DCP NewsFeed Posted May 19, 2018 Share Posted May 19, 2018 In a departure for the decades-old youth organization, Drum Corps International this week unveiled a new code of conduct that sets standards for how its largely autonomous member organizations should address sexual misconduct. It includes a ban on sexual contact between staff and participants. It comes six weeks after an Inquirer and Daily News investigation […] View the full article Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Schehr Posted May 19, 2018 Share Posted May 19, 2018 What are the consequences for a violation? Or did someone forget to add that part? 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeyDad Posted May 19, 2018 Share Posted May 19, 2018 How long before this thread is closed? I guess we just don't have the stomach to discuss difficult issues on this website. Quote 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Schehr Posted May 19, 2018 Share Posted May 19, 2018 6 minutes ago, HockeyDad said: How long before this thread is closed? I guess we just don't have the stomach to discuss difficult issues on this website. There’s the apologist who believe the accused should remain anonymous. So I’ve been told. Anyway back on topic - policy without consequences? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IllianaLancerContra Posted May 19, 2018 Share Posted May 19, 2018 (edited) This seems like a logical spot to reload my proposal to codify new rules from the closed thread last evening. I have attempted to revise per Guardling & other suggestions *********************** I think that Sexual Harassment / Inappropriate Relationships /DFTK rules should be put in the Official DCI Rules Blue Book, probably somewhere near the age requirements, as I believe this is the only other rules infraction that can lead to Disqualification (advise if I am incorrect). So how does the enforcement process happen? I personally think Drum Corps is past the 'ratting-out' process used for overage issues in the 1970s. But somehow, lets say there is an allegation of violation. Some violations could be 'cut & dry'; others not so much. DCI would have to work out some process. If a Corps discovers inappropriate relationship and acts quickly, forcefully, and decisively (including reporting to law enforcement if appropriate), while promptly reporting to DCI what happened, then they would not be DQ'd (for better or worse, SCV 89 overage issue was handled this way). Any hint of coverup, DQ. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200. Is it better to create a process, that could later be tweaked due to unforeseen consequences? Or put a policy in place that has no apparent or standard enforcement mechanism? IMHO whatever is put in place needs to be consistent and predictable. My thoughts on the DQ option is that it is so drastic a consequence that no Corps would even let a whiff of an inappropriate relationship anywhere near them. And maybe a Corps will end up being DQ'd. That would send a message as well. Is DCI serious about this or not? I can envision a focused telephonic DCI Rules Congress could put this in place for the Summer 2018 season - perhaps new rules go into effect 15 June so Corps, clean it up by then. Some Corps may lose some instructors, staff, or potentially members. Too bad. Edited May 19, 2018 by IllianaLancerContra 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Schehr Posted May 19, 2018 Share Posted May 19, 2018 (edited) IMO SCV 89 should not have been treated any differently than any of the others. There was no punishment for marching those members throughout the season. No fees returned or placement forfeited. Yeah it was good that SCV reported themselves, but it was going to get reported because the word was out. SCV just did it before someone else got the chance to. Which brings me back to the DCI policy. Is the activity really serious about this and why no outline of consequences for violating the policy? IMO it’s has the appearance of a knee jerk reaction. Don’t get me wrong it’s better than not having any policy in place, and this is certainly a welcome first step. Logically - at least to me - if it is important to draft the policy after 46 years, it should be equally important to include the punishment for violating the policy. It leads me to believe that perhaps some are not really disturbed about these issues and more concerned that someone got caught. Edited May 19, 2018 by Jim Schehr 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yogitom Posted May 19, 2018 Share Posted May 19, 2018 1 hour ago, Jim Schehr said: There’s the apologist who believe the accused should remain anonymous. So I’ve been told. Anyway back on topic - policy without consequences? The "accused" should remain anonymous until guilt is found. In this knee jerk #MeToo day and age a mere accusation without any burden of proof can tarnish a persons reputation and cost them their job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IllianaLancerContra Posted May 19, 2018 Share Posted May 19, 2018 7 minutes ago, Jim Schehr said: IMO SCV 89 should not have been treated any differently than any of the others. There was no punishment for marching those members throughout the season. No fees returned or placement forfeited. Yeah it was good that SCV reported themselves, but it was going to get reported because the word was out. SCV just did it before someone else got the chance to. Which brings me back to the DCI policy. Is the activity really serious about this and why no outline of consequences for violating the policy? IMO it’s has the appearance of a knee jerk reaction. Don’t get me wrong it’s better than not having any policy in place, and this is certainly a welcome first step. Logically - at least to me - if it is important to draft the policy after 46 years, it should be equally important to include the punishment for violating the policy. It leads me to believe that perhaps some are not really disturbed about these issues and more concerned that someone got caught. I used 89 SCV as an example - it was what it was. But to be fair, it WAS self-reported. Which is better than being ratted out by another competitor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Schehr Posted May 19, 2018 Share Posted May 19, 2018 (edited) 18 minutes ago, yogitom said: The "accused" should remain anonymous until guilt is found. In this knee jerk #MeToo day and age a mere accusation without any burden of proof can tarnish a persons reputation and cost them their job. Selective outrage Edited May 19, 2018 by Jim Schehr 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted May 19, 2018 Share Posted May 19, 2018 1 hour ago, yogitom said: The "accused" should remain anonymous until guilt is found. In this knee jerk #MeToo day and age a mere accusation without any burden of proof can tarnish a person's reputation and cost them their job. How do you do this without preventing victims from exercising their rights of free speech? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.