Co-ed OA?

[Foxwhisker8 10]

OA guidelines are clear on membership. As Bob White pointed out...

"It seems that what is being missed by a number of posters is that Boys Scouting and Venturing are independent programs just as Boy Scouting and Cub Scouting.

 

Membership in one program does not make you eligible for the program features and elements of the other. Girls cannot be in OA because there are no girls in the Boy Scout program to join the OA.

 

All the girl members in the BSA are in Venturing and the OA is not an element of the Venturing program.

 

It really is that simple."

 

I agree.

 

Rooster7 hit the nail right on the head. I could defend my opinions, but what would that bring about? Who has the most war wounds? No thanks. More people should remember who this for. The Boys.

 

Cheerfully,

Foxwhisker8

[acco40 95]

Grey Beaver (gotta love that moniker) - according to your statement, I could not be a member of the OA (which I am). I am neither a registered boy scout(sic) nor a registered female scouter.

 

What is the purpose of adult OA members? It is not to recognize them, it is only when that persons job in BOY SCOUTING or VARSITY SCOUTING will make the Order of the Arrow membership more meaningful in the lives of the youth membership. My interpretation - has reliable transportation and willing to transport youth to OA events and meetings!

[Bob White 20]

Just for Clarification to a privious posters comment...The reason the insignia Guide says that Sea Scouts cannot Wear the OA pocket Flap patch is that

 

1) Sea Scouts are not eligible for OA mebership (just like other Venturing scouts).

 

and 2) Sea Scout uniforms don't have pocket flaps!!!

[Greying Beaver 10]

OK,acco40, I'll rise to the bait. Which lodge are you a member? What council? What is the lodge number? What color is associated with the medicine man in the ceremonies?

And . . . I am a beaver from Wood Badge, and my hair is starting to turn grey, hence the username

[acco40 95]

Whoa, settle down there Greying Beaver. I always wondered why us Bears always seemed to have trouble with the Beavers.

 

What specific part of my post do you disagree with? I believe it to be factual.

 

As for your questions: I belong to the best lodge in all OA - Lodge 29 (Chippewa). The last OA "event" I attended was Brown Sea Island (staffed by the OA) at Jambo. I am not an OA adviser because I feel I can better support the OA in other capacities. As an adult Scouter whose primary role is that of Scoutmaster, my main role in the Order of the Arrow is to support the OA program within my troop. I do this by helping the youth leadership of our troop develop a top notch year round camping program. I strive to set a positive example to the youth membership by acting as an exemplary participant in the Order. I also provide transportation to the monthly OA meetings to the youth of our troop when I attend our district roundtable.

 

(This message has been edited by acco40)

[emb021 16]

"Just for Clarification to a privious posters comment...The reason the insignia Guide says that Sea Scouts cannot Wear the OA pocket Flap patch is that

 

1) Sea Scouts are not eligible for OA mebership (just like other Venturing scouts)."

 

FYI- there is no such thing 'Venturing scouts'. They are Venturers.

 

ALSO, Sea Scouts WERE eligible for OA membership. For decades, Explorers (which Sea Scouts were part of) could elect their members into the OA.

 

"and 2) Sea Scout uniforms don't have pocket flaps!!!"

 

Uh, my white and tan sea scout uniforms do! The absense of pocket flaps on the youth uniforms is no barrier to wearing the patch. They still wear the Sea Scout strip even if there is no right pocket to wear it above.

 

 

[Bob White 20]

1. Venturing Scouts is also correct

 

2. Sea Scouting was around for 47 years BEFORE Exploring. Here is something I recently learned Venturing is technically under Sea Scouting (as was Exploring) not the other way around. While the entire division is called Venturing, the Sea Scouting coordinator is a member of the executive board in your council and at National and the Venturing coordinator is a sub committee position under Sea Scouting.

 

If you check out your council By-laws as well as the list of council officers in the insignis guide you will see that Venturing is not there but Sea Scouting is.

 

3. Don't know where you are getting your whites but the navy issue as well as the the version from the Sea Scout Store is a slit pocket on the youth White uniform not a flapped one. Program strips have always gone ABOVE the pocket not on the flap so I am unsure as to why you even brought that up.

 

4. Even in the past decades, according to the history of the OA, an Explorer or Sea Scout had to hold dual membership in a scout troop in order to become an OA member.

[Proud Eagle 13]

As for what Exploring or the Explorer Scouts or any of the other older boy programs may have done in the past that is not relevant to the current day Venturing program for two reasons:

1. Exploring is now part of Learning for Life, and is no longer a BSA program.

2. Venturing is not the same as the Exploring of old, in terms of its purpose, program, or membership

 

Now on to that co-ed scouting issue in general. Boys and girls are not the same. There physical, mental, and psychological development takes place in different ways and at different times. Therefore a program optimized for one will not best serve the other. It also means certain sacrifices in terms of program quality must be made to create a full co-ed program that is equally good/bad for both. Now there are some that argue the inherent benefits of being co-ed, in and of itself, are greater than the costs of changing the program. That is a fine argument to make, but it requires a very, very careful cost benefit analysis. That would have to include not just economic costs, but other factors far more difficult to value in a numeric sense.

 

Now my personal view is that it would be logical for BSA and GSUSA to merge at the organizational level. The advantages could be substantial. Yet I don't think there is any real gain to be made from co-ed units at the younger age levels. That is purely personal opinion, but if need be I could rationalize it.

 

Oh, one final thing to think about:

statutory rape

The dirty little secret is many youth organizations have to deal with this and its similar and related legal issues on a disturbing frequency. Unfortunately all the evidence I have is anecdotal and within BSA, but I have from reliable sources it is a problem in almost any organization where such a thing is physically possible. This sounds horrible I know. Yet the compelling combination of hormones, adolescent immaturity, and the like makes for some bad things. If someone had made this argument to me a year ago I would not have taken it for anything other than the paranoid ravings of someone with a tendency toward exaggeration, however recent experiences have caused me to reevaluate.

 

PS

Bob White,

 

I don't think "Venturing Scout" is correct in the present tense. If my BSA history is correct there was once such a thing, but there is no longer. The only people in any way associated with Venturing who have "Scout" in their title are the Sea Scouts. Though my recollection may be incorrect. Oh, just to confuse things farther, there are Venture Scouts who are in fact members of a Boy Scout Troop. Notice that is "Venture", not "Venturing" or "Venturer".

 

PPS

I would pay a dollar if BSA could figure out a way to give some of its programs new names that don't begin with the letter "v".

[emb021 16]

Yeash. You have a lot of misinformation

 

>1. Venturing Scouts is also correct

 

Sorry, no, it has never been. Please cite your source. The program is called "Venturing", youth members are "Venturers", units are "Venturing Crews". BSA literature only uses those terms.

 

>2. Sea Scouting was around for 47 years BEFORE Exploring. >Here is something I recently learned Venturing is >technically under Sea Scouting (as was Exploring) not the >other way around. While the entire division is called >Venturing, the Sea Scouting coordinator is a member of >the executive board in your council and at National and >the Venturing coordinator is a sub committee position >under Sea Scouting.

 

Wow. That is a LOT of incorrect information.

 

Sea Scouts were established in 1912. Explorer Scouts in 1924. Were do you get 47 years? In 1935, all the 'older boy' programs were merged into Senior Scouts. In 1949, Senior Scouts became Explorers and Sea Scouts were renamed Sea Explorers.

 

Sea Scouts are PART of Venturing. The National Sea Scout Committee is a SUB Committee of the National Venturing Committee. The National Sea Scout Commodore is a Member of the National Venturing Committee because of this. Regional/Area Sea Scout Committees (if they exist) are SUB Committees of Regional/Area Venturing Committees. Per "Here's Venturing", the Council Sea Scout Commodore is appointed by the Council Venturing Chair.

 

>If you check out your council By-laws as well as the list >of council officers in the insignis guide you will see >that Venturing is not there but Sea Scouting is.

 

The absense of insignia is not proof. The National/Regional/Area Venturing Committees wear the same Committee patches as everyone else. The youth Presidents wear specially made patches that aren't shown in the Guide.

 

I have NO idea the source of your incorrect info.

 

>3. Don't know where you are getting your whites but the >navy issue as well as the the version from the Sea Scout >Store is a slit pocket on the youth White uniform not a >flapped one. Program strips have always gone ABOVE the >pocket not on the flap so I am unsure as to why you even >brought that up.

 

Uh, I'm an adult. My whites (and tans) do have pocket flaps.

 

>4. Even in the past decades, according to the history of >the OA, an Explorer or Sea Scout had to hold dual >membership in a scout troop in order to become an OA >member.

 

Sorry, no. No idea the source of this misinformation. I have copies of old OA handbooks. Explorers (including Sea Scouts) could be elected into the OA without needing to be dual registered (and if they did, they'd join as a Boy Scout, not an Explorer).

 

Little bit of personal advise. I have a large personal library of scouting literature and history. I maintain a website devoted to the history of the BSA's older boy programs, including venturing, sea scouts, explorers, etc. I advice you to get your facts straight.

 

Michael Brown

 

(PS, for those that might care, here is my site: http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/Falls/8826)

[Bob White 20]

Just as you have Varsity Scouts in the Varsity program, you have Venturing Scouts in the Venturing Program. The term Venturers is also correct. I am not convinced that this merits debate.

 

You are not the only person with old handbooks, and rest assured there are ample websites that have misinformation on them.

 

Explorers began in 1949(prior to that it was officially the Senior Scout Program) and was part of the Boy Scout Division, but EXPLORING began in the BSA in 1959 and at that time became a separate division of the BSA, 47 years after Sea Scouting began.

 

When initially begun around 1915 and PRIOR to it being incorporated officially by the BSA, the OA as an independent program did allow Sea Scouts. However after incorporation into the BSA as a fully endorsed Boy Scout Program in 1948 it required dual registration.

 

I'm sorry I think of the OA was a youth program and so I was focused on the youth Sea Scouts uniform and it's ability to wear a flap patch when there was no flap. I was not the least concerned about an adult being able to wear it. While you are correct that the adult whites have a flap it also is the official Navy uniform as mandated by the National Commodore in 2003, and as such has minimal award displays.

 

I hope this helps to clarify things.

 

BW

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Backpacker 11]

Thank you Michael for correcting Bob's misinformation once again. Apparently Bob considers the National BSA site one of his inaccurate sites because the correct information is all there, if he ever took the time to read it. Bob likes to interpret information to fit what he thinks, not what is correct.

[emb021 16]

>Just as you have Varsity Scouts in the Varsity program, >you have Venturing Scouts in the Venturing Program. The >term Venturers is also correct. I am not convinced that >this merits debate.

 

Sorry, but the term "venturing scout" is not correct and never was. Venturers is the only correct term. Please show us when in any BSA literature this term is used.

 

>You are not the only person with old handbooks, and rest >assured there are ample websites that have misinformation >on them.

 

True, but my site is not one of them. I have yet to have anyone point out any errors.

 

>Explorers began in 1949(prior to that it was officially >the Senior Scout Program) and was part of the Boy Scout >Division, but EXPLORING began in the BSA in 1959 and at >that time became a separate division of the BSA, 47 years >after Sea Scouting began.

 

Sorry, all incorrect.

 

Sea Scouts were in their OWN "Sea Scout Division". This Division became the "Senior Scout Division" in 1934. This Division later became the "Explorer Division" in 1949. This Division later became the "Exploring Division" in 1959. This is all covered in the literature I cite at my website.

 

>When initially begun around 1915 and PRIOR to it being >incorporated officially by the BSA, the OA as an >independent program did allow Sea Scouts. However after >incorporation into the BSA as a fully endorsed Boy Scout >Program in 1948 it required dual registration.

 

Sorry, again incorrect. I have OA handbooks from that time. They state that ANY Explorer may join the OA back in the 40s/50s. No dual registration. In fact, Explorer Posts were still holding OA elections until some time in the 80s.

 

 

>I hope this helps to clarify things.

 

Give correct info and it might...

 

 

 

[Bob White 20]

Heck Mike lots of units do things wrong, there are Venturing crews today that hold OA elections even though they are not eligible. I was an Explorer in the 70s and a Scoutmaster in the 80s and Explorers were not eligible for OA elections then.

[Denalon 10]

"Oh, one final thing to think about:

statutory rape

The dirty little secret is many youth organizations have to deal with this and its similar and related legal issues on a disturbing frequency. Unfortunately all the evidence I have is anecdotal and within BSA, but I have from reliable sources it is a problem in almost any organization where such a thing is physically possible. This sounds horrible I know. Yet the compelling combination of hormones, adolescent immaturity, and the like makes for some bad things. If someone had made this argument to me a year ago I would not have taken it for anything other than the paranoid ravings of someone with a tendency toward exaggeration, however recent experiences have caused me to reevaluate."

 

Hi folks,

I am a Scout Leader in Ireland where we have had co-ed Scouting at all levels for quite a few years now. I do not presume to tell BSA how it should run its programmes but I feel compelled to comment on the above quote from 'Proud Eagle'

I have seen this argument on different forums and news groups, being put forward by opponents of mixed scouting. I do not consider it a rational reason to oppose co-ed Scouting. Basically what is being said is that young people are not to be trusted and that if there are mixed genders on camping trips there is going to be unacceptable behaviour. We have boys and girls in all sections including Scouts. They go on camps and hikes together. Adult leadership must also be mixed. Of course incdents will occur where they form relationships, but we have found that where proper supervision and codes of behaviour are laid down and adhered to, the young people will respect them. My daughter has been a member of the Scout movement since age six and she is now a Cub Leader aged 21. My son is still in scouts with the rank of SPL. I appreciate that our structures are different to BSA but the basic principles of Scouting are the same. We also do not have the same level of parental involvement in camps and other activities. We have found that young people, generally are trustworthy and can be depended upon to conduct themselves with honour and respect for each other.

I enjoy following the different forums here and assure you that we share a lot of the same concerns and problems as you guys do. Happy Scouting.

 

[Bob White 20]

Denalon,

 

You will not find the personal concern expressed by proud Eagle is not a concern of the BSA. They have had co-ed scouting for decades in our older scout programs. The concern is of the litigious nature of a large percentage of our adult population in the US culture.

It's is not the kids who cannot be trusted.

 

Remember the wisdom of Shakespeare

"The first thing we do is kill all the lawyers!"