The Over-Taxed Sports Metaphor

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Knots, epaulets, OA insignia, council insignia, language strips. When I played football our jerseys were identical except for the number. We were part of a team. I don't get that sense at all looking at scout uniforms.

 

I think that derives somewhat from the military "ancestry" of the BSA uniform.  Although I don't know whether the ribbons, pins etc. are limited to the military dress uniform or are also worn on the "everyday" military uniforms, since I've never been.

[dilrod 26]

I see the uniform as part of the game:  attention to detail, showing what team you are on, taking care of something and practicing good grooming (in between getting dirty).  

[dilrod 26]

 

Sometimes it looks like a walking trophy case and the adults are worse about it than the scouts. Knots, epaulets, OA insignia, council insignia, language strips. When I played football our jerseys were identical except for the number. We were part of a team. I don't get that sense at all looking at scout uniforms.

 

This.  What some guys wear to Roundtable meetings are hideous.  How long does it take them to pin all that back on after they wash it???

 

The knots and special awards properly worn might inspire someone to work harder for their respective scout organization, or a young scout to work towards whatever he can earn.  But I don't think any kid looks at some overpatched peacock and thinks "oh yeah, I want to be that guy someday!"

[David CO 1783]

I agree.  The "walking trophy case" looks ridiculous.

 

I don't think there is any way to design a good uniform that serves equally well in a multi-purpose role as a field uniform, activity uniform, and dress uniform.

 

I vote for a having good, comfortable, floppy field uniform for outdoor activities, and forget about how it looks at meetings and ceremonies.

[CalicoPenn 729]

In all the discussion about the sports/marching band/military analogies, something always seems to be conveniently ignored - just one word - perhaps because it just upsets our sense of righteousness, or maybe if we just gloss over it, it will go away.  That word is REQUIRED.   If you going to take the field as part of a sports team or a marching band, your uniform is a REQUIRED part of the activity.  If you're in the military and on duty, the uniform is a REQUIRED part of your duties.   

 

What makes the BSA different?  The BSA uses uniform wear as a method of Scouting - but they also make it clear in their literature that the uniform, though desirable, is NOT required for someone to participate in Scouting.  We can encourage, we can cajole, we can provide - but we cannot require uniform use.  We can certainly require that Scouts who are wearing uniforms (or parts of uniforms) wear it correctly.  Only wearing the shirt?  Buttoned and tucked in - neat and tidy - not unbuttoned flapping in the breeze like Superman's cape.  But we can't require a Scout or Scouter to obtain and wear a uniform. 

 

There is no legitimate comparison to sports teams, marching bands, fast food restaurants (which also have required uniforms) or the military.  Simply because the BSA does not require uniforms at all.

[Eagledad 2777]

I enjoy these discussions if for nothing more than pointing out that over the years I have found that uniforming is the most difficult Method for the adults to have a consensus in using it as a tool for developing character, fitness and citizenship. I have also observed over the years that the more boy run a patrol functions, the less uniformed they appear to outsiders. Can someone explain that?

 

I usually leave these discussions pointing out that the Scout Handbook gives the scout clear guidance on when, where and how to wear the uniform. But, I admit I haven't reviewed the last couple of revisions. Are those guidelines still in todays Scout Handbook? And if they are, then why do we adults have such a tough time with this Method?

 

Barry

[Ankylus 52]

I agree that the sports analogy for uniforms is way overblown, but for different reasons. Mostly, sports is an entirely different field of human endeavor, and uniforming provides different roles and meets different concerns. It operates under different expectations from its participants than does the scouting program. They are generally simpler too...just a shirt, maybe some socks or something...and so easier to deal with and comply with associated rules. Finally, there are externalities in sports not present in scouting--namely, the officials enforce the rules that require uniforms. It's not necessarily up to the coach of the AD. Its written into the rules of the game, as are penalties for failure to comply. 

 

As for overzealousness, we have a local troop that requires not only brown or black leather shoes for all meetings, but they mandate that all footwear must be hiking boots for all occasions. We have another local troop that conducts a uniform inspection before EVERY meeting, campout, and other event. If the scout fails the uniform inspection he is sent home and marked absent. The kicker is that the uniform inspection includes things like making sure the fingernails are clean and well trimmed. 

 

Yes, uniforms are important. But I think many people put way too much emphasis on them. Expecting them at meetings, COHs, SM conferences, and COHs is very reasonable. Just tie it to the goals and aims of the scouting program rather than some other unrelated youth activity.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

I understand what the BSA rules are but it does make me wonder how you can call it a "uniform" if there are no consequences for not wearing it.  It would just become a set of clothes that some people wear and some people don't, and I don't see how that builds character or serves any other purpose.

[qwazse 4342]

I understand what the BSA rules are but it does make me wonder how you can call it a "uniform" if there are no consequences for not wearing it.  It would just become a set of clothes that some people wear and some people don't, and I don't see how that builds character or serves any other purpose.

 

I would say there are no artificial consequences for not wearing it.

There are natural consequences to wearing it, and that is what the BSHB spells out.

 

Perhaps that's where the issue about BoR's comes to the fore. You all already know the boy. And completing the review should be a function of what more you'd like to know from him. Not necessarily what you see at the moment.

 

But, at a meeting -- which is open to the public -- people won't recognize you for being a boy in the troop without that uniform.

 

And @@Eagledad, maybe that's where your observation of boy-run comes to the fore. Boys know who their patrol members are. They are the one's always with them when they're hiking and camping independently! The odds are against mistaking scout for non-scout, so the consequences of going without the uniform are less. It only begins to matter when it's time to line up on the parade field, and those other not-so-familiar guys may or may not be from other patrols.

[Eagledad 2777]

And @@Eagledad, maybe that's where your observation of boy-run comes to the fore. Boys know who their patrol members are. They are the one's always with them when they're hiking and camping independently! The odds are against mistaking scout for non-scout, so the consequences of going without the uniform are less. It only begins to matter when it's time to line up on the parade field, and those other not-so-familiar guys may or may not be from other patrols.

It's probably some of that, but our adults don't give direction in wearing a uniform, they help the scouts understand their decision making process. Our scouts are guided to use the Scout Handbook for direction of uniforming. If they aren't following the handbook, I would suggest they are making a wrong decision.

 

While I do believe some of  what you say is part of their reasoning, I found that boy run adult leaders tend to work with scouts individually and in more as a passive counselor style. Adults in less boy run troops tend to proactively counsel scouts more directly and in groups. Example is telling an assembled troop how to properly dress for meetings.

 

Adults who are more directive aren't looking for opportunities to guide a scout in their decision process, they are looking for a sharp looking troop.

 

Now, I would agree that a BOR could be a gray area because it is not in the handbook. I would then ask the scout's opinion on the matter. I might have an opinion myself, but I certainly would give effort to understanding the scout's opinion if it is different from mine because that wouldn't be the first time a scout has changed my opinion.

 

Barry

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Perhaps that's where the issue about BoR's comes to the fore. You all already know the boy. And completing the review should be a function of what more you'd like to know from him. Not necessarily what you see at the moment.

It's interesting you should put it that way. You're correct, I already know the boy, in fact for the group of boys currently in the troop, if you add up all the BOR's they have had, I have probably been on the board for 90 percent of them, and at least one for each boy. For the last few EBOR's, it was the sixth (out of 6) BOR I had done for that particular Scout. I also stand on the side of troop meetings on a regular basis, so I observe what these Scouts are doing when they are not in a BOR. The point is, I almost (and I say almost, and I am half-joking) don't need THEM there at the BOR (much less their uniform) to know what I need to know. But that's not the way it works either. In my opinion, the BOR is designed at least as much as a learning and character-building exercise for the Scout as it is for the adults to learn something new about the Scout. I'd like to hope that in a few years (or less) when the Scout is sitting in front of a college interviewer or a job interviewer or a thesis committee or wherever his life may take him, the experience of having spoken with me at a BOR might be of some small benefit. I have no data on this, but I'd like to think it's true.

 

As for the uniform, I think it is worth quoting exactly what the G2A says on this subject:

 

 

8.0.0.4 Wearing the Uniform—or Neat in Appearance

It is preferred a Scout be in full field uniform for any board of review. He should wear as much of it as he owns, and it should be as correct as possible, with the badges worn properly. It may be the uniform as the members of his troop, team, crew, or ship wear it. If wearing all or part of the uniform is impractical for whatever reason, the candidate should be clean and neat in his appearance and dressed appropriately, according to his means, for the milestone marked by the occasion. Regardless of unit, district, or council expectations or rules, boards of review shall not reject candidates solely for reasons related to uniforming or attire, as long as they are dressed to the above description. Candidates shall not be required to purchase uniforming or clothing such as coats and ties to participate in a board of review.[/size]

So even though the uniform is not REQUIRED, the Scout is required to THINK about what he is going to wear to the BOR. He SHOULD wear the uniform if he is able to do so. If you read the first three sentences together, I would say they mean that if the Scout is not in uniform, he should (must? probably "should", not "must") have a good reason for not doing so. I also see nothing there that says you can't ask a Scout where his uniform is - but you cannot "not pass" him for not wearing the uniform. (That is not unusual, there are many questions that are asked at BOR's for which there is no "wrong" answer in terms of "passing" the BOR.) Now, even if wearing the uniform is "impractical", the Scout must still think about his attire in advance: "the candidate should be clean and neat in his appearance and dressed appropriately, according to his means, for the milestone marked by the occasion." I suppose we could have an entire thread or five on what THAT means to each of us.

 

Now, I would agree that a BOR could be a gray area because it is not in the handbook.

It's kind of interesting that the BSA tells the adults how the Scout is supposed to be dressed for a BOR (see above), but the BSA does not tell the Scouts how they are supposed to be dressed. I wonder if that is an oversight, or intentional. Edited November 20, 2016 by NJCubScouter

[desertrat77 1144]

Regardless of rules and regulations, if people have pride in a uniform, they will wear it.   Rain or shine.

[Stosh 3452]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/02/13/tomb-unknown-soldier-guard-weather/5449621/

[Eagledad 2777]

Regardless of rules and regulations, if people have pride in a uniform, they will wear it.   Rain or shine.

I have always felt that programs that make a people feel good about themselves are proud to wear the uniform. In fact, if I saw a scout who was dressed differently than he typically dressed, I learned over the years he might be having a bad day. I got in the habit of asking those scouts if everything was alright and more often than not, something was going on at home. Once was a scout who just found out his parents were divorcing. Another scout was being bullied at school. The uniform is a great indicator of how a scout feels about himself.

 

Barry

Edited November 20, 2016 by Eagledad