Wow, AFA Losing Cadets!

[MombaBomba]

How unlikely is it that upperclassmen did what they were allowed to do, some freshman couldn't handle it, quit and make up excuses to their parents and friends after they're safely 1,000 miles away from where the truth can be provided?

What about the cadets who made it through basic despite targeted over the line/bullying actions of cadre? Do you take their word if the basics stayed the course and persevered? Those cadets who now swear "there is no way in Hades I will ever be like cadet Nurse Ratchett." Are they believable if they say "cadet Nurse Ratchett crossed the line during BCT?"

I agree much of this is a he said - she said type thing. Perceptions do come into play, and during the intensity of the moment, a basic's perception may not be reality. I also agree that some kids may exaggerate or create excuses for voluntarily leaving either during or after BCT. But I don't think this is the case *all* the time.

Perhaps it is because I am a civilian, but I don't automatically dismiss "bullying/targeting" BCT claims. My first reaction is not to accuse the kid as being weak, pampered or spoiled. My first instinct is not to attack and defend "the home front." I think about what they claimed, details provided and how it was said. From there, I reach my own conclusions.

(Note: I will point out once again that I believe bullying and over the line behavior is the exception and not the rule. I believe that most cadre have the best of intentions, want to do the right thing and do it in the right way. I do not define a group as a whole by the actions of a few.)

 

[LineInTheSand]

What about the cadets who made it through basic despite targeted over the line/bullying actions of cadre? Do you take their word if the basics stayed the course and persevered? Those cadets who now swear "there is no way in Hades I will ever be like cadet Nurse Ratchett." Are they believable if they say "cadet Nurse Ratchett crossed the line during BCT?"

I agree much of this is a he said - she said type thing. Perceptions do come into play, and during the intensity of the moment, a basic's perception may not be reality. I also agree that some kids may exaggerate or create excuses for voluntarily leaving either during or after BCT. But I don't think this is the case *all* the time.

Perhaps it is because I am a civilian, but I don't automatically dismiss "bullying/targeting" BCT claims. My first reaction is not to accuse the kid as being weak, pampered or spoiled. My first instinct is not to attack and defend "the home front." I think about what they claimed, details provided and how it was said. From there, I reach my own conclusions.

(Note: I will point out once again that I believe bullying and over the line behavior is the exception and not the rule. I believe that most cadre have the best of intentions, want to do the right thing and do it in the right way. I do not define a group as a whole by the actions of a few.)

At CGA, during Swab Summer, I alone had to tape over "Coast Guard" on my uniform and write "Civilian" because I "wasn't worthy". Oh, and that's how I had to answer when people asked why.

I was marched out to the CGA Libo vans, by myself (and three cadre) and told to pick out the van to take me home. I was told my parents had been called and it was all over, I had failed. The entire walk there, all my classmates were told to "say bye to Swab LITS because he's leaving. He couldn't take it." And I had the honor of walking through a chorus of good byes.

Eventually after saying repeatedly, at the vans, through tears, that Swab LITS wasn't going to leave, I was matched back into the barracks.

Did this make me a better swab or cadet? No. But it did affect how I approached my swabs as a cadre.

It wasn't effective leadership. I was told by my cadre years later that today there would have been a court martial for some of the things they did to me.

The cadre, and battalion staff I thought hated me that summer... Didn't. I'm friends with some of them on Facebook... I've worked with others.

If I was going to leave CGA, I would have done it that summer... But I didn't because I wanted it.

 

[Christcorp]

Perception is definitely key here. Also, and probably more important, is common vocabulary and meaning. Extreme example is the word "fag". In the USA it means one thing. In England, it has a totally different meaning. Military and civilians may have the same definition for "bullying", but I'd bet a dollar to a box of donuts, more time than not, what a civilian may define as "bullying actions" , many in the military may not. And depending on who's house you are in, the definition will be determined by that person. So basically, if the military doesn't consider it bullying, then sorry, but it's not bullying.

The military isn't easy. It's not suppose to be easy. The military is a life and death community. The actions of each individual, is paramount to the end results. It has to be more strict. More difficult. Less compassionate. If everyone at State U goes out of their way to make sure everyone is happy, feels good, constantly filled with positive encouragement, then that's fine. If someone deviates from the rest of the norm, no big deal. They can start their own clique. But in the military, you can't afford that. And while positive motivation and encouragement is used, it's also important to know that negative motivation and encouragement will be used also.

There are so many people that go to the academy, or enter enlisted basic training, get through it, and realize that they'll only do one hitch of 4-5 years and they'll get out. No problem. You made a commitment, was compensated for your service, and you moved on with life. There are some that can put the entire military experience into perspective looking at the bigger picture, and realize that they want to be part of that for a much longer time. But all of them went through the same training. The same process. Some perceive it differently than others. Some handle it differently than others. And I so confident, that when the trust of a military member is compromised and they abuse their power as a trainer, leader, or team member, the truth will come out. The military isn't perfect. And there have been times when situations, scandals, have been exposed. And they are taken care of. But most times, there aren't any problems. There aren't any scandals. It's a perception and interpretation problem.

I could list at least 20 things that I saw and/or went through in basic and my early years, that some here would definitely consider it bullying. I don't. I didn't then, and I don't now. But that's the difference in perception.

 

[Patience]

Past experiences at military academies may give you an idea, but the system is much more clean. If cadre suspected that someone was not able to hack it and that they should leave, they spoke with their AOC about it. The AOC would give some perspective, ask to see documentation of the issue and make a determination. Encouragement was probably the wrong word, but it was impressed that there was no quota. BCT could end with as few or as many Basics as could be relied upon to become cadets. The existence of an order in writing or not is immaterial; it was an expressed idea that basics should be exposed to their own true reasons for coming here and if they did not want to be here, they would not be stopped. No one was told they should leave. Some where asked why they were here and if the answer was, "I don't know" they were told to think about it.
The Academy has dealt well with adjusting to stop bullying practices and nothing that happened this summer that could be considered as such got away without getting addressed.
Basics were briefed on these rules and well and we did in fact have some stand up when they felt a line had been crossed. Sometimes an AOC agreed, other times the AOC said, "no, cadre continue."
Basics also had access to personnel outside their chain of command and could arrange anonymously to set up confidential meetings. If the Basic expressed a desire to have the matter looked into, that was all that was required.

 

[MemberLG]

I could list at least 20 things that I saw and/or went through in basic and my early years, that some here would definitely consider it bullying. I don't. I didn't then, and I don't now. But that's the difference in perception.

I was a "bully" as a cadre. Some of my friends were surprised, as I was a nice guy. Why was I bullying my new cadets? I wanted them to be prepare for the academic year? During the basic training, it was like 10 to 1 ratio of new cadets to cadre, but once the academic year started the ratio flips to 1 to 3. I could have been my usual nice person, but I wanted to make sure my new cadets to experience "bullying" for the first time after basic training. As Christcorp said, was it a bullying or training. The acts are the same, but different intention .

 

[Christcorp]

Ironically, I was speaking with my daughter last night. The subject of college and her not only living in the dorms, but also being an RA (Resident Advisor) of the dorm came up. She mentioned how some of the "Upper Classmen" who lived in the dorm would give the new freshmen moving in a little bit of a hard time. Nothing really harmful. No physical hazing. More teasing than anything. Normal college interaction; especially in the dorms.

That got me thinking. If an upperclassman at a college dorm told a freshman that they could only walk on a certain side of the hallway; or had to carry their books and such in their left hand on the way to class; and that the freshmen weren't allowed to speak to the upperclassmen; and they got in the freshman's face asking them if they thought they deserved to me in "My School"; etc. Assuming the freshman didn't tell the upperclassmen to kiss his "you know what", many would consider this behavior by the upperclassmen as harassment and possibly bullying. Yet, we don't consider it as bullying or harassing in military basic training or in the military at large. I believe the main reason is "MOTIVE". The college upperclassmen are treating the freshmen this way to exhort their power, ego, maybe some sense of initiation, etc. Either way, it's for personal gain. The military on the other hand does it as a training tool, break down individuality so the individuals can be built back up as a team, teach individuals how to have integrity first, service before self, and excellence in all they do.

I wonder the difference at colleges where a particular dorm or floor of a dorm, may be allocated to ROTC students vs another floor with a totally civilian college student body. The point is, when it comes down to making allegations or believing that bullying is going on, it's important to determine the motivation. If the individual cadre/instructor/leader is simply on a power rush, and is doing such things to the trainee for their own enjoyment and satisfaction, then it could be classified as bullying. However, I have enough faith in the academy, it's training, and it's leadership to know that if such a thing was to happen, it would be extremely rare. There may be some trainees who perceive the cadre or trainer as having it in for them, or being on a power trip, but I believe that it more a perception problem. On the other hand, the same actions towards a trainee with the purpose of breaking them down, building them back up, making them part of a team, ensuring that they truly want this lifestyle, putting service before self, etc. is a totally different motive, and therefor is NOT bullying.

There's definitely a different perspective out there.

 

[MombaBomba]

I was a "bully" as a cadre. Some of my friends were surprised, as I was a nice guy. Why was I bullying my new cadets? I wanted them to be prepare for the academic year? During the basic training, it was like 10 to 1 ratio of new cadets to cadre, but once the academic year started the ratio flips to 1 to 3. I could have been my usual nice person, but I wanted to make sure my new cadets to experience "bullying" for the first time after basic training. As Christcorp said, was it a bullying or training. The acts are the same, but different intention .

I could list at least 20 things that I saw and/or went through in basic and my early years, that some here would definitely consider it bullying. I don't. I didn't then, and I don't now. But that's the difference in perception.

I think there is a miscommunication going on here. Perhaps I should have used the word hazing instead of bullying. It seems people are getting caught up on the word bulling, instead of the overall message. I was talking about when the training crosses the line from acceptable, to something unhealthy and wrong.

Years ago, when my kids first started to become very competitive in sports, I read a number of articles on coaching and player development. What is and isn't effective? What is and isn't healthy? When does it go from pushing to hazing?

One of the primary topics was at what point does it go from constructive to destructive?
How to break down the barriers without destroying the potential?
How to best develop individual competitiveness and excellence but yet ensure team allegiance and awareness. (Putting team before self)

All agreed that
1) both physical and mental limits needed to be pushed and challenged
2) it is easier to determine when the physical line is crossed due to excessive or constant injuries
3) it is difficult to determine the mental line
4) the mental line can vary far more between individuals than the physical line
5) punishments and rewards are both necessary for development
6) punishments and rewards need to be balanced (by reward they don't mean a trophy for participation, but acknowledgement of surpassing or achieving a difficult task)
7) the damage from "mental line crossing" can be far greater and longer lasting than that from "physical line crossing"

I believe these principles/ideas for developing excellence apply to an athlete as well as a soldier.

So when I was talk about bullying, I am not talking about "run of the mill, going to kick your rear and make you respect me" training. I am talking about when it becomes hazing. When it is unhealthy, and is designed to break someone instead of break down someone's barriers. If you destroy the foundation, you no longer have a place to build. If you remove the extraneous and clear down to the foundation, then you can strengthen the foundation and build stronger and better than before.

I think we have all agreed that targeted and willful hazing can happen and has happened, and that it is not common in this day and age. I don't think we can agree on when exactly "training" crosses the line, but I think we all agree that there is a line out there. I also think we can agree that over time, training methods have changed, some for the better and maybe some for the worse.

Because I see this coming. By break someone, I don't mean causing someone to cry because they miss their family and home. I also don't mean making them come face to face with their weaknesses and doubts. I don't mean making them realize that the team or mission is more important than the individual. I also don't mean pushing them till they want to give up to see if they can push past the exhaustion, dig deep and keep on going despite the adversity.

I realize they all "break" at some point. But in that case "break" means to reach the lowest point (the foundation) and then start strengthening and rebuilding.
But when you break to the point where the person is destroyed, then there is no way to rebuild.

 

[Rocko]

I was a "bully" as a cadre. Some of my friends were surprised, as I was a nice guy. Why was I bullying my new cadets? I wanted them to be prepare for the academic year? During the basic training, it was like 10 to 1 ratio of new cadets to cadre, but once the academic year started the ratio flips to 1 to 3. I could have been my usual nice person, but I wanted to make sure my new cadets to experience "bullying" for the first time after basic training. As Christcorp said, was it a bullying or training. The acts are the same, but different intention .

I could list at least 20 things that I saw and/or went through in basic and my early years, that some here would definitely consider it bullying. I don't. I didn't then, and I don't now. But that's the difference in perception.

I think there is a miscommunication going on here. Perhaps I should have used the word hazing instead of bullying. It seems people are getting caught up on the word bulling, instead of the overall message. I was talking about when the training crosses the line from acceptable, to something unhealthy and wrong.

Years ago, when my kids first started to become very competitive in sports, I read a number of articles on coaching and player development. What is and isn't effective? What is and isn't healthy? When does it go from pushing to hazing?

One of the primary topics was at what point does it go from constructive to destructive?
How to break down the barriers without destroying the potential?
How to best develop individual competitiveness and excellence but yet ensure team allegiance and awareness. (Putting team before self)

All agreed that
1) both physical and mental limits needed to be pushed and challenged
2) it is easier to determine when the physical line is crossed due to excessive or constant injuries
3) it is difficult to determine the mental line
4) the mental line can vary far more between individuals than the physical line
5) punishments and rewards are both necessary for development
6) punishments and rewards need to be balanced (by reward they don't mean a trophy for participation, but acknowledgement of surpassing or achieving a difficult task)
7) the damage from "mental line crossing" can be far greater and longer lasting than that from "physical line crossing"

I believe these principles/ideas for developing excellence apply to an athlete as well as a soldier.

So when I was talk about bullying, I am not talking about "run of the mill, going to kick your rear and make you respect me" training. I am talking about when it becomes hazing. When it is unhealthy, and is designed to break someone instead of break down someone's barriers. If you destroy the foundation, you no longer have a place to build. If you remove the extraneous and clear down to the foundation, then you can strengthen the foundation and build stronger and better than before.

I think we have all agreed that targeted and willful hazing can happen and has happened, and that it is not common in this day and age. I don't think we can agree on when exactly "training" crosses the line, but I think we all agree that there is a line out there. I also think we can agree that over time, training methods have changed, some for the better and maybe some for the worse.

Because I see this coming. By break someone, I don't mean causing someone to cry because they miss their family and home. I also don't mean making them come face to face with their weaknesses and doubts. I don't mean making them realize that the team or mission is more important than the individual. I also don't mean pushing them till they want to give up to see if they can push past the exhaustion, dig deep and keep on going despite the adversity.

I realize they all "break" at some point. But in that case "break" means to reach the lowest point (the foundation) and then start strengthening and rebuilding.
But when you break to the point where the person is destroyed, then there is no way to rebuild.

In my mind it really doesn't matter how you or I define hazing, bullying, crossing the line etc. That is for the Academy to decide and not us. They are tasked to develop these Cadets into military leaders in the Air Force. The line USAFA draws is a completely different line than the USMC and Army Basic training for enlisted have drawn I can promise. This "Line" will be different between Academies as well.

It seems to me people are trying to use logical civilian thoughts and apply them to the military. The military is NOT the civilian world and shouldn't be. Not preparing these young men and women for the worst case scenario is a disservice not only to them but others around them. These are lessons that may one day be the difference between coming home and not coming home for not only them but their team members as well.

If we don't like the line they draw, it is a free country and we can go somewhere else. There is no shame in that. I personally feel there is nothing to debate. It is their decision on how they want to train their soldiers to perform the tasks they need, what is fair, what is abuse etc...

Nobody is forced to join the military in this country.

Just my 2 cents.....

 

[MombaBomba]

In my mind it really doesn't matter how you or I define hazing, bullying, crossing the line etc. That is for the Academy to decide and not us. They are tasked to develop these Cadets into military leaders in the Air Force. The line USAFA draws is a completely different line than the USMC and Army Basic training for enlisted have drawn I can promise. This "Line" will be different between Academies as well.

It seems to me people are trying to use logical civilian thoughts and apply them to the military. The military is NOT the civilian world and shouldn't be. Not preparing these young men and women for the worst case scenario is a disservice not only to them but others around them. These are lessons that may one day be the difference between coming home and not coming home for not only them but their team members as well.

If we don't like the line they draw, it is a free country and we can go somewhere else. There is no shame in that. I personally feel there is nothing to debate. It is their decision on how they want to train their soldiers to perform the tasks they need, what is fair, what is abuse etc...

Nobody is forced to join the military in this country.

Perhaps I did not express my point clear enough by your response. My point was never about who determines the proper training methods for the military or the academy. My point was about where does "training" stop and hazing begin. There would be no need for any lines or rules or regulations outlining anything if there was no concern about or possibility for someone either intentionally or unintentionally abusing power or crossing a line.

This entire thread began with cadets leaving the academy after BCT.
It was followed up by information regarding why a particular cadet left after BCT (hazing and targeting)
This was followed by numerous threads debating
- If this event really happened or was it just a matter of perception
- If hazing was possible at all an academy
- What constitutes bullying vs. hazing
- Is it hazing if the methods used remain with in the scope of "authorized tools" or not expressly prohibited
- etc.

No one suggested, at least that I read, that a civilian should come into the academy and dictate proper training procedures.

And by the way, there are certain things I am sure both military and civilians can agree to are hazing and crossing the line. One does not need to be in the military to see that certain things are clearly over the line. How about if a cadre has a particular beef with a basic, and then enables and encourages this basic's squad mates to also dump on that particular basic. Sounds like hazing to me and a very unhealthy way to build a cohesive loyal group. I think military and civilian can agree this is a bad idea.

 

[Godandcountry]

then there is no way to rebuild.

This makes me very sad for any individual who could be destroyed to the point of there being no way to rebuild. At the risk of coming across as very insensitive, this mindset suggests a rather fragile individual, someone not resilient or positive "enough" and not someone with a warrior's spirit. It sounds like someone who would not be cut out for the rigors of military life and not equipped to lead others in war (as I see it as an outsider). I am very sorry if this is an actual person of whom you are referring and if so, I sincerely hope they can be under the influence of someone who will not allow them to think of themselves as a victim but rather someone who can equip and build them up to see this as a purposeful and positive event in their life - as a trial that will make them stronger / encourage them to seek the strength they didn't have, but can obtain.

It brings to mind the Eleanor Roosevelt quote which is meant to empower a person / rather than to allow them to be a victim.

“No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.”

― Eleanor Roosevelt, This is My Story

 

[MombaBomba]

This makes me very sad for any individual who could be destroyed to the point of there being no way to rebuild. At the risk of coming across as very insensitive, this mindset suggests a rather fragile individual, someone not at all resilient, or positive, and not someone with a warrior's spirit. It sounds like someone who would not be cut out for the rigors of military life and not equipped to lead others in war (as I see it as an outsider). I am very sorry if this is an actual person of whom you are referring and if so, I sincerely hope they can be under the influence of someone who will not allow them to think of themselves as a victim but rather someone who can equip and build them up to see this as a purposeful and positive event in their life - as a trial that will make them stronger / encourage them to seek the strength they didn't have, but can obtain.

Where to find a way to effectively communicate this. By the way, when I use you here, I am using it in general. I don't mean you in particular or personally. It is difficult enough to find the right words without converting it to 3rd person he/she.

I was using the word "destroy" in order to make a point as weaker words seem to elicit the "oh poor baby" knee jerk reaction responses. When you destroy a person's will to succeed or persevere, you destroy the very thing which enable you to grow and develop them into an elite athlete, soldier, etc.. You can not rebuild someone who no longer believes he could possibly succeed. It is one thing to create doubt and question so a person has to dig deep, it is another to purposefully and completely undermine an individual.

What other word could be used for someone who specifically targets another individual and does whatever he or she can do in order to get rid of that person out of personal motivation or malice. I am not talking accidentally, I am talking knowingly making the decision to do whatever it takes (not talking criminal actions) in order to get them gone. Everyone has a breaking point. Some of our breaking points are further than others. That point where we say "f*** it", I just can't put up with this any more and we walk away.

I think everyone is familiar with someone who has retired early because they couldn't take the political nonsense or they were tired of being denigrated by their superiors. Thus when the time came, they did not sign up again, but moved into civilian life. Their desire to serve was finally overcome by negativity. They couldn't take it any more. There was just too much horse manure to shovel. That person's will to stay/succeed was broken/destroyed by bureaucratic and personal "stuff."

I hope that clarifies what I meant.

 

[Godandcountry]

But if someone in bct appears to be weak in terms of not being positive in the midst of correction/hardship, not resilient and / or not having a warrior's spirit (whatever that means though everyone knows it when they see it) - you can bet that person was pressed to see if they indeed were deficient (from usafa officer terms) when it came to any of those attributes. It would be the cadre's duty to test that potential weakness once it was sensed. To do otherwise would be negligent.

The point being, and this is probably worldview dependent, things don't happen without reason. As harsh as it sounds, the individual who is destroyed from bct didn't belong there. And once they've separated, thinking like and therefore being a victim does that person no good whatsoever - they will be a victim for life therefore proving that their leaving bct was not a mistake. I don't believe in attacking the "victim" but I also believe strongly and fight at all costs to not be and to NEVER think like a "victim".


Sent using the Service Academy Forums® mobile app

 

[AlexT]

I don't think those targeted for malicious reasons leave because their faith in themselves is destroyed. They don't become quivering balls of gelatin once they resume their civilian lives. It is more likely that they leave because their faith in the institution is destroyed....especially when some of the critical support apparatus that they are told they will need to succeed is taken away and it is implied to them that it probably will never be there for them. Since people like to raise the point of not having "weak" individuals leading in critical combat situations, the shoe may be on the other foot in that these individuals no longer trust the institution to give them the tools and support to effectively lead.

 

[Christcorp]

Excellent observation Godandcountry.

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".

So, if you have confidence in the "Who" that is determining the proper training, then you must have confidence that they will properly determine the line between training and hazing. I know it's hard for many people to have "Trust". It's not a natural thing for most humans. Most people want to have as much control over their own lives as they can. But the military is all about "Trust". Trusting the man or woman next to you to make sure you stay alive. A trust that is so deep, that you don't even have to like the person, but you still trust them. No other occupation, other than maybe law enforcement and fire rescue, needs this type of trust. And even they aren't at the level of the military. The military's trust must also include a trust in those above you, people in decision making positions, and others all the way up to the congress and the president of the united states. Trust that they all have your best interests, and that of the military and our country at heart. Even when our personal and political views are different, we have to have trust.

So, if I have trust in "WHO" determines the proper training, then I "MUST" trust them to train their people to not cross the line. And if the line gets crossed, that they'll handle the matter. And all of that information is not necessary for me, you, or anyone else on the outside to know or to judge. That too must be a level of faith and trust.

 

[Godandcountry]

I would think that in bct their objective (basic cadets) is not to question or trust but to react, survive and do what they're told. It seems rather simple.

Still struggling to understand who would be targeted for malicious reasons. Cadre would be bound to expose and test weaknesses....and go wherever the weakness led them.

There is choice in all of this. But to chose and blame is the definition of self created victimhood. A comfortable place without ownership of decisions.



Sent using the Service Academy Forums® mobile app

 

[AlexT]

I would think that in bct their objective (basic cadets) is not to question or trust but to react, survive and do what they're told. It seems rather simple.

Still struggling to understand who would be targeted for malicious reasons. That sounds like the call of those pressed to the point where they chose to separate. There is choice in all of this. But to chose and blame is the definition of self created victimhood. A place without ownership of decisions.

For those basics who after just five weeks "lose trust in the institution" - the separation likely is in the best interest of both parties and there should be no victim.

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.

 

[MemberLG]

My point was about where does "training" stop and hazing begin.

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.

 

[MombaBomba]

I would think that in bct their objective (basic cadets) is not to question or trust but to react, survive and do what they're told. It seems rather simple.

Still struggling to understand who would be targeted for malicious reasons. Cadre would be bound to expose and test weaknesses....and go wherever the weakness led them.

There is choice in all of this. But to chose and blame is the definition of self created victimhood. A comfortable place without ownership of decisions.

So if I am to understand correctly, you are saying you do not believe that there has ever been or purposefully could be malicious targeted hazing in order to remove a basic. That a cadre has never and could never ever cross the line on his own for his own personal motives. That you believe the PP is aware of everything that is happening every second of the day to all 1,000 basics during the entire BCT.

In your view, cadre could never ever exceed their authority without the blessing or knowledge of PP.

You believe that in the history of the academies, a basic has never ever been targeted and hazed for personal reasons of the cadre without blessing of PP. That any cadet who claims such targeting is either a liar or delusional, and was always a victim to begin with.

That is the message I am getting from your response. Is this correct?

 

[Godandcountry]

I am very sorry to have circled back. I hadn't read the specific situations you described. I was speaking in general terms about choice/blame/victimhood/decision ownership raised by momba's comment about someone "being destroyed" (i know now I may have misinterpreted what she meant) past the point of being built back up. My apologies to all for the flare up.


Sent using the Service Academy Forums® mobile app

 

[Godandcountry]

Momba - I can see how two sides of the same situation can honestly and truthfully see things differently. I am sure there has been hazing (depending on one's definition). Pushing an exposed weakness to a breaking point could be called malicious or could alternatively be called a duty. I can see how someone who separated naturally has a different view than someone who didn't separate. Again, my comments were intended to be about the nature of choice, blame, ownership of decisions and how one's point of view and worldview are very much at the heart of this. I am just presenting my point of view.


Sent using the Service Academy Forums® mobile app