bullying incident

[NJCubScouter]

Sexual harassment, sexual misconduct, sexual abuse, comment with sexual content... I think we are getting hung up on terminology. It was at the very least a comment with sexual content, and it was coupled with a refusal to give the younger Scout back his property. The older Scout clearly crossed a line, and what we are debating is (or should be) how far across the line he went, or maybe exactly which line he crossed. Serious consequences are warranted. Reasonable minds can differ as to whether removal is necessary, but I think it is clearly one of the range of options reasonably available to the troop. I think that reasonable minds can also differ as to whether this conduct has to be reported to council (though I suspect BobWhite would disagree with me on that.) On that point, it is relevant whether the older Scout "meant it," in other words, was he making a sexual pass at the other boy, and I think it is clear that he was not. He was implying that the other boy was gay, and he probably wasn't even serious about that. He was likely "just making fun," but his words and actions took it to a whole other level that he probably didn't realize he was taking it to. That doesn't mean it was an "accident." In the law we have a level of culpability above "negligent" and below "intentional," called "recklessness," sometimes called "gross negligence." (And sometimes the latter 2 are distinguished from each other, and it gets very confusing trying to draw a line between them.) And sometimes a level gets added to recklessness, such as "wilful wanton recklessness" or "recklessness manifesting extreme indifference." I say this not to confuse things or to give a law lesson, but to suggest that the conduct described in this thread may be "punished" without knowing exactly what was in the older Scout's mind at the time. It was more than just a "mistake" or "carelessness." It was an action showing little or no concern about what the result would be, and that type of conduct needs to be corrected and prevented. Recklessness can be punished very severely by the law -- if you kill someone due to reckless conduct, it is manslaughter or aggravated manslaughter, and you can go to prison for awhile, sometimes a long while in the latter case.

 

Which leads to another possible comparison. If I say to you, "I'm going to kill you," everything depends on the context: How I say it, how you take it, what else is going on at the time. Depending on the context, it can be a joke, or it can be a prelude to homicide that puts you in great fear. Maybe there's a scale of 1 to 10 that it could be put on, most benign to most malignant. The conduct in this scenario was not a 10 (the worst), but it was not a 1, either. It is somewhere in between, and the point at which discipline (including protection of other Scouts) starts also is somewhere in between. Everybody seems to have their own set of numbers, but for most (including me), in this case, the number for this conduct is at least as high as the number where discipline starts. BobWhite might put it several rungs higher, I put it at least one rung higher, but in neither case would the reaction of the troop leadership (basically just shrugging it off) be justifiable.)

[Venturer2002]

You're right, and here is what should have transpired according to the G2SS:

 

"The unit committee should review repetitive or serious incidents of misbehavior in consultation with the parents of the child to determine a course of corrective action including possible revocation of the youth's membership in the unit.

 

If problem behavior persists, units may revoke a Scout's membership in that unit. When a unit revokes a Scout's membership, it should promptly notify the council of the action."

 

 

 

 

[Bob White]

Ok Venturer2002, If you think that this is only bullying and not sexual misconduct, let me ask this. What is your background for determining this and for your evaluation that the boy needs counseling? Bear in mind that you are making a decision that has legal ramifacations for you, and the chater organization.

 

My point is you do not have the training or educational background to make that evaluation. Nor do have have the authority to make a decision that could result in leagal action against your charter organization. By failing to follow the policies stated in the G2SS you nullify the liability coverage and legal protection that would have been provided to you and the CO by the BSA had you followed the policies.

 

Since everyone seems to agree that at the very least this is bullyinghere is Websters definition of bullying:

1 : to treat abusively

2 : to affect by means of force or coercion

 

add the sexual nature of the scouts attack and you will see that this is indeed sexual misconduct.

 

By the way I believe what was said is that you must, by scoutings policies,notify the Scout Executive (not the police).

 

I appreciate that the boy likely needs counseling. However if you think he will get it because you suggest it to him or to his parents, life doesn't work that way. It will take a higher athority than a scoutleader to get this young man the help he needs. Until then you have a responsibility to the boys willing to behave as scouts to protect their health and safety. That includes protecting them from this "bully".

 

 

Your feelings are honorable but you have a responsibility to follow the rules.

 

Bob White

 

[Rooster7]

NJ,

 

I agree with your assessment.

 

I'm somewhere between Venturer2002 and Bob White. I understand both viewpoints. Which is why, I think we need to show some discernment. As many other posters have observed, this incident seems to be a case of bullying and not sexual misconduct. Regardless, the people directly involved should have a better idea than we do. If it is a case of bullying as opposed to sexual misconduct, then the troop has more options as to how they can deal with it. I appreciate the no non-sense approach because I truly want my child to be in a safe and enjoyable environment. On the other hand, I appreciate Venturer2002's viewpoint and agree that we should try to help misguided boys. However, I don't want to give the ship in order to save a few "pirates". If/When good boys suffer on a regular basis because the "bad ones" refuse to get the message, I would encourage my troop to quickly abandon their efforts.

 

[Venturer2002]

People on the Internet should use more care in the wording of their posts, because sometimes the whole basis of their argument is false.

 

Posters on this forum had no way of knowing that when I posted my last comment on this thread, it was as a YWCA certified Peer Mediator. This training allows me to objectively look at conflicts, weigh the benefits and disadvantages of each possible course of action, and where necessary reccomend a consultation with a mental health or religious professional.

 

I am by no means a mental health professional in any capacity (nor do I profess to be one); I do have in-depth training in conflict management and resolution, as well as identifying larger problems than the conflict.

 

I will refer Bob White back to the G2SS, where he will see that if the course of action agreed upon both by the Troop Committee and Parents is not upheld, then you should revoke membership in that unit. To protect the rest of the unit, presumably.

 

You have a lot of wiggle room in regards to interpretation of these policies, and I feel that Bob White was somewhat misleading, claiming that not following policy will nullify protection; I again will refer him back to the G2SS.

 

Both Bob White and I agree to follow the established policies, we just differ in opinion as to which one is appropriate.

 

[Bob White]

My points still stand Venturer2002,

We agree that even if this was bullying at the very least, it should have gone to a meeting between the troop committtee, the scout, and his parents, but it did not. The leaders told the scout not to do it again and that is not enough.

 

Your certification is praise worthy but it does not qualify you to overrule notifying the council scout executive. If a lawsuit follows and you have not notified the SE you will have forfeited your liability and legal protection for yourself and your charter organization. A costly mistake. The reporting steps and G2SS policies are there to protect the scout, the leaders and the CO, but they can only do that if they are followed. By the leaders in maai's troop simply telling the scout not to do it again they endanger the other scout's saftey and the finances of the leaders and CO. Where does that put the bully? What would be last on your list of priorities? Is he worth a leader losing a lifesavings over. is he worth the health of a scout? Is he worth losing youth members over. Is he worth the lawsuit. he is definetly worth saving but that is best done by services outside our area of program.

 

Scouting is for every boy, but not every boy is for scouting. "Misbehavior by a single youth member in a Scouting unit may constitute a threat to the safety of the individual who misbehaves as well as to the safety of other unit members. Such misbehavior constitutes an unreasonable burden on a Scout unit and cannot be ignored." Guide to Safe Scouting

 

The vast majority of scout leaders are not social workers or psychologists. That is not what we do or what the programs purpose is. If the scout wants to participate and benefit from the program all we ask is that he behaves as a scout. If this scout is at least one or two years older, and has been warned of his behavior before as maai says he has then he knew what was expected of him and still did not behave in anyway remotely resembling scouting. It is time for the unit to seriously consider the undue burden to others caused by this scout and take some kind of action following the scouting regulations.

 

Wouldn't you agree?

 

Bob White

 

[yaworski]

The big problem is that the "trained professionals" are extremists. They think that two kids arguing over who gets to sit where demands counseling. They think that a parent who grabs a child and drags him crying out of a toy store is abusing that child. These "trained professionals" have the confidence of very few Americans but everyone is afraid to speak out because they are afraid that they'll be marked by the "trained professionals."

 

 

 

 

 

[Bob White]

Which trained professionals?

And people who report will be marked as what, "reporters", "responsible citizens"?

 

If you are sure there are only a "few" Americans who trust them perhaps you could name them. They are an awfully busy few people since last year there were over 3,000,000 cases of child abuse in the USA alone, and every one of them was reported by someone.

 

 

[yaworski]

What we have is a bunch of teachers and doctors who are compelled by laws drafted by professional busybodies to report everything and anything.

 

It is an incestuous system in which the "trained professionals" create the justification for their own existence. It is to their benefit to create new definitions of abuse and then ram them down the throats of the public.

 

 

 

[OldGreyEagle]

This may be the point where we take a look at history and see how we got here.

 

Gone is the day when a man could beat his wife and have the neighbors turn a blind eye and deaf ear, after all, a mans house is his castle and he could literlly rule with an iron fist.

 

Gone is the day when children could go to school with two black eyes or bruises up and down the kids torso and no one would question the childs explanation that "I fell out of bed".

 

Gone is the day when while treating a recent injury, the Emergency Doctor finds evidence of multiple old injuries and dismisses them as a clumsy child, or "its not my role to judge"

 

Maybe the pendulum has swung to far, maybe the "trained professionals" are out of control, that they see a world of abuse that doesnt exist, but, when you examine the past, you can see that we have arrived where we are for a reason, and it wasnt the "trained professionals" making things up it was society ignoring the monsters in our midst.

[Bob White]

Well said OGE.

[yaworski]

OGE, your world view is skewed. Plain and simple. From the way that you talk, everything that could go wrong in your life did go wrong.

 

Quite honestly, the abuse that you and "the trained professionals" see was never as widespread as you want to believe.

 

By today's standards, most of my generation was abused. We got smacked when we got out of line. We got our mouths washed out with soap for using foul language. If you got in trouble at school, you were in twice as much trouble at home.

 

Now the big punishment at my daughter's school is sitting on the bench outside the principal's office. The kids think that it is a joke. You get sent to the principal's office and she talks to you with her "sad face" then you sit on a bench for half an hour. Wow!

 

My neighbor's daughter started beating on her father who has a bad heart. Mom pulled the daughter off dad and then called the police. The police made mom move out until things were "resolved" because she used force against her child.

 

The inmates are running the asylum.

 

 

[OldGreyEagle]

Of course my view of the world is skewed. It is skewed by my unique blend of experiences that comes from growing up in the western suburbs of Chicago, having a father that was a DI in the Marines who was brought up on a farm in rural depression Maine and having a mother who was third generation Polish (wanna swap czarnina recipes?)who grew up in Chicago. I have a roman catholic background and spent three years in the seminary and earned Eagle in 1969. I cannot coment on anything I see except in the context of my experiences.

 

Everyone who posts on this board can write a similar background paragraph like mine and all will be unique and specific to them. The only way humans can relate to anything is by drawing on the sum of their experiences. I dont know of anyone whose view of the world is not skewed. The only totally dispassionate observer would have to be an alien.

 

You say that abuse was not as widespread as "they" would have you believe, perhaps you didnt experience in your background, but that doesnt prove it didnt happen. To say that things were great "the way they were" is truly sticking your head in the sand and thinking happy thoughts. You accused me of that once, the wheel comes full circle.

 

Now, if your daughter's school idea of punsishment is as you describe, thats a problem. But I have to remind you, one schools experience does not a national trend make. Have you attended any PTO meetings and voiced your displeasure of the current discipline practice? DO you have any suggestions of your own?

 

You say you are only speaking the plain truth, I say say I am speakling the plain truth, based on my experiences.

[Twocubdad]

Venturer2002 and NJCubScouter;

 

In your earlier posts today, you both run through a number of scenarios -- some real, some hypothetical -- relating to the bullying incident. The one thing you omitted, and the key element of this situation, it the physical contact between the two boys.

 

The bullying, the inappropriate sexual talk, withholding property, are all worthy of punishment. But when the older boy "humped" the younger one, I think a critical line was crossed.

 

Here's my question: If that doesn't rise to "sexual misconduct" which requires contacting the SE, then what does? Seriously, what would the older boy have to do for you to report this to the SE?

[SagerScout]

Sorry, folks, I've been away so couldn't let you know that I was never a boy, although I gather the more alert among you already know that. I'm well past the chick stage as well, although fortunately my husband of 19 years still seems to think of me that way. Thank God.

 

However, I'm delighted to report that I know TWO boys extremely well, since the moments of their birth, 14 and 18 years ago respectively. I'm further pleased to report - without a shred of parental modesty - that although both boys have had emotional problems requiring the intervention of some of the "trained professionals" Yaworski so deplores, and one of them has a diagnosis considered a disabling mental illness - neither of them has NEVER, to my certain knowledge, EVER delivered bullying behavior anywhere close to that described. I know this because I have not allowed them to run wild in the streets, and I have always gotten feedback from the organizations they have been involved with. I may - I do - cut some slack on homework requirements for ADHD and OCD kids, but never on basic issues of respect for others. My position is that mental illness or difference is no excuse for rotten behavior. It may explain it but does not excuse it. (The usefulness of the diagnosis is limited entirely to its utility in treatment, but that's another thread).

 

If I ever did hear of either of MY sons being such beasts to one another or other boys, I would have the offender in front of a psychiatrist, counselor, or youth pastor so fast your head would spin - after the apology, the providing of a service to the offended boy, and possibly an extended period of being grounded. In fact, I did all of this because of a much milder incident with my Scouting son, when he turned on his camp buddy out of what we finally determined was nothing more than simple jealousy.

 

I would want to find out why on earth they would want to be so offensive to someone that they didn't really even know, who could potentially have become a friend if they hadn't bullied and insulted him. I would be concerned about such a clear manifestation of feelings of insecurity, and worried that some event that had escaped my parental vigilance had deeply scarred my boys. Why on earth would you insult someone who could have been a friend instead?

 

Thank God, my boys are both generally more likely to be the ones who stand up for the kids being bullied, and tell the other kids to leave them alone. It gets them laughed at and has in a few cases gotten the older one punched... but I personally couldn't be prouder of them.

 

Boys will be boys. They don't shower when told, they forget to do their homework and sometimes even fib to stay out of trouble on that, they leave dirty dishes in the sink, they tell inappropriate jokes without checking for a potentially appreciative audience (my husband still does this, but I hope to break him of it before Social Security checks begin). The corrective actions require catching them and making it less pleasant to not do these things than it is to do them.

 

But I say again: Boys need not - better not - cuss out their parents, "hump" on other children, and torture small animals. That is not "Boys will be Boys," that is "someone get this kid some help." If the parents are clueless, then the troop will have to take whatever actions are needed to make sure that other kids do not suffer because this kid is an insufferable beast. Note that I did not say that the boy must be removed, I still believe that decision should be made by the TC after reviewing all the facts. I do believe he should have been sent packing from camp in disgrace. Shame is an underrated behavior modification tool nowadays.

 

That's my final, considered opinion, after reading all the posts so far. I will no longer post in this thread, a decision which no doubt will be applauded by many!