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

[MusicManNJ]

18 minutes ago, camel lips said:

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. 

Has there been an official response to the article?

[Terri Schehr]

1 minute ago, Jim Schehr said:

No and shouldn’t. It’s has never been anything put a show scheduling and promotion company for shows. Its only responsiblity is to that of its member organizations and that is fiduciary. 

So they could remove a corps from a show that has allowed a registered sex offender to be a member? 

[garfield]

1 hour ago, Peel Paint said:

I disagree. I wasn't at all a fan of Stuart Rice--his argumentative diatribes were one key reason I left RAMD. (And I'd forgotten but do now recall his series of RAMD posts back in 2003.) I wouldn't give Dan Acheson a free pass here just because Rice was a PITA. Rice may be dead-on right in his posted recollection of Acheson's response. If Jeff Ream felt most people at Januals were aware something was up with Hopkins and sex abuse, how credible is Acheson's claim that he heard nothing about this until the first Inquirer story? That claim is going to crumble if a number of other people come forward to say, well I brought this to DCI's attention too years ago, especially if they have a way to back it up, like an e-mail trail, corroborating witness, phone bills, any number of ways. (This story will serve to fish for more leads along similar lines.)

What I like even less than the dismissal of Rice's posts is the growing suspicions about Inquirer journalist Patricia Nadolny being in this overall story of sex abuse in drum corps to burnish a resume. Maybe, some here seem to be beginning to think, other parts of the story may be unfair or untrue. It reminds me of the film Spotlight and the story behind it, and the criticisms the reporters faced. I am sure Nadolny is not acting as a lone wolf here but is being checked out carefully by at least one editor. People talking to her are being asked to document their claims, and the documentation is being cross-checked. Stuart's posts back then, still visible now, are credible documentation, exactly what this reporter needed to run this story, not proof of a specific case of sex abuse, but documenting that there likely was a report that was made that led to no action. She wouldn't have run Rice's one report alone as a story if all she had was Rice's memory from 2003 of calling Acheson, without the documentation.

As far as I'm concerned, the safety of the participants is Job One for DCI and its member corps and staffs. At what point should Acheson have heard enough to step up and have DCI look into it? Acheson is saying, well in April 2018 with the Inquirer article, I had enough. I'm not yet convinced that was soon enough.

The story about sex abuse in DCI needs to continue if verifiable leads develop.

That's not what he said.

My friend N.E. Brigand will undoubtedly look it up but, if I recall accurately, Achesan said he was made aware of "these" accusations until the Philly story broke.

He didn't say he didn't know ANYTHING about such swirling claims in January; he used the word "these" accusations and left a plausible deniability hole large enough to drive a truck through.

It is not in contention that he new something in January, and many, many people here claim many, many people knew of Hop's, and other's, actions in history.

[kdaddy]

24 minutes ago, Tim K said:

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.

I can't argue with your first paragraph, and I completely agree. My issue is still "what should we have expected Dan Acheson to do in 2003?" And that's a legitimate question. 

My issue with the second paragraph is that I saw nothing in the Rice Inquirer story that suggests that the corps member in question was underage. Maybe the member was, but the story doesn't suggest that, as far as I can tell. So I don't see criminal activity - just inappropriate behavior. Otherwise, I agree that suspected illegal activity should always be reported. 

(And to be clear, I'm not taking up for Hopkins. Dude is a creep and deserves whatever he gets.)

Edited April 14, 2018 by kdaddy

[Jim Schehr]

3 minutes ago, Terri Schehr said:

So they could remove a corps from a show that has allowed a registered sex offender to be a member? 

If it’s their show - yes. Have no authority to levy fines. 

[HockeyDad]

13 minutes ago, Jim Schehr said:

DCI is nothing more and nothing less that an show scheduling and promoting company. No different than any other promotional company. All else is for the matter of its member corps to vote and agree upon. The sooner they can distance themselves from this the sooner they can get back to promoting shows. 

If what you say is true (disqualification of the Bridgemen et al. by the very same DCI would seem to indicate otherwise), them perhaps this is part of the problem and perhaps solution. Maybe it's time to give DCI some real oversight authority. 

[Jim Schehr]

7 minutes ago, HockeyDad said:

If what you say is true (disqualification of the Bridgemen et al. by the very same DCI would seem to indicate otherwise), them perhaps this is part of the problem and perhaps solution. Maybe it's time to give DCI some real oversight authority. 

They were enforcing the rules established by its member corps. Nothing more or less. Basically you can break the laws but not the rules. 

Edited April 14, 2018 by Jim Schehr

[camel lips]

22 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said:

You couldn’t be more wrong 

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.

 

 

[cixelsyd]

14 hours ago, JMS1995 said:

If the phone call happened, let's say hypothetically that --at the very least-- Acheson became aware of a rumor (unsubstantiated or not, first or second hand) that GH was engaging in sexual behavior with a corps member(s); did Acheson break the law by not doing anything with that information (assuming he did nothing with it)?  I don't know the legal obligations he would have had then.  Rather than directing fire at the person who made the alleged phone call (why didn't you call other people, etc.), the question is should Acheson --even back then-- have done something with that information?  Even looking at it through 2003-eyes, I can't find a valid excuse for him doing nothing with it, or dismissing it without doing any follow-up at all.

I can stipulate that the cultural norms surrounding sexual-harassment back then are different than they are now, but I think that if you were the parent (then or now) of the victim, your reaction would have been the same: "You had been informed my daughter was possibly being abused and you did nothing?"  Therefore, even in 2003, I would think that this phrase would have at some point come into Acheson's mind and once it did, should have been the driving force that would move him to some level of action.

What should happen now, with the revelation of this article is that DCI should suspend Acheson while they hire an outside agency to conduct an investigation.

By that standard, anyone who read RAMD back in 2003 should be suspended from their job pending an investigation. 

Meanwhile...

14 hours ago, Kyle B said:

I find it interesting that obviously the big news is with GH, but the article redacts the other DCI staffer but doesn't say they will look into the matter.

... by that same standard, the reporter should also be suspended from her job pending investigation, for failing to follow up on the other accusation with the redacted name.

[garfield]

19 minutes ago, Terri Schehr said:

So they could remove a corps from a show that has allowed a registered sex offender to be a member? 

No, not without a policy against it.

They can prevent any corps from participating in a show for not adhering to any policy they have in place.

 

Edited April 14, 2018 by garfield