.jpg.725602cd26fc701262f2cb9847636dc3.jpg)
scheherazadesghost
-
Posts
2,893 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
15
Posts posted by scheherazadesghost
-
-
44 minutes ago, FormerXyloWhiz said:
I'll preface this by saying I agree with the spirit of what this person posted in general. But, as somebody who was there, they do not know what they speak of with the Cadets regarding Hop. Of course the abuse was there before him, because lets face facts: the abuse was, and is, everywhere in the activity. No corps is immune from it.
The cycle didn't start with Hop, but he codified it there. He was dug in like a tick. His grip, an ironclad stranglehold. He was in charge for 34 years, more than one third of the corps' existence. He enabled the abuse there for those years and directly took part in it. Once he took over anybody who marched there can tell you: Hop's culture was the corps culture. Outside the abuse, that culture generally was "work yourself to absolute death if you have to in order to succeed." The work was literally all that mattered. Not people, not physical health, not mental health, not nutrition, not safety - work, even at the expense of all of these things. That was the lesson he wanted us all to get. With that culture, they won 6 out of 11 years with incredible performances. We all bought into that culture. We were flat out treated like dog sh** - and we lived for that experience. Looking back on it I see the absolute insanity. I would never let anybody treat me like that here in my adult life now. But I let them do it back then. Because they were the champions when I showed up for my first audition and I was not. I was a kid. I knew nothing. They're the adults. They must know. This is how you succeed. I must be wrong. I'll just take it.
Removing Hop drastically altered the organization and the culture. Immediately. The members from 2018 - 2023 were genuinely supported and taken care of to a degree we never were. It was a valiant effort. It was imperfect. But it was far better. Abuse is everywhere in the activity. Hop made the corps an even easier place for abusers and perpetrators to thrive. I hold him directly accountable for that.
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.
-
Quote
Attributed to @ranintothedoorfrom the Cadets bankruptcy thread:
I long have held in my heart that the art can be separated from the artist.
I still believe this.
In the Cadets' case, however, after being reminded of the perpetual culture of the board/admin that fostered an environment conducive to all that's happened...
... the tarnish is real.
It's really hitting home today. How can I watch a Cadets show with joy in my heart with the knowledge of what was going on behind the scenes? Or share with my students? Or wear my corps jacket?
In the abusers' case, the artists used the art to abuse. Used us all.
The art can stand alone, can stand the test of time. Generations of young people can watch YT videos of Cadets shows forever, and it will mean something to them.
But the joy, for me at least, is darkened. They destroyed the lives of so many victims, and used the Cadets, all of us Cadets, to do it.
...
Now that it's official, I'm glad the Cadets organization is done.
At least today. I don't know how I'll feel tomorrow.
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.
-
3
-
1
-
-
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."
-
4
-
-
3 hours ago, BigW said:
Honesty and transparency is something I was raised to have and live by.
Same.
3 hours ago, BigW said:The total lack of that at one point killed my corps.
I worry about my own for this same reason.
3 hours ago, BigW said:This stuff has to stop. I'd add more but I have to eat/meds and get to work. A lot of things I experienced as a 16 year old kid who wanted nothing more than to play my axx off in a Corps have caused me to reflect on all of this, let me tell you. Later on that.
I would appreciate reading that here or in a private message.
-
14 minutes ago, GUARDLING said:
I agree with a lot you have said. I also believe with some subjects a debate is often a losing situation with no winners Sometimes it just cuts to deep . I do agree listening works
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.
6 minutes ago, BigW said:It's not going to surprise me at all if more of this starts coming out. And it shouldn't shock and surprise anyone else if it happens.
Some of us actively work towards this.
-
1
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, GUARDLING said:
Your right as far as the activity is not close to proving anything but BOY has it changed and way more aware than the past. It has to start somewhere and needs to IMO. Is burning down everything without moving forward the answer , I guess that can be a heated debate.
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.
-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, GUARDLING said:
If they did and not correct things, make it better , apply today's standards to today, we literally could do away with every corps. Heck we could do away with churches, civic groups, Scouts so on and so on. Should we pay for the sins of our parents or prove it stopped with them. Just a thought.
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.
-
3
-
1
-
-
12 minutes ago, GUARDLING said:
Should they survive, can they survive, deserve to survive? Others can debate that. Count them out as done forever? I wouldn't be so sure of that. Not the same of course but many thought just recently that SCV wouldn't return, let alone so fast. I'm hopeful
Perhaps those alum/community members that want to revive it could consider the wishes of the survivors first?
-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, Brian Tuma said:
It’s not really the flex he makes out to be. No 15 yo teenager has the brain or emotional development to consent.
Also, the age of consent in California became 18 in checks watch 1920. The law was the law, even BITD.
-
2
-
1
-
-
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...
-
4
-
-
2 hours ago, craiga said:
I here you. We've already eliminated (hopefully) staff/member transgressions. However, is there in fact a power differential between two baritone players for example, who are 6 months apart in birthdays? How about a couple color guard boys who are both 17 until one has a birthday the day of Allentown?
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.
2 hours ago, IllianaLancerContra said:3 hours ago, scheherazadesghost said: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.
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, craiga said:
That's the problem. There is no nationwide age of consent. They vary by state...some are 16 or 17, and a few southern states are, incredibly, lower. I don't know how you enforce constantly changing laws on a group that travels 10,000 miles in 60 days...
Follow the SSI model in which no young person, minor or adult, can give consent within a power differential. It's backed by science.
-
2
-
-
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.
-
2
-
1
-
-
30 minutes ago, GUARDLING said:
But what would 18 do. Allegedly the accusations were made by many over 18 but still members. What people don't talk about much is member to member issues or member doing their hardest to get to some staff. Now one can easily say staff should know better which would be a very true statement BUT remember some staff can also be very young. If there are those who believe this part is rare is only fooling themselves. I've seen it and had to deal with it not just in the summer but on the WGI level.
It is a directors job to NOT just leave things to staff to watch ( which can be the cat watching the canary ) but to put their foot down and be willing to lose either a staff person or a member who doesn't comply with the rules in EVERY aspect. A good director isn't just a figure head to make speeches and pep talks but one who serves, and protects all involved and the integrity of the corps or winter programs. JMO
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.
-
1
-
-
20 minutes ago, rmurrey74 said:
DCI corps all have to adhere to the training guidelines. If one is not, report it.
Alumni corps now have to take the same Safesport training. I had friends that participated in the Bluecoats alumni corps. Feel free to confirm with any of those 500 people.
I’ll base my knowledge on actual experience of actively teaching in the activity right now.
Then the communication coming out of DCI should be more clear?
And this didn't address any of my other concerns.
-
11 minutes ago, rmurrey74 said:
The safe sport training is activity wide. As a staff member, the amount of training I receive is far and beyond what I have to do for any other activity I’m involved in. (Coaching youth baseball and volunteering with the high school musicals for set construction). It’s also far more than our 15 minute sexual harassment training taken yearly for work. It’s probably never enough, but there’s frequent reminders, spelled out in my teaching contracts, in separate policy documents. It’s taken very seriously by the two drum corps I have recently taught and I’ve heard no different from my friends and past members teaching across the activity.
There’s some people that will never be satisfied or convinced that it’s enough. That’s fine, but it’s a huge improvement over what existed five years ago. I’m not sure what more could be done right now but making the minimum age 18 would be best in my mind.
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.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, cixelsyd said:
All marchers are taking participant safety training. The goal of that should be to ensure that they all know the full spectrum of options available to them.
I'm aware. AFAIK, DCI-wide, it's a one hour video created by the USCSS. Great.
But as I said when they first implemented it, it's only a start and not nearly enough. We've gotten anon reports that the members themselves have found it ineffective, going so far as to use the term "Safe Sport" as a code word for predators in their midst on tour. It's also not enough if staff aren't reinforcing those reporting channels or don't feel confident using themselves. Or if abusers have managed to weasel their way in still, which happens. Training, especially weak, limited training, is only a small piece of the education pie here.
Also, if the training is generic enough to share activity wide, then it's probably not going to point to organization-specific channels. Another problem: the generic training is easy to check off and forget when you're in the moment, facing an abuser or survivor.
This is likely why SOA developed their own training in-house, I imagine, because their reporting system is more robust and the generic version wouldn't have helped. And yet, we're still seeing breaks in the system, even if this is a rare case of a false accusation! That's how complicated this work is.
Even the work done so far is clearly not enough if we're still getting young members who are potentially only going to social media, or who are asking reddit what they should do. Also, to correct myself: the generic training isn't activity wide, as Terri pointed out in the Cadets bankruptcy thread...
It. Is. Not. Good. Enough.
Yet.
-
2
-
2
-
-
2 minutes ago, Terri Schehr said:
I’ve been fighting the good fight long enough.
I'm grateful to you and all you've done, and apologize for indicating otherwise in the past in my ignorance.
-
3
-
-
25 minutes ago, Mello Dude said:
Find me something not 10+ years old. Also, it does happen.
Best practice is to NOT go on social media but to open a Police report.
I would like to clarify this latest Reddit, am I mistaken this is someone that isn't actually involved is reporting this? This seemed 3rd person?
Depends if they ARE a survivor; see my question. I haven't come down on anyone.
The resource is from 2021-22.
Social media is not best practice, true, but something desperate survivors/reporters do. Your verging on victim blaming when you 1. assume they haven't gone to the police and 2. assume that what you know the circumstances well enough to tell the survivor/reporter what to do.
We don't know if this person is a survivor or not. There's a very real possibly that they are. If they aren't, which again, we cannot know, then they are risking the survivors' safety by outing them. To that end, if true, and I've agreed with you, social media can be detrimental.
But again, it's a desperate act. They further report that they have blown the proper whistleblowing channels, but didn't feel heard. That would lead anyone to desperation.
I'm trying not to make this personal. You speak with a voice similar to the detractors in the reddit thread, so I emphasized what I and others see there, which is uninformed people coming down on a reporter.
Trust me, I'll implicate you directly if it's crucial in doing so. If I don't do that, it's best to assume I'm not accusing you of anything.
17 minutes ago, Lance said:all you do with victim blamers is reinforce their beliefs if you engage with them in any way. just sayin.
Thank you for this reminder. But I'm not doing this to convince them. I'm doing this to counter them for other survivors out there who may have trouble finding their voice and language to use.
-
4
-
-
15 minutes ago, Mello Dude said:
1. I dunno anymore about that.
Top hit: https://evawintl.org/best_practice_faqs/false-reports-percentage/
Feel free to post international, reliable sources reflecting otherwise.
15 minutes ago, Mello Dude said:2. They absolutely needed to quash that. Even IF it is true you can't just accuse people without due process. I feel like a broken record with you on this. There is a right way to go about this and it's the police. If you can go on social media, you can file a report with the police.
Best practice is to protect reporters first, then investigate.
You're a broken record because you're not bringing in any resources that counter best practices and research. These state that the criminal justice system often retraumatizes survivors, which is a huge factor in their decision to go to authorities or not.
I've never said don't go to the police. It's part of the many possible responses a reporter can take.
Coming down hard on a survivor for assuming they didn't take the step you think they should isn't helpful.
15 minutes ago, Mello Dude said:If you are going on reddit without filing a police report and are encouraging this...just no. You can actually hurt your case doing this.
I don't disagree here. But I do have the heart to sympathize with young people who may not understand that. I don't jump down their throats for not thinking like a fully grown adult who knows the full spectrum of options available to them. To do otherwise would be retraumatizing, which I do my best not to engage in.
-
1
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, JimF-LowBari said:
Finally found it… guessing lot of comments got removed
Ew. Now the post has been removed by mods. That's gotten increasingly rare over there so I'm a bit surprised. OP and subsequent posters are reporting really bad stuff...
I think what people don't understand is 1. how rare false accusations are statistically and 2. even in the rare case it's false, the reporters and org still have a very serious problem on their hands that shouldn't be censored automatically.
1000 yikes!
My first post on reddit reporting my abuse was censored as well so I feel for OP on that way as well.
-
3
-
2
-
-
4 minutes ago, JimF-LowBari said:
Did a Quick Look and sounds like the anti sexual harassment training I had. IMO having members know what protections they have and what to do in case of trouble is part of it. Another part is making sure the people working with youth are safe (background check).
What is hazy to me is how DCI fits into it. Probably my lack of knowledge but sounds like DCI isn’t taking an active role in protecting. IOW too much relying on the individual corps and outside groups (SS) to handle things. To put it another way DCI is sitting back saying “we have SS now… see we took action, we’re cool”And don't forget, AFAIK, USCSS doesn't provide oversight because DCI isn't an official national governing body. They only provide the weak training module.
10 minutes ago, year1buick said:No Klingon?
ROFLOL. I'll be sure to mention that oversight in my first committee meeting. Thank you.
-
1
-
-
23 minutes ago, JimF-LowBari said:
Not all alumni group members are adults. And not sure why a performer being a “kid” makes a difference. Some of the incidents I’ve seen reported had a minor as a assailant.
Terri did get a response, and it says that Sound Sport and Alumni have different criteria for checks. 🤔SSI differentiates youth from adult safeguarding, but emphasizes that both are critical to be considered a safe sport entity. And not just for participants, but for staff, volunteers, and leadership as well:
Adults: https://safesportinternational.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/SAFEGUARD-DOC-Proof-4-Single.pdf
Children/minors*: https://safeinsport.org/8-safeguards/
*also available in Swahili 💪🏽
-
1
-
1
-
The whistleblowers and survivors of abuse in this industry are tired...
in DCI World Class Corps Discussions
Posted
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.