HAZING at encampment--WHAT is it?

[jeancalvinus]

greetings all,

Our squadron had some cadets spend a good deal of time before encampment studying what does and does not constitute hazing. When the encampment got under way, the cadet commander had them doing things they were certain were not allowed, but as the senior members present did nothing, they went along with it.

I am not starting this discussion in the interest of re-writing existing CAP policy. I am starting it in the interest of getting straight answers as to what is and isn't hazing.

example #1: Cadet commander (allegedly) shows up (a day or two after encampment has started) and starts swearing right away, with liberal use of F-bombs. these were directed at both the trainees, and the cadet senior staff. The senior members were swearing at the cadet trainees, and the cadet staff as well. is this hazing, yes or no. I asked this question on the knowledge base and all I got was waffling in response. 

example #2: cadet commander (allegedly) unhappy with trainee PT, and so he has the cadet staff repeat PT  with the trainees until well after lights out time. hazing, or not? 

example #3: cadet commander (allegedly) grabs cadet staff by the arm and threatens to kick his a*s over the unsatisfactory performance of the staff member. hazing, or not? 

example #4: cadet staff has trainees do extra (individual) PT. hazing, or not? 

there are more (alleged) examples from this particular encampment, but these will suffice for now. Could someone give me a straight answer? 

By the way, some of you may have been to or are aware of the encampment in question. I left out the state and location purposely, as not to get sidetracked with the personalities involved. I just want to know if the examples above do constitute hazing or not. So let us please leave the location and the names out of the discussion.

Jean

[Eeyore]

I would say that yes, they are all definitely forms of hazing.

Even though you weren't there, you still have a responsibility to report any incidents. Take it to your Squadron CC to send up the chain.

In a case like this, I think there should be an investigation into both the cadet and senior leadership at the encampment. Absolutely unacceptable from the cadet staff, and even more unacceptable if the adults at the encampment knew about it.

[Ned]

greetings all,


(. . .)
I am starting it in the interest of getting straight answers as to what is and isn't hazing.

Fair enough.

But before trying to answer your questions specifically, remember that there are lot of rules that govern our conduct when dealing with cadets.  Not everything we could do wrong is hazing.  IOW, something might well be improper, but not simply because it is hazing, but because it is simply wrong under one or more of our other rules and regulations.

example #1: [People swearing at cadets and other staff members.]  Is this hazing, yes or no.

It is always improper to swear at another CAP member, but we do not have enough information to determine whether or not these instances of swearing were also hazing.

Swearing at another member is always going to be a violation of our Core Value of Respect.  This Core Value requires all of us to "treat each other with fairness and dignity."  Obviously, swearing at another is failing to uphold this important Core Value.

Swearing is also a violation of CAPR 52-16, paragraph 1-4(h), which  tells us that CAP cadets "require an atmosphere of mutual respect and courtesy to learn and grow as leaders.  Accordingly, CAP cadets must treat each other and their senior member leaders with common courtesy and respect.  CAP Cadets will not intentionally mock or insult other members (. . .)."

Our definition of hazing is found in CAPR 52-10 which forbids any member to (among other things)  be cruel or abusive to a cadet, or to humiliate them.

While it is certainly possible (and perhaps even likely) that swearing at a cadet at encampment might well be abusive or humiliating and thus constitute hazing, it is important to know the circumstances before coming to a final conclusion as to whether is was hazing or not.

But since we already know that it was improper and in violation of other regulations, we really don't need to come to a final conclusion on hazing to know that it was improper in any event.

example #2: cadet commander (allegedly) unhappy with trainee PT, and so he has the cadet staff repeat PT  with the trainees until well after lights out time. hazing, or not? 

Again, we don't have enough information to know whether or not this would constitute hazing.  If the cadets did not perform their assigned PT to standard, then it may not be hazing to have them repeat the exercises that were done imporperly.  Just as with any other learning situation in CAP, it can be helpful to repeat or practice a given activity to learn to do it well.

Of course, I can easily imagine circumstances where such an activity could begin to cross the line into hazing.  We just don't have enough information to give you a simple "yes or no" answer.

example #3: cadet commander (allegedly) grabs cadet staff by the arm and threatens to kick his a*s over the unsatisfactory performance of the staff member. hazing, or not? 

As with the first example, even if we cannot determine whether this particular instance amounted to demeaning or humiliating conduct such as to amount to hazing, we already know that it is improper conduct because if violates the Core Value of Respect, and CAPR 52-16.

example #4: cadet staff has trainees do extra (individual) PT. hazing, or not? 

I hate to be a weasel here, but we simply do not have enought information.

While it may well be hazing, it could also simply be proper training if the individual PT assigned was related to a given cadet's PT performance.  While it would be improper to make a cadet run laps because she/he failed to shine their shoes properly, it may well be proper to make a cadet run laps to help them run laps better.

there are more (alleged) examples from this particular encampment, but these will suffice for now. Could someone give me a straight answer? 
Jean

Jean,

It sounds like you are genuinely concerned about the conduct at the encampment.  And it certainly sounds like you should be.

My suggestion would be to discuss what happened with Cadet Program officers, starting at your squadron.  The Squadron Commander (or Deputy Commander for Cadets) should be an experienced, knowledgeable CP officer who can explain the rules clearly, and help both of you understand if what happened is serious and requires immediate attention.

If for some reason you cannot discuss the matter comfortably with the squadron CP folks, you may discuss it with your Wing Director of Cadet Programs.

As always, if after discussing it with experienced CP folks, you believe that hazing or other improper conduct occurred that is not being satisfactorily addressed, you can make an IG complaint that will be investigated by neutral officers.

Again, I'm sorry that I wasn't able to give you the "yes or no" answers you were seeking, but I hope I was able to be of some help.

Ned Lee
Lt Col, CAP
National Cadet Advisor
(Cool job, crummy job title.)

[jeancalvinus]

The parents of the Cadets involved have been in conversation with the IG, but as of yet, nothing has been filed. Beyond that, I can't say anything without it becoming easy to determine where this encampment took place.

Allegedly, a tape of some other forms of hazing I did not mention was made at the encampment and posted online. Shortly thereafter, it was forwarded to National HQ.

I am confident that national HQ is aware of the situation. But my intent in posting was not to do anything but determine if these types of actions do indeed constitute hazing. A very senior CAP member allegedly was informed of the situation and said it was all overblown (not the exact wording, but it is pretty much what he said). this confused me, hence the post.

I thought someone somewhere said something about zero tolerance, but this whole scenario has me confused.

[jeancalvinus]

Ned,

great answer, and straight to the point  :clap:. It does make sense that some conduct does not have to be hazing for it to be against CAP regulations. that is of course more to the point.

I also appreciate the precision of your response to each item.

The Squadron Commander, DCC, and the FO are all concerned about what happened, but are giving the parents time to file their IG complaint.

Thanks very much again

Jean

[CadetProgramGuy]

greetings all,

Our squadron had some cadets spend a good deal of time before encampment studying what does and does not constitute hazing. When the encampment got under way, the cadet commander had them doing things they were certain were not allowed, but as the senior members present did nothing, they went along with it.

I am not starting this discussion in the interest of re-writing existing CAP policy. I am starting it in the interest of getting straight answers as to what is and isn't hazing.

example #1: Cadet commander (allegedly) shows up (a day or two after encampment has started) and starts swearing right away, with liberal use of F-bombs. these were directed at both the trainees, and the cadet senior staff. The senior members were swearing at the cadet trainees, and the cadet staff as well. is this hazing, yes or no. I asked this question on the knowledge base and all I got was waffling in response. 

example #2: cadet commander (allegedly) unhappy with trainee PT, and so he has the cadet staff repeat PT  with the trainees until well after lights out time. hazing, or not? 

example #3: cadet commander (allegedly) grabs cadet staff by the arm and threatens to kick his a*s over the unsatisfactory performance of the staff member. hazing, or not? 

example #4: cadet staff has trainees do extra (individual) PT. hazing, or not? 

there are more (alleged) examples from this particular encampment, but these will suffice for now. Could someone give me a straight answer? 

By the way, some of you may have been to or are aware of the encampment in question. I left out the state and location purposely, as not to get sidetracked with the personalities involved. I just want to know if the examples above do constitute hazing or not. So let us please leave the location and the names out of the discussion.

Jean

PM Sent

[AirAux]

Unfortunately, some members and leaders believe that hazing is in the eyes of the beholder and therefore, nothing will be done until an official complaint is filed.  I believe this is wrong and that any leader has the duty to investigate/report any suspected activity.  I have seen too many cadets treated wrongly (hazed) that wouldn't file an official complaint out of fear of reprisal (the old honor/snitch, nobody likes a tattletale syndrome) and then they just lose interest in CAP and drop out.

[jeancalvinus]

AIRAUX

And as these families continue to contemplate whether or not to actually send their IG complaint up, that is their number one fear: my son will be seen as a wimp. This is also the number one fear of one of the cadets, but in the time since the encampment no one has called him that.

here is an even better question, and one that hadn't occurred to me until recently: whether or not the parents go forward, should the SQUADRON file an IG complaint? This is a very sticky wicket, as there is someone SQUARELY in the chain of command who thinks the above incident way overblown and a minor issue.

be that as it may, should we look at the parents filing of the complaint as incidental, and view it as our moral (not to mention regulatory) obligation to do a formal investigation of our own, and then send this up the chain (which clearly gives the higher authority who does not agree with the severity of the incident a second chance to address it)? or should we go to the IG instead? being an ex-military man myself, I default towards sending it up the chain first, to give higher authority a chance (again) to work through this. when it happened, the higher authority NEVER spoke to the cadets involved, but only to the cadet commander of the encampment and the senior members involved.

[ZigZag911]

From CAPR 52-10 

1. Reporting Requirements

b. Physical Abuse. Physical abuse is defined as any conduct whereby someone physically strikes or assaults another in any way. The unit commander will immediately notify the wing commander who will immediately notify the region commander, the wing legal officer, and the General Counsel. The wing commander will consult with the wing legal officer before directing an investigation or administrative action. In cases where physical injuries are involved, follow the notification and reporting procedures in CAPR 62-2, Mishap Reporting and Investigation. Members who have observed or believe they have been subject to physical abuse may file a complaint in accordance with CAPR 123-2, Complaints.
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.
d. Reporting to State Agency. There may be a mandatory requirement to report certain types of physical, sexual or emotional abuse to a designated state agency. Requirements vary from state to state. Members having knowledge of abuse must follow reporting requirements under their state's laws. Your wing legal officer can help you to know what laws apply.
************************************************

The Required Staff Training mandated for senior and cadet staff members at encampments (and, since the recent ICL from Nat'l CC, most other overnight cadet activities) makes it pretty clear that at least some of what was described would be almost certainly be considered hazing.

If this is the case, the wing CC, region CC and Nat'l GC ought to be involved by now, so it shouldn't be necessary for the cadet, his parents, or the squadron to file an IG complaint.

[AirAux]

And yet, I repeat, from vast years of experience, nothing will be done, no waves will be made, until, and not before, an official complaint is made.  This stuff is swept under the rug way too often and the cadet program and CAP suffer because of it.  According to my belief and I think Reg's, anyone that knows of, or suspects hazing has the duty to report it.  This is at the heart of the honor code.   By allowing this to happen and continue, we are enabling and condoning dispicable behaviour.  We all need to do the right thing and insist that those among do also.

[jeancalvinus]

I have to tread carefully here, but someone in authority beyond squadron level was involved early on. They are the one who stated that the parents concern was overblown. Interestingly, they allegedly did not dispute that some of the incidents listed above occurred (I say some, because I do not know if every single one of those incidents was brought to their attention. there were other incidents not listed as well).

I do appreciate the quote from the 52-10. Question is, what does a lower unit do if higher command thinks the incident not worth reporting? In the service a unit can, upon further reflection, decide that they believe higher has erred in not further addressing the matter, and can therefore go to the IG. The question then becomes, did higher err, and upon what grounds do we say that they did? The cadet commander of the encampment was allegedly relieved, then reinstated as cadet staff in a lower billet. He was not permanently removed from the staff, which may or may not be required (I sure do not know). The parents believe that the zero tolerance policy requires that the cadet commander be removed from training staff, and sent home from the encampment. I am not sure what the policy is. And if that IS the policy, what latitude does a senior commander have in handling the situation? Do butt-chewings all around suffice? does the fact that the alleged perpetrator has been an exemplary cadet before this give him latitude to be lenient and keep the kid there to finish the encampment ? Does the senior staff that tacitly approved the atmosphere of improper conduct get no more than a butt chewing as well? Does the "zero tolerance" policy permit this? Or does it not apply here?

Zigzag your reply really helped crystallize the issues in question here (regarding reporting). I guess it boils down to, do we leave the matter in the hands of the higher authority (all of whose actions we are of course not privy too) and how he has already handled the situation? In doing so, do we ask the parents not to file a complaint with the IG? If they insist on doing so, do we help them, or stand by and say it is their issue to address? Whatever the resolution has been to this point, the parents (and we as squadron staff) have heard nothing on the subject, other than the higher authority allegedly telling one of the parents (via voice mail) that they considered the matter to be closed. If so, we have 2 cadets who went to an encampment, served as cadet staff, left because of the incidents listed above, and are left to wonder how this will or will not affect them going forward. If they were to ask me, I would say it will have no effect, but I can only speak for the squadron level. I would hope that would be the same for higher, but cannot say for sure.

The parents believe an offense has occurred (a serious one at that), and that no justice has been done for their sons. I do not know how to answer that assertion, as again, we do not know the resolution.

I do know that going forward, our cadets will be well versed in proper conduct at encampment, as well as here at the squadron.

jean

[Larry Mangum]

Jean,

If you believe that hazing occurred, then you need to file a complaint, it is that simple. It will be investigated and if substained corrective action will be taken.  At the very least it will make people think about their actions. 

Just because someone higher up thought it was being over blown, does not mean they are right.

[Ned]

Essentially by definition, the first responsibility for prevention of hazing lies with the leaders on scene and the chain of command, not the "after the fact" complaint system.  It is always best to have matters handled within the chain of command if at all possible.  Of course, the complaint / IG system exists as a vital back up in the event of an error or conflict of interest.  Both sytems work to ensure that our members are protected.




CAP successfully conducts a vigorous and challenging cadet program using a military model.  And we have done so since the dark days of WWII.  And literally hundreds of thousands of our cadet alumni have become leaders in our community. 

The DoD definition of hazing that CAP wisely adopted in our own Cadet Protection policy provides a "line in the sand" that defines the outer limit   One way to think of it is like a speed limit on the freeway.  It establishes the absolute maximum speed that can never be exceeded.  But sometimes even going the speed limit can be dangerous and improper depending on traffic conditions and weather.  (Think congested traffic and fog, for instance.)

Similarly, sometimes the military intensity level can be inappropriate even if it doesn't amount to hazing.  Example:  the military intensity level of encampment is typically different than that employed during a normal weeknight squadron meeting.  The simple fact that the intensity level may be different does not mean that everything that happens at encampment is hazing.  Nor does it mean that cadets cannot be challenged in a way appropriate to their experience and training.

Our program was never intended to be a "stress free" experience for our cadets.  And the modern program was deliberately designed to serve as a "leadership laboratory" where young leaders can stretch their wings and test their limits.  And sometimes young leaders make mistakes.  Heck, that's part of the learning process.

And of course we also need to protect and nurture our cadets.  No one should be traumatized or hazed as a cadet.  Abuse, swearing, and humiliation are always improper and are actually counterproductive in any event.


Just as it  is always wrong to try to recreate some "hardcore fantasy" where screaming and yelling at cadets locked in a brace is the norm, it  is also wrong to reduce the intensity level to zero and have some sort of "military optional" environment.

It is not always easy to set the right tone at a given activity.  That is the reason we have experienced adult CP leaders physically present at every cadet activity.




Jean, my advice is to engage the local CP officers at your squadron in a continuing discussion.  It sounds like the offending cadet commander was fired.  That's a pretty strong statement, and a very strong consequence.  It sounds like you (and the other parents) are concerned that that was "not enough."  Keep talking to those directly involved until you feel comfortable that you have the information you need as a parent.

Finally, I am a little confused about your references to a "zero tolerance" policy.  Our national policy is pretty clearly expressed in the CPP regulation, 52-10, and the 52-16.  (I linked to both of them in my first post.)  And while I hope the the regulations taken together express "zero tolerance" against abuse, I have never heard of them referred to with that particular label.  I am a little concerned that you might be referring to some other document or policy beyond the 52-10 and 52-16.

I am sure that there are no other national level policies or documents in this area, and I'm just as sure that there are no specific policies that govern who gets sent home (or any specific punishments) beyond the investigation and reporting procedures contained in the 52-10.

Of course wings and regions are free to add additional protections for their cadets and perhaps an intermediate commander has drafted additional policy in this area.

Ned Lee

[Rotorhead]

I left out the state and location purposely, as not to get sidetracked with the personalities involved. I just want to know if the examples above do constitute hazing or not. So let us please leave the location and the names out of the discussion.

Jean

You also use the term "allegedly," which suggests you do not have first-hand knowledge of the situation, in most of your posts.

If you do not, you need to be careful what you post and say.

If you do, then file a complaint.

[jeancalvinus]

If first hand knowledge means I was there and saw it myself, then no, I do not have firsthand knowledge. 

However, I have spoken to the parents and to the cadets, and according to them it did happen. I also spoke to a senior member who was there, and he also said it happened.

by any objective standard something did happen, but the use of the term "alleged" is because I haven't (and probably won't) speak to the other cadets (they are not at my squadron), nor to the senior members who were directly involved in cadet training and "allegedly" let this stuff pass.

As to being careful, I have left out names, dates, and the location of the encampment. I have not given the name or location of my squadron. I would say I have, and am still, taking your advice to "be careful."

It is good advice, by the way. Thanks for your feedback. I am still not totally clear on whether or not to file a complaint with the IG or go back up the chain or leave it to the higher authority. There are good arguments all three ways. I am mtg tonite with the other seniors and we will discuss it. Much of the feedback from here will prove useful in the discussion.

thanks to all

jean

[Rotorhead]

As to being careful, I have left out names, dates, and the location of the encampment. I have not given the name or location of my squadron. I would say I have, and am still, taking your advice to "be careful."

What I meant was, you're not doing anyone any favors if you're spreading these stories around as second- or third-hand information.

I can guarantee you, you already have at least one fact wrong, someplace in your recounting of the story, for that reason.

Ultimately, it isn't up to you to fix the problem, if there is one. You weren't involved, but you've already chosen a side based on hearing one version of what happened.

I'd bet the other side has a different story to tell.

[AirAux]

To reiterate, if you suspect hazing, you have a duty to report it.  Depending upon your position, you may or may not have a duty or the authority to investigate it, but any senior member suspecting hazing has a duty to report same.  It just doesn't get any simpler than that..

[jeancalvinus]

Rotorhead,

I am a bit confused as to what you're objecting to. Your point about only hearing one side is well taken, and I have been posting accordingly. I will assume your guarantee of my getting a fact wrong somewhere is in fact an assumption on your part, as you haven't talked to everyone involved either. But I do not need to talk to everyone involved to know that something took place, as there was corrective action taken, which I know second hand (second hand in the sense that i wasn't there. You weren't at Bunker Hill during the revolutionary war, but you can confidently assert it took place, based on first hand reports. i am doing the same here).

Of COURSE the other side has a different story to tell, even if they do not dispute the facts in question. there may be things that the cadets from my squadron did to make the situation worse. There may be things the cadet commander did which were not as bad, or didn't happen at all, or were worse than reported. same with the senior members involved. But the fact that something occurred isn't really in dispute. At all. It is merely a question of "how bad was it" (which can go either way) and "who was involved" and "who else was involved" and "what was done about it" or needs to be done still.

I agree 100% with your concerns about pre-judging without sufficient fact, committing libel, etc. I am definitely taking a side: the side of is this really hazing/ improper conduct, what can be done about it (if anything, it is possible all has been done), and how do we prevent it going forward. However, as i said,, something did happen, and anyone can make a judgment that it was not what should have happened. That does not constitute taking a side.

I assume if this were a verbal conversation, we would probably be far more in agreement than you may think. I am being VERY careful how I phrase things, and what particulars I leave out. i appreciate your concerns, as I share them.

I do wonder if you have some knowledge of the situation, based on some of what you are saying. Not saying you were there, I just am wondering if you indeed know what i am talking about. if so, please play along and keep the particulars out as well. I trust you will, your posts seem to indicate that is a big concern of yours (mine too).

thanks for the feedback

[RiverAux]

As this was a wing activity, there isn't anything your squadron folks are going to be able to do to resolve the issue, so I would recommend filing a complaint to the Wing Commander. But, before you do, think about what results would make you happy?  Do you want the cadets and seniors involved kicked out?  Counseled?   

[BrandonKea]

As this was a wing activity, there isn't anything your squadron folks are going to be able to do to resolve the issue, so I would recommend filing a complaint to the Wing Commander. But, before you do, think about what results would make you happy?  Do you want the cadets and seniors involved kicked out?  Counseled?

Not sure jumping straight to the Wing King™ would be the best idea.

"Members should follow the chain of command. Commanders and members should make every attempt to resolve problems, conflicts, and disputes within CAP at the lowest level possible."

IG maybe?