CPPT: Females required when cadet females present?

[BuckeyeDEJ]

If there's anyone I know who protects our young (in general)... it's women -- no matter their orientation!

Unless you're in the Hillsborough County, Fla., school system....

(With apologies to CAP members in Group 3, but you guys have Debra LaFave, et al....)

[Stonewall]

I didn't realize I could upload a .pdf.

Here is the wing policy in question.

[RogueLeader]

I would say that if it was planned to be an overnight activity with female cadets, yes there should be at least one Female Senior as well.  For unplanned activities, try to get a Female SM- if can't don't worry too much.  Thats my understanding of it.

[tjaxe]

I would say that if it was planned to be an overnight activity with female cadets, yes there should be at least one Female Senior as well.  For unplanned activities, try to get a Female SM- if can't don't worry too much.  Thats my understanding of it.

And if there are male cadets and 2 female (and no male) seniors? Does that change things for you?

[jimmydeanno]

I translate "highly desired" as "nice, but not required."

[tjaxe]

I translate "highly desired" as "nice, but not required."

Ditto.  And if it's deemed "required" by some interpretation then the overnight activity should be cancelled rather than a cadet banned from attending because of her gender.

[RogueLeader]

Then there should be one male and one female SM.  So, no, it doesn't change, the only varible is the balancing the equation:
male cadets= Male SM
female cadets= female SM
male+female cadets=male + female SM

[PHall]

Then there should be one male and one female SM.  So, no, it doesn't change, the only varible is the balancing the equation:
male cadets= Male SM
female cadets= female SM
male+female cadets=male + female SM

Why should there be a female senior if there are females cadets on an overnight activity?

It's either required or it isn't, there is no maybe.

And are you sure you want just one male and one female senior member?

If a male senior member can't be alone in a room with a female cadet, how is it different if it's a female senior?

Questions to ponder maybe?


Remember, double standards suck....

[Eclipse]

I didn't realize I could upload a .pdf.

Here is the wing policy in question.

I'd say this is a "should" vs. "will" situation, and not required, especially if you've made a best effort towards the "highly desired" choice.

Also, as Col. Levitch is no longer the Wing CC, and this supplement predates the current 52-10 & 16 by 3/1 years respectively, its void anyway.  Supplements, addendums, and policies enacted under a CC's signature are void unless re-submitted by the current commander.  We just had this discussion in my Wing about the same resubmission issue.  The same applies for any supplements to regs when the reg is updated - I believe its a 90-day window(..hint...hint 60-1).

Absent any other information or directives, I'd be comfortable going sans female seniors if none were available.

[Eclipse]

Then there should be one male and one female SM.  So, no, it doesn't change, the only varible is the balancing the equation:
male cadets= Male SM
female cadets= female SM
male+female cadets=male + female SM

"should" does not equal "will" in laws and regulations.

"Should" is generally the best-case scenario, but the use of the word specifically makes the directive optional.

As example, A unit CC should not be the Unit Safety officer, but he will not be the Finance Manager.

[RogueLeader]

Why should there be a female senior if there are females cadets on an overnight activity?

It's either required or it isn't, there is no maybe.

And are you sure you want just one male and one female senior member?

If a male senior member can't be alone in a room with a female cadet, how is it different if it's a female senior?

Questions to ponder maybe?

Remember, double standards suck....

I was speaking to the unplanned overnight activities, and for what the guidance was saying.  I agree with what you are saying, and in all cases, what you are proposing is the best all around.

It all depends on the case at hand.

[Major Lord]

A policy that states that a special set of circumstances must be in effect before female cadets can participate in an activity would be sexist and discriminatory. CAP has voluntarily attached itself to the principals of the DOD Non-discrimination policy, which forbids such things. Who in their right mind would tell a Cadet that they can't participate in an activity because they are girls? (!) Madness.  If you don't trust your Male Seniors with Female Cadets, the problem is not in a policy; Its the weak-kneed Deputy Commanders for Cadets who are afraid to tell a Senior ( or anyone else)  that he does not trust them around his Cadets and to find another area of CAP to play in. The same standards should apply to Female/Male situations.

Major Lord

[tarheel gumby]

Has anybody heard of Title 7? That pretty much spells out any such rules that exclude a female or male cadet because of gender are against the law.
This is the sort of thing that causes mega litigation, and by the way Title 7 applies to all of us in CAP as we are a federaly chartered corporation.

[JoeTomasone]

I didn't realize I could upload a .pdf.

Here is the wing policy in question.

Poorly written, I think:

Regardless of gender, it is highly desired that one of the "approved"
senior members in attendance at the event be of the same gender as each cadet at the activity.

This requires at least one SM to be both genders simultaneously if both male and female cadets are present -- if you read it literally. 

[JoeTomasone]

If there's anyone I know who protects our young (in general)... it's women -- no matter their orientation!

Unless you're in the Hillsborough County, Fla., school system....

(With apologies to CAP members in Group 3, but you guys have Debra LaFave, et al....)

Point of Order, Sir, but you are in Group 3 now as well.      However, you do speak the truth.  And it's all over, not just in one County and not just in Florida.   Lots of female teachers have been found to have had improper relationships with students; La Fave was just the first to make the national news.

[JoeTomasone]

Then there should be one male and one female SM.  So, no, it doesn't change, the only varible is the balancing the equation:
male cadets= Male SM
female cadets= female SM
male+female cadets=male + female SM

"should" does not equal "will" in laws and regulations.

"Should" is generally the best-case scenario, but the use of the word specifically makes the directive optional.

Correct.  You SHOULD have a female SM present if there are to be female cadets because it simply makes sense.    Contraband checks, moral support, and (god help us) the onset of menstruation at a bivouac would be MUCH better handled by a female SM and would go a long way towards making the cadet feel at ease.   

However, you do not HAVE to have a female SM present in that circumstance either per this (outdated) policy letter nor current regulations -- and many have stated why this is true (exclusionary/sexist/whatever).   


As an example - during the recent encampment, I transported 6 cadets at different times to the hospital.    On the run with the sole female cadet, a female SM accompanied me.     There was no reason that she HAD to -- I remained outside the curtain while the cadet was examined, etc.   However, the cadet had someone who could have remained with her had it been necessary, and neither of the SMs had to worry about being accused of impropriety.   Net effect - I am sure that everyone felt better.   So while I could have gone it alone, it made more sense to have the female SM there - even if there was no policy behind it.

 

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

Is it ideal to have SM of both genders present when there are cadets of both? YES

Is it always possible? NO

I think the CPPT attempts to balance these realities. 

[Major Lord]

A number of years ago, our squadron ran an activity where we provided a number of services for a reunion of the Doolittle raiders. (very cool) We had about 4 Seniors and 30 Cadets, spread out over many acres of OP's area. Three of the Cadets were female, and none of the Seniors were female. One female cadet called her parents, and told her father ( A senior Member) that she was alone with Cadet boys. The cadets' Mother called to protest, and demanded 100%, full time, unbroken visual surveillance of her daughter. Negative Ghost rider! We told her to come pick her daughter up. We needed cadets to Provide supervision for the public, not be be housed as daycare at a CAP activity so the parents could go skiing in Tahoe.

The lesson learned there, was that although there were no female SM's to babysit the female cadet, most CAP female Cadets are mature enought to cross the street by themselves and eat when they are hungry. Nonetheless, a phone call to the parents to tell them of our circumstances ( non-extant female support) would have been a good idea. If they choose to keep their beloved daughters away from those evil predatory S/M's, that on their head, not ours. If they complain about our lack of supervision, we can hand  them applications for sponsor membership, which should clear them out faster than a congressman and accept a bribe.

Major Lord

[Fifinella]

Frankly, I adhere to a "no-lone-zone" rule with cadets, and if I do have to talk to a cadet "privately" I do so in full view of everybody else. 

+1 My Personal Rules: Counsel out of earshot, but not out of eyesight of other folks.  No on-on-one situations.

And, as much as I appreciate the sentiment of "sharing the load" and keeping CP going, NO cadet activities with only 1 SM.  Yes, the reg says it's ok.  But as Maj. C said, what happens when someone gets sick or injured? End of Personal Rules

To the original topic, we've discussed this before.  IME, the idea for same-sex chaperones often gets introduced to a unit by adults with scouting backgrounds.  It's not in the reg, and you cannot legally exclude female cadets from activities for this reason.

Our squadron used to have the opposite problem - 2 female SM chaperones on over-night activities with male and female cadets.  Guess we should have left the male cadets at home. 

[Ned]

+1 My Personal Rules: Counsel out of earshot, but not out of eyesight of other folks.  No on-on-one situations.

First, let me thank you for the work you have done with cadets.  It is truly appreciated.  I wish most seniors would do as much as you have done.

That said, I'd like to suggest that you work to raise your personal comfort level in dealing with our cadets.

Obviously, every cadet and every situation will be different.  But a "I'll never, ever be alone with a cadet" rule potentially does a disservice to the cadet and to you.

I know when I think back on my youth, I was fortunate enought to have some unbelievable and life-changing mentors. And a few of them were CAP senior members.  And from time to time, they would take me aside and counsel me.  Sometimes (OK, usually), I had done something stupid and needed guidance; sometimes I actually did something well and appreciated positive feedback in a private setting.

But these mentoring sessions could not have occurred in the midst of the hustle and bustle of a squadron meeting or on the parade ground at encampment.  They occurred in the office of a CO or tactical officer; in the parking lot after everyone else had gone, or even at the pizza place where we went after meetings.

I can't imagine what life would be like if my high-school and college teachers had adopted a similar rule.  No staying after class for tutoring or extra work.  No helping the coach out after practice by putting stuff away.  No time late at night in the computer lab with the TA.

Earlier this month I was fortunate to attend an RCLS graduation.  Something went askew with a cadet's transportation and since he lived on my way home, I was asked if I could give the troop a ride.  I did, and the cadet slept for the entire two-hour ride.


I'm not suggesting that we become overly familiar with the cadets.  They are not our buddies, friends, or children.

But they are students who look to us for guidance, mentoring, and training.  And, IMHO, from time to time that might include some "one-on-one" time in an appropriate setting.


Cadets want a challenge.  Train them.

Just don't treat them like an IED waiting to detonate the moment another senior wanders out of sight.

And, as much as I appreciate the sentiment of "sharing the load" and keeping CP going, NO cadet activities with only 1 SM.  Yes, the reg says it's ok.  But as Maj. C said, what happens when someone gets sick or injured?[

I appreciate the fact that you think that our volunteer leaders "got it wrong" when they wrote the regulation the way they did.

But the answer to your question really isn't very mysterious.  If someone gets injured or ill to the point where the only senior present needs to leave the activity, then either another senior arrives to fill in, or the activity terminates.

That is certainly part of the risk of running activities without additional seniors.  But to fail to hold challenging and fun activities simply because you don't have more seniors than the regulation requires seems unfair to the troops.

I suspect this is at least one small part of the reason that cadets in some units complain that their unit "never does anything." 

Again, thank you for the work you have done with our cadets.


Ned Lee
CP Enthusiast