bullying incident

[Eagle_SM]

I have been reading this board for several months now, and have decided that it is time to step in...

 

First, I agree with yaworski in that this is one of those "boys will be boys" encounters, the older boy just trying to get a rise out of the younger boy. Boys will often use anything remotely sexual (particularly homosexual) for the subject of such comments for the simple reason that they tend to get the most immediate and strongest reaction. Just as acco40 said, the boys of this generation call each other "gay" as an insult, not as a proposition. From what I got out of the situation, the older boy was not actually making sexual advances to the younger, but rather using the sexual context (and the sexual insecurities that all boys of that age feel) to sort of pick a verbal fight with the younger. Just as our class bullies picked on someone for being fat, or wearing glasses, this generation of youth use sexual connotations to do the same. This probably has something to do with the open-ness of our society with sex in general.

 

Don't get me wrong - I am not trying to defend the older boy's actions. I believe that this bullying should be punnished, but not to the extent of removal from the Troop. From what I can pick up from the text (I don't know this for sure since I wasn't there), the younger boy wasn't actually intimidated all that much - he seemed to be more concerned with getting his chair back than the comments/actions of the older boy. And when he wanted the bed checks that night, it wasn't because he was worried about being sexually assulted - he was worried about general retaliation for telling the adults.

 

The older boy definitely deserves some kind of punnishment, but not to be banned from the troop. I mean, the main purpose of the BSA is "to provide a program ... that offers effective character, citizenship, and personal fitness training for youth" (first line on http://www.scouting.org/factsheets/02-503.html)

 

This boy (the older one) is the exact type of person who needs this training the most. If we just kick him out, what good does that do for his community? Remember, Jesus came to this world to reach out to the sinner, the lost sheep. Maai said that this boy was the subject of at least one adult meeting. My question is was it just his actions that were discussed, or was a course of action discussed to properly train the boy? I feel that his parents should be contacted and the parents and troop work close together to try to get this boy turned around and stop being a bully. I know this is not an easy thing to do, but it does work - i've seen it done several times in my own troop. Ok, enough rambling for now...

[Twocubdad]

Someone asked, "What laws were violated?" Review the original post. Standing next to someone and humping them is sexual assault in most states. If this isn't a clear YPG violation, what is? Thirty years ago as a Scout, I saw where this trail ends. It ain't pretty.

 

The older boy should have been removed from the other boys immediately and the YPG violation reported to the local Council Executive.

 

Sorry folks, but this isn't even a close call.

 

 

[evmori]

scoutmom,

"any act that includes "humping" has a sexual meaning." Guess you don't condone dancing, either?

 

Considering the 2nd post, this Scout should have at least been suspended since this wasn't the 1st time this type of behavior has occured. I'm still not in favor of kicking him out.

 

Bob,

I agree about the unalterable policy. But the way it is worded using "may result in the revocation of a Scout's membership in the unit" doesn't mean this type of behavior automatically dictates removal. The unit leaders are given the latitude to determine what action should be taken.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

 

[Rooster7]

I'm undecided. When I hear a story like this, my first inclination is to deal with the offender harshly. Very few folks like a bully, and I'm no exception. However, I tend to agree that this is a case of bullying and not "sexual harassment". Then again, if I knew the offender better, and actually witnessed the event, I might change my mind. Just the same, as Bob has pointed out, bullying needs to be treated seriously (BSA policy dictates it, but our common sense should tell us the same). In fact, many bullying cases are just as bad or worse then so-called sexual harassment cases. Regardless, I don't think how we label the incident should have much of a bearing on how the troop deals with it. This is kind of like the "hate crime" debate. Do victims of hate crimes suffer more than other victims? It's merely a label. By all appearances, the victim was truly victimized. Still, as an outsider, what do we really know about these boys and the incident. It's all third hand knowledge. Even if I knew all of the specifics, its not the same as being there and really knowing the people involved.

 

Does the offender have a track record of bullying?

Has he been made aware as to what is acceptable, what is not, and why?

What is the offender's attitude? Is he known to be mean-spirited?

Is it apparent to the adults involved that his intentions were malicious?

Is he repentant of his actions?

How did the victim ask for his chair back?

What was the boy's attitude during this incident?

Did he give any impression that he was playing along - as if it were a joke?

Did he do anything to intentionally provoke the "bully"?

Is it possible that the "victim" is lying?

Does the victim have any motive for lying?

Does any of his fellow scouts have motive for lying?

Do these two scouts have a history of conflict? If so, has it been one-sided?

 

It may be that your previous posts provided all of the pertinent facts and there are no answers to the above questions, which could possibly change anybody's mind. My questions are not meant to infer innocents or guilt. I am suggesting that you and your troop are in the best position to make this judgment. You know the parties involved better than anyone else on this board. You probably have a good idea as to what was real and what was imagined. We were not there. No one on this board can claim that kind of knowledge. I feel this is much too serious of a matter for us (or any outsider) to be suggesting something without having intimate knowledge of the people and/or witnessing the event. Having said all the above, I feel your main responsibility is to protect the boys, especially those boys that are acting like scouts.

 

[NJCubScouter]

I did not comment on this previously, partly because I was just shocked by the whole thing. I was even shocked by how shocked I was, since I have become so jaded by life in general, that very few things have that effect on me anymore. It is really the words spoken by the older boy, more than the "humping" that creeps me out, but the combination is just, well, shocking.

 

Can you imagine being this younger boy? I think he acted quite bravely and obviously has a great deal of self-confidence. I think many younger boys would not deal with this situation quite so well. I know one particular boy, scheduled to cross over from Webelos in March who, if this ever happened to him, would almost definitely insist on going home himself immediately, and probably would quit Scouting on the spot. And it would be difficult to blame him. There is just no place for this. Goodness gracious, where did this older boy even get the idea to say these things?

 

(By the way, it is my guess that the older boy is not "gay", nor is he a "pedophile," as some have mentioned. Not to make light of the situation, I suspect that if the younger boy had responded positively to this "advance," or pretented to do so, the older boy would have set a land-speed record in the opposite direction.)

 

As for the "remedy," clearly something significant must be done. If this boy has been warned, and I mean really warned, about misbehavior in the past, removal from the troop is probably appropriate. If not, meaning this is a "first offense," I as a committee member would have a difficult time deciding between removal and some lesser sanction. Certainly a suspension until a meeting could be held with the boy and his parents. It would be interesting to see the reaction of the boy's parents in that setting, when the actual words he spoke were reported. If the parents decided that the younger boy was being accurate, they might themselves provide the remedy BobWhite suggests without the committee having to take official action. Maybe the older boy himself could offer some mitigating facts. But I do agree that the safety of the other boys is paramount, and if that cannot be safeguarded short of a removal, that is the right move.

 

Ed Mori says:

 

scoutmom,

"any act that includes "humping" has a sexual meaning." Guess you don't condone dancing, either?

 

Ed, do the boys in your troop do "dirty dancing" with each other at summer camp? Dancing that includes "humping" does have a sexual meaning. Most people don't do that kind of dancing with each other unless they "mean it," or as a joke, but even if it is a joke it is still a sexual joke. That is not approved behavior among Scouts, is it?

 

Now, "in my day" dirty jokes among Scouts were usually condoned by the leaders, but it is not my day anymore. But even if this was a joke, it is not just a dirty joke, it is a joke about having sex with another boy. (By the way, if Scouting were coed and the younger person was a girl, it would be equally bad, so don't anybody even start with me on that.) The reported behavior crosses a line, and not just a thin fuzzy dotted line, it crosses a big black line with alarms and railroad-crossing signs on it.

 

As for those who say this was not "sexual harrassment," let's listen again to the words allegedly spoken: "I know you want to get it on with me. Come here and do it with me." At the same time he is withholding the younger boy's property. That's not sexual harrassment? It's close enough for me. I do partially agree with Rooster in the sense that what should be evaluated and addressed is the conduct rather than the label, but the fact is that labels (when they are accurate) do sometimes assist in describing the nature and seriousness of conduct, and this is one of those times. I am reminded of the words of the Thomas Jefferson character in "1776" -- "The King is a tyrant, whether we say so or not. We might as well say so." This sounds like sexual harrassment, whether we say so or not.(This message has been edited by NJCubScouter)

[Rooster7]

I refrained from making this statement in my first post because I didn't want to give the wrong impression. I didn't want anyone to think that I condone the behavior that the boy was being accused of perpetrating. Please keep that in mind. That being said, I feel compelled to state the following:

 

Not all boys are alike (that's not meant to be condescending). Some boys are extremely thick headed. Some boys are extremely sensitive. Some are very confident. Some are very insecure. Every boy is different. I truly believe that it is possible that this kid did not realize just how far over the line he went.

 

But as I noted previously, only the direct parties know the true situation. I don't want to give this kid an out, especially if none is deserved.

 

[Quixote]

Satan is selling snowcones folks....Rooster, Bob White, NJ, Myself, etc. agree....

 

I just saw this post and am shocked that any group of adults responsible for the safe wellbeing of minors would not see the danger signs displayed by this boys' actions.

 

Another question comes to mind - of the adults that were in the camp, how many were properly trained? Take out the G2SS (you've got one at camp, right?) and read it to the other adults - that's why it's there.

 

YIS

Quixote

[yaworski]

I guess that I gotta face it, the world is being run by the children of hippies.

 

All of you expect everyone to be nothing but goodness and light. Don't fight, don't fight back, never be angry, don't play rough. But you folks are the same ones who are afraid to go out at night, expect the police to protect you and are willing to send our young men to die in silly places like Somalia and Bosnia.

[yaworski]

"Standing next to someone and humping them is sexual assault in most states."

 

Didn't think so so I checked with a friend who is a lieutenant on our county's 1,000 person (almost said 1,000 man) police force. Here's his answer to my question, "Would this be sexual assault?"

 

NO.

It does not sound to me like any criminal conduct took place. 4th degree sex assault involves the unwanted touching of the private parts

'of the victim'. Any higher degree involves a lot more.

 

It could wildly be construed as a second degree assault, the unwanted touching of any part. That would be such a stretch as to be rediculous given

the circumstances.

 

I live in Montgomery County, Maryland which probably runs a close second to LA for whining liberalism.

 

(This message has been edited by yaworski)

[NJCubScouter]

So Yaworski, what you are saying is that BobWhite is a liberal? He sure hasn't struck me that way. I really am a liberal, on most things anyway, and I've never seen Bob at any of the secret meetings. And since Rooster sort of two-thirds agrees with me on this issue, I guess that must make him a moderate -- and not a rapid ultraconservative as I had previously thought.

 

Strange bedfellows indeed.

 

Speaking of which, in discussions of that other subject that we used to discuss frequently in this part of the forum, it seems to me that "liberals" were often being accused of not caring enough how other people behave. Now "liberals" care too much? Get your stories straight. We need to convene the Ideological Labeling Committee to straighten out what we all are, so our beliefs can be properly pigeonholed.

 

[yaworski]

"So Yaworski, what you are saying is that BobWhite is a liberal? "

 

Ah, the Bob White disease of reading into what I've said.

[NJCubScouter]

That's ok Yaworski, I'll let the readers judge for themselves whether my interpretation of what you said was correct or not.

[evmori]

NJCubScouter,

The Scouts in my Troop don't dance with each other. I was refering to the type of dancing these guys might do at school dances. Is that sexual harassment? I think not.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Bob White]

I also checked with the local police department's Juvenile Division and spoke with an investigator specializing in child abuse. This would indeed constitute child abuse, especially if the offender was two years of age or older than the victim, and should have been reported by the adults on the outing to the state agency responsible for investigating child abuse. They are the authority for determining if legal charges will be filed. It is not the leaders responsibility or authority to determine if abuse took place. By not reporting the event, the adults who the victim reported the event to, could be charged in most states for failure to report abuse, because scoutleaders (like teachers) are considered mandatory reporting agents (or a similar term).

 

The only person who did the right thing in this case was the scout who reported the event to the adult leaders.

 

Bob White(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[SagerScout]

Yaworski, you wrote:

 

" All of you expect everyone to be nothing but goodness and light. Don't fight, don't fight back, never be angry, don't play rough. But you folks are the same ones who are afraid to go out at night, expect the police to protect you and are willing to send our young men to die in silly places like Somalia and Bosnia. "

 

I'm not afraid to go out at night, because a) I think most people are pretty nice, and b) I don't mind taking reasonable precautions to assure my own safety, which generally involves avoiding unsafe people and unsafe situations. Where unsafe situations can't be avoided, my precautions involve prayer for a hedge of angels, which I have found to be particularly effective. And pepper spray in my pocket (legal in my state).

 

I will also fight like a tiger to protect children from abusive situations, with dismaying results I grant you. I guess you would suggest that I was wrong to turn in the Mom who split her 10-year old daughter's lip and put dark purple bruises all over her torso with a hockey stick because the kid hadn't done her homework. After all, kids should be toughened up, right? They need to know the world isn't all goodness and light.

 

But the most important point that I wish to cover is:

 

YES. I EXPECT SCOUTS TO BE GOOD. EVERY BLESSED ONE OF THEM. The scout in the example blew it on so many points of the law, I don't think I could list them all.

 

A SCOUT IS CLEAN

 

There is a difference between "boys will be boys" and "boys will be insufferable beasts." Boys being boys includes behavior like heaving a football through the window because you thought you could throw it all the way over the house; swiping Dad's tools to make something and forgetting to put them back; eating the entire contents of the pantry and then asking "what's for dinner?"; forgetting to bathe for three days because you're busy with other important stuff like building model airplanes. It doesn't involve this kid's exercise of bullying, obnoxious, harrassing behavior in any way, shape or form.

 

A SCOUT IS TRUSTWORTHY

 

Should he be thrown out of the troop? I think that is best left to the TC involved, just because they are the only ones who truly can get the whole story. But should he have been sent home in disgrace? ABSOLUTELY, and the entire troop should have been convened and informed of WHY he was going home. Failure to respect other's property might have been overlooked or punished lightly, but the bullying and making sorta-sexual advances on another's person are not minor matters. The whole troop should know that all elements of this incident were NOT ok, and if the offender has to explain to 20 probably grossed-out boys that he didn't really want to get it on with another scout, that's a-ok with me.

 

A SCOUT IS KIND

Just because many youth of today appear to be going to H*** in a handbasket doesn't mean SCOUTS gotta go with them.

 

A SCOUT IS COURTEOUS

And I have to say, I personally have been offended by your comments to Bob White and others on this otherwise pleasant board.