Jump to content

Update from the Philadelphia Inquirer


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, N.E. Brigand said:

Was Tailhook the big turning point?

(The DoD seems to have moved onto other kinds of scandals, like Fat Leonard.)

I think, in part. The Naval Aviation community is a bit like the Corps community in that it's fairly small and the degrees of separation are extremely slight. Everyone pretty much knows one another or someone they both know.

 

Thinking hard because this was some time ago... yeah, the sheer idiocy that spun around the behavior of several of the active Naval Aviators at the convention really forced a lot of things to happen in the community, and happen fast regarding the inclusion of women into said community and also pressing for strict professional behavior and practices from said community.

 

I used to be an Associate Member of Tailhook for a couple of years after the scandal around 1995. Believe me, things straightened up quickly, they cleaned up their acts, and worked to make sure things were appropriate to the scope and mission of the association, not to be a place for tomfoolery. They had to if they wanted continued support from every corner, especially the active Naval Aviation component as well as their corporate sponsors. I'd say there's a parallel there, yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, GUARDLING said:

Who is going to determine the legitimacy of an accusation? Although I do believe people need to be believed of course there can have has been the complete opposite. A case is not cut and dry otherwise courts wouldn't take forever to make a case. 

Everything always seems so easy and cut on dry on the internet discussion boards. If something like this is in the future, safeguards, as well as preparation of evidence, would have to be presented. When you talk about people and how something might affect them caution has to be right up there.

An accusation of rape now, I say just let authorities take over it ( best way ) this activity cannot be judge and jury on this.

THIS!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Fran Haring said:

IMO he's a good man who made a bad mistake, with the benefit of hindsight being 20/20.

I have no doubt for this to be true...I do not know the man personally...the biggest problem I have is...he STILL has not yet taken ownership to his mistake...

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, GUARDLING said:

Who is going to determine the legitimacy of an accusation?

Leave this to the professionals...RAIIN for example that I've learned about recently is probably a good start...there really is no need to WAIT for dragged on litigation.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Liahona said:

Leave this to the professionals...RAIIN for example that I've learned about recently is probably a good start...there really is no need to WAIT for dragged on litigation.

 

In many cases, maybe not in the case of GH there would certainly be a reason to make sure things are factual.  An accusation is just that an accusation. I'v seen so-called facts turned upside down in many cases over the years. I am broadly speaking and not just of behavior but what staff said or didn't say on a given subject, how a MM was treated or what they thought was fair. Sometimes it takes time to sort something out BUT sometimes easy to see. 

In a case like this thread the drum corps community can only look so far, As I said I believe in a case of rape or other pertinent situations, let the authorities take the wheel, so I agree.

Edited by GUARDLING
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Jim Schehr said:

And your suggestion to deal with sexual predators or those who knowingly harbor them is? 

crickets! 

Mr. Schehr- like plenty of others here, I imagine, I haven’t had a job in the past 30 years that didn’t require fingerprints, background checks, or drug testing.  I am all for protecting the staff, volunteers, and members who perform for us every Summer.  Since you asked:

1.  Every corps should be in compliance with their state’s requirement’s for child care workers.  In addition, since there is interaction between groups from differing states, FBI background checks should be mandatory.  Compliance means anyone traveling with the corps must clear the checks.  Drivers, instructors, medical, food prep, admin., AND members.

2.  Reporting-Predators smartly choose those who can be bullied, and do so in an environment where victims do not have an easy, trusted, objective source to share their story.  It is hard enough for victims to relive terrifying and demeaning experiences by coming forward.  The corps(s) should have an independent agency for complaints of harassment and abuse.  It should be a source that is trained in objectively and carefully collecting these complaints.

3.  Confidentiality-Victims AND the accused deserve protection given the serious nature of these reports.  BOTH can be indirectly and even innacurately harmed in the court of public opinion.  Especially early on in the process when precious few, if any, have the facts to pass judgement.  When a report/complaint is received, the accused, depending on severity and position ( staff vs. member), may need to leave the unit for a time.

Regarding number 3 above, it is the court of public opinion and the nature of SOME of the commentary here that has me less than pleased with a handful of folks.  It should be possible to protect the activity without some of the careless and even malicious commentary tossed around here.  It isn’t about protecting offenders or helping them hide.  It’s about protecting ANY that may be innocent.  Sexual abuse, or abuse of a minor, are such heinous acts that careers and lives get wrecked long BEFORE the accused sees a courtroom-guilty or not.  I think there are more shoes to yet to drop in the coming months.  It is okay to feel angry and disgusted when reports of this nature surface.  Our reaction however is a choice and I believe we should be as thoughtful as we are vigilant.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, GUARDLING said:

In many cases, maybe not in the case of GH there would certainly be a reason to make sure things are factual.  An accusation is just that an accusation. I'v seen so-called facts turned upside down in many cases over the years. I am broadly speaking and not just of behavior but what staff said or didn't say on a given subject, how a MM was treated or what they thought was fair. Sometimes it takes time to sort something out BUT sometimes easy to see. 

In a case like this thread the drum corps community can only look so far, As I said I believe in a case of rape or other pertinent situations, let the authorities take the wheel, so I agree.

False reporting is a very LOW number...very low.

 

To be more specific, research has shown it to be between 2% and 10%. See below for further reference.

https://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/Publications_NSVRC_Overview_False-Reporting.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21164210

Edited by Liahona
added links
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, GUARDLING said:

Who is going to determine the legitimacy of an accusation? Although I do believe people need to be believed of course there can have has been the complete opposite. A case is not cut and dry otherwise courts wouldn't take forever to make a case. 

Everything always seems so easy and cut on dry on the internet discussion boards. If something like this is in the future, safeguards, as well as preparation of evidence, would have to be presented. When you talk about people and how something might affect them caution has to be right up there.

An accusation of rape now, I say just let authorities take over it ( best way ) this activity cannot be judge and jury on this.

Good question. Some violations could be 'cut & dry'; others not so much.   

We would have to work out some process.  If Corps discovers inappropriate relationship and acts quickly, forcefully, and decisively (including reporting to law enforcement if appropriate), while promptly reporting to DCI what happened, then they would not be DQ'd (for better or worse, SCV 89 overage issue was handled this way).  Any hint of coverup, DQ.  Do not pass Go.  Do not collect $200.

Is it better to create a process, that could later be tweaked due to unforeseen consequences?  Or put a policy in place that has no apparent or standard enforcement mechanism?

IMHO whatever is put in place needs to be consistent and predictable.

My thoughts on the DQ option is that it is so drastic a consequence that no Corps would even let a whiff of an inappropriate relationship anywhere near them.

And maybe a Corps will end up being DQ'd.  That would send a message as well.

Are we serious about this or not?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, GUARDLING said:

Who is going to determine the legitimacy of an accusation? 

I have heard that within corporate HR departments, one accusation is not enough.  They usually look for a pattern. 

This is particularly true when dealing with issues that are not criminal acts.

Being creepy in relationships or mean to people isn’t criminal. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, barigirl78 said:

I have heard that within corporate HR departments, one accusation is not enough.  They usually look for a pattern. 

This is particularly true when dealing with issues that are not criminal acts.

Being creepy in relationships or mean to people isn’t criminal. 

Good points.  Drum Corps has identified itself as an Education Activity; do you or anyone else know how education HR departments work SH?  Seems to me the trigger bar may be a bit more sensitive when youth are involved.

Thanks 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...