|
|
Allegations
of Abuse in Institutions |
|
|
|
|
It was disturbing to
learn of the allegations about the conduct of some senior cadets at the
Army's Cadet school at Waiouru during the '70s. At best they could be
considered bullying, at worst dangerous physical assault. To suggest, as did
the Army officer quoted on the front page of The Manawatu Standard (October
14), that what occurred was symptomatic of the culture of the day, a culture
prevalent in all types of boarding establishments of the era, is stretching a
long bow. Hazing and initiation
rituals have always been with us. As the officer pointed out, Sandurst was
not immune to such situations. Similar American establishments have had the
same problem. This is surely no
justification for the reported events at Waiouru. The allegation that
firearms were used to intimidate junior cadets, if true, is an extreme breach
of military discipline and is treated as such by all armies. Reports on the
allegations say the military personnel in charge of the school "turned a
blind eye" to what was going on. This surely understates their part in
the situation: It seems more a total abrogation of duty and control on their
part. My personal experience
at a British Army Apprentice School in the early '50s was that discipline was
tough but confined to military rules. There were boy NCOs,
some of whom were a bit full of themselves and overzealous in carrying out
their responsibilities. Overall control, however, remained firmly in the
hands of the regular army staff. The staff was comprised
of regular Army officers and NCOs; the RSM and the Company Sergeant Majors
were drawn from the Guards and the officers and NCOs came from a variety of
regiments. After hours, a senior regular army NCO who lived in each
accommodation wing periodically patrolled the unit. There was an overall
system of control throughout the school. If these allegations
made against the Cadet School are proved to be correct, such control seems to
have been lacking at that time in the school's history. |
