A letter from my SE

[NJCubScouter 1389]

That road leads to anything being possible (awarding Eagle to someone over 18yrs old, etc.).  Girls (or their advocates) aren't going to stop until they can be officially recognized as Eagle Scouts (on college applications, for example).  Consequently I don't see Venturing as the solution to any of this.

 

An aside: While I'm not surprised that this issue is getting a lot of attention, I have to admit I never saw the BSA's "making scouting accessible" rationale coming.  On one had I'm impressed (BSA agreeing to the girl advocate's objectives not only without having to accede to their overall point, but instead appear to be championing "family values"), on the other hand wrapping a legitimate and critical issue as "we're doing it for families!" appears cynical and hiding from the real discussion.

 

C'mon, Dallas, a Scout is Brave.

 

As I have said before, I really don't think this issue is about National "giving in" to outside advocates.  This about National wanting increased membership and increased membership fees, and having tried many other ways of achieving that without changing the "gender" policy, they have now decided that admitting girls is the only way to do it.

 

Added note:  Having now watched the video with Michael Surbaugh's presentation, this is even more clear to me.  Part of National's concern seems to be that there are some BOYS who do not join Cub Scouts (in particular) because their parents want a program where all their children (boys and girls) can participate.  Again, it's the numbers, and not just girls who can't join now, but some boys who could join but don't.

Edited July 20, 2017 by NJCubScouter

[Cambridgeskip 658]

Yes, the rule(s) being violated are they are not operating the program under which they are chartered.

 

Spin it the other way. You have a troop that dissolves patrols and forms a "crew" structure. SPL is now President, ASPLs are VPs. They get rid of the patrol method, etc, etc, etc. They are chartered as a troop but they are essentially operating as a crew. They are not delivering the program for which they were chartered.

 

Now, who is going to stop them? LOL, I honestly don't know. I imagine if it was obvious enough that eventually council or even national would get involved. But the would very clearly be in violation of the policies outlined for the execution of the program for which they are chartered.

Now obviously you know the rules and regs better than I do. Although I would happily bet you a beer (should we ever meet in the flesh) that actually no, you can't stop a venture crew operating like that if they have the backing of their CO. Either way though what I'm trying to do is predicting the kind of thing I see happening if BSA only go half way there. Eg pep I g up only cubs to girls or lowering the venturing age or whatever way round or combination you can think of. It strikes me that it's a do or do not moment because otherwise you have a situation where the rules are only paid lip service to and everyone knows it's absurd. I see it as a case of do or do not for BSA. Half way will lead to chaos.

 

An example from this side of the pond. Until about 3 years ago there was no atheist version of the promise. Officially atheist adults were not meant to be full members although they could be associate members. So at my troop we had a couple of adults who were on paper troop assistants. In practice they operated as assistant leaders. What you would call an ASM. They wore the uniform, did all the training had the commitment levels. We even invested them (completely against the rules but like I said, easier to get forgiveness than permission). The scouts themselves had no idea that Jenny was atroop assistant and Roger was an assistant leader. They didn't care either.

 

Now this kind of thing went on nation wide in every group in every district. Eventually the rules changed partly through being the righ thing to do and partly because it was patently absurd to do anything else. Jenny is now an assistant leader officially. The kids still don't know the difference and still don't care either.

[KenD500 77]

My Co-ed thoughts:

1.  it's going to happen.  National will roll it out at the Cub level.  

  a.  This will make 1/2 the membership angry that they went Co-ed.

  b.  It will make the other 1/2 angry that they didn't open up the Boy Scout program also.

  c.  End result in membership = no change

2.  By the time girls are age eligible for Venturing, they are committed to other things that caught their interest (band, dance, softball, etc).  14ish seems to be the time most are trimming back activities to focus on a few.

3.  There is no other program that does what the Boy Scout program does.  Other programs try, but miss.

  3a.  Pre-teen & Teen girls need a program like the Boy Scouts.

4.  Pre-teen & Teen boys act differently around girls of the same age.

  4a.  This leads into the argument that the boys need a program that allows them to be boys.

 

I'm obviously of 2 minds on this.  I'm guessing all programs under the BSA umbrella will be co-ed in the next 3-5 yrs.  Using the "local" option of allowing the CO decide what type of Unit they want.

 

I have 2 girls (14 & 15) & 2 boys (17 & 28).

[NJCubScouter 1389]

I have now watched the video posted by Matt (thank you Matt.)

 

It sounded to me like the CSE was ruling out coed Boy Scout troops (even with patrols separated by gender) and that the only thing being considered at that age level is a "parallel program" so that the female Cub Scouts will have something to cross over to.  Am I misinterpreting what he said?

 

It also sounded to me that National is genuinely uncertain about how to handle the details of a "parallel" program for 11- to 17-year-old girls.  They really seem to struggling with the issue of advancement in this "parallel" program, especially the subject of Eagle.  I think that if they are going to have a "parallel" program, it should be a mirror image of Boy Scouts: Patrol method, same program, same ranks (including Eagle), same advancement requirements, same everything.  I am still concerned about coed Cub Scout packs, but if coed troops are off the table (IF they are) and there will instead be a separate Boy-Scout-age program, most of my concerns are satisfied.

 

It also sounds to me like they have probably made the decision about the Cub Scout level and the feedback from the "field" is not going to count for much, but that they have not actually decided what to do at the Boy Scout level and are genuinely looking for feedback.  Maybe I am just being naive about that, but it really sounded to me like the Boy Scout part of this presentation was not just a "sales pitch."

Edited July 20, 2017 by NJCubScouter

[Col. Flagg 909]

Now obviously you know the rules and regs better than I do. Although I would happily bet you a beer (should we ever meet in the flesh) that actually no, you can't stop a venture crew operating like that if they have the backing of their CO. Either way though what I'm trying to do is predicting the kind of thing I see happening if BSA only go half way there. Eg pep I g up only cubs to girls or lowering the venturing age or whatever way round or combination you can think of. It strikes me that it's a do or do not moment because otherwise you have a situation where the rules are only paid lip service to and everyone knows it's absurd. I see it as a case of do or do not for BSA. Half way will lead to chaos.

 

I'll take that bet. We can meet in Nova Scotia but you bring the beer.

 

As I read the charter org agreement we must adhere to (along with the CO), the statement below is what I believe requires Boy Scouts units to be run like troops, and Venturing to be run like crews...and not mix their programs:

 

"Conduct the Scouting program consistent with BSA rules, regulations, and policies. They may be found on the My Scouting website and at the following location: www.scouting.org/Membership/Charter_Orgs/ resources.aspx."

Naturally, the like in the quote does not work...

[Col. Flagg 909]

@@KenD500, Oh, I think the membership will change. I think you will see the same thing we've seen since 2013. Those who long for what the program was will leave. Those expected to come in will NOT join at the levels BSA expects, leaving a net exodus of 6-8% or more.

 

That's been the recent historical pattern. I'd actually be gobsmacked if that wasn't the case.

[RememberSchiff 3667]

I have now watched the video posted by Matt (thank you Matt.)

 

It sounded to me like the CSE was ruling out coed Boy Scout troops (even with patrols separated by gender) and that the only thing being considered at that age level is a "parallel program" so that the female Cub Scouts will have something to cross over to.  Am I misinterpreting what he said?

 

Yes in video, the "Make Scouting More Accessible" argument and examples stopped at Cub Scouts. After that,  a separate and maybe equal argument was applied, i.e., a partner or parallel (in-house) program, family accessibility was not a concern. 

 

From slide

 

Will we find a partner?

   Shared values

   Nationwide reach

   Robust, similar curriculum

   top award as significant as Eagle

 

Create our own Program?

   parallel with Boy Scouting

   same program or adjusted for girls 

   is Eagle top award?

   Parallel honor society (OA)

   Camping questions

Edited July 20, 2017 by RememberSchiff

[NJCubScouter 1389]

From slide

 

Will we find a partner?

   Shared values

   Nationwide reach

   Robust, similar curriculum

   top award as significant as Eagle

 

I guess I kind of disregarded the "partner program" option, that is, an already-existing program for girls that would somehow affiliate with the BSA on a nationwide basis.  I don't know of a program with a "nationwide reach" that would fill the bill.  I know that some BSA units already have a partnership arrangement with Girl Scout units on a local basis, but I don't think the GSUSA is going to be interested in that on a nationwide basis, particularly after the BSA starts competing with GSUSA at the 5- to 10-year-old level.  Aside from that... Frontier Girls is just a curriculum with no actual organization; American Heritage Girls might have been an option at one point, but now they want nothing to do with the BSA and I don't think they share the same "values" as the BSA because AHG only accepts leaders of one religion; Campfire is already coed... did I miss anybody?

[walk in the woods 888]

One (at least) interesting at least to me paradox in the video.  As separate times he mentioned that parents want activities they can do as a family, but, parents don't work with their kids on advancement.  Anyway, just struck me as odd to say we want more time with our kids but won't spend more time with our kids on that.

 

Separately, I think separate but equal programs at the Boy Scout level could quite possibly be the worst decision of all.  I think it would be roundly ridiculed.  This feels like a in for a penny in for a pound kind of decision.

[RememberSchiff 3667]

I guess I kind of disregarded the "partner program" option, that is, an already-existing program for girls that would somehow affiliate with the BSA on a nationwide basis.  I don't know of a program with a "nationwide reach" that would fill the bill.  I know that some BSA units already have a partnership arrangement with Girl Scout units on a local basis, but I don't think the GSUSA is going to be interested in that on a nationwide basis, particularly after the BSA starts competing with GSUSA at the 5- to 10-year-old level.  Aside from that... Frontier Girls is just a curriculum with no actual organization; American Heritage Girls might have been an option at one point, but now they want nothing to do with the BSA and I don't think they share the same "values" as the BSA because AHG only accepts leaders of one religion; Campfire is already coed... did I miss anybody?

 

Then would girl Cubs go through a different Webelos (We Be Loyal To Something Else  )  to prepare for that "partner" program?

[Col. Flagg 909]

Then would girl Cubs go through a different Webelos (We Be Loyal To Something Else  )  to prepare for that "partner" program?

 

Webelos will be renamed because it will likely be considered cultural appropriation by someone (see this ridiculousness as an example). As soon as it is more widely understood what the "webe" in webelos stands for. 

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Then would girl Cubs go through a different Webelos (We Be Loyal To Something Else  )  to prepare for that "partner" program?

 

Good question.  I wonder whether National has even thought about that.  But I think it is moot because, as I said, I do not think there is a "partner program" available.  If there is going to be a Boy-Scout-age "parallel program" for girls, it is going to have to be something that the BSA creates, and if they create a program that is identical to Boy Scouts except for who can join and the name of the program, the Webelos program can probably serve both genders.

 

As for "WE'll BE LOyal Scouts", I realize you put a smiley face next to that, but it is one of a number of questions that would have to be answered.  Of course, it would be moot if the name of the new program includes the word "Scouts".  I have no idea what that name would be, since the obvious choice is already taken.  "Young Woman Scouts" is a little too awkward.  "Non-Boy Scouts"?  Nah.  I don't know.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

As soon as it is more widely understood what the "webe" in webelos stands for. 

 

It stands for WE'll BE. What's wrong with that?  It used to stand for "Wolf Bear" (WeBe) with (LoS) standing for "Lion Scout" but then they took away Lion.  I guess Lion is back in some places, but the letters would be in the wrong order.

Edited August 4, 2017 by NJCubScouter

[RememberSchiff 3667]

How about SCITELs , pronounced Skittles ,  SCouts In Training Ever Loyal.

 

[NJCubScouter 1389]

How about SCITELs , pronounced Skittles ,  SCouts In Training Ever Loyal.

 

 

Hmm.  Webelos was supposed to be the name of a Native American tribe (do the Cub Scout books still say that?), but somehow I don't think "Skittles" would have very much credibility in that context.