Why should we not teach BSA values to prisoners?

[dsteele]

Merlyn said:

 

"Atheists, of course, NJCubScouter.

 

Oh, and you'd better cross off "criminals" from that list; here's an AP story from last month:

 

http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/9520769.htm

 

Prisoners Take Boy Scout Oath Behind Bars

 

BRETT BARROUQUERE

Associated Press

 

LA GRANGE, Ky. - Robert Jackson stood with the two dozen other members of Boy Scout Troop 825, raised his right hand in the traditional Boy Scout sign, and took the oath to do his best for God and country.

 

Unlike other scouts, Jackson and members of his troop aren't allowed to earn merit badges through mastering camping and other outdoor skills.

 

That's because they are prison inmates.

 

"We're trying to teach more long-term planning, how to live when they get out," said Mike Pitzer, who serves as adviser and scout master to the troop at the Kentucky State Reformatory.

 

The inmates are part of a rehabilitation program for emotionally and mentally disturbed prisoners serving time for everything from murder to sex crimes.

... "

 

I have quoted the post in its entirety and will still probably be accused of taking it out of context.

 

I simply don't understand what point he was trying to make.

 

I don't have a problem with the BSA trying to teach Scouting's values to prisoners. In fact, if asked, I would probably donate to such a cause.

 

Merlyn's response appears in the "Homosexuals in Scouting" thread currently active (again) in the "Issues and Politics" forum.

 

I have no idea why I bother to read that one.

 

Of course I would welcome a response from Merlyn, but I'm also interested in hearing from anyone else in this matter.

[Eamonn]

Unc.

While I do agree with passing on or teaching the values that we as members of the BSA hold dear, is never a bad thing.

I don't think that we are the only organization that has these values. What makes us a little different is the methods that we use.

When I read the Vision and Mission Statements of the BSA I fail to see why anyone would want to use the programs of the BSA to work in this area.

Sure this might come across as good ink. But,this is not where we should be doing what we do.

We could go into the local Nursing Home, have the old folks make the Cub Scout sign, repeat the Cub Scout Promise, do a few crafts. Sing a couple of songs. Would this be Cub Scouting? Of course not.

I like to think that we are good at what we do.We work with young people. We work with young people who may have gone astray. We teach the values of Scouting by allowing them to live the Scout Oath and Law. We put them is situations where they see what it means to live by these values. Using tools like reflection we allow them to discover what it all means.

Eamonn.

[dsteele]

No offense intended to Eamonn.

 

I'm still waiting for an answer from Merlyn.

 

Unc.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

You didn't quote what I was replying to...

 

NJCubScouter had written this:

"...The list of characteristics that REQUIRE exclusion also is very short; the only ones I can think of right now are (1) criminals (including those who have committed crimes against children; and (2) gays. "

 

It doesn't look like criminals are required to be excluded, since there exists a BSA program that doesn't exclude them. I was just correcting his assertion that criminals are automatically excluded.

 

Now, I don't think BSA values should be taught to anyone, since at the moment, their "values" are rife with hypocrisy and dishonesty. But that wasn't why I quoted that article.

[dsteele]

Merlyn:

 

I thank you, sir, for the clarification. I know understand where the post I quoted was coming from.

 

I agree with your reply to my inquiry except for your last paragraph. You say that the BSA values should be taught to no one.

 

I think you're wrong on that count, but I do appreciate your reply to my inquiry regarding the matter at hand.

 

Unc.

[NJCubScouter]

Since Merlyn says he posted the link to the "prisoner Boy Scout troop" article in response to my comment about "criminals," I guess I should respond.

 

First of all, I thought it was clear in the context of my original comment that I was talking about adult leaders. That is always a problem when we talk about "membership criteria" because while many of the considerations are the same regardless of whether we are talking about adults or youth, some are slightly different. I don't know if it is still on the BSA web site, but at one point there is an explanation of how an "openly gay" youth should be dealt with and it was NOT exactly the same as the policy on openly gay adult leaders.

 

Second of all, in reading the comment that Merlyn was responding to, I have to admit that I was using the word "criminals" somewhat loosely. We have had discussions here before about the circumstances under which someone once convicted of a crime might still be acceptable as a leader, such as someone who committed a "minor" non-violent crime many years ago and has apparently "reformed." Perhaps to be more clear I should have said "persons convicted of crimes that indicate a likelihood of causing harm to youth." But even that may not be clear enough; I am not just talking about sexual abusers or persons who actually committed crimes against children. For example, in my view (and no doubt the BSA's) someone just released from prison after a conviction for armed robbery, with only adult victims, is more than enough of a risk to require exclusion. But as for the person arrested for possessing a small amount of pot 25 years ago, or the person with one DWI conviction (a "crime" in some states but not others), I think the BSA leaves this up to the unit, or at least it used to. With the advent of "uniform" criminal background checks, it may be that there is now one criteria, and that the report comes back "qualified" or "unqualified." I don't know. But all of this is a nuance, in my opinion. Generally speaking, "criminals" do not get to be adult leaders in the BSA.

 

The article that Merlyn posted does not change any of this, in my opinion. This is a special program and many of the same considerations that apply to a "regular" Boy Scout troop do not apply. The people involved in the program are being considered "youth members" because their "mental age" is less than 18. The risk of "exposing" a youth to an adult leader who is a criminal does not really exist because all of the youth members in this situation have committed crimes and are under the "control" of the state. The existence of this unit does not mean "criminals can join a Boy Scout troop." It is really stretching things for the BSA to call this a Boy Scout troop at all. I agree with some who have said that the inmates can benefit from a program that includes the values of the BSA, and I think it is good for the BSA to have such a program. However, using the designation "Boy Scout troop" as a vehicle for such a program seems highly questionable to me. It should probably fall somewhere under the heading Learning for Life, where things can be a bit more "flexible."