SC spring CTW

[Robert]

So i was Charlie flight sergeant for the recent CTW in South Caroline. The first sergeant was explaining the whole "left hand makes and l" thing. when he finished he asked my flight what letter the left hand made. no one responded, so he made them sing their ABC's. every other flight turned and watched them sing. it was pretty funny but embarrassing.

[lordmonar]

What is the the Left Hand Makes an I thing?

[Robert]

left hand makes an L.  it where if you raise your left hand you can make a proper L. you can't do that with your right hand. it's a great way to teach cadets  their left and right.

[xray328]

First off, if 12 year olds (not to mention older cadets) don't their know left from their right you have a problem.  I'm guessing cadets were turning the wrong way during facing movements? There are better ways to handle that.  Second, that's hazing so you need to knock it off.

[Eclipse]

A rock in the left pocket might be a preferable means to help this.

[Holding Pattern]

Second, that's hazing so you need to knock it off.

It sounds like an intensity level mismatch to me:

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.

But, if you do believe still that it is hazing, I am certain you are aware of your responsibility to report.

[Holding Pattern]

A rock in the left pocket might be a preferable means to help this.

In the pocket? what happened to carrying the rock in the left hand?
(Note: no, this didn't happen to me in CAP.)

It's also worth noting that putting cadets on the spot can result in sudden pauses from otherwise bright cadets.

[xray328]

Second, that's hazing so you need to knock it off.

It sounds like an intensity level mismatch to me:

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.

But, if you do believe still that it is hazing, I am certain you are aware of your responsibility to report.

Does having the cadets sing the ABC's meet a learning objective?  Did it teach them anything?  No.

It was used to embarrass/humiliate them.  That's very clearly prohibited in the 52-10...

"What is hazing? 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).

[754837]

Evidence of the "wimpification" of the cadet program...

BTW, my wife has to look for her wedding ring to determine which hand is left & right and she is truly a genius!

[Holding Pattern]

Second, that's hazing so you need to knock it off.

It sounds like an intensity level mismatch to me:

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.

But, if you do believe still that it is hazing, I am certain you are aware of your responsibility to report.

Does having the cadets sing the ABC's meet a learning objective?  Did it teach them anything?  No.

It was used to embarrass/humiliate them.  That's very clearly prohibited in the 52-10...

"What is hazing? 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).

Like I said, if you still believe it is hazing, you have a responsibility to report it.

[THRAWN]

Evidence of the "wimpification" of the cadet program...

BTW, my wife has to look for her wedding ring to determine which hand is left & right and she is truly a genius!

Actually, if anything, it is evidence that drill is not being taught correctly. Do it by the numbers, use the script, and do it again and again until it's done correctly. Making an individual or in this case a group of individuals look like fools is a failure of leadership and a breakdown in the core values.

[Eclipse]

Evidence of the "wimpification" of the cadet program...

Right.  Because we all know how effective yelling at an adolescent is, especially one who knows he doesn't need to tolerate it.
An excellent way to insure they don't come back.

This is why RST is mandated for encampments and similar activities, and probably should be mandated for anyone running
anything called "training".  As a weekend activity, this would not have been a requirement, but certainly a good idea.

We just had these exact discussions last weekend.

The flight is being singled out, and forced to humiliate themselves in a way which does not in any way impart the skill to
meet the objective.  Smells like hazing to me.

[xray328]

Agreed.  And I don't think I need to report anyone.  We don't need to drop the hammer every time a cadet makes a mistake. 

Moving forward "Robert", these types of things aren't tolerated and I suggest the cadet that did this look to his or her leadership for more effective ways of teaching the cadets drill.  Putting a rock in your pocket for instance helps the cadets remember which way to turn and no ones been embarrassed.  We simply say "Look everybody, common mistake.  We all get frazzled when learning drill, lets all grab a rock and put it in our pockets so it helps us not make that mistake again."

[Ned]

While internet discussion essentially by definition lack context and background, nothing described so far sounds remotely like hazing to me.

Younger cadets (and even younger military recruits) sometimes have laterality issues (some hesitancy in determining left from right), and CAP drill and ceremonies (not to mention uniforms) can effectively address the issue.

While I haven't heard of the "left hand makes an L" technique before, it makes sense and might help some troops who have some trouble in this regard.  It doesn't sound any different than the "rock in your left hand or pocket" methods as a teaching aid.

And if singing the alphabet song helps a flight to recognize to recognize the "left hand makes an L," then that could also be part of an effective technique.  (Note it was directed to a flight, rather than an individual.)

It sounds a little overboard to start tossing in the "hazing" word based on what little we know here.  Remember, hazing is a form of abuse, and abuse, by definition, requires "an imminent risk of serious harm." (CAPR 52-10, para 1-2(b))  Not everything that could be mildly embarrassing is hazing.  Far from it. 

Here, while I don't have the hard data handy, I suspect that every single one of us has sung the alphabet song without suffering "immanent harm."

But let's continue to discuss successful training methods to help younger cadets determine left from right in CAP C&C.


Ned Lee
National Cadet Program Manager

[xray328]

Col, all due respect, but CAP's definition of hazing is when something is done to embarrass a cadet, among other things.  What purpose does singing the "ABC" song serve other than to embarrass the cadets involved? This was done to humiliate them because they didn't know their left from their right. They sang the "ABC" song to make them appear like "babies" that didn't know their left from their right.  Singing the song didn't teach them anything about that.

Again sir:

" 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)."

This isn't because I believe it to be, it's because CAP has clearly defined it. Lets make sure we're all on the same page here, either it's tolerated or it's not.

[Eclipse]

Beat me to it.  The key word here being demeaning, and that the "remediation" does not serve the training goal.

If nothing else, this would certainly not be considered a "best practice" , or in keeping with the guidance NHQ has provide
for implementation of Cadet Protection.

(Note it was directed to a flight, rather than an individual.)

So it's impossible to haze more then one cadet at a time?

[Ned]

Col, all due respect, but CAP's definition of hazing is when something is done to embarrass a cadet, among other things.

It could be, I suppose, but usually not.  If I am inspecting a cadet and tell her/him in a normal speaking voice that their insignia is 1/4 inch off, have I hazed the cadet?  Obviously, every good cadet should be slightly embarrassed that their insignia is off.

But that doesn't mean they are being hazed.  Similarly, if I tell a cadet that they did not pass their test, or their run time was slower than last time, I have not hazed them, even if they subjectively feel slightly embarrassed.

Can I imagine changing the facts and coming close to hazing someone?  Maybe.  Suppose I shouted it out loud to the flight, something like "Cadet Jones has once again failed to pay the slightest bit of attention to the uniform tonight.  What a miserable excuse of a cadet!" 

Maybe.  Or if I knew that Cadet Jones was already tearful and took advantage of the moment to further add stress instead of taking the time to care for the cadet.

But to reduce the wise CPP to "we can never stress cadets or say anything that someone might take as demeaning" suggests that leaders are not investing common sense and wisdom into their leadership.

What purpose does singing the "ABC" song serve other than to embarrass the cadets involved?

That's not how I took it (see previous comment about lack of context).  It sounded to me as part of the lesson about "left hand makes an L".  Singing the alphabet song places that lesson in context and helps visualize the training aid.

This was done to humiliate them because they didn't know their left from their right. They sang the "ABC" song to make them appear like "babies" that didn't know their left from their right.  Singing the song didn't teach them anything about that.

Neither you or I were there, of course, but I must non-concur.  There is nothing to suggest that the entire flight had issues with laterality.  Accordingly, it seems unlikely that they were "humiliated" by having to sing a song that they have sung hundreds of times in their youth.  And, we disagree about whether or not it can help with "left hand makes an L" lesson point.  I think it is a reasonable way to reinforce the point.  Obviously you disagree, and certainly reasonable minds can differ on the most effective way to teach something.  But even if it was ineffective, it seems a leap to suggest that anyone was "humiliated."

Again sir:

" 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)."

This isn't because I believe it to be, it's because CAP has clearly defined it. Lets make sure we're all on the same page here, either it's tolerated or it's not.

Indeed, that is our definition.  But perhaps more importantly, we didn't write it.  It was adopted verbatim from our colleagues at the Department of Defense.  It is hard for me to imagine that the DoD interprets their definition in the way that you do.  I doubt seriously that a MTI or DI would be in serious risk of imprisonment if they tried to teach a young recruit left from right by pointing out the "left hand makes an L" and asking them to sing the alphabet song to reinforce the point. 


Further and perhaps more importantly, the definition is one part of a larger regulation, that also includes the language I quoted above about "immanent risk of harm." 

We even have an entire publication devoted to helping leaders understand the CPP in general, and hazing in particular.  CAPP 52-23, Cadet Protection Program Implementation Guide.

Chapter 11 provides a framework for analyzing a given situation if there is a question of hazing.  Key principles include:  "Normal authorized training rarely, if ever, amounts to hazing," and "Leaders should assess how the questioned actions would affect a reasonable cadet of similar age, gender, and experience under the same or similar conditions."

Here, there are simply no facts that would suggest that cadets would objectively feel humiliated by the lesson to the point where they faced a risk of immanent harm.


Ned Lee

[xray328]

Sir, nothing about singing the ABC song would of taught the cadets left from right. The only purpose that could of served was to humiliate the cadets in front of a group of their peers.  There's just no other reason to have them sing that song except to embarrass them. The OP stated that it was funny and embarrassing and that in itself makes it wrong. I don't understand how you can use the ABC song to teach someone that L is for Left.  You're really reaching there IMO.

The reg states that hazing is anything that is "humiliating or demeaning."   It would of been no different than to of had the cadets all suck on their left thumbs again, like babies. Taking it a step further, could we have cadets do the Full Metal Jacket - Gomer Pyle deal where there cadets wear their hats backwards and suck their thumbs at the back of the pack?  Clearly there's no immanent risk of harm there either.

And it doesn't matter where CAP got the definition of hazing.  We've adopted it as our own when we say that "Civil Air Patrol defines hazing as..."

I'm not sure where the "immanent risk of harm" is in the reg either but the accepted definition is the one I've repeatdily quoted.  And lets not forget that harm can certainly be in a psychological form.

Heck, I've witnessed parents getting upset because they had their cadets alarm clock taken away when it was accidentally on the packing list at encampment because their cadet was being "setup to fail."  Why would you even want to come close to hazing a cadet?  It just doesn't serve any purpose in a training environment in the same way yelling at them doesn't.  It's a bullying tactic and it needs to stop.

In your example, telling a cadet their name tag is off, when done in a private and respectful way to correct them in that area is far different than what we're talking about here.  I hope you can see the difference.  What happened to critique in private - praise in public?  I can tell you this, I will never purposely embarrass a cadet, especially in front of a group of their peers.  With CPP being at the forefront I chose to stay far away from that line. 

[Holding Pattern]

Sir, nothing about singing the ABC song would of taught the cadets left from right. The only purpose that could of served was to humiliate the cadets in front of a group of their peers.  There's just no other reason to have them sing that song except to embarrass them. The OP stated that it was funny and embarrassing and that in itself makes it wrong. I don't understand how you can use the ABC song to teach someone that L is for Left.  You're really reaching there IMO.

An entire flight couldn't answer a question about the alphabet. A recitation of the alphabet, in the context of a formation, facing movements, and an entire flight missing an answer... maybe first principles are to be revisited? The item you brought up, in and of itself, is not a teaching opportunity. Put in context, it could be. It may not be ideal, but it is a bit of a pill to swallow to declare it hazing.

The reg states that hazing is anything that is "humiliating or demeaning."   It would of been no different than to of had the cadets all suck on their left thumbs again, like babies. Taking it a step further, could we have cadets do the Full Metal Jacket - Gomer Pyle deal where there cadets wear their hats backwards and suck their thumbs at the back of the pack?  Clearly there's no immanent risk of harm there either.

The regs also cover reporting of hazing, which you don't seem interested in doing. Why do you care about calling this hazing according to the regs (but ignoring the CAPP guidance on identifying hazing that I quoted) but NOT about reporting it if you genuinely feel it was hazing (reporting cadet protection issues, which hazing falls under, is something you need to do)?

And it doesn't matter where CAP got the definition of hazing.  We've adopted it as our own when we say that "Civil Air Patrol defines hazing as..."

It does matter. That is how you understand the context of what the definition is trying to convey. That, and the CAPP I referenced earlier...

I'm not sure where the "immanent risk of harm" is in the reg either but the accepted definition is the one I've repeatdily quoted.  And lets not forget that harm can certainly be in a psychological form.

Heck, I've witnessed parents getting upset because they had their cadets alarm clock taken away when it was accidentally on the packing list at encampment because their cadet was being "setup to fail."  Why would you even want to go close to hazing a cadet?  It just doesn't serve any purpose in a training environment in the same way yelling at them doesn't.  It's a bullying tactic and it needs to stop.

This is covered in that aformentioned CAPP.

In your example, telling a cadet their name tag is off, when done in a private and respectful way to correct them in that area is far different than what we're talking about here.  I hope you can see the difference.  What happened to critique in private - praise in public?  I can tell you this, I will never purposely embarrass a cadet, especially in front of a group of their peers.  With CPP being at the forefront I chose to stay far away from that line.

You may perhaps recall that this was an entire flight of cadets, not a cadet. Are you going to tell me that an entire flight of cadets, you would break up and individually coach each one instead of as a group?

[xray328]

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.