Course reversal in Philly?

[Bob White 20]

Ok Zahnada, I will try to keep this brief but it is a complex situation.

 

First most people who are rally against the Boy Scout program have no ideaa what they are talking about when it comes to membership or the history of membership.

 

One site I found says that women were barred from membership until 1997 when they were allowed into Venturing. They were only off by 67 years. So you have to be careful as to your sources because what many people don't know they just make up.

 

Another example is that there is a written plicy against Gays. There is not. There is a position statement clarifying the mebership policy that refers to homosexual members. But the policy itself has not changed with the exception of an addition made in the late seventies clarifying the BSAs stand on aheism.

 

And still another falisey is that the BSA used to allow hmosexual members and now they don't. And, that the Charter organizations used to have total control of adlt membership. Never true.

 

The Only written policy on membership for nearly 90 years was that members of the BSA must live by the values of the Oath and Law, and that adult leaders must advance the mission of scouting. This was expressed in several ways directly and indirectly in various resources including the Congressional Charter, the Unit charter, and the handbooks of the BSA.

 

There have been many individuals who over the years have had their memberships revoked for behavior ill-fitting a scout. Adultery, theft, drunkeness, atheism, homosexuality. But the BSA keeps those confidential basically because it is nobody else's business. You only hear about them if the individual makes it public.

 

So why do you here about them know. Because times have changed. More people are willing to make their personal lives known. Because the media spreads news further and faster through new technology, because there are movements who are magnafying and exploiting these incidents, because we have a blatantly litigious society.

 

The longer scouting holds to its "timeless values" the wider the gap appears with the fluctuating morals of todays world. That doesn't make scouting wrong just different. And we all know how difficult people have tolerating others who are different.

 

So the policy has never changed. members are expected to follow the Oath and Law and live by the values of scouting. So in 1991 when Dale went public the BSA needed to explain their policy in a way the public could understand. Here is the position statement they released.

 

"We believe that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the requirements in the Scout Oath that a Scout be morally straight and in the Scout law that Scout be clean in word and deed, and that homosexuals do not prove a desirable role model for Scouts."

 

It was not a new policy it was an explaination of how the policy fit this situation.

 

Here is a great explaination of the Supreme court ruling and why the decided in the way they did.

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-699.ZS.html

 

Nowhere and at no time has the BSA said anything derogatory about homosexuals other than there choice of behavior as members of the BSA, if known by the scouts and the public, would interfere with the mission of our private organization. A fact that was agreed upon by a majority ruling of the Supreme Court.

 

I defy anyone to show evidence of the BSA trying to cut funding, deter corporate or community support, or holding rallies to harm the homosexual community in any way. The BSA has simply stood by a constitutionally supported right to associate with those they feel agree to the values of the Oath and Law. Just as you can choose who can enter your home.

 

Also take note that there are homosexual leaders that the BSA has not expelled because they do not make an issue of their homosexuality, so it does not interfere with the mission of the program. It is only when the behavior interferes with the progranm thet membership is revoked.

So there has been no policy change. The BSA has not changed. The BSA taken no steps to denounce the rights of homosexuals. And in fact the BSA created a separate foundation to provide a program that was all inclusive.

 

I don't know if I answered all your questions but I'm hopeful I dispelled some misconceptions.

 

Bob White

[MarkNoel 10]

Bob White writes:

> If there is now a written policy then you should be able to share with us what it says precisely, when it was

> written, and where it can be found.

>

> I would interested in such information.

 

The first written records of an actual "Policy" with respect to homosexual members are from early 1978:

 

A BSA memorandum to all Scout Executives (Feb. 1978) on the expulsion of two homosexual youth members of an explorer post in Minnesota:

 

http://www.inclusivescouting.net/bsa/documents/BSA_Memo_Feb_1978.pdf'>http://www.inclusivescouting.net/bsa/documents/BSA_Memo_Feb_1978.pdf

 

 

A follow-up memo from Scout Executive Harvey L. Price (March 1978) detailing the BSA's "Policy" on homosexual members and leader. (Yes, it uses the word "POLICY" in all capital letters and underlined)

 

http://www.inclusivescouting.net/bsa/documents/BSA_Memo_Feb_1978.pdf

 

 

But the most recent affirmation of that is the following memo to all Scout Executives from Roy Williams, sent Monday June 9th, 2003:

 

https://www.inclusivescouting.net/bsa/documents/memo-9-june-2003.html

 

 

[Bob White 20]

Mark the link you gave http://www.inclusivescouting.net/bsa/documents/BSA_Memo_Feb_1978.pdf

Says POSITION not policy it is an interpretation of the membership policy as it applies to a situation. (and by the way your other links do not work. The policy is not that the BSA excludes gays. The policy is that all members are expected to live according to the values of the Oath and Law, and that among the behavior that the BSA does not see as beneficial to delivering the mission of scouting is homosexuality in this case as explained in a position statement. But the behavior not supported by the BSA is not exclusive to atheism and homosexuality, they just have bigger PR firms.

 

 

I never said that homosexuals were not restricted from membership I said that the policy does not single out any specific behavior other than anything that does not follow the values of the Oath and Law. And that that interpretation has always been the sole authority of the national office and was never in the past been left soley to the Charter Organizations as has been claimed in other posts.

 

Bob White

[MarkNoel 10]

Bob White writes:

(and by the way your other links do not work.)

 

First, my apologies for the links not working. This forum seems to have munged the URL somewhat, and I can't edit it. (Moderators, can you help out here?)

 

The second link URL is the same as the first, except that it reads "BSA_Memo_Mar_1978.pdf" at the end. The final one should have started with http:// rather than https://

 

Try this one, instead -- it links directly to all the documents in question:

 

http://www.inclusivescouting.net/bsa/documents/

 

 

> Mark the link you gave http://www.inclusivescouting.net/bsa/documents/BSA_Memo_Feb_1978.pdf

> Says POSITION not policy it is an interpretation of the membership policy as it applies to a situation.

 

Right. But the NEXT memo in that case is three times as long, comes directly from the president and chief scout executive, and outlines the "POLICY" on gay membership (their words, their caps). Please take a look at that one as well.

 

 

> The policy is not that the BSA excludes gays.

 

That policy, as well as the most recent statements from Roy Williams, all make it clear that gays are ineligible for membership just as soon as any member of their community becomes apprised of their sexual orientation. (This is, incidentally, pretty consistent across the past decade or so). Arguing as you do, unfortunately, is a bit disingenuous, because it's like saying:

 

"It's not that the BSA excludes Jews, they just have to keep their Judaism to themselves and are only kicked out if they make an issue of it (i.e. if someone else in the unit or community discovers that they are Jewish)."

 

You can quibble over the details as much as you like if it makes you feel better, but the ultimate truth is that the BSA's policy (yes, "policy" -- look it up) is to marginalize, silence, and keep out as many gay people as they possibly can while not overly antagonizing moderate parents and donors.

 

Whether this current course of action is moral, ethical, sustainable, or even good for the Scouting movement in the long run is, of course, the heart of the issue here.

 

YiS,

-Mark

 

[packsaddle 753]

"You can quibble over the details..."

Well said, Mark!

[Zahnada 11]

Actually, Bob, I think we agree on much of your post. However, I must agree with Mark in that this debate will soon deteriorate in "quibbling over details." And the main detail is: What is considered "policy"? While there may have been a vague policy ("Scouts must be moral") or an implied policy ("Gays can't be scouts") there has never been a written in stone policy on the issue that takes away large portions of interpretation. Such a stated and written "position" on the "policy" now exists. I consider such a strong change in vocalizing a "position" to be a change in "policy." But now we've moved into a battle of words that dances around the real issue.

 

In any case, your post makes some comments that I trust were not directed at me. To clarify, I love scouts and am not trying to destroy the program (but some of you may debate that). I also do not believe that BSA is holding rallies or attacking the gay community. I don't want this to turn into an "us vs. them" kind of debate.

 

There was one of your quotes I'd like to close on, Bob.

 

"The longer scouting holds to its "timeless values" the wider the gap appears with the fluctuating morals of todays world. That doesn't make scouting wrong just different. And we all know how difficult people have tolerating others who are different."

 

And we all know how difficult people have tolerating others who are different? Hmmmmm... That's too bad for anyone who's "different".

[Bob White 20]

So mark do we agree then that the membership policy of the BSa that requires its leaders to live aand act according to the values of the oath and law does restrict avowed homosexuals AND that the "policy" existed long before the Dale case.

 

And that the BSA does not see the practice of Judaism as a violation of the scouting ideals. That the values of the BSA are not required to change according to the fluctuating morals of any group or subgroup of society no matter how large or loud.

 

That the BSA has the constituional right to free association and to deny membership of from individual based on any know behavior that the BSA feels interfers with the mission of the program.

 

That the BSA has never taken steps to deny the rights of of any individual. Keeping in mind that the voluntary membership in a private organization is not a right.

 

So, as stated before, the membership rules have never changed they are just more publicized and have become political fodder. The BSA is a private organization and has the right to choose membership and the responsibility to further the mission of ethical decision making based on the Scout Oath and Law.

 

Individuals who are more concerned about expressing their personal choice of behavior in contrast to the values of scouting are given the opportunity to seek a more appropriate outlet for their personal and political issues, in order to not distract from the goals of scouting. (They have their membership removed).

 

And Mark you knew that was the rule. You knew what would happen to your role as a volunteer in scouting. My opinion of your personal life is irrelevent. But your choice to go public was your choice, So why the whining. Why not go on with your life. Why harbor a grudge against the BSA for declaring their values and then not changing them when it effected you.

 

The question is not will this decision affect scouting support or membership. The question is, what gives ANY group the right to dictate to a private organization who they must accept as members. The BSA does not forfeit its constitutional protections based on financial support or membership fluctuations or noisy political groups.

 

Bob White

[packsaddle 753]

OK, who has proprietorship over BSA? Where can I see the list of their name(s)? If any of us can be kicked out for any or no reason, who ultimately owns the organization? Who is the last kicker?

[littlebillie 10]

"Keeping in mind that the voluntary membership in a private organization is not a right."

 

But - and this is part of MLR's constant watchdogging - as long as the BSA accepts public (i.e., government-sponsored) support, it is blurring the lines between public and private. Whether that support is direct funds or the free use of public lands or facilities, the BSA itself weakens its own case.

 

 

But that's a side issue. The problem with using "position statements" to set membership policy - as opposed to a fully defined and delineated document or other instrument that states clearly who is and is not welcome - is that in fact there can be unilateral and arbitrary changes made at any point without knowledge or consent of the full membership. I'm not even clear where it is written that even Executive can Venn out certain groups of the "boys" mentioned in the charter.

 

In all of the discussion - and BW, this is not throwing a gauntlet, this is a real request for information - where is it written who can make those policy statments, and who can decide whether or not Wicca or whatever is a faith, etc? This is more of a "please point me at the source documents" rather than "what gives YOU the right, buddy?" kind of statement.

 

What are the rules for the making of rules? I can readily find a copy of the US Constitution, but are there accessible by-laws and rules of procudure for the BSA?

 

Thanks for any info!

 

 

[Bob White 20]

The program, policies and methods of the BSA are are developed by numerous volunteer committeess made up of adult and youth representatives from across the country.

 

Their recommendations for Policy and rules changes whether regarding sfety, uniform, advancement or membership are all sent for final approval by the national executive board made up of charter organization representatives from majory users of the program (more fodder for the conspiracy buffs out there), program volunteers, and business leaders who help support the program. They are selected to serve by the National President, the Chief Scout Executive and by the Regional Directors of the BSA.

 

No matter how many web sites, bulletin board postings, rallies, protests, folklore or misrepresentations take place. Until that committee decides to alter the 92 year history of the values of scouting, the membership rules will not change.

 

For some reason there are activists who think that they can demeonstrate their concern about the future of scouting and the welfare of scouts by trying to cut their fundraising, community support, resources and membership. How this exhibits a concern for young people eludes me, and I would bet, the Executive Board.

 

Bob White

 

 

[littlebillie 10]

I was asking where you can see what's been set in stone - not who carved it. Any info on that available to the browsing public?

[Bob White 20]

little billie you asked where is it written who can make those policy statments, and who can decide whether or not Wicca or whatever is a faith, etc?

 

Then you said "I was asking where you can see what's been set in stone - not who carved it." You did not ask where are the policies written down. You asked where it was written who can make policies and who those people were. So you did ask who carved it. The establishment of the Administration of the BSA can be found in the By-Laws of the BSA . Your local council service center has a copy you can go and look at. They are not distributed outside of scouting offices so that they can administer updates, but they are available for you to read.

 

Bob White

[littlebillie 10]

"You asked WHERE IT WAS WRITTEN who can make policies and who those people were. So you did ask who carved it."

 

no, to your second sentence above. caps in the first reflect your seemingly correct understanding. I asked where it was written who can, I did not ask who can. there is a heck of a difference. and when followed up with my 'This is more of a "please point me at the source documents"' I'd've thought that was pretty clear.

 

 

WHERE ARE THE RULES SET DOWN ABOUT WHO AND WHAT - not what ARE the rules, you see.

 

BTW, "They are not distributed outside of scouting offices so that they can administer updates" really ignores the efficiency of a single online source updateable without wasting paper and thus trees. I assume here, of course, the ubiquity of PCs and the internet - so far, I haven't seen a local council office without it, but even if there are some, restricting hard-copy just to those could benefit everyone and cut costs.

[questioning 10]

hI bOB. i'M BACK. IT SEEMS YOU DO NOT READ VERY WELL. yOU JUST TAKE THE JIST AND THEN ATTACK.

 

2 PAGES AGO I said I would sit down with the boy and direct him to his parents because at that time he needed guidance rather than being kicked to the curb. You inediate response was "You would not direct him to his parents" and then came the attack on me and my understanding of the handbooks.

 

Let me make this clear. I joined Cubscouts in 1945 and left at the end of 1999 when I could no longer stand the intolerance. I am an eagle and hold the silver award in exploring. Do you even remember that program? I am also a vigil honor member of the Order of the arrow and have been the advisor in both the chapter and the lodge So I know and understand the book. The problem is not with the books. They haven't changed. It is the attitude of the top brass in Scouting that has changed and with their memos and policy changes (yes Bob, CHANGES) they have turned BSA into a battle ground.

 

Also to answer another question, I am aware that a lot of churches do not axcept the "gay lifestyle" but that is what made the plan so good. There was room for all. A church could say no to gay members in their troop, and a school or fire department could say yes. I was the parents and the sponsoring inst. that made the discission, not some guy down in Texas.

[Bob White 20]

Welcome back questioning,

 

I was hoping you were returning to answer the last question. You say the teachings of the BSA have changed. Where? Give me proof that local chartering organizations ever had sole authority in approving members. (By the way they you will need to go back prior to 1916) Show me a single piece of scouting literature where any gay-bashing takes place, or a single training syllabus where any group is ridiculed. Did you hear some scouters insulting gays? I'm sure you did. You probably heard people in all walks of life at some time doing that. Was it right? No. Was it endorsed by the BSA? Never!

 

Were known atheists or homosexuals ever allowed membership by the BSA? Never. Has that ever changed? No, and you will not produce anything to show that it has. Remember prior to the 70's homosexuality wasn't discussed by anyone in public. You wouldn't even know today if a homosexual was removed from membership unless they themselves make it public. The BSA treats these incidents with confidentiality unless the individual chooses to disclose the event.

 

I understand that you have a long history in scouting, many of us do. But experience does not always equate to knowledge. There are scouters who in three years know as much or more about scouting than us gray hairs. I think you know that if a Boy Scout in the 1950's announced they were homosexual they would be out of the program in a blink of an eye. So nothing has changed and you can show no BSA evidence other than your personal opinion that anything has changed. You are welcome to your opinion but it's groundless.

 

So unless you can show some trace of hard evidence there is little left to say other than the BSA National Council's executive committee (not one man)have determined that that avowed homosexuals can not be effective in carrying out the mission of the scouting program ans that you disagree with that stance. Until that changes (and I do not believe it ever will) effected individuals have the right to leave the program and protest it, or stay in the program and abide by it.

 

But your freedom of speech does not over-ride the BSA's freedom of association.

 

Bob White