Jump to content
SWdenleader

Webelos Uniform

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

I'm not sure what we're discussing here, or what the point is. A priest can deliver sacraments without a collar. A doctor can save lives without a lab coat. A scout can be a scout without a uniform. We are not a military organization. A uniform is nice but not required. Is the uniform an extension of your own ego as far as how you believe scouts should appear or behave? Does that have any place in scouting? I'm on board with the idea that it is a tool to encourage personal presentation skills and pride in membership. Beyond that, if it gets in the way of delivering program or scouts accessing program, I'm not on board. 

Edited by yknot
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rule is that a "uniform" is encouraged but not required.  Not sure how a "loophole" comes into it. 

If BSA had an actual uniform (same look for all), as it once did,  a stronger argument could be made.  But we have a brand of clothing, not a "Uniform" - many options over a wide range of prices, so the Scouts know who can afford top-of-the-line and who cannot, or they think so. 

I strongly prefer a uniform, as a good "look" with benefits,  but I don't make the rules - for Scouts or BSA.

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, yknot said:

I'm not sure what we're discussing here, or what the point is. A priest can deliver sacraments without a collar. A doctor can save lives without a lab coat. A scout can be a scout without a uniform. We are not a military organization. A uniform is nice but not required. Is the uniform an extension of your own ego as far as how you believe scouts should appear or behave? Does that have any place in scouting? I'm on board with the idea that it is a tool to encourage personal presentation skills and pride in membership. Beyond that, if it gets in the way of delivering program or scouts accessing program, I'm not on board. 

Ego, LOL. There is no discussion here on idealism of developing character, just personal character denigrating for winning the last word. Must be a sign of the times, the forum used to be filled with intellectual discussions of  personal ideals. The irony is that pride is the general motivator for using character denigration as an argument to get the last word.

TAHAWK, National created the loophole for hardship situations, not general practice. Refer to the ScoutHandbook, it doesn’t give the scout a choice. Wouldnt it be the prideful adult that would dictate otherwise?

 Weak leaders use the loophole as a crutch. The wise Scoutmaster encourages Scouts to use the  Handbook for guidance in the direction of actions and decisions. The Handbook has no pride or prejudice like adults, just guidance for growing into adults of character. When allowed scouts will use their resources for their program.
 

Barry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are indeed discussing personal ideals. You just disagree with them so you prefer to denigrate them rather than discuss. My definition of weak leadership is someone who is more concerned about uniform inspections than whether scouts are, say, camping. I've been in that kind of unit, so that's why I hold that opinion. To me a perfect uniform is aspirational,  not something that becomes a barrier that prevents youth from participating. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it that when someone likes a BSA policy, it's a hard-and-fast rule, but when someone dislikes a BSA policy, it is a loophole?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Uniforms are not required in Scouting. They are just one of the methods of Scouting. There is no policy or requirement that a Scout wear a uniform to any event or meeting. You cannot refused a Scoutmaster Conference, Board of Review or rank advancement because a Scout is not in uniform."

4.2.3.1 Active Participation 8
…Units are free to establish additional expectations on uniforming, supplies for outings, payment of dues, parental involvement, etc., but these and any other standards extraneous to a level of activity shall not be considered in evaluating this requirement [active participation].

8.0.0.4 Wearing the Uniform—or Neat in Appearance 16

It is preferred a Scout be in full field uniform for any
board of review. As much of the uniform as the Scout
owns should be worn, and it should be as correct as
possible, with the badges worn properly. It may be the
uniform as typically worn by the Scout’s troop, crew, or
ship. If wearing all or part of the uniform is impractical
for whatever reason, the candidate should be clean
and neat in appearance and dressed appropriately,
according to the Scout’s 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 to participate in a
board of review.

 

Neither the Rules and Regulations of the Boy Scouts of America, the policy, nor the program applications may be added to or changed in any way unless approved by the National Executive Board of the Boy Scouts of America through its Pilots and Program Development Department.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, Eagledad said:

TAHAWK, National created the loophole for hardship situations, not general practice. Refer to the ScoutHandbook, it doesn’t give the scout a choice. Wouldnt it be the prideful adult that would dictate otherwise?

1) It is not a "loophole". It has never been a "loophole" (see below).

2) The current Handbook does NOT a) have the kind of uniform mandate you think it does and b) it does not authorize shaming a scout for their poverty or demand they prove hardship. I've got the 14th edition in my hand. No where does it have the mandate you are claiming here. In particular Page 20-21 ("Your Scout Uniform") has no reference whatsoever to the kind of hard, fast, mandate you are describing.

3) Oh, right, that's because the modern scouts have "loopholes." Ok then, let's go back to the "good old days". I have a copy of the 1967 Handbook. Page 56. Scout Uniform.

Quote

It is not absolutely necessary to wear a uniform to prove yourself a Scout. The important thing is – of course – that you live Scouting in your daily life. And yet, the uniform helps you to be a better Scout. Dressed as a Scout you want to act like one.

So, even back in the "good old days" there was never, ever a mandate in the Handbook. Does it make you a better scout to be in uniform? Yes, and the uniform remains one of the official 8 Methods of Scouting.

But I will never compromise on the notion that poverty should be punished or that there is some hard, fast, uncompromising rule about uniforms in any of the Handbooks. Never was, currently isn't.

Edited by CynicalScouter
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, David CO said:

Why is it that when someone likes a BSA policy, it's a hard-and-fast rule, but when someone dislikes a BSA policy, it is a loophole?

Depends on the motivation of the Scoutmaster.

Why is it that when someone has a different opinion, they have to be disrespected?

For me the issue isn't two different opinions, the issue is the unwillingness to listen. One doesn't have to agree to a different perspective to be friendly, courteous and kind. In fact, isn't the quality of character measured by the re-action. 

There are as many approaches to working with scouts as there are personalities. ynot suggest that egos are in play here, but does motivation to express a perspective matter if the discussion is respectful, even informative. Several of us have a lot of experience with successful programs. The wisdom gained for that success came at a cost of struggling through many bad decisions. Mixed age or same age patrols, Venture patrols or not, new scout programs, successful summer camps, older scout programs, eagles. How did we get there? Doesn't that experience have value? Wouldn't a new leader want to at least consider the pitfalls as they venture into the complex world of Patrol Method?

When I propose uniforms should be required, nobody asked why. Instead hostility followed. Why? It's not a new discussion, in fact I would say I participated in many dozens of them. Intellectual discussions. I used to teach in Scoutmaster Specific that Uniforms and advancement are the two most challenging methods of scouting for adults and scouts. And for opposite reasons. Nothing seems to have changed except that how one gives an opinion. Now we have to put on armor to get in a discussion. 

I miss the days when Scouters on this forum would dissect a subject to find the best way for it's application. That used to be a normal everyday discussion. Several at one time in fact. I haven't seen that kind of discussion in a while. While I'm not in favor of adding girls to the program, I did look forward to helping the new female leaders learn the mysterious ways of developing youth into adults. 

Barry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

So, even back in the "good old days" there was never, ever a mandate in the Handbook. Does it make you a better scout to be in uniform? Yes, and the uniform remains one of the official 8 Methods of Scouting.

But I will never compromise on the notion that poverty should be punished or that there is some hard, fast, uncompromising rule about uniforms in any of the Handbooks. Never was, currently isn't.

Mandate! Sheesh. Is anything mandated in the scout run program? Patrol method? Do you have the experience and maturity to let the scouts run their program within their handbooks?

As I said, if hardship were taken out of the discussion, could their be an intellectual discussion in the forum today?

Barry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

 

When I propose uniforms should be required, nobody asked why. Instead hostility followed. Why?

 

Probably because you didn't propose that uniforms should be required.  You propose that uniforms are required.  There is a big difference.  

If you acknowledge the clear fact that uniforms aren't required, and never have been required, I think people would be far more receptive to having a calm and rational discussion with you about whether or not a rule change (to make uniforms mandatory) would be a good idea. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

Mandate! Sheesh. Is anything mandated in the scout run program? Patrol method? Do you have the experience and maturity to let the scouts run their program within their handbooks?

As I said, if hardship were taken out of the discussion, could their be an intellectual discussion in the forum today?

Barry

We probably cannot have an intellectual discussion today if you continue to imply that those who disagree with you suffer from a lack of experience and maturity.  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, David CO said:

We probably cannot have an intellectual discussion today if you continue to imply that those who disagree with you suffer from a lack of experience and maturity.  

LOL, nothing in your responses reflect Scouting experiences. What else could I have glean from that?

Barry 

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Eagledad said:

Do you have the experience and maturity to let the scouts run their program within their handbooks?

1) The "experience and maturity" slam? A scout is courteous.

2) I have no problem with letting scouts run their program within their handbooks. The problem here is that you believe there was and/or is a uniform mandate or requirement in those handbooks. As I demonstrated, that is simply not true. Wasn't true in 1967 ("It is not absolutely necessary to wear a uniform to prove yourself a Scout.") Not true in today's 14th edition. Poverty is never to be a preventative to Scouting. Neither was the uniform.

Edited by CynicalScouter
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

LOL, nothing in your responses reflect Scouting experiences. What else could I have glean from that?

Barry 

I'm not sure if you glean anything from any of our discussions, but that is for you to determine.

Edited by David CO
spelling
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Scout is Courteous...we can agree to disagree and respectfully discuss those differences...again and again and maybe learn.

In the past when I have expressed my opinions about the wearing a neckerchief, I have stated my reasons even specs while respecting those with different and obviously wrong :D ( joke) opinions. Maybe ball caps are the future? Bolos?

My $0.02,

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...