mfs542000

to clarify.....there has not been any hazing at west point in quite a few years, i believe they did away with that once and for all back in the mid 90s. Also, the memo about corrective training came down this week, and pushups have not been outlawed indoors. As far as the Comm coming down hard on people, he has made it perfectly clear that we are here to learn to lead soldiers and that screaming at and demeaning soldiers simply will not fly in the army. Yes, many cadets are upset, because "we had to do it, so they should to", yet each class here has avoided hardships that those before them had been through. For example, one might ask the class of 2011 why the class of 2012 had to sleep in the field for a week during beast when 2011 spent that week int he bays at buckner. Or one might ask a member of 2010 why the class of 2012 rucked more miles at beast than they did. The list goes on and on. To scream and yell in a demeaning manner generally doesnt teach the subbordinate nearly as much as calm, stern corrections do, and isnt that the reason we're all here? to learn? And trust me, there is still yelling, corrections are still being made, and there are both squared away and scumbag plebes. This change simply forces people in a leadership postition to do that......lead, and to do so in a way that "trains educates and inspires" their subbordinates as opposed to"scaring" and "inspiring hatred against himself"(remember schofield?). Change is nothing new here, people will get used to these changes just as they have gotten used to every other change, and I think most reasonable people here view this as a positive change.

shogun

"Hazing" has been "outlawed " numerous times throughout the academy's history. The definition of "hazing" has probably changed as many times as it's been outlawed. The army doesn't need newly mineted officers from West Point treating young enlisted or ROTC trained officers in the field like they were all still at the academy---Pershing tried that during WW1 with his army that had been civilians just weeks and months before and generated a lot of resentment for it.

JustAMomOf4

It is important for folks who read this forum - (future, current applicants and their parents) to understand that "Hazing" at West Point does not have the same connotation as it does in the outside world. When my daughter visited with a plebe - she came out talking about "Hazing". The look on my face prompted her to explain that "Hazing" isn't "hazing" - the cadets just call it that.

Many/most states and schools have clear legal definitions of "Hazing" - the old days of "fraternity hazing" are gone.

When a West Point cadet refers to hazing, being hazed - what they mean is the act of correction. There are limitations of how and when they can haze.

If a officer in training relies on correction through "Hazing" this will work at the academy because the plebes will do it. Although some won't and will drop out - a process of "weeding out". Out in the "real" army this type of motivation will not work.
A good book to read on motivating enlisted troops is "This Man's Army" by Andrew Exum.

Ann

For what it is worth, West Point replaced the 4th class system (which relied on "hazing") with the 4 class system (cadet leader development system) years ago. This is not new.

USMA Admissions: FAQs: About Cadet Life

Q: What is the Cadet Leader Development System like?
The Cadet Leader Development System is a demanding but professional four-year program to develop leaders of character. In order to be a successful leader, you first must learn to follow. During your first year at West Point you do just that.
The Leader Development Program prescribes the relationship between you as a plebe and upper class cadets. As a plebe, you must be able to recall an accumulation of information with precision. You may receive constructive criticism at times during Cadet Basic Training, but upperclass cadets will not treat you in a demeaning manner. You will also carry out specific tasks in your company during your plebe year.
During each succeeding year at West Point, you receive progressive leadership responsibilities, using those cadet experiences to hone your leadership skills. You learn how to be a team leader during the second year at West Point, guiding two or three cadets in your company.
In your third year, leadership responsibilities are expanded, helping you learn more about senior noncommissioned officer duties in the U.S. Army. This prepares you for cadet officer responsibility during your senior year. You learn what it takes to lead larger groups. It also prepares you for platoon leadership responsibilities as a lieutenant in the U.S. Army.

Anonagron

Wow, great post mfs542000! It is wonderful and fresh to hear this from the perspective of a current insider. I keep reminding my Plebe that upperclassmen are still learning the ropes of leadership styles themselves... that they are learning and experimenting with what works and what doesn't to motivate, inspire, and encourage the cadets under their command. What motivates one cadet may totally turn off another. It is a fine line of learning, I am sure.

When I was in high school at a Teen 4-H Retreat, I took a "TP (Task/People) Leadership Style" Quiz which when scored, evaluated individuals ideals toward people and tasks. I leaned very heavily toward the People side of the profile, indicating that I was more concerned about people's feelings and their comfort zones than the Tasks being completed properly. Others in our group leaned heavily toward the Tasks-side. They were goal-oriented to complete tasks but at the potential expense of alienating their peers. Then there were those whose scores fell in-between, with better balance of the two ideals.

As you can imagine, there is a great difference in the way these two main groups interact with each other as leaders and as followers, depending on the situation. A heavy task-guy really does not care that someone may get their feelings hurt as long as the job is done correctly in a timely manner. To the task guy, yelling and screaming may be the only way he knows to motivate to complete the task because it worked for him. A heavy people-guy (me) does not like to be yelled and screamed at and is going to try to do the job correctly because that is pleasing to the one in command. They make sure they lead in a way that values the person over the job at hand. That can have its downside too, if tasks are forfeited in the process. I believe this balance is what our service academies are striving to teach our young leaders before they must take command in the field.

I've reminded said Plebe that when the more sensitive souls of us in the world become "conditioned" to hearing the yelling or stern corrections, they are not as noticeable as they were in the beginning! That said, I am continually more and more impressed with the thoughts and methods that go into training these young men and women to serve as leaders with integrity in a difficult world. The Corps Has.....? Maybe in some respects, but then the wars we are fighting are much different than they were in the past as well.

JustAMom, I'm keeping my eyes peeled for that book!

Ann

I have posted this before, but it gives an interesting perspective and reinforces the difficulty of finding the right balance.

Why trivia

JustAMomOf4

This and the transition is described in the book "Duty First" by Ed Ruggero.
Both books to which I referred may be found at Amazon.com: Online Shopping for Electronics, Apparel, Computers, Books, DVDs & more.

Anonagron

Ann's post also reminded me of a discussion I had with one of our JROTC instructors this summer. He was a drill sergeant for many years in the Air Force. He indicated there are proven psychological studies behind all military training methods, and that while they may seem extreme and over the top to us as civilians, there are reasons for everything they do. They are proven to work and do produce leaders who can think and act quickly in life and death situations.

The link Ann posted demonstrates this principle very well!

mfs542000

ok......believe me, I understand the stance that putting people in stressful situations can and does teach them to work effectivly under pressure. And trust me, I was a beast cadre member, that atmosphere does still exist here, to a point. But, does it really make sense to take ten minutes to scream at a plebe because his gig line is slightly off, or is there a point at which the correction becomes counter productive. Making underclassmen perform to standard in everything they do (which is still allowed and encouraged) is stressful enough.....do we really think that screaming at them is going to do anything other than make them simply turn off and ignore the message at the core of the "hazing"? I know that for me yelling and screaming was easy to deal with, because you didnt have to actually do anything, it was when I was simply forced to be the standard that life was hard, and ensuring that plebes maintain the standard still occurs today, just in a more effective manner for both leaders and followers.

Moritsuna

Wait what? Why would an upperclassman want to "drop" a plebe in the hallways?

In high school if someone assaulted me I would do something to counter/protect myself and control the attacker and it would be considered self defense.

frijoles

Unfortunately when you are doing pushups it is hard to call someone who is doing them with you an attacker...

wpmom2011

Moritsuna,

"Dropping" a plebe just means that the upperclassmen has assigned pushups for an infraction. The plebes are not physically assaulted in any way.

ScreamingEagle

Having some time to refelct upon my USMA experience, I find this interesting now that I've been a PL for 15 months now and dont have all the worries I had as a Cadet (much different worries now). Every class says the class after them has it easier, and in some cases, this is true, because every classes experience is different. I know I felt that way with the classes of 07, 08, and 09 when I was there, and I know that 03, 04, and 05 felt that way about us. Every year there is some horrible limit on the corrections that can be done to plebes that send upperclassmen into a roar (I had an instructor, class of 93, tell us that when the officially ended the 4th class system when he was a cadet, he verbally told his TAC that this place made him physically ill and he didnt want to be part of it anymore). The point is, everyone always thinks someone is getting over.
However, I do think there is a great deal of value in the yelling and the putting people under more stress than they can take. That trains you to be a better leader when things get bad, when bullets start to fly, and when people get hurt. You need to be able to deal with horrible, horrible things, not letting them distract you, and focus on what needs to be done at hand. Having experienced Beast, you learn some of that, even though it may not be the best method, it works for the resources available at USMA. Putting people under stress brings out the best and worst of them; one needs not look further than about the 5th week of any given Ranger School class to realize that people under stress show their true colors. Beast cant use the Ranger School model, they cant take away THAT much food and sleep, so there are other means to do similar things, mainly creating a stressful environment which is multiplied in effectiveness when you yell at people. Its been the military's training model for dozens of years (up until recently), and it's worked.
That being said, it does not teach good leadership. I dont think any reasonable USMA grad ever walked away from graduation and thought, 'i'll treat my platoon like it were beast." That's just stupid. However, if all you did at USMA was yell at people to get them to do what you wanted, you missed the core of leadership, by definition, which is to influence others to achieve a common goal. Yelling it great fro plebes, it teaches them how to deal with stress, because there will be a time when they have to do so, but it isnt so good for upperclassmen, because its a cop out of having to actually learn how to influence others.
As always, its a difficult balance, but I do fear that we, as an Army, have to be careful not to get too far away from the basic standards and discipline that we're always taught, faught, and won with. I do feel that some of the changes made to training, army wide, in the last decade have been detrimental to the mission.
My two cents.

aspen

Screamingeagle,

Excellent post. Although I have my own opinions on the topic of hazing, when trying to assess the pros and cons of hazing, I tend to defer to the opinions of those people that have both directly experienced it, and second, have had some time pass since the hazing to reflect on its relative merits.

With the qualifier that I lack any first hand experience on hazing at the academies, I am concerned that the trend in our academies (and other parts of our military) is to train our military personnel to be more 'civilized' in their approach to warfare against our enemies and to leadership within our military.

Your initial response might be:"How could becoming more civilized be a bad thing?"

It's because of my belief that the use of military force requires an intentional step back from civilized behavior and a step into uncivilized warrior behavior. Most wars come to an end because one side, or both, decide they can't tolerate the pain any longer. Not because they've come to an agreement with their enemy.

While many have expressed concern about our Nation's capacity/willingness to incur pain in pursuit of it's international military missions, I am equally concerned about our nation's capacity and willingness to inflict sufficient pain to force our enemies to capitulate.

Unforturnately, there are still a number of powerful, competing nations are seeking hegemony not harmony. I pray every day that they will behave in a civlized manner in the coming decades. But I'm not hopeful of it happening.

shogun

Yup, "War is Hell" for a reason.