skeptic

On 3/22/2022 at 9:47 AM, skeptic said:

This one continues to be a serious point of confusion for many of us I fear.  Our leaders have touched on it once or twice, but nobody feels confident in how to approach it.  The general consensus verges on making it a general group discussion for all the youth, or perhaps more than one, focused on THEIR perspectives and input.  The vagueness and simply point that the subjects are controversial and bound to be viewed in widely distanced ways does not help.  The one thing though, upon what most adults and even more senior scouts is that the intent has always already been part of the basic tenets, and this simply muddies that.

Add this that attempts to explain points of Law;  "

A Scout is Friendly.

A Scout is a friend to all. He is a brother to other Scouts. He offers his friendship to people of all races and nations, and respects them even if their beliefs and customs are different from his own.

A Scout is Courteous.

A Scout is polite to everyone regardless of age or position. He knows that using good manners makes it easier for people to get along.

A Scout is Kind.

A Scout knows there is strength in being gentle. He treats others as he wants to be treated. Without good reason, he does not harm or kill any living thing."

 

 

These three points, as explained here, basically cover the CIS merit badge, or so it seems to me.  

5 minutes ago, GrammaScout said:

I understand that Troops are allowed very little in 'selective membership'.   Atheists are not allowed to join of course because the Policy is that the Scout must believe in a power higher than himself.  Although they lie and get in anyway.   Of course, if you are an atheist, you operate on different values anyway.   A Scout with a history of being 'trouble'...is not automatically allowed to join either.   Other than that, any selectivity in membership would be quite contrary to the policies of the Program.

Today especially I believe that not allowing professed atheists to join would be problematic in some cases.  Part of the issue for youth, those that are still in the younger ages especially, really are too young to have established that belief themselves.  Their parent(s) may make that claim, but they really are at best searching agnostics.  I have seen a couple of youth that were struggling with the Spiritual issue due to their maturing and wider exposure to other religious beliefs.  But, as they experienced a deeper immersion with the realities of nature, especially dark skies and infinite stars, they grew in personal Spiritual growth.  That is one of the often positive results of the outdoor program.  

I might add too, that IF part of a religious outreach is to bring in others, not allowing a nonbeliever seems counter productive.

This one continues to be a serious point of confusion for many of us I fear.  Our leaders have touched on it once or twice, but nobody feels confident in how to approach it.  The general consensus verges on making it a general group discussion for all the youth, or perhaps more than one, focused on THEIR perspectives and input.  The vagueness and simply point that the subjects are controversial and bound to be viewed in widely distanced ways does not help.  The one thing though, upon what most adults and even more senior scouts is that the intent has always already been part of the basic tenets, and this simply muddies that.

26 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

A few questions.

1. What happens with the Webelos Den that wants to complete Scouting Adventure, but doesn't have a troop at the same CO?

2. What about the new troop that is having challenges that  wants to team up with an experienced troop to help them get better?

3. What if a Cub Scout Pack is doing a Cross Over at a camp out, and their Webelos are going to two, or even three, different troops, and wants the troops to camp with them?

4. What about the two troops that meet at summer camp and want to do a joint activity?

5. What about the troop that has some vacancies for ( Name your high adventure base), and no one else from the troop can go?

Yes, I have seen all the scenarios above happen.

 

If it wasn't troops getting together to create an event that competes with council, all two or more units would need is approval  from their COS to do this instead of the council. I have seen better run and cheaper events run by multiple units. Heck one event was going on for a number of years on it's own, and council decided to create their own to compete with it, and the volunteer event was still better and cheaper.

If the council is threatened by the cooperative efforts of the individual units, then they do not understand the program.  For the first fity to sixty years, at least, that was what made the program.  And, if we refacilitate that type of thing, it again will likely take off to some extent.  But, the dedidcated Commissioners that were key back then no longer exist to any extent. 

https://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2022/03/11/lets-get-some-bsa-representation-ages-15-29-on-the-uns-young-leaders-initiative/

This is a long shot, but there are some of our youth, especially those just recently moved to the first decade after high school, who might find this of great interest.  But, as Bryan notes, this is very much up the alley of the best of Scouting.  

31 minutes ago, clbkbx said:

Hi @skeptic... there was more in the original post (that I don't recall) but that was the shared link. I still had it open and thought others might want to read it.

We disagree on whether the article is spot on.

Well, "spot on" may be a stretch.  But it does show the realities of this and how it became the mess it is.  Most of the problem, in my view, can be laid in the laps of the messed up legal system that has little rhyme or reason much of the times, and is too often the "the land of predator grifters" with often thin credentials.  JMHO of course.  

2 hours ago, clbkbx said:

Sorry to hear that, @NJScout1980. I read and responded to your post. While we may disagree on some things, I don't recall anything not appropriate for this forum. For what it's worth... I hope you keep posting. 

Here's the article that was shared: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelkrauss/2022/03/08/bankruptcy-and-the-boy-scouts/

I urge everyone to brush up on their critical readings skills if they do read it.

Not sure if this post suggests this article, which is spot on by the way from my perspective, is reason for censue.  If so, I too would say not right, but in stronger verbiage.  Almost from the beginning some, shall we say questionable legal persons, those for whom I was smacked for my descriptions, have played fast and  loose with this.  The real victims, or now survivors, have been summarily used as pawns to instigate a "big payday" for grifters and those certain oily legal gurus, while the real victims/survivors have been left in the mud.  Again, just my view.  

It just may be the curmudgeon in me, but at times I feel as if certain people in some of the National level decision groups think that the leaders in the trenches are all idiots or will be lemmings.  They seem to not give us credit for being able to actually be "leaders" in that we actually can be aware and respond accordingly.  But that may come from the fact that on occasion that has been exactily what transpired to cause an issue.  But we all need to not forget we are all prone to human error.  As long as we can accept our failings and work to avoid repetition and also "do our best" we should be fine.  That particularly relates to some activities with tools and such.  But, I rode in the backs of pickups and and climbed trees without ropes or something on which to fall.  I also pretty much took personal responsibility for much of my teen activities with little parental interference.  That was part of being a fifties era latch key kid. Those were the days when if we fell down and got hurt, we generally got up and went on our way if we could, often looking around to make sure nobody saw us.  We learned to work things out on our own without constant parental involvement.  My parents more than once told me that I needed to either stay away from somebody or some actiity, or learn to get along and do what was needed.  Want to go to the Jambo in 1960?  How much?  $400 plus $50 for uniforming and recommended $50 spending money.  Okay; we will buy your uniforms.  They did, and I went.  And I assure you that I enjoyed it more than a couple of guys at the time that just were sent.  

25 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

I agree it flies in the face of the program; the brotherhood of scouting; the fellowship of scouting.  It's against the vision.

My challenge is G2SS is not a cafeteria plan anymore than YP is a cafeteria plan.  You can't pick what you like and don't like.  If you ignore the no camping with units from other COs, what else do you ignore?  What liabilities do you open?  Do you ignore two deep because you don't have abusers in your troop?  ... Work to find a solution or a currently used method.  I would hesitate to escalate too far or too loud, but I would pursue to the level of an honest answer.  A scout is trustworthy.  

With that said, an all Lutheran scouting event does smell / sound like a council / district event.  You need to work with council leadership to get it cleared.  I can't believe the council would say no unless there are other issues going on (people, conflict, turf, etc)

This was in 1955 when I was 11 and brand new.  Just for clarification.  We are not a Lutheran sponsored unit, but another larger denomination.  It is interesting that every year or so, there are training couses at PTC that relate to the coopertive nature of sponsors, especially the major churches.  In those, they discuss how to integrate the program within the larger council and even area in relation to that specific sponsor.  So, it is actually contradictory to meet at PTC in such discussions, then say we should not do it.

We simply need to do what works best for the individual units and their youth.  The idea that two units working together is not allowed without permission is ludicrous.  It flys in the face of the whole program, most importantly the brother/sister hood of the program.  Efficiency, sharing resources, and so on.  As noted here already, it allows smaller units to do things they might not do otherwise.  As far as YP is concerned and liability, it should not be an issue.  If all adults are following the rules, then if anything, it should make it easier to keep aware.  Most of our issues with the lawsuit things is due to NOT following the in place protective rules, and Not sharing in group interactions.  I was just asked by our CE to NOT try to work with other troops within our our council that share the same church as a sponsor.  My first campout as a boy in 1955 was an all Luthern gathering for So Cal.  That is what I want to try and implement here, both for the greater opportunity, but also strengthening our program in conjunction with the sponsor.  Our church regions have access to a number of fine camps, for example.  It is foolish in the extreme to limit cooperative efforts and those shared resources.  Sort of like the GS mostly refusal to interact with the BSA.  Adults being idiots, in my old man view.  

25 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

Look at page ii.   

• First three bills had zero withheld. 
• Forth bill was a transition and had 20% withheld. 
• All subsequent bills averaged twice the original average.

Withholding payment actually increased the bills.  

This is what I'd expect.  ... What?  You're withholding part of my invoice?  Fine.  I'll increase my hourly rate and/or bill more hours.

Any others joining me in watching the flock of hooked beaked circlers?

14 hours ago, scoutldr said:

Anyone can wear blue jeans to an EBOR.  I saw it all the time as the District Rep to EBORs.  One of the board members, a troop committee member once showed up to an EBOR wearing a sweaty T-shirt, shorts and flip flops.  He had just been cutting the grass.  Is it "proper" or respectful?  Nope.  Did I say anything? Nope.  Adults should be willing to set the example.  Kids observe...and learn.  

Remember, the uniform is not required, only a tool.  NEVER should lack of a uniform be a reason for a youth to not have the program should they want it.  B.P. must have polished his bones well by now with all the foolishness that has gone on that does not help the youth, but is rather just a parady of the actual reason and direction of Scouting.

Sadly, the reputation of the main "experts" in this report and organization does not appear to be stellar.  If you review the main author, there are numerous concerns about her methods and obvious bias, in her case towards the Catholic Church first, and now the BSA.  Look it up and make your own decision.

When I sign on now, I cannot click the unread link, nor am I getting my personal link at the top?

No matter my different interpretations of some of this, I too find this letter well done and worth every word.  As, no matter where you may be in the larger mess, I have to think we are all simply disgusted with ALL the lawyers, or most anyway.  Thanks.

It occurred to me this morning that the problem I, and others, may be having is equating the BSA, the organization with the people behind it.  It is the people that have made the poor choices and not responded as we may think, or even know, today, they likely should.  (We are likely not seeing the total pictures due to time and lack of actual information).   The organization is made up of people, and often those people let it down for whatever reasons.  Having the skill and actually even bravery to stand against wrong actions and especially evil is hard, and far too many of us fail.  It then somehow gets transferred to the larger organization, and all its people, which is where the "broad brush" I speak of comes in.  It is interesting that a quote from a completely unconnected article this morning seems to pinpoint much of this discussion/debate/diatribe.

"Our society has become so quick to judge and point fingers and blame, and somewhere along the line, we've forgotten about kindness and compassion and forgiveness. And we've forgotten that we're all human and we all make mistakes."

At least some of it likely fits your assertions.  And again, that was wrong, but pretty much the norm.  Just like the sheriif, or the D.A. did cya for things, or the schools and their boards, and the orphanages, and the psychiatric hospitals and so on.  I do not perceive of it being as rife throughout though as some would have us believe.  It still happened, and the goal of Scouting should have been to NOT go along with the societal "look the other way" attitudes, or other similar common CYA things.  Again, I believe that was why Mr. West conceived of the IV files, seeing them as a way to stop some of the moving around of people with less savory habits.  Not making them public is where the concerns with libel would have come in at the time.  As a legal scholar, what is your view of that part of the discourse.  With the laws in effect at the time, would making the IV files open to others have been a real risk for legal issues?  Especially since they included more than just possibly abuse, but also fraud, embezzlement, and from what I have read general felonious concerns?

Enough of this.  There is no excuse for obviously poor choices, even if in theor y were to somehow "help" protect for the, in theory, better good.  Especially so with abuse, period.  But, I do not believe it was as rampant as some would have us believe, and it certainly was not part of some kind of plot to allow abuse of children.  That just reinforces the point that every member, and connected people to them, needs to be aware of the need to watch for the predators, and understand what they need to recognize as possible concerns.  And we need to somehow get parents to be seriously vigilant, but not make them paranoid.  Keep improving YP and developing the oversights discussed.  

In the meantime, maybe we can try to focus on the overwhelmingly positive offerings of Scouting.  

20 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

If as much effort was made to combat the issue as was made to hide the danger, we may not be having this conversation.

This from Michael Johnson former Youth Protection Director of the BSA 

"In my professional opinion, the truth is clear: no child is safe in Scouts BSA programs. The institution, as it stands today, continues to be a HIGH-RISK1 organization for child sexual abuse, due to the accessibility and opportunity the program presents to a range of sex offenders. Scouts BSA’s continued disregard for needed safety reforms, the organization’s long- established business and program model, and decades-long lack of transparency (at the highest level of the organization) with parents, experts, and courts. Throughout my time at Scouts BSA, I witnessed decisions being made that showed the top priority of the organization was not the safety of children, but the preservation of the reputation and brand of the institution and its top sponsoring organizations"

 

 

 

Not a really balanced or maybe even unbiased set of comments.  There is no recognition of the efforts of YP that were began earlier than most and often held up as good examples for others.  Most damning might be that he a terminated employee and not a happy camper.  Of course, you might also ask why all this only comes up after he is out of a job?  No one is without fault, and too many chose the easier way out by simply ignoring or bailing with prejucice.  

19 minutes ago, yknot said:

The big question is if you were Scouts, even in those early days, how could you countenance this. Scouting made a unique promise to youth, parents, and the American public via the Scout oath and law.  BSA and no one else created the illusion that scouting was an environment where such things as truth, compassion and honor reigned. We know, with the creation of the then "red files", that BSA knew this was a unique problem within its organization. Whatever the social excuses might have been at any time during this sad history, there were no scouting excuses that applied to it.  

Not sure it was unique, only unique in that they actually recognized a reason for awareness when few others were.  

19 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

I've not chimed in on this point for some time and have developed a new response. Let me try it out. Please don't freak out. I'm trying to illustrate what is being said and what I've said in the past in a different way. Many moons ago I used the phrase, "soul murder." Keep that in mind as you read on.

Let's say you have a national organization with an acute dilemma. It has a "low" overall percentage incidence of a particular pediatric disease, but it is still widespread, i.e., many locations. This disease creates lifelong physiological and psychological impairments to the children afflicted by it. Permanent. Lifelong. Tragic. Sometimes fatal. Critically, you know the cause. (I prefer to use organization rather than a demographic, as would be typical with a disease. It still works here with 252 LCs, jeepers knows how many Packs and Units, and 40,000ish COs.)

Okay. So, let's take brother John's case of 11 boys abused abused by the same two volunteers. There were probably more. I know for a fact five other boys were abused by my SM and I am quite confident there are another 5+ who are claimants here, more likely 10. That's in one small town, one Troop, over a 7-year span. Again, "low" percentage overall incidence, but local concentrations with exponential spikes imbedded by location. Remember this is lifelong and potentially fatal.

Riddle me this: Would an organization with a mission to train up young (wo)men into exemplary citizens and leaders fail to tenaciously weed out the cause with the help of any and all experts? Would they alert the public, children and parents to be aware of the known factors that cause the dreaded disease? In this case, that includes context (kids alone with adults), grooming and the rest. C'mon man. Of course they would. If they did not, what would you call failing to warn any and all concerned about this threat of death for 82,000+ children regardless the timespan. Yup. Even if you became aware of 10 significant outbreaks within a 5 years period and knew the precipitating factors, wouldn't you pursue it aggressively and publicly? If you didn't...ack. Something got muddled up here, regardless the era and time. My take.

The big question is would you make that effort if you were seldom able to verify much things, or others, including family members chose to not pursue it?  Add the just posted difference in liable law back then, what might be the best option.  Today, we see that to be bring it out and nail them.  But, we all know that even today, many cases never are prosectuted due to refusal of someone, either the victim, their families, the strength of the case, and so on.  We cannot know, only recognize we need to do better and alway alert.  We will not change the basic perversions of the human animal, male or female.  They will always be there, and often we get careless for whatever reason.  Hopefully, most of the time, once it is recognized, we can move on it.  Yet we cannot fix what already happened, nor can we change many of the fears that some may have, for whatever reason.  And, as noted here by some survivors, the very process we are in is becoming torture as well.  There is no perfect result or answer.

Yet we also need to take others here now and involved, generally we hope in a positive manner, into account so as to not make them just another type of victim.  JMO of course.  That is not to excuse the mistakes and bad judgment too often in the past.  It is only taking into account that those involved today should not painted with the mistakes of the past, nor should the current youth lose out in order to salve those past mistakes.

13 minutes ago, T2Eagle said:

The problem with the idea that "things were different back then" is that the understanding of CSA wasn't all that different.  It was back then considered a heinous crime, punishable by long prison sentence.  It was in fact so heinous a crime that organizations went to great lengths to ensure that nobody knew that it occurred within their organization.

It's true that one of the uses of the IVF files was to attempt to keep predators who had already been discovered from reentering scouting.  But the reason they were kept so secret, the ONLY plausible reason that they were kept so extraordinarily secret, was to protect the organization and its reputation, not the scouts themselves, but the organization.  That cowardly act, that violation of the tenth point of the scout law: to protect the organization's reputation as a pristine environment --- a reputation that it didn't deserve, as demonstrated by the number of predators in its midst --- directly led to a larger harm than would other wise have occurred. Had more people known, had they simply not worked so hard to conceal the truth, steps would have been taken both by individuals and probably even as an organization to reduce the ability of predators to use the scouts for their nefarious deeds.

What reason, other than protecting the organization, was served by not just confidentiality but by the absolutely extreme secrecy surrounding the existence of those predators within scouting's ranks?

Little of what you suggest has any verifiable validity.  Not sure where you get the ideal of the high level of abuse, other than projections based on little or no factual information.  Also, as has been noted a number of times, the BSA levels were far lower, percentage wise than the larger society, based on what is actually known.  Could it have been much higher; possibly.  But, the whole thing today is all conjecture if you go back prior to 1960 or so, as records were not kept, and other factors are lost or were never recorded.  As far as the IV files; again, no one else did even that.  The secrecy, as you suggest had as much to do with the society at the time as anything else.  As has been shown and discussed, libel and slander law was different back then.  

"

Defamation is a tort that encompasses false statements of fact that harm another’s reputation.

There are two basic categories of defamation: (1) libel and (2) slander. Libel generally refers to written defamation, while slander refers to oral defamation, though much spoken speech that has a written transcript also falls under the rubric of libel.

The First Amendment rights of free speech and free press often clash with the interests served by defamation law. The press exists in large part to report on issues of public concern. However, individuals possess a right not to be subjected to falsehoods that impugn their character. The clash between the two rights can lead to expensive litigation, million-dollar jury verdicts and negative public views of the press.

Right to protect one's good name is heart of defamation law

Defamatory comments might include false comments that a person committed a particular crime or engaged in certain sexual activities.

The hallmark of a defamation claim is reputational harm. Former United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart once wrote that the essence of a defamation claim is the right to protect one’s good name. He explained in Rosenblatt v. Baer (1966) that the tort of defamation “reflects no more than our basic concept of the essential dignity and worth of every human being — a concept at the root of any decent system of ordered liberty.”

Defamation suits can have chilling effect on free speech

However, defamation suits can threaten and test the vitality of First Amendment rights. If a person fears that she can be sued for defamation for publishing or uttering a statement, he or she may avoid uttering the expression – even if such speech should be protected by the First Amendment.  

This “chilling effect” on speech is one reason why there has been a proliferation of so-called “Anti-SLAPP” suits to allow individuals a way to fight back against these baseless lawsuits that are designed to silence expression. Professors George Pring and Penelope Canaan famously referred to them as Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation or SLAPP suits.

Because of the chilling effect of defamation suits, Justices William O. Douglas, Hugo Black, and Arthur Goldberg argued for absolute protection at least for speech about matters of public concern or speech about public officials.  The majority of the Court never went this far and instead attempted to balance or establish an accommodation between protecting reputations and ensuring “breathing space” for First Amendment freedoms. If the press could be punished for every error, a chilling effect would freeze publications on any controversial subject.

Libel was once viewed as unprotected by First Amendment

Before 1964, state law tort claims for defamation weighed more heavily in the legal balance than the constitutional right to freedom of speech or press protected by the First Amendment. Defamation, like many other common-law torts, was not subject to constitutional baselines.

In fact, the Supreme Court famously referred to libel in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) as an unprotected category of speech, similar to obscenity or fighting words. Justice Frank Murphy wrote for a unanimous Court that “[t]here are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which has never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or ‘fighting’ words.” 

So, the secrecy partly related to what is shown in relation to the laws of the time.  Again, should they have feared legal issues?  Probably, just as today we do.  Was that the right course of action?  Based on today, no.  Back then, maybe unless very couragous or powerful in society.  

There is no excuse that any abuse, from day one, occurred.  On the other hand, trying to somehow establish stats based on little or no actual records is foolish and simply bad fiction.  

We will never know for sure, but the whole mess has been completely misrepresented in too much of the case, and very worst is put forth as the majority of the problem, when it is/was not.  

Not sure why I even attempt to draw a clearer, more subjective picture.  Those that want to demonize will do so, no matter how many times their projections are noted as being skewed.  

1 hour ago, johnsch322 said:

Soo it is perfectly OK if you depict survivors as Peanuts characters looking for a handout but calling the perversion files as they are known today wrong?

I would bet donuts for dollars you don't give an answer.

Well, it does not appear that some of your fellow survivors found the Peanuts post amusing.  But, if you are offended, I apologize.  It seems so fitting for this whole mess, at least to me.  

As for "as they are known today"; that is simply not true.  Just as the ACA is still the Affordable Care Act and not Obama Care, the IV files are still the IV files and not the Perversion Files just because some choose to "pervert" it.  

I suspect you actually completely understand all of this.  

34 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

I am a little confused by what you are saying is the "right side".  James E West was the Chief Scout Executive from 1911 to 1943 and would have definitely known of the creation of the "perversion files" and it was under his direction that everything was to be kept hidden. Soo what is the "right side" he would be on?  

Stop trying to evaluate things out of context.  The entire perception of these things was different back then.  Yes, he actually was instrumental in the IV files, which was a step in the right direction based on the era.  I suspect that given today's systems and information, Mr. West might well have been pushing for major changes and protections now recognized.

Secondly, stop calling them the perversion files please.  That is not what they are called, nor are many of them remotely related to "perversion".   It is like the corruption of the ACA to the Obama Act.  It is misleading and distorts the overall picture or meaning.  

This hyperbolic exaggeration and lack of understanding how society affects things is simply foolish.  

4 hours ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Yes, I have observed the trend of SEs finding people who have drunk the kool-aid and recruiting them to their boards.  (BTW, why would the SE have any influence over who is on the executive board?)

Typical boards are NOT representative of the people in the community who make up the volunteer corps.  I find their interests and agendas are not aligned with the ideals of Scouting, as their actions routinely demonstrate.

Too often the case, but definitely not a universal issue.  We have had numerous  closely aligned board members, and in the over forty years I have been here, a great many of them were active in the real trenches.  BUT, still, we have also had our share of disnconnected and, shall we suggest, puppets.  

Related, but peripheral to the topic.  I found myself wondering how James E. West might have reacted to this whole mess today.  If some may not know, West came from an orphanage and had physical issues.  But he baecame a lawyer and was an early player in the legal protection efforts of children.  Much of his work was based on his own childhood and experiences in the "system".  

And, while in many ways, West was difficult and dogmatic, I have to think he would have been on the right side of this mess given the changes in society since his death.  Just a thought.