yknot

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.

Yes, there is significant training and each district must have a HIB specialist on staff. There is a matrix and an escalation in my state too, but in daily practice in real life it basically turns into virtually anything can be interpreted as a HIB infraction and once reported it requires a mandatory investigation. It might ultimately not be ruled that way when the investigation is concluded, but the students and the families are still required to go through the process which can be intimidating. One interesting phenomenon is how easily the system and the process can be subverted by an actual bully who claims that the object of his or her attention is the aggressor. Another phenomenon is how, especially in recent years, very innocuous comments or behaviors have met the so-called objective threshhold.

Where are you getting this information? They don't "convict" school age children of bullying. Generally cases of harassment, intimidation, and bullying are handled within the district and disciplined with detention or suspension and/or referred for counseling. The only time it would go to court is if a parent sues. The issue for today's kids, though, as I have been commenting about so frequently to you that it does feel like I am on a replay loop, is that almost anything can be interpreted as bullying or microaggression. The recipient definitely controls what is perceived as bullying because all they have to do is report it and it instantly triggers a process. It is therefore very confusing for a kid to be given a pass by adults to tease in scouting when the same behavior in school would result in discipline. On the flip side, a kid on the receiving end of teasing in scouting can be disoriented when adults seem to turn a blind eye. There are a lot of kids for whom those situations don't help build character, they just quit, which brings me to membership. As far as membership, every other youth organization has faced the same pressures scouting has and yet so many of them are faring better. 4-H for example still has 4 million kids or thereabouts. 4-H, despite waning agricultural roots, has done a really good job of navigating changing times and still staying relevant to present day youth. Kids do think their problems are more insurmountable today despite what you believe and the statistics on youth depression and suicide bear that out. It's a whole other discussion as to why and whether it actually is true, but that is their reality.

It's not circular to me. If I feel like I have to explain or defend what I said to a kid, I probably shouldn't have said it in the first place. That's why kids are different. That's my point. BSA's own membership numbers show that it has been struggling to connect with kids in recent decades. It's not just me saying kids are different. Other youth organizations seem to be doing a better job of adapting to this. A lot of organizations saw declining membership as the numbers of school age kids dropped, but none so precipitous as BSA. And many other new youth organizations have sprung up to meet some of these changing needs and interests. Again, I disagree. Not acknowledging that kids have different worries and stressors today isn't helpful. I don't know if you have school age children or not but you must not have encountered HIB laws in your state. In the school system at least, bullying is not held to an objective standard. Pretty much anything and everything IS called bullying today, and kids have to navigate that. BSA needs to align with their reality,. I think it does on paper, but in practice in units where old attitudes hold sway, it can still be very mixed messaging and there are problematic experiences for some scouts. Don't get me started on the tea pot song.

My feeling is that if you feel like you have to defend teasing, it is probably best not done. Kids are always in a subordinate position to adults and it's hard to get a true read of what they really think even when you think you do. Kid on kid teasing is even worse. Kids today have a very strange social and cultural lanscape to navigate. Their counterparts in the 1960s may have had to worry about physical landmines; kids today have to be vigilant about not putting a foot wrong and hitting a social landmine. Say the wrong word or post the wrong thing on social media, and your life can be blown up. Kids are very unsure about where the lines are drawn. Some of the things I have seen done in scouts that are still considered acceptable, like teapot songs and the like, would get them disciplined or even suspended if they did the same thing in school. Bullying today is decided by the recipient, not the deliverer. I would also say that as adults we need to be sensitive to the fact that some kids who come to scouting are here because they feel like they don't fit in anywhere else. They have likely already put up with their lifetime quota of teasing.

Kids today are very different in some important ways. They start puberty at younger and younger ages and are increasingly likely to be depressed. Suicide rates have increased dramatically over the past two decades, with more suicides occuring among younger, middle school age children. The events of their time are leading them to mature faster in a physical sense but obviously leaving a lot of them without the skills to cope with the stressors and pressures of their daily lives in a psychological sense. I haven't seen many adults who are capable of teasing kids in such a way that builds character. It's mostly the opposite. I've mostly seen adults who think their teasing is humorous but it is not to the kid. The quickest way I know to lose a kid's trust or respect is to tease them.