Multiple CAPRs, Forms, Pamphlets, VAs regarding the Cadet Program in preview

[Ned]

Spam, I would think by now that you'd know you should never let facts get in the way of
the narrative.

The 60-98 is far too subjective to be of value.  Every item on that list has a
specification that could have been a check box with an objective score vs.
a subjective assessment that still results in what would appear to be, but actually isn't,
an objective final tally.

As to the 60-97...um, what?

So, the uniform evaluation employs a Likert scale, which itself is inherently subjective.  While the uniform pubs state a particular standard, we do not specify a margin of error.  Any measurement is going to be off by a fraction of a millimeter / micrometer / nanometer, depending on the resolution of the measuring device used.

Restated, there is always a subjective element in any uniform inspection.  What counts is that upon visual inspection the uniform item appears to be correct given the inspector's best good faith judgment, using the tools at his/her disposal.  If it looks correct, call it correct.

If you would prefer not to use the scorecard, you don't have to.

Again, thanks for reviewing our new pubs and raising issues.  The process makes us better.

Ned Lee
National Cadet Team

[Spam]

A little more research might be in order before sending these publications live:

Ref: the New Cadet Guide, https://www.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/P_6020_760BB4AD4BE66.pdf

"But do the Core Values really matter?"
"Someone scrawled a hideously vile word onto the Air Force Academy's campus. Big deal? The superintendent gathered everyone together and made the Air Force's view about racism crystal clear. "If you can't treat someone with dignity and respect," declared Lt Gen Jay Silveria, "then get out." Truly, making a commitment to the Core Values is the price of admission at the Air Force Academy"

The referenced incident was not in fact a racist harassment incident, but rather was revealed in short order in 2018 as a hoax by the "targeted" student. The lesson learned here wasn't Respect ("raaaacism") - but Integrity (lying/trying to weasel out of responsibility). It is disingenuous of Civil Air Patrol to present this as if it was an actual racist attack, when in fact it was a complete hoax.

We need to have some fact checking here!

[ . . .]


V/r
Spam

In the spirit of the first week of the NFL season:

"Upon further review, the call on the field stands."

Here, the quoted excerpt is factually correct.  Someone did write the vile words, and the superintendent saw the slur and acted decisively as required by the Core Values in response.  The lesson is in the response to intolerance.  The source of the slur is immaterial to the lesson:  "The Core Values Matter."

What lesson would have been taught if there had been no public response?

Ned, thanks for your thoughtful response. Here's my perspective:

1. When we have an incident where someone appears to have committed a crime or a core values breach, we need to normalize investigation and due process before imposing (or implying) punishment. The USAFA Commandant in this case acted swiftly and decisively to condemn intolerance and racism from one point of view (which is admirable), but from another point of view, his actions to stand up and upbraid an entire cadet body with the presumption that there was a racist bad actor among them were, lets say, precipitate.

2. I completely disagree with your position that the lesson here is in the response to intolerance. As the investigation found, the bad action was not, in fact, racism and intolerance. The n word slurs were found to have been written by a black individual trying to pin blame on others (a truthfulness/Integrity breach, and a Respect breach, not a racist breach). BTW, zero disagreement at all from me regarding the proposition that leadership needs to come down hard on intolerance - after investigation.

3. The lesson to be learned, I'd argue, is that leaders need to allow investigation and due process to take their course before acting (outside of actions taken for safety reasons). So for example, a mayor who fires police officers before investigating alleged racial bias incidents (as opposed to suspending them) fails a leadership test, leaving that city open to litigation for improper termination (where following the process would have laid the groundwork for a solid, legal termination). Haranguing the cadet body in this case and getting some Tough Words onto the internet look great, but were inappropriate and premature, and people have ignored the truth and substance of the incident in favor of the convenient sound bite.

The lesson to be learned from the USAFA incident is that leaders need to lead by process and by justice - not by sound bites and shooting from the hip - and we need to teach that principle to cadets, first. To continue to misconstrue this as an intolerance scenario is poorly conceived in that respect, and I feel that as presented out of context, this element of the CAP material praises this rush to condemn before the facts are in. With your extensive legal background, I hope you'll appreciate my concern from this standpoint.

R/s,
Spam

PS, Love your NFL jokes. With the blatant unpatriotic NFL being the way it is, they lost me as a fan a while back. :-(

[Spam]

Proving Grounds still exists: https://www.gocivilairpatrol.com/programs/cadets/cpofficer/provinggrounds

It's under the Adult Leaders section of the CP area.

Thanks so much, Jester! Sharp eyes, I lost track of where that went...

Going forward, I would love to see this section get pushed upwards on the website with more visibility, because iron sharpening iron peer review makes a better quality program for everyone. Indeed, I think the CP shop has led the way at NHQ with Proving Grounds, and I'd love to see a review/comment/approval cycle for ALL draft pubs, to improve the peer review process and deliver a better staffed product for the Commander's consideration. Diversity in peer review is good.

The current "PREview" page evidently wasnt intended to fill the "REview" function, but is acting as a forcing function any ways. Perhaps some consolidation might be in order?

Respectfully Submitted (R/s),
Spam

[TheSkyHornet]

I don't disagree with the sentiment, I've struggled with what to do with the in-betweeners as well, but at the end of the day, the Cadet / Senior bright line provides an easy to understand and difficult to fudge idea of who is the caretaker and who the the cared-for.

As soon as you adjust that, you will inevitably wind up with either "mini-Senior Members" or "Uber Cadets" either is an idea more difficult to characterize but both are much easier to fudge for the sake of expedience.

In the Grande Scheme this issue doesn't really affect that many people year over year due to the college factor.

And I don't intend to imply, as others have pointed out, that there is a difference between the age of members and the peer-versus-mentor relationship. That much is very clear from the R60-1 standpoint.

But where I think it becomes is in the R60-2 standpoint in respect to the physical protection of persons. CAP has to cover protections of both the abuse of a minor as well as the abuse of a trainee.

I'm absolutely on the side of trying to prevent inappropriate relationships between trainer and trainee. Where I think we fall short is that we treat "cadets" as minors in almost every circumstance.

CAPR 60-1 refers to parents in numerous locations, whether in the sense of granting permissions or being included in disciplinary matters. Is it appropriate to include a of a 20-year-old cadet in a conversation about demotions or conduct matters?

Now I understand that we can't have one-size-fits-all approaches, and we can't have every circumstance spelled out. But, I think we need to still distinguish the fact that we do have cadets who are legal adults. And this is where I'm making the distinction that there is a professional relationship to be maintained between senior members and cadets, but there is also a protective relationships that needs to be maintained between adults and children. Not every cadet is a child.

There I things I can certainly infer. If I don't need a parent's permission for a cadet who is 18 to go on a squadron field trip, I obviously don't need to include a parent in a disciplinary conversation with that same cadet. That said, I do not see a process that separates that because we do not note that adult cadets have different privileges and permissions from minor cadets with the sole exception of the the Permission slip and provision of medications.

If we're going to separate senior members from cadets because of legal ramifications, then we should do that between adult cadets and minor cadets.

[Jester]

Proving Grounds still exists: https://www.gocivilairpatrol.com/programs/cadets/cpofficer/provinggrounds

It's under the Adult Leaders section of the CP area.

Thanks so much, Jester! Sharp eyes, I lost track of where that went...

Going forward, I would love to see this section get pushed upwards on the website with more visibility, because iron sharpening iron peer review makes a better quality program for everyone. Indeed, I think the CP shop has led the way at NHQ with Proving Grounds, and I'd love to see a review/comment/approval cycle for ALL draft pubs, to improve the peer review process and deliver a better staffed product for the Commander's consideration. Diversity in peer review is good.

The current "PREview" page evidently wasnt intended to fill the "REview" function, but is acting as a forcing function any ways. Perhaps some consolidation might be in order?

Respectfully Submitted (R/s),
Spam

Agreed, I think it was one of those things that got shuffled toward the bottom of the deck with the consolidation of multiple pages into goCAP.com (which I'm a fan of BTW, especially after a couple of years getting used to where everything is).

I'd go a step further and set up a focus group of experienced CP folks at the tactical level (actually implementing these things in a squadron, not a wing DCP who may have lots of experience but not all of it very current). 

It would also help give NHQ a venue to explain the "why" of these kinds of things to the folks who are executing their policy & vision.

[bbhpr]

Draft CAPR 60-2 2.12.3 conflicts with CAPR 60-3 (1-17)(3).

[Jester]

Draft CAPR 60-2 2.12.3 conflicts with CAPR 60-3 (1-17)(3).

I'm not seeing it, care to elaborate?

[bbhpr]

Draft CAPR 60-2 2.12.3 conflicts with CAPR 60-3 (1-17)(3).

I'm not seeing it, care to elaborate?

The CPP regulation says a ground team can consist of three people, where as OPS regulation says a ground team will not be release with less than 4. The current one says the same thing and has resulted in confusion and argument between CAP CP and ES people, inparticular IC's who are following 60-3.

[Jester]

I would interpret that to mean that the most relevant document is the predominant one in the event of a dispute.  I'm not going to base an ES response on a CP reg, especially when the guidance in the ES reg is plenty sufficient as written. 

If this was really an issue I'd have a real problem with the judgement of the GBD and IC.  It's splitting hairs and quibbling about regs when they need to be driving on and getting the mission done. 

Tripping over dollars to pick up dimes.

[Eclipse]

The CPP regulation says a ground team can consist of three people, where as OPS regulation says a ground team will not be release with less than 4. The current one says the same thing and has resulted in confusion and argument between CAP CP and ES people, inparticular IC's who are following 60-3.

The IC / ES shop is the controlling authority in regards to the composition of field teams,
and the regulation is actually stricter then the CP prescription.

So the CP would allow only three if necessary, but ES doctrine says you can't do that regardless.
Hardly a discussion point.

CP can indicate whatever it likes in regards to bare minimums, but CP does not have any authority over ES doctrine.

The same thing goes the other way for UDF, which is normally two members, but would require a third if a
cadet is involved.

ES doesn't dictate CPT policy.

[PHall]

The CPP regulation says a ground team can consist of three people, where as OPS regulation says a ground team will not be release with less than 4. The current one says the same thing and has resulted in confusion and argument between CAP CP and ES people, inparticular IC's who are following 60-3.

The IC / ES shop is the controlling authority in regards to the composition of field teams,
and the regulation is actually stricter then the CP prescription.

So the CP would allow only three if necessary, but ES doctrine says you can't do that regardless.
Hardly a discussion point.

CP can indicate whatever it likes in regards to bare minimums, but CP does not have any authority over ES doctrine.

The same thing goes the other way for UDF, which is normally two members, but would require a third if a
cadet is involved.

ES doesn't dictate CPT policy.

The "CP" minimum is what you need to fulfill the Cadet Protection Program requirements if there are cadets on the ground team.

The "ES" minimum is the standard everybody has to meet to be an official CAP Ground Team.

Separate "minimums" to fulfill separate requirements.

[Ned]

On the ground team issue, active cadet and composite units that do a lot of training in the field often employ ground teams during exercises and bivouacs. 

When doing ES things, obviously ES standards apply, as directed by the ES-rated, highly qualified GBDs and others.

When in the field doing non-ES things, CP standards apply.

I've made a note to try to make that a bit clearer in the applicable pubs.

Again, thanks for the input.  That's why we post pubs for review.


Ned Lee
National Cadet Team

[jeders]

I just assumed that the CPP reg was using ground team as a generic term to include Ground Teams, UDF Teams, and any other ground operation.

[TheSkyHornet]

From how it reads, if an ES regulation states that a Ground Team can be deployed with three individuals, but CP regulations require four individuals, then I think there's an interpretation to be made that a cadet cannot participate on a GT unless there are 4 individuals (including that cadet).

I don't really see that, becomes it's an ES activity, suddenly all things CP are dropped.

I also point right back to my point on CP standards for adults versus minors.

[SarDragon]

From how it reads, if an ES regulation states that a Ground Team can be deployed with three individuals, but CP regulations require four individuals, then I think there's an interpretation to be made that a cadet cannot participate on a GT unless there are 4 individuals (including that cadet).

I don't really see that, becomes it's an ES activity, suddenly all things CP are dropped.

I also point right back to my point on CP standards for adults versus minors.

I think your conjecture might be invalid. The regs say that a Ground Team is four people, and a cadet must be accompanied by two other people. Where are you getting your numbers?

[TheSkyHornet]

From how it reads, if an ES regulation states that a Ground Team can be deployed with three individuals, but CP regulations require four individuals, then I think there's an interpretation to be made that a cadet cannot participate on a GT unless there are 4 individuals (including that cadet).

I don't really see that, becomes it's an ES activity, suddenly all things CP are dropped.

I also point right back to my point on CP standards for adults versus minors.

I think your conjecture might be invalid. The regs say that a Ground Team is four people, and a cadet must be accompanied by two other people. Where are you getting your numbers?

I was responding to the comments above.

Took a look for myself...
CAPR 60-3, 1-7(b)(3): "All ground operations must still meet the requirements for cadet protection and vehicle usage."

Problem solved. Case closed.

Doesn't address the interface discrepancies, but the ES side is clearly covered.