2019 Madison Scouts!

[Rich Cline]

Madison scores reveal bigger problems rather than just going coed.

This Thread has continued for many posts and I felt that some of the discussion should include the following:

MikeRapp Posted 18 hours ago
https://www.drumcorpsplanet.com/forums/index.php?/topic/169273-2019-madison-scouts/page/159/&tab=comments#comment-3836632

"The tough thing about Scouts is, their historical identity was about masculinity, not the type of shows they did".
"Scouts alums still insist on defining Scouts in terms of history and male-ism".

MikeRapp was partially correct and seemed to imply that he could not understand why some are still in disagreement with the gender
changes within the Scouts, but he stated the exact reason why in his opening: "Their historical identity was about masculinity, history and male-ism".

The courts can legislate all the "Political Correctness" they want but, they cannot erase history.

A Look At Scouting in the United States

Scouting in the United States is dominated by the 2.7 million-member Boy Scouts of America and the Girl Scouts of the USA and other
associations that are recognized by one of the international Scouting organizations. There are also a few smaller, independent groups
that are considered to be "Scout-like" or otherwise Scouting related.

Boy Scouts of America - Important Dates

On May 23, 2013, the voting members of the National Council ofBoy Scouts of America - Important Dates the Boy Scouts of America voted to lift the ban of letting openly gay individuals into the Scouts by 61% to 38%. Openly gay boys are allowed to become Scouts from January 2014 but openly gay adults were still forbidden to be leaders.

In 2017 after hard fought court battles, the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) announced it was going to include girls between the ages of
11 and 17 and change it's name from "Boy Scouts of America (BSA)" to "Scouts BSA"

However, the position of Girl Scouts of the USA (GSUSA) is to continue their mission to serve girls, and girls only, and to foster their
amazing leadership potential. They stated that "they remain steadfast in their knowledge that Girl Scouts is the world's single best
leadership development program for girls."

Welcoming girls into the Boy Scouts has not come without controversy and litigation has continued between the new "Scouts BSA" and
the Girl Scouts of the USA (GSUSA). The (GSUSA) issued a statement that didn't name BSA, but said that the "benefit of the single-
gender environment has been well-documented by educators, scholars, other girl - and youth-serving organizations, and Girl Scouts and
their families."

Yet the very same argument was used by Boy Scouts of America (BSA) which failed in the courts.

A Synopsis of Madison's History

In 1938, a group of Madison businessmen saw a performance of the Racine Scouts Drum and Bugle Corps. They decided that Madison should
also have a Boy Scout drum corps, and they formed the Madison Scouts, which they affiliated as Troop 600 with the local Scout
council. They named Clarence H. Beebe as the corps' first director, a position he would hold for thirty years until his death in
1968.

The corps was split in 1951, with the older members becoming the Madison Explorer Scouts and the younger assigned to the Madison
Junior Scouts, a cadet "feeder" corps for the older unit.

Through the 1980's Madison stayed in DCI Finals but generally never made it to the championship level except for 1975 and then
winning their second DCI World Championship in 1988.

In 1990 the organization dropped the name Scouts from the corporate name and allowed the charter for Boy Scout Troop 600 to lapse,
although the corps remained affiliated with Scouting for another two decades.

The century turned with the Madison Scouts still mostly in the DCI Top Twelve but continued a decline in placement to a low of 16th
place.

Sponsorship

The Madison Scouts are sponsored by Forward Performing Arts Association, Inc., a 501c 3 musical organization that has a Board of
Directors, corps director, and staff assigned to carry out the organization's mission. The Executive Director is Chris Komnick and
the Programs Director is Dann Petersen.

A review of Madison's scores.

I am a fan of Madison and I am also in the camp of wanting Madison to remain an all-male corps simply from their history and tradition.
But along with membership change they will have to re-establish themselves as a new organization and create a new history, just as
Cadets have done. Changing the gender of the members may or may not change Madison's performance. That will have to be proven but, I
do not believe that simply changing to become coed is the solution to why Madison has failed to remain competitive.

The fact is that Madison has failed to produce a strong competitive corps for quite some time.
I am not close enough to the organization to know it's inner workings but looking at past scores reveals a drop or slump in scoring that Madison has suffered from for a very long time.

Prior to 2000, Madison placed strong in the 90's. Following 1999, Madison has been in a continued decline over the past 27 years.

I like Madison and my hope is that they find the correct solution and fix. I'm sure the BOD and staff have gone over this time and
again. Until they find the correct answer, Madison is doomed to repeat as a low scoring corps.

Here are Madison's scores listed by year and averaged in blocks of 10 years.
Year Score Placement

1972 77.45 14th  
1973 83.55 4th  
1974 88.85 2nd  
1975 92.50 1st  
1976 90.70 2nd
1977 87.30 5th
1978 89.55 4th  
1979 84.50 8th 
1980 87.05 6th
1981 92.60 3rd

Avg score 1972 through 1981 87.405

1982 90.75 5th  
1983 86.45 5th 
1984 94.60 5th  
1985 95.00 4th 
1986 91.30 7th  
1987 90.40 6th
1988 97.10 1st 
1989 93.60 7th
1990 88.70 9th 
1991 92.00 7th

Avg score 1982 through 1991 91.99

1992 93.70 5th  
1993 91.90 6th  
1994 92.20 6th
1995 95.40 4th  
1996 92.50 6th  
1997 93.90 5th  
1998 91.90 6th
1999 93.40 6th  
2000 85.50 10th  
2001 86.55 11th

Avg score 1992 through 2001 91.695

2002 84.85 14th  
2003 89.55 8th
2004 91.175 8th
2005 92.625 6th
2006 87.70 9th  
2007 81.85 15th  
2008 85.225 12th  
2009 82.40 15th
2010 88.95 10th  
2011 87.55 10th

Avg score 2002 through 2011 87.1875

2012 88.00 9th
2013 90.10 9th  
2014 87.575 11th  
2015 88.750 8th  
2016 85.263 13th  
2017 85.25 12th  
2018 82.987 16th  
2019 TBD

Avg score 2012 through 2018 86.846

[PamahoNow]

8 minutes ago, Rich Cline said:

Madison scores reveal bigger problems rather than just going coed.

This Thread has continued for many posts and I felt that some of the discussion should include the following:

 

Rich, nice work.  This should be an independent thread or topic.  

It is right on and accurate.  It can be the basis of "going forward".  The decision to go coed is decided.  Now we face the future. 

I'm not sure anyone things or thought that going coed will solve all of the problems of the MS.  And the decision was not proclaimed 

in that manner, rather as "the right thing to do" if we really want to be inclusive.  I disagree with you that going coed was not appropriate.  

But everything you say about how MS needs to go forward is right on.  Thanks for such a great summary.

[Rich Cline]

14 minutes ago, PamahoNow said:

Rich, nice work.  This should be an independent thread or topic.  

It is right on and accurate.  It can be the basis of "going forward".  The decision to go coed is decided.  Now we face the future. 

I'm not sure anyone things or thought that going coed will solve all of the problems of the MS.  And the decision was not proclaimed 

in that manner, rather as "the right thing to do" if we really want to be inclusive.  I disagree with you that going coed was not appropriate.  

But everything you say about how MS needs to go forward is right on.  Thanks for such a great summary.

Thank you for the compliment. I am not against going coed, I just remember Madison as a Scout's based organization. Of course they change but with that change, they have to create the new history just as Cadets.

[ndkbass]

5 hours ago, Gantang said:

She did marry the drum major. That was better than a jacket!

Her husband was not DM in 2005, though.  He was DM in 2003.  In 2005 he was on staff.

[ndkbass]

21 hours ago, MikeRapp said:

The tough thing about Scouts is, their historical identity was about masculinity, not the type of shows they did. Cavaliers seem to have moved on from the whole gender thing to just being Cavaliers—but for whatever reasons, Scouts alums still insist on defining Scouts in terms of history and male-ism.

Lots of people mocked Bluecoats when they first ran out onto the field in their squiggle costumes. But they aren’t laughing now.

Scouts, like all entities, have to find their identity. Fwiw I think they were dead in the water by playing to the whole “Superman suit” crowd.

There is still a huge contingency of Miami Fl football fans who insist that The U continue to be defined as it was in the 80s: a bizarre collection of thugs, criminals and social misfits who were only at Miami to play football. But that era is gone and time marches on. 

I do not think that your first two claims are actually generalizable in the way that you are expressing because they do not seem to stand as defensible in regards to the universality of the claim you are making.

Some alumni insist on doing so, certainly.  But not all.

I also do not think that their identity was about masculinity.

The identity of the corps has not changed.  The mission statement, name, etc. have not changed.  Only the rules regarding membership (who can partake in upholding or embracing or being taught the identity) have changed.  So, I also disagree with you when you say they need "to find their new identity."  They need to maybe find a better fiscal identity or administrative identity or staff identity or design identity, but not a corps identity.

I do agree with you when you say that "they were dead in the water by playing to the whole 'Superman suit' crowd."  This is, in part, due to toxic masculinity and how male privilege makes it hard to acknowledge flaws and issues in gender performance and traditional, heteronormative gender roles that are socialized via patriarchy.  Socialization is quite powerful, but it can be critically evaluated and countermanded.

If Madison's identity is limited to a rigid, non-flexible understanding of gender identity and performance, in this case what you, and others, call "masculinity" or "male-ism" I think we are missing the larger conversation on gender identity, biological sex, and sexual orientation, and how that history has never been universal in Madison's history, but has constantly negotiated tradition and the times in which it has existed.  For sure there was not one idea of masculinity in the corps when I was around it before I was in it, and knowing folks that came before and after me.  It was definitely quite varied.

[Gantang]

33 minutes ago, ndkbass said:

Her husband was not DM in 2005, though.  He was DM in 2003.  In 2005 he was on staff.

Yep, that right. But she married a Madison DM which is kinda a big deal, kinda like dating a QB. 🙂 They referred to their baby as a 100% pure Scout! That will have to be amended to the First 100% Pure Scout in the future... 😞 

[ndkbass]

14 hours ago, FlamMan said:

 

Edited August 3, 2019 by ndkbass
I do not know why this double posted, so I deleted text. It is/was identical to the one below.

[ndkbass]

13 hours ago, FlamMan said:

Nope. It was the combination of both. Neither works without the other. Fans LOVED Madison shows and the machismo.

I very much disagree with your claims here.  Speaking anecdotally, it definitely is not a combination of both for everyone.
Also, I do not think you can successfully argue that "Neither works without the other."

My first drum corps memories are from before I was a decade old and when I attended shows as a child with my parents who were big fans, in particular my Mom.  This includes finals 1994, and a lot of Allentown shows in the years after that before finals 1999.

My first memories of Madison, and my subsequent urge to march Madison had no recollection or understanding of their membership policy and its attachment to the corps's identity as some may insist.  My first memories are of enjoying the music and the visual energy of the shows, as well as the crowd reaction to the Scouts.  That is what made me a fan of the corps growing up, and led me to great interest in the entire activity, and to march with them later on.

My first memories are not that Madison was all-male and that the gender identity or biological sex of the membership was the only reason or a part of the reason as to why they were so good or received the crowd reaction that they did.

My first memories of Madison as an all-male corps only came after I was more than a decade old and was closer to the age of eligibility to begin marching and asked questions of my parents about wanting to audition, etc..  Madison was never always all-male to me, it only became all-male to me at a certain point, and that had no real effect on the enjoyment level or entertainment factor of the corps.  This is an important distinction, I think, because it shows how things are socially constructed and how cultural values and norms, such as gender performance are taught, enforced, and restricted.  I had to be informed that Madison was all-male by my parents because my eyes kept only seeing what I perceived to be young men the more I saw rehearsals, lot warm-ups, and closer, repetitive viewing of live shows or DCI finals video cassettes and DVDs before my eventual rabid consumption of youtube clips.

You can love the corps, champion its identity, and enjoy the shows all without knowing that Madison is all-male; I know I certainly did and do.

And, now that it is more inclusive in regards to membership, that should not change the entertainment factor for anyone (so long as the design and execution is itself entertaining).  Madison is still Madison.  Sure, a little different, but if the Scouts were to open up their show with a company front and fleur next summer, would anyone seriously notice or care about the make-up of the membership of the corps?  I would lose my #### entirely just to see that again (perhaps with dark green tops and white pants with a green stripe, but that is just my nostalgia), and that has absolutely no relationship to the gender, sex, or orientation of the members.

[ndkbass]

3 minutes ago, Gantang said:

Yep, that right. But she married a Madison DM which is kinda a big deal, kinda like dating a QB. 🙂 They referred to their baby as a 100% pure Scout! That will have to be amended to the First 100% Pure Scout in the future... 😞 

Hah!  Did not know they had a child!  That is wonderful news!
He was also on the trucks for a few years, could not go any where without seeing him!

[ndkbass]

1 hour ago, Rich Cline said:

"The tough thing about Scouts is, their historical identity was about masculinity, not the type of shows they did".
"Scouts alums still insist on defining Scouts in terms of history and male-ism".

MikeRapp was partially correct and seemed to imply that he could not understand why some are still in disagreement with the gender
changes within the Scouts, but he stated the exact reason why in his opening: "Their historical identity was about masculinity, history and male-ism".

The courts can legislate all the "Political Correctness" they want but, they cannot erase history.

Boy Scouts of America - Important Dates

On May 23, 2013, the voting members of the National Council ofBoy Scouts of America - Important Dates the Boy Scouts of America voted to lift the ban of letting openly gay individuals into the Scouts by 61% to 38%. Openly gay boys are allowed to become Scouts from January 2014 but openly gay adults were still forbidden to be leaders.

In 2017 after hard fought court battles, the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) announced it was going to include girls between the ages of
11 and 17 and change it's name from "Boy Scouts of America (BSA)" to "Scouts BSA"

However, the position of Girl Scouts of the USA (GSUSA) is to continue their mission to serve girls, and girls only, and to foster their
amazing leadership potential. They stated that "they remain steadfast in their knowledge that Girl Scouts is the world's single best
leadership development program for girls."

Welcoming girls into the Boy Scouts has not come without controversy and litigation has continued between the new "Scouts BSA" and
the Girl Scouts of the USA (GSUSA). The (GSUSA) issued a statement that didn't name BSA, but said that the "benefit of the single-
gender environment has been well-documented by educators, scholars, other girl - and youth-serving organizations, and Girl Scouts and
their families."

Yet the very same argument was used by Boy Scouts of America (BSA) which failed in the courts.

I disagree with MikeRapp's claims there, and with your ideas as stated in support of Rapp's claims.

No one is erasing history.  It is all online or archived in various other places.  It is also still alive since so many people carry it in their veins and brains.

It is quite different for a group that serves an underrepresented, marginalized, or minority group (GSUSA) than it is for a group or organization that serves the dominant majority like Scouts BSA.  So, the argument failing to work for Scouts BSA is not the same as when GSUSA makes that claim even though they may appear to be identical because we do not live in a matriarchal society nor have women dominated societal norms for the last 5,000 years.  Men have, and we still live in a heteronormative patriarchy where non-disabled cisgender heterosexual white men are predispositionally privileged by society, especially in the modern West where Madison is from, currently operates, and will remain for the foreseeable future.  Other people have made similar claims to this effect, but I believe that discussion mainly occurred in the thread on the coed decision.