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

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 org

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 whi

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 camp

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

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 enforce

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 w

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 ar

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,

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

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 y

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.