Bluecoats, BD, and SA (TW: Sexual Assault)

[scheherazadesghost]

1 minute ago, LabMaster said:

When traveling under the care and protection of the organization, the organization IS ultimately responsible.  Especially with mixed ages of the members in their care.

I can say from experience that when you're abused on tour, it absolutely feels like your should've been better protected from it by the corps and your peers. You feel alone but trapped. It's unbearable.

[Cappybara]

Just now, scheherazadesghost said:

They absolutely have rights.

But the adverse affects are different bergen falsely accused and unheard v-s's. I'm working to prevent the worst of the worst, which historically, statistically and qualitatively falls on the v-s's in most cases.

 

5 minutes ago, scheherazadesghost said:

I've never stopped people from asking questions.

I'm putting those questions in the context of victim advocacy that exists far beyond the lording you're accusing me of here.

Also, v-s's should be the lords over how this get improved, period. This whole thread and the one on reddit is full of comments like "why didn't the victim do xyz or abc or lmnop to protect others so that corps and law enforcement had all they needed to act appropriately?"

Y'all can't say that on the one hand and then not do the work of understanding victim advocacy. That's practically burying v-s's in impossible scenarios when they're already traumatized.

I agree with you that those questioning why the victim didn’t come forward immediately or follow the “process” don’t fully understand the trauma involved in these situations. My sister went through that and she could not find herself to make a report and instead confided in our family but requested to keep things quiet, despite our (gentle) pleading that she come forward. 

With that said though, your approach, as well-intentioned as it may be, still chooses the rights of the alleged v-s over the accused. No amount of rationalizing and cost-benefit analysis changes the fact that your approach gives the accused the shaft in every way possible. Yes, the number of falsely accused cases is statistically low, but even one falsely accused individual is too much. I am not going to speculate on what I think may or may not have happened, it’s not my place to do that. I just don’t think the default stance should be to take action against the accused immediately. Believe the victim, support them, but keep a neutral position in regards to actions taken until more clarity can be obtained. 

[scheherazadesghost]

10 minutes ago, Cappybara said:

 

I agree with you that those questioning why the victim didn’t come forward immediately or follow the “process” don’t fully understand the trauma involved in these situations. My sister went through that and she could not find herself to make a report and instead confided in our family but requested to keep things quiet, despite our (gentle) pleading that she come forward. 

With that said though, your approach, as well-intentioned as it may be, still chooses the rights of the alleged v-s over the accused. No amount of rationalizing and cost-benefit analysis changes the fact that your approach gives the accused the shaft in every way possible. Yes, the number of falsely accused cases is statistically low, but even one falsely accused individual is too much. I am not going to speculate on what I think may or may not have happened, it’s not my place to do that. I just don’t think the default stance should be to take action against the accused immediately. Believe the victim, support them, but keep a neutral position in regards to actions taken until more clarity can be obtained. 

Indeed, I've already admitted the weakness in this approach in my long-winded response to HockeyDad. And what I would do in those cases where someone was falsely accused. I haven't come across that situation yet. 

But doesn't it make sense for a victim-survivor herself to side this way just as it makes sense for those falsely accused to side with the potentially falsely accused? Especially in this activity where predators and their enablers go unchecked for decades until v-s's muster the numbers and strength to finally step forward publicly?

That is, if you're into firmly choosing sides. I am not. Unlike others here, it seems, I'm willing to work within that cognitive dissonance. I've been very clear about that.

[rmurrey74]

8 minutes ago, LabMaster said:

When traveling under the care and protection of the organization, the organization IS ultimately responsible.  Especially with mixed ages of the members in their care.

I'm NOT disagreeing, but what should these organizations do to prevent potential activity where sexual assault could happen?  If policies are in place, whistle-blowing hotlines, and all are trained on mandatory reporting, how can they further limit the interactions between people?  I'm not saying they can't be better, I just don't know how any organization (drum corps, traveling sports group, college campus, school district, etc.) can completely handle this.  

For example, If two staff members or two corps members venture out at 3am at a random school and sexual assault occurs, what can be done to prevent?   Over my many years of drum corps, I've seen or known about sexual activity (not assault luckily) happen on member buses, on a staff bus, in the trees at a show site, free days, on a gym floor, people in an empty classroom, and non-drum corps related in high school sports groups and college. (where my roommate stayed overnight in his girlfriend's dorm for over a month until they broke up.) 

I wouldn't want to be involved in any admin role of any traveling organization right now.

 

 

[Cappybara]

4 minutes ago, scheherazadesghost said:

Indeed, I've already admitted the weakness in this approach in my long-winded response to HockeyDad. And what I would do in those cases where someone was falsely accused. I haven't come across that situation yet. 

But doesn't it make sense for a victim-survivor herself to side this way just as it makes sense for those falsely accused to side with the potentially falsely accused? Especially in this activity where predators and their enablers go unchecked for decades until v-s's muster the numbers and strength to finally step forward publicly?

That is, if you're into firmly choosing sides. I am not. Unlike others here, it seems, I'm willing to work within that cognitive dissonance. I've been very clear about that.

It is completely understandable why your approach is the way it is, but I don’t think we should pretend that your approach is fair or neutral in any measurable way as you appear to portray it to be. You are choosing a side by default, you are just happy to flip sides if evidence goes the other way. 

[LabMaster]

6 minutes ago, rmurrey74 said:

I'm NOT disagreeing, but what should these organizations do to prevent potential activity where sexual assault could happen?  If policies are in place, whistle-blowing hotlines, and all are trained on mandatory reporting, how can they further limit the interactions between people?  I'm not saying they can't be better, I just don't know how any organization (drum corps, traveling sports group, college campus, school district, etc.) can completely handle this.  

For example, If two staff members or two corps members venture out at 3am at a random school and sexual assault occurs, what can be done to prevent?   Over my many years of drum corps, I've seen or known about sexual activity (not assault luckily) happen on member buses, on a staff bus, in the trees at a show site, free days, on a gym floor, people in an empty classroom, and non-drum corps related in high school sports groups and college. (where my roommate stayed overnight in his girlfriend's dorm for over a month until they broke up.) 

I wouldn't want to be involved in any admin role of any traveling organization right now.

 

 

Policies are in place in orgs.  Policies are being put in place by orgs.  What is needed is a clear zero tolerance policy for not following any, ANY, established, public corps rules that every person associated with the organization agrees to follow.  I offered to volunteer for a weekend a few years ago at a spring training camp.  I had to read and sign a document before I would be allowed anywhere near members, for any period longer than 24 hours.  For a longer volunteer period, like tour, there would be a background check.  There is also the onus on the org to follow through on the agreements if violated.  The org I am familiar with does do that.  There have been “disinvitations” when even the slightest question of impropriety or misbehavior occurred.  Break a rule and you are gone; member, staff, volunteer.  Doesn’t matter.  Prevention comes from diligence and awareness of the org and all persons traveling with it.  There are some simple things to do to prevent or inhibit or at the least, let everyone know there are eyes and ears on alert.  Don’t have a gym in total blackout.  If in a hotel or a dorm, if someone is in a room, the entry door is to remain open.  Halls are walked by staff members.  Simple things but mostly enforcement of rules, constant watchfulness/diligence will help.  I do understand that people with the desire to break rules, deceive and misbehave will do so as their belief they can beat the system and a lock of morals won’t stop them.

When instances happen that are proven, make them public for bad actors, and orgs that don’t take action, as anonymity fuels the never ending cycle.  Accept no excuses, make no excuses.  Just my $.02.

[Jeff Ream]

1 hour ago, scheherazadesghost said:

And don't get me wrong, this potentiality really really stinks.

But as I argued earlier in this thread, the adverse affects of a false accusation are not the same as denying a victim who is telling the truth. Not by a long shot in most cases, based on statistical and all available qualitative data.

Well careers have been ruined by false accusations because the accusations get tons of publicity and the truth coming out barely gets any attention if at all. 

[scheherazadesghost]

1 hour ago, Cappybara said:

It is completely understandable why your approach is the way it is, but I don’t think we should pretend that your approach is fair or neutral in any measurable way as you appear to portray it to be. You are choosing a side by default, you are just happy to flip sides if evidence goes the other way. 

If you have a better way, I'm all ears. Sounds like, in general here and in the activity, most do not.

I never said I was fair or neutral. I said I'm on the side of victims because I am one and I actively witness their stories, a new one every month pretty much.

Sure is a lot of correcting victim-centric approaches here without a lot of data-based, proven alternatives. I'm here wrestling in the mud over this day in day out while most will forget and move on in a few days. 🤷🏽‍♀️

Y'all can keep correcting me, but most are not in the mud doing the work.

26 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said:

Well careers have been ruined by false accusations because the accusations get tons of publicity and the truth coming out barely gets any attention if at all. 

Lordymercy, I've never said otherwise.

[HockeyDad]

1 hour ago, scheherazadesghost said:

And don't get me wrong, this potentiality really really stinks.

But as I argued earlier in this thread, the adverse affects of a false accusation are not the same as denying a victim who is telling the truth. Not by a long shot in most cases, based on statistical and all available qualitative data.

I don’t know about this part. Thinking back to the Duke lacrosse event, the falsely accused students were arrested, kicked out of school, the lacrosse team coach resigned, community relations were inflamed, the prosecutor went rogue (and was subsequently disbarred).  Shall we tell these kids the adverse affects were not as bad?  I have a real problem with that. You have to get it right for all involved. You can’t kick a person to the curb and say - hey if we’re wrong we’ll apologize later. 

[IllianaLancerContra]

10 hours ago, Jeff Ream said:

the problem finals week is school is in session in Indiana...where DCI is commited until beyond my lifetime by now i am sure

Indy in perpetuity was a deal with the devil.