Schools & Scouting

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Beavah writes:

A school can sponsor an LGBT club with public dollars, but a school can't sponsor a Christian prayer group. It's hard not to see that as government-sponsored discrimination against a particular viewpoint.

 

It's hard for me to see that, period. Where's a public school that uses public dollars to support an LGBT club and doesn't offer the same degree of support of a Christian prayer group?

 

Just sponsor everything

 

With all that infinite money public schools have, eh?

 

How about this: let students create their own clubs; schools offer space on a first-come, first-served basis.

[Beavah]

Where's a public school that uses public dollars to support an LGBT club and doesn't offer the same degree of support of a Christian prayer group?

 

Pick any major public university. Here's one near yeh, with a whole university-supported office with paid staff: http://www.glbta.umn.edu/. Can't find their Christian Programming Office anywhere. Similar support exists (well, funding but not a staff ) in a fair number of public schools I'm familiar with in suburban communities.

 

I'm OK with first-come first-served, but I prefer What's Working Now. If yeh did first come first served, yeh could have the old established Christian Club with only 5 members left block out da room for the young, thriving Atheist Club with 100 members. .

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Sorry Beavah, that isn't a "club", and you couldn't find www.religiousstudies.umn.edu?

 

The only real comparison you've handwaved without a real example.

 

I also prefer what's working now, which means public schools can't run private clubs that discriminate on the basis of religion.

[BadenP]

SP

 

The point you make is also true of ANY CO sponsoring a scout unit that has their own agenda.

 

As far as the other argument here, spiritual and secular matters rarely if ever coexsist in peaceful harmony.

[Woapalanne]

"I also prefer what's working now, which means public schools can't run private clubs that discriminate on the basis of religion. "

 

Then they can allow no clubs. EVERYBODY discriminates on the basis of religion. Everybody. Baptists discriminate against Methodists, Christians against Buddhists, Muslims against everybody else, Athiests against believers, ad infinitum. That includes everybody.

[Beavah]

Sorry Beavah, that isn't a "club", and you couldn't find www.religiousstudies.umn.edu??

 

Yah, that's intellectually shallow even for you, Merlyn.

 

It's not a student club, it's not an academic department doin' research and teaching on LGBT issues, it's direct, government-funded program support. Find me the direct, government-funded program support for the Methodists. Yeh can't.

 

Fact is, under the law, schools can sponsor LGBT groups directly. They can assign faculty who directly lead or participate in such groups. But not religious ones, even if da faculty in question are members of that religion.

 

So da status quo is untenable, and leads to all da ugliness and incivility we've seen. If you "win" then groups that are offensive to you are banned from public support and the public schools and the public square. If da Christian Right "wins" then LGBT programs are defunded and banned from public schools and the public square.

 

You just want to "win." I think that's just uncivil and foolish. Let Catholic kids choose Catholic schools paid for by tax dollars from Catholic citizens. Let Buddhist high school faculty lead Buddhist high school extracurricular activities funded by the school activities budget which comes in part from Buddhists. As long as there's equal access, eh? As long as the atheist club gets da same dollars per pupil as the Buddhist club. As long as the Lutheran school kid gets the same dollars per pupil as the charter school kid or public school kid. Let individual families and citizens choose their services. Yah, you won't like what some families choose, and they won't like what you choose. Get over it.

 

That way yeh don't set up winners and losers, a competition between citizens for resources. Da state stays neutral. Less lobbying. Less litigation. More civility.

 

Just like what the rest of the free world does.

 

Beavah

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Then they can allow no clubs. EVERYBODY discriminates on the basis of religion.

 

Woapalanne, a club that has religious requirements for membership discriminates on the basis of religion (e.g. the BSA). A club that doesn't have such requirements isn't discriminating on the basis of religion.

 

Beavah writes:

It's not a student club

 

I know. I pointed it out to you. You wrote "A school can sponsor an LGBT club with public dollars" and then didn't give an example of such a club.

 

Fact is, under the law, schools can sponsor LGBT groups directly.

 

Fact is, you haven't given an example of a school sponsoring a LGBT club with public dollars.

 

So da status quo is untenable, and leads to all da ugliness and incivility we've seen. If you "win" then groups that are offensive to you are banned from public support and the public schools and the public square

 

Well, again you have to lie about me by falsely claiming I'd ban groups that are "offensive" to me from public schools and the public square.

 

You just want to "win." I think that's just uncivil and foolish.

 

Deliberately lying about my intentions is pretty damn uncivil, Beavah.

 

[acco40]

A PTO or PTA if sponsoring a BSA unit (Pack or Troop for example) should choose the leaders and as such should support the Declaration of Religious Principle when choosing those leaders. If the PTO or PTA is not comfortable with that, they should not charter units.

 

In my neck of the woods, (ah, I'm getting Beavah speak!) PTO and PTAs are not supported by the public schools, the PTO and PTAs support the schools. So legally, while they may not feel it is wise to do so, they may support units.

 

As a parent, taxpayer and BSA member - I agree that public schools should not sponsor BSA units. I also don't think PTOs or PTAs should either - that is not their charter.

 

Public universities/colleges and public schools (high school, middle/junior high schools, etc.) are vastly different communities. In the latter, students are forced to get an education by law and usually, no fee is involved. For higher education, the national trend has been to increase tuition/endowments and lessen support by the public (via taxes & government funding at the state/local levels). If a group of students want to form a LGBT group and be allowed to utilize university resources I don't have a big deal with it. At my alma mater, the Legion of Black Collegians was a fairly prominent group (FYI membership was open to all but was also predominantly black).

 

For a grade school to allow "any" group access is a recipe for disaster. To show favoritism to certain groups is fraught with peril. However, when I was a Bear and Webelos den leader I asked my son's teacher if I could use their room after school (evenings) once a week and also filed the proper paperwork with the principal/school. We also made sure we left the room cleaner than when we entered. The boys were familiar with the room, some basic supplies were handy (chalk boards, paper, pencils, etc.) and the boys seemed to behave better than at someone's house that may have distractions (gameboys, TVs, PSPs, computers, pets, siblings, meddling parents, etc.).

 

That lasted for a few years until the schools (district policy) started charging $25/hr obstensibly for a maintenance staff. That effectively killed my use of the school for the lst half year of Webelos. I didn't like that move but totally understood it and can't really blame them for it.

[Pint]

Every now an again i take a look in here, being a UK Scout leader its another potential source for ideas, and to see how other people play the same game of Scouting but with slightly different methods.

 

One of the things that puzzles me is the whole Charter org set up, and sponsoring authority rules.

is it not possible for BSA Scout troops/Cub packs etc to be self sufficient entities in their own right, doing away with Charter Organisations ( Orgnaizations) and then either funding their own meeting place or paying to use somewhere else suitable?

 

 

[Lisabob]

Pint, some units do essentially just that - they charter to a group called "parents of" or "friends of" the unit.

 

The downside to that is that kids graduate or move on, and sometimes you end up left with a very thin group of parents who not only run everything in the daily working of the unit, but also own/control the unit's funding and big picture decisions as Charter org. Continuity can be a problem (either, not enough of it, or a few hangers on that won't leave and believe they should have a veto over everything the unit ever might do)

 

What happens then, when some of the "parents of" want to use their charter power one way, and some want to use it a different way? Who is really the institutional head, who is supposed to be the ultimate voice of authority? Nobody.

 

So while it happens, it is often rather problematic.

 

[acco40]

One of the duties of a charter organization is to provide the proper facilities for the unit. It doesn't mean it has to be free, but if it is a parents group, they need to be able to provide a place to meet.

[evmori]

Woapalanne, a club that has religious requirements for membership discriminates on the basis of religion (e.g. the BSA). A club that doesn't have such requirements isn't discriminating on the basis of religion.

 

A club that has ANY requirement discriminates, religious or otherwise!

[JMHawkins]

Let individual families and citizens choose their services. Yah, you won't like what some families choose, and they won't like what you choose. Get over it.

 

Years and years ago, when Bill Clinton was President, a coworkers was livid one day at lunch. Not at Clinton (though this was during the whole Monica affair). No, my friend was a somewhat liberal Democrat, and was unhappy that a school district somewhere in The South was apparently going to vote on whether or not to teach Creationism in school. My coworker was adamant that the Federal Government needed to mandate curriculum at a national level to prevent Creationism from being taught in public schools.

 

Why do you want someone from Texas telling your school district it cant teach your daughter about evolution? I asked

 

Huh? he answered. Thats not what Im talking about.

 

Sure you are, I told him. This was of course before George W. Bush was elected, and my liberal friend, half-way into Clintons second term, seemed unable to comprehend that a Republican might win a future election, even more so that a conservative, religious Republican might. I was kind enough not to ask him after Bush took office if he still wanted national curriculum standards.

 

Too many folks think like him though. They want omnipotent government when their ideology is in charge and choice or freedom when the other guy is calling the shots. Well, no wonder we have so many problems with our government today a whole lot of people seem to agree its a one way street, but theyre arguing about which direction the arrows point. Makes for an impressive traffic jam, but not much else. The secret to a lasting democracy, one that doesnt turn into two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch, is to respect the wishes of others even when you dont like or understand their decisions. Sure, there are limits, but I think we passed those a few million pages of legislation ago. The more centralized we try to make our decisions, the less functional our society becomes.

 

Whats the old saying? Freedom is something you can only get by giving it away to others?