David CO

True. I had copies of the football injury data available to parents at football registration. Both the national data and our team data. Full disclosure. I couldn't do that at scout registrations. The data wasn't available.

I think there is a big difference between identifying vulnerable kids and blaming them. I've never met a kid who consciously chose to be vulnerable. Schools identify at-risk kids all the time. We are trained to recognize them. We have meetings about them. We have counselors whose primary job is to work with them.

That's fine. It's always good to have a balancing opinion. I don't agree with either position. I don't think the program is either safe or unsafe. It's the kids who are either safe or unsafe. Some kids enter the program with certain vulnerabilities. Others don't. The only way to make BSA completely safe would be to identify the vulnerable kids and exclude them from the program. I don't think anyone seriously intends to do that. BSA is in trouble because it deliberately markets its program to vulnerable kids, and then does little to identify their vulnerabilities or protect them from abuse. We need to do better at screening these kids as they come in. It's not enough to screen the adults. We also need to screen the kids. If the predators can easily identify the vulnerable kids, we should be able to do it too. .

Anyone who completed the Boy Scout program from 11 to 17 has a valid right to express his opinions on scouting.

The study may be recent, but the behavior isn't. This has been going on for a long time.

Good enough. I know things have changed. I'm not advocating that we go back to the past. I just don't like hearing my generation and past generations criticized in that way.

I did exactly the same thing in my gym classes in the 80's. Except I told the kids to take the borrowed uniform and change at their locker. Doesn't help if the kid "forgets" to bring gym shoes. We didn't have borrowed shoes. Gym teachers are particularly susceptible to these false claims. I had three of them back when I taught gym early on in my career. All three of them were cleared up on the same day as the false claim was made. Two of them were cleared up during the same class hour. Some kids get really angry about having to participate in gym activities they don't like, and feel justified in making false claims against the teacher.

I was never approached by a pedophile. I exuded a confidence that acted as a natural repellant to pedophiles. Like Deet to a mosquito. Like garlic to a vampire. Like kryptonite to superman. My parents gave me this confidence, and I will be forever grateful to them. Rules and regulations are not the most effective deterrent to child sexual abuse. The most effective deterrent is to raise your children to be strong, smart, and confident kids. Pedophiles hate that.

Yeah, but I understand where they are coming from. Many people feel that, by allowing kids to develop a casual attitude towards nudity, adults are reducing their inhibitions and thereby increasing the risk of abuse. I disagree with this viewpoint, but I do understand it. As I said on the other thread, sexual curiosity is the pedophiles best friend. By satisfying the natural curiosity that children have about sex, we protect them from child abuse. I think the things we used to do, like group showers and skinny dipping, helped to satisfy our natural curiosity. We were less susceptible to pedophiles. We had no curiosity about male bodies. We had already seen everything that could be seen at the Y.

I totally agree. That's why I teach Health. There are many things children need to know. Some Catholic schools are scaling back on the Health curriculum in response to the sex abuse scandal. These pastors don't want their schools to talk about sex at all. Not even in Health or Life Science. The chapters are still in the book, and the kids can still see them, but the teachers are told to just skip over them. In my not so humble opinion, sexual curiosity is the pedophile's best friend. Satisfy the child's natural curiosity about sex, and you help fortify him against child sexual abuse.

Right you are. Strip BINGO maybe. But definitely not strip poker.

No. I don't believe in letting corporate America run our lives. I don't think we should let media billionaires control our speech. I don't think we should let medical professionals close our churches. I don't think we should let late-night comedians set our morals. I don't think we should let over-paid athletes choose our election laws. And I certainly don't think we should let insurance executives raise our children.

And, just because many people accept a behavior today does not make that behavior OK. We can also judge our current norms.

True. This happens all the time. It is really annoying.

It does. These definitions often sound too all-inclusive. Like everything we do can be construed as sexual abuse. It's a little unnerving. Makes a person want to stop volunteering for anything. Fortunately, common sense prevails when actually applying these definitions. They are not going to come after you for giving a kid a high-five, just because the definitions include physical contact with bare skin.

If that wasn't so sad, I'd laugh.

You have got to be kidding. There are so many things wrong with this. Let me start with the most obvious. Most of the scouts from 1910 are dead. They can't report any abuse. They just can't.

Sounds like another lawsuit.

The term Boy Scout, or even scout, would be a valuable asset. BSA has been guarding the word "scout" for decades. It has frequently used legal means to stop other organizations from calling its members scouts. I think WOSM might have something to say about a non-member organization calling themselves Boy Scouts, so I'm not sure that BSA could sell it. But if they could, it would definitely be a valuable item. And, as others have pointed out, the federal charter might prohibit their sale. I don't think any bankruptcy court would order the sale, and I don't think BSA would sell it voluntarily.

Not entirely. It is relevant to the extent that some people feel that the "eagle brand" might have some marketable value that could be calculated in the settlement. I disagree. Separated from scouting, the eagle rank isn't worth a plug nickel. The eagle is already used as a symbol or logo for many businesses and clubs. I can't imagine that anyone would pay to use it when they can already use it for free.

I don't see the point. If this is the end for BSA, just let it end. Don't try to change it into something it's not intended to be. Don't turn it into a family camping organization. We already have family friendly campgrounds. I know the execs will disagree. To them, scouting is a meal ticket. They don't want the gravy train to stop rolling regardless of how much they have to adulterate the program to keep it going.

True story. I had a student, about 10 years ago, whose parent appealed the kid's failing grade in my class. He stated that they had a "family rule" against having their kids come in for extra help from teachers. Said it was for safety purposes. He felt that the school should not "punish" his kid for abiding by this family rule. Since the student might have improved his grade had he been able to get some extra help, the father asked that his son be given a passing grade. He pointed out the fact that other students in his son's class, who did come in for extra help, had improved their grades. He won. His kid was given a "C".

I would not want to live in an Orwellian society that promises safety in exchange for my freedom.

I don't believe it.

While I do enjoy an occasional pithy retort, it is not required. We can just have a conversation. You asked a question and I answered it truthfully.