Madison Scouts survey: all male v.s. Co ed

[ndkbass]

19 minutes ago, BRASSO said:

 With the introduction of a female performer into the brass line, Madison Scouts are now already officially " Co-ed " it would seem to me.

 The definition of something being " Co-ed ", does not require a number to be attached to it. So whether its a mix of 1 or 50, its really only a number. Its still a " Co-Ed " Drum Corps. Also, the survey, and in particular the wording of the survey, coupled with the Corps already breaking history and becoming " Co- Ed", pretty much seals the deal for the future here it seems to me.

 The Cavaliers will soon follow. and become Co- Ed as well, imo . The one Gender Corps are a  thing of the past ( Drum Corps used to have All Female Corps too... lots of them ).

I wish all-female corps still existed. Last one I remember is Les Stentors (spelling?) from Canada. That was early 2000s though. Last outing for them was before 2010s I believe.

Edited June 5, 2018 by ndkbass
Typo

[ShutUpAndPlayYerGuitar]

16 hours ago, ndkbass said:

Hah...I teach undergraduates at a land-grant university in the Pacific Northwest.  Pretty sure I do almost nothing but talk to young people.

... that wasn't in response to you ...

[Kamarag]

1 hour ago, ndkbass said:

I wish all-female corps still existed. Last one I remember is Les Stentors (spelling?) from Canada. That was early 2000s though. Last outing for them was before 2010s I believe.

 

Les Stentors was never all-female, and their last competitive season was 2017.

[ndkbass]

1 hour ago, Kamarag said:

 

Les Stentors was never all-female, and their last competitive season was 2017.

My mistake. I mainly remember competing against them in 2004, and thought they were all female then though I could be (obviously probably am) wrong.  Thanks for correcting the error!

[chadwick_michael]

19 hours ago, ndkbass said:

Thanks for sharing this article.  I really appreciate it. Mad props to the Blue Stars and their staff! Way to step up!

As a cisgender alumnus, I am disheartened that the Scouts would use such a limiting and oppressive definition such as "birth sex" to determine an applicants gender, and, in doing so, prevented someone (and/or some people) from marching who wanted too and could have been a great talent/asset to the corps.  I am also extremely irked that this is the first I heard of this.  It shows a very narrow minded approach that leads towards nothing but bigotry. [...]

Yes, much of the discussion regarding the transgender student admissions policy debacle happened on the Madison Scouts closed alumni Facebook group page, in what unraveled into a vitriolic discussion that was methodically scrubbed by alumni FB moderators. 

I can help answer some common follow-up questions to my October 26 Medium article, and provide some context in light of recent news and DCI changes:

(1) HOW IT STARTED: After learning in late August 2017 of the contents of an email message in which Madison Scouts Corps Director turned away a transgender student from *2016* auditions, I made a request for official comment to the MS Corps Director and Executive Director on September 2, 2017. The Corps Director declined to elaborate on the policy in writing, but did not dispute the authenticity of the message.

The Corps Director of the Madison Scouts (Dann Petersen) further indicated via a phone call that there were no plans to address the corps eligibility policy with respect to cisgender female performers or transgender students, and encouraged any concerned individual to make the case for policy change to the alumni at the November annual stakeholder meeting. On a similar front, a few other alumni helped me coordinate a gender & performance poll amongst the entire 2016 Scouts members—the latest corps for which contact data were available at the time of the September 2017 poll, and the same corps for which the transgender student in question could have marched. The unofficial poll of the 2016 members found that 61% would support a decision to go co-ed, with that support increasing to 91% for female inclusion as an integral part of a show design.

(2) ARTICLE PUBLICATION & RESPONSE: In the lead-up to Madison Scouts' 2017 annual stakeholder meeting, my Medium article containing the interviews, survey results, and anti-trans policy revelation was published. The reporting in the article was indirectly confirmed—and even compounded—by the Executive Director of the Madison Scouts in his subsequent statement to the alumni FB group.

The Executive Director of the Madison Scouts (Chris Komnick) made a Facebook post to the private alumni FB group (reproduced elsewhere on DCP) in response to the Medium article acknowledging that the transgender student at the center of the story—Payton McGarry—was only one of a number of transgender students that had been turned away from the corps in its 80-year history. Incredibly, hours before the publication of the Medium article, the Corps Director reportedly reversed himself on the trans policy in an email exchange with an unrelated student inquiring about trans eligibility. There's no good estimate on how many transgender students had been turned away from the corps—or the DCI activity—under Madison's long-standing anti-trans policy.

(3) FINAL WORD: Scouts' honor to publish an official pro-transgender eligibility policy never came to fruition. 

In the Executive Director's post to the alumni, Mr. Komnick claimed that the Board of Directors "has been working with the National Center for Transgender Equality over the past two weeks [i.e. in early October] to draft a policy with the appropriate language."  The MS administration had also promised the alumni in late October that it would publicly publish a statement with the final pro-trans admission's policy on its website within weeks. Nearly eight months later, an official pro-trans public announcement on its website still hasn't happened. 

(4) Whaddabout The Cavaliers?

Some readers have asked about The Cavaliers' position on allowing Payton McGarry and other f2m transgender students to audition. According to the transgender student, however, The Cavaliers never responded to his email request for audition eligibility information (FWIW—The Cavies did not return my September 2017 email request for comment either).

(5) ...and what of the new DCI rules prohibiting various forms of discrimination?

Under new DCI protections adopted in May 2018 in response to the George Hopkins' allegations, DCI made a firm statement against discrimination and harassment:

"Discrimination, or adverse treatment of an individual based on a protected status, with the exception of any participating organizations' lawful and artistically-informed casting decisions, is inconsistent with DCI's values. Discriminatory harassment on such a basis is strictly prohibited. "Protected status" is defined as an individual's race, color, creed, ethnicity, ancestry, national origin, sex, gender, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, age, religion, marital status, veteran status, disability or physical ability, or other legally protected classification."

The statement seems pretty clear: general co-ed eligibility is now required by DCI except for "lawful and artistically-informed casting decisions." I have sent a message to the DCI Ethics office requesting clarification on the extent of this policy, but it's possible that someone on this forum has insight as to if there's some sort of planned accommodation for the The Scouts or The Cavaliers (or all-female corps, for that matter).

----

Long post, but I hope it helps shed some light on the issue and recent developments. 

Thanks for reading! MYNWA, and Happy Pride Month!

[skevinp]

15 minutes ago, chadwick_michael said:

(5) ...and what of the new DCI rules prohibiting various forms of discrimination?

Under new DCI protections adopted in May 2018 in response to the George Hopkins' allegations, DCI made a firm statement against discrimination and harassment:

"Discrimination, or adverse treatment of an individual based on a protected status, with the exception of any participating organizations' lawful and artistically-informed casting decisions, is inconsistent with DCI's values. Discriminatory harassment on such a basis is strictly prohibited. "Protected status" is defined as an individual's race, color, creed, ethnicity, ancestry, national origin, sex, gender, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, age, religion, marital status, veteran status, disability or physical ability, or other legally protected classification."

The statement seems pretty clear: general co-ed eligibility is now required by DCI except for "lawful and artistically-informed casting decisions." I have sent a message to the DCI Ethics office requesting clarification on the extent of this policy, but it's possible that someone on this forum has insight as to if there's some sort of planned accommodation for the The Scouts or The Cavaliers (or all-female corps, for that matter).

Applying the same logic to their statement as your interpretation, is DCI not then required to allow members of all ages to march (assuming being no older than 21 isn't required as an artistically-informed casting decision)?  Did you request a clarification on that?

[MikeN]

41 minutes ago, skevinp said:

Applying the same logic to their statement as your interpretation, is DCI not then required to allow members of all ages to march (assuming being no older than 21 isn't required as an artistically-informed casting decision)?  Did you request a clarification on that?

Were this DCI's only criteria, you are correct.  However, their charter clearly defines them as a youth organization. (Or at least, it did when this came up years ago when DCP talked DCI vs DCA.)

Mike

[ndkbass]

50 minutes ago, chadwick_michael said:

Yes, much of the discussion regarding the transgender student admissions policy debacle happened on the Madison Scouts closed alumni Facebook group page, in what unraveled into a vitriolic discussion that was methodically scrubbed by alumni FB moderators. 

I can help answer some common follow-up questions to my October 26 Medium article, and provide some context in light of recent news and DCI changes:

(1) HOW IT STARTED: After learning in late August 2017 of the contents of an email message in which Madison Scouts Corps Director turned away a transgender student from *2016* auditions, I made a request for official comment to the MS Corps Director and Executive Director on September 2, 2017. The Corps Director declined to elaborate on the policy in writing, but did not dispute the authenticity of the message.

The Corps Director of the Madison Scouts (Dann Petersen) further indicated via a phone call that there were no plans to address the corps eligibility policy with respect to cisgender female performers or transgender students, and encouraged any concerned individual to make the case for policy change to the alumni at the November annual stakeholder meeting. On a similar front, a few other alumni helped me coordinate a gender & performance poll amongst the entire 2016 Scouts members—the latest corps for which contact data were available at the time of the September 2017 poll, and the same corps for which the transgender student in question could have marched. The unofficial poll of the 2016 members found that 61% would support a decision to go co-ed, with that support increasing to 91% for female inclusion as an integral part of a show design.

(2) ARTICLE PUBLICATION & RESPONSE: In the lead-up to Madison Scouts' 2017 annual stakeholder meeting, my Medium article containing the interviews, survey results, and anti-trans policy revelation was published. The reporting in the article was indirectly confirmed—and even compounded—by the Executive Director of the Madison Scouts in his subsequent statement to the alumni FB group.

The Executive Director of the Madison Scouts (Chris Komnick) made a Facebook post to the private alumni FB group (reproduced elsewhere on DCP) in response to the Medium article acknowledging that the transgender student at the center of the story—Payton McGarry—was only one of a number of transgender students that had been turned away from the corps in its 80-year history. Incredibly, hours before the publication of the Medium article, the Corps Director reportedly reversed himself on the trans policy in an email exchange with an unrelated student inquiring about trans eligibility. There's no good estimate on how many transgender students had been turned away from the corps—or the DCI activity—under Madison's long-standing anti-trans policy.

(3) FINAL WORD: Scouts' honor to publish an official pro-transgender eligibility policy never came to fruition. 

In the Executive Director's post to the alumni, Mr. Komnick claimed that the Board of Directors "has been working with the National Center for Transgender Equality over the past two weeks [i.e. in early October] to draft a policy with the appropriate language."  The MS administration had also promised the alumni in late October that it would publicly publish a statement with the final pro-trans admission's policy on its website within weeks. Nearly eight months later, an official pro-trans public announcement on its website still hasn't happened. 

(4) Whaddabout The Cavaliers?

Some readers have asked about The Cavaliers' position on allowing Payton McGarry and other f2m transgender students to audition. According to the transgender student, however, The Cavaliers never responded to his email request for audition eligibility information (FWIW—The Cavies did not return my September 2017 email request for comment either).

(5) ...and what of the new DCI rules prohibiting various forms of discrimination?

Under new DCI protections adopted in May 2018 in response to the George Hopkins' allegations, DCI made a firm statement against discrimination and harassment:

"Discrimination, or adverse treatment of an individual based on a protected status, with the exception of any participating organizations' lawful and artistically-informed casting decisions, is inconsistent with DCI's values. Discriminatory harassment on such a basis is strictly prohibited. "Protected status" is defined as an individual's race, color, creed, ethnicity, ancestry, national origin, sex, gender, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, age, religion, marital status, veteran status, disability or physical ability, or other legally protected classification."

The statement seems pretty clear: general co-ed eligibility is now required by DCI except for "lawful and artistically-informed casting decisions." I have sent a message to the DCI Ethics office requesting clarification on the extent of this policy, but it's possible that someone on this forum has insight as to if there's some sort of planned accommodation for the The Scouts or The Cavaliers (or all-female corps, for that matter).

----

Long post, but I hope it helps shed some light on the issue and recent developments. 

Thanks for reading! MYNWA, and Happy Pride Month!

Thanks, chadwick_michael, for all of this information!  I do not use FB, so I am very often out of the loop in regards to many alumni conversations such as this.

(1) The data from the 2016 corps is exceptional! Glad to see these younger brothers so willing to embrace change.

(2) Is there any data on members who identified/identify as trans but were not out that marched Madison?  I would reckon it is quite possible there have been trans members of Madison who were not out at the time, but that would also begin to invoke a different set of parameters than what the issue is/was with this particular person.

(3) Interesting, but also not surprising giving the current administration and their tendencies both from what I recall marching under them and now watching them as an alumnus. I would also say this is an issue with the board too.  We need fresh blood in these spaces to encourage institutional change.  It also does not help that coalition building often takes time, and that any younger member of the board would be vastly outnumbered until we occupied enough spaces to control voting outcomes.

(4) Noted.

(5) That is a good point, and it will certainly be interesting to see what happens with that.  I wonder, like some other posters have begun to discuss, how this will effect color guards that traditionally were and sometimes still are all female. However, I would not think that this new policy eliminates age restrictions, like another more recent poster asked.

MYNWA and Happy Pride to you too!

[skevinp]

1 hour ago, MikeN said:

Were this DCI's only criteria, you are correct.  However, their charter clearly defines them as a youth organization. (Or at least, it did when this came up years ago when DCP talked DCI vs DCA.)

Mike

Which is kind of my point.  The statement does not exist in a vacuum, and thus cannot really be called a requirement.  

Edited June 5, 2018 by skevinp

[Incognito365]

I just wonder if this was a problem hen a male wanted to audition for an all female corps back in the day...would they have been able to? Would it be made into such a big deal as well?

Edited June 5, 2018 by Incognito365