Hunt

I didn't believe there was no way to e-mail the webmaster until I looked for myself. There doesn't seem to be any way to contact anybody at National by e-mail at all. I suppose you could try e-mailing to webmaster@scouting.org and see what happens--that will often work.

Yes, yes, we understand that BSA is a private organization that has the legal right to kick out members for virtually any reason. That isn't the question here--the question is whether it is ETHICAL and SCOUTLIKE for BSA to do that to somebody who is simply disagreeing with a policy. Bob, are you going to argue that it doesn't matter whether BSA acts ethically or not? Now, you seem to be saying that nobody has been kicked out for simply disagreeing, but only for disagreeing in the wrong way, by becoming a nuisance or impeding the delivery of the program. If that's true, great--although one would certainly like to know what is the threshold for being considered a nuisance. So maybe what I'm asking is a hypothetical question, but most assuredly Bob has not answered it. Again, it's this: "Would it be Scoutlike or ethical for BSA to remove a person for membership merely for expressing disagreement with a BSA policy (specifically, say, the ban on openly gay leaders)?" Also, Bob says: "But why stay in a volunteer program you do not like?" Why indeed? I'm not aware of anybody on this message board to whom that question could sensibly addressed, however. I've only seen people criticize discrete elements of the program, because they want the overall program to be better. I still like my son, even though I think he needs a haircut.

What are you looking at? The factsheet "What is Boy Scouting" on scouting.org includes Association with Adults, and if you search the site for "methods" it comes up.

Note that Bob doesn't answer my question, but would rather attack some phantom who says terrible things about Scouting and doesn't share its values. Well, maybe jkhny's statements come close to being "terrible." But I don't think packsaddle's do. But let's talk about loyalty and obedience. I expect my son to show loyalty and obedience. If he has a curfew, I expect him to obey it. However, if he says to me, "I don't agree with your curfew; I think it's too restrictive, and doesn't reflect enough trust of me," I wouldn't consider that disloyal or disobedient. That's because I haven't forbidden him from questioning my rules. Of course, if he attacks me rudely with "fresh" talk, or disobeys the rules, that's something different. But if he tries to persuade me to change the rule, that's not a problem.

"Does that explain it better?" No. The examples you give are absurd. We are not talking about somebody attacking your son, or saying terrible things about anybody. We are talking about a simple question, whether it is Scoutlike for BSA to remove a person for expressing disagreement with a rule, even though they are obeying the rule. Your over-the-top statements are really not to the point. The more specific question would be this: Do you think it is right, or Scoutlike, for BSA to remove a person from membership merely for stating the opinion that BSA should change its policy prohibiting openly gay leaders? To make it crystal clear, we are talking about somebody who expresses disagreement with only this one policy, and otherwise supports the policies and values of BSA. And to make it even clearer, we aren't talking about whether BSA has the LEGAL right to remove such a person, but whether it is ETHICAL for BSA to do this.

Bob, do you think it's Scoutlike for BSA to exclude people from membership simply for disagreeing with rules, even if they are obeying them?

"How can you say that I "exploited" information that a scouter asked us to view? No one forced him to dislose the membership situation that existed in HIS unit. Why Hunt is your disgust not focused on the unit that chased so many scouts away rather than on me for noting that they had left?" I see nothing wrong with disagreeing with somebody's views on the merits, and even in asking them if it's been effective. But to continually respond to their views by bringing up their numbers is, in my opinion, extremely rude. It's the sort of tactic used by people who can't or won't defend their position on the merits. Thus, for example, Bob, you still haven't said whether you think it's Scoutlike for BSA to exclude people from membership simply for disagreeing with rules, even if they are obeying them. And I'll repeat, to suggest that somebody doesn't share the values of Scouting just because they disagree with the ban on gay leaders is ridiculous. Somebody who thinks that way doesn't know the difference between a rule and a value.

Bob, really, if you can't take the heat, you should stay out of the kitchen. You can't from one side of your mouth tell people to stop complaining about policies they can't change, and from the other side of your mouth criticize them when they say that's what they've decided to do. It's just ridiculous to say that people should quit BSA because they disagree with ONE of its policies. I note that you dodge the question of whether you think it's Scoutlike to kick people out of Scouting for disagreeing with policies (but not violating them). I submit that's because the answer is obvious. Also, you say: "That NEVER happened. If you are refering to the time I questioned a posters rapidily declining unit membership, I will remind you that HE posted his web-site address and invited people to vist on NUMEROUS occassions. I accepted that invitation and asked him about what was there. I did not violate any anonimity, he publicly posted the information and asked us to look at it." I didn't say you violated anonymity. What you did was exploit the information you found on the website to discredit the poster's opinions and to impugn his credibility--without providing facts about yourself to support your own credibility. You proceeded to refer to this again and again every time you wanted to disagree with that poster's opinions. I thought that was a low tactic at the time, and I still do. That kind of thing is the reason many people prefer anonymity--perhaps that's why you choose to post anonymously as well. So, I don't see any inaccuracies in my post at all. Your reaction reminds me of an anecdote about George Bernard Shaw. Once when visiting a friend he saw a portrait of himself, and thought "what a horrible likeness!"--until he realized he was looking in a mirror.

"I cannot fathom why anyone would choose to remain in an organization where they felt that their personal values were so at odds that they would hide what they believe in order to remain being seen by others as a member of that organization." I get really tired of this point being made, espcially by somebody who is constantly telling people to shut up about their complaints and disagreements and to focus on their jobs in the local unit. Now you're criticizing somebody who took your own advice? You're really defending a policy of expelling people for disagreeing with a policy? Not for violating it, but merely suggesting that it should be reconsidered and changed? You think that's Scoutlike? As for anonymity, I would remind you, Bob, that you have divulged information about other posters that you thought would discredit their opinions--information you were able to get because they didn't insist on anonymity. Finally, unless your name is actaually Bob White, I don't see your name at the bottom of your posts, or in your profile.

One more thing. For a preview of what the Supreme Court will probably do if it ever decides the Pledge issue on the merits, read Burger's opinion in: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/marsh.html dealing with prayers before legislative sessions. To see what the court would do if it really addressed the issue honestly, read Brennan's dissent in the same case.

"The founding of this nation ...rests on our rights clearly come from a creator and we then in turn, "loan" our government the rights to pass laws to meet the goals of the preamble. The government from the beginning of the republic has no rights to grant. I know you don't agree but that is the history of the nation and it is only reflected in the Pledge as recited today." This statement reflects a common misunderstanding, because it implies that the Declaration of Independence is the foundation of our nation. It isn't--the Constitution is. The Constitution makes it clear that all government power--and rights--come from the People. There is no mention of God, the Creator, or even Providence, in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. What's more, the only creator-endowed rights mentioned in the Declaration are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Let's face it: freedom of speech and freedom of religion are not Biblical concepts. No, those are Enlightenment ideas that did not grow out of Christianity (at least not directly). Remember, the Pilgrims and others who came to this continent to freely practice their religions didn't actually believe in freedom of religion either--they expelled heretics (Rhode Island was an exception). The Establishment Clause was added to the Bill of Rights by Enlightenment thinkers--not religious leaders.

Merlyn, I think what NJ was referring to was the understanding that BSA does NOT allow units to discriminate on the basis of race/ethnicity (although it may have allowed them to do so in the past). Although I have not seen this policy in writing, I have heard that it exists, and I haven't heard BSA criticized for this particular kind of discrimination. BSA does allow units to be more restrictive (or discriminatory, if you like) than the national organization in certain respects. For example, units can choose to reject female leaders, and can restrict membership to co-religionists.

Please, jkhny, edit your posts. Make one or two short, punchy points in each one. For example, in the last one (which I read only part of until my eyes started hurting), you could have responded to packsaddle by giving one clear, documented example of somebody being removed from membership for criticism. Instead, another rambling message mentioning people I have never heard of, and a bunch of repeated passionate (and over-capitalized) expostulations.

I think what gets people so upset about this Pledge thing is that deep down, we all have to know that Newdow is right and that the public schools shouldn't be promoting a particular religious view. However, the vast majority of people think it isn't that big a deal (even if technically wrong) and wish Newdow would just go away. I think that's why the Supreme Court punted the first time, and will do the same this time if it can find a pretext to do so. That's because if the Supreme Court has to decide the case on the merits, I see only two possible outcomes: 1. To agree that for the schools to require the recitation of a pledge with "under God" in it is unconstitutional establishment of religion, even if no student is required to say it. 2. To say that "under God" is OK because it's merely "ceremonial" and not really religious at all. If that were really true, would people be going nuts trying to preserve it? Obviously not, but that would be about all the Supreme Court could do. What the Supreme Court is not at all likely to do is to say that it's OK for the schools to promote belief in God. The only compromise I can see would be for the Court to say it's OK for the school to have a voluntary morning assembly where the Pledge is recited (and nothing else is done). I think the Court we're likely to have when the case comes up will either punt again, or go with number 2.

I have to agree that there is something screwy about Greg's story. First, if he was really a scout as a youth, and was planning to put his son into scouting, he expects us to believe that he didn't know scouting had a problem with openly gay people? What planet has he been living on? If he did know, then it seems he was OK with putting his son in an organization with a discriminatory policy, until he was "outed." If that's the case, I don't see why he should be mad at BSA or the CO--his problem is with his ex-wife. What was the CO? A church? As noted previously, a CO is free to restrict membership more than BSA, and isn't required to follow a "don't ask, don't tell" policy. He could probably find another CO that would be "don't ask, don't tell." Maybe this story is real, but it sounds to my ears more like a little dramatic tale designed to make us feel sorry for the son (and the nephews, nice touch) who won't get to be scouts because of the mean old BSA. The ex-wife is used so the protagonist doesn't do anying himself to become "avowed." It sounds like a law school hypothetical, not a real situation.

"Cool, so far eleven responses and not a one is a response to the original post. What a statement that is!" I couldn't read the original post, because it hurt my eyes. I will only read jkhny's posts in the future if he is able to keep them short.

OK, once you have your excellent program in place, how do you get the word out? We're struggling with this--so far, the only thing we have found that works really well is a personal invitation from a boy in the troop to another boy that he already knows. So far, we have gotten almost zero response from flyers, signs, and the like. Our ability to distribute flyers has been hampered, because the public schools have banned "backpack mail" by non-school organizations. In addition, the PTA would not authorize us to use the PTA directory addresses to do a mailing. So it's tough to reach people who may not know about the troop. I think contacts with Packs can also be an effective method--my son's troop is trying to improve this element. (We don't have a "feeder" pack.) But personal invitations do work, if the boys can be motivated to do it. And yes, I GET IT that a good program will improve that motivation, but I don't think that alone is enough to get teenage boys to invite others to come--they have to be reminded and urged to do this, and perhaps further incentivized.

Here's a publication with an interesting article about St. Jean. It's amazing that he wasn't fired earlier, because he was actively involved in gay organizations for years. He was a volunteer at the gay and lesbian community center in Dallas while he was working there as a BSA exec, for example. http://www.indynews.4t.com/0217/pdf/0217A.pdf http://www.indynews.4t.com/0217/pdf/0217B.pdf Also, St. Jean was originally placed on administrative leave pending an investigation, and was only fired later. It is stated in the article that he was two years away from retirement, so maybe that really is a distinction with the Smith case. While he could have quit before being fired, perhaps he would have forfeited benefits if he had done that. But you really have to wonder what were the politics behind this case. I mean, this guy was really openly gay--it's hard to believe that nobody at BSA had a clue. Why did they suddenly decide to make an issue of it, based on something as slender as having stayed in a gay hotel? Perhaps the disgruntled employee was threatening to reveal that BSA wasn't doing anything about him, even though they knew he was gay--that would have made their policy toward volunteer leaders look bad. Or maybe St. Jean really was astonishingly discreet. I still don't know if there really was disparate treatment--it may just have been St. Jean's hard luck that his secret hit the fan two years before retirement, while Smith's didn't hit until after retirement age.

The news articles don't make the Smith timeline very clear. This one: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/033005dnmetscouts.187522a17.html clearly implies that BSA knew what the investigation was about before the indictment--they allowed his work computer to be searched in "late February." Somewhere around this time he was put on adminnistrative leave. He also retired in "late February." It seems to me that BSA acted prudently in this case. This guy had been employed for 39 years with no criminal record. He was being investigated, but hadn't even been arrested or indicted. His retirement benefits were probably fully accrued and couldn't be taken away. I have no doubt that he would have been fired if he hadn't retired. Maybe it would have looked better if he had been immediately fired (even if he still got his retirement benefits)--but what if he had turned out to be innocent? As for St. Jean, again I ask if there is any evidence that he was denied any accrued benefits to which he was entitled. Unless one can show that this occurred, there isn't too much different between these cases--both of these guys lost their jobs because of unacceptable behavior outside of Scouting. You might not agree with BSA's view of what's unacceptable, but I just don't see differential treatment.

"Fewer leaders are getting trained, fewer are using that training." I recognize that this could be a reason for the decline, but is there any evidence that it is, other than anecdotal? And if it is true, what should BSA as an organization do about it? It could be that people are refusing and ignoring training because they are lazy and pigheaded, but I still don't think they are any more lazy and pigheaded than they were 30 years ago--not when it comes to activities for their kids. Rather, I see parents much more involved with their kids activities than the parents when I was a kid. Other possibilities would be that the content and/or delivery of the training is ineffective, or that its length or location make it harder for people to get the training, or that the training is out of date.

I'd be curious to know if there are geographic or other demographic differences in membership number changes. For example, it wouldn't surprise me if Scouting membership is growing more in rural and small-city areas, and shrinking in suburban areas. I live in a suburban area, and I have to say that competition, especially from youth sports, is intense.

A few quibbles. First, if you look in the Handbook, it clearly contemplates that the Scoutmaster Conference for a rank takes place after all of the other requirements have been completed. Thus, it seems to me that if at a Scoutmaster Conference, it is determined that one of the other requirements hasn't been done, then another Conference needs to be done after the requirement has been completed. I think this could be made clearer in the requirements themselves, but the Handbook makes it pretty clear. Second, the "active" and "Scout spirit" requirements must be signed off by a leader, just as the requirement to earn a specified number of merit badges. That means that the leader must have some means of determining whether these requirements have been met. I think there are more than two schools of thought about what constitutes "active." One school of thought is that the troop should set specific numerical criteria on "active." Another is that the SM and the scout should agree in advance what constitutes "active" for that boy, and that if he achieves that, he gets the sign-off. A third school of thought is that the SM gets to decide after the fact if the boy has been "active" enough, based on the SM's personal feelings. A fourth school of thought is that the scout gets to decide after the fact if he's been active enough. A final approach would be that if the boy is registered, he's active in the eyes of BSA (it's been claimed that this is the criterion on appeal). Personally, I think that only the first two approaches are sensible and workable, and that the second is probably the best.

I found NeilLup's arguments to be pretty persuasive. I certainly do think boys can and should recruit personally--we urge the boys in my son's troop to do this each year, and it's hard to get them to try it. Most of our recent recruits have come from personal invitations. I guess my main qualm with this requirement is that it's stated as a one-time thing to be checked off. Maybe that's better than not doing it at all.

I've yet to hear anybody who thinks poor program delivery at the unit level is the problem explain why that has resulted in an overall loss of memberhip over a period of years. If you think program delivery, on average, is declining, why? Why should today's program delivery by, on average, worse than program delivery 30 years ago? And what could BSA, on an institutional level, do to improve the situation? (For example, if you think program delivery is declining because of inadequate training, should BSA beef up training requirements, or improve the training?) It's not enough to just say that unit leaders should do a better job--if their performance is declining on average, something would have to be done across the board to improve the performance. What?

So recruitment is off because we stopped asking boys to join. Well, maybe... I think Trevorum has a big part of the answer. We had a BOR for a Life Scout last night, and one of the board members asked him why he thought boys didn't want to wear their uniforms to school. He said that others thought the Scouts were "goody-goody" and that this was uncool. When I asked my son why boys don't join, he said something similar--that it wasn't cool. I think the survey Bob cites is interesting--the activities Scouting does are viewed as cool, but Scouting itself isn't. I guess this is partly inevitable--indeed, I don't think many of us want Scoutng to just be the outdoor activities. I think the answer is probably to improve recruitment of Cub Scouts, where there coolness factor is less important, and to concentrate on retention for older scouts.