Main Menu

Cadets Dating

Started by Pumbaa, January 25, 2009, 12:39:17 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Ned

Quote from: Johnny Yuma on January 29, 2009, 05:21:25 AM
Now I know Ned is one of those who helped write CPPT, but IIRC he's a lawyer whose primary interest is protecting his client at the expense of everything but the law and professional ethics. He can talk all day long about 30 year old abusing 15 year olds, but it's a red herring.

Well, you can call me a liar on the internet or to my face, I guess.  But the whole point of the CPP is to protect cadets.  I freely admit that the happy side effect of protecting the cadets is protecting seniors and the corporation.  Maybe it's a "chicken and the egg" kind of thing.

But it does seem a little odd that you seem to know my motivations better than I do.

I should check my office for bugs.

Quote

An 18 year old is a legal adult in the eyes of the law, cadet or not. Sorry Ned, but anyone who attempts to make the argument that prohibiting a cadet/senior relationship between consenting legal adults prevents pedophiles from abusing underaged cadets is beyond ridiculous. 

Then how about I make the argument that prohibiting a cadet/senior relationship between consenting legal adults protects the cadet from abusive relationships by the senior who outranks the cadet and is supposed to be responsible for training and protecting the cadet.  And for some reason has decided to manipulate the relationship to their own personal benefit.


Just like 23 year old high school teachers are not supposed to have sex with their 18 year old students.  Sure, they are both legal adults, but the relationship is abusive essentially by definition.  There is a huge power imbalance between instructors and students, and an inherent conflict of interest in a teacher who is supposed mentor and teach students instead of bedding them.

(BTW, red herring or not, I can name at least three seniors sent to prison for "dating" cadets.  It happens more often than any of us want to think.)

Quote
Frankly, IMHO NHQ's interest in its legal adult member's sexual and romantic relationships not only out of line but very creepy.   


I suppose to be consistent, you will have to consider every other group that prohibits these kinds or relationships "creepy" as well.

That list includes the creepy Boy Scouts of America, the creepy United States Armed Forces, every creepy high school, and all those creepy colleges and universities out there.

We live in a pretty creepy world, all right.   ;)

Eclipse

Quote from: Johnny Yuma on January 29, 2009, 05:21:25 AM
An 18 year old is a legal adult in the eyes of the law, cadet or not. Sorry Ned, but anyone who attempts to make the argument that prohibiting a cadet/senior relationship between consenting legal adults prevents pedophiles from abusing underaged cadets is beyond ridiculous. 

Frankly, IMHO NHQ's interest in its legal adult member's sexual and romantic relationships not only out of line but very creepy.   

You're not really tracking this whole "cadets aren't adults in the eyes of CAP" thing are you?

CAP has no legal authority to tell anyone to do anything, but if you want to stay a cadet, and maintain access to the various cadet-only opportunities, you follow the rules.

Same goes for seniors.

"That Others May Zoom"

Johnny Yuma

#62
Quote from: Ned on January 29, 2009, 05:53:40 AM
Quote from: Johnny Yuma on January 29, 2009, 05:21:25 AM
Now I know Ned is one of those who helped write CPPT, but IIRC he's a lawyer whose primary interest is protecting his client at the expense of everything but the law and professional ethics. He can talk all day long about 30 year old abusing 15 year olds, but it's a red herring.

Well, you can call me a liar on the internet or to my face, I guess.  But the whole point of the CPP is to protect cadets.  I freely admit that the happy side effect of protecting the cadets is protecting seniors and the corporation.  Maybe it's a "chicken and the egg" kind of thing.

But it does seem a little odd that you seem to know my motivations better than I do.

I should check my office for bugs.

Sorry Ned, but your job as Legal at the time was protecting the corporation and its officers first and foremost, period. You know that.

When CPP went into effect 2 decades ago my Wing Queen at the time said it was an effort to stave off the troubles BSA was having with lawsuits from abused scouts from happening to CAP.

Besides, if cadet protection was the primary goal then members would NEVER have been discouraged from notifying civil authorities.

Quote
QuoteAn 18 year old is a legal adult in the eyes of the law, cadet or not. Sorry Ned, but anyone who attempts to make the argument that prohibiting a cadet/senior relationship between consenting legal adults prevents pedophiles from abusing underaged cadets is beyond ridiculous. 

Then how about I make the argument that prohibiting a cadet/senior relationship between consenting legal adults protects the cadet from abusive relationships by the senior who outranks the cadet and is supposed to be responsible for training and protecting the cadet.  And for some reason has decided to manipulate the relationship to their own personal benefit.


Just like 23 year old high school teachers are not supposed to have sex with their 18 year old students.  Sure, they are both legal adults, but the relationship is abusive essentially by definition.  There is a huge power imbalance between instructors and students, and an inherent conflict of interest in a teacher who is supposed mentor and teach students instead of bedding them.

(BTW, red herring or not, I can name at least three seniors sent to prison for "dating" cadets.  It happens more often than any of us want to think.)

They didn't go to prison dating 18 year olds, that's the difference.

Student/teacher relationships are not abusive but are more a form of sexual harrassment, which is already addressed by regulation: If the subordinate objects to the behavior of the superior then it's handled. I've said this before: Abuse issues involving cadets over 18 should be handled under these regulations.

Quote
Quote
Frankly, IMHO NHQ's interest in its legal adult member's sexual and romantic relationships not only out of line but very creepy. 

I suppose to be consistent, you will have to consider every other group that prohibits these kinds or relationships "creepy" as well.

That list includes the creepy Boy Scouts of America, the creepy United States Armed Forces, every creepy high school, and all those creepy colleges and universities out there.

You really, really, don't want to use the BSA's Explorer program as a good example. Been there, seen that, got the T-shirt and program to prove it.

There are countless numbers of couples in the armed forces where one spouse is an officer and the other is EM or in some other way a subordinate. All the DoD seems to have issue with is that they cannot serve in the same unit or in each other's Chain of Command.

There is one couple in CAP whose romantic relationship began while one was attending college and the other was an instructor. One half of this union just happens to be a current corporate officer and still teaches. There are also a number of states where the whole student/teacher relationship ban is being challenged, Washington state sticks in my mind. We'll see where this plays out.

QuoteWe live in a pretty creepy world, all right.   ;)

When you create zero tolerance policies that force folks with common sense into mindless automatons for CAP, Inc's. own interests, yes it is.
"And Saint Attila raised the Holy Hand Grenade up on high saying, "Oh Lord, Bless us this Holy Hand Grenade, and with it smash our enemies to tiny bits. And the Lord did grin, and the people did feast upon the lambs, and stoats, and orangutans, and breakfast cereals, and lima bean-"

" Skip a bit, brother."

"And then the Lord spake, saying: "First, shalt thou take out the holy pin. Then shalt thou count to three. No more, no less. "Three" shall be the number of the counting, and the number of the counting shall be three. "Four" shalt thou not count, and neither count thou two, execpting that thou then goest on to three. Five is RIGHT OUT. Once the number three, being the third number be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade to-wards thy foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuffit. Amen."

Armaments Chapter One, verses nine through twenty-seven:

Eclipse

#63
Quote from: Johnny Yuma on January 29, 2009, 07:58:01 PM
Besides, if cadet protection was the primary goal then members would NEVER have been discouraged from notifying civil authorities.

They never have been.  In fact the regs make it quite clear that reporting an incident internally does not absolve a member who is also required to report it externally.

Quote from: Johnny Yuma on January 29, 2009, 07:58:01 PM
There is one couple in CAP whose romantic relationship began while one was attending college and the other was an instructor. One half of this union just happens to be a current corporate officer and still teaches. There are also a number of states where the whole student/teacher relationship ban is being challenged, Washington state sticks in my mind. We'll see where this plays out.

There's a lot of stuff in this country which is flat out wrong, and currently illegal that is being challenged in the courts.
The very fundamental definition of marriage and familiy is being challenged in several states.  A legal challenge does not
mean that the idea was incorrect in the first place, and in a lot of cases its brought by bad actors who can't live up to societal norms.

Teachers dating students - wrong.

Cadets dating senior members - wrong.

Seniors dating seniors - fundamentally bad idea.

Cadets dating cadets - fundamentally bad idea.

If you try hard enough, and are so inclined, you can find anecdotal examples of every bad behavior and illegal act in the history of man "working out to the better of all involved", that doesn't mean that the behavior they participated in wasn't risky, illegal, or just down right wrong, it means that against the odds things worked out.

So using the random examples of a few married couples in CAP, or happy dating cadets, does not change the fact that its a bad idea, and in most case works out to the detriment of the actors, the unit, or CAP.

"That Others May Zoom"

Nathan

Craziness...

First and foremost, cadets dating cadets on their own time is not an issue. Obviously if two people meet through an organization like CAP that serves exclusive sorts of interests, it's going to be inevitable that they are going to meet, nay, LOOK for someone to hook up with. I certainly had my CAP crushes in my time, although I was always too much of a coward when I was younger to do much about it. ;) So long as the relationship doesn't find its way INTO CAP, there really shouldn't be an issue. Just because two people meet in CAP doesn't mean that the relationship has to show up there. Most places where people hook up, I would imagine, aren't dating services either. I know high school wasn't.

Second, I agree that for the most part, the CPPT as written really doesn't hurt anyone in any meaningful way. If seniors can't date cadets, so be it, and I think that the writers of the document generally did have the best interests of the cadets at heart. When you have a clear-cut statement like "If A, not B", then there isn't much of a chance of finding and exploiting any loopholes found in more complicated regulations.

HOWEVER...

I personally think that, if we decided that it was an issue, that it wouldn't be impossible to amend the regulations to have a maximum age difference (3 years?) between cadet/senior relationships, as seems to be the normal age difference for consensual sex in many states. And, frankly, I think it would actually do MORE to protect our cadets than what we have now. Let me explain...

We know that the people we need to worry about being around cadets are not going to disclose this sort of information to CAP. If we have a creepy 30 year old SM who wants to date a 14 year old cadet, there is no way, regulations or no, that he is going to be stopped from doing so by mere written words telling him he can't do it. All that happens is that the relationship remains quiet, while the abuse that we are worrying about can be occurring without our suspecting anything.

IF, however, we, by regulation, permitted dating relationships between cadets and senior members WITHIN THE THREE YEAR AGE RANGE so long as they disclosed their relationship to the squadron commander or whoever, then that would give us a means by which to monitor the relationship and, if necessary, move members around. For instance, if the 23 year old DCC and the 20 year old C/CC want to date, then the choice has to be either that the cadet gives up cadet status, or that the senior member is moved out of the DCC position to, say, communications officer with the senior staff, and has no authority or pull with the cadet program.

Bingo. The situation is controlled, we have the ability to control whom is in charge of what to ensure that there is no abuse of power, and the relationship is known by those who need to know about it. Now the only issues we have to worry about are the aforementioned creepy senior members, who will try to date cadets without disclosing it regardless of the regs. In other words, the ones we have to worry about now anyway.

YMMV
Nathan Scalia

The post beneath this one is a lie.

Eclipse

Nathan, for starters, your idea would result in CAP sanctioning 18 year old seniors dating 15 year old cadets.
A relationship which is illegal in all but 6 states.

We also cannot address situations we do not know about, regardless of the situation, we are only able to
take action when we know there is an issue.

"That Others May Zoom"

Nathan

Quote from: Eclipse on January 29, 2009, 08:17:24 PM
Nathan, for starters, your idea would result in CAP sanctioning 18 year old seniors dating 15 year old cadets.
A relationship which is illegal in all but 6 states.

Fair enough. Two years. It really doesn't matter that much. The main point is to just have some sort of allowable range out there.

Quote from: EclipseWe also cannot address situations we do not know about, regardless of the situation, we are only able to take action when we know there is an issue.

Right. I think that was my point (if I'm understanding you correctly).

If we know what is going on, we can deal with it as necessary. And dealing with it doesn't necessarily mean kicking people out; it can, as I suggested, simply mean moving someone to outside the cadet chain of command. That way, you don't tick off two members, especially if they were honest and open enough about their relationship to disclose it. What we would have to worry about both now and in this system is the relationships we DON'T know about, but at least this way, we're not putting the same hat on every single senior/cadet relationship.
Nathan Scalia

The post beneath this one is a lie.

Eclipse

The bottom line is that, no matter what the situation, you can't have people who are classified as "adults" dating people who are classified as "not adults", whether that's teachers, cadets, or similar situations.

And why are we so worried about ticking people off who violate common sense and / or regulations?  They know the rules, and willfully disobey.

What other important rules and regs do they choose to view as "optional"?

"That Others May Zoom"

Ned

#68
Quote from: Johnny Yuma on January 29, 2009, 07:58:01 PM
Sorry Ned,

Apology accepted.

But seriously, I am not a CAP legal officer and have not been for over 17 years.  And even back then, I was only a IAOD legal officer at the group level.

Using your word, it is just a little "creepy" when you keep telling me why I did or didn't do things.

But let's not let that distract us from the more interesting discussion at hand.

Quote
When CPP went into effect 2 decades ago my Wing Queen at the time said it was an effort to stave off the troubles BSA was having with lawsuits from abused scouts from happening to CAP.

I've no doubt she said that, because that is at least one of the effects that CPP has had - reducing corporate liability for molestations.  That's why I said it was a kind of a "chicken and the egg" situation.  By increasing the safety for our cadets, we reduced danger to the corporation.  If you want a different metaphor, you could call it the flip side of the coin.

QuoteBesides, if cadet protection was the primary goal then members would NEVER have been discouraged from notifying civil authorities.

Sir, I taught this very subject ("mandatory reporters and the CPP") at the first ever National Legal Officers College in Colorado Springs, and I can assure you I never discouraged anyone from notifying civil authorities.

Really.

Quote
Student/teacher relationships are not abusive but are more a form of sexual harrassment, which is already addressed by regulation: If the subordinate objects to the behavior of the superior then it's handled. I've said this before: Abuse issues involving cadets over 18 should be handled under these regulations.

So, you think the best way is to put the burden on the lower-ranking cadet to report the abuse by the higher ranking member and to produce the evidence to sustain a complaint?

That might certainly make sense in some sort of sexual harassment situation where both the parties have equal status and operate at arms length, but to require the lower-ranking individual cadet to take action is just a recipe to shut them up and maintain the status quo.

Quote
There are countless numbers of couples in the armed forces where one spouse is an officer and the other is EM or in some other way a subordinate. All the DoD seems to have issue with is that they cannot serve in the same unit or in each other's Chain of Command.

But were weren't talking about the more general topic of Officer / enlisted fraternization.  We were talking specifically about student / leader relationships.

And Uncle Sam has strict rules that absolutely prohibit the staff of any organization with cadets from dating the cadets, regardless of the ages of the participants.

Honestly, cadre at USMA, USNA, USAFA, and ROTC units cannot date the cadets.  Period, end of discussion.  A simple, bright line that is easy to understand and enforce.  And serves to protect the cadets from exploitation from avaricious staff members who should be training the cadets rather than sleeping with them

And it seems to be working for them.

Quote
There is one couple in CAP whose romantic relationship began [. . .]

Yup, that's part of the problem, all right.  A not-insignificant percentage of decision-makers in CAP have dated cadets, and oddly enough, didn't see anything wrong with it.

Human nature, I guess. 

But to their credit, the NB - after full debate and discussion - adopted our current "seniors don't date cadets under any circumstances" rule.

I appreciate the fact that you think our volunteer leaders "got it wrong," and are certainly free to urge them to change the regulation.

In the meantime I assume that you, like all of us, will follow the regulation and require those who work for you to do the same.

Nathan

Quote from: Eclipse on January 29, 2009, 08:30:45 PM
The bottom line is that, no matter what the situation, you can't have people who are classified as "adults" dating people who are classified as "not adults", whether that's teachers, cadets, or similar situations.

I disagree. And I'll revert to the same examples I've used before.

I am a cadet for two more months. As a cadet, I am seen as a non-adult (I hesitate to say "child" because I don't think that is the case). As such, I am not allowed to smoke in uniform.

Outside of CAP, I am an adult, completely free to do whatever adult things I happen to want to do, including smoking, gambling, go to a rated R movie, go to a strip club, etc. These are things that, while in uniform, as a non-adult, I would not be permitted to do, but on my own time, I am legally an adult civilian, free to do as I wish.

That's the key right there. As an adult, I can make my own decisions about what legal adult things I want to do, including things that I am not allowed to do in CAP uniform. Period.

For an understandable reason, the only place that I've seen CAP cut deep and enforce is between senior/cadet dating relationships. As I said, I completely understand it, and am okay with the idea of it. However, if we were willing to put work into it, I would fully support amending there in some fashion to be flexibility.

The main idea behind the way it is written now (I am assuming) is because it would be insane for us to try to monitor and investigate every single case of cadet/senior dating and test it for legal and ethical validity, so we simply build a rule that prohibits it completely and saves us a lot of work. Not only that, but we don't have to worry about the abuse of power, one way or the other.

By setting the 2 year range (or even based upon legality in the state), we can reward those couples that come forth and help CAP adjust to the relationship by way of ensuring there is no conflict of interest or the like. That way, the goal of the CPPT is still in full force in terms of protecting cadets from creepy seniors, but also does not punish what I would imagine to be a good number of couples who are close in age and really have no sinister motives at all. I would imagine that if the couple is willing to come forth and work with CAP, the total amount of time spent dealing with the issue goes way down to begin with, since their cooperation is there.

The overall goal is to make this restriction a little less... restrictive... on those who are willing to cooperate, and hopefully let some of the adults we've been training our cadets to be, well, BE adults.

Seems logical to me.
Nathan Scalia

The post beneath this one is a lie.

Johnny Yuma

Quote from: Eclipse on January 29, 2009, 02:38:28 PM
Quote from: Johnny Yuma on January 29, 2009, 05:21:25 AM
An 18 year old is a legal adult in the eyes of the law, cadet or not. Sorry Ned, but anyone who attempts to make the argument that prohibiting a cadet/senior relationship between consenting legal adults prevents pedophiles from abusing underaged cadets is beyond ridiculous. 

Frankly, IMHO NHQ's interest in its legal adult member's sexual and romantic relationships not only out of line but very creepy.   

You're not really tracking this whole "cadets aren't adults in the eyes of CAP" thing are you?

Yes, I am.

If a cadet over 18 isn't an adult in the eyes of CAP, then why are they required to jump through all the CPPT hoops as if they were a Senior?

I'm also finding it hard to reconcile how an 18 year old TFO can date their 80 year old unit commander if they wanted to and yet if the girlfriend or fiancee of a 20 year old cadet wants to join CAP as a Senior member, even if they were in a long distance relationship, separate unit, wing, or even region, this is by policy cadet abuse. 

QuoteCAP has no legal authority to tell anyone to do anything, but if you want to stay a cadet, and maintain access to the various cadet-only opportunities, you follow the rules.

Same goes for seniors.

I see. Another example where a Zero-tolerance policy has somehow removed rational thought from common sense folk and turned them into mindless drones for someone elses bidding.
"And Saint Attila raised the Holy Hand Grenade up on high saying, "Oh Lord, Bless us this Holy Hand Grenade, and with it smash our enemies to tiny bits. And the Lord did grin, and the people did feast upon the lambs, and stoats, and orangutans, and breakfast cereals, and lima bean-"

" Skip a bit, brother."

"And then the Lord spake, saying: "First, shalt thou take out the holy pin. Then shalt thou count to three. No more, no less. "Three" shall be the number of the counting, and the number of the counting shall be three. "Four" shalt thou not count, and neither count thou two, execpting that thou then goest on to three. Five is RIGHT OUT. Once the number three, being the third number be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade to-wards thy foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuffit. Amen."

Armaments Chapter One, verses nine through twenty-seven:

RiverAux

It seems extremely obvious to me that the cadet protection program is there to protect both cadets AND seniors and that the side-effect of that is that it protects CAP.  One doesn't exclude the other.

Eclipse

#72
Quote from: Johnny Yuma on January 31, 2009, 02:10:56 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on January 29, 2009, 02:38:28 PM
Quote from: Johnny Yuma on January 29, 2009, 05:21:25 AM
An 18 year old is a legal adult in the eyes of the law, cadet or not. Sorry Ned, but anyone who attempts to make the argument that prohibiting a cadet/senior relationship between consenting legal adults prevents pedophiles from abusing underaged cadets is beyond ridiculous. 

Frankly, IMHO NHQ's interest in its legal adult member's sexual and romantic relationships not only out of line but very creepy.   

You're not really tracking this whole "cadets aren't adults in the eyes of CAP" thing are you?

Yes, I am.

If a cadet over 18 isn't an adult in the eyes of CAP, then why are they required to jump through all the CPPT hoops as if they were a Senior?

Because CAP is not blind to the practical and biological realities of 18 years olds, nor the fact that in the real of the world being 18 makes you a legal adult for most things.

Again - if you want to remain in the part of the program where you are not expected to be responsible for yourself or others, with the return being access to unique, once-in-a-lifetime opportunities, you obey the rules and don't fraternize with your adult leaders. 

Quote from: Johnny Yuma on January 31, 2009, 02:10:56 AM
I'm also finding it hard to reconcile how an 18 year old TFO can date their 80 year old unit commander if they wanted to and yet if the girlfriend or fiancee of a 20 year old cadet wants to join CAP as a Senior member, even if they were in a long distance relationship, separate unit, wing, or even region, this is by policy cadet abuse. 

No one said it was abuse, its simply against regulations, and if some opportunity is so important to that 20 year old cadet that they choose to stay in the CP rather than transition, the fiancee can wait a year to join.  We'll still be here.

The reality is that by the time you are 18 or 19 years old, if you choose to stay a cadet there is likely some very compelling personal reason or goal that you have set for yourself.  That's great, that's why CAP is here - to facilitate those opportunities, but at the same time, in order to maintain discipline, core values and the intangibles that make up a healthy cadet corps, we need to establish and hold-fast the cadet / adult separation in visible, tangible, ways.

The people here making the impassioned arguments for dropping these regs seem to be assuming that everyone is on their best behavior at all times, never acting in thoughtless or nefarious ways, when the truth is that the reason we have all these regs in the first place, from CPPT all the way to the new EO training, is a history of bad actors both inside and outside of CAP who have shown that in most cases human beings tend to make the worst choices possible.

Thought for the day:
Just because you can argue that no matter how hard you try to stop "something" people will do it anyway, doesn't make that "something" right, nor does it make the efforts to stop that "something" wrong.

"That Others May Zoom"

Nathan

Quote from: Eclipse on January 31, 2009, 05:15:27 AMAgain - if you want to remain in the part of the program where you are not expected to be responsible for yourself or others, with the return being access to unique, once-in-a-lifetime opportunities, you obey the rules and don't fraternize with your adult leaders.

THAT is the key point that leaves room in this policy for improvement. Thanks for stating it so clearly.

Cadets are not allowed to fraternize with cadet leaders. Cadets are only permitted to date or fraternize if they are not causing a conflict-of-interest situation by having a large power difference, ie, a flight commander dating the cadet commander. Nor would I imagine that it would be appropriate for a mother SM to be the official test grader for her cadet son's CAP test.

The MAIN goal of the CPP is to protect cadets from creepy seniors. Fair enough, but that doesn't cover what I imagine are the majority of challenges to this rule, where we have a cadet and senior less than a year apart. I honestly don't think that we even need to bring the CPPT into the equation at all in dealing with conflict of interests, because, like the fact that not every high-ranking cadet has authority over every low-ranking cadet, not every senior member has command or power over every single cadet. That's simply not the way it works.

So the argument that we're avoiding cadets dating their leaders isn't working. I only have two people in charge of me as a cadet colonel in my squadron: the DCC and the squadron commander. That is my chain of command. Everyone else I respect because they are senior members and their rank warrants it, just as I would expect some C/A1C I see in the hall in Missouri who doesn't know me to afford me respect based upon my rank. NO DIFFERENCE.

The power play problem is completely outside of the realm of the CPP, and assuming that the CPP didn't exist, I would still imagine that cadets wouldn't be allowed to date ANYONE, cadet OR senior, who is in their direct chain of command. That is simply a professionalism issue.

Which... once again... my possible idea would solve by letting the commander KNOW about the relationship and therefore take appropriate measures to avoid any conflict of interests.
Nathan Scalia

The post beneath this one is a lie.

hatentx

#74
Quote from: Nathan on January 31, 2009, 06:04:06 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on January 31, 2009, 05:15:27 AMAgain - if you want to remain in the part of the program where you are not expected to be responsible for yourself or others, with the return being access to unique, once-in-a-lifetime opportunities, you obey the rules and don't fraternize with your adult leaders.

THAT is the key point that leaves room in this policy for improvement. Thanks for stating it so clearly.

Cadets are not allowed to fraternize with cadet leaders. Cadets are only permitted to date or fraternize if they are not causing a conflict-of-interest situation by having a large power difference, ie, a flight commander dating the cadet commander. Nor would I imagine that it would be appropriate for a mother SM to be the official test grader for her cadet son's CAP test.

The MAIN goal of the CPP is to protect cadets from creepy seniors. Fair enough, but that doesn't cover what I imagine are the majority of challenges to this rule, where we have a cadet and senior less than a year apart. I honestly don't think that we even need to bring the CPPT into the equation at all in dealing with conflict of interests, because, like the fact that not every high-ranking cadet has authority over every low-ranking cadet, not every senior member has command or power over every single cadet. That's simply not the way it works.

So the argument that we're avoiding cadets dating their leaders isn't working. I only have two people in charge of me as a cadet colonel in my squadron: the DCC and the squadron commander. That is my chain of command. Everyone else I respect because they are senior members and their rank warrants it, just as I would expect some C/A1C I see in the hall in Missouri who doesn't know me to afford me respect based upon my rank. NO DIFFERENCE.

The power play problem is completely outside of the realm of the CPP, and assuming that the CPP didn't exist, I would still imagine that cadets wouldn't be allowed to date ANYONE, cadet OR senior, who is in their direct chain of command. That is simply a professionalism issue.

Which... once again... my possible idea would solve by letting the commander KNOW about the relationship and therefore take appropriate measures to avoid any conflict of interests.

Nathan while I agree with your point, the fact is as a SM who is not in your Chain of Command they are still in a position of leadership and responsibility.  Before I was a Cadet Programs guy I would hang around the Cadets.  I did drill test and would teach as well.  There are also times in which I may be the project officer and have cadets who are working with me or who I am allowing to "run" the event but I am the only SM supervision.  This then could cause a conflict of interest.  What is my girl friend a 20 year old Cadet I place in the booth at an event because she has better skills managing a booth or talking to people rather than putting her out in the heat on a parking detail.  It can quickly be seen as I am favoring her because she is in a relationship with me.  I am sure this has been seen between parents in leadership position and their children doing better or cooler things in CAP because of that or at least that few point.  There really isn't much difference.

I agree that if a 18 year old cadet chooses to become a SM because that is the best decision for that cadet but has a relationship with a 17 year old cadet and they must end it by the regulation seems dumb.  While I think there should be some way of working through the situation with out the ended of the relationship.  I am not here to argue the fact of what is an adult or not I know the older I get the less of an adult I realize I was.  However any SM can be in a place of responsibility over any cadet and there in lies the conflict of interest. 

While I am 25 and have dated and 18 year old young woman, outside of CAP, if I were to meet a cadet that was 18 and her and I were to hit it off I would be PO'ed to know I cant do anything about it other than one of us quit or her become a SM as well.  I can see the frustration.  I wouldnt mind seeing something better come along but I dont personally see a safe alternative to the situation.  While me and this 18 year old cadet may have the most profesional relationship in the world the next guy my be over bearing a jelouse and push the fact he is a 1stLt in CAP and that they better treat his c/CMS better than they are.

I have no arguments that the grey area of dating in the 17 to 20 something crowd can be an issue but again rules are sometimes made for the better of an organization and not for the good people that will do the right and honorable thing.  Does it suck??? Yeah it does but again that is adult hood.  Is it mass punishment??  Yep it is but in situations like this were unit moral a long with the possible legal issue that could ensue this is a Safety Nazi Regulation made by CAP for the betterment of CAP as a whole and not on the individual level.

I do think the arguing the fact of the Legal issue is pointless the CPP was in place by CAP as a CYA type thing and to be honest I dont blame them in a lawsuit happy society we live in the have to cover their's.  No Issue with me I just make sure I am above reproach in all dealings I have especially with Cadets.

Nathan

Quote from: hatentx on January 31, 2009, 01:56:23 PM
Nathan while I agree with your point, the fact is as a SM who is not in your Chain of Command they are still in a position of leadership and responsibility.

Like I said, any way it's spun, that simply is not an issue that is any different than cadet/cadet or senior/senior relationships.

The main idea is that we would not allow ANY member, regardless of rank, age, or membership status, to be in an intimate relationship with another member within the same chain of command. If I were the cadet commander, I should not be dating any cadets below me, nor any cadets or seniors above me. A senior should not be dating any cadets or seniors below in the chain of command, nor any seniors above.

My point is that if the CPP did not exist, and seniors WERE allowed to date cadets, we would STILL have to watch out for members within the same command chain dating, regardless of rank or membership status. The issue of conflict-of-interests due to dating has NOTHING to do with cadet protection. The fact that a senior is by definition a leader of cadets is not ANY different than me, as a cadet colonel, by definition, being a leader of cadets. If I as a cadet am placed in charge of a cadet I am dating below me, how is that any different than a senior being placed in charge of a cadet he or she is dating?

The issues of cadet protection and prevention of conflict-of-interest are separate issues. They were easy to lump together in the CPP, and I don't exactly think it's a bad enough issue to warrant full-scale war over, but IF it were going through a revision process, I think that it certainly could benefit by separating the two issues out.
Nathan Scalia

The post beneath this one is a lie.

Eclipse

Quote from: Nathan on January 31, 2009, 04:02:20 PM
My point is that if the CPP did not exist, and seniors WERE allowed to date cadets, we would STILL have to watch out for members within the same command chain dating, regardless of rank or membership status. The issue of conflict-of-interests due to dating has NOTHING to do with cadet protection. The fact that a senior is by definition a leader of cadets is not ANY different than me, as a cadet colonel, by definition, being a leader of cadets. If I as a cadet am placed in charge of a cadet I am dating below me, how is that any different than a senior being placed in charge of a cadet he or she is dating?

Because neither of you are considered an adult within the program, and neither of you is responsible for yourself or others in the same way that a senior member is.

You may be in charge of that cadet from a tactical or operational perspective, but the senior member in the room is the one in command.

"That Others May Zoom"

ßτε

#77
Quote from: Nathan on January 31, 2009, 04:02:20 PM
Like I said, any way it's spun, that simply is not an issue that is any different than cadet/cadet or senior/senior relationships.

The main idea is that we would not allow ANY member, regardless of rank, age, or membership status, to be in an intimate relationship with another member within the same chain of command. If I were the cadet commander, I should not be dating any cadets below me, nor any cadets or seniors above me. A senior should not be dating any cadets or seniors below in the chain of command, nor any seniors above.

Tho only such relationship forbidden by regulation is one between a senior member and a cadet. Cadet/cadet or senior/senior relationships are not forbidden unless the cadet/cadet relationship is abusive.

Major Carrales

Quote from: bte on January 31, 2009, 04:35:51 PM
Quote from: Nathan on January 31, 2009, 04:02:20 PM

Like I said, any way it's spun, that simply is not an issue that is any different than cadet/cadet or senior/senior relationships.

The main idea is that we would not allow ANY member, regardless of rank, age, or membership status, to be in an intimate relationship with another member within the same chain of command. If I were the cadet commander, I should not be dating any cadets below me, nor any cadets or seniors above me. A senior should not be dating any cadets or seniors below in the chain of command, nor any seniors above.

Tho only such relationship forbidden by regulation is one between a senior member and a cadet. Cadet/cadet or senior/senior relationships are not forbidden unless the cadet/cadet relationship is abusive.

I will add this, any and all sexualy activity at CAP funtions is/should be prohibited.  There is a time and place for all things, for sexual activity I will venture to opine that a CAP function (SARex, Encampment, meeting and so forth) is neither the time nor the place.  Think of it as Heisenberg's theory on relationships and CAP, there is neither a time nor place in CAP for sexual activity.
"We have been given the power to change CAP, let's keep the momentum going!"

Major Joe Ely "Sparky" Carrales, CAP
Commander
Coastal Bend Cadet Squadron
SWR-TX-454

sparks

Cadet romances can't be avoided. The only mandate that can be made is that affectionate gestures not be allowed in a CAP setting. That was in the regs at one time. I have witnessed romances within squadrons, across wings and even regional. Those summer encampments have side effects.

There are predators everywhere even with the screening program so seniors dating cadets should remain banned. Be aware that sometimes the cadet makes overtures toward a senior. The ban is there to protect both of them. Having two seniors in a room with a cadet is intended to avoid the "he did she did issues" which can arise out of those one on one encounters. After being involved in a few IG investigations on these issues you really don't want to allow the situation to develop. The results of an investigation seems to always result in ill will for CAP and everyone involved.