A modest proposal on "Class A" Uniforms

[Hunt]

My modest proposal is that BSA should adopt and define the terms "Class A" and "Class B" uniforms

Class A=Field Uniform

Class B=Activity Uniform

Why should BSA do this? These terms are already in widespread use, and just about everybody THINKS they know what they mean. But when you take a look at different troops' uniform policy, you find that they mean many different things by it. BSA could coopt these terms and perhaps reinsert some uniformity.

[Spiney Norman]

I agree, however, what comprises a class 'B'? Wouldn't that be predicated by the activity?

 

Perhaps "National" could institute some guidlines on class 'B's.

A survey of what units are using now would be a good place to start. Most troops are proud of there troop t-shirts.

[SR540Beaver]

Hunt,

 

I think you are going to come across the response that the BSA already has terminology and that it is what should be used. That being said, I agree that just about every scout and scouter I know (including our DE) refers to class A and class B. Trying to get everyone to use field and activity is swimming against the tide. It would not upset me if BSA adopted the terms class A and B.

[Bob White]

If only the definitions were as widely used as their label.

 

If a scout leader doesn't know what constitutes an activity uniform now then how will just changing the name solve anything? Many call it a Class B and still have no idea what it means.

[OldGreyEagle]

Well at least this thread hasnt called for the eating of those scouts and scouters who dont wear the uniform properly

[Eamonn]

Pass the salt!!

(Just joking!!)

Eamonn

[evmori]

Eat scouts! Eww! I hear they're tough & boney!

[madkins007]

I have always heard that the BSA will never adopt the Class A and B bit because it smacks of military usage, and the BSA has a deep-seated fear of the 'paramilitary' label- it has been used against them in a negative way since the 20's (and with the uniform back then, it tended to stick a bit more!)

 

Soooo... why not create our own nomenclature for it?

 

I've always favored something like...

 

Uniform 1- Full 'dress' uniform with all bells and whistles for ceremonial wear.

 

Uniform 2- Typical meeting version of uniform.

 

Uniform 3- Activity uniform as defined by unit.

 

People tend to like shorthand, so I think if we introduced some similar terms to replace the 'Class' phrase, it'd catch on after a bit.

[madkins007]

By the way... how many variations on the uniform do we really have?

 

Formal ceremonial- medals, pins, sashes, beads, etc. For Eagle court of honor and similar. Almost *requires* pants.

 

Semi-formal- omit some of the bells and whistles. Board of Review and minor ceremonies.

 

Normal

 

'Light'- no neckerchief or attachments. Often used for games and outdoor activities while in uniform. May specifically state jeans or other pants OK.

 

'Uniform' activity- everyone wearing the same activity shirt. Often seen at camporees.

 

Activity- Unit or BSA shirts, not all the same.

 

Any other levels??

[Bob White]

And there is the problem Madkins, the BSA activity uniform is more than just an troop t-shirt and it is not left for the unit to do 'anything' they want and call it an activity uniform.

 

The activity uniform has both required parts and optional parts. It is not whatever the unit wants to wear with a troop t-shirt. So no matter what you call it, until leaders actually learn what the uniform is the name won't matter.

[madkins007]

Scouter Magazine October 2003 "Activity uniforms (a Scout T-shirt or polo shirt with official uniform pants or shorts and socks) are allowed for less formal public appearances."

 

I did not mention the pants/shorts because I wasn't interested in that can of worms. All I was pointing out in that was that I have seen situations in which every Scout wore the same type of shirt, and others in which we did not care WHICH shirt the Scout wore.

[Bob White]

You list several levels of uniform wear when in fact there are two. 1. In uniform. 2. Out of uniform.

 

A complete official uniform is as appropriate without "bells and whistles" as it is with.

 

Which official designations a scout or scouter wears is a matter of unit decisions and/or personal choices. As long as what is worn is worn correctly.

[madkins007]

"In uniform" and "out of uniform" is accurate, but not what the post was about.

 

Functionally, we have several versions of the uniform based on the situation. All I was doing was looking at what they might be. It DID occur to me that it might be nice to have some shorthand way to communicate to the Scouts and parents what uniform is expected for the day ("Remember, next week we'll have visitors, so wear your 1A's.")

[evmori]

Class A, Class b, Uniform 1, Uniform 2, Activity! What's the difference as long as the Scouts & Scouters in our respective units understand what we are talking about! We seem to be getting all in a tizzy about something we don't even need to have to be a BSA member.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Hunt]

This thread, I think, proves my point. If BSA really wants standardized uniforming, they need to spell it out and coopt the common use of Class A and Class B (I've seen all the way to Class D).

Also, Bob, don't you think that there is a real-world difference between what I would call the full, ceremonial uniform and the field uniform? For example, it is my understanding that a Scout is not out of uniform if he does not wear his merit badge sash--however, most troops urge (if not require) this to be worn at ceremonial events like Courts of Honor.

So, with apologies to madkins, it seems to me that there really are at least three levels of appropriate uniforming:

1. Full, ceremonial field uniform with MB sash.

2. Field uniform (consisting of BSA shirt, pants or shorts, belt, and socks--neckerchief and hat optional by unit choice).

2. Activity uniform (consisting of scouting t-shirt or polo shirt, with BSA pants or shorts, belt, and socks).

 

Anything else isn't really uniforming. A unit shouldn't refer to something as a "uniform" that doesn't include the BSA-required set of parts (although this doesn't mean the unit has to penalize a boy if he's not wearing all the parts).

But here's a question I would ask: is there ever a situation in which it would be necessary to instruct boys to wear only certain uniform parts? (The only one I can think of would be if boys in uniform, in a troop which included headgear as part of the uniform, were touring a facilty that required wearing hard hats.) There may be situations in which you would ask the boys to wear their troop T-shirts with jeans or other pants, but this wouldn't really be a BSA uniform.