EmberMike

Extensions aren't granted exclusively for disabilities and abuse. Pretty convenient to only mention those exceptions to make your argument.

She doesn't need any benefit she gained to join now and earn Eagle. She might benefit from her awards in Scouts Canada to check off some requirements in her BSA book, but the rogue troop, her dad, his money, none of that is going to give her anything she needs to get through the remaining requirements now and finish. Would you seriously hold it against her that she had a pack and troop that allowed her to tag along and do what the boys were doing? Even if it doesn't benefit her at all when it comes to her standing in the BSA when she is able to officially join?

They do make exceptions for people with great stories. I think that's what I don't get in a lot of the arguments against this. She wouldn't be the first to get an extension. She wouldn't be the first to (potentially) transfer rank requirement credit to BSA from Canada, if that is even something she's considering doing (I haven't seen anywhere her saying she would do that). Would this all be considered "special treatment"? Sure. But it's not special only to her, as plenty of boys have had these kinds of exceptions made for them. The one thing that might happen that of course would be unique to her would be to be granted permission to start in the BSA officially before her gender is allowed to officially join. That's unique to her for obvious reasons. Everything else, and the various paths she has to Eagle, could potentially be done using no new exceptions and nothing that National hasn't done already for other scouts. If National says next week that she's free to join officially, and if my understanding of the story is correct and she is currently 16, she can still make it by 18.

If National signs off on either A.) Approval to begin with a troop immediately or B.) Approval for an extension to continue working towards Eagle past 18, and then she does it, that's not breaking the rules, right? I know that what National does isn't always met with praise around here. I've been critical of some of the things they've done, even within the context of the "girls in scouting" discussion. But what they put on paper and sign off on is the rule, whether we agree with it or not. So if they give her a path to Eagle and she fulfills it, she's an Eagle Scout, same as me and everyone else who earned it and had National sign off on it.

How is it "unearned" if she is able to complete the requirements? She can become a BSA member, sooner or later yet to be determined, she can do the requirements, and she might possibly qualify for an extension past her 18th birthday to finish up, which needs to be approved and granted by National. I don't think anyone is asking for her to be given anything she didn't earn on paper already. She's a Chief Scout's Award recipient, which surely has some parallel requirements. Service hours, for example, or specific proficiencies that match those in the BSA. There are precedents for transferring requirements earned from Scouts Canada to BSA. If anyone thinks that's special treatment, feel free to also complain about any boy who transferred international requirement credit to their BSA book. I don't know exactly how those requirements line up, and how far up in rank she could get based on transfer credit, but it should at least take a little time off her trail to Eagle. My understanding is that she is 16 1/2 now, so if she gets this request for early admission approved and get some credit for Canada-earned requirements, she is well on her way to possibly finishing by 18. Or maybe with a slight extension needed. Either way, she could potentially do this by the book, a fully earned Eagle rank with every requirement by the book, and one exception needed for timing. Which I think should be given on the basis of merit and her contributions to furthering the progress of the Scouting movement in America. I know you don't see it that way, but if National does, it's not your call to say anything she accomplishes is "unearned".

I'm not personally aware of any other girl with the Scouting background Sydney has, or with her list of awards and achievements in both the BSA and Scouts Canada. She'd be a rare exception, if she is made an exception at all in this case. I do get your point, if you let one girl in early, the question of letting them all in early does come up. But I believe that question is easily squashed when it is pointed out that they'd be letting one girl with a stellar 12-year Scouting resume in as an exception, and that her background plays significantly into that decision.

I'm not saying she earned MBs and rank. She completed requirements, but as I stated, she was not recognized with badge awards for said MBs and ranks. I would, however, argue that given her history within the BSA program (even if unofficially), and her awards with Scouts Canada, she could be granted an exception and given some earned credit towards rank in the BSA, which would make it more feasible that she could actually reach Eagle rank when she is able to officially join.

Fortunately the BSA today allows for disability exceptions for Eagle-required merit badges. Kind of a weird comparison, don't you think? The BSA didn't allow girls, and now they do. The BSA didn't make exceptions for disabilities in the past, and now they do.

Actually it does. College credits transfer. Not a great analogy if you're trying to say that Sydney's experience shouldn't count for anything in the BSA.

She earned the Chief Scout's Award in Scouts Canada, but completed merit badges and rank requirements in the BSA without badge recognition.

Just to give a little clarity to the argument that she is not just any girl trying to fast-track an Eagle badge, her Scouting resume includes the following: • 12 years in Scouting as unofficial member of a Pack and Troop (Troop 414 in NY). • Arrow of Light recipient • Member of Scouts Canada • Member of Scouts Canada Venturing program • Earned Canada's Chief Scout's Award (highest award in program) • Full participant in Pack and Troop activities, trips, camping, etc. • Patrol Leader in her Troop • Completed rank and merit badge requirements, but without badge recognition If this opens a "Pandora's Box" and there are numerous girls with the same credentials who want consideration for Eagle, I'd be both incredibly surprised and incredibly impressed.

She will have started by the time she can join, and she'll still be youth age. Sure she'll be 17, but it's not like she hasn't been a scout all this time. Surely some of her experience in the Scouts Canada program would transfer credit for reqs over to the BSA program. No one is saying to make it easier for her. Just to give her a chance to maybe finish the requirements and make her case for an extension on time allowed. There's no precedent for this kind of thing. And it also doesn't have to be a Pandora's Box as @HelpfulTracks mentioned. This girl is unique, she's been in and around Scouting her whole life. She's active in other scouting organizations. Maybe this would set a precedent for other girls in the same situation, but how many girls could we really be talking about, who have the relevant experience she does? Can't be more than a handful. Let her try it. She's proven herself resourceful, motivated, smart, and certainly brave. All qualities I'd like to see in any Eagle Scout. I think she's earned the right to at least apply for an exception/extension and let National hear her out on it.

Why is someone that is advocating for something she believes in a "complainer" in your book? Just because she (and me and a lot of other Scouters) believe something that you don't? Anyone is able to apply for an extension for Eagle. Any other girl who joins the program can do the same. Do I think this girl is exceptional and maybe deserves a little more consideration in this matter? Sure. She put herself out there, endured harsh criticism and ridicule over this. For something that all she stood to gain at the end of it all was the right to join the organization. That's pretty brave in my book. It also was done without the expectation that the policy would ever change. It just so happens that it is changing while she's still of scouting age. Also keep in mind she's not 20 and asking for this. She would actually still be youth age at the time she could join. She just needs an extension on the age-out policy, something that plenty of boys get, too. If she isn't allowed to at least apply for the extension like anyone else, that's wrong.

My initial thought about this is "Why now?" The BSA is in the middle of a brand identity crisis. Questions loom about whether it should even keep the same name or modify it to fit the new membership policy. Hardly seems like the time to talk about the successes of BSA branding. In the future I hope that the BSA could become a good case study on how a brand can successfully envolve in a changing environment and as the organization itself changes. But right now? Really, BSA? I also don't get the venue choice. These licensing shows are trade exhibitions for mostly toy companies, game companies, and big licensed brands like sports teams, Harry Potter, etc. How does the BSA fit in with these global brands looking for broader global recognition and licensing opportunities? The BSA could do a lot to better get their own brand in order before talking to other companies about theirs. As it relates to these licensing expos, what little the BSA does to extend their brand to fun and interesting products could certainly be done better. Do they even license their brand out to 3rd party vendors at all? I was actually really happy to see the BSA come up with some cool new t-shirt designs, the ones that were on the kids in the Instagram photo for the girl program announcement back in October. Sadly I still don't know where to get those shirts or if they're actually even available at all.

It's not like this girl has had no connection with Scouting already and would be brand new to the program. She's dedicated more time and effort to Scouting than many boys, and she might miss out on achieving her goal just because of the timing of the change in policy. Scouts can apply for extensions for finishing Eagle. At the very least I think she should be allowed some sort of extension to finish hers. This wouldn't be setting any kind of bad precident or anything, obviously she is a unique exception given what she has been through and how she even came to be known in the discussion about the BSA and female members. I say let her go for it. I'll be writing a letter on her behalf to encourage National to make an exception for her.

I'm being lazy and not wanting to read through a bunch of posts about school policies. So apologies if this is already asked and/or answered. As I understand the fixed-blade policy in BSA, it applies to carry specifically, right? Has there ever been any real rule on the books preventing fixed blade knife usage in a troop toolkit alongside an axe or saw? I always thought that we were never really prevented from teaching bushcraft techniques with sheath knives as long as we always stopped short of letting the boys out them on their belts and carry them.

Good article, although I kind of disagree with the author's slant on some things (lax swimming requirements kind of make sense when you're aggressively targeting areas of the country for recruitment that have neither a pool nor a lake anywhere nearby). I do agree that those of us on the ground level define the program. And it's been that way for a long time, as long as I've been in scouting at least (30 years). It doesn't bother me so much that we've seen more and more rules pertainng to safety emerge. I've never really seen the rules being what holds us back. It's the culture of the pack or troop that really matters. Even within the guidelines of the rules, there is ample opportunity to create adventures within scouting. It was that way 30 years ago and it still is that way today. We just might have to navigate through things a little differently to get there. I see far more limitations placed on the program from leaders and parents than I do from National and the program itself. I still think we're very much in the driver's seat when it comes to creatning a program that the kids will enjoy and remember.

I don't fault them for the marketing speak. They're a business, and businesses use marketing to get their message out there and sell products/services. The BSA needs to market themselves just like any other business. And sometimes that means that some folks who think they're pretty smart end up pushing for a message that maybe doesn't really speak to the core of the organization, or the core of the problem that the marketing is trying to solve. Sometimes it's done to intentionally deceive, like when a cable company renames themselves to hide their past. Other times it's just poor strategy, as is the case for the BSA I think. The BSA does do some things well with their marketing. Pushing "adventure" I think has always been a smart play. But on the issue of girls in the BSA, I'm not sure they are doing the right thing here. If I were working on this, I don't think I would have made family convenience the highlight of the campaign.

I haven't seen it put that way, but in that context as an aswer to a direct question, then yes I'd agree, it's a lie. Membership. To me it's been just that simple. Membership declines every year, National needs to find a way to stop it. For decades now the rallying cry of BSA recruiting has been to reach more youth, serve as many kids as possible. That's hard to do when we immediately disqualify an entire gender from the core BSA program. Every so often there seems to be some push to encourage recruitment in some segment of the population that the BSA deems underserved. The idea is that we can boost numbers by going after kids who aren't typically targetted for recruitment. Eventually the question of "do we finally invite girls to join?" had to be asked. And so here we are.

It's not a lie. It's wishful thinking maybe, creative marketing speak absolutely, but it's not quite a lie to omit the real reason for the new policy.

Amen to that.

I'm not sure that anyone with any experience in the orgainzation ever truly believed that this was going to be some big time-saver for families. It was all just the happier story to tell. The true story, the one about a BSA that has lost half of it's membership in the past 2 decades and faces the very real possibility that in another 2 decades it might not exist at all, and that this is a last-ditch effort to boost membership and save the Boy Scouts of America, that's not as much of a fun story to tell. I don't like how the BSA spins things, how they engineered this survey to get the talking points they wanted. But a (small) part of me does get why they do this insted of telling people "Hey, we're dying over here, and we just hope we can get enough girls into this thing to maybe save it from extinction." I don't think there's a CSE in the history of the organization that would have wanted to make that announcement. So this is what we get instead, tales of the over-extended mom and dad, and how co-ed scouting will save their hectic schedules.

That comment is out of line. There are a lot of "old guys in Dallas" who have dedicated their lives to this organization. I don't know what makes you think you have more right and say in it than them. Unless of course you don't think you need the old guys and your age group could just run the whole thing yourselves.

The truly valuable part of the name is "Scouts", and that's the part of the name the BSA is more than willing to defend in court against other organizations using it. Because, again, that's the valuable part of the name. I know of at least one organization that tried to use "scouts" in their name, even without using "boy" (they're co-ed), and the BSA still forced them to stop using the word "scouts". So the BSA could theoretically drop "Boy" and still retain most of the value in the brand name. Which, as it happens, is how I and a lot of folks already refer to this thing. In my house we don't say often say the full name "Boy Scouts" or "Cub Scouts", it's usually more like, "Go get dressed, we've got Scouts tonight."

I kind of expected someone to ask about it at our Den meeting Tuesday night, but it didn't come up. We had a campout the weekend right after the new hit, it came up among a small group of parents and leaders for all of about 30 seconds and that was it. So far, it's been mostly business as usual at our pack. We've had no inquiries from any interested girls (as far as I know) and no info from the district office on what to do if we get any girls asking to sign up. So the stance seems to be we just keep doing what we've been doing until we have to do something different. Oddly enough I feel like there's more talk about this outside of the organization than in. I had a lengthier conversation with family members outside of scouting about this than I did with anyone in the pack. I also see a lot of the same "RIP Boy Scouts" type of comments online that we say with the last 2 big membership policy changes. I have a feeling that despite the public belief that yet again it's end-times for scouting the US, I think we'll still be here in a few years.