Nathan's view of hazing

[Nick]

Purely for comparison, I'd be interested in the practices and regulations of AFJROTC on this point...anyone familiar with them.

The AFJROTC policy (AFJROTCI 36-2001) is:

Hazing is strictly forbidden. It is defined as the practice of directing someone of lesser rank to perform a humiliating act which entails the surrender of dignity and self-respect or a hazardous act which exposes one to physical danger or bodily harm.

Requiring cadets to perform push-ups or any other physical activity as punishment is also forbidden. These activities may only be performed as part of a unit’s regular physical training/wellness program.

Harassment, such as improper or abusive language, and coercion of lower class cadets for personal gain, is strictly forbidden. Misuse of authority will not be condoned nor tolerated.

But also remember, in addition to this policy, as a co-curricular school program the AFJROTC organization is required to follow the school/school district's policies regarding student organizations.

[RiverAux]

FYI, the Young Marines allow yelling (at groups, not at individuals), but define "incentive physical training" as hazing and prohibit it.  (Although not germane to this discussion, their cadet of the year had 9 rows of ribbons - wow!)

[Eclipse]

Ned: CAP interprets hazing more strictly than DOD because our cadet personnel, by and large, are minors.

No, they don't.

CAP interprets hazing exactly the same way as the DOD by definition.

The only place you will find said definition is in the RST presentations required for encampments, and they use and quote the DOD policy.

[Ned]

Ned,

In response to: "But I'm puzzled.  We are using the standard DoD definition of hazing, but we are obviously interpreting the same definition in a significantly different way than the DoD."  I don't have a clue as to what DOD has or is doing.  That is not within my pay range and there is no need for comparison between us and DOD.

Harry,

Just between us lawyers, you have to admit that it is interesting that we use the DoD definition and apparently choose to interpret it in a significantly different manner.

After all, a legislator can define an equine as a bovine , but that doesn't mean they're gonna get any milk.

I guess my point is that would be much cleaner to say "we use the DoD definition of hazing and we have an additional rule of 'no PT as punishment'", rather than pretending that the DoD's own definition itself means  "no PT as punishment."  (Which would certainly be a surprise to the definition's authors.)

We are not here to improve the appearance of our cadets by embarrassing them or yelling at them. 

Of course.  But I'm sure you'd agree with me that our successful cadet program uses militarly training models, and has since its inception during WWII. 



See, here's the problem.  The words "embarass" and "demean" are too fuzzy to be helpful in the most common CAP situations.  Especially when we admit that we don't use them in the same way as the DoD used them when they wrote the definition.

I'm sure we would all agree that some junior cadet NCO going all "Full Metal Jacket" on her flight by screaming and yelling profanities at individuals is acting inappropriately.   And any senior worth his/her salt would intervene immediately.

But the problems don't arise at the extremes, because use of "embarass" and "demean" are ominously ambiguous in situations encountered every day at cadet units.  And since the 52-10 defines any sort of hazing as physical abuse requiring immediate report and suspension of the members, we create a very real fear in our CP leaders.  This fear, in turn, may lead to an innapropriate "demilitarization" of the program.  And missed training opporunities caused by an excessively lax atmosphere may never be made up.

Example:  During an open ranks inspection, the inspector may tell cadet X that her insignia have been placed incorrectly on her uniform.  Cadet X may well be "embarassed" to have such a fault mentioned publicly during the inspection.  (As a side note, Cadet X should be embarassed for a simple error that she knows she should not have made.)

I ask you plainly - has Cadet X been hazed?  Should the inspector be suspended pending an investigation?

Example:  When my daughter received her Mitchell, I gave a brief speech about how proud of her I was.  During the speech I pointed out that there was a time when she had difficulty doing simple facing movements.  The point was to show how far she had come.  She later mentioned that she found it slightly embarassing to be reminded of her early ineptness when it came to drill.

I again ask you plainly - did I haze my daughter?  Should I have been suspended pending an investigation?


See, that's part of the problem Nathan is getting at.  Once we depart from reasonable DOD interpretations of the DOD's own definition, it is difficult or impossible to know what is meant by the words.  And if a reasonable member cannot predict in advance whether pointing out an error during an inspection - however professionally phrased and intoned - is or is not hazing, the regulation is worse than useless.  It may actually act against the very thing it was designed to do - provide cadets with safe training in the CAP cadet program.



Thoughts?

[cap235629]

Boy I wish I joined the Air Force instead of the Army if you can't get smoked. I have fond memories of the "pit" at C Co 795th MP BN at Fort McClellan.  We were smoked on a regular basis and it wasn't confined to push ups. Bloomin Dip Dips, Steam Engines, Rifle Drills and the list goes on.... In fact if we didn't get smoked we wondered what was wrong! LOL... I was smoked as an individual and the platoon/company was often smoked en masse. This was NOT part of our daily PT program...... Oh and contrary to popular opinion, being cussed out was not uncommon either though technically against the rules. Other things happened as well but I knew what I had signed for.

and all of these behaviors have NO PLACE AT ALL IN C.A.P.!!!!!!!!!

[capchiro]

Ned,

In response: "Just between us lawyers, you have to admit that it is interesting that we use the DoD definition and apparently choose to interpret it in a significantly different manner."  Let me reiterate, I am a CAP legal officer, not a DoD legal officer.  My job is to represent the Corporation in legal matters.  I am not a part of DoD, I do not represent DoD, and I have absolutely nothing to do with DoD.  That said, I know what our Reg's say about hazing and I know what National says about using push-ups or PT for punishment.  We may use the same words to define hazing, but it is not within my domain to tell you what DoD means within their definition.  We are part of an organization that makes up it's own Reg's and definition and it doesn't matter what anyone else does.  The military uses the term cadet, however a military cadet is an entirely different animal than our cadet.  Does that mean we are wrong? No, we are not the military and we are not the DoD.  By joining CAP, I have agreed to abide by the CAP Reg's.  I don't see why this appears to be a problem for so many?  Their are many organisations I could join and they all have their own rules and Reg's.  I have joined this one and as such, I will uphold it's Reg's.  If they ever seem contrary to my own good sense, I will attempt to change them through proper channels or find a different outlet for my services.   

[Ned]

Harry,

If you don"t want to venture outside the CAP domain for any reason, I guess I understand.

But you're a unique kind of guy - both a legal officer and a commander.

Could I get you to answer the questions I posed above concerning Cadet X and myself?

From a purely CAP standpoint, of course.

If you don't want to answer, could you let us know why?

[NEBoom]

I went through basic training and tech school at Lackland AFB in 2003-04.  I have been stationed at Lackland ever since, and have an extensive amount of experience working within the training environment there.

My first experience with PT (push-ups to be specific) as a form of punishment occurred on Day of Training 3.  I was appointed dorm chief and not 4 hours later was dropped for the actions of another trainee in the flight.  It usually consisted of 25 push-ups at a time.  PT as a form of punishment continued consistently through the remainder of the school.

Moving across the street to tech school, the team (roughly 110 students) were all dropped by the military training leader (MTL) during the first week.  We were down for 5 minutes.  After that, all discipline was accomplished through use of 341's which resulted in loss of phase privileges, extra duty on the weekend, letters of counseling, etc.

Very well, I stand corrected.  Thanks.

[Gunner C]

After all, a legislator can define an equine as a bovine , but that doesn't mean they're gonna get any milk.

Yes, but you can be cow kicked by a horse. 

The hardest school I ever went through was Special Forces Selection.  No harassment, no hazing. They made just made it hard.  We put the pressure on ourselves.  The most compressed high risk training was the HALO Jump Master Course.  No harassment whatsoever. The fastest course I went through was Army Pathfinder.  They didn't even raise their voices. But there was plenty of pressure.  If we want professional training, keep the standards high.  Yelling at people is a waste of energy and it doesn't make them smarter.

[N Harmon]

CAP interprets hazing exactly the same way as the DOD by definition.

The only place you will find said definition is in the RST presentations required for encampments, and they use and quote the DOD policy.

CAP does NOT interpret hazing exactly the same way as the DoD. From: http://milcom.jag.af.mil/ch07/hazing.doc

Hazing does not include authorized training of any sort, administrative corrective measures, or additional military instruction.

CAP interprets hazing as including punitive PT. The DoD does not.

See, that's part of the problem Nathan is getting at.  Once we depart from reasonable DOD interpretations of the DOD's own definition, it is difficult or impossible to know what is meant by the words.  And if a reasonable member cannot predict in advance whether pointing out an error during an inspection - however professionally phrased and intoned - is or is not hazing, the regulation is worse than useless.  It may actually act against the very thing it was designed to do - provide cadets with safe training in the CAP cadet program.

Thoughts?

I think you're absolutely right. I think the problem is how the CPP is worded, and how that creates confusion over what it is really talking about. Cruelty, abusiveness, humiliating, oppressing, demeaning, harmful...these are all relative concepts that mean different things for different people. But then the regulation says an example is using PT as punishment, and that hazing is a form of physical abuse. A person new to CAP might read that and totally miss that it could also apply to handing out pink web belts to the flight with the poorest performance.

Thus we necessitate RST... repeatedly. And still have problems.

[sarmed1]

It could apply to any number of situations that cause an individual to feel humiliated, depressed etc etc....such as on spot corrections, addressing a flight for poor performance, comparing one flight to another (...why cant you be more like alpha flight...their barracks is squared away)  annoucing CPFT times  (everyone else, if you didnt hear your name called  you failed the run)....simple things that good people in CAP do all the time without a second thought.

I think that is the inherant problem with CAP's hazng regulations.....they are written to vague that they are completely open to interpretation by the abusee (or thier "advocates"),I can see the merit of having some manuever room (it prevents defenses of the regulation said dont do this...I didnt do it that way so I am ok) RST doesnt train people to not do these things, it trains them to think, and understand that the need to be cautious of thier actions and what they say and how they say it that it could lead them unknowingly into a hazing incident.

mk
mk

[capchiro]

Ned, in your two examples, it is not a question of whether either cadet has been hazed, it is a question of whether either cadet feels abused or hazed.  If either cadet reported they had been abused/hazed then a very specific plan of action would have been initiated and the hazer would/should be suspended pending investigation.  The investigation and reporting to a higher/deciding authority brings the reasonableness into the situation.  If after investigation it is found there was no abuse/hazing then there was no abuse/hazing.  There are certain areas that have been abused in the past and push-ups and PT as punishment are two of them.  Therefore, National has determined these are just a straight forward no-no.  We are not alone when it comes to groups with vague definitions to protect others.  Look at race relations in the military.  Look at sexual harassment laws, EEOC laws, hostile work environment, any discrimination laws, most juvenile laws, the list goes on and on.  Anytime there is a potential for abuse, most likely a vague law/reg/definition has been adopted to offer the most protection in cases that may be unforeseen.  There are cases of sexual harassment that have been filed when someone asked someone for a date or someone heard an off color joke that wasn't intended for them.  Our Reg's are there to protect the cadets and give guidelines to all of our members.  Our investigators and higher authorities are there to attempt to insure justice/reasonableness.  So, when in doubt, don't violate the Reg's.  Commander at the level of the violation don't determine "if" a violation has happened.  They are required to report when and if they become aware of possible violations.  They are also responsible for suspending the alleged violating party to protect the cadet from further abuse or potential threats from the accused. 

[Ned]

Harry,

Thank you for your response.  Your unique insight as both a legal officer and commander (not to mention a health professional) are invaluable.

Ned, in your two examples, it is not a question of whether either cadet has been hazed, it is a question of whether either cadet feels abused or hazed.  If either cadet reported they had been abused/hazed then a very specific plan of action would have been initiated and the hazer would/should be suspended pending investigation. 

Respectfully non-concur, and this illustrates the problem.

You state that the question is whether the cadet feels that she/he was hazed and makes a report.

But the regulation disagrees, and clearly states that hazing can occur even if the cadet doesn't feel that they were hazed.  (52-10, para 1c: "Actual or implied consent to acts of hazing does not eliminate culpability of the perpetrator.")  The burden is not on the cadet to report whether they were hazed.  As a practical matter, that is probably a good idea to prevent any post-event pressure being put on a reporting cadet.

So the question remains, in my two not-so-hypotherical examples:  Were the cadets hazed?

The one thing we know already is that it doesn't matter if they thought so or not.

If after investigation it is found there was no abuse/hazing then there was no abuse/hazing.  There are certain areas that have been abused in the past and push-ups and PT as punishment are two of them. 

Can't really disagree there, but note that it is commanders like yourself that make the final determination.  What guidelines should commanders use in these situations?

[Eclipse]

CAP interprets hazing exactly the same way as the DOD by definition.

The only place you will find said definition is in the RST presentations required for encampments, and they use and quote the DOD policy.

CAP does NOT interpret hazing exactly the same way as the DoD. From: http://milcom.jag.af.mil/ch07/hazing.doc

Hazing does not include authorized training of any sort, administrative corrective measures, or additional military instruction.

CAP interprets hazing as including punitive PT. The DoD does not.

"Authorized PT" is no more hazing in CAP than it is in the military.

PT as punishment in not "authorized PT".  The services may define what is acceptable regarding PT, but the definition of hazing is the same.

[RiverAux]

Nathan, lets assume for the sake of this thread that CAP comes up with a very strict, structured program that would allow the use of push ups or other PT in a limited fashion in encampment environments....

What sort of infractions do you believe would warrant such punishment?
Who would be authorized to order it?  Senior member only?  Cadet leaders (flight commanders, etc.)? 

[Nathan]

Nathan, lets assume for the sake of this thread that CAP comes up with a very strict, structured program that would allow the use of push ups or other PT in a limited fashion in encampment environments....

What sort of infractions do you believe would warrant such punishment?
Who would be authorized to order it?  Senior member only?  Cadet leaders (flight commanders, etc.)?

Sorry I didn't get to this sooner.

As I said, I don't claim to have the research specified that would allow me to specify EXACTLY what would be the safe limitations for the average cadet, nor do I want to make that kind of commitment when I know very well that these ideas are probably not going to make it off the board.

It would be those specified limitations that would be the best predictor of who could utilize PT, what infractions would be punishable by PT, and so forth. For the purposes of this discussion, I've been utilizing a halfway-arbitrary "5-push-ups per set, 2 sets per hour, 6 set maximum per day." That could be way too easy, but I don't think a maximum of thirty push-ups a day spread over a minimum of three hours crosses anyone's moral boundaries, and 6 sets per day gives some ample flexibility to the user. But, like I said, I didn't do any research to back that up. That would just be my on-the-fly guesstimate for the purposes of discussion.

THAT being said, I think that the only reason people think this is a big deal is because people think that they're SUPPOSED to think it's a big deal. For instance, there are few times when I've seen cadets get hazed through "raised voice encouragement", and yes, while I have seen it deviate into hazing (where it was promptly corrected), cadets HAVE been shown to be capable of handling using a raised voice. In fact, I could imagine that had CAP banned the use of raising one's voice during encampment, the thread would be progressing much the same way it is now.

What I'm saying is that I think a cadet could handle this with as much experience as a cadet could handle raising his or her voice, or leading regular PT, or supervising a work detail. ANYTHING that someone can do from a place of authority can be abused, and it is EVERY DAY that we are teaching our cadets ways to use said authority in a respectful way. The solution is not to take power away from them under the assumption that they will abuse it. The solution is, like teaching cadets to drill, mentor, or give an order, teach the cadet the effective ways of using these tools.

And infractions, as I covered earlier, would be those that need a little more register than what usually occurs after a typical finger-wagging, but not so much punishment as to warrant something that would actually reduce morale, such as deprivation of participation at an activity, or loss of honor points. I'm afraid to point out any specific infraction, as I know that there are people who are going to choose to attack my situations rather than think critically and come up with one that might be more creative than mine.

But an example might include being late to opening formation. This I think is a fair example for a few reasons. First, from experience, this is not generally the sole fault of the flight commander, so the flight usually does feel responsibility for this. This is important, because ANY punishment (including, but not limited to push-ups) can do majorly bad things if the whole flight is confused as to why they are being punished. Second, generally, being late to opening formation is an inconvenience, but not a real problem for the commander. It doesn't really warrant a punishment that would cause any real unit morale issues (loss of honor points), especially since it's the beginning of the day. Third, again from experience, the issue is difficult to correct with simply telling them to be earlier, partly because the threat of another talking-to is laughable for even a preteen cadet, and partly because the brain, upon waking up, can usually find it pretty easy to justify sleeping in a little bit when the punishment for doing so is almost nil.

The push-ups, in this situation, would do EXACTLY what we need them to do. A set of five would register as a punishment, which is what we want. The cadets would have no question that they are in trouble. The push-ups would not be harmful to the cadets in a way that, say, forcing them to get up early the next day to work KP might (cadets are generally busy enough that free time is precious as it is). Finally, the WHOLE group, commander and sergeant included, is taking responsibility for the error, which prevents the humiliation and singling-out aspect of hazing, which is exactly what we're aiming for. Yes, everyone involved in the error is doing the push-ups, right to the flight commander (and don't give me the typical chat about even the C/CC being responsible; the C/CC should have better things to do than to physically wake every cadet up). The cadets knock out their five, stand up at attention, and their day goes on as normal. The next morning, they know that they don't want to be punished again (because they avoid the punishment, not specifically the push-ups), and they hopefully get up on time.

Cadets can absorb reprimands like a sponge. But few cadets are going to ignore warnings when they involve a tangible punishment, even if that tangible punishment does no physical, mental, or morale harm.

[Eclipse]

THAT being said, I think that the only reason people think this is a big deal is because people think that they're SUPPOSED to think it's a big deal. For instance, there are few times when I've seen cadets get hazed through "raised voice encouragement", and yes, while I have seen it deviate into hazing (where it was promptly corrected), cadets HAVE been shown to be capable of handling using a raised voice. In fact, I could imagine that had CAP banned the use of raising one's voice during encampment, the thread would be progressing much the same way it is now.

Then you'd be wrong.  BTW - there's also no need to "raise your voice" during an encampment or other activity, either (except perhaps, to be heard, initially over the din of legit activities).  Strutting around about how upset you are over "whatever", screaming like you're insane, when everyone in the room knows that ultimately they can just walk out the door and leave you yelling, just makes you look like an idiot with an anger management problem.

The most effective leaders I know speak in a tone, and with a posture, that requires you focus your attention on them, and if you ignore them, you do so at your own peril (of missing the opportunity, etc).  Intimidation may get your troops moving up the hill, but its not leadership, and it sets a poor example.

As a parent, and a leader, I can promise you that while yelling may get a kid's attention, a 3000 psi stare direct in the eyes along with a few carefully crafted sentences about ethics, honor, or risk will get you the response you want a lot more than yelling or push-ups.

Frankly, cadets who need yelling or PT to understand our expectations probably need to find someplace else to spend their time.

As to your repeated use of the example of losing honor points instead of doing push-ups because that's "better"? No, that's the point.  If you're doing somehting to lose points towards honor flight, you don't get a "pass" based on pushups, washing the CC's car, or anything else.

You lose the points.

And maybe honor flight.

And that, you'll remember - a lot longer than doing a few push-ups.

The last thing you want is to change the objective scoring of something like honor flight to a subjective exercise in whether you dropped them for push ups a few times instead of giving them points.

Explain that to mom.

Regardless, however, those of us opposed to PT for discipline are against it because we know its a bad idea, not because we're "supposed to be against it...".

[Short Field]

Regardless, however, those of us opposed to PT for discipline are against it because we know its a bad idea, not because we're "supposed to be against it...".

+1   

[Ned]

TW - there's also no need to "raise your voice" during an encampment or other activity, either (except perhaps, to be heard, initially over the din of legit activities).

Hmmm.

Bob, I have to non-concur with the notion that there is never (or almost never) an appropriate time to raise one's voice at encampment.

(Bear with me here.)

 

Strutting around about how upset you are over "whatever", screaming like you're insane, when everyone in the room knows that ultimately they can just walk out the door and leave you yelling, just makes you look like an idiot with an anger management problem.

Sure, put to that extreme I can only agree.

The most effective leaders I know speak in a tone, and with a posture, that requires you focus your attention on them, and if you ignore them, you do so at your own peril (of missing the opportunity, etc). 

Sure, I've known effective leaders like that, too.

Intimidation may get your troops moving up the hill, but its not leadership, and it sets a poor example.

Well, as a former Infantry officer, I've had to get my troops moving up the hill, both literally and figuratively.  And sometimes that gets done with a raised voice by good leaders. 

(To be fair, it sometimes gets done with a loud voice by bad leaders, as well.)

And, of course, there is a lot more to it than mere "intimidation."  Sometimes it sounds like encouragement.  Sometimes it sounds like urgent directions given to the troops.

But when literally moving troops up the hill, it pretty much was never "posture-based" communication.

As a parent, and a leader, I can promise you that while yelling may get a kid's attention, a 3000 psi stare direct in the eyes along with a few carefully crafted sentences about ethics, honor, or risk will get you the response you want a lot more than yelling or push-ups.

And as a fellow parent and leader (including in the military) I can promise both you and Nathan that on occasion a raised voice is entirely appropriate and an important part of our Leadership Laboratory in CP is learning when and how to do so.

I'm confident that we agree that going "Full Metal Jacket" on the cadets is always inappropriate.  But it is equally inappropriate to treat encampment like a week in the library.

There is  a reason that intitial military training looks and sounds pretty much the same across cultures and over time.  Because military discipline and leadership have stood the test of time, and are crucial in producing effectiver leaders.

There's a reason that while only about 10% of Americans are veterans, over two-thirds of our Presidents have been veterans.  Because military leadership training produces civilian leaders. 

Crucial military skills like working as part of a team, attention to detail, motivating subordinates to reach goals in stressful situations, managing time effectively, etc., have been taught by sergeants - sometimes with a raised voice - to military newbees for thousands of years.

Our cadet program has been a military-based leadership program for over 60 years.  And military leadership training is fairly distinctive, and sometimes includes things like group PT, marching, uniform inspections, and yes, loud voices.

It may surprise you to hear that I actually support the current restriction against using PT as punishments, for many of the reasons listed in this thread.  (But I agree with Nathan and others that such a rule is not inherent in the DoD hazing definition - the 52-10 is simply poorly written on that point.  It should not claim that the restriction is based on the DoD definition, we should simply add it as an additional rule, like our AFJRTOC counterparts.)

But it is a military-based program.  With alll that that entails.  Don't cheat our cadets out of a vigorous and challenging program by pretending that the military leaders never, ever raise their voices in appropriate situations.

[BillB]

A former Region Commander once told me that one of the purposes of an Encampment was to correct the sorry training found in many Squadrons. If this means talking in loud voice, so what? Over the years National has come up with regulations in the cadet program that make little sense, and often reverse acts that have a long history in CAP as well as the military. There is a middle of the road and CAP seems to have gone off on the shoulder just to avoid potential problem areas. For some unknown reason the plans that National comes up with are not what cadets join CAP for. In fact I am aware that the National CAC has opposed several parts of 52-16 and were ignored. The mistake is adults make the regulations with little or no consideration of what theprogram is or what the cadets want in the program. Basically no one listens to cadets since they are only children. Bad concept.