Help Wanted - Hazing Analysis

[Short Field]

Just to make sure there is no Hazing happeneing, I vote to stop all Encampments until a clear set of isntructions on how to properly conduct one is published.

Or just stop members from attending who believe their personal defiintion of Hazing leaves too much grey area for them to function well.   

[Ned]

Thanks for the feedback and discussions so far.

They have been truly helpful.

Now, I'd like you to take a look at another relatively short( 11 min) video and discuss.

This is one of few films I have ever found that attempts to explain how military stress/intensty/training (pick your favorite word) translates into being a better pilot.

It is a US Navy training film - "Pressure Point", which describes the Aviation Officer Candidate Program, at least as it was circa 1990. 

Questions for discussion:

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?

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


Rules:  Try to forget for a moment that this is an old US Navy training film.  Stretch your imagination a bit, squint at the screen at try to think how it might apply to CP. 

Click Here for the 1990 version I would like to discuss.


(For you history buffs, Click here for the original and less politically-correct 1973 version.)


Discuss.

[Spike]

1) Strong military atmosphere?  What we watched was a film for making civilians into Officers.  At Encampment we are not making Cadets into anything.  Encampments are run in a quasi-military fashion, because that is how it has been done for 60 years.  We can just as easily provide the required hours of instruction in a nonmilitary manner, but it would most likely not be fun.  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.  However, when a Cadet reports to Encampment they are treated like they are fresh off the street kids that just joined CAP days before.  This is the time that most Cadets learn how to do things the "wrong way".  We all have heard the phrase "well at Encampment we did it like this", and have to correct those Cadets back at the Squadrons.  One individual told me that "yelling at Basic Cadets at Encampment is expected and OK, but yelling a the same Cadets at the local unit is not OK".  When asked why he thought this, the answer I got was "because that is what is expected at Encampment, but here at the unit it is hazing".

Ned, we are not training our Cadets to to be anything at Encampment.  We are exposing them to the classroom instruction mandated by 52-16.  We do through fun activities into the course, but they can be done in a nonmilitary environment as well. 

The short time we have Cadets at Encampment is not long enough to make them into Awesome Cadets.  We provide the background that the Cadets can go back to the Squadron and use to further their understanding of what they were taught.  In my opinion, Encampment is a tool that may at one time been needed in CAP (1950-1970), when it was totally different than it is today.  I can provide the exact some classes at the local squadron level that are conducted at Encampment.  We are neither making Cadet Officers (like the precursor to CLS did), nor are we making "enlisted Cadets".  The idea of Encampment can only work if it is conducted within a few weeks of actually joining CAP.  Having Cadets attend Encampment that have been in CAP 4 or 5 years is a waste of time.  They most likely already know the "basics" that Encampment is supposed to teach.

I never liked how Encampments are conducted or the requirement for the Mitchell.  It is a project in making Staff Cadets feel better about themselves.  Most Encampments have customs all their own that have been passed down thought the decades for no real reason other than "it has always been done that way".  I attended 7 Encampments since joining in 1994, and at none of them has anyone really explained why there is a guidon, or what the purpose of morning formations are for.  If we want to play the military game, lets at least explain what all the military stuff is to those Cadets attending.  Standing in formation and reading an SOP booklet 2 inches from your face in the sun teaches nothing but the idealogy that "when I staff Encampment I will make my Basic Cadets do this too". 

I say again that Encampment needs a regulation all its own.  Something needs to be writtent that says "do this at this time, and this is why".  A Cadet can go to Encampment in California and then an Encampment in New York and walk away from both having learned two different ways of doing everything. 

So, if this response was on a tanget line, I apologize.  To answer the Question, The film does NOT do a decent job at explaining why Encampment has a strong Military Atmosphere.  I understand the idea behind the video, but it does not relate to CAP at all.  What endeavors do CAP Cadets get into in CAP that requires the, "citizen to Soldier" training model??  Like stated earlier, we are not preparing Soldiers or Airman.  CAP is not a combative organization (anymore).  Stress is a part of life, but to overstress a person to the edge of breaking and then rebuilding them in the military ideology is what is required of the Armed Forces, not CAP.  We don't break Cadets down, physically or emotionally.  It is neither warranted or required. 

CAP Encampments try to have a strong military atmosphere, but most come up very short, because the leaders themselves do not have a strong basis in the military environment.  Most things at Encampments come from either "outdated traditions" or something that a person finds in popular media, like television shows or movies.  Neither source is good for the modern day Cadet program.

   
 

[Short Field]

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? 

How about finding a USAF based film instead of one of the sister services?  We are the aux of the USAF, not the Army Aux, nor the Marine Corps Aux, or the Navy Aux.  If people wanted to join the Coast Guard Aux, they could do so.  However, trying to make the USAF Aux into another service's Aux is not the answer.  Find how the USAF trains people and discuss it.

[Nathan]

Strong military atmosphere?  What we watched was a film for making civilians into Officers.  At Encampment we are not making Cadets into anything.  Encampments are run in a quasi-military fashion, because that is how it has been done for 60 years.  We can just as easily provide the required hours of instruction in a nonmilitary manner, but it would most likely not be fun.

I think this is one of the more common misconceptions about encampment (or CAP entirely, for that matter). We aren't training cadets using militaristic training methods because we want to make them into soldiers. We do it because it WORKS. Despite the fact that a great, great number of military members never do anything involving direct combat, and in fact have quite "civilian"  jobs, all members are still required to go through BMT, do PT, learn teamwork, etc. It's certainly not because these are going to help them program computers, or fly airplanes, or even fight.

It's because using these methods assists in teaching the recruits basic skills on how to succeed in pretty much anything. You screw up, there's a consequence you don't like. It's better to be early than on time in many situations. Pay attention to detail. Dress sharply. Look out for your team. These are the lessons that are being taught, and it works FAST.

Frankly, the military has a lot longer to train their people in these skills than we have with the cadets, if we're going to compare BMT to encampment. We have only a week, so we would definitely benefit from the "military atmosphere," if that correlates into teaching cadets these types of skills.

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.  However, when a Cadet reports to Encampment they are treated like they are fresh off the street kids that just joined CAP days before.  This is the time that most Cadets learn how to do things the "wrong way".  We all have heard the phrase "well at Encampment we did it like this", and have to correct those Cadets back at the Squadrons.  One individual told me that "yelling at Basic Cadets at Encampment is expected and OK, but yelling a the same Cadets at the local unit is not OK".  When asked why he thought this, the answer I got was "because that is what is expected at Encampment, but here at the unit it is hazing".

You can't hold the encampment model responsible for the failures of the people implementing it. I can give you just as many GOOD stories about encampment as you can give me bad ones.

Ned, we are not training our Cadets to to be anything at Encampment.  We are exposing them to the classroom instruction mandated by 52-16.  We do through fun activities into the course, but they can be done in a nonmilitary environment as well. 

I disagree on so many levels. We can, as you say, carry out the classroom instruction pretty much anywhere you want. There's a reason we don't. The reason is because the cadets can look at PowerPoint slides all day. It's useless if they don't have an opportunity to practice those skills, and encampment is a perfect place to do that.

You honestly don't think that we're training our cadets to "be anything" at encampment? We're training them to be good freaking cadets. Sometimes it works well, sometimes not so well, but the goal remains the same.

The short time we have Cadets at Encampment is not long enough to make them into Awesome Cadets.

I have at least two cadets at my former squadron I would love to introduce you to. They were terrible cadets before encampment. They had no focus, no discipline. After they returned from encampment, they were definitely above-average, and later became great cadets. It's definitely saying something when a cadet who got close to getting kicked out of the program later went on to become an excellent cadet officer, and that change seemed to occur during his basic encampment.

And while I don't know the statistics, Ned might know the numbers in terms of retention comparing those who attend encampment versus those who do not. Needless to say, there is surely a reason cadets tend to stick around longer after having attended encampment.

We provide the background that the Cadets can go back to the Squadron and use to further their understanding of what they were taught.  In my opinion, Encampment is a tool that may at one time been needed in CAP (1950-1970), when it was totally different than it is today.  I can provide the exact some classes at the local squadron level that are conducted at Encampment.  We are neither making Cadet Officers (like the precursor to CLS did), nor are we making "enlisted Cadets".  The idea of Encampment can only work if it is conducted within a few weeks of actually joining CAP.  Having Cadets attend Encampment that have been in CAP 4 or 5 years is a waste of time.  They most likely already know the "basics" that Encampment is supposed to teach.

Completely wrong. The "classes" of encampment are trivial compared to the environment. Encampment is a great place to do some cool activities that might be tough to schedule at a weekly meeting, but the absolute most important aspect of encampment is the fact that the cadets are in an environment where the skills they LEARNED from those classes and experience are constantly being put to the test.

If you have a basic cadet, it's true that they are going to be absorbing a lot more information as compared to the C/CMSgt basic, who probably knows most of the academic knowledge already. But what the C/CMSgt usually ends up doing is acting as a sort of support around which the younger, lower ranking cadets rally. He's the guy who, despite not being a staff member, knows his stuff and acts as a source of knowledge. In THAT regard, he's still practicing mentoring and leadership. The C/2d Lt may not have an opportunity to be responsible for twelve cadets for a whole week outside of encampment. Without encampment, I, even as a C/Col, would NEVER have had the chance to plan a week long encampment and be responsible for ensuring that over 100 cadets met the requirements to graduate.

The lessons might be the same, but the experience gained in getting to put those skills to use will NOT come up in a squadron meeting, or even in most NSCA's. Encampments are absolutely necessary for this.

I never liked how Encampments are conducted or the requirement for the Mitchell.  It is a project in making Staff Cadets feel better about themselves.

Well... yeah. Anyone who gets to lead a large number of cadets for a whole week SHOULD feel good about themselves. I certainly felt proud after my run as a C/CC of an encampment.

I say again. C/Officers are expected to be leaders. It is IMPOSSIBLE to know how to be a leader by sitting in classes. The only way is to go into an environment where leadership is tested and reinforced. This does not happen on a grand enough scale for Phase III leadership without encampments in CAP.

Most Encampments have customs all their own that have been passed down thought the decades for no real reason other than "it has always been done that way".  I attended 7 Encampments since joining in 1994, and at none of them has anyone really explained why there is a guidon, or what the purpose of morning formations are for.  If we want to play the military game, lets at least explain what all the military stuff is to those Cadets attending.  Standing in formation and reading an SOP booklet 2 inches from your face in the sun teaches nothing but the idealogy that "when I staff Encampment I will make my Basic Cadets do this too".

As I have said before and will say again, the incorrect implementation of a good idea does not make the idea bad. It just makes the implementation bad. We can sit here and argue all day the merits of guidons and drill and military games, but the overall point is that even if those are "bad", it doesn't negate the value of the encampment experience itself. So I'm not entirely sure what point you're trying to make by complaining about what you didn't like about some encampments.

I say again that Encampment needs a regulation all its own.  Something needs to be writtent that says "do this at this time, and this is why".  A Cadet can go to Encampment in California and then an Encampment in New York and walk away from both having learned two different ways of doing everything.

That's true, and to a point, I agree with you. However, while I agree that standardization is necessary, I also feel that creating too bright of a line hamstrings our leaders. If one encampment prefers to do a full pass-and-review, and another encampment wants a small graduation banquet instead, then I really don't have a problem with that. The cadet isn't being harmed with either option.

Now, if you're complaining about things like drill and C&C, then, once again, your problem is with the people, not the encampment model. The drill movements are laid out in a regulation, which you are welcome to review. If someone learned something different, then that is the fault of whoever taught the drill movement. Likewise, if someone learns C&C that is not defined in the CAPP 151, you first have to decide whether it is a detrimental issue (which I have found that most instances of 'extra' C&C are not), and then, once again, blame the person who taught incorrectly.

The only way you could hold the encampment model responsible for someone learning the wrong things is if there was a regulation that said either, "Cadets will be taught incorrect drill at encampment", or "The commander must appoint ignorant, incompetent, or rebellious staff members to positions requiring the instruction of drill."

Stress is a part of life, but to overstress a person to the edge of breaking and then rebuilding them in the military ideology is what is required of the Armed Forces, not CAP.  We don't break Cadets down, physically or emotionally.  It is neither warranted or required.

You're absolutely right, but where you came under the impression that anyone is advocating this is beyond me. Nobody has talked about "overstressing" cadets or psychologically reformatting them. We are simply talking about different tools we might use during encampment. Of course, if they are found to be useless or harmless, then there is no need to consider their use. But if there were many of those types of tools on the table for discussion, I don't think the controversy would be as fierce as it has been so far.

[quote="Spike"'CAP Encampments try to have a strong military atmosphere, but most come up very short, because the leaders themselves do not have a strong basis in the military environment.  Most things at Encampments come from either "outdated traditions" or something that a person finds in popular media, like television shows or movies.  Neither source is good for the modern day Cadet program.[/quote]

With your conclusion, I'll follow with mine. The "military atmosphere" isn't something we need to be concerned with, so long as we aren't trying to train our cadets to become soldiers. Most of the techniques that we have discussed (stress, yelling, punitive PT) do NOT make people into soldiers. They are simply tools used for a variety of purposes, such as discipline, time management, etc. A person does not need a "strong basis" in the military to figure out how to use these skills correctly. They simply have to know where the limit is. It does not take me having served in the military to know that yelling a cadet into tears is hazing, and that raising your voice to show a sense of urgency and authority is not. These are skills that ANYONE can learn. The problem is only that CAP has been too hesitant to bother coming up with any sort of guidelines or training that would dictate the appropriate way to use these tools, as they do with things like mentoring, demotions, etc.

[Gunner C]

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?

Yes it does (putting a cadet in place of the candidate):

• It shows that the training isn't just "an initiation" (but it certainly has that portion) but it is the beginning of changing the way a cadet thinks.
• It puts a set of standards in front of a cadet for them to master quickly.

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

The purpose of a military atmosphere is to prepare a cadet to:

• Get the cadet's attention. 
• Get the cadet to react quickly with what he has been trained to do.
• Train the cadet's mind to pay attention to detail
• Teach the cadet there are consequences to each and every action
• Teach the cadet that he is always a member of a team and his actions affect not only him but those around him
• Prepare the cadet to be a member of a team
• Prepare the cadet for the next step - to be a leader

On a personal note, I am here today directly because of the military training I received as a cadet.  I was on my third or fourth solo flight on downwind.  I put the flaps to 10 deg, released the flap switch and went through my GUMPS checklist.  As my eye scan went back through the airspeed indicator, it was just moving through 60 and the stall warning came on.  I reacted without thinking, just as I was trained:  nose down, power, checked flaps.  there is was, the switch had stuck and the flaps were all the way down.  I returned them to the 10 deg position and continued with the approach.

I had been trained as a cadet to react instantly.  I was also the first in my class to solo and the first to make my solo cross country, even though some had 10 plus hours before they got there.  My cadet training also prepared me for college, basic training (graduated 1st in my class) and a host of other things.  To this day, my life is still build on the foundation that was laid as a 14 y/o cadet at an encampment with a SM officer in my face, rolling over my bunk.

Are we training cadets for something? Hell yes!  Whether they are going into the military or they're going into business, the self discipline they will learn at an encampment will last them for a lifetime.

The problem is, we don't have a program to train TACs.  The films we saw showed DIs.  These guys are pros.  But we can train to a standard for TACs that is appropriate in CAP that will

• Ensure each cadet will get a challenging experience
• A TAC will know the difference between FMJ and real training

If this is accomplished in a controlled environment, we'll turn out cadets who are second to none.  Yes, there will be those who will either quit before the encampment, because they heard it was hard, or those who will quit afterwards, because it's not their cup of tea.  Either way, we need to look at the end product.  Do we want a well trained and disciplined cadet going into life or just a former cadet who went to "summer camp" a couple of times at an air force base?

Am I sanctioning abuse?  Heck no!  But we do need to return to some semblance of military training, or we can just put the cadets into polo shirts and give some of them glider training.

[Larry Mangum]

Interesting arguments.  One of the arguments against making encampment more military "basic" training that has been missed in this discussion so far, is that one of the major reasons that basic training is made so stressful is to eliminate those who cannot adapt to military life or cannot handle the stresses they may encounter while serving. In CAP, the weeding out of individuals who cannot adapt to "CAP " should have already been accomplished well before a cadet gets to encampment.  In reality Encampment should probably  be more like Technical School. 

For those of you who have not been to an AF Technical School, you still live in a dorm; you have formations, and you usually march to school.  Your room is inspected, but people are not in your face, like they are during basic training.  Instead, your "Senior Training Adviser" is there to advise your fellow students who are appointed flight commanders and to council you when necessarily.

As to the argument that you can get everything in a local squadron, that you can in an encampment, that simply is not true.   An encampment is probably the only time a cadet NCO or cadet Officer will get to fully use their knowledge of drill and ceremony with large formations. Trust me, on that.  When it comes to the academics and exposure to how other units carry out training, the squadron cannot compare either.  With encampment you get a much broader base of instructors and experiences to draw from.  Lastly, the networking that both the seniors and cadets establish, stand all of the parties in good stead through out their years in the program.

What is needed is to not eliminate encampments, but rather what type of atmosphere is correct for them.

[Nathan]

Interesting arguments.  One of the arguments against making encampment more military "basic" training that has been missed in this discussion so far, is that one of the major reasons that basic training is made so stressful is to eliminate those who cannot adapt to military life or cannot handle the stresses they may encounter while serving. In CAP, the weeding out of individuals who cannot adapt to "CAP " should have already been accomplished well before a cadet gets to encampment.  In reality Encampment should probably  be more like Technical School. 

Are there really a lot of people who "wash out" of basic training? I have been under the (possibly mistaken) impression that it's pretty hard to fail out. Even those who can't do the PT end up in the PT conditioning flight/squad/whatever. Generally, even people who TRY to wash out don't make it.

I haven't been through BMT. Is this impression wrong?

[RogueLeader]

I went through BCT at Ft. Sill from 7-08 thru 9-08.  In my battery, 2 washed out because they were mentally un-fit (Tried to commit suicide), two were medically discharged.  One refused to train.  I couldn't hit the magic "23" needed to qualify with the m-16.  5 out of 160 soldiers washed.  If you give it all of what you got, you'll do well.  Same for cadets.

[Short Field]

Are there really a lot of people who "wash out" of basic training? I have been under the (possibly mistaken) impression that it's pretty hard to fail out. Even those who can't do the PT end up in the PT conditioning flight/squad/whatever. Generally, even people who TRY to wash out don't make it .

Most flights lose someone - either a wash-back or an elimination.  Today, they allow fairly easy self-eliminations because it is very cost effective.

I haven't been through BMT.

Yep.

[Spike]

I haven't been through BMT.

Yep.

Yet he is very knowledgeable about military training, philosophy and doctrine from what I gather reading his posts.  We that served or are currently serving probably don't know as much about the military as a former Cadet Colonel.  His view is mostly from a Cadet viewpoint, things are a little different when you are a Commander of a Squadron that has more Cadets than some Encampments. 

I am not saying Nathan is not awesome, but is still too close to his transfer date from Cadet to Senior. 

[Larry Mangum]

Interesting arguments.  One of the arguments against making encampment more military "basic" training that has been missed in this discussion so far, is that one of the major reasons that basic training is made so stressful is to eliminate those who cannot adapt to military life or cannot handle the stresses they may encounter while serving. In CAP, the weeding out of individuals who cannot adapt to "CAP " should have already been accomplished well before a cadet gets to encampment.  In reality Encampment should probably  be more like Technical School. 

Are there really a lot of people who "wash out" of basic training? I have been under the (possibly mistaken) impression that it's pretty hard to fail out. Even those who can't do the PT end up in the PT conditioning flight/squad/whatever. Generally, even people who TRY to wash out don't make it.

I haven't been through BMT. Is this impression wrong?

My basic flight had 63 men in it. 44 graduated and that total included 3 set-backs. So yes people definitely do wash out.

[Major Lord]

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/01/rutgers_sorority_members_hazin.html

Now that's Hazing!

Major Lord

[Nathan]

I am not saying Nathan is not awesome, but is still too close to his transfer date from Cadet to Senior.

Which somehow makes me LESS qualified to discuss cadet programs issues than anyone else, even senior members with less time in CAP than I have in CP.

[Short Field]

Just don't get carried away on the "Military Training" and "Military Atmosphere" stuff until you have been through it.  Even Spaatz Cadets have to go through Basic Training - and get the same advanced rank as my brother when he enlisted for six years. 

[RiverAux]

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?

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

I'm not sure that the comparison really works for a general cadet encampment at all. 

Now, if you used that video to demonstrate why attention to detail and following orders can save yours and others' lives are important in relation to emergency services missions to those going to Hawk Mtn or NESA or one of the flight encampments, it would translate great. 

I have no idea what the "military environment" is like at Hawk or NESA, but from what I've heard here it is almost non-existent at the flight academies, where it would be an almost exact fit for this video. 

[Nathan]

Just don't get carried away on the "Military Training" and "Military Atmosphere" stuff until you have been through it.  Even Spaatz Cadets have to go through Basic Training - and get the same advanced rank as my brother when he enlisted for six years.

It IS possible to figure things out about a certain subject without having been a part of it. I can say I know quite a bit about WWII without having fought it, and that I know quite a bit about chemistry without being a Ph.D.

My point is that the conclusions I came to about the military were based on logic, not experience. Granted, experience has the capability of beating logically-based conclusions. Logically, I concluded that it is unlikely for there to be a combat-related skill that is taught through punitive PT. So, why does the military use punitive PT? My guess is the same reason that we would use punitive PT; it's a teaching tool.

Now, I may be wrong in my conclusion, and I'll even make it easy. If I am wrong, then I'm wrong in one of two places. The first place I can be wrong is where I say that push-ups aren't used in combat. In my admittedly modest bit of knowledge of modern warfighting, I cannot fathom a combat scenario (or even non-combat scenario) where a soldier would perform a set of push-ups as a skill used to further the mission. If your experience is contrary to my logic, then please correct me, and show me where I went wrong. But just telling me I'm wrong because I wasn't in the military doesn't even make sense.

The second place I could be wrong is where I assume that the military would use punitive PT the same way I would imagine any good leader would, if they were using punitive PT. They're using it to supplement their teaching. Now, if I am wrong here, then please correct me.

But it doesn't take "military experience" to talk about why the military might use certain acknowledged training methods, and it certainly doesn't take military experience to think of new and possibly better ways to run the cadet program.

[Eclipse]

It IS possible to figure things out about a certain subject without having been a part of it. I can say I know quite a bit about WWII without having fought it, and that I know quite a bit about chemistry without being a Ph.D.

Frankly, that is a presumptuous attitude of the young which is replaced by "reality" as you get older.
In fact, in the past you have asserted that you can't really understand what it is like to be a cadet unless you have been one.

I am not saying Nathan is not awesome, but is still too close to his transfer date from Cadet to Senior.

Which somehow makes me LESS qualified to discuss cadet programs issues than anyone else, even senior members with less time in CAP than I have in CP.

Yes.  You may have good hands on experience and can speak from first-hand knowledge on being a cadet, however in terms of leading adults, running large activities, raising children, or balancing the wants of a cadet vs. the requirements of the program, you've got some calendars to burn before you will be treated as any sort of expert.

This is the circle of life.  You believe you know everything, and have some special insight that all those before you somehow missed.

We know better.    The indignity you are feeling right now confirms that.

[Spike]

The first place I can be wrong is where I say that push-ups aren't used in combat. In my admittedly modest bit of knowledge of modern warfighting, I cannot fathom a combat scenario (or even non-combat scenario) where a soldier would perform a set of push-ups as a skill used to further the mission. If your experience is contrary to my logic, then please correct me, and show me where I went wrong. But just telling me I'm wrong because I wasn't in the military doesn't even make sense.

You are wrong.  Pushups build chest, shoulder, arm and back muscles.  Those muscles are required for a person to endure in combat.  Though you will not do pushups to fight the enemy, the endurance of those muscles will help you push an object further, carry a heavier pack, help you march longer and most other things that require upper body strength.  Since Rome, Armies have had soldiers do pushups to strengthen their body to fight the rigors of combat.  You may be wrong because you have not been in the military.  During the beginning of all basic training in all armed services, the recruit knows exactly why pushups are done.  The Army does this by reading the Army Physical Fitness Test instructions to everyone before a PT test.  In it, those instructions explain what the test is for and what it measures. In the front of most PT regs/manuals it explains why it is necessary to prepare the body for combat, and what exercises are specific to doing that. 

I was not a Cadet Colonel, but was a Cadet.  I am a successfull Squadron Commander with many years of the best leadership training available to anyone on this planet (The US Military).  I have been in the deep end of the pool where pushups did mean the difference between life and death.  Where the ability to carry your buddy to safety depended on if you could throw him or her over your back.  Just because we are "older" does not mean we have left our touch with reality and connection to the Cadet Program behind.  Do not forget it is the Senior Member who is charged with conducting that program, who mentors young Cadet Colonels and is the driving force behind every thing Cadet related.

You may know more than a Ph.D relating to chemistry, but you do not have that title.  When you achieve that you will be taken seriously by your peers.  You stated you did not fight in World War Two, yet you know a bit about it.  Frankly you know facts and figures, but you do not know "it".  No one knows "it" unless they have been in "it".  You can never understand where those who served in the armed Forces are coming from, nor what having a Ph.D in chemistry really means until you have "it".  All you can understand is the data, the numbers and formulas and the general accepted ideas that you hear about or read about.

Perhaps spending some more time on the Senior Side of CAP will enlighten your perceptions.  As you spend that time you will come to realize that although you worked hard as a Cadet, there were many more Senior Members working harder to give you your chance to work hard.

Good luck on your Ph.D.

[Nathan]

Since what Eclipse said is covered pretty much in this post, I'm just going to address Spike and hope it covers all the bases.

You are wrong.  Pushups build chest, shoulder, arm and back muscles.  Those muscles are required for a person to endure in combat.  Though you will not do pushups to fight the enemy, the endurance of those muscles will help you push an object further, carry a heavier pack, help you march longer and most other things that require upper body strength.  Since Rome, Armies have had soldiers do pushups to strengthen their body to fight the rigors of combat.  You may be wrong because you have not been in the military.  During the beginning of all basic training in all armed services, the recruit knows exactly why pushups are done.  The Army does this by reading the Army Physical Fitness Test instructions to everyone before a PT test.  In it, those instructions explain what the test is for and what it measures. In the front of most PT regs/manuals it explains why it is necessary to prepare the body for combat, and what exercises are specific to doing that.

Which means you're cherry picking what I said and not looking at the overall context, or even reading the title of the thread. It's pretty obvious why PT tests are done. Nobody cares about that. We're talking about "hazing analysis", and I was talking about punitive PT, as stated earlier in the post. If it is necessary for me to assign context to everything I say, that's fine, but I'm hoping that our reading skills can carry us through this debate... 

I was not a Cadet Colonel, but was a Cadet.  I am a successfull Squadron Commander with many years of the best leadership training available to anyone on this planet (The US Military).  I have been in the deep end of the pool where pushups did mean the difference between life and death.  Where the ability to carry your buddy to safety depended on if you could throw him or her over your back.

See above. I'm not talking about PT push-ups. I'm talking about punitive push-ups. That was pretty clear from the context of the post and the thread.

Just because we are "older" does not mean we have left our touch with reality and connection to the Cadet Program behind.  Do not forget it is the Senior Member who is charged with conducting that program, who mentors young Cadet Colonels and is the driving force behind every thing Cadet related.

That is true, and although I would argue that the ideal is a cadet-run program with minimal senior oversight, you're right that it is the seniors who are overly responsible. However, what that DOES mean, as demonstrated by this conversation, is that seniors generally don't have to feel like they have any competition in deciding what is best for the cadets and what might make a better environment. When seniors can easily blow off cadets due to "not having BTDT" or "not having the wizened experience of 1000 years of SM experience", then the ONLY input we have into what the cadets want is by looking at what the SENIORS think the cadets want. There is no reason for the senior members who have run 100 encampments to care what a mere cadet might think. Senior members have NO need to, you know, LEARN anything, right?

I find it a bit amusing that I'm the one getting accused of being a know-it-all. (That was mainly directed at you, Eclipse).

You may know more than a Ph.D relating to chemistry, but you do not have that title.  When you achieve that you will be taken seriously by your peers.  You stated you did not fight in World War Two, yet you know a bit about it.  Frankly you know facts and figures, but you do not know "it".  No one knows "it" unless they have been in "it".  You can never understand where those who served in the armed Forces are coming from, nor what having a Ph.D in chemistry really means until you have "it".  All you can understand is the data, the numbers and formulas and the general accepted ideas that you hear about or read about.

You're missing the point. If I need to tell someone who won the Battle of Midway, I didn't have to fight it. If I wanted to explain to someone how to do an acid-base reaction, I don't need to have a book published on it. I can know enough about it to make something applicable to MY life, even if I'm not THE expert in the subject matter. I don't HAVE to know it all.

Likewise, because I have not been in the military, I would not be able to speak subjectively about the stress involved in BMT, or the exact reasoning behind certain practices, because I wasn't the guy who started them. But I can make logical deductions and inductions. And until I'm proven wrong, there is no reason for me to change that belief. Now, if you can tell me that somehow PT, yelling, and other techniques used by the military that are considered "hazing" in CAP somehow directly correlate into training a soldier and NOT a civilian (as if we were teaching cadets how to lay mines), then you will have proved a point. But until you do, there is no reason to call techniques used by the military to train soldiers "military indoctrination" if such skills can be used to train cadets to be doctors, or lawyers, or teachers, or janitors, and excel at it the same way that the training causes recruits to excel at being soldiers.

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.