Hazing

[Ned]

Ned, no offense, but you have been in the ivory tower for too long.  What the Reg's say and what happens on the ground level are two different things.  [ . . .]

I did say it was a common misunderstanding, and even us "ivory tower" folks (although I have over 25 years of weekly squadron participation I suppose my current position does make me vulnerable to this generalization), figured out that hard-working leaders in the field were having a difficult time understanding and successfully implementing the CPP in a way that protected cadets while also ensuring that we conducted a vigorous and challenging leadership development program using a military model.

So over the last two years we revamped the CPP for the specific purpose of making it easier to understand and implement.  It is a considerable upgrade that we have discussed in several other threads, so I won't repeat it here except to note that it is a comprehensive policy that covers more than hazing.  And we have developed multiple training courses for everyone in CAP.

And as to your specific concerns about hazing complaints, commanders are only required to suspend when a there is a reasonable suspicion of abuse (which includes hazing).  And we also made it plain that knowingly making a false report is subject to discipline and referral to law enforcement.

Our common goal is to protect our cadets, as well as the hard working seniors who train, mentor, and inspire them.

Ned Lee
Ivory Tower Guy

[LSThiker]

cadet12345, you noted, "Hazing is where you make an unsafe environment (physically or mentally) for the cadets."  Nothing could be further from the truth, hazing is anytime you make another feel uncomfortable enough to think they are being hazed.  Hazing is in the eye of the hazed, not in the eye of the hazer..   

If I am not mistaken, making someone uncomfortable enough that they feel that they are being hazed could constitute an unsafe (mental) environment, thus it is hazing or at least a violation of best practice.  Making people feel like they are being hazed causes an unsafe mental environment for many people, especially the younger cadets.

The official CAP definition of hazing is:

any conduct whereby someone causes another to suffer or be exposed to any activity that is cruel, abusive, humiliating, oppressive, demeaning, or harmful

And if SgtLogan was only raising his voice to be heard, he was definitely not hazing.

The CAP is a military auxiliary. One of the benefits of the CAP is it's military style environment. Some cadets confuse yelling with the command voice, and all of a sudden, the military environment no longer exists. This is a sad, sad fact. If the cadets don't like it, they can either deal with it or leave. It needs to be explained to the cadets why a louder than normal voice is required when drilling. If they still don't like it, fine. Just don't reprimand the cadets administering the military training environment because one cadet complains. It is very frustrating. Just plain frustrating. Of course the CP should be positive, and that's the point. Using a command voice is positive. The other 99% of cadets like it, so why are we even having this discussion? We should try to be accommodating, but not overly so. Forgive my poor use of analogies, but we are abandoning the rest of he herd to find the one lost sheep. We our doing the rat of be cadets a disservice if we lower out standards any further. I do realize that special needs cadets may not tolerate the intensity as well as others, and that's what I mean by accommodating.

Thoughts?

C/Maj Kiss

My thoughts are this:

There are three sides to the story.  The defense, plaintiff, and witnesses.  The truth lies somewhere in between.  There is too little real or objective information to decide whether he hazed, crossed a border, or nothing.  Raising his/her voice to be heard is not necessarily hazing.  However, it could be depending on the message with that raising voice.  In addition, the OP is using the word haze, but is that truly the message the cadet wanted when raising this issue to the cadet commander?  Or was it how the cadet commander interpreted it?

If the cadet said he was being hazed and told the cadet commander, then the cadet commander is in the wrong.  Any complaints or allegations of hazing should be immediately passed onto the squadron commander.  The cadet commander should then step out of the issue and let the SQ/CC handle it. 

In regards to the military environment, well I would suggest spending some time in the military.  You will find that the so-called military environment exists very little in the military.  There are specific courses (i.e. basic, AIT, Airborne and the other Hooah courses) and specific times (i.e. combat zones, STXs, etc) that those times are necessary.  However, CAP as a whole is not a time when that so-called military environment is necessary.  That is not to say there should not be discipline, but that is different.

Have I ever hazed?  Yes, especially looking back at my cadet career.  I was fortunate that I was never disciplined for doing stupid things.  However, I found a better mentor and have changed my ways.  I grew as a leader.

[Storm Chaser]

cadet12345, you noted, "Hazing is where you make an unsafe environment (physically or mentally) for the cadets."  Nothing could be further from the truth, hazing is anytime you make another feel uncomfortable enough to think they are being hazed.  Hazing is in the eye of the hazed, not in the eye of the hazer..   

If I am not mistaken, making someone uncomfortable enough that they feel that they are being hazed could constitute an unsafe (mental) environment, thus it is hazing or at least a violation of best practice.  Making people feel like they are being hazed causes an unsafe mental environment for many people, especially the younger cadets.

The official CAP definition of hazing is:

any conduct whereby someone causes another to suffer or be exposed to any activity that is cruel, abusive, humiliating, oppressive, demeaning, or harmful

And if SgtLogan was only raising his voice to be heard, he was definitely not hazing.

The CAP is a military auxiliary. One of the benefits of the CAP is it's military style environment. Some cadets confuse yelling with the command voice, and all of a sudden, the military environment no longer exists. This is a sad, sad fact. If the cadets don't like it, they can either deal with it or leave. It needs to be explained to the cadets why a louder than normal voice is required when drilling. If they still don't like it, fine. Just don't reprimand the cadets administering the military training environment because one cadet complains. It is very frustrating. Just plain frustrating. Of course the CP should be positive, and that's the point. Using a command voice is positive. The other 99% of cadets like it, so why are we even having this discussion? We should try to be accommodating, but not overly so. Forgive my poor use of analogies, but we are abandoning the rest of he herd to find the one lost sheep. We our doing the rat of be cadets a disservice if we lower out standards any further. I do realize that special needs cadets may not tolerate the intensity as well as others, and that's what I mean by accommodating.

Thoughts?

C/Maj Kiss

Unfortunately, some cadets and senior members confuse real military-style training with what they see on movies or TV, as many have never served in the military. In addition, some types of military training are acceptable and even necessary when preparing soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen for combat, but not necessarily appropriate for 12, 13 and 14 year old cadets. For some, it's not easy to make that distinction.

A true leader has no reason to yell. Many confuse yelling with using a command voice. They're not the same. If people only listen to us when we raise our voice, then perhaps we're doing something wrong. Whatever we do, we need to make sure we don't lose sight of our core value of respect.

[Tim Day]

Ned, no offense, but you have been in the ivory tower for too long.  What the Reg's say and what happens on the ground level are two different things.  If a cadets feels they have been hazed and make a complaint, it starts balls rolling that are hard to stop.  By the time the "reasonable man" theory is developed, we have removed members from participation as there is no "presumed innocent" theory involved in this area.  Therefore from the time Johnny looks crosseyed at Jimmy and Jimmy files a vague complaint about hazing, Johnny will have missed many meetings before someone at some level, perhaps at a panel, six months later will have determined no harm no foul.  Better safe than sorry.  No sign of hazing not even if a reasonable man would do it..

AirAux, no offense, but maybe this is specific to your experience. In my experience, we certainly report repeated boundary concerns or actions that meet the hazing or abuse threshold right away, but the new Cadet Protection Policy makes it pretty easy to discern where those tripwires are crossed. The Cadet Protection Advanced course is particularly helpful in this regard.

[Cadet12354]

Unfortunately, some cadets and senior members confuse real military-style training with what they see on movies or TV, as many have never served in the military. In addition, some types of military training are acceptable and even necessary when preparing soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen for combat, but not necessarily appropriate for 12, 13 and 14 year old cadets. For some, it's not easy to make that distinction.

Thank you!  I have tried to tell so many people that, but they didn't seem to believe me.  My wing's encampment has the problem of trying to be BMT.  The cadet staff make jokes about which cadets they can make cry the most easily.  They get in people's faces and tell them that they are not worth the staffs' effort.  They have the notion that they need to tear a person apart completely and then rebuild the person, all within a week.
So I submitted a complaint, and it was either the IG or my group commander (I remember that they were both present, but I cannot remember which one) who said that CAP is a paramilitary organization.  He said that if I cannot take a military environment, I should get out of the program.  Well, he was right.  I can't take the so-called "military environment."  But, it is several years later, and I'm still here!
But that illustrates my point.  A lot of people think that "boot camp" is the whole military experience.  They call that a military environment.  They do not understand that after BMT and other training schools are over, military life is generally a lot less intense (unless you are in a combat zone).  Even if they do know this, it is something that they choose to ignore.
People need to realize that it may be appropriate to make an extremely intense, yell-in-your-face environment for someone who is going to go into combat.  They need to be able to react in a situation where people are shooting at them and trying to blow them up.  However, CAP cadets (hopefully) do not have anyone trying to shoot at them or blow them up.  (If that is ever the case, someone ought to have a word with their unit's safety officer!)  CAP cadets need to learn how to be respectful and professional, not how to react in an active combat situation.  It does not benefit the cadets to have a BMT setting, especially a 12, 13, or 14 year-old, regardless of the grade.

[Ned]

This is the age old problem of trying to define how "intense" the military part of CAP should be.

The problem is twofold: first, the range of military intensity is pretty wide - everything from an Air Force Academy Calculus class (which is fairly subdued) all the way to Marine Corps Recruit Training (which I'm told can be fairly intense).  And a lot inbetween.

The second aspect is that we don't have a good set of terms to describe military intensity in a way that can clearly be understood by others. One person's "command voice" is another person's "yelling."  It is very, very difficult to understand a given situation based on written description.  Like, say, here on CAPTalk.

Fortunately, CAP has developed a pretty good document to help all of us understand how to describe and implement an appropriate military intensity level for our program.  Take a look at CAPP 52-23 , written by one of my favorite authors.   

[Storm Chaser]

Unfortunately, some cadets and senior members confuse real military-style training with what they see on movies or TV, as many have never served in the military. In addition, some types of military training are acceptable and even necessary when preparing soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen for combat, but not necessarily appropriate for 12, 13 and 14 year old cadets. For some, it's not easy to make that distinction.

Thank you!  I have tried to tell so many people that, but they didn't seem to believe me.  My wing's encampment has the problem of trying to be BMT.

Encampment is definitely not supposed to be BMT; not even a little.

The cadet staff make jokes about which cadets they can make cry the most easily.  They get in people's faces and tell them that they are not worth the staffs' effort.  They have the notion that they need to tear a person apart completely and then rebuild the person, all within a week.

What you're describing meets the definition of hazing.

So I submitted a complaint, and it was either the IG or my group commander (I remember that they were both present, but I cannot remember which one) who said that CAP is a paramilitary organization.  He said that if I cannot take a military environment, I should get out of the program.  Well, he was right.  I can't take the so-called "military environment."  But, it is several years later, and I'm still here!

If this occurred the way you described, they handle it wrong. All complaints should be thoroughly investigated to ensure no violations occurred. If it's determined that a violation didn't occur and that the complaint wasn't malicious, then discussing it with the appropriate parties in a non-condescending way would be the best way to handle it. Since this happened years ago, I can tell you that CAP was different back then and a lot has changed since.

But that illustrates my point.  A lot of people think that "boot camp" is the whole military experience.  They call that a military environment.  They do not understand that after BMT and other training schools are over, military life is generally a lot less intense (unless you are in a combat zone).  Even if they do know this, it is something that they choose to ignore.
People need to realize that it may be appropriate to make an extremely intense, yell-in-your-face environment for someone who is going to go into combat.  They need to be able to react in a situation where people are shooting at them and trying to blow them up.  However, CAP cadets (hopefully) do not have anyone trying to shoot at them or blow them up.  (If that is ever the case, someone ought to have a word with their unit's safety officer!)  CAP cadets need to learn how to be respectful and professional, not how to react in an active combat situation.  It does not benefit the cadets to have a BMT setting, especially a 12, 13, or 14 year-old, regardless of the grade.

We're in agreement. And if you look at the new curriculum for encampment, CAP as an organization agrees as well. Unfortunately, there are still members who don't get it.

[Eaker Guy]

cadet12345, you noted, "Hazing is where you make an unsafe environment (physically or mentally) for the cadets."  Nothing could be further from the truth, hazing is anytime you make another feel uncomfortable enough to think they are being hazed.  Hazing is in the eye of the hazed, not in the eye of the hazer..   

If I am not mistaken, making someone uncomfortable enough that they feel that they are being hazed could constitute an unsafe (mental) environment, thus it is hazing or at least a violation of best practice.  Making people feel like they are being hazed causes an unsafe mental environment for many people, especially the younger cadets.

The official CAP definition of hazing is:

any conduct whereby someone causes another to suffer or be exposed to any activity that is cruel, abusive, humiliating, oppressive, demeaning, or harmful

And if SgtLogan was only raising his voice to be heard, he was definitely not hazing.

The CAP is a military auxiliary. One of the benefits of the CAP is it's military style environment. Some cadets confuse yelling with the command voice, and all of a sudden, the military environment no longer exists. This is a sad, sad fact. If the cadets don't like it, they can either deal with it or leave. It needs to be explained to the cadets why a louder than normal voice is required when drilling. If they still don't like it, fine. Just don't reprimand the cadets administering the military training environment because one cadet complains. It is very frustrating. Just plain frustrating. Of course the CP should be positive, and that's the point. Using a command voice is positive. The other 99% of cadets like it, so why are we even having this discussion? We should try to be accommodating, but not overly so. Forgive my poor use of analogies, but we are abandoning the rest of he herd to find the one lost sheep. We our doing the rat of be cadets a disservice if we lower out standards any further. I do realize that special needs cadets may not tolerate the intensity as well as others, and that's what I mean by accommodating.

Thoughts?

C/Maj Kiss

Unfortunately, some cadets and senior members confuse real military-style training with what they see on movies or TV, as many have never served in the military. In addition, some types of military training are acceptable and even necessary when preparing soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen for combat, but not necessarily appropriate for 12, 13 and 14 year old cadets. For some, it's not easy to make that distinction.

A true leader has no reason to yell. Many confuse yelling with using a command voice. They're not the same. If people only listen to us when we raise our voice, then perhaps we're doing something wrong. Whatever we do, we need to make sure we don't lose sight of our core value of respect.

And I'm the first to concede that I have never been in the military, so it I am wrong about the environment there, my bad. I'll accept that. Trust me, I do not believe movies and TV are a good indication of he military. Have you seen their uniforms? Always something wrong. My OCD


Back to my point, CAPP 52-23 states that if we "set the level to low, and the cadets will not thrive and grow in our challenging and vigorous program." It goes on to say that if we set the level to high "the cadets may be overwhelmed and unable to learn." So that should be that. What SgtLogan was doing is completely within CPPT guidelines, and he should not have been reprimanded.

We are in agreement that yelling has no place in the CAP. Also, I understand that it seems, for lack of a better word, stupid if we can only get cadets to listen to us when we use our command voice. It's a matter of opinion concerning how much command voice should be allowed in the program. However, he CAP has told us that the command voice is a training tool as well as a practical one, and it is up to each individual unit to decide whether or not it should be used.

Cheers,

C/Maj Kiss

[Eaker Guy]

Ned, no offense, but you have been in the ivory tower for too long.  What the Reg's say and what happens on the ground level are two different things.  If a cadets feels they have been hazed and make a complaint, it starts balls rolling that are hard to stop.  By the time the "reasonable man" theory is developed, we have removed members from participation as there is no "presumed innocent" theory involved in this area.  Therefore from the time Johnny looks crosseyed at Jimmy and Jimmy files a vague complaint about hazing, Johnny will have missed many meetings before someone at some level, perhaps at a panel, six months later will have determined no harm no foul.  Better safe than sorry.  No sign of hazing not even if a reasonable man would do it..

Then, in my humble opinion, there needs to be a "presumed innocent" theory, unless the person accused of hazing has a history of close calls, or multiple CP staff suspect that it is in the suspected hazer's best interest that he/she be removed from his position for a while, until things simmer down.

[Tim Day]

Ned, no offense, but you have been in the ivory tower for too long.  What the Reg's say and what happens on the ground level are two different things.  If a cadets feels they have been hazed and make a complaint, it starts balls rolling that are hard to stop.  By the time the "reasonable man" theory is developed, we have removed members from participation as there is no "presumed innocent" theory involved in this area.  Therefore from the time Johnny looks crosseyed at Jimmy and Jimmy files a vague complaint about hazing, Johnny will have missed many meetings before someone at some level, perhaps at a panel, six months later will have determined no harm no foul.  Better safe than sorry.  No sign of hazing not even if a reasonable man would do it..

Then, in my humble opinion, there needs to be a "presumed innocent" theory, unless the person accused of hazing has a history of close calls, or multiple CP staff suspect that it is in the suspected hazer's best interest that he/she be removed from his position for a while, until things simmer down.

Presumption of innocence applies to Constitutional rights, not to participation in a voluntary organization. The purpose of the Cadet Protection Policy is protection of cadets. But if one reads the instruction one would understand that a simple accusation of hazing isn't enough to suspend a member, not even for one day much less six months.

CAPR 52-10

4.2 Membership Suspension. Immediately after receiving a report that alleges a reasonable suspicion of sexual, physical, or emotional abuse as described above, the commander will confer with the Wing/JA and/or CAP/GC. If legal counsel advises that the allegation does indeed represent a reasonable suspicion of abuse, the commander will immediately suspend the suspected member from CAP, in accordance with CAPR 35-1, Assignment and Duty Status, pending an internal investigation and, if applicable, the completion of a law enforcement investigation.

It is on legal advice that a reasonable suspicion actually exists that the commander will suspend the member. Note that it's nearly impossible to present a false reasonable suspicion of abuse against someone in the environment created by adherence to the best practices laid out in the CAPR 52-10.

[Storm Chaser]

What SgtLogan was doing is completely within CPPT guidelines, and he should not have been reprimanded.

Unless you were there, you don't really know what SgtLogan was doing. And from his own account, he wasn't reprimanded, but warned or counseled, which is not the same. Either way, the cadet commander should've gotten the deputy commander for cadets or squadron commander involved. When someone brings up a complaint about hazing, whether valid or not, the senior leadership should be involved. Cadets shouldn't be handling these types of complaints on their own.

[DoubleSecret]

Ned, no offense, but you have been in the ivory tower for too long.  What the Reg's say and what happens on the ground level are two different things.  If a cadets feels they have been hazed and make a complaint, it starts balls rolling that are hard to stop.  By the time the "reasonable man" theory is developed, we have removed members from participation as there is no "presumed innocent" theory involved in this area.  Therefore from the time Johnny looks crosseyed at Jimmy and Jimmy files a vague complaint about hazing, Johnny will have missed many meetings before someone at some level, perhaps at a panel, six months later will have determined no harm no foul.  Better safe than sorry.  No sign of hazing not even if a reasonable man would do it..

Then, in my humble opinion, there needs to be a "presumed innocent" theory, unless the person accused of hazing has a history of close calls, or multiple CP staff suspect that it is in the suspected hazer's best interest that he/she be removed from his position for a while, until things simmer down.

Since CAP issued a "Cadet Protection Policy," one could reasonably presume that the focus is on protecting cadets.  One way to do that is to err on the side of caution.  We do that with the supervision requirements, which protect seniors and cadets alike.  We also do that with the suspension requirements.    We want to prevent these things from happening in the first place, not wait until there are multiple complaints and victims.

The pendulum would swing too far the other way if we left certain things until someone "has a history of close calls" or until "multiple CP staff" believed a problem existed.    How long would that take in a nightmare scenario where multiple CP staff were the problem?