chadwick_michael
-
Posts
8 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by chadwick_michael
-
-
1 hour ago, James Mason said:
Hey Queenanne, I think your observation is fair but maybe not complete. You need to consider many things ... one of the things that both groups had in common was maturity/talent. With Star in 88 & 89 I pushed for design that would lay down a technical foundation -with hopes to retain membership so we could then leap to the next level once we added our design direction (see 90, 91,92 and 93). The first couple years at Madison were designed to re-establish the Madison DNA. In 2014, it was time for them to establish a technical foundation that is why I chose the show that I did. It was not the same as the “other” Scout shows I did for them but I knew it was what was needed to move them forward to the next level realizing they might take a baby step back to be able to really move to the next level in 2015. I regrettably wasn’t able to continue. The corps did place higher that next year, so I think the strategy would have worked. Good luck to you and thank you for your comment.
Thanks for joining in on the conversation! What are your impressions of how the Madison Scouts have built upon your contributions to the organization?
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, BigW said:
One could make a very powerful argument that Brotherhood/Family Culture indeed is the cornerstone of Tradition at the Scouts- at least it's a big part of it from talking to the alumni I've worked with and marched with over many years.
Members could choose multiple traits, and the survey displayed the answer options in random order. If the above theory were true, members would have chosen Tradition in similar numbers to Brotherhood.
The results weren't even close—83% of respondents chose Brotherhood/Family Culture, while only 57% chose Tradition.
-
On 6/18/2018 at 12:38 PM, whitedj2002 said:
Having just voted, I am intrigued what motivates this timely Socio/Financial conversation. The all-mighty Mission Statement penned by every 501c3 is lofty and vague at best. As a fan I have always considered the remaining all male corps to have the deepest traditions and yes, Brotherhood that exemplifies their Mission Statement. The Mission Statement seems to be wielded as a weapon against this time honored tradition. If the organization is willing to reinvent themselves for a greater genetic pool I fear they can't see the forest for the trees. If we force inclusiveness and become " like everyone else" then we are all diminished.
From the 2016 Scout member perspective, Tradition actually ranked toward the bottom. Youth members overwhelmingly seem to care most about Brotherhood/Family Culture, Show Design, and Educational Experience. (2016 Scouts poll results here).
-
On 6/5/2018 at 8:55 PM, runyancm said:
First of all, I would like to sincerely thank you for joining this discussion. I found the article fascinating, and appreciate this additional context.
The whole time reading this thread, I was thinking that the primary input for the decision to go co-ed should come from current and former members. The "Do you support going co-ed" question and results are interesting enough, but I wonder if many might find the question pejorative, and skew the results. Was there a question that tried to weigh how much the fact that the corps was all male factored into their decision to march there? Or a question that tried to weigh it's impact on their experience marching there? Those might be more telling if the all-male aspect of the corps is serving a need consistent with the mission statement.
Thank you!
Yes, besides gender eligibility questions, a few questions to the 2016 members assessed (1) the members' motivation to march DCI; (2) their thoughts on recommending the corps to a friend; and (3) their thoughts on electronic amplification.
See the full SurveyMonkey poll here.
Notes:
- Other years (2007, 2011) were polled as well, but a statistically representative sample was not obtained during the survey window.
- Alumni contact data are practically non-existent for members that marched prior to 2005.
- Above link expires in 30 days due to premium SM subscription requirements. Take a screenshot, it'll last longer!
-
43 minutes ago, MotoSurfBass said:
Additionally, after noticing some biased wording and phrasing in the text of the article itself, I believe some r/drumcorps members discovered the author was a cut auditionee from the same year who had a bone to pick with the corps and essentially wrote a hit piece without giving the corps proper context or an opportunity to explain itself.
That's completely wrong.
--> The author was never cut from Madison Scouts auditions.
--> The author interviewed multiple Madison Scouts officials prior to penning the article; many, including the Corps Director, declined to comment in writing (even still eight months later).
--> The author has no "bone to pick with the corps" or any DCI corps for that matter, and regularly crashes the local theater on Finals week.
--> The article is not at all framed as a "hit piece." My writing deals with facts and issues, not argumentum ad hominem.Thanks!
-
4 hours ago, skevinp said:
Applying the same logic to their statement as your interpretation, is DCI not then required to allow members of all ages to march (assuming being no older than 21 isn't required as an artistically-informed casting decision)? Did you request a clarification on that?
Great point! A policy is only as good as its enforcement, anyway. But sure, I'll ask DCI if they have ended discrimination against old people
-
19 hours ago, ndkbass said:
Thanks for sharing this article. I really appreciate it. Mad props to the Blue Stars and their staff! Way to step up!
As a cisgender alumnus, I am disheartened that the Scouts would use such a limiting and oppressive definition such as "birth sex" to determine an applicants gender, and, in doing so, prevented someone (and/or some people) from marching who wanted too and could have been a great talent/asset to the corps. I am also extremely irked that this is the first I heard of this. It shows a very narrow minded approach that leads towards nothing but bigotry. [...]
Yes, much of the discussion regarding the transgender student admissions policy debacle happened on the Madison Scouts closed alumni Facebook group page, in what unraveled into a vitriolic discussion that was methodically scrubbed by alumni FB moderators.
I can help answer some common follow-up questions to my October 26 Medium article, and provide some context in light of recent news and DCI changes:
(1) HOW IT STARTED: After learning in late August 2017 of the contents of an email message in which Madison Scouts Corps Director turned away a transgender student from *2016* auditions, I made a request for official comment to the MS Corps Director and Executive Director on September 2, 2017. The Corps Director declined to elaborate on the policy in writing, but did not dispute the authenticity of the message.
The Corps Director of the Madison Scouts (Dann Petersen) further indicated via a phone call that there were no plans to address the corps eligibility policy with respect to cisgender female performers or transgender students, and encouraged any concerned individual to make the case for policy change to the alumni at the November annual stakeholder meeting. On a similar front, a few other alumni helped me coordinate a gender & performance poll amongst the entire 2016 Scouts members—the latest corps for which contact data were available at the time of the September 2017 poll, and the same corps for which the transgender student in question could have marched. The unofficial poll of the 2016 members found that 61% would support a decision to go co-ed, with that support increasing to 91% for female inclusion as an integral part of a show design.
(2) ARTICLE PUBLICATION & RESPONSE: In the lead-up to Madison Scouts' 2017 annual stakeholder meeting, my Medium article containing the interviews, survey results, and anti-trans policy revelation was published. The reporting in the article was indirectly confirmed—and even compounded—by the Executive Director of the Madison Scouts in his subsequent statement to the alumni FB group.
The Executive Director of the Madison Scouts (Chris Komnick) made a Facebook post to the private alumni FB group (reproduced elsewhere on DCP) in response to the Medium article acknowledging that the transgender student at the center of the story—Payton McGarry—was only one of a number of transgender students that had been turned away from the corps in its 80-year history. Incredibly, hours before the publication of the Medium article, the Corps Director reportedly reversed himself on the trans policy in an email exchange with an unrelated student inquiring about trans eligibility. There's no good estimate on how many transgender students had been turned away from the corps—or the DCI activity—under Madison's long-standing anti-trans policy.
(3) FINAL WORD: Scouts' honor to publish an official pro-transgender eligibility policy never came to fruition.
In the Executive Director's post to the alumni, Mr. Komnick claimed that the Board of Directors "has been working with the National Center for Transgender Equality over the past two weeks [i.e. in early October] to draft a policy with the appropriate language." The MS administration had also promised the alumni in late October that it would publicly publish a statement with the final pro-trans admission's policy on its website within weeks. Nearly eight months later, an official pro-trans public announcement on its website still hasn't happened.
(4) Whaddabout The Cavaliers?
Some readers have asked about The Cavaliers' position on allowing Payton McGarry and other f2m transgender students to audition. According to the transgender student, however, The Cavaliers never responded to his email request for audition eligibility information (FWIW—The Cavies did not return my September 2017 email request for comment either).
(5) ...and what of the new DCI rules prohibiting various forms of discrimination?
Under new DCI protections adopted in May 2018 in response to the George Hopkins' allegations, DCI made a firm statement against discrimination and harassment:
"Discrimination, or adverse treatment of an individual based on a protected status, with the exception of any participating organizations' lawful and artistically-informed casting decisions, is inconsistent with DCI's values. Discriminatory harassment on such a basis is strictly prohibited. "Protected status" is defined as an individual's race, color, creed, ethnicity, ancestry, national origin, sex, gender, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, age, religion, marital status, veteran status, disability or physical ability, or other legally protected classification."
The statement seems pretty clear: general co-ed eligibility is now required by DCI except for "lawful and artistically-informed casting decisions." I have sent a message to the DCI Ethics office requesting clarification on the extent of this policy, but it's possible that someone on this forum has insight as to if there's some sort of planned accommodation for the The Scouts or The Cavaliers (or all-female corps, for that matter).
----
Long post, but I hope it helps shed some light on the issue and recent developments.
Thanks for reading! MYNWA, and Happy Pride Month!
Madison Scouts 2018
in DCI World Class Corps Discussions
Posted
The topic is not only real, but a recent survey of the 2016 Madison Scouts indicated 60%+ support of a hypothetical co-ed decision. This generation of Scouts apparently likes electronics, too!