cixelsyd

Is that skevinp at the bottom?

To be honest, this cartoon makes no sense to me. The middle frame represents both equal opportunity and equal outcome. The other two would never happen. If you are tall enough to see over the fence, you would not perch yourself on top of a box, much less seven of them. We all know where this goes next. You will spend your day scouring the Internet for better cartoons. I will spend my day enjoying the opportunities available to me. The two of us have equal opportunity, but will we have equal outcomes?

Amazed I have to say this... Dissing entire regional populations (i.e. Arkansas, the "T" of Pennsylvania, etc.), or their political/religious views by demographic inference, is exactly the wrong look for a thread about "inclusion". On the other hand, if the goal of regional prejudice is to prove that prejudice is still a problem in society... then, mission accomplished. Carry on.

I think #2 needs the greater emphasis. Facing facts is easy when we can each have our own set of them.

Different types of people, absolutely. But all different types? I hope this effort is not preoccupied with checking off every one of those boxes, instead of moving forward with the people they have. The word "harassment" did not appear even once in their press release. Honestly, I wish as much as you do that harassment prevention was the focus.

Harassment prevention was a big initiative in 2018. And how do I know it is worth fixating on the word/concept of "inclusion"? Well, it is already clear from the description of the committee: "The Committee will represent a diverse cross-section of the organization to include persons of all races, religions, gender, sexual orientation, sexual identity, and any other relevant distinction as determined by the Committee." That will be a large committee, in order to include persons of all those groups.

The dictionary definition of inclusion is "the act of including". We have other words for what we do after that to make the included feel welcome, prevent harassment, ensure fair treatment, and establish codes of conduct for everyone involved. And THOSE things are not horrible ideas. Why would you think that of me? Since it seems anyone with the slightest nuance of opinion is immediately presumed a hater of all virtues, let me be clear. I am proud of the drum corps activity. We have been ahead of the curve on racial justice, ahead of the curve on gender justice, and so far ahead on other constituencies that there was no curve yet. In my own face-to-face experiences, drum corps (and specifically among them, the Cadets being one fine example) have been the best institutional role model I have for minority acceptance. And even saying all that, if a corps or circuit wants to improve on that, they have my support. Continuous improvement is, after all, one of the life lessons of this activity. At some point, though, there is a distinction between equal opportunities and equal outcomes. Usually, when buzzwords like "diversity" and "inclusion" appear, that indicates an interest in equal outcomes. And usually, pursuing equal outcomes devolves into reverse discrimination... which is just another form of discrimination. (And again, let me be clear. I oppose discrimination, in all its forms. Therefore, I prefer equal opportunities.)

I will give you a hint. "Inclusion".

If this was about harassment prevention, or code of conduct, you would be correct.

If this was an anti-discrimination effort, you would be correct.

Wow. Twice in one day, you have claimed greater knowledge than myself regarding what I think.

And you know this how? Suppose we discovered that not as many women want to be a corps director. What then?

I am having a flashback. It was just 14 months ago that a quintet of protected classes (recited twice) and the name Darcie Aungst were all over a show design announcement. Now it is an "equality and inclusion committee". Inclusion? Really? And of all times, this moment of maximum irony? Drum corps WAS a truly inclusive activity, once upon a time. Now, it is unapologetically focused on being an advanced-placement summer camp for experienced alumni of the scholastic marching arts activities, which themselves are based largely in affluent suburbia. Drum corps can no longer even create the pretense of being "inclusive" toward the inexperienced and/or at-risk youth that they used to routinely train from scratch back in the day. And now, the activity faces its own economic challenges - some of which are of its own making. Forgive me if I do not hold my breath waiting to see how drum corps renounces its expensive ways, and instead returns to prioritizing outreach to the socioeconomically underprivileged. Notice that the poor are not one of the groups selected for greater opportunity and inclusion in these virtue signaling exercises.

Good question. That is precisely what I was thinking about when I said, in my previous post, that there are other complicating factors. The biggest complication is that any corps seeking to maintain the same quality experience would therefore need to have their corps together 24/7 for the same amount of weeks. And as Jim points out... ... if you have the same membership, coming together from all over, you have the same need for housing, food, insurance and vehicles for the same number of weeks. Note that many corps have promised their 2020 contracted membership spots for 2021. As humane a gesture as that seems, it has the unintended consequence of preventing them from recalibrating to a locally-based operation. A corps with substantial local membership would be better able to adapt their schedule and reduce their housing/feeding requirements while in their home area. And we should face the likelihood that if there is a 2021 season, it will require frequent adaptation to late-breaking developments.

Yes. World-class expectation is that everyone is at the San Antonio show, and on the WC tour from then on. Exceptions to that are only made for special, once-only circumstances, like a tour of Europe. (And maybe a global pandemic?) Yes. Open-class corps can do that. They string together shorter tours to bring corps from opposite coasts together. Your guess is mostly correct. There are other complicating factors, but your overriding point stands - it is possible to plan a less extensive (and less expensive) tour model for 2021.