yknot

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.

Alright. Let me put it another way. Corded blinds are no longer being sold because they are a safety hazard. They do not meet industry standards. Where I am, if you are selling a house, you either have to remove or replace corded blinds or you have to disclose them because they are a liability risk. If you repair a corded blind in someone's house rather than replacing it with cordless, and some child accidentally strangles in the cord in the future, you have some potential liabilty. It is simply not worth teaching that skill or involving scouts in that kind of repair. And corded blinds are just one example of some of the kinds of home repairs that would be better jettisoned because of safety issues or because they are more on the order of historic renovation. And I'm not just picking on home repair. A lot of the badges are problematic for safety/liability reasons or have declining relevance. They are very nostalgic for how kids did things 10, 20, 30 years ago. The work in the badges ought to be relevant.

There are many cases and claims however that do involve intentional cover up, especially if you look beyond just what has turned up on this Forum. It ultimately may not serve the best interests of BSA and children for the bankruptcy to have been filed, because if these egregious cases were told publicly in court it might jolt more people out of denial or deflection. BSA is still in effect covering up youth protection violations today. How otherwise do you explain, for example, the continued existence of units that parade youth wearing loincloths? BSA is aware but ignores it, presumably for concerns about membership and money.

I understand it's a volunteer problem, but if BSA knows it lacks the volunteers to do the job properly, should it be continuing to offer programming? The US Trustee recently asked BSA why they were pursuing Chapter 11 instead of Chapter 7 if they didn't have enough money to meet the requirements of the law. Youth Protection is the same situation. If you know you can't do the job properly, then maybe you should desist. It puts the importance of maintaining the program ahead of the safety of kids.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, what you appear to be saying is that because everyone else was doing it, getting away with it, and didn't know how to handle it, BSA should not be in this situation. Your feeling seems to be that BSA is somehow being unfairly singled out for accountability. If BSA is not held accountable, though, then how would we as a society ever begin to address child abuse? How would we make that "accountability" more fair? I'm assuming you mean some kind of higher power, like government, should realize that this is an endemic problem wherever youth are involved and ... do what? Pass laws to prevent child abuse? Pass laws to limit damages that can be awarded to CSA victims? We sort of had that with SOL laws but society is peeling those back in many states. That is how society feels currently about CSA. Those laws are not targeted specificially against BSA, but due to the number of incidents and claims, it has had a significant impact on BSA. Isn't that actually the fairness in this equation? Anyone in a look back state is free to sue for past abuse. Most of these cases have been lodged against the BSA though. If it turns out that 4-H or YMCA or other groups have as much of a troubled history with youth as BSA, and the Catholic Church for that matter, you can bet that will eventually come out. But so far it really hasn't.

That's from 2012. The standards were updated in 2018: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/historic-safety-standard-to-eliminate-majority-of-corded-window-coverings-from-us-market-takes-effect-300765221.html

This will vary by state, district, and school but today many classrooms have two adults by default because so many kids require instructional aides especially K-8.

I don't follow your logic. Why is delusion an excuse for BSA but not for COs? BSA also signs a chartering agreement with each Council, which basically stipulates an annual health assessment of units and several supervisory tasks. At least once a year, BSA, through its district and Council designees, would have been alerted if a unit was not following bylaws, etc. No one could blame BSA if a case occurred in units that were out of compliance and the BSA was unaware for the first months of charter, but at the end of the one year term, they should have been aware and should have revoked the charter, as they expressly state is their power in the Council chartering agreement. Many of these cases, however, took place over years and even decades.

As far as the "Scout" name, does any of it really matter? I know BSA, and maybe even GSUSA, would like to trademark "Scout" but that is like trying to trademark "Runner" or "Tracker" or "Hunter". It's just something people do. You've got Army Scouts, Sports Scouts, etc. that are actual jobs that also use the Scout name.

It was one aspect of a longer conversation where my point is that life is very confusing for kids today. They are very different than kids in the past and their stressors, pressures, and challenges are different. The fact that they are having more difficulty coping with modern life is borne out by statistics that show ever increasing rates of depression and suicide that are showing up at younger and younger ages. They are also starting puberty much earlier, with all those hormones and stresses as well. The 10 year old you dealt with 20 or 30 or 40 years ago is different than the same aged kid today. In some ways, vastly more mature and worldly, in other ways terribly unprepared for life challenges. I read here and quite often see in the units around me an attitude that how we handled kids decades ago is acceptable today and it is generally not. For the specific area of teasing and bullying, there are adult and peer to peer behaviors that are tolerated in scouting today that border on bullying in most other aspects of a kid's life. I don't think it's part of our job to confuse them or continue such behaviors because it's thought of as an amusing tradition by adults. Edit: I forgot to respond to the last part of your post. That's what I'm talking about when I say the recipient gets to determine what bullying is. Sometimes it's a good thing because kids (and adults) don't realize the impact their words and actions can have, but it's often over done. But that is the reality kids have to navigate. And if you are meeting on school grounds or using school facilities, then yes you do need to "wear the uniform" when on premises or if you have children who attend that school in your unit.