Wow, AFA Losing Cadets!

Christcorp, I'm not sure we (mostly civilians) are expressing our point correctly so I'm going to ask a very simple question.

Do you believe that hazing and bullying has happened at the academy?

I'll make it simpler and define the terms: a cadre who singled out a cadet, regardless of the reason, and then used methods that aren't sanctioned/approved/appropriate to 'punish' him regardless of whether such actions led to the cadet quitting?

The question is open to anyone.

Christcorp said:

It's not a matter of agreeing to disagree. No person can be forced to quit. It's their choice. If a trainee was being treated to the point of physical or mental health issues, then they knew how to report that. If they didn't report it, then I can't accept there was any. And unless there is some proof that an individual was being treated differently than the other trainees, then I can't accept that either. As I said in a previous post, when a person quits, we can never know the full truth. We only get one side of the story. And that side is biased by human nature.

Click to expand...

I was politely trying to bow out of this debate with you because frankly it's getting tiresome for me and there is no useful new information being raised. We are both becoming repetitive without furthering the discussion.

Annamaria said:

Christcorp, I'm not sure we (mostly civilians) are expressing our point correctly so I'm going to ask a very simple question.

Do you believe that hazing and bullying has happened at the academy?

I'll make it simpler and define the terms: a cadre who singled out a cadet, regardless of the reason, and then used methods that aren't sanctioned/approved/appropriate to 'punish' him regardless of whether such actions led to the cadet quitting?

The question is open to anyone.

Click to expand...

Yes, hazing and bullying has and will happen at the acdemy.

Little confused by the second question, but I would say yes, I think

It really doesn't matter why the cadet quit, as the end state is he or she left the academy. If you want me agree that it was unfair and unjust, I would agree to that. It's done. It can't be undone. We might be able to place programs and procedures to prevent a cadre from singling out a cadet, but unintended consequences of those programs and procedures will hurt the academy and cadets more. Perhaps, I am too cyncial or I am a part of the problem, but the world we live in is unfair and unjust. Most things in life is not about how hard you try or being fair or just.

This is why I think we are having two different conversations.

I hope that I'm not putting words into anyone's mouth, but it seems to me that most civilians are saying that hazing happens and while 99.99% of cadets quit for whatever reason, the .01% quits because of the hazing.

The military people are saying you can't say this cadet quit because of hazing because it rarely happens.

Both are correct and neither disproves the other, since no one here can say why any single cadet quit. However as a civilian and as a mother, I would take my daughter's word over the blanket statement that it can't be because it rarely happens. She might just be that exception. Just like no one here can say that it didn't happen in this case, because they aren't there.

The military is a tough life. Some can hack it, some can't.

Going in you know it will be tough. There will be yelling. There will be punishing physical aspects as well. Heck, eventually you may be shot at! You may have to take a life or give your own.

Quitting for verbal taunting or physical beats indicates a great probability that the offended candidate was at the wrong place for them. Leaving was probably the right thing.

That's why the feeling of accomplishment is so strong. It "ain't" easy.

Maplerock said:

The military is a tough life. Some can hack it, some can't.

Going in you know it will be tough. There will be yelling. There will be punishing physical aspects as well. Heck, eventually you may be shot at! You may have to take a life or give your own.

Quitting for verbal taunting or physical beats indicates a great probability that the offended candidate was at the wrong place for them. Leaving was probably the right thing.

That's why the feeling of accomplishment is so strong. It "ain't" easy.

Click to expand...

Agreed but again none of that negates the idea that there might be one cadet that quits because of bullying which is not allowed behavior.

Annamaria said:

Maplerock said:

The military is a tough life. Some can hack it, some can't.

Going in you know it will be tough. There will be yelling. There will be punishing physical aspects as well. Heck, eventually you may be shot at! You may have to take a life or give your own.

Quitting for verbal taunting or physical beats indicates a great probability that the offended candidate was at the wrong place for them. Leaving was probably the right thing.

That's why the feeling of accomplishment is so strong. It "ain't" easy.

Click to expand...

Agreed but again none of that negates the idea that there might be one cadet that quits because of bullying which is not allowed behavior.

Click to expand...

So, the behavior is already not "allowed"…. what would you have them do?

And to be perfectly honest, I'm not sure I'd want to serve next to someone who would break under that kind of pressure….. You may call it bullying or hazing, but from what some of us have seen or heard about, it's not what you might make it out to be…. and it certainly doesn't compare to the pressure you can experience once you've graduated and have lives in your hands.

LineInTheSand said:

So, the behavior is already not "allowed"…. what would you have them do?

Click to expand...

The same thing that they are doing with other problems: better training of the cadre, better supervision, clear punishment for the cadre and anonymous reporting so that the officers know where the problem is. If there is a system where the basic can anonymously report the cadre then the staff is put on notice. At that point it becomes the staff's responsibility to supervise the situation until the situation is resolved with either a dismissal of the cadre or a finding that nothing improper has happened.

Annamaria said:

LineInTheSand said:

So, the behavior is already not "allowed"…. what would you have them do?

Click to expand...

The same thing that they are doing with other problems: better supervision and anonymous reporting so that the officers know where the problem is. If there is a system where the basic can anonymously report the cadre then the staff is put on notice. At that point it becomes the staff's responsibility to supervise the situation until the situation is resolved with either a dismissal of the cadre or a finding that nothing improper has happened.

Click to expand...

This already exists. There are a number of ways to report. But we should also be careful with where these leads. A crappy cadet who doesn't like to do push ups, anonymously reports a cadre doing his job…. this can damage the cadre's career, and the short timing dead weight basic exits in the next two years anyway.

There is already 1/c supervision and officers overseeing the training. Beyond that, cadets tend to self-regulate…. when cadre go overboard, there are other cadre to check them. If one seems to not respond, 1/c cadets or officers can respond, either with corrective actions or punishment.

MemberLG said:

Yes, hazing and bullying has and will happen at the acdemy.

Little confused by the second question, but I would say yes, I think

It really doesn't matter why the cadet quit, as the end state is he or she left the academy. If you want me agree that it was unfair and unjust, I would agree to that. It's done. It can't be undone. We might be able to place programs and procedures to prevent a cadre from singling out a cadet, but unintended consequences of those programs and procedures will hurt the academy and cadets more. Perhaps, I am too cyncial or I am a part of the problem, but the world we live in is unfair and unjust. Most things in life is not about how hard you try or being fair or just.

Click to expand...

MemberLG, you and I are in agreement here. This was very well put. We all have our ideas of what should be, and often what is falls short, but the alternative may be worse.

LineInTheSand said:

And to be perfectly honest, I'm not sure I'd want to serve next to someone who would break under that kind of pressure….. You may call it bullying or hazing, but from what some of us have seen or heard about, it's not what you might make it out to be…. and it certainly doesn't compare to the pressure you can experience once you've graduated and have lives in your hands.

Click to expand...

Again I don't know anything about the specifics. I'm not claiming that this one case is the case. Plenty of posters have stated that they are speaking generally.

LineInTheSand said:

This already exists. There are a number of ways to report. But we should also be careful with where these leads. A crappy cadet who doesn't like to do push ups, anonymously reports a cadre doing his job…. this can damage the cadre's career, and the short timing dead weight basic exits in the next two years anyway.

There is already 1/c supervision and officers overseeing the training. Beyond that, cadets tend to self-regulate…. when cadre go overboard, there are other cadre to check them. If one seems to not respond, 1/c cadets or officers can respond, either with corrective actions or punishment.

Click to expand...

See but saying this on page one would have shortened the conversation. I think a lot of us a reacting to the statements that you have to blindly trust as opposed to someone explaining all of this to parents who honestly have no clue and I admit to being one of those. I'm also left asking people like you and Christcorp and others because if I ask my daughter I get "everything is fine here. Don't worry about it." And while I might not interfere with her life and her career, I'm going to worry about her until I die just like my mother still worries about me. So off to the forums I go to discover what's what.

Haha, well, I took awhile to check out this thread.

I'll explain the checks and balances at USCGA and I'm guessing (although I'm not 100% sure) that USAFA has something similar.

During Swab Summer, as a squad leader in Yankee-3 platoon, I answered to my platoon XO and platoon commander (PC) (both 2/c cadets). My PC answered to the company commander of Yankee Company (also a 2/c cadet). The Yankee company commander reported to Battalion Staff (Bat. Staff) (1/c cadets). The entire swab summer was overseen by a number of senior enlisted members and officers.

Before we even saw our Swabs we received a week or two of training from the Training Center Cape May company commanders (the Coast Guard drill instructors who train the enlisted members of the Coast Guard).

If someone steps out of line, it's up to the person in charge of them to correct them. If I did something wrong, my PC would correct me. That correction could also involve our company commander. Understanding classmates correcting classmates can be difficult, Bat. Staff 1/c might also be involved. And of course, if the problem runs deeper, officers may be involved.

During the school year a similar system exists. 4/c answer to 3/c who answer to 2/c who answer to 1/c who answer to company commanders (1/c), who answer to regimental staff (1/c). Inside (or more accurately outside) of this cadet run Corps, are senior enlisted members (chiefs, senior chiefs or master chiefs) who advise cadets (especially cadet leadership). They also provide senior guidance and give cadets an idea of how to interact with enlisted crews. Each company also has a company officer (a lieutenant or lieutenant commander) who provide guidance through the eyes of an officer and can correct his/her company's cadets. These company officers work closely with the 1/c leadership of the company, to ensure the company is successful.

Through it all cadets have a variety of options to correct actions, and report issues (most advisably through their chain of command, but other methods too).

This is not the wild west with cadets destroying cadets. There are a number of checks and balances. And of course, cadets are also subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (as well as cadet regulations and service rules and regulations).

As mentioned by someone in an earlier post, most times it's a matter of perspective. You say you'd take the word of your daughter if it were her that quit because she felt she was the victim of hazing or similar mistreatment. Not saying your daughter would be lying for saying this to you, but it's quite possible that it's just her perception that she was being hazed. When in reality, she wasn't.

To answer any of yours or other's hypotheticals on this thread, we'd have to all agree on definitions. What you consider hazing, others here may not. Maybe the academy doesn't either. So who's correct with their definition. By societal history, generally the definition that is accepted by the majority, is considered the accepted definition. I don't consider a cadre in your face, telling you you'll never make it, asking if you miss mommy and daddy, etc. as hazing. I don't consider doing additional push-ups, running, redoing your bed, etc. as hazing. Nor do I consider it inappropriate behavior.

The academy teaches their cadre where the line is that can't be crossed. You say that you would take your daughter's word over a blanket statement that it can't be, because it rarely happens. Well, I would probably be skeptical, being the average is 95% make it through BCT without any hazing complaints, and the majority of this who do quit, tend to rationalize a story that is more accepting in their social environment.

Not that this matters at all, but I've known and spoken to 7 individuals who quit the academy at different points in the process. 4 during BCT and 3 before commitment. Only 1 of those 7 said it's because they realized the academy just wasn't for them. The other 6 came up with reasons such as the academy didn't have the major they wanted, they didn't want to break up with their girlfriend, they knew they wouldn't pass the flight physical and only wanted to fly planes, and a couple more that would really shock you.

The point is, it doesn't matter what could happen, what does happen, or anything else along those lines. What does matter is, unless an individual truly feels they are being hazed, discriminated against, treated unfairly, etc. and presents that to the chain of command for investigation to prove one way or the other, then I will have to side with the 99+% who either made it through, was let go for medical reasons, or left because they realized the academy and/or military wasn't for them.

As a military member, the first oath I swore, was to protect and defend the constitution. That means an individual, or even a system or institution, is innocent until proven guilty. Unless the individual making these allegations against a particular cadre or the academy at large, is willing to confront the academy so the allegations can be investigated, then I will accept the cadre's and the academy's innocence.

Annamaria,

You seem genuinely concerned about what you have read here, and rightly so. At the same time, I don't want to give you the impression that the type of behavior I recounted and objected to is widespread. It is not. It is very rare. I'm just not the type to deny that it exists because I know better. I also do not particularly agree with some of the cavalier gung-ho language used here to describe to BCT process and the less than flattering language used to describe cadets that ultimately drop. Much of this comes from chest-thumping parents whose kids made it through, less so from service academy grads. I can't tell you how many times I've seen summer indoc referred to as a "weeding out" process. Really? these kids are "weeds". But that's a different issue. But again, it is easy to get the wrong impression from this cavalier language. Good luck to you and your DD.

Oh I understand it's rare and I get daily calls telling me how well things are going and 'it's not that bad, really', so I know my kid is doing just fine at the moment. As a lawyer I'm used to the 'what if' things weren't fine which is why I ask the question.

Thanks to everyone that has helped examining the process and thank you AlexT.

Training at the Academy can be and very often is stressful. Part of the point is to stress cadets and train them to perform under pressure. BCT is a shock for many (including myself). That said, there are very specific rules and systems in place to limit any abuses. Any system designed and run by humans will occasionally fail. By and large, the rules of BCT keep things in check. Cadet cadre are not professional drill instructors. That is why there are multiple levels of oversight and the trainee to trainer ratio is so low (roughly 4:1 vs 50:1 at USAF enlisted BMT). Overall, the system is sound.

In the past (read 1990s-early 2000s), USAFA ran a SERE program. Unfortunately, abuses rising to felony levels occurred. The program was shut down. Years later, a partial program, omitting the resistance portion, was reintroduced at USAFA. Cadets were not trained to the professional level as Resistance instructors (no real way you could, without a massive schedule change). The nature of resistance training can be seriously dark and scary. The trainers have to go right up to lines that can't be crossed to provide the best training. Unfortunately, that environment allowed some criminally-minded cadets to prey on others, by crossing those lines. Sadly, some cadets were abused and assaulted, before the perpetrators were discovered. While most cadets got valuable training out of it, the potential for abuse was too high, and the academy eliminated the program (eventually returning parts of it that were less liable to abuse).
Big picture point--USAFA and its cadets are not perfect, but they do a good job in general, and limit items where the risks outweigh the training value.

Annamaria said:

The military people are saying you can't say this cadet quit because of hazing because it rarely happens.

Both are correct and neither disproves the other, since no one here can say why any single cadet quit. However as a civilian and as a mother, I would take my daughter's word over the blanket statement that it can't be because it rarely happens. She might just be that exception. Just like no one here can say that it didn't happen in this case, because they aren't there.

Click to expand...

I guess I am a member of the "military people." My proposition is that there is no sufficient evidence present during this 15+ page posting for me to accept this cadet quit because of hazing. I think most "military people" would agree that a cadet can quit because of hazing, it could be 1 out of 100 or 1000. I don't doubt or fault any parent for believing and supporting their childern.

But for some of us to agree that this cadet quit because of hazing, more detail is needed. Which creates a paradox, as me agreeing that this cadet quit because of hazing changes nothing.

MemberLG said:

We will never know because some cadets separated due to actions of cadre with personal agendas that Freda separated due to actions of cadre with personal agendas. The "rebuke" was more about other possibilities why Freda separated.

Click to expand...

Te be clear, "Freda" did not separate.

And my information did not come from any separated cadet or mid, but from the cadre who admitted their actions. Read it again - this is not the whining of a disenrolled cadet or midshipman, giving excuses to parents and friends - this is their detailers/cadre admitting that they are more than willing and able to direct subtle hazing and extra pressure to influence a new cadet/basic/swab/etc to DOR.

Many here are making posts saying "Yes, it could happen" but then immediately make comments saying they don't believe it. It can't be both ways, either you accept the possibility that it can happen and HAS happened, or you reject the possibility of it ever happening.

Again, my info comes not from the person who "couldn't make it" but from cadre/former cadre who admit to the conduct.

Big difference.