Personal beliefs versus BSA policy

[packsaddle]

I really, REALLY disagree with the prohibition of lasertag. But I comply with it. So I tend to agree with most of what Gern said and Lisabob as well. I simply ignore the 'my way or the highway' types. They exist. And yes, at the council level I've been told to 'button it' or something bad will happen. So I disagree in private and focus on the troop. Someday if I find that I am no longer able to contribute at the troop level, I may choose to make a loud noise...I can't predict. But it is possible to disagree and stick with the program.

[Novice_Cubmaster]

Hi all,

 

I've read a lot 3rd person accounts in this forum where leaders have disagreed with BSA policy, and acted toward the BSA in an unacceptable way (lawsuits, etc). Subsequently, these rebellious leaders have supposedly been punished in some fashion by the BSA.

 

In some respects, it sounds like an "urban myth" within the scouter community.

 

Has anyone any direct experience with BSA retribution against a leader expressing disagreement in a rational and courtious way?

 

I too, have seen many non-professional leaders that think the BSA is infallible and that disagreement (not dissent) is heresy. But, I've never seen any official cracking down on mere questioning or discussion around disagreement with policy.

 

Thanks,

 

NC

 

[Beavah]

It's a complex world out there. If I buy a pair of low-cost sneakers, am I in fact participating in the oppression of children in Asia, the dissolution of the families of American workers, and the funding of a despotic regime? Some think so. If that's the way you feel about the BSA, then you should quit.

 

I suspect most of us when we buy sneakers (or bananas, or software, or...) are just buying sneakers. We recognize that clothing our families at a reasonable price is a good thing, and that we are so far down the supply chain that there's nothing our buying or not buying sneakers is going to do to change the wider world. So we go with the good thing, and just click through the license agreement or the Declaration of Religious Principle as just "one of those things we put up with." Despite perhaps some queasiness wishing we had better choices, and some small efforts to write or contribute cash to try to change things a little.

 

Same deal with da BSA. We license the program or volunteer to do a good thing for kids as end-users. We might feel some queasiness recognizing that the click-through agreement is inane or that our couple of registration dollars are going to be used poorly, but we live with it. Making "levels of significance" choices are a part of livin' in an interconnected world. Some things ya just accept as bein' insignificant or otherwise out of your control. Either that, or you go barricade yourself in a cabin in Montana, or surrender all your personal ethics bein' "loyal" to others.

 

That works for most of us most of the time, despite the goodwilled zealots who try to push our choices to the extremes.

 

 

 

 

 

[John-in-KC]

OK.

 

Sir, you are an Eagle Scout. You swore an oath, on your sacred honor, that is even stronger than the Scout Oath and Law.

 

The Statement of Religious Principle gives you awfully wide latitude. It HAS TO ... to allow Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindi, Mormons and Shintoists in the same national Scouting body.

 

Your faith cannot be open to compromise. It can be open to examination, to questioning, but imo who each of us is depends hugely upon our relationship with Deity.

 

BTW, note I said Hindi above. From my understanding, there is room for polytheism on the table of Scouting.

 

Now, if you ask ME about my personal faith, you will get a far less inclusive answer ... but I'm allowed that right away from the Troop. Within the Troop, the faith choice of a Scout is the call of their parents (and eventually the Scouts themselves) ... and my witnessing is not acceptable conduct.

 

Our mission as adults is to raise young men and women. If your belief systems are in flux, may I respectfully suggest there are other vehicles to teach outdoor living that do not have the primary mission of raising up young folk. Remember: The outdoors is our program vehicle, not our bottom line of big ticket aims.

 

It may be this is not the moment to return to adult leadership in Scouting, for you ... but only you can answer that question. I wish you well in your journey. If you find the campfire is the right place, well, there's log right over there!

[GernBlansten]

Very interesting discussion. Scoutldr, I must apologise if I offended you with my comment on obesity, but I was trying to make a point that discrimination of fat people is not ok in BSA but gay people it is. Emphasis is on some of the oath, and not on another part. Its that hypocrisy that I disagree with.

 

I have read and meet the Declaration of Religious Principle.

 

Now to something going on with my troop. Recently a scouter who I really like, respect and enjoy his company, made the comment to the committee that he wanted to take the troop in a more Christian path. He proposed ending each meeting with readings from the New Testament and focusing our reverence on Jesus. He asked the committee if anyone in the troop was not a Christian and might be offended with such a program. It became very uncomfortable for us non-Christians to speak up. Not that we are non-Christians or that we would be offended, but called out as "The Others". We,(at least me and two other leaders who secretly know each others religious preferences) just exchanged glances. A bit of a pregnant pause. Luckily, our SM voiced up and said he had no problem with the readings at the end of the meeting as long as they were brief and didn't take his SM minute. The committee agreed. I don't have a problem with the readings myself, but I do fear that our troop may become a religious youth group for our Christian scouters.

 

I don't wear my religion on my shirt sleeve like some of my fellow scouters. It is personal to me and not the concern or business of anyone else.

[jmenand]

John, I take it by your bold type and stern language that you might be taking my posts more dead-seriously than I intended. I realize that the statement of religious principal gives wide latitude. In an ideal system, I feel that national should trim back on the universal guidelines and allow each troop to decide, with their CO, through what faith (if any) they would administer the scouting program. The statement alludes that this is how things are run, and in fact it is how things are run. But what is true on paper is not always the case when it comes to the intangible "tension" around certain topics.

 

I am not witnessing, nor is my belief system currently 'in flux.' When I talked about my spiritual quest, I was referring to what I went through almost 10 years ago, not what I am going through currently. You suggest that I could find another vehicle for outdoor living that does not involve youth (or, presumably, the value system scouting represents). What part of my specific statements about loving Scouting lead you to believe I am only interested in the outdoor aspect?

 

The bottom line is that I did not intend, as some "stir the pot" types might, to be controversial just for controversy's sake. I wanted to raise a concern over what I feel is a tension (which probably differs from unit to unit) I perceive that surrounds any and all forms of reasonable, respectful discussion about any variety of issues with national policy which might (key word, might) not be relevant to the program of scouting. I'm not looking to start a revolution or even make anyone mad here.

 

I do worry, though, that I'm sensing an increasingly tense tone from your first post to the next. If I actually decided that I could not comply with BSA policy, I would indeed leave the program. I have said that I long ago decided to quiet my disagreements for the greater good, as some other posters have talked about.

 

My greater curiosity is why the "climate of fear" I sense (not just within myself, but within many in the scouting community I know) seemimgly "has" to exist for BSA to operate a good scouting program.

 

You say that just talking about controversial issues, even in a respectful manner with adults, can be counter-productive? I agree. The question is: can it be productive? If so, under what circumstances? (this has already been answered by Beavah, etc)? If not, why not- is doing so actually un-scout like, or just un-BSA like?

 

I propose that any adult who can not have a civil discussion about the things they and their program stand for is not a mature, reasonable, nor scout-like individual.

 

(Edited for clarification)(This message has been edited by jmenand)

[anarchist]

jmenand,

 

a truth:

 

BSA is not a democracy...even at the council level Its a franchise business...

 

Fear...of speaking up???...perhaps is just recognition of the futility of speaking out and understanding that the franchise can be "pulled" if you are 'counter-productive".

 

Basic rule of life;...if you play in someone elses house you play by the house rules...as a player you have no "standing" to ask for the rules to be changed...don't like the rules- don't play ...it's that easy...find another "game"

 

If you want to change the "house rules" you have to be a member of the house which means national not council BSA...good luck...though I understand the LDS church is doing just that interestingly enough.

 

I have many issues with BSA policy...but I think in balance the program is a winner...warts and all...I am not here to save the world...just try to make my "little bit of it" better...and I can do that ...even with the warts...

Anarchist

[John-in-KC]

What anarchist said.

 

 

[Hunt]

"Has anyone any direct experience with BSA retribution against a leader expressing disagreement in a rational and courtious way?"

 

This is a very good question--it's been brought up before and never clearly answered, as far as I know. There were posters who emphasized that BSA COULD expell a member for expressing disagreement in an orderly way, but it was hard to pin them down on whether BSA in fact does this, or whether it should do this. The cases I've heard about mostly involved more extreme actions, like suing or picketing.

 

It seems to me that BSA would want to know whether it is out of step with its own members--how did it decide that the membership would accept female leaders? What mechanism will it use to determine when, if ever, to move to co-ed youth membership at the younger ages? (I mention this "g" because it seems to me to have less of a religious element, although making a change would have a large impact on unit-level scouting.) If people don't express their opinions, how will BSA know if there is a "groundswell" of opinion on a point like this?

 

[packsaddle]

Hunt, this doesn't technically qualify because it was never consumated...but years ago when I was writing an op-ed article critical of several organizations, including BSA, council basically warned me not to 'or else'. I put it back on the shelf. Some day I may take it back off the shelf but I know what the potential consequences are.

 

The thing is, in this case BSA successfully suppressed my public opinion because I decided it was to the benefit of the boys for me to remain involved in the troop as a leader. In essence, BSA held my leadership hostage and demanded public silence. And they were successful.

If I someday decide to voice that opinion and I am ejected as a result, technically BSA will gain nothing because I will be completely free to voice that opinion publicly as a former leader AND I may also have achieved some notoriety as a result of their action. The real harm done, again, is to the boys who may miss a good leader.

I recognize BSA's legal right to suppress an opinion in this manner. I also think it is cowardly, hypocritical, and contrary to scout spirit.

 

[Beavah]

Anarchist has it backwards.

 

It's the CO's sandbox. Their units, their program, their rules.

 

Da BSA is askin' to play in their house.

 

That's why LDS, RC's, UM's, etc. seem to wield so much influence. They can kick the BSA out.

 

As a unit voluteer, you work for and on behalf of your CO. Your first obligation is to follow their lead and their rules. I expect most CO's are respectful of personal conscience, and at least allow, if not encourage, dialogue and discussion of ethical issues, including periods of doubt and questioning by both youth and adults.

 

[jmenand]

Anarchist- you say "find another game"- that would be a lot easier to do if the BSA would stop trying to monopolize the scouting "movement" in the US. It's easy to say to find another organization, but it's not easy to do that. What, Boys and Girls club? Indian Guides? Hardly the same thing as scouting, to put it kindly.

 

I read an interesting analogy by Bob White in an older thread where Bob described the BSA system as a franchise. He compared it to McDonalds. If you don't like working under McDonalds rules, start a Burger King francise. But this is a false analogy, because for Burger King or any other number of businesses to compete, they compete with a different take on the generic product- in this case hamburgers.

 

With scouting, scouting itself is the product. But rather than be content to offer their "flavor" of scouting, the BSA demands a monopoly. It would be like if McDonalds tried to copyright the hamburger so they could be the only place to get burgers in the US. The product is not generic youth programs, the product is the history of the scouting movement. It baffles me why the BSA is allowed to hold the movement for ransom in the US. But I digress.

 

I know that scouting is not vital to life, but it has always been a part of my life and culture. I have less of an attachment to the BSA, but I definately have a strong attachment to the more generic idea of scouting. Until the BSA relaxes it's hold on scouting, or someone presents a strong legal argument to the courts to force them to let go, I will work within the BSA system. And I will even be content to do so.

 

But that doesn't mean I have to think it's right that talking to my fellow scoutmasters or DE or the higher ups about these problems is grounds for dismissal. I was just curious what other people thought about this perceived problem.

 

If all I wanted to hear was why BSA is legally allowed to do something, I wouldn't be involved in a youth program that teaches values which go far beyond what the law requires!

[John-in-KC]

Beavah,

 

It's actually a mutually owned and supported sandbox. The contract (charter) obligates both parties.

 

Still, what anarchist said is, imo, a viable working definition for these fora.

[SR540Beaver]

Beavah,

 

The CO receives their charter from BSA. They agree to operate a unit in accordance with BSA standards. The BSA gives a certain amount of leeway to the CO in some areas. However, the BSA can remove the charter. That makes it their sandbox. If I buy a McDonald's franchise, I can not paint the arches purple and serve hot dogs. I can, but it won't be a McDonalds for very long.

[OldGreyEagle]

But if you wanted purple arches and to serve hot dogs, why would you franchise with mickey Ds in the first place?