NJCubScouter

Well, I think we are already talking past each other. That's ok in a forum, up to a point, because other people are reading this (many of whom never post at all) and they may decide they agree with one of us, or neither of us. (Probably not both of us.) But I think that, until there are any new facts to discuss, this whole thread has probably gone past that point. So unless I feel compelled otherwise later, I will just say this: I am not trying to justify the Cradle of Liberty Council decision, nor would I attempt to justify any of the actions of National on this issue over the past 15+ years. I think this is a debacle that National created, and I think there has been a considerable amount of dishonesty from National on the motivations for this policy and their varying attempts to justify it over the years. I have been writing about this since I joined this forum in 2002 and see no reason to rehash it all now. So here we are now. Is disobedience of a National "policy" by a council un-Scoutlike behavior? Let's say it is. But it is just part of the legacy of un-Scoutlike behavior that has accompanied this whole issue. You (Bad Wolf) seem to want to focus on just this single act by a council (and I suspect you will have a whole series of similar acts by a number of councils to call "un-Scoutlike" in the near future.) I prefer to look at the whole, long, sordid, disappointing picture. And, with that background, without justifying the actions of the council or National, I believe that the decision of National to NOT de-charter any councils that go their own way on this issue, is in the best interests of the BSA. I find myself in the unusual position of having the BSA National President apparently agreeing with me.

I'll point you back to the last paragraph of the post you quoted, about it all ending in chaos. You're trying to apply logic to a situation that has been mishandled by National to such a degree that it has blown up in their collective face. (Based on his recent speech, which I quoted part of in the post above, the National President of the BSA seems to agree with me, although he obviously puts it in more diplomatic terms.) Predictably, the result is not neat or clean, or logical. As people like to say these days, it is what it is. As for girls, no, it isn't the "same membership policy." In fact, why don't you tell me the name of the handbook or policy manual, and page number, where you find an actual "policy" (or "rule" or "regulation") excluding gay people? I don't think you will find it. You will find resolutions, press releases, legal briefs, a lot of references on the Internet to a "policy", numerous comments that there is a "policy", but I don't think you will find anything about it in the Scout Handbook, Scoutmaster's Handbook, rules and regulations, or anything that is called a "policy" book. On the other hand, I can open up the Scout Handbook to the joining requirements for Boy Scouts, and I am pretty sure that one of the first sentences will start "Be a boy..." So it is not the same issue, and I don't think National plans to treat it as the same issue.

In writing my last response to Bad Wolf, it occurred to me to go back and look at what Robert Gates actually said about what the councils were doing and what National's reaction should be. Having found it, I thought it would be relevant to post it here. (I am making this a separate post because it isn't directed to any particular member of this forum.) It seems to me that this aspect of his speech did not get a lot of attention at the time. Most of the discussion was about his call for the policy to be changed. But I think it has new significance following the Cradle of Liberty Council's action. (Note: The quote is in all-caps because that's how it is in the official document at http://scoutingnewsroom.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/DR-GATES-REMARKS.pdf. I have added some bolding for emphasis at the end.)

Are you suggesting that National will install an SE who is more in line with the current National policy? Can National actually do that? Can National impose a new SE without council approval? (I ask these questions in all seriousness; I do not know how that process works.) And if these things happen, what difference will it make? I get the impression from the article that this was a decision by the Council Executive Committee (although I don't think the articles identified that body by name.) It wasn't a unilateral decision by the SE.

The available evidence would suggest that the answer is yes, IF by "policies and rules" you mean "policies and rules" concerning the admission or employment of adults without regard to whether they are heterosexual or not. If you mean anything else, such as policies regarding the use of firearms, alcohol, chainsaws or nuclear weapons, or the admission of convicted felons, or any of 1,000 other things, there is no evidence of any change. Atheists? Someone said earlier in this thread that the council's statement may leave the door open for that. At some point I think someone (maybe someone in the media?) will ask that question in a way that the Cradle of Liberty Council decides to answer it, and I personally think we will see that door be closed. (Maybe while the media is at it, they can ask the council whether their new policy means local unit option, and if so, what the details are.) I'm also not sure what you mean by "current system"? What IS the current system? All we have so far is a council saying they have adopted a policy regarding membership and employment, and a couple of other councils that had previously adopted new policies regarding employment only (I believe), and a national president (who, on his own, cannot change policy) saying that "he" will not revoke council charters for adopting their own policies on membership standards, but since the Cradle of Liberty announcement, the only statement from National is that there will be a "decision in October." (Which I am beginning to have doubts about - if a number of councils follow Cradle of Liberty in the next few months, the decision may be not to make a decision at all, resulting in a de facto "council option" that is contrary to the past resolutions by National.) I think there have been communications behind the scenes, which you (Bad Wolf) say is speculation, and you are correct, it is speculation. I didn't say I know it happened, I said I think it happened. I do get your point that decisions shouldn't result from a council defying National policy. This is not how I wanted the "decision" (if that is what it is) to be made either. It looks like there is going to be a patchwork of policies, council-by-council, with National simply standing by and not enforcing its "policy." As a result, some CO's that would want to be "inclusive" will still not be able to, because they are in councils that stick with the current policy. There may also be a period of uncertainty, in Cradle of Liberty Council and other councils, over whether "unit option" is in effect. Overall, it's not a good situation. But I look at it this way: National has handled this whole issue so badly over the past 15 years or so, it should not surprise anyone if it all ends in chaos. It certainly does not surprise me.

While BSA National and the councils often seem to function as one "organization", in a legal sense they are separate corporations, and therefore separate "organizations." As you say, National can revoke a council's charter if the council is not abiding by policies and directives from National, but it seems that in this instance, National is not going to do that. At least, that is how it seems. National has not made an official statement to that effect, unless you count what Mr. Gates said as an official statement - he said that "he" was not going to revoke charters for councils that set their own policy. But I do not think the Cradle of Liberty Council would have announced this decision without getting assurances "behind the scenes" that it's charter was not going to be revoked.

Thanks Packsaddle, same to you and all the other fathers out there - and grandfathers, I'm one of those too.

This is not about the Constitution (which, in any event, is far healthier than you seem to think). This is about one organization (the council) doing what it believes is the right thing, and another organization (National) apparently deciding to stop using its power to reverse that decision, on this issue. The number of openly gay IH's is irrelevant. The fact that there could theoretically be a gay IH somewhere is not "the" reason for changing the policy. It is, in my opinion, one of many things that show the policy doesn't make any sense. The IH of my troop's CO, for example, is not gay, to my knowledge. But the policy of the CO is strongly in favor of inclusion, as a matter of their faith. Since the Dale decision it seems they have mostly tolerated us being there, and I get the feeling that they're under the impression that the troop would not enforce the National policy if the issue ever came up. I'm not sure what they think would happen if the situation came up and someone decided to call the council about it, and now I am not sure, either. So here I am with a CO with a policy of not excluding gay people, in a council that opposes exclusion, but the National policy is, at least officially, in effect for all units. It's not a viable situation - regardless of what the pastor's sexual orientation may be. As for "Brave", I think it is the Cradle of Liberty Council is being brave, and that the brave thing for National to do would be to be to allow local option (by CO) nationwide, regardless of what each council thinks. instead, the current evidence suggests that the councils may be set free to do what they want. Sort of a double-local-option. I guess we'll see.

Something similar happened the last time a change was being considered. That time there was a leak of the fact that the issue was being discussed, and they decided to accelerate the schedule for considering a change. There was a lot of work done in a very short period of time, but in the end they failed to address the real issue. Doing things in a rush often produces poor results. In this case, the decision that is supposedly scheduled for October may very well become irrelevant by that time. If another council follows Cradle of Liberty, that may open the floodgates for the councils that wanted to make a change the last time.

An interesting statement from someone who is a local leader of an organization that has whole lists of things that are "known" to be the "right" way to act, e.g. trustworthy, loyal, helpful, etc. etc. I'm also pretty sure that most of the people in this forum who oppose changes to the policy in question believe we CAN know what's right. Some of them, in fact, seem to be absolutely certain they know what's right under all circumstances. I also suspect that if I did a search in this forum, I could find examples of YOU sounding like you know what's "right" on various issues. (And for me too, by the way, although I think I do so less often than some others.)

The council did not "give in". They adopted the policy they believe is the right policy. In fact, they adopted a non-discrimination policy more than 10 years ago but were threatened with excommunication de-chartering by National if they didn't reverse themselves. Now Mr. Gates has sent the signal (and I am sure it was confirmed privately before they did this) that that threat no longer exists. I think it can be expected that other councils, particularly in the Northeast/Mid-Atlantic areas and possibly in California and elsewhere, will do the same thing. The question is how soon. I would not be surprised if my council is now actively considering this. After the 2013 trial balloon for local option for adult leaders was shot down, our SE and council president publicly expressed disappointment and said they would continue to advocate for the change. Speaking of local option, I see no mention of that in this article or the other two that I found on the Internet. I am kind of curious about that. Maybe "we don't discriminate" really means that, in the council's relationship with units, "we will no longer force units to discriminate." Maybe not mentioning local option means local option, after all, as I have been saying for years, local option is the norm for adult leadership selection in the BSA, and there are only a few exceptions. Maybe this council's new policy simply overrides one of the exceptions.

The answer is now, officially: Yes!

Be sure to write.

I'm a little confused. It does appear that the nature of this course is being distorted by National Review, which is not an ideologically neutral publication (it's part of the well-known right-wing media) and even NR seems to be getting its information from some organization that is even less objective. I did click back through the source documents linked in the article, but I am not sure whether I am getting the entire picture. It does seem, however, that some of the course content is troubling. So my question is this, is this a course that teachers CAN take, or something they are being REQUIRED to take? Just adding: In my opinion, the "New World Order" rhetoric is not particularly helpful or informative. That phrase seems to be used to mean whatever the person using it is opposed to. If you're for a change, it's "reform", if you're against it it's part of the "New World Order."

Our troop (and before that, my son's pack) has had kids from single-parent families and/or families in dire financial circumstances. And these were almost all "white" people. Statistically, nationwide, it might be a factor in the "racial"/ethnic disparity in Scouting, but I think it would be a very small factor. (And neither of us really knows for sure.) I've seen that attitude from parents. They get stars in their eyes about the idea that their son will at the very least win a free ride to a college degree, or even become a professional athlete, and everything else gets de-emphasized or discouraged. I think it is a significant factor in Webelos not crossing over to troops or dropping out of a troop in the first year or so. But again, these were all (or almost all) "white" people. I am sure there are other parents with the same attitude, but I see no reason to believe (and I doubt you can finding any statistics to "prove") that this attitude is significantly more prevalent (on a percentage basis) among "non-whites". And if the percentages are roughly the same, it would not significantly contribute to a disparity in percentages of membership in the BSA.

Thank you for your permission.

I hardly think that a 65-year-old man receiving an award he EARNED is contributing to any problems we have in our society. Plus, this is not a new or unique thing. There have been stories like this occasionally for years. There have been men in their 70's and 80's who have received their Eagle as well. Every one has their own reasons why the paperwork got detoured decades earlier - but as far as I know, every single one of them completed the requirements before the age limit. If National thinks the reasons are good enough, I don't really have a problem with it. Let's also remember that there hasn't always been a strict cutoff for advancement at age 18. I believe that until sometime in the 1950's, adult leaders could continue to earn merit badges and even earn Eagle. My father, who became a Scout at age 12 in the late 30's, told me he earned a couple of merit badges as a young ASM in the mid/late 40's, though he did not advance beyond the Star rank he earned as a youth. So the current age cutoff is not some immutable characteristic of Scouting that was handed down from the mountain by Baden-Powell and Seton and Beard and has continued unchanged to the present day. The age cutoff is a choice and is subject to change when appropriate, and the rules on exactly what you have to do before your 18th birthday are merely details.

Many do say that, and when I look around in my area and see how much higher the percentage of "white" people (not including Spanish-speaking families) is in Scouting than in the overall population of some of the communities, it is unfortunately difficult to deny that there is some truth to it. Not by design, but just because that's how it is. The question is, how do "we" fix that? National has tried, with no success that I am aware of. They tried blending soccer and Cub Scouting, but the participants were there to play soccer, not to be Cub Scouts or Boy Scouts, and their parents had no interest in being den leaders or otherwise getting involved in Scouting. One of the past CSE's talked a lot about getting this segment of the population more involved, and some in this forum ridiculed him for it. I think this is a more of an issue than what some organization is pushing as an educational program for teachers.

Bad Wolf, if the guy you know actually completed ALL the requirements before he turned 18, including the Scoutmaster Conference, and has the paperwork to show it, he can probably do the same thing. But I wonder, who would sign the application on behalf of the troop? The 105-year-old long-retired SM and CC? And this article leaves me puzzled as to whether this person's application had the SM/CC signatures from that time. If yes, how did it then end up in Mom's attic? And if not, why is it the "golden bullet"?

I encouraged my son, when putting together his post-college-graduation resume, to include not only his Eagle but also a brief description of his project, which was related (somewhat loosely) to the general field of employment he was seeking. He got a job. I realize that's a very small sample size from which to draw any conclusions, and what impact (if any) the resume had on his getting the job, I don't know. I would advise any other young person the same way I advised my son. I think it is a net positive, though probably not to a great degree when compared with all the other factors that go into hiring. For those of us who are "Life for Life" (or other ranks), the balance may tip the other way (or not.) (Just as an aside, when I was running for school board, I put all of my community service positions on my "bio", including adult leadership positions in the pack and troop. My electoral batting average was .500, record-breaking in baseball but not so great when running for office, especially when it's a win followed by a loss.)

Weren't we up to Episode 3? This is back to Episode 2. Anakin hasn't turned to the Dark Side yet. Oh wait, that's a different series.

Stosh, the linked article is kind of vague about exactly how the funds from these sales went to pay for the entire troop's summer camp, so the conclusions you draw may be correct, but I am not sure how you get them from the article. One thing's for sure though, someone's going to be filling out some forms. Let not the bureaucratic/legal issues detract from the fact that this Scout has done a good job for himself and others.

You sure? (I'm NOT sure.) The article says these funds sent the entire troop to camp. Sounds to me like it might be fundraising. And I haven't read the BSA fundraising guidelines lately, but I don't recall a distinction between handmade items and non-handmade items. Not that I think it really matters. I suspect the kid's council is very happy about the positive publicity.

I wonder whether they filled out a money-earning application and sent it to council for approval first. (I'd put one of those smiley-things here but I'm only half joking. Maybe two-thirds.)

Yes and even if they make it through the Cub Scout years without running off screaming into the night, forget about most of them helping out at the troop level. They've done their time, as far as they are concerned. And there seem to be some people who want to make it SIX years, by adding a kindergarten program. I know some councils have had pilot programs for that. I don't even think many of the first graders are ready to be Tigers, and if their parents/DL's burn out before five years, hey, let's add another year and see what happens! Sounds good if you can do it. In my son's pack the idea that someone would agree to be a leader for a den that their son was not a member of was on about the same level as pigs flying. It was difficult enough to get people whose sons WERE in a den to be DL. (Eventually, after I left, they had so much trouble even getting parents to be DL's that a former leader (and UC), whose son had already crossed over, stepped in as leader for two of the dens. But that was not the kind of orderly transition and succession planning you are talking about. That was a crisis, with a crisis response, because otherwise those dens would have folded, followed shortly by the pack.) As for pack leadership, there always seemed to be exactly one person (no more, no less) who was willing to be CM and the same number of people willing to be ACM. Admittedly, my experience (as an adult) is only with that one pack.