Hazing

[ZigZag911]

"Incorrect"?

I think you mean, "I disagree", don't you?

That citation, is, in fact, CAP's definition of physical abuse.

This is CAP.

Anyone else's definition both irrelevant and immaterial.

However, I believe if one chose to do the research, more than a few states prohibit
corporal punishment in schools....and I further believe that the same research will indicate that assigning exercises as punishment is considered a form of corporal punishment in those states.

Now, let me go on a bit: in my long years of CAP membership, cadet (Earhart) and senior, I have on occasion seen the old 'drop and give me 20'.

In most instances it was power-trip for immature cadet officers or cadet NCOs.

On a few occasions, in my own cadet days, it constituted a power-trip by immature seniors.

I can only recall one or two instances when it was carried to the point that it humiliated or otherwise caused emotional distress to cadets.

The problem was that it set a very negative tone in several areas:

1) exercise was reduced to punishment, when we were trying to teach a healthy lifestyle
2) leadership turned into a childish game of "gotcha"
3) the relationship between leaders/led turned into "them against us".

The issue, however, is not whether I 'prove' what abuse is or not.

For our purposes, it is a given, according to regulations, that assigning exercise as punishment is physical abuse.

I have yet to read a compelling argument in this thread for changing that regulation.

[Pace]

Every time I've seen this debate it ultimately boils down to this:

Besides the CAP black and white that makes it hazing, PT is not inherently abusive.  It can be motivational, it can be used as a means of effective correction, and it builds physical condition.  I have seen it used properly and effectively outside of CAP, as have many others.

The problem is the potential abuse and resulting legal ramifications if little Timmy gets hurt because 14 year old C/SSgt Joey didn't know how to properly use PT as a form of correction, not to mention the "emotional abuse" that people are so quick to jump to these days.   All it takes is one person to ruin it for everyone else, and this is an area that is all too likely to be abused by CAP members, cadets and seniors.  NHQ seems to agree.

[Nathan]

I could see it being humiliating and oppressive for a C/Flt Sgt to tell a cadet to put his face in the dirt and start pushing while the rest of his flight watches because he turned the wrong direction...

*sigh*

And, once again, push-ups would be done at an encampment setting as a team. Period.

They aren't saying that push-ups for punishment are abusive.  They're saying that they are hazing.

Right. Hazing by CAP standards. And CAP standards have little to no known evidencial backing. That's what I'm asking for. So far, I've seen lots of stories of cadets asking for push-ups as a disciplinary measure. Where's the evidence against it? If there is none, then perhaps CAP should think of changing its idea of hazing.

Incorrect?

I think you mean, "I disagree", don't you?

That citation, is, in fact, CAP's definition of physical abuse.

This is CAP.

Anyone else's definition both irrelevant and immaterial.

Negative. Just because CAP says that push-ups are hazing doesn't mean they are. Just because CAP thinks that BBDU's are acceptable uniforms doesn't mean they are. Just because CAP thinks mustaches are okay for cadets doesn't mean they are. It's all opinion; the goal is to try to figure out why the opinion is in place (in terms of empircal evidence) and change it if the evidence doesn't match.

In most instances it was power-trip for immature cadet officers or cadet NCOs.

On a few occasions, in my own cadet days, it constituted a power-trip by immature seniors.

Which, once again, is the purpose of regulating the push-ups the same way the military is.

I guess nobody feels that reading the posts you're arguing against is important these days...

The point is that push-ups in the past WERE unregulated and led to power-trips and feelings getting hurt, causing them to become even MORE unregulated. If you put in a few words now saying, "You can only do so many for these types of offenses and have a cap of 50 for the day", then all of your problems disappear. Hell, I would bet even the illegal push-ups we see these days disappear if cadets are allowed to do it in a controlled, supervised setting.

Once again, think encampment, my friend.

And once again, I can bring up the fact that the ACA's cadet program does not have too different of a mission than ours, and they use push-ups and other "taboo" methods of discipline not found in CAP. Their cadets aren't constantly crying, they have the same age limits (as far as I remember), and so on. So why can it work for them and not for us?

There are WAY too many situations where push-ups work great in CONTROLLED settings (like the ACA) for you to be making arguments about UNCONTROLLED push-ups and saying that all push-ups are bad because of them.

[Briski]

This is going to be long, because I have a lot of stuff to quote and arguments to refute. :-)

First off, I would never want to see this happen the way Pineda made changes. This would happen experimentally in nature at first, then have some regulatory backing, then show up in the rest of the publications, like NHQ's oh-so-handy Cadet Staff Training Guide or whatever it's called. Then, hopefully after this generation has been trained, the next generation will experience it, and then use it based on how it was used on them.

This assumes that this generation will be trained properly across the board.

Large percentages of our members still can't read and interpret the regulations properly on other major issues... heck, the first squadron I was a member of didn't even administer the friggin' CPFT until 2003 (meaning they had at least one cadet earn the Spaatz Award, only having taken a PT test for the Spaatz Award itself).  Just run a Google Images search for CAP, and look at all the crazy uniforms being worn improperly.

What I'm getting at is quality control.  I doubt there's a person who has participated in this discussion who would never even dream of violating the regulations regarding restrictions on the use of incentive physical training (IPT).  If the regs say sets of 10, no more than 30 per cadet per hour, only at encampments/NCSAs/weekend leadership schools, none of us would violate that.  But what about our comrades who choose not to hold themselves to the same level of professionalism?

If this were regulated the same way in CAP, then it would completely eliminate the ability for a cadet to go crazy on push-ups, and hopefully encourage the cadet not to use them too frequently, otherwise, they will have similar offenses to the ones they had caused cadets to push for before and will have to try something else, which I would imagine could be embarrassing.

What you're saying works perfectly, in theory.  But unfortunately, in real life, it doesn't always work so nicely.  Just like you have cadets pushing the limits to see what they can get away with in sloppy uniform wear, lax customs and courtesies, etc., you will have cadet leaders pushing the limits to see how far they can get away with in making other cadets do pushups.

Frankly, if a cadet leader is going to let the power go to his/her head (and it's very easy to do), it's also pretty likely that he or she will get into the mindset of "they'll never catch me." 

3. It doesn't actually solve the problem. Because all too often, they didn't understand why they were pushing... which means the cadet just knocked out 10 or 20, but the problem was not solved because the cadet has still not been properly trained.

I don't know why you think this. Whenever I was dropped, I had full awareness as to why. "Scalia, your team is late. Were you waiting for an invitation? Everyone drop, and then go back and try again at a speed that doesn't remind me of diseased livestock!" And I was faster, not because I was depressed, but because I didn't want to do push-ups again. And for the rest of the week, I was on time everywhere. And now I know why I have to move faster, but if the C/CC at the time had sat me down and said, "Look, Scalia, we're on a strict schedule here. We really need you to be on time next time, alrighty?", I don't think it would have been nearly as effective...[/quote]

It's really good that your experience with this kind of thing was handled professionally, because all too often it isn't.  It's good that you had leaders who knew how to implement the PT tool in an effective manner, so you could watch them and then emulate their example when you moved up into higher leadership positions.

But what about atmospheres that are not so professional?

It becomes a cycle.  If you have good leaders and the followers choose to follow their example, you generally get a good result.  But in situations where it becomes a matter of ego and the leaders begin doing things just to be mean, the result is that the followers get into the mindset of "man, my Flt Sgt is such a jerk, I can't wait to get my hands on those new Basics when I'm on Cadet Staff..."

Team push-ups are the way to go, especially since they ensure that the team looks out for each other.

Until the team figures out who the weakest link is, the one who is always getting them all smoked, and decides to police their own.

Maybe, but once again, if you have a regulatory cap on the push-ups, this problem goes away.

Again, assuming everyone follows the pushup regs more closely than they follow the rest of the non-pushup regs.

And, at least in my experience, they are FAR more effective in high-stress enviornments, far less demoralizing, and pose absolutely no threat to the cadets' physical or mental well-being so long as regulatory protections are in place.

This depends 100% on how they are implemented.  It sounds like you had a good experience with it, where they were used professionally.  That's awesome.  I've had those experiences, too.  Unfortunately, it's safe to say that not everyone would have a good experience.  Especially since there are some encampments who seem to be notorious for pushing the CPP thing as it is, even without crossing the IPT line.

Honestly, I don't know exactly what the ACA's rules on push-ups are, but given that they've been around longer than CAP and have been utilizing push-ups for this long, I can't honestly see an argument calling push-ups inefficient leadership tools an effective argument.

The ACA is a very different program.  They certainly have some good stuff goin' on, but just because it works for the ACA, doesn't mean it'll work for CAP.

If anything, the ACA has MORE disciplined cadets than we do.

I don't mean this sarcastically, and I'm not taking offense... but can you back this statement up?  Honest curiosity here.  I'd think it would take an awful lot of time spent observing a cross-section of CAP units vs. ACA units, as well as encampments vs. annual training, to be able to determine this... but again, I don't know.  Which is why I asked. :-)

In the past we have had new cadets/ would be cadets / parents
show up and REQUEST the" PT approach" 

Yeah, I've heard this too. I hate it when parents think my program will be a good replacement for their crappy parenting skills.

(Oh, yes I did.  I went there.)

Clearly your experiences show the downside - some people take this sort of thing personally.  I guess I never did.

Okay, kind of not really what you were getting at, but it is related in a way: all too often, it does become personal.

I've seen it happen more times than I wish to count.  It's only a matter of time until IPT becomes another tool in an experiment in social Darwinism, and people are singled out.  Even if the regs clearly say "not to be applied to individuals."

I watched a nice documentary on hazing a few weeks ago and they keyed in on something I thought was interesting.  The psychoanalysts and such stated that group methods are preferred because it makes the person feel as though they are betraying the team and are therefore less likely to report abuse/hazing.  The ones that commit the hazing like to use this method as an added layer of protection to ensure that their misdoings don't get out.

Wow... that's actually very true.  It's so much harder to stand up for yourself and your buddies when you know the regs are being violated, but you're the only one willing to stand up.  The person who did the right thing for all involved ends up with a stigma, not the "leader" who had the lapse in integrity to begin with.

I don't think that most of the CAP adult leadership has the skill or experience or training to use push ups or any other form of "physical motivation" as an effective tool in their leadership toolbox.  Most can't even put their clothes on correctly.  Then pass that onto the cadets who want to "feel more military" but have no experience as to what the military feel is even like except what they see in movies and it becomes a mess.

Again, you're absolutely right.  If it's a military DI/TI/DS, with over a decade of real military experience and several months' worth of training to be a DI/TI/DS, there's a certain level of respect that comes just from their experience and rank.  We don't have anything comparable to this in the CAP CP.

Because when the person who's making you do pushups is only a couple months or years older than you, if that... well, they have to work a heck of a lot harder to earn any amount of credibility. 

The problem was that it set a very negative tone in several areas:

1) exercise was reduced to punishment, when we were trying to teach a healthy lifestyle
2) leadership turned into a childish game of "gotcha"
3) the relationship between leaders/led turned into "them against us".

I've seen all of these side effects happen, too.  Specifically 2 and 3 (which are the worst of the three problems to begin with), more often than I've seen them not occur.

It all goes back to how the local leadership handles it, man.  This includes local leadership SM supervision.  When someone can guarantee me pre-packaged SMs who come fully equipped to already be good leaders who can provide the proper amount of relatively-hands-off supervision and, more importantly, the skills to mentor the cadet leaders so they understand how to properly utilize this leadership tool, then I'll support it.

Like I said before, I'm not saying that PT never has its place as a tool for leaders to use.  All I'm saying is that our primary mission in the CP is to train leaders and good citizens.  Even if they do choose to go into the military, more often than not, this is not a real, concrete leadership method they can use on real people in the real world.

[Nathan]

But what about our comrades who choose not to hold themselves to the same level of professionalism?

These people don't need regulations telling them they can drop cadets. They're already doing it right now, regulatory or no.

The goal is that if we allow it, then hopefully they will at least stay in our regulations, since they would be doing it anyway. If we don't allow it, then it would happen anyway, but this time without the guidance from CAP as to what could be safe and what isn't.

Frankly, if a cadet leader is going to let the power go to his/her head (and it's very easy to do), it's also pretty likely that he or she will get into the mindset of "they'll never catch me." 

Probably, but then again, see answer one. The people who would violate rules anyway are right now violating the rule that push-ups aren't allowed. I know; I was dropped all the time. Those people we have to worry about anyway. But don't you think that if these people were given some guidance that at least SOME of them would adhere to that guidance, since they were going to do push-ups anyway?

It becomes a cycle.  If you have good leaders and the followers choose to follow their example, you generally get a good result.  But in situations where it becomes a matter of ego and the leaders begin doing things just to be mean, the result is that the followers get into the mindset of "man, my Flt Sgt is such a jerk, I can't wait to get my hands on those new Basics when I'm on Cadet Staff..."

Encampments are generally at the smallest consisting of the entire wing. I would imagine that, even in the worst wings, there is going to be SOMEBODY there observing the rules and ensuring that cadets aren't hazed. That's the point of TAC officers. The TAC officers will come from all over the state, and sometimes the region. If the TAC officers aren't doing anything to keep the boundaries safe, then I can guarantee you that the problem isn't with the push-ups, but with the wing itself, and that even without push-ups, there are many more safety violations going on that we aren't seeing that need to be addressed. The push-ups are just a tool; if the wing is really bad enough that nobody is willing to stop cadets from being hazed, then there's a bigger problem that needs addressing.

Until the team figures out who the weakest link is, the one who is always getting them all smoked, and decides to police their own.

Maybe, and that's generally the first thought that comes to mind. But I've actually seen this happen worse in situations where push-ups are NOT an option. Cadets dislike losing honor flight or getting extra KP duty far more than they dislike push-ups. They'll find out who the weakest link is anyway, only this time, the weakest link is costing them morale. When the weakest link is only getting them dropped for push-ups, I've found that cadets generally tend to work much better together, because at least they aren't experiencing long-term problems. It's more of a, "Hey, that sucked, so don't screw up again." There's few ways to get a limping cadet LIKED, but push-ups aren't going to worsen the problem any more than any other punishment would.

Again, assuming everyone follows the pushup regs more closely than they follow the rest of the non-pushup regs.

And, while it's a good point, once again, the people who won't follow the regs then aren't following the regs now. The difference is that if you don't follow the regs concerning push-ups (if a push-up regulation was made), then you would turn the exercise into hazing, unlike most regulation breaks, and I think fewer people would be willing to venture into that territory. If they do, then, once again, the push-ups aren't the problem.

Unfortunately, it's safe to say that not everyone would have a good experience.  Especially since there are some encampments who seem to be notorious for pushing the CPP thing as it is, even without crossing the IPT line.

Keeping in mind the rest of this post, if you regulate it, it won't be a problem for 95% of CAP. And the 5% it is a problem for, they were a problem to begin with and were threatening the safety of cadets far before push-ups would be allowed.

The ACA is a very different program.  They certainly have some good stuff goin' on, but just because it works for the ACA, doesn't mean it'll work for CAP.

I'm curious why you think this. I looked into the ACA for a while before I started Pre-med, and found them to be very professional, but not a whole lot different in the mission they were trying to achieve. They seem to be more disciplined than us, but I would imagine that we want to be disciplined as well. In fact, we should be MORE disciplined than they are, since we are actually participating in missions where lives are on the line AND are an official auxiliary, which they are not (at least for a few more months).

I don't mean this sarcastically, and I'm not taking offense... but can you back this statement up?  Honest curiosity here.  I'd think it would take an awful lot of time spent observing a cross-section of CAP units vs. ACA units, as well as encampments vs. annual training, to be able to determine this... but again, I don't know.  Which is why I asked. :-)

This isn't something that's easy to back up without having looked into it. I don't know if you've ever studied the ACA's program, but as I said above, I looked into it and was on my way to starting a unit before I got too busy to dedicate time to it anymore. I do know that the cadets are able to participate in activities such as SCUBA and skydiving, something which CAP would laugh right out of the board meeting because apparently our cadets are not professional enough to handle it. I'm just saying that sometimes CAP has a habit of severely underestimating our cadets while the ACA doesn't seem to have that problem. Our cadets can act like idiots, yes, but perhaps that's because we treat them like idiots who might break a bone if they do a few push-ups. Treat them like professional, disciplined troops, and you'll have them, as I have personally witnessed with the ACA.

That, for me, was an important paragraph, so I hope you read it.

[JayT]

I do know that the cadets are able to participate in activities such as SCUBA and skydiving, something which CAP would laugh right out of the board meeting because apparently our cadets are not professional enough to handle it. I'm just saying that sometimes CAP has a habit of severely underestimating our cadets while the ACA doesn't seem to have that problem. Our cadets can act like idiots, yes, but perhaps that's because we treat them like idiots who might break a bone if they do a few push-ups. Treat them like professional, disciplined troops, and you'll have them, as I have personally witnessed with the ACA.

That, for me, was an important paragraph, so I hope you read it.

When have you ever had skydiving and SCUBA denied because 'cadets aren't professional' enough?

I've seen it denided because of safety, etc etc, but never because it's because our cadets 'aren't professional enough.'

[Nathan]

I do know that the cadets are able to participate in activities such as SCUBA and skydiving, something which CAP would laugh right out of the board meeting because apparently our cadets are not professional enough to handle it. I'm just saying that sometimes CAP has a habit of severely underestimating our cadets while the ACA doesn't seem to have that problem. Our cadets can act like idiots, yes, but perhaps that's because we treat them like idiots who might break a bone if they do a few push-ups. Treat them like professional, disciplined troops, and you'll have them, as I have personally witnessed with the ACA.

That, for me, was an important paragraph, so I hope you read it.

When have you ever had skydiving and SCUBA denied because 'cadets aren't professional' enough?

I've seen it denided because of safety, etc etc, but never because it's because our cadets 'aren't professional enough.'

The point is that safety is related to professionalism. The more professional the cadets, the less we have to worry about safety.

Apparently, SCUBA and skydiving is safe enough for the ACA cadets who just happen to have a greater level of discipline than us, but is deemed too dangerous for our cadets to partake in, despite both wearing a military uniform, having the same overall goals, and including the same age range.

[JayT]

The point is that safety is related to professionalism. The more professional the cadets, the less we have to worry about safety.

I gotta through the BS flag here dude, unless you can provide me with a document that says something to that effect from NHQ.

Safety concerns have nothing to do with professionalism in my opinion. Would I want cadets to do SCUBA and sky diving? Sure. But in recent years, the ATC and the AAFC have both cut their sky diving programs because of safety/insurance/etc etc, and both of our brother programs overseas certainly have both a close relationship with their parent services, and professional cadets.

Sorry guys, but the generation before ours was a little too sue happy. Blame them.

[Nathan]

I gotta through the BS flag here dude, unless you can provide me with a document that says something to that effect from NHQ.

NHQ doesn't decide things like that; it's common sense. If you can expect a cadet to be professional enough to not goof around while underwater, then we can expect them to be safe during a SCUBA activity. It's the same idea in activities not even relating to safety. If you can expect a cadet not to goof around, then you can let them represent you at a cadet competition, or a drill competition, or a parade, or something of the like. When safety is involved, though, NHQ doesn't even give it a try.

Perhaps I'm just more trusting of our cadets than NHQ, but not in a sense that I think we should just launch into these activities right away. Rather, I'm saying that when you treat someone professionally (ie, NOT babying them with mentoring and so on), then they will begin to get more professional. If you drop them for push-ups, that teaches discipline in a different way than mentoring, and as has been argued above, an arguably more efficient, faster, and less detrimental method to morale. The ACA pulls it off, and in return, they seem to be able to trust their cadets to handle activities that CAP doesn't.

There's not a DIRECT parallel, but it does seem to me that if you treat your cadets in a more "militaristic" manner, then they seem to be more capable of acting with the professionalism we often associate with the military, and therefore get to do more "militaristic" activities, such as those done by the ACA.

I'm not trying to recruit for the ACA, but I do respect them and have seen what their cadets are capable of, and I think statements like, "CAP isn't capable of doing that" is ridiculous. CAP is completely capable of doing the EXACT same activities that the ACA can, and have the EXACT same professionalism we see in the ACA. Right now, we are obviously doing something wrong, because we aren't near that point yet, and I personally believe that it's because we don't treat the CAP cadet program as the paramilitary program that it is.

I don't think that the funding is an issue, either. It's the rules preventing the funding in the first place. I can guarantee you that if I went to my meeting tonight and said, "Cadets, we have the opportunity to jump from a C-130 in a couple of months. We need X dollars to do it, and we'll need some help for fund-raising activities toward this goal. Who wants to help?" that I would have quite an overwhelming response.

The money is there for the people who want to do it. It's the rules in place now telling us that it's "too dangerous" that are keeping us from achieving that goal.

YMMV

[Briski]

(ie, NOT babying them with mentoring and so on)

I think you have a skewed perception of the entire idea behind the art of mentorship...

[DNall]

Corrective discipline is an essential part of leadership. PT is a good thing. PT as a tool for corrective discipline is a good thing.

What is NOT a good thing is when a cadet or officer misuses corrective discipline. That's called maltraining, and is unacceptable in the military just as it is anywhere else (call it hazing if you want).

When a cadet on a power trip takes offense to what some younger cadet does, drops them for pushups, makes a fool of them in front of everyone else, makes it personal... The pushups are not the hazing part of that scenerio. The leadership failure is not about doing or not doing pushups, it's about that young leader abusing his power & his subordinates.

Disciplinary PT is not the problem, bad training, bad leadership, and bad supervision are. So you regulate out the pushups, fine. You still have that same incompetent cadet leader using some other creative tool to maltrain his subordinates. That's still hazing, and we haven't done anything whatsoever to correct the problem. All we have done is take effective tools away from people that do know how to correctly use them.

I got no problem with PT as a disicpline tool. I dropped a couple soldiers this weekend for acting stupid at drill. They got the point & stopped the behavior. Took 60 seconds & we all went on our way. I didn't make them feel isolated from the group, I didn't make them believe anyone (including myself) thought less of them as soldiers or individuals.

When a parent baby's their kid to the point they become spoiled little brats with no discipline, that parent is a failure, and that kid is a drain on society. A lot parents send those same kids to us because they need structure & discipline that they aren't getting at home. We cannot baby up our program. It just becomes worthless & counterproductive. We have a responsibility as leaders to train our people right, and that includes disciplining them correctly. We have a responsibility to ensure we train our junior leaders to do the same, or they aren't leaders at all & we're just setting them up for failure in the real world.

[Nathan]

(ie, NOT babying them with mentoring and so on)

I think you have a skewed perception of the entire idea behind the art of mentorship...

I think you have a skewed perception of the entire idea behind push-ups.

Negative, I have absolutely no problem with the IDEA of mentorship. I have a problem with the way mentoring is implemented, kind of the same way that you have a problem with the way push-ups are implemented. Mentoring on its own is great; however, since most people don't know how to use it, then it's useless. They assume mentoring is just "talking to them", which results in no corrective actions, just the confirmation that nothing will happen but being told to stop should they do it again. It doesn't work, and is potentially as dangerous as misusing push-ups.

I think the mentoring program is great, and I think that push-ups could be just as great. However, both programs are misused due to a lack of training. That, and the fact that we over-use mentoring because that is really the only option except a 2b that most commanders seem to have available to them.

Two different methods of leadership. Poorly implemented, both are useless. Properly implemented, both will become effective tools, each for different situations.

[Briski]

Negative, I have absolutely no problem with the IDEA of mentorship. I have a problem with the way mentoring is implemented, kind of the same way that you have a problem with the way push-ups are implemented. Mentoring on its own is great; however, since most people don't know how to use it, then it's useless. They assume mentoring is just "talking to them", which results in no corrective actions, just the confirmation that nothing will happen but being told to stop should they do it again. It doesn't work, and is potentially as dangerous as misusing push-ups.

Then you aren't talking about mentorship. You're talking about informal counseling.  The difference is that while mentorship often requires the use of informal counseling in order to accomplish its mission, it is an on-going process that has nothing to do with disciplinary action.

Yes, mentorship often works towards a change in attitude, but mentorship is an overarching relationship.  The focus is on long term growth and development, not short term "cut that crap out."

I think the mentoring program is great, and I think that push-ups could be just as great. However, both programs are misused due to a lack of training.

Unfortunately, you're right on.  My biggest beef with the professional development programs is that while the very foundation of the CP is leadership development, all too often we simply take for granted that because someone is over 18 or 21, obviously s/he has enough life experience to just automatically make him/her ready to lead and mentor cadets.  And we've all seen cadets who could lead circles around the senior members who were theoretically supposed to be overseeing the leadership training of those cadets...

That, and the fact that we over-use mentoring because that is really the only option except a 2b that most commanders seem to have available to them.

I also agree that informal counseling as a leadership tool is often overused.  Just like any other motivational technique, overuse leads to ineffectiveness.  Just like pushups, yelling, physical rewards, and verbal encouragement.  The mentality becomes, "If all they're going to do is sit me down and talk to me..." just like I can speak from personal experience regarding the mentality of "If all they're going to do is yell and make me push...."

The difference is, in my (admittedly limited) experience, people are far more likely to overuse pushups than they are informal counseling.  While both certainly have the potential to be overused, pushups are simply more fun.  And that's where we get into trouble: the moment a disciplinary action becomes fun is the moment it puts people in danger.

Now before people take that one personally, obviously not everyone falls into that trap, or pushups would never be appropriate as a leadership tool (and anyone who has been reading my posts should know that this has not been my argument).  While an extreme example, the same kind of power struggle illustrated by The Stanford Prison Experiment apply here.

Could it be overcome with quality leadership training?  Sure, some instances of misuse of authority and abuse of power could be mitigated.

But again... quality control.  I'm sure we've all seen pictures/videos and heard plenty of stories of people going overboard at encampments and other activities.  If they're following the regs, then the staffs for those activities went through the same RST (and SMs and cadets 18+ went through the same CPPT) that we have.  So how come they still choose to go overboard, even though they've been through the same training?

In the end, if you want to see a long-term change in behavior, you need to earn the respect of your followers. Maybe you can do this with pushups, maybe you can't. Of all the leaders who ever made me do pushups, the only ones who were truly effective in adjusting my attitude were the ones who I respected before they made me push. And then, the change came because I respected them... not because they made me push.

And that's the entire goal of leadership, yes? To get people to follow you because they want to, and not because they don't want to do pushups for not following you?

[Nathan]

Then you aren't talking about mentorship. You're talking about informal counseling.  The difference is that while mentorship often requires the use of informal counseling in order to accomplish its mission, it is an on-going process that has nothing to do with disciplinary action.

Eh, I'm talking about whatever passes as mentorship these days.

Yes, mentorship often works towards a change in attitude, but mentorship is an overarching relationship.  The focus is on long term growth and development, not short term "cut that crap out."

Perfect! That's what I've been saying all along. Use the push-ups for the short term stuff, and use the mentorship on the long-term stuff. Mentorship short-term is useless, and push-ups long term is useless. Used appriopriately, they are both valuable tools to be used in different situations, and since we don't really have a "cut that crap out" response besides "short term mentoring", I think it would be beneficial to EVERYONE (yes, even those being dropped) to learn how to properly implement push-ups to fill that goal.

The difference is, in my (admittedly limited) experience, people are far more likely to overuse pushups than they are informal counseling.  While both certainly have the potential to be overused, pushups are simply more fun.  And that's where we get into trouble: the moment a disciplinary action becomes fun is the moment it puts people in danger.

You are absolutely right in everything you said, except that you didn't take into account that the push-ups would be regulated. For instance, let's say no more than fifty a day (just for example), ten in a set, one set an hour, and every time it happened, someone trained in CPPT (cadet, senior, whatever) HAD to be present. Any deviation from this is considered hazing and could be grounds for disciplinary action (such as a 2b).

There, problem solved. If someone is going to ignore the rules, then they would have dropped those cadets with or without permission from NHQ. Otherwise, we're left with people who follow the rules and use push-ups responsibly.

Not that I've ever seen anyone get hurt from push-ups, mind you. I've seen people get tired, but even with extreme amounts of push-ups, I've never actually seen any short or long term injury come from push-ups.

While an extreme example, the same kind of power struggle illustrated by The Stanford Prison Experiment apply here.

Could it be overcome with quality leadership training?  Sure, some instances of misuse of authority and abuse of power could be mitigated.

But again... quality control.  I'm sure we've all seen pictures/videos and heard plenty of stories of people going overboard at encampments and other activities.  If they're following the regs, then the staffs for those activities went through the same RST (and SMs and cadets 18+ went through the same CPPT) that we have.  So how come they still choose to go overboard, even though they've been through the same training?

As a psych major, I've studied Zimbardo and his experiment, and can tell you that it doesn't accurately translate over for a couple of reasons:

A) To my knowledge, there was no law enforcement actually present to assist in ensuring the experiment happened the way it should. The goal of the experiment was to test and see if people would fit into roles that they were given, but nobody seemed to understand that if you don't know what the role is, then you use your own assumptions and what you see on TV to fill that role. That's what happened at Stanford. The kids playing the cops didn't know law, the rules of a prison, how to handle those who were misbehaving, and so on. CAP has ALL sorts of training on this. Cadets are trained to be leaders, to follow the rules, etc. If push-ups were TAUGHT, rather than us just throwing the cadets into the wind and telling them to go for it, then the chances of something like this decrease DRAMATICALLY.

B) While law enforcement would have been helpful to teach the cop imitators how to run a prison, it would have also been useful to have SOME sort of control or check over the experiment. There was none. The experiment was done at a time when there was no real psychological ethics guideline in place, and theoretically, the "prisoners" were not permitted to leave the experiment (although I think one did, if I recall correctly). There was no one to watch out or stop safety violations, as there certainly would be in CAP.

C) The scenario the kids were placed in is very different than any scenario found in CAP. The prisoners were expected to be treated like scum. That's the way the system is supposed to work. In CAP, we are training leaders, not jailers. Our cadets are not trained to be abusive towards those they are placed in charge of, and all cadets have at some point been in the situation of their subordinates (unlike a jailer).

Read this next part, it's important.

I realize you used the experiment as an EXTREME example of the possibility of hazing, but keep in mind that the experiment proved exactly what it set out to prove. If you give the people the tools and tell them they need to fit a role, they will. In the Stanford experiment, the cops fit the roles they percieved cops to fill, and the prisoners filled the role they perceived prisoners to fill. The experiment worked beautifully in that regard. What went WRONG is the fact that the "cops" had no idea how to be cops, and that's when the hazing begun. They had not been trained how to use their tools; rather, they were just given the uniforms and nightsticks, and told to have fun.

We would not be doing this with push-ups. We would not give the cadets the tools until they were ready to use them (as we do with almost everything in CAP). When they are ready to command a flight, then they get flight sergeant. When they are ready to take the Spaatz, we give them the test. When they are ready to use push-ups, we will give them the push-ups. If they are trained how to use what they are given, the Zimbardo experiment shouldn't ever find its way into CAP.

[ZigZag911]

Discipline is supposed to increase incrementally.

A minor (or first) infraction may call simply for remdial instruction or informal counseling.

If matters don't improve, or deteriorate, at some point formal counseling (with a written record) is necessary, stating the problem, the required solution, and the consequences attendant on non-compliance.

This could (and often should) be joined with other remedial training or disciplinary action, within the parameters of CAP regulations.

And it applies equally to seniors as to cadets; there is absolutely no constructive  way to discipline someone unless they undersand what they've done wrong, and how to fix, and what will happen to them if they don't!

[Briski]

Nathan, I shot you a PM.

[COL Land]

Quick input from the ACA, since we are referenced above:

   a.  Skydiving and SCUBA Diving:  As with CAP, we must be mindful of Risk Management.   Take a look at http://www.cadetstuff.org/archives/000400.html for the position of ACA in regards to these activities.   Bottomline:   We don't offer these programs as an official training event within ACA; however, we do encourage our members to pursue these opportunities.   In fact, eight of our Cadets from Fort Rucker, Alabama earned their SCUBA Device just two months ago.   (I also have Basic Jump wings...never again! )

   b.  Push-ups:  We have very strict guidelines IRT to the administration of push-ups, based on the training, rank and qualification of the Cadet NCO, adult NCO or officer, as well as the Cadet/recruit receiving the push-ups (only E5 and below and only during Annual Training).  We feel that push-ups are appropriate for very quick, on-the-spot, situations which require that we get the attention of the Cadet/recruit.   Push-ups are certainly not a suitable substitute for clear violations of our Cadet Code of Discipline < http://www.acacadets.org/pdf/acainst1626-1.pdf >.  A Cadet NCO can never administer push-ups without a qualified adult present.   

  c.  Discipline:    I've said it several times, ACA (slowly being referred to as USACC - U.S. Army Cadet Corps, as the Navy and Marine programs stand-down), is not necessarily a better mousetrap, just a different one.   We have a different mission, in part, from the Civil Air Patrol, and conduct business somewhat differently.   I've met some very disciplined and professional CAP Cadets and Officers, as well as others who - in my opinion - would not fit into the USACC culture.  There are some who are dis-enrolled from ACA for the same reasons.   "Hard Core or Out the Door!" is the corps' motto...but, we sometimes must reel in exactly what "hard core" means, especially when dealing with Cadets.   Rest assured, like any organization dealing with young people, we have our challenges.

C/LTC (or is it COL?) Scalia...it seems that you've "drank the Kool-aid"...will we see you at OCS this summer?    Either way, thanks for the props! 

"Please return to your regularly scheduled programming!"

Respectfully,

JOSEPH M. LAND, SR.
LTC(P), AG, USACC
Chief of Staff
American Cadet Alliance National Headquarters

"ADVENTURE BEGINS HERE!"

[Nathan]

C/LTC (or is it COL?) Scalia...it seems that you've "drank the Kool-aid"...will we see you at OCS this summer?    Either way, thanks for the props! 

It's not C/Col yet... I missed two questions on my Aerospace portion of my test. As soon as I fix that inconvinience, then I'll be pinning on my third diamond.

And I would love to attend OCS, or at least swing by and visit. As mentioned, pre-med is quickly taking up all of my time, even for CAP stuff... I'll see if there's still interest in my area and if I can get a group of people working on setting something up.

And for this conversation; I think both points have been made. Briski and I may continue our epic "Lord of the Rings" style battling via PM, but as for my part, I think my point is pretty much made. PM if you feel you need clarification.

[Briski]

And for this conversation; I think both points have been made. Briski and I may continue our epic "Lord of the Rings" style battling via PM, but as for my part, I think my point is pretty much made. PM if you feel you need clarification.

Yeah, and I'm officially back at school now, which has the uncanny ability to vastly decrease the amount of time I have to participate in internet forums.