Chapter 11 announced - Part 3 - BSA's Toggle Plan

[David CO 1783]

5 hours ago, ThenNow said:

Now what? How do most people feel about that?

 

4 hours ago, ThenNow said:

Who are “most people”?

It really isn't fair for you to pose the question to us, and then criticize us when we attempt to answer your question.  

[ThenNow 1373]

24 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

I don't see the 1000 reference you are producing and don't accept the premise.  You say 1000.

"Almost," I said. Taking the 100+/- year history and 85,000ish claims in this bankruptcy alone, not to mention all those not filed and the numbers of repeat and varied instances of abuse against one Scout (who comprises only one claim among them). I say with confidence almost 1000 and likely more. Take into consideration the repeat abuse, which I think must be considered, as it will be by the Settlement Trustee, and my point is made. We're not talking about any other organization. I know this is all about history, societal context and relative degrees of culpability for many of you, but this discussion is about the BSA Chapter 11. Right. Wrong. Indifferent. Hate me or hate me or don't. I ain't your problem.  

[David CO 1783]

22 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

Statistically, scouts is not that much different than other organizations. 

Even if that were true, I would still argue that scouting is philosophically different from other organizations.  B-P founded scouting on the premise that a scout is to be trusted.  That premise was fundamentally different from other organizations of his time.  It is fundamentally different from other organizations of our time.

We are being challenged by a legal system that believes that boys can not, and should not, be trusted.  

BSA has failed us in that it is not arguing our main point.  Whether we say a scout is to be trusted, or a scout is trustworthy, this should be our main argument.  It goes to the core of our program.  Should BSA, or any scout association, now or in the future, be held liable for trusting boys?

I am not a lawyer.  Maybe this is not a good legal argument.  But I would go with it anyway.  Scouting should live or die by its core beliefs. 

 

[ThenNow 1373]

17 minutes ago, David CO said:

It really isn't fair for you to pose the question to us, and then criticize us when we attempt to answer your question.  

I was sincerely asking him to whom he was referring there. I wasn't being snarky. Was it all people in society, as in the general consensus, or here or within the inner world of this case or what? If he only meant the majority on the forum, I get it. He seemed to be implying the reference was to the public at large. Sorry if I didn't get it. Did he answer?

[T2Eagle 902]

It's hard to know where to start, but I I want to look at two ideas that I see as somewhat related. 1) that today's scouts are being punished and 2) that somehow these crimes are being judged too harshly because things were different then.

My council owns two camps, one is over 100 years old and the other is over 50.  Neither I nor my scouts are entitled to those camps by virtue of anything I or they have done.  I've invested some time, treasure, and talent towards them in the last 20 years, but that's certainly only a small part of them. If I and my scouts are going to benefit from those camps then we do so because we're joining ourselves to the organization that built them, and that legacy, we now know, comes with both benefits and liabilities.  If I'm cheerfully enjoying the former than I have to at least accept the latter, and understand that the legacy is not unencumbered.  If we lose one or even both those camps because the organization whose existence made building them possible also through its negligence  made possible far too many almost unimaginable crimes and injuries, then so be it.  If that's the case then I as a scouter am in the same position that scouters 50 or 100 years ago were in, and I need to do what they did and figure out how to build some camps.

As to judging people by some supposed lesser standard 30-40 years ago --- I think that's balderdash.  The rape of children has always been a heinous crime punishable by decades in prison.  I was an adult 40 years ago so it certainly wasn't such a long ago time for me that I would claim that what would be morally wrong for me today would have been morally acceptable for me then.  I'm not quite so old that I would have been one of the decision makers at the scouting level so I wasn't confronted with this type of thing.  I'd like to think that if I had been I would have done the right thing as I understand it now and as I already understood it then.  Maybe I'm honest enough to know that I might not have, and maybe all those excuses we're making today would have been the excuses I would have told myself back then.  But if that's true than shame on me for failing to be Brave, and shame on those who did fail then.  Even if you can explain the failures, that shouldn't be the same as excusing them, and it shouldn't change the accountability for them.

There are certainly other people that failed that moral test back then, but make no mistake scouters and the scouting organization were among them.  If some of the good those scouters and that organization accomplished needs to be undone to partially balance that failure with the one group of people who absolutely were not a part of that failure, the victims, then I can find no injustice in that however sad I may also find it.

[David CO 1783]

54 minutes ago, T2Eagle said:

There are certainly other people that failed that moral test back then, but make no mistake scouters and the scouting organization were among them.  If some of the good those scouters and that organization accomplished needs to be undone to partially balance that failure with the one group of people who absolutely were not a part of that failure, the victims, then I can find no injustice in that however sad I may also find it.

I know what you are saying, but you could phrase it better. 

 

[David CO 1783]

1 hour ago, T2Eagle said:

As to judging people by some supposed lesser standard 30-40 years ago --- I think that's balderdash.  The rape of children has always been a heinous crime punishable by decades in prison.  I was an adult 40 years ago so it certainly wasn't such a long ago time for me that I would claim that what would be morally wrong for me today would have been morally acceptable for me then. 

True.  The standard hasn't changed, but some assumptions have changed.  50 years ago, most of us assumed that a boy would not keep quiet about being abused.  We didn't think a boy would wait 30 minutes, much less 30 years, to report a child molester.

This has been a real shock to us.  

 

[yknot 1338]

2 hours ago, David CO said:

True.  The standard hasn't changed, but some assumptions have changed.  50 years ago, most of us assumed that a boy would not keep quiet about being abused.  We didn't think a boy would wait 30 minutes, much less 30 years, to report a child molester.

This has been a real shock to us.  

 

I would be careful with that because it sounds like you are blaming the child victim and I don't think you mean to do that. 

 

[T2Eagle 902]

3 hours ago, David CO said:

True.  The standard hasn't changed, but some assumptions have changed.  50 years ago, most of us assumed that a boy would not keep quiet about being abused.  We didn't think a boy would wait 30 minutes, much less 30 years, to report a child molester.

 

I would certainly concede that, especially the latter point.  The near uniformity of that challenge is really something we've only come to understand in recent decades.  Which I think argues for recognizing the need for justice now for wrongs done then.

[Owls_are_cool 111]

TheNow does deserve justice. The people responsible should be put in prison and/or be forced to pay restitution. Though they may dead for all I know and cannot get due process. A lot of good people willed property and sums of money for the benefit of scouts today, not to bail out pedophiles and BSA leadership who covered for them. Scouts sell popcorn for their program, not to help the BSA settle a lawsuit. 

One positive on all of this plus covid, is that my troop is getting back to basics. For the cost of one summer camp, we can fund a year of camping trips in my state and significantly reduce what each scout must pay annually.

[David CO 1783]

1 hour ago, yknot said:

I would be careful with that because it sounds like you are blaming the child victim and I don't think you mean to do that. 

I am being careful.  I know that I am walking on eggshells here.  It's a tough topic to talk about.  

How do we reconcile our core belief  (A scout is to be trusted / A scout is trustworthy) with what we are now told about child behavior.  We cannot trust/depend/rely on boys to report child molesters.  This questions the very existence of scouting. 

If our core belief was wrong, then we were wrong, and we need to make amends.  

[David CO 1783]

30 minutes ago, Owls_are_cool said:

The people responsible should be put in prison and/or be forced to pay restitution.

Aren't we responsible for it?  We made assumptions about child behavior that turned out to be untrue.  Don't we have to take some responsibility for our mistakes?  

 

[yknot 1338]

17 minutes ago, David CO said:

I am being careful.  I know that I am walking on eggshells here.  It's a tough topic to talk about.  

How do we reconcile our core belief  (A scout is to be trusted / A scout is trustworthy) with what we are now told about child behavior.  We cannot trust/depend/rely on boys to report child molesters.  This questions the very existence of scouting. 

If our core belief was wrong, then we were wrong, and we need to make amends.  

A scout is trustworthy but that lesson starts with the adults who are there to guide him or her and teach them what that means.  If a child who believes in Santa Claus encounters an adult Santa who abuses him or her, what reaction would we expect? Mute incomprehension and confusion would probably be the first reactions, followed by fear, shame, terror, horror... I don't see any actionable requirements on the kids here. They trust the adults around them to keep them safe, or at least that's what we tell them. If victimized, they would expect the adults in their lives to save them. And we failed. 

[David CO 1783]

2 hours ago, yknot said:

If a child who believes in Santa Claus encounters an adult Santa who abuses him or her, what reaction would we expect? Mute incomprehension and confusion would probably be the first reactions, followed by fear, shame, terror, horror... I don't see any actionable requirements on the kids here. They trust the adults around them to keep them safe, or at least that's what we tell them. If victimized, they would expect the adults in their lives to save them. 

Yes.  I totally agree.  A child who is yet of an age to still believe in Santa Clause would probably react just as you say.  Of course, I would never trust that child to go off into the woods, with his little Santa Clause believing friends, utilizing the patrol method, with little parental involvement.  

 

[ThenNow 1373]

8 hours ago, Owls_are_cool said:

TheNow does deserve justice. The people responsible should be put in prison and/or be forced to pay restitution. Though they may dead for all I know and cannot get due process. A lot of good people willed property and sums of money for the benefit of scouts today, not to bail out pedophiles and BSA leadership who covered for them. Scouts sell popcorn for their program, not to help the BSA settle a lawsuit. 

I'm not poking a finger in anyone's eye, but it is good to remember that the abuse victims we are talking about ALL were boys and Boy Scouts "investing" into the program, to one degree or another. They missed out on much of the good of Scouting for no fault of their own. They raised money, paid dues, attended various functions to promote and support the BSA, put on their uniform, learned knots and lashing and rowing and...all manner of things intended to make them a better, more equipped man. Direct victims. Not indirect or future victims.

There's another group of child victims not often talked about. They don't have a Claimant or Ad Hoc Committee. They have no lawyers nor, for the most part parents who are defending them and arguing their case. I'm talking about the boys/kids who didn't get to see the good of Scouting because their dad was was sexually abused as a Scout. Many of their dads couldn't bear the idea of trusting a child to that organization. "Over my dead body," one dad thought (who happens to be me). Have you thought about those kids? Talk about innocent. Talk about did nothing wrong to "deserve this," yet paid a double price. It's typically not a pretty sight for a child to grow up with a dad in the throes of major PTSD, depression, addiction, suicidality, self-harm, sexual acting out, trouble with authority, hyper-vigilance, employment troubles, martial strife, anger, and so forth and so on. For many of those kids, a solid Scout Troop would have been a welcome haven. Alas, it wasn't to be.

Edited April 15, 2021 by ThenNow