Cadets Dating

[Ricochet13]

Seniors dating seniors - fundamentally bad idea.

So using the random examples of a few married couples in CAP, or happy dating cadets, does not change the fact that its a bad idea, and in most case works out to the detriment of the actors, the unit, or CAP.

So . . .  Well . . .  Ah . . .  Good grief!   This is astonishing!        As with any relationships, care needs to be exercised that inter-personal relationships of any kind don't interfere with the mission have an adverse impact on the climate and culture of the squadron etc. 

". . . in most cases . . . "  How do back up these conclusions. Show me!   IMHO they are based on false premises and to perpetuate them does a disservice.  Tell me I'm interpreting your statements incorrectly.

Senior dating Senior - none of your business as long as there is no adverse affect on the squadron.

An one more thought . . . that of role models.  Perhaps it might be a positive influence on cadets and others to see mature human beings relating in a positive and rational manner.

[Eclipse]

Senior dating Senior - none of your business as long as there is no adverse affect on the squadron.

And therein lies the rub - no ones cares, really, in any of these cases until things go FUBAR and then its usually too late to reel them in. Thus, the rules to prevent the situation in the first place, or at least be used as the "you knew better" hammer when people can't be bothered to listen.

As to my examples, unfortunately they involve PERSEC, and therefore cannot be shared.  I'm comfortable in my knowledge of the details and unfortunate required involvement that they are not anomalous, and they were detrimental to the corps and the people involved.

CAP, unlike similar organizations, is not a social club.  Setting "good examples" of dating situations is not what its there for.

These discussions are always "simple" on the micro level - "the two star-struck cadets with a destiny to be together, save for the overlords of CAP barring their love...", consider the chaos in this organization were we not to both actively discourage and / or outright prohibit these relationships.

Encampments would likely get very popular, but not for the reasons we'd like them to be.

Common sense people, but I'll say it again.  CAP is not a dating service, and if your attention and eyes are focused where they are supposed to be, there's no time for this nonsense, nor would the ideas ever come into mind.

Another thing to consider in the "cadets aren't adults" discussion.  Adults, generally, have learned that "fire is hot and you should not touch it".  Children generally either haven't learned what happens when you touch fire, or are convinced that they can touch it without getting hurt, because "the old guys didn't know where to grab it".  In either case its the "old guys' " responsibility to protect the kids from that fire.

[BGNightfall]

I offer this up for consumption in the thread, the military has very cut and dried regulations on fraternization.  While there are some intricacies regarding rank that do not especially apply in this context, there is one bit that I find addresses this issue well.

Namely, that service members in a training status, regardless of rank, are prohibited from undue relationships with the training staff.  As far as I can tell from my own cadet service with CAP, cadet members are very nearly always in a training status, as opposed to an operational status.  Senior members, even if they are at the time being trained, still serve as a training staff for cadet members.  As such, no matter how you cut the pie, this relationship is fraternization and therefore out of regs.

Older and wiser heads have commented that if this relationship is unavoidable, then there is no harm in the affected parties leaving the organization for a while.  In all honesty, while Civil Air Patrol is an outstanding organization, there are far more things in this life to be experienced. 

For my own part, I see no reason for this regulation to be relaxed, go away, or change in any way.  In all seriousness, NHQ has a nation-wide organization to govern, and if they nitpick about such a cut and dried concept for the sake of a very small handful of cadets/SMs who cannot bear to part with each other, or their respective programs, then there is really no point in having any regulation at all.

[/soapbox]

[Grumpy]

Gee, when I was a cadet I dated this young lady.  We were married for 29 years before I lost her to cancer.  Should I be 2b'd retroactively to 1963?

[Major Carrales]

Gee, when I was a cadet I dated this young lady.  We were married for 29 years before I lost her to cancer.  Should I be 2b'd retroactively to 1963?

I think the sticking point of this thread is really aimed at those "late cadets" (18-21) and their relationships to Senior Members (22-and beyond) and how this is to be looked at.  Some comments, like "Who are you to be telling adult American Citizens they cannot be involed?" seem to support the idea that these people should be allowed to enter relationships beyond mere friendship.

My initial contention in this thread on the matter involved the situation of regulating this.  Cadets on their own time are not really subject to commanders authority...as it is unreasonable to ask a commander to monitor 20-40 cadets 24/7 and impose their morality over times when the commander is not present.

It is within that authorty, however, to prevent "hank-panky" when on CAP activities. 

Stopping two peoplwe from "dating" is traditionally a hard thing to do.  Some might say that love, true love, would find a way.  As seen in your example, Grummpy.

I should end by pointing out that there should be no public display of affection on CAP activities.   We are there for the missions, training and to some degree of socializtion...not to involve ourselves in a displays of love, lust or any of that.  It is when the line is crossed at the activities that bad stuff happens.

[Grumpy]

Amen.  It isn't the dating that's the problem.  It's the public display of affection.  Sucking face in uniform doesn't get it.
I agree with you whole heartedly.  The no dating part is one of those things that's unenforceable

[lordmonar]

Me and Sparky don't agree on a lot of things...but on this issue we do agree to a point.

Yes CAP does have some say in what CAP members do in their off hours.  But as a former commander I did not have the time to be the Dating Police.

What a person does on his off time....is not my buisness.  If I find out about it...via the grapevine, personal observation or news reports I will deal with in an appropriate mannter.

Keeping my cadets and SM safe, getting the mission done, protecting the organisation and keeping my work load down....in that order of priority.

The bright line rule on cadet/senior dating made my job as a commander harder not easier.  While it makes it very easy to kick out the old lecher preying on the 14 year olds it scrambled the rules for the 16-23 members.

[Eclipse]

As always comes around in these threads, there's plenty of behavioral restrictions placed on cadets and seniors when they are "off duty", bust one of those bright lines, or even get too close, and see how quickly your non-CAP behavior gets you booted or disciplined.

There's no such thing as an unenforceable regulation.  Difficult, unpopular, but nothing is impossible.

[Major Carrales]

There's no such thing as an unenforceable regulation.  Difficult, unpopular, but nothing is impossible.

My point is that the regulation is enforceable when the commander is around, down by the railroad yard at 0300 hrs is not enforceable. 

For the sake of debate...
Suppose some cadet parent make issue of some activity between two youngsters at the locale and time mentioned priorhence because the two happen to be cadets?  Would the Commander be "in the wrong" for not monitoring the cadets at off hours?  I would think the fault would lie with the parent rather than the commander, but these days who knows.  She shifting of blame away from the individual is quite a modus openandi of our time.

Lordmonar, I would venture to say we agree on a lot more than what you would think.  Judge us not merely by the typed words on the forum.  I should some day like to work with you in CAP much closer than merely hitting the forums.

[Eclipse]

There's no such thing as an unenforceable regulation.  Difficult, unpopular, but nothing is impossible.

My point is that the regulation is enforceable when the commander is around, down by the railroad yard at 0300 hrs is not enforceable. 

Is enforceable as soon as someone finds out.  Absent paperwork it never happened.

[Major Carrales]

There's no such thing as an unenforceable regulation.  Difficult, unpopular, but nothing is impossible.

My point is that the regulation is enforceable when the commander is around, down by the railroad yard at 0300 hrs is not enforceable. 

Is enforceable as soon as someone finds out.  Absent paperwork it never happened.

So, If it were to happen.  Two cadets who attend the same school, have known each other from other places (church, youth group, neighborhood) the Civil Air Patrol is liable?

I cannot fathom that when a cadet joins the unit suddenly the commander is responsible for them 24/7 365?  That seems a little unreasonable.  I'm assuming you cannot mean that and that I am somehow a victim of my own hyperbole. 

The cadets mean alot to me, many are and have been students of mine in school.  I want them to have the best time possible in CAP, that they can look back at and say..."Wow...when I was a kid I was a CAP cadet.  We did great things." And then smile for the fine memories, networking and experience that they had. 

I would do most anything, legal and ethical of course, for my Unit's cadets, but how would you have me be their keepers?

[Hawk200]

I don't think any regulation should ever be considered in the manner of "Can we enforce this?" or "How do we enforce this?" The point of regs is not to be enforced, but to be followed in the first place.

CAP does not have the same ability to enforce anything like the military does. It's also why leadership is crucial for us. Our "orders" don't have the force of law like military officers have.

Compliance is a matter of integrity. Those that lack it will find ways to violate regs. Does it matter that someone doesn't know? No, it doesn't. If you're violating regs, whether caught or not, you lack integrity, honor, sense of duty.

Even if you're not caught in one wrong, eventually it will catch up to you. Justice has a way of being served, even if we aren't the ones presenting it. Willful, hidden violators will show their absence of integrity eventually. I've seen many people shown the door, and found out later about reg violations. Most of them were stupid enough to brag about it. Just makes them look worse.

We enforce what we can, educate on what is forbidden, and hope that people have the good sense to do what's right.

[Gunner C]

I don't think any regulation should ever be considered in the manner of "Can we enforce this?" or "How do we enforce this?" The point of regs is not to be enforced, but to be followed in the first place.

CAP does not have the same ability to enforce anything like the military does. It's also why leadership is crucial for us. Our "orders" don't have the force of law like military officers have.

Compliance is a matter of integrity. Those that lack it will find ways to violate regs. Does it matter that someone doesn't know? No, it doesn't. If you're violating regs, whether caught or not, you lack integrity, honor, sense of duty.

Even if you're not caught in one wrong, eventually it will catch up to you. Justice has a way of being served, even if we aren't the ones presenting it. Willful, hidden violators will show their absence of integrity eventually. I've seen many people shown the door, and found out later about reg violations. Most of them were stupid enough to brag about it. Just makes them look worse.

We enforce what we can, educate on what is forbidden, and hope that people have the good sense to do what's right.

It's called teaching and developing character.  Character is what you do when no one is looking.  Bottom line - character is what we should be teaching: aerospace ed, leadership, uniforms, encampments, flying, ground teams, etc are only the vehicle.  We can't regulate a cadet 24/7, but we can teach them to regulate themselves.

[Eclipse]

We enforce what we can, educate on what is forbidden, and hope that people have the good sense to do what's right.

It's called teaching and developing character.  Character is what you do when no one is looking.  Bottom line - character is what we should be teaching: aerospace ed, leadership, uniforms, encampments, flying, ground teams, etc are only the vehicle.  We can't regulate a cadet 24/7, but we can teach them to regulate themselves.[/quote]

+1

[RiverAux]

Say all you want about building character, but regulations have to be realistic as well.  Just because CAP can write a regulation requiring all members to wear purple underwear while on CAP duty doesn't mean that it should. 

[Ned]

Say all you want about building character, but regulations have to be realistic as well.  Just because CAP can write a regulation requiring all members to wear purple underwear while on CAP duty doesn't mean that it should. 

1.  Ya just had to sneak a uniform item (purple underwear) into a cadet programs thread, didn't you? We will now have several pages off topic while we debate whether it applies to both corporate and usaf styled uniforms and if we can wear mini-medals or not.   

2.  Trying to stay on topic, let me remind everyone that the regulation is pretty darn realistic and permits cadets to date.  (I suspect the author was probably an 18 year old cadet at one point.  The only prohibition is on the senior-cadet dating and is in line with every other youth organization in the country.)  Not to mention every institution of higher learning.

Sounds pretty realistic to me.

[RiverAux]

I was making a general statement about writing CAP regulations rather than referring to this one in particular.

[JayT]

Say all you want about building character, but regulations have to be realistic as well.  Just because CAP can write a regulation requiring all members to wear purple underwear while on CAP duty doesn't mean that it should. 

This is almost a classic CAP thing.

We all want more roles in the Air Force.
 
We want to wear identical Air Force insignia.

We want to train more, deploy more, expand our fleet, etc etc.

But the second there's a regulation we don't agree with, it's "unrealistic."

[lordmonar]

Say all you want about building character, but regulations have to be realistic as well.  Just because CAP can write a regulation requiring all members to wear purple underwear while on CAP duty doesn't mean that it should. 

This is almost a classic CAP thing.

We all want more roles in the Air Force.
 
We want to wear identical Air Force insignia.

We want to train more, deploy more, expand our fleet, etc etc.

But the second there's a regulation we don't agree with, it's "unrealistic."

And that is a overgeneralization of what he was trying to say.

[JayT]

Perhaps sir, but I think it's still in the same spirit.

It's a volunteer organization. If you disagree with a regulation, push for a change.