Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

46 minutes ago, Tim K said:

Put it another context. Can college professors or teaching assistants have sexual relationships with students? While some colleges might not forbid grad students and professors, though that list is getting shorter each day, it is forbidden with undergrads, in most cases defined with specific policies. 

 

I'm not arguing for corps directors and students to have relationships, and I completely agree with your college analogy. I'm just echoing the question "is it forbidden?" and "was it forbidden in 2003?" I'm guessing it wasn't then, and it probably isn't now. Therefore, what should Dan Acheson realistically have done with any information provided by Stuart Rice (credible or not)?

One answer could be that he should have discouraged the practice. Another answer could be that he should propose a regulation that forbids such a practice (to be voted on by corps directors, as they have the say). 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Peel Paint said:

This is fair game, reportable in a newspaper as part of this ongoing story. There's enough there there to run it, as far as I'm concerned.

I'm not saying Acheson can't or shouldn't stay as DCI head if this 2003 report that he doesn't recall is all there is. He can certainly make a case that he couldn't have done more at the time, without the name of a victim, and even I may agree. But if he repeatedly heard from other people that this specific corps director was engaging in sex abuse with members and staff and didn't do more to follow up until it hit the paper, he may have a problem.

 

I do not know of reporters using third party unsubstantiated rumors as the basis for the story. I am not saying the person did not say what he said. Clearly he did. But he provided no support to the claim so this really is not something that would normally be used as the basis of the story. Where are the second and third confirming sources? It was a reported rumor not "I know that he an inappropriate relationship with this marching member because she told me and here is her name." It was... I heard a rumor this was happening. Big difference.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, MusicManNJ said:

A heart wrenching story by one of the victims in today's Allentown Morning Call.

http://www.mcall.com/news/breaking/mc-nws-kim-carter-cadets-hopkins-20180412-story.html

Yes, just awful for Kim Carter. Isn't this a new element?  "Carter also outlined her complaints in a letter to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission but did not pursue it further. From talking with her former YEA colleagues, Carter said she believes the EEOC notified the board of directors about the letter. 'Just knowing that much made me feel good,' she said."

That needs to be checked into. Who else heard about the EEOC complaint, and  where was the follow up.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Peel Paint said:

Yes, just awful for Kim Carter. Isn't this a new element?  "Carter also outlined her complaints in a letter to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission but did not pursue it further. From talking with her former YEA colleagues, Carter said she believes the EEOC notified the board of directors about the letter. 'Just knowing that much made me feel good,' she said."

That needs to be checked into. Who else heard about the EEOC complaint, and  where was the follow up.

Agreed... that jumped out at me as well. Kinda makes the former board's Sargent Shultz "I know nothing" routine feel even less authentic (apologies for the 1960s sitcom reference).

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

10 hours ago, skevinp said:

Should victims not have the right to privacy in deciding themselves not to report somerhing that happened to them?  Should they be forced into the limelight any time someone else hears a rumor and decides to broadcast it on RAMD?  Does DCI have to spend 25 hours a day combing the internet for anything that might be construed as a suggestion that someone somewhere was harassed?  Do they have to chase down victims who chose not to come forward every time someone with an ax to grind wants to hurt a person or organization without any regard for the victim?

I'm catching up, and I hope this was discussed.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, MusicManNJ said:

I do not know of reporters using third party unsubstantiated rumors as the basis for the story. I am not saying the person did not say what he said. Clearly he did. But he provided no support to the claim so this really is not something that would normally be used as the basis of the story. Where are the second and third confirming sources? It was a reported rumor not "I know that he an inappropriate relationship with this marching member because she told me and here is her name." It was... I heard a rumor this was happening. Big difference.

 

This is the correct way to look at it. If someone went to an authority and said I heard so and so is having sex (or other violations) with his/her students, my response would be "how do you know this?" I need a name. I need more evidence. In most cases unless the student/staff member comes forward -- regardless of whether it was consensual or criminal -- and unless the accused admits to the infraction it is nothing more than 3rd-party rumors.  It may be enough for a person in authority to question the accused, but if they deny it and no one comes forward then the story goes away. 

These ladies that have bravely come forward have admitted that now was the time. I don't know if they tried to speak with someone years ago or not.  If they did then that is certainly something for the investigation. That is beyond my knowledge of this whole thing. Through the years I have always got the sense that some folks had some dirt on Hopkins, but I always figured it had more to do with inappropriate use of funds, poor management, or relationships that were consensual and legal -- but perhaps unethical. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

DCI and DAN Acheson's take on this seems to be lets just move on IMHO. It reminds me of then those Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders raped that woman in the Vegas Motel room and Jerry Jones got on Television and said America just needs to get back on with Football. 

 

SMDH. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Peel Paint said:

Isn't this a new element?  "Carter also outlined her complaints in a letter to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission but did not pursue it further. From talking with her former YEA colleagues, Carter said she believes the EEOC notified the board of directors about the letter. 'Just knowing that much made me feel good,' she said."

The initial article mentioned that she began an EEOC complaint, but it was withdrawn.   It's unfortunate that few details about that were provided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2003 was not that long ago. It was post- Clinton/Lewinsky, it was during the priest abuse scandals. People knew better then, too. I'm sure Dan A. is great guy. But, when faced with a moment of decision (allegedly) he chose to do nothing. And that's the worst possible thing he could have done. And now we see the "I never heard anything" cover up. This will not end well. 

Teddy Roosevelt- In any moment of decision the best thing to do is the right thing. The next best thing to do is the wrong thing. The worst thing to do is nothing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, kdaddy said:

I'm not arguing for corps directors and students to have relationships, and I completely agree with your college analogy. I'm just echoing the question "is it forbidden?" and "was it forbidden in 2003?" I'm guessing it wasn't then, and it probably isn't now. Therefore, what should Dan Acheson realistically have done with any information provided by Stuart Rice (credible or not)?

One answer could be that he should have discouraged the practice. Another answer could be that he should propose a regulation that forbids such a practice (to be voted on by corps directors, as they have the say). 

Most likely, if it is 2003 and every director and staff member were asked whether consensual relationships between staff and marching members should be allowed, most if not all would say no. In 2018 it would be a resounding no. That doesn’t mean some might not pursue such relationships. This is not unique to drum corps. I can think of three politicians who did great things for women’s rights who were guilty of sexual misconduct. 

Regarding the credibility of the person who spoke to Dan Acheson about the rumors. I was thoroughly trained in sexual harassment policies and child abuse prevention in 2002. The materials used were current but not new. The rule of thumb was that if it involved criminal activity, report it and let the experts decide. Even if the information is flimsy, it is better safe than sorry. It also protects you from liability. In 2003 a rumor with no names might not be enough it it involved an adult. In 2018, a well documented paper trail would be critical: a letter to GH informing him, expecting a response along with proof the Girardi learned of this. This is what would’ve happen in other situations today.

  • Like 1
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...