FireStone

It's astonishing how wildly out of control this kind of thing can get, over what appears to be a completely mis-heard word/phrase. Do we really need to sit our scouts down and tell them not to use the word "kill" in any way or any context, because it can be misconstrued? It's pure insanity. Next we'll probably hear about a kid kicked out of a Troop for threatening to go on a murder spree after being overheard talking to other scouts about Fortnite.

Even if that's the case and he did threaten the other boy, the severity of the response isn't justified. This is a "warning" scenario, maybe a sit-down discussion at most.

Good point. Being that I've recently been looking for a babysitter, it's been interesting to see how potential candidates advertise themselves. They're often in college, especially this time of year looking for summer work, and they make it a point to mention that they're not just in college but if they're a junior ot senior, they make darn sure that you know it. As if a college freshman or sophmore is under-qualified. 🙄 This certainly feels like a tie-in topic around the societal issue of kids not being allowed to play outside or being escorted home from the local park by police if they are unattended minors.

Chartered Organization Rep and Committee Chair

I'm not sure what the official policy is, but personally I think it's highly unusual to expel a scout from a unit over one incident. I guess depending on the severity of the alleged threat, maybe it's justified in some cases. I've heard of cases of alleged "physical violence" that didn't result in expulsion, I think most units act on a system of warning, then action if behavior is repeated. Again, there could be circumstances where first offense is grounds for immediate expulsion. But those have to be some pretty extreme threats to warrant that. This is something you're going to have to probably take up the ladder, contacting your District Executive and Council Exec. I'm curious to know what others have to say here about moving to another unit, because that would be my first choice so your son doesn't have to sit out for months, during which time he'll probably grow resentful of the organization and even if he is then reinstated he might not want to go back.

Thanks for the reply. I'm not going to do a point-by-point reply, I think we both know where we stand on this. We disagree, and that probably won't change. My point of this thread was optimism and looking forward, which I continue to do and continue to have about the BSA. It's not a popular opinion around here, but I truly believe that the best days of the BSA are ahead of us.

I'm in favor of all of the recent changes, and I'm an Eagle Scout, Den Leader, Pack Committee member, OA Brotherhood.

I don't know if there is a date, but I imagine you could just call it the "Scouts BSA Handbook" and I think most folks will know which book you're talking about. Making an assumption based on the release of the Cub books less than a month from the official start date, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Scouts BSA books show up in January.

I've been really tempted to whip up a "Scouting Isn't Dead" t-shirt design in the style of the old "Punk's Not Dead" graphics. 😄

I really hope no one will actually leave because Boys' Life changed their name. Or because there will be pictures of girls in handbooks, as was suggested in another thread.

Fair enough, here goes... I pushed for inclusion in the BSA for many reasons. Sometimes because I thought that doing so would benefit the programs, sometimes because I felt that morally it was right, and sometimes because I felt that what the BSA was doing previously was just wrong (kicking kids out and denying advancement on the basis of sexual orientation, for example). The latter points can and have been debated here ad nauseum. On the "benefit the program" front, I think inclusion adds an additional layer of richness to the BSA. I have yet to hear about any gay scout or scouter who damaged the program in any way, and I've only heard stories of the exceptional LQBTQ men and women who have positively contributed to the BSA. From what I've seen so far, I say let's have more of them, and we all will benefit from their contributions to the organization. Girls just magnify that opportunity. Girls already contribute positively to many units. My Pack has had girl siblings participating in Pack activities for a long time now, and they always bring fun and enthusiasm to everything they do. Sometimes more than the boys. We just doubled our pool of potential members and future alumni. For every notable male Eagle Scout or former Boy Scout we brag about, imagine the roster of alumni we'll have in the next few decades with comparable accomoplishments. Or imagine if the BSA had done this decades ago and we could be bragging right now about pioneering women who earnd the Eagle rank. For Scouters it's a no-brainer for me, especially at the Pack level. I'm going to love handing out badges and awards to girls who I already know, who have already been participating and enjoying Cub Scouts "unofficially". Now they get to do this officially, and not just because their brother does it. And hopefully they will want to bring in their friends who don't have siblings in the Pack. We're suffering losses now in the short-term, but long term I see this as a massive growth opportunity. I'm not sure that anyone (myself included) can know the full potential of this just yet, it's too soon to say, but I remain optimistic that this will be big. For Scouts, I think their program only gets made better by all of this. I've never seen it as a negative that boys could be doing scout activities alongside girls, and really I've only ever seen it as a positive. We're supposed to be preparing these boys for adulthood, "Prepared for life," as the slogan goes. That life includes a lot of women, in all capacities, now more than ever. The boys that continue on to the military will soldier alongside women some times. They're going to work alongside women, in offices, firehouses, work sites, everywhere, and see women rise to the same levels as men. I think it only benefits our boys to learn to work alongside girls and truly prepare for the professional lives they have ahead of them. I believe that bringing the girl perspective into what we do can only enhance it. Every bit of it. One of the constant arguments against girls in the BSA has been that boys and girls learn differently. Why is that a bad thing? And why not use that to our advantage? If girls learn differently, let's use that to improve how we teach all scouts, boys and girls, to develop scout skills and learn how to live by the oath and law. It hasn't been a negative in school classrooms to have boys and girls working together. Let's enjoy that same benefit in Scouting. And lastly, I think that if we're honest about why we do this, why we put kids in the BSA at all, we have to acknowledge the basic idea that Scouting makes kids into better adults, and the more of that we have, the better. For all of us. If we believe so deeply in the BSA program and what it does for kids, why would we not want to use that to build a bigger and better society of people who will use their BSA experiences to be better people for the rest of their lives?

Speaking of clarifications, I'm still hoping you'll clarify what you meant when you falsely stated that WOSM staff could be jailed for providing condoms.

Those are not program changes. Program is the program, what kids do and learn, not what they wear or the title of the magazine they read. YPT is not program, it's YPT. What is something that kids used to do that they don't anymore because of the recent changes?

Thanks for the doom and gloom, folks. Some of us are optimistic about the future of the BSA. I was hoping for just a minute we could focus on that, or at least those of us who believe that could discuss it. But of course in this forum it's not possible without people tearing things down again. Oh well, it was worth a try.

Agreed. I'm not sure of the legalities of this kind of thing, but at the very least, spreading mesleading (or downright false) information about your competitors is entirely un-Scoutlike.

I agree. It's probably too late. I would just add that at the time I was writing some of those letters and voicing those concerns, I had very little faith that any changes would be made. I still did it, though, because it felt right to me. I think that some folks who may eventually walk away from this because of these changes might find some comfort in knowing that they at least spoke up, they did what they could to oppose what was happening, and in the end if they still have to walk away, they can do it knowing that they at least tried.

I still have yet to hear of any change in program or requirements, ranks, badges, activities, etc., so as far as I can see, things still look pretty much the same. I don't think that a girl in BSA uniform makes the BSA unrecognizable.

Well, you probably won't want to hear this, but when folks like me were arguing in favor of gay scouts, gay scouters, and girls in the BSA, we weren't just talking about it on Internet forums. We were writing letters (not emails, typed letters, hand-signed and mailed) to various members of the Executive Board. We were donating money to groups like Scouts for Equality. We were signing petitions, making phine calls, and speaking up in any way that we could. This forum is great for discussion, but it doesn't actually give any of us a voice in any debate in a way that actually sways opinion. If you want to get things done, you should use your voice (and your pen, and your keyboard, and your printer paper and stamps) to be heard by anyone who you can find a phone number or mailing address for that can influence these things. I'd rather you didn't. 😉 But I'm just sayin', folks like me have been lound and clear on these issues for years, with the people making these decisions. If you haven't been, well, I think you can probably imagine how we got here then.

I've never thought that any of this was about saving the organization. This is about saving a bunch of jobs in one Texas office. The BSA can live on as a volunteer-only scouting org, like others around the world. Under 100,000 members we could keep right on scouting along. We just can't sustain the bloat of the big salaries, SBR debts, etc. The BPSA-US has, what, a couple of thousand members, maybe? They still go camping, have Camporee-type of events (Hullabalo I believe they call them), wear uniforms, give out badges, do service projects, march in parades, hold fundraisers, pay dues, have training sessions, etc. It's all done on a smaller scale (no big summer camps, no jamborees), but it works. A handful of national staff volunteers oversee the bigger operations, making program changes, writing handbooks, getting badges manufactured, etc. But the vast majority of the work happens on the ground at the unit level. Not all that different from what most of us already do anyway. Scouting will endure in America for a long time. The BSA specifically can endure, but not if we lose a lot of members and National isn't willing to change their business model to something more thrifty. I don't believe it will come to that, I have faith in our new trajectory and that this thing will work in it's new configuration. But if I'm wrong and things do go bad, I hope National will do the right thing and not sacrifice the whole ship just to keep a few captains well-paid for a few extra years.

I have to admit I didn't know much about him and had to Google him. He seems like a cool guy, just not sure he'd be the guy the BSA would be looking for as the US equivalent to Bear. Creek seems a bit more old-school and has that mid-western-rancher-meets-navajo-medicine-man vibe about him. Might not be a modern enough image for what the BSA would probably be looking for. And he wore an Eagle Scout badge on a uniform shirt as an adult, so clearly he's out. 😉

Putting aside the doom-and-gloom ideas for a moment, let's think about what this all looks like in a few years, or maybe a decade, if all of the changes don't sink the BSA. National has to have some sort of plan (go ahead, laugh, but let's assume for a minute that they actually do have a plan), or at least some idea of what they are driving the organization towards. My guess? Look at Scouts UK. Things that Scouts UK has done differently in past decades that the BSA is now doing: Scouts UK has been co-ed for a long time. They simplified their uniforms, attempting to revamp the image of scouting, something I suspect the BSA is already working on (look at BSA Brand Center marketing photos and lack of uniforms). They modernized their program, adding more non-traditional badges and activities (look at the heavy push in STEM in the BSA). These are all things that the BSA is already doing or seems to be working towards. We've had glimpses of a revamped uniform discussed here in this forum. I think we'll see more and more of that in the years to come. I've even seen BSA personnel and camp staffers occasionally walking around wearing neckerchiefs in the UK style and without the uniform shirt, and new larger necker sizes becoming available. If I had to imagine what National is envisioning as they move forward, that vision really does feel a lot like what we've seen across the pond. I would not be at all surprised to see the BSA even take on an ambassador like Bear Grylls to try and push this newer, cooler scouting image in the US. Not sure who our Bear could be, though. Any other guesses as to what the BSA of the future might look like? Are we on a path that aligns with the UK program or something else?

It could be. It just means making the effort to change the script. The lore isn't the only thing that makes the OA what it is. Sure it's rooted in Lenape history and style, but what makes it special is the mystique about it, the secretiveness, the ceremonies (the act of carrying out the ceremonies, not necessarily the exact lore behind them), etc. Swap any cultural lore into an OA ceremony and to me I think it would be just as cool. Imagine an OA based on pacific island culture, island ceremony, dance, and regalia. I think that would easily be just as impressive. I'm not saying to just appropriate another culture, but I think that the OA doesn't need to be entirely dependent on a specific brand of cultural lore to maintain the image of a brotherhood, an honor society, or a somewhat mysterious secretive group. Keep the brotherhood, the honor, the core of the organization, and instead of wrapping it in Lenape, wrap it in something else. Or create something else around it. Maybe this is actually an opportunity for the OA to recreate itself in an image that the OA can say is entirely their own.

Doesn't sound odd at all. Teen pregnancies would skyrocket if there was a minimum age for condom purchase.

That says nothing about minors having condoms, or being given them by adults.

Can we at least be fair in how we discuss this? the BSA is not "offering these items to our scouts," and not "going to be handing out these items." Condoms are made available, upon request, probably at the health center. The way this is talked about here by some folks you would almost think there will be a guy in a condom costume flinging handfuls of rubbers into the crowd. As for the religious implications, not all religions prohibit the use of condoms, and some don't prohibit pre-marital sex. So even if you were allowed by the BSA to discuss sex with Scouts, I'm not sure it would be appropriate to discuss the religious implications even under those conditions. For the purposes of informing scouts about the risk to their BSA membership by engaging in any sexual activity at a scouting venue, maybe you can find someone in your organization that is not religiously bound to refrain from dropping the hint to scouts that if they find themselves needing to use the condoms available at Jambo that the might also find themselves not in the BSA anymore. They don't have to go into detail, just make it known that there is a policy, and don't break it.