KC9DDI

Seattle - The rules are objectively pretty clear - that all aspects of the Scouting program are open to parents. That does not mean that the OA, for example, could not explain to a parent why they would prefer that parents not attend a specific ceremony. The rules do say that if a parents still demands to observe the ceremony, he or she must not be prohibited from doing so.

A good point was made about the motivations of parents who ask to attend OA ceremonies. Some may mistakenly believe that they are akin to COH or other recognition ceremonies. A polite conversation explaining the what, why and how of the ceremony is probably enough to make most of these parents agree that they need not attend the ceremony. Of course, the minority of parents who have other reasons for wanting to observe the ceremony must not be denied entry. There's clearly nothing wrong with making a good faith effort to explain the rationale of a situation to sway someone's opinion. It becomes a huge problem though if you try to prohibit a parent from having access to their child, as the rules and the law make pretty clear.

The rules are also pretty clear about the obligation the OA, and other program areas, have in these kinds of situations: to allow the observation of the program. I think that a ceremonies team would be well within their rights to prohibit talking/cell phone use/photography/video/etc at the ceremonies. Or to ask the parent to stand/sit in an area where they may not be visible to the Scouts. The rules also do not make provisions for anyone other than parents or leaders.

Beav - How many places does it need to appear? And why that number? How many of the examples of justifications for the other restrictions were around before those policies was challenged through the legal system?

but then I can't even figure out the bit about children as Scoutmasters

Its essentially a yes or no question - is there any legal reason to require that the role of Scoutmaster be filled by a legal adult?

Otherwise the responsibilities require a legal adult

So, "yes." But why is that? Which of the SM's numerous responsibilities require that the position be held by a legal adult? Strictly speaking, do these responsibilities need to be carried out by the SM, or would a 18 year old ASM or committee member suffice?

Folks who hold prejudices always come up with reasons in their own mind why da way they see other people is the way it must be for everybody else. Neither argument nor example can sway them.

Sounds like a bit of self-fulfilling prophecy, eh? If we're playing fast and loose with the definition of prejudice, we can just use that as an excuse for disregarding the other side's arguments. Its what allows us dismiss the generalizations made by others, while still being justified in making our own, right? You're begging the question - I'm prejudiced because your arguments aren't changing my mind because I'm prejudiced.

And I absolutely can be swayed by arguments - when those arguments are something with more substance than "awww, you're just prejudiced!" And I've tried to point out very clearly and specifically where I see an inconsistency in your argument. I may be handicapped by not having your in-depth knowledge of the legal system, so some of what may be obvious to you is not to me. But I would think that if you have a valid consistent argument, it should be easy to show why, for example, the BSA is justified in placing some general restrictions on adult membership to further its program, despite the significant legal/insurance liability, but cannot restrict based on age. Or why, based on our national charter, the BSA should not yield all responsibilities for vetting leader applicants to the CO. Or why the 16 year old emancipated minor can be the Scoutmaster, but the non-emancipated minor cannot. Or why the SM position needs to be held by a legal adult at all. Saying "Just because" sounds an awful lot like what some have been calling "prejudice" around here....

(And as an aside, the novice license was the entry-level one that did require Morse code. They actually dropped the code requirement a few months after I upgraded to General. I've since forgotten most of it. :-)(This message has been edited by KC9DDI)

Sure, yeh can suggest it. But then yeh have to explain where in da BSA literature that case is made. All of the BSA literature I'm aware of runs in the other direction. But I'm game, eh? Find us one BSA document anywhere that claims that young adult leadership is incompatible with the Mission to instill the values of the Oath and Law.

I'd point to the adult application which states, among other restrictions, that a Scoutmaster must be age 21 or older.

People in businesses get promoted all the time, and find themselves supervising former coworkers.

While working among other adults, not among children. A better analogy would be the hypothetical 17 year old high school student who becomes the school principal on his 18th birthday.

If we are involved in the actual selection of unit leaders, then we become vicariously responsible for everything that happens in a unit, eh?

But that's what the BSA is doing now, no?. The practice right now is that the BSA can and does accept or reject applications for adult leaders based on age, sexual orientation, and whatever other factors it choses to. So it is playing a part in selecting or rejecting candidates based on its view of what constitutes a quality leader. If its solely up to the CO, why do we even have an adult application that can be rejected by the BSA? Why not just have the COs report on the contact information of the leaders it selected to the local council, without giving anyone in the BSA organization the opportunity to reject its chosen leaders? Or are you saying that the BSA is currently putting itself into substantial legal and/or insurance liability based on these adult leader restrictions which have been in place for decades? And since we're now back to the insurance question, is there any more data to suggest or refute that this restriction is a requirement being passed on from the BSA's insurance carrier?

I've asked you a direct question regarding the legal requirements associated with being a Scoutmaster a couple times now. Maybe your ignoring these questions is an answer unto itself? Here's my theory: looking at this from a strictly legal issue, there is no inherent reason that a Scoutmaster needs to be a legal adult. A scoutmaster has no duties or responsibilities that cannot be performed by a qualified minor. So there's no real reason to require the an SM be a legal adult, right? As long as he is qualified to do the job, and he has the approval of his unit's CO, he should be golden, regardless of whether or not he is a legal adult, right? The BSA rejecting his application because he is not a legal adult would be akin to rejecting it based on an age guidelines, since neither issue affects his ability to do the job, right? You could even point out examples of minors taking on significant responsibility outside of Scouting - babysitting, driving, serving as a firefighter or EMT for some departments, etc.

Thus, Beavah, why would you only support a 16 year old as an SM if he is an emancipated minor? The only thing that differentiates an emancipated 16 year old from a regular 16 year old is a legal status that permits the one to enter into some contracts and be free from the custody of his parents. Issues which have no bearing on his suitability for the SM position. Even if we do look at this through the eyes of the law, the eyes of the law would be neutral, because no law is being broken, right?

So, my question is, how would your decision to consider an emancipated 16 year old for an SM position, while not considering a non-emancipated 16 year old, not be based on prejudice?

E61, clearly the BSA cannot ask you to break the law, nor should you break the law based on a belief that the BSA "requires" you to.

Is the source of your concern over the phrase "the report shall be made to a peace officer only"? I personally don't have the legal background to tell whether it is phrased that way to indicate that CPS is just not the appropriate agency to handle that type of report, or that legally that type of report should be reported only to law enforcement. I'm leaning towards the first interprettation (I doubt you'd be breaking the law for notifying CPS rather than law enforcement in good faith).

I've said before that in the case of suspected actual abuse, my course of action would be to involve law enforcement or the appropriate authorities prior to notifying the SE. The authorities can immediately begin to take the appropriate investigative and interventional steps to remove the child from harms way. The SE doesn't do any of that - he wants to be notified for other reasons. So, I guess if I were in Arizona and concerned about that particular law, I'd mention the Scouting angle to the authorities that I've notified, and ask them to advise me on if/when/how the SE should be notified.

Again, not all "YP issues" are "child abuse issues." There is some overlap, but all of the cases where you truly believe that a child may have been harmed need to ultimately be handled by more appropriate authorities than your council's CEO.(This message has been edited by KC9DDI)

As far as the adult association argument goes, I suggested that the BSA may feel that its best if some adult leaders are 21 or older. As I've said several times before, those between 18 and 21 provide valuable service in certain adult leadership positions.

Beav - So if I'm understanding you correctly, the BSA may legally discriminate based on certain traits because they feel that these traits are not consistent with the Scout Oath and Scout Law. And its not really a discussion of "can" vs. "should" - for the purposes of this discussion we can agree that the BSA is justified in discriminating in this way, correct? So, can I suggest that its decision to discriminate to some extent of the basis of age is a result of it feeling that leaders of certain ages in certain positions is incompatible with the Aims and Methods of the Boy Scout program?

Again, I feel that objective arguments as to why the SM position is best filled by an adult over 21 have already been discussed previously in this thread. But I guess to recap:

I think one critical area to look it is how the Scoutmaster must work with the oldest Scouts in the troop - Scouts who may be only weeks to months younger than the Scoutmaster. Scouts who may be in the same high school classes as the Scoutmaster. This presents a variety of potential issues: how would you feel about a Scoutmaster having access to medical and other personal information about his peers (as would be common for overnight and long-term camping activities). How about a Scoutmaster who needs to be involved in a request for campership money made by the parents of one of his peers? Or a Scoutmaster who needs to step in and intervene in a youth protection-related concern regarding one of his high school classmates? Or just a generic disciplinary issue? I'm not saying that it can't be done, or that there's not a single 18 year old in Scouting that couldn't handle any of this, but is it really fair to either the young SM or his 17 year old peers to put them in these kind of positions? This is how its different from a school teacher type position - in a classroom there is a clear separation between teacher and student. I think that a responsible 18 or 19 year old teacher would try to limit his or her social interaction with his or her students outside the classroom as well. In Scouting, while you could argue that there is a clear separation between Scout and Scoutmaster, the difference is that the Scouts and Scoutmaster would often be forced to have social interactions outside of Scouting, and those interactions have a huge potential for carrying over into the Scout troop, and negatively impacting its operation.

I think we also need to consider the "sub conscious" expectations we have of the SM's role. I worry that often young adults in leadership positions are seen more as "older brothers", and less as mentoring adults. I feel that there is ample room for both types of adult roles in a Boy Scout troop - but I feel that the SM needs to be seen as something more than an "older brother." The SM needs to be somewhat of a "the buck stops here" figure in his troop when it comes to working with the youth membership. While its true that from an administrative side, the SM can rely on the committee, his UC, and the district/council structure for backup and support on certain issues, I feel that when it comes to working directly with the youth, he needs to be the "top dog." I don't feel that he would be serving either the youth or the parents in the unit well by having to rely on another older, more experienced leader for validation or for backup. You may argue that this is due to prejudice on the part of others in the unit, and that may be true, but that's still something that needs to be taken into account.

And, to reinforce what others have said, putting a young adult in this position will certainly lead to parents keeping their children from attending certain activities, or provoke them to leave the program all together. The generalizations upon which they base these decisions may or may not be valid, but, again, its something that will happen, and needs to be accounted for. And I've always thought that Scouting had more of an incentive to make itself available and accessible to youth members, rather than adult members.

Why should this decision not be all in the hands of the CO? Well, the BSA already places some requirements on the leadership selection process, in terms of character traits, as well as required training. I still don't understand how age is any different - be it justified by the Oath and Law, by copyright law, by the Aims and Methods or by recognising that the program the BSA wants in best delivered within a certain context. Also, CO's as a whole do not have a great track record for selecting quality leadership, as the decade worth of archived threads on this forum can attest to. I feel that by relying on some generalizations made in good faith based on age, the BSA can, as a national program, at least limit some types of potential problems and conflicts that will occur in the context of delivering a program to a wide age range of youth.

And yes, I know that there are 18-20 year olds perfectly capable of handling these issues in a responsible way. I would argue, though, that those people are a small minority, and that it may not really be fair to ask those people to take on some of these responsibilities in light of their other social interactions and obligations.

Beav - can I again ask you whether there is any strictly legal reason for requiring the SM to be a legal adult? I am personally not aware of any.

MIB and Moose - Speaking only for myself, I can see no reason to not allow 18-20 year olds to fill the CC and committee member positions. You've made very convincing arguments for that area.(This message has been edited by KC9DDI)

Beav - What you're saying is that in wider society there are examples of where age restrictions are not applied, and thus should not be applied to Scoutmasters. I've pointed out examples in society where age restrictions do apply. You either need to show that my counter examples are not relevant, or we need to agree that this argument is not valid. If you chose the latter option, arguments for imposing an age restriction have been presented already throughout this thread.

I have been trying to avoid the gay/atheist issue, as that's just opening a whole other can of worms. But since you brought it up... You say the BSA has in interest in the faith and sexual orientation of its adult leaders, and thus may make some guidelines on BSA membership that cannot be overruled by the CO. Now clearly, a gay person could safely take a bunch of kids camping, as could an atheist. But the BSA doesn't allow that. This may not be the "official explanation," but I think its safe to say that the BSA does not feel that in the context of its "adult association" method, that youth are best served by associating with certain adults. Is it possible that the BSA also feels that quality "adult association" needs to occur by having some adults around who are of at least a certain age? If not, could you please explain again how the age requirement is inherently different from the sexual orientation and religious requirements? (And I should note that I'm not saying that I either agree or disagree with the sexual orientation and religious requirements, but I'm willing to operate under these assumptions for the purpose of this discussion.)

And, can I ask you again to draw on your legal background and take at stab at whether or not there's any strictly legal reason to require that the role of the Scoutmaster be filled by a legal adult? That is, would a BSA unit, or anyone in that unit, be in violation of any law should the person in the SM role be a minor (and not the emancipated kind, just a regular minor). Assume that there are an adequate number of adults aged 18 or greater around as well.

TwoCubDad makes a very good point as well, and is something that I tried to start to allude to several pages ago. I think this highlights the issue that the "problem", if there is one, may not be with the young adult in the SM role, but with others in the unit. This problem may be based on inaccurate generalizations or even on actual prejudice, but that is a problem that still must be allowed for and acknowledged.

How do you respond to age requirements for school teachers based on grade level? On restaurants giving senior discounts? The age of candidacy in the United States? On auto and health insurers treating people differently based on age?

I don't. None of those things are relevant to da question at hand.

...

Yah, so you keep saying. More to being a Scoutmaster than being a teacher, or firefighter, or pilot, or social worker, or a nurse, or a parent, or even a scoutmaster in any other country. Who'd have thought?

So tell us clearly. What is it about being a Scoutmaster in da U.S. that is so all-fired challenging and unique? What makes it so vastly different from all of da other things society allows young adults under age 21 to do?

Well, Beavah, you can't have it both ways. Either the way the rest of society does things should affect the way we set qualifications for SM, or it should not. Let me ask you the same question - what is it about the SM position that it should not have an age requirement? How is it so vastly different from these other things which society puts age restrictions on?

moose - No swatting, I promise. I wouldn't even swat at Beavah. This is just a good discussion which strong arguments on both sides. Nothing wrong with that. This whole situation could be improved with a campfire on a warm clear night, maybe with some dutch oven cobbler.

MIB - The reason that I and others ask about how to address those under 18 is because the arguments made by those who say age restrictions are based only on prejudice need to be able to explain how they would apply their argument to people of all ages. I had previously asked if, from only a legal standpoint, there was any reason why an SM could not be younger than 18, provided a legal adult was kept around to sign the paperwork. Assuming that there is no legal reason, I would think people arguing along yours and Beavah's trains of thought would need to explain why we should not allow 16 or 17 year olds to be SMs, as long as they are otherwise qualified. A good argument must be logically sound. Of course it won't change anything, but this discussion almost certainly won't change the 21 age requirement either.

And I'm quite surprised to learn of the relative number of Scouters who leave Scouting due to not be able to be an SM before 21. I've personally never heard a single person who has left Scouting before 21 give that as a reason, but I guess you've come across several such people. Could I ask how that number compares to the number of over-21 Scouters who leave Scouting due to their not being an SM position available in their area, or not being selected for an SM position?

And how does an ASM have no responsibility? It sounds like those troops aren't making very good use of their ASMs (prejudiced against ASMs?)(This message has been edited by KC9DDI)(This message has been edited by KC9DDI)

I, for one, am saying is that the rare occasions where a troop will be best served by an SM under 21 do not outweigh the occasions where a troop is best served by an SM older than 21

Yeah, I guess I didn't phrase that very well. I was trying to convey that I don't believe that a baseline guideline should be changed based on the rare occasions where installing an SM younger than age 21 is the best possible option. Though I wouldn't be opposed to the BSA being able to make exceptions to its baseline policy for those rare occasions.

LOL. Now you're really stretching. I suspect you're not really serious about this, eh? ... Advancement and uniforming are things, not people, and there is a difference. ... Scoutmasters are people, and they don't "belong" to anybody

No, Beav, its just an analogy or similarity, much like comparing the SM to an EMT or school teacher. Its not intended to try to show equality between two different concepts, right? Its much less of a stretch if you don't try to bring in all the unrelated copyright and trademark legalese. And we're certainly not talking about anybody owning or belonging to anybody else.

Does the BSA have any interest in making provisions to ensure that its program is delivered with some baseline level of consistency and quality, other than legal protection of its words and ideas? Are there any national requirements that are not based on trademark and copyright? I would say yes. And that one way that the BSA can help to set a baseline standard for its unit-level program is by making some baseline national requirements for the qualifications of the leader responsible for delivering that program at the unit level.

An emancipated minor is an adult in the eyes of the law.

Not quite. An emancipated minor is able to enter into some legal contracts without parental approval, and is legally no longer in the custody of his/her parents. The specifics vary somewhat from state to state, but the emancipated minor typically must still attend school up to the appropriate age, may not be able to marry until reaching a certain age, etc. Not really anything relevant to determining suitability for a given leadership role in the BSA.

I submit that our entire program in Scouting is based on the belief that young people of all ages can exhibit real leadership, and should be allowed and encouraged to do so.

Absolutely. But there's more to the SM position than exhibiting leadership. Young adults are welcomed and encouraged to take on other leadership positions until they develop some additional experience and objective age difference, at which point they will be better qualified to hold an SM position.

And again, Beavah, the question of consistency. How do you respond to age requirements for school teachers based on grade level? On restaurants giving senior discounts? The age of candidacy in the United States? On auto and health insurers treating people differently based on age?

And I guess why should the age of a legal adult be set to 18 at all? Surely there's 17 year olds that have the level of maturity found in a typical 18 year old.

And, looking at this only from the legal perspective, is there any reason that an SM could not be a minor, provided that a legal adult is available to sign whatever paperwork needs signing?

Again we are not just talking about the SM role we are talking about Leader Roles in general anything more than ASM (since that all they allow young leaders to do).

Very true. I think there are some excellent reasons to put a bit of an age buffer between the SM and the oldest youth members of the troop, but I can't think of any good reason to apply the same standards to the committee. I agree with you there.

And the lack of roles leads to young leaders leaving, unfortunately its a fact.

Now this I'm not so sure about. How many young leaders are we talking about? Do we think that if we allow young leaders at a national level to take on the SM position, that we might also see a number members and leaders leave the organization? Pure speculation, but how would those numbers compare?

Venturing is a different program with different goals and methods. It would be expected that it would have different guidelines for quality leaders.

Then yeh are left with da fact that in the rest of the world, Rovers under the age of 21 can be Scoutmasters (and it's odd for an older person to serve in that role).

I'm not sure I can address this question real well, because I only have a working knowledge of the BSA. From what I know of other countries' programs, there a programs for "youth" members up until age 25 or so, and these programs seem to be somewhat more established than our Venturing program is. Again, I don't know very much about how the "chain of command" works in other countries. I can say that Scouting programs in other countries seem to take a different approach than our own, which may not view the Scoutmaster in quite the same way that BSA does. I think its also clear that there are cultural differences between our country and others, so it might be possible to make different generalizations with regard to the average 18 year old's maturity, collection of experiences, etc. I would certainly be interested in any information you have access to, especially figures showing how usual/unusual it is for someone in the 18-21 age bracket to hold a role roughly equivalent to the BSA's Scoutmaster.

I don't think it's kosher to make age-based distinctions between adults.

That's not entirely consistent with what your position thus far has been (allowing a 16 year old emancipated minor to be a Scoutmaster, for instance). But we do make age-based distinctions among adults. Senior discounts, auto and health insurance policies for young adults, etc. And what teacher/scout said about not being able to teach a certain age group until a certain age. Maybe all of these policies arise from prejudice. Maybe others arise from studies, statistics, and generalizations made in good faith.

And I just don't see how allowing an under-21 Scoutmaster when that's the best choice for a unit prevents selecting an over-21 Scoutmaster when that's the best choice.

Me neither. Never suggested otherwise.

So why is it necessary to take the choice away from the competent adults who are in charge of and responsible for the individual unit? Because that's all a national policy does, eh? It takes discretion away from the local people who know the kids, the families, the candidates, the parents, and the chartered organization the best.

We finally seem to be at the heart of the issue. Consider this: every adult application has to be approved at the district level or higher. The BSA as an organization is already involved in determining who is an acceptable unit leader. Along your same train of thought, why do we not allow each individual unit to set its own rank requirements, or uniforming standards, or positions of responsibility? To tie this back into your direct question, I would say that its because the chartered organization and the BSA have a shared responsibility to deliver the Scouting program. I think the Scoutmaster, being the unit-level person ultimately responsible for that unit's Scouting program, falls more under the general responsibility of the BSA, rather than the CO. And to best deliver the BSA's troop-level program, the Scoutmaster needs to have a couple years on the oldest youth members of the troop.

Oh, come now. Are yeh really trying to claim that da volunteer position of SM is so exceptional that it's something beyond da skills of a teacher, an outdoor guide, someone who trains people in performing objectively dangerous activities (like flying), an EMT, a firefighter, a newspaper reporter, a social worker, and a parent all rolled into one? Because young adults under age 21 can do all of those things, eh?

Exceptional? Not inherently, though I have had the privilege of working with and learning from some exceptional Scoutmasters. What I'm saying is that its very different from all of those other things. Sure there are similarities, but look at some of the differences. For example, many of those roles you mention involve some required education and licensing or credentialing guidelines, which serve to prepare the candidates to some minimal baseline, and also theoretically "weed out" some of the less qualified candidates early.

Scouting doesn't really have that for most positions. I see age requirements as a general way to begin to accomplish that same goal, though. Not a perfect way, but maybe the best way available to the program as a whole.

And to look at the issue more specifically, I think when part of a Scoutmaster's specific job is to work with youths in various capacities, its necessary to have a couple years age difference between the oldest youth member of the troop and the adult ultimately responsible for the troop. I don't know much about psychology, brain development or MRIs, but I'm not sure how much understanding those things would help in this thread. So far it seems that we've learned that all of the traits necessary to be a good Scoutmaster are immutable after age 11, which is counter-intuitive at the very least.

by what rational basis other than prejudice can we say that no one in the country under the age of 21 can be a successful SM?

No one is saying that no one in the country under the age of 21 can be a successful Scoutmaster. What I, for one, am saying is that the rare occasions where a troop will be best served by an SM under 21 do not outweigh the occasions where a troop is best served by an SM older than 21, nor the unique challenges brought about by an SM under 21. Rational, non-prejudiced bases have been opined throughout the previous four pages of discussion.

I guess for me to be able to understand your position, I'd have to know how you would apply it to other situations where age requirements are used as a means of managing a huge affected population. What do we do with the 12 year old who wants to join the Venturing crew? The 13 year old who wants to get a driver's license? The 14 year old who wants to join a Wolf Den? What about teacher/scout's situation, which, if I understand it correctly, will not let her teach a certain age group until she herself reaches a certain age? And we're not talking about rare exceptions or special cases, we're talking about a general baseline guideline to be applied to millions of people.(This message has been edited by KC9DDI)

It doesn't sound like it strictly violates the YP guidelines, but they kind of took the scenic route to get there. I'd wonder what kind of dynamic was going on within the unit and between the unit and this family that led to this particular course of action being taken...

I would hope nobody would argue that these are serious roles that roles that require maturity and responsibility there.

MIB - I don't anyone ever did.

Yah, but then I mentioned that da minimum age to be a school teacher in most states is 18. Surely yeh can't claim that being a school teacher does not involve building a long term mentoring relationship with a group of youth!

Beav - Nope, can't claim that. But there's something else that differentiates teachers from Scoutmasters. Or aircraft instructors from Scoutmasters. Or lifeguards from Scoutmasters. Long-term mentoring is only one example of the multiple duties and responsibilities a Scoutmaster has. Can I ask just how many 18 year olds are teaching seniors in high school full time?

can we really claim that there is any justice in not allowing someone that age to take a group of boys camping?

Nope, an ASM at age 18 can take a group of boys camping. But we ask more of our scoutmasters than just to chaperon boys on a camping trip.

The second is even if the generality is reasonable, justice demands exceptions.

No argument there, but this isn't really what we have been talking about. We've been talking about a generalize rule to apply to the 4+ million people affiliated with the BSA. Whether or not exceptions can or should be made in certain circumstances is an entirely different matter. And, personally, I would agree that exceptions can and should be made in this case.

But, why don't we allow, as a general rule, 13 year olds to drive, 12 year olds to join Venturing crews, 14 year olds to join Wolf Dens...?

As soon as I turn 20 I am eligable to teach at the high school level-if I had the desire to do so.

teacher/scout - Hmmm... sounds similar to how the BSA will allow you to take on certain positions of responsibility at 18, and then wait a few years before becoming qualified to take on other positions. Where's the outrage, and accusations of prejudice?

I'm not sure how bringing in Myers-Brigg is relevant here. I've taken that test a few times, got a different answer each time. But either way you've sold me on the idea that personality is mostly set in stone by age 11 or so. But that still brings us back to asking why we bother trying to teach leadership skills to 14 year old scouts (Doesn't make sense logically. You said leadership is part of personality. Personality is immutable after age 11. So how do we justify teaching leadership skills to Scouts older than 11?) If the experiences you gain after age 11 don't contribute to personality, what do they contribute to?

I reckon it's us old folks and our black-and-white thinking and prejudices, eh?

Beav - the mud-slinging and ad hominems is getting in the way of what otherwise seems to be a very good discussion. Check the dictionary for the definition of prejudice, and decide if that's really what's going on here. I think what's going on is that many good quality arguments are being made for either lowering or doing away with an age requirement for certain adult positions. Other good quality arguments are being made for keeping these requirements. The fact the you happen to find your own arguments more convincing does not mean that your opponents are prejudiced.(This message has been edited by KC9DDI)

The "facts" in this case are seemingly inconsistent. When does our personality become set in stone? 11? 18? 30? 35?

this does include maturity, judgment, experience, responsibility, leadership etc etc

Hmmmm... so if I'm understanding you right, all of these elements are pieces of one's personality, and are mostly immutable after age 11 or so. So I guess we're wasting our time trying to teach leadership skills to 14 year old scouts? And parents of 16 year olds should just throw in the towel if their children haven't developed an acceptable level of maturity or good judgement? And how exactly is experience (ie, something which must be gained over time) a part of personality?

So what exactly is it that does develop and mature over time? What is it that sets a 21 year old apart from a 14 year old? I don't have the background in psychology that you may, so I'll let you tell me what this "thing" is formally called. But it sounds like this is the "thing" that is more developed in a 21 year old versus an 18 year old.

Beav - I know you're pretty smart, and I'm often in agreement with you on many issues, but this ain't one of them. Let's think this through here: Why do we require "special circumstances" to allow a 14 year old to join a Wolf den. Any what special circumstances could permit a 13 year old to hold a driver's license? Again, its not prejudice according to the strict definition of prejudice. It is a generalization, which I'll admit may leave a small number of people treated unfairly.

As far as other 18-21 year olds being qualified for other high-responsibility jobs: I was an EMT at 18, and there certainly is a great deal of responsibility and maturity required to do that job. But it doesn't necessarily translate over to being prepared to serve as an SM. An EMT might deal with high-stress, high-stakes situations, but these are typically with strangers in a one-time encounter lasting less than 60 minutes. Not the same thing as building a long term mentoring relationship with a group of youths. Same idea as why a good quality Scoutmaster isn't necessarily qualified or cut out to be an EMT - there's a multitude of different factors at work. But, I think that when it comes to trying to set guidelines at a national level for a multi-million member program, an age requirement is an acceptable way to set the bar for acceptable candidates.

Basement - But if I understand this right, the family assigned legal guardianship to the other adult for the duration of this campout.

Very sneaky. Never heard of that happening before in a Scouting context.

Moose -

A Scoutmaster has many more responsibilities than just being able to "relate" to youth. In fact I think that there are many times when a good Scoutmaster needs to be able to see things from the perspective of an experienced adult, not from the perspective of a youth.

But no one's saying that young adults don't bring something valuable to the table, that the "older adults" might not. That's why I admire the troops that are able to recruit a diverse group of leaders - from older youth SPLs and JASMs, to young adult ASMs, to "established adult" SMs, ASMs and committee members.

I have seen this time and time again the boys with listen to and respect the younger leaders because they are leaders. And if they have any questions or issues and have any choice in the matter they will try to come to a younger adult leader first. And Ive seen this in multiple troops.

I've seen some examples of this as well. I've also seen boys who feel more comfortable talking with someone with a few more years of experience under their belt. That's why it helps to have youth and adults of all ages in leadership roles. But, what I've seen in all cases is the need for the person whose ultimately responsible to have the experience, maturity and judgement that develops after the age of 18.

This is also true on the adult side when I talk about new crossover leaders/ slash cub leaders turned scout leaders they have no issues with younger leaders and to them young adults are fully fledged adult.

Not entirely sure what you're saying here. I will say that I've seen plenty of adults that are skeptical enough of having a youth led program under adult direction. I'd conclude that there would be plenty of adults critical of a youth led program under slightly-older-than-youth direction.

KC9DDI by the time your 18 you have your personality set in stone and youre just working on fine tuning details. Thats something any guidance councilor, physiatrist, or anybody else will tell you. So by that point unless something drastic happens to them person to change their personality they are gonna have shown that they have leadership skills and responsibility. Can they be improved on maybe but I bet yours can be too.

That's news to me - never had a single guideance counselor, psychiatrist or anybody else ever tell me that. In fact most research seems to suggest that the brain does not finish developing until the early to mid 20s.

But we're not really talking about personality here, are we? We're talking about maturity, judgement, experience, responsibility, leadership, and other traits along those lines. I'm open to the idea that one's potential for these things may be pretty well determined by age 18, but I think there's certainly still an enormous amount of development that needs to occur after the age of 18 (things like college for a sizeable proportion of the population).

If it helps to illustrate my perspective I'll offer that my current age is 23. I aged out of my troop at 18, stayed involved as an ASM for a while. Throughout college I remained a little bit involved as an ASM and a Venturer, and am now getting more involved in Venturing and some council-level affairs. Just anecdotaly, I can say that I am a completely different person now than I was at 18. The experiences of living on your own, increased personal freedom, managing your own finances, working full time, relationships, etc - there's a huge amount of all that that starts after you turn 18. Yes, that's just my experience, but it has a lot in common with the experiences of the age group as a whole. I'd like to think that I was plenty responsible at 18 - for example, I was a licensed EMT at 18, and a paramedic before I turned 20, and have seen and done some relatively "heavy" things. But that's not the same thing as being ready to take on the a "the-buck-stops-here" role of ultimate authority and responsibility for a group of youth.

An SM is a unique position with an enormous amount of responsibility. Because we all are in it for the BOYS, I think that the boys deserve to have someone in that position that's not also struggling with the same things that all "new" adults struggle with around the time they turn 18. Being an SM is not the same thing as being just an older SPL. Having these young adults in an ASM role for a few years gives them an opportunity to continue to support a Scout troop, but doesn't force on them some of the heavier responsibility burden until they've had an opportunity to more fully develop the skillset and maturity to handle it.

That they're offering a collectable luxury item with no practical value as an option for people interested in such things? You certainly don't need to buy one. If it's something you're willing to pay for, go for it. If not, don't. There's plenty of very expensive items in the BSA catalog that I can't justify paying for. That doesn't mean they can't market to people who would be willing to pay for such things.

Beavah - I think we can turn to a dictionary to clear up the definitions of generalization vs. prejudice. But I think you're on to something - correlation is not causation. There is a strong correlation between race and crime rate, but not established causative relationship between the two. That's why law enforcement harassing someone based solely on skin color is considered prejudiced - there's no good reason or thought process that went in to the decision. But, there is a documented causative relationship between certain personal development traits and the number of years you've been on the planet.

Based on what you've said earlier, it seems like you agree with this to some extent. It's clear that we can make generalizations about an individual's maturity and capabilities based on age - we already do it all the time in Scouting, in grouping members into the different program areas. Its also very common outside of Scouting - youth curfews, compulsory schooling, age and height requirements to go on carnival rides, etc. We also seem to agree that a lot of personal development can occur over a few years, regardless of age, be it between 18 and 21 or 47 and 50. Are we in agreement so far?

So I guess the question is whether the difference in age and maturity that is generally experienced between 18 and 21 is significant enough to exclude those younger from 21 from holding an SM position. Obviously my opinion is yes, for the reasons I've already mentioned. It has nothing to do with prejudice, as I think there are many valid instances where age is the best possible way to generally group people based on development and maturity. Sometimes generalizing based on age is not appropriate, but that varies from situation to situation. I think adult leadership positions in a program that's based around direct contact with youth is a situation that justifies generalizing based on age.

I guess I have to wonder as to the extent you're willing to take your position. Do we open the Venturing program to 12 year olds? Do we allow a 14 year old to join a Wolf den in a Cub Scout pack? Do we allow a 17 year old to be an SM, provided there's a couple 18 or 21 year olds along just to keep it legal? Can a 13 year old get a driver's license?

moose - a couple of things. First, thank you for explaining what teacher/scout meant (she's your future daughter-in-law, if I'm following things correctly?) It sounds as though the various organizations she's involved with owe her a debt of gratitude for her level of commitment and organization.

But, I have to take some issue with some of your argument. I think that you're talking about the development of responsibility and leadership. In my opinion, while we would certainly expect a SM to continue to develop these traits as an adult, it's not wrong to expect that an SM already have these traits developed to some minimum baseline. I happen to think that an age requirement is a starting point to address that.

In your situation you've encountered some young adults that are more than qualified to take on the leadership positions reserved for 21 year olds. I bet we all have. I also bet we've also come across 14 year olds with the maturity to drive a car safely, 12 year olds ready to take on a high adventure with a Venturing crew, and 19 year olds that can handle alcohol responsibly. But, is those example enough to justify reducing the baseline regulations applied at a national level?

But won't someone think of the children!!!

Again, the newspapers and tv news are full of stories of people saying : "Oh he was such a nice quiet guy who never hurt anybody. Everybody always liked him and he was so active in the community. We are just SHOCKED!"

They're full of stories like that? Just how full exactly? And despite the media's tendency for over-sensationalizing, there absolutely are people who see signs of child abuse well before the abuser is arrested.

Another point to consider: YPT is not all about preventing child abuse. A lot of it is about re-enforcing what are positive and appropriate ways for adults to interact with youth. Not every "violation" leads to child abuse - it just means that an adult may have failed to use good judgment about how to appropriately handle a situation. Many, if not most, of these issues can be adequately handled at the unit level.

I'd be all in favor of keeping the SE in the loop when it makes sense to do so - when the information is the SE's business and when there's something useful that he can do with it. Acting in the hope that he'll somehow track every "complaint" against an adult and them acting appropriate if he gets "enough" of them isn't a very good strategy to do anything about abuse.

For me its pretty simple - suspicions of abuse are reported to the appropriate authorities, illegal activities are reported to the appropriate authorities, and the SE can be informed once the immediate danger has been resolved. Everything else gets handled at the unit level. "YPT guidelines" are just that - guidelines. Serious suspicions of abuse or illegal behavior is something separate.

Ah, I see what you we're saying regarding the leadership requirement, thank you for clarifying. As far as the insurance thing goes, sounds like we're still working based solely off of speculation, so I'll leave that alone.

Yah, hmmm.... seems to me that's what we call "prejudice." We've made a judgment of a person based on general characteristics of a group.

I don't think so Beavah. I thought the term "prejudice" referred to negative opinions made without good reason or thought process. What you're thinking of is a generalization, which isn't inherantly negative in connotation. I also think that despite the potential negative consequences, relying on generalizations to some extent is the only way to manage a program with millions of members, parents and leaders.

Are there 10 year olds that have the maturity to move from Cub Scouting to Boy Scouting early? Probably. Are there 13 year olds ready to tackle the challenges of a Venturing crew? Absolutely. Are there 18 year olds qualified to be Scoutmasters? Definitely. Is there a reliable way to put the majority of the millions of Scouts and Scouters in the appropriate program and appropriate role without making use of generalizations based on age and maturity? If there is, I'd like to hear it.

I guess we can all invent hypothetical situations where our own solution is the best answer. Here's mine: we put that 18 year old in that position, but he finds he has a difficult time overseeing the older scout patrol of what are essentially his peers, and his high school class mates. Difficult and awkward addressing discipline issues, medical issues, youth protection issues, and general social interaction. Parents of the younger Scouts, rightly or wrongly, are uneasy about sending their 11- and 12-year old children on campouts supervised by this SM due to his perceived inexperience. Parents of older scouts are concerned about his leading of high adventure activities. The young SM has to rely more and more on his older ASMs not just for program support, but also for simple validation as a legitimate adult leader. In this hypothetical situation, is this preferable to the troop taking other means to identify a more SM candidate that's also qualified "by the book?"

Beav - This is purely speculation, but I could see there being some overlap in considerations between auto/health-type insurance, and the accident/sickness insurance in the BSA world. Don't have any first hand knowledge of that, but would love to hear from someone who does. And the G2SS seems to suggest that at least one leader age 21 or older must be present on Scouting outings - is there something I'm missing?

I think there's more to it than prejudice, there is likely a great amount of personal growth and maturity that develops between the ages of 18 and 21. I think that there's a place for leaders of all ages and development stages in Scouting - from the PL and SPL "peers," the older scout JASMs, the young adult ASMs, and the "old adult" ASMs, committee members and Scoutmaster. Each group serves an essential purpose, and has its own strengths and weaknesses when working with Scouting-aged kids. But, I'd maintain that the SM requires some skills and maturity not found in the average 18 year old, and a moderately effective way to promulgate that across a national program is with an age requirement.

The flip side of the coin is that its the job of the CO and the committee to identify and recruit qualified leaders, so maybe any kind of age restriction should be put into their hands?

I think part of this issue is another example of our country's legal system vs. the internal workings of a private entity. Sure you're a legal adult at 18, but the BSA is a private organization, and is free to set its own requirements pertaining to qualifications for certain leadership positions.

I wouldn't be surprised to learn the there were insurance reasons behind the guidelines. For example, the ambulance service I used to work for would not allow those under 21 to drive the vehicles, due to their insurance carrier's policies.

I can also see some practical reasons. A Scout who "ages out" of his troop at 18 and wishes to serve as an ASM is clearly a huge asset to the unit. But, there is still a bit of a transition period that needs to take place as the new ASM learns his role and duties as an adult leader - even though many of his friends and peers are still technically youth. I think that requiring that the SM be considerably older than the oldest Scouts in the troop is less likely to cause confusion as to the perception of whether he is truly an adult, or just an "older kid." I think that perception is important both to the Scouts, the adult in question, and the parents in the unit.

teacher/scout - not entirely sure what a "committee lifestyle" is, but it sure doesn't sound like much fun :-) Sure, there are many incredibly mature, dedicated, competant and responsible 18-20 year olds who could probably do a good job as an SM or on a unit committee. But I think that in terms of developing a set of best practices to guide a nation wide youth program, the BSA often needs to think in terms of generalities. That's just the nature of trying to regulate such a huge program.

I earned Eagle Scout not so very long ago, and I remember there was a bit of bureaucracy in getting the project approved. It certainly wasn't any 40-point checklist - mainly just presenting the project and getting approval signatures from people at the troop, benefitting organization, and one signature from a district Scouter. From the Scouting side, I see the process of being roughly proportional to the nature of the task.

I also think that a sufficiently involved Eagle project will require a great deal of planning and preparation and coordination with the benefitting organization, and other groups. I really don't see that as a problem - from my perspective, being able to coordinate between multiple different parties is a valuable skill to hone.

It was mentioned that often the preparation process for an Eagle project can exceed the amount of time that goes in to actually doing the project itself. I'd say that the preparation process is at least as important to the Eagle candidate as the actual manual labor, so I don't see this as a problem at all. I think that a "good" project will require a substantial amount of planning and preparation. I would argue, though, that the majority of the preparation should be spent working with the benefitting organization, and the other non-Scouting people/groups that will be involved. If a disproportional amount of time is spent dealing with the unit and district's 40-point checklists, clearly there's a problem there.

Kudu - You're missing my point. The fact that recent attempts by the BSA to integrate Scoutcraft and leadership have been at the expense of Scoutcraft does not mean that its impossible for it to be done right. You haven't said anything suggesting otherwise, only that the BSA so far has failed (which I can't argue with).

Kudu - I agree somewhat with much of what you say - about the BSA's focus continually slipping away from outdoor adventure, Scoutcraft and the patrol method. I agree that this is not a good thing at all, and I would love to see the pendulum start to swing back towards a program focused more heavily on the outdoors and the patrol method. At least I think that's what you're saying - despite being older than 12 years old I often have a hard time following your posts, maybe due to heavy use of sarcasm?

What I don't understand is how or why such a Scouting program could not make use of quality leadership training and educator training. I don't think that leadership development and Scoutcraft are mutually exclusive, and I've always thought that one of Scouting's strong points was the opportunity to develop leadership skills within the context of a strong outdoor program. I think that a strong leader needs to also be a competant educator, and I would not at all be opposed to including training on a proven, quality training delivery method as an official part of the overall Scouting program. EDGE clearly is not that method, but that doesn't mean that a good one does not exist at all.

I would say that "leadership" and "management" are not the same things, and I would agree that more and more of our training programs are sliding towards teaching business-style management, rather than quality leadership training. But I would say that leadership and training are both skills that can be taught, and should be taught in the context of Scouting. I would love to see National pour some of its resources into developing a model where its leadership training material clearly enhances its outdoor program, and vice-versa.