Hawkwin

From the Congressional Charter, 

 

The purposes of the corporation [bSA] are to promote, through organization, and cooperation with other agencies, the ability of boys to do things for themselves and others, to train them in scoutcraft, and to teach them patriotism, courage, self-reliance, and kindred virtues, using the methods that were in common use by boy scouts on June 15, 1916.

 

Don't read anything about "youth"

Yes, and that is valid. But that isn't the mission statement of BSA today.

Just like our original Constitution was written centuries ago but has also changed a few dozen times over the years.

The mission statement today is about youth, not boys.

What is the next form of "segregation" in which you will see correlations to bigotry? Religion? Is religion the next thing on your agenda?

 

Why do you assume I have an agenda?

Soo much hostility here.

Earlier in this thread I made a comment that if we left all decisions up to the scouts, that one of the first things that would go would likely be the last G - God. If you read that comment, then you should probably infer that I am not in favor of such a change.

Perhaps give me the benefit of the doubt? I'd do the same for you.

I am amazed at how anyone can take my position of Boy scouting being only for boys and twist it to being only for white boys. 

With respect, my reply was to Flagg. There is nothing you should infer about your original comment and my response to Flagg. They are two different comments and should not be conflated to be the same thing.

Flagg was stating that Boy scouts should not change because 100 years of tradition - that it has always been boys only. I replied to him to illustrate that, "we have always done it this way" is not necessarily a valid reason to keep a policy - that BSA used to exclude people of color, then BSA changed.

By the way bringing segregation in to your response to Flagg’s last reply is a text book staw man argument. 

 

I don't see how you can talk about one form of segregation and not see correlations to others. It isn't a straw man to bring up the fact that BSA used to be segregated by color and no longer is.

But, I digress. I think we have beat this particular horse enough.

           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Nope, this argument is the straw man.

 

What about my statement is a straw man?

 

 

Boy Scouts is for boys.

 

And it was once an organization, for most of the country, for only white boys. Then it changed. Voting used to only be allowed for men, then it changed. Nothing requires Boy Scouts to be for boys only, forever. BSA is an organization that serves youth of both genders.

 

 

So a member of an organization for boys -- that has been for boys only for over 100 years -- has a very valid argument asking why girls should be allowed. 

 

And I specifically answered that question. The mission of BSA answers that question.

 

You say "people asked for change". People also asked for things NOT to change.

 

And those people were accommodated by allowing them to remain exclusively for boys.

 

 

In fact according to BSA's own surveys more people asked for NO change than asked for change. So, again, the question @@backpack asked is valid. Why change?

 

??? I don't claim his question was invalid. In fact, I specifically answered that question - why change. BSA changed to provide the Scout Oath and Law to more youth because more youth were asking for it. It is really quite that simple. Those that objected to extending the Scout Oath and Law to more youth were accommodated by not being forced to change.

 

 

Using your own argument if it's so self-evident that "why change" is "because people asked for it", then it should be similarly self-evident that someones asks "why was change necessary? what was broken?" because OTHER people asked these questions. Your logic is flawed.

 

A little less hostility please.

 

To ask what was broken is to assume someone made the claim that it was broken. Here, please allow me to assist:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

 

BSA did not claim that they were making this change to fix something that was broken, hence asking someone to justify the "why" of this change based on such is a straw man. Why change, valid question. What was broken, straw man.

 

 

Frankly, @@backpack makes a cogent argument. Why change?

 

He does, and such is why, again, I answered his question with both my opinion and the official statement from BSA.

 

 

Why didn't they ask the boys how they felt?

 

I gather that they did survey members. That being stated, such decisions are not simply about how the majority of current members feel. This is not a good ole boy club that only accepts those we want to let in. For all we know, if BSA were to survey every single existing member, a majority might support this change, how would your opinion change based on such a possibility?

 

Why did they feel the need to open up Boy Scouting rather than just push Venturing from 14 to 11?

 

I assume because girls of 11 to 14 wanted to join BSA and reap the benefits of scouts and not the benefits of Venturing.

 

On a more personal note, please help me understand why you seem to have such hostility toward this change. If your CO doesn't want to accept girls, then how does this change impact you or your boys?

 

 

Flag on the play, shifting the burden of proof.  It's the BSA's and supports proposition to change the membership requirement, therefore their responsibility to prove the benefit.

Actually, the original question posed by Backpack was a bit of a Straw Man fallacy. To quote:

why change at all? What’s broken that adding girls fixes?

 

I don't think BSA made such a claim - that adding girls fixes anything that was broken.

The, "Why change at all?" question seems rather straight forward - people have asked for the change. The benefit is to those that want to join that were previously excluded. That should be self-evident.

The mission of the Boy Scouts of America is to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law.

This change allows BSA to prepare MORE young people to make ethical and moral choices under the Scout Oath and Law.

I would say that benefits all of us - and is the reason for the change.

Taken directly from the news release:

“This decision is true to the BSA’s mission and core values outlined in the Scout Oath and Law. The values of Scouting – trustworthy, loyal, helpful, kind, brave and reverent, for example – are important for both young men and women,†said Michael Surbaugh, the BSA’s Chief Scout Executive. “We believe it is critical to evolve how our programs meet the needs of families interested in positive and lifelong experiences for their children. We strive to bring what our organization does best – developing character and leadership for young people – to as many families and youth as possible as we help shape the next generation of leaders.â€

 

In an underground cave.

In a sub (Webelos den at the time).

The point is the boys would decide. It’s their organization.

Just a guess but I think that would quickly result in the loss of the last G. I also think if the boys decided all aspects of membership, you would quickly find the organization unrecognizable from the one you originally joined.

Young adults rarely have the perspective to see the forest for the trees. If my son, at age 11 was given a vote on everything, my guess is that he would vote for anything that would make Eagle easier and quicker to earn. I keep trying to tell him it isn't all about Eagle but he lacks the maturity yet to understand that.

To put that in perspective, the salary for a Catholic middle school teacher in my diocese maxes out under $38,000, and that is with a masters degree and over 20 years experience. A starting teacher gets about $22,000, with an additional $800 per season if he coaches in the evenings.

 

David, I think you might be using some very old data.

Your profile states "Chicago area."

Starting salary for Chicago public schools is over $50,000 a year, not $22,000.

https://www.nctq.org/districtPolicy/contractDatabase/district.do?id=4

Coach pay varies based but a head coach gets an extra $6000 a year, not $800 (page 355).

https://www.nctq.org/docs/CTU_Contract_2015-2019_FINAL.pdf

Not winning lottery money but certainly better than poverty level.

Hawkwin

Married to a HS teacher that does extracurricular work

I think that if it is going to be separate, it HAS to be equal, 100%.  Separate but less-than-equal would be, among other things, a public relations disaster of epic proportions.

I'm not convinced of that.

The military has separate but equal requirements based on gender. Men and women do not have to perform to the same physical fitness standards. I understand that they do have to perform to the same standard for specialized roles - like Ranger*

If, for a very generic example, young women didn't have to hike as many miles as a young man, I would not think that such would necessarily lead to a disaster of epic proportions.

In addition, if there were different merit badges (not that I can think of any examples), then I also don't think it would be a disaster.

*Where I agree with you that it would be a disaster if they were to make obtaining Eagle any less challenging.

Again, my preference is that they be exactly the same but if they are not, I still think I can live with it. Either way, I plan to give them the benefit of the doubt until I see specifics.

Clarke Greene weighs in:

 

BSA Separate But Equal (SPE) Plan for Girls

 

http://scoutmastercg.com/bsa-separate-but-equal-plan-for-girls/?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss&utm_campaign=FeedBlitzRss&utm_content=BSA+Separate+But+Equal+Plan+for+Girls

 

I did not start out as a believer in co-ed Scouting. For most of the last 35 years I’ve been a volunteer with the Boy Scouts of America the status quo worked fine for me, co-ed Scouting was a big unknown, and being unknown it was something to resist.

Three Things That Changed My Mind.

First – during a week-long international Scouting trip several years ago (and two more since) I watched co-ed Scouting at work. Almost every other Scouting association in the world is co-ed. Most of us haven’t seen co-ed Scouting in action on that scale. It wasn’t complicated, a Scout is a Scout, it was that simple.

Second – I’ve talked to Scouters from many different parts of the world at length about co-ed Scouting. I probed for problems or regrets, I didn’t find any.

Third –  and most important, nearly six years ago our first grandchild was born. Before long she’ll be old enough to have the same experiences and advantages Scouting afforded her Eagle Scout father.

----------

 

More at the link. I recommend reading all of it as it doesn't end the same way it began. The title gives you a hint.

I feel a little guilty for tossing this small grenade and then not adding my own comments but I am glad I did wait as it allowed me time to better form my own opinion of his position of SBE.

As a supporter of the change to include girls, I don't need full inclusion. I would be satisfied with a program that is indeed, SPE, or even not quite equal.

I do not  accept his analogy or comparison to racial rights as it pertains to SPE as no one is entitled to the benefits of BSA where as everyone is entitled to a quality education. Education is a Right.

Being a scout is not a Right so a change that results in something less than SPE is not only legal, it is and should be acceptable. I can understand why supporters of inclusion may want complete coed (I get it, and would probably prefer it to), but I neither need it nor do girls need it in order to enjoy the benefits of BSA.

If the girls program is slightly different, if it is slightly "less", that is still better than no girls in BSA at all. I am a pragmatist. I'd rather my daughter be able to enjoy the benefits (even if that is only 90% of the benefits) of BSA than enjoy none at all and if keeping the programs single-gender vs coed helps BSA be more successful (by not running off all those that want single-gender options), then I am going to support that decision and oppose the idea of going full coed - even though I might personally support it.

Clarke Greene weighs in:

http://scoutmastercg.com/bsa-separate-but-equal-plan-for-girls/?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss&utm_campaign=FeedBlitzRss&utm_content=BSA+Separate+But+Equal+Plan+for+Girls

I did not start out as a believer in co-ed Scouting. For most of the last 35 years I’ve been a volunteer with the Boy Scouts of America the status quo worked fine for me, co-ed Scouting was a big unknown, and being unknown it was something to resist.

First – during a week-long international Scouting trip several years ago (and two more since) I watched co-ed Scouting at work. Almost every other Scouting association in the world is co-ed. Most of us haven’t seen co-ed Scouting in action on that scale. It wasn’t complicated, a Scout is a Scout, it was that simple.

Second – I’ve talked to Scouters from many different parts of the world at length about co-ed Scouting. I probed for problems or regrets, I didn’t find any.

Third –  and most important, nearly six years ago our first grandchild was born. Before long she’ll be old enough to have the same experiences and advantages Scouting afforded her Eagle Scout father.

----------

More at the link. I recommend reading all of it as it doesn't end the same way it began. The title gives you a hint.

Look here:

 

http://scoutingwire.org/commitment-values-make-scouting-accessible-families/?utm_source=Volunteers&utm_campaign=94ffa056dc-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_10_25&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_9777d746fe-94ffa056dc-204165641

 

People in the comments ...

 

Considering the very small percentage but vocal group of diehards that actually post comments on message boards (including this one and including me), I am not sure how much weight I would give to what is going to happen based on those comments. I certainly would not get worked up over it regardless if they were for it (on that message board) or against it (what appears to be the majority of this message board).

I must be the only person that uses Velcro. I use adhesive Velcro for all patches these days. No sewing and much easier for 1st year scouts as they progress to 1st Class.

Yet another reason why, if they were going to do this, they should have waited until they had an actual program in place, with an actual name.  At this point "girl boy scouts" is probably the most logical thing to call this nameless hypothetical program and its hypothetical future members, but it sounds ridiculous.

 

I realize that doesn't answer the issue you are writing about, but I don't have an answer.

If given my choice, I would simply have us call them Boy Scouts.

If we do something silly and call them girl Boy Scouts then by default, we would also have boy Boy Scouts. The double modifier is silly and cumbersome; and unnecessary.

I was in a co-ed business fraternity in college. The term fraternity refers to a male organization. My chapter was 70% female. The term we had for members, like any other fraternity, was "brother." Every young woman in our business fraternity was officially referred to as "Brother [last name]." It is fair to assume that with 70% of the organization being female, they were accepting of such language. They knew when they joined that such was the terminology.

Since there appears to be a very strong desire for many girls and their parents to join Boy Scouts, I would change nothing about the terms. My daughter will hopefully be nothing more and nothing less than a "Boy Scout." I see no reason at all that she need be identified with any additional gender terminology.

@NJScouter

 

I think you have hit the nail on the head. I have lots of experience with the BSA, GSUSA, Girl Guides of Canada and a little less experience with Scouts Canada. The BSA is the only program that I've been involved in for over 12 years that is 'family friendly/heavy family involvement'.  Before everyone flips out let me explain.

 

GSUSA, GGC and SC all encourage families to be active in the programs but they want the scouts to grow and develop without the parents present every moment of the time. All 3 organizations encourage the parent to drop off the scout at the meeting room, leave while the meeting is going on and come back at the designated time to pick their scout up. Parents aren't normally in attendance for unit meetings and on site activities. When it comes to camping and field trips the same method applies. Parents may be invited to camp or go on a field trip with the group if extra adults are needed for ratios or transportation, but the scout doesn't go to camp/field trip with a parent in tow. Scouts learn independence from a very early age (first grade). Scouts in these programs even go to summer residence camps of 3-7+ days in length without parents and depending on the association without unit leaders too. Leadership in these programs (especially GGC and SC) also tend not to be parents of current scouts either. Parents are free to observe anytime they want but it is highly discouraged. Drop and go.

 

As a father of a GS and a BS, I have to say that my experience differs significantly.

 

The adult leaders in every GS troop my daughter has been a part of (4 in total), a mother of a GS was the leader and all other leaders where moms of GS in that troop. I also often dropped off my son at his cub scout meetings and picked him up later when it was over. Parents that were not volunteers came and went as they pleased during our meetings but were in no way involved.

 

As a man, I can't say that my attendance at any GS event was EVER "high discouraged" and I would find such behavior by any volunteer leader to be both very off-putting and suspicious to the point that if it continued, I would either confront them or seek out a new troop. I have participated in literally dozens of GS events as a father and never once felt pressure to leave or not attend (though I take make a stink twice with the fact that their GS surveys always ask if my daughter feels like that she spends more time with her "mother" due to GS instead of asking if she felt that she spent more time with her "caregiver" due to GS - which would be the more politically correct and gender/family neutral term).

 

 

BSA wants Mommy/Daddy/other adult with each scout for Lions and Tigers. Most packs want the parent around through Webelos. Then it is culture shock when the scout reaches the troop level that parents aren't truly 'welcome' anymore. On top of the burn out we all talk about on these forums this culture shock IMHO is a main driver in the drop out rate between AoL and first year troop. I had 12 scouts from Tiger to AoL. Only 3 stuck with the program after AoL. 4 scouts were only children and their parents weren't keen on letting their darlings out of their sight. One actually told another parent and myself that since we had more than 1 child that we had a spare kid if something happened to our boys. They didn't have a spare so they were going to protect him at all costs and not let him out of their sight for a few more years. Lost touch with those families after that.

 

Again, not my experience at all. The Patrol Method should not equal exclusion of parents. We often have non-volunteer parents at meetings and at camp events. Doesn't mean that the patrol method changes based on their attendance. As far as burn out or drop out rate, I can only speak from anecdotal experience but my son's patrol has not lost a single scout since they crossed over from Web 2 last December.

 

The scouting program doesn't function well with adults present in too large a number. Kids can't grow and become confident in their abilities when adults hover. The BSA for all its fussing that helicopter parents aren't what is appropriate sure does push that to happen when they insist on parental attendance at meetings/events/camps. 

 

I agree with the hover but attendance need not equal hovering.

 

Girls in the BSA isn't what we all need to be afraid of. Too many parents that don't understand the program and don't know how to let go is our real issue. The BSA has made a leap to be like the rest of the WOSM, but how long till they adopt policies that will actually help scouting improve? It sounds harsh but we need to ditch more of the adult attendance/interaction at activities. Let the scouts work the program with just enough adults to meet ratios, get the rest out. No unit should be registering more adults than kids. Adults need to be trained and parents need to keep their distance. 

 

My only fear with girls coming into the program is more parents that want to meddle with scouting. 

 

Meh. Train the parents like you train the scouts. We had at least two parent meetings when my son crossed over that dealt with how Boy Scouts are different than Cub Scouts. If your troop does a good job of teaching new Boy Scout parents, then I don't see why this would be an issue. If parents are inappropriately hovering then the problem is that the parents haven't been properly educated.

And you have summed up the issues, the Professional and Board Room of Scouting versus (sadly that is the case) the front line Scouters providing program at the unit level to the youth.

 

- One group feels we needs Scouts so that money can be raised

 

- One group feels we need to raise money so there can be programs delivered to Scouts

I fail to see how this decision necessitates someone impugning the motives of the professionals.

I think both groups (pros and volunteers) feel we need to raise money so there can be programs delivered to scouts - and scouts will now also includes (more) girls.

If camps are closing because BSA is losing money, then programs are not being delivered to current scouts. If this change helps reduce the bleed or helps us to actually grow, then we both raise money and deliver more programs to more scouts.

It just might turn out that adding more programs for girls helps an existing Boy Scout keep his local summer camp.

Thoughts?

I am not an eagle scout, and I think it is a great idea. Any additional ancillary benefits through networking simply add value to the achievement.

I guess I always assumed that there was some sort of "alumni" association of Eagles. If there isn't, someone needs to get on that!

Based on this way of thinking Mike Surbaugh has a free hand to change the Boy Scouts in any way he wants as long as he can claim it is helping girls or single moms or families or any other people. 

 

My question is how have the changes helped the Girl Scouts, if it is hurting the Girl Scouts then BSA National has broken the scout oath.

 

I don't see the connection you are trying to make. How is helping people, specifically girls, gain access to the benefits of BSA breaking the scout oath? The oath is to help other people, not help other organizations. If girls want to join BSA over GSA, then we helped other people.

 

I think what he really means is the BSA BRAND is the best name that can be used to produce maximum profit, so we get to keep our name.

 

Pride?  I do not remember Pride being part of the scout law.  I am not sure being prideful is a good thing.

 

I think you are being nitpicky. Ask any Eagle Scout if they feel proud of their accomplishment and you might struggle to find one that doesn't. Take pride in our history and our accomplishments is not a bad thing.

 

 

 

I see, your decision does not make our programs co-ed. . .    but Mike Surbaugh could make a new decision at any time and instantly make BSA co-ed.

If you read what he said carefully the door is wide open to switch to co-ed at any time they wish to make a new decision.

They have made no promises to not go co-ed.   

 

They've made no promises about anything. They've made no promises not to raises annual dues to $4300 a year - but perhaps we should concern ourselves with promises not made once they arise and instead spend our efforts and energy on the facts at hand?

I applied for this in my state this week. I will share the results when I get a response.

True. Nobody is forcing CO's to recharter. Nobody is forcing members to re-register. Nobody is forcing donors to donate.

Again, no one is forcing your den, pack, patrol, troop, CO, district or council to change. Why would you suggest or imply that you would stop donating to your all-boys Troop simply because a girl in an adjacent state earns her Tiger Badge? Why would you punish the scouts in your troop by removing your expertise from the system simply because a young woman [RS] earns a Eagle someplace else?

What harm does it cause you and yours? Specifically? You might have assumptions about how things MIGHT change at some point in the future but right now, official word is you can remain just as "traditional" as you want to be.

Seems nothing other than spiteful. This would be different, and I would feel differently, if they were forcing you to accept girls, but they are not.

 I don't need scouting to duplicate that.

Then don't. No one is forcing you to do so.

I've always wondered roughly what percent of Cub Scouts actually meet in Dens SEPERATLY and then attend a monthly Pack meeting.  In my urban District there are no truely seperate Den meetings.  All meet weekly as a Pack.  The 2 or 3 bigger, better Packs at least have Dens go to a different room or corner of a room for part of the meeting.

 

Reason I ponder this now...  In my District any CO registering girls will most likely not have SEPERATE girl or boy dens. 

Similar to Packs who do not have enough youth or adults for seperate Bear and Wolf Dens.

I think most of us will simply have anecdotal experience but my local unit always met as dens separately on a weekly basis (differently times, days and locations) and once a month as a pack. 

Edit: Fixed a typo.

Back Pack, good points. As we can see from our UK colleagues it would not have been that hard to have put together some draft guidelines and a FAQ to common questions.  

There is a FAQ out there. I was reading it earlier today - but that being stated, I had to hunt for it. I can't find it again as I type this.

Sure would be nice if this was all on the front page of www.scouting.org

Found it:

https://www.scoutingnewsroom.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Family-Scouting-FAQ.pdf

https://www.scoutingnewsroom.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/BSA_Family-Entry-Fact-Sheet.pdf

I agree; I am sure there are ways it could have been done better. I think it is a fact of life that there are always better ways to do something (yet not my area of expertise and I don't know how they could have done it better).

That being stated, many have complained that they were not told in advance that this change was coming. I just don't see how that would be a reasonable request as any leaking to members would also be leaking to the media.

My guess is that BSA has a PR person on payroll and that they applied whatever expertise they have in crafting this message. Doesn't mean it was perfect but there may not have been a much better way either.

You really think we have systemic issues of sexual assault, financial mismanagement, and deficient programming?

Really? Might there be quite a bit of hyperbole in all of that?