Eagle Problem

[Dedicated Dad]

Steps in Advancement

 

Third, the Scout is reviewed. The purpose of the review is to ensure that all requirements for advancement have been met. This includes a check of the Scout's attitude and practice of the ideals of Scouting, in addition to his Scoutcraft skills. The decision regarding whether a Scout has met the required standards to qualify for rank advancement begins with the troop and, for the Eagle Scout rank, is approved by the district, local council, and finally, the National Council. What are the ideals of Scouting you ask? The oath and law. If being obedient means following the rules (family, school and troop) how does an Eagle candidate meet the required standard of practicing the ideals of Scouting?

 

 

 

[NJCubScouter]

DedicatedDad writes:

 

A Scout is Obedient.

A Scout follows the rules of his family, school, and troop. He obeys the laws of his community and country. If he thinks these rules and laws are unfair, he tries to have them changed in an orderly manner rather than disobeying them.

 

What are troop rules? Can there be troop rules for personal appearance? If a scout thinks the rules are unfair isnt it his obligation to change them himself and not having an adult intervene for him? Talk about it amongst yourselves, Ill get back to you.

 

This raises interesting hypothetical issues but I don't think they have much, if anything, to do with this case. Nothing in the facts presented by the Scout or his mother suggests that there is a troop rule regarding hair length. In various forums I have read various opinions as to how, and by whom, troop rules are adopted, but nowhere have I read that a Scoutmaster may adopt a rule unilaterally. Opinions also seem to differ on whether a troop may adopt a hair-length rule at all, but let's assume that it can.

 

One view, which seems reasonable to me, is that rules impacting on health and safety are adopted by the committee (and some would add, with the approval of the CO), while other rules (which I would say, include rules on appearance) are adopted by the PLC (and some would add, with approval by the committee and/or CO). The SM is not an essential player in that process, though in my opinion he/she should have a strong advisory role, and if I were a committee member I would go with the SM's recommendation unless there were a clear reason not to. However, as I suggest above, on hair length I would leave it to the boys as long as they don't depart too far from reason (like saying everybody has to shave their heads or everybody has to have blue hair.) I can tell you that when I was a Scout in the early and mid 70s, nobody in my troop would have dreamed of suggesting a rule on hair length, and some of the high-school-age boys (including me) did have ears that were not readily visible.

 

Regardless of whether there can be a troop rule regarding hair length, a rule would be far preferable to what has happened here. When you have a rule, it is preceded by discussion and debate. A broad group of people, whether it be the PLC, the committee or both, get to consider the matter and suggest alternatives. (In this particular case, it seems unlikely to me that the PLC would have adopted a rule against long hair, when the SPL is (or recently was), this very same boy.) Perhaps most importantly in the rule-making process, once the rule is adopted, notice of the rule is given to those who are expected to abide by it and those who are expected to enforce it. This is a basic element of what lawyers call "due process," but what is in reality, just basic fairness. I don't think anyone would argue that a Scout troop should not be governed by basic principles of fairness. Once a rule is adopted, in a voluntary organization such as Scouting, people have several options, including leaving for another unit with different rules.

 

No rule was adopted here. A SM decided arbitrarily that a boy should not be Eagle because of his hair. He did not say the boy should not be a member of the troop, and in fact appointed him Senior Patrol Leader! That boggles my mind. First of all, perhaps this guy has not read that the SPL is supposed to be elected by the boys, not chosen by adults. But the mind-boggling part is, why would the SM appoint a boy SPL if he felt that his hair length was not in keeping with Scouting? A troop may have many Eagles, but only one SPL. The boys are supposed to view the SPL as an example, second only to the SM as a role model. So you appoint a boy with long hair as SPL, encouraging the boys to look up to him, and then you say he is not fit to be an Eagle? It makes no sense to me. I wonder how this SM would explain such a thing to the district or council advancement committee.

 

So the main point is, this Scout did not disobey a rule. There was no rule, just an arbitrary edict that conflicts with the published advancement requirements. Those are the rules that matter in this situation, and if the Scout meets them, he should get his Eagle.

 

So I would suggest, DedicatedDad, that if you want to start a thread on troop rules, let's do it. I can take this post and edit it down to state my opinions on the general topic, omitting all reference to this particular Scout. But in this thread, why don't we try to help this Scout -- which by the way, I think you did in your first post in this thread. Since there was no rule involved here, all of this is just a side-road that doesn't help in this case.

[Dedicated Dad]

We are talking hair length and it would be apreciated if you stuck to the topic. It is about personal appearance nest pas? You contend that painted fingernails, tattoos, purple hair and are permitted, why not womens clothing? You cant answer that can you? You cannot keep this scout from advancing due to hairlength. Any District, Council or National Board of review will over turn you (as they laugh at you) for such a hideous misuse of your responsibilities as an adult leader. You live and die by the regs, where does it say any hair length is permissible? Where? I have to go now. Please feel free to continue your thoughts of undergarments in the privacy of your own home or office. But I don't feel this is the proper bulliten board to post them on. I SEE, when we run short on ideas for debate we start in with ludicrous analogy and dismissiveness. What a shame, I thought you could at least answer one of my questions. Maybe someone else can. Does breaking the rules have no consequences against advancement?

 

 

 

 

 

[evmori]

DD,

If a Troop has rules regarding personal grooming then I feel they are out of line. It is NOT the responsibility of the BSA to define what acceptable personal grooming is. This isn't the Armed Forces.

 

Personally, I don't like guys wearing earrings. But if a Scout wants to wear one, then that's his right. Will it effect my opinion of the Scout? I hope not.

 

As long as the personal grooming issue doesn't present a safety hazard then I feel the SM in this case is out of line.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

[Dedicated Dad]

No rule was adopted here. A SM decided arbitrarily that a boy should not be Eagle because of his hair. Now whos taking facts not in evidence? It would seem youve proven your case using circumstantial evidence, is that your bench ruling using a preponderance of doubt? I will agree, however, that the rule has not been presented as existing or not. Im also not familiar with the rule that rules on appearance only come from the PLC, in fact, I would contend appearance rules more likely would come from the committee and CO rather than the PLC. And how hard would it be for the SM to lobby for such a rule that has a look-back or non-grandfathered clause in it? Not hard at all IMHO. Regardless, I still contend the Scout should work to change the rules or arbitrary whims of his Scoutmaster before he runs to the BSA Libertarian zealots who would do it for him.

 

 

 

[Dedicated Dad]

It is NOT the responsibility of the BSA to define what acceptable personal grooming is. This isn't the Armed Forces. Personally, I don't like guys wearing earrings. The problem is that the extremes will always be tested. Nose and eyebrow rings, purple hair and tattoos, painted nails and womens clothing, would your district, local council, or the National Council approve of these extremes? You dont need to be in the armed forces to have rules for appearance.

[NJCubScouter]

If a Troop has rules regarding personal grooming then I feel they are out of line. It is NOT the responsibility of the BSA to define what acceptable personal grooming is. This isn't the Armed Forces.

 

Personally, I don't like guys wearing earrings. But if a Scout wants to wear one, then that's his right. Will it effect my opinion of the Scout? I hope not.

 

As long as the personal grooming issue doesn't present a safety hazard then I feel the SM in this case is out of line.

 

I agree completely. I suspect that our personal opinions have something to do with when and where we grew up. When I was in high school, no guy would ever wear an earring. By the time I was in college, it had gone from unheard of to extremely rare, and within several years it became "in style" in some circles (and not just "those" circles). It is still disconcerting to me to see one now, and I have brothers-in-law that wear them, and I know lawyers who go into court wearing them. It falls into the category of "live and let live," though for a few writers in this forum, that may be an alien concept.

 

As for other things, I would hope that a Boy Scout would not have tatoos or non-ear piercings, but since most (if not all) states require parental permission for a minor to do either, I don't feel it is Scouting's place to say that the parent is wrong. (Last summer I reluctantly signed for my daughter to get her navel pierced, but she was 19 and was paying the $60 out of her own pocket, and only needed my signature because she couldn't find her i.d., and besides, she is not in Scouting.)

 

There may be a situation that becomes so extreme, like multiple and conspicuous body alterations, that it inherently detracts from the operation of the unit, but that has to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. I have never actually seen an example on a minor that would be at the level I am talking about.

 

And what about a young man with fingernail polish or fake fingernails? I saw this just recently on someone not of Scouting age, but in his very early 20s. Not pink polish either, but a dark color and highly buffed and polished, and maybe fake, at that point I didn't really want to know. I just shook my head in mild dismay. But if this were in a Scouting situation, he wouldn't be violating any rule, so what could you do?

 

I would again make a plea to return this thread to advice to the Scout in question, and not a forum for hypotheticals about underwear styles. I endorse BobWhite's comments in this regard.

[NJCubScouter]

I, too, have just encountered the gremlin that prevents one from editing posts. In my last post, the underlined material at the beginning should instead be italicized, and should be preceded by the words: "Ed Mori writes:"

[ScouterPaul]

Well good golly I lasted a whole 3 1/2 days. I promised myself, after 3 great days in Wood Badge Training, that I wouldn't get involved in these discussions. But here I am. Why are we getting so far away from the point of this thread. There was valuable advice, yours included DD, at the beginning.

 

Dedicated Dad why do you persist in bring up women's undergarments and clothing. It is not a logical part of this discussion. But you did bring it up. I assume that you hold the military in high esteem. I know if I'm wrong you will tell me. Would you kick a Navy Seal or any other member of a special forces unit out of the military for wearing women's clothing? Talk with a couple of them and ask about their use of panty hose. I think their answers might enlighten you.

 

Bottom line is that nobody can add to the rank requirements that includes a SM, COR or any other leader. If you are saying that a Scout with long hair is not showing Scout Spirit then perhaps you need to review CHARACTER. Character is what a person is not what he looks like.

 

This Scout sounds like he is a credit to his Troop, Family and community and I wish him continued success in his life.

[Bob White]

To grekonsz and family,

 

I owe you an apology. I joined this string to help a boy scout who I knew was being treated unfairly. I hoped to share with him the facts of the advancement program and let him know that he was not being treated properly within the rules or the spirit of the program of the BSA.

 

I apologize because I allowed myself to be drawn into a debate with a single poster. I have nothing against getting involved in a spirited debate, but it should have been in a separate string. I find using this young mans real life problems as a platform for someones personal entertainment distasteful.

 

Please read the early posts and realize that the scoutmaster, whether he realizes it or not, has exceeded the rules of scouting. As the parents of the scout, should the SM choose to not follow the BSA regulations, you may ask for an immediate appellate board of review from the district advancement committee. I can guarantee you he will pass as long as he has met the requirements in his handbook.

 

I will no longer post to this string.

 

Best Wishes for Happy Scouting,

Bob White

 

[Rooster7]

Just to throw another wrinkle into this debate, consider the following (from BSA's Troop Committee Guidebook):

 

In the chartered organization relationship, the Boy Scouts of America provides the program and support services, and the chartered organization provides the adult leadership and use the program to accomplish its goals for youth.

 

Per my understanding, the chartering organization can use the program "to accomplish its goals for youth". For example: a Scoutmaster from a Mormon troop may feel that a boy who does not attend worship regularly, is not being reverent (12th point of the Scout law), and thus is being un-Scout like. The Scout receives a "failing mark" for Scout spirit. Assuming the Scoutmaster is reflecting the beliefs of the chartering organization, this seems to be in agreement with BSA policy.

 

The fact sheet on the BSA web site says this:

 

How Community Organizations Use the Scouting

 

Program Schools, community and religious organizations, and groups, with the help of the BSA, organize Cub Scout packs, Boy Scout troops, Varsity Scout teams, Venture crews, and Learning for Life groups for children and youth. They manage these units and control the program of activities to support the goals and objectives of the chartered organizations.

 

The above reference applies to all chartering organizations (not just religious groups). In other words, it is within BSA policy for various organizations (American Legions, private schools, public schools, churches, etc.) to have different goals and objectives for youths. More to the point, what if one of these organizations felt long hair reflected a rebellious attitude (bare in mind that this is an example, not my personal feelings on a particular issue) and thus should receive a "failing mark" for Scout spirit. As long as they do not stray from the basic tenants of the Scout Oath and Law, by my reading, they have a right to use the program to solidify their beliefs.

 

I am shooting off onto another thread here, but the fact iswe (BSA troops) are more at the mercy of our Chartering Organizations than most us of realize. A charter is an agreement, a bond, between two individuals and/or groups. The troop is agreeing to the goals and objectives of the chartering organization. Some folks seem to forget this because many chartering organizations disappear into the woodwork. Still, they are the ones who are supposed to be providing overall direction, most importantly, by selecting the leadership that reflects their beliefs. So, if a Scoutmaster, reflecting the beliefs of his organization, tells a youth that long hair is not Scout like, who is to say he is wrong?

 

I've already stated my feelings on this particular story (Eagle with long hair). And the fact is, my previous responses had nothing to do with this new assertion. I don't want to reargue the case, but I'm curious to see if this is a bone of contention with others. That isDo you believe your charter organization has any say in how you should instruct and train Scouts? Do you think it is fair for the chartering organization to impose their values? If you do not believe they can, why not? By my reading, it appears that BSA policy says they can (as long as it does not violate the Scout Oath and Law as interpreted by BSA). Which leads me to believe, they need to be careful about who they accept as a chartering organization.

 

ScouterPaul,

 

Yesyou are not the only one. To add to my embarrassment, I publicly stated that I was on sabbatical! I intend to return to my respite. Now, if I could only stop all those voices (Hmm, did I say "voices"? I meant to say "thoughts") from bouncing around in my head.

 

[Dedicated Dad]

There was valuable advice, yours included DD, at the beginning. Its still the same. Dedicated Dad why do you persist in bring up women's undergarments and clothing. Oh my, surely you Paul have the capacity to understand my analogy. Its all about the SMs arbitrary (likely troop) rule concerning appearance, are you with me so far? Sometimes, to demonstrate a point we use the extreme case to test its legitimacy, Bob, NJ and apparently you dont seem to get that point. Bob, like you, misunderstands the reference to a dress refers to cross dressing and not whether Malaysian Scouts wear sarongs or Special Forces wear pantyhose in the water, its about extremes in appearance, get it? Bottom line is that nobody can add to the rank requirements that includes a SM, COR or any other leader. If you are saying that a Scout with long hair is not showing Scout Spirit then perhaps you need to review CHARACTER. No one has added any rules for advancement, I simply asked if there exists troop rules for appearance is it OK to break them because you dont agree with them or should you try to change them? If he is breaking the troop rules is there any consequence for advancement. Perhaps you could answer that or are you going to do yet another drive-by ludicrous analogy? I'll let you have the last word on all this Paul, poke me with a fork, I'm done. BTW, if I couldn't work it out my SM I'd save my head and eyebrows to make my point.

 

 

 

[NJCubScouter]

Dedicated Dad, I am not the one who is "assuming facts not in evidence." I am responding to the post as written, while you are making up hypothetical facts such as the existence of rules that appear nowhere in the posts by those who actually know the facts. I suppose that I, and almost everybody else, are assuming several things: One is that the original writer, and/or his mother, knows that the existence of a rule governing a subject is crucial to a discussion of how that subject is being handled by the SM. Another assumption is that the boy and his mother are trustworthy and would therefore present all the facts they believe to be relevant. Therefore, if there were a rule, they would say so. I therefore respond as if there is no rule. What the Scoutmaster said is not a rule; if there was a rule, he would not be talking about what other Eagles in other units might look like, he would just enforce the rule.

 

If I assumed that every writer who presents a "story" were omitting a crucial fact, there would be no point in responding at all, because any response would be worthless. And if everybody assumed that, there would be no point in anybody asking the forum for advice on any subject, because everybody would assume that the questioner is lying about the facts or at least leaving out a critical fact, and the response would not match the question. I see no reason to make such an assumption.

 

Also, DedicatedDad states:

 

Regardless, I still contend the Scout should work to change the rules or arbitrary whims of his Scoutmaster before he runs to the BSA Libertarian zealots who would do it for him.

 

Rules, not in quotation marks, yes. I don't know what a rule in quotation marks is. As for "arbitrary whims," I have agreed with others who have stated that the Scout should speak with the Scoutmaster to state his position and try to get his agreement. The next step, as you suggested in your first post in this thread, would be for the Scout to reconsider his own position and decide whether to challenge the SM. I agree with that. Just because the SM is breaking the rules does not mean that this particular Scout has the obligation to challenge him on it. But the third step, if the Scout in fact decides not to cut his hair or to "collect" examples of long-haired Eagles, would be to follow the established procedures, or rules, to seek a different result.

 

And as for "the BSA Libertarian zealots," I find that phrase rather amusing for reasons that, as I have suggested before, would send this thread way off-topic if I were to discuss them here. I don't know whether you are directing that label to people who may or may not be on the Scout's district or council advancement committee, or to people in this forum. If it is the latter, I would comment that BobWhite and Ed Mori, for two, have not demonstrated a great deal of libertarian zealotry on that subject that I am not going to discuss here. The issue there is what should be a rule in a particular instance; but once there is agreement about what the rules are, as there is here, those 2 gentlemen and I agree that you do not enforce a rule that does not exist. That is not particularly "libertarian," not that that is necessarily a bad word. Almost (note the "almost") everybody I know, including posters on this forum, is a "libertarian" on at least some subjects, even if they don't identify themselves as such.

 

And finally DedicatedDad, I am wondering how many different people are writing under your account name. In your first post in this thread, you said:

 

I see no compelling reason to cut your hair, you certainly have the right to complete your Eagle however you want while remaining inside the rules, let the chips fall where they may. I think youre on solid ground here to make this happen on your terms.

 

and

 

You have the absolute right to finish your Scouting career in whatever manor you wish, but just because you can doesnt mean its the right thing to do.

 

Those statements do not seem consistent with your most recent posts regarding "rules" and "Obedient." At first, you thought the Scout had the right to do what he was doing, you just questioned whether sticking to his guns would well serve him in later life. Now you are questioning whether sticking to his guns is right or wrong, a violation of "rules" and dis-Obedient. If you are merely playing Devil's advocate, you should say so and save the rest of us the time and energy of responding. Otherwise, these cannot both be the opinions of the same person.

[Mike Long]

Grekonsz (if you are still even bothering to wade through this)

 

I'd sit down with your scoutmaster and ask him a couple of simple questions.

 

1. If I don't cut my hair will you refuse to sign my Eagle application?

2. Do you think that I am a good scout?

3. Have I completed all of the BSA requirements successfully to earn my eagle?

4. If the answer to the two previous questions are yes then please explain why my hairstyle invalidates a lifetime of hard work.

5. If the answer is no then please explain why you chose to wait until the last minute to discuss my failings with me?

6. Is this some sort of test to see if I am willing to fight for my rights? If so, I am.

7. Are you aware that a Scoutmaster can not add requirements to the Eagle rank? (or any other for that matter)

 

As for long hair my brother and I both had long hair when we recieved our eagles. It didn't look like it though cause it is so curly.

[ScouterPaul]

Hey Mike

When are we going to get back to backpacking. I miss your posts. I know this isn't part of this thread but I had to ask.