Re: What Are We Teaching & Scout Spirit (Part II)

Dear Friends,
Continuing yesterday's post, I was going to talk about how the rules in
schools tend to be reactive (much like the laws of our society). I wanted to
explain that reactive rules tend to produce a reaction opposite what they
intend to produce since the behaviors that cause the need for the rules in
the first place have already gotten out of hand. But it occured to me that
the discussion on the list, not to mention the discussion with my assistant
Scoutmaster, has concentrated only on part of the story. Therefore, I would
like to pose another view of the situation.

We have already discusssed a Scout who accidentally brought a Scout knife to
school and was suspended for it. On the surface it looks harsh, but we're
missing some details. How did the Scout get caught with the knife? Was he
caught showing it off to other students? Did he show it to a teacher? Or was
he turned in the next day after confiding in a friend? Let's look at each
possibility:

1) Got Caught Showing The Knife: If the Scout was caught by a teacher or
other adult showing the knife to some friends there are some grounds for
punishment. First, the school won't look at the knife as a tool, but as a
potential weapon. It may be a tool in the hands of the Scout, but what if it
fell into the hands of someone less-trustworthy? When the school sets about
determining how to punish the Scout, that's how they will view it.

Secondly, as a Scout he is expected to try to follow the Scout Oath and Law.
The Scout Law expects the Scout to admit that he made a mistake and accept
the consequences. Does that mean he should be suspended? No. If he "turns
himself in" admitting he made a mistake, he should be rewarded for his
honesty. Getting caught showing the knife around means he didn't "turn
himself in" and therefore wasn't trustworthy.

2) Showed It To A Teacher: Perhaps the Scout went to his teacher, showed
him/her the knife and admitted his mistake. As I mentioned before, this
behavior should be rewarded. What if the teacher decided to turn the boy in?
Then it should be the teacher who is punished (in my book) for destroying
the boy's confidence in him/her.

Showing the knife to a teacher and "turning himself in" show that the Scout
has made an ethical decision based on his own view of right and wrong. "I
have done something that is against the rules and that makes me
untrustworthy and disobedient." Making such a decision, in my book, is cause
for celebration. Any adult who would insist on punishment in this situation
should be flogged! (The story of the boy who was given a detention for not
turning in his friends soon enough really made me ill!)

3) Turned In By A Friend: This is a hard one to deal with. To be honest, if
I had been that Scout, my reaction would have been to keep the knife safely
hidden away and pray I make it through the day without getting caught. Sure,
it's not very trustworthy, and still disobedient, but my decision wouldn't
have been based entirely on my belief in the Scout Law. The thought of
having to face Sister Dorithy was enough. My "punishment" would have been
the hours of terror I put myself through during the day trying NOT to think
of what would happen if I got caught. Being turned in by a friend would lead
to punishment from the school, and probably some strain in the relationship
between the two boys.

Part of the problem with reactionary rules is that you tend to want to be
more harsh in dealing out punishment so as to "make an example" of the
person making the rule. This, of course, leads to even harsher treatment of
the next guy since you now have to show that you intend to be consistent.
Soon, the rule lacks common sence (i.e. Zero-Tolerance rules) and becomes
more of a mockery than a definition of acceptable behavior.

Believe it or not, the discussion of "Zero-Tolerence" leads directly into
whether or not a troop or pack should have written by-laws. I have seen
several examples of what some units use as by-laws, and I must admit that it
leaves me a bit concerned. Once you define rules for a unit over and above
the Scout Law, you then have to define punishment for those rules. The next
thing you know, you have a very elaborate system of rules and punishments
that take the focus away from the Scout Law.

My troop has a set of by-laws enacted for several reasons. Mainly, they are
designed merely as a transitional device intended to be repealed once the
Scouts get in the habit of comparing their behavior to the Scout Law. The
first of those by-laws states simply: "Scouts are expected to behave
according to the Scout Oath and Scout Law at all times." The punishment for
breaking this rule is simple: I ask what x point of the Scout Law is and the
Scout figures it out and tells me. Then I ask him what it _means_ to him and
lead him toward the an appropriate answer. Finally, the Scout is asked to
perform a "cycle" (or more depending on the severity of the offense) in
which they recite the Scout Law while doing push-ups. One push-up for every
point of the Scout Law. My Scouts have learned that they will get several
warnings before I decide their behavoir has become too disruptive for a
warning. "Cycling" is effective if you challenge the Scout to think about
what he has done and why you are punishing him. Doing the push-ups is
usually the easiest part for most Scouts.

In our troop by-laws, there are five other rules which address specific
issues such as use of medications, possession of excessive fire-building
materials, and possession of contraband items. Our punishment for breaking
these rules involves councelling the Scout about why his behavior is against
the rules and what he can expect to happen next. In the case of minor
infractions the items are confiscated and returned to the Scout following
the activity. In the case of medications and contraband the items are
confiscated and returned to the parents following the activity.

Mostly, these rules are designed to discourage Scouts from using
over-the-counter caffeen pills (a very popular activity amoung some of our
Scouts), and bringing fifty-two packs of matches to a weekend campout. So
far I have been spared from having to deal with major infractions such as
weapons or potent or illegal drugs. I have had to deal with tobacco use, but
that was before the rules were set down (and admittedly I felt a bit
hipocriticle speaking to the Scout on that matter).

Written by-laws can be useful if they are tempered with common sence and the
goal of maintaining the focus on the Scout Law as a definition of acceptable
behavior. Personally, I believe any written set of rules for a Scout unit
should begin with the Scout Oath and Scout Law as the primary focus.

Next ... Scout Spirit, finally.
YIS
Anthony J. Mako, ajmako@apk.net
Scoutmaster, Troop 381
http://members.aol.com/Scouts381/
"Home of the Unofficial Boy Scout Desktop Theme!"
Great Trail Council - Akron, Ohio
"I used to be an Eagle (C-7-97), but I'll always be an Eagle (1981)"

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message
• Previous message