DoD May Revise Hazing Definition - Should CAP?

[Ned]

From time to time on CAPTalk, we discuss the definition of hazing found in our CPP.  (CAPR 52-10.)

Some members express some confusion over the definition, and one of our more common discussions is about clarifying the lower boundary of hazing when it comes to words or conduct that may tend to embarrass a cadet.

It is always an interesting discussion.

Background:  CAP wisely adopted essentially verbatim the official DoD definition of hazing developed under the guidance of Secretary William Cohen in 2007.  You may remember the military had had a series of scandals involving hazing / initiation rites (things like "blood pinning" of badges and wings.)  His 2007 memorandum is the source of the "causes another [. . .] member or members, [ . . .], to suffer or be exposed to any activity which is cruel, abusive, humiliating, oppressive, demeaning, or harmful" wording.

Each of the military services (including our AF colleagues) adopted the definition, sometimes with minor variations, but all pretty much the same wording.  (See, e.g., AETCI 36-2909, AR 600-20).

Over the years, the definition has mostly served both the Armed Forces and CAP well, and most military leaders and (CAP members) had a good idea about what was prohibited conduct.  Thankfully, hazing is a relatively rare occurrence in any event and there is strong evidence to suggest that leaders almost always step in when needed to deal with hazing situations.  Certainly the great majority of CAP members are highly vigilant, and actual CPP actions taken for hazing are few in number.  And that is almost certainly because of the good leadership and common sense provided in generous amounts by our dedicated seniors working in CP.


However, it is clear - at least in CAP - that some of our members remain unsure and confused about the "lower boundary" issue.  We've had several discussions here on CT about whether directing a flight of cadets to sing a silly song, or to carry a particular stick or emblem, or collective potentially shaming motivational tools (removing a guidon, unblousing of boots, publicly announcing poor performance, etc) were embarrassing, demeaning, shameful, or humiliating.  And thus, by definition, hazing with then triggers CPP consequences such as suspensions, investigations, etc.

On an academic level, it is easy to see the source of the confusion.  While the official definition does not include the word "embarrassing," it does include the words "demeaning" and "humiliating" which many dictionaries include as a synonym for embarrassing.

The lawyer in me certainly understands and sympathizes with the confusion.  Nobody wants to be on the wrong side of the boundary, and everyone wants to protect and train our cadets.  The natural tendency is to construe the words in the definition broadly rather than narrowly, and conclude that it is entirely possible that singing a silly song is hazing.

On a practical level, the military - using the identical definition - does not have a significant number of hazing complaints / incidents at this "lower boundary" level.  CAP has sent me specifically to meet with MTIs at both the AF Academy and Lackland to discuss hazing issues, and something like "singing a silly song" is not even close to being perceived as a problem.  Experienced leaders of young airmen pointed out that they sing a lot of silly songs, and commonly do things like singling out individual trainees for teasing/extra attention based on performance issues.  We discussed the wording of the definition, and they simply don't think the lower boundary is anywhere near as low as some CAP leaders are worried that it might be.

And CAP does not have a significant number of CPP complaints for hazing based on lower-level demeaning conduct.  It just does not appear to be an issue in the field.

And yet, the words certainly say what they say.

There can be no denying the logical concern that if dictionary definitions of demeaning or humiliation often include "embarrassing," then it is inevitable, perhaps, that CAP leaders in good faith may have trouble drawing the line.

The question of why military and CAP leaders can look at the same words and come to significantly different conclusions is certainly an interesting one, but answering the "why" is probably less important than "what can we do about it?"

One possibility we have discussed here on CT (and also in the NHQ CP shop) is to alter our definition of hazing to make it more objective.  Words like "humiliating" and "demeaning" will always have a subjective component, and reasonable individuals may well disagree about whether a given set of facts is humiliating.  The major concern with moving away from the DoD definition is that we could lose the possibility of shared experiences and precedent.  Wherever possible, we like to share the concepts and programs developed by our AF colleagues to make it easier to understand each other and cooperate.  We see that in things like safety, chaplains programs, financial procedures, etc.

Yesterday, after our most recent discussion, I went looking for additional background materials and research on the issue and came across this:

Hazing in the Armed Forces , a very recent (2015) study by the Rand Corporation which, among other things, criticizes the official DoD hazing definition as "overbroad" and makes specific suggestions for improving the definition by removing or supplementing the overly-subjective "demeaning" and humiliating" language with more-objective terms like "extreme mental stress" or "psychological injury." (p.21.) While not the main thrust of the study, such a change would be helpful to us in discussing the lower boundary issue.

The Rand study is an interesting academic-level read, to be sure.  It appears that Dod has formed a Hazing Review Team which has drafted an updated definition for review and possible adoption by DoD, that is tailored along the lines suggested by Rand.

It is also worth noting that DoD (and the AF) separate out and discuss hazing and things like trainee abuse separately.  We tend to treat them as the same thing in CAP by simply defining hazing as a form of abuse.  Also, the military (and most state laws) tends to look at hazing through the lens of initiations or similar rituals performed on new members of a group.  Our context may be slightly different.

Thank you for reading so far.

Thoughts?

[RogueLeader]

I agree wholeheartedly.  Excellent Post Ned.  I look forward to seeing what becomes of this.

[etodd]

How can you discuss this without mentioning the age factor?  There is a whole world of difference in 18 year olds in an armed forces boot camp and little 12 year old boys and girls entering Cadets, in that awkward middle school age, where they blush at everything.

[etodd]

How can you discuss this without mentioning the age factor?  There is a whole world of difference in 18 year olds in an armed forces boot camp and little 12 year old boys and girls entering Cadets, in that awkward middle school age, where they blush at everything.

IOW ... maybe CAP should look to how the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts and similar are handling it. The DOD regs would be fine for Senior Members.

[jeders]

IOW ... maybe CAP should look to how the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts and similar are handling it. The DOD regs would be fine for Senior Members.

Except there is no Senior Protection Program, even though it would be nice sometimes to be protected from all those awful cadets. 

[Lots of really good stuff]

Thoughts?

My first thought is, what a small world. Here we are talking about the vagueness of the definition and the DoD is contemplating revising that definition because of its vagueness.

My second thought is that we should absolutely revise our vague definition that, while well understood by most experienced CP leaders, can be a little hard for newer members to grasp conceptually. I also think that, as etodd mentioned, we need to keep the vast maturity differences between CAP and everyday DoD in mind; but I don't think that we need to soften it too much. I tihnk that if you asked most experienced CP leaders who "know it when they see it," they would agree that the new wording that the Rand Corp discusses is much more fitting to what hazing actually is than what we, and the DoD, have right now.

[Eclipse]

Some members express some confusion over the definition, and one of our more common discussions is about clarifying the lower boundary of hazing when it comes to words or conduct that may tend to embarrass a cadet.

The rather then redefine, clarify.

The actual problem is a lack of top-down mentoring and leadership, forcing members to learn things on their own and on the fly.

That's really the only thing in CAP that needs to be "fixed".

[A.Member]

Also, the military (and most state laws) tends to look at hazing through the lens of initiations or similar rituals performed on new members of a group. 

I agree with this viewpoint. 

I also agree the current definition is overly broad and overly subjective.  The question becomes, "what is the problem are we trying to solve for"? 

Are we really trying to keep someone from a merely embarrassing moment, such as a silly song.  Is that a damaging action?  Certainly subjective but I don't think so.  Seems we are really trying to eliminate malicious and damaging (mental or physical) actions that are largely, but not exclusively, unrelated to our organizations objectives.

I'm sure I'm in the minority with my following statements (and may even take some incoming heat)...but I grew up in a different time.  Generally speaking, we now live in a time were there is a severe stigma attached to anything that could possibly offend someone.  We're overly sensitive.  At a time when I grew up, things were done (non-CAP; I'd never even heard of it when I was young) that would certainly be considered hazing (condemned, etc.) by today's standard.  I'd argue they weren't severe nor did they result in lasting damage; overall they were fairly mild  (ex. if a person on the h.s. ski team crashed during both their runs in a meet, they had to carry or wear a crappy old hockey helmet with "crash" painted on it during the entire following day at school/class).  I'd actually even argue in most (if not all) instances, the activities I encountered increased bonds with most/all going though the same/similar activities.  It broke down walls, made everyone human, and perhaps more resilient. 

So, I'd argue, in some ways, some of those initiations and rituals have value.  However, things can go too far and even be flat out dangerous (some of the  worst situations make headlines - those extremes are obviously unsat any way a person looks at it).   But, where is the line drawn? Are there learnings/growth that can be gained from such similar shared experiences? 

[coudano]

Sure, but I mean how are you going to loosen up the policy and yet not just come out and openly say "it's cool to embarrass your troops"

[The Infamous Meerkat]

Dare I say it... Sometimes it is.

People may not like it, but it is one of the more effective teaching and learning methods out there. If you are embarrassed or ashamed of your failure rather than simply aware of it, you will likely make a greater effort to ensure you never make that mistake again. Ensuring that this is done within the safe and sane boundaries of both our leadership's and our charge's parents is the difficult part of the equation. Proper methods of doing this can be written into our plans and incorporated into our institution if we have enough foresight and clear judgement to ensure we stay within the boundaries.

The Military has this system down, boot camp is not a place where you are safe from embarrassment amongst your peers, but certain things are laid out as permissible punishments or reasonable methods of embarrassment designed to enact change or improvement. I vividly remember many of these cases where people people were told to do embarrassing things that weren't going to damage the psyche of a 17 or 18 year old recruit, but would surely see that they never made that same mistake again.

[NIN]

IOW ... maybe CAP should look to how the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts and similar are handling it. The DOD regs would be fine for Senior Members.

Except there is no Senior Protection Program, even though it would be nice sometimes to be protected from all those awful cadets Lt Cols. 

FTFY.  I put one of my seniors on her face last night, told her to push.

She's down knocking them out, the rest of the senior staff are standing in the senior room with their jaws on the floor.

I looked up and said "See, this is what happens when you don't get the colonel a coffee at Dunkins!"

(My Flight Officer is a recently returned from IET Army National Guard solider and we joke around about this all the time.  Last night I said "thats it.. push!" and she did... LOL.  didn't expect her to actually do it!)

[stillamarine]

How can you discuss this without mentioning the age factor?  There is a whole world of difference in 18 year olds in an armed forces boot camp and little 12 year old boys and girls entering Cadets, in that awkward middle school age, where they blush at everything.

IOW ... maybe CAP should look to how the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts and similar are handling it. The DOD regs would be fine for Senior Members.

Visit a LE Explorer post or summer academy.

[Spam]

FTFY.  I put one of my seniors on her face last night, told her to push.

She's down knocking them out, the rest of the senior staff are standing in the senior room with their jaws on the floor.

I looked up and said "See, this is what happens when you don't get the colonel a coffee at Dunkins!"

(My Flight Officer is a recently returned from IET Army National Guard solider and we joke around about this all the time.  Last night I said "thats it.. push!" and she did... LOL.  didn't expect her to actually do it!)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOll3v55Dmo

"The Bedford Incident":  a study in the creation of an "intense" command environment and in being surprised what young, motivated, but stressed junior personnel will do in interpreting your comments.

"FIRING ONE"!!!

V/R
Spam

[Майор Хаткевич]

FTFY.  I put one of my seniors on her face last night, told her to push.

She's down knocking them out, the rest of the senior staff are standing in the senior room with their jaws on the floor.

I looked up and said "See, this is what happens when you don't get the colonel a coffee at Dunkins!"

(My Flight Officer is a recently returned from IET Army National Guard solider and we joke around about this all the time.  Last night I said "thats it.. push!" and she did... LOL.  didn't expect her to actually do it!)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOll3v55Dmo

"The Bedford Incident":  a study in the creation of an "intense" command environment and in being surprised what young, motivated, but stressed junior personnel will do in interpreting your comments.

"FIRING ONE"!!!

V/R
Spam

TAPS (Movie)

[THRAWN]

Dare I say it... Sometimes it is.

People may not like it, but it is one of the more effective teaching and learning methods out there. If you are embarrassed or ashamed of your failure rather than simply aware of it, you will likely make a greater effort to ensure you never make that mistake again. Ensuring that this is done within the safe and sane boundaries of both our leadership's and our charge's parents is the difficult part of the equation. Proper methods of doing this can be written into our plans and incorporated into our institution if we have enough foresight and clear judgement to ensure we stay within the boundaries.

The Military has this system down, boot camp is not a place where you are safe from embarrassment amongst your peers, but certain things are laid out as permissible punishments or reasonable methods of embarrassment designed to enact change or improvement. I vividly remember many of these cases where people people were told to do embarrassing things that weren't going to damage the psyche of a 17 or 18 year old recruit, but would surely see that they never made that same mistake again.

Agreed, it is a great system for a military recruit in boot camp. CAP cadets are neither. Identifying what other similar organizations are doing, and not adopting the DoD policies is probably a good idea. Again, CAP ain't the Marine Corps, no matter how hard some cadets (and seniors!) push for it. The threshold for hazing is not the same.

[FW]

^ I also agree.  CAP cadets are not Active Duty Military Members.  Our CPP definitions should coincide with other same age/maturity organization policy definitions.  Whatever it takes to give members a better understanding of the proper care and handling of cadet development is a good thing.

[etodd]

Totally different people involving such different ways to handle the people involved. A photo tells it all:

[Майор Хаткевич]

Totally different people involving such different ways to handle the people involved. A photo tells it all:

One is a CAP PT night, the other is a future RST no-no picture!

[Garibaldi]

To me, the thing is that a lot of teens and pre-teens have seen military themed movies and TV shows. They get a skewed version of what goes on in Basic or IET, but it's there. Some make the decision NOT to join the military or military-themed organizations such as ours because they'll get their feelers hurt. When we get a new cadet, we (at least in our unit) take great pains to let the parents and the cadets know we do not yell at them, make them do push ups for minor transgressions and so on. We also tell them that we are "military lite", meaning there is a certain amount of loud voices, but nothing that will damage the psyche or scar them irretrievably. They are expected to learn, march, function as a team, and as such there are "orders" to be given and followed. Some parents are surprised that we don't do more regarding discipline, and some aren't.

We have had very few, if any, serious problems regarding discipline. The little we do deal with are repeated transgressions where someone doesn't listen to the officer in charge and go wandering off by themselves at an activity, or consistently look after themselves and not the unit with regard to promoting and such. A quiet word, coupled with a semi-stern tone, usually gets the message across. But never, ever, do we curse, yell, cast aspersions on their parentage or intelligence level, or grab them, or make them get down and push, or do stupid songs, or anything that singles them out for embarrassment. It serves no purpose. If they want that kind of environment, they can join the Marines at 17.

If CAP does revise its stance on hazing, I would expect them to follow a more youth oriented set of directions, like the BSA or whatever, as opposed to a more military definition.

[Eclipse]

Three major problems here as I see it:

1 - Confusing and connecting "hazing" with "intensity mismatch", which potentially turns one into the other when they aren't necessarily the same thing.
     1a - A far too typical "have it both ways" of "yelling is not leadership" (agreed), coupled with "Ooops sometimes you might have to yell...um...good luck with that."

2 - Using subjective terms in an attempt to define or curtail objective behavior.

3 - The failure to provide training to seniors or cadets in the proper was to implement the CP.  There's plenty of rhetoric about what not to do,
which is how layers and insurance companies train people, but no specific  required / pre-requisite training for adult leaders as "how to do it". 

     So you have a mix of
     "afraid to do anything",
     "ex military doing it the way we did it" (and possibly even incorrectly at that), 
     "watched too many movies"
     "accidentally did it correctly once, it seemed to work, propagated that idea"

Few, if any, endeavors as large as CAP aspires to, would ever allow untrained people to train other people, but that is literally the CAP model.

As a poor example of a similar situation, I have been training riders as a paid instructor RiderCoach for nearly 17 years, actively riding
a motorcycle for some 10+ years before teaching, and having the taken the classes multiple times before that.  I had to complete a 40 hour classroom and practical
college level training course with an objective evaluation before I could be certified, participate in several rounds of "rookie" training with experienced
instructors, participate in annual refresher training and other professional development, and when the curriculum changes significantly, as it did this year,
complete retraining in the classroom and range with another objective evaluation.

There is no similar model within CAP, and the relatively light training requirements CAP does have are often treated as check boxes "because we're all adults here",
then people are surprised when things don't work right, whether we're talking about ES, AE, or the annual round of "we had no idea that was required" commonly
referred to as the SUI.

It's also hard to press the model of "treat everyone with dignity and respect", when the same week you are refusing to allow that same adult to
be promoted, or fly "your" airplane, because you don't like the way he makes coffee (because it's all the same 10 people doing everything).
CPPT and hazing training is often compartmentalized to "members who deal with kids", when it's really supposed to be a cornerstone of a "culture of excellence".

Bottom line, when you had no model, have no model, and little mentoring or supervision, you have to figure it out on the fly, and sometimes you get it wrong.
You should learn you were wrong in a classroom, not a court room.

The real fix?  More people, which equals more time, and less "last minute".

[coudano]

If CAP does revise its stance on hazing, I would expect them to follow a more youth oriented set of directions, like the BSA or whatever, as opposed to a more military definition.

I was hazed FAR more severely in BSA than I ever was as a CAP cadet...
and that was before the current cppt language.

I was not hazed at all at BMT.