Nathan's view of hazing

[flyguy06]

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.

Amen. What all these "lawyers" and reg nazis dont realize is the cadets,which are our customers,the ones hat pay their membership dues like a lot of this stuff.  But nobody is listening to the customer.

All I can say is I have worked onstaff at encampments and the cadets had a great time. When they see me at other activities they stop me and thank me and ask if I will be at the next encampment.

[ZigZag911]

Just because adolescents want something doesn't mean it's good for them!

There is a vast difference between letting cadets conduct the program (including having some input to policy) under adult supervision, and allowing them to do whatever they want whenever they want to.

In my younger days I must admit I was a 'yeller'. I worked with a youth group (non-CAP) for about 10 years, hollering quite a bit in the first couple of years.

What the kids noticed even before I did was that when I was really angry I did not get louder --I got incredibly quiet when speaking!

Guess when they actually paid attention?

[flyguy06]

Zing Zag,

I think I saisd it wrong. Let me try it this way.  I don't consider them to be adolescents. I think that's one of the problems. A lot of older senior members (and we have a lot of 50 plus year Olds) look at cadets as children and play  that "grandfatherly" role. Telling them old world war two stories or "back when I was in the military we did...." I don't look at cadets as my "kids" I look at cadets as future leaders. Kids dont search for missing people. Kids aren't certified in First Aid. Kids don't fly airplanes by themselves. those activities take a certain kind of maturity. CAP cadets are not your typical teenagers.  I want to train them.

When I say I yell, I don't mean that I yell in an angrily manner. What I meant to say was I yell in a motivating voice. not an angry voice. Everyone has a different style. I believe in motivating cadets by getting them fired up and excited. They love it. I remember this cadet remembered me cause we were on a bus trip and we called cadence the whole time driving to the event. he remembered me leading it. I didn't know him but it made me feel good that I had a positive effect on this young man.

I also hold cadets to the standard and do not accept anything less. Again from "my" experiences I sometimes see thatcadets will pay proper customs and courtesies to senior members they know, but not to SM's they don't know. I will correct that real quick. Am I disrespectful to the cadet? No. But Am I stern? If the cadet is an NCO or officer, yes , if he is an Amn, no.

No, I am not training combat soldiers. but I am training leaders. Young people who may someday lead a ground team. Young people who may someday fly an airplane by themselves. I know the cadet program I went through in 1984 helped me prepare for basic training. I just want to do the same to some young man or woman.

I do not believe in hazing. It is not neccessary. Nor is it legal. I do believe in challenging youths though. I believe we need to teach our cadet officers how to lead. We need to teach them what factors tolook at when selceting a cadet staff. Not just picking "thier" friends or people they "think are squared away. We need to teach them how to conduct staff meetings. How to manage junior cadets. Thats what I think my job as a cadet programs officer is. I dont deal directly with cadet Amn unless I have to.

[Nathan]

Ned covered most of it, but I figured I'd offer my words on it and not try to piggyback off of his legal expertise.

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.

You think in pretty black-and-white terms, which kind of makes it difficult to debate with you sometimes. You equate "raising one's voice" with "screaming like you're insane", and I'm not entirely sure whether that's an attempt at a straw-man argument, or whether you really have never, ever experienced anybody capable of raising their voice and not haze someone in the process.

There is a striking difference between your take on raising your voice, and raising one's voice to provide encouragement, a sense of authority and confidence, and the "militaristic atmosphere", as far as the cadet program is concerned. For the record, I'm not one who generally raises my voice, partly because I'm not very good at it when I do. However, there are some people who can call out orders or, yes, even instill responsible discipline within the troops with a raised voice, and, magically, can do it within the rules of CAP.

How laid-back are you aiming for our program to be, exactly? You interpret the DOD hazing definition as banning punitive PT when the military (the guys for whom it was written) does not, and then go further to believe things are hazing that not even the conservative CAP regulations define as such. It's fine if you believe that the perfect style of leadership is in no way related the way the military has been training people for a while now, but is a CAP encampment really the best place to implement such a relaxed leadership style?

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.

Actually, technically, intimidation IS leadership, but not a very good style. Regardless, I am assuming you think that punitive PT and raising one's voice is intimidation only because you are thinking somewhat extremely. Honestly, have you NEVER been to an encampment where such leadership was utilized effectively by cadets? I'll say it again (at the risk of people misunderstanding again...) that either you have been very unlucky in your CAP ventures, or the discipline in your wing is lacking when it comes to hazing. I am inclined to think the former, because I have not had so many encounters with these problems as you seem to have had.

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.

Not sure I agree here. For one, for such things to be effective, it almost always has to be a one-on-one face time with someone higher ranking than the flight leaders, and it usually takes more than a couple of seconds to implement. For most situations, this is not practical.

Second, I'm not entirely sure what actions you think would warrant a set of push-ups, but I can go back to my earlier example of a flight arriving late at opening formation. Is such an action REALLY indicative of the need of a discussion of honor and ethics? Were they being either unethical or dishonorable? I'm sure that if I tried, I could come up with a doozy of a speech that would render cadets incapable of ever being late to opening formation ever again, but I would rather save that type of speech for something a little more serious (like flight in-fighting). I'm pretty sure a set of five push-ups would be far more effective and efficient in this type of case. We're not talking about correcting serious discipline issues with punitive PT.

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.

Yeah, you'll remember it well after encampment, well after it's actually WORTH anything. It doesn't do a cadet much good to know not to be late to opening formation months after failing to earn honor flight, does it?

I don't doubt that there are instances where cadets may warrant losing honor points. Personally, I would stick with the namesake and go for situations where cadets are not being "honorable." What situations seem to lack honor? Making a jodie that puts down other flights in a manner a little less than in the spirit of fun, spirit missions involving cadets being deprived of some aspect of encampment (failing an inspection because their boots were muddied up), some sort of flight-wide lie, etc. Those are situations where a flight is not being "honorable", and therefore doesn't deserve the title of honor flight.

But honor points getting taken away for showing up late somewhere? For lacking C&C beyond the first verbal correction? Eh... not sure if it's worth taking away what is sometimes the sole motivation for a cadet to excel at encampment. You take away enough honor points, especially early on, and the cadets will have NO REASON to listen to you any more. After all, what else can you do? Take away more honor points, and put them even further away from what is probably an unachievable objective anyway?

[flyguy06]

If I mess up and given the choice of doing ten push ups And getting up or being written up. I Will take the ten push ups. They are temporary. Write ups are permanently in one's file. You actually do more damage to a persons career by writing them up then you do with having them do ten push ups.  But that's just my opinion.

I agree with nathan's comments.

[CadetProgramGuy]

**LONG POST**

First let me start by stating that I have been investigated on hazing Charges.  I was cleared of these charges, and I regret my poor leadership at the time.

Now.......

Ned

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.

Rest cut for brevity

Gotta tell you that by the very use of the definition, you have committed hazing.  We all are for the most part looking at hazing as a physical affliction of pain. (i.e. 'Blood Wings', Pushups, ect......)  What if we ask Cadet X to write a paper on the safety after a safety violation?  Did we just cause emotional harm to this Cadet?

SARMED states –

"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."

Yes they are vague...That's the issue.  Hazing should not be an open interpretation of the vague definition.  If you don't want PT for any other reason than for PT, instead of saying "No PT for Punishment", say "No PT outside of designated PT time as dictated by the posted schedule"....

[NIN]

I just spent a half hour reading this thread, and I have to say, fellows, I think I lost a half-dozen IQ points in the process.

What did I learn?

* The AF doesn't do pushups, or maybe they do. Or they don't do them at or after a first base assignment (is this a "first base" assignment, or your "first base assignment"? I'm confused. I know we don't permit "first base" at CAP activities... Leave the hucklebucking for home, kids!). Or maybe you're supposed to fill out some form while you're doing it?   I got lost in there. Someplace.

* The DoD's definition of hazing is either wrong or its incomplete, or our interpretation is wrong or incomplete.  Which one is it?  Next thing you know, we'll be trying to re-define the word "is."  Crikey, do we have to go thru that again?

* Nathan is apparently a closed-minded, young punk with no experience and even less Cadet Programs credibility and since he is either unmarried or does not have kids, he is unqualified to speak on any subject here.    Amazing what you glean from the words between the lines in people's posts.  Nathan: I knew you were a punk years ago, BTW, I just needed some confirmation from the fine folks here.   Mission Accomplished!  (mind you: I was a young punk, unmarried and lacking in progeny during my first THREE tours as a unit commander, and nobody died or wound up hazed because I hadn't knocked anybody up or made a trip down the aisle, so I'm really unsure what, if ANYTHING, the aforementioned criteria have to do with the discussion at hand except that that the OP, Nathan, doesn't meet those criteria and therefore his opinions are worthless.. Right?  Nice way to try to minimize a guy's position. Why don't you pick on the state he comes from, or his chosen career field?  Oh, whoops, too late..)

* The people who seem to have the most problem with IPT (incentive physical training) are the people who either a) were never in the military; or b) were in a military service that is only considered a military service because its members receive a paycheck from the Department of Defense and not for any military-like traits it could posses. (yes, thats the AIR FORCE I'm cracking wise about, guys.)   Seriously: If I drew a line between the camps: "no, no PT outside of organized PT EVER.." and "Pushups for corrective training might not be a bad thing, if done correctly," and then said "OK, which one of these people was in the Army, Navy or Marine Corps?" there would be very few "line crossers."  (mind you: if you used the phrase "CAP is not a military service" or "CAP is not part of the DoD" then you're not allowed to also say "CAP is not the Army, Navy or Marine Corps," because, you know, if either of the first two statements is true, then clearly CAP would also be incapable of being either the Army, the Navy or the Marine Corps.  And we don't want you repeating yourself. Again.)

* That this discussion is only marginally more lame than the 3,000 other topics about sock colors, boot laces and which way the propellor is supposed to face on your ribbon rack.

*sigh* Can we talk about something, I dunno, more constructive? Cuz this topic has veered off into the weeds far enough that it needs an off road vehicle permit.

(perhaps a better, more constructive topic in this realm may be about the definition and/or redefinition of hazing, for example, within CAP, to more closely mirror that of the DoD and provide better, more clear, less mamby-pamby guidance to CP leaders than it currently does.  That might be at least a tiny bit more constructive.)

[NCRblues]

Well NIN, I can help clear up one of your things.

The air force, during basic training and tech schools utilize pushups, sit ups, and a myriad of other PT functions as punishments.

Upon reaching you first duty station (where you are no longer in training, you are actually performing you job) Pt as a punishment is banned.

[A.Member]

The mistake is adults make the regulations with little or no consideration of what theprogram is or what the cadets want in the program.

I agree that there are plenty of people involved with cadet programs that really don't understand it - often because they've never taken to the time to actually read about it - and as a result have no business being involved.  However...

Basically no one listens to cadets since they are only children.

I disagree with this and in my experience actually find that a big part of the problem is too many seniors let cadets run the program without proper oversight.  Many cadets, particularly those that have been around awhile, think they know what the program is about but have never read 52-16.  Yet, for some unknown reason, these same cadets are given too much influence and silly practices are carried on simply because "that's how we've always done it".  This is a direct result of the previous comment.

[flyguy06]

I love your wit NIN.  But I don't think I would categorize this thread in the same light as those awful uniform threads. This "is" actually an important issue.

NCRBlues,

relax, he was making a joke. No need to be sensitive and come back with some rationale to prove that the AF does do push ups for punishment. he was just being light hearted A little interservice janking. Calm down. A lot of folks on here take everything wayy to seriously and feel the need to defend every adverse thing said. It was a joke for cryin out loud.

But wow, sit ups for punishment

Drill Sergeant: Drop down and give me 20 situps

Gotta say, I never heard that one before. lol

[flyguy06]

Well NIN, I can help clear up one of your things.

The air force, during basic training and tech schools utilize pushups, sit ups, and a myriad of other PT functions as punishments.

Upon reaching you first duty station (where you are no longer in training, you are actually performing you job) Pt as a punishment is banned.

And PT as a punishment is never banned. If a Colonel wanted to, he could form a squad of Majors and PT hem till the cry and be within his legal rights. Would it be professional? Probably not. Legal? oh yeah.

[flyguy06]

52-16 is a guide. If you are runing your cadet program strictly by this guide you are doing your young folks a disservice. If all we did was run the program literally by the regs where is the human factor?

[arajca]

52-16 is a guide. If you are runing your cadet program strictly by this guide you are doing your young folks a disservice. If all we did was run the program literally by the regs where is the human factor?

Wrong answer. REGULATIONS are how we run the program. They are not 'guides'. They are not optional. They set the baseline standard. Pamphlets are guides.

[A.Member]

52-16 is a guide.

No, it's not.  It's a regulation.

If you are runing your cadet program strictly by this guide you are doing your young folks a disservice. If all we did was run the program literally by the regs where is the human factor?

There is plenty of room for creativity and personal style while adhering to the regulations.

[Nick]

52-16 is a guide. If you are runing your cadet program strictly by this guide you are doing your young folks a disservice. If all we did was run the program literally by the regs where is the human factor?

Wrong answer. REGULATIONS are how we run the program. They are not 'guides'. They are not optional. They set the baseline standard. Pamphlets are guides.

Follow on for flyguy06: You're right.  If you run your cadet program strictly by this [regulation] you are doing your young folks a disservice.  I agree.  But, I expect 100% adherence to CAPR 52-16 AND THEN a lot of creativity from both seniors and cadets to enhance the program beyond the bare minimums while still maintaining the required standard.

[Edit: Yeah, what A Member (no, not 'a member', A Member) said]

[ZigZag911]

Flyguy06,

A little motivational 'acting' can be a very positive thing, hold the cadets' attention, focus their minds on the subject at hand.

I fully agree that we should not treat them like 'children' -- couldn't stand that myself WIWAC!

But we need to recognize that both legally and practically cadets ARE adolescents and lack the requisite maturity and experience to make adult judgments reliably & consistently.

Of course this is true for many adults, but I guess we have to draw a line somewhere!

[Cecil DP]

Let's close this subject with the following


CAPR 52-10 defines hazing as:
c. Hazing. [/size]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.
If you can't accept the CAP definition of hazing, ask your Legal Officer or IG for theirs, I'm sure they have more than enough experience to explain it to you.

[flyguy06]

52-16 is a guide. If you are ruining your cadet program strictly by this guide you are doing your young folks a disservice. If all we did was run the program literally by the regs where is the human factor?

Wrong answer. REGULATIONS are how we run the program. They are not 'guides'. They are not optional. They set the baseline standard. Pamphlets are guides.

Again, you are looking at semantics. And taking every word literal. if we took your logic, we wouldn't need leaders. Just people that can memorize regs.

Here is an example. The regs say that if a cadet fails to progress that I am to kick him out of CAP. That thought has never even crossed my mind. First of all if I did that, it would wipe out every cadet in my squadron. Secondly, in my community,I understand why cadets aren't testing on a regular basis. The cadets in your comunity maynot have the same challenges that we do and vice versa.

[flyguy06]

Flyguy06,

A little motivational 'acting' can be a very positive thing, hold the cadets' attention, focus their minds on the subject at hand.

I fully agree that we should not treat them like 'children' -- couldn't stand that myself WIWAC!

But we need to recognize that both legally and practically cadets ARE adolescents and lack the requisite maturity and experience to make adult judgments reliably & consistently.

Of course this is true for many adults, but I guess we have to draw a line somewhere!

Of course. I think a lot of this stems from the lowered age of cadets to 12. I liked it better when the min age was 13. I guess we also have a lot of mddle school aged cadets and yes you have to treat them differently han you do a 16 year old cadet. But still, these folks (who pay their money) want a military like program and I think its my duty to provide that within the CAP regs.  A militray like programs teaches the leadership skills they will need. Coddling and papmering do nothing for their development. And dont take that statement to the extreme. Just because I am anit coddling does not mean I am pro hazing. I find hazing dispicable. anyone who hazes anyone is not not using good leadership skills.

Now the point of this thread is what defines hazing? Its subjective. Please do not cut and paste the def from 52-16. I have read it. Its vague. Its subjective. Bottom line is use common sense.

[NIN]

Let's close this subject with the following

CAPR 52-10 defines hazing as:
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.

If you can't accept the CAP definition of hazing, ask your Legal Officer or IG for theirs, I'm sure they have more than enough experience to explain it to you.

Can't say as I disagree that thats the CAPR 52-10 definition of hazing.

I think the bone of contention, after wading thru 3/4 of this thread, is that the CAPR 52-10 definition of hazing is so broadly written that looking crosseyed at a cadet could be considered hazing if someone wanted to push it.

And a broadly written definition for something thats fairly easy to narrowly define is going to have a chilling effect on the ability of cadet program leaders to effectively do their jobs, execute the mission and provide an effective and  challenging program that is not hidebound by unnecessary and poorly-understood rules.

Frankly, it would be quite easy to sit on your hands and do zip, except point to the 52-10, because in your particular locale someone higher on the food chain got it in their head that something as commonly held as a uniform inspection could be called hazing under that broadly written definition.

So maybe we should consider this first: What is a more workable, legitimate, easy to understand and difficult to misinterpret defintion of "hazing" that would be suitable for CAP (or other cadet organizations) that also meets the letter of intent of the DoD policy?   Mind you, I did not say "way to allow pushups as a disciplinary tool." I said "hazing definition."

We're all smart cadet program leaders of one stripe or another here.  Even Nathan, inexperienced, unmarried and closed minded as he is. 

So maybe we can come up with a far more usable, workable, less prone to mis-interpretation definiton of "hazing" for the purposes of the cadet program.   

And I'm not even talking about either outright banning or outright allowing IPT under such a definition. Because if the definition is correctly written, the words "Pushups" or "incentive physical training" or "corrective physical training" (or words that mean essentially the same thing) would never even be in the definition.  This isn't about "pushups" or "dying cockroaches." This is about hazing.

So how about it, folks?  Anybody game to take a stab at a *better* mousetrap?