Nathan's view of hazing

[AirAux]

Well, you are a Captain and senior rated in the Cadet Program due to your cadet achievements and not due to anything you have done as a senior member which brings forth some credibility issues for some seniors.  I am concernedf that you are a medical student that advocates utilizing PAIN when dealing with cadets.  Lastly, I question your closed mindedness regarding accupuncture.  Until you have more medical experience than you now have you shouldn't be labeling anything as "quackery".  This might be an indication of your lack of maturity.  JMHO

[AirAux]

N. Harmon, you definately need to look at the CAP definition of hazing..

[Nathan]

Well, you are a Captain and senior rated in the Cadet Program due to your cadet achievements and not due to anything you have done as a senior member which brings forth some credibility issues for some seniors.  I am concernedf that you are a medical student that advocates utilizing PAIN when dealing with cadets.  Lastly, I question your closed mindedness regarding accupuncture.  Until you have more medical experience than you now have you shouldn't be labeling anything as "quackery".  This might be an indication of your lack of maturity.  JMHO

1) The only reason I pointed out my senior rating and rank is because (per the label) it is representative of my experience, at least as far as CAP is willing to acknowledge. I have 8 years of experience in cadet programs, working at nearly all echelons (even as a cadet). This is a cadet programs issue. I think that my experience is, if nothing else, at least valid to allow me to be, you know, not ignored.

2) Not a medical student yet, to be fair. But regardless, I did not say that I was endorsing pain. I said that physical pain and emotional/psychological pain, while closely related in many situations, are not always so. Which means that cadet can go through physical discomfort and actually enjoy the experience. Much like, as I mentioned, exercise. But saying that I am advocating pain is pretty much a straw-man argument. Try again.

3) Actually, I have this hobby, which is the study of "alternative medicine." It is only because I am a fairly open-minded person that I actually DO the research into these things and read what the literature says. I would start annoyingly linking to every study I know that proves acupuncture is garbage, but I don't, because it has NOTHING to do with this topic. Although, if you're interested, feel free to hit me up via email, and as long as you're okay reading dry, monotonous research, we can make a day out of it.

I find it immensely interesting that MY maturity has been questioned, when I have been twice attacked on a personal level by such people calling me immature without any sort of obvious warrant. To be fair, I have absolutely no problem debating against lordmonar. I've interacted with him enough to know he's a fair poster, and so far, he has gone to the considerable trouble to attack my arguments. I don't mind that. In fact, if I am wrong, that's the way it's going to be proven, and I don't mind being wrong.

You and Hess have decided to attack my character. Is it because the post is a little too long? I would imagine so, since my "prior cadet" status was guessed. Anyone who actually read the post would have seen me state it a few times. That can only lead to the conclusion that my original post was not READ by those attacking my character, which begs the necessity for the attack. Did it seem like I was getting dogpiled, and someone just wanted to get in a cheap-shot?

Seriously. Personal attacks are, dare I say, immature. If you have a reason to disagree with my argument, then state it. It really shouldn't matter whether I am a C/Amn or a Col in the USAF (which is why I don't post my rank). You have something to argue, then do so. Otherwise, go pick a fight with someone else.

[RedFox24]

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.

+1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 :clap:

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.

+1,000,000,000  :clap:

[N Harmon]

N. Harmon, you definately need to look at the CAP definition of hazing..

Oh, I know what CAP's definition of hazing is. I just don't agree with it. It's non-standard terminology, and is embarrassing to me when I tell parents of prospective cadets about our high-speed protection policy that has the looks of having been written by a 9th grader (no offense to ninth graders in present company).

Seriously. Had it not been specifically listed as an example of hazing, would you really consider giving exercise as punishment as fitting the (CAP) definition of "conduct whereby someone causes another to suffer or to be exposed to any activity that is cruel, abusive, humiliating, oppressive, demeaning, or harmful"?

Like Nathan Scalia, I too am a former cadet now SM Captain with a senior rating in cadet programs. I also planned and managed cadet activities, and even was the senior cadet in charge of an operational NCSA. I'm a bit older, but don't really think age matters much given that much experience with the cadet program.

By the way, acupuncture is bunk, and if you don't think so; click this: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?cat=8

[lordmonar]

The use of PT as punishment by itself is not hazing.  But you have to agree that PT as punsihment has been an element of hazing in the past.

The inclusion of the no PT as punishment in the CPP stems from this fact.

It was include because frankly a lot of adults could not keep their eye on the fact that we are supposed to be keeping our cadet safe from both physical and mental abuse.

I would like to add the ability to use PT as punishment in our program.....as a lot of ex-militry people know....it is a short cut in corrective training and when used properly is an effective tool.

But.........(there is aways a but  )

The level of maturity needed to use it properly is not something commonly found in a teenager.
The level of supervision in CAP is wholefully lacking.
The level of knowledge of the cadet program by even master rated CP people is sometimes disheartening.
The educational value of this type of correction is not worth the potential for abuse.

And that is the bottom line.

Pro:  Some cadets expect and want to get dropped because they think it is "miliatary".
Pro:  In some situations it serves a useful tool for correction, attention getting and improves phisical fitness.

Con:  To easy to use in the wrong situations
Con:  Not all (I dare say the majority) of cadets don't want it or expect it.
Con:  Too hard to train leaders (cadets and seniors) in the proper use of this technique.
Con:  Too hard to supervise (at all levels) those who have been taught it.
Con:  Too much potential for harming cadets, retention and the rest of the aims of the Cadet Program.

[Nathan]

Do any of those points NOT apply to things we do instead of PT?

Examples...

A C/Col I know (who probably should not have made it to C/Col) punished a flight at encampment by making them mop their floor during a break time. Then, when he found out how fast they had gotten it done, he trampled through their barracks with muddy boots and made them clean it again.

Two cadets were caught running around doing spirit missions at night. The commander said he would deal with it in the morning, but handed them over to the cadet staff to deal with. The cadets were made to clean the kitchen until the morning, with no sleep.

The potential for abuse is in ANY situation, and it all is hinged on SM supervision and proper training of cadets. The difference, as far as I see it, is that a set of five push-ups as a rule-of-thumb is MUCH easier to "traditionalize" than some other method of punishment, ie chores. The only way to make 5 push-ups harder is to increase it to ten, or twenty, or a thousand. But with chores, or losing honor points... well, that's more subjective of a punishment, and MUCH more prone to abuse than a set of push-ups.

I don't doubt that there are problems in any situation. I'm just stating that if we're worried about the ability to effectively use punishments, and that our audience isn't going to be capable of being creative enough to be particularly compassionate in doing so, then PT is a far safer way to go. A cadet told to do a thousand push-ups has a much better chance of knowing he or she is being hazed and reporting it than a cadet who is made to clean the barracks for fifteen hours.

[NCRblues]

I think some members of this board are confused about the air force use of Pt for punishment. The air force still uses Pt as punishment (or reinforcement or whatever fancy name you want to give it) in basic training and Technical schools. Once you reach your first base, Pt is banned as a punishment, and can only be done as group pt or during pt test (or designated pt time during duty hours).

I think (maybe) that Nathan is advocating for the use of a more militaristic basic encampment that includes pt. I haven't made up my mind on this yet so...

The cheap shots at his age have bothered me. I am 22 and have a lot of real world experience. I spent 12 months in Iraq doing combat convoys, crossed trained into a different job in the air force. Married at 18 (no children), was a cadet captain before I joined the active duty AF. Did a stent as a tech school instructor, attended CPET, and graduated first in my class out of both tech schools I attended. There's more, but I'll stop. Once again this is a problem in cap. The idea from the old guys, that the new guys can bring nothing to the table is wrong. Please don't judge someone on their age alone, for you have no idea what this person knows or has done in their life.

[Eclipse]

N. Harmon, you definately need to look at the CAP definition of hazing..

Oh, I know what CAP's definition of hazing is. I just don't agree with it. It's non-standard terminology, and is embarrassing to me when I tell parents of prospective cadets about our high-speed protection policy that has the looks of having been written by a 9th grader (no offense to ninth graders in present company).

Actually, that was a 9th grader at the DOD, since CAP adheres to and enforces the same exact policy as the DOD.

Seriously. Had it not been specifically listed as an example of hazing, would you really consider giving exercise as punishment as fitting the (CAP) definition of "conduct whereby someone causes another to suffer or to be exposed to any activity that is cruel, abusive, humiliating, oppressive, demeaning, or harmful"?

Yes, in fact, its a perfect textbook example.

[Nathan]

Seriously. Had it not been specifically listed as an example of hazing, would you really consider giving exercise as punishment as fitting the (CAP) definition of "conduct whereby someone causes another to suffer or to be exposed to any activity that is cruel, abusive, humiliating, oppressive, demeaning, or harmful"?

Yes, in fact, its a perfect textbook example.

Fair enough. Would you like to justify, then, how a set of push-ups qualifies as "conduct whereby someone causes another to suffer or to be exposed to any activity that is cruel, abusive, humiliating, oppressive, demeaning, or harmful" for CAP? I had to add the "for CAP" in there, since none of the military branches seem to believe that PT fits the definition, and I am assuming that by citing the DOD using this definition, you were asserting the credibility in relation to push-ups.

[N Harmon]

Actually, that was a 9th grader at the DOD, since CAP adheres to and enforces the same exact policy as the DOD.

Can you point out a single DoD policy that uses the same circular logic of defining three different types of abuse (in our case; sexual, physical, and hazing) and then going back and saying one of them is actually just a different form of another? Can you point out a single DoD policy on hazing that fails to specifically state that "administrative corrective measures" are NOT hazing; despite CAP's policy saying that it is?

Seriously. Had it not been specifically listed as an example of hazing, would you really consider giving exercise as punishment as fitting the (CAP) definition of "conduct whereby someone causes another to suffer or to be exposed to any activity that is cruel, abusive, humiliating, oppressive, demeaning, or harmful"?

Yes, in fact, its a perfect textbook example.

So, which of those would punitive PT fall under? Certainly it would not be cruel, abusive, demeaning, or harmful if you can do PT for non-punitive reasons. Is it humiliating? Oppressive? Which one? How is it a textbook example of any of them?

[Eclipse]

Fair enough. Would you like to justify, then, how a set of push-ups qualifies as "conduct whereby someone causes another to suffer or to be exposed to any activity that is cruel, abusive, humiliating, oppressive, demeaning, or harmful" for CAP? I had to add the "for CAP" in there, since none of the military branches seem to believe that PT fits the definition, and I am assuming that by citing the DOD using this definition, you were asserting the credibility in relation to push-ups.

Nathan, you and I both know that "PT" is not hazing - the fact that you're trying to somehow make this the argument for others says you're running out of steam.  No one here is saying PT, done for the purpose of fitness, is hazing or wrong.

PT is PT, period.

However using pushups to help a cadet use the word "Sir" properly, or measure his badges is just silly.

Something else being missed here and on CS - we don't "own" our cadets 24x7, yet you're suggesting the use of a technique from a service which does.  A TI, and the military in general, is responsible for providing for the welfare of a recruit or trainee 24x7, for all needs, physical and emotional, for the duration of BMT, and generally years after.

Techniques which are potentially humiliating or harmful are backed up by training and observation - we don't do that in CAP. We drop a kid in front of his buddies, maybe he can't do them right (which makes it worse),  and then he's sent home 20 minutes later to stew about it outside the protection of the environment which caused the issue, and perhaps with no support at home or further pressures, etc.

You may well be surprised at just how fragile young people actually are, especially adolescents, and not everyone has the support structure or framework to deal with disappointment and failure in a positive way - not to mention the social network nonsense where a cadet can then go home, log on and get more grief from his "buds" about screwing up.

I have to deal with this all the time as an encampment CC and a parent.  Those "harmless" pushups, may be all it takes to cause a cadet to quit CAP or much worse, and since CAP can't provide the 24x7 basis of support to move past the issue, we need to stay away from it completely.

Wishing kids weren't as they are today won't change where the are.

[N Harmon]

However using pushups to help a cadet use the word "Sir" properly, or measure his badges is just silly.

The only point I make is that it being silly and ineffective, and NOT leadership does not make it hazing.

[Nathan]

\Nathan, you and I both know that "PT" is not hazing - the fact that you're trying to somehow make this the argument for others says you're running out of steam.  No one here is saying PT, done for the purpose of fitness, is hazing or wrong.

PT is PT, period.

However using pushups to help a cadet use the word "Sir" properly, or measure his badges is just silly.

Maybe, maybe not. That's what we're trying to decide. As I said, the push-ups are not inherently harmful if used properly, and can be less harmful than deducting honor points, chores, or whatever other time-wasting activities we use instead. PT just registers as a punishment without actually making the cadet less likely to achieve some goal, which is much better than most methods used now. And if I'm running out of steam, it's because I'm having to repeat this point over and over again with no counterargument as to why THIS point is incorrect.

Something else being missed here and on CS - we don't "own" our cadets 24x7, yet you're suggesting the use of a technique from a service which does.  A TI, and the military in general, is responsible for providing for the welfare of a recruit or trainee 24x7, for all needs, physical and emotional, for the duration of BMT, and generally years after.

Techniques which are potentially humiliating or harmful are backed up by training and observation - we don't do that in CAP. We drop a kid in front of his buddies, maybe he can't do them right (which makes it worse),  and then he's sent home 20 minutes later to stew about it outside the protection of the environment which caused the issue, and perhaps with no support at home or further pressures, etc.

You are correct. We don't own our cadets 24x7. And this would be important if the way you are viewing this technique was the same way I am. But, given that you seem to think that I am advocating dropping a cadet in front of everyone (a clearly humiliating experience), I would imagine that you didn't read my caveats. I said that this is NOT supposed to be a form of individual punishment. PT is and always will be a team activity, whether during testing or otherwise. There is no excuse for having a cadet doing push-ups on his own in front of a flight, commander, or whatever.

Once you change that aspect of your perception of this, then there isn't any need for "follow up" or "observation", because there is no humiliation. There is simply a registering of "I was punished. I will not do this again" with no harm, physical or psychological. In fact, because we don't "own our people" like the military does, that makes an even GREATER case for using a quick, superficial punishment like a set of push-ups rather than the other methods we use, which affect morale. Being the reason that a flight lost honor points, and therefore didn't get honor flight, is HUGELY demoralizing. I've had to mentor cadets in tears due to this exact issue.

So read the post again, and see what I am saying. I am NOT advocating hazing. I am NOT advocating humiliation, physical pain or torture, singling out, or demoralization. In fact, I see push-ups as a way to stem off these problems, as I think that the majority of what we have open to us as an option, which includes restraining cadets from things they WANT to do in CAP, goes far more into the area of hazing potential than push-ups ever could.

[Eclipse]

However using pushups to help a cadet use the word "Sir" properly, or measure his badges is just silly.

The only point I make is that it being silly and ineffective, and NOT leadership does not make it hazing.

In a coffee house or committee discussion about what should be CAP policy, perhaps, however based on current rules, you are incorrect.

[Eclipse]

So read the post again, and see what I am saying. I am NOT advocating hazing.

No, you are looking to redefine hazing to allow what is currently considered a harmful practice to no longer be hazing - basically the same thing.

Bottom line, you believe push-ups are an effective tool for discipline and training.  You add 3000 words of caveats and asterisks because you, yourself, recognize the inherent issues with abuse and incorrect technique, yet you will persist in this assertion despite the fact that adults with far more experience than you, including those with significant experience as military trainers, and current doctrine of military training itself disagrees with you.

I don't think there's much room for a discussion there.

[cap235629]

The cheap shots at his age have bothered me. I am 22 and have a lot of real world experience. I spent 12 months in Iraq doing combat convoys, crossed trained into a different job in the air force. Married at 18 (no children), was a cadet captain before I joined the active duty AF. Did a stent as a tech school instructor, attended CPET, and graduated first in my class out of both tech schools I attended. There's more, but I'll stop. Once again this is a problem in cap. The idea from the old guys, that the new guys can bring nothing to the table is wrong. Please don't judge someone on their age alone, for you have no idea what this person knows or has done in their life.

Nathan and I have had "discussions" in the past where his personality, experience and maturity have been abundantly clear.  Rather than rehash them I posted a comment to have people draw their own conclusions. I like you was a married veteran at age 21. I knew from personal experience that Nathan was not and did not in any way mean to paint all younger senior members with the same brush. If I offended anyone by doing so I apologize.

[ZigZag911]

I really enjoyed the film "Full Metal Jacket".

Even when it first came out in 1987 (I was a squadron CDC then) my cadet officers (and BTW, I was one too back in the day!) also enjoyed it...understanding several things:

1) it was a work of fiction
2) whatever facts it was based on were from an earlier time
3) the individuals depicted in the movie were training for COMBAT

Corrective actions in CAP need to focus on the problem...in other words, must be remedial rather than punitive.

We're all entitled to our personal opinions -- but anyone who cannot accept and adhere to regulations should not be working with cadets ..actually, should not be in CAP.

And anyone that can't maintain discipline without physical punishment or mental degradation/humiliation of individuals is not much of a leader, let alone "officer".

[N Harmon]

In a coffee house or committee discussion about what should be CAP policy, perhaps, however based on current rules, you are incorrect.

Huh? The CAP regulation does not say punitive PT is hazing because it's silly and ineffective. It is hazing because the reg says it is hazing. Nobody denies that CAP's definition of hazing includes punitive PT. We're just pointing out 1) that is inconsistent with the military, and 2) the reasons to forbid punitive PT are less about cadet protection and more about effective leadership.

You made the claim that if punitive PT were not specifically mentioned in the regulation that it would otherwise be clearly known as it is a "textbook example". In re:35 you say it is harmful. How is punitive PT more harmful than regular PT?

[Eclipse]

In re:35 you say it is harmful. How is punitive PT more harmful than regular PT?

As regular PT is not "harmful", and I never made the assertion it is, this question is unanswerable.