Scoutcraft and the Law

[Eamonn 61]

Have to admit that I'd never given the Congressional Charter a lot of thought.

I'd never looked at it as being a law.

I don't know enough about the law or Congressional Charters as to know who looks too see if the organization is doing what the charter says it should be doing?

Or what happens when it is found out that th group is no longer doing it?

 

I do know that there are laws on the books in some places that have never been taken off the books that make some things we do take for granted illegal. Here in PA theres a law on the books that reads:

Any motorist who sights a team of horses coming toward him must pull well off the road, cover his car with a blanket or canvas that blends with the countryside, and let the horses pass.

I'm not for a minute saying that the Federal Charter granted to the Boy Scouts of America falls under the heading of "Dumb Laws".

I'm just not sure that I'm understanding it.

Sec. 30902. Purposes reads:

The purposes of the corporation are to promote, through organization, and cooperation with other agencies, the ability of boys to do things for themselves and others, to train them in scoutcraft, and to teach them patriotism, courage, self-reliance, and kindred virtues, using the methods that were in common use by boy scouts on June 15, 1916.

I'm OK with us working with other agencies, I'm fine with boys doing things for themselves and others. I don't have a problem with teaching patriotism and self-reliance.

I'm not so sure that courage can be taught or learned? But I think maybe this might fall under personal development.

I have tried looking up the word Scoutcraft and there really isn't a very clear meaning to be found.

I know what a Boy Scout is!

A lot of the time I can work out what a Craft is.

When it comes to Woodcraft, needlecraft and that sort of thing I'm fine.

But Scoutcraft?

If woodcraft is working with wood? Then Scoutcraft is working with Scouts?? -No. That doesn't seem to fit.

Then there is all this stuff about:

Using the methods that were in common use by boy scouts on June 15, 1916.

I'm not so sure I've got that bit.

 

So what's your take on all of this?

Are we as an organization no longer following the charter?

Are we guilty of breaking the law?

Is the charter even worth thinking about?

Please don't bother trying to re-direct me to a web site that tells me what Scouts did back in 1916.

I'm trying to see if the charter is relevant to the kids we are working with in the 21st Century.

Eamonn

 

 

 

[AlamanceScouter 10]

When I read the word "Scoutcraft" I think - outdoors skills such as camping, hiking, cooking outdoors, first aid, knots, etc.

 

I am a novice to Boy Scouts as I have only been a Cub DL for a little over 3 years now. I have been coming to this message board almost daily for a couple of years and my impression from reading posts of experienced leaders (OP included) is that Scoutcraft is what everything is wrapped around if the program is run correctly. Leadership, community service, advancement....everything. Am I wrong??

[Scoutfish 16]

It would seem trhat scoutcraft is actually redundant. Wouldn't scoutcraft just simply be whatever was being taught to scouts at scout meetings and activities?

 

But then, don't stop there. If one truely feels that everything should go back to the way it was in 1916, should that person not turn off the computer, ipad, any electric devices ( including printers, copiers, faxes, etc...and break out the old scout manuals andx pen and paper for everything.

 

No more using cell phone to call anybody for anything scout related, no more posting advancement to scoutnet.

 

Goota get the ole pen and paper out and hand write anything and everything that needs to be kept track of and recorded.

 

Toss out the camp stoves, camp chairs, grill lighters, mosquito spray, Gator-Aid, bottled water and coolers.No trail mix bars, no trail mix, no poptarts etc...

 

Oh, no more posting on scouter.com about how things were better back in 1916 either!

 

And I think you have a great point about:

 

"The purposes of the corporation are to promote, through organization, and cooperation with other agencies, the ability of boys to do things for themselves and others, to train them in scoutcraft, and to teach them patriotism, courage, self-reliance, and kindred virtues, using the methods that were in common use by boy scouts on June 15, 1916."

 

What were the kindred values back then? Wasn't segregation considere a good thing? Weeren't women still treated as inferior and should be kept barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen? If a child was born with any slightly percieved condition - you sent them to an instituition to live ( if you could afford it)?

 

Speaking of dumb laws:

 

North Carolina: No costume meetings

 

Utah: No hunting whales

 

Kennesaw, Georgia: You must own a gun

 

Tennessee: Atheists and preachers may not serve in public office.

 

Seaside, Florida: Every house must have a white picket fence and two-story porch.

 

New Orleans: No cursing the fireman while hes working

 

Washington: Report your crimes ahead of time.

 

 

[boomerscout 35]

I have always viewed Scoutcraft to mean the woodcraft or campcraft part of Scouting. Nothing wrong with many of the camping methods of 1916 if approached with a modern frame of mind. Being able to do more with less is almost always spitually satisfying:

http://www.olympicwanderer.com/2010/09/overpacked-and-under-prepared/

 

[PaulSafety 19]

Scoutcraft - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scoutcraft - "Scoutcraft is a term used to cover a variety of woodcraft knowledge and skills required by people seeking to venture into wild country and sustain themselves independently. The term has been adopted by Scouting organizations to reflect skills and knowledge which are felt to be a core part of the various programs, alongside community and spirituality. Skills commonly included are camping, cooking, first aid, wilderness survival, orienteering and pioneering."

 

All of that seems relevant to a 21st century young man. Look at the interest in X games and outdoor recreation -- learning how to do it safely is valuable for several reasons -- it's a way to learn that you can acheive if you make the time to learn and practice. Self reliance and learning to work well with others is highly sought by most employers, and is timeless.

 

The point isn't necessarily about learning first aid (however useful and life-saving it may be by itself) it's about the process of working in teams (patrols) and the other "methods" of boy scouting.

 

Back in 1916, there were seven methods of scouting -- adult association, advancement, patrols, etc. Leadership development was added as the eigth method in 1972. Could it be that the Congressional proclimation was referring to these "methods" not suggesting that we couldn't use computers and i-phones and the internet? OR more broadly, that scouting would continue to get boys outside and teach them stuff (method), even if that stuff (content) expanded to things not yet dreamt of in 1916?

 

RE: teaching courage -- I'd argue that exercising courage is the foundation of leadership and responsibility. It's easy to sit back and wait for someone else to take charge, and its easy to see that parents and everyone else will hold you personally accountible for scouts who didn't follow your admonitions and got hurt/lost/sick, etc. That's a real risk we take as scout leaders, and I don't know how you take that risk without courage. A cowardly leader is one who is so afraid of the possible negative consequences that he sits on the sidelines unwilling to take the risk to get to the positive reward. Our scouts learn that making mistakes shouldn't keep them from trying again -- that's another kind of courage. When we teach them about bullies, we teach them the three R's and that requires courage to implement the three R's. When we encounter a Black Bear on the trail and we teach the kids to stay calm and handle the situation properly, that takes courage and demonstrates the value of courage.

 

Good questions, interesting discussion.

[Kahuna 172]

Beavah or some other lawyers may have a different view, but I don't see a Congressional charter as having the force of law. OTOH, it does define the powers and duties of the organization it created and could threaten the organization with dissolution if it fails to comply. IMHO, the BSA long ago gave up the stated goals as its objective.

[Scoutfish 16]

I think computers as well as all modern equipment helps us in uncountable ways to gain access to whatever we want, wether it be easier and quicker access top all things scouting.

 

For example, I can look up the next camping event offered by council or district and sign up, register and pay in less that 2 minutes instead of driving 30 miles to the council shop or waiting a week for mail.

 

My point about not using anything more modern than 1916 was in reference to those who think anything BSA came up with after 1916 should be ignored. If yah gonna do it, do it all the way!

[qwazse 4345]

I think there is a "scout oriented " way of using electronics. It can be seen in how our military scouts use PDA's for tactical purposes, but it can also be seen in how our youth look out for each other online.

 

Simple example: it wasn't until I went to Jambo that I learned about minimum impact camping. If I hadn't walked by a demonstration site, I would have never known about such a thing. And sharing it with my troop took a lot of effort because I was in no position to buy a bunch of books on the subject.

 

Now a PL can do a few searches and come up with enough material to relay to his scouts, either by email or text message. They can put together a workable plan for a hike or campout and be better prepared than ever before. Heck, some of them know the dangers of hypothermia because nowadays their video game character will actually die from overexposure if they aren't careful.

 

I equate scoutcraft with resourcefulness and a belief that with small numbers and humble tools a group of youth can do great things. Energy efficient electronics has the potential to coordinate those small numbers, so I'm not as bothered about that.

 

I'm a little more worried about Velcro. That has potential to really undermine scoutcraft!

[Kudu 186]

Eamonn wrotes:

 

"I have tried looking up the word Scoutcraft and there really isn't a very clear meaning to be found."

 

That is because you have your fingers jammed into your eyes and ears: "Please don't bother trying to re-direct me to a web site that tells me what Scouts did back in 1916."

 

The definition of Scoutcraft is found in the first chapter of Handbook for Boys ("Scoutcraft"), used in 1916.

 

Note the similarity between the wording in the first paragraph of that Handbook and the wording that appears in the law:

 

"The aim of the Boy Scouts is to supplement the various existing educational agencies, and to promote the ability in boys to do things for themselves and others... Scoutcraft includes instruction in First Aid, Life Saving, Tracking, Signaling, Cycling, Nature Study, Seamanship, Campcraft, Woodcraft, Chivalry, Patriotism, and other subjects."

 

"The requirements of the tenderfoot, second-class scout, and first-class scout, are as follows:"

 

http://inquiry.net/advancement/tf-1st_require_1911.htm

 

The reason that militant Cub Scout Dads and Wood Badge Course Directors think that the 1916 program is "dumb" is First Class requirement 4, which tests a Boy Scout's actual master of Scoutcraft with the First Class Journey.

 

Yours at 300 feet,

 

Kudu

(This message has been edited by kudu)

[Beavah 205]

I don't see a Congressional charter as having the force of law.

 

It does in that da courts have taken it as grounds to grant the BSA a protected monopoly on Scouting in the U.S.

 

The ethical question then is whether the BSA has lived up to the terms of that, eh? Has our conduct in accord with the charter been sufficiently exemplary to justify the people of the United States giving us a protected monopoly, so that no other citizens or groups of citizens are permitted to offer Scouting programs?

 

B

 

[Scoutfish 16]

" Has our conduct in accord with the charter been sufficiently exemplary to justify the people of the United States giving us a protected monopoly, so that no other citizens or groups of citizens are permitted to offer Scouting programs? "

 

I say no.

 

I don't care if BSA was doing the best job possible in such a way that the next youth group over couldn't do half as good...other people should be able to do it too.

 

The end user( us) will determine who is on top.

 

Sure, I can see having a trademark and rights o the specific name, logo, etc....

 

But if you wanted to go out and start a group called "American Scout Boys" or "Wolf scouts" or Aroow Indian Scouts"..I do not thnk anybody should take you to task and take you to court because it is "simmilar" to BSA.

 

If BSA is doing that great a job, they shouldn't need a Congressional Charter.

 

I ean, having a Congressional Charter doesn't mean squat if your program is so bad that it folds from no participation, so the quality of your program matters, not the charter.

 

 

I forget that Latin saying , but it basically says that it's a free market and that the qulaity of your buisnes or product will determin your success.

 

People speak with their feet. They stay or they walk. Having a monopoly doesn't ensure success, it only ensures no competition!

[DeanRx 69]

Are we living up to the Congressional Charter? Well, I'd say that depends on the local unit and how they run it. Is it boy-led? Does it involve the outdoors? Does it teach self-reliance? or is it a classroom merit badge mill led by helicopter parents? Not sure how a national charter, the national office, or even the local council offices can influence that too much, other than explicit approval / banning of certain activities or changing requirements (queue spin-off thread here)...

 

Ask anyone with a gay in their family or an athiest / agnostic if BSA has lived up to their congressional charter and I bet I know their answer...all men are created equal - except for the one "private" organization that is chartered by our national government that is ALLOWED to be prejudiced, etc...

 

Are we guilty of breaking the law? On a couple notes, I'd say yes -

 

FIRST, the afore mentioned gays and atheist issue. Still not sure how BSA continues to get around this one when they exist at the charter of the US government. I'm not a big fan of either lifestyle choice, but I fully respect other people's right to live that way - kinda a concerstone ideal of our entire country IMHO. SECOND, is a tad more vague (but likely more directly relevant to the boys in the units) is scoutcraft vs. classroom (or Green Bar Bill vs. Woodbadge if you will).

 

Be it from litigation (or fear thereof), the "eveyone must feel good about themselves", etc... many of the things enjoyed 1 generation ago is no longer allowed in BSA. The most glaring example is no youth led camping without adults (canned b/c of fear of litigation from injury and no doubt hazing). But this has also expanded into most units / councils not even allowing boy-led day hikes and watered down pioneering structures. Don't get me started on the revamping of Tap-Outs for OA... the list continues... we have probably missed the spirit of the charter in favor of staying out of court. Not sure if that qualifies as breaking the law or not?

 

As I reside in a council that is in the process of loosing their 100 year lease of public park space (Camp Balboa) because national decided that digging heels in on the gay/atheist issue is more important than good program locations for boys.... and I am now being asked at roundtables to contribute to a capital campaign, not to buy new campland, but to purchase new OFFICE SPACE in dowtown San Diego to house the council once they are kicked out of Balboa (yeah! classrooms!) - I'd say my local counil has missed the mark on meeting the goal(s) of the national charter.

 

THIRD - Not quite sure HOW BSA has been able to hold up in court the rank structure and badges as trademarked items. They have successfully litigated numerous times to KILL or severly curtail other start-up BSA like programs (that may have more tolerant views on membership) by holding onto their rank items and in some instances symbols of their rank items (i.e. an eagle) as copyrighted items of its program. Funny, BSA doesn't sue the US government for using an eagle on its money and national seal?, but it works against other youth organizations.

 

Those are 3 main instances I can think of, but BSA has always had the clout, politcal connections, money (or a combination thereof) to have the courts come down on their side on these issues. Does it make it right? I don't know?

 

Are some laws on the books outdated? yes, but I personally LOVE the ones from the previous poster regarding Kenesaw, GA.... I might have to move there someday

 

Finally, Eamonn asks if its even relevant to 21st century kids today? I say yes, moreso than ever. People vote with their feet and their pocketbooks. Only time will tell if BSA continues to provide a program that engages youth of the 21st century.

 

I for one personally struggle with teaching scouts about citizenship when the organization does not allow for equal treatment and access for all citizens. I have a hard time teaching bullying is wrong when our own national office bullies some of the subsets of youth that could use our guidance most. I have a hard time teaching about fairness, compassion, empathy when these are in short supply from our paid scouters and policy.

 

I think BSA still does more good than harm, but I fear as an organization it is FAR off the path Baden Powell has envisioned and the path dreamnt of by the congress in 1916 that gave us our charter. I hope some changes are made within my lifetime to correct the course we are on so that my son is not 40 years old telling his sons, "Boy, I wish scouting was still around.... I had such a good time, I wish you could have done it too..."

 

I truely fear the next 3 decades may find the end of scouting in the USA. We need to learn to change to meet new societal norms, we need to learn to be co-ed, we need to learn to be religous AND tolerant at the same time, we need to TEACH our boys and then TRUST them to lead (even if its not perfect and if someone gets their feelings hurt sometimes). Then we will have returned to true scoutcraft.

 

[TAHAWK 1420]

B.S.A. is one of about 100 fraternal, charitable, or patriotic organizations that is chartered by Congress. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode36/usc_sup_01_36_06_II_08_B.html (One is the N.E.A., and that would be an interesting discussion - for the political forum.)

 

This discussion might be aided by knowing that a Congressional Charter not only does not make the private entity a federal entity, it does not give the federal government power to supervise the operation of the private entity. http://www.llsdc.org/attachments/wysiwyg/544/CRS-RL30340.pdf The charter is almost entirely honorific. [but see Wrenn v. Boy Scouts of America, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91913 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2008)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrenn_v._Boy_Scouts_of_America ]

 

As for "monopoly," the "monopoly" is in the use of the words, phrases, and symbols of the B.S.A. Pretty normal stuff also protected by federal trademark law. (http://www.scouting.org/sitecore/content/Licensing/Protecting%20the%20Brand/Boy%20Scouts%20of%20America%20Trademark%20Listing.aspx. ) United Features Syndicate gets the same protection for Snoopy" and the rest of the Peanuts gang. I used to send the threatening letters to Fire Departments (Snoopy fire hydrants), model airplane flying clubs (Snoopy as the "Red Baron") and, yes, Boy Scout Troops (The "Snoopy" Patrol"). One must defend the mark or lose rights in it.

 

The Congressional Charter now states that: "The corporation has the exclusive right to use emblems, badges, descriptive or designating marks, and words or phrases the corporation adopts." It seems likely that if B.S.A. adopted a mark already used by another organization, B.S.A. would lose.

 

Don't give it any thought. Call your organization "The Young Pioneers" or the like and soldier on. It should be easy to replace B.S.A. since we, including myself, find so much that does not suit. Or is the desire to piggyback on the value of the words, phrases, and symbols built by 103 years of volunteer effort?

[Beavah 205]

Or is the desire to piggyback on the value of the words, phrases, and symbols built by 103 years of volunteer effort?

 

Nah, I think the desire is for some of those same volunteers to continue da traditions of an international movement that the BSA itself "piggybacks" on, building off of materials that have long since entered the public domain in both this nation and others. The goal would be to offer scouting.

 

Now at some point it seems likely that someone else will offer a nationwide outdoor leadership/adventure program for youth through da public schools and community organizations, built not off of the old Scouting materials but off of somethin' like Outward Bound or some other program. At that point, perhaps, the BSA and U.S. scouting become completely marginalized. After all, it's not really da kids who are clamoring for odd uniforms and patches and early 20th century goody-two-shoes slogans. Da kids will go where their friends and adventures are.

 

B

 

[JMHawkins 15]

If woodcraft is working with wood? Then Scoutcraft is working with Scouts??

 

You're close. Woodcraft is making things out of wood. Scoutcraft is making things out of Scouts. The "things" you're making generally being... honorable men.

 

I think it's easier to instill the components of being an honorable man into boys while they're doing outdoor adventure stuff than it is doing classroom work. Outdoors, especially when it's a little hike away from the trailhead, forces a little more self-reliance on the patrols, and dishonorable behavior creates more obvious problems, more quickly. A guy who doesn't do his share of KP, or a guy who behaves irresponsibly, creates group-wide problems, and there's nothing arbitrary about those problems. Much of the consequences young men face in "civilization" are somewhat arbitrary rules made up by adults. Bad grades, being grounded, etc., are what Mom, Dad, the teacher, or some other adult says the consequences are for not doing something right. But needing to heat water to clean the frozen remains of last nights dinner from your mess kit before you can eat breakfast because you didn't do KP after dinner last night, and there are no clean dishes in the cupboard because the nearest cupboard is a 5 hour hike and 3 hour drive away, well, nothing arbitrary about that!