Nathan's view of hazing

Started by Nathan, December 28, 2009, 09:20:48 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ZigZag911

Quote from: N Harmon on December 29, 2009, 07:57:48 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on December 29, 2009, 07:43:40 PM
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?

1) "inconsistent with the rest of the military" -- CAP is not military; cadets are not airmen, soldiers, sailors or Marines. Basic Encampment is not military basic training, but an orientation to CAP and the USAF which includes some curriculum elements of recruit training

2) ineffective leadership IS a hazard to cadets, as well as to CAP operational personnel

3) punitive PT often involves emotional degradation, which is generally a poor way to train anyone, particularly adolescents who are still forming personal identities...further there is the very real possibility of physically pushing the individual beyond capabilities (e.g., 'you'll do pushups till you drop!')


N Harmon

Quote from: Eclipse on December 29, 2009, 08:06:31 PM
As regular PT is not "harmful", and I never made the assertion it is, this question is unanswerable.

You made the assertion that punitive PT is harmful. I would like to know how. Like, what is it about the punitive nature that makes it harmful? It seems to me that the only way to make that case is to characterize the punitive PT in a way that would be equally as abusive even if it weren't punitive. For example, ZigZag911 asserted that an individual receiving punitive PT might be pushed beyond his/her capability. In such a case isn't it the manner of delivery and not the punitive nature that is to blame for that? Like, is it not just as easy to push individuals beyond capability in a regular PT setting?
NATHAN A. HARMON, Capt, CAP
Monroe Composite Squadron

A.Member

#42
The entire premise of this thread is indicative of one of the problems facing CAP.   There is this underlying (and sometimes overt) emphasis on "punishment".   I've seen it in the way we deal with incidents (pilots) all the way down to how cadets are "taught" at encampments.   It's prevalent enough to consider it a cultural issue and one that apparently stems from ignorance.   

I trust the people that foster these viewpoints have never been in a real world leadership and/or team environment because they very clearly don't understand it.  It's particularly disturbing when these comments come from those that are supposedly in leadership roles, particularly if they are CC or DCC's.  I mean, seriously – physical punishment?!  Moreover, who the hell wants to be part of that organization?! 

A primary goal of the cadet program is to develop leadership skills -- skills that transcend CAP.   As leaders, our approach should be to teach, enable, and inspire cadets.   Our goal is to effectively make the experience more valuable and pertinent to each cadet.  It should build confidence.  How does "punitive PT" align with these objectives?  Answer:  It doesn't...and it's foolish.   There is clearly a role for PT but it has nothing to do with punishment.

So, yes, I will call you narrow minded...but I will not call you a leader.


Quote from: ZigZag911 on December 29, 2009, 07:53:21 PM
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".
:clap:
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

RiverAux

I think Nathan has presented a pretty good case (argued better than most proposals put forward here) and with proper regulation and training I wouldn't have a problem with it in encampment environments. 

That being said, I wonder if getting this done would fall into the "more trouble than its worth" category?  Writing the regs might not be that hard, but fighting the mindset behind our current system would be an incredibly hard battle.  Quite frankly, with the "safety only" point of view gaining ascendency, I'm somewhat surprised CAP cadets are still doing PT and participating in ES and trying to make this change would seem to be tilting at windmills. 

Nathan

#44
Quote from: Eclipse on December 29, 2009, 07:49:55 PM
Quote from: Nathan on December 29, 2009, 07:42:40 PM
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.

Well... no. From the definition of hazing I see, push-ups do not fit the criteria. So no, I think the definition of hazing works, at least if it's followed the way it's written. I'm interested to know what the justification for disallowing punitive PT under the "hazing" definition is, since I cannot figure it out myself.

Quote from: EclipseBottom 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.

Oh. Right.

The "trust in our sage wisdom" argument really gets old. It's a complete, 100% cop-out argument, and it really lends nothing to the discussion. You use it a LOT, and it never proves any point. It's just condescending. I have asked you multiple times to help me figure out how push-ups qualify as hazing, per the definition you so kindly pointed out that the DOD shares. If you are unable to do that, just own up and say you can't. But don't talk down to me because of your "greater experience." It doesn't make your argument correct on that basis alone.

Quote from: cap235629Nathan 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.

Um... this must have been either a LONG time ago, or really, really trivial, because I don't really know what you're talking about. And, on a hunch, I have a suspicion that you wouldn't be discrediting my opinion due to my age or "lack of experience" if we were on the same side of this debate. Once again, if you have something about the argument to say, say it. But I haven't been personally insulting to you, and I don't see what benefit you're getting by trying to insult me. ::)
Nathan Scalia

The post beneath this one is a lie.

Nathan

Quote from: A.Member on December 29, 2009, 09:41:33 PM
The entire premise of this thread is indicative of one of the problems facing CAP.   There is this underlying (and sometimes overt) emphasis on "punishment".   I've seen it in the way we deal with incidents (pilots) all the way down to how cadets are "taught" at encampments.   It's prevalent enough to consider it a cultural issue and one that apparently stems from ignorance.   

I really should shorten it, because I stated in there very clearly that I am not saying we should replace everything with PT. I still understand and regularly use mentoring, positive reinforcement, and so on. I am not advocating punishment over everything else, so the "emphasis" you're seeing just isn't there.

But I am not naive enough to think that there is never a situation warranting a punishment in CAP. And, as I've said, we are fairly limited in the punitive actions we are permitted to take, when punishment is in fact necessary. We can write out a 2b or go to demotion, or we can give them a slap on the wrist with little bite. Everything else is left to the creative commander, and that generally involves depriving the cadet of certain aspects of CAP, whether it is honor points, ability to attend certain activities, or whatever. We NEED a middle ground that doesn't deprive the cadet of the experience CAP is supposed to provide. Punitive PT is laughably trivial in terms of morale damage, when used properly, as compared to even a mild loss of honor points.

No offense, but the rest of your post was based off of the assertion that I am a punishment-focused leader, and that is not the case, so I'm not going to counterpoint anything more than that. I consider myself pretty well-versed in the leadership literature and theories, if not the practice. The focus of this THREAD was punishment, but that doesn't translate into my leadership style, just one aspect of it that all commanders will at some point need to exercise.
Nathan Scalia

The post beneath this one is a lie.

RedFox24

Quote from: Nathan on December 30, 2009, 01:47:30 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on December 29, 2009, 07:49:55 PM
Quote from: Nathan on December 29, 2009, 07:42:40 PM
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.

Well... no. From the definition of hazing I see, push-ups do not fit the criteria. So no, I think the definition of hazing works, at least if it's followed the way it's written. I'm interested to know what the justification for disallowing punitive PT under the "hazing" definition is, since I cannot figure it out myself.


Nathan

Let me give it a try.  This might not satisfy your or anyone else's questions but it is my point of view as an Encampment Commander.

Actual case.

Cadet Flight Leader is seen giving his flight push ups by Commandant of Cadets.

Commandant asks why.

CFL says that Cadet John Doe had the worst rack in inspection for third day in a row, his scores are going down.  I dressed him down in front of the flight and told the flight that they would do push ups as a flight because of Doe's poor performance.

COC asks CFL don't you think that you might be crossing the line here toward hazing?

CFL oh no it's not hazing because I made the whole flight do it and I am using it as a teaching tool. 

COC comes to me as Encampment Commander:  What do you want to do?

Encampment Commander:  Pull the CFL and have him go through some consulting on leadership and RST/CPPT AGAIN.  Sees the error of his ways and returns to the flight as commander.

End of story..................

Is this hazing?  Are the push ups in and of themselves hazing?  I would say the act of push ups were not BUT when combined with everything else that happened I would say YES.  At the very least by the regulations it is in a very grey area and my gut tells me that the grey area is where most of the problems occur because that is where you might not consider it hazing but someone else might.  Does that make it hazing?  Again not necessarily BUT..............

Now think about this.........

Cadet Doe calls home that night and tells mommy that he his being harassed because he cant make his bunk   Mommy calls squadron commander and uses the magic word hazing.  Squadron Commander does his part and calls Wing CC.  Then I have to spend the night (till 2am) on the phone, and I do mean night, with the Wing Commander and the Gen Counsel at NHQ because Mommy says her kid has been harassed and wants to know what I have done about it. 

The first thing the Wing CC and GC ask is WHY WHERE THEY DOING PUSH UPS?

This is why I don't let this stuff happen and why now that CFL gets relieved, sent home and a flag placed on his name that he won't be back next year.  That is why my staff spends hours documenting what happened and why and where the break down occurred so that it doesn't happen again.  This is why we screen our senior members very carefully so that they don't do or encourage the same thing.

Yes we spend many an hour documenting things that are not hazing or that are grey area events because YOU don't know when Mommy or Daddy are going to claim that Johnny was harassed/hazed/mistreated etc so forth at nausea.  It's the world we live in and its also the balancing act we must follow with in the frame work of the rules and regulations.

And last but not least, as Encampment Commander I set the rules.  And my rules are no push ups or anything related or similar as the sort as punishment.  Period. 

And as a cadet or senior at the encampment where I am commander, if you don't like it,  don't come or go home.   I don't know you Nathan, never have meet you and only know you through your post.  Don't care really about any of the rest of the stuff that has been thrown in the discussion.  But as a person who advocates your point of view I would be very leery of letting you attend my encampment.  And if I was so persuaded by my staff to let you attend, you would be on a very short leash until it was determined if you could let your views be superseded by the encampment policy. 

And as a squadron commander or group commander I wouldn't sign any member's paperwork for them to attend an encampment where such activities occur. 
Contrarian and Curmudgeon at Large

"You can tell a member of National Headquarters but you can't tell them much!"

Just say NO to NESA Speak.

RiverAux

To be fair, your first example is a situation that violate our current rules as an argument against changing our rules.  Doesn't make a lot of sense.  Sure, they're wrong, but what does that have to do with this?  Your second example illustrates that some parents will always complain no matter how benign the rule is. 

I think Nathan's argument rests upon the implementation of very strict guidelines and rules about when such things could be done and about which everyone (including parents) would be informed up front. 


Eclipse

Quote from: RiverAux on December 30, 2009, 03:47:26 AM
To be fair, your first example is a situation that violate our current rules as an argument against changing our rules.  Doesn't make a lot of sense.  Sure, they're wrong, but what does that have to do with this?  Your second example illustrates that some parents will always complain no matter how benign the rule is. 

Actually, it is the perfect example of why we will never again see PT of any sort allowed for punishment in CAP, because when people cannot be trusted to follow the most simple guidelines, ones that are made clear, repeated often, and have absolutely no wiggle room, NHQ is not going to be interested or inclined to even consider allowing for some latitude in this respect.

This is both a program issue (i.e. a lack of training, oversight, and consequences), and a people problem (people, ultimately, do whatever they want, regardless of what they are told to do).

During RST, you say, in short-syllable words, "PT may not be used as punishment under any cricumstances."

Then you spend 15 minutes answering the same questions over and over while cadets and seniors on staff search for some crack in the
armor of the above sentence.

Then you say it again as a closing..."PT may not be used as punishment under any cricumstances."

You reiterate it throughout other planning sessions.  And of course this is supposed to be the mantra at the home unit as well.

And these are going to be cadets and seniors with multiple encampments and large activities, who likely have to sit through the same RST
2-3 times a year.

And then, inevitably, every year, at just about every encampment, at least one Flt Sgt, or Flt CC is standing in someone's office explaining
how the push-ups (or other) he was making his poorly-performing flight were "ok", and somehow, despite all the repetition, the TACs and some others in the chain let it go as well, because they "weren't sure", or worse "thought they could use it..." (assuming it wasn't a senior idea to start).




"That Others May Zoom"

Nathan

#49
Quote from: Eclipse on December 30, 2009, 04:46:59 AM
Actually, it is the perfect example of why we will never again see PT of any sort allowed for punishment in CAP, because when people cannot be trusted to follow the most simple guidelines, ones that are made clear, repeated often, and have absolutely no wiggle room, NHQ is not going to be interested or inclined to even consider allowing for some latitude in this respect.

This is both a program issue (i.e. a lack of training, oversight, and consequences), and a people problem (people, ultimately, do whatever they want, regardless of what they are told to do).

During RST, you say, in short-syllable words, "PT may not be used as punishment under any cricumstances."

Then you spend 15 minutes answering the same questions over and over while cadets and seniors on staff search for some crack in the
armor of the above sentence.

Then you say it again as a closing..."PT may not be used as punishment under any cricumstances."

You reiterate it throughout other planning sessions.  And of course this is supposed to be the mantra at the home unit as well.

And these are going to be cadets and seniors with multiple encampments and large activities, who likely have to sit through the same RST
2-3 times a year.

And then, inevitably, every year, at just about every encampment, at least one Flt Sgt, or Flt CC is standing in someone's office explaining
how the push-ups (or other) he was making his poorly-performing flight were "ok", and somehow, despite all the repetition, the TACs and some others in the chain let it go as well, because they "weren't sure", or worse "thought they could use it..." (assuming it wasn't a senior idea to start).

First point: You either are very unlucky, or your wing has profoundly stupid people in it. I have not had the same problems you have as consistently as you seem to have them.

Second point: When it does happen, it's going to happen REGARDLESS. This is what I can't figure out about your argument, so please, read this next part carefully, and help me figure out your point.

You say that people are going to break the rules, and they can't be trusted. Fine. I'm following you. Then you say that when people break the rules, it can result in hazing. Yes, I'm still with you. Then you use the example that when you tell people NOT to use PT, they still use it. Good example to illustrate the above point.

Then, somehow, you expect me to understand the conclusion that "therefore, regulated PT is out of the question, because the rules are going to be broken, and it will result in hazing."

Uh... what????

You went to all the trouble to tell me that rules are being broken now, and hazing is happening now, and somehow, that's supposed to be a reason that we should keep things they way they are? That's somehow telling me that trying to allow push-ups in a regulated fashion is going to somehow make the situation worse? Why? This is the part I'm not figuring out.

From what you're saying, the push-ups are happening anyway. And when they do happen, it's either a problem because it's real hazing, or it's a problem because it's hazing per CAP (but not necessarily following the DOD definition of hazing, which I am STILL waiting for you to justify as a proper label for push-ups). So my solution is to get rid of the garbage that we label hazing by allowing it in a REGULATED manner, hopefully resulting in at least a few of the problem people being trained to use PT correctly instead of in a hazing manner. Is it going to stop the people who are hazing now? No. Is it going to make it easier for them to haze? No...

I don't mean to sound like I'm trying to be insulting, but you've been jumping around, pointing out flaws that I can't figure out. So I'm going to take the blame and say that I am obviously missing something here, and I hope for my sake that I'm not the only one confused about what you're trying to prove. So here is what I want to know, very clealy written out. Feel free to label, if you want.

1) Please, please, please explain how a set of five push-ups is properly labeled as "conduct whereby someone causes another to suffer or to be exposed to any activity that is cruel, abusive, humiliating, oppressive, demeaning, or harmful." I can't figure it out, and I'm not sure what CAP's justification is. Since you seem to be so sure that push-ups are hazing, I have the utmost confidence you can (finally) do this simple task, which is so fundamental to your argument (I think).

2) Please tell me how, under the assumption that you complete task 1 above, push-ups being regulated is going to make our current hazing worse, when the hazing is occurring from rule-breakers anyway. It is of my opinion that if push-ups are allowed, then it will control those who want to do push-ups with regulations that make it SAFER for our cadets, and the people who still won't play ball are the ones who are breaking the rules now anyway.

3) Please justify to me how we, the general CAP population, in all of our stupidity and incompetence, cannot be trusted with a simple "five push-ups her hour, 10 sets per day" rule (or whatever) addition to 52-16, when we are the SAME senior member population who are in charge of ensuring cadets' safety during all CAP activities, the same population that flies cadets in aircraft, and drives cadets, and holds cadet medication, and teaches discipline, leadership, drug abstinence, etc.

Not only that, but also let me know how a cadet who is in actual danger of being hurt by PT is not going to be smart enough to just, you know, STOP doing push-ups and immediately report the behavior to one of the few shining beacons of hope among senior members (which I'm assuming you are, right?). Because the rest of us are apparently sitting around with our thumbs in our mouths, trying to figure out if it's spelled "hasing" or "haseing" and clearly not doing our jobs.

EDIT: Ranting typos...
EDIT AGAIN: Because I was being kind of a prick.
Nathan Scalia

The post beneath this one is a lie.

Eclipse

Its easy.

When you draw a line and people cross it, you don't move the line further out so they when its inevitably crossed they are in even more trouble then before.

Beyond that, I'm done.

"That Others May Zoom"

Nathan

Quote from: Eclipse on December 30, 2009, 05:32:59 AM
Its easy.

When you draw a line and people cross it, you don't move the line further out so they when its inevitably crossed they are in even more trouble then before.

Beyond that, I'm done.

Alright... except that was one of the points I asked you to clarify anyway, so I guess it's nice we don't have to go "beyond that."

How are we moving the line "farther out?" The people who are dropping cadets NOW are dropping them for thirty push-ups a set. If we set the line at five, then the people who will be hazing will still be dropping cadets for thirty push-ups a set. This isn't a situation that seems like it would get built upon. Rather, chances are high that the people who ARE dropping for thirty now would be dropping for five should such a rule come out. If they don't, they're still breaking the rules, and they're crossing the line from push-ups into the "suffering" part of your hazing definition.
Nathan Scalia

The post beneath this one is a lie.

capchiro

Nathan,
You ask:  (1) Please, please, please explain how a set of five push-ups is properly labeled as "conduct whereby someone causes another to suffer or to be exposed to any activity that is cruel, abusive, humiliating, oppressive, demeaning, or harmful."

The very words used in the definition of hazing are very broadly defined.  They are purposely set up to be defined by the abused, not the abusee.  A lot of this is based upon and derived from civil rights as defined in the U.S.  They are used this way to protect the smallest and weakest and this includes psychologically.  To be called in front of one's peers and made to do some task (such as push-ups) can be considered to be demeaning by some and humiliating by others.  It's not unheard of for a cadet to be remiss in some task because they were requested (or told) to do something else when they should have been doing the first thing.  For this person to be "punished" is unjust to say the least and possibly abusive.  A cadet once left his watch in the restroom and had to stand in front of his squadron and sing "I'm a little tea pot, short and stout, here is my handle, here is my spout", while going through the accompaning motions.  Hazing?  Only if the cadet that sang thinks so?  How about the cadet in ranks that decided to never go to another encampment based upon this observation?  We are a volunteer organization and people as young as 12 are entrusted to our care.  We are not here to break down and unify a group of 18-24 year olds as happens in active duty.  The reg's are what they are.  If you want to change them, there are channels to do so.  However, as a legal officer, if I get a complaint from any cadet or parent that you have dropped them for punishment and they consider it hazing, get ready for at least a suspension until we work it out.  This is not an area to fool around in and is considered very serious by those of us with a lot of experience.  We don't need a black eye with the public or a public relations problem because of your interpretation of a well accepted regulation.  All of our cadets are not equal and are not to be considered equal.  We are here to offer our cadets a meaningful experience, weither they are 100% GI Joe or a cadet with psychological or physical handicaps.  Several seasoned members have tried to explain the folly of your premise and you refuse to see the light.  This may be attributed to a lack of overall experience in the program or a lack of maturity.  Either of these are to be expected of someone of you age and level of senior member experience, however, there is no reason to not accept the opinions of those that know more than you.  I am not attacking you personally, I am saying that you don't appear to have the experience or maturity to listen to reason..
Lt. Col. Harry E. Siegrist III, CAP
Commander
Sweetwater Comp. Sqdn.
GA154

flyguy06

Quote from: capchiro on December 30, 2009, 02:17:31 PM
Nathan,
You ask:  (1) Please, please, please explain how a set of five push-ups is properly labeled as "conduct whereby someone causes another to suffer or to be exposed to any activity that is cruel, abusive, humiliating, oppressive, demeaning, or harmful."

The very words used in the definition of hazing are very broadly defined.  They are purposely set up to be defined by the abused, not the abusee.  A lot of this is based upon and derived from civil rights as defined in the U.S.  They are used this way to protect the smallest and weakest and this includes psychologically.  To be called in front of one's peers and made to do some task (such as push-ups) can be considered to be demeaning by some and humiliating by others.  It's not unheard of for a cadet to be remiss in some task because they were requested (or told) to do something else when they should have been doing the first thing.  For this person to be "punished" is unjust to say the least and possibly abusive.  A cadet once left his watch in the restroom and had to stand in front of his squadron and sing "I'm a little tea pot, short and stout, here is my handle, here is my spout", while going through the accompaning motions.  Hazing?  Only if the cadet that sang thinks so?  How about the cadet in ranks that decided to never go to another encampment based upon this observation?  We are a volunteer organization and people as young as 12 are entrusted to our care.  We are not here to break down and unify a group of 18-24 year olds as happens in active duty.  The reg's are what they are.  If you want to change them, there are channels to do so.  However, as a legal officer, if I get a complaint from any cadet or parent that you have dropped them for punishment and they consider it hazing, get ready for at least a suspension until we work it out.  This is not an area to fool around in and is considered very serious by those of us with a lot of experience.  We don't need a black eye with the public or a public relations problem because of your interpretation of a well accepted regulation.  All of our cadets are not equal and are not to be considered equal.  We are here to offer our cadets a meaningful experience, weither they are 100% GI Joe or a cadet with psychological or physical handicaps.  Several seasoned members have tried to explain the folly of your premise and you refuse to see the light.  This may be attributed to a lack of overall experience in the program or a lack of maturity.  Either of these are to be expected of someone of you age and level of senior member experience, however, there is no reason to not accept the opinions of those that know more than you.  I am not attacking you personally, I am saying that you don't appear to have the experience or maturity to listen to reason..

Wow, why do I have the feeling you were talking about me.

I actually agree with most of what you said. Hazing is subjective ans since it is its best just not to do any of it period. I could stare at somebody for a longtime and they could say its hazing.

You say we are not trying to break down a group of 18-24 year olds and trying to unify them. That was a basic training reference. What do you feel our goal is? Are we justto have a boy scout type organization where cadets come and play games and have fun? I am not trying to sound facicious. That is a legitimate question. With this new positon I have I have to be totally objective and follow the rules to the tee. I realize that and am prepared to do that. But I am curious what you think our goal in the cp is. I used to think it was to train leaders. pilots and future SAR professionals. I like to get others opinions as well.

RedFox24

Quote from: Nathan on December 30, 2009, 05:24:11 AM

First point: You either are very unlucky, or your wing has profoundly stupid people in it. I have not had the same problems you have as consistently as you seem to have them.

Second point: When it does happen, it's going to happen REGARDLESS. This is what I can't figure out about your argument, so please, read this next part carefully, and help me figure out your point.

You say that people are going to break the rules, and they can't be trusted. Fine. I'm following you. Then you say that when people break the rules, it can result in hazing. Yes, I'm still with you. Then you use the example that when you tell people NOT to use PT, they still use it. Good example to illustrate the above point.

Then, somehow, you expect me to understand the conclusion that "therefore, regulated PT is out of the question, because the rules are going to be broken, and it will result in hazing."

Nathan

First point:  No, we are not unlucky.  In 15 encampments I have only had to speak to the GC once and it was determined that is was not hazing.  No, we don't have stupid people in our wing at our encampments.  We average 5 different wings a year at our encampment.  Last year it was 7.  We have incidents each year where cadet "officers" venture into the grey area and it is not restricted to one wing patch. 

So this point holds no water with me and is insulting to me as a commander. So unless your wing and all wings are stupid your discussion is venturing into name calling and your loosing me.  I would say that this will be my last post to you.   

Second point:  So in your words there is nothing to stop it when it is going to happen?  If that is the case then you have just made the point that we cannot adopt your philosophy because someone will abuse it.   

Unless your a farmer you wont understand this analogy but here it goes. 

I have two hens who get out of the hen house every day.  You know I don't know how they do it but they do.  So by your argument I should just leave the door to the hen house open because I cant stop two hens from getting out?  And let the foxes and coyotes in?  Risk loosing my income because I cant stop two hens?  That is why there is a door.  To protect them and to keep them from following the example of a bad example. 

And yes Nathan I do have chickens............

The failure is not at the encampment but at the local unit where these people come from:  they are not taught, they are not mentored, they are not monitored and they are not properly vetted by the unit commander or DCC who signs there letters of recommendation and application.  The rules are in place to keep the masses from following the bad example of a few people.

Last point:  regulated PT is already part of the program.  The use of PT as punishment is NOT part of the program in any shape of form.  If you want to change the rules, push it up the chain and do it right.  If you want to be part of an IG/GC investigation, do your own ideas and take the consequences like a man when they happen.   

I would invite you to come and be a part of an encampment to see what the Commander and COC have to go through in making these tough decisions but I doubt you would want to come to a wing that is full of stupid people. 

Good luck Nathan, your going to need it.
Contrarian and Curmudgeon at Large

"You can tell a member of National Headquarters but you can't tell them much!"

Just say NO to NESA Speak.

A.Member

#55
Quote from: flyguy06 on December 30, 2009, 02:36:57 PM
But I am curious what you think our goal in the cp is. I used to think it was to train leaders. pilots and future SAR professionals. I like to get others opinions as well.
As stated in 52-16 (my emphasis added):
QuoteThe mission of the Civil Air Patrol Cadet Program is to provide the youth of our nation with a quality program that enhances their leadership skills through an interest in aviation, and simultaneously provide service to the United States Air Force and the local community.

52-16 further elaborates on this:
Quote
Opportunities in the Cadet Program.
The Cadet Program permits every cadet to
(1) develop self-discipline, teamwork, and confidence through the study and practice of leadership in an Air Force environment;
(2) develop the knowledge, skills, and attitudes necessary for understanding aerospace principles and the total impact of aerospace power upon society;
(3) participate in a variety of special activities and programs;
(4) develop a personal ethical foundation and an understanding of the moral issues of our time through discussion and debate; and
(5) become physically fit and develop a lifelong habit of regular exercise.
To paraphrase:
1) Leadership
2) Aerospace Education
3) Activities
4) Moral Leadership
5) Physical Fitness

As I mentioned in a previous post, as leaders we need to be able to effectively teach, enable, and inspire cadets.  We need to ensure cadets develop the skills needed to effectively meet the opportunities above.  To that end, we should view ourselves as removers of roadblocks -- not ones to throw up more silly meaningless ones.   There are plenty of very effective ways to challenge and develop cadets without 'smokin' 'em' left and right.
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

N Harmon

Quote from: RedFox24 on December 30, 2009, 02:32:47 AMBut as a person who advocates your point of view I would be very leery of letting you attend my encampment.  And if I was so persuaded by my staff to let you attend, you would be on a very short leash until it was determined if you could let your views be superseded by the encampment policy.

That seems a bit overly judgemental on your part. You're equating the questioning of a regulation's wisedom as being the same as advocating the violation of the same regulation.

Why can't someone express an opinion without it being characterized as a willingness to violate the rules?


Quote from: capchiro on December 30, 2009, 02:17:31 PMTo be called in front of one's peers and made to do some task (such as push-ups) can be considered to be demeaning by some and humiliating by others.

Indeed, leaders are taught to "praise in public, and punish in private" so if the push-ups are made to be done in public then that would be as demeaning and humiliating as if the cadet was dressed down in front of his/her peers. Again, it's the method of delivery and not the punitive nature itself which makes the act abusive.

Question for everybody: Do you believe there is such a thing as a minor violation of the Cadet Protection Policy as it is written?
NATHAN A. HARMON, Capt, CAP
Monroe Composite Squadron

RogueLeader

I always follow the regs, even if I don't agree with them.  It also comes down to the cadet, if they are new, or "thin-skinned" you need to correct them in different manner than "thicker skinned" cadets.  This is not a poor reflection on cadets, just as observation of people as a whole. 

One thing that I do to correct bad behavior is to assign them to give a class on what the infraction was.  Say a cadet wore his headgear inside, and didn't wear it outside, would it be impropper for me to assign him a 5 minute class on propper headgear wear to our basic flight of cadets?
WYWG DP

GRW 3340

A.Member

#58
Quote from: N Harmon on December 30, 2009, 03:37:41 PM
Question for everybody: Do you believe there is such a thing as a minor violation of the Cadet Protection Policy as it is written?
Edited after re-reading your question again.

Some offenses are more serious than others.  Certain violations may even require involvement by law enforcement. 

As it pertains to the policy itself, you are either compliant or you're non-compliant.  The regulation does not allow for a middle ground and none of the violations are defined as "minor".   In all cases, at even the report of a violation, the member is suspended from CAP.
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

Cecil DP

The bottom line is that physical training doesn't reflect or correct the infraction. If a cadet doesn't make his bed correctly or at all, or his uniform is messed up. Doing pushups doesn't teach him how to fix his bed or correct his uniform. It does make him tired, sweaty, and possibly PO'd. Having everyone in the flight do pushup's for anothers infraction is even worse. There are ways of training cadets that directly address the problem, use them instead.
Michael P. McEleney
LtCol CAP
MSG  USA Retired
GRW#436 Feb 85