Rooster7

Fortunately, you are perfect. I wish I was perfect. Finally...Words that ring true. Perhaps, as an imperfect adult, I can empathize more readily with children who are imperfect. Wow.

Life is cruel as Rooster adroitly points out and I don't think Boy Scouts is charged with proving it to the scout. The point was NOT that we should go about torturing our children. Of course, abuse...the intentional infliction of harm upon others, should not be tolerated. Yet, I do not see this (singing for lost possessions) as abuse. It's good-natured fun. My contention is that we should be teaching bashful children to overcome their fears not run from them.

But isn't it a lot easier to learn that in a "friendly" environment... Perhaps my perspective is narrow, but... In my troop the boys enjoy the singing. They laugh at themselves as much as anyone might be laughing at them. I have yet to see a single boy become upset because he was required to sing for a "lost" item. It has been a fun experience for all (singers and spectators). If singing is the cause for embarrassment, then I guess we should stop campfire songs. If being in the spotlight is the cause for embarrassment, then we should ban skits. If being singled out is the cause for embarrassment, we should do away with rank advancements and awards. I don't see it. This is truly an over-reaction. If a kid doesn't want to sing, fine...I say give him something else to do. However, labeling this as hazing goes too far, and denies many boys of an innocent pleasure. Anything can be twisted and abused. I understand and agree that it should be monitored (as all things should be)...but if we label this as hazing, then might as well just keep our kids at home. After all, that's usually the safest place for them.

While all boys can benefit from Scouting, he is one of those that NEEDS Scouting -- a safe haven, a place to feel welcome. Are you willing to risk losing all the other boys like him over something like this? You are assuming that such a policy (making boys sing for lost items) would result in the "bashful" boy leaving the troop. I don't think this is a reasonable or fair conclusion. Do you have to sing the teapot song at work when you lose something? No, you go find it or you get a replacement. I don't set up a tent in my office either. Nor do I perform skits for my coworkers. This is not a fair comparison. Scouting is designed to develop a boy's character. Work is what we do to feed our families. While there may be some similarities, lets not treat the two as the same. Natural consequences work best, singing is NOT a natural consequence. Well, it really depends on what your talking about, doesn't it? I'm sure given the right circumstance; singing would be a natural consequence (i.e., your boss gives you a 25% merit increase). On a more serious note, singing is not the actual object of the exercise. Many boys tend to be neglectful and leave their belongings laying about. If not for the grace and thoughtfulness of others, many of these belonging would be lost and/or stolen. The "singing" requirement gives the boys a consequence for their neglectfulness (without having to incur the loss of a possession). It also serves another purpose. It forces young boys to go in front of a group. It gives them exposure to being in the spotlight. For most boys, this can be a learning experience that will help them later in life (i.e., give presentations to adults as an adult). When you misplace your car keys, do you walk down the street singing in front of your neighbors? I doubt it. No, I don't walk down the street singing in front of my neighbors. Instead, something more consequential might occurlike I could miss a very important business meeting. Fortunately, my troop taught me not to "lay things about" (i.e., they made me sing whenever I did)? As a result, I never lose those darn car keys. Additionally, as a side benefit, I'm a better presenter when I do reach that business meeting. The whole point of these "rituals" is to embarrass. I disagree. This presumes an awful lot about the leaders involved. It may cause a boy some embarrassment, but this is not the purpose. The purpose is to provide a consequence. No kid needs that, especially boys of this age group. If a troop made a boy do a presentation on safe food handling (because he blatantly disregarded the same), would you consider that hazing or harassment? I would hope not. It's merely a consequence for not doing something right. For many of them walking out of the house is embarrassing enough. So we should cater to every fear that a boy might have? I see our "jobs" in Scouting as helping these kids grow. If we shelter these boys every time someone makes a claim of "hazing", we're doing them a disservice. At one time, the political climate in this country mandated that only the "victim" had a right to claim whether or not a crime was committed. In other words, if someone claimed sexual harassment, then it must be soif someone felt he/she was discriminated against, then it surely happened. What we should be teaching our youth, is how to deal with realitynot false perceptions. Labeling these events as hazing is insane. It's the same political correctness that inspires grade school principals to suspend kindergartners for playing cops and robbers. Are you willing to risk losing all the other boys like him over something like this? Maybe. I don't think the program should be tailored so that its impossible for any boy to be feel inadequate. That's not a realistic objective. Yet, I think this question is moot. Leaders should be able to spot these painfully shy kids. Adults tend to speak to one another just like the boys. We should not be operating within a vacuum. If a boy was just "too bashful" for such an exercise, I see no reason why the leadership (PLC and adults) wouldn't be able to find a way around it (i.e., give him another consequence). Nevertheless, I ask these questions: How many accommodations do we make in order to make the program acceptable everyone? Do we change what we do every time there is an objection? If you believe we should make every accommodation, and change every time someone claims to be a victim, then I believe BSA will grow into an organization that will accomplish little and stand for nothing. It is a cruel world. I hate that I cannot guarantee my sons a safe and successful future. It actually pains me when I think of how little I control in regards to their futures. If I could, my sons would never suffer in any way (embarrassment, disappointments, physical pain, etc.). Yet, this is not reality. If I protect them from every possible trialif I remove all obstacles from their path, so that they will not suffer while under my roof, then I have not done my job. Scouting should be a safe haven, but NOT a glass bubble. This protection, whether inspired by love or ignorance, would hinder their ability to grow and be successful in life. This kind of protection today will only cause them greater trials tomorrow.

Now, what is the appropriate consequence for this older boy? I'm not sure we know enough details to make the call. Nevertheless, I'm assuming your SM is a mature and reasonable adult. I'm also assuming your committee is comprised of mature and reasonable adults. If that is the case, and this issue is going to committee, I feel fairly comfortable in saying that your troop can probably come up with a reasonable consequence. There are many variables that should be weighed. What exactly was said? What were the boy's intentions? Was he attempting to solicit these boys' participation in something? Is this boy immature for his age? What is his history? I really think no one on this board can give you a good answer unless they have first hand knowledge of the troop and the boy in question.

It has also been bandied about that the Troop is too big (70+ boys or thereabouts). Whatever is decided, the above statement should be a non-factor. In regard to discipline, you should never allow logistically issues (such as the size of the troop) to determine a boy's fate. What can be done to be sure this doesn't happen again to any other younger boys. Boys tend to be curiousespecially at this age, and especially about this subject. I'm not so sure anyone can do anything "to be sure this doesn't happen again". The best you can hope for is that the boys understand the seriousness of the subject matter and that they have open and thoughtful discussions with their parents. I agree that there should be consequences for inappropriate talk. The PLC and the committee should work together on this task. Can a policy be implemented which will ensure that it will never happen again? I seriously doubt it. On the other hand, the troop could develop a disciplinary system, which escalates the consequences for repeat offenders (including eventual expulsion). Regardless, every situation is different and deserves close examination by the PLC...and if necessary, the troop's committee.

jcats001, Most productive and useful statement goes to Mike Long: I think the big thing to do is sit down with the PLC and Troop Committee and do a post-mortem of the trip and create some action items of good and bad things that happened and re-visit who does what. No. I would not resign over a single incident. However, given the aforementioned facts, I do believe you were at fault on several issues. 1) If you felt it was unsafe, you should not have gone. Did you really attempt to setup tents in an open field during a lightning storm? Your post seems to imply that you knew this was going to be a possibility. Regardless, it sounds as if you had good enough reason to stay home [ill-prepared Scouts, bad weather, lack of leadership]. 2) While the Committee Chairman is wrong for circumventing your authority, you allowed it to happen [at least in part], by participating on the trip. You never should have reversed your decision. Stand your ground and let the chips fall where they may. 3) You should have a good idea of who's going and who's not at least two weeks ahead of time. This will prevent "last minute" meetings, which tend to "irk" folks.

And you missed my point too... Of course, when we say state the facts (before opinion), we mean ALL of the facts. Leaving out "little things" like the attack on Pearl Harbor, or more importantly, the U.S. military's analysis of a conventional attack on the Japanese homeland, defeats the purpose. I prefer professors to limit their opinions. This does not mean state certain facts but not others (this would be just as bad).

The Scouters who take their vacation time to attend Summer Camp so the boys can go. Trust me...no false modesty...I enjoy being at Summer Camp with the boys. It's the spouses that allow us to go that are making the sacrifice...or maybe we just think they are

Studebaker Silverhawk? And I thought your comments about voting for Nixon (twice) was giving away your age. With each new post, OGE you seem to be getting older and grayer.

Given the facts above, I'd have to agree that expelling the boy from the troop was the right thing to do. As for the district executive claiming "the troop was at fault", that sounds like a bogus claim to me. BSA policy does not dictate that all boys must be in sight of an adult (or in the same room). Nor should it. You know...in every profession, including Scouting, there are less than competent people. This may be an example.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

NJCubScouter, I agree with most of the folks on your list. It's not totally surprising that we disagree on Reagan (although, I'll never understand why people will not give him credit). His list of accomplishments seem endless. I am surprised to see John Lennon's name. I see his accomplishments as follows: Belonged to a great rock n' roll band Sang idealistic songs about world peace (which is not a bad thing, but certainly had no chance of changing the world). Although, his lyrics did insult most of the world's faiths (Imagine that). Spent weeks in bed with his wife (for some unexplainable reason...well, besides the obvious one common to all men) His life had a tragic end. But there's no way I can envision him as a great leader... Now, Muhammed Ali I can get behind. He inspired his people, uplifted the country, and set a great example for all. Although he refused to serve, I think even most conservatives appreciate the fact that he did not run. My only criticism is his remarks concerning the Vietnam war, which I feel needless injected race into the picture. Its Trail Day, Amen - to your nomination of John Wayne. Some probably laugh at his name being on this list. Yet, how many men (through his movies) has he inspired to "do the right thing"....same reason why I like Jimmy Stewart so much.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

In Politics: Ronald Reagan - Never afraid to speak the truth even if the truth was not politically correct. He was a true patriot who inspired a nation to feel proud again (following the debacle in Iran). He was a warrior who was not afraid to fight a just cause. He ended the Cold War. Russia was an evil empire (just ask those passengers on KLOA). When you're children go to sleep at night, how often do they think about a nuclear war? When I was growing up, I use to think about it quite often (born in 59). He understood the economy like few do today. Supply side economics works and he proved it. How prosperous were the 80's? I would say, "pretty darn good." How many terrorist actions were taken against the U.S. in the 80's? I can't recall but I know there were very few (if any) nations willing to take us on. Does anyone doubt that President Reagan's presence in the oval office commanded that respect? He was a genuine leader in every sense of the word. His words gave us confidence. His actions backed his words. Ronald Reagan hands down. I only wish I had a chance to meet him. These next three don't really qualify as leaders, or at least not political leaders, but they are three of my favorite people. In Religion: Billy Graham - Because he dedicated his life to bringing others to Christ. In Entertainment: Bob Hope - Because he made so many laugh and never stooped to lowbrow or nasty humor. And, he always recognized the sacrifices of our servicemen...regardless whether or not a particular war was popular. And Jimmy Stewart - Because his movies uplifted the common man. He made you feel good about this country and the people in it. And, he was a real life hero in WWII.

eisely, You've summed up my feelings on President Carter precisely, in respect to him as a president and a man. There appears to be little doubt in anyone's mind that Jimmy Carter is a good man who loves his country. However, his current attempts at international diplomacy are undermining the current administration's efforts to do battle with rouge nations. What purpose does it serve to tell Cuba that they are being falsely persecuted? President Carter was not invited by the current administration to play the role of ambassador. He should not expect our government to reveal their intelligence on Cuba to him or anyone else dabbling in our country's business. Consequently, his most recent remarks concerning Cuba and our country's embargo are totally inappropriate. He may well have noble motives, but as was the case 25 years ago, his actions are doing this country a disservice. As for Gerald Ford, he did not run for the office. Nixon selected him. I don't think we can hold him to the same standard for out-of-office accomplishments and deeds. He stepped up to fill the position when asked. He did not seek the role. Nevertheless, I would like to note that President Ford is an Eagle Scout. Nor has he ever done anything to embarrass this country. OkayThat's my $.02 on the politics of the day.

Voted for Nixon? Twice? Be careful, you're starting to show your age. I was in jr. high when he resigned. I was a die-hard liberal from birth through high school and most of college. I kinda inherited my politics from my parents. I turned conservative shortly after my first child. I'm a little disappointed that you didn't vote for Reagan twice...But hey, noboby's perfect. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Liberal? Did I call you such a thing? (such an ugly thought) ...Although we may have some differences... I don't think I can stake exclusive claim to the conservative veiwpoint, especially at the expense of your self perspection. The truth is, there are many degrees within a circle. Generally speaking, I'd say we're witin the same 90 degree arch. That leaves a lot of room to either side, but I guessing there's not as big of a gap as you might think.

Bottom Line - Whether you are conservative or liberal, most parents want their children to view life (and history) from a perspective that reflects what they have been taught at home. When did we ever ask our government to circumvent those efforts? It is not a teacher's function (no matter how qualified he/she may be on a certain subject) to mold our children thoughts. He/She should be providing them with tools. As to what they do with those tools, it's out of their hands. I think parents, as a group, try to imprint their philosophy concerning life onto their children. This is to be expected. It is not surprising to me that OGE, scoutmom, and I all agree. We all love our children. Consequently, we do not want teachers or anyone else unfairly influencing them (i.e., spinning the facts), especially if it is contradictory to our efforts at home.

Quixote, Whether it is Class I or Class VI, I believe BSA considers all of it to be whitewater. Having said this, I think the following applies: 1) You need to have a certified adult [in Safety Afloat] for every 10 participants. 2) All participants must wear a PFD [personal floatation device]. 3) Participants need to be "qualified swimmers" - per the BSA swimmers test. If not, a certified lifeguard needs to be in the raft with the "non-swimmer". 4) Training specific to the particular type of craft being used needs to be given to all participants [use of craft, safety, and emergency procedures]. I believe an outfitter orientation is acceptable [i.e., a review given prior to the trip]. 5) It is recommended that the troop has at least one certified lifeguard accompany them on the trip. However, it is not mandatory, unless there are "non-swimmers" participating. If there are "non-swimmers", then a lifeguard must be in the craft with these individuals.

The problem with history classes as proposed by VH_50, is that they tend to indoctrinate vice educate. I'd rather my son or daughter be given the "dry facts" without any "propaganda." As OGE alluded to, when "critical thinking" is injected into the history curriculum, more often than not, it turns a history class into a philosophy class. The desired critical thinking is going to occur whether it is "encouraged" or not. The real issues are; how much of this thinking is molded by the teacher and his personal philosophy? And, how much of this thinking is being shaped by the actual facts as they are viewed from the personal perspective of the student? If a teacher chose to do so, he could push a class in a certain direction just by presenting certain facts and not others. If you add one personable teacher and stir in some "critical thinking", you have the perfect recipe for creating "true believers". But, what exactly do they believe? Do they believe that somehow the United States were the aggressors in WWII? When they think of our founding fathers, do they think of self-sacrificing men who fought (and in some cases, died) for a worthy cause, or do they think of slave owners? Of course, both facts are correct but which story - which truth, has the greater relevance to us today? Doesn't a student (particularly one who is out of grade school) have the understanding and capacity to make these value decisions without guidance from a teacher? If so, why are these issues being discussed in a classroom setting? Is it for educational purposes or is it for indoctrination? Ask a conservative and a liberal, and you're apt to get two different answers. Given the politics of the NEA and the staffs of most universities, it shouldn't be a great surprise that many (if not most) conservatives view it as indoctrination. History is about facts. Philosophy is about what one thinks of those facts. History is mandatory for high school students and for many college majors as well. Philosophy is optional for high school students and mandatory for very few college majors. There are obvious reasons for this reality. These two classes should never be "merged." Teachers should encourage us to examine the facts, but they should not attempt to channel our thoughts to meet their political expectations/desires. Having said all of the above, I do not know VH_50 or how he goes about instructing his classes. I am wary of any history class that would spend more time focusing on "critical thinking" than it would spend discussing the facts. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

"...boys are not designed for sitting indoors on their cans for extended periods -- they gotta smell the air, hear birds, step in dirt, stuff trash in their pockets, and handle sticks on a regular basis or it screws up their heads." Great quote...Mark Twain would have smiled had he heard that one. I understand the points made. There is validity concerning much of what has been said. However, in most cases, participation in a Scouting activity is not going to be the deciding factor as to whether or not a boy winds up on the wrong side of the tracks (so to speak). For my son, Scouting is his number one activity and greatest source of fun. If I ground him, it will be painful not to participate, but it will also be a learning experience. Most troops should be able to function when a particular Scout or two becomes unavailable. "Be Prepared"...that sounds familiar. Assistant Patrol Leaders (or an ASLP) should be ready and able to fill the void on those rare occasions. If a parent doesn't want to use Scouting in this way, I understand. Nevertheless, for me, it isn't a matter of creativityit's about effectiveness. On the other hand, if my son's interest in Scouting were waning, then I'd probably take the other side of this argument. I wouldn't ground my son from Scouting if I thought it would make him disinterested and apathetic to the program. Obviously, the purpose of discipline is to make your child a better person in the long run.

smaster101, First, I agree with your sentiments. Furthermore, your analogy with the pledge is a good one...I think right on the mark. Even so, once you start to discuss this issue in your troop, I think you'll become very frustrated. By my experience, there seems to be quite a number of folks who don't understand the difference between a public organization (school) and a private organization (such as BSA). You'll probably tangle with a few of these folks. It's a shame they didn't pay more attention in civics class. Regardless, once you find folks who understand the Constitution, I think you'll still find a number of other folks debating the term "legitimate reason". Some will claim that they have a deep reverence for God, but refuse to attend services (for a variety of reasons). I'm not sure how they justify that to themselves...but some folks will do just that. Bottom line: I agree that it's within the troop's right to create such a policy. However, due to a variety of viewpoints (nonsensical as some may be) about what the phrase "duty to God" means, and ignorance about what BSA can mandate as a private organization, I think it will be an uphill battle. It'll probably be a debate that will give you more gray hairs than you ought to have. Just my thoughts(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Mike, I appreciate your perspective (and your emotions) as a near victim of this very ugly crime. Regardless of the legalities, I agree with you...the world would be a better place if all parents embraced BSA's guidelines for Youth Protection and applied them in their everyday life. I have some very close friends. These same friends have a very deep faith in God. Yet, I will not leave my children alone with these godly men. We're (mankind) very good at hiding our most hideous sins. While I have contempt for the pedophile, I also realize that many good men (and women) can fall prey to sexual sin (and other vices). We shouldn't assume that we know, all there is to know, about anyone. That probably sounds a little bleak, but I think we'd be foolish to think the condition of man is such that we should innately trust him. History and personal observation of current events tells us differently. Apparently, you can attest to the same. God bless.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Mike, Sounds good in theory, but I doubt if it is legally sound. For example, many families in our troop were friends before they joined Scouting. I know that it is not too uncommon for some of these families to do things together (picnic, trips to the beach, etc.) with and without all of the parents present (i.e., a father takes his son and another family's kid fishing). Does a troop committee have a right to tell them that they can't? As I said, I appreciate your thoughts on this subject (and I agree with them in principle). However, I'm not convinced that your troop or a council could actually back up such a policy. It's outside of the realm of the Scouting program (it's a non-Scouting event). As much as we would like to protect every kid, everywhere, all the time, I don't think we can do it. We don't have the resources or the legal authority (especially outside of Scouting). I think our best bet is to educate the parents and the kids about sexual predators (as BSA has done) and encourage everyone to be "a little paranoid". And of course, while Scouting, enforce and practice Youth Protection. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

sctmom, Thanks for the update. I wonder why the parents allowed those meetings? What was the pretence? I suppose there are many possible explanations. Yet, as someone who has his "mother's blood" (I am extremely paranoid when it comes to my children), I cannot understand why folks are not more cautious. We're not always going to get a second chance to get it right. My motto: "Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean someone isn't out to get you." This can cause some stress, but it works for me.

The Scouting program should be supporting parents in their efforts to raise (i.e., character building) and discipline their children. Sometimes Scouters think it's the other way around. While I agree parents should support the program. It should not be at the expense of their parenting philosophy. It should not dictate or negate their ability to discipline their children as they see fit. I would take great offense to any Scouter who, without invitation, advised me on how to discipline my child. Especially if I had reason to believe that they had hidden motives (i.e., a desire to see a Scouting function supported by my son). In fact, if there is advice to be given out, it should be from the parents to the Scouters. The parents know and understand their children better than anyone else. If they don't, there's something wrong. Regardless, it is inappropriate for Scouters to assume that their desires for the troop should take priority over a parent's need to discipline his/her son. I would also have "heartburn" if a Scouter expressed his/her displeasure to my son about how he was being disciplined. This is an issue for which I think Scouters need to bite their collective tongue and step back. Furthermore, I would go so far as to say, even on a Scout outing, a parent never truly gives up his right to be a parent. While I agree the parent needs to stand back as much as possible, there comes a point in time where a parent can and should step in. For example, if a boy was ever to engage in a physical confrontation with another boy, I believe it is perfectly acceptable for a parent to restrain and counsel his son. Of course, this does not negate the troop's right to discipline the Scout. Nor would I expect it to. However, if the parent felt it was time for the son to go home, I would expect the troop's leadership to support that decision. Having said all of the above, I rarely if ever feel it is necessary to "ground" my son from Scouting. Yet, if/when I do, I do not expect to be lectured by Scouters in his troop. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)