The Latin Scot

I don't have children at all, and I was a Den Leader for three years. I loved it, but then I love children in general and work with them professionally as a teacher and child development specialist. And honestly, I don't really perceive any difference between being a Cub leader without a cub and a Troop leader without a boy.

@Mrjeff, I hope you don't feel that you are being personally attacked by this discussion; certainly that is not my intent and I apologize if you feel such. My confusion stems from the fact that you seem to opine that this is a binary, one-or-the other choice - that either you care about uniforms, or you care about people. In fact, you even state: But why do you imply that it must be one or the other? Do you truly think that we don't focus on the youth and having fun, and that we go to bed at night thinking about patches and pins? Heaven forbid; the very suggestion is silly. Rather, I believe in doing ALL of these things - and with a specific, meaningful goal: to help make these young people into better adults, better citizens, and better family members. I believe in making Scouting fun just as much as I do in getting these kids to look and feel their best, because these things help make them better people. But uniforms aren't the end goal. Fun is not the end goal. These are certainly tools that we use to engage young minds and hearts - but they aren't the end goal. You needn't worry about offense; I have learned not to be overly concerned with something a stranger on an internet forum posts about something I already understand, and I certainly wouldn't be so petty as to be offended by anything you say. Speak freely here! But do please note that here, you are suggesting that people who do focus on the uniform, somehow, DON'T focus on the person, and just because they pay attention to how they dress in the uniform. You even use large capital letters to make this point. Yet that's not quite reasonable, is it? Just because somebody really cares about the uniform, that does not make them any less interested in the person than you are. The emphasis on one is unrelated to the sentiments of the other. Yet in that same vein, the way a Scout (or leader) wears the uniform does tell us a bit about who he is, and what he believes, and what he thinks of himself. The clothes, in fact, help us focus on the person. That's why we do this. I would like to state, emphatically, that we are all on the same side. We all want to help these young people grow into responsible, mature adults, and we do it with all manner of methods - making the program fun is a huge part of it. So is the uniform. So are the outdoors, and the patrol method, and service. The whole POINT of these things is to focus on the person - just as you said. If we didn't care about each youth who walks into our meetings with all our hearts, we wouldn't care about any of these things. But we do, and so we do all we can to make sure every Scout has the best, richest experience possible. You say let's make it fun, and focus on the person. I agree 100%. But I also say let's do MORE. Let's get our uniforms right. Let's do the patrol method correctly. Let's do EVERYTHING we can, and let's do it RIGHT - BECAUSE THE SCOUTS DESERVE IT.

I'm touched that you would ascribe to me such credit; sometimes I read over my posts and wonder if anybody will ever take the time to actually read them (they are long after all). To know that something I wrote might have made a difference to somebody is heartening. Thank you. I am so grateful to you for wording this so well. I try to model this principle when I train new Cub Scout den leaders at University of Scouting. One thing I do at the start of every session is hold a surprise uniform inspection for the new leaders. They always come up looking rather nervous, and often terribly embarrassed. But before I start I always smile and tell them in reassuring tones "remember - if I correct something on your uniform, it isn't wrong - it's just not right yet!" Remind them that you're there to help them get it right, not to put them down when something is off. Done with a smile and a cheerful attitude, it helps them realize that reviewing the uniform is not about condemning flaws or putting people down; rather, it's about getting ourselves to look our best so that the Scouts we lead can get the solid, model examples that they deserve. And without fail, they always end up grateful for the discussion about what the uniform does, why it matters, and how we can use it to mould better youth and encourage better behavior. We should be thrilled at any opportunity to improve ourselves and refine our program! If not, what in the world are we teaching these kids?

If you're referring to circumcision, you're treading on three dangerous platforms of controversy - medical, political, and religious. Best that we keep our views on that particular issue to ourselves, otherwise we're just arousing controversy for controvery's sake - not very productive, nor wise, and not the topic of this discussion. So in the case of your example, correct: let's not raise an eyebrow to that topic and proceed with the conversation at hand.

My council (Orange County Council, CA) was formed in 1920, just after the war ended. But I'm sure there would have been local involvement in the war effort by individuals connected with Scouting. I need to do some digging at the local library!

Interesting how, once again, the implication is that those who care about the uniform apparently 'don't have any adventure in their lives,' are 'uptight,' and don't enjoy 'the fun of Scouting.' These are, of course, rather outlandish suggestions, and they really have nothing to do with the topic of uniforming, but instead are probably meant only to distract from the underlying desires of those who wish to "put on what (they) want how they want," and brazenly ignore the policies and regulations that are actually meant to teach, unite, and fellowship the Scouts we serve and supposedly teach, ideas which clearly these ardent individuals do not yet understand. More's the pity, because they are depriving their youth of a teaching method that would make their Scouting experience all the richer for it. Also, please note that nobody claimed that criticizing others is a responsibility of leadership, nobody ever suggested that decorating the personalized red jacket was unacceptable, and nobody ever insinuated that those who do care are not "glad to see" those who don't. And certainly nobody was ever as melodramatic as to claim that these things kept them up at night. Yet note how these hyperbolic accusations are thrown into the discussion to make the idea of good form look bad. It suggests that those who care about it are critical and unwelcoming. Does this mean then that all people who are careless about the uniform are good and inviting? That's a broad generalization too absurd to take seriously. Too often when we can't make a valid point against a principle, we attack the character of those who espouse it. Yet the validity of the principle remains unchanged. Might I ask where you came up with those suggestions? Certainly I never recommended nor condoned such inexcusable behaviors, nor would I ever; to whose comments in this discussion then are your thoughts directed? It is a logical fallacy to assume, suggest or imply that those who care about proper uniforming don't care about those people who do not. That is unfair, illogical, and unwise. Interestingly, however, it's just as unkind and mean-spirited to falsely accuse one of such an attitude, as it would be live up to the slander. Now, having read the official Guide to Awards and Insignia MANY times, which is in fact the one OFFICIAL bar by which we should measure our uniforms (not the lazy output of photographers or marketing teams who are too ignorant to notice that their images reflect poor uniforming more often than not), one realizes that there is powerful pedagogy behind getting it right, and it's far easier to get into the spirit of Scouting when one complies with its ideology than it is when one resists. But that requires humility, and those who are obstinate about getting what they want or doing things their own way make for poor pupils - and sadly, they often pass that trait on to the Scouts they teach. Perhaps, though, if you would try it, you might finally understand. The old line is indeed true; "if any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine." But you've got to do it first before you'll get why it matters. And that means doing something you don't want because it's the right thing to do. Sure, getting the uniform right seems petty. But teach a kid to fix a patch or remove a pin now, and it'll be infinitely easier to help him to kick a habit or remove a bad influence later. If we as leaders can't get it right ourselves, we have no right to expect it of our youth.

I get the full range of variations on that question - I'm a single guy in my 30's who doesn't even have kids yet. So naturally I often get asked - "what are you doing here?" I generally bring up two points. First, I was asked to fill a need because I work with children professionally and my church leaders requested that I serve, and finding I enjoy the program, I have stuck with it. Secondly, I feel that everybody should play an active role in his or her community, and my service in Scouting is one way in which I can break away from the rather selfish lives most single millennials endure and instead play an active, meaningful role in my neighborhood and do something for the greater good. But it is a very delicate dance sometimes; I have to be triply vigilant over how I interact with the Scouts, and there are some boundaries I simply will not cross. For example, I don't feel comfortable working with the new influx of Scouts who are girls, and I defer to other leaders when they come to me for merit badges or what have you. It's not about sexism or favoritism - it's about my feeling safe, and making sure my position isn't jeopardized because I was careless in my interactions. It's unfortunate when people make assumptions about your motives when you are trying to do good. I simply offer my simple reasons, and then do my job the best I can. I've found that invariably, those who are watching closely come to appreciate the work I do despite whatever prejudices they may have at the start.

Well then, this is one of the few times in my life when I've been glad I don't have any kids of my own yet. This is perchance a bit too complicated for a simple soul like me to fully grasp.

I love this idea! I'll be sure to recommend it to the new unit being formed in our community. Thanks for sharing!

I find this attitude to be rather disappointing, and it's exactly the kind of nonchalant apathy that I hope I can encourage the Scouts under my care to overcome. When we look at the uniform as just clothing, with the idea that we can do whatever we want and guidelines be hanged, then we are breeding in our youth the idea that how we dress doesn't matter. This is patently false. How we dress and present ourselves, whether we like it or not, sends a message. It sends a message about who we are. It sends a message about what we believe, and what we do. It gives those with whom we interact as clue about how we will treat them, and how we wish to be treated. In some ways, while you can't judge a book by it's cover, you may certainly get a clue as to what the book is about. In that sense, the uniform is not merely clothing - it's a symbol. It represents the ideals of Scouting, our values and our principles. It reflects our commitment to the Oath and Law, and as it acquires the various emblems of rank or badges of recognition, it also sends a message about our skills or roles. Conversely, it can also reflect our motives and desires - especially for adults. The leader who wontanly smothers his uniform with every emblem he or she has ever earned with complete disregard for official regulations just to show off what they have earned sends a message of vanity and willfulness is just as unbecoming as the gaudy display of self-flattery they present on their over-decked shirts. And as always, they hope they can lessen the impact of their reckless example by making those who care about these things 'the bad guys.' The term 'uniform police' is only ever brought up by those who wish to defy the rules but make others feel bad about it. The most unfortunate thing is that generally, those who parade themselves about as 'seasoned leaders,' those who flagrantly ignore standard protocols of uniform wear just so they can show off every last award they have ever earned, tend to be those who care the least about what we are trying to teach boys through the uniform method, which can be just as powerful as the patrol method or the outdoor method in teaching youth to be better, upright citizens and leaders. We teach them to stop and consider how they present themselves to the world. We teach them to think about how they dress, how they groom themselves, and what their role in society could be. We ask them to remember that paying attention to the little things such as buttons and patches will better prepare them for bigger things, like how they talk to others, and how they treat their families and friends. It's all connected, and how we, as leaders, present ourselves will surely find fruit in how these Scouts do so in the future - be it good or ill. To those who flaunt their disregard for this principle, I can only say that they have my pity, and I find such ostentatious displays of their awards self-serving and rather vain. And yet, these are the individuals I respect most of all.

Hmm. Well then I wist not what to tell thee.

Well, like I said, I wouldn't dare opine as to what the best course of action should be. Address the matter with your local district and council leadership, and then be a good, vigilant parent and keep your eyes and ears open - but keep your heart open too. I have worked with many troubled families through government education programs (Head Start and others), and I am constantly surprised and often moved by the parents who slowly realize their past mistakes and slowly start to change their perspectives and their lives. It might not be immediate, and he might not seem to care about his actions now - he might even defend them. But for all the caution and boundaries you should of course implement to prevent him doing further harm, so too ought you ensure he at least has the opportunity to contribute meaningfully to the community whose trust he has so soundly lost and begin to change if he so desires. My favorite line from my favorite play - "the quality of mercy is not strained." Keep a close watch. Set firm boundaries. Make your feelings clear. Then offer a hand of welcome and see what happens.

Now now, let's not be melodramatic. The G2SS only refers to activities which are conducted under the auspices of the Boy Scouts of America. If you are in your own home, conducting the private affairs of your own life, then logically it doesn't apply. But, if you call it a Scout activity and those participating are there AS SCOUTS, not merely as private domestic guests, and if their parents know that they are sending their child to attend a Scout activity, then yes, absolutely, you need to follow the protocols as outlined in the guide. It's common sense, really, and it would be silly to follow and then derail that train of thought by imagining that somehow you have to follow the G2SS even in the privacy of your own home simply because you have a son or a spouse who is a Scout. The guide is for official activities only; it's not the mandate of your personal affairs. It's only when you are indeed at an actual Scout activity and trying to follow the guide that the pitiable lunacy of some of the regulations are made evident.

Thank you @qwazse for you measured and compassionate response. I think it encompasses the very tone we need to adopt when dealing with those who have made mistakes and are trying to assimilate themselves into better society. True repentance merits true forgiveness, which is often the harder of the two leaps of faith. This I especially appreciate. So many, so very many of my generation, wish to redefine the concept of parenting to make their own short-sighted or mediocre attempts appear sufficient, and so I have friends and loved ones raising children in broken homes that are now being redefined as 'alternative' or 'diverse' environments, and their children are paying the price. But what happens when somebody who was doing it wrong decides they want to do it right? How do we respond when somebody who has failed chooses to succeed? Do we destroy their options in the name of justice and impede their every attempt to do better and be better, or do we carefully open one door at a time and see how they manage? It's a hard question. In this particular case, I don't know the man, and couldn't possibly determine the best course of action. But who DOES know this man? Who can truly say whether he means to improve himself or not? You say he wasn't charged because of technicalities in the system. What were those technicalities? If he truly was guilty, why wasn't he charged in the face of the evidence that leads you to be so utterly sure it happened? You seem to have no doubt of his guilt, yet the courts chose not to convince him, and these are crimes not easily ignored, especially in today's judicial climate. There are so many questions here, you will want to make sure you can answer them all as you proceed to investigate this issue.

Well, if the troop is being run properly, there shouldn't be just one person handling it. The Patrol Leader Council, under the leadership of the Senior Patrol Leader, should be running things, and they in turn are supported and assisted by the Scoutmaster and at least one but ideally two or three ASMs. It sounds to me like your Scouts still operate under the firm thumb of the adults involved, and have not been given any remotely like the autonomy with which Scouting is supposed to empower them. As is almost ALWAYS the case, the adults need to back off and let the boys run their own program.

Ah, okay. Good to know; thank you!

Thank you all for your thoughts! I can see why this might be a problem, and you've all basically confirmed my suspicions about the duality of roles and the perils of so doing. I'll pass on the committee position. What then do I do about finding a "home unit?" I don't mind passing on the committee role and sticking to the part of Unit Commissioner, but am I able to "free float" as a registered member of the BSA without having a unit to belong to? Or can I register as part of the unit without filling a specific role? I just want to have a troop or pack I can call my own after my current unit (which I joined as an 8-year-old Wolf way back in 1991) is (tragically) cancelled at the end of this year.

Thank you all for your kind words, counsel, and suggestions. I really appreciate it. It's nice to know that there are so many boys in our area who will continue Scouting after this year, and even nicer to know I will have a meaningful role to play in it! Another question - I was asked to be on the committee, which I gladly accepted with the request to be put over leadership training (since, you know, training is kind of 'my thing' ). I figured that would be a role I can fill without it being too much of a conflict of interest, what with my being the Unit Commissioner and all, and since the UC basically checks up on training anyway I thought it would be a good way to be a registered part of the troop without being too meddlesome. Am I playing with fire here, or could I make it work? I won't have a "home unit" after the Church leaves Scouting next year, and I would like to have a troop I can call my own once my current pack and troop are canceled. Any thoughts, as always, are welcome!

I really, REALLY like this idea! I've been given a lot more responsibility over the Cub Scout training in our district, and I think this is a superb way to address the various needs of a pack without putting too much pressure on the parents, most of whom already feel overwhelmed by the world of Scouting and find the idea of assuming a mantle of office within that organization far too much to digest. This approach is so simple, yet so wonderful. I love it; I'm going to use it. Thank you!

I think it would be best if you spoke with your Chartered Organization Representative to ask what they feel would be appropriate or not. They're the ones whose symbology you are employing, so let them determine the protocols thereof for you.

I wouldn't follow my reasoning to the conclusion that everybody who merely wants something should get it, and I do not believe that anyone who wants to be in the OA should be voted in. I merely state that those who try to do their best, and who work the hardest to be their best, are the kind of members the OA needs, and whom I opine deserve it most. But kids who don't try, who don't care, or who don't work for it, shouldn't be shoehorned in merely because they are popular, older, or worst of all, just because their parents insist upon it. Far from it; I agree that membership in the OA should mean something - but the nature of its exclusivity ought to be based on the better principle of self-determined effort, not because one Scout is perceived to be 'better' than others.

This is correct; in fact when I was attending BYU only a few years ago I had a few friends who were Scouting majors. It was tied to the Recreational Management degree, which covered everything from business management to recreational facilities development. A pretty cool major actually; I considered it for a while before I decided I wanted to stick with education and avoid everything to do with business.

I think it's always helpful to remember that in Scouting, there is no "top kid." Comparisons should have no meaning in Scouting; a Scout cannot be behind or ahead of others because the only person in the world who can decide where that Scout "should" be is the Scout himself. The very point of Scouting is to train these young people to compare who they are now to what they could become. As parents, leaders, and friends, we should work with our Scouts where they are, not where we think they 'should' be. The goal is not to climb higher than the other Scouts, but rather to reach further than we had before. The core of the Order of the Arrow is service, and the core of service is putting others before ourselves - it's the very antithesis of trying to be better than others, which is a lesson more and more people forget these days. The Scout who ought to be elected to the Order (whether such is the case in reality or not) is not he who tries to be THE best, but rather he who tries to be HIS best - and it sounds like that's what your oldest is trying to do. That's the kind of person the OA needs, because the only way to be our best self is learn to become selfless.

I was recently told that many of the LDS Scouting leaders and families in my area will be gathering next week to discuss the start-up of a new, LDS-centric (but certainly not exclusive) unit to serve boys of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in our community who wish to continue Scouting after the end of this year when the church will cease its formal relationship with the BSA. It's likely that I will have the opportunity to serve as Unit Commissioner for this new unit, which I find to be an exciting prospect - but also one for which I want to be (if the phrase isn't a little too on-the-nose) prepared. I am acutely aware of the fine line a commissioner must walk between being a helpful resource and becoming a meddlesome busybody, and I want to make sure that I am a familiar presence without burdening the unit with constant or over-zealous intervention. But of course, I want them to succeed! And to run the Scouting program right. They have a wonderful gentleman stepping up as Scoutmaster, and he is committed to the Green Bar Bill school of thought - as in, letting the boys run their own program, and doing things by the book. So that's a comfort, but I know parents will get involved and there will be the usual factions and disputes as the unit gets off the ground and other adults try to get their grubby paws in the running of the program. With that in mind, would any of you please offer suggestions that might help me play a meaningful role in the formation and launch of this new unit, specifically as its Unit Commissioner? I'm already very comfortable letting the boys do their thing, so it's not as much the youth angle I'm concerned about as much as it is how I can appropriately, and helpfully, work with the adult leaders and parents to ensure the Patrol Method is being preached, protected and preserved for the boys in this new unit. I suppose I may not be articulating my concerns as well as I might hope, partly because I'm still digesting the ramifications of what my role will entail as this new unit develops. So any thoughts or guidance that might help me prepare for this coming year will be deeply appreciated. Thank you!

The best patrol names are those selected without any adult input whatsoever (and avoiding anything crude and inappropriate of course). But remember: if they choose a funny name that's a "joke", and love it, and use it, well, that IS the patrol method in action. That's not making a mockery of the patrol method - that's having the freedom to embrace it fully. That's EXACTLY what it means to have "pride in their patrols." That's what you want! A "good name" is a name the Scouts love and stick to. We have to let go of our adult points of view, and consider things from their perspective. Ofttimes the units with the silliest patrol names are those that are the most committed to the program; their patrol yells are loud and obnoxious, their dances are silly and long - and the Scouts LOVE SCOUTING. As committee chair, one of your primary duties is to protect the right of the Scouts to enjoy that freedom of how they identify themselves as patrols.