SC spring CTW

[Майор Хаткевич]

It's becoming obvious to me there is confusion about the CPP.  There seems to be a real need to clarify things from above, and to provide more learning opportunities. We need more understanding of its principles and enforcement, before adult members just stop dealing with cadets.

Won't happen. The only people who really complain about CPP are those that were already looking to avoid cadets. I know that most of us who chose to work with cadets are there to give back, not to complain about CPP.

[Holding Pattern]

What should the takeaway be there? Why is it ok to not report abuse when several field officers think this is a cut and dried case of hazing?

Wrong. Based on presented information, it appears to cross the line. As others have stated, we don't know all the facts, we only heard one side, and we weren't there.


I would personally tell my cadets to knock it off if it ever happened. Does it cross into hazing? Maybe. I wasn't there. I don't know the tone. I don't know how the staff member presented and delivered it. I've had cadets turn right/left on the left/right commands. I've shown them the whole "your left index/thumb make an "L"" thing as a cadet AND a SM. I then proceeded to call a succession of left/right faces, and told them not to anticipate the command of execution and listen to the words I say. I would NEVER make them sing the alphabet to get the point across. It's plain stupid to think it would, besides trying to embarrass the cadets.

Please note that my statement was based on my initial entry into the thread after someone just flat out stated "That's hazing."

I am in agreement with the many people in this thread that see this as a coaching opportunity to the cadet that gave the order.

I am in disagreement with the many people that are reading the DoD policy in isolation, which the RST specifically says not to do.

[Майор Хаткевич]

What should the takeaway be there? Why is it ok to not report abuse when several field officers think this is a cut and dried case of hazing?

Wrong. Based on presented information, it appears to cross the line. As others have stated, we don't know all the facts, we only heard one side, and we weren't there.


I would personally tell my cadets to knock it off if it ever happened. Does it cross into hazing? Maybe. I wasn't there. I don't know the tone. I don't know how the staff member presented and delivered it. I've had cadets turn right/left on the left/right commands. I've shown them the whole "your left index/thumb make an "L"" thing as a cadet AND a SM. I then proceeded to call a succession of left/right faces, and told them not to anticipate the command of execution and listen to the words I say. I would NEVER make them sing the alphabet to get the point across. It's plain stupid to think it would, besides trying to embarrass the cadets.

Please note that my statement was based on my initial entry into the thread after someone just flat out stated "That's hazing."

I am in agreement with the many people in this thread that see this as a coaching opportunity to the cadet that gave the order.

I am in disagreement with the many people that are reading the DoD policy in isolation, which the RST specifically says not to do.

Your statement specifically said

Why is it ok to not report abuse when several field officers think this is a cut and dried case of hazing?

That was what I addressed.

[Holding Pattern]

What should the takeaway be there? Why is it ok to not report abuse when several field officers think this is a cut and dried case of hazing?

Wrong. Based on presented information, it appears to cross the line. As others have stated, we don't know all the facts, we only heard one side, and we weren't there.


I would personally tell my cadets to knock it off if it ever happened. Does it cross into hazing? Maybe. I wasn't there. I don't know the tone. I don't know how the staff member presented and delivered it. I've had cadets turn right/left on the left/right commands. I've shown them the whole "your left index/thumb make an "L"" thing as a cadet AND a SM. I then proceeded to call a succession of left/right faces, and told them not to anticipate the command of execution and listen to the words I say. I would NEVER make them sing the alphabet to get the point across. It's plain stupid to think it would, besides trying to embarrass the cadets.

Please note that my statement was based on my initial entry into the thread after someone just flat out stated "That's hazing."

I am in agreement with the many people in this thread that see this as a coaching opportunity to the cadet that gave the order.

I am in disagreement with the many people that are reading the DoD policy in isolation, which the RST specifically says not to do.

Your statement specifically said

Why is it ok to not report abuse when several field officers think this is a cut and dried case of hazing?

That was what I addressed.

You addressed the statement, the context of which was someone who had declared something to be abuse, and then went on to say they didn't believe they needed to report it.

Also covered in the RST, Page 6, "The Bystander Effect."

Context is critical. If you disagree with the assertion that this was abuse, then my post was not directed toward you.

[Майор Хаткевич]

What should the takeaway be there? Why is it ok to not report abuse when several field officers think this is a cut and dried case of hazing?

Wrong. Based on presented information, it appears to cross the line. As others have stated, we don't know all the facts, we only heard one side, and we weren't there.


I would personally tell my cadets to knock it off if it ever happened. Does it cross into hazing? Maybe. I wasn't there. I don't know the tone. I don't know how the staff member presented and delivered it. I've had cadets turn right/left on the left/right commands. I've shown them the whole "your left index/thumb make an "L"" thing as a cadet AND a SM. I then proceeded to call a succession of left/right faces, and told them not to anticipate the command of execution and listen to the words I say. I would NEVER make them sing the alphabet to get the point across. It's plain stupid to think it would, besides trying to embarrass the cadets.

Please note that my statement was based on my initial entry into the thread after someone just flat out stated "That's hazing."

I am in agreement with the many people in this thread that see this as a coaching opportunity to the cadet that gave the order.

I am in disagreement with the many people that are reading the DoD policy in isolation, which the RST specifically says not to do.

Your statement specifically said

Why is it ok to not report abuse when several field officers think this is a cut and dried case of hazing?

That was what I addressed.

You addressed the statement, the context of which was someone who had declared something to be abuse, and then went on to say they didn't believe they needed to report it.

Also covered in the RST, Page 6, "The Bystander Effect."

Context is critical. If you disagree with the assertion that this was abuse, then my post was not directed toward you.

If I'm correct, x-ray is a relatively new senior member, and just completed RST this past weekend. Could this be hazing? Maybe. Does he have to report it? No - because of what I've already said.


Do I agree it's Hazing with a big H? Probably not. I'd lean more towards:

b. Mismatched Goals & Intensities.
(1) An inappropriately high level of training intensity does not meet this regulation's definition of abuse or hazing unless it causes serious physical harm or serious emotional harm. Inappropriate yelling, using exercise as punishment, and creating an overly-stressful environment and other conduct listed in CAPP 52-23 are examples of inappropriately high training intensities that will be treated as boundary concerns.

[Holding Pattern]

In that case I'm glad that it seems we are interpreting it the same way.

It gives me a higher confidence that I'm reading the CAPRs and CAPPs appropriately. And that we should cover hazing in more detail during RST and/or other meetings.

[Eclipse]

Do you really believe that mandatory hazing reporting includes complaints that start with "I heard it on the internet"?

[Майор Хаткевич]

In that case I'm glad that it seems we are interpreting it the same way.

It gives me a higher confidence that I'm reading the CAPRs and CAPPs appropriately. And that we should cover hazing in more detail during RST and/or other meetings.

I think I'd rather people go over rather than under on this issue.


The stop for me would be when looking at the reg. "Holy smokes, I've got to report C/SSgt Doh-Fus to the Wing King? Is what he did really that serious? Let's take a look at the regs. Oh, here it is, the flight isn't physically injured or emotionally scared, he just did something stupid. A boundary violation? Well, he just got a course adjustment by me a few minutes ago, so I'd say we're in the clear here."

[Holding Pattern]

Do you really believe that hazing mandatory reporting includes complaints that start with "I heard it on the internet"?

I've seen several incidents on captalk get reported to NHQ that were far less serious than a hazing allegation. And if I did see a cadet post something that I thought rose to the level of abuse (given or received), I would in fact report it and the source, then leave it to the local investigators to sort it out. The only exception would be (and has been, in one case) when I find out the event was already reported.

Cadet Protection is in fact serious business.

[Eclipse]

Cadet Protection is in fact serious business.

I don't think anyone here is arguing that point.

The very fact of the minutia and deconstruction that takes place in these conversations is a likely indication
of people who are more vigilant then the average member.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Cadet Protection is in fact serious business.

I don't think anyone here is arguing that point.

The very fact of the minutia and deconstruction that takes place in these conversations is a likely indication
of people who are more vigilant then the average member.

This times 100. While CT seems to get a bad name in some circles, those who participate here, are probably more engaged/invested than 90% of the membership overall. After all, if I'm not too into this, why waste my time on a forum?

[xray328]

I think part of this is how they are defining hazing.  Before I posted on this I googled "CAP policy hazing" and this came up:

http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/Hazing_SG_14CADEDE0C136.pdf

If you look at page 2 there's no mention that the cadets need to be in fear of physical harm etc.  Then it goes on to say that public humiliation is also taboo, again all under the hazing section.

If you take what the OP said at face value, he was embarrassed = humiliated, publicly.  We could also say it was demeaning I guess.

If we agree on that (and if you don't I guess the rest isn't valid) I don't see how we can say it doesn't meet "hazing" by CAP's definition.

Maybe CAP needs to change its definition, or at least ensure all its publications use the same definition?  Clearly the above linked (paper, publication, whatever)  is missing verbiage that some posters have added  (cadets needing to fear physical harm for instance.)

[Holding Pattern]

I think part of this is how they are defining hazing.  Before I posted on this I googled "CAP policy hazing" and this came up:

http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/Hazing_SG_14CADEDE0C136.pdf

If you look at page 2 there's no mention that the cadets need to be in fear of physical harm etc.  Then it goes on to say that public humiliation is also taboo, again all under the hazing section.

If you take what the OP said at face value, he was embarrassed = humiliated, publicly.  We could also say it was demeaning I guess.

If we agree on that (and if you don't I guess the rest isn't valid) I don't see how we can say it doesn't meet "hazing" by CAP's definition.

Maybe CAP needs to change its definition, or at least ensure all its publications use the same definition?  Clearly the above linked (paper, publication, whatever)  is missing verbiage that some posters have added  (cadets needing to fear physical harm for instance.)

From that link:

As a functional matter, the Civil Air Patrol treats hazing accusations in the same way
as it treats accusations of physical abuse. Specific guidance is provided in CAPR
52-10.

CAPR 52-10 says:

e. Hazing. Hazing is defined as any conduct whereby someone causes another person to suffer
or to be exposed to any activity that is cruel, abusive, humiliating, oppressive, demeaning, or harmful.
1. By definition, hazing is a form of abuse.
2. Questions of hazing often pertain to the intensity level of military-style training in Cadet
Programs. Training intensity is evaluated in context. For example, a training intensity that is too stern
and demanding for a unit meeting may be appropriate at an encampment. See CAPP 52-23 for guidance
on training intensity.

CAPP 52-32 says:

Inexperienced cadet leaders on occasion may try to set an inappropriate military intensity level for a given class or block
of instruction. They may allow a class to be too lax; or perhaps they will be overly strict. Good mentors may allow the
situation to continue for a while to allow the cadet leader to learn from the experience, then provide guidance on how to
better set the intensity level next time. This might mean that some cadets were required to stand at attention in
formation for longer than was otherwise necessary; or the cadet leader may have been inappropriately harsh in his
criticism. That is part of the learning experience for the students, as well. Not every mismatch between the training to
be conducted and the proper military intensity level amounts to hazing.

And then it has a dedicated chapter to hazing analysis:

Chapter 11 When Intensity Over-Reaches: A Leader's Guide to Hazing Analysis

3 pages on the subject. I'll spare everyone quoting the 3 pages again, but I've posted the relevant sections, and others have posted other relevant points as well. Here is the link to the CAPP:
http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/P052_023_7B9F3810999BF.pdf

Also:

embarrassed = humiliated

No. It does not.

[xray328]

It shouldn't require numerous links and pages upon pages of regulations to define. We've said we don't humiliate them or do things that demean them (among other things.) That part seems simple, but maybe not.

[xray328]

Google humiliated, one of the synonyms are embarrassed

[Holding Pattern]

Google humiliated, one of the synonyms are embarrassed

And yet the word embarrassed wasn't used for a reason in the regulation. Why is that, do you suppose?

[Eclipse]

Demeaning was, and that is a subjective term as well.

You're forming an objective conclusion about subjective terms. One person's "demeaning" is another's "Tuesday".

That's why you avoid the behavior altogether, or correct it when you see it.

As characterized, this would likely be considered at least a "boundary violation".

[xray328]

Embarrass:

To make (someone) feel confused and foolish in front of other people

Humiliate:

to make (someone) feel very ashamed or foolish

[xray328]

And we need to remember it's the "victim" that decides that (victim seems like an awfully strong word here though)

[Eclipse]

And we need to remember it's the "victim" that decides that (victim seems like an awfully strong word here though)

I've always found that, in and of itself troubling as well.

12 years olds aren't in a position to understand something which may haunt them for years later.

Considering the inconsistency of CAP training and leadership, insuring an understanding of where the line is can be a challenge.
When you're 12, a lot of stuff just bounces off your head without any seepage. They nod, they sign, the sometimes echo
back without any actual understanding.  They haven't entered a development phase where abstracts ideas like "demeaning"
are comprehensible in a useful way.

You tell somebody to do something, they are "too dumb to figure it out", that makes you look bad, your reaction
is to make them look bad in retaliation.  The long term planning there is "lunch".