The CAPR 52-10 definition of "hazing" - A redefinition exercise.

[NIN]

This is split off from this thread that has devolved into, basically "push ups are bad/pushups are good," and thats not going anyplace fast, so its time to offer up the question a little differently.

I think that most reasonable folks will agree with me that the current definition of "hazing," as found in CAPR 52-10, is awfully broadly written. 

And by broadly written, I mean its definition is so vague and over-arching that, depending on the experience level (or lack thereof), background, personal habits and traits, military expereience (or lack thereof) or even up-bringing of the indivdual tasked with ascertaining if something "is" or "is not" hazing, one person's interpretation of a set of circumstances could be 180 degrees opposite from that of another similarly reasonable person.  (Ned, help me out here, but isn't there a legal standard thats something like the "Reasonable Person Rule"? My Law & Order University law classes are failing me here...)

I submit to you that when making the definition of behavioral circumstances. especially circumstances on which the violation of would  result in disciplinary action, you should be as concrete and understandable as possible to prevent confusion and mis-interpretation.  Sort of a "leave little room for wiggling" kind of thing.

In other words: A 12-months in CAP 2Lt Testing Officer and a 24-years in CAP Lt Col squadron commander, as well as a 6 years in CAP Wing Commmander and a no-time-in-CAP mom should have a definition that would allow each of them to effectively ascertain whether a particular set of actions is hazing or not, while at the same time not overly restricting or stifling the appropriate conduct of the CAP cadet program.

A tall order, to be sure..

So lets lay the current definition out there for all to see:

c. Hazing. Hazing is defined as any conduct whereby someone causes another to suffer or to be exposed to any activity that is cruel, abusive, humiliating, oppressive, demeaning, or harmful. Actual or implied consent to acts of hazing does not eliminate the culpability of the perpetrator. Examples of hazing include using exercise as punishment or assigning remedial training that does not fit the deficiency (such as making a cadet run laps for having poorly shined shoes). Hazing, as defined in this policy, is considered a form of physical abuse and the reporting procedures for physical abuse must be followed.

Thats it, sports fans.

Now, first things first, I would suggest modifying that definition to exclude the examples, since any attempt to redefine the hazing definition will likely immediately run afoul of any of those examples.

so try this for size:

c. Hazing. Hazing is defined as any conduct whereby someone causes another to suffer or to be exposed to any activity that is cruel, abusive, humiliating, oppressive, demeaning, or harmful. Actual or implied consent to acts of hazing does not eliminate the culpability of the perpetrator.  Hazing, as defined in this policy, is considered a form of physical abuse and the reporting procedures for physical abuse must be followed.

So lets work from this definition, shall we?

Note: The minute you say "pushups," "incentive physical training," or "Gunny Hartman," you lose.  Please attempt to have this conversation without those words.  A well written definition will encompass those actions without being so specific as to refer to them.

Go for it, folks.  And give me some pushups while you're at it.

[NC Hokie]

I'll take a whack at it by amending the 52-16 definition of hazing as follows:

Hazing is defined as any conduct whereby someone intentionally causes another to suffer or to be exposed to any activity that is cruel, abusive, humiliating, oppressive, demeaning, or harmful. Actual or implied consent to acts of hazing does not eliminate the culpability of the perpetrator.  Hazing, as defined in this policy, is considered a form of physical abuse and the reporting procedures for physical abuse must be followed.

The change should be pretty obvious.

[lordmonar]

I think the definition with the examples removed is fine.

I would no add the word "intentionally" because people can accidentally fall into hazing.  Or they can use their intentions as an excuse to get out punishment if they crossed the line.

My cadets when doing drill down do a lot of "bearing checks".  Where they get real close, make faces and try to get the other guy to laugh and break bearing.

This can easily turn to hazing without anyone intending it to do so.

Leaving the definition broad allows leaders to take action when it is appropriate and turn a blind eye when it is just having fun...or has some training value.....such as using the not to be mentioned muscle conditioning routine by a character from a movie I once (several times) watched. 

This is the problem with gray line/bright line regulations.  If you make it too bright line....then you take tools aways from your instructors, create problems when the gray world interfaces with the regs and create barracks lawyers who say "but it was the forward leaning rest....not that other exercise!"

We make vague regulations when we know we can't anticipate all the different sort of fecal matter that our members will come up with.  We should be training our commanders, CP members and senior cadets what the spirit of the rules are and why we want them in place.

[Nick]

Hazing is defined as any conduct whereby someone intentionally causes another to suffer or to be exposed to any activity that is cruel, abusive, humiliating, oppressive, demeaning, or harmful. Actual or implied consent to acts of hazing does not eliminate the culpability of the perpetrator.  Hazing, as defined in this policy, is considered a form of physical abuse and the reporting procedures for physical abuse must be followed.

I'll steal a little bit of state penal code and amend intentionally as follows:

Hazing is defined as any conduct whereby someone knowingly, intentionally or recklessly causes another to suffer or to be exposed to any activity that is cruel, abusive, humiliating, oppressive, demeaning, or harmful. Actual or implied consent to acts of hazing does not eliminate the culpability of the perpetrator.  Hazing, as defined in this policy, is considered a form of physical abuse and the reporting procedures for physical abuse must be followed.

Reason being: I think we all agree, based on experience, that certain forms (or magnitudes) of activities should not be permitted.  But, there may be those out there that were brought up differently (an overzealous 17 year old, prior/current JROTC student, or whatever) and think that those forms of activities are okay, so they weren't intentionally causing someone to suffer.  But, through their reckless calculation (or lack thereof) of the implications of said activity to a 12 year old, undeveloped kid, said activity may cause unintended (thereby negating intentionally) damage.

[Ned]

Off the top of my head:

c. Hazing. Hazing is defined as any conduct whereby a member causes a cadet to be exposed to any activity that a reasonable person of similar age and experience would find to be cruel, abusive, humiliating, oppressive, demeaning, or harmful in the same or similar circumstances. Neither the actual subjective perception of being hazed nor any actual or implied consent to acts of hazing eliminates the culpability of the perpetrator. 

1.  Implements a "reasonable person" requirement.  Allows us to treat a 12 year-old like a 12 year old, and a 20 year-old like a 20 year-old.

2.  Requires consideration of the actual training environment ("same or similar circumstances") to allow for different military intensity levels that may occur between, say a regular meeting night and the first day of encampment.

3.  Eliminates defining hazing as physical abuse.  Because it isn't.  And to avoid having to suspend members because of borderline "he demeaned me by saying my uniform looked like garbage" complaints.  Commanders could still suspend in appropriate cases pending investigation, but it would not be mandatory.

[Nick]

1.  Implements a "reasonable person" requirement.  Allows us to treat a 12 year-old like a 12 year old, and a 20 year-old like a 20 year-old.

2.  Requires consideration of the actual training environment ("same or similar circumstances") to allow for different military intensity levels that may occur between, say a regular meeting night and the first day of encampment.

3.  Eliminates defining hazing as physical abuse.  Because it isn't.  And to avoid having to suspend members because of borderline "he demeaned me by saying my uniform looked like garbage" complaints.  Commanders could still suspend in appropriate cases pending investigation, but it would not be mandatory.

You got my vote.  I love the "objective reasonableness" perspective.

[Nathan]

My cadets when doing drill down do a lot of "bearing checks".  Where they get real close, make faces and try to get the other guy to laugh and break bearing.

This can easily turn to hazing without anyone intending it to do so.

Not sure I agree. People can transition from trying to get someone to break military bearing to being cruel and humiliating without knowing it, but they can't be intentionally trying to humiliate someone without knowing it. It's hard to "accidentally" make fun of somebody, and when it does happen, I think punishing someone under the definition of hazing would be extreme.

In your example, I can unknowingly get carried away with trying to break their concentration by slinging insults in order to do so. But I, as a reasonable person, am not going to be ignorant to the fact that such things are intended to demean that cadet. I may not be thinking about it, but there is no question that what I am saying is intentional, and despite what my primary objective would be, the mechanism by which I intend to break is concentration is intentionally demeaning. My lack of awareness that I am now being intentionally malicious is not an excuse for being malicious.

On the other hand, Ned brought up a story about him speaking about his daughter and her problems with drill as an early cadet. This embarrassed her, although I doubt that Ned, as a father or a CAP leader, was intentionally attempting to embarrass her with malicious intent, and more likely was just trying to show how far she's come. In this case, he technically DID fit the criteria of hazing by singling her out and embarrassing her, but this was not his intention, and if any (laughably) official action would be taken, charging him with hazing against a cadet for this (even more so with his own daughter) would be absolutely absurd.

Ned, let me know if I messed up the story. I don't remember where you posted it.

I don't know the legal definitions of cruel and humiliating, but to me, and as a practical rule, I would imagine that they have a LOT to do with intention and motivation behind the action. Motivation is the difference between terrorism and building deconstruction. The act is nothing without the motivation, and while I think that somebody can be humiliated accidentally, I don't think that someone can be HUMILIATING accidentally. And while that may not hold up legally, I would hope that people who make a mistake that results in the unintentional, non-malicious harm of a cadet would, in many cases, not be charged with "hazing" a cadet.

[Nathan]

I'm posting this cross-thread from the other discussion, mainly because I don't want to type it again. It applies a lot more to this thread anyway. I'm editing it in order to make the parts that apply to PT specifically, well, NOT apply to PT specifically, but there are some parts that mention it within the realm of example. Since I'm using those examples dealing with PT to illustrate a point about the definition of hazing itself, I hope that NIN won't haze me for it.

The other problem of the definition I have is the "actual" consent in terms of hazing, although I do think that we need to think along those lines. I understand that we're thinking along the same lines one thinks about statutory rape. However, I think that, once again, we take it to a different level when we're painting with as broad of a brush as we do with hazing.

For instance, it was a bit of a tradition at a squadron I visited for the cadet staff to honor the basic cadets by, after a PT session where 80% of the cadets passed, dropping down and doing 25 push-ups in front of the squadron at the meeting's end (after formation). The cadets, in response to the tradition, would drop with the staff under the mindset of "doing things as a team", and, as a squadron, WITHOUT an order, the entire cadet group would knock out 25 as a congratulations for a job well done. Under the current definition of hazing, these cadets were giving actual or implied consent, and therefore were being hazed by doing unregulated PT under the implied order due to a tradition.

Likewise, during a bivouac, I and the cadet staff went for a short jog in the morning before the cadets got up. Nobody had to participate, but I was going regardless, and I invited the staff to join me if they wanted to be awake and energetic by the time it came to wake the cadets up. So, every morning, three cadets, all of a lower rank than me, gave implied consent to "do PT" with me by running a mile. Was I hazing them?

I am not overlooking that cadets will often follow the orders of the higher-ups regardless of whether or not they are legal or safe orders. However, I think that using such a strong take on the definition hamstrings our leaders. Not only that, but (this is important), it gives CAP leaders the right not to listen to anything cadets have to say about the issue, as they are not capable of knowing what they can and can't handle.

That's a big issue with me. We train the cadets to think on their own and handle themselves in some pretty tough situations. I'm sure ... would have some things to say about that. Yet, in saying that cadets can never agree to anything that we define to be hazing, and in allowing ourselves to define hazing as whatever we want, we effectively cut ourselves off of communication on how to best protect the cadets from the cadets themselves. Now, in many situations, this is justified. A cadet may or may not understand certain aspects of safety that only a mature mind could.

But is there no situation currently defined as "hazing" upon which a cadet might not be able to perform a competent threat assessment? When ANYTHING can be hazing, when are we going to allow ourselves to listen to the cadets? After all, isn't the ideal cadet program generally a cadet-run cadet program, simply with senior oversight? Why are the people we are trying to protect having absolutely no say, even on an advisory level, in the establishment of those rules? Anything they say is easily discredited by the definition of hazing itself!

[Ned]

Ned, let me know if I messed up the story. I don't remember where you posted it.

Close enough.

In the original:

Example:  When my daughter received her Mitchell, I gave a brief speech about how proud of her I was.  During the speech I pointed out that there was a time when she had difficulty doing simple facing movements.  The point was to show how far she had come.  She later mentioned that she found it slightly embarassing to be reminded of her early ineptness when it came to drill.

I again ask you plainly - did I haze my daughter?  Should I have been suspended pending an investigation?

And my other favorite "not-so-hypothetical":

Example:  During an open ranks inspection, the inspector may tell cadet X that her insignia have been placed incorrectly on her uniform.  Cadet X may well be "embarassed" to have such a fault mentioned publicly during the inspection.  (As a side note, Cadet X should be embarassed for a simple error that she knows she should not have made.)

I ask you plainly - has Cadet X been hazed?  Should the inspector be suspended pending an investigation?

Illustrating the problems with our current definition.  By inserting a "reasonable person" standard and a requirement to consider the surrounding circumstances, the answers to these hypos get a little easier.

[RiverAux]

In other words: A 12-months in CAP 2Lt Testing Officer and a 24-years in CAP Lt Col squadron commander, as well as a 6 years in CAP Wing Commmander and a no-time-in-CAP mom should have a definition that would allow each of them to effectively ascertain whether a particular set of actions is hazing or not, while at the same time not overly restricting or stifling the appropriate conduct of the CAP cadet program.

I haven't written any laws, but have written a lot of regulations that people can get fined or thrown in jail for violating and there is no such thing as a regulation that everyone will read the same way even if it is written on a third-grade level.  I applaud the attempt, but if this is your goal, you will fail.  Numerous examples just on CAPTalk on disagreements over even fairly well written regulations. 

That being said, the main objection on the other thread was the belief that "hazing is in the eye of the beholder".  I think Ned's proposal gets to that, but quite frankly even it leaves a lot up to interpretation. 

And, if the intent is to maintain the ban on PT as punishment, you're going to have to state that clearly in the regs or people are going to claim that 12 years old CAP cadets don't believe pushups are abusive. 

[lordmonar]

Well that the point isn't it?

We need a regulation that is strict enough to keep our cadets safe from mental and physical abuse...but not one that is so strict that it stops leaders from correcting mistakes for fear of stepping over some line.

We would like one that allows you to drop your cadet in places like encampment, NSCA or even at unit meetings but is clear enough where everyone knows when to stop.

We need one where we don't have some barracks lawyer saying..."you said my boots were shined with a hersey bar....that's hazing"....but allows for cadets to call a stop when someone gets out of line.

I think we have 90% of that now.

What we need to fix is the instant "you got to report" line from the regulation.  So we can fix things in an appropriate manner instead of starting a witch hunt because the encampment staff sent some cadet out to look for a CAP Form ID-10-T.

[A.Member]

Off the top of my head:

c. Hazing. Hazing is defined as any conduct whereby a member causes a cadet to be exposed to any activity that a reasonable person of similar age and experience would find to be cruel, abusive, humiliating, oppressive, demeaning, or harmful in the same or similar circumstances. Neither the actual subjective perception of being hazed nor any actual or implied consent to acts of hazing eliminates the culpability of the perpetrator. 

I need to give it some thought but I certainly like that much better than the current wording. 

[ol'fido]

I don't think you are going to be able to nail this down. National doesn't  want it nailed down. The definition is vague bacause you can't fathom the depth of everbody's  " cruelty" creativity. If you try to nail it down, someone will find a way to "game" it no matter what. We are also forgetting the other reason for regulations, that is covering the chain of command's collective rear echelons.

I think Ned's suggestion of using the "reasonable person" doctrine is as close as your going to get. I was going to mention that myself but he beat me to the punch. Kudos, sir.

Having said that I am an Army vet and got dropped a lot even after I got to my unit, but I don't think that corrective pt is either corrective or training.

[Eclipse]

We need a regulation that is strict enough to keep our cadets safe from mental and physical abuse...but not one that is so strict that it stops leaders from correcting mistakes for fear of stepping over some line.

Why would leaders providing corrective training in an appropriate manner be afraid of the line?

If you're not yelling, not making them push the earth down, and addressing the issue, there is no problem.

Corrective training should be an objective response to an objective problem.  If a cadet has his insignia wrong, did not salute, or showed up late, provide the correction and move on. I personally prefer mutual respect vs. intimidation as a way to lead people.

It's when you allow subjective response and remediation to objective issues that people get themselves in trouble.

Take the insignia issue. There's really only two ways to handle it

1) Instruct the cadet on the proper placement (or what to remove).

2) Make the correction for the cadet (i.e. help with the sewing, etc.)

Yelling, push-ups, or the time-out chair, doesn't actually fix the issue, nor does it even provide the information for the fix.

"Well, what do you do if the cadet doesn't correct the behavior or the situation?"

That's where further objective, corrective "reminders" come into play such as loss of points towards awards or delay in promotion,
both of which are fully supportable, objective responses grounded in the program and in which you can draw a direct line from
action to reaction.

I would agree that neither we, nor the DOD, is using the word "hazing" appropriately.  Hazing is traditionally a ritual, abusive or not, which
precedes the inclusion in a group.  In that context, there's actually a lot of stuff that could be fun, constructive, and positive about being accepted. 

As we all know, hazing became "bad", because people moved from fun "newb" stuff to "kick the newb harder then I got kicked as a newb".   You move from snipe hunts and trips to the store for a left-handed smoke bender to throwing all their gear in the river, spitting in food, and...well, you get the idea... Its always fun until someone loses an eye.

Most of the behavior we are looking to prevent is simply "bad behavior", not hazing, necessarily.

I would be in favor of splitting the definitions to separate "hazing" (i.e. inclusion rituals), from "abusive behavior".  However, with that said, I would still ban "hazing" in the old-school sense as we have far too many seniors and cadets without functional common sense valves (which is a societal problem, not a CAP problem, per se).

[NIN]

I don't think you are going to be able to nail this down. National doesn't  want it nailed down. The definition is vague bacause you can't fathom the depth of everbody's  " cruelty" creativity. If you try to nail it down, someone will find a way to "game" it no matter what. We are also forgetting the other reason for regulations, that is covering the chain of command's collective rear echelons.

I think Ned's suggestion of using the "reasonable person" doctrine is as close as your going to get. I was going to mention that myself but he beat me to the punch. Kudos, sir.

Having said that I am an Army vet and got dropped a lot even after I got to my unit, but I don't think that corrective pt is either corrective or training.

See, I hear about guys now getting smoked by their first sergeants at permanent party units and I'm like "Uhh, what?  Thats IET stuff. Basic & AIT.."  Dunno what to say about that.  I, like others, believe that sort of "corrective training" has certain limits and value in certain environments, but as a "long term" disciplinary tool? No.  But I digress..

I just had a thought.

It may be difficult, nigh unto impossible, to correctly define "hazing" for our purposes in one paragraph.

As we've seen, hazing is complex, multi-dimensional, and prone to "gamesmanship" to get around the definition.

What I think is lacking in the current 52-10 is that it spends 1 paragraph (more or less) on "hazing," drops this poorly worded definition of hazing on the reader and then runs off to talk about reporting requirements.    I agree: a lot of that reg is centered around corporate CYA, hence the emphasis on "reaction" and "reporting," rather than outright definition and prevention. 

"Report everything" is basically what it says, "Well decide if its really abuse/hazing/etc, at NHQ." 

Where have I heard that before? Oh yeah:


So maybe the solution here is to provide a clearer, more concrete commander's intent (mindful of my original rule..) that might be a little bigger than just "one paragraph."  I'm a big believer in providing the tools and then letting people operate within a framework.  Perhaps if it was better understood what constitutes hazing from a corporate perspective, then you have better ways to combat *real* hazing and can easily say "Yeah, that? No so much" to stuff that really isn't.

Its a thought.

[Eclipse]

Much of this comes down to needing better, more consistent leadership training for Unit Commanders and the like.

Many of the problems are caused by well-intentioned, poorly informed new CC's who get a command too early and are out of earshot
of higher HQ's.  Same goes for new activity commanders.

They do what they've seen in the movies, because no one has shown them differently, no one objects or gets broken (the first few times), and "tradition" is born.

A required basic training of some sort (no, not BMT, BCT, specific for CAP), and commander training before you can assume command is needed.

[Nick]

commander training before you can assume command is needed.

You mean like UCC?

[Eclipse]

commander training before you can assume command is needed.

You mean like UCC?

Actually, no.

First, because its not actually required to be a commander, and second because, for the most part, it has too much focus on the administrivia of running a unit.

[lordmonar]

commander training before you can assume command is needed.

You mean like UCC?

Actually, no.

First, because its not actually required to be a commander, and second because, for the most part, it has too much focus on the administrivia of running a unit.

Well that's an easy fix.

First make UCC a requirement for anyone who is or wants to be a commander (say within six months of appointment).

Second change the curriculmn to include what you want to be taught.  The admin stuff is important but we can certainly add a block on what is hazying and where we want to draw the abuse line.

[Nick]

Actually, no.

First, because its not actually required to be a commander, and second because, for the most part, it has too much focus on the administrivia of running a unit.

Well that's an easy fix.

First make UCC a requirement for anyone who is or wants to be a commander (say within six months of appointment).

Second change the curriculmn to include what you want to be taught.  The admin stuff is important but we can certainly add a block on what is hazying and where we want to draw the abuse line.

That was actually the hint I was trying to get at.  We already have a course that "should" 1) be required, and 2) cover that material.  This is a common set of knowledge that all commanders should have, so why not use a course that exists to facilitate it.