Jeans & mass punishment? #2

[Oldgateboatdriver]

PBI, you are quite right that "an order to wear dress slacks is not the same as an order to murder prisoners". The later is clearly and without any doubt an unlawful order - ordering dress regs to be followed is lawful.

This said, I don't think anybody is talking about "rating" here. The way I understand MilCol's functioning, the cadets are in great part self-governing (nothing new here - that's how it was in basic and then Phases 2 to 4 for all of us). There are cadets given seniority and leadership positions over other cadets, and then all the other ones are supposed to develop self-discipline*.

So the situation is not akin to "rating", but actually is the same as the junior officer in the field observing something wrong with someone in his platoon: the JO has a duty to correct the improper action, and only if stoping it/correcting doesn't work, then take the appropriate disciplinary action.

In other word, here, the cadets in authority should have spotted the other cadets lacking the self-discipline to follow a simple rule and accosted them directly to tell them to get on with abiding by the rule. Only if such cadet then still fail to mend their way should they have been brought up in disciplinary hearing by the senior cadets - not as "rating" to a superior. Yes, I know, disciplining near peers sometimes sucks, but it's what's needed in the military and that will not change (notwithstanding some people here thinking the military must adopt current Canadian "societal" standards). As future officers, they are expected to learn to correct improper behaviour in others and self-correct their own behaviour.

It is this "own discipline" system that seems to have failed here so everyone is reminded that if they want to be treated like officer material, they must act like officers. That is a group lesson - the same way that an obstacle course meant to be a team course can have to be repeated by all if the group fails the standard or is not acting as a team in execution.

Why is this lesson so important? Just look at the alluded case of the Airborne Regiment. The flaunting of many rules and regulation by soldiers was in great part due to Senior NCO's, Warrants and Officers not simply marching in to break some of the improper deportment of the soldiers as it occurred - not in a disciplinary manner, but simply as a matter of fact intervention. It starts with one instance, then two and builds up from there, and after a fashion, the leaders that did not correct the behaviour early enough get further and further behind the eight ball until they just don't have the moral authority to correct the behaviour anymore.

*: Self-discipline is like ethical conduct in this case: It is something you do wether there can be consequences or not and on your own simply because you know its the right thing to do. For an officer, dressing correctly according to regulations should definitely fall into that category. If an officer can't follow dress regs without being told, he/she has no right to expect his/her subordinates to do so.

 

[captloadie]

Thank you HB for the work you and all the staff are doing at RMC for trying to return it to a military institution that instills all 4 of the pillars. There will always be milcol haters and no matter how one tries to argue their value and their methods, those individuals will keep their opinions the same. And that isn't a bad thing, because it keeps the rest of us attempting to continually improve the institution.

During my time at RMC, there was an infamous food fight. After standing on a parade square the next morning for an hour before class where the two individuals responsible for turning off the lights refused to come forward, we were all confined to the peninsula, for I believe a total of 4 weeks (2 before and 2 after Christmas break). It sucked, and it took the pressure of the individual's peers to get them to come forward afterwards so that the restriction in privileges could be lifted. But looking back, I don't think there was another option. They were never going to find the two individuals by doing a UDI. Their friends weren't going to turn them in, and no one else wanted to be that guy or girl who ratted them out. Until the group punishment started. That's when, as I said above, they were encouraged to turn themselves in for the greater good.

In this case, the restrictions in place are not meant as a punishment to the 5% who blatantly break the rules. Its a meant as a training tool (call it a punishment if you want) to remind 100% of the Cadet Wing that looking the other way is not a quality respected in the CAF. Its about teaching future leaders about having the courage to step forward and take action. I would hope that there are a few Snr cadets now thinking that next time, they can save their subordinates from this type of thing if they have the courage to act.

     

 

[Strike]

Thank you HB for the work you and all the staff are doing at RMC for trying to return it to a military institution that instills all 4 of the pillars. There will always be milcol haters and no matter how one tries to argue their value and their methods, those individuals will keep their opinions the same. And that isn't a bad thing, because it keeps the rest of us attempting to continually improve the institution.

During my time at RMC, there was an infamous food fight...
   

I'm late to the party I see.

Yes...the infamous food fight.  Surprised that hasn't come up until now.  And a great example of how the group "punishment" worked.

Honestly, in all of this we have to remember that the issue isn't as simple as being able to wear jeans.  It's people openly flouting the rules and barmen not carrying out their duties by ensuring simple rules are enforced.

RMC is a training institution.  Part of that training is learning how to change the system properly.  The cadet wing had already been told that the dress regs had the potential to change in the future so there was no reason to flout the rules.  All is shows is a lack of maturity and an entitlement within the cadet population, especially by those who decided to approach the media.

There was one cadet quoted as saying something to the effect of stuff like this (the jeans and confined to grounds) being the reason why there were issues of depression and suicide.  I suspect anyone in the cadet wing who has had dealings with such issues personally would have a few things to say about that.  This one statement made the whole wing sound like a bunch of entitled brats who had never been grounded in their lives.

Reading the comments online from various sources, there is overwhelming support for the staff on this issue and very little sympathy for the cadets.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Reading the comments online from various sources, there is overwhelming support for the staff on this issue and very little sympathy for the cadets.

Yep,

If you read the thread on r/Canada feed on Reddit, the commentary from the average Civilian Canadian was "Good, Our future Officers that we are giving an education should be held to a higher standard"

 

[Strike]

Yep,

If you read the thread on r/Canada feed on Reddit, the commentary from the average Civilian Canadian was "Good, Our future Officers that we are giving an education should be held to a higher standard"

That was painful to read.  And this comment makes me think that the redditor that made it might be the same one that cried to the media...

Its doing a 4 year degree plus mandatory sports and french while in basic. No wonder the suicide rate is so high.

 

[pbi]

...This said, I don't think anybody is talking about "rating" here. ..

I was keying on this phrasing from stellarpanther:

..I understand that we are supposed to report anyone who violates regulations etc but has anyone ever considered what happens to the person who "rats out" his co-workers, it's not always good for them and I don't just mean in a violent way.  I've even heard supervisors comment that rats have no place in the military and they have no respect for them.  There has to be another way...

In other word, here, the cadets in authority should have spotted the other cadets lacking the self-discipline to follow a simple rule and accosted them directly to tell them to get on with abiding by the rule. Only if such cadet then still fail to mend their way should they have been brought up in disciplinary hearing by the senior cadets - not as "rating" to a superior. Yes, I know, disciplining near peers sometimes sucks, but it's what's needed in the military and that will not change (notwithstanding some people here thinking the military must adopt current Canadian "societal" standards). As future officers, they are expected to learn to correct improper behaviour in others and self-correct their own behaviour.

This is more or less what I was getting at, except to add that being aware of an offence and not acting on it is perilously close to condoning it.  I agree that even  a peer can try offer advice or suggest a better way as a first response to seeing an offense, but if the offender doesn't listen, then as an officer (or a person aspiring to be one...) the peer has a duty to report within the Cadet system.  That will, most definitely, be seen as "ratting" by the offenders.

 

[Remius]

That Reddit thread burned my eyes...

I'm going to jump on the bandwagon supporting HB.

What I'd like to know is did the cadets actually attempt to have this changed the proper way? Or was it just a blatant disregard for an order they disagreed with?

And if they did use the proper channels and a justification and reason was given and they still didn't like it and still didn't follow it?  Just because a rule is one you don't like, it doesn't mean you ignore it or more importantly if you are in a  position of leadership, not enforce it.

About ratting your fellows out.  Commendable but prepared to suffer the consequences of that action.  Many times in my earlier career we circled the wagons when we knew what had happened was wrong (I'm talking about minor things like buddy being late or the odd news of a bar brawl making its way up the CoC) but we always knew there was a risk of getting communal punishment as a result.

As much as some people are up in arms and saying it's just jeans, that also works the other way.  Troops, it's just jeans and you effed that up.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I would like to suggest we've gone very circular with this. Is there really anything, or opinion, we haven't covered?

 

[kratz]

I've read the news reports, online comments and this thread. From all the manufactured outrage I have read, distilled and found Humphrey Bogart's comments  the most honest and coherent. Jeans are an article of clothing and not worth focusing on compared to the career value of what is at stake.

 

[Strike]

Was at the gym this afternoon and talking to a 4th year I see there often at the same time.  Ref whoever leaked to the media, she felt it made the whole college look like a bunch of whiny kids, when in fact it is a very small number of people complaining and most understand the reasons behind the confinement to base.

I also noticed that the cadets are all wearing their RMC PT strip at the gym.  Better for them as far as I'm concerned (except they should try and source college shirts in dry fit) since they are supposed to have priority on equipment during work hours on weekdays and it makes it easier to identify them that way.

 

[meni0n]

Hopefully this won't turn them into those kind of officers who never leave the wire but give crap to troops who just came in after a month out for not having their pants bloused bloused or boots shined. 

 

[mariomike]

Ref whoever leaked to the media,

Yes, regarding that. I imagine it is frowned upon by the employer. Can you be kicked out for it?

You can be suspended or fired for expressing unsanctioned personal opinions on policy matters to the media - social or news - by some employers.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I'm going to start a GoFundMe page to buy RMC cadets nice jeans they can wear in their rooms.

 

[stellarpanther]

Not that I think it's acceptable to run to the media about your complaints, but it's also apparently not something that you can be punished for either.  We were eating lunch in the unit break room and one of the PAO's was there and the conversation came up about what regulation would be violated.  According to him, it is not prohibited as many think, only frowned upon.  He went further by saying a person could file a harassment complaint if they faced reproductions because of it as has happened in the past.

 

[Kat Stevens]

Yes, the world would be a better place if fewer RMC cadets faced reproduction.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Not that I think it's acceptable to run to the media about your complaints, but it's also apparently not something that you can be punished for either. We were eating lunch in the unit break room and one of the PAO's was there and the conversation came up about what regulation would be violated.  According to him, it is not prohibited as many think, only frowned upon.  He went further by saying a person could file a harassment complaint if they faced reproductions because of it as has happened in the past.

What about QR&O
19.36 - DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION OR OPINION

1) For the purposes of this article, the adjective "military" shall be construed as relating not only to the Canadian Forces but also to the armed forces of any country.

(2) Subject to article 19.375 (Communications to News Agencies), no officer or non-commissioned member shall without permission obtained under article 19.37 (Permission to Communicate Information):

a. publish in any form whatever or communicate directly or indirectly or otherwise disclose to an unauthorized person official information or the contents of an unpublished or classified official document or the contents thereof;
b. use that information or document for a private purpose;
c. publish in any form whatever any military information or the member's views on any military subject to unauthorized persons;
d. deliver publicly, or record for public delivery, either directly or through the medium of radio or television, a lecture, discourse or answers to questions relating to a military subject;
e. prepare a paper or write a script on any military subject for delivery or transmission to the public;
f. publish the member's opinions on any military question that is under consideration by superior authorities;
g. take part in public in a discussion relating to orders, regulations or instructions issued by the member's superiors;
h. disclose to an unauthorized person, without the authority of the department, agency or other body concerned, any information acquired in an official capacity while seconded, attached or loaned to that department, agency or other body;
i. furnish to any person, not otherwise authorized to receive them, official reports, correspondence or other documents, or copies thereof; or
j. publish in writing or deliver any lecture, address or broadcast in any dealing with a subject of a controversial nature affecting other departments of the public service or pertaining to public policy.

 

[BeyondTheNow]

I personally hope the person/persons can/will be held accountable for what was said and face repercussions if identifiable, just like when things are posted to social media that can be interpreted as disreputable to the forces. This absolutely cannot be precedent-setting—i.e. students thinking it’s acceptable to run to the media when something occurs they don’t like.

 

[Gunner98]

Not that I think it's acceptable to run to the media about your complaints, but it's also apparently not something that you can be punished for either.

Stellarpanther I would not seek advice from PAO or a barrack room lawyer.  I think NDA Sect 129 would cover it.

Sample charge - Sec. 129 N.D.A.  AN ACT TO THE PREJUDICE OF GOOD ORDER AND DISCIPLINE

Particulars: In that he, on 2 March 2017 at Kingston entered into direct communication with the local and national media on subjects connected with events occurring at the Royal Military College of Canada without authority from his chain of command, contrary to article 19.375 of the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces.

QR&O 19.375 - COMMUNICATIONS TO NEWS AGENCIES
(1) Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), any communication concerning or affecting the Canadian Forces or any part thereof that it may be considered desirable to make to the press or any other agencies concerned with the dissemination of news or opinions will be made by the Minister or an officer or official designated by the Minister.

(2) An officer commanding a command, formation, base, unit or element may make communications to the press or other news agencies when they concern or affect only the command, formation, base, unit or element under the officer's command and do not involve enunciation, defence or criticism, expressed or implied, of service, departmental or government policy.

(3) As it is desirable that the public should be acquainted with conditions of life in the service and that local interest be encouraged, an officer commanding a command, formation, base, unit or element is authorized at the officer's discretion to invite local representatives of the press and other news agencies to visit the command formation, base, unit or element under the officer's command and to furnish to them, subject to paragraph (2), such information as the officer may consider suitable for the purpose.

 

[stellarpanther]

Again I don't think it's right to go to the media and wouldn't personally do it, but I have known people who have.  They never seem to get charged or punished in anyway.  Maybe the senior leadership doesn't want that type of fight?

As far as NDA 129, that's the coverall charge that many people think shouldn't exist because it's often used when they can't get a real charge to stick.

 

[PuckChaser]

Again I don't think it's right to go to the media and wouldn't personally do it, but I have known people who have.  They never seem to get charged or punished in anyway.  Maybe the senior leadership doesn't want that type of fight?

As far as NDA 129, that's the coverall charge that many people think shouldn't exist because it's often used when they can't get a real charge to stick.

Or its hard to find out who did it unless they self identify by either the content of the communications or by directly telling someone else they did it. Reporters tend to be very wary about releasing the names of sources.