A year ago today

[Stu]

7 minutes ago, JimF-LowBari said:

Stu I don’t know, I don’t care...

 

But I do care. I care if it is a multitude of known convicted sex offenders each year who engaged with a multitude of DCI corps (systemic throughout DCI), or if it was just a very, very, small number of known convicted offenders with only a very small number of corps over a 46 year period (not systemic but isolated). Why do I care? Because I do not want to punish and tarnish the hundred-thousand plus innocent people who have participated in DCI over the years based on the bad actions of those I can count on one hand.

[JimF-LowBari]

13 minutes ago, Stu said:

But I do care. I care if it is a multitude of known convicted sex offenders each year who engaged with a multitude of DCI corps (systemic throughout DCI), or if it was just a very, very, small number of known convicted offenders with only a very small number of corps over a 46 year period (not systemic but isolated). Why do I care? Because I do not want to punish and tarnish the hundred-thousand plus innocent people who have participated in DCI over the years based on the bad actions of those I can count on one hand.

Fine I have no problem with you caring. But if you wish to continue this part of the discussion find someone who is also willing to discuss it. 

What I was willing to discuss is why school districts would not want to let corps use their facilities. I don’t care to discuss if DCI has “systematic problem”. I see it as the old story of all it takes is one idiot to #### it up for everyone. Fair or not that’s what happens in the real world.

Edited April 6, 2019 by JimF-LowBari

[Weaklefthand4ever]

1 minute ago, Stu said:

But I do care. I care if it is a multitude of known convicted sex offenders each year who engaged with a multitude of DCI corps (systemic throughout DCI), or if it was just a very, very, small number of known convicted offenders with only a very small number of corps over a 46 year period (not systemic but isolated). Why do I care? Because I do not want to punish and tarnish the hundred-thousand plus innocent people who have participated in DCI over the years based on the bad actions of those I can count on one hand.

I don't believe in my heart of hearts (I do have one...just ask any of my ex-wives,) that ANY of us want that. And I do get what you're saying here. But whether it is one known offender or fifty offenders, will that change the minds of the decision makers. Even if the problems which have occurred make up less than 1%, I am not the one to judge for someone else whether or not that is "systemic," nor whether or not that label makes a decision to not take part valid or invalid. 

And before we go on a "well there could be offenders anywhere and everywhere so let's just burn down the activity since it could be harboring potential abusers," I think we should all agree that none of this conversation should be about that end. If a entity (school board, city council or what have you) decides that the potential for risk is too high then that's their prerogative. It's like that old stock and standard interview question that we all hate...."What does perception versus reality mean?" If the perception of those entities fear something, real or imagined, then they have the right to withhold their support. We can judge them if we so choose but it will simply NOT change the fact that their perception is valid in their own minds given the circumstances. 

All of that and I STILL agree that's it's probably not a systemic issue, but isolated as you believe. That still doesn't change the fact that we cannot change the perception of others. Instead we have to educate and make lasting changes so that they change their own perception. 

[JimF-LowBari]

Let me just throw this one out (or up) for consideration. 

When a group asks to use a schools facilities should the school board/admins consider what is fair for the group or should they consider what is best for the districts assets (including students in the assets).

[Stu]

29 minutes ago, JimF-LowBari said:

Fine I have no problem with you caring. But if you wish to continue this part of the discussion find someone who is also willing to discuss it. 

What I was willing to discuss is why school districts would not want to let corps use their facilities. I don’t care to discuss if DCI has “systematic problem”. I see it as the old story of all it takes is one idiot to #### it up for everyone. Fair or not that’s what happens in the real world.

Ok, let's address the issue of school housing. The overwhelming majority of DCI corps have never had a known convicted sexual preditor involved with their corps, and they have always been diligent to make sure that was/is the case. So, is it valid for schools to refuse to house them based on merely a fear that there may be someone on ther staff who might have slipped throgh the cracks? If the answer is yes, that it is valid, then punishing the innocent in the name of a false sense of security prevails. And I do care, in a tremendous way, about that!

[rpbobcat]

12 hours ago, Jeff Ream said:

DCI IS THE CORPS.

And therein lies the problem.

When this story broke,there were a lot of comments about how Drum Corps needed some type of independence

in its governing body.

Nothing happened.

As long as the activity can keep chugging along,selling tickets,it most likely never will.

DCI  survived the negative stories,without having to make organizational changes,including keeping Dan.

I don't see that as progress.

 

 

 

 

 

[Weaklefthand4ever]

2 minutes ago, JimF-LowBari said:

Let me just throw this one out (or up) for consideration. 

When a group asks to use a schools facilities should the school board/admins consider what is fair for the group or should they consider what is best for the districts assets (including students in the assets)

I believe that the old saying is "Life isn't fair." It doesn't make the pill easier to swallow but that's life too. 

The intention of the OP's thread is to cast light on what has been done in the last 12 months and what remains to be done moving forward. It's a youth activity that spans decades. Other things will come to light over time and will have to be addressed. That's simple reality when you've had so many youth, including ourselves, involved. As those survivors come forward (and I hope they will,) we will have the conversation again and re-address how things could have been prevented and what measures are in place that would have stopped the issues from occurring. If nothing is in place which would stop them from occurring, then me move from there to try and effect change.

[Stu]

9 minutes ago, JimF-LowBari said:

Let me just throw this one out (or up) for consideration. 

When a group asks to use a schools facilities should the school board/admins consider what is fair for the group or should they consider what is best for the districts assets (including students in the assets).

How does Academy hurt the students at the host school where they are being housed?

[Stu]

Referencing the issue that began one year ago. Do you all realize that according to the charges, and if found to be true, no 'youth' were ever in danger.

[Weaklefthand4ever]

4 minutes ago, Stu said:

How does Academy hurt the students at the host school where they are being housed?

You already know the answer to the question you pose Stu. Baiting people to fall into a verbal trap isn't going to change the fact that it has absolutely NOTHING to do with a specific corps and whether or not that corps has been called out on issues past or present. Your point of it not being fair is well taken and I would say probably most people would agree with it. What we will probably never all agree on is whether or not "fair" should enter the picture. I don't think it's "fair" either. Luckily, I don't have a part to play in that decision.