WSJ Article "Boy Scouts’ Coed Recruiting Touched Off ‘Ground War’ With Girl Scouts"

[vol_scouter 365]

4 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

If the surveys showed members were in favor of adding girls, then A) Why were the results of the MEMBERS (emphasis) survey never published, and B) Why did they exclude Western Region's LDS members , according to one note in mice type I saw at the beginning of the survey?

The results were summarized.  Had the results been published, the criticisms would have been about other things.  The people who did not agree with the results would find issues while those in favor would see the surveys for what they were - not the very best but nonetheless valid.  The fact is the membership was overwhelmingly in favor of adding girls.  Absolutely every subgroup that was surveyed was in favor of adding girls.  Donors, volunteers, youth in Boy Scouts, youth in the OA, adults in the OA, etc.  The results were far more positive than had been anticipated. 

If any group was excluded, it was done by the local council.  As noted above, some councils distributed to all volunteers, some had selected groups, and some chose not to distribute it to anyone.  The BSA feels that volunteers have a relationship with the councils so the BSA tries to work through the councils for such things as surveys rather than send directly to the councils. 

If my memory serves me, the Church of Latter Day Saints had decided that it was going to withdraw from the BSA and use its own program so if any LDS volunteers were excluded in some councils, that might be part of the reason.  However, my memory might be off.  Once again, some councils sent the survey to all volunteers.

[yknot 1338]

1 hour ago, vol_scouter said:

The results were summarized.  Had the results been published, the criticisms would have been about other things.  The people who did not agree with the results would find issues while those in favor would see the surveys for what they were - not the very best but nonetheless valid.  The fact is the membership was overwhelmingly in favor of adding girls.  Absolutely every subgroup that was surveyed was in favor of adding girls.  Donors, volunteers, youth in Boy Scouts, youth in the OA, adults in the OA, etc.  The results were far more positive than had been anticipated. 

If any group was excluded, it was done by the local council.  As noted above, some councils distributed to all volunteers, some had selected groups, and some chose not to distribute it to anyone.  The BSA feels that volunteers have a relationship with the councils so the BSA tries to work through the councils for such things as surveys rather than send directly to the councils. 

If my memory serves me, the Church of Latter Day Saints had decided that it was going to withdraw from the BSA and use its own program so if any LDS volunteers were excluded in some councils, that might be part of the reason.  However, my memory might be off.  Once again, some councils sent the survey to all volunteers.

Even if the surveys were not guided to produce falsely inflated percentages, there is no defense for BSA reneging on its word to members to proceed thoughtfully and cautiously. Even proactive councils were left with egg on their faces when BSA abruptly changed tactics midstream.  

That is also a laughably weak defense for lack of transparency -- that the reason results were not publicized is because they would have been criticized. 

Behaviors and rationalizations like these are why BSA has lost support even among some of its most ardent supporters. 

[vol_scouter 365]

9 minutes ago, yknot said:

Even if the surveys were not guided to produce falsely inflated percentages, there is no defense for BSA reneging on its word to members to proceed thoughtfully and cautiously. Even proactive councils were left with egg on their faces when BSA abruptly changed tactics midstream.  

That is also a laughably weak defense for lack of transparency -- that the reason results were not publicized is because they would have been criticized. 

Behaviors and rationalizations like these are why BSA has lost support even among some of its most ardent supporters. 

The point is that the people who did not wish to see a change are ardent in their view and cannot believe that the majority would disagree with them.  So not matter what information was presented, there would be criticism.  They cannot be satisfied with any results that did not support their view.  This would seem to be true. 

I know Scouters and Scouts from all around the country and most of them are delighted with the BSA having girls in all programs, see the BSA as providing adequate information, and remain ardent in their support.

[yknot 1338]

3 hours ago, vol_scouter said:

The point is that the people who did not wish to see a change are ardent in their view and cannot believe that the majority would disagree with them.  So not matter what information was presented, there would be criticism.  They cannot be satisfied with any results that did not support their view.  This would seem to be true. 

I know Scouters and Scouts from all around the country and most of them are delighted with the BSA having girls in all programs, see the BSA as providing adequate information, and remain ardent in their support.

It's interesting that you are not denying the duplicity but are instead rationalizing it.  Argue what you will but it would seem the drastic membership declines of the past four years do not support your claims. More ever, you are also not processing the point that the membership losses are not necessarily due to resistance to girls joining scouts but to the dishonest way in which BSA enacted it. The organization demands much of its volunteers but has always been able to bind them to it by claiming a high moral code--a code that resonated with volunteers. Once you abandon the moral code, however, there is not much left to bind supporters to you. That's what I saw happening in my Council during this transition.  It traumatized me and I did not even really oppose girls joining the organization. 

Edited February 4, 2021 by yknot

[Eagle94-A1 2687]

9 hours ago, vol_scouter said:

The results were summarized. 

Can you point me to where I can find the MEMBERSHIP SUMMARIES, and not the, for lack of a better term, GENERAL POPULATION SUMMARIES (caps for emphasis, not shouting)?   When I searched for the results and/or summaries, I could not find a thing on the membership surveys. However I was kept finding the results from national polls BSA conducted using an outside agency that did not use the BSA's name, but the methods and goals , to see if girls should be allowed. This was to show that the General Population was in favor of a coed outdoor program.

 

9 hours ago, vol_scouter said:

The fact is the membership was overwhelmingly in favor of adding girls.  Absolutely every subgroup that was surveyed was in favor of adding girls.  Donors, volunteers, youth in Boy Scouts, youth in the OA, adults in the OA, etc.  The results were far more positive than had been anticipated. 

Again,, could you show me where the membership summary is because I think you are confusing it with the General Population  Survey, which was indeed overwhelmingly for it. When discussing this matter locally at the time, it was heavily against allowing girls into the program.

9 hours ago, vol_scouter said:

If any group was excluded, it was done by the local council.  As noted above, some councils distributed to all volunteers, some had selected groups, and some chose not to distribute it to anyone.  The BSA feels that volunteers have a relationship with the councils so the BSA tries to work through the councils for such things as surveys rather than send directly to the councils

Sorry I beg to differ. BSA has all kinds of contact information and does contact folks directly for various polls. Remember the the poll where 94% of  those surveyed were either Against (18%) or Strongly Against (76%) "Instapalms?" That was done directly via email.  BSA National deliberately conducted the poll the way they did to limit membership response. Remember they 1) used biased survey questions 2) mandated attendance at town halls with the council key 3 to be eligible to take the survey, 3) announced to councils the day or two PRIOR to the National Scout Jamboree that these key 3 town halls would need to be held and 4) limited the town halls and surveys to a 4 week period, which included  the National Scout Jamboree which many council Key 3 members attend, so no meetings could be done during that time. My Council Key 3, especially the SE was extremely ticked off that national did this. In my neck off the woods, the notice for the meeting was 2 days for the first one and 5 days for the 2nd. First meeting had approximately 9 volunteers in attendance. Do not know how many attended the 2nd meeting. A 3rd meeting was scheduled, but it was pointed out that it was going to be done after the survey was closed. When folks in my district found out I was attending the first meeting, ALL of those contacted me were against the move.

 

8 hours ago, yknot said:

Even proactive councils were left with egg on their faces when BSA abruptly changed tactics midstream.  

Understatement. My council key three were furious at the way National did it, and the SE expressed it publically at the town hall. One Key 3 member said privately that he felt national threw the councils under the bus on this matter.

 

4 hours ago, yknot said:

 More ever, you are also not processing the point that the membership losses are not necessarily due to resistance to girls joining scouts but to the dishonest way in which BSA enacted it. The organization demands much of its volunteers but has always been able to bind them to it by claiming a high moral code--a code that resonated with volunteers. Once you abandon the moral code, however, there is not much left to bind supporters to you. That's what I saw happening in my Council during this transition.  It traumatized me and I did not even really oppose girls joining the organization. 

Another understatement. We have lost folks locally because of this duplicity. We have longtime volunteers who feel betrayed and no longer trust National.  Some left for good. Others are sticking around and only focusing on their units, not promoting any HA bases, NSJs, other national activities, or even supporting the council because of this.