I've read what was said about the "repeat offender."
First off, the guy is not a repeat offender. The only reason why he is labeled that, is because the school official is getting word of mouth from a "recruit" (a freshmen), whom says that he has repeated an offense (whether that be the platoon or in general).
Second off, I actually know this guy. We worked together on a committee. I won't advocate what he did was right. It was wrong.
I will tell you that the recruit that told on him does not have a good reputation at this school (Yes word of mouth travels easily. There's 3000 students in the corps).
What happened was a recruit was repeatedly asking to be tazed by his squad leader (the offender), until he finally gave in and jokingly tazed him. Was it wrong? Absolutely. It should have never happened as his cadre. He made a mistake, and he knows it, and he's paying for it.
There's a culture, especially freshmen year, where what a lot of things cadre do is mistreatment. Some cases there are. Most cases aren't. Heck, I was there not too long ago as a recruit myself feeling as though I'm being "mistreated" and being "yelled at for no reason" and everything else negative you can think of. It is a culture shock, and the natural human reaction is that you've been done wrong.
There's a week in "rookdom" where we meet with commandant staff, and it is an open environment where recruits can let out "feelings" as to what "we thought" was "unethical." What happens after this? Commandant locks down on things.
This is good and bad. Good in that it does prevent "hazing" and mistreatment towards recruits. Bad in that, the "training" environment gets kind of lost.
It is considered brave now to go out for a cadre position at SMCs, because of recruits being capable of ruining these juniors and seniors future careers.
During my rookdom, there were cadre that lost ROTC contracts/scholarships, because a recruit told on them.
Bottom line is that it is a strenuous environment for both recruits and cadre, and incidents occur.
Heck, even if you go to a regular college there's still incidents (drugs, alcohol, excessive partying, "happy accidents," vandalism, riots, protests, hazing from frats/sororities/clubs/organizations/ROTC specialty units). If a regular college can still be granted the title as "safe" with their own incident issues, then why does Norwich have to be judged off of not just this incident, but other incidents in the past that pertains to only 1% of the population here?
Sorry for the biased opinion. Again, take this from just my perspective as a student here.
Also, if the chance of hazing is a risk of "safety" to one's DD or DS that a parent/legal guardian has zero chance of taking them there, a parent/legal guardian should think about the safety parameters of combat, war, and deployments that their future military officer are going to live in for the next 4+ years after college.
After all that was said, I'm not here to recruit anyone to go to Norwich. Just explaining that you can't judge a campus by an article.
If you have visited here and see it is not for your DD or DS, or if your DD or DS has decided its not for them, that's ok. I will not lie. This place or any SMC/SA isn't for everyone (not by a long shot). I don't even believe going to an SMC/SA will make you be a better officer. It is the student that decides what they can do to become a better officer.