicians, teachers,
coworkers, etc. In those situations, the adult leader's interactions with the cadet outside of CAP activities in a non-
CAP capacity are also not bound by this regulation.

This covers existing outside relationships and new ones which might develop through appropriate circumstances,
including the book club.  If the only place you know Cadet Simpson is through CAP, don't invite him for coffee.
If through external circumstances you have an appropriate relationship, Que Sera, Sera.

Where's the issue?

[abdsp51]

I think the intent of thge draft is to update CPP and cover situations that may occur. Is a18 yo cadet an adult yes by legal standard.  Will cadets and SM interact outside CAP yes, though it shouldn't become  a trend.  Sorry but I'm with Eclipse on this if a 18yo cadet wants the perks of adult stuff in the organization they need to become a SM, until they should be treated as a cadet.