KublaiKen

Upon rereading, I see that. I think what was confusing was the comparison with screening adults; in this context, the only screening we do for adults is to exclude them from the program. It is single sanction.

I think you've jumped in the deep end of victim blaming and then failed to tread water. Blaming a child victim of sexual molestation or rape and saying the antidote is to keep them out of the program instead of fixing the environment is a non-starter across the board, at least for me.

I live in the 7th most diverse city on the U.S. (three of the six ranked above us are our neighboring cities). My son's Troop has a couple of Hispanic/Latino kids (same family), a few Asian kids, three bi-racial kids, and one Black kid (my son, from a transracial family). We are right in downtown, such as it is, and don't come close to matching the racial and ethnic breakdown of the schools, soccer teams, track teams I've coached, etc. Scouting is missing large and growing populations.

I've noticed that all the Scouters with more knots than I have are braggarts and know-it-alls. The Scouters with fewer are greenhorns who can't really tell me much. The Scouters with the same number usually have the wrong ones or put them in a dumb order. Once I saw a guy with the exact same ones that I have and in the same order; I figured he probably just knows somebody at council.

The solution to what? Not getting an answer? Is the solution that being a member of the upper echelons is the only way to get the answer, or that those now holding these upper positions will never give the answer, so you need new people and are recruiting them? This issue came up last weekend when we were camping with a brand new Scout and his dad, and it was awkward telling him that tenting with his own son was a YP issue, especially given that less than a month ago when he was the AOL Den Leader it wasn't. Short of me taking on yet another volunteer role, this time in the Service T

Got it. Although, to be clear, I didn't mean your specific scenario as much as a general idea that BSA created a certain rationale and expectation but now says it is inappropriate to mingle with another unit. I think of all the many, many reasons I keep National on my speed dial </sarcasm>, telling them that boy and girl Scouts are working together will be the last reason I tell on somebody.

Wasn't that one of the things BSA touted when they opened Cub Scouts and Scouts BSA to girls: that families now could have a shared activity instead of two or more? That only works if they are meeting/camping at the same place and at the same time, or you are still driving multiple places on multiple weekends, etc.

Sorry, I'm confused. I just meant that the program he proposed was the program as it existed when I was a Cub Scout during those years: no Lions, no Tigers, three years, AOL was extra.

Right. He said drop Lions and Tigers. I was a Wolf in 3rd grade, Bear in 4th, Webelos in 5th. AOL was above and beyond and earned while a Webelos.

This is the program I was in 1975-1978.

So would the territories replace regions/areas (realizing this is just a proposal)?

So you couldn't bring your son who is a Star Scout to a meeting of a girls' troop just starting out to teach knots to Scouts who have never tied one? That is absurd.

I read things like this and wonder what in the heck this SM is thinking. How convoluted is the thought process that decides helping at your own Troop's COH should count as community service hours? What next, cooking for your patrol? In fairness, I am sure people often wonder the same about me.

It is probably more accurate to say one doesn't know OF any Scouters who abused kids or OF any Scouts who were abused.

Barry, I don't think I have done any of those things to you, and if you feel I did then I apologize.