scheherazadesghost

.

Thank you for this. You've elaborated on many of my main points of the last two years. And zoom out further to include ACEs (adverse childhood experiences) and we're looking at an even wider variety of concerns that drum corps admin and educators have to factor into their work: https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/aces/fastfact.html

Man, I needed some of y'all around when I marched. ACEs drove me to being way too compliant in the face of harassment and abuse. The two cymbal players/cymbal alum that could've been around to defend us in 04 were otherwise occupied by life its own self. Have stayed connected with them and they lament it beyond words. Tears all around. Can't really tell at this point if elder alum would've stepped in or if they would've turned a blind eye like alum on staff did. So much bad behavior was normalized and remains that way from what I'm told.

I was a product of a state that piggybacks music education funding on top of football funding. Is Texas the biggest or only state that can say that? Put another way, are other big drum corps states a result of football funding or some other holdover like AL/VFW legacies? I ask because Texas still seems to be going strong for this reason, but I'm concerned for other regions. I'm also thinking arts education funding is trending downwards in general... thus the widespread willingness to spend money on pop concerns rather than educational/amateur/ fine/performing arts. It takes some literacy in the arts to appreciate these forms. LOL Pathways was super-not-user-friendly. Many drum corps shows trend in that direction too...

What boggles my mind is that attendance was highest around the time of my birth, the 80s, before the interwebz could be used to share the artform widely. By the time I marched Pathways, we'd barely recovered to the 20k mark. That's a quandary only my elders could really begin to reflect and respond to. I'm stumped. Unless AL/VFW and the mid 20th century wars/required enlistment played that big of a role in drum corps recruitment?? Or am I way off base? Pathways was quite the departure from drum corps's militaristic roots... artistically anyway...

If DCP had the descriptions from a fraction of the survivors who have reported to me, MAASIN, and other proper whistleblowing channels... ... or if DCP knew about the young lives demolished by their drum corps experience... ... then there would be pitchforks from even the staunchest of detractors. Downplaying that contributes to the problem. For every 50 great experiences there may have been at least one adverse one. Through out history. But whatevs, amirite? Those reporting must just be weak or too sensitive... "not drum corps material." /s

Indeed. I learned that all too well recently with the discovery of new info regarding a fellow alum. It rocked me to my core. Additionally, there is a straight line path from the abuse I endured and my return to academia to learn to be a pedagogue. Much more to say here but it'll edge this thread closer to closure so I'll keep it to myself. Several of my abusers are still active and beloved in the activity so... ya know... I'm the bad guy.

Y'all. Respectfully... Choosing show material based on 20th century artists who sold their works to/sympathized with/entertained Nazis is not anywhere near the same as enabling and facilitating abuse in drum corps. (Although, to be fair, there are countless other artists and creatives out there that aren't tied to violence, abuse, and atrocity. Would it be a good idea to use Michael Jackson's music at this point, for example? I wouldn't!) It's possibly in the same ballpark as Polanski and Allen in film... but there's no need to ambiguate the topic here. Countless untold members were physically, verbally and sexually abused for years; it was covered up and silenced; and blaming a single person vastly oversimplifies the breadth of this issue. Activity leadership and the community at large have never had a transparent, honest and informed dialogue about that, which risks the safety of current marchers and staff. Rand, an expert, who has listened to countless survivor reports by now suggests centering survivor perspectives. Safe Sport International suggests centering survivor perspectives. Both say that the remedy, which survivors are due, includes minimally linking them to mental health support services, or gasp actually enabling said services. I suggested the idea to VMAPA and it was immediately dismissed without discussion. DCI and drum corps seem to refuse to do anything resembling that. Still. To the detriment of current marchers and staff. It's unconscionable at this point to not even host discussions with survivors, given how long this legacy has lasted.

Thank you for bringing your perspective. You've been quite level headed through it this and I appreciate that. I'm relieved to read that things improved for the members with GH's removal. I marched with someone who originally got into Cadets but noped out of it bc of the culture you mention... only to end up at what they called worse at Vanguard. Under a caption head who is a Cadets alum no less. Where I think the two groups differ is that Cadets had a figure head that codified the abusive culture, whereas Vanguard needed no such figure head. I think it was there under GR's nose when he was still with us, and has only metastasized during and since The Dark Years. No figure head to root out or place blame on, for better or worse. Respectfully, thus, as an outsider to Cadets, others are likely tempted to say it wasn't GH alone and to say so risks excusing apologists, enablers, and flying monkeys that are still very present all across the activity. I'm definitely not directing that at you, but the overall sentiment that places the overwhelming majority, if not all blame on him alone.

My point in including the quote, though, was to highlight that some alumni who were closer to the abuse may no longer be able to enjoy the art that was begat of it. We aren't saying others can't or shouldn't. Literally, OP says a much. We're saying we, the "instruments" of the art making process may not be able to do so despite trying or wanting to. It was a validating statement to read, as I feel the same way about the years I marched.

This is the raw sentiment that most closely resembles my own. I don't wish the end of the honorable portion of any legacy, but when you've experienced firsthand, and been told numerous accounts of, a legacy of abuse that has never been compassionately or honorably addressed by leadership anywhere, I believe such sentiments are warranted. If anyone wants to hear Rand's full commentary, which I cut down in my previous comment, they can go listen for themselves at DCAF. It includes their well wishes to the Cadets alum and community in addition to what I included. So does the rest of the commentary by DCAF. Otherwise, I encourage those who clearly wish to do otherwise in my thread, to remain survivor/victim centric. I won't be responding to known trolls, enablers, or apologists here. Rand offers real solutions that I'd never dreamed of proposing on DCP because the voices of apologists, enablers, and flying monkeys always get honest discussions shut down. I reposted Rand's commentary here in hopes of giving it greater visibility. Same with the commentary I quoted above. Even if OP has changed how they feel, which is understandable, the sentiments in this commentary are fair and shared by others.

Reviving this thread to post a segment of Rand (MAASIN founder)'s statement regarding the end of the Cadets. Thank you DCAF for giving them a platform to say the right thing to a wider audience. Emphases, bold, italics, are mine: "You don't also get to claim simultaneously all the history and victory of the Cadets while washing your hands clean of the abuse that happened. The announcement statement from the Cadets regarding the corps folding essentially says that the corps folded because of the recent lawsuit from an alum who was sexually assaulted in the 80s. Blaming the recent lawsuit as the sole reason the organization folded, knowing the kind of environment survivors in marching arts deals with is deliberately opening up that person to further abuse. Further abuse because I was already seeing a bunch of disgusting, vitriolic comments directed at them before the corps folded, I can only imagine what those people are saying now. This sets us back. Many of us, obviously myself included, have diligently worked to make drum corps a safer place. We should be past the fear that reporting will make people think that you just want to see the organization fold, and you just want to see drum corps burn, and you'll be blamed for the uncaring actions of boards and admin. This statement from the Cadets remastered that fear in 4k for hundreds if not thousands of people. I'm also seeing a lot of people blame George Hopkins. I understand where they're coming from and obviously you all know I'm not going to be George Hopkins defender, but this isn't solely his fault either. In my opinion, looking at George as a the sole downfall of the Cadets is likely how the board landed in this situation. Removing George from the organization didn't solve the issues inherent to the organization because George was part of the problem, not the whole problem itself. The actual problem is that the Cadets organization became an environment that enabled abuse for many people, not just George. Obviously I've never been involved in the Cadets organization, so please take this with a grain of salt, but if any iteration of the Cadets truly cared about survivors as much as optics or finances, they would've handled this differently starting in 2018. Disclosing being a survivor of sexual violence is difficult. People have a lot of reasons for choosing to step forward or not to step forward. But for every survivor that stepped forward, there are probably at least as many that chose not to. Even more difficult is choosing to initiate a lawsuit over it. No one has a good time in a lawsuit and the courts are not kind to survivors. Choosing to sue or engaging with law enforcement often just retraumatizes people. From my experience as a sexual assault counselor, and also being on the MAASIN support team, lawsuits are usually a last resort. When someone gets to a lawsuit, it's likely that the organization failed in a lot of steps in making amends first. Imagine in 2018 if people in our community, but especially in the Cadets board and admin, put as much effort into support survivors as they did in trying to distance themselves from George. Imagine the idea if we took a corps fundraiser seriously and we crowdfunded for counseling for survivors. Imagine if organizations facilitated gathering feedback from alum and survivors on what meaningful change in the organization looks like. Teasing out what's tradition and what's trauma can be difficult for some people but it's a worth endeavor to invest time into. I can't predict the future but if survivors are adequately supported, they are probably less likely to resort to suing to get their needs met. The lawsuit cannot be the only reason the organization folded. There's always more than what's the statement and we know that the economic conditions that we're living in present a huge challenge to drum corps across the board. The person at fault for an organization folding is never the survivor. This is a natural consequence of a board and admin that chose pride and profits over the people the organization is built on. ... Just remember, it was not the survivor who did this."

Same. I worry about my own for this same reason. I would appreciate reading that here or in a private message.

You've always presented a such and hope my assertiveness in this exchange is seen as only that. And I tend to put the deep cuts that survivors have endured above others. Some of us actively work towards this.

I think insiders would be surprised how few hardliners actually want it to burn. Do I know those folks? Yes. Do I care about them? Yes. Do I agree that destruction is best? If that's what you and/or others are still getting from the hardline approach I present here then that's protection, plain and simple. And, you're right, it's not a good place to start a debate from. Further, you don't have to do what the burn it down crowd says... but listening to them might be informative. Possibly the only kind of informative that could lead to lasting solutions, even if they're tweaked versions of what that crowd presents.

Survivors aren't likely to be a monolith that all want the things you're proposing though. The real question is: has anyone even asked them what they would want? Without protecting their outside assumptions? I don't think the activity is anywhere near proving the sins of our elders have been halted though. Not even close.

Perhaps those alum/community members that want to revive it could consider the wishes of the survivors first?

Also, the age of consent in California became 18 in checks watch 1920. The law was the law, even BITD.

Yeah I'm not continuing this conversation if I'm already getting detractor/non-commentors. I appreciate the dialogue @LabMaster, but it's not worth it publicly. Not sure why I thought this place would be ready for it.... thanks for contributing nothing to this complicated dialogue, G_OC and Jeff.... Edit: Don't be confused people. If you think talking about sex between staffers or members on tour is easy, then by all means contribute and show us how is done. Otherwise, I'll kindly ask you stop reacting with the most negative reaction option available to you in lieu of contributing something constructive. More confusion, still no talk to back it up. No surprise there...

The power differential refers to relationships between a member, of any age, and either another member in leadership or staff. Also refers to a minor age member and legal adult member. If both are minors, they cannot consent period. If that changes on tour, one still cannot consent. Member relationships within a power differential should be disclosed to safeguarding officers, for oversight when absolutely necessary. Staff-member relationships are a no go. Friggin' wait till they age out. Sexual relations, on tour, because of the nature of cohabitation, shouldn't be permitted. Technically that should go for staff too. It's public exposure, and therefore illegal. I could discuss this further and maintain professionality here, but I doubt anyone really wants to go there so I'll leave it at this. Suffice to say that relationships aren't sex... and you can have a relationship on tour without it. Especially if it means you'll get the boot otherwise. I'm pretty sure this is the rule, on paper, at SOA. Ok. So say we do this & it fixes staff/member issues. What about member/member (which is what was alleged to happen in several recent incidents)? Not trying to be difficult, but it seems to me that there needs to be more than just SSI. Or perhaps I don’t understand SSI well enough. Does the above make sense? Neither of you are being difficult. These are important questions that I surely hope corps are getting ahead of.

Follow the SSI model in which no young person, minor or adult, can give consent within a power differential. It's backed by science.

I believe that shifting the age groups will only reorganize predators and lead them to modify their grooming techniques. And it only shifts liabilities for organizations instead of addressing the root issue... The ultimate problem is non consensual relationships within power differentials here. (Noting here that minors, legally, cannot give consent... but SSI training is also clear that neither can legal young adults within power differentials in sports. Perhaps the law should change to acknowledge this, but until it does, organizations should keep this in mind.) Specific age comes into play because of the law, not necessarily because 18 years olds are suddenly more mature and capable than 17.5 year olds. The age change is an important legal marker, but SSI regards this differently than what's being discussed here. They are clear, as I have been, that science has shifted to acknowledge the 18-25 age group as "late adolescence." This age group is still not fully adult in brain or body and deserve specific protections that, in most practicalities, mimic that of minors. It's one thing to say your policy protects minors or young adults. I don't think policies can. Only trained, weathered, compassionate mandated reporters can do that. Changing the age group is just a policy change, and not enough to limit these issues.

This is why changing age requirements isn't ideal. Clearly outlining what's expected of each age group and holding them accountable is best practice.

Then the communication coming out of DCI should be more clear? And this didn't address any of my other concerns.

Terri literally just confirmed via emails with DCI that it's not activity wide, but okay. I'm honestly glad that it's better than it has been. Great. Nothing I've seen indicates that it's close to other training options available, including the free, multi-hour, text based modules available thru Safe Sport International that you have to test out of. As for some people never being convinced... it's not because we keep moving the goal posts... it's because predators will always seek new ways of breaking into safeguarding systems. They must be updated and improved regularly. This is another SSI principle, not just some arbitrary moving of the goal posts by yours truly. I've done the homework for the last decade so I have a strong sense of what's out there.