Momba, I understand your question, but I feel that it's one of those things where you can't have it both ways. You said that your main concern isn't about who determines the proper training methods for the military or the academy. Your point was about where does "training" stop and hazing begin. Well, the "WHO" that is determining the "PROPER TRAINING METHODS" are the one who will determine "WHERE training stops and hazing begins".
Geez, I can't believe we're circling back to have this discussion again. You sound like somebody who either passed BCT or had a son/daughter pass BCT. If so, good for you. But you really aren't in a position to address the issue at hand unless either you/your dd/ds were maliciously targetted. I know, everybody says they're targeted. Um, no. You need to go back into this thread to re-read what was said.
In the three cases that I am aware of where specific trainees were targeted to get them to quit, the cadre did not believe these people were "academy material" not because of how they performed but because of who they were. The three trainees were all 1) women; 2) petite; 3) extremely high academic achievers (even by SA standards) and 4) participated in HS atheletics that were considered weak by their cadre (two swimmers one who competed in pistol target shooting). In a word, they didn't look like warriors. The Cadre who didn't take a shine to these cadets were all 1) men 2) had mediocre academic standing 3) participated in aggressive ball sports (and I don't mean tennis or golf) and combat sports. It was clear from their actions during summer training and afterwards that they believed that there was no room at the academy for people who weren't like them....real warriors.
These women weren't pushed/trained/punished to correct deficiencies. They were maliciously targeted to get them to quit. If they were deficient as cadets due to performance, there would have been administrative means of getting them out. Since the Cadre had no standing using this route, these cadets were targeted "by other means". All of them were able to take the physical punishments. It was after this did not work that the Cadre began individually isolating these trainees from their squadmates and company mates for "additional attention" I've detailed this earlier. As I said before, two dropped, one did not. Was it all for the best? Maybe, but it is still ugly and to pretend that it doesn't exist is unfair to all of those who really want to get an understanding of academy life beyond the glossy brochures and the rah! rah! speeches.
HS atheletics that were considered weak by their cadre (two swimmers
We can't define it. We can discuss back and forth and rediscuss things again and again, ultimately there are many things that are clearly "training" and clearly "hazing." Something in between is subjective.
I can absolutely believe everything you write but if you are there and observe that, don't you have an obligation? Something more than just typing it here?
This thread and the other about the cadet considering leaving could maybe try one's "patience." For all we know, folks speaking with like they an authority at USAFA are in fact nothing of the sort. Perhaps they might even have the "patience" to graduate and get commissioned first before pronouncing why someone should or should not attend.
Whatever happened to integrity?
I mistakenly thought you were referencing incidents at USAFA this summer.
Sent using the Service Academy Forums® mobile app
No, I was not there. I had no standing to report anything. As I've said earlier, one of the cadets did not drop and all of the dirty laundry came out in the wash afterwards through the academy's "social grape vine" after these events had transpired. (Again, this did not occur at AFA. I merely bring them up because the academy where they did occur had many of the same safeguards/procedures in place). These events were relayed to me afterwards by several cadets who witnessed it that were in the company where it took place, by the cadets who were subjected to the abuse as well classmates of the cadre who did the targeting. As far as I know, there was one report made up the chain of command while this was going on. While it resulted in "change" in certain cadre behaviour, it made the situation worse to some extent as the targeted cadets were isolated further as they were painted as unreliable "rats".
Whats that line "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it." This reminded me of that.
We can identify extremes, but all the stuff in the middle, well I know it when I see it
(BTW, do you remember who said that, when and in what context? I think it was made famous by some member of congress.)
It was clear from their actions during summer training and afterwards that they believed that there was no room at the academy for people who weren't like them....real warriors.
Ouch! That one left a markMy poor attempt at humor - I didn't realize we can use Air Force Academy and "warriors" in a same sentence. Than again there was a proposal to create a medal for drone pilots.
It was clear from their actions during summer training and afterwards that they believed that there was no room at the academy for people who weren't like them....real warriors.
My poor attempt at humor - I didn't realize we can use Air Force Academy and "warriors" in a same sentence. Than again there was a proposal to create a medal for drone pilots.
In the three cases that I am aware of where specific trainees were targeted to get them to quit, the cadre did not believe these people were "academy material" not because of how they performed but because of who they were. The three trainees were all 1) women; 2) petite; 3) extremely high academic achievers (even by SA standards) and 4) participated in HS atheletics that were considered weak by their cadre (two swimmers one who competed in pistol target shooting). In a word, they didn't look like warriors. The Cadre who didn't take a shine to these cadets were all 1) men 2) had mediocre academic standing 3) participated in aggressive ball sports (and I don't mean tennis or golf) and combat sports. It was clear from their actions during summer training and afterwards that they believed that there was no room at the academy for people who weren't like them....real warriors.
These women weren't pushed/trained/punished to correct deficiencies. They were maliciously targeted to get them to quit. If they were deficient as cadets due to performance, there would have been administrative means of getting them out. Since the Cadre had no standing using this route, these cadets were targeted "by other means". All of them were able to take the physical punishments. It was after this did not work that the Cadre began individually isolating these trainees from their squadmates and company mates for "additional attention" I've detailed this earlier.
Wow! I was almost rendered speechless! I have been content just to follow this thread for the last 23 pages weighing everyone's opinion and comments until now. Call me naive, but I thought all that macho man stuff was beyond the military in this day and age. All I can do is shake my head. Those cadre who picked on those women were definitely on a jealous power trip and I hope they were reprimanded.
I'm amazed this is an issue at AFA... An academy that has had women longer than it hasn't. I don't remember this being an issue at CGA and we had something like 75-100 years more history.... Most of which was without women.
There are some serious operators at Carson, no doubt.You beat me to this one. I chuckled when I read it, the closest warriors to USAFA are 30 minutes south