Hunt

It seems to me after reading this thread and others that there are different levels of disagreement and dissent, and it often muddies the waters to lump them all together.

1. There are people who are enemies of BSA. Most of these are outside, and so their views are not very persuasive.

2. There are people within BSA who feel strongly that BSA should change its policy in some way. Some of these people may choose to take active steps, either within the organization or by speaking up outside, to try to get that policy changed. If they feel so strongly that they begin to denounce the organization, they can expect to be expelled, if they don't quit first.

3. There are people who disagree with BSA on some policy, but don't feel very strongly about it. If they were asked in a poll what they thought, they'd express their views. If they had the opportunity to elect representatives, they might take it into accout in voting.

4. There are people who aren't sure whether they agree with BSA or not, but are ready to discuss the pros and cons.

I think it's important to note that even for people in category (2), their disagreement is not necessarily a make-or-break point on maintaining their relationship with the organization. If you're in category (3), obviously you're not going to quit over your disagreement--you would perhaps prefer that things be done differently, but it's not central to you.

I think we can all understand how some peripheral issue, say about what the uniform should look like, is something that people can disagree strongly about, but that nobody would either quit or be expelled over. But I think other issues, such as gay leadership, can be similar. That's where I am on that issue, for example--category (3). If I were given a vote, I would probably say that the issue should be "local option." But I don't feel so strongly about it that I would crusade for a rule change. I don't think that makes me a hypocrite--it just means that I'm able to look at the big picture, and judge what is important enough to me to spend my time on. That also doesn't mean I don't like the program--the opposite is true--or that I don't accept the core values of scouting. I just have my doubts about how close to the "core" this particular policy is.

I believe this problem is being caused by Norton Internet Security, because it happens on this computer, but not on another.

I give up. I will simply obey. Anyway, I received an e-mail today from council telling me we can just photocopy the prior registration form, add any missing info (especially Social Security Number), write in "42", initial changes, and send it it.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply, Rooster. Although I don't necessarily agree with all of the points, I can see there a colorable argument for the idea that any religion is better than no religion--the most persuasive point, to me, is the idea that boys (or leaders) with no religious faith might be a negative influence on religious boys. I'm not convinced on the morality point, because my observations show little difference, on average, in the moral behavior of non-religious and (nominally) religious people. I also don't agree that adherents of another religion are more likely to switch to "true" religion than those with no religion--again, my observations suggest that the opposite is true. I confess that I was thinking of you and others who expressed similar views when I started this thread.

Well, BSA's press release suggests they don't kick out people even if they express their views in ways embarassing to BSA, as David Lipson did. I didn't find anything on bsa.org or anywhere else to the contrary. I would expect BSA, however, to expell somebody who denigrated, insulted, or rididuled the organization publicly--but that's a far cry from expressing an opinion that a particular policy should be changed. Has anybody actually been expelled for simply expressing views?

As I've explained what seems like ten times, the prior practice in our district was that a person who wanted to be a merit badge counselor would fill out a form designating what badges he wanted to counsel, and what his qualifications were. If he was already registered for another position, he didn't have to register again. If he wasn't, he had to register. Somehow, the district was able to figure out which counselors were separately registered and which weren't. Bob, there is nothing in your list that suggests why this prior procedure wasn't good enough. The closest I can come is that you seem to be saying that this procedure is needed to make really, really sure that a background check has been done on all counselors. The only reason for that I can think of is what you yourself suggested--not all unit Scouters have received background checks. Is there some sensitivity to bringing up this issue? Because if you just find in annoying, you can always stop reading the thread.

Yeah, what scoutingagain said! If you don't like toleration of dissent, take a hike!

Seriously,I am willing to discuss any issue and take any contrary arguments. What I am tired of, however, is the suggestion by anybody that if I disagree with BSA's policy on anything, I should quit.

One thing that has troubled me in some discussions here is the suggestion that BSA's policies--from mundane ones like uniforming to critical ones like membership requirements--shouldn't be questioned or criticized by mere volunteers. It's often suggested that if somebody doesn't like BSA's policies, they should leave. My view has always been that as an American and as a dues-paying member of BSA, I should be free to hold whatever views I want, to express them, and even to try to convince the organization to change its policies if I think it can be improved--as long as I follow the rules. If BSA wants to impose a rule that none of its members can disagree with its official pronouncements under penalty of expulsion, they can do that--but if they do, they ought to take all the little American flags off the uniforms. But I'm pleased to say that this is not BSA's official position. The following is a quote from a press release on the National Council website:

"Cradle of Liberty Council President David Lipson has expressed disagreement with the BSA's membership policies, as is his right. BSA members are free to hold their own opinions, but we ask that they respect the values of the organization and abide by its policies, which they have agreed to by becoming members." Cradle of Liberty announced that they would comply with BSA's membership policies--even though their President disagrees with some of them. I guess when he weighs those issues against those he agrees with, he makes the conclusion that it's better to stay in the organization than to quit. That's why I won't quit over having to double-register merit badge counselors, or even more significant disagreements or questions I might have. So I would kindly request that other posters follow BSA's lead and respect the right of Scouters to disagree with BSA policy as long as they comply with the rules.

OK, but was there some point in time when BSA announced as an official policy that no unit could discriminate on the basis of race? Or was there a time when such a policy began to be enforced? I suppose it's possible that there was always such a policy, that it wasn't enforced in earlier days, and that it became a non-issue as explicitly discriminatory units disappeard. I am assuming, of course, that such a policy is in place now.

Look, we are talking about people who are ALREADY registered in another position. Furthermore, nobody has refused to do this--I just wanted to know why it needs to be done. It can't be because they need to know who the counselors are, because in our district, anyway, there is a separate form counselors fill out to identify what badges they want to counsel. That puts them on the list. Up until the new directive, only those who weren't otherwise registered had to fill out a BSA registration form.

Bob White now says that some of the unit Scouters have never received background checks. Ok--that suggests this policy is a quiet way of getting more of these folks checked out without a wholesale requirement of new checks. But again, why not just do a background check on everybody who's never had one? Maybe it's because the current registration form gives consent for a check and some of the old ones didn't?

Two questions for you, Bob:

1. Is it true that in 1974 BSA adopted a policy of not allowing units to discriminate on race?

2. Do you think that racial discrimination was ever consistent with the methods and aims of Scouting?

The reason I started this thread was that the issue of what BSA did about race and when gets bandied about in many of these discussions, and I realized that I didn't have an understanding of the facts. I still don't--I found nothing on the internet about this 1974 agreement with NAACP--does anybody have access to actual facts?

Rooster, I'd be interested in your reaction to the questions I was pondering when I started this thread--from your point of view, is it better to believe in a false religion than to believe in no religion? No matter how you slice it, BSA's position suggests that a belief in God--any God (or gods) is better than no belief in God. I understand why a person who thinks various religions are different roads to the same truth might think this--but why would one think this if you believe that your religion is the only true way?

But...but...they already have a registration and background check for all merit badge counselors who are already registered for another position. Don't they? Why do they need another one? To rephrase this, what, if anything, is inadequate about the information that they already have for registered unit Scouters? Is the check they do for merit badge counselors somehow different from the check for other positions? This would be a good explanation. Are the records maintained by different segments of the BSA bureaucracy? This would be an understandable (although less good) explanation. But the mere statement that they need background checks for merit badge counselors is an explanation that makes little sense when applied to people for whom background checks have already been done.

Bob, do you actually know why BSA is requiring multiple registrations? If you do, is it a secret of some kind? If you don't know why they're doing this, it's certainly within your rights to assume they have a good reason for doing it. They probably do. But the semi-explanations I've heard don't make much sense--if they're trying to obtain new background checks for unit Scouters, why not just require background checks for everybody periodically, even if they've had one before?

I think BSA was ahead of the curve, in that it was racially integrated as an overall organization from the beginning, even if many units were segregated. Also, from what I've also read about the LDS situation, BSA helped pressure the church into making a change. But to repeat, to really understand where it was in the curve, you'd have to know whether there was a point that BSA made a specific decision to no longer allow units to discriminate. Bob hasn't exactly denied that this ever happened--but it seems that even if this was "always" policy, at some point BSA began to enforce it. It would be very interesting to know how that happened.

Just this morning at the supermarket I saw a teenage girl wearing an orange Tiger Cubs T-shirt. She had a little boy with her--maybe it was originally her brother's shirt.

Bob, HOW does registering with BSA twice protect the boys more? Is it, or is it not, because background checks may not have been done for the unit Scouters? If background checks have, in fact, already been done for all the unit Scouters, how are the scouts protected more by having the unit Scouters register again a second time? When I ask people to do something inconvenient, even if it is a minor convenience, I would prefer a reason that's a little better filled out than "because BSA says so." And isn't this registration information computerized anyway? How does having an additional registration form enhance recordkeeping? I just don't get it. But yes, we will all dutifully file the forms, even if we don't get any explanations.

Hey, you're all hijacking the thread I started! What I wanted to know (and still want to know) is when and how, historically, did BSA stop allowing COs to discriminate on the basis of race. The story of LDS is interesting--although even there, the troops didn't exclude blacks from membership, just from top leadership. Were there, in fact, scout troops that explicitly excluded blacks from membership, and did BSA condone or allow this? Or was there just de facto discrimination? Did BSA at some point issue a statement that it would not charter units with COs that practiced racial discrimination?

"BSA may not have done a background check on all unit Scouters, so they want all MBCs to register again to ensure a background check is done." I have no problem with that, it it's the reason.

"There is nothing you need to explain."

Since all the counselors are volunteers, when they ask me why they have to do this, I would prefer not to tell them that theirs is not to reason why, theirs is just to obey or take a walk. "Why do we need to do this?" is a simple question that ought to have a simple answer. You seem to be suggesting that the answer is, "BSA may not have done a background check on all unit Scouters, so

So the problem is that some unit Scouters were "grandfathered" and never got a background check at all? That's certainly a good reason to require a background check, but I guess I still don't see why it should be limited to those who are also signed up to be MBCs. Of course, I will comply with the new instructions; I just want to be able to answer the inevitable questions about it.

physical registration forms? How does this improve safety or enhance background checks? Surely a more comprehensive background check is done for a SM or ASM than for a merit badge counselor, or at least the same check is done. Or do they perform a new background check when the new registration form is filed?

Up until this latest message, the way it was done here was that there was a Merit Badge Counselor information form that all counselors had to fill out, but only those that were not registered for another position had to fill out the regular BSA registration form. I'm not really complaining about this, because it's not that big a deal, but isn't all the information entered into a computer database anyway? Why do there need to be multiple phys

rest of message: I couldn't find on-line an official (or even much unofficial) history confirming this. Does anyone have any more detailed knowledge?

In another thread, it was stated that BSA has never discriminated racially, and has not changed its position on race. It was my understanding that in the 1960's, BSA decided that it would no longer allow CO's to discriminate on the basis of race--and in fact that it had a confrontation with LDS over the issue. So although BSA didn't directly discriminate, it allowed CO's to do so--in the same way it still allows units to restrict membership to co-religionists.