yknot

Actually, they are not. I think it's just a question of wording. Unregistered adults may not be in charge of the entire trip, but they are quite frequently put or left in supervisory positions at times while on trips. This happens all the time at summer camp and on camp outs.

I would say diversity is almost as important as youth protection when it comes to irrelevancy and other issues, but not more.

I noted that too. I guess they only want diversity of opinions to a point.

Our district has a poly tech high school that offers those classes and STEM type academies for different pursuits like ag sci, pre med, engineering, computer sciences, etc.

Has it been a week yet??? Free Brittney!

Council mergers are not necessarily a bad thing. For one, one of the ongoing issues with scouting is how variable the experience is depending on what unit and council you are in and what kind of people are involved. While 'home rule' can be good it also has its downsides. Maybe some more integration and consolidation of struggling councils into more successful ones would be good overall for scouting although maybe initially painful for those affected by it.

The BSA could certainly immediately release the names of any individuals who were convicted. It could also separate out those who are in the IVF for financial, theft, or criminal reasons. An independent third party could establish criteria for whether names should be released for those abuse related situations that did not lead to conviction. I don't think the public particularly cares about the names of people who were listed because of financial malfeasance or a DUI.

I think one of the more interesting concepts that came out of Michael Johnson's statements was for the first time a senior member of BSA ackowledged that Scouting is a high risk activity when it comes to predators and child abuse. We've talked about it here on the forum but BSA has not even wanted to discuss that although it is pretty clearly a reality. I thought Vieth's outlining in black and white some of the reasons why was useful. It's why BSA can't defend itself by saying we are doing what everyone else is doing and more regarding YPT. The baseline for scouting has to be higher because of what it does, where, and with who.

There was just an incident from a camp this summer involving restroom cameras. The discovery of the cameras resulted in the perpetrator being caught, but a review of the cameras also captured multiple incidents of scout on scout sexual activity in the restroom. This kind of thing is obviously happening despite current youth protection policies. We don't know whether or not it was abuse -- it might have been consensual between two kids of similar ages and size -- but it was at minimum a youth on youth protection violation of concern. No parent wants to send their kid to a camp where that is occuring. Johnson is right to point this kind of thing out and it has to be reviewed in context of patrols and other situations where we put kids under the supervision of other kids. I've said this before but these kids are handed these roles with little formal training to help them understand how to be responsible for other kids or with any vetting of whether they should be in that role in the first place. Other youth organizations do this but scouting just assumes they can.

It is run more like a cult than a functional nonprofit organization.

I reached that point earlier than this, maybe a year ago, but found Johnson's comments validating about some of the deep concerns I have developed over the years about National and how it runs the program. In my estimation it has become a self affirming, self congratulatory out of touch cult rather than a functional, modern day nonprofit youth organization. I think there are good people involved. I think there are pockets where the program works well, but those pockets require a lot of alchemy to create and sustain. The program by itself, as administered by the National organization, cannot be templated in any reliably safe or uniform fashion. If you are fair, Johnson's words ring true about many of the concerns that have repeatedly been expressed on this forum. To some degree almost nothing he said should have been a bombshell to any of the jaded folks here other than the fact of his own appearance as a senior executive and the person who was hired to be the man in the white hat for BSA. It sounds like he left after it was shot off his head.

I don't think BSA is bad 100% of the time. I've loved parts of the organization. But it's also fair to note that many people who have viewed BSA in a favorable light over the years have also been those who have been interested in perpetuating some of the social issues BSA has had difficulty adapting to. A lot of those people left when gays and girls were welcomed but a lot still remain.

Parents ARE discussing youth concussions and injury rates in sports. That's part of the reason why US youth participation in sports is in decline, and in particular in football and soccer. On the other hand youth participation is up in baseball and basketball -- two sports not necessarily known for concussions. They happen, just not as visibly. One thing to consider is that scouting can be very insular. The people who are into it are often really into it, sometimes a little cult like, and it is often combined with church life, politics, world view, etc. Not so much the case with sports. As a result, it can be a bit of an echo chamber. If people outside of that world knows someone is heavily involved in scouting, most won't ask unpleasant questions or say derogatory or challenging things.

I feel like I've entered some kind of alternate reality with some of these comments. Yes, there are examples of places in BSA where it was true to it's own oath and law. However, Boy Scouts in general is not regarded by people outside of it as an example of a tolerant or inclusive organization. Over the years it has generally excluded or segregated people by race, gender, orientation, and religion. It has a history of being behind the curve on almost every important social issue. It allows this by unit to this day when it comes to religion and orientation. It also has a significant current issue with Native American appropriation that is embarrassingly behind the times. Look at the tourist trap level, wince worthy nonsense it sells online in its scout shop under Native American crafts and the regalia and activities of groups like Mic O Say.

Let's not give the moderators anything more to do. I don't know any of them, but to me it seems like they are doing a lot trying to keep up with the volume of posts over the bankrutpcy. Maybe we can just try to get less offended or not worry about tiny arrows. Some of it might be generational. For example being told to Google something isn't really a pistols at dawn comment, it's just functional. We're living in a world where High School reference libraries are being turned into multimedia coffee bars because the answer to virtually anything you want to research is at your fingertips. It's more like -- Don't believe me or like my source? Just go look it up yourself and see what you find.

This is about abuse in the Catholic Church in France but has some interesting parallels with US BSA case: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/france-catholic-church-report-abuse/2021/10/05/05ae5c22-254c-11ec-8739-5cb6aba30a30_story.html

Yes, I've read all that too. It is illegal to sell corded blinds with pull cords because they've been recalled. The custom blinds you are talking about have been reconfigured. The general recommendation by the CSPC, property managers, realtors, blind suppliers, etc., is to throw recalled blinds out due to safety risks and liability.

See the quote by the head of the WMCA below: https://abcnews.go.com/US/window-covering-manufacturers-ban-blinds-potentially-hazardous-cords/story?id=52318032 The CSPC has enforcement powers, even for voluntary recalls, which it will exercise at will especially for products that involve child safety, which can include legal action. Why would anyone in scouting want to see scouting promoting the repair and retention of products that are illegal to sell when the recommended action and industry standard is to replace? This is a consumer item, like a crib or a car seat. You don't repair recalled cribs or car seats, you throw them out.

I, for one, have been specifically talking about Mic O Say in all my comments. You brought up OA and claimed MOS has nothing to do with BSA despite evidence easily obtained and provided for you at least a couple times on Google. BSA doesn't have to do anything to address it other than to enforce its own rules. Honestly, OA ought to be concerned about Mic O Say because from the perception of the general public, OA will be lumped in with Mic O Say when it all eventually blows up. The public won't see any of those fuzzy lines of distinction drawn by scouters. It's the situationally inappropriate that is the subject of this discussion. BSA regulations require appropriate attire. It's in black and white and pretty clear. If the inappropriateness of that isn't clearly apparent then no wonder we have YPT issues.

Appropriate attire is required for all activities under BSA Youth Protection and Adult Leadership rules. Start there. The recent inclusion of girls in the program, as an earlier poster noted, is a logical time for BSA to enforce its own rules.

Thank you for posting that. The Reddit poster's views are current from this summer, as are other posts with current Summer 2021 photos on Reddit. It seems almost impossible that anyone involved beyond a passing level with National or OA has never heard of this Council and its activities or would be able to dismiss them. It's debatable how "adjacent" the Council, camps, and society may be given that it is all clearly operating with BSA approval. It is using branded logos, materials, and webistes and intertwining program and fundraising aspects and leadership. I hope some of these reports to National make a difference but I am doubtful. I think the only thing that will make a difference is when some lawyer in a high profile future lawsuit needs proof that BSA's negligence in dealing forthrightly with youth protection issues is ongoing and not historic.

That's an outdated recommendations from 2001 that has had numerous updates, including a 2020 recall. Wouldn't it be better to teach scouts to be aware of what the Consumer Safety Productions Commission is? They cover safety aspects of many things in a scout's life, from products in the home, like blinds, to vehicles to camping gear. Why ignore them? You woudn't if it was climbing rope or carbiners or propane tanks that have been recalled.

It is clearly associated with BSA. I'm not sure why you are not seeing the connection: https://www.hoac-bsa.org/mic-o-say Pick through here. You'll find a lot. https://indiancountrytoday.com/news/research-compiled-in-the-boy-scout-series-in-indian-country-today However, if you think shirtless youth wearing loincloths, even over shorts, in the company of adult men in camp ceremonies in the woods for no reason is not inappropriate from a youth protection standpoint, then that's the explanation for why this kind of thing persists. That's good news. OA would be smart to take this seriously. It just takes one viral social media post to launch yet another high profile PR debacle.

Search on Google and/or Facebook for Mic O Say or Scouts Native American appropriation and you'll find plenty of photos that show youth barechested in loincloths and they are current. I don't know how it persists in the present environment but it is hard to argue that BSA is the leader in youth protection with photos like those extant.

I'm not talking about swimwear, I am talking about camp ceremonies, and I am talking present day. As far as swimwear, there are a lot of scouts who are competitive swimmers and they are used to wearing performance suits. I don't see much difference between genders in that regard whether you are talking square inches of coverage or form fit. In and around the water, swim wear is appropriate.