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

[davidsinn]

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

My wing only offers it once a year with limitations on who can come. What if you can't get off work?

[lordmonar]

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

My wing only offers it once a year with limitations on who can come. What if you can't get off work?

Offer it more....and open up enrollment.  Another easy fix.

[Ned]

As others have pointed out, one way to create clarity in an admittedly fuzzy area is to use examples.

Written examples can help, but they will also tend to be open to different interpretations.

It might be interesting to create a training video, using specific scenes and then applying the rules to show that it either was or wasn't hazing in that particular situation.

And since it would be difficult to come up with decent actors, we could also use Hollywoood film clips for our illustrations.  It would have the added benefit of making our training video much more interesting.

So - what specific scenes would you nominate for inclusion?  (Extra points for youTube inserts).

(Remember, it should be something that has training value and will allow us to apply the guidelines from RST to determine whether or not hazing has occured.  Avoid the low hanging fruit of things like FMJ - way obvious hazing has minimal teaching value.  Try to find some "borderline" scenes to make it interesting.)

[NIN]

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

Yeah, you won't catch an argument from me about this.  I'd say "+1" but I know that drives you nuts

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

At the risk of veering off topic: this has always been one of my pet peeves.  We have no really consistent "initial entry training" for our adult members that ensures that *everybody* in the organization has been exposed to, trained on, and embraces our shared core and cultural values.   Level I is beyond a frickin' joke and doesn't really provide any training at all and don't even get me going on how inconsistent it is.  My unit's Level I, taught my my retired Army Major (and former AF SSgt) Professional Development Officer who also happened to be a professional trainer for FedEx is utterly different from the squadron that was an hour up the road (and thus, further from HHQ's flagpole) and had no such resource. 

*grumble*

Back to the discussion at hand. Lets solidify the definition and the need for policy before we start talking training delivery...

[Eclipse]

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

My wing only offers it once a year with limitations on who can come. What if you can't get off work?

Offer it more....and open up enrollment.  Another easy fix.

Yep - need fill the void.  Right now most wings treat the UCC as a check box, assuming they do it at all.  I recently had to sit in
one after being a commander (or defacto) for over 5 years.

Just like increasing the number of encampments required for milestones, if you increase the requirement, the classes will have to follow.

My wing will let any Group CC schedule one, assuming the have some commitment for participation, so we have a few every year - watch the calendar and come up NW!

There needs to be some reasonableness as well - a "within 6 months of..." etc., could be up for discussion, but frankly, if you haven't had a UCC after a year as a CC, you're not going to get much from it, and the likelihood of "fixing" you would be slim.

[Eclipse]

One last deviation - make SLS a requirement for Level 1, add an hour of drill, an hour of uniforms, and RST.

Done - Basic training weekend, which should also fulfill your RST requirement for the first calendar year.

New members I've discussed similar with have all said they'ed appreciate it and even viewed something like that as an expectation, being disappointed when it didn't happen.

[davidsinn]

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

My wing only offers it once a year with limitations on who can come. What if you can't get off work?

Offer it more....and open up enrollment.  Another easy fix.

Yep - need fill the void.  Right now most wings treat the UCC as a check box, assuming they do it at all.  I recently had to sit in
one after being a commander (or defacto) for over 5 years.

Just like increasing the number of encampments required for milestones, if you increase the requirement, the classes will have to follow.

My wing will let any Group CC schedule one, assuming the have some commitment for participation, so we have a few every year - watch the calendar and come up NW!

There needs to be some reasonableness as well - a "within 6 months of..." etc., could be up for discussion, but frankly, if you haven't had a UCC after a year as a CC, you're not going to get much from it, and the likelihood of "fixing" you would be slim.

Coming up to your area is about the same as going down to Indy where they are always held. Plus I'd have to deal with Chicago traffic to get there. Thanks but no thanks. 

[lordmonar]

One last deviation - make SLS a requirement for Level 1, add an hour of drill, an hour of uniforms, and RST.

Done - Basic training weekend, which should also fulfill your RST requirement for the first calendar year.

New members I've discussed similar with have all said they'ed appreciate it and even viewed something like that as an expectation, being disappointed when it didn't happen.

No....leave SLS for level II....but add drill and uniforms to Level I training.

[NIN]

<snip>
It might be interesting to create a training video, using specific scenes and then applying the rules to show that it either was or wasn't hazing in that particular situation.

And since it would be difficult to come up with decent actors, we could also use Hollywoood film clips for our illustrations.  It would have the added benefit of making our training video much more interesting.

So - what specific scenes would you nominate for inclusion?  (Extra points for youTube inserts).

(Remember, it should be something that has training value and will allow us to apply the guidelines from RST to determine whether or not hazing has occured.  Avoid the low hanging fruit of things like FMJ - way obvious hazing has minimal teaching value.  Try to find some "borderline" scenes to make it interesting.)

Oh, gosh, Ned. You're killin' me.

(Most of the videos I want to use are not on YouTube due to copyright...)

Steering clear of the obvious..

There is a great scene in the movie Gardens of Stone where the character of Wildman (played by Casey Siemaszko) is fiddling around (I seem to recall that he's juggling bayonets) in the barracks when he's supposed to be preparing for inspection.   His squad leader, Sgt Flanagan (wonderfully played by a 'pre-weight gain' Lawrence Fishburne), starts shouting at him about the Old Guard not being a three ring circus and how he should get to the position of parade rest.  All OK for the moment.  Then he points out that Wildman's shoes look like they were shined with a hot Hershey bar and goes on to explain how fecal matter rolls down hill from from the LT to the PSG to the Squad Leader to the private as part of the chain of command. Even that's OK, really. Then Flanagan rears back to deliver a blow to Pvt Wildman to get his attention and is stopped by SP4 Willow (DB Sweeney) who offers to help out the sergeant by working with the obvious screw up private.   Now, its the point where Flanagan decides to get a little physical that things start to veer into abuse and hazing.

That's a great scene, because it starts with Flanagan walking thru the barracks bay doing what squad leaders do: checking his people as they prepare for inspection.  While he's doing it, he's  doling out a little NCO training to some shamming Private (10 pushups),  correcting others and fixing problems, until he encounters Wildman..  All of this is pretty decent examples of "good NCO leadership" (keeping in mind that the doling out of the 10 pushups to the shammer is, well, maybe a bit of an extreme example, but then all those Old Guard guys are infantry anyway, so, you know...<waiting for Kirt to chime in here...>) and at the end of the scene, before the inspection, SP4 Willow is working with Pvt Wildman in a peer-to-peer teamwork way.  Overall, a super example (with a "non-example" thrown in the middle).

Later in the film, when Flanagan loses a stripe for busting up the local beer house, Willow gets promoted and the assembled NCOs have to "tack" his stripes.  SFC Hazard (James Caan) delivers a solid shot to the upper arm on the chevrons.  SGM Nelson (James Earl Jones) winds up with what you expect to be an epic body slam of a shot, and then delivers a pip-squeak pop to the set of stripes (ie. "I gotta do this, its the tradition, but I don't have to kill you with it"), and then the company first sergeant, "Slasher" Williams (Dick Anthony Williams), a former boxer, winds up and delivers a hard slam to the arm that glances off and he asks for a 2nd shot. 

Now, if this isn't ritualistic hazing, I don't know what is.   SFC Hazard's shot is a friendly "hit," SGM Nelson's is a "tap" that maintains the tradition of the "tacking" without knocking the newly minted NCO into next week, and 1SG Williams, well, his shot is clearly taken out of hatred and spite for junior NCOs and his dislike of Willow as a "pig [expletive deleted] volunteer."  I'd say that Hazard's shot is borderline, Nelson's is restrained and mindful of the idea that folks can, and will, take a good tradition and wrap it around the axle too far, and Williams' shot is way, way outside the bounds of what is right.

Here's another movie example: The frat initiation in Animal House (not the Delta one, not that its a "clean" example, but its more goofy silly than "abusive").  The other frat house ("Omegas"? I forget) has this serious, weird incanted ceremony that culminates with a paddle and the pledge's [fourth point of contact].   While sure, making the Delta pledges steal things and be woken up with fire extinguishers is not kosher, physically abusing your pledges is even worse.

(Never mind Neidermeyer's "You're all worthless and weak" speech.  "He can't treat our pledges like that. Only _we_ can treat our pledges like that!")

The movie "The Lords of Discipline" has some similar examples of hazing, especially as it surrounds the treatment of the plebe "Poteet." 

And then there is the hazing they subject the African-American kid to, which is offsides no matter which way you slice it.



Anyway, those are a couple examples for ya, Ned. I am sure I can come up with more, but I have to go back to work..

[Nathan]

Not trying to distract from Ned's question, but something I think needs to be brought up.

Although I have not attended either activity, I have enough experience with the graduates from both courses to know that both HMRS and PJOC get away with many things under the idea of a "training environment" that at almost any basic encampment could easily be considered hazing (both under the CAP definition and outside of it). I'm not going to bring up specific examples, as I'm pretty sure there is at least one thread discussing these already and I don't want to risk derailing this topic with an argument as to the validity of such methods. However, despite the nearly identical age and rank ranges, the issues are not considered "hazing" because of the nature of the activity rather than, as has been suggested, the nature of the cadets themselves.

I'm not going to give an opinion as to whether or not I am okay with these activities being allowed certain protections in regard to hazing. However, I will say that HMRS staff, as far as I know, do not have any specialized training in regards to utilizing hazing (and in many cases, the staff is made up of a cadet as low in rank as a C/SSgt). And while I am not familiar with the training of the PJ's in regards to actually instructing cadets, I have not heard anything that leads me to believe that the PJ's are trained in anything that would make them qualified to "haze" the cadets in a safer way than a CAP member.

It's just something to keep in mind. If we're going to be picking scenes from movies, or coming up with definitions, or whatever, we need to keep in mind that hazing rules ARE relaxed in some places in CAP, so when we come up with a definition, we either need to write in an exception for certain "training environments" and define who is qualified and what qualifications these people have that exempts them from hazing culpability, or we need to say that PJOC and Hawk shouldn't be getting away with what they do, training environment or not.

But if we're trying to make things clear and easily understood by everyone in the chain, then the exceptions to the rule either need to be stated and justified as such, or eliminated. One unexplained exception to the rule can destroy all of the clarity we're working toward.

[Eclipse]

We could all find some great videos to use, and will never be able to - we'll never get past the rights issues and costs.

As it is NHQ includes videos in the SLS/CLC curriculum and then doesn't actually provide the clips.

[A.Member]

As others have pointed out, one way to create clarity in an admittedly fuzzy area is to use examples.

Written examples can help, but they will also tend to be open to different interpretations.

It might be interesting to create a training video, using specific scenes and then applying the rules to show that it either was or wasn't hazing in that particular situation.

And since it would be difficult to come up with decent actors, we could also use Hollywoood film clips for our illustrations.  It would have the added benefit of making our training video much more interesting.

So - what specific scenes would you nominate for inclusion?  (Extra points for youTube inserts).

(Remember, it should be something that has training value and will allow us to apply the guidelines from RST to determine whether or not hazing has occured.  Avoid the low hanging fruit of things like FMJ - way obvious hazing has minimal teaching value.  Try to find some "borderline" scenes to make it interesting.)

I'm going to play along even though I don't think our members, and certainly not cadets, can receive the training required to effectively administer "corrective PT" - or whatever name we want to call it.  It's not a road we should travel down.   

That said, an entertaining video on hazing could be valuable.   I'll offer these couple suggestions:
1.  An Officer and A Gentleman:  It has a couple of scenes during the training sequences that could serve as examples.  Water hose spray.

2.  The Guardian:  Again, training scenes.  Including solo in pool with water spray.

[Nick]

That said, an entertaining video on hazing could be valuable.   I'll offer these couple suggestions:
1.  An Officer and A Gentleman:  It has a couple of scenes during the training sequences that could serve as examples.  Water hose spray.

2.  The Guardian:  Again, training scenes.  Including solo in pool with water spray.

Eh, you call it hazing, I call it an excellent example of intense training with required diversionary multitasking.  But granted, naval aviators and rescue swimmers 1) are around water as a requirement of their job, 2) are subjected to water survival training, and 3) must be able to handle the stress and distractions of those situations.  Now, toss a CAP cadet into the picture and you got yourself a hazing video.

[Eclipse]

Stripes - with Winger doing pushups in the rain.

[Nathan]

That said, an entertaining video on hazing could be valuable.   I'll offer these couple suggestions:
1.  An Officer and A Gentleman:  It has a couple of scenes during the training sequences that could serve as examples.  Water hose spray.

2.  The Guardian:  Again, training scenes.  Including solo in pool with water spray.

Eh, you call it hazing, I call it an excellent example of intense training with required diversionary multitasking.  But granted, naval aviators and rescue swimmers 1) are around water as a requirement of their job, 2) are subjected to water survival training, and 3) must be able to handle the stress and distractions of those situations.  Now, toss a CAP cadet into the picture and you got yourself a hazing video.

Not trying to distract from Ned's question, but something I think needs to be brought up.

Although I have not attended either activity, I have enough experience with the graduates from both courses to know that both HMRS and PJOC get away with many things under the idea of a "training environment" that at almost any basic encampment could easily be considered hazing (both under the CAP definition and outside of it). I'm not going to bring up specific examples, as I'm pretty sure there is at least one thread discussing these already and I don't want to risk derailing this topic with an argument as to the validity of such methods. However, despite the nearly identical age and rank ranges, the issues are not considered "hazing" because of the nature of the activity rather than, as has been suggested, the nature of the cadets themselves.

I'm not going to give an opinion as to whether or not I am okay with these activities being allowed certain protections in regard to hazing. However, I will say that HMRS staff, as far as I know, do not have any specialized training in regards to utilizing hazing (and in many cases, the staff is made up of a cadet as low in rank as a C/SSgt). And while I am not familiar with the training of the PJ's in regards to actually instructing cadets, I have not heard anything that leads me to believe that the PJ's are trained in anything that would make them qualified to "haze" the cadets in a safer way than a CAP member.

It's just something to keep in mind. If we're going to be picking scenes from movies, or coming up with definitions, or whatever, we need to keep in mind that hazing rules ARE relaxed in some places in CAP, so when we come up with a definition, we either need to write in an exception for certain "training environments" and define who is qualified and what qualifications these people have that exempts them from hazing culpability, or we need to say that PJOC and Hawk shouldn't be getting away with what they do, training environment or not.

But if we're trying to make things clear and easily understood by everyone in the chain, then the exceptions to the rule either need to be stated and justified as such, or eliminated. One unexplained exception to the rule can destroy all of the clarity we're working toward.

[Nick]

Yeah, what you said.  Sorry Nathan, I quit reading your posts that exceed one paragraph.

[Nathan]

Yeah, what you said.  Sorry Nathan, I quit reading your posts that exceed one paragraph.

Noted and no offense taken. I'm a wee long-winded sometimes.