NJCubScouter

Well, maybe there is some hope for the future then.

I have read this transcript, and it is clear to me that some of his remarks were very inappropriate for that audience. The end of it was fine, that was the part that was apparently scripted. It is when he goes off the cuff that he says things that are inappropriate. He should not have been talking about politics at all - and he said he wasn't going to, but then he did. He talked about the health care bill, the media, and bragged about the election, and made subtle digs against various people. There also appears to be a veiled sexual reference when he was telling the story of the housing developer. (And I have seen some articles that say that is exactly what it was.) Leaving aside what any other president may have done or not done, does anyone here really believe that it was appropriate for him to say these things in front of a group of Scouts?

Welcome to the forum Josh!

Either way, it's outside the scope of my investigation. I was limiting it to the time period while their fathers were president.

That brings up an interesting question, this being a Scouting forum and all. Do we know whether Barron is a Boy Scout? Or was a Cub Scout? I think that if he was in Scouting now, we'd probably know about it, but I don't know about his younger days. It also occurs to me that, unless I am mistaken, Barron is the first son of a sitting President to be of Boy Scout or Cub Scout age for a long time - specifically since FDR, whose youngest son was 16 when FDR became president in 1933. I believe Gerald Ford's youngest son was 18 when Ford became president, which is close. I believe all the others since then, while in office, have either had older children (Truman, Eisenhower, Ford, Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43 (both daughters 20 in 2001)) or a son who was too young (JFK) or only daughters (LBJ, Nixon, Carter, Clinton, Obama.) (LBJ's and Nixon's daughters also may all have been 18 or older when their fathers took office, I don't feel like looking it up.) Did I miss anyone?

I understand that Presidents have speechwriters and can go off script if they want. But I have never seen a president go so off script, so often, that he hurts HIMSELF, repeatedly. As one example, I strongly suspect that his attorneys (both personal and government) are going absolutely crazy over his repeated public statements (in both speeches and tweets) about an ongoing Justice Department investigation involving his campaign, and the person conducting that investigation, and others involved. I can almost guarantee that his attorneys and others have tried repeatedly to get him to stop talking about it. It is self-destructive behavior. A related example is when he had a speech to give at the NATO summit (I think) and the speech was written by his writers and approved by Rex Tillerson and I forget who else, and everything was fine until he got up and gave a different speech, and Tillerson and others then had to scramble around and assure everyone of what the president really meant - which was in the original speech! So in the end, what is the U.S. policy on what he was talking about? Nobody really knows. Regardless of what anyone may think about his policies (and I'm fairly sure most of my opinions differ from yours), this really does not seem like rational behavior.

I don't want to get into a political debate about the president here, but it doesn't seem likely that he will be in a "good mood" anytime soon. We'll see. I am sure that someone on his staff has written a very nice, situationally-appropriate speech for him to give at the Jamboree, and if he knows what's good for him, he will give that speech and not try to "improvise" any additional remarks. That's when the trouble starts.

A photo from the Internet of some Scouts and Scouters happily wearing their red berets: http://tinyurl.com/yczoonxq When the red beret (and other optional hats) were made available around 1972, my troop voted for the campaign hat. After just a few years we switched to the baseball cap, although as I recall those of us who had been to Philmont wore our Philmont baseball caps instead of the official one. I remember wearing the garter with the tassel with the long socks in the summer. I don't remember minding it very much. It was just part of the uniform when wearing shorts.

It's all around me, has been my whole life.

Wonderful. Getting our CR's and some other people to take YPT every OTHER year hasn't been difficult enough.

What training do you think is necessary? Presumably, all leaders know what a girl looks like. Seriously though, there will have to be a change to the YP guidelines so that the same rules for coed outings that apply to Venturing are also applied to coed outings at any other level where coed outings will exist. Maybe everybody needs to get a refresher in YP Training to make sure everyone understands this. Okay, so that's 30 minutes, and some people would be renewing the course anyway because of the 2-year cycle. (And this training is already "developed" - they would just have to add one or two sentences that already exist in the Venturing version.) This does not seem like a huge burden, either on the BSA side, or the local volunteer side. What other training do you have in mind?

I think part of the problem is that PARENTS are more drawn to sports than Scouting for their sons (and sometimes their daughters). It often seems to me that one of the main drivers of this is that they think their son has the talent to play professionally (despite the long odds against it) or at least get a full athletic scholarship. If Scouting gets in the way of sports and a choice has to be made, the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow beats character, fitness and leadership every time. Well, not every time. Many times.

It looks to me like coed troops are off the table. If there is a program for girls 11-17 it is going to be in separate girls-only units. I got the same impression from the CSE's presentation.

As for the survey available at that site, I notice it is not an anonymous survey. Hmm.

New Jersey? Where's that? Welcome to the forum!

I responded to part of this same post earlier, but I just noticed this part. I agree, when he was talking about Cub Scouting he seemed more enthusiastic and talked about this opportunity to get more families involved. But when he "crossed over" to the older age group, suddenly he was no longer talking about an opportunity, now he was talking about a problem. Okay, now we've got all these 10.5-11 year old girls who have been Cub Scouts for 4+ or 5+ years, what do we do with them? As I said before, I think National knows what it is going to do at the Cub Scout level, but they seem genuinely perplexed about what to do after that.

Well, in our Scout Shop if you go in and try to buy ANY rank badge, you will get a lecture about how you need an advancement report and how they'll sell you the badges this time, but not next time, and they take your name. I don't know what happens if you do it a second time, that is, whether they actually turn you away or give you the badges and another lecture.

Well, I am not a proponent of coed Scouting (specifically meaning boys and girls together in the same troop; I would be fine with a parallel program) but I agree with you. This is being presented more as "what's good for the organization" rather than emphasizing the good it can do for girls. And as I said before, they also seem to think that if they open up the program to girls, they will also get brothers of those girls who are in the BSA. I don't think they really WANT to add girls to packs, and definitely not to troops. Mr. Surbaugh made that very clear in his presentation. They are making what they think is a pragmatic (there's that word again) decision.

Hmm. Webelos was supposed to be the name of a Native American tribe (do the Cub Scout books still say that?), but somehow I don't think "Skittles" would have very much credibility in that context.

It stands for WE'll BE. What's wrong with that? It used to stand for "Wolf Bear" (WeBe) with (LoS) standing for "Lion Scout" but then they took away Lion. I guess Lion is back in some places, but the letters would be in the wrong order.

Good question. I wonder whether National has even thought about that. But I think it is moot because, as I said, I do not think there is a "partner program" available. If there is going to be a Boy-Scout-age "parallel program" for girls, it is going to have to be something that the BSA creates, and if they create a program that is identical to Boy Scouts except for who can join and the name of the program, the Webelos program can probably serve both genders. As for "WE'll BE LOyal Scouts", I realize you put a smiley face next to that, but it is one of a number of questions that would have to be answered. Of course, it would be moot if the name of the new program includes the word "Scouts". I have no idea what that name would be, since the obvious choice is already taken. "Young Woman Scouts" is a little too awkward. "Non-Boy Scouts"? Nah. I don't know.

I guess I kind of disregarded the "partner program" option, that is, an already-existing program for girls that would somehow affiliate with the BSA on a nationwide basis. I don't know of a program with a "nationwide reach" that would fill the bill. I know that some BSA units already have a partnership arrangement with Girl Scout units on a local basis, but I don't think the GSUSA is going to be interested in that on a nationwide basis, particularly after the BSA starts competing with GSUSA at the 5- to 10-year-old level. Aside from that... Frontier Girls is just a curriculum with no actual organization; American Heritage Girls might have been an option at one point, but now they want nothing to do with the BSA and I don't think they share the same "values" as the BSA because AHG only accepts leaders of one religion; Campfire is already coed... did I miss anybody?

I have now watched the video posted by Matt (thank you Matt.) It sounded to me like the CSE was ruling out coed Boy Scout troops (even with patrols separated by gender) and that the only thing being considered at that age level is a "parallel program" so that the female Cub Scouts will have something to cross over to. Am I misinterpreting what he said? It also sounded to me that National is genuinely uncertain about how to handle the details of a "parallel" program for 11- to 17-year-old girls. They really seem to struggling with the issue of advancement in this "parallel" program, especially the subject of Eagle. I think that if they are going to have a "parallel" program, it should be a mirror image of Boy Scouts: Patrol method, same program, same ranks (including Eagle), same advancement requirements, same everything. I am still concerned about coed Cub Scout packs, but if coed troops are off the table (IF they are) and there will instead be a separate Boy-Scout-age program, most of my concerns are satisfied. It also sounds to me like they have probably made the decision about the Cub Scout level and the feedback from the "field" is not going to count for much, but that they have not actually decided what to do at the Boy Scout level and are genuinely looking for feedback. Maybe I am just being naive about that, but it really sounded to me like the Boy Scout part of this presentation was not just a "sales pitch."

As I have said before, I really don't think this issue is about National "giving in" to outside advocates. This about National wanting increased membership and increased membership fees, and having tried many other ways of achieving that without changing the "gender" policy, they have now decided that admitting girls is the only way to do it. Added note: Having now watched the video with Michael Surbaugh's presentation, this is even more clear to me. Part of National's concern seems to be that there are some BOYS who do not join Cub Scouts (in particular) because their parents want a program where all their children (boys and girls) can participate. Again, it's the numbers, and not just girls who can't join now, but some boys who could join but don't.

@@Cambridgeskip, some units are doing things "unofficially" already. Qwasze gives one example above, but presumably those "Venturers in Training" are not registered in the crew at the age of 11 or 12, because their registration would not be accepted. We have also had posts about various units doing things "unofficially". In some cases this may involve registering girls in Learning for Life while actually having them participate as members of packs or troops or as under-age members of crews. These maneuvers may partially satisfy the goals of the unit and the "unofficial" members, but it does not satisfy the goals of National. National wants the registration fees, which it does not get from "unofficial" participants, and they also want to be able to show increasing membership numbers in the "traditional" programs, which does not include LFL.