Hunt

Try the new zip-off pants--you might like the weave better. Also, the all-cotton shirt is more comfortable, in my experience. The garish patches are just part of the territory.

Two things: first, I have to agree that if the CC doesn't want you on the committee, you should be looking for a new troop unless there's a pretty good explanation. Second, technically committee members don't have a "vote" any more than non-member parents do--decisions are made by the committee chair. That's what it says in BSA material, anyway, although I believe that many if not most committees do function as though members have a vote.

Here's a modest proposal: rather than dropping the DRP, add the following to it: "The Boy Scouts of American recognizes that adherence to a non-theistic ethical system that is consistent with the values of Scouting satisfies the religious requirements for membership." Would that drive out LDS, or anybody else?

I also think it sends the wrong message if we exact excessive punishments for trivial offenses. Denying a boy Eagle is a big deal. If he made a simple paperwork mistake, it's excessive. We still don't really have enough facts here to know who made the mistake and how big it was. Did the boy believe (albeit mistakenly) that he had received sufficient approval to go forward? Or did he know that he didn't have approval, but figured somebody else would fix up the problem for him later? To me, that is a distinction that matters.

"I think most counselors would accept work done prior to being contacted as meeting the requirements but if someone insists that the boy be signed off on earning the badge by the Scoutmaster and meeting the counselor first for the Camping Merit Badge, then if I were the Scoutmaster, I would become a Merit Badge Counselor for the badge and hand the lad a signed Blue Card (or white form) at his first troop meeting. But then that's just me." Amen. I actually think it's a good idea to get this blue card started pretty early, though, so the scouts can be aware of some of the things that need to be done while on a campout, and can take steps to make sure they get done.

I would suggest one exception to the double dipping rule: in our school system, all students are required to perform a certain number of "Student Service Learning" hours for graduation. These can be any kind of service, except for explicitly religious service. I personally would allow a Scout to count service for rank--or for MBs or even for an Eagle project--and still submit the hours toward his SSL requirement (or CAS hours for International Baccalaureate, for another example).

"Had this taken place in a public park and was witnessed by a police officer, in most jurisdictions, the CM would have found himself being taken away in handcuffs in front of the Cubs, even if the 14-year old protested that it was just a goof. This is an adult assaulting a minor, whether charges are pressed or not, and even if done "in a spirit of fun". A 14-year old boy can't consent to being assaulted, and neither can his parents. If witnessed by a police officer, no complaint by the boy or his parents need to be filed - the police officer becomes the complainant." I simply don't believe that this is true. Given the facts as we have been given them, I don't believe a cop would have broken up this group and arrested the CM. Furthermore, I question whether this was "assault," especially if it was consented to. It is not per se unlawful for an adult to touch a child. Heck, it can even be legal to strike a child with a weapon--i.e., the fencing teacher I had at camp one summer. To clarify further, this could have been an unlawful assault, but it probably wasn't--which still doesn't mean that it was appropriate. I just don't think it should be overstated.

I think more facts would be required about this incident before making any kind of judgment on what to do. What was the relationship between the CM and the CIT? What was the CIT's reaction to the threatened wedgie, both before and after it occurred? How much of a wedgie was it? I'm really not being facetious. Possible scenario 1: CM really wanted to humiliate the CIT, the CIT resisted, both physically and verbally, CM did it anyway, and it hurt. Result: CM should be run out on a rail. Possible scenario 2: CIT's boxers were protruding three inches above his pants, and CM--his next-door neighbor and almost like family--razzed him about it, and warned him he could get a wedgie that way. CIT jokingly egged CM on, and CM pulled on the exposed boxers in a way that didn't hurt. Result: still poor judgment in front of a bunch of Cubs, but a very different situation. We don't know where in the spectrum the real incident was.

"Why would a kid want to join an organization that keeps some of his friends out? Would a kid with Jewish friends be particularly drawn to join a private club that didn't allow Jewish kids?" Well, sure--lots of kids are in specifically relgious clubs. I guess I'm just not persuaded by your perception that excluding gays and atheists is a net negative in terms of recruiting in the United States today. Given what has happened with gay marriage proposals in so many places, I suspect that the opposite may be true. Certainly, in certain localities (probably including where I now live), it may be a negative, in many other places (such as the place I grew up), it wouldn't be. But honestly, Merlyn, if I could prove to you that allowing gays and atheists into Scouting would severely harm recruiting, would that have any impact on your opinion of what BSA should do?

"Now (donning my free-market hat) if a majority of the people in a school district wish to hire professionals who institute such interruptions, and the people support those policies, I suppose that the marketplace of the future will eventually take the appropriate selective action regarding those young persons - and the market forces will have worked the way they should." Our system of government limits the ability of the majority to have things the way it prefers. While the majority may support interruptions, they still can't be interruptions that violate the rights of the minority, which I think mandatory recruiting sessions by a group with a religious membership requirement would be.

I think Venividi's analysis makes sense--while a scout isn't required to have a uniform to be a member, if he has one, he should wear it to his Board of Review, and it's legitimate to ask him why. My son has just grown out of his Scout pants, and I have not had the opportunity to take him yet for new ones. That means that tonight he will go to his Scout meeting with non-uniform pants. This lapse in correct uniforming is not due to any lack of Scout Spirit on his part.

"And at the other end of the spectrum, the worst recruiting is probably when their gay & atheist friends are excluded. This will be an issue as long as scouts have gay & atheist friends." Do you really think this is true? Whatever you think about it, I suspect that the exclusion of gays and atheists would actually be a selling point in much of the U.S.

I think it's clear that the materials and the representatives didn't explain the membership limitation. The facts as stated suggest that "at least once" a representative said that any boy may join--I think that's far from being proof that the representatives were "lying." Again, who were these reps? If it was Den Leader Joe from the local Pack, that's very different from a BSA professional or a long-term leader. But again, it's all a moot point because the case should really turn on whether the school is opening the forum to all groups, and I'm sure it isn't, since this was a mandatory recruiting session. By that standard, this was improper, and the whole issue of what the boys were told is irrelevant.

Maybe it would be good to have a "crossing over" ceremony for all Scouts who are "aging out," regardless of rank--it could include presenting them with an adult leader application.

If the BSA representative actually said that any boy may join, that simply isn't true, as we all well know. It's not so clear to me what they actually did say, however. The dissent--which thought there was discrimination--simply says that the reps "did not say" that there was a religious requirement. So I don't think it's clearly established that the reps "lied." Furthermore, the rep may have been a well-maining but not well-informed parent (remember, this is Cubs) who didn't really understand the requirement in the first place. Since he was addressing first-graders, I doubt if anybody asked him about qualifications to join, and he probably just said something like, "Cub Scouts is fun, and I hope you'll all join." I strongly doubt if there was an intent to deceive anybody, which is what "lying" is. But it's certainly the case, if we accept the facts as stated in the case, that the reps didn't explain that membership in Scouts is not, in fact, open to everyone. While I think addressing this through "discrimination" is kind of goofy, I think the dissent has the better argument--that if in fact, the group has discriminatory membership policies, the fact that they aren't mentioned during recruiting doesn't mean that the discrimination is somehow separate from the recruiting. (Note: I suppose it was made clear that it was only open to boys?)

I don't know about this. To me, there's a problem where attendance at the recruiting session is mandatory--this is different from letting groups set up tables at back-to-school night. For those who support the court's decision, would you have any trouble if the school also allowed mandatory recruiting sessions by a Catholic youth organization? By the Young Atheists? By the ACLU Youth Division?

"Two parents came forward and complained because advancement was being held up. Their position was the boys attended the class in good faith and if the MBC failed to do the job the boys should not be punished by having the badges withheld. One parent said "If I sign up for training and attend the class but the staff does not cover the correct material I should not be penalized and asked to give up more of my time to retake the class."" I'd be curious to know what the boys in question said about this BEFORE their meddling parents got involved...

Of course, words like "impala" and "scout" have been around long before they were trademarked--as Gern notes, it is their association with a product or service that makes them trademarkeable. One of the key factors in determining whether another use of the word is an infringement is the likelihood of confusion. "Boy Impalas of America" would be unlikely to be confused with Boy Scouts of America--but the same can't be said of something like, say, "Youth Scouts of America." (Personal note: we were recently annoyed when we made a pledge to the Multiple Sclerosis Foundation, thinking it was the National Multiple Sclerosis Society--so this kind of thing can happen even to supposedly intelligent people.)

I suspect that the reporter got some of the facts mixed up or wrong, but this article does shed some light on the situation. I also suspect that the troop leaders just made it clear that they were only willing to go so far to accomodate this boy--they were willing for Dad to come along, but they were not willing to go to the even greater length of letting a non-family member come along (note that this person would have had to become registered with BSA, that he would not have been able to tent with the boy, etc.--one of these things might have been the sticking point that made the unit "refuse" to allow him to come along.) As to starting over as a "rookie" scout, perhaps that means they wanted him to be in the New Scout Patrol for a second year? Maybe last year's NSP is now working on MBs and Star requirements, and this boy may not even be a Tenderfoot yet. Again, I just don't see a particular Scout troop being subject to the ADA. The leaders are all volunteers, and the unit is (presumably) chartered by a private organization. I can't believe that a court will find that every unit must accomodate any disabled scout who shows up--they just don't have that obligation. Finally, I would note that it requires a fair amount of nerve to criticize a unit for being an "Eagle mill" when your older son went through the mill and got his Eagle there.

"What if the Scout says "I don't care if I didn't do the requirement. The counselor signed the card as complete and that's good enough for me." This, and comments in several additional posts make me wonder how likely this is to happen in reality, at least with respect to a significant flaw (like not doing the work at all). I suspect not very often, if ever. Have any of you actually faced this situation, and if so, what did the Scout in question actually say or do? The only time I encountered something similar was with a boy who had erroneously been given a BOR at camp, and rank had been signed off despite the fact that not enough Eagle-required MBs had been completed. This wasn't caught until after the advancement report was sent in--several months later. In that case, the boy readily agreed that the records had to be changed, and that he needed to do the requirements to complete the rank properly. Have others had conflicts with scouts over this kind of problem?

"The Standards and Requirements of the BSA are met when the merit badge application is signed by the Merit Badge Counselor. What the unit is attesting to is that they received the application signed as completed by the Merit Badge Counselor - as long as the application is signed by the MBC, the standards and requirements are met - the unit is not attesting to the accuracy or completeness of the work done between the MBC and the Scout - only that they have received a signed merit badge application." I understand this interpretation of what the attestation on the advancement report, but I have trouble accepting it as correct unless I see it in writing--I will look at the advancement procedures document later to see if there is any clarification. I do not believe that I would be able to sign an advancement report listing fraudulent merit badges. "The BOR can't even withhold rank advancement because a merit badge requirement wasn't completed to their satisfaction (or completed at all)." I can't agree with this, either. At the very least, a boy who accepts a bogus MB should not have his Scout Spirit requirement signed (although this is really the SM's job). But if I were sitting on a BOR and a boy told me that he didn't actually do one of the MBs required for the advancement, I couldn't in good conscience sign the advancement report for the rank. Again, I want to clarify that there is a continuum here--I DON'T think that unit leaders should interfere just because they don't like the way a MB was counseled, or if they would have been tougher, or if the MBC interpreted requirements in ways they wouldn't have. In addition, I probably wouldn't interfere if, for example, the MB was taught to a group and I knew that not every boy individually "told" or "demonstrated." But I begin to have a lot more heartburn if, for example, a boy didn't camp enough nights, and I feel that intervention would be appropriate if the MB wasn't done at all. Here's a hypothetical: boy attends camp and takes Archery--but by mistake the counselor gives him a signed blue card for Camping. I can't imagine anybody thinking that the scout should be able to insist that an advancement report with a completed Camping MB listed should be turned in.

CalicoPenn, I understand the idea that the MB is "completed" when signed by the MBC, even if no actual work was done...but would you really sign an advancement report including such a MB if you actually knew that no work was actually done? If I did so, I would be making a false statement--that the record met the "standards and requirements" of the BSA.

There are two sides to this: the first is the side of ethics--where I think it is clear to all that a scout should not be satisfied with accepting a MB he hasn't earned, and at the very least he should complete the requirements after the fact. The second side is the side of authority--who has the authority to question the validity of a merit badge that has been signed by a registered MBC as complete? The official answer seems to be that nobody has that authority, except perhaps for the scout himself. There may be recourse against the MBC, but not, we have been told, against the scout. I am OK with this at the margins, when somebody is complaining that the scouts didn't swim with a strong enough stroke, or where the MBC allowed family camping to count. In such cases, I feel strongly that the MBC's decisions should control. However, I do have a problem when important requirements--or even all the requirements--were not done. It seems to me that there may be places in the process where leaders can legitimately react. To me, the key one is the preparation of the advancement report, on which a leader must sign his name and certify that the record "meets the standards and requirements" of the BSA. Personally, I couldn't sign such a report if I knew that a MB was bogus. The other point I think something could be done is at a Scoutmaster conference, at which a SM might decline to sign off Scout Spirit until a problem of this kind was corrected.

As an analogy, what would you do if a deaf scout came to your unit, and none of the adult leaders knew sign language? It seems clear to me that you would not be required to hire a sign language interpreter, and that you could reasonably expect the parents to help with this problem. If you wanted to learn sign language yourself, that would be nice, but I don't think it could be expected or demanded.

I bought my pair yesterday. Very nice. Make sure you try them on--they run large.