Marching Band Suspended

[luke_hollis]

I agree that the entire band should be punished. As a group, if you don't punish everyone, then there is no incentive for any other member of the band to have any proverbial skin in the game. The band performs as a group, not as a bunch of sections. If you let them keep performing, then they know you can get away with murder. If you punish everyone, then the moral weight of the band is on scofflaws shoulders. Not playing for a game or two won't kill them.

[MaryAnn]

One thing I always wonder about when I read about equipment damage or property damage, is "What ever happened to restitution?" To me, restitution in addition to punishment that fits the crime, is a mandatory consequence of someone's actions. The restitution really brings home the fact of what they did, because when they did it, they intrinsically shouldered the responsibility for fixing it.

It's unfortunate that the behaviors I've been reading about in this thread are representative of the mindset that is becoming more and more common; there is a certain poster on this forum who continually gets heat for a much, much milder form of this mindset. Imagine an entire band of out-of-control kids who think they are adults, think they are entitled to everything, don't even have a concept of respect for someone with immensely more life experience than they have, and whose parents will sue the college if it dares to punish their little darlings.

It's scary.

MA

[Rick Denney]

I agree that the entire band should be punished. As a group, if you don't punish everyone, then there is no incentive for any other member of the band to have any proverbial skin in the game. The band performs as a group, not as a bunch of sections. If you let them keep performing, then they know you can get away with murder. If you punish everyone, then the moral weight of the band is on scofflaws shoulders. Not playing for a game or two won't kill them.

I agree completely (sorry, Wade). By punishing the band as a unit, all members are forced to reckon that their actions as members of the unit reflect on the unit as a whole. It teaches people to be more responsible for their effect on others.

And we should remember that being suspended from performing at a football game is not a violation of their civil rights, for Pete's sake. I think it's completely appropriate that the privilege of public performance is withheld in addition to the actual perpetrators being punished. When people are convicted of crimes, the punishment they receive reflects the fact that they gave up their rights when they committed the crime. The perpetrators who broke the law should be charged and should face trial.

Also, many times the bad actors are protected by the silence and toleration of those around them. Yes, we should mind our own business to a point. But when someone in our unit threatens the reputation of the unit, the behavior should not be tolerated. "Dude, if you're gonna do that, go somewhere else." The suspension is a reminder to the non-perpetrators that being in the presence of bad behavior is tacit approval of bad behavior, and that everyone has the responsibility to behave responsibly.

When I was a member of the Texas A&M Symphonic Band, we attended TMEA in San Antonio and performed. Many of the band members went out the night before and raised hell, but when they did so, they were away from the band and on their own. Some of them were expelled--nobody at that time thought being in that band was anything but a privilege that could be revoked at any time. Most people, though, spent pleasant time with Aggie Club hosts who put up the band members during the trip. That's the way adults behave. I was 18 at the time.

The Fightin' Texas Aggie Band is a different organization, and being a unit of the ROTC, had at least a semblance of discipline. And the Colonel who was in charge of the band program was completely willing to be a Colonel when necessary. That band is not great by musical standards, but it does manage to avoid being parts of stories like these, it seems.

But even at A&M, there was lots of hazing. We called it being "taken to the quad", which meant public humiliation of some sort. Some of the victims had unspeakable things done to them. Without much regard to my own popularity, I let it be known (without making too much of a point of it) that I would call the cops and file charges if so assaulted. But I also said that I would be fair game if anyone ever caught me taking part in the hazing of someone else. I stayed away from it as a participant, and managed to avoid being a victim of it. I had and have no interest in belonging to an organization that sees how close to death it can bring its recruits without actually succeeding in killing them. While in grad school, two pledges at UT-Austin died from alcohol poisoning after being forced to consume about a fifth of bourbon each. The perps went to jail (and I hope for a long time--an adult punishment for adults). There are consequences of being an adult.

Rick "agreeing that the band director seems more concerned about his own popularity than about the reputation of the group" Denney

[tofu]

--

[Chuck Jackson]

The Stanford Marching Band was banished from Notre Dame because the Director dressed up as a nun and conducted with a crucifix.


Chuck"trying not to laugh even though he was brought up Catholic and sees the inherent problems this would cause 50-60% of the worlds faithful"Jackson

[rocksanddirt]

Quite a mess. Both recent cases.

They stem from slightly different sources in my view.

I do not know the situation at Wisconsin other than the recent couple of articles, but the appearance is of (imo) a glorified highschool band. Where the director (and assistants) runs the whole show (from deciding on music, show structures, outside performances, etc.)

The situation with the aggie band-uh at UC Davis is quite differnt. The university employee who is hired as the director has a much more limited job. The job really is to direct the star spangled banner at football games, submit the budget to the university, and that's about it. The band and it's members are not part of the music department, there is no class credit, scholarships, or anyother benefit to members. The Universit dropped the ball by letting them run amok completely with no (zero, zip, zilch) supervision from the university for FOUR YEARS. An entire generation of bandies came and went with no director to provide longterm institutional memory and guidance. Then the university hired a director without consulting the band on the qualities of said director. So, they got someone who thought he was going to be the director of a glorified high school band where what he said was the rule. Not a band run by its members, who expect the director to help them run it.

[rocksanddirt]

The Stanford Marching Band was banished from Notre Dame because the Director dressed up as a nun and conducted with a crucifix.


Chuck"trying not to laugh even though he was brought up Catholic and sees the inherent problems this would cause 50-60% of the worlds faithful"Jackson

That's the least of their inappropriate performances. Sometimes they are hilarious. sometimes, eh not so much.

[Rick Denney]

It is a knee jerk reaction to a problem that has been years in the making. It is not like the director is the new kid on the block. The festering problem should have been dealt with long ago.

No disagreement from me whatsoever. But it does not change my opinion. Again, disallowing one public performance in the middle of the season is 1.) not going to cause anyone to lose an arm, a grade, or a dollar, 2.) not going to kill the band program in place where the fans apparently rabidly support the band, and 3.) not going to violate anyone's rights. Groups are often punished because of the actions of a few. It usually results in more people being willing to apply pressure to the bad actors.

Personally, I think the director ought to be fired, assuming the administration actually has granted him the authority to deal with such problems. Again, he was trying to be popular with the kids instead of earning their respect by demanding respectful behavior. They are probably used to that.

I was once punished because a group of kids with whom I had been associating threw a rock onto a freeway next to our neighborhood and broke a lady's windshield. I was not part of the rock-throwing and indeed was a block away at the time and unaware of what was happening. At the time, I thought I was being treated unfairly. In retrospect, though, it did me no harm to be taught that I will share responsibility for the actions of a group even when I'm not the actor. I stopped hanging around those kids. As adults, we are often faced with such choices. Do I continue to work for a company that's cooking the books, even though I'm not the one doing the cooking? I once worked for a company whose owner paid a bribe to a federal official. Do you think the feds cared that I was guiltless (and completely unaware of the situation) when they debarred the company from federal contracting in addition to the owner going to jail? When a football program is suspended by the NCAA for recruiting violations, do you think all the players on that team benefited from those violations? Time for the long pants.

Nobody is going to suffer lifelong misery because they missed marching at one freaking football game.

Rick "who thought these were adults" Denney