Hunt

On one occasion it helped to remind the scouts that there would be a "photo op." My observation was really that scouts will sometimes do something out of respect for or loyalty to a person that they don't necessarily see the value of doing otherwise. This is probably even more true when the person in question isn't Dad.

I have to suspect that trying to preserve dying units may actually harm membership, because the few boys involved in those units are likely to drop out entirely, whereas they might stay in scouting if a merger with a more healthy unit could be engineered. I think BSA pros should be making this happen, rather than discouraging it.

I was thinking that one way to encourage the wearing of the uniform is to point out to the scouts all the "special" situations in which they want to be sure to wear a complete and correct uniform, such as (1) if they will be having a Board of Review (2) at a Court of Honor (3) if there are going to be guests at a meeting (3) for the OA election (4) if they are a patrol or troop leader (5) Scout Sunday, etc...if you have enough of these, most boys will be uniformed most of the time, and the others may well follow suit. This occurred to me when I observed that certain scouts who almost never wear proper uniforms did so on Scout Sunday, when reminded that do do so would show respect for Mr. X, our COR.

What the others have said is right, but there can be some complications. For example, if the unit had funds that were earmarked for particular boys, they may have some claim to it (this isn't too likely for a pack). Also, some of the supplies may really be "loaned" from leaders--my son's troop "has" a canoe like this. Finally, if the original COR allowed them to take the supplies and funds, it may be too late to do anything about it.

CalicoPenn writes: "Scouts may work on a merit badge with one, two, three (as many as he wishes) counselors. If a Scout already has some requirements completed and signed off on in his blue card, those requirements have been met and the new counselor can't retest on them - though s/he can spot quiz - but upon spot quizzing, can't remove a requirement from the completion column if the counselor isn't happy with the answers." Is there some statement in BSA literature supporting this idea? I don't find it in the Guide for Merit Badge Counselors (at least the online version I was looking at). What I find is that the MBC must be "satisfied" that the requirements have been met. If a MBC is not satisfied by an illegible sign-off from an out-of-council summer camp three years ago that the scout can't really remember, I don't think it is unreasonable to ask that the requirement be done for the new counselor. Similarly, if I know that Mr. X recognizes nights camping in the back yard for the Camping MB and I don't, I may not accept Mr. X's signoff on that requirement without a bit more discussion. I certainly agree that a new MBC shouldn't require a scout to start over or redo a requirement just because it was done with a prior MBC--but I can't agree that the new MBC can't retest a signed-off requirement when he isn't satisfied that it has been done.

The article Merlyn cites suggests that the building is used only to administer Learning for Life. I thought Learning for Life didn't violate the anti-discrimination policy? But in any case, I think BSA is better off out of these situations.

I think this is a difficult case, which probably belongs in the Supreme Court. You can't simply say that it's not an equal access case because the city has these other criteria a group has to meet in order to get access. It seems to me that a city shouldn't be able to circumvent equal access by crafting criteria that exclude groups with views they don't like. The tough question for the courts will be whether enforcing the city's antidiscrimination policy on a non-profit is more like a procedural rule that is clearly acceptable (i.e., the city will only give free berthing to non-profits with adequate liability insurance), or if it is more like an improper requirement based on viewpoint (i.e., the city will only give free berthing to non-profits with charters that reflect Christian values). In the Dale case, the Supreme Court held that New Jersey's non-discrimination law couldn't be enforced against the Boy Scouts because it violated the BSA's rights of expressive association. It remains to be seen whether the Court will follow a similar line of reasoning in an equal access setting.

I agree with FScouter on this, except perhaps about what a MBC should do when presented with a partial blue card from a previous MBC. For me, if I don't know the other counselor--and especially if it is from summer camp--and even more especially if it's really old--I think it's appropriate to inquire about the requirements that have already been signed off, to see if the boy has any recollection of them. If I'm going to sign the blue card as completed, I have to feel comfortable that it really has been completed. Also, since some MB requirements need some interpretation by the MBC, I need to be sure that the boy has met the requirements as I understand them. But I certainly wouldn't ask him to do requirements over without a good reason.

I haven't seen too much discourtesy lately--read some older threads for a higher level of unpleasantness. Ignore the Issues board if you don't want a higher level of controversy. There is one pattern that I have noticed--sometimes a new poster will come on the board with a problem in the unit, and will ask for advice. Advice is given--usually in a reasonably courteous manner, but in some cases suggesting that it is the new poster who is in the wrong in the situation. The new poster doesn't like this and gets offended. I think regular forum participants should be gentle with new posters, especially when all the facts aren't clear--on the other hand, you have to develop a bit of a tough hide if you are going to participate in anonymous discussions in which people are talking about things they feel strongly about.

What makes a prank funny, and what makes it cruel? It seems to me that there are several factors: 1. Target. The target of the prank should be someone that the pranksters know can take it with good humor. It should not be the most vulnerable or sensitive person, or a person who is powerless to reciprocate. The target should be someone that everybody likes, not someone who is disliked. 2. Reciprocity. Pranks are better if they are back-and-forth between targets that meet the qualifications above. 3. No harm. No harm to person or possessions should result from the prank. A wet sleeping bag constitutes harm. Level of inconvenience should be modest. 4. Novelty is a plus. Hiding somebody's boots isn't funny.

I find it odd that anybody would think that all the methods of scouting are equally important--to me, the ideals are much more important than uniforming, for example. Perhaps it is a concern that recognizing that something is less important will lead some people to think it is unimportant.

It seems to me that one problem with defining hazing is in determining what group exactly we are trying to protect. Are we trying to eliminate actions that will embarass or hurt the typical scout, or those that will embarass or hurt the most vulnerable and sensitive scouts? Or are we trying to eliminate actions that could conceivable embarass or hurt anybody? Personally, I lean toward protecting the most vulnerable--isn't that what it means to be kind? With that being said, I would propose that not all forms of "initiation" directed at new guys are hazing, because I can think of some that aren't harmful and humiliating. Imagine, for example, that it is the tradition for all the new scouts to throw the SPL into the lake on the first day of summer camp. I don't think that would be hazing (at least, not of the new scouts).

I suspect we all know people who "sleaze" their way through--they may have done all the requirements, but they have done the absolute minimum and have persuaded decisionmakers to accept borderline achievement. I use such people as an object lesson for my son--do you want to be like that, or do you want to proud of your achievements? I also don't allow anybody to sleaze their way through when I am the one who has to sign off, but I leave others to make their own ethical decisions.

My theory is that you have to watch about 50 soccer matches before you really begin to enjoy the sport. I was forced to do this because my daughter plays, but I have finally reached the point where I can watch a two-hour scoreless tie and say that it was a great game. I suspect that this may be the same for other sports as well--I've seen enough baseball and football, but I guess not enough hockey. The World Cup final was pretty amazing--it included an unsportsmanlike action (by Zidane) that is the talk of most of the world.

I'm fine with folks who believe and argue that full and complete uniforming is important, even very important. But I'm afraid you lose me if you suggest that it's AS important as the ideals expressed in the Law and Oath. So go ahead and argue that full uniforming is symbolic of respect for the program, that it promotes esprit, that it's an effective method, that we shouldn't pick and choose elements of the program, etc. Those arguments are all quite reasonable. But suggestions that deviation from uniform standards are a major ethical failing are just not persuasive to me, or, I suspect, to most people.

I never thought I'd be the one posting this, but I think this thread needs a brief summary of the proper (and common) names for various levels of uniforming. Boy Scouts have two levels of uniform: "field" and "activity." The field uniform (referred to by many as "full" or "official" or "Class A") is BSA shirt, pants or shorts, belt, and socks, with neckerchief and/or hat optional to the unit. The activity uniform is exactly the same except that the shirt is replaced by a scout-related T-shirt. Of course, many units use different terms, and allow different permutations, but these in fact are the only BSA-recognized uniform options. A couple of points: there are some other items, such as the merit badge sash and medals, that can be worn with the field uniform, but they don't constitute a different class of the uniform in BSA terms. Although I don't think "field" and "activity" are very good terms for the two BSA levels of uniforming, at least they have an official definition, which is not the case for the many idiosyncratic definitions of Classes A through Z we often hear about here. I guess my point is that when asking what is expected, you should ask for specifics, since what somebody else means by "Class B" or even "activity" uniform may not be the same as what you mean by it.

I think purcelce has a good point--we don't have enough info to really make any judgements. We can take this as a hypothetical situation and talk about it, but the real situation is often more complicated. No offense to you backwood, but it is also hard to evaluate statements from a first-time poster, especially since we don't know what your role in the whole matter may be.

The UP is shorthand for Uniform Police--ie, the segment of the "rules book quoters" who are sticklers for exact and proper uniforming no matter what. "I disagree. UP is a derogatory and disrespectful term used by those that dont like being reminded that the BSA uniform is defined and controlled by BSA and that modifications, substitution, customization, and redefinition by individuals and units is contrary to the purposes of the uniform method and is not permitted." It seems to me that the two quoted statements above are not contradictory. I think that both are partly untrue, however--I don't think there is anyone who insists on totally correct uniforming "no matter what," and it simply isn't true that modifications of the uniform are "not permitted." They are permitted and tolerated, and are often observed on the uniforms of high-level scouters. My son recently went to Philmont with a Council contingent, and we were severely warned that everyone must be in proper uniform, and that the Council leaders were sticklers, etc, etc. Of the two council leaders I saw, one had a Tot'n Chip on his pocket flap, and the other had a patrol patch. (I would say, perhaps, that modifications are not authorized.)

I have to agree that it is not the role of the SM or the Advancement Coordinator to refuse to allow a boy to pursue a MB in which he is interested, just because it doesn't fit into the SM's advancement plan. However, when things are working well, boys are willing to listen to and take advice from adult leaders on what MBs to pursue. They are willing to do this because (a) they know the adult leaders have their best interests in mind and (b) they think the adult leaders know what they are talking about. In my son's troop, for example, adult leaders always sit down with each boy before summer camp to talk about what MBs he is planning to take--we always urge new boys to take Swimming (because it's hard to arrange outside of camp), but we don't make them take it. There may also be times when MBCs with the troop will offer particular MBs during a set period--often boys will gladly sign up. I see nothing wrong with this, but it's not the same as requiring the boys to take the MB. Occasionally there is a boy who is not interested in advancement. I don't consider such a boy a failure as a Scout, if he is getting something else out of the program, and if he wants to do a couple of merit badges along the way, why would I interfere?

I think any organization has to have "critical mass" to succeed, and that means an adequate number of people available to attend meetings and outings for them to be a good experience. For a scout unit, I think it means having enough boys at each age level for them to make friends and have fun doing similar activities. I think 6 to 10 is pretty small--however, it may work if everyone shows up all the time.

"But ask yourself this: Would you let your 15 year old daughter go into the woods with a bunch of 18 year old boys, even with a couple of adults present? Or are you a 'heterophobic"? Even if you have the utmost respect for the adults, you can't help but think "Something might go wrong". My statements on this topic have been intended to point out that it is normal for people to have concerns. Being wary when exposing your child to the possibility of risk, does not make them PHOBIC... it makes them PARENTS." It seems to me that the line between phobia and rational parenting is crossed when risks are irrationally overestimated. From what I've read, the risk that your male child would be molested by an openly gay male leader in a unit practicing two-deep leadership is extremely remote. If you make decisions based on extremely remote risks, then you should never let your child ride in a car, because the risks are probably higher. If the fear of molestation was the only reason for barring gay leaders, it would be irrational to allow male leaders in co-ed venturing crews, or female leaders in troops and packs. As to your question, I just let my 14-year-old son go to Philmont with a co-ed crew with one female and one male advisor. I have some concerns about his safety at Philmont, but I have no concern at all about molestation.

I'd like to vent about this issue a bit. Sure, the district and council folks don't want units to merge, but that's their problem. At the unit level, our problem is doing what's best for the boys. It may make eminently good sense for two small packs to merge together in order to achieve critical mass. It makes no sense to kill yourself trying to resuscitate a tiny pack if the only reason to do so is to help the DE make his numbers. If there are other good reasons, sure. We had the same situation with my son's pack a number of years ago. The CM left, there weren't many boys, and it looked like the pack would fold. The solution was to "meet with" another pack, but keep both packs in existence on paper. In fact, it functioned as a single pack. I will admit that some years later the District got a new pack going in the location of the old dead pack--I don't know if they kept it going on paper all that time. When I hear about units (packs and troops) with 5, 6, 7 boys, I have to suspect that the boys would be better off with fewer, but larger units.

Responding to DanKroh-- "Well, Hunt, first let me say thank you for using a different example of what you consider an innapropriate role model." I think we need to do this sometimes in order to step back and think through these issues with a bit less passion. "However, I am struck by this phrase: "Whether I will pull my kid out of his unit depends on several factors..." So, even though the SM is leading an immoral lifestyle (and therefore, by definition, not a good role model/leader), you would not automatically pull your kid from his unit. Interesting. Would you give the same consideration to a gay SM?" Well, I would have a sliding scale of lifestyles. There are certain lifestyles that I think are so bad that wouldn't want my child in the unit with such a leader, no matter how quiet he kept it. Illegal drug use would be a good example. There are other things of which I disapprove, but which I don't consider a big enough deal to pull out my kid. An example would be a leader who enjoys legal gambling. As long as he doesn't get the boys involved in gambling and doesn't talk about it too much, I wouldn't pull my boy out. I probably would apply the same factors to a SM who was living in a relationship of which I disapproved, but for many people that would obviously be at the far end of the scale. ""If a Southern Baptist wants a Scoutmaster to be a man who doesn't drink, smoke, or cuss, I think that's understandable." Yes, exactly. And if a Unitarian Universalist thinks there's nothing wrong with a gay SM, shouldn't that be understandable, too?" Well, sure. It might also be understandable if a spinter church in Utah thinks there's nothing wrong with polygamists. Despite that, BSA itself has to draw some lines with respect to what it will accept. I think most of us probably support BSA's rejection of people with criminal records--but do you think BSA should reject anybody with a speeding ticket? A decades-old tax violation? BSA has to draw the line someplace--and I think it's reasonable for BSA to decide that certain people shouldn't be leaders, even if what they are doing isn't illegal. The problem with the gay issue is that BSA has drawn such a bright line, without drawing many other bright lines for immoral but legal behaviors. To go back to my example, BSA might in fact kick out a leader living with a person of the opposite sex outside marriage, but this isn't set out as a rigid rule. It leaves reasonable people wondering why for so many things the line-drawing is (apparently) left to the CO, but in this case it isn't.

I would say that in more recent times, the main reason courts continue to recognize common law marriages is to deal with the situation when a couple holds themselves out to the public as married, especially for a long period of time, and then one of them tries to deny the benefits of marriage to the other--i.e., division of property, child custody, etc. It's not that the government wants to promote marriages that have not been properly solemnized, but rather to prevent unfairness. In the majority of cases, recognizing the existence of a common law marriage probably benefits the wife, who is likely to be the one being abandoned without a share of the marital property.

"As far as the good role model thing, I know lots of heterosexual adults that wouldn't make good role models, for lots of different reasons. But unless I'm expecting a leader to role model heterosexual behavior (NOT!), I see an essential disconnect between a person's sexual orientation and their ability to model behaviors that would be appropriate in the scouting setting. See, this is where the discussion breaks down. I ask for an example (other than their sexual orientation) of what behavior a homosexual leader can not role model in the scouting setting. And I am never given an answer that fulfills the caveat because the opposing side can't get past the sexual orientation thing. "They can't role model morality", you say. But why? Name one aspect of "moral behavior" other than who they love that they cannot adequately role model for a scout? Do they not treat others with respect? Do they not serve their community? Do they not engage in charity? Do they not go to church and show reverence? Are they not honest and trustworthy? What exactly is it that they can't do?" It's not about what they CAN'T model, but about what they DO model. Imagine that Scoutmaster Goodguy is an all-around great guy, except that he lives with a woman to whom he is not married. Is he a good role model for my child? Clearly, it helps if he never dicusses his marital status in front of the boys, but in the real world this is likely to become known. Thus, he's modeling a behavior of which I disapprove. Whether I will pull my kid out of his unit depends on several factors, including how bad I think the behavior is, how much it's likely to directly influence my child, and how impressionable I think my child is with respect to this leader. While nobody is perfect, I would prefer for the people having powerful influences on my kids' lives to to meet pretty high standards. What my standards are might not be the same as somebody else's, of course, but I wouldn't fault somebody for feeling that way. If a Southern Baptist wants a Scoutmaster to be a man who doesn't drink, smoke, or cuss, I think that's understandable.