New Cadet BBQ

For scoutpilot

I believe this is the quote referred to --
BigNick said:
EVERYONE knows that the degree of difficulty in Beast is very low compared to past years for all Cadets- especially for women. I know this is a "politically incorrect" statement but ask ANY upperclassman if you do not believe this is true. My son (now a Cow) was very surprised and disappointed at the lack of difficulty and the low standards.
Try coming down hard on a woman in Beast - if she gets too emotional the upper class cadet is in trouble - ask any upperclassman in beast for confirmation.
My son was just a Cadre at Buckner - he said that it is a losing proposition to try to be as hard on a female as a male Cadet -
There are many outstanding women Cadets but many just get by because other Cadets are not hard on them because of fear of getting in trouble. Lets quit pretending that the military and physical standards for men and women are equal.
Click to expand...

Also, with regard to the photos, the connection of the pictures to the negative connotation that West Point is going downhill was unfair to the new cadets in the photos. Their image was used as an example of what is wrong with training this year.
 
"As for the photos...they were a publicly released illustration of new cadets falling out in Central Area and eating candy, nothing more and nothing less."

No, they were not. Scout, maybe you are a Cadet, or junior officer, but most of us deal with these type of workplace related social media activity incidents all the time. The photos were not "public release"; they were copyrighted. Beyond that, if you are a servicemember, there are a myriad of issues involved in this activity. At least several Cadets are, and I would not want to be in their shoes. Photos are PII under the Privacy Act, just like fingerprints, or other text based identifiers or biometrics. A close up facial shot of a servicemember in uniform on duty in a restricted area is not the sort of things that senior officers or authorities, when coupled with the belittling comments, intransigence, and lack of acceptance of responsibility or remorse, would look at and say No Big Deal.

It seems you are focused on a Hershey Bar. Would you want to have the opposition introduce a WWII veteran, say a Ranger from Pont Du Hoc, and a photo of him in wartime with Hershey Bar (standard issue) and ask his opinion of whether eating a candy bar after a day of the Lambka Challenge in Cat 5 Heat in Central Area (paved for you outsiders) is a sign of lack of fitness for combat?

For my last post, the Army Social Media Guide urges you to ask, "Would I say or do this in front of a formation?" Would you hold up a photo of that New Cadet and the two males, and roll your eyes, or say "Summer Camp is Fun!" or "Kills Me!" and giggle? Would you like to have to explain to a senior rater that the actual context of this alleged atrocity was a box lunch on hot tar after the Lambka Challenge, and defend the "standards are falling" gist of this unfortunate thread?

A lot of guys like me have come here to ask that you reconsider your position. We've expressed our shock, our disappointment, and our collective shame. But we are asked to "respect" you and consider your expertise and opinion. How do you think you're doing?
 
another13mom said:
I believe this is the quote referred to --

The connection of the pictures to the negative connotation that West Point is going downhill was unfair to the new cadets in the photos. Their image was used as an example of what is wrong with training this year.
Click to expand...

That seems more like a comment on the state of the leadership's micromanagement than a condemnation of women, unless the women involved somehow complained (which doesn't seem to be the case).
 
The negative statements about women by BigNick were reposted in reponse to your inquiry about gender issues in this thread.


The candy issue is unrelated to a gender issue - the problem was linking the images of the new cadets to the notion that all is wrong with CBT. The new cadets, unbeknownst to them, were linked to a negative characterization of West Point - one that is entirely out of their control. Hence, the unfairness of using their images without their consent to promote a viewpoint not endorsed by them.
 
BenTherr said:
"As for the photos...they were a publicly released illustration of new cadets falling out in Central Area and eating candy, nothing more and nothing less."

No, they were not. Scout, maybe you are a Cadet, or junior officer, but most of us deal with these type of workplace related social media activity incidents all the time. The photos were not "public release"; they were copyrighted. Beyond that, if you are a servicemember, there are a myriad of issues involved in this activity. At least several Cadets are, and I would not want to be in their shoes. Photos are PII under the Privacy Act, just like fingerprints, or other text based identifiers or biometrics. A close up facial shot of a servicemember in uniform on duty in a restricted area is not the sort of things that senior officers or authorities, when coupled with the belittling comments, intransigence, and lack of acceptance of responsibility or remorse, would look at and say No Big Deal.

It seems you are focused on a Hershey Bar. Would you want to have the opposition introduce a WWII veteran, say a Ranger from Pont Du Hoc, and a photo of him in wartime with Hershey Bar (standard issue) and ask his opinion of whether eating a candy bar after a day of the Lambka Challenge in Cat 5 Heat in Central Area (paved for you outsiders) is a sign of lack of fitness for combat?

For my last post, the Army Social Media Guide urges you to ask, "Would I say or do this in front of a formation?" Would you hold up a photo of that New Cadet and the two males, and roll your eyes, or say "Summer Camp is Fun!" or "Kills Me!" and giggle? Would you like to have to explain to a senior rater that the actual context of this alleged atrocity was a box lunch on hot tar after the Lambka Challenge, and defend the "standards are falling" gist of this unfortunate thread?

A lot of guys like me have come here to ask that you reconsider your position. We've expressed our shock, our disappointment, and our collective shame. But we are asked to "respect" you and consider your expertise and opinion. How do you think you're doing?
Click to expand...

I find it interesting that you neglected to answer the question of what your connection to all this is. You're talking about Army social media guides, senior raters, and heat categories. Just a church bishop happening past this discussion? Again I ask, what's your connection to this.

You are confusing copyright and public release. They are completely separate. AOG posted those photos in an open forum on the Internet, for the purpose of public viewing.

I'm not asking you to respect me or care about my opinion. Couldn't care less. Everyone is free to give their opinions and either accept or ignore others. I am, however, asking you what skin you have in the game.
 
18'er said:
Is the Cadet BBQ relatively new to CBT? Is sounds so from Big Bear's comments and others from the WPAOG facebook page.
Click to expand...

Hmmm reluctant to wade into this one, but do have to comment: I remember DS mentioning similar for 2015. maybe was a company level.

Want to say it was after the brigade competition. I'm sure I could find pictures of nearly every 2015 cadet at that BBQ as they were posted for pretty much every squad.

Even if it there was not, there was similar opportunities for goodies at chapel etc.

There are changes every year, and most would make old timers (any earlier grad than a given cadet's) cringe. Probably more creature comforts, for sure.

But I personally watched a group of TAC's in a BTD briefing back down (hard) an 80's grad who started down "the corps has" path.

Key point they made: "Never confuse different with easier"

These are men I respect, one now KIA. Won't rehash the points, but really hit home to me how silly "the corps has" stuff can get.

This does not mean that some things are not easier, nor that any of us agree with lower bars, softening, etc.

DS also heard the CSM back some yearlings and cows down who made the same comment about 2016 CBT during reorgy last year. Opened his eyes a bit.

Ex: 2016 did training during CBT that 2015 did not. Simple things, like throwing grenades.

They also had an easier PT, with far more restrictions on cadre "development", etc.

But 2016 faced far more scrutiny (and attrition) due to standards enforcement than several previous years. (APFT, etc)

There were absolutely 2014 and 2015 cadets given 2nd & 3rd chances as plebes that 2016 cadets were not. Some of them we have heard about directly. Others just quietly dropped.

We don't have the full picture. DS (2015) viewpoint is like cadets from every other class... previous years exaggerate how hard it was, later years don't understand how easy they have it.

Personally, my read from the peanut gallery is that physical standards for acceptance need a revisit. Just too much empirical evidence that those that struggle with CFA also struggle physically during CBT. And APFT during AY. And Mil Movement. And CFT. And during their MIAD, assuming they get to go. More likely to become profile rangers, etc. This is based on having some visibility to cadets in our state, along with DS experience with platoon & teammates, etc.

DS also scrambled from a very hot company to a "chill" one, and does not like the lack of discipline/performance/whatever. But that is another aspect that people forget. There is huge variance between companies in the level of rigor, tradition, enforcements, etc. To a certain extent this is apparently true even in CBT, and potentially even between CBT 1&2. (different squad leaders).

So when I hear "xyz was easy", I have to wonder hot or chill company? Wonder what their APFT is? CPS? Mil performance? Rank?

If it was so easy, everyone would have 375 APFT, A's for their mil grade, single digit ranking, USMA would win Sandhurst, etc.

IE: If it's "easy", and you are not in the top 5%, then what does that say about you? (But we could talk about politics, selection bias, etc... that's a fair issue to raise)

Just to be clear, DS would rather see stricter enforcement, equal company standards (all hot), and more military training. I have to defer to him and the opinion of some serving officers (some grads) that I respect.

So in no way do I support lower standards/bars, etc. Just recognize we may not always have the full picture. I can pretty much guarantee that the cadets themselves often do not. (and honest ones will admit it)

BigBear said:
Easy tiger...
Click to expand...

With all respect due to a 20yo rising cow.... this is probably not the way a youngster should address elders in public, even if they are civvy and you're now a rising cow. I'll let you decide if that is appropriate tone for a USMA cadet of any class. Would you use that tone to an elder in front of your TAC? The Comm? Your Dad?

Any why are you on the forum instead of MIAD, CLDT, CTLT, whatever?? :smile: SGR??? What did you do this summer instead of BBQ?:smile:

Even if a cadet is on target with their comments, and feeling their oats, I would tell my son or his friends the same if I heard that. And they are your peers.

By the way, I do understand your comment, just the tone put you way out of your swim lane as a cadet
 
BenTherr said:
The photos were not "public release"; they were copyrighted. Beyond that, if you are a servicemember, there are a myriad of issues involved in this activity. At least several Cadets are, and I would not want to be in their shoes. Photos are PII under the Privacy Act, just like fingerprints, or other text based identifiers or biometrics. A close up facial shot of a servicemember in uniform on duty in a restricted area is not the sort of things that senior officers or authorities, when coupled with the belittling comments, intransigence, and lack of acceptance of responsibility or remorse, would look at and say No Big Deal.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I have no idea who Copyrighted the photos (because I came along after they have been taken down).

That said, photos are not PII and are not protected by the Privacy Act. I'm sorry to say this, but the identities of the rank and file Army are not protected. Yes, some small communities do often protect their member's identities, like Special Forces, but that is not the case here.

If you ask an Army public affairs officer if an identifiable shot of a service member is protected they should (but probably won't) laugh at you. Their names, and promotions are public record. It is also general practice to identify service members in photographs for releases (doesn't mean it always happens).

USMA is not a "restricted area" for photographs. If it was, big Army wouldn't allow anyone, including AOR, to film or photograph service members there.

And these little facts... that when I was in uniform my salary (but not allowances) were public knowledge and the fact that I can search for my wife's salary (which had been FOIAed with many other federal employees) is just the fact of being a public servent. Seeing someone's face and knowing their name is not PII protected by the Privacy Act.
 
another13mom said:
The candy issue is unrelated to a gender issue - the problem was linking the images of the new cadets to the notion that all is wrong with CBT. The new cadets, unbeknownst to them, were linked to a negative characterization of West Point - one that is entirely out of their control. Hence, the unfairness of using their images without their consent to promote a viewpoint not endorsed by them.
Click to expand...

I see it differently, the image could have been any new cadet, Central Area, and candy bars. If there is a negative characterization of West Point from the image, it's about three images appearing together - new cadet, Central Area, and candy bar. The new cadet doesn't represent him or herself, he or she represents the Class of 1997.

I don't think anyone is blaming new cadets on participating in the "BBQ." If there is any negative characterization, it's about the senior leaders that approved the BBQ.

Personally, I have no issue with the new cadet BBQ.
 
Mike Schaertl said:
And that is exactly where the problems start, people not understanding the purpose of Beast. As defined by the Superintendent and the Commandant of the Corps of Cadets on R-day, 2013, the purpose of Beast is NOT attrition. As the Commandant stated, it may have been when he was a cadet in the 80s but it is no longer. The focus is training, not weeding out. Don't expect the cadet cadre or the officer/NCO chain of command to act in a way that is contrary to the mission, even though it is a mission you may or may not believe is valid.
Click to expand...

++1

As a parent of a NC, I heard that statement from the Commandant and it alleviated a lot of fears that I personally had. I realized that the academy recognizes it's mission is to train leaders for our military, not to train bullies who know how to intimidate and belittle others at their expense. My fear before that statement was that my DS would learn to intimidate and not lead; after that, my fear was gone.

I am not a SA grad. I never experienced a BEAST or SWAB SUMMER or INDOC. I have never been hazed into submission. But I have been yelled at; I have been intimidated; I have been threatened; I have been placed under numerous sources of stress - many at the same time; I have had to live with little sleep for extended periods of time. Those things may build my character and make me tougher, but they don't make me a leader. They may help me have perspective to look past the immediate, but they don't teach me to lead.

I do not want to imply I think we can get by with officer's who aren't tough or who have not experienced stress. But it seems to me from my naive view of the academy, that toughness comes not only from the physical elements but also from the mental challenges and disciplines that occur throughout. As pointed out earlier, there are plenty of other training opportunities the NCs will experience that will place them under increasingly greater stress and pressure (same goes for those who are ROTC). BEAST is just the first step.

I want my DS to be a leader, not just tough. I want him (gulp!) to be willing to die for others, and for others to be willing to die for him. And I want my military to be one that obeys orders, not complains because they don't like the policy of their commander.

In one of my DS' personal statements in his application, he made the observation that he believed that the academy could build into the cadet the physical aspects necessary to be successful as an officer, but that a character of integrity towards troops under him, and the CoC was not easily taught but was integral to success as an officer. When I read those words tears formed in my eyes as I recognized my 18 year old gets it: integrity and character are what makes great leaders. And a leader gets things done because those they lead believe the mission/task is worthy because they trust and believe in their leader.

I have worked under many who have the view that leadership is about being able to intimidate others into behavior they desire. They may get things done but they don't get them done well.

I have never heard a combat veteran say they fought because they were threatened by their Lt., but I have heard many say they fought because of their buddies to their left and right. I have seen interviews from WWII veterans who said their officers were good because they knew what to do to protect and care for their troops. Patton may have driven 3rd Army into Germany, but he never would have been elected president.

All this to say I don't see how a candy bar, or a respite from the stress of BEAST is going to weaken our military or make the NCs any less competent. I pretty much ignored the "my Beast was tougher than your Beast" discussion because in retrospect things always seem harder than they did when we go through them.

Maybe a "BBQ" it will make our officer leaders think back to their time during Beast when things were hard, and that respite made it bearable to give them energy to go on. If that translates to officer leaders thinking about our troops as humans not machines, and doing something similar, it seems like a worthwhile respite. Maybe they will think and act like IKE did before D-Day with the paratroops. If I recall many in the Airborne landed without weapons and without their buddies and they fought successfully just fine.

No more comments on this forthcoming...
 
GoBlue1984 said:
I want my DS to be a leader, not just tough. I want him (gulp!) to be willing to die for others, and for others to be willing to die for him. And I want my military to be one that obeys orders, not complains because they don't like the policy of their commander.
Click to expand...

Just remember, Beast, Swab Summer, Plebe Summer or another other summer.... is not about training your son to be a leader.... not yet.

If academies could break them down, train them to follow and train them to lead in 7 weeks.... we could save a lot of money but ditching the remaining 4 years. That first summer is about making a united (at least somewhat) group that can survive a school year and learn along the way.
 
I never thought Beast was for attrition. The freaking application process itself does that.

What i did hope our NC would face, and he has to a certain extent, is the culmination of several training exercises building into a confident CADET that can walk on campus with a little something behind their new title.

My concern is that if a New Cadet is never pushed to that point, and most of us on here know exactly what it is because we've been there; where one must decide, " This is what I want. because I want this, i will push forward and continue to develop myself." Or they decide, " This isn't for me, I'm outta here."

My question is, When does that occur now?
 
GoBlue1984 said:
. . . All this to say I don't see how a candy bar, or a respite from the stress of BEAST is going to weaken our military or make the NCs any less competent. I pretty much ignored the "my Beast was tougher than your Beast" discussion because in retrospect things always seem harder than they did when we go through them.
Click to expand...

It's not about the candy bar, but what the candy bar represents. Some might say, it is just a candy bar, but I could see it as a symbol of changes that some of us don't like.

Totally agree that the purpose of West Point is to prepare young men and women to become Army officers in 4 years and not on the R-day.



For me it appears that this unquantifiable and unique standard is getting keep pushed back and increases the chance of adverse impact. A New cadet reports to West Point physically unprepared. No problem, he just reported, he got 4 years to meet the Army standard. At what point do we decide he is not going to meet the standard or are we going to accept 180 on the APFT. No big deal, he branched whatever branch that is not known for physical requirements. I disagree as any 2LT to score 180 is not acceptable regardless what future job he might have. At what point do we introduce stress to officers wanna be, if not during Beast, when? Not everybody goes to Ranger School. I don't know how tough BOLC is?

So at what point will cadets get introduced to physical and mental challenges for their development?

see above comment from flyboy1993 also.
 
Last edited:
Could someone please explain to me how:
1. Corrective PT takes away from other military training?
2. Why corrective pt is a bad thing, especially when there are some new cadets who are severely underprepared physically? Beast or not, they will still have to pass all their DPE classes...

And for the record, 2015 did get mess hall hamburgers and hot dogs after the cbt I challenge. We did not get fall out or candy, and we did not stay for long because we had to finish cleaning for our first SAMI
 
BigBear said:
Could someone please explain to me how:
1. Corrective PT takes away from other military training?
2. Why corrective pt is a bad thing, especially when there are some new cadets who are severely underprepared physically? Beast or not, they will still have to pass all their DPE classes...
Click to expand...

I think you have to look at it as required additional training to make soldiers better

If a soldier mishandles his weapon, the corrective training is not push ups, rather additional training on weapon safety (can be done on Saturday)

If a soldier doesn't pass the APFT, the additional training is additional physical training sessions, not push ups in between training (could possible justify if the soldier failed push ups, but not the 2 mile run).

Have to make a factual separation between additional/corrective training vs. punishment.
 
Corrective PT

"Corrective PT" as you probably think of it no longer happens according to my NC. They are only allowed to make you do what they are willing to do themselves. That is, "drop and give me 20" means you do the 20 with them. It is a disincentive for capricious hazing, but also means less incentive to "correct."

What I am trying to figure out is why a current USMA cadet is on here making critical comments of a training decision by his/her CoC (not that I totally disagree with the sentiments). What would the commandant say if he logged on to see these remarks? I think that is highly unprofessional. Let the "old farts" bellyache. Less negative implications for future USMA cadets viewing this forum for information and less prospect of career implications. IMO. You are free to do what you want.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top