The Cadets are being sued by a former member for alleged sexual abuse in the 80s

[JimF-LowBari]

19 minutes ago, scheherazadesghost said:

Totes. I get it. There are no easy answers here. I intentionally didn't demand a public statement, just curious how long they'll hold out without one. If I'm honest, any statement that could pass the lawyer test would be very bland, little more than an acknowledgement of the cases. Still, I think that would be better than nothing.

Although, with the info above, I guess there is the tactic of literally saying nothing until they're dismissed. That doesn't feel transparent or honest of a nonprofit at all though.

Understood and wasn’t trying to argue or disrespect what you posted. And true it’s one thing not to discuss a future court case. But it’s another not to even acknowledge there is one coming up. Especially when your future is continually getting new members and trust is a big part of getting them.

[scheherazadesghost]

11 minutes ago, JimF-LowBari said:

Understood and wasn’t trying to argue or disrespect what you posted. And true it’s one thing not to discuss a future court case. But it’s another not to even acknowledge there is one coming up. Especially when your future is continually getting new members and trust is a big part of getting them.

Yeah no worries. Didn't think you were arguing or being disrespectful. Just explaining as usual. My apologies, as apparently I come off more gruff than I mean to. 🍃

Anyway, yes, agreed entirely.

Edited December 9, 2023 by scheherazadesghost

[Slingerland]

1 hour ago, scheherazadesghost said:

Thank you for the thorough explanation.

I'm genuinely curious what, in the public documentation, indicates to you that adding DCI as a defendant  is a money grab rather than a desire to investigate a "should have known" basis. I haven't done a exhaustive reading and don't have any expertise, so I could've missed something.

FWIW, in my own different case, I definitely felt DCI should have known and done something about it. It's possible the SoA plaintiff team feels the same way.

Just a simple deduction. There's no historical evidence that DCI, even in 1982/3, had a mechanism for vetting or supervising behavior between corps members and staff. Since that appears (relevant cautionary word on my part) to be the case, and since damages are the desired outcome (why else file a suit?), when there's nothing to get from one party (CAE), the plaintiff's attorneys will keep working up the tree looking for someone they can claim should be attached, with the understanding that often, the defendant's legal advice will be to pay off the plaintiff as a cheaper alternative to paying a mounting legal defense bill. Lawyers get paid to try and win damages, so it's the legally responsible action on their part. As such, while I find it unfortunate, I don't actually see it as unethical, if that makes sense. Everyone's got a job to do.

Re: the "should have known" element, that is one of those things that is informed by hindsight, which we all know is 20/20. I was around as a performer in that 80s era, during the transition where the old ways of hiring instructors (a warm body age-out who could be on tour) was evolving to the current model (professional educators). Would it have been better for DCI, back then, to have a strong ability to oversee who was being hired, providing reporting mechanisms for clams of inappropriate behavior, etc, YES, without question. But, regrettably, that level of oversight wasn't part of the culture at the time - not just in drum corps, but in the educational field, for churches and Scout troops, etc, etc.  It should have been for all of those examples, but it wasn't, at least at the levels we would now consider acceptable.

My takeaway from that  fact is that it's up to the alums of the activity who care about these issues to make sure the corps today ARE embracing best practices and standards, using the hazing or other inappropriate things we saw first hand as a model of what NOT to do. The vast majority of corps seem to agree with that position.

But we also have to recognize that there are reasonable limits to what can be fixed or addressed from 25 or 30 or 40 years ago via the legal system. It's why statutes of limitations exist: not just to recognize that evidence gets harder to verify as time passes, but also to acknowledge, implicitly, that customs and expectations change over time. We can't sue GM today for an accident in which a family member died in 1952 because there weren't seat belts in the car, because the laws acknowledge that the world of 1952 wasn't what it is now. Based on experience, laws changed to make it less possible for that type of death to occur, just as the operations of DCI relative to the corps have changed to give the organization greater ability to oversee and address concerns. It's never going to be perfect, in any situation, but as long as there is an acknowledgement that, under today's standards, there is and should be accountability for how the corps operate now, that's a big step forward. 

Edited December 9, 2023 by Slingerland

[OldSnareDrummer]

A question from the uneducated. Will the decision on the SOA case have bearing on the Cadets case when it comes to DCI's culpability? A precedent of sorts. 

[JimF-LowBari]

14 minutes ago, scheherazadesghost said:

Yeah no worries. Didn't think you were arguing or being disrespectful. Just explaining as usual. My apologies, as apparently I come off more gruff than I mean to. 🍃

Anyway, yes, agreed entirely.

Nah you didn’t come off as gruff. I just worry I come across as insulting or unclear when texting.

Psychologist could have a field day with me on some of my “quirks”. 🤪😆 (Shut up Ream 😆😈)

[IllianaLancerContra]

7 minutes ago, OldSnareDrummer said:

A question from the uneducated. Will the decision on the SOA case have bearing on the Cadets case when it comes to DCI's culpability? A precedent of sorts. 

Assuming DCI remains defendant in Cadets case, I think it would be the other way around as Cadets case is much farther along in legal system.  
 

I also strongly suspect plaintiff’s attorneys in both cases are in contact with each other.   There is a degree of overlap albeit in different jurisdictions.  Makes sense to compare notes, see if defendants in common are giving consistent depositions, etc. 

Edited December 9, 2023 by IllianaLancerContra
Further pontificating

[scheherazadesghost]

15 minutes ago, Slingerland said:

Just a simple deduction. There's no historical evidence that DCI, even in 1982/3, had a mechanism for vetting or supervising behavior between corps members and staff. Since that appears (relevant cautionary word on my part) to be the case, and since damages are the desired outcome (why else file a suit?), when there's nothing to get from one party (CAE), the plaintiff's attorneys will keep working up the tree looking for someone they can claim should be attached, with the understanding that often, the defendant's legal advice will be to pay off the plaintiff as a cheaper alternative to paying a mounting legal defense bill. Lawyers get paid to try and win damages, so it's the legally responsible action on their part. As such, while I find it unfortunate, I don't actually see it as unethical, if that makes sense. Everyone's got a job to do.

Re: the "should have known" element, that is one of those things that is informed by hindsight, which we all know is 20/20. I was around as a performer in that 80s era, during the transition where the old ways of hiring instructors (a warm body age-out who could be on tour) was evolving to the current model (professional educators). Would it have been better for DCI, back then, to have a strong ability to oversee who was being hired, providing reporting mechanisms for clams of inappropriate behavior, etc, YES, without question. But, regrettably, that level of oversight wasn't part of the culture at the time - not just in drum corps, but in the educational field, for churches and Scout troops, etc, etc.  It should have been for all of those examples, but it wasn't, at least at the levels we would now consider acceptable.

My takeaway from that  fact is that it's up to the alums of the activity who care about these issues to make sure the corps today ARE embracing best practices and standards, using the hazing or other inappropriate things we saw first hand as a model of what NOT to do. The vast majority of corps seem to agree with that position.

But we also have to recognize that there are reasonable limits to what can be fixed or addressed from 25 or 30 or 40 years ago via the legal system. It's why statutes of limitations exist: not just to recognize that evidence gets harder to verify as time passes, but also to acknowledge, implicitly, that customs and expectations change over time. We can't sue GM today for an accident in which a family member died in 1952 because there weren't seat belts in the car, because the laws acknowledge that the world of 1952 wasn't what it is now. Based on experience, laws changed to make it less possible for that type of death to occur, just as the operations of DCI relative to the corps have changed to give the organization greater ability to oversee and address concerns. It's never going to be perfect, in any situation, but as long as there is an acknowledgement that, under today's standards, there is and should be accountability for how the corps operate now, that's a big step forward. 

Thank you. And ah yes, we're getting into legal maneuvering that is way above my pay grade.

I think it comes down to the concern I've always had. If there is no mechanism by which anyone can be held accountable for the past, then no one will be held accountable. There is no justice or relief for the survivors in most cases. AND we are still seeing instances of violations crop up, even with the attention and best intentions of those involved.

But I'm not lost on your final sentence. I'm trying to accept this as the way, but it's really difficult... knowing that pretty much all of my abusers are not only still in the field, but are celebrated. This happens all the time according the reports that survivors disclose to me.

[IllianaLancerContra]

1 minute ago, scheherazadesghost said:

Thank you. And ah yes, we're getting into legal maneuvering that is way above my pay grade.

I think it comes down to the concern I've always had. If there is no mechanism by which anyone can be held accountable for the past, then no one will be held accountable. There is no justice or relief for the survivors in most cases. AND we are still seeing instances of violations crop up, even with the attention and best intentions of those involved.

But I'm not lost on your final sentence. I'm trying to accept this as the way, but it's really difficult... knowing that pretty much all of my abusers are not only still in the field, but are celebrated. This happens all the time according the reports that survivors disclose to me.

In an ideal world, how, in December 2023, would you provide a remedy to members abused (in the broad sense) from 20+ years ago?   

[Slingerland]

In an ideal world, there would be a formal database of those working in the drum corps, WGI, and marching bands worlds that can serve as a clearinghouse for information regarding their past working experiences.

That said, the legal and practical challenges involved would be huge, not the least of which would be setting a standard of what counts as genuinely reportable. There have been multiple cases I can think of where an eventual offender turned out to have been under investigation someplace else, but resigned prior to completion of the investigation, rendering it dead and their record unsullied.

Lots of challenges, but a concept worth looking into.

Edited December 9, 2023 by Slingerland

[scheherazadesghost]

6 minutes ago, IllianaLancerContra said:

In an ideal world, how, in December 2023, would you provide a remedy to members abused (in the broad sense) from 20+ years ago?   

To Vanguard's credit (including some of those individuals who make my hackles go up now), they asked me this. I was not in a place to answer it because the asking has to come with some form of effort to be trauma-responsive and push the follow through. I got the sense I was more of a means to an end than a stakeholder, soloist, former staff member, etc who could bring further value to the org. I was regarded as a problem.

After a quick glance there are precious few resources from organizations who have done or intend to do anything like this. (The closest I ever come is on the level of South African apartheid reconciliation efforts. Not so applicable.) But there's a double whammy here of (1) asking the survivor for solutions to problems they didn't create and, more daunting for everyone: (2) asking them for something that doesn't exist. I'm willing to be engage with these issues, but it's important that folks know not to ask this of any survivor they encounter. And as above, it's important that if you're asking, you're willing to learn, grow, and change away from biases that may prevent one from empathizing with the fullness of survivor report.

I did indicate to Vanguard that whatever the process is, it could/should probably include professional institutional mediators and conflict resolution specialists. That's already a no-go financially, but I find it's better to paint the ideal picture and then carve it down as needed. I also think there should be commitments from organizations and the officer who is in charge of such efforts to get trained in trauma-responsivity. No real dialogue can be had with survivors without it because haphazard, untrained dialogue for survivors can be like torture. (Having to justify our actions, describe our choice-making, victim blaming... this has all happened in my dialogues with DCI, Vanguard, and other corps. Again, I put up with it 'cause I'm on a mission, but one can't expect other survivors to do that.)

So, what I describe are precursors to something like a series of public or private talks and dialogues aimed at (1) the institution recognizing and giving voice to survivors, and (2) IF that goes well, survivors may volunteer to continue dialogue in the direction of problem-finding and solution-building. All of you lucky non-survivors out there can and should contribute to improvements, but a thorough and sustainable job is impossible without earning the trust of survivors.

That's the best I have for now.