FireStone

The Chartered Organization is the authority over anything else at the unit level. As it relates to who can be a member of the pack and who can't, the CO outranks the CM and committee. In my pack the CM actually comes in fairly low in terms of authority on policy and procedure. The committee has, on occasion, voted to override a CM decision. Not sure if that is standard BSA procedure or not, though.

Where are there mixed troops now? So we should call our CSE a liar because at the local unit level some people are going against the design of the program as it pertains to gender?

I've just read through this entire thread and I think my problem with this whole issue is your focus on your boyfriend being singled out. If your CM, Committee, or CO don't know about other possible felons attending activities, we don't know how they would react if they did know. But based on how this has been handled so far, I suspect those other folks would endure similar scrutiny. Regardless, I would suggest just accepting things as they are and not pushing the matter. Even when his son is a Lion, there is no guarantee of accepting him as a participant. Your CO has the right to exclude anyone, for any reason, criminal record or not. I have no criminal record, not even a speeding ticket, but if my CO decided they just didn't like me, they could send me packing tomorrow. That's the perks of the CO, they are the absolute authority on who can participate in a unit and who can't. Press the issue too hard and you could find your whole family asked to leave. Is that right? I don't think so. But again, COs can decide whatever they want. If you approach this with the attitude that "they’re going to have to swallow it all next year when his actual son is a Lion Cub," I think you might find things could actually get worse. Accept the decision of the CM, and use the time between now and his son joining to help him prove his commitment to living a better life. You can't be concerned about any other families, parents, participants, and their backgrounds. This is just about you and your boyfriend. And don't give the CM or anyone else a reason to make an even bigger issue of it.

Changing the name of a magazine doesn't change the way we teach kids, in single-gender groups or otherwise. Nor does changing the name of a program. He didn't lie. The original plan, what he spoke of, was single-gender Dens and/or single-gender Packs, and single-gender Troops. That's what we're going ahead with, still teaching kids in gender-specific groups. There was no "lying". So your implication that the Scout Law is "nonchalantly disregarded" by me or anyone else is, as you like to say, "trash."

I still can't believe there is even outrage at all over a magazine title. Then again, this forum never ceases to amaze me with what brings out the pitchforks. I'm still trying to wrap my head around the idea that someone is threatening to quit because there will be photos of girls in the handbooks.

I kind of got the same vibe, that if it's just a few months into this family's experience with this troop and already this kind of problem is arrising, more than a bit concerning about the future prospects of this unit and if it's even possible to have a positive experience at all going forward with that unit. No matter the outcome of any appeal, moving to a different unit might be the best option.

Kind of related to my original post and where I think we are going from here, in particular modeling the BSA after Scouts UK, as it relates to uniforms I think we should expect more of the UK model there as well. In the "Adding Girls to the Pack" thread (page 9) on this forum there is a video with Anthony Berger, and towards the end he talks about how the WOSM regards just the neckerchief as being "in uniform". And he's wearing his neckerchief in the UK style, with the friendship knot. I fully expect to see more of this and a reduced emphasis on Class A uniforming in the BSA. I think we'll always have Class A, but more for ceremonies, COH, Blue & Gold, formal events, etc. In fact I think this video was pretty much confirmation (unofficially of course) that this is happening already. We should expect to see more of the UK-style larger neckers in the BSA, especially going into WSJ '19.

It's astonishing how wildly out of control this kind of thing can get, over what appears to be a completely mis-heard word/phrase. Do we really need to sit our scouts down and tell them not to use the word "kill" in any way or any context, because it can be misconstrued? It's pure insanity. Next we'll probably hear about a kid kicked out of a Troop for threatening to go on a murder spree after being overheard talking to other scouts about Fortnite.

Even if that's the case and he did threaten the other boy, the severity of the response isn't justified. This is a "warning" scenario, maybe a sit-down discussion at most.

Good point. Being that I've recently been looking for a babysitter, it's been interesting to see how potential candidates advertise themselves. They're often in college, especially this time of year looking for summer work, and they make it a point to mention that they're not just in college but if they're a junior ot senior, they make darn sure that you know it. As if a college freshman or sophmore is under-qualified. 🙄 This certainly feels like a tie-in topic around the societal issue of kids not being allowed to play outside or being escorted home from the local park by police if they are unattended minors.

Chartered Organization Rep and Committee Chair

I'm not sure what the official policy is, but personally I think it's highly unusual to expel a scout from a unit over one incident. I guess depending on the severity of the alleged threat, maybe it's justified in some cases. I've heard of cases of alleged "physical violence" that didn't result in expulsion, I think most units act on a system of warning, then action if behavior is repeated. Again, there could be circumstances where first offense is grounds for immediate expulsion. But those have to be some pretty extreme threats to warrant that. This is something you're going to have to probably take up the ladder, contacting your District Executive and Council Exec. I'm curious to know what others have to say here about moving to another unit, because that would be my first choice so your son doesn't have to sit out for months, during which time he'll probably grow resentful of the organization and even if he is then reinstated he might not want to go back.

Thanks for the reply. I'm not going to do a point-by-point reply, I think we both know where we stand on this. We disagree, and that probably won't change. My point of this thread was optimism and looking forward, which I continue to do and continue to have about the BSA. It's not a popular opinion around here, but I truly believe that the best days of the BSA are ahead of us.

I'm in favor of all of the recent changes, and I'm an Eagle Scout, Den Leader, Pack Committee member, OA Brotherhood.

I don't know if there is a date, but I imagine you could just call it the "Scouts BSA Handbook" and I think most folks will know which book you're talking about. Making an assumption based on the release of the Cub books less than a month from the official start date, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Scouts BSA books show up in January.

I've been really tempted to whip up a "Scouting Isn't Dead" t-shirt design in the style of the old "Punk's Not Dead" graphics. 😄

I really hope no one will actually leave because Boys' Life changed their name. Or because there will be pictures of girls in handbooks, as was suggested in another thread.

Fair enough, here goes... I pushed for inclusion in the BSA for many reasons. Sometimes because I thought that doing so would benefit the programs, sometimes because I felt that morally it was right, and sometimes because I felt that what the BSA was doing previously was just wrong (kicking kids out and denying advancement on the basis of sexual orientation, for example). The latter points can and have been debated here ad nauseum. On the "benefit the program" front, I think inclusion adds an additional layer of richness to the BSA. I have yet to hear about any gay scout or scouter who damaged the program in any way, and I've only heard stories of the exceptional LQBTQ men and women who have positively contributed to the BSA. From what I've seen so far, I say let's have more of them, and we all will benefit from their contributions to the organization. Girls just magnify that opportunity. Girls already contribute positively to many units. My Pack has had girl siblings participating in Pack activities for a long time now, and they always bring fun and enthusiasm to everything they do. Sometimes more than the boys. We just doubled our pool of potential members and future alumni. For every notable male Eagle Scout or former Boy Scout we brag about, imagine the roster of alumni we'll have in the next few decades with comparable accomoplishments. Or imagine if the BSA had done this decades ago and we could be bragging right now about pioneering women who earnd the Eagle rank. For Scouters it's a no-brainer for me, especially at the Pack level. I'm going to love handing out badges and awards to girls who I already know, who have already been participating and enjoying Cub Scouts "unofficially". Now they get to do this officially, and not just because their brother does it. And hopefully they will want to bring in their friends who don't have siblings in the Pack. We're suffering losses now in the short-term, but long term I see this as a massive growth opportunity. I'm not sure that anyone (myself included) can know the full potential of this just yet, it's too soon to say, but I remain optimistic that this will be big. For Scouts, I think their program only gets made better by all of this. I've never seen it as a negative that boys could be doing scout activities alongside girls, and really I've only ever seen it as a positive. We're supposed to be preparing these boys for adulthood, "Prepared for life," as the slogan goes. That life includes a lot of women, in all capacities, now more than ever. The boys that continue on to the military will soldier alongside women some times. They're going to work alongside women, in offices, firehouses, work sites, everywhere, and see women rise to the same levels as men. I think it only benefits our boys to learn to work alongside girls and truly prepare for the professional lives they have ahead of them. I believe that bringing the girl perspective into what we do can only enhance it. Every bit of it. One of the constant arguments against girls in the BSA has been that boys and girls learn differently. Why is that a bad thing? And why not use that to our advantage? If girls learn differently, let's use that to improve how we teach all scouts, boys and girls, to develop scout skills and learn how to live by the oath and law. It hasn't been a negative in school classrooms to have boys and girls working together. Let's enjoy that same benefit in Scouting. And lastly, I think that if we're honest about why we do this, why we put kids in the BSA at all, we have to acknowledge the basic idea that Scouting makes kids into better adults, and the more of that we have, the better. For all of us. If we believe so deeply in the BSA program and what it does for kids, why would we not want to use that to build a bigger and better society of people who will use their BSA experiences to be better people for the rest of their lives?

Speaking of clarifications, I'm still hoping you'll clarify what you meant when you falsely stated that WOSM staff could be jailed for providing condoms.

Those are not program changes. Program is the program, what kids do and learn, not what they wear or the title of the magazine they read. YPT is not program, it's YPT. What is something that kids used to do that they don't anymore because of the recent changes?

Thanks for the doom and gloom, folks. Some of us are optimistic about the future of the BSA. I was hoping for just a minute we could focus on that, or at least those of us who believe that could discuss it. But of course in this forum it's not possible without people tearing things down again. Oh well, it was worth a try.

Agreed. I'm not sure of the legalities of this kind of thing, but at the very least, spreading mesleading (or downright false) information about your competitors is entirely un-Scoutlike.

I agree. It's probably too late. I would just add that at the time I was writing some of those letters and voicing those concerns, I had very little faith that any changes would be made. I still did it, though, because it felt right to me. I think that some folks who may eventually walk away from this because of these changes might find some comfort in knowing that they at least spoke up, they did what they could to oppose what was happening, and in the end if they still have to walk away, they can do it knowing that they at least tried.

I still have yet to hear of any change in program or requirements, ranks, badges, activities, etc., so as far as I can see, things still look pretty much the same. I don't think that a girl in BSA uniform makes the BSA unrecognizable.

Well, you probably won't want to hear this, but when folks like me were arguing in favor of gay scouts, gay scouters, and girls in the BSA, we weren't just talking about it on Internet forums. We were writing letters (not emails, typed letters, hand-signed and mailed) to various members of the Executive Board. We were donating money to groups like Scouts for Equality. We were signing petitions, making phine calls, and speaking up in any way that we could. This forum is great for discussion, but it doesn't actually give any of us a voice in any debate in a way that actually sways opinion. If you want to get things done, you should use your voice (and your pen, and your keyboard, and your printer paper and stamps) to be heard by anyone who you can find a phone number or mailing address for that can influence these things. I'd rather you didn't. 😉 But I'm just sayin', folks like me have been lound and clear on these issues for years, with the people making these decisions. If you haven't been, well, I think you can probably imagine how we got here then.