Co-ed OA?

[emb021]

Some co-ed Scouting facts:

 

BSA in 1969 allowed Girl Scouts & Camp Fire Girls to be participants in Explorer Posts.

 

In 1971, BSA then took Exploring co-ed. So the BSA has had to deal with the 'issue' of a co-ed program for 14-21 youth for over 30 years.

 

Also, in 1976, Camp Fire Girls went co-ed. They later changed their names to Camp Fire Boys & Girls, and currently are Camp Fire USA.

 

[emb021]

>Heck Mike lots of units do things wrong, there are >Venturing crews today that hold OA elections even though >they are not eligible. I was an Explorer in the 70s and a >Scoutmaster in the 80s and Explorers were not eligible >for OA elections then.

 

I wasn't referring to what some units may be doing in violation of written policy. OA Operations Update 98-10 and 99-2 clearly says NO to elections in Venturing Crews.

 

OA Policy did allow for elections of Explorers AS Explorers. I am uncertain when it was dropped, but it lasted atleast until Exploring went co-ed in 1971, and I had hear it was still going on until the 80s when OA National said stop.

 

My reprint edition of the 1948 OA Handbook states that any boy involved in a Senior Program (Explorer Scouts, Air Scouts, Sea Scouts) was eligible for election into the OA if they had earned the first rank of their program. (uncertain if that was Apprentice or Ordinary/Observer/Woodman).

 

My 1959 edition stated that ANY Explorer, regardless of rank, could be elected into OA. (at that point Explorers had no advancement other then Eagle, Air/Sea Explorers still had their advancement programs).

 

I would have to look at my other OA handbooks to see what they say.

 

 

[Proud Eagle]

While such things as an 18 year old and say a 14 or 15 year old engaging in inappropriate activity during Scouting functions is rare, it can and does happen. The mere possibility is not reason enough to prevent co-ed activity, but it is a significant risk that must be properly managed. Merely providing co-ed adult leadership doesn't even come close to addressing this issue.

 

Basically the key element is very careful adult supervision. Unfortunately, as some recent tragic incidents have shown, adult supervision is not always on the level required.

 

While I think the Venturing system is set up in such a way to make the risks manageable, I don't think your average Boy Scout Troop is set up in such a way.

 

As I said before, the only evidence I have about this issue is anecdotal. However, it is enough to cause me some concern about co-ed situations.

 

Just as a side note, you will find that many groups that engage in co-ed activities have systems in place to minimize the risks of this form.

 

Risks can be managed, but it requires first recognizing that a real risk does in fact exists.

 

In larger society relationships between teenagers is, to some extent, socially acceptable. However, within the Scouting context it is completely and totally unacceptable and can never be tolerated.

[scoutldr]

I joined an Explorer Post in 1968. I had been elected to OA as a Boy Scout so I continued my activity in the OA. The other Explorers in the Post had never been Scouts, but they were OA members. My Post Advisor held the Vigil Honor and Silver Beaver. We participated in more OA Lodge events than we did district or council events and had a blast. The Post became co-ed in 1970, when several Senior Girl Scouts joined. Yes, there were relationships and "other activity". Things were never the same.

[OldGreyEagle]

Remember the wisdom of Shakespeare

"The first thing we do is kill all the lawyers!"

 

And then again there is the "Merchant of Venice"

 

I think if Billy Shakespeare was writing today, the PC Fanatics would brand his plays as "hate speach" and consider his a racist, definitely anti-semetic

 

Sorry just a random thought, I'll stop now

[Oak Tree]

Oh good grief. Shakespeare didn't "say" the phrase "Let's kill all the lawyers!" He wrote a play where a character by the name of Dick the Butcher says the phrase to a mob. I think the idea is it's to show how stupid the idea would be.

 

I used to think lawyer jokes were funny until I got to know a number of lawyers. We've received great volunteer help from people who just happen to be lawyers.

 

Oak Tree

[Bob White]

And here I grew up believing that Shakespeare was the real person that the words came from, and Dick the butcher was a fictional character.

[emb021]

All-

 

This weekend, I took a look at my OA materials to see what I could regarding OA elections within Explorer units.

 

this is what I found.

 

OA National stopped OA elections in Explorer Posts in 1991! (this per the official OA history book, 3rd edition).

 

The requirements over the years for Explorers to be elected into the OA changed. They ALWAYS required the same camping experience as scouts, but other requirements where:

 

Until 1959, Explorers had to have earned Apprentice.

 

During the 60s, Explorers didn't have to achieve any rank.

 

After going co-ed, only MALE Explorers could join the OA, and they had to have earned First Class Scout within a troop. Until the late 80s, only MALE Explorers could vote in OA elections in Posts.

 

Another thing I found out (both in reading thru my OA Handbooks and the OA History), is that the OA's current claim that 'they have always been part of the Boy Scout Division' is nonsense. The current Boy Scout Program Division did not come into existance until 1971! Before that the National OA Committee was under the National Camping Committee, NOT the National Boy Scout Committee.

 

 

MB

[NJCubScouter]

What I think is lost on most people today is that the Shakespeare quote about killing all the lawyers is spoken by a character who was one of the "bad guys." I guess it is just more fun to talk about killing lawyers. Sometimes I wonder whether some people would find the quote quite so amusing and quotable if it was about their profession or occupation. Well, I don't really have to wonder.

[LodgeChief]

I do not feel that female youth should be members of the OA (since this is what the post was originally about, I thought that I would get back to it). I agree with everybody who said and supported that it is a Boy Scout program, not venturing. I think that if Venturers want to have an honor society or something extra curricular from their unit they should start one. Also, there seemed to be some confusion about membership. If an adult is only in a crew, they are not eligible for the OA. If a Cub Scout Leader is only in cub scouts, they are not eligible for OA. They either have to be in a troop or registered with the district or council to be eligible. All adults that are eligible for OA whether it be with the troop or district/council, they have to meet the camping requirements under the auspices of the BSA and they have to be able to be a good role model in the OA. Earlier this year a leader came to me who was nominating a female leader who was registered with a crew (the leader was dual registered) and she did not meet the camping requirements of 15 days and nights of camping with a resident camp experience. So, I told him that she was not eligible for these reasons. She had completed the camping but she did it at a girl scout camp, therefore not making it legit. This summer she went to Philmont and I dont know if she ever became dual registered. That's something my adviser will have to check on. I just thought I would share that story.

[Proud Eagle]

Actually, the camping requirement can be waved by the Scout Executive for District and Council nominees under certain circumstances.

 

Also, to be unusually technical, adults should only be nominated in their primary registered capacity. That is to say that if their primary registration is with a unit, only that unit should nominate that adult. If their primary registration is with the District/Council then they are eligible for nomination at that level.

 

Finally, Philmont is not in fact a Boy Scout Resident Camp, therefore it does not fill the long term camping part of the requirement.

[nldscout]

Actually a SM cam count Philmont if he chooses. The SM is the final arbitrator of what constitutes camping and the lodge cannot challage him if he says you are eligable.

[Hunt]

Alas and alack! I must confess that I have done some research and am now convinced that Shakespeare was, in fact, making a dig at lawyers with his "let's kill all the lawyers" quote. Although it is said by a "bad guy" in the play, it is part of a discussion in which they are imagining an ideal world in which seven-penny loaves sell for a penny and everybody gets free clothing--kind of like the Big Rock Candy Mountain. The elimination of lawyers is part of this idealized view. Arguments that these guys want to kill all the lawyers because lawyers would block their rebellious evil plans don't really fit with the text. I suppose it is fair to note that this sentiment is put by Shakespeare into the mouths of loutish and not-very-bright villains, but I suspect that it got a laugh, even in Elizabethan times. (This is about as far from "Co-ed OA as you can get, but what the hey.)