Lance

an entertainer doing multiple auditions for a paid gig has zero relevance to this topic. paying a college application fee has zero relevance to this topic. it's amusing to see the inane analogies, though. hoping to see several more.

Since half of DCI world class corps have been proven to hire people who have gotten in trouble for inappropriate contact with minors, I'm relieved that you didn't find it surprising. To the corps that keep their noses clean, good for them. They have nothing to worry about.

What will be done now to make sure, to the greatest degree possible, that DCI corps are no longer a refuge for dangerous people outlined in the article? Corps won't do it themselves. And the entity known as DCI that Acheson is CEO of has zero authority to regulate hiring practices of member corps. So we're nowhere. The half-baked "code of conduct" was already proven to be very poorly enforced; and even if it were well-regulated and enforced, it still does nothing to keep them from getting their foot in the door in the first place. These are the problems. I want to know the solution. is there a solution?

the great thing about mandatory reporting is that it removes the need for an instructor to investigate anything. we're not supposed to validate suspicions or gather evidence. we're given training about signs of abuse, and our obligation to act on it begins and ends with reporting our suspicions to the appropriate authorities. it's not simply telling authorities after a student tells us first. it's a lot more proactive than that. most states have language that grants immunity to mandatory reporters of suspected abuse, even if it is found to be incorrect, so long as there was no malicious intent on the reporters parts

public school teachers in 48 of the 50 states (when last i was trained) are mandatory reporters of abuse towards children. it's the law. abuse still happens, but there is a regulated and enforced system in place for reporting and acting on it for nearly all teachers and administrators in the country. the same isn't remotely true for DCI, which was kind of the point of the article, right? i assume that's one of about 100 reasons why the PI didn't conflate a nonprofit youth activity with public education

Hoping this article has more than an ephemeral effect on corps' hiring procedures and decisions. Forgive me for being dubious.

You’re saying what Acheson has put out for the past couple of months. It’s just regurgitating the problem. Rational adults are arguing that it’s a dangerous situation for kids. It’s not one or two corps that have done this, and they aren’t going to govern themselves, obviously. Congrats to the corps that have kept their noses clean. They won’t be affected by the institution of a legitimate governing agency that mandates procedures to protect minors. If there’s no oversight about personnel hiring, especially for a youth education activity, then DCI is a dangerous activity. Period. Anybody who reads the PI’s deeply-sourced article and uses their ability to reason will understand. I'm sorry that you don't think that people with that point of view are advocating for the betterment of the activity.

The point of the article is that the way DCI is structured is idiotic. And DCI calling itself a governing agency is idiotic if it doesn't govern something as fundamental as this. That's what most of us are discussing because we understood the main idea behind all of this information. Neither you, nor Acheson, nor anybody else gets to say "but what were we/they supposed to do" anymore. It's past that time,. Surely you understand that, which is why it's surreal to see most of your posts on the subject.

I understand garfield's points about that paragraph. "DCI can discipline or suspend corps for violating its policies. But until it put the Cadets on probation in April, DCI had never disciplined a corps for concerns about participant safety." I think she meant to say that the Hop case was the first time DCI had ever put a corps on probation for violating policies regarding sexual abuse and participant safety. It is an important distinction, and there's no reason to get angry with garfield for pointing it out. However, in my opinion, it certainly doesn't take away from the salient points of the article. Namely that half of DCI world class corps have employed people with histories of inappropriate contact with minors, and that in some cases, admin in the corps knew about it and hired them anyway. This article isn't the end of research on something that's fundamentally wrong with DCI. It's the tip of the iceberg.

I still remember back in early November when Acheson made a pathetic attempt to get in front of this story. He responded to her request for a comment with the same perfunctory nonsense that he put out a few days ago. It made Acheson and DCI look like idiots, and the going through the motions response only lends credence to Ms. Nadolny's piece. Excuses and avoidance are not a pathway to a solution.

Sadly, this article combined with DCI's perfunctory press releases of late shows one thing: there is no true governing agency for drum corps. That is the problem. Until there's a solution to that problem, the failure to protect will continue. To heck with the "well shucks, there's just nothing we can do" approach. To heck with the half-baked "community code" that was already poorly enforced this past summer. It was never intended to be a solution. It was going through the motions and hoping the problem would magically disappear. Corps obviously aren't going to do basic vetting for sexual predators and other felons on their own, or worse, they're continuing to intentionally hire them anyway. Yes, people can slip through the cracks with state patrol/FBI background checks if they'e never been convicted. That's not an excuse. It takes only a couple of minutes for Joe Internet User to conduct a records search on any individual that goes beyond a state patrol/FBI check. If a corps doesn't do it for every person they hire who comes in contact with kids, it's either because they're lazy, or they don't care and want to hire them anyway. Failure to protect, indeed.

DCI is saying they can't control who each corps hires. But once they are hired, there's the "community code" thingy they came up with in May of 2018. In short, nobody can control if a corps hires convicted felons, including sex offenders. That's a big problem. Having a "community code" isn't a solution to that problem.

In the 90s, the Blue Devils were actually Ye Olde Blue Devils. Fact.

I know it might be too much of a pop B-way tune, but it's really a beautiful little song