ParkMan

I would simply offer that there will always be reasons to not do anything. Or perhaps in the case of certain badges a higher level of supervision is required. In either event, it doesn't seem an insurmountable evolution of how youth and adults relate to each other. I think of these situations something like a mixed gender environment. As an adult male, I would be exceedingly hesitant to ever put hands on an a female. Not so much because of lawsuits or allegations- but simply out of respect for personal boundries. I would look for alternative approaches to demonstrate techniques or skills that historically would have been done through physical contact. I don't think this is a big deal in the slightest and have considered things like this all my adult life. In fact, as a Scouters I cannot remember ever physically touching a scout. It's not something I've avoided- I just really cannot remember ever having a reason to do so.

While I'm normally one to postulate what might be coming, I have a hunch that now is a difficult time in which to predict the future. No touch policies just seem to make common sense to me at this point - regardless of lawsuits, insurance, or the like. Yes, it will make teaching a very small number of things more difficult - but it's not that big a deal. In 2020, I think we all understand personal space and can recognize not to invade it. And yes - there will always be common sense exceptions such as a parent touching their child. As for Scouting looking drastically different. Perhaps at the council/national level yes. But not at a unit level. I suspect that it will look pretty similar. Sure professionals may go and camps may close - but those are not that bit an impact to most unit programs.

This is in many ways the question that we are all struggling to answer. And in this I think we see that even millennials are looking around for an answer. I'm also reminded that we are not even really marketing to millennials any more - we're targeting Gen-Z and increasingly Gen-A youth. I think it would be a mistake for us to infer this. The risk of death is certainly lower today. However, the challenges to succeed are as great as they've been. The skills kids have evolved for certain, but that doesn't mean that there are fewer skills needed. If I look at my profession, we are as far from a hands on profession as you can get. But, the skills needed by our young adults are high. Further, the skills that are most needed are the same as they have always been - a sense of drive, confidence, resourcefulness, problem solving, team work, willingness to try, willingness to take risk. There are the kind of skills that Scouting excels at helping a youth develop. The outdoors is our game and it's a good one. Getting kids outdoors is a great way for them to adventure, have fun, and build skills. Perhaps in BP's day those skills were part of the purpose as they could keep you from dying. But today, those outdoor skils are less necessary. However, the other skills that Scouting excels at developing are indeed needed.

I'm not for a moment suggesting that Scout skills will not keep you from dying. Ahh - I understand your point better now. I think the whole lifesaving thing in Scouting is overblown - but that's just me. Kids are all very different and join for different reasons. Some for lifesaving skills, some to learn outdoor skills, some just for fun. I think back to your prior comment: I'm just one that thinks that Scouting today is more about adventure and challenge for youth. The purpose is to prepare them for life, but it's the adventure and challenge that is the game. Back in the first half of the 20th century, life for kids probably had a different sort of challenge than it does today. Bad stuff was more likely to happen than it is today. It's like when I was a kid - we had an emergency kit in our care because if we broke down we might not get help. Today we call AAA and someone is there within an hour to help us out. There is just a different sort of support network today than there was back then. Yet, my kids today are much more intune with the life benefits of exercise, fitness, etc. than I was at their age. Why - because when I was a kid we had different life challenges to worry about. That was the crux of my point.

I'm not sure I'm following your point here. In our society today it will be a hard argument to make that learning scouting skills will keep you from death. While it is true, the prospect of someone leveraging these skills to save their life is 2020+ is very low. In not saying it won't happen, but the spectre of death for most kids isn't something they think about. That not withstanding. No system is perfect. We started discussing people 18 and over in Scouting and so I shared how I see it working. Lumping a 20 year old with a 12 year old and saying "go camp" isn't going to happen. So, the only way to have a Scouting program for those over 18 is to have their own program. If you're going to do that, it makes sense to have graduated levels like they do in the UK. Is it perfect - nope. Is what we have now perfect - nope. It's just an idea. Myself, in 2020, I'm game to take so e chances. People are cruising Churchill because it's too safe - too traditional. I agree. So I'm willing to look at our core program, see what's working, and take some chances. But - I was wrong to start this conversation in this great thread on history.

The age could be extended, but we would need to redefine the program a bit. There's no great reason for a program to run from 11 to 21 - that's too large an age range for people to be in the same sets of activities. I would find it unusual to send my 11 year old child off with a bunch of 19 year olds for the weekend. I would support a young adult program if we learned the lessons of the UK and had better age separation. Something like: 5-8: Cub Scouts (Lions, Tigers, Wolves) 9-11: Webelos (Bears, Webelos/AOL) 11-14: Scouts aka "middle school scouting" (Scout through First Class) 15-18: Venturing aka "high school scouting" (Star through Eagle) 18-22: Rover Scouts "college scouting" I do agree with @David CO - as people mature, focus them on more "grown up" things. The limit for Eagle is 18 and should remain 18. How many kids do we lose during the high school years because they get bored of doing the same stuff since they were 11...

I retract my comments and the "faux" part. That was categorically wrong of me to state that and I did so solely out of frustration. There is no excuse for what I wrote and you are right to call me on it. Sexual abuse is wrong. The BSA was wrong. Anything and everything should be done to protect the kids we serve. Everyone who was abused deserves compensation and to be made whole. I am just frustrated by the lack of constructive ideas to preserve the program itself. I wrongly thought the Washington Post should have made a more constructive suggestion here. I let my frustration at the situation get the better of me.

The sad thing is that these sort of faux outrage opinion pieces is why the BSA has the problem is does. It's far too easy for someone to come out and take a hard line against an obvious target. It's another to actually have actually really thought through the issues behind them and have a real solution. It's why I have zero respect for these kind of hand wringing articles and statements.

Great - thanks for the clarification. Then I did misread the intent behind your statements. Yes - all I'm really talking about is having Scouting be a place where everyone is welcome and made to feel comfortable. Glad you are on board with that. And yes, given that you are, I am sorry I suggested otherwise. All I can ask is that everyone is truly welcoming to all who want to join, truly goes out of their way to understand what makes everyone comfortable, and embraces all their neighbors. I would hope that every Scout, adult volunteer, and unit looks at themself and asks "am I truly welcoming my fellow person?" I'm not going to delve in here because I really don't have any interest in making this political. If anything, I would only suggest that we all really listen to those we oppose and work to understand what their real beliefs are. Because America has such a strong two party system, we often get lined up behind one group or the other. Just as I suggest that we have diversity in race, gender, and culture - so too do I encourage diversity in opinion. And so, to that end I really don't want to engage in a progressive vs. conservative battle about the politics of race myself. If others want to, the are welcome to. I just hope that we can do it without hurtful labels and speech.

Sorry that I mis-interpreted what you wrote. I saw this post: and this: and others and misunderstood. I took what you wrote as believing that diversity and inclusion was some sort of leftist political agenda. I didn't think diversity was even controversial in 2020. But - since you're pointed out that you are in fact in favor of diversity and inclusion, clearly I've misread what you wrote. My deepest apologies for misinterpreting all of that and am happy to stipulate that I was wrong. I am happy that you're on board with having a diverse, inclusive Scouting community and helping encourage our Scouts to be welcoming of all backgrounds. Thank you for clarifying!

Using racial slurs like "black sister" or "male cracker" in reference to degrading the comradeship of seven white boys is what I am referring to. You have in no way, shape, form or fashion hurt my feelings. You have not challenged my world view at all and I am simply talking about basic human decency. I speak out because it is the correct thing to speak out when people start using racial slurs in the name of Scouting. Scouting is about "to help other people at all times" and "Friend, Courteous, Kind, Cheerful". Knock it off. You want to debate this merit badge - that's fine. But, do not do it by using racial slurs and claiming to do so in the name of Scouting.

We really need move past this kind of talk. The kind of racial terms now being thrown about are simply not acceptable in 2020 and need to stop now. It's not about degrading the experience for one particular group, race, creed, sex, whatever. In 2020, this is about kids being in Scouting. It's really time to move on from race & gender arguments and just focus on having an open table that anyone can join. I frankly don't care if purple, blue, or whatever kids join our troop - all kids are welcome and we want kids of all backgrounds to feel welcomed and comfortable. To me, the whole point of diversity and inclusion is asking ourselves the question - am I really setting a table that anyone can join? Do I really understand how those who join us feel when they show up? Talk like this only excludes people from Scouting and is exactly why the BSA is starting programs like this merit badge. You want to debate this merit badge - fine. Do it without hurtful and offensive language.

I'm just amazed that on a forum about Scouting we are really having some sort of debate on whether diversity and inclusion is a good thing. This isn't a discussion about some political belief or taking sides, it's just a discussion about whether we want to encourage everyone to come Scout with us. Isn't that kind of the whole point of the Oath and Law? I'm utterly confused.

I'd be up for that. Modernize the Citizenship badges a bit and convert 4 to 3. I'd even be game to go from 4 to 2. One focused on citizenship in the nation, one focused on how to be a good citizen in your community.

I put this MB in the same category as the Citizenship ones. This provides concepts that helps prepare scouts to be effective members of society. While I'd wouldn't complain if all the Citizenship MBs went away, I also won't complain about this one given our nation's history. While I an sure that we can find examples where diversity and inclusion do not work as intended, this is one of those areas where we need to stay positive and keep trying. Our kids will all benefit from living in am increasingly diverse country and will thank is for that at least.

Understood, and what happened to you is indeed awful, but I don't think it should be a reason to not continue to build bridges. It's all too easy in our country today to label whole groups by the actions of a few. The core issues here are still the same - our country has a history of slavery that turned into a long legacy of racism. I think it's still in the best interest of healing in our country to be proactive in trying to remove the vestiages of racsim. I think that requires us all to be as proactive as possible. I would rather be on the side of understanding and forgiveness than on the side of mistrust myself.

I get what you're saying - but why make an issue out of it? If someone wants me to stop leaving apples on my desk because they are sensitive to the implication of it, I'll be happy to take the apple off my desk. Yep, occasionally good people get inadvertently blamed - but it has a way or sorting itself out when others then can speak to your character on your behalf. I'm sure in your case others stood up and said that you were a great guy and had no ill intent at all. To me, it's about putting myself in other people's shoes. For a very long time in our country's history minorities had it very tough. Many would say that minorities still do. I'm happy to make some changes in my world and put in the effort to try and ameliorate that feeling. Further, if people who are feeling persecuted see others going out of their way to avoid that, then maybe, just maybe it will build some bridges. Seems like a pretty neighborly thing to do to me. To me, this is a good level of awareness for our scouts to obtain.

I've come to look at this as an area where awareness is a good thing. Our country is has a deep and long history of racism and went through many reprehensible periods in our past. Maybe someone looks around today and sees no racism where someone else sees lots of racism. Regardless, it helps us all to grow by being acutely aware of the feelings of others on topics of racism, diversity, and equality. We're all people who relate to other people. I'd rather understand better the feelings of those who might feel oppressed so that I can avoid contributing to that. Since I'm not trying to discriminate to start with, I'd much rather know how I am perceived and then be able to take actions to avoid inadvertently adding to the problem. I find this is why it is useful for youth to go through the same. Most youth I know really are pretty open minded and a little awareness is a good thing. So with that in mind, I'm all for taking little steps like this Now - there's another whole topic of whether there is too much "school" in Scouting. Yes, there clearly is too much school in Scouting. So that puts me on the fence on this MB. Yes, I think it's good for youth to learn about this topic and increase awareness. Yet I think we need more doing, less talking.

Probably you're right. What @vol_scouter makes a lot of sense to me too. I won't belabour the point any more. I find myself in this whole thing being sort of asked to take sides on this with little knowledge of the past. That's why I'd love one of those 20 minute news pieces about this whole thing - perhaps even an hour. Forget the posturing and taking sides - just let's discuss what happened and why. If the BSA was trying to cover itself - just be honest. If the BSA was simply trying to follow the law but made mistakes - let's be honest about that too. I'm really not trying to get some opinion piece in support of the BSA or against it. But alas, that's well beyond the power of anyone here to see a news team, journalist, or documentary film maker put something like that together. @yknot & @scoutldr - I'm sorry to hear that you are stepping down soon. I still believe the unit & district programs themselves are sound, so when great volunteers leave, it's always a sad day.

I think this is where I've been for a long time - that the sheer volume of these must be telling us something. To me, this is more a question is more of - should I be reacting more strongly than I am? Should I be disassociating myself with the BSA? If the BSA did all this awful stuff, why am I continuing to be a volunteer? I presume that all of this has been rectified with the current YPT rules - but really, I just don't know that much about what happened to even make an informed decision. I trust, and I really do desperately want to trust - but I'm feeling like I'm missing something in what I know. The Catholic church I understood - the church covered up and transferred priests in an attempt to avoid embarrassment for the church and punishment for those priests. But in the case of the BSA, I don't think they were hiding abuse. I don't think they were protecting leaders from punishment. But, given the ferocity of all of this, I'm starting to presume that they must have been. So, maybe there's something I just don't know here. Clearly smart people want to destroy the BSA for a reason. What do I not know?

Thank you so very much for the pointer. I'll take a look.

I'm really OK if the BSA is excoriated in some bit of journalism. Myself I'm not looking to excuse away the history anymore - I just frankly don't know what the BSA did or didn't do. I can't even make a judgement at this point because I've got only generalities. I get the sense that "Scouting really messed up", but details are so vague it's impossible for me to determine what it all actually means. As a person, I really would be interested to know.

I'd really love to see an honest accounting for what happened back then. I've heard everything ranging from the "BSA had a list that was used to exclude people and was ahead of the curve" to "the BSA tried to cover up abuse that was happening." I really, honestly don't know what happened back then. I would welcome a 60 Minutes (or similar) news in-depth story on what happened and when. I don't request this in order to try to save the BSA - I figure the BSA is probably done. The sheer enormity of the number of claims and the veracity of the lawyers involved will mean that the BSA brand is tarnished and 100 years of resources the program has assembled will be lost to pay the bill. Serves us right as a country too - it is our penance for not doing enough as a country to protect kids then too.

I cannot fathom that the BSA nor councils will ever attempt to seize unit funds as part of what happens. This whole business about what happens to unit funds when a unit folds is so nebulous that no-one in any kind of official capacity should ever consider them as anything tangible.

I stand corrected. That's very interesting. Kind of reminds me why I've given up all hope on their being any future for the BSA in all of this. I never expected Biden to help the BSA, but I didn't expect that he had such a family connection.