EmberMike

Amazing. So they effectively accused a boy of forging signatures to cover for a SM who was going outside of BSA policy and pulling ranks. Unreal. Seems best that your son is out of that troop, as the unusual leadership actions are clearly not limited to just the SM. And glad to hear that the rank was finally recognized. I still wonder what their end-game was, if they were actually willing to seriously damage or derail this boy's scouting career with allegations of forgery just to protect a corrupt SM. Now there's probably a stigma of distrust throughout that entire troop. If I were a parent in that troop and knew about what was going on, we'd be looking for a new troop asap. These leaders might have doomed their entire unit if scouts and parents do scatter after this.

Just wondering what your thoughts are on the parents who paraded their cub scouts in front of the media with signs either for or against lifting the BSA gay member ban?

You can't judge a policy by one person. Using the same flawed math, someone could argue that 50 gay scouts shouldn't be prohibited from joining because 5 scouts have a problem with people being gay. There was a gay scout in my troop when I was a kid. Most of the guys didn't even know he was gay. The rest didn't care. Most gay people are more like that guy. I sat right next to a gay guy at work for 2 years before I knew he was gay. There will always be a few overly vocal people who get on everyone's nerves, probably even the nerves of other gay people. But I'd hate to see any organization make policy based on the actin of a few and suppress the ability of the majority of a group to participate because of that.

Of course there's no way to know for sure who might be lying, but based on what we know, the scout seems likely to be in the right here. The SM supposedly revoked rank, right? So the rank had to have been awarded in the first place to be revoked, and apparently this SM has a history of revoking rank and other unusual disciplinary methods. In this scenario, rank was awarded, new troop should recognize that rank, and we're done. On the unlikely chance that the BOR did not take place, or there is any question of the validity of the BOR, the new troop just needs to hold another one during which any questions/concerns about the previous BOR or anything else leading up to this point can be discussed if the new troop needs clarity on anything fro this scout's past. Either way, this should have long since been resolved, it's not that complicated. Even in the event that the BOR never actually happened, and in which case the old troop is essentially saying this scout forged signatures in his book, that can also likely be resolved by simply discussing it with the scout. In that unfortunate scenario, then it is up to the troop to decide what to do next or take it to council. What I'm stuck on here is the lack of action. The new troop can't just sit it out and say they don't want to get involved. They can't just ignore this forever and keep the kid at previous rank. Eventually this needs to be dealt with, and months have already gone by. Deal with it, and move on.

I really like this approach, giving parents detailed info about leadership. Might have to borrow this idea from you.

BSA has crossed into scholastic areas for decades. We didn't really need the Citizenship stuff, a typical social studies class at school covers most of it. But it touches the service element of scouting. It's hard to be a positively-contributing member of society if you don't know how that society works. Likewise, STEM connects to areas of scouting. We don't need it, but it could add something of value to the program in a modern meaningful way. My guess is that National realized a long time ago that it's tough to keep kids interested for a decade of membership if we're just camping, hiking, sitting around fires, and doing service projects. I wouldn't call it a jack-of-all-trades approach, the nature of the program allows for choice and lets kids learn from masters of their craft (in theory, assuming a MB counselor isn't a jack themselves). Pinewood Derby has really no connection to the original intent of Scouting, but it's there because kids love it and it's still a big draw for packs. Sometimes, trying to be more than an outdoor program has served scouting well. Sometimes, not so much.

Sorry to say it, but I think it's true, those ideas are outmoded in the the BSA. Traditional scouting is over, and now it's about expansion and program growth. At least in theory and based on what we hear from National. Randall Stephenson said something in his National Meeting speech about how we all have to get on board with change, that growing the movement requires change to just about everything we do, including the program. And I don't suspect he was talking about going back to a more simple/traditional program. Personally I'm all for it. The more change, the better, because we need it. I'm afraid a traditional scouting program would bore the heck out of kids after a couple of years. We already struggle with membership retention. What happens when we literally have less for kids to choose from? If STEM or skateboarding or whatever trendy next big thing can be connected to the aims of Scouting and integrated into what we're doing, and thereby make kids more interested in Scouting, I say we do it.

BSA has never been short on ideas for things to change. It's getting people to buy into the change that is always the hard part, and why program change often comes so slowly.

I skimmed this thread, so maybe I missed answers to some questions I'd have. But immediately this whole debacle has me wondering: What's the SM's process for pulling rank and (possibly) re-issuing it later? Another conf and BOR? How do the records for that look? Multiple sign-off dates? As far as I know a SM can't remove rank on their own after it's earned. Doesn't policy favor the scout in this case and the rank is already officially earned unless council steps in to remove it? Going by current policy, the rank was earned. Period. Anything beyond that of off policy and not enforceable. If I were a leader in the new troop, seeing the signed BOR is all I'd need to know to recognize the rank earned. They don't need to get into the politics of the issue. Just go by the book, the kid has the rank already.

This idea would have some problems and challenges, for sure, but I don't think it's anything that can't be dealt with. Good luck with it, Pete. Keep us updated on your progress.

I like the BPSA, and considered it for my family a few years back. Since then it doesn't seem like there's been much growth. One thing that put me off of it a bit was that there is no insurance protection for anyone involved. Supposedly some groups secured their own coverage privately, but something about getting no help form HQ in that regard was a bit concerning to me. Maybe that's changed since, not sure. Just seems to be that at a basic level, any youth-oriented organization needs to support local units with some kind of basic coverage. Trail Life does cover all scouters and units.

I think the "Trained" patch goes a long way in that regard. Even though in reality it doesn't take a heck of a lot of time or experience to get a Trained patch. But to parents who don't know anything about it, it's pretty self-explanatory. And that's kind of the problem with square knots, right? They're very abstract. Even people with years in the program couldn't identify many of them. Not sure I could name them all, especially the more uncommon ones. I hesitate to suggest that patches should be more wordy and explanatory like the Trained patch. We could easily start too look like we're wearing a nascar jumpsuit instead of a BSA uniform if every patch had text on it. But there is definitely some benefit to patches that make experience and training a bit easier to decipher.

Yep. A few years back I read something about someone complaining about the use of a tomahawk being native appropriation. Little did they know that the tomahawk design most people know was highly influenced by European techniques. Native americans also made them with stone heads until Europeans introduced them to metal blades. And of course long before that, axes in general date back to the stone age. But sure, it's "appropriation". Right. Caveman appropriation, I guess. Obviously there are ways to be disrespectful when appropriating cultural styles and customs. As long as things are done with respect, I don't see the harm in it. I think it's more harmful to avoid cultural references and ignore the ways of people that came before us. But some folks would rather raise their kids unaware that native americans even exist at all, out of fear of appropriating anything.

I did say my opinion was biased. I admittedly know very little about 4-H, and I did not know they were that large. From the 10 minutes of research I just did, I'm not sure they adequately compare to the BSA, though, at least not in my area where it looks like my kids would only have the option of joining a 4-H Lego club or an Environmental club. Looking at their website, however, it does look like 4-H has a more outdoor-focused program elsewhere in the country. Whether it really compares to the outdoor adventure type of focus the BSA has, however, I'm not sure.

Regarding the original discussion, for AOL ceremonies I just don't think native objects are necessary or helpful. Native culture is critical to OA, it's impossible to have OA without it. But for AOL, I think there has to be a way to get that same kind of mysterious dramatic effect without digging into native american themes. I mean, that's why we do it, right? It just makes the ceremony cooler, the kids love it, it's what gives OA that added dramatic effect and secret-society feel. Can't we achieve that some other way for AOL? I'm not saying to do the flaming neckerchief bit either, but just thinking along those lines (and in a safer way). Unfortunately I don't have an answer for that that other way is. I just think it's do-able if we were to give it some thought and not just resort to native themes. An arrow isn't exclusively a native american device, there has to be another way to work it into a ceremony.

There's plenty in OA that for sure doesn't jive with some current views on appropriation. It depends on who you ask whether something is offensive. I don't think cultural appropriation is a blanket negative, as some folks believe. We're the melting pot of a country that we are because we've appropriated traditions from various cultures around the globe. The problem with trying to be sensitive to appropriation is that to do it successfully, you'd pretty much have to remove OA from scouting entirely. Every element of it is technically "appropriation", the lore, the stories, the lessons, the ceremonies, the costumes, the objects, they're all "appropriated" from native american culture. And in removing the appropriation, you remove something that, although flawed, does still recognize a culture in a way that most of these kids wouldn't otherwise be exposed to at all. So it's a question of: Is a display of appropriated culture better or worse than no display of that culture at all? I'm not sure what the answer is. I think a good way for the OA to move towards a more respectful appropriation of native culture would be to tone it down on stuff that most of the boys don't understand the significance of. I made it as far as Brotherhood and I could never have explained most of what the costumes, face paint, and sacred objects meant. If OA is going to use cultural items, they could do a better job of explaining what they mean.

National heaved tradition off a cliff long before that. Traditional scouting was a handful of badges, service to community, and lots of camping and bushcraft. In any discussion about change of any kind in Scouting it always cracks me up that people resist anything in the defense of "tradition". We haven't had a traditional scouting program since maybe the 50s or 60s.

If other programs were comparable, we wouldn't be having this discussion. BSA is the best, and it's not just my biased opinion saying that. Obviously with people always wanting in at BSA and not many (if any) people knocking at the doors of the other organizations to get in over there, the demand kind of speaks for itself. I'm not happy saying that, I wish there was a broader range of available programs in the US. But the reality is that there just isn't a real BSA competitor.

That's kind of why I like your idea or the alternate council shoulder patch. It's recognition within existing insignia, rather than adding more. Personally I think the square knot says enough. This is a youth program, adult recognition should be subtle.

Does the brand still exist at all today? If it's an old brand of goods, what's the purpose of the pin in the scoutstuff store now as, seemingly, the only remaining BSA Best product?

No, I mentioned in my response that lowering the age to 11 might help kids who are thinking about leaving scouting, giving them another option at a pivotal age when kids often seem to start having thoughts about not continuing. So of course boys would be included in that. For clarity, I think Venturing age should be lowered for all members.

I should know this, and I hate to admit it... I don't know what the BSA Best pin signifies. They sell them on scoutstuff but without any real description, and I can't seem to find anything about it in any of my literature, unless I've just overlooked it. http://www.scoutstuff.org/bsa/uniforms-insignia/insignia-metal/pins/bsar-best-pin.html Is it just a catch-all random recognition device? Or does it stand for something specific?

I'd support that as well. I think 11 is a great age to start Venturing. And it's a pivotal year for a lot of kids who might be starting to question their involvement in scouting, or if they want to continue with it. Let's give them another opportunity to keep on scouting in a different way. I'm still in favor of co-ed scouting throughout the BSA, but I think this suggested age change could be another piece of the membership puzzle.

For me there's an element of respect involved in this particular case. We're not talking about someone who wants to still wear an outdated patch or something non-standard elsewhere on the uniform. This is about the highest rank and a badge that's intended specifically for youth wear. And also one that has an adult alternative in the form of a square knot. Some districts even have an eagle-specific council shoulder patch adults can wear. So when there are well-established adult options to show that you're an eagle and you insist on still wearing the badge, especially well past your youth years, to me it's a bit disrespectful. I'm certainly not a stickler when it comes to uniform code. Surely I've probably had some violations of my own over the years. But when it comes to eagle stuff, I just feel like that's an area that deserves a bit more of a concerted effort to stick with the code.

BSA has other problems, sure. Membership decline has nothing to do with girls not being included. But co-ed could be a way to stop the bleeding. From other discussions here, I think most folks would agree that program changes are ultimately what could revitalize the BSA. But in a more general sense if we can open the program up to a wider audience (which is something National is always harping on, reaching more youth), co-ed is in fact one way to do that. It's not the answer, it's one piece of the puzzle. Got a better fix? I'd love to hear it. We need to reach new potential members. Who and how? What other pool of untapped interest can we reach out to?