Jump to content

The Cadets and GH history of sexual abuse (news article)


Recommended Posts

46 minutes ago, cybersnyder said:

Don't hate the reporter, she's not the one that allowed this environment to thrive. If this kills the Cadets, she won't be the one that kills the Cadets and it really won't be Hop that killed the Cadets, it will be many acts of inaction that allowed this to continue and flourish. 

While I am not hating on the report... she has done amazing reporting so far... this latest article is very flimsy. It was a third part rumor with no other additional corroborating facts. That's the problem as I see it. Let's follow the facts and go after everyone and anyone who is responsible for what has taken place. And above all... support the victims.

Edited by MusicManNJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Stu said:

Just for the record, and clarification for those who just reading the postings, this Stu (me) and that Stu are two different Stu's. Carry on.

And this Stu, is yet another different Stu.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm reading a lot of bunker mentality stuff here and it's disturbing to me.  Folks, we have met the enemy, and he is us.  If DCI has no authority, then this is a very flawed model.  It needs to be fixed.  The optics look bad because they are bad.  Sniping at the messengers that they "should have done something more" or they haven't properly vetted their story is just hunkering down and hoping it will go away.  What is needed now, painfully, is the opposite.  Get the bleach out, open the windows, let the light in, and clean it up.  Get to it.  Nobody who reads about this story is going to buy the line that "DCI has no authority".  Geeze that looks so bad.  Change it.  If Dan has to go as collateral damage, I'm sorry.  This is so post-nazi Germany.  "No, I didn't know anything."  I don't believe it.  And parsing, cleverly worded press releases do not help.  "I said I didn't know about THESE SPECIFIC CHARGES BY THESE SPECIFIC PEOPLE until the newspaper article came out."  OK, what non-specific charges DID you know about?  Or am I not asking the question with enough precision?   This is still going to get worse before it gets better.  The half answers and evasiveness tell me this.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, HockeyDad said:

I'm reading a lot of bunker mentality stuff here and it's disturbing to me.  Folks, we have met the enemy, and he is us.  If DCI has no authority, then this is a very flawed model.  It needs to be fixed.  The optics look bad because they are bad.  Sniping at the messengers that they "should have done something more" or they haven't properly vetted their story is just hunkering down and hoping it will go away.  What is needed now, painfully, is the opposite.  Get the bleach out, open the windows, let the light in, and clean it up.  Get to it.  Nobody who reads about this story is going to buy the line that "DCI has no authority".  Geeze that looks so bad.  Change it.  If Dan has to go as collateral damage, I'm sorry.  This is so post-nazi Germany.  "No, I didn't know anything."  I don't believe it.  And parsing, cleverly worded press releases do not help.  "I said I didn't know about THESE SPECIFIC CHARGES BY THESE SPECIFIC PEOPLE until the newspaper article came out."  OK, what non-specific charges DID you know about?  Or am I not asking the question with enough precision?   This is still going to get worse before it gets better.  The half answers and evasiveness tell me this.

And it will get worse because of:

- this mantra about "who KNEW and did nothing"

- the idea that you KNEW if you heard a vague rumor from six degrees of separation

- the expectation that DCI somehow has ownership, parentage or similarly overriding responsibility and authority over multi-program arts organizations who run drum corps

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, HockeyDad said:

I'm reading a lot of bunker mentality stuff here and it's disturbing to me.  Folks, we have met the enemy, and he is us.  If DCI has no authority, then this is a very flawed model.  It needs to be fixed.  The optics look bad because they are bad.  Sniping at the messengers that they "should have done something more" or they haven't properly vetted their story is just hunkering down and hoping it will go away.  What is needed now, painfully, is the opposite.  Get the bleach out, open the windows, let the light in, and clean it up.  Get to it.  Nobody who reads about this story is going to buy the line that "DCI has no authority".  Geeze that looks so bad.  Change it.  If Dan has to go as collateral damage, I'm sorry.  This is so post-nazi Germany.  "No, I didn't know anything."  I don't believe it.  And parsing, cleverly worded press releases do not help.  "I said I didn't know about THESE SPECIFIC CHARGES BY THESE SPECIFIC PEOPLE until the newspaper article came out."  OK, what non-specific charges DID you know about?  Or am I not asking the question with enough precision?   This is still going to get worse before it gets better.  The half answers and evasiveness tell me this.

No one is suggesting to leave things covered up. I have spoken to and know several of the victims. I am 100% behind them and those who have yet to come forward. My particular issues with the article and the use of a third hand rumor to be the sole basis for writing an article. If Dan did something wrong then sure he would have to go. Same as with Sean. But there is a BIG difference. The victim came forward and stated she had gone to Sean because of some things that made her uncomfortable. That is way more specific than someone saying "I heard someone say that GH was being inappropriate with members." One is an allegation by the person who was directly impacted which in time will be show to be true or not. The other is just a rumor. And if we start conflating the two as a way to indite people we are going down a slippery slope. To be clear... I am only reacting to what I read in the article. For me... this was not worthy of going to print. And while I think the reporter has done some incredible work... this one just fall short of her otherwise stellar journalistic standards.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the mean time... another story in the Allentown paper has this bit of encouraging news:

"Doug Rutherford, a former Cadet and the new YEA board chairman, told The Morning Call the steps DCI outlined already are being taken. The organization is working with the national sex abuse prevention organization RAINN to review safety policies and procedures and build a better mechanism for reporting problems, he said."

http://www.mcall.com/news/breaking/mc-nws-allentown-cadets-probation-20180413-story.html

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, MusicManNJ said:

One is an allegation by the person who was directly impacted which in time will be show to be true or not. The other is just a rumor. And if we start conflating the two as a way to indite people we are going down a slippery slope. 

Agreed. The article makes it clear that Acheson pointed Rice in the direction of reporting his second hand information directly to the organization who employed Hopkins, rather than DCI, who had no authority to investigate, discipline, or in any other way manage the situation. Regardless of whether Acheson was aware of Rice's reputation for being an eccentric in the fringe world of RAMD or not, there was nothing in Acheson's or DCI's job description that gave them authority to do anything.

That will likely change (and should), but in the context of 2003, with the added layer of Rice's information being unsubstantiated rumors of impropriety, I'm not sure there's anything there that makes action against Acheson reasonable or worth pursuing.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, camel lips said:

Really ??

 

I was basing my comment off this quote . Sure seems like he and DCI are trying to sweep this under the rug and get on with Drum Corps.

 

One quote from the new article that I have not seen anyone mention yet, that I found of some relief:

This week, before the old forum posts surfaced, Acheson said that review was nearly complete and had not uncovered anything that would call for a deeper investigation.

 

 

And who in DCI’s office has the time to dig up old posts on ramd made by people that proved credibility issues on many things? Do you remember every conversation you had in 2003?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cybersnyder said:

Don't hate the reporter, she's not the one that allowed this environment to thrive. If this kills the Cadets, she won't be the one that kills the Cadets and it really won't be Hop that killed the Cadets, it will be many acts of inaction that allowed this to continue and flourish. 

Agreed but some vetting of the source would have been helpful 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JMS1995 said:

This is a good point.  DCI was and has been as you describe.  I think this is now all in question as to what DCI's role should be moving forward, assuming it all moves forward.  I think it is odd, though, that even if not out searching for "dirt" on themselves, they didn't hear things.  The DCI staff is very small... many of the office staff are the ones who travel out to the DCI shows to run them, and in doing this it seems likely they mingle, talk, listen... did any of what we know today [or other things we don't know yet] every pass by their ears?

But we’re they given specifics or “ I heard this rumor?@ there’s a zillion rumors every summer. Bob Barker died. Someone is playing “The Wall”.  So and so judge hates so and so corps. 

Specifics make the difference 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...