Enhanced Cadet Protection Policy for '14 - ROUND 2

[Eclipse]

Not the same thing - CSMs have had level one and CPPT and are intended to be chaperones, the other categories, Lifers, Legislative, AEM, have not, and have no business
being left alone with, nor in charge of, cadets.

[Johnny Yuma]

Sigh.  I've tried to stay out of this thread, but since it has veered back onto well-plowed ground, let me again point out a couple of things.

1.  No one has been able to articulate how having cadets in the 18-21 age range is a problem in the first place.  I appreciate some of you think that Wilson and Spaatz got it wrong when they established an outstanding and challenging cadet program that included cadets through age 21.  But what problem is it that we are trying to "solve" by taking a meat axe to our program?

2.  "Cadethood" and "adulthood" are unrelated concepts.  And never have been.  The age of majority, BTW, is not the same in every state, commonwealth, or other other place where cadet units are currently located.  The age of majority has changed several times in the US, and may well change again.  Ditto for voting ages, "ages of consent," etc.

Uncle Sam has cadets over and under 18 in each of his programs.  JROTC, ROTC, and each of the service academies.  Historically, USMA has had cadets as old as 40.  If Uncle Sam doesn't care about some artificial line at age 18, why should we?

High schools across the country have students over and under the age of 18.  Seems to work.  Same for colleges and universities.

There is simply not a problem with this particular aspect of our terrific CP.

Take all this wonderful thought and energy and turn it to solving some real CP issues.  Like funding.  Or recruiting in urban areas.

Or even the original topic of this particular thread.

If this were true, then why has CAP forever treated the 20 year old c/Msgt and the 13 year old one as if both were minors? CAP has never addressed a cadet in any other than a cadet up until we invented this new status of Adult Member.

If CAP is now recognizing that cadets over the age majority in their location are now adults, the so-called bright line rule simply makes CAP, Inc. sound a little creepy, telling adults who and who they cannot interact with. We are not the military, we are not academia. we are a government funded humanitarian organization with a youth program.

We can protect the youth in the .org without telling ADULTS who they can and cannot date. Putting cadets of legal majority in an adult member status is a great step in that direction but applying the bright line rule to them is ridiculous and in all honestly will continue to be ignored by the bulk of the organization. 

[Ned]

If this were true, then why has CAP forever treated the 20 year old c/Msgt and the 13 year old one as if both were minors?

Because we haven't.  We've always treated minors like minors and adults like adults. 

And, we've always treated cadets like cadets, and seniors as seniors.

Of course, some cadets are adults.  And some seniors are minors.  Kinda depends on the local laws where the member happens to be standing at any particular time.

Which is why the concepts of "cadethood" and "adulthood" are unrelated.

If CAP is now recognizing that cadets over the age majority in their location are now adults, the so-called bright line rule simply makes CAP, Inc. sound a little creepy, telling adults who and who they cannot interact with. We are not the military, we are not academia. we are a government funded humanitarian organization with a youth program.

You've said this before, of course.  But repetition doesn't make it correct.

As you know, our CPP rules are the mainstream approach.  No major youth-serving organization in the country allows the leadership to date the youth they are supposed to be training. 

Talk about "creepy."  (To use your word.)

Feel free to show me I'm wrong.  Go ahead and list the "government  funded humanitarian organizations with a youth program" where the rules allow the adult leaders to use the youth organization as a dating pool.

I've invited you to this before, of course, but so far you haven't been able to do so.

And, BTW, I do not concur with your basic premise.  Because we are a bit military and a bit academic.  Indeed, those are two critical aspects of our cadet program.  Take either or both away, and what is left would not be recognizable as the CAP cadet program.

We can protect the youth in the .org without telling ADULTS who they can and cannot date. Putting cadets of legal majority in an adult member status is a great step in that direction but applying the bright line rule to them is ridiculous and in all honestly will continue to be ignored by the bulk of the organization.

I think you are perhaps being blinded in this regard by your personal biases.  Assuming that you are even a member in the first place, I will just have to put a little faith in your personal integrity, and rely on the oath you took to follow the regulations.  Including the regulations you disagree with.

[Ned]

In-Person Contact. Colloquially known as the "coffee shop rule." Adult members will not meet with cadets outside of official CAP activities without the prior approval of the cadet's parent. If in-person contact is necessary, a third person must be present, and the meeting must take place in a public space (e.g. restaurant, mall, etc.). In the case of relationships that existed prior to the cadet or adult member joining CAP (e.g.: next-door neighbor or family friend), the cadet's parent may exempt the adult member from this requirement. No special paperwork is needed to document any of these situations; oral acknowledgements from the parent(s) are sufficient.

So here you have adult member.  So this include cadets the age of majority, which is 18 for me.  The way I read this is that a cadet 18 years of age and a cadet 17 years of age cannot meet outside of CAP.    Also, what happens if it is a 20 year old cadet and a senior member.  Does this 20 year old cadet still need parental permission?  Or is he exempt because cadet refers to 17 and below here?  Are both cadets exempt because of 3-3 Cadet to Cadet relations?

So Ned, since you are a legal guy, can you help me understand this better?  Obviously I know this is still just a draft and has no base until fully published.

Good catch.  That's a typo in the draft. Should read as "adult leaders" instead of adult members for the "coffee shop" rule.

Score another point for allowing review and comment on draft regulations.

[BillB]

The 18 to 21 year old group is in a gray area since under most state laws they are adults. But as long as they have the title "Cadet" they are restricted from adult activities as far as CAP is concerned. Can a 20 year old cadet date an 18 year old senior member? Both are considered adults. Ned and I disagree with the so called problem of the 18 to 21 year old member, be he/she cadet or senior member. As an 18 year old cadet can't get O-rides, they lose some of the benifits of being a cadet, but still they lack the advantages of senior membership. The problem I see is that CAP doesn't look outside the box to look at the 18 to 21 year old member. Many 128-21 year olds drop out of the program since they are lumped into the 12 to 18 year old "cadet" program with no peer group. This is the area that needs to be adressed by CAP.

[RiverAux]

The fact that other organizations have people that they call "cadets" is sort of irrelevant to the conversation of how CAP requires our cadets to be treated. 

Are there any states that have an age of majority over the age of 18? 

[a2capt]

I see it a little differently:

At age 18, they have a choice of how to join- as a cadet or senior member. Prior to age 18 and when reaching  age 19, the fate is sealed.

Additionally, at reaching 18, they can choose to remain a cadet or switch to senior member.

Personally, I'd -love- to have that choice.

The O-Ride thing? I suspect the program has an aim at influencing the cadet through that specific time that would get them started on a career training path, and where the funding comes from probably has a lot to do with it.

[Ned]

The fact that other organizations have people that they call "cadets" is sort of irrelevant to the conversation of how CAP requires our cadets to be treated. 

Really?  Why do you think so?

I suspect we would agree that every member should be treated fairly and respectfully regardless of the title / classification of their membership category.  And that should be true of every youth-serving organization.

But military cadet programs do share some rather distinct and arguably unique challenges when it comes to youth protection issues.  In that sense it makes a great deal of sense to compare ourselves to similar organizations.

But I suspect we can also agree that we are also comparable in important ways to other organizations like Scouting and Big Brothers / Big Sisters.

But "irrelevant" seems a little overstated.

Are there any states that have an age of majority over the age of 18?

Yes, at least two - Alabama and Nebraska.  Not to mention Puerto Rico.

But since the age of majority is unrelated to cadet status, this information is just a bit of legal trivia.

And for those who enjoy legal trivia as much as I do, we can look at some other important age-based legal distinctions:  the ages at which state / local laws prohibit (or allow) marriage, leaving compulsory schooling, drinking, voting, consenting to sexual acts, purchasing a firearm, gambling, criminal responsibility, working, purchasing tobacco, or even becoming President of the United States.

(The last is an age-based restriction found in the US Constitution.)

All fun legal trivia, but none of these restrictions have much to do with our terrific cadet program.

And Bill, you're right that we disagree on this issue (actually, my position is that there isn't an "issue" to disagree about in the first place), but it isn't fair to say that "CAP doesn't look outside the box" at our 18-21 cadet cohort.  We look at it all the time.  Sure, they don't get O-rides (an artifact of Federal Workman's Comp law rather than CAP policy, BTW), but these college-aged troops have access to tens of thousands of dollars in scholarships, activities like IACE, and some of the best leadership training available.

And finally, a bit of historical trivia - our retention rate for our 18-21 year old troops is essentially the same today as it was when the prevailing age of majority in the US was 21.

(Not as good as we would like, of course, because cadets do indeed usually reduce their CAP involvement due to college, careers, family, etc..  The point is that these circumstances are largely independent of the current age of majority in a given jurisdiction.)

[Eclipse]

Ned,

What, exactly, does this mean in a CAP context?

"h.  Adult Member.  For the purposes of this regulation, an adult member is an individual who has attained the age of majority, based on the jurisdiction of membership, and is assigned to any CAP membership category. College-age cadets, for example, are often adult members, depending upon the age of majority in a given jurisdiction."

[LSThiker]

The fact that other organizations have people that they call "cadets" is sort of irrelevant to the conversation of how CAP requires our cadets to be treated. 

Are there any states that have an age of majority over the age of 18?

Do not know how accurate this is regarding age of majority, but nevertheless answers your question:

http://contests.about.com/od/sweepstakes101/a/agemajoristate.htm

[LSThiker]

Good catch.  That's a typo in the draft. Should read as "adult leaders" instead of adult members for the "coffee shop" rule.

Score another point for allowing review and comment on draft regulations.

Okay, so it is supposed to say Adult Leader.  Unfortunately, I still have some questions:

In-Person Contact. Colloquially known as the "coffee shop rule." Adult members will not meet with cadets outside of official CAP activities without the prior approval of the cadet's parent. If in-person contact is necessary, a third person must be present, and the meeting must take place in a public space (e.g. restaurant, mall, etc.). In the case of relationships that existed prior to the cadet or adult member joining CAP (e.g.: next-door neighbor or family friend), the cadet's parent may exempt the adult member from this requirement. No special paperwork is needed to document any of these situations; oral acknowledgements from the parent(s) are sufficient.

So any adult leader cannot meet with cadets outside of CAP without parental permission.  What happens if the cadet is 20?  Is parental permission really needed since now they are over the age of majority?  What happens when you get into the gray area of two members (21 year old cadet to senior member and a 20 year old cadet) both in college?  Assuming no prior relationship, are these two members really restricted from meeting outside of CAP.  For example, study groups, ROTC, college activities, etc?  We will leave the bar nights/house parties off the table for this discussion. 

Another question:  so why is it that transportation using my vehicle is not considered an official CAP activity and is not subject to these rules, but meeting outside at a "coffee shop" is still subjected to the rules even if it is not an official CAP activity?

Sorry about the questions, really am just trying to understand the wording and national position better.  I understand the strict no officer/no NCO relations in the military since as officers we can have legal authority over troops.  This is why usually commanders send 1SG on domestic disputes rather than going themselves or send 1SG to go bail a soldier out of jail. 

[RiverAux]

The fact that other organizations have people that they call "cadets" is sort of irrelevant to the conversation of how CAP requires our cadets to be treated. 

Really?  Why do you think so?

Why I certainly think that CAP can learn from other organizations (and in fact I'm often criticized for saying that there are some things CAP could learn from a certain other military auxiliary), I think what we should be focusing on is YOUTH protection policies, not CADET protection policies.  Those are two entirely different things. 

If there are certain YOUTH protection practices that we can borrow from others, sure, lets do it. 

However, as is pointed out a cadet is not always a youth. 

Once a member hits the age of majority in their state, they should be treated exactly the same as any other adult in CAP in regards to harassment, outside-of-CAP contact, relationships, etc.  If two CAP senior members can start a relationship or meet outside of CAP I see no reason that a 18 (or whatever the majority is in their state) year old cadet and a senior member, whether 18 or 25 can't do the same. 

[Ned]

Okay, so it is supposed to say Adult Leader.  Unfortunately, I still have some questions:

No worries.  That's we posted it.

In-Person Contact. Colloquially known as the "coffee shop rule." Adult members will not meet with cadets outside of official CAP activities without the prior approval of the cadet's parent. If in-person contact is necessary, a third person must be present, and the meeting must take place in a public space (e.g. restaurant, mall, etc.). In the case of relationships that existed prior to the cadet or adult member joining CAP (e.g.: next-door neighbor or family friend), the cadet's parent may exempt the adult member from this requirement. No special paperwork is needed to document any of these situations; oral acknowledgements from the parent(s) are sufficient.

What happens if the cadet is 20?  Is parental permission really needed since now they are over the age of majority? 

Yes, as it is written.  I think the "age of majority" aspect is a distractor here.  We are talking about our internal rules, not whether such a permission is legally required or enforceable in a court of law.

Do you think we should do it another way?  We could probably figure out a way to write in something about cadets over 18 not needing parental permission in some jurisdictions, but what does that add?  The proposed rule has a small advantage in that it makes the rules uniform for all cadets, and accordingly makes administering the program that much easier for the volunteer adult leaders working at squadrons.

What happens when you get into the gray area of two members (21 year old cadet to senior member and a 20 year old cadet) both in college?  Assuming no prior relationship, are these two members really restricted from meeting outside of CAP.  For example, study groups, ROTC, college activities, etc?  We will leave the bar nights/house parties off the table for this discussion. 

Repeat after me:  "There is no gray area."  A member is either a cadet or a senior.  The relationships between seniors and cadets are clearly defined in the draft reg.

So, let's look at your example.  A senior and a cadet happen to be enrolled in the same college.  There is certainly nothing in the draft that suggests that this is improper.  We are not suggesting that seniors have to take the side exit from the mall or leave a baseball game just because a cadet happens to be present.

Take a look at paragraph 2-5.  What is prohibited is "personal, peer-to-peer relationships" with cadets.  The senior must develop and maintain a professional distance like between a teacher and students.

Another question:  so why is it that transportation using my vehicle is not considered an official CAP activity and is not subject to these rules, but meeting outside at a "coffee shop" is still subjected to the rules even if it is not an official CAP activity?

I'm a little confused by your question.  We regulate both transportation and coffee shop meetings.  Neither are likely to be official CAP activities, but both are governed by the draft regulation.

What am I missing?


And Bob, I'm similarly confused by your last question.  "College-aged cadets, for example, are often adult members, depending on the age of majority in a given jurisdiction" seems relatively straightforward, given that the age of majority is not the same in every location where we have cadets.  As just one example, a 19 year old cadet attending college in San Jose, California is an adult (hence an adult member), but that same cadet attending college in San Juan, Puerto Rico is not.  At least while physically in Puerto Rico.

Should we reword that?

[Ned]

Why I certainly think that CAP can learn from other organizations (and in fact I'm often criticized for saying that there are some things CAP could learn from a certain other military auxiliary), I think what we should be focusing on is YOUTH protection policies, not CADET protection policies.  Those are two entirely different things. 

If there are certain YOUTH protection practices that we can borrow from others, sure, lets do it. 

However, as is pointed out a cadet is not always a youth.

Once a member hits the age of majority in their state, they should be treated exactly the same as any other adult in CAP in regards to harassment, outside-of-CAP contact, relationships, etc.  If two CAP senior members can start a relationship or meet outside of CAP I see no reason that a 18 (or whatever the majority is in their state) year old cadet and a senior member, whether 18 or 25 can't do the same.

I hear you.

But you have to appreciate that your position is not the mainstream. 

No major or reputable youth-serving organization permits the adult leadership to prey on the youth members, even if those youth members have hit the local age of majority.

That's why Scouting leaders cannot date even the 18 year old Explorers / Venturers.

And high school guidance counselors cannot date their 18 year old students.

Neither can even civilian West Point faculty date 23 year old cadets.

But I'll renew my invitation.  Can you find any reputable youth serving organizations that will allow their adult leadership to date the youth members?  I freely admit I did not check them all, and I may have overlooked one.

But perhaps neither of us will be able to convince the other that seniors dating cadets is a good idea.

Of course, the absolute prohibition on senior-cadet dating is not new; it has been in our doctrine for years.  And I suppose ultimately, it is not me you need to convince.  You will need to convince a majority of the BoG to change our policy.  This draft reg is just an attempt to create a regulation that supports the BoGs officially adopted cadet protection policy.

[RiverAux]

And I suppose ultimately, it is not me you need to convince.  You will need to convince a majority of the BoG to change our policy.  This draft reg is just an attempt to create a regulation that supports the BoGs officially adopted cadet protection policy.

Thats the case with everything said on CAPTalk.  No need to even mention it. 

No major or reputable youth-serving organization permits the adult leadership to prey on the youth members, even if those youth members have hit the local age of majority.

As a matter of curiosity, are there other youth-serving organizations that have members of the same age that can be in either the "youth" or "adult" category as is the case in CAP? 

You must admit that we have a very small number of 18-21 year-old cadets and a very small number of 18-21 year-old senior members for whom these rules are ridiculous if you put a member from each of these categories together at the same time.

No one is ever going to convince me that we have any rational basis to distinguish between how two members of the same age are to be treated in regards to personal relationships or something as innocuous as a coffee shop meeting that would otherwise be within CAP regulations.   This in particular is where the military examples that are often given fall apart since our adult leaders have no real authority over cadets as is the case for those leading "cadets" in military environments. 

[LSThiker]

Yes, as it is written.  I think the "age of majority" aspect is a distractor here.  We are talking about our internal rules, not whether such a permission is legally required or enforceable in a court of law.

Do you think we should do it another way?  We could probably figure out a way to write in something about cadets over 18 not needing parental permission in some jurisdictions, but what does that add?  The proposed rule has a small advantage in that it makes the rules uniform for all cadets, and accordingly makes administering the program that much easier for the volunteer adult leaders working at squadrons.

It would be more uniform to leave it as is.  However, from my personal experience (and definitely not all parents are this way), if my father would have received a phone call when I was in college asking if I could meet with another adult, his response would have been "he is an adult, that is not my choice".  After the second time, I am sure he would stop answering those calls. 

Also, what happens if that "age of majority" cadet no longer has parents (death, orphan, release custody from the state, etc)?  Or has parents but no longer maintains communication with them?  Or are no longer deemed competent?  Or was an emancipated minor?  Granted, probably very rare, but well within the realm of possibility in today's age.  None of those things would require him/her to terminate his/her cadet membership.

Actually that brings up an interesting question.  How does CAP deal with emancipated minors that are cadets?  I do not see anything that requires them to terminate their cadet membership.  Since they are no longer under control of a guardian or parent, how would they go about getting parental signatures?

So, let's look at your example.  A senior and a cadet happen to be enrolled in the same college.  There is certainly nothing in the draft that suggests that this is improper.  We are not suggesting that seniors have to take the side exit from the mall or leave a baseball game just because a cadet happens to be present.

Sorry that was not what I was suggesting.  Let me try and clarify as I think this would be easier in real-time communication rather than over an internet:

So I understand that 2-5 states maintaining professional relations.  Section 2-5c states that a senior member and a cadet will not meet outside of CAP activity.  If they do, then it must be in a public area and must have a third person present. 

So the scenario is two members a cadet and a senior member are in the same college.  They are both taking the same course.  As classes with 300+ people can be rather daunting for meeting new people, does this prohibit them from forming a study group? 

What happens if they are both in ROTC and they meet for matters regarding ROTC in private.  As with all things, nothing ever stays solely on task and of course they start talking CAP (or even if they do not).  Common sense would say "not a big concern", but the commander decides to give a verbal warning or a written warning.  Or they are both on a committee at their school? 

Basically, outside of CAP, their personal lives have times where they need to meet together for matters entirely not related to CAP.

I'm a little confused by your question.  We regulate both transportation and coffee shop meetings.  Neither are likely to be official CAP activities, but both are governed by the draft regulation.

What am I missing?

Sorry, should have quoted that:

Transportation. If an adult leader transports cadets other than his or her family members or personal acquaintances (see §2-5a2) to, from, or during a CAP activity, the party must number at least 3 (adult leader driver plus 2 cadets; or adult leader driver, second adult leader, and 1 cadet). Note that ground transportation to and from CAP activities via member-owned vehicles is not considered part of official travel and is therefore conducted at the member's risk (see CAPR 900-5, The CAP Insurance & Benefits Program, §10).

Within this section, I take it to understand that risk deals with the subject of this paragraph, which is having at least 3 personnel present when transporting.  Now, if risk really means insurance, then I would clarify what is really being said by that sentence as you shifted the subject from being having 3 personnel to insurance matters without a transition.  However, if by risk you mean that a member does not need to have 3 personnel since it is not considered official travel, then why is that not covered but meeting outside of CAP is?

[Ned]

Also, what happens if that "age of majority" cadet no longer has parents (death, orphan, release custody from the state, etc)?  Or has parents but no longer maintains communication with them?  Or are no longer deemed competent?  Or was an emancipated minor?  Granted, probably very rare, but well within the realm of possibility in today's age.  None of those things would require him/her to terminate his/her cadet membership.

You're certainly correct that these and "emancipated minor" scenarios are very rare indeed, but they are certainly nothing new.  And we deal with these ".1%" situations as we always have, with commanders using their common sense with guidance from higher and JA when necessary.  If we let lawyers write our regs to deal with every theoretically possible situation, we'd have law books useful only to legal professionals instead of clear regulations useful to parents and volunteers at the units.

So the scenario is two members a cadet and a senior member are in the same college.  They are both taking the same course.  As classes with 300+ people can be rather daunting for meeting new people, does this prohibit them from forming a study group?

Since all the study groups I've ever had involved extensive peer-to-peer interaction, the answer is appears to be "yes, that kind of contact is prohibited between seniors and cadets."  But let's take a look at why that needs to be the rule.  If it were otherwise, the exception would tend to eat the rule.  Any senior caught improperly fraternizing could simply claim "hey, we were just studying for that, ahhh, on-line course we are going to take.  Yeah, that's the ticket.  We was in a 'study group.'" 

What happens if they are both in ROTC and they meet for matters regarding ROTC in private. 

Assuming this is some sort of mandatory thing (required class project, required leadership lab stuff, etc.), we are probably talking about the kind of professional relationships permitted in paragraph 2-5 of the draft.

Commanders will have to exercise good common sense in giving guidance to the members in these rare and unusual situations.

Transportation. If an adult leader transports cadets other than his or her family members or personal acquaintances (see §2-5a2) to, from, or during a CAP activity, the party must number at least 3 (adult leader driver plus 2 cadets; or adult leader driver, second adult leader, and 1 cadet). Note that ground transportation to and from CAP activities via member-owned vehicles is not considered part of official travel and is therefore conducted at the member's risk (see CAPR 900-5, The CAP Insurance & Benefits Program, §10).

Within this section, I take it to understand that risk deals with the subject of this paragraph, which is having at least 3 personnel present when transporting.  Now, if risk really means insurance, then I would clarify what is really being said by that sentence as you shifted the subject from being having 3 personnel to insurance matters without a transition.  However, if by risk you mean that a member does not need to have 3 personnel since it is not considered official travel, then why is that not covered but meeting outside of CAP is?

Yeah, that little bit was the result of "committee writing and compromise."  Although I wasn't happy with it, I thought it was clear that the reference to the insurance reg made it clear that the reference to the risk meant insurance stuff, not CPP stuff.

We'll take another look at the wording.

[LSThiker]

Assuming this is some sort of mandatory thing (required class project, required leadership lab stuff, etc.), we are probably talking about the kind of professional relationships permitted in paragraph 2-5 of the draft.

Where did you do ROTC?  Yeah, when I met people for ROTC planning, talking, development, etc, it would definitely not meet 2-5.  I have met cadets in bars in order to coordinate supplies, operations, etc.  I know other university cadets that planned those things at strip clubs.  Actually I think any time we met, alcohol was pretty much involved in some fashion.

Commanders will have to exercise good common sense in giving guidance to the members in these rare and unusual situations.

While rare when looking at the whole organization, they are not that rare.  Those examples are actually from personal experience.

[Ned]

Where did you do ROTC?  Yeah, when I met people for ROTC planning, talking, development, etc, it would definitely not meet 2-5.  I have met cadets in bars in order to coordinate supplies, operations, etc.  I know other university cadets that planned those things at strip clubs.  Actually I think any time we met, alcohol was pretty much involved in some fashion.

I clearly did my ROTC at the wrong university.  Never once met another cadet in a bar or strip club.  And no alcohol, even at the commissioning ceremony.  Oh well, my loss I guess.

While rare when looking at the whole organization, they are not that rare.  Those examples are actually from personal experience.

Maybe we just mean different things by "rare."  In this discussion, I mean that the kind of "what if's" that you are presenting will apply to far less than 1% of the cadets in CAP.  (Heck, less than 10% of our cadets are 18+ to begin with.)

I can be happy with a regulation that provides clear guidance for well over 99% of the situations your typical squadron commander may encounter, and provides some rationale to allow commanders to work through the rest in a fair and consistent manner.

(Back to football.)

[Johnny Yuma]

You know, once upon a time we had a cadet protection program for a well-defined reason: To keep pedophiles from our underaged cadets. It was zero tolerance for reasons obvious: Adults diddling kids =bad.

I've said for years that romantic relationships between adults, be they cadet or senior, was CAP,Inc.'s proverbial camel's nose under the tent and that we needed to be vigilant that the pendulum wasn't swinging too far the other way.

Well folks, it's swung. We've fully left the idea of protecting minors and are now allowing CAP, Inc. to pretty much restrict legal adults in not just a social setting but also injecting itself in areas such as other organizations, our employers and even academia. There is no logical reason for CAP, Inc. to inject themselves into the activities of legal adults outside of CAP and I can tell you from those in CAP that I've discussed this with that this part of the CPP will likely be met with noncompliance. You've already got rank and file generally looking the other way in regard to adult cadets and younger senior members dating as it stands now.

Myself and several others have looked over the list of supposed boundary violations. First thoughts were how easy it would be for a commander to use the vagueness of many of these and/or his interpretation to terminate memberships of anyone he wanted, not unlike the nonrenewal debacle we had several years ago.

Sorry, but there's no explanation of this new policy that can make this logical and certain folks simply wanting us to move the subject along doesn't cut it. NHq is flat out of line implementing this upgraded policy.