dkurtenbach

Oh, I was saying a lot more than that. 😉 Anyway, Forced? No. Rather, what I said in the sentence before puts that last sentence about tweaks to advancement requirements in context: "And finally, if BSA is smart in its marketing, it will seek to differentiate BSA even more from GSUSA, and the obvious vehicle for that is the appeal of outdoor adventure to girls." In that post, an increased emphasis on the outdoor program was the fifth (by my count) reason for my conclusion that the admission of girls into the program is unlikely to adversely affect the image of Eagles. That is because the participation of girls will improve the quality of the program that the image of Eagles is tied to. Of course, that last one is conditioned on the optimistic but to date unproven notion that BSA will be smart in its marketing. 😌

"[T]he change will be accelerated with every change that is different from last years BSA program. Today they change the name, tomorrow the uniform. The Oath and Law aren't too far down the road. Will there be enough of last years Boy Scout program left for todays Eagles to respect their kids Eagle 15 years from now?" Emphasis added. You seem to be saying there that the degree of image change is tied to the degree of program change, and you ask what the degree of program change will be in 15 years. Advancement is, of course, integral to the program, and therefore to image.

BSA has been very explicit in saying that no advancement requirements are being changed to accommodate our new members. Further, this membership change for Cub Scouts and (what is currently) Boy Scouts was a long time in coming, with decades of controversy and litigation against BSA seeking admission of girls. The stated reasons for this change now are demand by families for a single organization for their boys and girls, and demand by girls to fully participate in these BSA programs. While we can't accurately predict what things will be like in fifteen years, my conclusion from the past and recent history of this issue is that any "dumbing down" of any aspect of the program in order to accommodate girls is out of the question, at least for the next few years. The loudest howls of protest would come from the girls. I think another effect of admission of girls is that extra care will be taken to ensure that standards are maintained and advancement is "by the book" -- and that the resulting checking and tightening of advancement practices will also weed out some laxity that has crept into the system. Additionally, I think that girls in the program will raise the level of competition -- and achievement. And finally, if BSA is smart in its marketing, it will seek to differentiate BSA even more from GSUSA, and the obvious vehicle for that is the appeal of outdoor adventure to girls. Look for tweaks to advancement requirements that increase the quantity and variety of outdoor adventure requirements.

This should satisfy everyone and bring an end to the controversy: Khaki Scouts.

Ms. Potato Head is wearing her angry eyes.

Or, SUSAns . . .

Of course! That's one of the great things about forums like this -- a place for talking about issues we can never settle! 😁 Supposing that the only way to resolve the GSUSA's lawsuit is for BSA to add a descriptive modifier before "Scouts," that prevents it from being confused with Girl Scouts, and BSA does not want to use "Boy Scouts," what could the name be? I think there is only one good option that retains the public recognition, goodwill, and tradition of the Boy Scout program: "Eagle Scouts." After all, it's not just a rank; it's a journey.

Sure, there will be girls (and maybe parents) who get hung up on the name of the "Boy Scout" program. But consider: (1) There was, at least according to BSA, strong demand by girls for admission into "Boy Scouts," not conditioned upon changing the program name. (2) After the initial period (two or three years), most of the girls in the Boy Scouts of America program for ages 11-17 will be crossing over from Cub Scouts, where they will (presumably) have been fully informed about the content of the "Boy Scout" program and will be able to weigh that information against the word 'boy' in the program name. (3) They will already be in a program (Cub Scouts) of the Boy Scouts of America with a lot of other girls, with the support of their parents. They would cross over into a Boy Scout troop that is composed entirely of other girls who have chosen to be there despite the word 'boy' in both the organization and program name.

I think "Boy Scouts" as the name of the age 11-17 program is the viable long-term solution. Over the last 110 years, that two-word combination has taken on a significance and meaning of its own. The name "Boy Scout" in the American tradition is, of course, associated with boys, but it has become loaded with concepts including an honor code, service, camping, patriotism, Eagle Scout rank, first aid and other handy skills, achievement, and leadership. When you see a Peanuts cartoon with Snoopy and the birds on a hike, it isn't confusing even though no boys are depicted. We've already heard from lots of girls who want to be Boy Scouts -- and not because they want to be boys.

A frequently-heard comment when BSA first announced that it would be admitting girls into the Cub Scout and (what is currently) the Boy Scout program was that it was unnecessary, because there was already a Scouting program for girls -- GSUSA. Given the variety of programmatic and organizational differences between BSA and GSUSA we've been talking about, it is clear that there is not a single generic "Scouting" program that is delivered by both BSA and GSUSA with only minor stylistic differences. Added up, the differences between the two Scouting programs are significant -- reason enough for BSA to open up its last two single-gender programs and give girls another choice. Tying this back to the larger subject of this thread: All the more reason, it seems to me, for BSA to have made a real effort to brand the age 11-17 program in a way that would distance it from GSUSA and clearly show girls that this is definitely not Girl Scouts. Even if they really, really don't want to keep "Boy Scouts" as the name of that program, "Scouts BSA" does nothing to clearly distinguish the Boy Scouts of America program from the Girl Scouts of the USA program. On the contrary, it hamstrings the competitiveness of the BSA program by promoting the generic "Scouting" program myth that one Scouting program is pretty much the same as the other.

Interesting article. It does sound like the national level leadership has given up on "past notions of 'outdoorsmanship,'" but that the question of outdoorsmanship in Girl Scouts is still a matter of internal hand-wringing at the local level. The article also includes the following: "Local Girl Scout leaders also complain that implicit in the Boy Scouts' recruitment promises of high outdoor adventure is the suggestion that their program lacks access to those activities. "[Lidia Soto-Harmon, chief executive of the Girl Scouts Council of the Nations's Capital] points out that [her council], the largest council in the country, owns eight camping facilities in the area, spanning more than a thousand acres of land, where girls can practice archery, canoeing, kayaking, climbing and more. "Yet the extent to which girls take advantage of all of those outdoor opportunities depends a lot on the troop, leaders admit."

It is how to refer to individual members in the Scouts BSA program. From page 10 of "Family Scouting Questions and Answers," the FAQ under "Scouts BSA Program Resources" on the BSA Family Scouting web page, https://www.scouting.org/familyscouting/ : Q: What will the members of the program be called? [A:] Just as today, they will be called Scouts. For example, “I’m in Scouts BSA, so I am a Scout.”

OMG, I would hope not - but thanks for checking. 😌 Girl Scouts ARE real Scouts. Cub Scouts, Boy Scouts, Venturers, Sea Scouts, and STEM Scouts ARE real Scouts. BSA wanting us to say, "We are Scouts, they are Girl Scouts" just sounds . . . problematic.

In my experience, almost no one outside BSA knows or uses the BSA acronym for the Boy Scouts of America organization. It's "Boy Scouts" colloquially, and "Boy Scouts of America" more formally (like the first sentence in news reports, before they switch to just calling it "the Boy Scouts"). So a lot of folks will not automatically make the connection between "Scouts BSA" and "Boy Scouts." And the shortest, simplest explanation is, "It's Boy Scouts." Because of single-gender troops, we're officially organizing the youth program to differentiate between one gender and another. In effect, we're inviting our participants to refer to "girl (small 'g') Scouts" and "girl (small 'g') Scout troops" even as we're told not to use that word combination. The Girl Scouts of the USA has a point -- It is inevitable that we will be infringing on the Girl Scout trademark without an appropriate modifier before "Scout." Using the term "Scout" or "Scouts" without a modifier to refer to BSA members could also be seen as demeaning to the Girl Scouts of the USA and that organization's members: To say, "There are Scouts, and there are Girl Scouts," could sound to some like "There are real Scouts, and there are Girl Scouts." But you're not going to hear anyone using "BSA" as the modifier, either before or after "Scout." For example: "There's a BSA Scout over there talking to that Girl Scout" or "I saw some Scouts BSA (or Scout BSAs?) at the airport headed for Philmont." It's awkward to say and looks odd when written, so it won't be used. At least the term "girl Boy Scout" is simple, easy to say, and clear. Unfamiliar to the people we're trying to recruit, internally inconsistent, confusing, possibly offensive, awkward to use in a sentence . . . "Scouts BSA" is not off to a good start as a brand name.

Welcome, TFrancis! I understand your concern. Some girls will not want to join a program with the word "Boy" in the name, or take the risk of being laughed at because they are a "Boy" Scout, or take the risk of being perceived as what we used to call a "tomboy." At the same time, there are girls who don't care about the word "Boy" in the name -- they just want the program. And there are girls who specifically want to be publicly associated with the name Boy Scouts because of its distinctive program. We can't be certain about the relative size of each of those groups or the relative girl recruiting power of "Boy Scouts" versus "Scouts BSA." We also can't be certain whether participation in Cub Scouts will affect how girls perceive the name "Boy Scouts." Will there be Arrow of Light girls who would cross over to a Scouts BSA troop but refuse to cross over to a Boy Scout troop because of the word "boy" in the program name? Maybe. We don't know. My point is that with all of the uncertainty surrounding this brave new world* we have entered, the Boy Scout program brand is a known quantity (I'd call it "legendary" rather than "mythical" 😃) . I'm sure that there are some folks who would consider that brand a liability rather than an asset; still, it has meaning to the public at large, both in the United States and worldwide, that still has goodwill attached to it, and therefore has a value beyond being part of a corporate logo. Are the interests and the evidence so substantial and convincing that we should just walk away from it? I don't think so. And I don't want a world in which we have a Boy Scouts of America with no Boy Scouts (of any gender) in it. * "How many goodly creatures are there here! How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world, That has such people in ’t! The Tempest, Act V Scene i

Thanks for elevating the discussion! Shakespeare has something for every occasion. How about this: Good name in man and woman, dear my lord, Is the immediate jewel of their souls. Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing; 'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands; But he that filches from me my good name Robs me of that which not enriches him, And makes me poor indeed. Othello Act 3, Scene 3

It isn't about what the boys in khaki shirts and green shorts will be called, it is about what the girls in khaki shirts and green shorts will be called. BSA did make the right call in realizing that for girls to be full and equal participants in the 120-year tradition of what is currently called the Boy Scout program, the terminology has to be the same for the girls and the boys. That is, if boys are "Boy Scouts" but girls doing the same program are called something else, the perception will be that the girls have a separate (and not equal) program. But BSA got hung up on the gender aspect of the word "boy" as applied to members, rather than the bigger and broader meaning of "Boy Scouts" as the name of an iconic outdoor-oriented, patriotic, character-building program. Focusing on the gender aspect of the name rather than the power of the brand got us the bland, boring, corporate "Scouts BSA" - a failure of vision and imagination.

What we have here is a great opportunity for BSA to correct a bad branding decision. Who are Scouts BSA? The public doesn't know. It has no history, no identity. You have to explain it, and it goes something like this: "Oh, that is the program for young people age 11 to 18 that used to be called 'Boy Scouts.' It's just a name change for that program. The umbrella organization is still the Boy Scouts of America. The point is, it's really Boy Scouts, just with a new name . . . " Huh? What? You lost me at "program." If you stop calling the program "Boy Scouts," you're giving up more than a century of goodwill and American lore surrounding that program. The girls interested in joining aren't lobbying to join "Scouts BSA." They want the Boy Scout program. The program that is 118 years old. The program with the historic and highly regarded Eagle Scout rank. The one where you help little old ladies across the street and tie knots and go backpacking and climbing and shooting. The demanding program. They want to be "Boy Scouts," because that name -- those two words together -- has an iconic meaning that is separate and independent from the words themselves; and that meaning has nothing to do with gender. Because of what that name really means, girls don't care if they will be called Boy Scouts. They want to be Boy Scouts. If they had any qualms about that name, they'd join Girl Scouts. BSA can and should use this lawsuit as cover for changing its mind and going back to the "Boy Scout" brand for its flagship program. Dan Kurtenbach Fairfax, VA

You're fortunate it was just a parent not getting it. All too often, it is an adult leader who isn't getting it.

I appreciate the optimism. 😊 My personal observation and experience -- especially with Scouters -- is that when a local, solvable problem is identified, there are always folks with creative solutions or just stamina who are ready to jump in and try it. The "empowerment" issue is not about them -- it is about convincing the people with authority over that area to say "yes -- go for it." I have seen far too many skilled, eager volunteers give up on solving a problem because the person or group that holds the keys or writes the checks won't approve the effort, or won't decide, or won't even listen. That's where we need a "method."

That is a good description, based on what I've read on the BSA Polaris Method website and the content of the videos. The fundamental weakness is "the expectation that those employees and volunteers are then empowered to go solve those problems." It isn't an absence of individual employee and volunteer empowerment that is preventing problems from being solved. It is that, with minor, strictly local exceptions, the problems that Scouters and units face on a daily basis arise from societal issues, demographics, program design, program policies, institutional inertia, and council budgets -- conditions that cannot be changed or corrected by employee and volunteer empowerment.

More time to be wasted focusing on a process for working on problems. If you watch the videos about the Polaris Method on the BSA website, it appears to be an exercise in feeling happy about setting entirely unrealistic goals.

Advancement used to be about recognizing acquisition of skills and knowledge. Now advancement is about recognizing exposure to skills and knowledge. Advancement used to be about passing the test. Now advancement is about showing up. Advancement used to be about youth meeting the expectations of leaders. Now advancement is about leaders meeting the expectations of parents.

Are we talking about all BSA programs being co-ed down to and including dens and patrols? Or are we talking about allowing female-only Cub Scout packs and female-only Boy Scout troops? You can open the very desirable Boy Scout program to girls without making all units co-ed.

None, really.