DeanRx

Disclaimer: I did not vote for Mr. Obama either of the times I had a chance to. I am not a fan of most of his policies and I acknowledge the potential for bias in my view because of this...

The way I see the Martin / Zimmerman case is that both parties had multiple chances to avoid a fatal encounter and BOTH probably disregarded those opportunities. Why? Was it race? Maybe. Was it good old fashion male machismo? More likely. Was it a wanna be cop / Lone ranger runs up against a tough attitude, take no crap teenager? Most likely. Probably that third one with some life experience racial assumptions from both parties as icing on the top of the powder keg. Do I think Zimmerman is innocent, heck no. Do I think given the facts as they are known and the charge(s) the prosecution went with there was any other ruling than not guilty because the state could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt? Nope, not a chance. Do I think both men (yes Martin was a man in the physical sense) moved towards a confrontation instead of away from one? Yup... problem was, one of them was bringing a snack to a gun fight and had no way of knowing it at the time.

Do I think the president overreached BIG TIME in choosing to pontificate on this trial (now multiple times) using his position and office as a bully pulpit? Absolutely! I sincerely believe Mr. Obama was / is doing what he thinks to be in the best interest of the nation when he made these comments. However, it troubles me greatly that he chooses to continue to tear at any type of a scab that might even begin to cover such a wound in the national psyche.

I find it curious that pretrial, Obama made a public statement that Martin "could have been my son". Really? Why? Because he was black? To look at photos of Martin and of Obama, that is really the ONLY thing they have in common, skin color! Their facial features and bone structure are not similar at all. I understand that it might make him think of his own children, but thats not what Obama stated.... he stated, "could have been my son". How is this not a racially biased comment? Not a, "Well, I know this looks really bad and I'm not sure why the investigation is taking so long, but I trust in the local / state authorities to get it right down in Florida, let's give the law time to figure this out." Nope. "Could have been my son". There is evidence that the Community Relations Services unit of the DOJ (Eric Holder's baby) was deployed to Sanford in March '12, well before Zimmerman was arrested and charged with any crime to SUPPORT the protests of inaction. The CRS has been lauded in the local media by protester organizers via Sentinel: "On April 15, 2012, during the height of the protests, the Orlando Sentinelreported, “They [the CRS] helped set up a meeting between the local NAACP and elected officials that led to the temporary resignation of police Chief Bill Lee according to Turner Clayton, Seminole County chapter president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.†The paper quoted the Rev. Valarie Houston, pastor of Allen Chapel AME Church, a focal point for protestors, as saying “They were there for us,†after a March 20 meeting with CRS agents."

Now, after the verdict, Obama has doubled down on his claim stating, "You know, when Trayvon Martin was first shot I said that this could have been my son. Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago." OK, I get that he can identify with Martin.

As a white man, I have not be subject to the harrasment, the assumptions, the second guessing that men (or all people of a minority group) have or will probably face at some point, or even continously, throughout their life. I agree that there is a "black man's code" to a certain degree and that maybe I go through life with a "white priveledge" of an assumption of innocence others are not afforded all the time. I've seen that happen, I do not dispute that it exists.

However, I find it troubling that Obama states, "Now, the question for me at least, and I think for a lot of folks, is where do we take this? How do we learn some lessons from this and move in a positive direction? I think it's understandable that there have been demonstrations and vigils and protests, and some of that stuff is just going to have to work its way through, as long as it remains nonviolent. If I see any violence, then I will remind folks that that dishonors what happened to Trayvon Martin and his family. But beyond protests or vigils, the question is, are there some concrete things that we might be able to do." I agree that violence is NOT the way to honor Martin, but what about the idea that our justice system has spoken? What about the idea that a violent protest, or calls for violence against the accused and acquitted is in fact breaking the law and should be just as open to investigation and prosecution as the incident that set this whole thing in motion? Nope, no mention of that. No mention that we are a country of laws and a legal system that the masses may not agree with, but we stand by it, none the less.

Obama goes on to outline THREE things he thinks we as a nation can take away from this tragedy: 1) "Number one, precisely because law enforcement is often determined at the state and local level, I think it would be productive for the Justice Department, governors, mayors to work with law enforcement about training at the state and local levels in order to reduce the kind of mistrust in the system that sometimes currently exists." - Read this as: I think the feds need to come in and tell the state / local jurisdictions how to do their jobs! More federal oversight... a new department for big brother to watch over what has historically been a states level judiciary.

Next, Obama states, "Along the same lines, I think it would be useful for us to examine some state and local laws to see if it -- if they are designed in such a way that they may encourage the kinds of altercations and confrontations and tragedies that we saw in the Florida case, rather than diffuse potential altercations. I know that there's been commentary about the fact that the "stand your ground" laws in Florida were not used as a defense in the case." This is an attack on the "stand your ground" law that wasn't even USED as part of the defense in the case !!! Now, does Zimmerman get out of his car if he's not carrying a gun? Maybe, maybe not. Is he more brazen in his approach because he KNOWS he has the fallback of a firearm if he needs it? Yes, probably. But did the defense use that law in their case? Nope. Yet, just like after Sandy Hook, Obama (and Holder) have both commented publicly about the need to revisit a law that has NO BEARING on the issue at hand!!! Post Sandy Hook, we need background checks and magazine round limits.... but the guns used at Sandy Hook were legally obtained and the shooter reloaded at least two times that we know of.... not to matter, we need to change SOMETHING!!! Same thing here, Zimmerman didn't invoke "stand your ground", but we'd better look at changing it anyways....

Finally, "Number three -- and this is a long-term project -- we need to spend some time in thinking about how do we bolster and reinforce our African American boys. And this is something that Michelle and I talk a lot about. There are a lot of kids out there who need help who are getting a lot of negative reinforcement. And is there more that we can do to give them the sense that their country cares about them and values them and is willing to invest in them?" Not, How do we bolster and reinforce our youth in general, or all young men so that they find other means to resolve their differences instead of violence. Nope, just the African American boys. Now again, I am not, nor have a ever been a black child or a black teenager in America. I understand that there is prejudice and because of this prejudice children of this ethic group (and children of other minorities) face a harder time than suburban white kids probably do. I just find it curious that Obama, our president... not just the president to the African American boys... finds it appropriate to single out that one ethnic, gender specific subset of our population as needing "bolster and reinforcement". Seems to me we should bolster and reinforce our half-white / half-hispanic boys so that they don't feel the need to run around and play vigilante when they grow up? That would have probably done Martin some good.

My point is, we all see the world via our own lens. That lens is tainted by life experience, including racial bias. I can't help it, you can't help it, Obama can't help it. The discussions / solutions / healing on this issue are going to come from folks sitting down and talking with each other. Its gonna happen in churches and on front porches and in the classroom debate. Mr. Obama missed a big chance, IMHO. I know what he was trying to accomplish, but it was tainted by his own bias and more so by his own agenda. Mr. President - you could have just asked for prayers for all concerned, for dialogue with your communities, and for peace. Maybe asked folks to set out of their comfort zone and interact in a positive manner with someone they would normally hold suspect. That would go a long way towards healing.

As a Web DL, I held up our den for 1 boys who didn't join until WEbII year... we could have crossed over to Boy Scouts in Feb., we waited until May so the lad could complete AOL, becuase without it, he would not have met the age requirement to cross over with his den. Guess what, less than 1 year into Boy Scouts and the kid is no longer active !! I learned MY lesson... offer the program, make OPPORTUNITIES for the boys to advance, but any catch up / make up is on them. I delayed the scouting expirience for 5 other boys (we still did fun stuff / web only campouts / etc...) for the better part of 3 months for a kid and his family that didn't even stick it out for two years in the program.

I'll never make that mistake again. I teach, I lead the program, but if you're not there when the class is offered, its on YOU to do the make up and seek ME out to sign off on the advancement. If the horse is truely thristy, he'll find his was to the trough.

A sadder, but wiser ex-DL.... Dean

As a former CM, with a son beginning again in Tigers this year, and a current ASM for a troop in which my older son is beginning his 2nd year (almost done with 1st class)... I'm living boht sides of this issue...

If I was king of BSA for a day, I would make the following changes: 1) get rid of Lions, 1st grade is soon enough to start. 2) Make Webelos 1 year instead of 2, and make itthe beginning part of Boy Scouts instead of the end of Cub Scouts.

The big change this would bring is that Boy Scouts is a "go at your own pace" program, unlike Cubbies that is a "do it all together in the same year" program. Let the older kids advance at their own speed and do their own things. It would also reduce the amount of years spent in Cubland, and thus decrease leader burnout with the younger kids.

So far in pre-marital sex (hetro or homo) among teenaged boys... I'm sure it happens given the chance. As long as its not happening at a scout meeting or campout - then really not my business.

Curious position from my perspective. If a scout was caught cheating on tests in high school would you consider that none of your business or is it a reflection on his trustworthiness? What if he was hazing other youth on a HS sports team? Not in scouting so no worry about friendly, courteous, kind. Smoking cigarettes and yelling obscenities at a village holiday gathering with young children around? No biggie, it's not a camp out, clean mind and strong body only count in the woods. Character is what happens when nobody is looking. Isn't that what we're trying to teach?

 

I've always viewed my job as a techer. Teach them to make a good choice and then allow them to exercise that choice. I will correct if I am aware of an issue. I highly doubt I'll ever have first hand knowledge of a scout's sex life, unless its acting out on a campout. The only other time I can think of is if he knocks a girl up or something like that... then there is "evidence" so to speak. As I stated before, Hope I never have to face that senerio, but we'll cross the bridge if / when the time comes.

Maybe I'm reading too much into the policy statement... BUT.... I took it to mean that sexual conduct of ANY TYPE is not condoned in or around or on ANY scouting activity. A married couple in a tent on a campout (whether adult leaders or married ventures... wow married yung, but whatever) should be able to keep their private life private around scouts - PERIOD. I don't even show much affection other than a hug and a quick peck on the cheek for the Mrs. when I'm in uniform. Its not the place for it.

So far in pre-marital sex (hetro or homo) among teenaged boys... I'm sure it happens given the chance. As long as its not happening at a scout meeting or campout - then really not my business. I guess I've never had to confront a lad who's knocked up his girlfriend right before his Eagle BoR... guess we'll cross that bridge if / when it occurs and IF the committee has knowledge of the issue. Not sure how I'd handle that issue, but I know one thing.... the lad not getting his Eagle award is the LEAST of his worries at that point in life !

I do (hopefully) project to the youth that dating and relationships are serious things and that mutual RESPECT and RESPONSIBILITY is very important with regards to dealing with the opposite sex (guess that will include the same sex now as of Jan '14). I also talk with them to consider the ramifications of an unintended pregnancy on their and their partner's future has... college, very hard with a baby.... forget dances and prom and football.... you'll be changing diapers, etc...

dean

Packsaddle, I guess I would say I too wish the pro's in Irving would have had the guts to make the call themselves. However, at the same time - putting it to a vote does a couple things (in addition to deflecting some of the heat from themselves): 1) It gets buy-in from the councils... it was THEIR votes that changed the policy... no one can argue the point much when its majority rules. 2) For once, Irving can be viewed as actually LISTENING to the units they are supposed to be serving!! One of the largest complaints I ever hear (and that I level on my own against pro's of every stripe) is that there is far too much top-down decision making in BSA. Be it G2SS and red wagons or membership policy... at least they took the local councils feedback and opinion in to account BEFORE making the decision. 3) I'll give big props to Mr. Terry - his Op-ed piece is a brave new step for a leader at national... and a good example of corporate leadership. I don't see Mazzucca ever doing anything like that in a million years.... that is a good thing.

The fact that the policy statement also addressed concerns about same sex attraction bodes well and shows forethought as well. And, its correct - sexual conduct of ANY type hetro or homo does NOT belong in scouting or scout outings... the YPG is more than sufficient to cover the do's and don't regardless of gender or proclivity.

Wow! No need to see how the councils voted... it was done as a secret ballot and counted by an outside accounting firm, thats good enough for me whichever way the vote turned out. Its been put to a vote and we should move on with providing a great program. As for the OnMyHonor.net folks, I say good luck and best wishes with your "new" scouting program. Don't let the door hit you in the rear end. If your attitude is "Its my way, or I'll quit..." You never really encompassed the true scouting spirit in the first place. I'd say the same thing to any pro-gay scouters who would quit the program over the vote going the opposite way. You look hard enough at ANY large organization and you can likely find something that you disagree with, in many cases very strongly or maybe at your "core beliefs". But, if the overall GOOD in an organization is outweighed by the one or two things you disagree with, WHY would you deny your son the opportunity to participate? What does THAT type of attitude teach our youth? It teaches that if you don't get your way, you quit ?!?! Not a value I want my child to learn regardless of the issue at hand.

Today is a watershed moment for BSA... by the time our sons are on this board as adult leaders, they will laugh about it (much like we think the idea of not allowing a black scout into a white unit is absurd). BSA national got it right today and they got it with a majority of its constituents backing the decision. It will only be a matter of time (years maybe) until the sexual orientation of a scout (youth or adult) is a non-issue altogether and we can look forward to a stronger program because of it.

dean

and I shall finish the game.... scout on! scout on! scout on!

I may continue to push internally for what I believe to be the morally correct path for BSA to follow - but it will change very little (if anything) at the local unit level. So long as my sons have an interest, we will be active in scouting.

I should add that it has become almost imparitive that unit leaders have a discussion with youth regarding such types of conduct and make them understand that any type of this "horse-play" will likely get them a one way ticket out of BSA permenantly. This is one part of youth protection training that we as leaders usually dismiss or fail to teach altogether. We are so concerned about the "bad" adults that we fail to understand the individual risks to the youth that gets mixed up in ANY type of sexual exploration / sexual misconduct accusations. The organization will circle the wagons and protect itself in a situation such as this... that means removing the "few" for the good of the "many" - regardless of motive, intent, or guilt of action.

Scout_98,

I'm sorry to hear of the problems caused by a few boys' (your son's included) momentary lack of judgement. I don't see this as a gay/straight issue so much as I think it might be viewed as a "bullying" issue or perhaps an issue of an older boy compelling younger scouts to do questionable / unscoutlike things.

You state your son is a Star scout and the other youth involved were 12-13 year olds. Was your son a PL or in any position of responsibility over the other youth involved? If so, I can see why the action was taken and I would assume you will have a very difficult time getting him re-instated (even though I personally do not agree with that stance).

If the youth "offender" - for lack of a better term - is a peer (i.e. 3 first year scouts goofing off in a tent and doing inappropriate things) - I think the SE and probably national would be more willing to look past the issue.

However, if your son (as an 'older' scout) persuaded or encouraged or bullied the younger scout(s) into such an act - then you have a more serious issue on your hands. Kids will be kids and sometimes they make very stupid mistakes, most often because they do not view the potential interpretation of their goofy actions in the adult world. However, sometimes their stupid mistake results in them loosing an opportunity in life as a life lesson. It would be sad if this is the case for your son (or any of the other youth involved). But, I bet he will NEVER make that kind of mistake again.

Does the "punishment" fit the "crime"? Most likely not. I do NOT envy your or your son's position in this mess.

This is one of the problems and a huge hole in the "two-deep" leadership model. No adults in a youth's tent protects youth from ill-meaning adults.... it does nothing (and in some cases can promote) youth on youth mischief (which I view this case to be with the facts given), or worse yet - youth on youth abuse (which I doubt this case is - again taking the facts at face value).

While my personal opinion on the membership policy is to allow all youth to join BSA, I fear incidents like this will grow in time with a membership change. Any and all accusations of, "he touched me / looked at me / made a comment about me...." in youth only areas (tents / showers / pool changing areas) will likely be met with the accused being asked to leave the ranks. We live in Winston Salem and the which trials are soon to follow... That is a sad fact to the times in which we live.

Dean

With the recent changes to some of the BSA requirements, which standard does one hold the scout in the program to?

Specific example. If you have a scout working on the firebuilding requirement for 2nd class and they have completed the requirement, but have yet to achieve the rank of 2nd class... do you let it go?

OR

Since the requirement is now to light the fire, let it burn and put it out (as opposed to just showing how to do the firelay), does the lad need to revisit the requirement?

I'd think no, as I'm not going to make a kid getting his Eagle next month go back and redo the requirement for 2nd class just because its been changed, but what is the correct way?

Hasn't come up as a leader discussion (yet), but I can see it being one with the seemingly endless annual tweaks to requirements now.

On the same front... what if scout is all done with everything, sans Eagle project, but while planning eagle project - the new requirement for cooking MB becomes eagle required. Does the lad now have to go back and do the cooking MB before completing his project and BOR?

I think a good place to start is, any adult that is going to hold the scout to the standard should be doing the same test (with same standard)... I bet dollars to doughnuts the majority of adult leaders (myself included) would be hard pressed to knock out a single pull up.

Hey JAR,

 

Did you have any Jr. High girls in the mix? Just saying that if you did, you may have been able to answer your question.

 

Although I'm a crew advisor and love all the co-ed stuff, I don't like the "prom drama" that can seep into some of our outings with other crews. Just this weekend I was dealing with a young lady who was trying to make it "all about her." I managed to do it courteously, without having to wake her advisor, and my crew was glad for it. I might have had to have been uncomfortably blunt if the group was a few years younger.

 

So, I can certainly respect GS and BS leaders who would rather not have to put up with those kinds of hassles in the presence of the opposite sex.

 

Maybe if we did have these kids working together more at younger ages, it wouldn't be a problem. Or we'd find ways to give opposite sexes their own corners for a bit of their time on their own campouts. It really does yank my chain when a girl who was gung-ho for BSA at age 11 is distracted by other things by age 14.

Honestly, if BSA was co-ed, I would have been more likely to stick around to finish my eagle. Instead, I went on to band and drama. I liked both activities, but band and drama had girls, scouting did not.

OK, so anyone who's been on here or has read a post by me knows my stance on the upcoming membership policy vote... I would like to offer a voice for WHY the horse is already out of the barn and down the road while us scouters are left looking to hitch the wagon up...

1) Morally speaking - its the RIGHT / CORRECT thing to do. This above all else should be the driving factor in the decision making process. I am not gay, I do not condone the lifestyle. I personally think there are serious problems folks in a same-sex relationship bring / force on their children that would not be there if they were not in a same-sex relationship. I'm not sure that I'd go far enough to say its against God's will. I know its against the teachings of the God I believe in. Not sure for other Christian faiths. Not sure for other non-Christian faiths. Pretty sure its not my place to judge that. I know MY God says that judging someone is just as bad, if not worse as being gay.

I know gay people. My kids have friends whose parents are gay. I'm quite certain my kids have teachers at school that are gay. I know for a fact there are people, good, loving, honest people (both gay and straight) that have either not enrolled or pulled their kid from scouting in my imediate unit area because of the membership issue. Some because they don't agree with the current policy. Some because they just don't want to associate with an organization that can't seem to stay away from such a lightening rod issue. I personally know a gay female couple, who have a son that would benefit greatly from the scouting program... they won't let him near it, for obvious reasons. Even if they were OK without being allowed to be leaders, why would they put their son in a position to be called out / cast out / bullied because of his mothers' living situation. we would NEVER think to allow this in BSA for a single parent kid, or a black kid, or a bi-racial kid... but a gay kid, or a kid with gay parents.... it OK ?!?!

Tolerance and inclusion does NOT equate to endorsement. There are kids / families right now in scouts (some in my unit), that I don't personally AGREE with how they live their life. I don't agree with their religion, or how they vote, or in some instances how they interpret the BSA rank achievements or the Scout Law. The idea of "morally straight" and "reverent" is an internal convenent to do your best to hold yourself to your personal and family standard. Its not my place to judge others, nor theirs to judge mine.

We can have opposing views on this and still live, work, and scout together! That is what we as leaders should be teaching our youth!

2) The kids DO NOT CARE !!! Even national's surveys have figured this part out. For most in the younger generation. This is a non issue. So, the question for OUR generation is: do we want to be the ones to progress the BSA into new life? or do we want to be the generation that our kids LAUGH at for being so overcome and frightened that we could not act on this issue? I laugh at my father when he tells me about the "controversy" of having the first black kid ever in his scout unit.... same crap we see today... some parents threatened to leave the BSA. Some were fine with the black scout just so long as my son isn't forced to tent / shower / swim / bunk / (insert activity here) with him. It looks so STUPID to me today. Much as I guess we will look stupid to our sons once they have youth of their own in the program.

3) Not changing has already SOILED the honor of scouts way more than changing the policy ever could. We talk alot about tradition. Good moral character. My favorite - "core values". Well those "core values" have ALWAYS and will always be defined by the norms of society as a whole. Acceptance of gays is increasing, not decreasing. Unless there is some type of gay Jihad or something unleashed upon the USA, I don't see this groundswell changing course. What does this have to do with the HONOR in scouting, you ask? Well...

Not long ago, and hopefully still to this day.... being a scout and achieving the rank or EAGLE meant something. It meant you were a certain type of individual. You accomplished something special. Now, and if not already, very soon... it will mean something different. It will mean you are a bigot, you are unable to change, inflexable. Currently and in the past... a record of scouting was something you put on a college application, a job application / your Eagle goes on your resume. I only hope I can advise my son to do the same if / when he makes that rank. I don't know if we can say that anymore. Do you dare put that down for fear you do not KNOW the stance of the college admissions counselor who will read your application? How about that job interview? What if your potential new boss is gay? Kiss that opportunity goodbye.

Without changing the current membership policy - we the adults - DILUTE the achievements of the youth we serve !! We refuse to change, in a generation or two an Eagle award may be held in the same regard as the "stars and bars" of the south or worse yet a swastika.... relagated to the ash-heap of history that demonizes and makes taboo those symbols that represent intolerance / bigotry / hatered in the world.

I don't ever want to see that happen. The question is, does the national leadership of OUR organization want to lead into the future or let the organization die out?

There's an easy way to kill three birds with one stone: Create a parallel Scouting program within BSA's Learning for Life subsidiary. As with career Exploring, which is part of LFL, the parallel Scouting program would be fully inclusive: gays, girls, and atheists would all be welcome at all levels. Exploring is doing just fine, with 116,589 youth in 5,285 posts as of the end of 2012  a 3.28% membership gain over 2011. Explorer posts are chartered just like traditional BSA units and are supported by Councils just like traditional BSA units -- we could do the same with units in the parallel program. We already have a full-blown Scouting program that we can borrow -- it just needs a few tweaks to account for the membership difference. And unlike traditional BSA programs, the parallel Scouting program could be adopted by schools and other governmental and civic organizations who have non-discrimination policies. Win-win-win.

If you don't think thats how most Crews or Ships feel, just ask any leader or youth that has interaction with the local council, division, or national folks.... LFL is the "oh yeah and we also have these guys too...."

I honestly don't see any problem with it. The USA is actually an outlyer organization (along with the God and Gays issue) compared to MOST other nations in the World Scouting Organization, especially most of the European countries, to include the UK (Scoutings founding country).

Being in San Diego, our unit attends scout fair every year at Qualcomm Stadium. I routinely see co-ed cub and scout units attending from Mexico. They are great kids and enjoying the program.

GSUSA is a great organization and I don't want to take anything away from them, but honestly their program is more about empowerring girls / women and based more in an acedemic / business leadership model and not as much outdoors / high adventure model as scouting has.

My son's two best friends in our cul-de-sac are one boy and a girl. The boy is in our same unit. You should see the look on the girl's face sometimes heading into a weekend when the unit is camping... she's even lammented the fact that she wishes she could go. She has done Indian Princess with her dad some, but even at age 11 she'll tell you the stuff the scouts does is "more exciting". I feel sorry for her when all there is to offer is, "well wait until you turn 14 (3 more years) and then you can join the venturing crew...." By that time, she might have other interests and BSA has missed out on another youth member that it needs and a youth that can benefit from its programs.

RIP Mr. OGE... you will be missed.

I still remember the first time I read about the New Orleans troop that was started with the express purpose of mollesting kids in the 1970s. Better safe than sorry.

"If national made a policy change across the board to accept gays, would the LDS and Catholic CO's (maybe some others) drop their charters? Maybe, maybe not... I'm guessing on principle, most would want to, but I'm not sure how they face the youth they serve once they no longer have access to the program and the council camps . etc."

 

I don't know that the large church COs would lose anything. Some churches already have scout organizations outside the BSA (Royal Rangers, Royal Ambassadors, Pathfinders, etc.). Some churches already have outdoor camp properties (I found cysc.com, here's a link to WI UMC camps http://wiumcamps.org/). Here's commentary from the SBC (http://www.christianindex.org/8614.article) on their interest in pursuing a different course based on the decision. The AHG exists for at least some of the same reasons. If the LDS church said "no more scouts" it would no doubt end. I suspect the same is true for the SBC and to a lesser level for the Catholics and Methodists. Some of their scouts might join other troops but others wouldn't.

 

If in fact the local option leads to local law suits I would expect some large defections.

 

I guess I just do NOT see the value in a local law suit. Part of the charm of local option is if the ACLU (or any other entity for that matter) wants to sue, they have to pony up the time / resources / money to sue each individual unit... and to what end? To force that ONE unit to change their membership policy? One of the reasons BSA national is an easy target is that one ruling can and will affected EVERY single unit across the nation. No so if they win against one unit. It spreads the risk across a larger area and most likely makes it cost prohibitive to go after it at the unit by unit level.

The worrisome issue of bad press is not my concern. Right now, chartering organizations have the right to exclude non-catholics, females, etc. I believe they should still have the right to do so - at their own risk. I think, maybe naively, that there will be enough COs that would not turn away homosexuals that it would not become an issue.

That really is the rub in my book. Why can certain CO's impose their will on the program in one direction, while another CO cannot? Its an option to exclude, with no option to include right now. Might have something to do with the number of LDS units and $$ brought in, I'm guessing...

See, if the ACLU and gays come at BSA with enough money, we'll drop the religious CO's in a heartbeat and all be flying rainbow flags at the next Jambo !!! ACLU has been going about it all wrong these so many years

I look at things like this like I do the sexual harrasment training at work...

First, if the individual being targeted takes offense, they need to let it be known. Then it is the duty of the manager / supervisor (i.e. adult leadership, SPL, PL) to discuss the issue with those involved and make sure it doesn't happen any longer. If the individual being targeted doesn't say anything, or goes along with it, or gives the teasting back to the orgininator, then its really not an issue, is it?

Second, the issue is between the teaser and teasee. One cannot claim a "hostile environment" because they are offended by something between two other scouts that are fine with it. Now, if the teasing is in the form of posters, graffiti, signs, etc... that would create an overall "hostile environment" in the unit area, then yes it needs to be addressed by anyone who takes offense.

Finally, one cannot report on behalf of another. You got a problem with someone picking on a 3rd kid, so be it. It is their interpersonal relationship to manage as they see fit.

Teasing, nicknames and the like is one way guys (well at least certain guys) bond. It is an acceptance into the group / clique / etc... it has gone on since the dawn of time and will continue to go on whether there is a policy for or against it. The best way to deal with it is on a case-by-case basis and to work with the youth to understand other people's feelings and boundaries and also to TEACH the kids how to deal with one of their peers that might offend them by taking it too far. Its part of growing up and learning to handle it on your own is also part of the growing up process.

Its funny how BSA's own policy forbids hazing or bullying.... yet even in today's watered down OA "ordeal" - there are still concepts in it that can be considered hazing and bullying... not the least of which are forced silence, forced labor and the rationing of food... I know a lot more people who would consider such acts bullying above and beyond giving a friend a nickname he may not fully embrace.

Dean

AZMike, why do we need to rename the organization? We already have certain units that have their own twist to the program and don't camp on Sundays (LDS units). We already have local option with regards to allowing or not allowing female leaders. We already have local option on membership requirements regarding religious beliefs for certain CO's...

I understand that some hold the gay and athiest issues very near and dear because they believe it to tear at the very moral fabric that THEIR view of BSA represents. However, there are others who see exclusion based on gender or religious affiliation just as bad.

BSA national has mucked this up really good, and I'm in agreement with the OP that they have shown just about everything BUT leadership on this issue.

Local option is their ONLY course at this point to save face internally with members and CO's that have different views than one another. Local option is really the ONLY optionleft to attempt to appease extrenal pressure for change (both in lawsuits, land use, and corp. donations) and yet allow the miraid of religious CO's (each with their own views / levels of acceptance of homosexuality) to make a local decision that will keep them in the game.

If national made a policy change across the board to accept gays, would the LDS and Catholic CO's (maybe some others) drop their charters? Maybe, maybe not... I'm guessing on principle, most would want to, but I'm not sure how they face the youth they serve once they no longer have access to the program and the council camps . etc... Local option plays the best parts of each side of the coin. You allow for tolerance of gays in units that are OK with it, without pissing off your huge base demographic of LDS / Catholic / other religious CO's that might bolt if you make an outright national mandate.

Its really the lesser of all the evils considered... the current policy cannot stand any longer, and a complete reversal of the ban is not acceptable to a large enough majority of the membership at this time. What else are they supposed to do?

Mom,

I think a SM conference with the lad and maybe dad is in order. Try to get to the root of why this happens with him on every outing / unit event and come to an agreement (that both you and scout and dad) can live with as how you are going to address the issue at hand.

Second, I think giving him something to be in charge of is a good thing. However, do NOT make it a mission critical element of the outing (i.e. food, campsite, etc...) if he fails to reach expectations, that will further alienate him from his peers (you state he already feels that everyone comes down on him). Maybe have him be the MC and program director for the campfire on the next campout? Its mostly organization of skits / songs and if it bombsm no harm no foul, right?

Finally, when you (or anyone other youth leader) needs to give him directions - use the BACK BRIEF method. This is a tried and true method I learned in ROTC and it works with scouts, adults, and everyone from privates to genreals in the Army. You give the instruction / tell them what needs to be done. Then ASK them to repeat back to you what you just told them, in their own words. You will get a very fast understanding of how well he comprehends what is being said, not that he just heard what he was told... If the instruction is, "You are on KP for lunch and KP needs to be finished NLT 1pm, so we can leave the camp area for the swiming pool." Then when he back-briefs, "I'm in charge of KP for lunch." You can ask, "And what time does it have to be done, so we can move out to the swiming pool?"

He might just be registering PART of what he is told and hangs back because he does not want to look foolish for not knowing what is going on, because he knows he's been told and should know it!

The back-brief method is very effective and I encourage ALL my youth leaders to use it when giving instructions to their fellow scouts. It really does help in improving overall communication in the youth ranks and avoids many misunderstandings and the ball being dropped, so to speak.

Good luck,

Dean

I'd second what AKdenldr has to say... how does the lad KNOW what he wants to do for an activity if he's never tried it before. As a parent, you lead your kid towards things you value, be it scouting, church, a musical insturment, football, or dance.

The trick is to give the kid a chance to expirience it for themself and then let them decide if its a good fit. It doesn't really matter the activity so long as the child is having a good time, learning some life skills, and is there because HE wants to do it. I have two sons. Older boy, tried a couple seasons of little league. Did OK, but it was like pulling teeth to get him to play catch or take batting practice to improve his skills... he now does scouts, band, and soccer because thats what he likes.

Little brother - you can't get him to take off the glove and put down the ball long enough to come in and eat dinner. Maybe its a phase, but maybe he really has a liking for the skills of the game... time will tell. He can't wait to join cubs because he's watched his older brother go through 6 years of cubbies and Boy Scouts now. Was camping last weekend with both boys and younger one asked me to open a bag of beef jerky he couldn't rip open... I pull out my pocket knife to cut a slit to make it easier and he starts giving me a hard time about not making sure he was outside my "blood circle" before I took the blade out !! I have a feeling he'll have as much fun in scouting as son #1 is having.

The trick is to embrace whatever your KID embraces. The trouble starts when a parent either wants to relive their own glory days or pushes a kid to an activity the parent wants more than the child does (for whatever reason). Be less concerned about WHICH activity the child chooses and more concerned for their motivations and what life lessons they can learn from the activities they participate in.

Welcome - and enjoy the ride... if you think its a challenge at 2, just wait for 6, 12, or god forbid the teenage years

 

 

 

"I don't know if those two outcomes are compatable with one another.

"

 

I agree with that statement. However, I disagree that a scout that brought MJ and paraphanelia to a campout and smoked it made a mistake. It was a consious decision, not a mistake. I wouldn't consider it a mistake any more than a scout who repeatedly shop lifted, or bullyed, etc. (I could consider that another scout that tried it under peer pressure (whether overt or not) may be considered a mistake, but certainly not one that brings MJ on a campout.)

 

Adult leaders DO need to keep foremost in mine the impact on the other scouts. Bringing MJ on a campout is a safety issue. It risks other scouts trying it for the first time. That should trump any soft heart for giving an Eagle award to a scout, anyway. Eagle should be off the table for the forseeable future. So should participation in scouting events.

 

As adults, we need to be careful not to make a scout getting Eagle our goal. Our goal is character, citizenship, and fitness. A scout that is smoking MJ has demonstrated that Eagle is not important enough to him to stay away from partaking. Why should Eagle be more important to an adult leader than it is to the scout?

 

Until such time as SM and committee is convinced that a (hypothetical) scout no longer partakes, and that he can be trusted that his actions are not just being better hidden, the scout should not be participating in scouting activities, let alone be signed off for scout spirit on any advancement.

 

I see that some on this forum consider smoking MJ on par with exceeding the speed limit, and that is their right. Just recognize that you are likely to have families in your troop that would compare bringing MJ on a campout not to exceeding the speedlimit, but rather to driving recklessly at excessive speeds. Parents may be OK with trusting their son to a troop leader that exceeds the speed limit by a few mph; they would rightly refuse to send their son with a leader that drives 20 mph over the speed limit and tailgates slower drivers. They sure as heck aren't likely to trust their son to a scout leader that does not address smoking MJ as a serious matter, let alone one that brings him up in front of the troop, gives him scoutings highest award, and presents him as a role model.

The issue is HOW would you handle the situation. Is he kicked out? Is he not kicked out, but can't get his Eagle (not sure HOW you enforce this one... might as well kick him out).

Some posters, with a very valid point, state they would ban him for a certain period of time (2-3 months) from activities. OK, so do you really think after a 3 month break, the kid is going to return? Heck no... if you're going to do that (because you do not want to appear soft on the issue) - then at least have the backbone to just straight up kick the kid out of the troop - because that is what you are in effect doing, but you can skirt the issue by saying he was suspended and chose not to return.

The issue is: 1) correct the behavior and discourage others from engaging in similar behavior and 2) Get the kid help.

All those who advocate a suspension, or expulsion, or taking Eagle (or any other rank) off the table address the first issue... they propose nothing to address the second issue and in fact wash their hands of the "troublesome" youth under the guise of either taking a hard-line stand, or having to be harsh to silence potential critical parents.