Why are current events discussed at an Eagle BOR?

[NJCubScouter]

I have never heard of that but I don't necessarily have a problem with it, as long as it doesn't become the focus of the BOR and it does not become a "quiz" that the boy has to pass. As others have said, some level of knowledge of the world around us is a component of good citizenship. One way of doing it might be to ask the Eagle candidate to identify ONE important event or situation going on in the world today, why it's important and what he thinks about it. That way he doesn't get penalized for not knowing who the Prime Minister of Egypt is today (as opposed to yesterday, or tomorrow, and I don't know his name either, I just know he's new.) I think this would be the kind of "generic" question that skeptic is talking about, which would allow the board to observe the young man's thinking process.

 

Another point is, since the vast majority of the questions in a BOR are about the candidate himself, i.e. what he has done, what he has learned, what his plans are, etc., it isn't a bad idea to spend a few minutes on the "larger world." In other words, it isn't "all about him." (A lesson too few adults today seem to take to heart, unfortunately.)

[CalicoPenn]

In re-reading the sentence, it occurs to me that what the letter means by current events and what we think of when we read the word current events may be entirely different. I'm apt to give the benefit of the doubt that what was meant is "what is the Scout currently doing", not "tell me what you think about the protests in Wisconsin".

 

However, this could be one of those times where hacing the SM or ASM in the room as an observer comes in to play. If the questions are innocuous enough, no harm, no foul. But if the Scout is being subjected to a possible litmus test, as Lisabob reminds us is possible, this is where the SM/ASM steps in, asks the Scout to leave, and probes the EBOR board to find out where it's leading.

[desertrat77]

Calico, are you serious? You make this sound like waterboarding! Or an interrogation by a terror group!

 

It's an Eagle board of review, conducted by distinguished men and women, not those donkeys on Jay Walking. A young man who hopes to be congratulated as the BSA's newest Eagle afterwards is meeting the board--not some dolt.

 

You propose to hang around the back like his Den Mom, to rush in and protect him? Good grief.

 

And you are worried that the discussion might turn political? Concerned because a question may not have been preapproved ahead of time?

 

Any scout worth his salt meeting an Eagle board can handle a current events discussion. Even one that turns partisan.

 

May as well wear a purple dinosaur suit and accompany him to his first job interview too.

[CalicoPenn]

Desert - I'm serious, and speak from experience as an Eagle Scout who had to appeal my EBOR in order to get the badge I earned. In my case, the "distinguished" members of my BOR refused to accept someone with anything but a Judeo/Christian religious orientation as Eagle Scout material.

 

Perhaps your experience is that all EBOR members are "Distinguished men and women" but there are plenty of folks in this forum that can point to experiences with folks in EBORs and question whether the folks on the boards were truly "distinguished".

 

The EBOR process allows for an SM/ASM to witness the BOR - and one of the reasons for that is to make sure the folks in the EBOR don't cross the line.

[desertrat77]

Calico, sorry your board was like that.

 

Stories on the forum aside, I don't think a bad board happens that often. I say this a military guy who travels quite a bit.

 

If the SM knows a candidate is predisposed politically or religiously to a certain viewpoint that may ruffle some feathers, he/she has the responsibility to coach the candidate to articulate his position in a manner that is courageous, yet poised and courteous. And yes, SM may stay in the back if need be.

 

But for the vast majority of scouts, this isn't an issue. Particularly when we are talking about current events.

 

My main objection is the trend of Tiger Cub-like over protectiveness that I see in the BSA today. I'm all for safety. But if we are afraid an Eagle board is going to go south because someone asks a loaded question, or asks a question that wasn't on the "preapproved" list then we obviously don't hold the Eagle candidate in very high esteem. The vast majority of them have much life experience, and will do just fine.

 

And we don't think much of the board members either if we persist with having "advocates" screening questions, then stopping boards to ascertain intent. Just an awful tone.

 

I recall my Eagle board prep 30+ years ago. I was coached well--eye contact, physical presence, how to articulate my answers and the like. As far as questioning, the SM said "Be prepared for anything--they are going to ask you tough questions that may have no right or wrong answer. They are going to see how well you can think on your feet and if you can handle the pressure."

 

Boy was he right. I left an hour later with my head hurting. These gents asked some indepth questions. But my SM's advice was spot on.

 

This experience has since helped me with meeting military awards boards, and job interviews for nominative military jobs.

Haven't always succeeded but that's life.

 

After 25 years in the military, I see bright young men and women who join and flounder a bit at first. Sure, it can be challenging to transition from civilian to military life. But more often than not, for the first time in their life they don't have anyone to sweep their path 24/7. So they have some lessons to learn that could have been learned in their pre-teen and teen years. But were prevented from doing so by over protective parents, coaches, teachers, and scout leaders.

 

Scouting has been described as a safe environment to fail. I sure did my fair share of failing prior to that board. But that's how we learn, and we shouldn't sweep paths so clean that scouts are deprived of the benefit of safe failure.(This message has been edited by desertrat77)

[skeptic]

Desert; Well said.

[vol_scouter]

Well said desertrat77. Asking questions about current events is fine as long as the intent is to determine if the young man is aware of what is going on outside of his immediate sphere. If the young man has some understanding, that should be enough to satisfy the committee. The young man should not have to possess in particular set of opinions. Students applying to medical school are often asked questions about hot button issues such as abortion and healthcare reform. The are judged solely upon their awareness of the issues not on their views. The same can be true for a EBoR. The worldview of the EBoR members cannot be used to judge the candidate.

[Eamonn]

A lot would depend how you interpret current events.

A Lad who has never used illegal drugs might upset the Board when he says that he is in favor of legalizing them.

How about the Lad who might agree with the Supreme Court

ruling that funeral picketing is free speech?

On the other hand, what if he claimed he hadn't heard about the ruling?

I trust most of the people who are chosen to sit on ESBOR's in the District I serve.

But I'll bet bringing up just these two topics would make the adults more than a little uncomfortable and maybe unwilling to see both sides of any argument.

There are some things that when it comes to Scouting, I wouldn't touch with a ten foot barge pole!

Ea.

[NJCubScouter]

Calico is correct that we are doing an awful lot of speculating on the possible meaning of two words in a letter written by someone who we don't know. We are assuming that "current events" has its usual meaning -- which I think is probably the case, but we don't know for sure. It's typical of this forum that where the original poster does not provide (and often does not know) all of the pertinent facts, other posters tend to fill in the blanks themselves. I'm not necessarily criticizing that tendency, it's just the way things are.(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

[NEPAScouter]

For another data point, often EBORs in my council include a question or two about current events, and they're included with the intent of seeing how "mentally awake" the candidate is as an informed citizen of his community, nation, and planet. The questions are generally open-ended and give the candidate a great deal of latitude in answering.

 

Example: "Tell me about a recent event or news item (within the last 2-3 weeks) you read about on the national level (or community or world level)."

 

Example Followup1: "Why do you think this news item you selected to tell the Board about is something that informed citizens should be aware of?"

 

Example Followup2: "That's an interesting item and you did a good job describing that position. Can you give me more details on why the opposing person/group takes the position it does?"

 

Sometimes a candidate had a strong personal opinion in the followup that was politically counter to the opinions of some board members. In those cases, the questioning board member sometimes mentioned their opposing opinion, but they or the board chair always spelled out to the candidate at the same time that the candidate's opinion was respected. The candidate was told that the difference of opinion would have no bearing on the board's outcome. In the last four years I have never seen these situations lead to any problems for candidates.

 

What DOES cause problems for the candidate is if they indicate that they haven't been making any effort at being informed -- be it by newspaper, magazine, blogs, tweets, etc. Or if an age-appropriate justification of why an issue or event should be considered significant isn't forthcoming.

[acco40]

The EBOR process allows for an SM/ASM to witness the BOR - and one of the reasons for that is to make sure the folks in the EBOR don't cross the line.

 

Yes, the Scoutmaster may be a witness / observer to an EBOR. Therefore, the Scoutmaster should not speak unless asked to speak. The reason for their presence is to provide additional evidence, if asked by either the Scout or board, not to act as a check and balance to see if the board members "cross the line."

[Oak Tree]

A Lad who has never used illegal drugs might upset the Board when he says that he is in favor of legalizing them.

How about the Lad who might agree with the Supreme Court

ruling that funeral picketing is free speech?

 

I would personally be fascinated with that discussion. If the boy has well-articulated positions, I'd love to listen. But yes, it's possible there might be a board member who could take offense. Those positions are relatively mainstream alternatives - one could imagine far more inflammatory positions a Scout could take on current events.

 

Most of the boards I've seen, I think the boards would listen to the Scout's position. I don't think they'd deny Eagle because of it.

 

I understand what Calico is getting at, but I don't think the SM has any place nor any standing to halt the BoR. If there are problems, they can be handled afterwards.

[Eagledad]

>>How about the Lad who might agree with the Supreme Court

ruling that funeral picketing is free speech?

[Knot Head]

Thanks for the replies!

 

The BOR was Monday night and the scout passed. He is a good kid and a well spoken so I figured he would do well.

 

I spoke to him briefly yesterday and he told me he was asked to tell the BOR about a local, national and world current event.

 

Not being in the room I can't tell you too much about what happened but our ASM who attended the BOR emailed the troop leaders and said that the scout did a good job and that it was a well run BOR.