Re: BSA <> UW attitudes
Settummanque, the blackeagle (waltoml@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU)
Mon, 22 Nov 1993 10:50:18 CDT
Jim McCullars <JIM@UAHIS1.UAH.EDU> writes:
(Steve Sousa wrote earlier which started this part of the string...) :
>--> Any BSA leader who opposes BSA policies while representing BSA as one of
>--> their leaders should have their membership status seriously reviewed in
>--> light of their desire to support the program and the organization.
(and Jim replied) :
> I believe you need to re-think this statement. Did you mean to imply
>that I, as a Scoutmaster, must not express a negative opinion about a BSA
>policy without having my "membership status seriously reviewed"? Would
>expressing a dislike for the New Scout Patrol concept at a Roundtable put
>my membership in jeopardy? If not, where would the line be drawn?
There are many people that have carefully "stepped on eggshells" and
have publically approved or supported many of the BSA's program and
privately, expressed contempt or disapproval of some of the elements
of the program. I am one of them, and I feel so is Jim. Just because
we don't think that the New Scout Patrol concept doesn't work don't
mean that we can't say so, either in a forum like this or at a BSA
event. There's been many times at Commissioner courses, where I've
told Commissioners and professionals that "if a woman can recruit me,
train me, coach me.....etc... then they should be able to do the
actual job of Scoutmaster", only to be asked a series of questions
about how we would implement it...only to answer "That's the way *I*
feel about it...but my opionion is NOT the BSA's, and it's the BSA's
that really counts here."
There IS room for dissent in ANYTHING we do as Scouters as long as it
makes sense. As a trainer of Boy Scouters and Exploring leaders, I
have to many times moderate my personal feelings for the new Exploring
Leadership concept with the "party line" as to how it would be carried
out in Exploring units. This is not unlike a university professor
that feels strongly about the changes in his department's curriculum,
but yet has to tell students and others outside the department that
"although I would have liked to have seen it happen this way, the
department has decided to go about in this manner" and to explain the
manner it will be carried out.
We don't live in this "command box" whereby the BSA says "this is the
way we will do it" and we have to do it EXACTLY the way the BSA says
it. That's part of the reasoning behind chartered partners and them
"owning" the BSA program. As long as the tenants of the program are
being met and the program conforms to what the BSA says SHOULD be the
program, there's a lot of lattitude given to individual units to do
the best program that they can do (and once again, I stress that in
many cases, those "exceptions" to the "status quo" end up as
"improvements" or "options" in the overall program).
At the same time, Jim, I can understand Steve's assertion that if you
are NOT willing to support the program AS IT IS NOW, then perhaps
there's time for reflection as to why you are in the program. Support
can be given, however, in many ways. I can support the New Scout
Patrol concept without implementing it in my Troop. That's a option I
have as a Scoutmaster and once I have my chartered partner to
understand that it's NOT the BSA I'm against, just this silly plan to
isolate my newer Scouts and to assign a adult to "hen them" for their
first year while they get "accustomed" to a new enviorment away from
Cub Scouting. I can support the BSA's stand on various issues and
still find it in my heart to listen and assist those that feel
slighted because of the movement.
We ALL have that obligation, because of the BSA's Scout Law. That law,
says in part that we are "loyal to our Troop, home and community" and
that "if we find a problem with a law or rule, rather than to disobey
it, we find ways to lawfully change it."
Our programs are NOT in stone, despite some wishes that it would be.
There's a great deal of sideward movement that can be accomphished and
still carry out the methods and ideal of the BSA. But by stating,
"if you don't agree with us, we'll get rid of you" is almost like
blackmail.
And that's a crime no matter where you are.
(Big ol' note here...you can AGREE, DISAGREE, LIKE OR DISLIKE ANYTHING
or ANY ORGANIZATION HERE ON SCOUTS-L...the best thing about this forum
is our willingness to look at ALL SIDES of an issue, not the ones that
can be clearly seen. So those of you out there that when this note was
originally posted said to yourselves "is this true?" NO!!!!!!! It's
NOT! )
Settummanque!
Mike L. Walton
Greenwood, Kentucky
(-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-)
( Settummanque, the blackeagle... ) )
( (MAJ) Mike L. Walton (among other "endearing" names) ( )
( AIS/MR Recreation Specialist, Lifeskills Inc. ___)_ )
( Voice 502-782-7992 (home) 502-842-2274 (office) |-=-|] )
( 3201-D Cave Springs Avenue -- Greenwood, KY 42104-4439 -------- )
( "Not speaking for Lifeskills, Inc. or WKU...but I do speeches !!!!" )
( WALTOML@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU (Internet) KYBLKEAGLE@AOL.COM (America Online) )
(=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=)
Terry Howerton Sakima Group, Inc. SCOUTER Magazine Kansas City | 
