<p>A couple points,</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Much of the problem here is miscommunication. I have seen many instances where the intent/magnitude of a rule has not been properly communicated. This often leads to what is deemed an overreaction. Other times, the specifics and/or reasoning behind policies are not distributed beyond the decision-makers. This also leads to a multitude of problems and resentment. Unfortunately, this is not something with a simple solution. I doubt anyone would have messed with the model if it had been made clear exactly how serious this was. Rumor has it, the individual “most” responsible will lose their position, get 6mo of conduct probation, and a 50/50/y. Based on the level of information put out beforehand, I never would have guessed CW was that stressed about it…which is why many cadets think this was a total overreaction. On the other hand, many on wing and group staff feel the punishment is generally appropriate. I’m guessing this is because they had more information on the importance of the issue.</p></li>
<li><p>Group punishment must be used extremely carefully, as it usually carries severe unintended consequences. I’m not sure how the PTB/wing see this…again, a communication gap exists/is expanding, IMO.</p></li>
<li><p>The move toward holding superiors responsible for any misstep by their subordinates started before this semester. I noticed this occuring more and more last year. It probably started before that. Unfortunately, the policies I have heard discussed leave little room for considering circumstances. Many proposals would punish superiors 4 and 5 rungs up the chain of command, whether or not the superiors had any direct influence or had previously tried to correct/prevent the action. Accountability is a good thing, but it must be instituted in a focused and fair manner…things I feel many of these plans lack.</p></li>
</ol>