NJCubScouter

Here is the article from NBC: Boy Scouts will admit girls, allow them to earn Eagle Scout rank NBC news PETE WILLIAMS Oct 11th 2017 1:12PM The Boy Scouts of America announced Wednesday that girls will soon be allowed to become Cub Scouts and to earn the coveted rank of Eagle Scout, the organization’s highest honor. "We believe it is critical to evolve how our programs meet the needs of families interested in positive and lifelong experiences for their children," said Michael Surbaugh, chief executive of the Boy Scouts. The scouting board of directors voted unanimously to make the historic change in an organization that has been primarily for boys since its founding more than 100 years ago. Starting next year, young girls can join Cub Scout units, known as dens. Local scouting organizations can choose to have dens for girls and dens for boys. "Cub Scout dens will be single-gender — all boys or all girls," the organization said in a statement. A separate program for older girls will be available in 2019, BSA said, enabling them to earn the rank of Eagle Scout. The Boy Scouts said the moves reflect the changing nature of American life, with more dual-earning and single-parent families than never before, adding to the appeal of a scouting program that can serve the entire family. BSA said it commissioned two nationwide surveys that showed parents not involved in scouting had high interest in getting their daughters signed up for both Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts. Girls are now part of four scouting programs — Venturing and Sea Scouting, geared toward outdoor activities; Exploring, a career-oriented mentoring program; and STEM, focusing on science and math. But those programs have not offered a path to Eagle Scout for girls. Earlier this year, the National Organization for Women urged the Boy Scouts to admit girls to the entire program, supporting the efforts of a New York teenager, Sydney Ireland, to attain the rank of Eagle Scout, as her older brother did. "I just want to do what the Boy Scouts do — earn the merit badges and earn the Eagle Award," she told NBC News. "The Girl Scouts is a great organization, but it's just not the program that I want to be part of. I think girls should just have the opportunity to be a member of any organization they want regardless of gender." In the past, the Girl Scouts have been cool to the idea of admitting girls into the Boy Scouts, citing research which showed that many girls learn best in an all-female environment. "We are unparalleled in our ability to build great female leaders who contribute to society at every level," said Andrea Bastiani Archibald, a psychologist who helps guide the Girl Scouts. https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/10/11/boy-scouts-will-admit-girls-allow-them-to-earn-eagle-scout-rank/23240240/?icid=aol-desktop-notification

But it sounds like it isn't the boys who are having a problem.

Ha. Well, I would have to say that if the world is a fair place, the answer would be yes, it makes the unit a part owner. Legally, I'm not sure. Now, if they ALL deducted it, I would say that is pretty conclusive evidence of intent to donate the tents. Of course, their tax returns are confidential, so I don't know how anyone would know that, even if it were true... As for "joint ownership schemes", I agree completely.

I think it IS on their web site, or at least the application is on their web site and the application includes the non-discrimination statement. I went looking for a general BSA non-discrimination policy and this is what I found: http://www.vccbsa.org/~/media/Councils/Council057/Boy%20Scouts%20of%20America%20Nondiscrimination%20Statement%20for%20Members%20and%20Leaders%2008-25-15.ashx It is from a council web site, not National, and it appears to be from 2008,* so if anyone can find a more recent one, please post it. In reading the STEM Scouts policy and this statement, a couple of things jump out. First, the general statement does not mention religion in the list of characteristics on which discrimination is prohibited. (I don't think I have ever seen a listing like that that does not mention religion before.) The STEM Scout one does mention religion. Second, the general statement makes the non-discrimination policy subject to the Scout Oath and Law, and for adults, also the DRP. The STEM Scouts one does not mention these at all. And yet the STEM Scouts recite the Oath and Law at their meetings. If anyone can find any logic in this, please share it. I don't see any. *Edit: No, it's not from 2008. It just occurred to me that in URL-speak, %2008 does not mean 2008, it means a space followed by an 08. Since the number is 08-25-15, the year could just as easily be 2015, or the year might not be there at all. 2015 may very well be correct, though, because I also noticed that for both youth and adults, it bans discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, and for adults it makes the policy subject to "the right of religious chartered organizations to use Scouting as part of their program and to select unit leaders in accordance with their religious principles." Which is another way of stating the local option. It wouldn't have said all that before 2015. But it still doesn't say religion, and the fact that it is from 2015 or later, rather than 2008, makes it much more likely that this is the current version. And yet the STEM Scouts one does mention religion.

Yes, and I would change "often" to "almost always."

This sounds like a law school exam question. The following is not legal advice and what I say may not apply to your state - and it may not even apply to my state, for that matter - but here is what I think. Regardless of the exalted role that the concept of the "patrol" plays in Scouting, legally speaking, a patrol is not an "entity" that can sue or be sued. I think that means that a patrol cannot "own" anything, or at least the patrol cannot enforce its ownership rights through the legal system, which practically speaking, amounts to the same thing. So who does own it? If six families bought it and paid for it, I think they own it, and I think they still own it even if their son is out of the troop. Could one argue that by leaving the troop (and patrol) and not demanding their one-sixth of the tent (or its value) within a "reasonable time" thereafter, the family "abandoned" their ownership interest in the tent? One could argue that. I believe that in New Jersey the law would look to see what the "intent" of the part-owner was, and the law tends not to find that someone forfeited their property unless there is clear intent to do so. Therefore, if there is no way to determine intent either way, I think the result would be that the families all still own the tent. (I'm not positive about it, but that's what I think.) Now, what about the fact that the troop has been storing the stuff? I don't think it changes the answer - again, UNLESS there was a clear intent by the purchasing families to donate the tents to the troop. To make it a little more complicated, the value of each family's ownership interest in each tent is not necessarily their share of what they paid for it, it is their share of what it is worth now, if it were to be sold. If the tents were purchased new a year ago, the value may be close to the purchase price. If the tents were purchased five years and look kind of worn out from frequent use, and maybe there is a hole patched here or a seam re-sown there, most of the value is gone. The tents still "work", but in reality nobody is going to pay anything for them. If that's the case, maybe the solution that will calm everybody down is for the folks in Patrol C to "buy in" for say $5 or $10 and call it a day. Of course, reasonable people should be able to work out things like this without all of this analysis, but some people are not reasonable.

A priest, a minister and a rabbi walk into an Eagle Board of Review...

Well, I think a SM hearing THAT response could conclude - not must conclude, but could conclude - that the Scout was not taking the question (and therefore the requirement) seriously. Otherwise I agree with your post.

The BSA has made this issue regarding STEM Scouts SO ambiguous that it is difficult to believe it was unintentional.

Right. And local police departments that sponsored Police Explorer posts. And government-operated (since some are not) fire departments, rescue squads etc. for posts in those areas. (Though I have seen emergency-management Venture Crews too, so I am not sure where they draw the line.) And any other potential sponsor that is part of, or run by, any level of government. None of them can discriminate on the basis of religion - including on the basis of non-belief.

Well, ok, I'll amend that to say that if there are things to be cleaned up, someone has to do it. It might be a lot of work, or it may just be making sure that whatever trash has been produced is disposed of properly. I was reacting to Eagle's comment that kids were saying they don't want to "cook or do KP", the latter of which suggests in his troop, there are generally pots, pans, utensils, etc. to be washed.

Including cooking. And while nobody likes washing pots and pans, the boys need to understand (and I think most of ours do) that if people are going to eat, people also need to clean up afterwards.

Looking back over the previous discussion that qwasze linked to from two years ago, I think most of the "concern" over that requirement relates not to the words of the requirement itself, but that it will be misinterpreted by some Scouters. (Possibly including ItsBrian's SM, based on his post above.) I see that another question (which to some may be a concern" is about singling out one specific part of the Scout Oath to be part of the Scout Spirit requirement for every rank. For example, it doesn't require a Scout to tell how he has done his duty to his country for the Scout Spirit requirement for every rank - although there are citizenship requirements for at least First Class and Eagle. Second of all, Stosh (since I see you "Lurking" there), I don't think it's your business to decide who does or doesn't have faith, or who is or isn't living by their faith.

I think that's right. As for "untempled" etc., I usually just say I am "unaffiliated" but that only works if it is clear that I am speaking in a religious context.

Whether this is correct or not depends on what your SM means by "do something." The requirement says "Tell how you have done your duty to God..." That's what you have to do, under the requirement.

Unfortunately, this discussion of a simple advancement question has now crossed the line into Issues and Politics, which is where it is about to be. The only solace is that the actual advancement question asked by Brian (do the new requirements apply to me) has already been answered.

I thought the only change for Eagle were the topics to be discussed at the Scoutmaster’s Conference, most notably that you have to discuss how you do your duty to God. Is there anything else?

That's what I'd like to do, and given the fact that nobody has even tried to convince me that the rules say otherwise, and my CC will go with my recommendation, that is what is going to happen. As for your comment about it being a Bronze Palm and not the Medal of Honor: It is a Bronze Palm, but it is not my Bronze Palm, it is the BSA's, and they get to decide who receives it.

Well, but there's always going to be a "next guy" who is the first to get the palm(s) under the new rule, and the guy before that didn't get it, and the "last guy" may feel slighted. (Although our kids have the whole palm thing pretty much in perspective and nobody is going make a big thing out of it either way.) The only question is whether the "next guy" is this particular kid, or the one who turns 18 in the late spring and is probably going to make it with 5 minutes to spare. It looks like it's going to be the one who passed his BOR next month - meaning that the "last guy" is going to be the one who had his ECOH yesterday. But he was not in a "grey area" because he had his EBOR (after his 18th birthday) in May or June. I'm fairly sure he doesn't even know that there is a new rule.

Well, that does kind of make it clearer. I guess I hadn't seen it written with the first part of that sentence. I don't think that what was posted previously has those words. I think it just said "Effective August 1" with no specific mention of the EBOR. But I could still see someone arguing that a change in the rules effective AFTER your 18th birthday doesn't apply to you. I don't agree with that argument, but I can see someone making it. I suppose I could ask council, but based on past experience I would probably get a different answer depending on who I ask.

Such as my son. But like I said, that's not what this thread is about.

As I start this thread, I feel the need to make clear what it is NOT about: This thread is not about whether anyone thinks the new policy on Eagle Palms is a good idea or a bad idea; or how anyone would like to see the new policy modified; or whether it reduces the incentive for non-last-minute Eagles to remain active in the troop; or whether I or anyone else gives too much attention to advancement; or whether anyone puts too much of a focus on "bling" or whatever-else anyone chooses to call the various awards and recognitions that Scouts achieve. There are other threads for those issues, including one from fairly recently in which the new policy was being debated and discussed. What this thread is about is whether, under the new rules, one particular Scout gets one palm at his ECOH. I actually mentioned this Scout in the previous thread on this subject, but at the time I did not know how many merit badges he ended up with or whether his EBOR was was going to be before August 1 (in which case he would clearly not get the Palm) or after August 1 (in which case he might get the palm.) So I didn't really want to raise the issue until I knew whether it mattered. It matters. Turns out that the Scout earned 26 merit badges, so he has exactly the five "extra" for a Bronze Palm. His 18th birthday was around early-mid July, and as of that time (just in the nick of time) he had completed all Eagle requirements except for the EBOR, and he had earned the 26 merit badges. On August 1, the new policy went into effect. Later in August, he passed his EBOR. (This is a typical time frame in my district, for the EBOR to be 3-5 weeks after the requirements are completed, because the EBOR's are scheduled by the district and are held every 2 weeks.) So in other words, as of his 18th birthday, he had enough merit badges for a palm, but the rules said he had to have three months of active service after his EBOR and before his 18th birthday, which obviously was impossible. So under the rules on the day of his birthday, he was not entitled to the palm. However, as of the day of his EBOR, about a month after his birthday, the rules said he gets the palm. So, being the Advancement Chair in my troop, I had this conversation with our CC. His initial reasoning was that since you can't "earn" anything after your 18th birthday, and the Scout had not "earned" the palm by his 18th birthday (because the old rule was still in effect), he doesn't get the palm. I took the position (without being 100% sure about it) that you actually CAN "earn" something after your 18th birthday, namely Eagle. All other requirements must be complete before 18, but the EBOR is also a requirement, and it can be completed after the birthday. Additionally, the Scout wasn't eligible for a palm (under either role) UNTIL he was Eagle - which occurred when he completed his EBOR, when the new rule was in effect. So you look at it from the date of his EBOR. Had he earned five "extra" merit badges before his 18th birthday? Yes he had. That's all he had to do under the rules in effect when he earned Eagle, so he gets the palm. By the end of that conversation I had convinced both the CC and myself that I was correct, and the kid (technically not a kid anymore) gets the palm. I just wanted to see if anyone in this forum can give me a good reason to change my mind.

I changed the title of this thread so it says "Tent" instead of "Ten."

Our local Lion's Club seems to have both men and women as members - and the membership also seems to be at least 90% people of Chinese descent, and given the local demographics, a majority of those were probably born in China. I am sure there is a reason for that, but none that I can figure out. It's kind of interesting though.

While I long ago gave up on the idea that anything can be done about threads that go off-topic, I think the off-topic nature of most of the discussion here has caused problems. This thread started out being about girls in the BSA. It seems to me that Cambridgeskip and Rick-in-CA are still discussing issues related to the actual topic. Almost everyone else is not. Maybe a new thread should be started, and probably not in I&P, if people want to discuss the well-worn subjects of how kids learn skills, patrol structure, the effect of advancement on learning and adventure, and whatever else people are discussing here. And that's part of the problem; other than the discussion of girls in Scouting, this thread has become about so many different things (some related) that, at this point, it isn't really about anything.