New Study Reveals Youth Unprepared to Make Challenging Ethical Choices

[fgoodwin]

acco40: if you don't think Scouting positively affects the lives of boys, then tell me why are we all wasting our time?

[packsaddle]

I think you misinterpreted Acco40's post. A statistical correlation (and that's what we are reading) does not show, much less 'prove', causality. At best it may be the foundation of a hypothesis that can be tested experimentally. At worst, it is merely a numerical relationship that may mean nothing whatsoever.

In that sense, when a correlation seems to agree with our preconceived notion (such as the inherent value of scouting) our natural tendency is to believe that the correlation supports that notion. Some statisticians would argue that it does not because a correlation can't be structured as a statistical test (the way a regression can).

A subjective test of our bias, however, might be to consider our response if the correlation showed no numerical relationship whatsoever. Would we reject the result because it DIDN'T seem to agree with our notion? Or would we reject our notion?

The tendency that I have observed is that most of us cling to those notions and instead of setting the notion aside, we would look further for a numerical relationship (and this is an important characteristic of this bias) THAT WOULD SUPPORT IT. And that is the 3rd great lie.

[acco40]

I do think that Scouting can be a positive influence on boys lives. I just don't think that surveys show much more than circumstantial evidence. That said, lack of proof doesn't mean a cause and effect relationship is not there, it just means there is simply no proof.

 

What kind of parent(s) signs up their young one for Cub Scouts? Some just do it because their little one begged them and offer no real support. These children may drop out quickly after a year or two and may not continue on with boy Scouts. Other parents signed up their kids because they had some knowledge of the program and feel their values are in alignment with the program.. Those who had knowledge of the program, became involved, offered encouragement, volunteered, etc. have kids who stay with the program longer term. Now what really provided the benefit to these children? The BSA program itself? Their parents values and attitudes? In all likelihood, both but also very difficult to prove.

 

 

[jkhny]

Such a press release just invites sarcastic comments. A not inaccurate re-titling could be:

 

"BSA Unprepared to Make Challenging Ethical Decisions."

 

"Scouting" is and has been a positive influence on youth. It does prepare youth to make moral and ethical choices - when they have good and dedicated leaders showing character.

 

You think with all the enrollment fraud, abuse cover-ups and the head of youth protection distributing child porn, BSA might be a bit wary of trying to claim that BSA is somehow responsible for boys making ethical decisions. Its obvious that far too many of their own paid staff don't have a clue what's moral and ethical.

 

By the way, how is it that BSA is claiming "4.1 million youth served" in this press release? That doesn't corresponds to anything "official" I can find.

 

BSA National "Traditional Scouting" numbers are DOWN again for 2004 - now about 3.1 million compared to 3.2 million last year. This is 5 years of decreases and about a millon less than 15 years ago (with an increased pool of boys now).

 

Unfortunately BSA the corporation and too many of its paid staffers are clearly NOT making ethical decisions. The whole issue of enrollment fraud - stemming from an unrelenting focus on numbers - arises from a failure to behave ethically. When BSA and its paid employees fail to show the character BSA demands of us, the reputation of Scouting is hurt.

 

Volunteer Leaders know when "Quality" status is being fudged. We know when numbers are being manipulated to claim "growth" when there are losses. It's really a bit hard to hide a double digit percentage loss and officially claim "growth." Dead units and boys not seen in years....all the classic "errors" that overstate enrollments are here - and in too many other Councils.

 

There are few consequences for the paid staffers caught in the act. As another pointed out, one of those in the Alabama Scandal was involved in the Texas scandal a few years earlier. No "fraud" was found but enrollments ended up 30% lower. The "growth" we supposedly had here seems to be melting under closer examination. Yet our DE is getting promoted out of here after inflating enrollment by a third to claim "Quality District"

 

BSA wants to be "private" and not comply with US law but does all it can to gain preferential treatment and aid from the government....BSA screams when the dreaded ACLU sues to have BSA comply with the law like everyone else and then seeks exemption from those laws.... is that moral and ethical?

 

When the "true believers" - those dedicated to the values Scouting supposedly espouses clearly see the problems - and BSA does nothing........it's a bit hypocritical to be talking about "ethical" decisions.

 

[packsaddle]

jkhny, You sure did assemble a devastating statement just now. The only thing I can add is that most of the things you mention are the result of deceptions, some intentional, but nearly all are self-deceptions on the part of pros. And they hurt the program and the boys.

However, I note that at the local level (at least in this locality) enrollment is up. This troop has doubled in size in just a couple of years and has more than quadrupled over the last five years. This has nothing whatsoever to do with BSA at an organizational level greater than the district. Rather, and I suspect that this is true other places as well, it is local volunteer leaders and the community that recognize the values of this program and the principles that are good for the boys. As long as BSA, the corporation, does not distract us from focusing on the boys, those values and principles are alive at the local level even if corrupted at the national level.

[SeattlePioneer]

Jkhny makes some good points about exagerating membership. I see what I think is an example of this by a Troop and Pack that has the benefit of getting registration fees paid by the Council due to serving low income youth. This encourages leaders to sign up the most marginal boys, who may not be seen after the application is turned in. The numbers seem impressive, but the program is actually very weak if not failing.

 

That's not fraud, but it means numbers that don't give an accurate view of the program.

 

Other criticisms by Jkhny seem of less substance. He questions BSA claims of "4.1 million youth served," but doesn't take the time to look at the content of that claim. BSA has additional programs beyond traditional Scouting, and I don't find it hard to believe that adding those numbers together might well add up to the total mentioned. Being critical of the number without bothering to look at the reasoning behind it doesn't impress me as a criticism.

 

 

As to attacks on the BSA due to decisions to exclude atheists and self proclaimed homosexuals, that is properly a question for the Scouts as an organization to make. At present, the BSA is PROMOTING diversity with these policies, while the ACLU is attempting to oppose real diversity in the United States by attempting to exclude the BSA from participating in important parts of American society.

 

I'd have to say that the American Civil Liberties Union is profoundly UnAmerican with some of these rather warped policies, and that it's a lot farther from the mainstream of American society than is the BSA. Looking at the prospects for judicial appointments in the next few years, it may be the ACLU that begins receiving a hostile welcome in public venues such as the courts in the next few years.

 

 

 

Seattle Pioneer

[TheScout]

jkhny, you say

 

"the BSA wants to be 'private' and not comply with US law . . .BSA screams when the dreaded ACLU sues to have BSA comply with the law like everyone else"

 

I would like to know what law the BSA is violating.

 

Last time I checked the "freedom of assembly" guarentee in the First Amendment as well as the penumbra of privacy throughout the Bill of Rights establishes the right of any people to associate in people with whoever they wish. If he is talking about the BSA using public property, military bases, parks, etc. he is also sadly mistaken. The BSA has the right like any other organization or indiviudal to seek the use of government property. It is up to the government to decide whether to let them use it or not. Lastly, I am sure millions of Americans would dispute the decisions of a few judges to ban the BSA from public facilities.

 

If you want to accuse people of violating laws show examples, thank you.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

TheScout writes:

Lastly, I am sure millions of Americans would dispute the decisions of a few judges to ban the BSA from public facilities.

 

Speaking of examples, do you have any examples of these decisions you're referring to?

[TheScout]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/04/14/state1432EDT0094.DTL

An excerpt from the article says

A federal judge who ruled last year that a lease allowing the Boy Scouts to use city-owned park land is unconstitutional has also found another Scouts' lease for an aquatics center to be illegal.

Just one example of a court being used to attack the Boy Scouts. There are many other incidents of municipalities scaling back support due to the threat of lawsuits.

And I still can't think of any laws the BSA has violated

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

That certainly isn't a court decision to "ban the BSA from public facilities", it's a court decision that struck down a lease between the BSA and San Diego.

 

I'll ask again - can you cite ANY judge's decision to "ban the BSA from public facilities" as you've claimed?

[TheScout]

The futility of your argument is marked by the fact that you must engage in a linguistical arguement.

 

What did the court do when it struck down the lease between the city and the BSA? It effectivly banned the BSA from using the agreement they made with the city. If it was not for the judge the BSA would have been able to continue to use the facilities as they had for many years. He stopped them.

 

It is a shame that judges can do this and subvert the will of the council and the mayor who were elected to fulfill the will of the people.

[packsaddle]

TheScout, The ruling you are discussing does not prevent scouts from using the park. It prevents the government from giving them exclusive access. The ruling now allows the scouts equal access, which is fair.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

TheScout writes:

The futility of your argument is marked by the fact that you must engage in a linguistical arguement.

 

Uh, no. I prefer using accurate terms, and not falsely claiming that the BSA is "banned" from public facilities when it is NOT, in fact, banned from public facilities.

 

[evmori]

Uh, no. I prefer using accurate terms

 

Yeah accurate! Like you list of public schools! Accuracy is the last thing you are concerned with!

[johndaigler]

Seattle,

 

Can you help me better understand your comment:

 

"the ACLU is attempting to oppose real diversity in the United States by attempting to exclude the BSA from participating in important parts of American society."?

 

jd

(This message has been edited by johndaigler)