KC9DDI

There were some in depth discussions on this back in the spring, which I participated in. After staffing my council's course this past summer, my position is still basically unchanged from what it was last spring: that NYLT is a weakened, less valuable program now that it no longer trains Boy Scout leaders in the patrol method.

At my councils course, we had several lady Venturers, and a few male Venturers join us. There were no problems with their attendance, and it wasn't any problem making some of the logistical adjustments needed to accommodate male and female participants. My gripe is with the watered-down, generic program that does an inadequate job at training both Boy Scouts and Venturers.

Moose - I don't know how your council ran it, but maybe it is just a "terminology malfunction?" Rather than patrols, the new syllabus using the term "team." A "team" looks just like a patrol (but be careful not to confuse it with a Varsity team, which is something else entirely :-), but isn't called a patrol because it can include Venturers in addition to Boy Scouts. So while the patrol method is out the window, the course still divides up the participants into patrol-sized groups, that look and act just like patrols, but aren't actually patrols.

On that note, in our course we didn't whole-heartedly embrace the new terminology (we opted for our top youth leader to continue to be the "Senior Patrol Leader" rather than the "Assistant Course Director of Youth Operations.")

The thing is I'm not allowed to collect the money up front, that's also part of the agreement I sign.

That strikes me as much more concerning than the "risk of loss" part of the agreement - who exactly is preventing you from collecting the money up front, and what is the rationale for doing so?

Beav - Thanks, the second example was helpful.

But I'm still not sure what the big deal is? You're trying to take a term that has a very narrow definition in a specific legal context, and apply it in a general sense.

we take children away from their parents for emotional abuse.

Sure - but sometimes we don't. What you're ignoring is the severity of the individual situation in question. Consider this example: doing 26mph in a 25mph zone is legally speeding. So is doing 55mph in a 25mph school zone. Both the law and common sense dictate that the consequences for the same offense vary based on severity of the infraction, right? Or are we saying that severity doesn't apply to cases of emotional abuse?

Like anything else, there's a grey area when it comes to classifying hazing. It depends heavily on the mindset, intentions and specific actions taken by those involved. I can envision one example of a "snipe hunt" that would clearly be classified as hazing, and another snipe hunt that wouldn't be. The solution isn't at either extreme - neither classifying EVERYTHING that could be construed as hazing as prohibited, nor writing everything off because it doesn't fit some unrelated legalese.

So let's take a fairly typical state's hazing law:

Given that we're talking about ever-expanding definitions, what exactly makes the law you cited a "hazing law"? I don't see the word "hazing" actually used at all within the text you quoted (though perhaps it's contained somewhere else in the legal text, just not in the part you pasted here?)

If we're going to focus on the strict definitions of terms like "hazing," I guess I still don't see the problem. That law doesn't define hazing at all - it just describes certain activities that are illegal. Actually, the definition in my dictionary - "subjection to harassment or ridicule" - seems pretty consistent with how the BSA understands hazing in its documents, and also with how your average Scouter understands the term.

I think debating the merits of specific cases (snipe hunts, singing) is a separate discussion, but so far I don't really see any "ever-expanding definitions" nor hypothetical legal concerns.

BD is right - many high schools ask for twice that number per SEMESTER. 13 hours over ~7 years in Boy Scouts seems like a joke - I guess the good news is that many (most?) scouts will do more than that.

I agree that you don't need a Unit Money Earning Application, as the unit is not earning any money.

As far as service hours go, I would agree that it's at the SM's discretion, but I can't see any obvious reason why this event shouldn't qualify.

Regarding National's legalese, I don't think that setting up and serving food counts as soliciting money, so I wouldn't worry about it.

Absolutely wear uniforms, can't see any reason not to.

Hal - I'm guessing it's in the neighborhood of several tens of thousands of dollars - in other words, if it costs $100,000 per year, that's still only about 0.0025% of the amount of increase in national debt PER DAY. Or 0.000007% of the increase in national debt per year. Or about 3 cents per year, per person in the USA.

Unfortunately it's these kind of irrelevant issues that will continue to district us from fixing the real problems that you mentions - social security, medicare, defense, etc.

Hi Garrison - I'm certainly not saying that all pre-teens are certain of their sexuality at a young age. What I am asking is why it's a very common reaction for adults to immediately assume that a youth who claims to be a homosexual is somehow confused, misguided, misinformed or flat-out wrong?

The way I see it, there's two basic possibilities - either 1) the youth is confused/misguided/misunderstanding/etc, or 2) he/she is in fact a homosexual. Why is it so important for us to assume the first possibility, instead of the second. I worry that what the youth will hear you say, should you assume the first possibility, is that he/she is somehow being dishonest, or is incapable of understanding something that you have zero first hand knowledge of - his/her own thoughts and feelings. That seems like quite the accusation to make of a youth without good reason.

And, why don't we automatically assume that a youth who claims to be straight is somehow confused or incorrect? Would you ask a Scout who told you that he was straight how he knows that?

And why do we as Scouters feel that it is necessary or appropriate to have these conversations?

Basement's line of questioning certainly is valid - but I'd like to think mine is as well - just trying to maybe get people to think about what might be some subconscious prejudices, or else be shown how I'm completely missing the point :-)

And, Garrison, can I also ask how you know of what my understanding of my sexuality was at age 11? :-)

I'm noticing that there still seems to be a measurable amount of underlying prejudice in many people's opinions here (not like that should be surprising in the context of the BSA, but none the less...) Some replies here sound like the way you would talk to a youth who thinks he may have a terminal illness, rather than one who has identified his sexual orientation.

Then I'd get a clear understanding of what he understands gay to mean, and also be sure that he really thinks he is.

I guess I'm wondering why you feel you need to know his understanding of what "gay" means, and why you have to be sure of what he says he is.

Not so much as being confused in what they think, but being confused in what they understand about what they feel.

This always seems to be people's first reaction to this type of issue when working with youth. I wonder why our first reaction is to assume that the kid is confused, or just plain "wrong." I'm not sure if any such research has been done, but I'd be interested to see whether there's any correlation between what a person "believes" there sexuality to be as a teenager, versus what they "believe" it to be at an older age.

Would you have these same feelings and precautions if the kid told you (for whatever reason) that he was straight? Maybe you say you would - but is that because you truly feel that it's necessary, or because you're trying to handle gay/straight discussions equally?

(Scoutfish - I realize I quoted you twice - not trying to single you out, especially since I think your post was particularly thoughtful and well-written - you just happened to say a couple things more clearly than others.)

And it seems like every discussion on this topic eventually leads to a mention of the risk of suicide - as if being gay is some how linked to an increased risk of mental illness?

And at least one poster mentioned being glad (surprised?) to see the generally compassionate attitude on the issue - as if a true Scouter ever has an option of being anything other than friendly, courteous and kind?

Just something to think about - maybe simple bullying is not the sole contributor to the anxiety and depression that some teens experience as they identify their sexual orientation. Maybe another contributing factor is the underlying prejudice of adult role models, which they (maybe subconsciously) try to hide with over-exaggerated compassion, special treatment, and an attitude that the youth is somehow "wrong" about how he or she feels.

Basement, I'm not sure I understand the phase in the process that you're asking about?

If we're talking about an initial response to a Scout announcing that he's bisexual - no, I don't think the SE needs to be involved. The bullying, etc, is something that should be handled, but should be easily handled at the local level (by the troop leadership or summer camp directors, for example).

But, if we're talking about the situation described in this thread (again, with the understanding that we may not be getting the whole story, etc etc...) - then yes, it looks like a call to the SE is in order, simply because there doesn't seem to be any other recourse. The course of events is clearly inappropriate - calling a Scout before a panel of 5 adult leaders to be interrogated regarding his sexuality, without notifying the Scout's parents in advance, and refusing to discuss the matter with the Scout's parents after the fact. At the very least, this is a violation of Youth Protection - at worst, it could be illegal, and psychological stressor for the youth. And, given that the key players in the unit - SM, CC, COR, and IH - don't seem to be in a position to take any corrective action themselves, then it seems like the only solution is to bring the matter up with the SE.

Again, EVEN if we suspect or stipulate that the Scout may have engaged in inappropriate behavior beyond just "thoughtcrime," or that the Scout's sexual orientation "calls his morality into question" -- the actions taken by the troop leadership were completely inappropriate.

Did anyone even think that maybe, just maybe the Scout did not want mom and dad there?

That's irrelevant to the fact that the parents should have been informed of the leaderships intentions to have this interrogation ahead of time. Even that's irrelevant, as the interrogation never should have taken place.

I agree that we're probably not seeing the whole story. But as unreliable as a one-sided account of events may be (not saying that 5YS is not credible, but just allowing for the possibility that there are events unknown both to him/her and to us), I'd say that imaginary hypotheticals that are inconsistent with the description of events are even less credible. And I still haven't heard a single imaginary explanation that could justify the behavior shown by the troop's adult leadership.

Scoutmom - You keep talking about this young man's failure to take responsibility. But I'm still not seeing what exactly he needs to take responsibility for? In fact, I can't even see any clear area where this young man did not "do the right thing."

By making a statement that he was bisexual called is morality into question.

How so? You say that if he lied about it, then he is being dishonest, etc etc. So now is he guilty until proven innocent? Or are you saying that if he is, in fact, bisexual, that his morality is being called into question?

I did see where someone said I was questioning the "victim". I feel we live in a society that teaches us to be victims.

That may be the case. But that doesn't mean that true victims should not be treated as such.

Before, ever joining scouts we looked at policys to see if it would expose our children to things we did not want them exposed too.

You'd be OK with one of your children being called into a meeting with his troop leadership and having his sexuality questioned? Without you being present, or even being informed ahead of time?

Sexual misconduct being one of them

Again, when did the sexual misconduct occur? If we assume that sexual misconduct did not occur, there was no need for any meeting between the Scout and the troop leadership. If sexual misconduct had occurred, then the troop leadership still did not take the appropriate steps to resolve that situation.

Like you, I'm sure that there's parts of this story that we're not hearing. But I'm having a hard time coming up with any imaginable situation that would justify that course of action that the leadership in this troop seems to have taken.

(This message has been edited by KC9DDI)

Crew21 - If I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying that the adult leaders actions may have been at least partially justified based on the belief that they were protecting the other youth in the troop from predatory behavior.

Fair enough, but two points for your consideration:

1) There's no evidence that there was any predatory behavior. Yes, I know that there's always more to the story than what makes it to the forums - but, in the event that, in reality, there was no inappropriate behavior on the part of this Scout, then the actions taken by the adults were clearly inappropriate. It's like persecuting the kid for "thoughtcrime."

2) Even if there was some kind of inappropriate, dangerous or predatory behavior going on, the adult's response was still inappropriate. You bring up the G2SS and Youth Protection policies. Can I ask you to recall what you learned in Youth Protection Training regarding how to respond to allegations or suspicions of abuse or other inappropriate behavior. The correct actions are ensure that an immediate threat of harm has passed, and then to notify the proper authorities of the situation. In fact, I believe that the BSA specifically directs its leaders NOT to conduct its own investigation into the matter. So even if there is something more to this story than what we're seeing on the forum here, it still seems like the leaders' actions were inappropriate!

Hi ScoutMom - I see what you're saying, but I got to disagree with you:

you could not hear what was being said by anyone in the room and you are only going on what you were told as to what happened??

Weren't the adult leaders only going on what they were told happened, rather than what they observed first hand? Or, if a youth tells you that he has been the victim of sexual abuse, do you chose not to believe him because you didn't see the abuse occur first hand?

scouting does NOT condone homosexuality and does not want that promoted..

At what point was homosexuality condoned?

The boys choosing to talk about sexuality at all...That should have been stopped!

I think it would be very difficult to stop a group of teenage boys from having those conversations, but I guess I can see why you might say they shouldn't take place in a Scouting context.

The rumor should be dealt with and the boy confronted

So it's inappropriate for him to discuss sexuality with his peers in Scouting, but necessary for him to discuss his sexuality with adults on the basis of rumor?

When does he take responsiblity for his choices? Note, I am NOT judging his sexuality, only telling him to take responsibility and be honest about it.

I think you are judging his sexuality. What responsibility does he have to his troop leadership regarding sexuality?

It just sounds like you don't have a very consistent position?

how can an adult investigate a minor's sexuality?

Why do you feel its necessary to do so?

The Scout was told he could not be SPL or ASPL until his name is cleared.

Cleared of what, exactly?

If the SM has any reports that the scout did something inappropriate to another scout, that should already be reported to CPS.

True, inappropriate and illegal behavior is a legitimate concern. Is there any indication that there has been any inappropriate behavior, or is your leadership just out on a witch hunt?

Sounds like your troop's adult leadership overstepped their boundaries by an extreme amount. I'm not sure what your CO's opinion of the matter would be, but I'd definitely advise your COR and IH as to what some of your adult leaders are up to.

Maybe there's more to the story here, but based only on what's been written it sounds like the situation has been handled extremely inappropriately by the troop.

I guess I don't understand what more there is to this than what the boy wants to do?

Explain the unique program and expectations of both the troop and the crew, and let him decide between the troop, the crew, or both.

Scoutfish - I think you're right - I just didn't want the takeaway message here to be that the difference in gatorade vs. coke was the deciding factor in the guy's health. (In fact, take a look at the ingredient list and nutrition info on a bottle of gatorade and a bottle of coke - look pretty similar, don't they?)

With Advancement being a method of Scouting, why the hostility towards incorporating advancement opportunities at Scout camps?

I'm going to have to disagree with Calico's main point. I would not at all be in favor of placing artificial limits on which MBs a camp could/should offer. I'd say that a camp should offer as many MBs as they have qualified instructors for. I'd say it's up to each individual Scout, with guidance from his troop leadership, to determine the best way to spend his time at summer camp.

A couple personal anecdotes from when I was a Scout at summer camp:

One year I had signed up for both Pioneering (probably on your "approved" list for Summer Camp) and Law (probably not on your approved list). The Law MB was awesome - there was a lawyer on camp staff who was the instructor, and there were only 3 of us in the class. The class didn't really meet at a set time - I think we had a couple 1/2 hour meetings whenever everyone was free. We also spent a morning on a field trip to the county courthouse, and got to spend some time speaking with the judges and prosecutor for the county. I thought I really learned a lot, and had an enjoyable time working on the badge. Pioneering, on the other hand, was less impressive. I don't think we actually did any lashing the whole week, but I still got the MB. So - by your standards - I would have been forced into taking Pioneering, and not Law, and had a poorer quality experience.

Of course, anecdotes aren't the same as evidence, and I'm sure there's plenty of examples of "classroom classes" being of poor quality compared to the traditional outdoors classes. So I guess the point is that I'd focus more on the quality of the program being offered, rather than on whether the MB fits into whatever category that you think should be permitted at Summer Camp. If a Scout is going to get more benefit from taking a high-quality Emergency Prep class from an awesome counselor than he would from taking a mediocre Swimming class from an apathetic CIT, shouldn't he do what's going to be of greater value to him?

Honestly, I think that any MB can be easily done outside of summer camp. Swimming can be done in any pool or lake, shooting sports can be done at a weekend camp out with an approved range, Nature badges can be done in any forest preserve or park on the weekends, and the other outdoor badges can be worked on at any weekend camping trip. What summer camps can sometimes do is attract better counselors and other resources than what might be available to a single troop or a single Scout.

Let the camps continue to offer whatever they want - but encourage your Scouts to think about what the best way to make use of their time at camp will be. For some, that might be the Emergency Prep or Journalism MBs, for others, it might be no MBs at all. But that's not the camp's decision to make, it's the Scouts.

Before everyone jumps on the electrolyte bandwagon, let's go back to the basics for a second. Let's say that you are presented with the case jblake originally described - an otherwise healthy young man who had spent several hours performing vigorous activity in 100+ degree heat wearing a heavy wool uniform, who passed out, and stopped sweating with pale, dry skin. What's the first thing we need to worry about - heat illness, or blood chemistry? What would we do to prevent something like this from happening in the first place - adjusting activities and attire to match the weather conditions, or try to "balance electrolytes?"

Yes, hyponatremia happens, and different people can be more or less susceptible. But it's also very easy to treat - having a bottle of gatorade once in a while, eating healthy meals, or having a handful or trail mix on a break will generally be adequate to keep your electrolytes in check.

Sure, in this particular case, with the very intense heat, and the large volume of water consumed, there may have been some hyponatremia going on - but it certainly sounds like the heat stroke was the more immediate, serious issue that needed to be promptly treated.

I think you're hearing hoofbeats and thinking zebras. Nothing wrong with being aware of electrolyte imbalances and trying to treat and prevent hyponatremia - but don't do so at the expense of the much more obvious, likely and deadly conditions of heat illnesses.

There's another similar thread going on about water vs. sports drinks in the Summer Camp forum. I think CalicoPen is right about that one can of Coke not making a huge impact as long as he was staying well hydrated with plain water as well (not sure where your medical staff came up with their theory...) I wouldn't be so quick to jump to the diluted electrolyte theory, as that can of Coke contained electrolytes as well, and presumably the meals he ate for breakfast and lunch contained enough electrolytes to offset even the 3 gallons of water.

What it really sounds like is a moderate case of heat-related illness (probably heat stroke) that may not have been connected to hydration status at all. Remember, dehydration and heat illness are not the same thing, and you could easily have one without the other. It really sounds like he was properly hydrated - but there's only so much good that sweating can do for you when all your skin in wrapped in a wool military uniform.

Sounds like a good opportunity for your Scouts to review first aid for both dehydration and heat illnesses, and also a good time for your youth and adult leadership to think about safe activities and safe attire for those really hot days. I think Papadaddy is on to something...

To put it in a little perspective, there was a firefighter in the area I used to work that competed in a intense sporting competition on a day with temperatures similar to your situation. He wore his turnout gear the whole time (probably similar to your wool military uniforms) and ended up doing severe damage to his kidneys that required him to be on dialysis for several weeks. Of course, even with the lingering kidney damage, he's lucky to have survived at all.(This message has been edited by KC9DDI)

Nice try, KC9, but of course you can't legally discriminate on job assignments either.

That's not what I said. In the specific case that you're describing regarding women's only swimming times, aren't religious groups renting and staffing the pool with their own staff? They own staff would voluntarily agree to adhere to stricter guidelines than what equal opportunity employment provide? Kind of like why females can't be Catholic priests?

Just as an example of the consequences of non discrimination, I used to work for a utility company. Women wanted to become eligible to be trained to do repair work on furnaces and things in people's homes, but weren't so hot on the idea of working nights and going into the homes of strangers alone at night to do inspections and repairs. But that was one of the consequences of accepting the job.

So what, exactly, are the consequences? If the women were being denied the opportunity to be repairmen based only on the fact that they are women, then that's discrimination. If women are given the opportunity, but some women decide not to take the job based on the job description, then that's just a case of a woman being able to make the same choice about the same job as a man?

What exactly is your point in all of this?

Eliminating sex discrimination in employment sounds fine, but then you wouldn't be able to exclude male lifeguards and staff from these women only swims.

Are the male life guards being denied jobs at the pool, or just being assigned to different tasks as appropriate? Unless their being denied employment, its not employment discrimination.

And if you are against sex discrimination, how do you justify women only swims anyway?

The same way I'd justify women's-only restrooms, for example.

I've never heard of the AHA recommending anything but water for dehydration - I'd be interested to read their latest recommendation if you could point it out to me. (BTW, dehydration and heat illnesses are two different things - they may occur simultaneously, you could easily have one without the other.)

A known concern with drinking only water when exercising and/or managing dehydration is that the water may prematurely "turn off" our internal thirst trigger. Meaning that you may no longer feel thirsty, but are still not properly hydrated. That's why it's important to get into a habit of monitoring your own fluid intake, and ensure that you're drinking enough in terms of volume, regardless of whether or not you feel thirsty. It may seem silly, but asking your scouts to drink a certain amount at each meal, or at each program area, or just every couple hours, is a good way for them to start to develop that habit. (Also the color of one's urine is generally a pretty good indicator of hydration status)

Theoretically, sports drinks may not suppress the thirst sensation like plain water does, and also the pleasant taste may encourage more fluid intake. There are a couple "gotcha's" with sports drinks though - one is that the sugar content needs to be taken into account. Basically, drinking a bottle of gatorade will give you less fluid than the same sized bottle of water. Another problem with the sugar content has to do with where the fluid actually goes after you drink it. Remember learning about osmosis and diffusion in chemistry class? The same thing is going on with the water in your blood vessels, and the sugar content of a sports drink can basically "pull" that water into the wrong place. So even though you may technically have enough water in your body, its not in the right physical place to do you any good.

As far as electrolytes are concerned, yes you will loose some by sweating, and yes sports drinks will replenish them. But the reality is you really loose a small amount just by sweating. The typical camp diet probably contains more than enough sodium to make up for this. Drinking plain water and nibbling at some crackers or dry, low-sugar cereal in cases of dehydration will be plenty effective at re-balancing your electrolytes. Anything more serious probably needs to be treated by the camp medical staff or a physician, not by gatorade :-)

So sports drinks aren't the worst thing in the world, but I'd really look at them like juice or soda - OK every once in a while at camp, but you need to stay hydrated with plain old water as your first line defense. Certainly not something you "need" to have at camp, but if you do chose to bring them along, please be sure you have a good understanding of what they're good for, and what they're not.

I'd still be interested in seeing some proof of causation with regard to the Canadian scouts and increased inclusiveness, rather than just correlation.

I would agree that there would probably be a net loss of members should the BSA change their policy. I think its easier to leave something than to go and become a part of something. It doesn't take much effort to walk away from the organization, but there's no saying that all of those people who shy away from the BSA due to their policy of discrimination will suddenly step up and join should the policy change. Not so sure about a net loss of CO's - I'm sure some will drop their units, but I bet that the pool of organizations willing to become COs will have a net increase. I also imagine that the group of businesses and community organizations willing to donate money, resources, etc to BSA groups will see a net increase in number.

What depresses me most about all of this is that the decision will ultimately be based on money, rather than any of the "timeless values" that we're supposed to be trying to instill. It basically just seems to be a comparison between the financial worth of expected membership loss and loss of a set of donors versus the financial worth of an increased pool of potential COs and organizations willing to donate money and resources. It looks like the policy will be determined by that comparison, and little else.

My guess is that should the policy change, then the youth at the unit level who chose to stay in the program (or whose parents permit them to stay in the program), will see an overall benefit - more community organizations willing to serve as COs, and more willing to donate money, equipment, meeting spaces and other resources to individual units. But I agree that council and national-level business aspects of the organization will take a hit, and that is what will prevent the policy from changing, for the time being.

Allowing each CO to set its own guidelines seems like the closest thing to a win-win that we'll ever see in this dispute, but unfortunately it looks like that's not something that's on the immediate horizon.