Eagle Problem

[ScouterPaul]

DD - I'm afraid to disappoint you but I'm going to take the high road and not get into a spitting contest with you. Like Bob White let me apologize to grekonsz and his family. I know he will make the right decison.

[tjhammer]

I've been distracted away from the Forums on business for a while (and I needed to allow the "vein on my forehead" to subside, too).

 

With tongue firmly ensconced in cheek... Should the POLICY to ban kids with long hair be enforced at the local level, or the National level? You know, since we all can't agree on the subject, and there doesn't seem to be a real definitive statement on this issue from either BSA or Baden-Powell.

 

grekonsz -- you're obviously a bright young man, and I'm sure you've gotten all of the advice you originally sought (and then some!). You've met the requirements, and you're now up against someone who wants to force their will and opinions over your own. That's obviously not an uncommon thing in life, especially if you deviate from conformity in any way. Scouting builds leaders, not followers. If youre an Arrowman, youll remember that sometimes all your strength will be required, and the path seem dark and lonely, as you face the isolation that a leader often faces.

 

Obviously, long-hair and non-conformity does not by definition make you a leader. But the courage to follow your heart, and stand for what you believe is right, does. In the end, you'll best resolve your problem with diplomacy, but that does not necessarily mean compromise. Congratulations from a fellow Eagle Scout!

 

[Mike Long]

Hi Paul,

 

I thought I'd have a new thread up by now but everythings been crazy. 70 hour work weeks plus scouts don't help either (well, scouts DOES help)

 

I've got a OA fellowship this weekend and next weekend I'm taking the older boys on a 50 miler (1 week) around Cades Cove in the Smokies. Happy happy! So very soon after that you WILL see something.

 

I do take requests if there is something that's bugging you.

[NJCubScouter]

Rooster, why do you and DedicatedDad feel compelled to make up facts that are not part of the scenario presented by the Scout and his mom, and then act as if the answer to your made-up situation is (or may be) the answer to the Scout's question? In your case, there is absolutely no suggestion that the CO has a hair-length policy, or even that the SM went to the CO and asked if he could impose one, and got approval. The facts suggest just the opposite. This boy was appointed SPL by this SM! If there was a rule, or a policy, or a suggestion by the CO, or anything of the kind, that boys in the troop should not have long hair, would this SM have appointed this boy SPL? It makes absolutely no sense to me. Eagle may be the highest rank, but the SPL is the highest ranking boy in the troop even if he is Second Class. So I really have to conclude that this is something the SM came up with on a whim.

 

Now, some others seem to have gone even further than I would and state flat-out that a troop may not adopt a hair-length rule, or at least not a rule against long but clean hair. I am not sure this is true, and I take no position on it. What I do take a position on is that if there can be such a rule, it has to be a rule that governs conduct in the troop, by all boys from Scout to Eagle with palms, and smallest boy in the new-Scout patrol to SPL and JASM. What this SM has done is not adopt a rule to govern conduct in the troop, but only by boys (so far, maybe just this boy) who are going for Eagle. And that is not a troop rule, that is an advancement requirement that the SM is adding, and he cannot do that. It is as if the SM said, I don't think 21 merit badges (if that is still the correct number) is enough to show Scout Spirit, you have to earn 23. Or you have to do 2 projects. Or you have serve in a leadership position while a Life Scout for a year instead of 6 months (or whatever it is.) All to show Scout Spirit, you understand.

 

Nobody would defend that. (Or maybe, having read some of the posts in this and other threads, I shouldn't assume anything about what people will say around here...)

[Rooster7]

NJCubScouter,

 

You knowfor a lawyer (right?), you don't read very well. Since you apparently missed it the fist time, let me repost it:

 

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.

 

[NJCubScouter]

Thank you, Rooster, for posting part of your post in larger type, my aging eyes appreciate it. But that really isn't the part of your post I was responding to. I was responding to your dragging the subject of the chartered organization into this thread, where it does not belong.

[Rooster7]

NJCubScouter,

 

I agree that grekonsz has not offered any information to give us reason to believe that the chartering organization is influencing the Scoutmaster's decision. I am guilty of pushing this debate into a general topic, verses one that addresses grekonsz specific problem.

 

However, I did not "make up facts" or inferred that my examples were directly related to grekonsz's case. His case did prompt me to broaden the discussion to chartering organizations. I did not attempt to apply my assertion directing to him. I went to great lengths to emphasize this point. My sentiment concerning his specific circumstance was addressed many posts ago and I am not trying to revisit them. How you can read that paragraph (in bold) and not understand this simple fact is beyond me? If you want to "play fair", then accuse me of going off topic (perhaps, guilty as charged). It's not quite as abrasive as your contention, but at least its honest. Thank you.

 

(Or maybe, having read some of the posts in this and other threads, I shouldn't assume anything about what people will say around here...) FunnyI was thinking the same thing.

 

[featherswillfly]

Dear Grekonsz family,

Congratulations on your son coming to this point in his life. I hope that you folks will post just how this whole situation gets resolved. I believe that everyone here will learn a few lessons from your situation no matter how your son makes his choice.

Yours in Scouting, Feathers

[Rooster7]

I wish they would fix this edit function...

 

That should have read "...directly to him" vice "directing to him".

 

By the way, regardless of the outcome, I do want to congradulate grekonsz as others have done, on achieving the rank of Eagle. May God bless your future.

[NJCubScouter]

To Rooster: In retrospect, my reading of the post in question is that the extensive discussion of the chartered organization's role itself carried at least a potential implication of relevance to this particular set of facts, which I guess I thought negated your disclaimer to some extent. In other words, I did not think that your point was as clear as you thought it was. You have since made it abundantly clear that you were not saying what I thought you might be saying. However, I also was not completely clear, because in discussing the "making up" of facts, I did not mean that you were trying to change the facts of the actual story, but rather that you were presenting a hypothetical, which would normally be fine but which I did not think belonged in this thread about an actual set of facts. Maybe that is just a different way of saying that you were off-topic, which you have basically acknowledged.

 

It is also possible that I was unduly influenced by what I saw as chiming-in with DedicatedDad, who did inject his own facts into the discussion, and in fact criticized me for assuming that the scenario presented by the original poster represented the Whole Truth. I am still waiting for an explanation from him, and anyone else who cares to join in, as to how a Scoutmaster could deem a boy's hair length suitable for service as SPL (not just as a candidate for the boys to possibly elect, but as an appointee of the SM), but not as a candidate for Eagle Scout. Those are the facts as they have been presented.

 

So, as to you Rooster, I withdraw and regret any negative implications other than that you were off-topic, and normally I wouldn't even say anything about that. In 12+ years of posting on discussion boards on AOL, other services and the Internet, I have been known to make an off-topic remark or two on occasion. I just think it is something to be particularly avoided when someone, and maybe particularly a youth, is asking for help with his own real-life situation.

[Rooster7]

NJCubScouter,

 

I will grant you that there is something inconsistent about a SM who would select a kid as his SPL, and then deny him an endorsement for Eagle because of his long hair. Especially since the boy had long hair when the SM appointed him as the SPL. I'm assuming the SM never made mentioned of it before.

 

If I chose to make assumptions (reasonable ones at that), I could easily throw my name in the hat with so many others who are basically stating, the Scoutmaster should be taken to task. I know, with no other facts presented about this situation, in regard to BSA policy, the SM is wrong. I've never disputed that assertion. Yet, I maintain that all of our advice to this Scout should be well qualified, and accompanied with appropriate disclaimers.

 

Rereading my own posts, I've come to realize that depending on the mood of the reader (not to mention background, culture, education, etc.) my words could be interpreted differently than I intended. The same thoughts could be construed as friendly humor, or as mean spirited sarcasm. Likewise, when one is presented a story, no matter how many facts are thrown out, it's not the same as being there and knowing the people involved. So, I like to discuss the issue thoroughly and examine the hypothetical situations. Some may view this as a stubborn refusal to recognize the facts. I recognize the facts, but I like to tread out on the ice slowly. We think we know how thick the ice is, but we really don't know unless we cut into it, or until it breaks.

 

[evmori]

Mike Long,

Excellent post! The only thing I would change is the order of the questions. I would as #2 & #3 then #1.

 

We all would like our Scouts to agree with everything we say! Yeah, right!!! Yes I want my Scouts to question the things they don't think are correct. This is a great way to open up discussions with the Scouts. I have always encouraged my Scouts to ask questions. I love spending time with them discussing issues they odn't understand or issues I don't understand. Does this mean I can tell a Scout who has met ever other reuqirement for a rank he can't have that rank because I don't like his appearance? NO. I repeat NO! Just because I don't like the way a Scout looks is not a reason to hold back advancement.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

[dan]

I was out of town for 2 days and WOW!

 

I just read all 72 posts and only a few mentioned that this scout was appointed SPL! How does one become appointed SPL?

He also mentioned that he asked the SM what he should do at a campout I believe and the SM said stay in my back pocket! There is some guidance for a Scout!

These 2 comments SUGGEST to me that this SM is not following the program! He is not following the patrol method at all!

 

Oh by the way I am going to put some troop rules in that one cannot have a crew cut! After all there are some really bad people out there with crew cuts! And crew cuts are ugly!

 

[John Schmidt]

My congratulations to grekronsz on completing his Eagle requirements. As a father of 4 Eagle Scouts (with hair over their ears) I realize the effort and dedication it takes to "Trail the Eagle." Always in my 30+ years of asking young Scouts to live the Scout Oath & Law I have tried to remember that the Scout is the most important reason for being involed. To put this young man in this position is sheer madness and just plain stupid.

 

I think I can find some old Summer Camp Staff pictures with enough long hair Eagles to satisfy Samson. But I think grekonsz should handle it with diplomacy and tell the SM to go to h*** so that he looks forward to the trip.

 

Again, congratulations on your Eagle!

 

Our very best to you.

 

 

[scoutdad]

I was just thumbing through a copy of "Norman Rockwells World of Scouting" that a friend had given me. On page 33 there is a picture of Ernest Thompson Seton with the caption "Ernest Thompson Seton, the first Chief Scout of the Boy Scouts of America, was six feet tall, spare, sinewy, and athletic, with a shock of unruly hair and a bushy mustache." The picture shows him with flowing collar length hair. When hair styles changed to shorter hair were the life scouts required to grow their hair out to advance? Food for thought.

 

Scoutdad