Eagle Scout or not?

[Proud Eagle]

p.s.

 

About the child spanking/discipline brought up earlier in the thread:

If you are going to discipline your child in such a way, please have the courtesy toward others to do so with some discretion, do it in private unless it is an emergency. If you make a scene in public with spanking your child, it really does become something of a public matter. Do it at home, or in the care, or in the public restroom. If you plop your kid down on the check-out counter and belt him then and there, don't be suprised if someone takes notice. On the other hand, I am all in favor of parents doing as they see fit to discipline their kids. It isn't my place to get involved. Yet, every time I see a parent lay into their kid in public, I just wonder how long it will be before someone calls social services with a child abuse allegation (unjustified in my opinion, but rather likely these days).

[acco40]

I get what you are saying but be careful in your statements.

 

I for my part think that getting drunk or high are some of the most irresponsible things a person can do, because by doing so you voluntarily give up your ability to engage in right reasoning.

 

So, if going in for open heart surgery you would decline anesthesia?

 

Drinking, by itself, is no sin in my book, but drunkenness most certainly is.

 

No magic amount of alcohol suddenly causes inebriation. A little causes a little and a lot causes a lot so to speak. Like the old joke of "would you do it for $1,000,000,000? Yes. Would you do it for 50 cents? What kind of woman do you think I am? Well, we've already established that, we are just negotiating the price.

 

I am not condoning drug use or alcohol use but I think as a country we are phobic. Some say praying has the same effect - one places trust in a higher power and "gives up" right reasoning.

 

Folks self medicate in a variety of ways and for a variety of reasons and we should be looking to help, not punish in my view. Some turn to religion, gambling, the bottle, cocaine, heroin, etc. Heck, I'm guilty of burying myself in my work sometimes as a way to escape other "things." Yes, being a work-a-holic is more socially acceptable but does cause harm to others just like gambling and drug use.

 

I do agree with your conclusion, I would need to know the circumstances, I would need to know how he reacted, what he thought, etc. That's really the crux of the problem.

 

 

 

 

[Proud Eagle]

The line between drinking and drunk isn't very well defined, but it is there and everyone who has experience with this knows it. At some point if you keep drinking you arrive at drunk. Even the adult DUI laws seem to acknowledge such a distinction due to legal limits being involved rather than simply any trace being enough. At my age college life is still a relatively recent memory, and college students certainly know the difference between drinking in moderation and drinking to get drunk. Many choose, from the start, to drink without moderation with the objective of getting drunk. Thus the objective was to impare their reasoning and senses from the start, many knew this and openly admitted it.

 

To give up your ability to engage in right reasoning for trivial reasons is not a good thing. If you need medical care, that is a serious reason. If you just want to get totally wasted with all your friends at a party, that is not at all a good reason.

[Apache Bob]

Thank you all for your opinions. I have copied them and they are going to the Troop Committee members to read and think about.

If I can I will let you know in the future what happen to the boy and his quest for Eagle.

Again my thanks to you all for your thoughts and comments.

[Engineer61]

No. He should not be an Eagle...nor would I support him for inclusion for National Honor Society, the National Merit Scholarship, nor any other award or organization that claims to require good personal character.

[SPL1Warwick]

Everyone is talking about this young man being innocent or guilty and that nothing should be done untill he is proven guilty..... "Innocent untill Proven Guilty" Yeah i get it but cmon, He was driving under the influence. He was pulled over and his blood alchohol level was taken and it was above the legal limit.. (which in the state of Rhode Island is .002) He is guilty if he has more in alcohol in his system then that. I dont get why it needs to go to a judge in order for him to be known as a drunk driver or an intoxicated at that! He was drinking and then he was driving and THAT IS ILLEGAL MY FRIENDS no madder what you guys say! He had a choice and he made the wrong one and he could've KILLED someone because of it. Weather or not the judge finds him guilty (Which the judge should and will) doesnt make it okay for the BSA unit to give him a slap on the wrist and tell hims its okay because its NOT! I am 16-years old and i went through Drivers-ed and the one thing them slam into your head is DONT DRINK and DRIVE! and there 5,000 different media ways that he knew that it was wrong and he did it anyway! So in my eyes, BSA shouldnt allow him his eagle untill further notice or until he proves that he learned that what he did was wrong....Which it was......Found guilty or innocent!

 

PS Proud Eagle

 

Disiplining a child in a violent manor is never okay, take it from somone that was abuse as a child. And calling child services on an ABUSIVE Parent is not unjustified.......their a a good citizen for standing up for a child that can not!

 

[Eagle92]

SPL,

the reason why a judge and a jury, if the accused wants a jury, are needed in order to say someone is guilty or not is b/c of our legal system. In revolunionary times, people could eb arrested and jailed without such benefits. One of the reasons for our Revolution in 1775.

[Beavah]

Oh, Eagle92, I think SPL knows that, eh?

 

I think he's just makin' a more impassioned statement of what I mentioned on da previous page. There's a difference between the standards of proof required before we allow the government to deprive someone of liberty and the standards of proof required before we decide not to give someone an award for outstanding citizenship.

 

I have a former friend who has always gotten off from the court on DUI, either through effective representation, poor police work, or pleading to a lesser charge. He's a former friend because my standards of proof for friendship are different than the court's, eh? As they should be.

 

Beavah

 

[SPL1Warwick]

Eagle, and i get that and he has every right to a fair trial as outlined in our legal government but we are not talking about somthing that the legal system has control over. Does he deserve his rank of eagle? And people are saying that a judge needs to find him guilty in order for actions to take place in the BSA. I will bet my life that that judge finds him guilty because they have solid evidence......the police report that states him blood alcholo level! Why does it need to go through our legal system in order for this crime that THIS KID DID COMMIT to be taken seriously!?

[nolesrule]

By the same token, you need to be careful about driving someone away from scouting during an extremely vulnerable time in his life when it may have the most positive effect. There is the possibility to use this as a teaching opportunity with the scout, but he has to be around for that to happen.

 

If a carrot for keeping this scout around is the possibility of eventually having an Eagle Board of Review, you can't absolutely write that off, lest you lose him for good with no additional opportunity to make a positive impact. That's also a reason why a definite timeframe is in order.

 

And it is possible to be a good citizen overall and make a mistake. We have no idea if this was an isolated incident or a pattern, and we can't jump to a conclusion one way or another.

 

And please note I'm not just saying hand the kid the rank, so please don't misinterpret the above. I'm just saying it's not all black and white.

 

I've always been of the opinion that how one conducts oneself after making a mistake is more telling about their character than someone who has never made a mistake.

[SPL1Warwick]

nolesrule, i get what your saying and to a degree i agree but if i was the SM or CC or on his EBOR then he would have to work his Butt off to earn that eagle rank because that is somthing that i also wear on my uniform and i am proud of it. It makes me proud to hear about the good that eagle scouts are doing in the world. But on the other hand it makes me sickening to know that there are scouts out there that are just wearing the pin and not realizing what it really means. I get that kids make mistakes and this is a mistake that he needs to learn from and i beleive that scouting will set him on the right track. But he should not get his eagle untill he proves that he was in the wrong and that he will make up for it and make a difference so that no other scout makes the same mistakes.

[Beavah]

I've always been of the opinion that how one conducts oneself after making a mistake is more telling about their character than someone who has never made a mistake.

 

Yah, that's true, eh?

 

But doesn't that include how the fellow approaches Scouting?

 

If he's really in Scouting only for the Eagle badge and will quit if that is closed off to him, that to me says a lot about his character, eh? And it isn't flattering.

 

If, on the other hand, he chooses to stay in Scouting and work hard even though Eagle is no longer an option, because he is Loyal and he wants to give back and he respects those who have held him accountable for his choices, that tells a different story.

 

Eagle like all if advancement is just a tool, eh? We can win the goal of developing young men of good character without giving them awards. The other 7 methods still work.

 

One local troop had a lad get drunk and high outside of scouting time, but found it on his Facebook page. He was dealin' with some issues, but they stepped in, called in the parents, dropped him from his POR. They told him, a Life Scout who had just turned 17, that Eagle was off the table. He stayed in the troop. He worked extra hard, even though he no longer had a position. He led the young scouts in the instruction on the dangers of alcohol and drugs. He went to AA, kept himself clean, knocked his grades out of the park. He did all that our of commitment and loyalty, expecting no reward. The SM called him in with a few months left and told him to get goin' on finishing his Eagle work. I got to sit on da EBOR the day before his 18th birthday, and there was no question he was an Eagle Scout. He's kept himself clean since, and continues to give back to Scouting.

 

But none of that outcome could have occurred had the scouters in his unit not stood up initially for the Oath and the Law, eh? In calling him to task, in making Eagle mean something.

 

Beavah

[SPL1Warwick]

Beavah, i think that a great story and i think it was haddled very well. i think thats what needs to be done!

[CalicoPenn]

Ummmm, I realize that when one is charged with a DUI, it is predominantly for drinking. But not once did ApacheBob say that the lad was drinking. Now the probability is pretty high that the DUI is for drinking, but it occurs to me that everyone is assuming that the DUI was for drinking without thinking of any other possibilities. DUI is Driving Under the Influence. In most States, that covers a much broader spectrum than drinking. You can get a DUI for use of illicit drugs. You can get a DUI for use of prescription drugs. All those warnings that say don't drive or use heavy machinery while on certain prescription medicines? They aren't there because someone needed to fill space. If you're taking a prescription pain medicine, or cough medicine, that impairs your driving ability, then you can be busted for DUI.

 

In many states, you can get a DUI without driving at all. You just have to be in a "position of control". In Illinois, that means you can be charged with DUI if you are parked and sleeping it off in the back seat with your car keys in your pocket. You are technically in a position of control because although you aren't in front of the wheel, you still have your keys, and can easily crawl up to the front seat of the car, start the engine, and cause the car to move. I learned this just this past November when I served on a jury when "position of control" was the key to the defense.

 

We're so quick to demand more facts from posters in other threads, but no one, not one person, asked what this lad was under the influence of. As I said, it's probable that the offense was for drinking - but would people's answers have been different if ApacheBob came in later and said the lad was driving home from a dentist appointment and was impaired by a pain medicine? Would the answers have been tempered if we learned that the lad got the DUI because he attended a party, had a couple of brews, and decided to nap in his back seat before driving home? And yes, I realize that drinking at 16 is still illegal, and stupid, and not "Scoutlike", but reasonable people would tend to say that as bad as that may be, it's not as bad as actually driving drunk.

 

Its seems an awful lot of us forget a pretty important part of the Scout Law. It states, On My Honor, I will DO MY BEST. It does not read, On My Honor, I will Be Perfect. No matter how hard we try to do our best, there will be times when we slip. "Our Best" is a moving target - and always has been. Things you do today, will affect what you can do tomorrow. 20 years ago, doing my best, I could climb Katahdin in 45 minutes. Today, doing my best, I doubt I could get 1/4 of the way up before my lungs will feel like they're about to explode. Moods affect our feelings all the time - if I'm in a bad mood today, then "my best" probably won't meet the same standards that "my best" is when I'm in a great mood. I'll try to do my best to be patient but alas, there will be times I'll slip and not be as patient as I strive to be because of my mood.

 

Yes, this is disappointing - but what's more important are the lessons learned. I don't see this as any kind of automatic disqualification for Eagle Scout. Working with the Scout in the ways that have been suggested is certainly appropriate - but slamming the door? I would hope not.

[nolesrule]

You told a good story, Beavah. Maybe taking Eagle off the table worked in that particular instance. But was Eagle really taken off the table? Or did the SM just tell the Scout that to see how he would respond, and then when he got the response he wanted over time, told the scout it was back on the table?

 

And is there really any difference between taking it off the table and then giving it back vs. pretending to take it off the table?

 

But I can guarantee you that it can also work the other way. Some people respond poorly to negative reinforcement, and it can have the opposite of the desired effect. You have to know the youth that you are dealing with and figure out which direction will work best for that particular scout.

 

If a scout isn't getting what he wants out of the program (and it doesn't necessarily have to have anything to do with advancement), you will eventually lose the scout prior to aging out.

 

 

 

 

 

And do me a favor, please don't quote the "Advancement is just 1 of the 7 methods" mantra to me like I'm some novice idiot. I know the 7 methods. You want to know something? I'll let you in on a little secret. Scouts generally don't know about the 7 methods and if they did, probably wouldn't care as long as they get what they want out of the program.

 

If you had asked me when I was a scout what methods scouting used meet the aims, I probably would have given you the youthful answer of camping (outdoors) and advancement, because those were the 2 things that are obvious. The others are a bit more subtle in comparison. It wasn't until later when I came back as a scouter that I really understood that there were 7 methods and how they all worked together.