jrush

I went through some of this with regard to CPR. I don't know if it's the only one, but the Red Cross does have a Wilderness and Remote First Aid course, same as they have various First Aid/CPR/AED courses. You can get certified to be an instructor for the ARC. The Red Cross will set up a user agreement with your council and the instructor can do the courses for a significant discount. I can do First Aid/CPR/AED under $10 per card for scouts and scouters. Anyone can get certified to be an instructor for the Red Cross...not sure why the Red Cross would drop it in a specific area unless they didn't have an instructor on staff in that area anymore. I would presume the BSA uses the Red Cross version and instructor so they have some legal standing of "this was taught by a qualified instructor" before accepting the liability for high adventure outings which require WFA...no different than requiring some form of certified CPR instruction for BSA lifeguard. But, in any event, someone can go to the Red Cross, get certified to teach it, get an agreement with your Council office knocked out, and teach the course as often as needed.

The implication is a total shift from sugar to corn syrup is an assault on the senses, so you punt and the next time, you gradually replace sugar with corn syrup and nobody notices.

There is a difference in a majority being against a policy change, and a majority being so morally opposed that they would leave the program. It wasn't a "hope" that people and COs wouldn't leave; the BSA KNEW people and COs would leave. So short term retention of members and COs wasn't the point. The point was moving socially from a 20th century organization to a 21st century organization. Yes, the BSA could have delayed the membership loss by backing down, but the bill would have come due eventually. You know what else is falling in the US? Church membership and opposition to gay marriage. You want to talk about "clueless business moves"? How about maintaining a discriminatory policy to appease a shrinking population? As to the "tradition" of a single-sex outdoor program? You could have fooled me. I'm not talking about 50 years' worth of co-ed Ventures and Explorers or sisters attending events, I'm talking about moms have been part of pack and troop leadership for a long time. I'll wager that the number of COs that prohibit female leaders for their single-sex units because of the "single sex tradition" wouldn't fill a soccer stadium. The BSA has no single-sex tradition. It's possible that others won't take up the slack from the numbers lost from lifting bans on gays and girls, but one thing's for sure, the shrinking population of those who support the bans won't.

Again, what I want is irrelevant, regardless if we agree or not. The BSA finally had to choose which fork in the road to take over homosexual/lesbian adult leaders. That path led invariably to allowing transgender youth, and it leads invariably to a co-ed program. Given that we've passed the transgender mile marker, co-ed is right around the corner. The BSA gave a thumbs up to youth with female plumbing and XX chromosomes who want to be boys. Personally, I thought co-ed and transgender would have happened simultaneously, but apparently the BSA is allowing to units and leaders time to emotionally adapt. So, co-ed is going to happen. If you're committed to the program itself, you might as well reconcile yourself and look for some of the benefits for the organization as a whole. I'm not sure it helps to sit around and disagree with a decision that has essentially already been made, and since I'm on board, I'll tout the upside whether I privately agree or not.

Like all the all-male Venture Crews that have been sued out of existence? It's a private organization. Until the US Supreme Court revisits the issue (which is unlikely), it's a done deal. Now, I can see a unit that went co-ed getting sued if they kick out all the girls at recharter to go back to all-male. That's a vulnerability. Once a unit goes co-ed, they are going to have to stay co-ed. If they have an issue keeping co-ed leadership or whatever else, I think the CO would have to fold the unit and start up a new one from scratch as all-male.

Which is why they won't be redesigned. They'll just announce that Charter Orgs have the option to charter co-ed Packs and Troops. The Packs and Troops that already allow female siblings to attend events will hand them a membership form and parents will go buy a uniform. BSA will update YPT and that will be it. At this point, I can't even see it causing any disruption. The Charter Orgs that are with the BSA for the long haul have already reconciled with homosexual leaders and transgender youth.

Well, the issue here is that at face value, the unit violated state antidiscrimination law by accepting the membership, then later kicking the kid out. So the council had a legal and public perception loser on their hands. Settle the suit and have a lesson learned.

I can't add much except to second Stosh's comments. Well, okay, I can. If that means that you tell the Pack's leaders "my den's racers voted, here is the envelope with the winner", that's what you do. Maybe you have to go out on your own, get some tchotchke for "Den's Choice Award" and present it based on the boys' vote (if the wound is still fresh, you could still do this). If the unit leaders insist on adults making the choice, have someone unconnected with the Pack do it. Invite your district exec, maybe someone from the charter org who doesn't have a child in the pack, maybe invite local news to the PWD, there are myriad ways. Failing that, ask that family on the "council of leaders" recuse themselves from voting Den awards that their kids are in. All that said, the unit is supposed to be administered by adults, and adults should be able to handle an adult conversation about parents selecting subjective awards for their kids.

No, I was just addressing points made/implied that allowing COs to approve homosexual leaders was the BSA turning away from God. Heck, my theory as to the BSA's reasoning isn't even a theory...it's a hypothesis. I have no way to design an experiment and test it to see if I can upgrade it to "theory". As to girls in the program, what I want is irrelevant. Girls are already in the program, including packs and troops. They are attending meetings. They are attending outdoor activities. We just make them wait until age 14 to let them buy a uniform and earn recognition. In practice, units can do the same thing now they will be able to do when the BSA goes co-ed across the board. The Charter Org says "all male", the unit policy can prohibit female siblings from attending events, the CO can stipulate all-male adult leadership. As I said, these units can take boys all the way through the program without ever interacting with a co-ed unit. All that said, it's not a hope or fear that the BSA will go 100% co-ed option across all units for Charter Orgs. It's going to happen. The BSA can't pitch itself as a community organization in the 21st century if it doesn't.

Well, first, I expect that even once BSA goes co-ed, COs will be able to have all-male, co-ed, or all-female packs and troops, just as they can crews and posts. A dozen like-minded families = a all-male pack. You don't want your all-male pack exposed to the co-ed packs? Don't go to council events. Your PWD winners don't have to go the district PWD. Once in the all-male troop, they don't have to go to summer camps or OA events or high-adventure bases. Boys can go from Lion to Eagle and never once interact with a co-ed pack or troop. Second, nobody here or at BSA has said "no god". The BSA has always stressed faith. Point of fact, they stress faith so much that atheists are barred, regardless of what the CO wants, and they haven't discussed budging a millimeter on that. What they have said is that the BSA's position on faith is 100% non-denominational. Thus the new policy on gay leaders was to not "endorse" specific religion(s) which condemn homosexuality. Adult leaders in a unit still serve at the discretion of the CO, so if the CO doesn't want a gay leader, it won't have a gay leader. If it doesn't want the pack/troop/etc it charters to interact with units that may have gay leaders, see the paragraph above. Nowhere in the program is a unit required to interact with other units.

I agree, but fact is, it is, and always has been, the Boy Scouts of America, not the Boy Scouts of Christianity. Second, it is arguable that one should include young women when teaching boys and young men about virtues, as the community embraces, and then expects, gender equality in thought and deed. So, passing the "boy" mile marker wasn't leaving the path, but rather staying on the path as defined by America. The argument isn't just community versus religion. The argument is if the Boy Scouts of America should set a path in stone and then attempt to move America in line with that path by training future leaders, or if America should chart the path and the BSA respond.

I certainly hope not, since it is just a personal theory. That said, the executives at National are motivated by something to make the policy decisions that they do. Policy for a national volunteer organization with the size and visibility of the BSA isn't made with a magic 8-ball. At least, we hope not.

According to the BSA, about 4 million youth and adult volunteers?

What does the charter say? Section 30902 Purposes: "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." Patriotism, courage, self reliance and kindred virtues, using the methods of scouting. I don't see "via the applicable religion" in there. Sure, lambast the YMCA for not pushing Christian morals. The BSA? I have a LOT harder time with the BSA pushing stuff made in China than I did with banning gays. One of those two things is flat-out unpatriotic. The other is immoral only within certain religions, none of which one must be a practicing member of to be a scout.

The BSA never expected membership to skyrocket as a result of the decision. IMO, the decision to allow gays, and the coming decision to allow co-ed packs and troops, isn't because of membership. It's because the BSA pitches itself as an organization that grows responsible members of the community, not the church. Yes, the decision cost membership, but that cost was anticipated and deemed worth it to be primarily a community organization rather than a religious one.