Transgender policy change

[TAHAWK 1420]

"But when it comes down to it, I do believe it will happen, and it will be necessary to save the organization. Nothing else seems to adequately address the steadily declining membership numbers."  

 

Canada went to "all inclusive" and youth membership accelerated its fall - to about 20% of 1965 levels in absolute numbers - much worse as a % since Canada's population of age-eligible youth has increased by 1/3.  Not saying cause and effect, although membership fell 50% in the decade after the gay-inclusion decision, but inclusiveness hardly "saved" Scouting in Canada.  

 

* * *

 

"White Stag" as the End of Scouting as We Know It.

 

As many know, the first Wood Badge course was all-Scoutcraft to First Calls level.  When the "Leadership Skills" from White Stag were inserted and Scoutcraft reduced, we heard the changes (about forty-five years ago) were "The End of Scouting as We Know It."   And we hear the same in the forum, over and over.

 

In turn, when the White Stag Skills were dropped from Wood Badge some fifteen years ago, that too was "The End of Scouting as We Know It."   

 

How to sum up the current version of Wood Badge is harder than the first two versions. It is based, in part, on a misunderstanding of Tuckman's ideas (according to Tuckman), so don't blame him for the absurd claim that all groups go through the same four stages in a given order as they evolve over time.  The rewriting of the syllabus to avoid paying royalties to Blancard & Assocs by BSA employees who did not understand the material seems to have contributed to many strange statements in the rewritten syllabus.

 

I nominate Summer Camp Merit Badge mills - inherently untrustworthy scamming -, and disappearance of accurate descriptions of the Patrol Method as the two most pernicious failures by BSA in the last generation or two.  The first is only just being addressed with any steel and it's a long trip to correct the second given how few recall what has been unsaid in any coherent way since Bill died.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

I do believe I still have the right to associate with whomever I choose.

 

Well, sticking with the context of who is in your troop, I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you.  Certainly not the BSA.  They say they are going to find a troop for Hypothetical Transgender Boy X that is in his best interest.  The last troop that would be is yours.

[TAHAWK 1420]

The vast, vast majority of suits that really got filed - and all the ones were money was paid to satisfy judgments or for settlement - were about sexual abuse of minors by adults.

 

Every suit about membership policy I can find was won by BSA and the Cos and councils involved.  

 

You may argue about what lesson BSA should have drawn from winning in court and being flayed by the MSM, but its hard to objectively measure "risk and/or liability" when no suit has been lost and BSA insures and indemnifies the unit, council, and cos against liability in such suits.

 

But the Boogey Man is real to some and they act on their perception of reality.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Lawyers and special interest groups got involved in opening up BSA's membership policy in 2013. Outcome: BSA caves and puts the liability and risk on the local units rather than taking the heat at the national level.

 

I love that term "special interest group".  It means a group that supports something that the "speaker" opposes.  A group that supports what the speaker supports is always a "grass roots movement" or something like that.

 

Anyway, "lawyers and special interest groups" actually got involved in trying the change the BSA's policy toward openly gay members around 1980.  There was that suit in California that got shot down in the state courts, before there was the Dale case in which the BSA lost in the New Jersey Appellate Division and Supreme Court before squeaking out a 5-4 win in the US Supreme Court, around 2000-01.  Then the BSA staunchly defended the policy against all efforts at change, including from several councils, until 2015.  (I count 2013 as more of a clarification regarding youth members, the real change was in 2015.)  So, right, the BSA caved right in - after "only" 35 years.

 

It is true that the change in policy on transgendered males took a lot less time.  As I have said before, I think the main reason for that was that the National leadership looked at the 35 years of fighting (internally and externally) on the gay issue, including the lawsuits, the internal dissension, the loss in public support in some parts of the country, etc. etc., and they wisely decided, Let's not do that again.

 

Or, to paraphrase old King Pyrrhus, one more victory like this and we're finished.

Edited February 6, 2017 by NJCubScouter

[Eagledad 2777]

History TOLD us that no team more than ten points behind HAD ever won the Super Bowl.  Were Brady and the Pats guilty of incomprehensive optimism?  

History also favored the Patriots before the game started.

 

Barry

[EmberMike 144]

This was said many many times just on this forum about the gays and that didn't happen.

 

 

I wasn't part of those discussions, but if I were I would have said that I don't think there could possibly be that many gay scouts waiting to join and that expecting any big bump in membership from that change was highly wishful thinking at best. 

 

I can only suggest a look at the history of youth scouting organizations in North America that made significant membership policy changes. None have recovered to the numbers they had before the changes. Last I heard a couple years ago, the Canadian scouts was still around 60% after 20 years. 

 

In North America, sure. But going co-ed has done great things elsewhere, particularly the UK Scouts. 

 

 

If folks are going to argue for adding girls, they might be better off arguing the addition of girls would improve the quality of the program. At least then no hard data could be found to prove the theory wrong. 

 

I wasn't necessarily arguing for co-ed scouting here, just hypothesizing the when and why of it from the perspective of National and solving the downhill membership numbers issue. I think everyone's personal beliefs would (and probably have) supply an entirely new and lengthy thread with discussion for months.

[Rick_in_CA 401]

It is true that the change in policy on transgendered males took a lot less time.  As I have said before, I think the main reason for that was that the National leadership looked at the 35 years of fighting (internally and externally) on the gay issue, including the lawsuits, the internal dissension, the loss in public support in some parts of the country, etc. etc., and they wisely decided, Let's not do that again.

Actually what I think happened is that the BSA didn't have a policy on TG youth (one way or another) at all until someone told the recent kid "no". It's not clear (to me at least) at what level the "no"decision was made (council, regional or national) and by whom. My guess is that the "no" had been issued without a lot of discussion at the national level.

 

So suddenly the folks at the top realized that had a policy now, and not one they had put much (if any) thought into. So they had a choice, stick with and defend this new policy and all the baggage that came with it, or come up with the policy that they actually want (and all the baggage that comes with that - at least they get to pick their baggage). Going back to having no policy on the question was no longer an option. And they had to do it pretty quick. That is why it appeared to largely come out of the blue.

 

I think we would still be here even if the parents of that kid hadn't sued. It was the "no" that was the trigger, not the suit.

[Stosh 3452]

If one does not seek the problem, all they do is assuage the symptoms. 

 

BSA used to be an organization that built character, leadership through physical strength, mental clarity and a moral foundation.  So as the need for such things declined so did the membership.  That's not rocket science, it's common sense.  So the knee jerk reaction to the situation is to alter the program to "meet the needs of today's youth." or put in more explicit words of the BSA, drop the character building, the leadership development, the physical necessities, the mental clarity and moral fortitude. 

 

One can either stand firm on a solid foundation of historic success, or they can simply be whisked away with the winds of fickle fate of the ever changing society.  That which once held society firm has now gone adrift and is seeking whatever happens along the way as the answer du jour.

 

I guess the modern scout may say they are not ready to pass over to the dark side when in fact that's the course outlined by the society in which he exists.  On the other hand what is being offered him that will hold him firm in his convictions toward, character, leadership, etc.

 

While the adults argue and flounder, the children suffer.

[Eagledad 2777]

I wasn't part of those discussions, but if I were I would have said that I don't think there could possibly be that many gay scouts waiting to join and that expecting any big bump in membership from that change was highly wishful thinking at best. 

 )

The assumption was the gay issue was driving membership away. Folks always think the world rotates around them. It's Human nature. I presented facts many times to show that it wasn't the gay issue hurting membership, it was, and still is, the program.

 

 

In North America, sure. But going co-ed has done great things elsewhere, particularly the UK Scouts.

 

Great things? Maybe! But all the U.K. can say is that they recovered back to 30 year old numbers (i think that's right). It is very possible they might have been twice the size had they left things alone.

 

I wasn't necessarily arguing for co-ed scouting here, just hypothesizing the when and why of it from the perspective of National and solving the downhill membership numbers issue. I think everyone's personal beliefs would (and probably have) supply an entirely new and lengthy thread with discussion for months.

We've had many discussions. Most of us who have a grasp of reality know the program is the problem. Of coarse the gay issue took a huge hit. Even if the BSA accepts girls to slow down the loses, it still has the program issues that are still causing the present loses.

 

If you want to start a sobering discussion, ask how many boy loses are acceptable for "doing the right thing"?

 

Barry

[John-in-KC 311]

Just throwing this out there, but I have heard the stat of 1-2% of all Venturing Scouts actually work on or achieve any advancement awards.

 

It would be interesting to see if this would change in a coed (Boy) Scouting program. And what would Venturing become if Scouting takes on girls? It would seem superfluous.

Advancement is not a method in Venturing.  Recognition is the method.  I know Crews which use their specialty basis (debate, theater, music, sports) recognition system, not BSA's.

[John-in-KC 311]

Girls who join Boy Scouting, when the door is opened, will have

1) a desire to camp.

2) an understanding (at least by their parents) of the cachet of Eagle.

3) a desire to play with boys.

 

Those will be the biggest three reasons girls join.

[TAHAWK 1420]

In North America, sure. But going co-ed has done great things elsewhere, particularly the UK Scouts. 

 

 

 

1976 Girls first allowed in Venturing in the UK  Membership 627,569 per UK Scouting Assn.

1980 Membership hit all time peak of 641,268.

After declines in 1981-1985, membership census figures omitted from official chronology

1991 Girls allowed in all sections 

2004 290,000 members of all ages per claim as to growth by 2014

2007 Girl membership mandatory in all sections.  Membership 450,457 based on 2017 claim as to growth in ten years.

2009 Bear Grylls becomes Chief Scout (when not hospitalized from results of dangerous stunts) Membership 499,323 by year's                    end.

2010 Just under 500,000 members claimed

2016 Membership claimed as 550,457.

[Cambridgeskip 658]

1976 Girls first allowed in Venturing in the UK  Membership 627,569 per UK Scouting Assn.

1980 Membership hit all time peak of 641,268.

After declines in 1981-1985, membership census figures omitted from official chronology

1991 Girls allowed in all sections 

2004 290,000 members of all ages per claim as to growth by 2014

2007 Girl membership mandatory in all sections.  Membership 450,457 based on 2017 claim as to growth in ten years.

2009 Bear Grylls becomes Chief Scout (when not hospitalized from results of dangerous stunts) Membership 499,323 by year's                    end.

2010 Just under 500,000 members claimed

2016 Membership claimed as 550,457.

 2016 census was actually 573000!

 

That said.... I would be wary about making much connection between being coed and either the fall in numbers we saw in the late 90s or the rise that we've seen in the 21st century. There were too many other factors in play, particularly image and PR generally. I'm not saying no connection at all but be aware it was a complex picture.

 

As for the history of scout associations in North America and history on making membership changes. Its probably worth pointing out that other than BSA this is a grand total of one. I'm not a trained statistician but I can tell you that you can't draw much correlation from that! Besides, speaking to Canadian scout friends (my group is twinned with a group in.... er..... Cambridge, Ontario) there have been an awful lot of factors in play there other than changes to who can join.

[ianwilkins 366]

1976 Girls first allowed in Venturing in the UK  Membership 627,569 per UK Scouting Assn.

1980 Membership hit all time peak of 641,268.

After declines in 1981-1985, membership census figures omitted from official chronology

1991 Girls allowed in all sections 

2004 290,000 members of all ages per claim as to growth by 2014

2007 Girl membership mandatory in all sections.  Membership 450,457 based on 2017 claim as to growth in ten years.

2009 Bear Grylls becomes Chief Scout (when not hospitalized from results of dangerous stunts) Membership 499,323 by year's                    end.

2010 Just under 500,000 members claimed

2016 Membership claimed as 550,457.

 

Sorry but I believe your 2004 number is not accurate. I have a spreadsheet of the annual census numbers from someone who got the numbers from the annual HQ report, I have no reason to believe they are inaccurate. I've got a low figure of 446,000 for all members (357,556 youth members) in 2005.

 

It appears the major decline was in the years between 1994 and 2002, roughly 5% per year, for the years I have figures for. So three years after they made co-ed optional, and 18 years after girls were first allowed in Ventures, the numbers started a pronounced decline. I guess you certainly could say that going co-ed didn't exactly boost numbers. Actually, you may have a point. I don't think it's a coincidence that numbers started improving three years after 2002 when they changed the age ranges (and uniform, and programme), so maybe there's a three year lag to these things. So yes, if national are looking to go co-ed to boost numbers, and think that the UK shows the way, I don't think just going co-ed is the way forward.

 

In 2004 we got a "celebrity" chief scout, okay, not a household name, but enough to get the media interested in positive scout stories again (they were/are always interested in negative scout stories). 2007 jamboree in the UK definitely helped. Better publicity helped. In my opinion, in the 80s and 90s those of us that did scouting in the UK enjoyed it, but by the wider public we were seen as an anachronism, a throwback to the 50s and 60s, odd even. You'd go out in uniform and it'd be "I didn't know scouts is still going!". Now we're not "weird", mind you, we're not "cool" either, thankfully. We're an acceptable option, parents seem happy, keen even, to put their trust in us leaders, and the young people enjoy it.

[Pale Horse 158]

 

2009 Bear Grylls becomes Chief Scout (when not hospitalized from results of dangerous stunts) Membership 499,323 by year's                    end

 

A bit off topic, so sorry for the derailment.  But is this a problem with US Scouting / BSA, in that we have no (few?) real scout spokesman or role models, that scouts actually want to emulate?  Of course we have scouts that go on to do great things, but do we have figureheads that a scout says..."gee I want to do what he does and be him."?   

 

I know of Mike Row, but does he promote his Scouting past in any kind of official position?  Any others?