Hawk Mountain Ranger School

[SarDragon]

So...if someone has been 2B'd for this, I'm assuming the silliness is gone? Or do they call it a motivation belt and keep it?

That belt is lavender.

Which changes what?

Nothing. You missed the sarcasm.

[sarmed1]

A certain Cadet McDonough ought to feel shamed, since he's singled out by name

Why?  That wasnt tounge in cheek/sarcasm; his squadron was the honor squadron.

mk

[sarmed1]

The pink belt or even the giving of the pink belt is not a hazing act.....no more than saying the last place squadron is...."___________" or 'so and so's" squadron is in last place.  Putting a picture of a cadet crying(or making it appear as such)  because he was in last place then pointing it out (via a publication), particularly if the point was to ridicule and embarass him was hazing.

The "mistake" would be not having someone review the article and realize that even if the intention was tongue in cheek, that it was inappropriate to say the least and could be hazing at worst.  There in general seems to be a lot of hawk trashing being done by people that have never been to the school, and base thier opinion on what the hear from others or what they interpret to be going on. (I met a hawk grad who was a tool does not qualify really...I have met a number of tools in CAP that think because they belong to this group or that or have obtained this award or that they are special; its usually not a reflection of the group as a whole)

Is HMRS a den of sin and evil and a scourge on the wholesome image of CAP....NO, is it a beautiful place where everyone does everything right and correct without exception....NO.    Are there elements of the program there that could be better, sure.  Is the uniform bling ridiculous, mostly.  Has hazing occured, probabally, but that in no way should be interpreted to say that activity leaders condone flagrant or covert CPPT violations, but I am sure they have happened (as they have at many other activites)

Every level of the organization has problems, everyone has bad apples.  There always seems to be someone who bends, breaks ore doesnt understand the rules.  No matter how hard people try there is somehow something or someone that slips thru the cracks and causes someting stupid to happen.   Everyone at any of our levels does their best to control it but it doesnt always work.

I can think of quite a number of similar incidents of possible hazing or doing things stupid  that I have seen or read about that also fit the monday night quarterback defination of hazing.....Nathans hazing thread contains a few just off hand; and there are yet likely a number of others you can find scaterd around this and other CAP forums  That doesnt make the activites they occured at bad or horrible or even the command element involved bad leaders.


mk

[davidsinn]

Let me get this straight:

Humiliating in public and making a cadet cry because he's humiliated isn't hazing but publishing a picture of him crying is? [Redacted so I don't meet the Banhammer]

The whole purpose of the pink belt is to demean it's wearer. That's the textbook definition of hazing.

[sarmed1]

We have only to assume he was even crying, it looks like he could be rubbing his eyes...maybe he's sleepy and the picture was taken out of context, we have already established the PAO did a poor job. 

If you deny me the position of squadron commander at encampment and  becuase everyone else knows I didnt get the positon and it emabarases me to the point I cry, did you haze me?  What if people saw me crying?

For the record I think giving the pink belt is a stupid tradtion that should go the way of the dodo. It has (as we have all helped to illustrate) has the potential to cause or be interpruted as hazing; good enough reason to get rid of it. For those of you that havent been there, there is a seperate formation before lunch that the results of the area inspections are announced (this is where the pink belt comes into play), as an instructor this eats up about 30 minutes (at least) that I could be training.  Its unfortunate that an accusition of hazng has to be the cause of its demise (and negative attention brought toward a CAP activity), but I wont shed a tear it it has to go.

mk

[Hawk200]

We have only to assume he was even crying, it looks like he could be rubbing his eyes...maybe he's sleepy and the picture was taken out of context, we have already established the PAO did a poor job.

It could very well be that it was taken out of context, but it looks like he has been singled out due to a failure, and humiliated because of it. If it can be construed as appearing to be hazing, it doesn't belong. It's not exactly treating people with dignity.

If you deny me the position of squadron commander at encampment and  becuase everyone else knows I didnt get the positon and it emabarases me to the point I cry, did you haze me?  What if people saw me crying?

To the first question, no, you weren't hazed. There was no intended action to humiliate you.

To the second question, not sure what you're asking. Maybe someone saw you cry. Not a big deal. But if you were crying, and people draw attention to it, I'd say there's an issue. Is it hazing? I don't know, but I would put an end to such behaviour (drawing attention to someone crying) very quickly. It may not be hazing by definition, but it's [darn]ed rude and immature to do so.

Attempting to rationalize actions so that they're not considered hazing is a dangerous game. At what point do actual hazing actions get rationalized away? Slippery slope.

For the record I think giving the pink belt is a stupid tradtion that should go the way of the dodo.

I agree. Every belt color from Hawk has some type of assigned meaning. There's what? Four or five different ones? The pink (or lavender, or whatever color it actually is) doesn't seem to be visible in any other place than the school. When it's only in one location, it creates questions.

If you want to have an "honors" belt for the school, I got no issues. But if you want to have what could be considered a "dishonors" belt, we got problems.

[sarmed1]

There was no intended action to humiliate you.

The way this discussion is going , there doesnt have to be intention to humiliate you...that was the point...its do I feel that I have been to humiliated, or can others assume that I should feel humiliated, that makes it hazing.  Having been to HMRS many times including on staff never has anyone said or implied the reason for the pink belt is to humiliate the recepient. 

Giving the pink belt to the cadet in question was not itself a hazing act, the fact that he was mocked (in jest or in actuality) could be a hazing act, the fact that the HMRS administration allowed that publication to be circulated and the behavior to continue deserves some attention if even for the fact that is was in very poor taste.   My point of ire with this whole discussion is that this photo is over 2 years old, I find it very difficult to beleive that after 1000's of people (including wing, regional and national) have viewed it only now does someone say hey that's hazing! 

As I said I can see where the practice opens the door to hazing potential, and for that reason it should disapear,  but I dont see that as a condemnation of the entire school.

mk

[Hawk200]

There was no intended action to humiliate you.

The way this discussion is going , there doesnt have to be intention to humiliate you...that was the point...its do I feel that I have been to humiliated, or can others assume that I should feel humiliated, that makes it hazing.  Having been to HMRS many times including on staff never has anyone said or implied the reason for the pink belt is to humiliate the recepient.

Just feeling humilitated isn't enough. A person can trip and fall, people around them might laugh, although it's rude, it's not hazing. Tripping someone, and then laughing at them might be. See the difference?

It also doesn't matter if no one has ever said it's supposed to humiliate someone. It's still a targeted action to do so. A pink belt? Most people wouldn't consider that an "award" any more than requiring them to wear a pink bow. With our uniforms, there is no precedence as a fashion statement.

Giving the pink belt to the cadet in question was not itself a hazing act, the fact that he was mocked (in jest or in actuality) could be a hazing act, the fact that the HMRS administration allowed that publication to be circulated and the behavior to continue deserves some attention if even for the fact that is was in very poor taste.   My point of ire with this whole discussion is that this photo is over 2 years old, I find it very difficult to beleive that after 1000's of people (including wing, regional and national) have viewed it only now does someone say hey that's hazing!

You act like before now, no one has ever thought of it or said it was hazing. There are people here in this thread that have been to the school in the past few years that are vehemently against some of the school's actions. Just because you haven't heard of it before now doesn't mean it hasn't been considered as such all along. Just because "No one's ever had a problem with it", doesn't mean it's a non issue.

As I said I can see where the practice opens the door to hazing potential, and for that reason it should disapear,  but I dont see that as a condemnation of the entire school.

I can appreciate good school content, but there seems to be some other aspects that are negatives. Those negatives need to be dealt with. Out of the thirty or so Hawk grads I've met, the majority of them have behavioural issues. If it's only one or two, I can consider that the individuals, but when it's so large of a group, there's reason to be concerned.

[sarmed1]

....sorry 30 with behavorial issues is not a big deal to me when the school graduates over 100 students every year on top of that 9 days at HMRS likely wasnt the cause of their behavorial issues.  Some of the issues with HMRS attitudes may not have helped the predisposed to bling wanting/elite wanna- beism.....

Just feeling humilitated isn't enough. A person can trip and fall, people around them might laugh, although it's rude, it's not hazing. Tripping someone, and then laughing at them might be. See the difference

yes differant, but the first is still a hazing potential; "...Yes sir I cant take it here anymore, the other day I tripped and fell, the cadet staff just stood there laughing at me and making fun of me, no one even asked if I was all right, they always do this this to me to the point that I am to afraid to even say anything in class anymore because I am afraid they are just going to make fun of me more....." they feel that they are humiliated by the actions of the poeple laughing at them;  the poeple laughing at weren trying to haze them, but the result was the same. 


mk

[Hawk200]

yes differant, but the first is still a hazing potential; "...Yes sir I cant take it here anymore, the other day I tripped and fell, the cadet staff just stood there laughing at me and making fun of me, no one even asked if I was all right, they always do this this to me to the point that I am to afraid to even say anything in class anymore because I am afraid they are just going to make fun of me more....." they feel that they are humiliated by the actions of the poeple laughing at them;  the poeple laughing at weren trying to haze them, but the result was the same. 

I find your statement interesting in that it seems to contradict earlier ones. An individual tripping, and always being laughed because of it is potential hazing, but a person who fails to meet a certain criteria, is singled out and given a belt to wear because of it is not?

One is potential, even though the action laughed at was not through intent (in any manner), but an intentional action is not because of what? I guess maybe the concept of hazing isn't clear to everyone.

As the number of people I've deal with, the number of graduates is irrelevant. 30 people is a statistics pool. Of those, 28 all had the same superior behaviour. I haven't seen this behaviour in non attendees, so the 30 Hawk grads are what I'm looking at. That's a majority of the ones I've known. Discounting my view because I've not attended Hawk is just a continuing example of the elitism that people seem to be learning at the school.

Others here have seen the same type of behaviour from the same group of people. Now, I could get together all the people that have ever dealt with a Hawk grad, and eventually put together a pool that would include all those graduates. I suspect that the it would still show a majority of Hawk grads have the same behaviour. Even the individual with the "super rangers" thread showed it, and tried to say it was "tongue in cheek". People don't make such remarks unless they believe it.

I believe that there are plenty of schools that good content, but the people are taught some other things that are an issue. One example is Air Force cops. I've run into a more than a few of them (a few which were good friends) that had the little saying of "Don't confuse your rank with my authority". At times, some of those folks had some troubles, especially when their authority didn't apply to the situation. Now, their training is very useful, keeps them alive and maintains order. But the viewpoint is a bad one to express.

Someone may think they're superior to others because of their training. The problem is when it gets expressed out of context. The training is superior, but the person isn't any better than anyone else.

[sarmed1]

Discounting my view because I've not attended Hawk is just a continuing example of the elitism that people seem to be learning at the school.

No it isnt. You opinion is just that your opnion.  You can give your view on people you've met; thier attitude, their competency, thier appearance and you can equate that to whatever thier experience was.  But when you comment on someplace or something you havent ever expereinced for yourself you opinion does not carry the same weight.  Yes if you run into 30 people that all have the same experience from something you can draw a conclusion from that; however you're still basing your "facts" from those people, not the actual activity. 

If 50 people come into work and all tell you the sky is green, are you going to take their word for it and tell all your friends the sky is green, or are you going to go out an look for yourself before you tell everyone else?

Someone may think they're superior to others because of their training. The problem is when it gets expressed out of context. The training is superior, but the person isn't any better than anyone else.

I coundn't agree more, and HMRS is by far not the ony culprit here (they just seem to flood the market, maybe its a numbers thing 100 every year vs 30 from PJOC for example...I dont know).
I dont know where/how they learn it, When I was a Sq CC & Primary instructor at HMRS I always told my students they are no one special, they just have more training the next guy; Scarves, belts and whistle chains dont make you superior to anyone, and I know a number of others that told thier students the same thing.  Unfortunately there seems to be a disconnect between what seniors say and what cadets hear (CAP wide, not just at HMRS)  I know just like encampments, there is a certain amount of "build up" done at the school for the basic squadron, building towards graduation..."look how far you have come, 9 days ago you were a bunch of disorganized cadets....now you're a team etc etc..."  there is a fine line between building unit pride and esprit de corps and building elitesm.

mk

[arajca]

Ulimately, what matters is the product of the activity. HMRS, NBB, NESA, whatever. You can have top notch materials (members), outstanding process (training), and have crap for an output (attitude problems, elitism, etc). If I see something like that, as far as I am concerned - and I will spread my opinion - the activity is worthless. Even if I haven't been to the acitivity.

That output was one big reason NBB lost the ability to wear their beret outside of NBB, with a few local exceptions.

[Spike]

I have been to Hawk, ONCE.  I was a guest and spent 2 days there.  I was not impressed with the training, the staff or the ritualistic way of doing things.  There is a difference between having a tradition, and trying to invent one on the spot.  It seems most staff (cadets included) were trying to start their own traditions, and cared more about looking good than actually training.

When I saw staff cadets go inside the cottages and turn on an air conditioner pop open a soda and not come out for 2 hours, I lost respect.  When I saw cadets being yelled at for not going fast enough on the O-Course during their fifth attempt in 20 minutes, I lost respect.
When I see how much Money is dumped into that place for the small amount of attendees actually going, I lost respect for its leadership.

It could very well be a great school, but lets make it a NESA "East" school, and dump the "Ranger" crap.   

[sarmed1]

On a note more related to the original post....I received an email invite for a staff meeting:

....to go over Winter School, Staff Training, Summer School and publications.

So with the spirit of improvement (is is a new year) I am looking for constructive idea to bring to the meeting.
Ides with the creativity of an internet troll are not what I am looking for (ie 1 liners like stop abusing cadets, get rid of bling or close the school are pointless...)

Normally I mostly advise on medical stuff, but do chime in on others...heres what I have already:
-The left shoulder patch thing....either update the ICL from the last commander (rescind it or re-indorse it) but publish it as a wing supplement (ie assumingly NHQ approved)

-The whole ranger accessories-either develop a PAWG 39-1 supplement that spells out their placement on the uniform, what they actually are and when and where to wear them (again NHQ approved) or ensure that a 39-1 is coming (like within a few months) that includes that info

Ranger Con-ops.  What exactly do ranger teams do that reg CAP GTMS's dont and how and why you should develop and employ them.  Or if you get one to show up on a mission how to use them most effectively.  More specifically this spells out what exactly the training done at the school is and why it benefits you or your people to go.

Specific to the school-Some of the complaints in this thread (and others) lead me to the following thoughts:  create some prereq's:  age up the minimum to maybe 15 (solves some maturity issues) require a previous encampment and/or a rank requirement...ie C/SrA.  (also the maturity issue, but also they alredy have the ideas of how teamwork & leadership work in a bigger than the home squadron setting).   GTM3-You cant do "0" to ranger in 9 days and expect any kind of competency...if they already have a basis of CAP ES operations more training time can be spent on ranger/advanced GTM skills.

Staff Training:  Find people with established leadership ability (the team commanders seem to always come out of the program with the leadership style of yell louder rather than a true ability to act the leader......) concentrate more on skill competency and teaching ability.

The one drastic thing I am looking at is a new niche for the ranger skill set.  Basically for years HMRS was all about wilderness SAR, where no one else in CAP (as a whole) really did much more than ELT's.  That has changed, the GTM program is fairly inclusive.  There really serves minimal purpose for a seperate identifier of "ranger" or ranger team if the skills are pretty much the same as everyone else. (There is a push to make Ranger a 101 qual)  One area CAP is lacking in is Disaster Releif Ops (besides hand out water or fill sandbags)  The concepts of FLWG recon program would be a good fit.  It involves a lot of the skills that the ranger program uses....mobility and navigation, 72 hour self sustainability, communications.

mk

[davidsinn]

From where I sit out here in the midwest the problem is more wide spread than HMRS. It's the whole Pennsylvania wing. Widespread disregard for uniform regs. The whole wing go shut down for failing to follow through on safety regs. Sounds like a cultural issue out there.

I'd also have to disagree with the more training assertion. I know some cadets from a nearby unit that went to HMRS and then complained when they came back and didn't have GTM from it. Sounds like it's less training to me. Also what use is rope work when regs prohibit us from utilizing it in the field?

[Spike]

Uniforms are big issue.  PAWG needs to rescind it's practice of wearing the Hawk Patch in place of the Wing Patch on BDU's.  NHQ says to wear special activity patches in one place, yet PAWG thinks it can disregard that written order and replace the wing Patch.  As a Squadron Commnader, members who have gone to Hawk are allowed to wear thier Hawk patch on the pocket like the guidelines say, and nothing else.  NOTHING ellse. 

We are supposed to look uniform, but when I have 5 hawk rangers wearing 4 other pieces of bling in formation, it stands out. 

Anyway, get the uniform issue in line.  Rangers don't need tabs or badges to be a ranger. 

Second, invite NESA leaders to hawk ranger schools and get thier opinion.  I bet you would be surprised by what they have to say.

[cap235629]

more emphasis on the ICS system.  One of the biggest gripes I have heard about PAWG is that at Katrina, they wanted to do their own thing even to the point of disregarding their assignments and calling home for instructions. PAWG is PAWG, once you leave you are part of the bigger picture.....

[heliodoc]

Since I have become off the grounding list from the Mods here for approx 6 weeks...thank you Mods!!

I am coming on with this one in relation to the above post regarding 1) the ICS system 2) doing "your own thing" during an incident

AND reference to FEMA Independent Study Course IS 244 Developing and Managing Volunteers

I want to refer EVERYONE here to Appendix A  Page A-10 and LOOK at the list.........  I want some one here to FIND CAP in that list

When you are done....Why is CAP NOT on that list??  Overlook the religious component and look at the other ARC, REACT etc....lots of those folks are also 501 (c) 3 organizations...

I have been doing the non CAP EM real world stuff the last 6+ weeks....  I would really like to know, too

What CAP type ticked off FEMA BITD??  If I was a true EM with more empathy....I would involve CAP more....but apparently CAP like the crew in PAWG and its elite and uniform issues, probably influenced more than one decision YEEEEEAAAARS ago.

As a Forester, I can match "pretttneer" all of their (Hawk Mountain) skills by virtue of living it every day without roping up white ladder lacing on my LPC's and then some

Calling home for instructions on a Natl incident?  REALLY?  How that for a come back from my 6 week grounding from CAPTalk?

[arajca]

CAP is not on the list because CAP is called up through some group called the US Air Force for ANY federal taskings.

[RiverAux]

CAP is specifically mentioned in FEMA's online search and rescue course, so there is no anti-CAP conspiracy.  And I suspect that arajca's comments are on the nose as CAP is considered a federal resource as far as state and local agencies are concerned rather than the more local volunteer groups that are probably the object of that particular course.