Sign in to follow this  
DCP NewsFeed

In The News – Amid Sexual-Misconduct Scandal, A New Code Of Conduct For Drum Corps

Recommended Posts

In a departure for the decades-old youth organization, Drum Corps International this week unveiled a new code of conduct that sets standards for how its largely autonomous member organizations should address sexual misconduct. It includes a ban on sexual contact between staff and participants. It comes six weeks after an Inquirer and Daily News investigation […]

View the full article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are the consequences for a violation? Or did someone forget to add that part? 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How long before this thread is closed?  I guess we just don't have the stomach to discuss difficult issues on this website.

Quote

  

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, HockeyDad said:

How long before this thread is closed?  I guess we just don't have the stomach to discuss difficult issues on this website.

 

There’s the apologist who believe the accused should remain anonymous. So I’ve been told.

Anyway back on topic - policy without consequences? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This seems like a logical spot to reload my proposal to codify new rules from the closed thread last evening.

I have attempted to revise per Guardling & other suggestions

***********************

I think that Sexual Harassment / Inappropriate Relationships /DFTK rules should be put in the Official DCI Rules Blue Book, probably somewhere near the age requirements, as I believe this is the only other rules infraction that can lead to Disqualification (advise if I am incorrect).

So how does the enforcement process happen?  I personally think Drum Corps is past the 'ratting-out' process used for overage issues in the 1970s.

But somehow, lets say there is an allegation of violation.   Some violations could be 'cut & dry'; others not so much.   

DCI  would have to work out some process.  If a 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.

Is DCI serious about this or not?

I can envision a focused telephonic DCI Rules Congress could put this in place for the Summer 2018 season - perhaps new rules go into effect 15 June so Corps, clean it up by then.  Some Corps may lose some instructors, staff, or potentially members.  Too bad.  

 
Edited by IllianaLancerContra
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO SCV 89 should not have been treated any differently than any of the others. There was no punishment for marching those members throughout the season. No fees returned or placement forfeited. Yeah it was good that SCV reported themselves, but it was going to get reported because the word was out. SCV just did it before someone else got the chance to. 

Which brings me back to the DCI policy. Is the activity really serious about this and why no outline of consequences for violating the policy? 

IMO it’s has the appearance of a knee jerk reaction. Don’t get me wrong it’s better than not having any policy in place, and this is certainly a welcome first step.  

Logically - at least to me - if it is important to draft the policy after 46 years, it should be equally important to include the punishment for violating the policy. 

It leads me to believe that perhaps some are not really disturbed about these issues and more concerned that someone got caught.

Edited by Jim Schehr
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jim Schehr said:

There’s the apologist who believe the accused should remain anonymous. So I’ve been told.

Anyway back on topic - policy without consequences? 

The "accused" should remain anonymous until guilt is found. In this knee jerk #MeToo day and age a mere accusation without any burden of proof can tarnish a persons reputation and cost them their job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Jim Schehr said:

IMO SCV 89 should not have been treated any differently than any of the others. There was no punishment for marching those members throughout the season. No fees returned or placement forfeited. Yeah it was good that SCV reported themselves, but it was going to get reported because the word was out. SCV just did it before someone else got the chance to. 

Which brings me back to the DCI policy. Is the activity really serious about this and why no outline of consequences for violating the policy? 

IMO it’s has the appearance of a knee jerk reaction. Don’t get me wrong it’s better than not having any policy in place, and this is certainly a welcome first step.  

Logically - at least to me - if it is important to draft the policy after 46 years, it should be equally important to include the punishment for violating the policy. 

It leads me to believe that perhaps some are not really disturbed about these issues and more concerned that someone got caught.

I used 89 SCV as an example - it was what it was.  But to be fair, it WAS self-reported.  Which is better than being ratted out by another competitor 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, yogitom said:

The "accused" should remain anonymous until guilt is found. In this knee jerk #MeToo day and age a mere accusation without any burden of proof can tarnish a persons reputation and cost them their job.

Selective outrage 

Edited by Jim Schehr
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, yogitom said:

The "accused" should remain anonymous until guilt is found. In this knee jerk #MeToo day and age a mere accusation without any burden of proof can tarnish a person's reputation and cost them their job.

How do you do this without preventing victims from exercising their rights of free speech? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.