Help Wanted - Hazing Analysis

[Spike]

EDIT: For what it's worth, I'm not sure why we're spending so much time attacking my credentials to have an opinion on this. Seems like an indication of a weak argument, but if you want to do that, the least you could do is create a new thread specifically telling me that I'm an ignorant punk and not hijacking this one.

Don't be a hater Nathan.  I did not attack your credentials.  I have no idea of your credentials, I only know you were never in the Service, and did not fight in World War Two nor have a Ph.D.  However you brought into play the idea that people with no actual "in knowledge" of a subject are better at knowing the subject. 

I would like to point out that should I have called you an "ignorant punk" and you were still a Cadet, that may be considered hazing to many here.  Thank you for that fine example!   :clap:       

[Nathan]

EDIT: For what it's worth, I'm not sure why we're spending so much time attacking my credentials to have an opinion on this. Seems like an indication of a weak argument, but if you want to do that, the least you could do is create a new thread specifically telling me that I'm an ignorant punk and not hijacking this one.

Don't be a hater Nathan.  I did not attack your credentials.  I have no idea of your credentials, I only know you were never in the Service, and did not fight in World War Two nor have a Ph.D.  However you brought into play the idea that people with no actual "in knowledge" of a subject are better at knowing the subject. 

I absolutely did not make any such assertion. I was stating how irritating it is that people who were in the military use it as some sort of trump card, especially when the person who is speaking is a cadet or a former cadet. Mainly, that my ideas are what you should be going after, not my validity in speaking about how to better improve our program.

[Ned]

Guys - topic, please.

You can start your own "Nathan is an inexeperienced doofus" thread. 


So, . . . Pressure Point?

[Rotorhead]

By the time many Cadets get to Encampment they have been in the Cadet Program for months, if not years.  The local units have taught drill, customs and courtesies.

That's not been my experience.

I've seen many, many cadets at Encampment who don't know basic C&Cs, don't know how to stand at attention, and can't execute a proper facing movement, despite the fact that we warn the CCs that their cadets should know this stuff before arriving.

Also, a preponderance are in their first or second year as cadets.

[N Harmon]

So, . . . Pressure Point?

1.  In your view, by analogy does this film do a decent job at explaining why encampment has a strong military atmosphere?  Why or why not?

This film does do a great job at explaining why encampment has a strong military atmosphere, because it shows how the skills developed at encampment are necessary and apply to further training and activities of Civil Air Patrol. When I was a cadet preparing to attend my first encampment, I was told that the purpose of basic encampment was to teach me how to conduct myself properly at other CAP activities. And this was true as the following year I attended a NCSA, and knew from experience how to conduct myself.

2.  If so, how could we capture the reasoning in a short paragraph or two?

CAP encampments present highly disciplined training environments that teach cadets the basic skills necessary to conduct themselves properly during a multi-overnight CAP activity.


I would also like to say I did not observe any hazing in the Pressure Point video. The Marine DI did an outstanding job of providing a demanding military training environment without stepping over the line.

[Eclipse]

By the time many Cadets get to Encampment they have been in the Cadet Program for months, if not years.  The local units have taught drill, customs and courtesies.

That's not been my experience.

I've seen many, many cadets at Encampment who don't know basic C&Cs, don't know how to stand at attention, and can't execute a proper facing movement, despite the fact that we warn the CCs that their cadets should know this stuff before arriving.

Too true - the "wet Curry" syndrome is all too common, and up until 04, there were plenty of cadets each year with "wet id cards".
Even as it is, we get a few each year who go to graduation in a white shirt/ black pants because their FCU hasn't arrived, and I probably
Photoshop 3 or 4 nametapes or namebadges  because they are wearing a borrowed uniform.

We want them there, because encampment attendance is a good delimiter of retention, but its a challenge with the younger, newer ones.
In fact, cadets really shouldn't be in CAP "years" before their first encampment - this nonsense of Chiefs in basic ranks because they couldn't be bothered for 2-3+ years is ridiculous.

[RedFox24]

By the time many Cadets get to Encampment they have been in the Cadet Program for months, if not years.  The local units have taught drill, customs and courtesies.

That's not been my experience.

I've seen many, many cadets at Encampment who don't know basic C&Cs, don't know how to stand at attention, and can't execute a proper facing movement, despite the fact that we warn the CCs that their cadets should know this stuff before arriving.

Too true - the "wet Curry" syndrome is all too common, and up until 04, there were plenty of cadets each year with "wet id cards".
Even as it is, we get a few each year who go to graduation in a white shirt/ black pants because their FCU hasn't arrived, and I probably
Photoshop 3 or 4 nametapes or namebadges  because they are wearing a borrowed uniform.

We want them there, because encampment attendance is a good delimiter of retention, but its a challenge with the younger, newer ones.
In fact, cadets really shouldn't be in CAP "years" before their first encampment - this nonsense of Chiefs in basic ranks because they couldn't be bothered for 2-3  years is ridiculous.

Once again Bob, your hitting the nail right on the head.   +1000000.  :clap:  Worse yet is when they showed up with their tennis rackets and their rank, name tape and cutouts still in plastic sack from the Bookstore.  But those days of hell are somewhat past us..........some what.  But this is from a Girl Scout so it doesn't count.

[Major Lord]

Excellent points. In order for a commander to send a cadet to encampment, the cadet must have completed Achievement 1, with the concurrence of the commander, the person ultimately responsible for promotions in a squadron, and the approving authority for a cadets application  to an encampment. To complete the achievement, the cadet must, among other requirements, have mastered rudimentary drill and ceremony, and possess  a complete uniform. Commanders sending a cadet to encampment unprepared, have either willfully gundecked the promotion, or ignorantly approved the cadets' participation on the assumption that a lower echelon adequately trained and certified the cadets progression. A fresh Curry cadet should have the requisite information clearer in his mind, then say the elderly C/Chief hibernating until he turns senior...Sending a cadet who is not prepared by maturity, physical strength, or objective testing is a failure of command, not a failure of the cadet.

So my question is, which model of Squadron is more likely to send an ill-prepared cadet to an encampment? A squadron scoring high in the Girl-Scout Llama camp index, and deeply worried about a kids "self esteem" or a Squadron leaning more towards the Jack Webb, R. Lee Ermey, model?

Major Lord

[ol'fido]

I'll jump into this one, Major. The squadron that had the cadets showing up with their ranks still in the  plastic no longer exists but these cadets weren't showing up just as c/Amn. They had ranks that varied from c/Amn to c/SSgt and their commander was literally handing them out as they got on the bus. Fortunately, he finally went away to screw up somebody else's day.

As to the Girl Scouts vs. Jack Webb part of the post:

1) I have seen Hooah Hooah Ranger BS squadrons that turned into just plain old Mitchell mills and where the command style was threats and intimidation.

2) That supposed Girl Scout squadron we supposedly belong to was Squadron of Merit for GLR in 80 and the National Squadron of Distinction in 82. So let's not have any more of the Girl Scout comments.

3) It doesn't matter what type of squadron you have if you don't follow the cadet program. Everybody has differrent leadership styles. Maybe the Hooah Hooah ranger BS style works for you. Ours works just fine for us.

[Major Lord]

I am not advocating for the Girl Scout model or the Jack Webb model. CAP is a horse of a different color, and we need to find a happy medium. Also, I never called your Sq a Girl Scout troop. Your friend is strangely defensive.  I am however openly skeptical of those who reject the paramilitary model that CAP is based on, and find the Phil Donahue mindset generates more "tolerance" of rank flimflammery then the "attention to detail" mindset might. On the other hand , a Jack Webb/R. Lee Ermey SQ would be a dismal failure as soon as the parents saw what was happening. There is a continuum of styles across the organization, and some are producing good results, and some, well......

Major Lord
p.s. If you guys can get me a deal on the thin-mints and peanut butter cookies, I will forgive the little green hats...

[Rotorhead]

So my question is, which model of Squadron is more likely to send an ill-prepared cadet to an encampment? A squadron scoring high in the Girl-Scout Llama camp index, and deeply worried about a kids "self esteem" or a Squadron leaning more towards the Jack Webb, R. Lee Ermey, model?

Major Lord

I'm gonna vote for the latter, but in reality, I don't think either would work for everyday squadron-level life.

I'll skip the former, because it clearly isn't realistic. But the the constant scrutiny of the latter would become tiresome to cadets (I think) who attend week after week.

[RedFox24]

I am not advocating for the Girl Scout model or the Jack Webb model. CAP is a horse of a different color, and we need to find a happy medium. Also, I never called your Sq a Girl Scout troop. Your friend is strangely defensive.  I am however openly skeptical of those who reject the paramilitary model that CAP is based on, and find the Phil Donahue mindset generates more "tolerance" of rank flimflammery then the "attention to detail" mindset might. On the other hand , a Jack Webb/R. Lee Ermey SQ would be a dismal failure as soon as the parents saw what was happening. There is a continuum of styles across the organization, and some are producing good results, and some, well......

Major Lord
p.s. If you guys can get me a deal on the thin-mints and peanut butter cookies, I will forgive the little green hats...

Ok, I am going to try this one time.

I am strangely defensive because I don't like bullies and those who get their jollies off on picking on little kids, cadet or senior.  I am defensive because I have seen cadets be abused by people who get their jollies off on advocating push ups for punishment at encampments, seen them deny cadets the use of the bathroom and had them mess themselves.  Not let cadets shower and have time for personal hygiene because they aren't "air force" enough.  Seen them denied food because their bunks were not made right.  Yes major, I have seen this at encampments and I have made it my mission to rid this crap from my wing and the units I have commanded. 

I am strangely defensive because I was bullied as a kid and I am not going to allow it to happen to anyone in my charge. 

A squadron, group or encampment can be professional, attention to detail and "military" without being FMJ, Jack Webb, Gunny Highway or whom ever you all think are bad @## and "real military".  I honestly can't understand all the junk some advocate because some cadet thinks its cool or military or what ever.  I don't get it.  Really, I don't.  I just don't get it. And I most likely never will.   I don't see that it serves any purpose other than training Spec Ops guys or something else like that.  And we don't do that in CAP.  I serve at the pleasure of the Wing Commander and as long as I am commander of the encampment or in a command position in that encampment I will not tolerate or allow such BS to occur.  We have work to long and hard to kill that mentality and legacy the last 10 years.  And when the Commander says I am done, then I will salute, step aside and carry on.  Until that time I will fight tooth and nail to kill the stupidity that is breed and perpetrated in some units by seniors and cadets who think CAP is the SEALS or Green Berets or isn't "military" enough. 

I am defensive because I don't get the attitude that because were not "like you" or we don't to things like "the military" that we are some how part of the girl scouts or inferior in the way we carry out the cadet program.  Again I don't get it. 

Our home squadron was professional, it was defiantly attention to detail, it had the look and feel of the "military" without all the crap that goes along with hazing, yelling, trash can beating, bullying and mind games that a lot of folks think is CAP or military.  Our senior members were coal miners, judges, school superintendents, farmers, electricians, school teachers, lawyers, business men, white collar and blue collar, former Army, Air Force, Marines and Navy.  Vets from WW II, Korea and Viet Nam.  All of them had one thing in common:  to teach and mentor the cadet to be the best they could be.  They lead by example not by the FMJ model.  They lead from the front.  They were professional in every detail.  They had a drive to see each cadet do well, to learn the material, to experience the material and then to teach the material.  There was never any yelling.  There was never any trash can beating. There was never anyting but professionals teaching cadets to be professional.

Our squadron produced: Spaatz cadet, to many Earhart's to count, way to many Mitchells to count, 1 USAF Academy Grad, Members who went on to be members of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines.   Several were officers, a few were aviators, some did "top secret" stuff.  Some cadets went on to be police officers, correction officers, EMT/paramedics and officers in the EMA.  Several own and operate their own businesses.  One administrated a multi million dollar business.  A couple went on to teach and work at a university.  Several served in Gulf War I and II.  We had "the" ground team in our wing for several years competing in several Wing, Region and National SAR COMPS.  And as olefido noted we squadron of distinction and squadron of merit. 

You know something major, the best complement I ever got when I commanded that unit was when former cadets came back to visit on leave from their branch of service or from college and said that they thank us all for what we taught them: How to play "the BS game", how to organize and be squared away, how to think beyond the next command, how to make it in the real world.  Many were leaders in their respective basic training classes or units because they were ahead of the game. 

You know the most cherished memory is when the USAFA grad came home and told me and olefido that the BS games at the academy were easy because of what he had been taught at the local squadron and on our training exercises.  He is still serving today in theater. 

Yes major, I got the sarcasm of the girl scout troop and real ham radio operator comment.  It was really unnecessary and did nothing to contribute to the thread but I got it.  And you continue to carry it forward, so be it.  Go ahead and call all these people girl scouts, you can make fun of us if you think we are "phil donahue" or what ever else you want.  I really don't care cause you weren't there, you didn't contribute, you didn't participate, you didn't experience it and you cant understand.

You can say were not "real military".  And you know what, were not real military, were CAP.  And all of those "real military want a be" members, both cadet and senior, are what gives CAP a bad name and cause the problems that require RST, CPPT, and endless death by powerpoint safety/hazing/abuse/what ever. 

And the thing that disappoints me the most is that in typing this response to you I have allowed my emotions to come out and flood the page and in doing so have let down those who mentored me.  To them I am sorry.  But to no one else.

I am done here, there is nothing left to contribute to this thread. 

[Major Lord]

Rotorhead,

I agree completely, but I think its safe to say that while either extreme would be awful, we need to be somewhat to the center -right side of the curve, given our basic military model. Starting out lax and flakey is a much harder situation to correct then being too Gung Ho and learning to dial it down. Gundecking promotions and accepting that a member was handing out rank to their cadets just before an encampment to me seems to fall into the left end of the distribution curve. Also, the context of an encampment is very different than day-to-day squadron life. The encampment experience can and should rock a young persons world, but bringing that level of intensity back to the squadron would be way over the top.

Major Lord

[Rotorhead]

Rotorhead,

I agree completely, but I think its safe to say that while either extreme would be awful, we need to be somewhat to the center -right side of the curve, given our basic military model. Starting out lax and flakey is a much harder situation to correct then being too Gung Ho and learning to dial it down. Gundecking promotions and accepting that a member was handing out rank to their cadets just before an encampment to me seems to fall into the left end of the distribution curve. Also, the context of an encampment is very different than day-to-day squadron life. The encampment experience can and should rock a young persons world, but bringing that level of intensity back to the squadron would be way over the top.

Major Lord

Concur 100%

[Major Lord]

Redfox,

It sounds like you have seen some actual, OTG hazing. If any member saw what you described, they would be obligated to report it immediately. In my decade or so of CAP, I have never seen anyone go as far as you have described. When you reported these activities, how did CAP respond?

Major Lord

[Spike]

Redfox,

It sounds like you have seen some actual, OTG hazing. If any member saw what you described, they would be obligated to report it immediately. In my decade or so of CAP, I have never seen anyone go as far as you have described. When you reported these activities, how did CAP respond?

Major Lord

Neat me to the question again!  I would also like to ask Refox if he stepped in to intervene when he saw the violations.  Not stopping a violation when you are in a position to stop it makes you just as guilty!!

[Major Lord]

Spike,

Ahhhh, you correctly saw through my clever little trap.....

Major Lord

[Nathan]

Although you did say you were out of the debate, I feel like if you choose to make points, then I should be okay discussing them, even if you don't reply.

I am strangely defensive because I don't like bullies and those who get their jollies off on picking on little kids, cadet or senior.  I am defensive because I have seen cadets be abused by people who get their jollies off on advocating push ups for punishment at encampments, seen them deny cadets the use of the bathroom and had them mess themselves.  Not let cadets shower and have time for personal hygiene because they aren't "air force" enough.  Seen them denied food because their bunks were not made right.  Yes major, I have seen this at encampments and I have made it my mission to rid this crap from my wing and the units I have commanded.

If you saw hazing, I hope you reported it. What is being advocated isn't the right to haze cadets. Hazing happens when things get pushed too far, whether it be push-ups, yelling, drill, cleaning standards, whatever. You can't blame the act for the people to push it too far, and it's hard to know what is too far when there are no guidelines out there for safe use. 

I am strangely defensive because I was bullied as a kid and I am not going to allow it to happen to anyone in my charge.

So was I. And I wouldn't allow bullying either. But actions in themselves aren't bullying, no more than "killing" is wrong. The context means everything. Killing in self defense isn't bad when compared to killing for no reason. And punitive PT isn't bad when compared to hazing. The context matters.

A squadron, group or encampment can be professional, attention to detail and "military" without being FMJ, Jack Webb, Gunny Highway or whom ever you all think are bad @## and "real military".  I honestly can't understand all the junk some advocate because some cadet thinks its cool or military or what ever.  I don't get it.  Really, I don't.  I just don't get it. And I most likely never will.   I don't see that it serves any purpose other than training Spec Ops guys or something else like that.  And we don't do that in CAP.  I serve at the pleasure of the Wing Commander and as long as I am commander of the encampment or in a command position in that encampment I will not tolerate or allow such BS to occur.  We have work to long and hard to kill that mentality and legacy the last 10 years.  And when the Commander says I am done, then I will salute, step aside and carry on.  Until that time I will fight tooth and nail to kill the stupidity that is breed and perpetrated in some units by seniors and cadets who think CAP is the SEALS or Green Berets or isn't "military" enough. 

I don't think that doing push ups or yelling makes people into special operations soldiers. If so, then every football team out there would be an excellent source of military firepower. We aren't training cadets in small unit tactics. We'd be using tools that the military uses to make people excel at whatever they do, not just fighting. In that regard, there isn't anything "military" about most of the techniques under discussion.

I am defensive because I don't get the attitude that because were not "like you" or we don't to things like "the military" that we are some how part of the girl scouts or inferior in the way we carry out the cadet program.  Again I don't get it. 

I haven't personally made that comparison, but I think the point is that if we don't use different tactics in teaching leadership, then there is no reason for someone to join this leadership program as opposed to, say, a church youth group, or the Rotary club, or the boy scouts. Those are perfectly civilian in their implementation, and aim to teach many of the same things we do. Just in a different way. We ARE a different program, and we should embrace that.

Our home squadron was professional, it was defiantly attention to detail, it had the look and feel of the "military" without all the crap that goes along with hazing, yelling, trash can beating, bullying and mind games that a lot of folks think is CAP or military.  Our senior members were coal miners, judges, school superintendents, farmers, electricians, school teachers, lawyers, business men, white collar and blue collar, former Army, Air Force, Marines and Navy.  Vets from WW II, Korea and Viet Nam.  All of them had one thing in common:  to teach and mentor the cadet to be the best they could be.  They lead by example not by the FMJ model.  They lead from the front.  They were professional in every detail.  They had a drive to see each cadet do well, to learn the material, to experience the material and then to teach the material.  There was never any yelling.  There was never any trash can beating. There was never anyting but professionals teaching cadets to be professional.

No one says that doesn't work. But it doesn't work for everyone in all situations, and certainly doesn't prepare them for every situation they may encounter. Sometimes, things ARE urgent, and there IS a bad punishment for failure. All we'd be doing is adding tools to our toolbox.

Our squadron produced: Spaatz cadet, to many Earhart's to count, way to many Mitchells to count, 1 USAF Academy Grad, Members who went on to be members of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines.   Several were officers, a few were aviators, some did "top secret" stuff.  Some cadets went on to be police officers, correction officers, EMT/paramedics and officers in the EMA.  Several own and operate their own businesses.  One administrated a multi million dollar business.  A couple went on to teach and work at a university.  Several served in Gulf War I and II.  We had "the" ground team in our wing for several years competing in several Wing, Region and National SAR COMPS.  And as olefido noted we squadron of distinction and squadron of merit.

That's great. I'm not going to get into a pissing contest with you over this, but I will go so far as to say that (without hazing), our wing tended to be a little more toward the "pseudomilitary" standard of cadet program, at least for a while, and my squadron has produced three Spaatz cadets, several Eakers, sent three people into the USAFA, a couple of guys into special operations, numerous EMT's, etc etc etc. I don't think that telling us all the great things your squadron has done is going to make a point that a more aggressive cadet program makes a squadron any less capable of doing great things than a squadron like yours. 

You know something major, the best complement I ever got when I commanded that unit was when former cadets came back to visit on leave from their branch of service or from college and said that they thank us all for what we taught them: How to play "the BS game", how to organize and be squared away, how to think beyond the next command, how to make it in the real world.  Many were leaders in their respective basic training classes or units because they were ahead of the game.

Same here. Once again, it doesn't prove anything. 
 

You can say were not "real military".  And you know what, were not real military, were CAP.  And all of those "real military want a be" members, both cadet and senior, are what gives CAP a bad name and cause the problems that require RST, CPPT, and endless death by powerpoint safety/hazing/abuse/what ever.

Uh, that goes both ways. You can say that the "real military wannabes" are the ones who give us a bad name, but I had a much harder time as a recruiter because of the image that CAP ISN'T like the real military. We had a lot of cadets drop out because of what we WEREN'T allowed to do, because we WEREN'T "hardcore" enough. You can't blame it all on one side of the field. The death-by-powerpoint comes from the people who are generally too scared to let us do anything at all for fear of being sued. Case in point, at my year of NBB, we weren't allowed to do fire drills because the safety officer said it would be too dangerous to do it in the middle of the night, and someone might break a leg. Right...

[Major Lord]

I don't want to pick on Redfox. Clearly, he has some very powerful emotions attached to this issue. I think his arguments tend to highlight the differences between the passive versus proactive leadership style. In the softer Squadron, we see a model of leadership based on protecting the Cadet from abusive members, based primarily on the Leaders fears and remembrances of humiliation at the hands of bullies, he has attempted to create a cocoon of safety and protection around his cadets. In principal, taking care of your cadets is a good thing, and I agree with you that bullies should not be tolerated (" It is better that they should have a mill stone tied around their necks and tossed into the lake than to hurt one of my little ones" J.C.)

The proactive, or military mindset, teaches cadets to react to bullies in a manner that discourages them from future attacks. This grabbing of the bull by the horns is seen as too confrontational by the passive command staff model.

In both models, we are looking at a "zero tolerance" policy for bullies. Just two different ways to achieve the same goal. I will leave it to you to decide which method better prepares a Cadet for real life.

Major Lord

[ZigZag911]

A CAP encampment should not resemble FMJ, nor "Hell Week" in Navy SEAL training, nor the similar physical and mental stress testing faced by
USAF PJ candidates.

It should teach teamwork, leadership, followership, personal responsibility,attention to detail.

Accomplishing this sometimes requires motivation, individual attention, team building events and the like.

It may require a bit of over the top 'acting' by the leaders/instructors, for instance, the flight commander's shock and dismay at the condition of cadets' quarters.

Obviously, any encampment staff needs thorough training for seniors & cadets -- RST is a starting point, not simply a box to mark on a checklist.

And cadet leaders need constant guidance and monitoring by senior leaders, particularly when interacting with cadet trainees. "The line" leading to humiliating or harming a cadet can be approached inadvertently or unintentionally; the senior's role is to call a time out and steer the cadet leader back on track before things get too far.