“Failure to Protect”

[Jeff Ream]

4 minutes ago, Terri Schehr said:

Any chance we can get back on point here?  

I think the most troubling aspect of this article is how easily these people could move from corps-to-corps unfettered. 

And school gig to school gig 

[Jeff Ream]

4 minutes ago, seen-it-all said:

Don't be silly, that's Jeff Ream's job.

I post provable facts. 

[Jeff Ream]

1 minute ago, N.E. Brigand said:

Jeff was taller than I expected him to be, when I finally met him a few months ago.

Size matters not. Unless I need him to tie my shoes since he’s closer to them 

[JimF-LowBari]

6 minutes ago, N.E. Brigand said:

Jeff was taller than I expected him to be, when I finally met him a few months ago.

And I’m 5 foot 6 so picture that one lol.

Not sure how young he was when I first met Jeff but he was awful young.. and still taller than me. (I marched with his dad one season)

Edited December 13, 2018 by JimF-LowBari

[Lance]

I understand garfield's points about that paragraph.

"DCI can discipline or suspend corps for violating its policies. But until it put the Cadets on probation in April, DCI had never disciplined a corps for concerns about participant safety."

I think she meant to say that the Hop case was the first time DCI had ever put a corps on probation for violating policies regarding sexual abuse and participant safety.

It is an important distinction, and there's no reason to get angry with garfield for pointing it out.  

However, in my opinion, it certainly doesn't take away from the salient points of the article.  Namely that half of DCI world class corps have employed people with histories of inappropriate contact with minors, and that in some cases, admin in the corps knew about it and hired them anyway.  This article isn't the end of research on something that's fundamentally wrong with DCI.  It's the tip of the iceberg. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[N.E. Brigand]

27 minutes ago, N.E. Brigand said:

Curious, in the cases that you mentioned, what did the discipline consist of?

Does anyone else know the answer to this? How did DCI discipline corps for other (non-sexual) safety issues?

[garfield]

10 minutes ago, N.E. Brigand said:

Details matter, but some wrong things in this article don't make the rest of it--the major points--untrue.

Your posts in this thread are being read by others as claiming that Nadolny's mistakes undermine the heart of her reporting. Almost all of your comments here have questioned the article's flaws and almost none of them have acknowledged its achievements.

It's as if you're judging the article using the tick system.

I am NOT suggesting, in ANY WAY, that the underlying accusations are unimportant, or trying to minimize them, at ALL.  Every, single one of them is VALID and deserves a full and complete investigation. I'm not in any way disagreeing with the underlying notion that predator teachers should be banned from interacting with minors such as in drum corps.

I am, AND WILL CONTINUE to DEFEND DCI from inaccurate, enflaming, and biased accusations. 

The statement that the reporter made was that no corps had been disciplined by DCI for participant safety issues.  That is false.  The statement is far more-sweeping than the "major points" of her article.

Her underlying reporting is accurate as to what has happened and who has both done it and who knew about it.  But somehow, some way that I've been fighting strongly against, THAT knowledge gets morphed into wrapping a noose around DCI's neck and strangling it out of existence, which many here seem determined to see happen. 

 

[garfield]

19 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said:

How about demanding transparency and owning up to past willing blindness? Or is that too much for you to agree to?

You say that as if I'm preventing it. 

Ok, how about it?  Isn't that what's happening now?  Aren't people taking a fall for it now?

 

[N.E. Brigand]

2 minutes ago, garfield said:

I am NOT suggesting, in ANY WAY, that the underlying accusations are unimportant, or trying to minimize them, at ALL.  Every, single one of them is VALID and deserves a full and complete investigation. I'm not in any way disagreeing with the underlying notion that predator teachers should be banned from interacting with minors such as in drum corps.

I am, AND WILL CONTINUE to DEFEND DCI from inaccurate, enflaming, and biased accusations. 

The statement that the reporter made was that no corps had been disciplined by DCI for participant safety issues.  That is false.  The statement is far more-sweeping than the "major points" of her article.

Her underlying reporting is accurate as to what has happened and who has both done it and who knew about it.  But somehow, some way that I've been fighting strongly against, THAT knowledge gets morphed into wrapping a noose around DCI's neck and strangling it out of existence, which many here seem determined to see happen.

Thanks for this.

So to repeat myself: could you or someone else here let us know what form DCI's previous disciplinary action against corps for safety infractions took?

Were corps fined? Were corps told to fire people? Were corps banned from a performance?

[bullethead]

A missing dinner at one of the corps that I once marched in hardly compares to the current accusations being brought forth (which, undoubtedly were also happening when I was a member). I guess, a missed meal here and there, or some water concerns, etc. were a more glaring problem to DCI than kids being raped......at least until now. I don't recall anyone being fired for such things or any corps being suspended for those sorts of issues. Fined? Ok. Warned/Scolded? Probably. Of course, if you march an overage member.....that's "real" trouble, and demands immediate oversight.