mingusmonk

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

Recommended Posts

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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour 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.

People need to understand facts and reality of what dci does and is. That’s the point people are trying to make 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Slingerland said:

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.

1000000% accurate 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taking the article at face value, 15+ years ago, a "source" relayed to Rice a rumor.   It has to be worked backwards from there.  Unless and until the "source" is identified, contacted and cooperates, everything else is speculation.  It's an investigative lead for whomever chooses to try.  For all we know, the rumor told to the "source", at the time, may also have been third part hearsay.  It appears now that it may have validity.  However, if those involved believed the rumor (and a potential crime may have been committed) then why contact DCI?  Why not contact the authorities or disclose the source so it could be further investigated.  At this point the only person with potential information is the "source".

In HR speak, "it's more likely than not" that Hopkins couldn't keep various parts of his anatomy to himself.  With regard to what Rice has provided, there is no clear and convincing evidence, just the uncorroborated third party hearsay and most certainly not any proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a judicial proceeding would require.

Edited by Daave
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, garfield said:

[Acheson's claim that he heard nothing about this until the first Inquirer story] is not what he said.

My friend N.E. Brigand will undoubtedly look it up but, if I recall accurately, Achesan said he was [not] 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.

I appreciate the clarification, but in some ways, the distinction is parsing that makes things look worse for him. Head in the sand that he's jamming in there, maybe because he didn't want to know. I get that he had limited ability to intervene--limitation of the position and the powers granted to the DCI CEO by other corps directors. But for this story to get to this point, with this many victims and this much pain over so many years, without outside attempts to rein it in, endangered more MMs and staff with Cadets. DCI has to say, we have to do better to prevent problems like this in the future, because it doesn't just affect the Cadets.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Friends,

I don't think we have gone as far as HockeyDad may feel, but he sounds a proper cautionary note. We (or some) may know things about the inner workings, but the general public mostly does not. To the future members, parents, and people who know of drum corps, but do not know drum corps -- what they likely know is GH is Cadets, Cadets is DCI, DCI is drum corps (especially now).

The past is the past. It is coming back to haunt us. Nothing we can do about that except support the victims and let the storm do what it will do.

What we -- as individuals, corps, DCI -- can do (and seems we are, at least starting to) is to ensure that the space for future predators is highly restricted.

As a university dean, we see ascending layers: the legal requirement, then, the public requirement, then, our standard above all. Drum corps' standard in everything else has always been to be the highest level. Time to step up our game.

It's on us.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Peel Paint said:

I appreciate the clarification, but in some ways, the distinction is parsing that makes things look worse for him. Head in the sand that he's jamming in there, maybe because he didn't want to know. I get that he had limited ability to intervene--limitation of the position and the powers granted to the DCI CEO by other corps directors. But for this story to get to this point, with this many victims and this much pain over so many years, without outside attempts to rein it in, endangered more MMs and staff with Cadets. DCI has to say, we have to do better to prevent problems like this in the future, because it doesn't just affect the Cadets.

It’s not the responsibility of the organization that schedules and promotes shows for member corps to provide policy, processes and procedures, let alone disciplinary actions, unless the member corps put forth a proposal for the member corps to pass and agree to follow those requirements and procedures in the proposal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, footform said:

Friends,

I don't think we have gone as far as HockeyDad may feel, but he sounds a proper cautionary note. We (or some) may know things about the inner workings, but the general public mostly does not. To the future members, parents, and people who know of drum corps, but do not know drum corps -- what they likely know is GH is Cadets, Cadets is DCI, DCI is drum corps (especially now).

The past is the past. It is coming back to haunt us. Nothing we can do about that except support the victims and let the storm do what it will do.

What we -- as individuals, corps, DCI -- can do (and seems we are, at least starting to) is to ensure that the space for future predators is highly restricted.

As a university dean, we see ascending layers: the legal requirement, then, the public requirement, then, our standard above all. Drum corps' standard in everything else has always been to be the highest level. Time to step up our game.

It's on us.

DCI would need to change their mission statement and expand on its services and capabilities as an organization which would require its member corps to accept. I doubt the resources are available to revise its foot print let alone extend its authority without a vote by its member corps. 

Edited by Jim Schehr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.