Lisabob

I share the opinion of lots of other posters who say that WB can help you - regardless of your scouting position - to do a better job as a scouter. The more you understand about the purpose, structure, and function of scouting, the better able you will be to support scouting in whatever position you currently hold. Not to mention the obvious scouter networking benefits. I don't know very many WB'ers who would say otherwise, but all are entitled to their opinions. Have fun with it, moose tracker, when you get to a point where you can do it.

Yes, and it never works when people - leaders, bosses, parents, scouters or teachers - demand respect in that way.

"I know a fellow who knows a fellow who does research on this sort of stuff. They tell me that by and large kids feel betrayed by adults who take the tack codger describes. Makin' bullying into a "system" thing rather than steppin' forward and standing up to it directly and personally like an adult should" YES. Thank you for saying this. This is the key thing, in my view. All of the "anti-bullying" programs I have seen thus far at my child's school system come down to this. Adults who are supposedly responsible for making the programs "work," simply don't. Maybe they can't, maybe they just don't. Result is the same either way. The kids trust the adult advise when they are young - but upon discovering that it is inconsistently enforced, or not enforced, or that the "zero tolerance" refers to the kid who, while being sat upon and punched on the playground or called horrible names, dares to strike back in self defense, kids totally lose their trust in such systems going forward. Not without reason. Personally, I have resigned my membership in scouting over similar problems, and lost some scouter friends, recently over EXACTLY this argument. They disagreed with my assessment. I think they have their heads in the sand about how this plays out in reality. Whatever the reason, the result is that - yet again - kids who are being bullied in intolerable ways, feel betrayed by adults whom they really wanted to be able to trust.

In my son's troop - with adults. First, the food is a perk of the job. Second, it frees the SPL to do other things and not have to worry about spending time cooking/cleaning. However, in a more boy-led troop, I think I might prefer to see the SPL rotate among the patrols. It would, as someone else noted, improve the quality of the cooking quickly, since the SPL would have big incentives to ensure younger fellows learned to cook well!

Why is there no "cat care?" Or "hamster care?" Or "tamaguchi care?"

Brent, let's not get side tracked. I would not suggest - and I don't think others who say there are scheduling issues are suggesting - that scouting is a poor use of time. I agree that a boy may benefit tremendously, perhaps disproportionately, from the time they spend in scouting. But if the question is whether scouting sometimes contributes or plays into overscheduling, I think the answer is YES, sometimes it does. THat's not a normative question, it is an empirical question (not value judgment- just how many days/hours)

mds3d, certainly things *could* be better organized to cut down on the number of days - but just because they could be, doesn't always mean they will be. And that is part of why scouting might be part of the overscheduling craze, for some families. While my son does not participate in every single event I listed, the list, itself, is a pretty accurate reflection of the scouting 'stuff' that goes on around here. This month, for example, the troop has weekend activities scheduled on 3 weekends: regular camp out, venture patrol hike, annual planning camp. Not that any of these are bad and no, not every boy will do every activity (mine will not) but you see the point. And by the way, turnout at the planning camp is often kind of low - well yeah, people get burned out!

I do think scouting sometimes contributes to this ridiculousness. Let's take a look at a "typical" month of scouting for a boy like my son, who has been a regular participant with his troop in the past. I'll keep a running tally of the number of days on which he might have scout-related-stuff in parentheses weekly troop meeting (4) PLC (5) monthly camp-out, Friday-Sunday (8) service project (9) fund raiser (10) merit badge meeting with a counselor (11) Eagle COH or extra patrol meeting or special district event or whatever (12) OK now add in that he's the SPL so Separate planning meeting with SM (13) Report to the monthly committee meeting (14) Calls and contact with the PLs and others, outside of meetings (15) Then there are: District Roundtables (some invite senior scouts) (16) OA (17) Venture Patrol/Jambo Troop/Philmont Crew, etc. (18 or 19 or 20) So in a typical month, if a kid is at most (not even all, necessarily) of the troop's events, he might "have scouts" 1/3 to 1/2 or even more of the days in the month! Of course not every kid will go to every event but in some troops, failure to attend most things is seriously frowned upon. And people who complain (on this forum, for example) about how the kids aren't engaged enough, sometimes need to stop and take stock of just how much is being asked of both the boy, and of his parents, to get him to all of this stuff. It adds up surprisingly quickly.

With due respect, I think it is important to be sure you understand the parents' motivations before wading into this one. Some parents are way too competitive and are using their kids as status symbols. That can be a bad thing, especially if the kid is totally uninterested. Some parents want their kids to "get" all they can to pad their college apps or whatever, without paying much attention to the substance. Racking up points like this can be problematic, particularly if the kid doesn't enjoy the activity. Some parents have kids who need more social interaction, but the kids may be the type who aren't going to seek it out on their own. The kid who would as soon sit in front of the tv or gaming system by himself or herself all day, who isn't involved in anything at school, who tends to just withdraw. Those kids might need to be pushed to get out there and do, see, try, interact with others to develop their social and emotional skills. I know several parents who push scouting on their kids for this sort of reason. Some parents have kids who have a hard time understanding commitment. They might be willing to sign up for everything, but finish nothing. Maybe those parents want their kid to understand that if they've signed up and paid, they are obligated to follow through until the end of the season/year/whatever, when they may choose something different. Personally, when my son was in middle school, I told him he could quit scouting at the end of the year as long as he became involved in some other venue that would provide him with connections of some sort to his community. Until such time as he did that though, he could continue in scouting. The sense of being part of something greater than oneself is important enough to me that I was willing to push him to stay in for that reason, alone. Now that he is older, I give him more leeway to make choices, but sitting alone in his room with the door closed all the time will never be one of those choices. To deal with parents who "push scouts" I just think it helps to understand what the parents' goals are for pushing scouting, in the first place. Some of those goals are reasonable ones.

Glad to hear that all worked out as well as it did. I have a teen about the same age as your son and I know there are times when he just doesn't understand the impact of his words. Seems like this is an age when exaggeration and escalation is the norm, too (get mad at someone and they're not just a "jerk" but a "nazi jerk" etc). So, hopefully, your son will learn a good life lesson and grow a bit, from this difficult experience. I am curious though, what happened about the "advisor" situation?

Uh, I must point out that I work at another University that installed "Muslim" foot baths. You know what, they are quite popular, and last I checked, they work just fine for non-Muslims, too. Speaking of a tempest in a tea pot!

Ed, could you help me better understand your position on the second situation? Why is it not disrespectful to tell a youth leader that the answer to the PLC's request is "no," and then tell the scout that the reason why the answer is "no" will only be discussed after that scout leaves. Keeping in mind that (in my constructed scenario) we're talking about the use of personal vs. troop equipment, and nothing that needs to be confidential. I'm not so much challenging your response, as I am trying to see things from your view on this.

Just for clarification, while I have seen similar types of behavior as those listed, I was not referring to very specific situations or compiling a laundry list of complaints about a specific troop. Some of the scenarios listed were from different troops, or were composites of things I've seen and heard over the last few years. Maybe I am wrong but actually I think the list reflects many similar types of issues that we see in threads here on a regular basis, which is kind of what I was aiming for so that we might talk about the general issue of "respect is given/respect is earned/respect has been handed away" rather than becoming bogged down in the minutia of a specific act. Feel free to embellish the list though.

Now I know this is a little out of the realm of this thread, but please bear with me. One argument often given for troop uniforms is that it levels the socio-economic playing field. What about troop gear, and tents in particular? Do you feel that there are important reasons, including the socio-economic one, that apply to all troop youth members using the same (troop-supplied) tents? Are there other good reasons to encourage "tent uniforming?"

Having read the original thread, and having sat through a meeting tonight at which I personally felt respect had not only not been earned, but had been (in some regards) given away, I must ask the title question. Some scenarios (all loosely based on things I've seen, but none direct reflections of anything in particular): 1. For whatever reason, boys return troop equipment in much less than pristine shape after a camp out. No irreparable damage, but not very thoughtful of the boys to do that. Adult takes 10 minutes to scream at them about it and threaten them that next time it happens, they'll pay for the equipment. No going through PLC or addressing only offending parties - yelling at entire troop. Is youth respect for this individual's behaviors warranted? 2. Youth propose a change to troop practice re: troop provision of certain equipment, to allow for scouts to use their own equipment instead. Discussion at PLC. SPL takes discussion to committee, where SPL is told "no." SPL asks why. Told - it will be discussed later, after SPL leaves the meeting. Is youth respect for lack of inclusion in a discussion warranted? 3. Youth complains about behavior of fellow scouts at a camp out. Adult leaders drag feet on response, and end up responding in ways the youth feels are seriously inadequate. No explanation given to youth. Is youth respect warranted? 4. In a "full uniform" troop, committee members seldom wear uniform, yet won't hold a BOR for a boy who doesn't have his socks, or hat, or necker, or book. Certain committee members routinely give boys a hard time if the boy comes to a committee meeting to make a report out of uniform, yet few or no committee members wear uniform to these same meetings. Upon being challenged, youth member points this out and is then chastised for lack of respect. Is youth respect warranted? 5. Pick a policy. Adults insist that it is so, because it is so. No discussion. General sense of anger at being questioned by youth. Is youth respect warranted? 6. Tired, cold, hungry youth becomes a bit grumpy on a campout. Mutters under his breath about some policy or pronouncement that an adult has made, with which he disagrees. Word gets back to the adult. Adult becomes angry and shouts at the scout. "my way or the highway" is the message. Is youth respect warranted? I've seen something like all of the above over the years. I wonder what you all think? Where's the line at which respect is no longer a given?

I think a lot of people react to the word "hazing," just as a lot of people react to other hot-button words (dare I mention "feminism" as an example?), even while agreeing with much or all of the substance behind the word. I mean, seriously, who isn't for equal rights for people regardless of gender (if you aren't, don't tell me - I don't want to know), but mention "feminism" and pretty soon you start hearing some seriously outrageous claims about "downfall of society" and "undermining traditional values" and "femi-Nazis" and worse, right? Same thing, in my experience, with words like "hazing." I see no one has (virtually speaking) clapped these boys on the shoulder and shared a good guffaw. Everyone agrees this was an inappropriate thing to do. Most agree it was an abuse of power and influence on the older boys' parts. I think all agreed that the older boys deserve to be held responsible in more meaningful ways than the original poster described. There is disagreement about how to hold these boys responsible, which I guess does not surprise me. Many of us are probably, in our mind's eye, imagining some "likely suspects" from our own troops pulling this stunt. So we color our responses based on thoughts about those imagined likely suspects, since we do not actually know the boys in the troop where this happened, and depending on how we feel about the imagined suspects, that will color our hypothetical responses to this situation. I know for me, the boys I could imagine doing something like this are also boys who have habits and histories of attempting to bully, manipulate, or degrade others - and so my response would be the more swift and serious because of that. So yes, words definitely have meanings, but let's not get so hung up on what to call this, that people lose sight of the general agreement on taking a stronger line in response - which everyone here seems to be advocating, to one degree or another.

"We don't need to have a law or a regulation or a definition to teach the kids right from wrong." Amen to that. Don't get so wrapped up in policy or definition that you miss this bigger point, whatever else you do. I am dealing with a case where a boy was making racist comments about Hitler, white power, and Jews, to a fellow scout. The response of several adults is (in part) that maybe we should make a policy defining what counts as racist and what doesn't. DUH! We need a policy for this? How about just some common sense and high expectations? Same thing here. Not one of us, I think, would say the behavior the original poster described is acceptable. Not one would be happy to have it happen to us, or to our kids. Not one of us needs to sit back and wait for a definition or a policy to be promulgated, in order to address it.

To answer Evmori's question: That would not worry me. While I do not know of any homosexual leaders in the troop my son is in, I am aware of several apparently-heterosexual women who camp with the troop. I don't worry about him going camping with them, either. The boys and adults do not tent together anyway. (This message has been edited by lisabob)

Enough has become enough for me. I'll be taking some time off from involvement in scouting. I just can't deal with some of it any more, and I won't be associated with adults who continually make excuses for outrageous behaviors, rather than standing up and addressing the problems.

I like zippy's point that giving a boy a chance to learn a lesson, even if it means putting some onerous conditions on him, is not the same as expulsion. Another argument I hear too often for my tastes is "well if we do X, that's tantamount to expulsion for that boy because his family will never agree to it" My answer: if you do nothing, that's tantamount to telling every boy in the troop that you condone the behavior in question. Make the boy responsible for his own action. If he leaves because of your conditions, so be it, that's his/his family's choice. One other thing: I don't like service hours as a response to behavioral issues, unless it includes hours spent repairing and restoring property that was vandalized, or something like that. In this case, service hours are an imperfect fit for the misdeeds in question. We shouldn't turn "service" into punishment because then, who would willingly do service just for the sake of helping others? For those reasons, I think I'd lean more toward a suspension, plus some of the things Sctdad suggested in his most recent post.

I don't know that I have seen anything in the thread thus far that indicates the troop adults actively encouraged such behavior in order to reduce the number of young fellows in the troop. Could that be true, sure, but I would not want to jump to that conclusion. I think some adults really do not fully comprehend the impact of certain kinds of "pranks" or "needling" or "jokes" on the intended recipient. It can be easy for people who have never seen the way it changes someone who has experienced on-going harassment, to say "oh that was nothing serious." Well, yeah. Maybe in isolation, one thing that happens could be written off, if you don't think too much about it. And that's how folks tend to think of many types of harassment. Maybe because it is easier than actually confronting and stopping situations like this. But as anybody who has watched someone close to them put up with continued harassment knows, it isn't just the severity of a single issue that weighs a person down. It is the constant, low-level, picking that causes real trouble. People might develop thick skin, sure, but it is deeply stressful to always have to be on the defensive and never know if one can really trust the other folks in the group. If the troop allows for that sort of atmosphere to be established - which is exactly what happens when adults turn a blind eye and say "oh that event doesn't rise to a level of seriousness to punish anybody" time and again - then the troop is doing a very large dis-service to the young men who join. If a troop doesn't want that sort of atmosphere, then the troop ought to respond clearly and appropriately to each issue when it happens. In turn that will help to create an environment in which all the boys and adults understand that such behavior just won't be tolerated, with no ambiguity to trade on.

That sounds like exactly the sort of thing that makes boy scouts such a great opportunity. Kids had fun and learned new things, all while serving others and forming tighter bonds with their community. Thank you for helping to make it happen.

I am of two minds. On one hand, refusing to give relevant info to a former youth member who is suing and alleging this sort of terrible misdeed, is problematic. On the other hand, there is a concern about setting precedent. Could releasing the files to this individual pave the way to needing to release files to pretty much anybody who asks? Without knowing what is in those files, I can see where it might be salacious, and there might be legitimate interests in protecting the rights of the accused too. Tough issue. Eye popping headlines probably don't help anybody (except the news org.), but then too, there are probably good reasons why many people are suspicious of the BSA's motives, unfortunate as that is.

As I am learning, adults - including some you like and admire - will sometimes have very different thresholds for what is annoying vs. what is a problem, vs. what is appalling. For myself, I can say that if I ever decide to offer my talents in support of another scout unit, I will first want to ask them to tell me how they handle incidents like this one. Because, as I have also learned, nothing drives people apart to bitter ends faster than serious disagreements about where to draw the line, and perceptions that one side is too spineless or too oblivious to take action when it needs to be taken. Specifically, any troop that punished the 11 year old "trigger man" and not the older kids who put him up to it, in a more serious way than just a finger wagging and slight delay in rank, would not be a troop I could serve.

A truthful text would look like this: "We acknowledge that there have been some difficulties with the roll-out of the historical merit badge program, and we apologize for these errors. We are working to ensure that all boys who want to work on these badges have the full opportunity to do so by extending the deadline for completion of these badges to (pick a time), so long as the boy *begins* work on the badge before the end of 2010. To expedite the process of getting the historical merit badge program up and running, we will be posting all requirements and source material online, rather than waiting for a production run of printed material. The online support material is available on XX date, at XYZ.bsa.org . Again, we appreciate your support for the historical merit badges and your patience as we have worked out the kinks in the delivery of this program." And then they would actually STICK TO what they promise, in terms of new roll out dates. THAT is what honesty might look like. Instead we got slick excuses that don't fool anybody and cause further disappointment that they must either think we are stupid, or else they don't even understand how they are coming across. Brass Tacks: when you screw up, admit it and fix it. Don't try to cover it with pretty words. To any BSA National folks reading this, feel free to just take what I wrote above, add dates and a website, and run with it, if it would help you.