BSA and Dissent

[packsaddle 753]

I'm trying to remember the few organizations that I have agreed with completely...thinking...I'll have to get back to you with the answer. If I read correctly what Bob White seems to advocate, if things don't go the way a person wants, they should just quit. I think a more mature approach would be either to work toward compromise or to try to change the situation. To me, a quitter is a poor role model.

[Bob White 20]

Not all Packsaddle, I am not saying if you disagree on anything to quit. I am saying if you do not accept the policies or core values don't join, and if you join and discover that your values disagree with the organization, quit. Why should you expect an organization to change its values for you?

 

Compromise is fine, but not when you talk about values. Would you sell your newborn baby for for $10? No? Of course not he's priceless right? So let's compromise...how about $50? $100? Oh come now you believe in compromising right?

 

Do not think ill of the BSA because there are some things it will not compromise on. Do not think so highly of yourself that just because you disagree with the BSA that they should have to change.(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[packsaddle 753]

Just in case you're not sure, I don't advocate commerce in human lives regardless of age.

 

"I am not saying if you disagree on anything to quit. I am saying if you do not accept the policies or core values don't join, and if you join and discover that your values disagree with the organization, quit."

I must be reading this the wrong way somehow. Does anyone else see a contradiction?

 

The compromise here is to abide by rules, some of which a person may not agree with, in order to achieve something good for a child. If your characterization is correct, BSA reacts badly to public displays of dissent by members. This implies that they tolerate member dissent as long as it is private (similar to their tolerance of gays who are not publicly 'avowed').

In essence, by keeping his dissent out of public eye, NJ is, in fact, conforming to what BSA wants him to do. He does not violate the rules and he does not dissent in public. He compromised his right to free speech in order to provide his son with something good. I think this is noble. I am merely saddened that BSA considers their ideas so weak that they cannot be subjected to public criticism by members who are interested in the program. In effect, BSA reserves that right only for outsiders. Do you think that is a good thing?(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[Twocubdad 665]

Bob writes: They expect you to behave "in an orderly manner" as you promised! That does not mean to publicly air your protests or whine to the masses. They expect you to organize your thoughts and present them throught the avenues available to you in the BSA "in an orderly manner".

 

At best you seem to be adding to the requirements. I take it that the parts of that paragraph outside the quotes are your own. When did "public" equate to "disorderly"? Do you really believe a letter to the editor or participating in a public forum is disorderly conduct?

 

What are these proper channels we keep hearing about? In past threads you've suggested people contact their Scout Executive. Does the SE have an obligation to pass my concerns along to the proper decision makers at national? If not, that's not much of a channel. You have also repeated that complaints should be addressed those whe set policy. Are meetings of the executive board open to all members? Do they conduct open hearings from time to time? I've not received notice of one recently. They don't even list the names of the members in the annual report. Your proper channels sound like deaf ears.

 

And Eisley says: I would not expect a business corporation to keep an engineer on its payroll if that individual convenes a press conference to claim in public that the corporation's products are defective. The decision to keep such a person around in this instance has nothing to do with the merits of the claim or position taken.

 

Please tell me you don't work for Chrysler. I'll be walking to work tomorrow.

[Bob White 20]

I don't see it as feeling to weak to withstand scrutiny, I see it as too busy doing an important task to have to tolerate a few whiney members who do not even like the program they chose to join. It requires less time, effort, and resources to just show them they way out and continue to serve the youth.

 

Does a gnat have a greater right to stay in your tent and annoy you than you have to shoo him out to join the other gnats?

[packsaddle 753]

Twocubdad, I also noted that Eisely equated BSA to a company that has a defective product. But I decided not to comment publicly.

 

The 'disorder' that Bob White mentions may be that which occurs privately in BSA after some public dissent. But it's difficult to interpret him sometimes, I admit.

[packsaddle 753]

Bob White, I think this discussion is about dissent within a single species. That is, unless you consider anyone who dissents to have rights equivalent to a gnat. Ever hear of the Dred Scott decision?

[Laurie 10]

I am merely saddened that BSA considers their ideas so weak that they cannot be subjected to public criticism by members who are interested in the program. In effect, BSA reserves that right only for outsiders. Do you think that is a good thing?

 

Pack, excellent question. I'm not so sure it's anything to do with weak ideas though. Couldn't it simply be that if I am a member of the BSA that there is an expectation that I will support the BSA? And when I do disagree, isn't even a carefully thought out statement of opposition making my membership less meaningful rather than the organization? In thinking this through, what I have to ask myself is this: if I am willing to speak publicly against an organization which I take pride in being part of of, then what exactly is it that I'm so glad to be part of? Just part of the organization? Or the organization as a whole? Blindly accepting the sum total is foolish, but being willing to evaluate whether I can continue to carry out the program by evaluating the degree of commitment I have to seems time well spent.

 

Twocubdad, I can't speak for others, but I'm not afraid of speaking out (obviously ). That's easy for me to say now because I have nothing big to disagree with. What I personally am trying to do is to understand how we can show support even when we disagree in part. Some do that rather well, but others show little support and still remain members. What is the standard -- maybe that is the question I am trying to answer.

 

One thing I've become aware of recently is that I'm often the topic of conversation in this area. Now that is something to be afraid of! We must live in a boring community, hm? My support of the BSA, which is public and positive, has been noticed. In fact, it has been repeated to my by the Cub Scouts in the pack who tell me what their parents say about me. What I do and say matters, and not just during pack meetings. It has helped the unit become stronger and during rocky times (too many this past year in the unit) it is what my credibility was based on locally and even out at council. If I were to speak against anything, I wonder what message I might give? And FWIW, I would not tell a child what to believe, but I've has some great discussions with children about how to come to their own decisions with the help of their parents. So long as I am a leader in the BSA, I feel that I must be able to support the BSA publicly, and to me that doesn't feel like a loss of anything. I am humbled to be trusted and honored to serve, and I can't see a public dispute--even carefully and respectfully worded--fitting into this.(This message has been edited by Laurie)

[Bob White 20]

Packsaddle,

Where did I speak of "disorder". I wrote only of addressing problems in an orderly manner through the scouting channels rather than public protest.

 

I don't foresee the BSA taking any action against someone who complains about the uniform or bemoans Morse code being removed from the handbook. As a program there are far more important things to consider. But if you were to protest regarding the BSA's membership policies, or speak as a BSA member to the media in away that could damage membership or fund raising, then I expect you will affect your membership in ways you will not like.

 

If you attack the values of the program in a public way as a member, I would expect the BSA will remove that conflict from you, by revoking your membership.

 

 

Rather than thinking of the BSA as a company with a flawed product. Think of it as a company with many fine employees manufacturing and delivering a great product. With the exception of a few employees who are responsible for delivery, not R&D, not manufacturing, spending their time criticizing the product rather than getting to their task of delivering the product.

[evmori 11]

This is an excellent thread! But one question still remains unanswered. Where in the great writings of the BSA is it written:

You are required to disagree in a constructive manner through the channels that exist in the BSA where your concerns can be addressed.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[LovetoCamp 9]

I see hypocrisy and contradiction in you who demand to dissent and defend the atheists and homosexuals rebrobates and their ilk yet you have your children in uniform, at the church, every tuesday night at 7:00. Maybe your courage of convictions are Kevlar Strong behind your keyboard, but kinda weak in the real world. If my kids were members of a program in which I disagreed with their core values...Bang, they're out of there like a shot. If a ban on homosexuals bothers you so much, than shouldn't you pull your kids from Scouts and place them in the nearest Gay Lesbian Fellowship Club of Greater St. Paul? If you know the policies, values, and regulations and still place your child in the different programs, than shut your pie-hole and let the kids enjoy themselves.

[packsaddle 753]

Laurie, the satellite is not working well just now, I'll get the whole response out later.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[Laurie 10]

Aw Pack, the suspense! I look forward to your response

[packsaddle 753]

Laurie, I do understand your conflicting questions. Each of us as individuals must resolve them in the best way we can. That is, after all, where the responsibility resides. And it seems unlikely for such resolution to come either from BSA or from these forums.

 

BSA is essentially a private club with exclusionary membership rules. It also has a good product for the members who qualify. There is nothing in the rules that says a member cannot criticize or question the operation of the club. However as Bob White describes, I suspect accurately, there is also an ill-defined or unarticulated code that will result in ejection if a member becomes too visible in his/her criticism.

eisely has difficulty with the nebulous code. Twocubdad has plenty of unanswered questions. Evmori also questions this. NJ, me, probably many others wonder about it as well. So why doesn't BSA detail a policy on this in direct terms to the membership? And then apply it equally to them?

Aside from the plethora of other potential answers, I surmise that BSA doesn't do this because they don't have to. It seems to me that the membership simply HAS NO SAY IN MAKING THE MEMBERSHIP RULES, or at least no members that I know. To me it would be better even if something as basic as THAT was clarified one way or the other.

 

[Bob White 20]

"or at least no members that I know"

 

How many different BSA volunteers would you guess you personally meet in a given year packsaddle?