Post the most ridiculous CPP misinterpretation you have seen

[RTFB]

I'll start:

(Some items are intentionally vague to remain anonymous)

I was driving along a public road between two sites of a weekend CAP activity.  The campsite and the base of operations were separated by about 0.5 mi.  Heading in the opposite direction was another CAP van moving at a crawl.  I slowed down and rolled down the window to ask if something was wrong.  Just then, I noticed a male CAP cadet walking along the side of the road, just behind the other van.  The van driver, a female senior member who has been around long enough to know better, explained that because of the cadet protection policy, she could not drive the van with an opposite-sex cadet in it unless another senior member were also present.  Therefore, she made him walk down the public road, while she loitered in the van alongside "for safety".

Anybody have anything more ridiculous?  Please share.

[lordmonar]

Recently.....our Assistant Deputy Commander for cadets was conducting mock Promotion Review Board interviews with all the cadets.
We had an old Lt Col who had just transferred over to our squadron THAT DAY sitting in and seeing how things were done.

The Lt Col was a long time ES heavy senior squadron and wing/regional level time....who crossed over to the cadet side because of his grand son.

So....our ACDC was yelling "NEXT" from the conference room to get the next cadet to report to the board.

The Lt Col objected to this as "Yelling at the cadets" and was ready to call wing then and there to report that we routinely yell at our cadets and did not know the CPP rules.

Geese!

[NIN]

One of my favorites that I have not been able to beat out of anybody (yet).. (Remember, kids, there is no Senior Protection Policy. "Majors and below, beat your faces!")

National Guard armory meeting location. Large drill hall with rolling door at one end, flanked by double personnel doors.  All doors are wide open.  Unit "office" is the Armory DFAC, accessible via double doors, also open, immediately inside one set of personnel doors.  You can hear the cadets 30 ft away outside, and if you stand in the doorway of the DFAC, you can see them, too.

Cadets walk outside to hold formation & inspection outdoors.

"Wait, you need a senior to supervise."

Can anybody point out where the CPP says "Cadets cannot be out of sight of seniors?"

(The cadets drill outdoors in the summer in the parking lot behind the Armory. The contiguous parking area is probably 150 yards long by about 20 or 30 yards wide.  A little knot of seniors "supervising" can always be found in the middle of this parking area.  Never mind correcting crappy D&C or providing any training value...)

[Flying Pig]

A squadron with no female seniors present that particular night.  During drill time, the male deputy commander for cadets made all the female cadets sit in the classroom while the male cadets drilled.  Reasoning was that it was not appropriate for female cadets to be outside without female adult escort.  Nevermind that there was a total of about 8 female cadets, about 15 male cadets and at least 5 seniors outside.   The couple of mothers there didnt "qualify" because they werent members.

[lordmonar]

A squadron with no female seniors present that particular night.  During drill time, the male deputy commander for cadets made all the female cadets sit in the classroom while the male cadets drilled.  Reasoning was that it was not appropriate for female cadets to be outside without female adult escort.  Nevermind that there was a total of about 8 female cadets, about 15 male cadets and at least 5 seniors outside.   The couple of mothers there didnt "qualify" because they werent members.

So they did a Title IX violation to avoid a CPP violation?   FSM! I love some people's thought processes.

[Flying Pig]

Risk vs Reward . But yeah, punish the girls for their own safety. They couldnt drill in the company of several male seniors and mothers, but they could sit inside with male seniors and non-member mothers. I didnt quite see the logic how it was any different.

Fortunately I was just visiting.  I voiced my opinion and was told I needed to review the policy.  I left about 30min later.  This was 10+yrs ago if not more.


(i hate posting via Iphone!!)

[EMT-83]

I know of a squadron that made a senior and cadet wait outside in the rain for the cadet's ride to show up, because they weren't allowed to be in the building alone.

[a2capt]

In a nutshell:

13 Meetings. Phase III cadet shows up 4 times.

One of which was for the review board.

When the promotion was denied, a hazing claim was leveled.

[Critical AOA]

And all of these instances were decisions made and actions taken by adults put in charge of children?  Amazing!

[Spaceman3750]

My unit is rather fond of requiring 2 seniors to be within sight of the cadets at all times, even in the classroom. It can get really disruptive to the senior staff but I haven't managed to break them of it...

[ol'fido]

Oh lord! Some of these people would have heart attacks and strokes if they saw the way we used to operate WIWAC.

[Garibaldi]

I cannot tell tales of WIWAC...the statute of limitations hasn't expired 

However...

My ES program was run into the ground by our over-zealous DCC who filled every possible weekend and meeting with AE related things. When I asked if I could have a weekend to train the cadets in ES, she (no joke) looked me dead in the eye, and said "Well, we can't risk burning the cadets out. They already have enough to do." I looked at her blankly, and walked off. This is the same woman who burned her 12 year old daughter through the entire cadet program as fast as the regs would allow.

[mwewing]

A squadron with no female seniors present that particular night.  During drill time, the male deputy commander for cadets made all the female cadets sit in the classroom while the male cadets drilled.  Reasoning was that it was not appropriate for female cadets to be outside without female adult escort.  Nevermind that there was a total of about 8 female cadets, about 15 male cadets and at least 5 seniors outside.   The couple of mothers there didnt "qualify" because they werent members.

So they did a Title IX violation to avoid a CPP violation?   FSM! I love some people's thought processes.

I was unaware that we were bound by Title IX. Does our USAF funding place us in the same boat as schools and colleges that get federal financial aid? If we are subject to the provisions of Title IX, how do we escape the obligation to have a Title IX coordinator, or am I just not aware that we have one? Also, what procedures do we have for the investigation of a Title IX complaint? I doubt many of our IGs are trained Title IX investigators.

I deal with Title IX compliance at work, and it is quite a bear. This is the first I have heard of it in a CAP context, and if we have the same obligations, it may impact the way we must deal with certain complaints.

[a2capt]

On the opening paragraph, it would appear the scenario fits right in:

No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance...

We are an education activity that receives federal assistance  If you can trace every dollar of CP money to something else, then you're free of this. But I suspect that's not easy. However I will defer to someone who is better qualified to make that connection. Section 1687 is probably where the determination would be.

[Luis R. Ramos]

A2, you stopped short, in reading your html, it reads just after the section you quoted:

(1) Classes of educational institutions subject to prohibition

in regard to admissions to educational institutions, this section shall apply only to institutions of vocational education, professional education, and graduate higher education, and to public institutions of undergraduate higher education;

And farther down it reads:

(c) Educational institution defined.

For the purposes of this chapter an educational institution means any public or private preschool, elementary, or secondary school, or any institution of vocational, professional, or higher education, except that in the case of an educational institution composed of more than one school, college, or department which are administratively separate units, such term means each such school, college or department.

I agree that CAP is an educational institution but section c above states we are not covered by Title IX...

Flyer

[lordmonar]

A squadron with no female seniors present that particular night.  During drill time, the male deputy commander for cadets made all the female cadets sit in the classroom while the male cadets drilled.  Reasoning was that it was not appropriate for female cadets to be outside without female adult escort.  Nevermind that there was a total of about 8 female cadets, about 15 male cadets and at least 5 seniors outside.   The couple of mothers there didnt "qualify" because they werent members.

So they did a Title IX violation to avoid a CPP violation?   FSM! I love some people's thought processes.

I was unaware that we were bound by Title IX. Does our USAF funding place us in the same boat as schools and colleges that get federal financial aid? If we are subject to the provisions of Title IX, how do we escape the obligation to have a Title IX coordinator, or am I just not aware that we have one? Also, what procedures do we have for the investigation of a Title IX complaint? I doubt many of our IGs are trained Title IX investigators.

I deal with Title IX compliance at work, and it is quite a bear. This is the first I have heard of it in a CAP context, and if we have the same obligations, it may impact the way we must deal with certain complaints.

Not necessary "bound" by title IX....but we do have a not discriminatory policy and we have to follow certain rules from the DoD because we get funding from them.

EXCLUDING GIRLS from and activity is sexual discrimination......If you can't include the girls.....YOU CAN'T DO IT at all or we set ourselves up for a lawsuit and/or grief from the USAF and other potential donors.

[Critical AOA]

So if you are planning an overnight outing and you have 10 male cadets signed up, only 1 female cadet signed up and 2 or 3 male senior members ,what do you do? 
Do you take the 1 girl along and assume any potential risks and possibly a CPP infraction? 
Do you exclude her citing CPP but hold the event for the boys? 
Or do you cancel the entire event because you decide that per CPP, you cannot take the girl and you believe the following?

EXCLUDING GIRLS from and activity is sexual discrimination......If you can't include the girls.....YOU CAN'T DO IT at all or we set ourselves up for a lawsuit and/or grief from the USAF and other potential donors.

[Eclipse]

EXCLUDING GIRLS from and activity is sexual discrimination......If you can't include the girls.....YOU CAN'T DO IT at all or we set ourselves up for a lawsuit and/or grief from the USAF and other potential donors.

Untrue, beyond the fact that respiration and gravitational attraction are potential ground for a suit these days if someone doesn't like your proportional use of same.

[Ned]

So if you are planning an overnight outing and you have 10 male cadets signed up, only 1 female cadet signed up and 2 or 3 male senior members ,what do you do? 
Do you take the 1 girl along and assume any potential risks and possibly a CPP infraction? 
Do you exclude her citing CPP but hold the event for the boys? 
Or do you cancel the entire event because you decide that per CPP, you cannot take the girl and you believe the following?

You are over thinking this.  Just follow the regulation, which talks about having two seniors on an overnight activity.  It does not require that the necessary seniors be any particular assortment of genders. 

For your particular hypo, I'd recommend that you speak to the female cadet and her parents and let them know about the gender ratios.  Ultimately it is their decision whether to participate, not yours.

But deliberately excluding a gender from an activity is almost always going to be the wrong answer.  There are descriptive names provided by society for those who discriminate against one gender or another.  Try not to be one of those.

Thank you for your service with our cadets.  You are making a difference.

Ned Lee

[NIN]

So if you are planning an overnight outing and you have 10 male cadets signed up, only 1 female cadet signed up and 2 or 3 male senior members ,what do you do? 
Do you take the 1 girl along and assume any potential risks and possibly a CPP infraction? 
Do you exclude her citing CPP but hold the event for the boys? 
Or do you cancel the entire event because you decide that per CPP, you cannot take the girl and you believe the following?

Thats a no-brainer.

Whats the CPP say?

I'll even be a nice guy and lay it out:

CAPR 52-10, para 4d
d. Ensure that at least two "approved" senior members are present at all overnight cadet
activities. Encourage at least two senior members to be present at all cadet activities (with the
exception of chaplain counseling or cadet orientation flights). This policy is for the protection of
the senior members as well as the cadets.

Two approved senior members.

Not "An approved senior member of each sex"

Would you CXL the activity if there were 9 female cadets and 1 male cadet and no male senior?

I won't quite go so far as to say that's sex discrimination (although I do suppose it is). But I will suggest that anybody who takes wild stabs and WAGs at what the regs require and/or allow without, you know, actually READING that reg, is asking for trouble no matter what.

ETA: Darn it, Ned, stop creating reasonable replies while I'm trying to do the same!

[lordmonar]

So if you are planning an overnight outing and you have 10 male cadets signed up, only 1 female cadet signed up and 2 or 3 male senior members ,what do you do? 
Do you take the 1 girl along and assume any potential risks and possibly a CPP infraction? 
Do you exclude her citing CPP but hold the event for the boys? 
Or do you cancel the entire event because you decide that per CPP, you cannot take the girl and you believe the following?

EXCLUDING GIRLS from and activity is sexual discrimination......If you can't include the girls.....YOU CAN'T DO IT at all or we set ourselves up for a lawsuit and/or grief from the USAF and other potential donors.

You plan accordingly.  You can't (according to the new CPP) do the event with out a female SM present.....and you can't exclude the girls. 
If you can't do it....you can't do it.  No different then if you your only CAP driver can't make it.....you can't take the CAP van.

I don't make the rules....I only try to live by them.

What risk an individual member is willing to take is kind of up to them.
Yes it is a catch 22......but there you go.

[Eclipse]

I agree with NIN and Ned.

However...

The regs won't magically make people who are comfortable with the situation appear, nor can it force someone not comfortable with a given situation
to serve as a staff member.

In an occasional case, someone might have to be excluded, and if that cadet's parent don't like it, they can join CAP, get CPT cleared, and
be there next time.

Don't the most recent draft of the CPT rules contain language about gender requirements on overnights?  I've been gone all weekend camping and admit I'm too
tired to look.

[lordmonar]

I agree with NIN and Ned.

However...

The regs won't magically make people who are comfortable with the situation appear, nor can it force someone not comfortable with a given situation
to serve as a staff member.

In an occasional case, someone might have to be excluded, and if that cadet's parent don't like it, they can join CAP, get CPT cleared, and
be there next time.

Don't the most recent draft of the CPT rules contain language about gender requirements on overnights?  I've been gone all weekend camping and admit I'm too
tired to look.

As Ned pointed out......you want to be the guy on CNN explaining how you wouldn't let little Jenny go on the SAREX outing because you were not comfortable with including girls?

I pointed out through my chain of command the issues that the DRAF CPP rules is going raise in ES GT issues.  Unless the change the wording with the non-discrimitory policies to allow X or Y to trump excluding the girls or the boys from an event....we got what we got.

[Eclipse]

As Ned pointed out......you want to be the guy on CNN explaining how you wouldn't let little Jenny go on the SAREX outing because you were not comfortable with including girls?

I have no problem with that, whatsoever.

"This is an all-volunteer organization, and Jenny's parents weren't interested in helping.  Love the show Anderson."

There's 100 places and situations where CAP should always aspire to do things right, but just an in the case where someone with
certain special needs might not be allowed to participate, such as someone in a wheel chair who isn't allowed on a military O-ride
or can't do an activity because billeting is on the third floor and there's no elevator, once the staff have done their best to accommodate
the situation, then it simply is what it is, and you don't cancel everything because of it - CAP has neither the funding nor personnel to
force accommodation like public schools, corporations, or even the military, especially not if the general trajectory will be to allow units
to self-actualize on recruiting and mission goals.

"Unable to accommodate" does automatically not equal "discrimination".

If that's the go-forward attitude, we really are cooked.

[Ned]

You're not seriously suggesting that being female is some sort of disability, are you?

Again, just follow the reg and you have your answer.

And the answer is not to intentionally discriminate against some of our best and brightest cadets based on their genetics.

Really, it is that simple.

(And a note to the masses:  the draft CPP reg is just that - a draft.  Continue to follow our current rules and regs unt such time, if any, that the regulation changes.)

[Eclipse]

You're not seriously suggesting that being female is some sort of disability, are you?

I neither said that, nor implied it.

We both know that was simply another example where circumstance mat prevent CAP from accommodating someone with a specific / special need.

"Wishing we were all things to all people."  doesn't make it happen even if that wish is in the form of a CAPR.

I also agree, however, that we should just follow the reg. With that said, if the reg puts an onerous requirement on a unit or activity, then
the onus can be pushed to higher HQ and they can sit with Anderson and explain why an activity that effects 100 other people was canceled for
one participant, which is the other swing of the "Jenny can't go" pendulum.

[lordmonar]

Eclipse.....if you plan an activity for 100 cadets......and don't plan for making sure all our members can participate...........you are doing it wrong.

It is more likely scenario where Squadron X with 6 cadets, two active CP seniors are suddenly faced with one female cadet.....and not knowing the reg, not being properly trained, living in a region where the CPP rules are full of myths, half truths and "good ideas" presented as hard laws......gets our organization screwed up.

As this whole thread points out.....even with the regs being fairly clear.......we still have people who "were told" or "thought that it meant" or "I just want to err on the side of 'safety'" something that is not required and then we end up going down the another cliff.....with the best intentions.

So......To be clear.   

Females (by the Current CPP) do not EVER have to have a female SM present on the activity.  They don't even require separate sleeping, bathing, restroom accommodations.  We just need two cleared seniors present.

On to the next DOOFUS move.

Edited for spelling errors.   

[Eclipse]

Fair enough.

[Garibaldi]

Females (by the Current CPP) do not EVER have to have a female SM present on the activity.  They don't even require separate sleeping, bathing, restroom abominations.  We just need two cleared seniors present.

On to the next DOOFUS move.

restroom abominations? *shudder*

[lordmonar]

  Fracking Auto Correct! 

Accommodations......if you please.

Although.....some of the facilities I have been to.....could be called abominations.

[BuckeyeDEJ]

It's not "sex." It's "gender."

Now back to your regularly scheduled CAPTalk discussion about uniforms... oh, wait, this isn't a uniform thread, is it?

[PHall]

  Fracking Auto Correct! 

Accommodations......if you please.

Although.....some of the facilities I have been to.....could be called abominations.

OFF TOPIC....


"Real" men don't use Auto Correct or Auto Suggest.



/OFF TOPIC

[Ned]

I neither said that, nor implied it.

Well, your example was that of a wheelchair bound cadet and you spoke extensively about "accommodation," so perhaps my error may be forgiven.

Following the regulations is not an "accommodation."  It's just obeying our common sense rules that are based on something like 70 years of running a cadet program for young Americans.

One typically hears the language of "accommodation" when discussing physical disabilities and legal responses under the ADA.

So I'm glad that we agree that it is improper to deny cadets participation in any activity simply based on gender.

Thank you for your work with our cadets.  You are shaping the future of our country.

Ned Lee

[Luis R. Ramos]

Buck-

As usual, it degenerated to the uniform topic. You made it possible...

Flyer

[lordmonar]

  Fracking Auto Correct! 

Accommodations......if you please.

Although.....some of the facilities I have been to.....could be called abominations.

OFF TOPIC....


"Real" men don't use Auto Correct or Auto Suggest.



/OFF TOPIC

I'm not a pilot so I'm already not a "real man" 

[NIN]

It wasn't entirely CPP, but it was couched as such:

Trip to a large air museum, 3-4 hr drive in CAP vans.   The ride is in civvies (well, jeans and squadron shirts or polo)

Project officer dresses down one young lady for wearing a civilian shirt that is "too revealing" (it covered her midriff and went over the tops of her jeans) and cites CPP (huh?).

Then a cadet complains that he was "yelled at" (his definition of "yelling" and mine are dissimilar) by the project officer for "talking to female cadets in the van on the trip."

Apparently one van (not the one I was in) was admonished that there should be no cross communication between the males & females during the trip.

*sigh*

[a2capt]

Flashbacks of elementary school field trips. "Everyone get in the bus. Sit boy-girl-boy-girl and no talking."
Everyone must stay seated. No exceptions.
Except the person that stood in the aisle the whole way, blocking the view out the front with their larg.. yelling at anyone that flinched, or even looked like they were going to talk.

Yes, I hated school in Dade County, FL.

I'd be shocked if a unit maintains a progressing roster from year to year, with that kind of environment.

[NIN]

I'd be shocked if a unit maintains a progressing roster from year to year, with that kind of environment.

It was 10-ish years ago. The project officer is no longer in CAP, but the two cadets who got talking tos left CAP pretty immediately thereafter the trip, and I had to sit down the project officer and have a counseling about the appropriate application of personal values in a group setting. Especially personal values that a) have no bearing on the mission or the execution of the program; or b) fall outside the norm of EVERYBODY else.

This is the kind of thing where you hear "Oh, LT Smith wouldn't allow the female cadets to go on the bivouac. His church doesn't think women should do that kind of thing." or "My commander doesn't believe women should wear pants, so the squadron mandate is that female cadets and seniors wear the skirt combo in blues.  He can't do anything about BDUs, though.."

The sphincter tightening around such decisions is legendary.

[Peeka]

The sphincter tightening around such decisions is legendary.

I just learned about those things.... 

[Eclipse]

Following the regulations is not an "accommodation."  It's just obeying our common sense rules that are based on something like 70 years of running a cadet program for young Americans.

One typically hears the language of "accommodation" when discussing physical disabilities and legal responses under the ADA.

We accommodate people all the time.

The only people who have an issue with this word are special interest groups trying to make hay where none exisits.

[Flying Pig]

You guys are going to hate me for this..... But here it is.  Lets discuss something real as it deals with CPP.

How is CA's new gender identity laws that were just signed by the Governor going to be dealt with by CAWG?  When a female cadet determines she has a male sexual identity and is now attending encampment or visa versa? 

[Eclipse]

When a female cadet determines she has a male sexual identity and is now attending encampment or visa versa?

At the point that a cadet, or anyone else, is legally recognized by the state as their "new" gender, then that's what they are, until then, they
can identify as anything they like, but they are still as they were born.

[NIN]

You guys are going to hate me for this..... But here it is.  Lets discuss something real as it deals with CPP.

How is CA's new gender identity laws that were just signed by the Governor going to be dealt with by CAWG?  When a female cadet determines she has a male sexual identity and is now attending encampment or visa versa?

First, the number of cadets this is going to affect is pretty small. There might be one in CA.  Or none.  You might not see any cadets in this situation for years. Or you might have three next summer.  But in general its going to be a small number as a percentage of your cadet population and encampment population.

Second, commanders at all levels need to be aware of their local laws as it pertains to the potential for discrimination, and consult their staff officers (ie. legal, medical maybe, etc) for the best way to handle this.

Lastly, however, the entire situation needs to be handled with the utmost concern for the core values (especially respect for the member) and getting the mission accomplished with a minimum of disruption. 

There may be times or places where the ability to billet a cadet in a certain gender identity in an appropriate place is just simply not available in the confines of the facility and the ability to supervise the cadet effectively. This requires leaders at all levels to think and come up with the best possible solution that may not work with a cookie-cutter approach.

[Eclipse]

First, the number of cadets this is going to affect is pretty small. There might be one in CA.  Or none.  You might not see any cadets in this situation for years. Or you might have three next summer.  But in general its going to be a small number as a percentage of your cadet population and encampment population.

Second, commanders at all levels need to be aware of their local laws as it pertains to the potential for discrimination, and consult their staff officers (ie. legal, medical maybe, etc) for the best way to handle this.

Lastly, however, the entire situation needs to be handled with the utmost concern for the core values (especially respect for the member) and getting the mission accomplished with a minimum of disruption. 

There may be times or places where the ability to billet a cadet in a certain gender identity in an appropriate place is just simply not available in the confines of the facility and the ability to supervise the cadet effectively. This requires leaders at all levels to think and come up with the best possible solution that may not work with a cookie-cutter approach.

This.

[Ned]

How is CA's new gender identity laws that were just signed by the Governor going to be dealt with by CAWG?   

Short answer:  The new law, scheduled to take effect January 1st is Education Code section 221.5.  By its own terms, it does not apply to anyone beyond school districts and pupils in the public schools. It simply does not apply to CAWG or any other youth-serving organization that is not a school district.

On the broader issue of respecting the members, I can only echo Darin.

Ned Lee
Former CAP Legal Officer

[lordmonar]

You guys are going to hate me for this..... But here it is.  Lets discuss something real as it deals with CPP.

How is CA's new gender identity laws that were just signed by the Governor going to be dealt with by CAWG?  When a female cadet determines she has a male sexual identity and is now attending encampment or visa versa?

Why should it be a problem? 

[NIN]

On the broader issue of respecting the members, I can only echo Darin.

I didn't realize the law was as restrictive as to apply to school districts.

My complete bad for not doing more research!

(which is why you consult the legal officer types!  All too often, something us lay-people think is a big deal turns out to be a minor issue, or not applicable!)

[Flying Pig]

Well, Since it does not extend beyond school property, I guess its not a CAP issue.  I thought it extended to all youth activities within CA.

[PHall]

Well, Since it does not extend beyond school property, I guess its not a CAP issue.  I thought it extended to all youth activities within CA.

RTFL Rob!