SC spring CTW

[Holding Pattern]

StarFleet I'll do what I was taught to do and that's to not purposely embarrass a cadet as it goes against every leadership lesson I've ever seen in both CAP and out.  If the OP stated it was embarrassing, I'll take them at their word.  I wasn't there and neither were you.  I'm not going to report anyone over it because again, I wasn't there to witness it, and it seems pretty low on the "reporting" scale.  I think a simple reminder that's it's not something we condone would be enough.  I feel that we can use common sense in what we need to report and what we see as a cadet making a mistake.   CAP needs to get together on this though.  We're being taught one thing at the local RST and told something else by the executive leadership. The policy seemed pretty clear up until today.

CAP Publications define hazing exactly as I quoted, that came directly from the Commander Course material.

And the fact that this was done to an entire flight of cadets makes it even worse.  A flight was publicly embarrassed in front of several other flights of their peers.  The context is clear when the OP said it was both funny and embarrassing. These cadets weren't being "coached" either, not at all.

The CPP was revised, from my understanding, because there was too much grey area regarding what was acceptable and what wasn't. Either embarrassing cadets is allowed, or it isn't.  And stop saying "in this context", the OP already stated that it was embarrassing.

Then you need to preach what you teach: Reach out to the SC spring CTW coordinators with your hazing complaint. You also should stop critiquing the individual on a public forum and do that in private via the same channel if you don't believe it rose to the level of hazing and is just a coaching opportunity, for as you said: "What happened to critique in private - praise in public?"

[xray328]

Again, I don't think it needs to be reported. It should of been taken care of by the leadership at the activity, assuming that the report was both witnessed, accurate, and correct. Do you honestly think that a senior member from another state that wasn't even at the activity has the duty or responsibility to file a report from a mystery cadet on captalk about something like this? Something the National Cadet Program Manager has already stated his opinion on? Is that actually what you're suggesting I do?

Point here is simple. Don't embarrass cadets on purpose, call it what you want, it's not appropriate.

[Holding Pattern]

So to be clear, you don't think hazing needs to be reported when you identify it?

[Holding Pattern]

Do you honestly think that a senior member from another state that wasn't even at the activity has the duty or responsibility to file a report from a mystery cadet on captalk about something like this?

To be abundantly clear: You made a judgement of hazing and stated we should "take the cadet at his word," and you used his initial statement as sufficient evidence of hazing.

Either this is true and a report should be filed, or maybe, just maybe, this wasn't a hazing incident and was instead a cadet leader that simply needs coaching. Words have meaning. Throwing down the H word is a serious accusation.

[xray328]

Doesn't matter what I think at this point.  The National Cadet Programs Manager, a Colonel who is in a much higher position than I, as I am sure you are Starfleet doesn't seem to think it's hazing.  That being the case I don't think filing a report is the appropriate thing to do here.  My concern has been elevated to the highest levels and I have been told I am wrong.  I leave the battle both confused, defeated, and unsure of exactly how the CAP CPP applies here.  I guess all I can do is stay far way from that line so I don't have to worry about crossing it.

[Holding Pattern]

I leave the battle both confused, defeated, and unsure of exactly how the CAP CPP applies here.

Well, let's take a look at the record. First, let's pull the regs, pamphlets, and courses relevant to the situation. Then we'll dissect the first post of this thread. We'll review the definitions and examples to compare against the OP and see if you can emerge as an elucidated erudite that is both victorious and sure of exactly how CAP CPP applies here.

Regardless of the outcome, it should be a productive exercise, yes?

[xray328]

Starfleet, I've stated my argument and why I believe I'm correct. The powers at be have told me I'm wrong, I'm not going to fight that battle.  As a senior member I thought I understood how CPP applies to this situation, as I've been taught.  My understanding is that we aren't to embarrass cadets, the OP stated it was embarrassing. I thought that was a pretty simple case.  Again, the most knowledgable authority on the subject, a trusted California Superior Court judge and Colonel in this program trusted by the National Commander to direct the cadet program has given his opinion on the subject.  I think that's enough.

[Holding Pattern]

Starfleet, I've stated my argument and why I believe I'm correct. The powers at be have told me I'm wrong, I'm not going to fight that battle.  As a senior member I thought I understood how CPP applies to this situation, as I've been taught.  My understanding is that we aren't to embarrass cadets, the OP stated it was embarrassing. I thought that was a pretty simple case.  Again, the most knowledgable authority on the subject, a trusted California Superior Court judge and Colonel in this program trusted by the National Commander to direct the cadet program has given his opinion on the subject.  I think that's enough.

I'm not a fan of appeals to authority figures. I like to know that my conclusions of an event are based on the facts, the regs, and the supporting materials of the regs.

Just because someone has a higher grade and a stack of certs/degrees/jobs doesn't automatically make them correct.

[Ned]

I thik we have pretty much run this one to ground.  Thank you for the respectful discussion.

Just one last clarifying note:  My position is NOT that "it's OK to deliberately embarrass cadets."

My position is more subtle, but important:  Mere embarrassment rarely, if ever, amounts to hazing. 

Hazing is serious stuff.  People get suspended and investigations done.

Again, thanks for the discussion.

[Fubar]

Guys, you're arguing with the gentleman who literally wrote our book on hazing.

[stillamarine]

Guys, you're arguing with the gentleman who literally wrote our book on hazing.

And apparently interprets said book incorrectly.

[PHall]

Guys, you're arguing with the gentleman who literally wrote our book on hazing.

And apparently interprets said book incorrectly.

How can the guy who wrote the book interpret it incorrectly?

[Майор Хаткевич]

Guys, you're arguing with the gentleman who literally wrote our book on hazing.

And apparently interprets said book incorrectly.

How can the guy who wrote the book interpret it incorrectly?

Again sir:" Civil Air Patroldefines hazing as, any conductwhereby someone causes anotherto suffer or be exposed to anyactivity that is cruel, abusive,humiliating, oppressive,demeaning, or harmful." (CAPR 52-10, CAP Cadet Protection Policy)."

Indeed, that is our definition.  But perhaps more importantly, we didn't write it.Ned Lee

[SarDragon]

I encountered a meme on Facebook today that I think has a lot to do with the interpretation of hazing.

1944: 18-year-olds storm beaches, jump from planes, and charge into almost certain death. 2015: 18-year-olds need a safe place. Because words do hurt.

What might be "very embarrassing" these days was usually just a little hiccup 20 or 30 years ago.

[xray328]

I agree.  Still need to follow the rules though. A lot of what we've been told or taught seems "soft" but we  can't pick and choose what rules to follow especially when it comes to CPP. They've got us walking on egg shells and I understand why,  but when we're told something as simple as "don't do things to humiliate cadets" then are told "well this wasn't that bad"...

[FW]

" Civil Air Patrol
defines hazing as, any conduct
whereby someone causes another
to suffer or be exposed to any
activity that is cruel, abusive,
humiliating, oppressive,
demeaning, or harmful." (CAPR 52-
10, CAP Cadet Protection Policy)."

Is "embarrassment"= to the above? I don't think so. 

That said, if someone feels they were abused, or witnessed abuse, there are proper channels to go thru.  The system is in place to protect cadets.  Better to "over report" than not. Good judgement is key in these situations.

I think  it's a good idea to have such (academic) discussions during a squadron meeting with a legal officer and a chaplain or CDO present.  We could all use the knowledge to improve our skills.  It helps to color in those shades of grey. 

[Майор Хаткевич]

" Civil Air Patrol
defines hazing as, any conduct
whereby someone causes another
to suffer or be exposed to any
activity that is cruel, abusive,
humiliating, oppressive,
demeaning, or harmful." (CAPR 52-
10, CAP Cadet Protection Policy)."

Is "embarrassment"= to the above? I don't think so. 

That said, if someone feels they were abused, or witnessed abuse, there are proper channels to go thru.  The system is in place to protect cadets.  Better to "over report" than not. Good judgement is key in these situations.

I think  it's a good idea to have such (academic) discussions during a squadron meeting with a legal officer and a chaplain or CDO present.  We could all use the knowledge to improve our skills.  It helps to color in those shades of grey.

hu·mil·i·at·ing

(h)yo͞oˈmilēˌādiNG/

adjective




causing someone to feel ashamed and foolish by injuring their dignity and self-respect.
"a humiliating defeat"

• 
  

  [/size]em·bar·rass·ing
  
  əmˈberəsiNG/
  
  adjective
  
  
  
  
  causing embarrassment.
  "an embarrassing muddle"
  

  [color=rgb(135, 135, 135) !important]synonyms:[/color]humiliating[color=rgb(135, 135, 135) !important], shaming, [/color]shameful[color=rgb(135, 135, 135) !important], mortifying, [/color]ignominious[color=rgb(135, 135, 135) !important]; [/l][/q][/t][/color]

[PA Guy]

Let's say during an in ranks uniform inspection the inspector tells a cadet that their collar insignia are not pinned on correctly. This done in a calm matter of fact way and the inspector moves to the next cadet Does that rise to the level of hazing? Not in my book but I get the  impression that some on here would consider it hazing. No one likes to be corrected so I'm guessing the cadet would have some degree of embarrassment. 

[Eclipse]

Let's say during an in ranks uniform inspection the inspector tells a cadet that their collar insignia are not pinned on correctly. This done in a calm matter of fact way and the inspector moves to the next cadet Does that rise to the level of hazing? Not in my book but I get the  impression that some on here would consider it hazing. No one likes to be corrected so I'm guessing the cadet would have some degree of embarrassment.

Not an apt comparison.

You're describing a proper, discrete correction as modeled and trained by NHQ.

The behavior in the OP is none of those.

It does not use any technique modeled or trained by NHQ.

It does not, as directed by NHQ CPPT training, remediate the problem,  nor model the correct behavior, it simply calls out the flight publicly.

Splitting hairs about whether this was directed at "single cadet" in an attempt to make it "not hazing", is what
misguided leaders do when they have an entire flight do "incentive PT" because one of the flight's members is struggling.
If you don't think that flight would become know as the "alphabets", you haven't spent time around adolescents.

Those of us who have been around for a while remember the duct-tape chair from RST of the recent past.
Duct taping every cadet in an activity into their own chair in an effort not to "single out" any one cadet doesn't make
that action an appropriate training technique.

At a minimum, from what was provided, it is an inappropriate and misguided training technique done by someone who
did not receive the messages sent during CPPT / ORM / Wingman / RST classes.

[CAPDCCMOM]

HOLY COW!!!!! We are turning the Cadet Program into Aunt Fannie's Finishing School for Precious Snowflakes!!!

Everything under God's Sun is being called "hazing", and we wonder why uniform standards and participation levels are so out of whack? You look at a Cadet cross-eyed and you are getting complaints from the Parents, or an over zealous Senior Member. Telling a Cadet that they need a haircut is not "Hazing", pulling out the clippers at the meeting and shaving their head is "Hazing".  Calling the Cadets to Attention if they are goofing around to get them back on focus is not "hazing", making them hold the folding chair at arm's length, until I get tired, is "Hazing". BTW the mentioned examples are things that I and my fellow Cadets went through in NJROTC.

edited because Spell Check Hates me