NJCubScouter

I think this case is about trademark infringement (as the GSUSA complaint says it is), but I guess that's just me being a silly lawyer.

I could be wrong, but I think the Girl Scouts won that case because they were calling themselves "Girl Scouts", with "Scout" modified by "Girl." I don't think the outcome would have been the same if they had been just using the name Scouts, with no gender identification - as the BSA is doing now. I am not saying the GSUSA is necessarily going to win this case, but I do think it could go either way.

I suggested "Girl Guides." But that probably would have caused a different lawsuit.

It makes a fellow proud to be a Boy Scout.

Google Translate is good for entertainment purposes only. Try translating something from English to another language, and then paste the result and translate that back into English. It's good for a laugh.

Let's talk about this particular boy. The fact that he forced another boy to sit still while he rubbed his barely-clothed genitals on the other boy's head does raise the prospect that he may do so again, to somebody else, of whatever gender. It also raises the distinct possibility that he may do something worse to someone else, of whatever gender. It also raises the question of whether this is the first time he has done that to someone.

Maybe there is some sort of Scouting program in the local juvenile detention facility. I say that not to be mean, but just as a reminder that this kid committed what would be a "felony" if he were an adult.

I hate the idea of reporting a kid to council, but as with everything else, there is a "line" where conduct is no longer in a grey area. The actions of the SPL cross the line. I am not sure about the Scouts who watched and encouraged, but the perpetrator definitely crossed the line. He has also committed what would be (in my state) a serious juvenile offense, which would be a fourth-degree crime (the lowest level, but still a crime) if he were an adult. The crime of "criminal sexual contact" is defined, (again, in New Jersey) as an “intentional touching by the victim or actor, either directly or through clothing, of the victim’s or actor’s intimate parts for the purpose of degrading or humiliating the victim or sexually arousing or sexually gratifying the actor.” (Bold-face added.) The contact described clearly meets that definition. If he had done it once, and stopped when he was asked to stop, it might be difficult to prove "intent", but since he did it four more times after being asked to stop, "intent" is clearly there. The above does not constitute legal advice and, in any event, may not apply in your state.

What position(s) do you hold in the pack and troop? It sounds like you are probably an Assistant Scoutmaster in the troop, in which case it is not your responsibility to know where any Scout is in his book. In the pack, if you are the Den Leader or an Assistant Den Leader who has been specifically designated to keep track of the Cubs' advancement, maybe it is your responsibility. If you are a committee member, not. It is not clear from your post whether you are 21 yet, so I don't know what positions you are eligible to hold.

Right on both counts. I am not sure what the average is in the troop I currently serve, but I would estimate that at least 60% of those who make Eagle in the troop finish the requirements within two months before their 18th birthday. I am not even counting the board of review in that estimate. Probably 30-40% have the EBOR after their 18th birthday. Apparently the adult leaders in EagleForever's troop have somehow twisted that statistic into the idea that you are supposed to make Eagle right before you turn 18. Obviously that is incorrect. You are supposed to make it when you make it, as long as it is sometime before the 18th birthday, if you make it at all.

First of all, welcome to the forum! Yes, that is a new thing. I am not sure how long it has been in effect since my Cub-leader days are long past (I made Life in 1974 and my only son made Eagle in 2009 ), but it has been less than three years. I am not surprised that the Cubs are having a difficult time with it, because it's ridiculous to expect them to be able to do it, particularly the younger ones. But that is the Word from National. It sounds very wrong. First of all, as you know, the deadline is the 18th birthday, so if they literally "wait until they are 18" they won't make it at all. Even "waiting" until you are 17 is a good recipe for not making it at all, because nothing ever takes the amount of time you think it will. Especially at that age, youth tend to procrastinate, although it looks like you did not, since you made it at 15. My son made Life at 14, and if he had moved at a reasonable pace, he would have made Eagle before his 17th birthday. He did not move at a reasonable pace. He ended up making Eagle 2 days (and zero business days) before his 18th birthday, and even then he made it because several people went out of their way for him. That is what happens when you "wait." It's a very bad thing to tell the kids.

It boggles my mind that anyone who has a daughter (I have two, both of whom are adults and moms themselves) would object to that requirement. Peoples’ energies should be put into finding more female leaders, not complaining about it.

Well, sexual abuse and two-deep, digital etc are related; one is the problem and the others are ways to reduce the occurrence of the problem. But generally I agree with you. There is too much time spent telling us what the problems are and why they are a problem, and too little time discussing the "solutions," i.e. the barriers to abuse (2-deep, no 1-on-1 etc.) It may be that I am a little jaded about this, because I have either taken or "facilitated" (back when it was an in-person-only course) the various versions of YPT going back to 1999, probably 25 times or so. For awhile the district had me on their regular "teaching" rotation. So I kind of feel like I don't really need to sit through yet another recitation of how much child abuse there is and why it's bad. I know already.

Yes, Captain Jack Sparrow, but what are the consequences of not following the "guideline"? (That is an actual question, I do not know the answer in this context.) If the consequences of not following a "guideline" are the same as the consequences of not following a "rule", then it really doesn't matter what they call it.

If this is really the rule, then I think National has sailed right off the deep end. You know, @RichardB, adults can harass and verbally abuse other adults, and it unfortunately happens in workplaces all the time, and it can sometimes lead to liability for the employer. In BSA National Headquarters, and in councils, are employees allowed to email each other? (That's a rhetorical question, I'm sure they are.) If so, how do you know that some nefarious activity is not taking place by email. By the logic of not permitting troop communications by email, then people at BSA National should not be emailing each other. Ridiculous, you say? I agree! We all want the Scouts to be safe. But whether we want to admit it or not, we do not do "everything" we can do to keep the Scouts safe, because "everything" would mean there are no activities or communications at all, and therefore no program. There has to be a balance. Nobody would die in auto accidents if there were no cars and no driving, but yet we drive cars and try to make the drivers and the cars as safe as they can reasonably be.

If you mean the news site that printed this article, it seems to me that they were very careful to keep quoting the lawsuit rather than making the statements "in their own voice." The lawsuit contends, the lawsuit alleges, according to the lawsuit, etc. etc. As long as the lawuit does say those things, the statements in the article are not false, regardless of whether the statements in the lawsuit itself are false.

You could, and yes, it’s defamation. But NealOnWheels was not talking about the writer of a post.

Would you care to explain that?

But seriously folks, when Judge Roy Moore put up his (unconstitutional) public monument of the Ten Commandments, the monument had 11 commandments. See https://tinyurl.com/y9oakh38 It all depends on how you parse the first few. And if I have this correct, Orthodox Jews find 613 (I think) commandments in Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy, not just 10 or 11. A couple hundred of them only apply when there is a main Temple on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, which there hasn't been for awhile, but there are people who do follow all ~ 400 that remain.

Actually, my general view of morality is basically the same as the Reform Jewish movement (of which I am technically a part), Episcopalians, Unitarians and others.

As far as I know, every lawsuit againt the BSA regarding membership policies has either been won by the BSA or settled in such a way that the membership policy was not changed until the BSA later decided to change - with one exception. That exception is the complaint brought in the New Jersey Division of Civil Right on behalf of the 8-year-old trans boy who was denied membership in the Cub Scouts because his birth certificate says he is a girl. The BSA basically caved... they changed the policy and I believe they even paid some money to the kid's family. The BSA did not have to cave, they could have taken it up through the NJ appellate courts and ultimately to the U.S. Supreme Court, where they would have had the Dale case on their side, and may have won. I think they changed the policy because they were tired of negative publicity and, in retrospect, they knew that Cub Scouts would soon be opened to girls anyway.

Well, I think there is an "additional requirement" of sorts, in that the Scouts who do this will have 24 months (or less) to go from no-rank to Eagle, of which more than 16 months are time requirements, rather than having 7 years. There will be no time for pauses and probably very little or no time for sports, robotics, school plays or any other elective activity. These Scouts will basically be eating, sleeping, going to school (including college), doing homework (hopefully) and doing Scout advancement.

Thanks for that. I think that’s a good thing.

I was wondering about that too. Do we know that she will still be 17 as of Feb. 1?

You’re probably right. They would be treated like 18-20 year olds in Venturing are treated now: as youth for participation purposes but as adults for YP purposes.