My BSA, right or wrong

[Venividi 35]

Reading posts over the past week or two, (and especially today), reminds me of a popular bumper sticker in the late '60's / early '70's: My Country, Right or Wrong. This was a jingoistic response to those that protested against the VietNam war. To those that espoused that view, it did not matter if the war was constitutional, whether it was of benefit to the citizens of the nation, whether there were corporations secretly lobbying because it was good for their profits. It only mattered that the government had made a decision to "support" Viet Nam, and therefore citizens must support it, even if there was legitimate disagreement or doubt as to the purpose for the "war".

 

I see a strong analogy to those that support statements in BSA documents in the most literal sense. Even if those statements are not consistent with BSA's own rules and regulations, nor with specific sections of the Guide to Advancement that provide instructions to leaders on the advancement method: not an end in itself; designed to educate; recognition of what a scout can do, not a reward for what he has done; personal growth being prime consideration; age appropriate surmountable hurdles; a scout learns as the first step; that it is to be administered in a way that is harmonious to the aims of scouting.

 

Even if that interpretation is not be in the best interest of the boy (I have yet to see anyone argue that it is good that a boy can forget a requirement a day, a week (or 15 minutes) after it was signed off), but yet they still express the view that one cannot expect such retention, because "that would be adding to the requirements".

 

And they are correct, when requirements are considered in isolation. But there is much that must be ignored, both in the BSA literature and in what is in the best long term interest of the boy, in order to read those requirements as literal. In order to comply with the one sentence that says, in part, don't add to the requirements. Apparently that statement must be taken as "law", as an isolated statement, because it came from BSA. All of the context provided by BSA, all of what is actually good for the boy, must be ignored. That rule, that "law", must trump everything else.

 

My BSA, right or wrong.

 

(This message has been edited by venividi)

[SeattlePioneer 144]

What I see is constant tension between applying BSA rules literally and using them as a guide that may need some judgement in applying them.

 

I feel that tension myself. I try to identify BSA rules and guidelines and to use those in most cases, because usually they provide excellent solutions to the issues they discuss.

 

Other times I may bend or break those rules when there seems to be good reason for doing so.

 

Advancement rules have more wiggle room than safety rules for me, for example. I relate strongly to the idea that advancement is one of the eight methods of Boy Scouting, and my aim is primarily to promote those methods.

 

So for me, if three Scouts have been held up from getting Tenderfoot for three years because they can't do a pullup, I'd look for a way to pass them and expect to find one.

 

A Life Scout striking for Eagle I would hold to higher standards.

 

Being a Scout Leader to me involves making wise judgments in dealing with boys, not in simply applying rigid rules. Of course, sometimes wise judgment involves applying rules rigidly too!

[Basementdweller 608]

So why should a Life to Eagle be held to a higher standard than second to first class????

 

If you want to make a bigger difference.....Hold the lower ranks more accountable and then the life to eagle will take care of itself

[Eagle92 110]

Base,

 

I admit I can see SP's pov on holding the higher ranks more accountable. And I agree. You need to keep high standards at all levels, but some factors do play a role in expectation IMHO: rank, age, POR, etc.

 

For example I'd hold a 14yo Tenderfoot more responsible than a 10yo recently crossover Tenderfoot. And I would hold a Star SPL more responsible than a FC PL.

 

As Uncle Ben Parker would say, "with great power comes great responsiblity."

[Beavah 205]

What I see is constant tension between applying BSA rules literally and using them as a guide that may need some judgement in applying them.

 

Yah, this seems to be the case, eh?

 

I confess I find more of the former online than I seem to know in real life. In real life they tend to be district folks who weren't all that successful as unit scouters.

 

I'm probably more sensitive to this stuff than most, because philosophically I don't think it teaches good citizenship. First, I don't think that literal and legalistic meanings should be applied to childrens' programs or the raising of kids. Raising kids requires love and judgment, not strict adherence to someone else's text.

 

Second, as a Christian I'm not personally a fundamentalist, but even fundamentalist Christians would properly ascribe infallibility and fundamental interpretation only to the Word of God, eh? To treat BSA documents with the same sort of fundamental reverence for text I feel is a form of idolatry.

 

Third, I think it leads unit scouters to misunderstand their proper duty of loyalty and agency, because it requires them to view themselves as agents for the BSA, which they are not. They are agents for the Chartered Organization, and obliged to loyalty to the Chartered Organization's interpretations and goals.

 

Lastly, in my line of work I think lookin' at things in terms of applying the BSA rules literally is just poor citizenship. It doesn't reflect how any law or regulation in the real world is properly viewed or interpreted. In fact, approaching interpretation in such a way ordinarily falls in the category of legal mischief. In a citizenship program for youth, if we are to treat BSA materials as a sort of pseudo-law, then our methods for interpreting that law should reflect what is common practice for interpreting real law. The approach that folks take on this stuff clearly does not.

 

Yah, yah, some of that is just me, eh? I care about this stuff a lot, so it bothers me more than most perhaps. But I also think it really does damage to the program and the boys. To teach 'em judgment, we must demonstrate judgment, exactly as SeattlePioneer suggests.

 

Beavah

 

Beavah

 

[Tampa Turtle 1011]

I work in (now) local government reviewing (sometimes)site plans. Now we got all sorts of codes and regulations and I think many of them are based on good reasoning and are pretty good. But we sometimes have conflicts, and we staff need to balance serving the customer (the individual) with making sure the property is developed to function well for the future owners and neighbors. Even though there are lots of very specific rules there are a lot of judgement calls.

 

It seems Scouts is a lot like that.

[Basementdweller 608]

Eagle....

 

 

That is why we hear stories of moms and dads doing eagle projects, questionable scout spirit, poor POR performance and boys barely having the minimum number of required nights of camping.

 

 

 

No more no less

[SeattlePioneer 144]

Hello Beavah,

 

 

I think you describe "The spirit of Scouting" very well in your post. Well done!

[fred8033 1594]

This thread assumes the conclusion that BSA is inconsistent or going down the wrong path. Guess what! There are people that disagree with that statement.

 

I'm getting a little snippy with this type of discussion. And I fear it might be an escalating type of conversation. The type where one side has been holding it's breath slightly more politely putting up with alot of stuff. And now needs to vent.

 

If you can't find a consistent path down BSA's program, it's because that's your view. Your stuck in attitudes that don't reflect BSA 2012. You can read any document and find ways to be argumentative and oppositional. But you can also read documents to find how they work together and complement each other. It's a choice. And so many "volunteers" choose an oppositional defiant interpretation. That's very sad.

 

BSA documents do lay out a consistent program. But you need to want to see it. If your stuck wanting a different program, of course your going to have problems with the documents.

 

It's not about idolizing BSA. It's not about blind legalism. It's about boundaries. It's about working together. It's about some level of consistency. And yes, it is about loyalty that we do owe both to our charter orgs and to BSA. From what I've seen, BSA is far more involved in the details then any charter org.

 

All this manure about poor citizenship and legal mischief? It's just that. Manure. I could more accurately say that when the other side explicitly ignores the letter of the law for some vague intangible private vision, they are guilty of wanton negligence.

 

And suggesting poor citizenship is the worst type of arrogance. What does it say about citizenship when you choose to ignore the most basic written statements from the organization you belong to.

 

I do care about this stuff very much too. I've seen way to many old coots treat scouts poorly because they remember the past different than it was or try to implement a program that was their unit and not BSA then or now. I've seen too many grown adults get off on badgering scouts and stepping in the path of their advancement.

 

...

 

One side accuses the other with terms such as legalism, credentialism, one-and-done, inexperienced, out-of-touch.

 

The other side accuses with labels such as mean spirited, gate keeping, power mongering, going rogue, brain washing and creating their own program.

 

I just see it as mean.

 

...

 

I'm a little more understanding of units that go rogue risk their scouts lives on the very dangerous sport of laser tag. Oh my. (This message has been edited by fred8033)

[Beavah 205]

This thread assumes the conclusion that BSA is inconsistent or going down the wrong path.

 

Nah, not at all.

 

What we are arguin' is that some folks' interpretations of the BSA materials make the materials inconsistent or take 'em down the wrong path. There's a difference.

 

Venividi is claimin' that those who interpret the BSA materials in the "most literal sense", even though that sense is "not consistent with BSA's own rules and regulations, nor with specific sections of the Guide to Advancement that provide instructions to leaders on the advancement method" are breaking trust with the rest of us, eh? It's being disloyal to Scouting, both in the BSA and as a Movement.

 

We aren't arguing with da BSA, fred8033. We're arguin' with your unusual interpretation of da BSA which rejects unit leader judgment and makes the Scouting program inconsistent, right now in 2012.

 

Beavah

 

[Eagle92 110]

There are a lot of inconsistencies withing the BSA's literature. Trust me, I use to work for BSA and was scratching my head at times.

 

As for disagreeing with BSA's policies and procedures, some of us now complaining DID hold our tongues when stupid rules had come out originally, and we have seen them multiply 10 fold. In my case the straw that broke the camel's back was the new rules on ages and tools. Kinda sad when a bunch of Bears laugh at you when you tell them they can no longer use their little red wagons for a service project. Yes they thought it was a joke and I didn't have the heart to tell them otherwise.

 

Now I did tell the parents, and when they realized I wasn't joking all said the same thing, "ARE YOUR SERIOUS?" ( caps to express sock and disbelief by parents.)

[moosetracker 132]

Having my son in 3 troops, one that was too hard.. One that was way too easy.. And one that was just right..

 

I will say it is a choice.. Fred is just reacting due to seeing the too difficult Troops (and I believe he had the too difficult Eagle workbook)..

 

But believe me, to easy is just as bad.. Maybe even worse (but not by much..) Boys from the too easy troop, just got board and left informing their friends that scouts were for whimps.. Boys from the way too hard troop alot of them also quit, with bad feelings and not nice words for the program.. But then there were some who stayed, no matter how hard they were badgered they stayed and they worked and they would not quit whether it was to go to a different troop or to just quit.. They were just bound and determined to show the old coots wrong. I don't know how much better that is, and on a few cases it was a impossible fight, the old coots hated the scouts and would not budge.. But, the only thing I saw positive come out of it was these scouts were the best scouts I ever saw.. Maybe the old coots never recognized it, or gave them their due.. But, boy I sure did..

 

Well not a good reason to be too tough.. But, it is my reason to say it is that wee bit better then too easy..

 

But, the best is when there is alot of great adults trying to do the best for their scouts.. Trying to give them great skills, great outings, great challenges.. And they recognize and reward them fairly..

 

Where that line is, is the question.. And unless you want to interpret the advancement as one and done (which is way too easy).. No the meaning of proficient is differently interpreted by everyone, but as a unit you define that for your group..

 

Should not be so hard that the scout needs to tie the knot in 15 seconds with one hand tied behind his back, blindfolded, and with a bear ready to charge the boy..

 

Should not be so easy that on the day you teach the boy to tie the knot,he then copies you, after 3 wrong tries he then does one very slow, very sloppy and you sign him off for it.

[Venividi 35]

Fred,

 

Would you agree or disagree that the previous GTA that stated scouts that held a POR for 6 months and had not been removed from the position, has met the POR requirement, even if he did nothing, was in a boy's best long term interest?

 

That was part of the advancement method as per the previous GTA. Do you believe that everyone else should also regard it as good for the boys, because BSA put it in the GTA?

 

And what is your reaction to the most recent GTA that backed away from that statement? Was wearing a patch without doing the job good for the boys for a couple of years, and then no longer good for the boys after the section was re-written and re-published?

 

 

[johnponz 14]

Then and now, it is the adults fault if they let a Scout stay in a POR for 6 months doing nothing. It is clearly their job to counsel the youth leadership to counsel the non-performers, or to counsel the non-performers themselves.

 

It is a disservice to the Scouts to allow someone to spend 6 months in a POR doing nothing, and at the end disqualify the Scout from advancement. If necessary, the Scout should have been disqualified and removed from his POR well before the 6 months was over.

 

This is consistent with the former GTA and is spelled out more precisely in the new one.

 

[Beavah 205]

 

It is a disservice to the Scouts to allow someone to spend 6 months in a POR doing nothing, and at the end disqualify the Scout from advancement.

 

Yah, hmmmm....

 

Continuin' the questions...

 

Johnponz, is it a disservice to the Scouts to allow a boy to spend six months shy of Tenderfoot doing nothing to work on fitness, and at the end disqualify the scout from advancement because he hasn't worked on fitness as required?

 

Is it OK for a Scoutmaster to remove a boy elected by his peers to Patrol Leader just because the adult does not like the boy? Or should it be the boys who remove him?

 

B