A letter from my SE

[Eagledad 2779]

 

I hope that somewhere in there is an answer to your question. 

I wasn't looking for any specific answer really, I was just curious how you felt about it. I value your thoughts on this subject because you have an extensive youth and adult experience. Not only do I think you look at your personal experience fondly, but I gather you value the father son bonding memories as well. You have a lot invested.

 

Barry

[EmberMike 144]

You think BSA is not 0-2 on these issues, but the strike counts as soon as the swing is made. We have seen continued membership declines since 2013. We have seen the loss in revenue since the same time. How long do we need to wait until we call something a success?

 

I answered that in the post you responded to. 

 

Just to clarify, by your comment about "the strike counts as soon as the swing is made" it sounds like you deemed these policy changes as failures before they even had an chance to have any effect at all on the organization. Is that accurate?

[Rick_in_CA 401]

You think BSA is not 0-2 on these issues, but the strike counts as soon as the swing is made. We have seen continued membership declines since 2013. We have seen the loss in revenue since the same time. How long do we need to wait until we call something a success?

One thing to keep in mind, is that it took years for the BSA's reputation to change from "patriotic youth organization" to "bigoted conservative religious organization" after the Dale decision. It will take years for the BSA's reputation to change back.

 

Just a couple of months ago, I ran into an old friend. We talked about the BSA and he had no idea of the recent policy changes. He still dismissed it as a bigoted organization.

[Col. Flagg 909]

I answered that in the post you responded to. 

 

Just to clarify, by your comment about "the strike counts as soon as the swing is made" it sounds like you deemed these policy changes as failures before they even had an chance to have any effect at all on the organization. Is that accurate?

 

So a decade or more is your answer?

 

The loss of membership is easy to track and maps to the membership policy changes. The gain of membership should follow a similar cause and effect. If not, then we won't ever know if the policy change was the catalyst for membership increases if it takes more than a few years.

 

My experience in membership organizations is that membership numbers respond fairly quickly to changes either positive or negative.

 

One thing to keep in mind, is that it took years for the BSA's reputation to change from "patriotic youth organization" to "bigoted conservative religious organization" after the Dale decision. It will take years for the BSA's reputation to change back.

 

Just a couple of months ago, I ran into an old friend. We talked about the BSA and he had no idea of the recent policy changes. He still dismissed it as a bigoted organization.

The irony being that it's the SAME ORGANIZATION it was in both instances, only the membership policy changed. The program has not changed to make the youth any less patriotic. Parts of society demanded that the organization change to meet their view of the world.

 

Face it Rick, BSA has changed (now) and it's so important to the left that they haven't even noticed. Most never plan on being part of BSA. It's like someone telling you the Greek place around the corner sucks. The problem is they don't like Greek food and never plan on ever going there...they just think Greek food sucks.

 

I guess I'd feel better if your friend was more informed before giving his opinion, but he's welcome to his (misinformed) opinion.

Edited July 26, 2017 by Col. Flagg

[RememberSchiff 3673]

 

So a decade or more is your answer?

 

The loss of membership is easy to track and maps to the membership policy changes. The gain of membership should follow a similar cause and effect. If not, then we won't ever know if the policy change was the catalyst for membership increases if it takes more than a few years.

 

My experience in membership organizations is that membership numbers respond fairly quickly to changes either positive or negative.

 

The irony being that it's the SAME ORGANIZATION it was in both instances, only the membership policy changed. The program has not changed to make the youth any less patriotic. Parts of society demanded that the organization change to meet their view of the world.

 

Face it Rick, BSA has changed (now) and it's so important to the left that they haven't even noticed. Most never plan on being part of BSA. It's like someone telling you the Greek place around the corner sucks. The problem is they don't like Greek food and never plan on ever going there...they just think Greek food sucks.

 

I guess I'd feel better if your friend was more informed before giving his opinion, but he's welcome to his (misinformed) opinion.

 

Program changes such as The Improved Scouting Program and youth protection issues (perversion files, etc,) negatively impacted membership far more than changes in membership policy.

Edited July 26, 2017 by RememberSchiff
clarity

[DuctTape 1230]

I do not gauge success or failure of these membership decisions based one dollars or even membership quantity. I would be happy with a 50% reduction in both if it meant a more robust boy led patrol method outdoor adventure based organization. I agreed with the membership changes in the last few years as I saw no reason to deny a kid who wants to be a scout based on some other organization's (the COs) religious beliefs. As an aside, I wish the bsa had a different structure and did not use the whole CO business as I think that causes most of these issues. I do not think anyone elses troop should have any say in who our troop has in it. Especially when those decisions are based on the religious beliefs of that other troop. Membership should not have a morality or religious test. The pastor at my in-laws church is fond of saying that if we denied entry to the sinners and non-believers the pews would be empty. That said, I am not in favor of the bsa becoming a a "family" organization and opening membership to girls. I disagree with almost every reason others have given however as I find many of them repulsively chauvinistic. While I would like the bsa to stay boy scouts, I would not throw a temper tantrum about it if these changes came to pass.

[Col. Flagg 909]

Program changes such as The Improved Scouting Program and youth protection issues (perversion files, etc,) negatively impacted membership far more than changes in membership policy.

 

Really? What were the immediate membership loss percentages after those changes? Because the most recent policy changes doubled the "average" year on year losses and have remained so since 2013.

 

I'd be curious as to your source for the % reductions immediately following the changes you cite.

 

NOTE: To be clear, are you referring to the changes GBB made in '79? Or the changes made in '72?

Edited July 26, 2017 by Col. Flagg

[RememberSchiff 3673]

Really? What were the immediate membership loss percentages after those changes? Because the most recent policy changes doubled the "average" year on year losses and have remained so since 2013.

 

I'd be curious as to your source for the % reductions immediately following the changes you cite.

 

NOTE: To be clear, are you referring to the changes GBB made in '79? Or the changes made in '72?

 

Here's one source. Others more digging is required.

 

http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/443_boy_scouts_and_girl_scouts_membership.html

 

1970 to 1980, we had almost a 50% drop. No change in membership policy .

[Col. Flagg 909]

Here's one source. Others more digging is required.

 

http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/443_boy_scouts_and_girl_scouts_membership.html

 

1970 to 1980, we had almost a 50% drop. No change in membership policy .

 

I understand there was a drop. But the '72 drop was attributed to 1) a significant change in program, 2) a drop in scouting-aged boys (baby boom maturing), and 3) social attitudes of the time about being hip and cool (anti-establishment), in which Scouting was the poster child for straight kids (back when straight meant non-corrupted by drugs, sex, etc). 

[EmberMike 144]

 

So a decade or more is your answer?

 

The loss of membership is easy to track and maps to the membership policy changes. The gain of membership should follow a similar cause and effect. If not, then we won't ever know if the policy change was the catalyst for membership increases if it takes more than a few years.

 

My experience in membership organizations is that membership numbers respond fairly quickly to changes either positive or negative.

 

 

Sure, a decade sounds about right. Because like I said previously, I think the effect of these changes will be seen as part of a series of actions taken by the BSA, not individually. 

 

I think it's short-sighted to only look at the immediate effects of this. Fortunately I don't think the BSA is being short-sighted. They knew they wouldn't seen a big bump in membership from the policy changes. They're more concerned with the cumulative effect of changing a public perception of the organization that it's discriminatory, out-dated, out of touch with modern society, etc. In the program, they've made changes that are aimed at a similar outcome, modernizing the organization and attempting to be so much more than just some kids roasting marshmallows and climbing trees. 

 

These changes are aimed at public perceptions, and in particular I suspect the real aim is the perceptions of the parents of possible future scouts. No doubt the membership policy changes have made scouting an option for many families that previously turned away from scouting because they didn't want to put their kids in an organization that discriminated based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Taking those road blocks off the table changes things. 

 

You can't quantify the effect of public perception, not when it's still playing out. Parents of kids younger than scouting age are still making up their minds about scouting. But they've probably seen the news headlines and some will take these policy changes into account. Both in favor of joining scouting and against the idea because of these policy changes. I think the BSA is betting on more people coming into the fold over the next several years than would be lost as a result of policy. It's a gamble, no doubt about it. But to me, the risk seems minimal when membership is already declining, and when you're betting on the direction the country seems to be going in already. 

 

That's not something that can be measured so quickly. We can't see the effects on membership when we're talking about families who haven't yet decided if scouting is right for them. Or who have decided one way or the other as a result of these policies before their kids are even scouting age. 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

...

Just a couple of months ago, I ran into an old friend. We talked about the BSA and he had no idea of the recent policy changes. He still dismissed it as a bigoted organization.

 

 

So do I, and I know of all the recent policy changes.

 

...

The irony being that it's the SAME ORGANIZATION it was in both instances, only the membership policy changed. The program has not changed to make the youth any less patriotic. Parts of society demanded that the organization change to meet their view of the world.

 

 

I don't agree it's the same organization.  An organization that excluded Jews (as many US clubs did decades ago) is different from the same organization once it stops excluding Jews.  Excluding people is teaching by demonstration.

[EmberMike 144]

As an aside, I will note that the President has been in office 7 months and it was less than two before everyone (many here) were calling him a failure. The irony is amusing. 

 

Equally amusing are the folks who, again after just 7 months, declare him the greatest president ever. Or had crowned him "the greatest" before he even took the oath.  

Edited July 27, 2017 by EmberMike

[Stosh 3452]

I laugh because I experienced this very scenario on my Webelos son's first campout, except mom ordered the Webelos leader (me) to make the boys get out of the tree. I was saved by her husband who explained the situation. But the scenario was repeated ten minutes later when the boys walked into the ankle deep stream to chase baby frogs. Welcome to boyhood mom. 

 

I have not discussed this subject with my sons at all until this Sunday while my 30 year old younger son and I were waiting for the movie Dunkirk to start. I said, "the BSA is proposing to go coed". His response was, "No place is safe for boys to hang out with boys anymore". Nothing more was said by either of us.

 

Barry

 

I have no problem with the Boy Scouts going co-ed.  I work with co-ed programs all the time.  The only reason why I work with Boy Scouts as it stands now is because it is an all-male program.  It's is unique.  Once it loses that uniqueness, then any co-ed program will do if I wish to volunteer my time.  I'm already booked with my co-ed church program and a co-ed community program.  I'm not much of a chauvinist, but I really enjoy my Men's Bible study, Lion's club, Boy Scouts, etc.

 

maybe after 50+ years, it's time to step down anyway.  This just might do it for me.

Edited July 27, 2017 by Stosh

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Unfortunately I was unable to go to my council's meeting on "Family Accessibility" last night, so I have nothing to report.  However, it is my understanding that the video that was posted much earlier in this thread, introduced by (I believe) the current national commissioner and featuring CSE Michael Surbaugh, is the same video that was going to be shown at these meetings, and then the information in the video would be discussed by the local Scouters and council brass at the meeting.  So I feel like I at least know what was presented last night.  As for the discussion afterward, given the "demographics" of my council, I suspect that the feedback was "mixed", and somewhat more positive on the Cub Scout part of this than the Boy Scout part - much as it is in this forum.

 

So that's my report on a meeting I didn't attend.  

Edited July 27, 2017 by NJCubScouter

[Eagledad 2779]

I have no problem with the Boy Scouts going co-ed.  I work with co-ed programs all the time.  The only reason why I work with Boy Scouts as it stands now is because it is an all-male program.  It's is unique.  Once it loses that uniqueness, then any co-ed program will do if I wish to volunteer my time.  I'm already booked with my co-ed church program and a co-ed community program.  I'm not much of a chauvinist, but I really enjoy my Men's Bible study, Lion's club, Boy Scouts, etc.

 

 

This isn't a response to stosh, but to those in the discussion who like to throw out single word opinions of some in the discussion. Chauvinism is used today more to disparage those of which the accuser disagrees than to define ones actions. If that weren't so, then why not explain how they came to that conclusion?  Lazy?

 

Disparaging and name calling seems to be the cultural norm these days for giving an opinion. We only have to watch the news to see how acceptable hostile accusations have become. I guess folks feel safe using derogatory expression today because most discussions are not face to face. But for me, it's ten times worse on a forum where "friendly", 'courteous" and "kind" represent the epitome of right behavior toward all people at all times. 

 

I take offense to chauvinist being thrown out in this discussion because most here have spent considerable time explaining in detail their opinions in a courteous fashion. Throwing out one single word in response to what was otherwise a civil discussion is anything other than friendly, courteous or kind.

 

Folks who know me on this forum know that I use the word integrity a lot. I don't know why, but I detest hypocrisy. I say this because sometimes I sit in awe wondering if some of the posters here talk to their scouts the same way they respond to forum list. Not just in politics, but just in general scouting discussions. 

 

A quick google of chauvinist:  excessive patriotism, blind patriotism, excessive nationalism, sectarianism, isolationism, flag-waving. 

 

Those here who truly believe some of us are self-serving in our opinions, then respect the forum with and friendly explanation instead of using a single word to express your feelings. If you desire to get respect, then show respect.

 

I am intrigued with your post stosh's. Your thoughts makes no sense to me. You don't mind scouts going coed, but the only reason your here is because the organization isn't coed. What?

 

Barry