George Hopkins removed from DCI Hall of Fame

[Tim K]

37 minutes ago, mcjordansc said:

This is true and certain behavior was tolerated in the 70s and 80s. I am not advocating others be removed, just making the point that Hopkins behavior was not all that unusual 35 years ago. He simply didn't evolve. 

I agree there were different sexual mores in the past and some behavior was accepted by some, but sexual assault was not tolerated in the 70’s and 80’s, it was not reported or in some cases if reported not taken seriously. Huge difference. 

[N.E. Brigand]

10 hours ago, DFA1970 said:

Wow...glad it happened for what he has done. But still he was the force behind the Cadets success and demise...like it or not. BUT....this was necessary for the sake of this activity. It's just really sad...not for him but for the Cadets and the victims that worked for him.

Yes. There will always be a place for Hopkins in drum corps history books (to the degree there are such things) that has nothing to do with the reasons for which he was removed (although that too will need to be remembered by history).

[GUARDLING]

1 minute ago, Tim K said:

I agree there were different sexual mores in the past and some behavior was accepted by some, but sexual assault was not tolerated in the 70’s and 80’s, it was not reported or in some cases if reported not taken seriously. Huge difference. 

Assault was never accepted BUT the mere definition of an assault ( not rape of course or physical harm of any kind ) I think was quite different than it is today. You are right though about reporting and happens even today. The lines were certainly blurred BITD .

[mcjordansc]

1 hour ago, Tim K said:

I agree there were different sexual mores in the past and some behavior was accepted by some, but sexual assault was not tolerated in the 70’s and 80’s, it was not reported or in some cases if reported not taken seriously. Huge difference. 

I would slightly disagree. I know things happened back then with impunity that if done today would be considered criminal. 

Edited September 28, 2018 by mcjordansc

[Tim K]

12 hours ago, mcjordansc said:

I would slightly disagree. I know things happened back then with impunity that if done today would be considered criminal. 

 

13 hours ago, GUARDLING said:

Assault was never accepted BUT the mere definition of an assault ( not rape of course or physical harm of any kind ) I think was quite different than it is today. You are right though about reporting and happens even today. The lines were certainly blurred BITD .

To begin, I am 56 years old, I graduated from high school in 1981, college in 1985. So I understand the culture of "sex, drugs, and rock n' roll" (I went two years to a state university and this was the title of one of the orientation talks, focused only on having a  designated driver if you have more than two beers). While I never marched, I was what was called a "drum corps nut." I know many people who did march at that time and knew them while marching and have heard all kinds of stories. I know that the issue of how wild those days were has been debated in the historical threads and I know you can find stories of corps that were strict, others that were lenient as long as it did not impact performance, and some who turned a selective blind eye on bad behavior. The more indispensable you were deemed to be, the more likely you were to get away with bad behavior.

In the GH situation, lack of consent is critical, and consent has not changed all that much. If one of the young women had come forward at the time, lack of consent would have been key. What has changed is how we react to things. Back in the day it was much harder for a person to make such an accusation unless an attack was so brutal, it required an emergency room visit, or so public, it was obvious that it was sexual assault. It can still be an uphill battle for many who make accusations as we see so often in the news cycle, but it has improved a bit. 

In GH's case, at least one allegation dates back to 1980, prior to his being director. As director, I do think it would have been a different story, yesterday or today. Though there are women in positions of leadership in drum corps, most directors are still men, and in many cases married men with children. I don't think there was ever a time when it was viewed as o.k. for a director who was not married to be involved with a  corps marching member, certainly not acceptable if a director was married, and there never a time when what would be classified as sexual assault was acceptable. Standards for staff and marching members may have differed back in the day, but not the expectations people had of a director. It may have happened, but it was not considered acceptable behavior.

[JimF-LowBari]

16 hours ago, GUARDLING said:

Assault was never accepted BUT the mere definition of an assault ( not rape of course or physical harm of any kind ) I think was quite different than it is today. You are right though about reporting and happens even today. The lines were certainly blurred BITD .

Not to mention the blame the victim mentality that was more prevalent then.

And organizations wanting to hush things up so they don't look bad. Went to college in late 70s and rumors of a nasty assault near my dorm. Never heard a thing officially. Now school paper ever reports the student arrests for drunken stupidity.

[GUARDLING]

2 hours ago, Tim K said:

 

To begin, I am 56 years old, I graduated from high school in 1981, college in 1985. So I understand the culture of "sex, drugs, and rock n' roll" (I went two years to a state university and this was the title of one of the orientation talks, focused only on having a  designated driver if you have more than two beers). While I never marched, I was what was called a "drum corps nut." I know many people who did march at that time and knew them while marching and have heard all kinds of stories. I know that the issue of how wild those days were has been debated in the historical threads and I know you can find stories of corps that were strict, others that were lenient as long as it did not impact performance, and some who turned a selective blind eye on bad behavior. The more indispensable you were deemed to be, the more likely you were to get away with bad behavior.

In the GH situation, lack of consent is critical, and consent has not changed all that much. If one of the young women had come forward at the time, lack of consent would have been key. What has changed is how we react to things. Back in the day it was much harder for a person to make such an accusation unless an attack was so brutal, it required an emergency room visit, or so public, it was obvious that it was sexual assault. It can still be an uphill battle for many who make accusations as we see so often in the news cycle, but it has improved a bit. 

In GH's case, at least one allegation dates back to 1980, prior to his being director. As director, I do think it would have been a different story, yesterday or today. Though there are women in positions of leadership in drum corps, most directors are still men, and in many cases married men with children. I don't think there was ever a time when it was viewed as o.k. for a director who was not married to be involved with a  corps marching member, certainly not acceptable if a director was married, and there never a time when what would be classified as sexual assault was acceptable. Standards for staff and marching members may have differed back in the day, but not the expectations people had of a director. It may have happened, but it was not considered acceptable behavior.

The point is back in the day many things wouldn't even have been considered abnormal ( of course not abuse or rape etc. ) BUT many things that were acceptable then would never be now . There were many members who dated at least staff people. I can vouch for that 1st hand BUT as far as directors. Many directors BITD were usually ( as I remember ) family men, much older( at least seemed to be..lol), someone's dad in many cases. So that was also different and could be a reason.

Edited September 28, 2018 by GUARDLING

[GUARDLING]

40 minutes ago, JimF-LowBari said:

Not to mention the blame the victim mentality that was more prevalent then.

And organizations wanting to hush things up so they don't look bad. Went to college in late 70s and rumors of a nasty assault near my dorm. Never heard a thing officially. Now school paper ever reports the student arrests for drunken stupidity.

So True

[BigW]

18 hours ago, N.E. Brigand said:

Yes. There will always be a place for Hopkins in drum corps history books (to the degree there are such things) that has nothing to do with the reasons for which he was removed (although that too will need to be remembered by history).

There are people in history, or as I found in this activity, you learn what to do... and what not to do. The shoe fits here for sure.

[DAvery]

8 hours ago, GUARDLING said:

The point is back in the day many things wouldn't even have been considered abnormal ( of course not abuse or rape etc. ) BUT many things that were acceptable then would never be now . There were many members who dated at least staff people. I can vouch for that 1st hand BUT as far as directors. Many directors BITD were usually ( as I remember ) family men, much older( at least seemed to be..lol), someone's dad in many cases. So that was also different and could be a reason.

This is true. Remember the movie Pretty in Pink from the early eighties? Jake's girlfriend gets drunk and Jake gives her to the geek to have his way with her. What was acceptable then, is not acceptable now.