Nathan's view of hazing

[Nathan]

[DANGER: WALL OF TEXT APPROACHING]

So I was being interviewed for a position at a CAP activity a couple of years ago, and was told by one of the interviewing members that I should be more careful about what I post on the internet. He was referencing a position I took on this board in defense of the POSSIBILITY of using push-ups in a non-malicious fashion. To that end, I told him that I was not ashamed of what I wrote, and was still willing to defend that position (and I did).

Another topic on this forum has recently begun to call out the definition of hazing again, and, somewhat contrary to CAP's position, I wanted to state what I think actually makes sense in the ideal world where we have leaders who can take a situation on a case-by-case basis, and not have to rely 100% on regulations that may not fit an individual situation perfectly.

I wanted to start off by stating, at least in my eyes, the main problem being that we have not managed to find a good way of relating physical hardship to mental suffering. Hazing is, at the end of the day, about avoiding MENTAL harm to the cadets. Granted, and obviously, this is closely related to committing physical harm to a cadet. But in a world where we could push a REASONABLE person to be in physical pain, but not mental pain, then that would technically not necessitate a label of hazing. The reasons that we might do this are up for debate, but we can look at PT as the easiest and most visible example.

I think that establishing this point early on is vital, because, as I say again, a person who is physical pain, but not in mental pain, is not NECESSARILY being hazed just by virtue of discomfort. This type of pain arises from exercise, hot showers, massages, and even that quackery known as acupuncture. The key note is that, within a REASONABLE limit, this pain does not translate into psychological pain. In fact, when kept out of extreme ranges, people actually seek it out because, either immediately or later on, it makes them feel better. That may not translate over to CAP perfectly, but I wanted to make sure that this point is solidified, because if you aren't on-board with that, then you probably won't be able to look at the rest of my post objectively.

I have never had a problem with push-ups as a "punishment", more conveniently labeled as "reinforcement" to make myself look better. As a good, law-abiding CAP cadet and later senior member, I did not exercise... uh, exercise as a punishment, per the regulations. However, were the day to come where we could make a case for the use, I would certainly back a proposition to open up that option.

Is it because I'm a sadistic, power-tripping oo-rah military wannabe? I don't think so. Most people who know me would hopefully attest to that. Rather, in a controlled, regulated environment, I don't think that the "physical-psychological link" that would translate exercise into mental torment is there in a reasonable person. I think that if we were able to regulate exercise (henceforth "push-ups" for simplicity) as a form of reinforcement, then it could actually be a better supplement to the average CAP activity counseling methods than ones that are currently used. By the way, that brings me to the caveat stating that what I am about to describe is best applied to an encampment environment, but with modification could probably pass at the squadron level. I'll cover that later.

Here's the reason I would make such a statement, and I will take a liberty by speaking through my experience at multiple encampments as a cadet. As I stated, a set of push-ups within reasonable limits should not cause psychological harm, and therefore, would serve as a better reinforcers than many of the other tools used instead (covered soon). For instance, a dirty floor during inspection? Five push-ups. What happens inside the cadets' minds? I promise it isn't, "Wow... I feel like a horrible failure." Rather it's, "Wow. That wasn't too much fun. Don't want to do that again. Let's stop doing push-ups and get the floor clean."

Why is this the case? Because push-ups, within a reasonable limit, fit the cadets' EXPECTATION of a punishment. No matter how much we want to say that we aren't the military and we shouldn't be playing Gunny Hartman, you're going to have a rather difficult search finding an encampment where a significant number of cadets did NOT think we would be that harsh going in. In fact, encampment is considered "cadet boot camp." The cadets EXPECT to be doing PT. They expect it to be a challenge. In fact, based on my experience at several encampments, the expectation that a cadet holds of an encampment is usually far harsher than the encampment turns out to be.

This doesn't mean I'm advocating turning our encampments into mini-Hell Week. There are definitely more important things to be doing than yelling and doing push-ups. But it's not going to break the cadets' psyches to be dropped a few times a day for a set of five. In fact, at least in my area, there is quite a movement to have the encampments be MORE "militaristic." For many (myself included, in my early cadet days), if it didn't feel that militaristic, I felt like I was kind of getting jipped out of a reason to wear a uniform. That may have been immature, and I'll let you decide that, but at the end of the day, I WANTED to feel like a badass that went through a week of what I felt to be a challenging, militaristic environment.

What does this mean, then? It means that the punishment doesn't actually hurt the cadet in any way (when utilized properly), but STILL REGISTERS as a punishment. That's what's great about it. The cadet knows that this is a measure that means, "Hey, do better." But it doesn't actually do anything psychologically to the cadet in any way. There is, when utilized properly, no humiliation, no singling-out, and no morale damage. Why? Because, like I said, the average cadet expects it as part of the military experience, and when used by a responsible person, it doesn't do anything more than get their hands a little dirty. Not only that, but when I was dropped for push-ups 8 years ago, I always thought, "Cool. I'm having to do push-ups with my flight because I screwed up. Just like the real military!" Weird? Maybe. Common? In my experience, yes.

Of course, that in itself isn't a reason to allow a regulated push-up reinforcement system. It NOT hurting the cadets psychologically doesn't mean that it's worth using. So, to make my point, I'm going to look at the other supplementary systems used.

The first would be the "honor flight" system. It's great. I like it a lot. It's hard to get cadets to have the motivation to constantly succeed as a team without giving them something to work for. In fact, at many encampments, it's the ONLY tangible reward to work toward. What I have seen happen numerous times is the loss of "honor points" toward honor flight for some issue. These issues are usually trivial, because anything major generally ends up at the feet of the flight commander, not the flight. Such issues include being late (usually the fault of the flight staff), inspection issues, or minor conduct issues that (hopefully) relate toward the behavior of multiple cadets in the flight (instead of just one or two).

I love awarding honor points, but have never taken them away. The reason is that because, by at least my own personal definition of hazing, to do so causes some degree of psychological harm in the form of morale detriment. I will promise you, for all to see, that a flight that loses honor points and therefore loses a chances for the sometimes sole tangible award for encampment is FAR more psychologically harmed than the flight that has to do a set of push-ups. When someone takes away honor points, it DEPRIVES of a reward. That's where low morale comes to play. Low morale leads to blaming, in-fighting, apathy, and all sorts of fun issues commanders LOVE dealing with.

What other methods are used? Extra chores. Generally accompanies honor points. Sure, why not? Having a flight work KP a few times isn't bad for them. The chores aren't the issue. Rather the issue comes at the COST of the extra chores. What time are they giving up? Are they having to wake up earlier than everyone else, technically as a punishment? Are they giving up their precious little free time? Shorter meals? Less time to prepare for inspection, therefore probably making the problem worse? God forbid you actually take away something they're looking forward to. Once again, as a commander of an encampment, my job is to provide these cadets with a GOOD experience. If I'm taking away the times that they are supposed to learn from, or times they are using to relax and prepare for the next day, just in order to carry out a punishment, well... not my idea of good commanding. I had the opportunity to plan out almost every minute of an encampment once, and I can tell you that there was not a single slot on my Excel sheet I would have wanted any cadet missing for any reason other than medical issues. Maybe other encampments just don't have their schedules booked solid like mine was.

My point is that when you set a goal for a cadets (get honor flight, get a good inspection, whatever), then DEPRIVING them of the ability to reach that standard is going to be psychologically MUCH worse for them than adding on to the standard. If you had to bike to a finish line down a road, would you rather have slopes and curves added to the course, or have different parts of your bike removed?

In most of the trivial issues in which we would want to use on-the-spot "reinforcement", push-ups seem to be, to me, at least, a much healthier option for team morale than most of the other methods utilized, which involve taking away from the encampment experience. Not only that,  but CAP has generally had the problem of "approved" punishments being limited to either telling the cadet that they've naughty, or 2bing them out of the program. The middle option is what has led to the creation of these "depriving" methods of punishment. I don't blame the people who use them, because for people who you don't want to kick out, and who aren't responding to you telling them to knock off their tomfoolery, there really isn't a whole lot of guidance. As I said before, push-ups will still register as a reinforcement to most cadets, and serve as the much-needed middle-severity option between a slap on the wrist and serious, SM-only type punishment options.

Some caveats:

1) If your first response is to try to get me to lay out a detailed, ready-to-submit plan of how to implement physical reinforcement into the program, then you can be disappointed, because I don't have one. As of right now, it's not my job to try to make major changes to cadet program implementation, and I don't have the desire to take the significant amount of time and research that would be necessary to come up with the perfect plan when no such plan is likely to be considered anyway. I can say it would involve regulating the frequency per-hour and per-day of exercise, what types of exercise could be used, and a structured, thoughtful training plan for any cadets that were to use this with significant senior supervision. But, GASP, it would actually require commander discretion in the majority of cases. Shocking that we actually expect commanders to use good judgment when we have all of these convenient regs telling us exactly what we can and cannot do, but they have to earn their pay somehow. And, uberGASP, we might actually have to use common sense (rare as it is)! For instance, a set of five push-ups? Most twelve-year old girls (the minimum standard we expect for upper-body strength) can pull this off, according to our PT requirements. If not, set it at three. 50 push-ups? That's hazing territory. Smarter people than me can feel free to figure out the best number, but, like I said, common sense would certainly make the situation SO much easier. Remember that it's not important that the cadets have sore arms from the push-ups. It's just important that they DO the push-ups. The message is MORE than enough.

2) The next argument I anticipate is that there would be no way to supervise this program, and violations would occur a lot. In which case I say, "Yes. You're right." And then, I would follow with, "Wake up and get out of under your rock." Of COURSE there would be violations. I know this, because there are violations of the system we have NOW. The people who want to go on power trips and abuse cadets with physical exercise are going to do it whether or not we have a regulated system in place. I would argue that, should we give the newly-minted flight sergeants a way to direct that new sense of authority in a regulated, supervised way, it would likely cause far less of the extreme situations that would make a SEAL tired. If you want to get a hold on the problem with abusive PT, then give those people a way to get it out of their system safely and in such a way that isn't going to hurt the cadets. But just saying "STOP!" and expecting something to happen isn't working now anyway.

3) Although this should have been mentioned earlier, I'm too lazy to go back and figure out a way to put it in, so I'll just say it now. For individual situations, PT is NOT the way I would suggest handling the issue. A cadet should not be made to do PT alone, whether in front of the flight, the commander, or whoever, unless this person is doing an individual PT test. This is a TEAM activity, and to deviate from that would follow with the part of CAP's hazing definition I agree with, which talk about humiliating and singling-out a cadet. I am not advocating PT in lieu of regular mentoring sessions, nor am I saying that PT should be used without good leadership abilities. A flight still needs to be told HOW to fix the issue, and, in my opinion, have any sort of reinforcement executed on subsequent, similar mistakes. As I have always said, a person working for me can make any mistake he or she makes, but only once.

4) Won't this add more red tape, which I was arguing against? Well... yes and no. Yes, in that it would probably give us a page or so to CAPR 52-16, and probably a few more pages of safety info. Snore. However, I would hope that, once in place, the number of purported hazing incidents would go WAY down. This is not to say that I think that any suspected hazing should go unreported. I am saying, however, that when we coddle cadets, they are going to expect to be coddled, which would lead to anything BUT coddling to seem offensive. We stop coddling, we set new expectations. Hence, hopefully less issues of people thinking they're being hazed when they aren't, hence, less reason to worry about parents eating us when we have clearly stated that their little cadet might actually not be completely physically comfortable whenever he or she is in uniform. Remember, the physical discomfort does not equal MENTAL discomfort. When we define our own hazing ideas so conservatively, we can certainly cause someone to think hazing is going on by definition, rather than really believing that anyone is being harmed. I can give at least two examples of this from my own personal experience, and I would be surprised if you didn't have some of your own.

5) As I stated, this approach serves the needs best of encampments and other higher-intensity CAP activities. Because weekly meetings are not DESIGNED to be that highly stressful of an environment, I think that the situations are few where using PT for anything other than testing at the squadron level would be warranted, especially since the "team" environment of encampment is so much more fluid due to membership fluctuations. In addition, squadrons would be FAR more difficult to regulate in ensuring compliance with policy, and while I covered that in caveat 2, I still would say that, given the number of drill movements that seem to appear and disappear between squadron and encampment, I would be worried about any real standard being maintained at the squadron level. That said, I wouldn't be opposed to extending the policy to the squadron, but it would require some different perspectives of reinforcement that I'm just not ready to think about until this even becomes more than a rant from my head.

Now, I suppose you can begin telling me that I must be a narrow-minded leader who isn't creative enough to teach cadets anything without making them do a thousand push-ups. 

EDITED: a few times for typos...

[lordmonar]

Nathan,

In educational models.....punishment is something you do to stop unwanted behavior, reinforcement is something you do to keep wanted behavior.

PT for violations is a punishment, pure and simple.  Using the wrong words for it does not make it any better.

If you are having violations when you have a black and white regulation that says "don't do it" how many violations are you going to have if you have vague guidelines of when and where you can use it?

This is a backward argument.  We need to monitor our activities to stop those violations.

Finally....what is the need?   Yes in some situations by adding physical discomfort can better gauge a trainee's ability to work in stressful situations....but is that something we want to do in CAP?  Is it really needed.  Heck even the AD USAF does not use PT in their training environment.

Bottom line.....in CAP, there are few places where that level of stress is needed.  There are better ways of training.  The chances of abuse are too great.

Sure there are a lot of cadets who expect it, sure there are a lot of cadets who want it....but there are just as many or more who don't want it.  The few places where it is warrented it is used (PJOC for one).  As a normal tool at encampment....I just cringe at the thought of Turning some of my cadets loose on a bunch of 12 year olds!

[Eclipse]

in CAP, there are few places where that level of stress is needed.  There are better ways of training.  The chances of abuse are too great.

+1

Sure there are a lot of cadets who expect it, sure there are a lot of cadets who want it....but there are just as many or more who don't want it.

Cadets who expect PT as punishment have been failed by their CAP leaders in properly framing the program.

Whatever the FMJ technique cadets might "want", or leaders think is "necessary", the proper training is not provided by CAP.
DI's, TI's, and RDC's, have been through BMT themselves, and hands-on trained and evaluated in proper technique and disciplinary measures.

Not so in CAP, where the general reaction to anything is yelling, and/or throwing things/banging things, etc.,  in an increasing tone, until someone with a clue puts a stop to it.

Further, the military is specifically training its people, especially the enlisted personnel, to unquestioningly obey the orders of their superiors immediately and without filter, because lives may be at stake if actions are delayed.

We don't do or need that in CAP, either.

Another issue is consistency of training - most of the reasons you'd "drop" someone at an encampment is because of a uniform, rack, or behavioral infraction.  In most cases, the reason for that infraction is because of poor, inconsistent, or conflicting training at his home unit.  The proper remediation is not punishment for the failure(s) of other leaders, but correction of the behavior.

Finally, as mentioned above, we have a thick, solid, bright line of behavior today, and despite that, many leaders in CAP can't seem to adhere properly.  You dim-down that line and you're asking for trouble.

[ol'fido]

The definition of hazing is kind of like the definition of leadership in that everyone has their own interpretation of it and they they think they know either when they see it. All I know is that where you have hazing there is no leadership and where you have leadership there is no hazing.

[lordmonar]

The definition of hazing is kind of like the definition of leadership in that everyone has their own interpretation of it and they they think they know either when they see it. All I know is that where you have hazing there is no leadership and where you have leadership there is no hazing.

+1

[Pylon]

So then Eclipse, does that make the ACA a bad organization with bad leaders and a wrong approach to youth leadership education because they may use PT from time to time as a disciplinary instructional tool?   Because from your posts I'm gathering your standpoint is that there's no value in physical remedial training in any form.  I just want to be clear on your viewpoint here.

[Eclipse]

No, it makes them different.

With no operational component, everyone involved is focused on the training of the cadets, and as such, the training of the senior members is much different as well.  There's little chance that some random Senior member pilot with a good movie collection and little military experience will accidentally become a unit leader because he was the only one around.

The entire purpose of the organization is different, with military-style training and preparation for future service being much more the focus and point of membership.

I would also like to believe that any organization that allows and encourages PT for disciplinary issues also trains their members in proper utilization, techniques, and limits, though I have no personal knowledge of this either way.

The bottom line here is that in CAP it is simply not allowed, and the main reason is that over the years members used PT for discipline in a way that was excessive and/or "overly creative" in someone's eyes, and we were told to knock it off.  Despite the fact that its been outright banned for more than a decade, we still hear regularly that cadet and senior leaders do it anyway.

So considering the knowledge that we, as an organization, still can't properly enforce a clear, bright, line, these arguments that it's "not so bad", or "what the cadets are expecting" are spurious.  There's simply no justification for it within our program.  None of the goals of our program are helped by cadets who obey unflinchingly on a moment's whim, or have huge, 50-caliber arms, especially in light of the fact that the USAF no longer does this, and in general the practice is discouraged in all but the most hard-core military training.

[Nathan]

Nathan,

In educational models.....punishment is something you do to stop unwanted behavior, reinforcement is something you do to keep wanted behavior.

PT for violations is a punishment, pure and simple.  Using the wrong words for it does not make it any better.

I know. I just also know that people get jittery when using the word "punishment", and while I am well aware of the correct word to use (at least from the psychological point of view) I wanted people to actually read what I was writing without having the automatic negative bias that "punishment" tends to create.

If you are having violations when you have a black and white regulation that says "don't do it" how many violations are you going to have if you have vague guidelines of when and where you can use it?

This is a backward argument.  We need to monitor our activities to stop those violations.

I don't recall advocating vague guidelines. I want precise guidelines. I'm just not the one who wants to provide that level of precision on a message board.

Finally....what is the need?   Yes in some situations by adding physical discomfort can better gauge a trainee's ability to work in stressful situations....but is that something we want to do in CAP?  Is it really needed.  Heck even the AD USAF does not use PT in their training environment.

As I stated, the "need" isn't so much a need as it is an improvement over what we have. The only options available to us in most situations involve depriving people of their ability to accomplish, which is pretty detrimental to morale and overall is much more psychological harmful than push-ups. Push-ups, if used correctly, are not psychologically harmful, and in some cadets, may actually serve to motivate them if for no other reason than by feeling MORE militaristic.

Sure there are a lot of cadets who expect it, sure there are a lot of cadets who want it....but there are just as many or more who don't want it.  The few places where it is warrented it is used (PJOC for one).  As a normal tool at encampment....I just cringe at the thought of Turning some of my cadets loose on a bunch of 12 year olds!

Erm... why is it more warranted at PJOC or Hawk Mountain than it is at an encampment? From what I've heard about those activities, they use push-ups for pretty much the same reasons and on a far more extreme scale than what I'm talking about. What makes it okay at only some activities if the rationale is the same?

As I said, using it CORRECTLY is the important part of this. I'm not saying that we should just tell a bunch of new C/SSgts that they can use their cadets to push the earth closer to the sun. I'm saying with the proper training, supervision, and guidelines, it can be a useful tool. Pointing out where it can go wrong when I've already stated where it can go wrong is just preaching to the choir.

Cadets who expect PT as punishment have been failed by their CAP leaders in properly framing the program.

Really? I thought it was because they had an idea of what military life is like, and were wearing a uniform. At least, that's why I thought I was being dropped when I was a cadet.

Whatever the FMJ technique cadets might "want", or leaders think is "necessary", the proper training is not provided by CAP. DI's, TI's, and RDC's, have been through BMT themselves, and hands-on trained and evaluated in proper technique and disciplinary measures.

Not so in CAP, where the general reaction to anything is yelling, and/or throwing things/banging things, etc.,  in an increasing tone, until someone with a clue puts a stop to it.

So if we had a DI write the program out, it would be okay? I just so happen to know a couple, and at least one of which who would be happy to write that sort of curriculum out. After all, if there is a PROPER technique, and the military has been using it and producing the discipline it has, then there's got to be something to it. CAP has every reason to use that resource. Which points me to your next paragraph...

Further, the military is specifically training its people, especially the enlisted personnel, to unquestioningly obey the orders of their superiors immediately and without filter, because lives may be at stake if actions are delayed.

We don't do or need that in CAP, either.

That's true. Of course, if we follow that logic too far, then we can also question the purpose of drill, since I've personally never bought the "teamwork" aspect. The military uses BDU's for camoflauge (or at least used to), so we can throw that out as well and just go to BBDUs. And I suppose since we don't have to raise the visors on our helmets anymore, then saluting is purposeless as far as CAP is concerned.

And no, I'm not trying to make this a slippery-slope argument. I'm merely pointing out that certain things WORK for the military. Regardless of the fact that, yes, the military is many a time trying to build killers, it's also building computer nerds, doctors, cooks, and janitors, all of whom have to go through the SAME training, and few of whom are ever expected to kill people.

It's not always about building killers or unquestioning loyalty. Doing push-ups does not a killer make, Eclipse. I would imagine we would need to stop bringing cadets to the firing ranges if we wanted to avoid that (or just stop being militaristic at all). Doing push-ups is just a training tool we have unnecessarily, in my opinion, restricted from our tool box.

Another issue is consistency of training - most of the reasons you'd "drop" someone at an encampment is because of a uniform, rack, or behavioral infraction.  In most cases, the reason for that infraction is because of poor, inconsistent, or conflicting training at his home unit.  The proper remediation is not punishment for the failure(s) of other leaders, but correction of the behavior.

Which I addressed when I said, in Caveat 3...

As I have always said, a person working for me can make any mistake he or she makes, but only once.

I predicted a few responses I knew you've used in the past in these types of debates. I was hoping you'd catch my pre-preemptive replies.

Finally, as mentioned above, we have a thick, solid, bright line of behavior today, and despite that, many leaders in CAP can't seem to adhere properly.  You dim-down that line and you're asking for trouble.

You can think that, and there isn't anything I can say to convince you otherwise. I, on the other hand, believe that if we allowed more flexibility in the rule, it would give those people who want to do push-ups badly enough to break the rules at least a way to do it WITHIN the rules and hopefully far more safely than when they are not regulated or monitored. I guess it's the same idea as legalizing drugs, except that I would be a little suspicious of anyone comparing push-ups to drugs.

[lordmonar]

I know. I just also know that people get jittery when using the word "punishment", and while I am well aware of the correct word to use (at least from the psychological point of view) I wanted people to actually read what I was writing without having the automatic negative bias that "punishment" tends to create.

By using the wrong terminology you ruin your creditability.

I don't recall advocating vague guidelines. I want precise guidelines. I'm just not the one who wants to provide that level of precision on a message board.

So worse then vague guidelines....you got none.  If you want to sell your point of view you got to have some sort of idea of what those guidelines are going to be.  How we are going to teach those guidelines to our CP members.  And how we are going to monitor compliance.

As I stated, the "need" isn't so much a need as it is an improvement over what we have. The only options available to us in most situations involve depriving people of their ability to accomplish, which is pretty detrimental to morale and overall is much more psychological harmful than push-ups. Push-ups, if used correctly, are not psychologically harmful, and in some cadets, may actually serve to motivate them if for no other reason than by feeling MORE militaristic.

I don't think it makes us more "militaristic'.  If we use our parent service, the USAF, as an example...they don't use this sort of corrective action in their standard training program.  Positive punishment (the addition of something to stop bad behavior...doing push ups for screw up) is not as affective as positive reinforcement.  I can correct bad behavior with out telling people to do push ups.

Erm... why is it more warranted at PJOC or Hawk Mountain than it is at an encampment? From what I've heard about those activities, they use push-ups for pretty much the same reasons and on a far more extreme scale than what I'm talking about. What makes it okay at only some activities if the rationale is the same?

I never said anything about HMRS...I feel that they don't need to use it there at all.  At PJOC....the purpose of the course is to Orient cadets to the PJ career field....and their training includes a lot of push ups.  Also in that context the PJOC program is run by professionals who know when to knock it off.

As I said, using it CORRECTLY is the important part of this. I'm not saying that we should just tell a bunch of new C/SSgts that they can use their cadets to push the earth closer to the sun. I'm saying with the proper training, supervision, and guidelines, it can be a useful tool. Pointing out where it can go wrong when I've already stated where it can go wrong is just preaching to the choir.

I agree....but I personally don't think is is possible to properly train the majority of the rank and file CAP member to properly supervise and conduct PT as a punishment tool.  We can't get them to follow simple rules like "DON'T DO IT" or "Don't wear white shocks with our uniform".   You will have to go a long way to prove to me that the general rank and file is ready to accept the responsibility to have this sort of power.

Really? I thought it was because they had an idea of what military life is like, and were wearing a uniform. At least, that's why I thought I was being dropped when I was a cadet.

Nope...spent 22 years in the USAF and never once had to do a push up as a form of punishment.  Weeded a lot of sidewalks, painted a couple of buildings and lost a lot of "off duty time" but never one had to do a single push up.

So if we had a DI write the program out, it would be okay? I just so happen to know a couple, and at least one of which who would be happy to write that sort of curriculum out. After all, if there is a PROPER technique, and the military has been using it and producing the discipline it has, then there's got to be something to it. CAP has every reason to use that resource. Which points me to your next paragraph...

Won't help....the problem is not the standard so much but the maturity of the audience.  I don't think the average cadet...even those that end up on encampment staff are ready to accept that sort of maturity.  And the lessons the cadets take back to their home units will be garbled even more.  It is at this level where I have my problems as opposed to at encampment.

You can think that, and there isn't anything I can say to convince you otherwise. I, on the other hand, believe that if we allowed more flexibility in the rule, it would give those people who want to do push-ups badly enough to break the rules at least a way to do it WITHIN the rules and hopefully far more safely than when they are not regulated or monitored. I guess it's the same idea as legalizing drugs, except that I would be a little suspicious of anyone comparing push-ups to drugs.

Yes....that makes sense....you can't be expected to follow the rules...so we'll give you some more room so that maybe you will be safer.

Can I use that argument the next time I get caught doing 55 in a 35 zone.    "But Judge if you just give me more guidelines and let me drive fast is certain circumstance....I won't drive 55 in school zones."

I don't think so.

The rules are there to protect our cadets and our program....we don't make arbitrary rules just for the heck of it.

[cap235629]

click on Nathan's profile.

Speaks volumes.

[Eclipse]

click on Nathan's profile.

Speaks volumes.

?

[CadetProgramGuy]

click on Nathan's profile.

Speaks volumes.

?

Yeah I'm lost on this post to....To what are you refering?

[Fubar]

click on Nathan's profile.

Speaks volumes.

You have something against people from Kansas?

(I am just kidding here, I'm not sure I get what's in his profile your referring to)

[SarDragon]

It must be because he's (only?) 21.

[cap235629]

It must be because he's (only?) 21.

yes

age
maturity
experience
no children of cadet age
more than likely a prior cadet
good chance has never been in the actual military

When I was 21 the only thing I had in that list was military experience.  I see the world a whole lot differently now

[flyguy06]

The Air Force doesnt do PT? I have seen Air Force folks doing PT.

[Nathan]

By using the wrong terminology you ruin your creditability.

Spoilsport.

It was a half-hearted attempt at sarcasm, but yes, I acknowledge that the correct term would be "punishment." I have no problem using the term, so long as we can acknowledge that CAP does, in fact, punish people, and that using the term "punishment" does not mean that we're doing anything new in terms of how we've been running the cadet program.

But ruining credibility? Come on.

So worse then vague guidelines....you got none.  If you want to sell your point of view you got to have some sort of idea of what those guidelines are going to be.  How we are going to teach those guidelines to our CP members.  And how we are going to monitor compliance.

Uh...

You didn't really pick up on the post. Was it too long?

I specifically said that there would be guidelines in place, and that they would be written by people who have the time and energy to research the safety aspects that would be necessary to implement such a program. Not IF it would be safe. I don't think that's a question. Rather, at what point can we call it hazing? At what point would a cadet start translating the physical effort into mental pain?

I COULD go through and write out a detailed, fourteen-page proposition, complete with rules, psychological resources, and so on. But I have ABSOLUTELY no reason to do that, knowing that my ideas are not going to make it off this board. If there was even an inkling of interest from national, AND if I had any part in that movement, then I would have no problem assisting in coming up with a change to CAPR 52-16 that would allow this change. But until that work is shown to pay off, I'm not going to do it. It really wasn't the point of what I wrote anyway. Just because I'm not going to sit here and write out specifics for you to pick apart doesn't mean that the logic behind the idea isn't sound.

I don't think it makes us more "militaristic'.  If we use our parent service, the USAF, as an example...they don't use this sort of corrective action in their standard training program.  Positive punishment (the addition of something to stop bad behavior...doing push ups for screw up) is not as affective as positive reinforcement.  I can correct bad behavior with out telling people to do push ups.

Sure. We all can. That's no problem. But we don't. I could turn this back around and tell YOU to come up with a plan of action to specifically train people to use "positive reinforcement", but I suspect you don't have the time or desire, right?

But the "more militaristic" term is not that it is necessarily representative of the ACTUAL military (which is why I used the term in quotes most of the time, except, apparently, where you quoted). It's rather how the cadets PERCEIVE the military to act. If they feel like they're in hardcore military training, it doesn't matter so much if they are. It will still motivate them to be proud that they're going through the same challenge they perceive the real military folks to be going through. And, as I said, push-ups, if used correctly, are not harmful. So with a low risk of detriment for most cadet, a moderate chance of benefit, and a fair certainty that less morale harm will be caused by this than by, say, loss of honor points, then I think it doesn't matter if the USAF does things exactly the way we do.

I never said anything about HMRS...I feel that they don't need to use it there at all.  At PJOC....the purpose of the course is to Orient cadets to the PJ career field....and their training includes a lot of push ups.  Also in that context the PJOC program is run by professionals who know when to knock it off.

I apologize. I was assuming that when you were talking about PJOC, you were using activities that are regularly known to use push-ups as a justification to use them.

But regardless, I'm not sure that the term "professionals" applies to the PJ's as trainers so much as it does search and rescue experts. I don't know for certain, so I am asking. Are they TRAINED as DIs? How do they know when to knock it off? Who tells them? Just because they're good PJ's doesn't mean that they have any idea when to draw the line with 12-20 year old cadets. What makes them more qualified than any other SM with military background?

I'm not trying to argue against my own case. I'm saying that if we can trust people OUTSIDE of CAP to use physical punishment (which it is, no matter how you want to spin the "training" aspect of it), then I'm not entirely sure why you don't think we could have any current or former military guy write this up for a CAP reg and be just as qualified.

I agree....but I personally don't think is is possible to properly train the majority of the rank and file CAP member to properly supervise and conduct PT as a punishment tool.  We can't get them to follow simple rules like "DON'T DO IT" or "Don't wear white shocks with our uniform".   You will have to go a long way to prove to me that the general rank and file is ready to accept the responsibility to have this sort of power.

Actually, we trust the "rank and file" members with cadet safety every single time we put them at encampment. They have the medical records, they have access to the cadets from a position of authority. Every time they go camping, we are trusting these members with the cadets' lives and safety.

Is there going to be a violation of the proposed rule? Absolutely. Are there violations now, when there is no such rule? Yep. The people who are going to break the rules are going to do it anyway. If they're going to drop cadets for 100 push-ups, then they are going to do it regardless of whether or not there is a rule saying no more than a set of five per hour. Regardless of what happens, those people still need to be found out and taken care of.

Nope...spent 22 years in the USAF and never once had to do a push up as a form of punishment.  Weeded a lot of sidewalks, painted a couple of buildings and lost a lot of "off duty time" but never one had to do a single push up.

Fair enough, but, as I said, it's the perception that matters more than reality for most younger cadets. Of course I know now that the military isn't at all like I thought it was when I was fourteen. But would I have felt nearly as cool or motivated during encampment if I was sent to weed sidewalks instead of doing some hardcore push-ups? No way.

I'm not saying that we should feed a stereotype. But we should be raising morale, not lowering it. Maybe you think differently when you look back at your 22 years, but I can say that I would much rather have done a few sets of push-ups than weeded a sidewalk, and I would have wasted a LOT less time in the process. In my opinion, if I have enough blank time that a cadet has time to go weed a sidewalk, then I'm not doing my job. But I suppose that's just the difference between the several weeks of boot camp, and the one week of encampment. We have to do more with less time. Push-ups seem like they would be far more effective than wasting time doing chores.

Won't help....the problem is not the standard so much but the maturity of the audience.  I don't think the average cadet...even those that end up on encampment staff are ready to accept that sort of maturity.  And the lessons the cadets take back to their home units will be garbled even more.  It is at this level where I have my problems as opposed to at encampment.

I can agree with you here. Which is why I don't think I'm the guy qualified to figure out the best training plan. And yes, it would have to be an experiment to see if the cadets could handle that sort of responsibility. But my theory is that, as time has proved over and over, professionals train professionals. If the cadets using the PT were doing it right, then the cadets BEING PT'd would therefore be trained just by experience of how to do it professionally. This goes for many things in CAP. Obviously, it doesn't work 100% of the time, but the main issue would be the start-up. If we got it running smoothly, most of the professionalism issues, with proper senior supervision, would work themselves out the same way experience training seems to work things out.

Yes....that makes sense....you can't be expected to follow the rules...so we'll give you some more room so that maybe you will be safer.

Can I use that argument the next time I get caught doing 55 in a 35 zone.    "But Judge if you just give me more guidelines and let me drive fast is certain circumstance....I won't drive 55 in school zones."

I don't think so.

The rules are there to protect our cadets and our program....we don't make arbitrary rules just for the heck of it.

Actually, we do that all the time. Isn't the point of this board to debate such arbitrary rules?

Regardless, the only reason that this isn't allowed is trust of our members to do things right. As I said, coddling cadets makes them expect to be coddled. Stop doing so, and they'll stop expecting it. It's not a case of relaxing our standards just because some people don't want to play by the rules. It's the idea that we can open up a tool that the military itself has found useful in instilling discipline, and hopefully allowing us to regulate these PT issues, rather than (ineffectively) just telling people to cut it out.

[Nathan]

It must be because he's (only?) 21.

yes

age
maturity
experience
no children of cadet age
more than likely a prior cadet
good chance has never been in the actual military

When I was 21 the only thing I had in that list was military experience.  I see the world a whole lot differently now

That is beyond condescending, especially for you to be stating things that you aren't sure of, and have no way of verifying. You could just, you know, ask what my qualifications are.

Age? 21. I suppose that makes me fairly young compared to you old guys.

Maturity? Not sure how to grade this myself.

Experience? 8 years in cadet programs. Earned the Spaatz award, planned thoroughly and executed a wing encampment as a cadet, numerous awards. Senior member Captain now with senior rating in cadet programs. Hopefully that counts for something toward this particular topic.

Childen? None. Waiting to be done with medical school first.

Prior cadet? Yeah, you got that one. Not sure if that makes me LESS qualified to talk about cadet issues, but whatever.

Not in the actual military? True. Couldn't make it past MEPS for the jobs I was "promised" due to color-blindness. I was offered other jobs, but they had a high chance of deployment, and that would get in the way of the whole "trying to be a doctor" thing. Still, I'm not sure that my lack of experience in the military necessarily makes me less qualified to talk about the cadet programs in CAP, in which, if I may make an assumption based on YOUR profile, I have more experience...

So don't make this personal. Really. It was a pretty low blow of you to take a stab ad hominem when I said nothing in my post that would even remotely warrant it.

[lordmonar]

The Air Force doesnt do PT? I have seen Air Force folks doing PT.

Not as punishment.  We do PT to improve phisical fitness.

[N Harmon]

I always thought hazing was a form of initiation and had nothing to do with punishment.