CA state senate condemns Boy Scouts' exclusionary policy

[NJCubScouter]

FatOldGuy asks me:

 

NJCubScouter, since BSA requires an adult woman along on any excursion involving girls, do you think that all trips with boys should require a heterosexual man?

 

I'll ignore the premise about what leaders must be along on a trip when girls are present, as I don't think it has anything to do with the question. As to whether I think all trips with boys should require a heterosexual man... well, actually there is no such requirement now, nor is there any guarantee that it always occurs. (I would venture a guess that it almost always does.) The BSA policy expels openly gay persons, not all gays. Plus, you say "heterosexual man," meaning that a trip with only female leaders would not qualify. This definitely happens now. I know of one troop that had only women leaders at summer camp two years in a row.

 

But let's take the question at face value. In order for this question to even arise, we have to know that someone is gay. That would mean, I guess, that it is based on the hypothetical situation in which a unit has an openly gay leader, meaning that the BSA has adopted local option. I think it also means that a particular unit has at least two gay leaders, because under the rule of two-deep leadership, there would always have to be at least one heterosexual (though not necessarily a man, and the "heterosexual" could still be a closeted gay person) on the trip.

 

So let's cut to the chase. If what you are really asking is that if I think it would be ok to have an outing with only openly gay leaders, my answer is...

 

... I would leave the issue of who goes on trips up to the unit.

 

And I think the parents in a unit should be made aware of what the unit's policies are regarding gay leaders and the "assignment" of leaders on trips.

 

In the real world, given the very small number of openly gay persons who have actually expressed interest in being Scouters, I doubt this would ever come up. If it did, and the preceding paragraph were the case, I think the "issue" that is really behind FatOldGuy's question would never actually come up. In other words, one or more fathers would mysteriously appear in the parking lot at departure time with their sleeping bags, all ready to go for the weekend.

 

I think we also need to remember that the BSA itself says that the anti-gay policy is not a youth protection device. So by the BSA's own statements, if local option were adopted, the BSA would have no problem with the answer to BSA's question being "no" -- as it could be under my rule as well.

[Twocubdad]

FOG that's just a red herring. Why doesn't BSA have a rule now prohibiting two female Scouters from taking boys on a trip? Same principle would apply.

[NJCubScouter]

FatOldGuy: Just out of curiosity, where is that rule, anyway? (The one about an adult female leader must be present if there are girls along.) It makes sense, but where is it published as an actual rule? I did not remember it from YP training, and I just checked the YP guidelines online and it isn't there. Is it a special Venture crew thing, because that is the only kind of unit that is co-ed? (That term is probably out-dated, but then so am I.) Evidently the leaders of my son's troop don't know about it either. My son's first camping trip was billed as a "family outing," but it was really wasn't. (I can see sctmom's ears perking up again.) One female was present -- the 17-year-old (or so) older sister of two of the Scouts, and daughter of one of the fathers who was there. She is a Girl Scout but as I said, was there as part of a family. But there was no adult woman there. Were the rules broken?

[dsteele]

NJ --

 

It is a rule that applies most specifically to co-ed Venture Crews and Explorer posts. It normally doesn't come up with Boy Scout Troops, but should probably apply if it does.

 

DS

[slontwovvy]

Thanks for making my day, Merlyn. That was a hoot!

 

I just found it rather amusing that this legislation spends more than half of its length praising the Boy Scout organization. And I found the woman's comments so delightfully moderate, so politician-like. And her statement that she knows several Eagle Scouts who have left the organization...I think the number who have mailed their badges back to the BSA headquarters is less than two hundred total (over 40,000 given last year alone). I realize one can quit without turning in the badge, but how outraged can they be if they don't send in the badge? Oh, well, I digress.

 

On a darker note, I am somewhat appalled that with all of the problems the California legislature could be focusing on, they have to waste their time focusing on minor, almost nonimportant issues.

 

 

[packsaddle]

slontwovvy, Now that's one I don't understand. Why would anyone send their award back? I don't agree with the policy but I don't consider the awards tainted as a result. Oh well, I guess this is just another one of those things I don't 'get'.

[Fat Old Guy]

"FOG that's just a red herring. Why doesn't BSA have a rule now prohibiting two female Scouters from taking boys on a trip? Same principle would apply."

 

Not a herring of any color. GSUSA requires that a woman be on all excursions. BSA requires that a woman be present if female youth are present, this rule pretty much applies only to Venturing (section of G2SS on adult Leadership, page 5). Why are these rules in place? Because heterosexual men are seen as predators when it comes to young women. Oddly, no one finds the rule that requires a woman be present with girls to be unreasonable.

 

I would argue that homosexual men should be considered as predatory toward young men as heterosexual men are toward young women. It then follows that a heterosexual male must be present on all excursions.

[NJCubScouter]

Dsteele says:

 

It is a rule that applies most specifically to co-ed Venture Crews and Explorer posts. It normally doesn't come up with Boy Scout Troops, but should probably apply if it does.

 

First of all, I'm not sure, but I think that last sentence is at least halfway a Yogi Berra-ism. Like "It ain't over till its over" or "Nobody ever goes there anymore, it's too crowded." I mean that in a good way.

 

Second and more importantly, I am wondering what the rationale(s) is/are for that rule. Is it:

 

a) A Youth Protection rule in the sense that the adult female leader is there to keep an "eye" on the adult male leader(s)?

 

b) A Youth Protection rule in the sense that if a female youth suffers an injury or illness that requires assistance from an adult, and that assistance would (how shall I put this) involve an intrusion on the girl's privacy, we would rather have a woman doing that than a man? (That is what seems to me to be the best justification for such a rule; whether that is the actual justification is a different story.)

 

c) To have an adult female as a role model for the female youths?

 

d) Something I did not think of?

 

[NJCubScouter]

FatOldGuy says:

 

GSUSA requires that a woman be on all excursions. BSA requires that a woman be present if female youth are present, this rule pretty much applies only to Venturing (section of G2SS on adult Leadership, page 5). Why are these rules in place? Because heterosexual men are seen as predators when it comes to young women. Oddly, no one finds the rule that requires a woman be present with girls to be unreasonable.

 

I would argue that homosexual men should be considered as predatory toward young men as heterosexual men are toward young women. It then follows that a heterosexual male must be present on all excursions.

 

FatOldGuy, you had me getting a little nervous there for a day or two. I served you up what I thought was a real "softball" on Monday on this issue, and when you didn't take a swing at it for a few days, I was wondering if maybe you had joined the other team, so to speak, and were out there on a picket line with Scott Cozza or something. However, it is good to see that the world is still spinning in the proper direction.

 

As for the rule on co-ed excursions, I looked up that part of the G2SS. That does appear to be in the YP guidelines, maybe I did not notice it previously because I have not been involved in any BSA program with co-ed youth membership. It does at least partly answer my question to dsteele, but not completely. I notice that it does not apply to "all excursions" as you say the GSUSA rule does, but specifically to "Coed overnight activities." (Underlining added by me.) Interesting.

 

However, I doubt that the BSA would agree with your statement that "heterosexual men are seen as predators when it comes to young women." That sounds like a pretty broad generalization to me. I don't think most of us heterosexual men here think of ourselves as "predators" when it comes to young women. I personally am attracted to women, though only in the academic sense outside the boundaries of my marriage. However, I would not accept the label of "predator."

 

As for what people think of the rule that a woman be present at a GSUSA or BSA coed overnight outing, I do not know whether anyone considers it unreasonable or not. I do know that if it is intended as an absolute ironclad foolproof guarantee against sexual abuse, there is (unfortunately) no such thing. The whole point (or at least part of the point) of the two-deep leadership rule and no one-on-one is that you can never be absolutely sure what is going on in someone's brain or what they might do, and the BSA therefore requires "barriers to abuse." These barriers are not only required when there might be a "suspicious" situation such as a male leader on an outing with female youth. They also exist when the outing is all-male and the leadership consists entirely of men who are married, have children, have stable home lives, are rock-ribbed all-American Republican supporters of the BSA anti-gay policy or any other indicia of heterosexuality and non-pedophilia you may wish to think of. The point is that you never know with absolute certainty, so if someone does turn out to be have "predatory" intentions despite all outward appearances, the BSA YP rules make it as difficult as possible for him to have access to a youth in a situation where abuse can occur.

 

I would also point out something else about outward appearances and how they are not foolproof. The fact that an outing has all female leaders and all female youth, or some female leaders and co-ed youth, does not mean that one of the adult women is not attracted to one of the female youth. There are closet lesbians just as there are closet gay men. There are also women who commit sexual abuse against girls. I have not heard of a case of this in Venturing or in the GSUSA for that matter, but I would be rather surprised if it had never occurred sometime in the 91-year history of Girl Scouting. I am sure it has. I am also fairly confident that the GSUSA also has a 2-deep leadership rule, which in their case can be satisfied either by 2 women or 1 of each gender. So neither the GSUSA nor the BSA relies on the fact that a leader "appears" to be "straight," law-abiding, and non-predatory. Both have barriers to abuse that disregard what a person may "appear" to be.

 

As for considering gay men to be "predatory" toward young men, obviously I do not equate being gay with being a child abuser. We have had this discussion on this board numerous times so I won't repeat the arguments. But apparently the BSA agrees with me; or at least it is the BSA's view that it doesn't matter, from a youth protection standpoint, as opposed to a morality/role-modeling standpoint, from which it clearly does matter to the BSA. But the BSA literature on child sexual abuse disclaims any connection between homosexuality and abuse.

 

And remember what the policy is: Exclusion of openly gay leaders. I'm curious as to how likely you think it is that an openly gay man who was permitted to be a BSA leader would do something improper, even if he was inclined to do so. He would know that all eyes were on him. He would be under a microscope. A "normal" gay man who had no inclination toward child abuse would still feel very uncomfortable and many would probably shy away from even normal interaction with youth, for fear of what people "might think." (Which is one of the reasons why this whole issue is so silly. If the BSA ever did allow local option and units could admit gay leaders, if the total number in the entire country exceeded 50, I would be very surprised. Who would want to put up with the kind of scrutiny that an openly gay leader would have to put up with to be a leader, even if the policy were formally changed? Not many, I'd bet.)

 

 

[Fat Old Guy]

NJDude, think what you want, I know what I know. If you think that BSA's every public statement is the entire truth, you are incredibly naive.

[OldGreyEagle]

::muttering to self::

 

The problem is, as convoluted as FOG's argument is, I can follow it and agree with it. One of the barriers I have faced with our Venture Crew is lack of female leadership. We have three adult males who go on virtually every outing but we have a devil of a time finding adult women. The rules say we must have an adult (over 21) female with us on overnights. It would be a total breach of YP if we didnt have an adult female. Why? What does the prescence of the adult female guarantee?

 

The only issue is, how would BSA verify a males, or females for that matter heterosexuality?

[Fat Old Guy]

"The only issue is, how would BSA verify a males, or females for that matter heterosexuality? "

 

Good question.

[packsaddle]

OGE, I say this tongue-in-cheek because I know you have a sense of humor. But let's say you have always wondered about the 'woman within' you. Lately so much that you undergo a sex change. Realize that this is not a genetic change so outside radical surgery, the equipment will remain the same. But you do it nevertheless, and become the ravishing creature I know you would be...with a backpack. How would BSA view your participation with the crew? You started as a heterosexual male and changed to (superficially at least) a heterosexual female. [i might add that from my observations in New Orleans, these persons can be quite convincing, or as Spock would say, "fascinating"]

BSA should have no problem, right? Hey...I think I have discovered a solution to your problem!

[NJCubScouter]

OGE asks, I assume rhetorically,

 

The only issue is, how would BSA verify a males, or females for that matter heterosexuality?

 

Of course, it couldn't. At least, not without adopting a highly intrusive attitude that would probably drive away all volunteers. And it has said that it will not even try. The statements on the "gay policy" specifically say that the BSA will not ask anyone about the sexual orientation. Only if someone announces ("avows") that they are gay does the policy come into play. Now, this forum has gone-around a few times about how many and which people one has to "tell" before he/she becomes "avowed." (Such as one member of the forum who seemed to be in a "gray area" in "real life," though he had "come out" under his pseudonym here.) But if you keep it a secret, it's a secret (Yogi Berra strikes again?), and BSA's policy is not to check.

 

Which I think supports the point I was making. You never know with 100 percent certainty that anyone on a trip is heterosexual. Maybe 99, but never 100. Think back to the stories that appear every year or so about a Scoutmaster somewhere who was molesting boys in his troop (oops, I mean the troop he serves, though in this case, dis-serves.) It never seems to be someone who was openly gay. On the contrary, it always seems to be someone who is married with children, and the friends and neighbors are all shocked, shocked they are to find that this guy was anything but the happily married family man they thought he was. So using someone's "orientation" as a youth protection device just seems foolish to me, because you don't necessarily know what you think you know about a person.

 

 

 

[packsaddle]

NJ, your logic is impeccable.