Future BSA President Intent to Eliminate the Ban on Gays

[Eagledad]

>>But Barry, that is not the public reasoning that the BSA is giving for their policy. It is not money, it is not members. Their reasoning is the "role model" issue (morals to some).

[acco40]

For youth that are gay and for an organization that professes to be a teacher of ethical values, I suggest the BSA state that their policy is membership/dollars based if that is the case. My guess is it is due to the LFL vs. Scouting program dichotomy.

[ghjim]

What I would like to know is how will Randall Stephenson change the membership rules if the rest of the executive board are against him? How did he get on the board in the first place with those kind of views?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Why do you say the rest of the board is against him (or allowing gays)?

[ghjim]

This is what I am confused about. Wasn't it the executive board that reaffirmed the ban against gays and athiests? Isn't it the executive board that is making that policy in the first place?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

According to the latest announcement:

 

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/article/Despite-protests-Boy-Scouts-reaffirm-ban-on-gays-3713046.php

...

The Scouts' national spokesman, Deron Smith, told The Associated Press that an 11-member special committee, formed discreetly by top Scout leaders in 2010, came to the conclusion that the exclusion policy "is absolutely the best policy" for the 102-year-old organization.

 

Smith said the committee, comprised of professional scout executives and adult volunteers, was unanimous in its conclusion preserving a long-standing policy that was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000 and has remained controversial ever since.

 

 

UPDATE:

Wow, apparently part of this "11-member special committee, formed discreetly by top Scout leaders" was surreptitiously filmed and put up on youtube:

 

(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

[NealOnWheels]

That's a good one Merlyn.

 

That is exactly the feeling I get about this 11 member special committee.

[BadenP]

 

I think many are missing the real issue here about lifting the ban. It is not about ethics or morality, as far as the BSA is concerned it is a matter of survival. We have all seen firsthand the major restructuring of the National office, the elimination of the regional offices, the trend to form mega councils in all states and the reasons for all of this are dramatically reduced numbers in membership and devastating diminishing returns of ALL contributions, corporate and individual. If National thinks there is a possibility for both larger membership growth and financial growth by eliminating the ban on gays you just watch how fast that happens.

 

The BSA is in crisis mode, their now exposed overinflated number reports on both membership and contributions is just the tip of the iceberg. Why do you think Mazzucca got out of there so soon? It wasn't about retirement age since we have seen that it too is flexible. As far as the religious sponsors having a fit, they like the LDS will be able to formulate their own scouting programs to accomodate their beliefs.

 

Bottom line it is all about numbers and money both of which have been tanking for years now, and if the BSA thinks they have a way to reversing them they will do it, if for no other reason to insure their own survival. Time will soon reveal all.

[Horizon]

I would love to see real membership numbers, by age, as a percent of eligible youth over the past 40 years. That might help us set a real baseline to determine what the effect is/would be.

 

Lots of people keep on saying that we are going to lose a ton of numbers if we allow local control. The suspicious part of me assumes that BSA would take all of the paper members and paper units and drop them from the roles - blaming the gay issue. But if we have been losing people since the fiasco of the 70s, how can we separate losses from either the Dale decision or our eventual allowance of local control.

[NJCubScouter]

BadenP,

 

I think that depends on what you think the "real issue" is. There are at least two options:

 

One is, whether and/or when the policy will change, and what causes it to change or not change. That is apparently the issue you are looking at.

 

Two is, should the policy change? That is how I look at it. And I don't think I am being naive or overly idealistic about it. As I have said, I think the policy may very well not change for 20 years. I think that when it does change, it will be a combination of two factors: Money, and a generational change in the leadership. When people who "came of age" in the 80s and 90s are in charge, rather than the 60s and 70s, I think the policy will change. The "money" issue could make it change sooner, but I think that once the generational change really kicks in, the policy will change regardless of whether there is a financial crisis in the BSA at the time or not.

[ghjim]

I just joined this forum. I was active in scouting from 1963 until 1977. As I am nearing retirement and was planning on getting involved in scouting again I find I am ineligible for membership due to my religious beliefs (agnostic).

 

I went through a period of a lot of anger against the BSA and after a while I calmed down.

I realized the BSA doesn't have to remain the organization I remembered.

 

All I am really trying to do now is figure out the history of how all of this changed. It seems that the executive council (whose new members are chosen by the council itself, so not a democratic organization) began filling with more conservative members until these membership restrictions came into effect in the 1980s.

 

Yes, it seems to me that the BSA membership is way down, however I find my old scout camp in Oklahoma is still doing fine (reports from my friends still in scouting) and that Philmont (I was a staff member in 1975) is having record attendance.

[BadenP]

NJ

 

The 20 years you are talking about have already passed, the time you speak of is already here.

Whether you like it or not society has rapidly changed in these last two decades and the BSA has not kept in step. That is why in many circles people view the BSA as an archaic and obsolete organization, out of touch with todays world and youth. As scouters we may be far too close to the subject to be truly unbiased or objective in our views.

[NJCubScouter]

BadenP, I wish the national viewpoint on equality had changed as much as you seem to think it has. I just did a little looking around the Internet and it appears that more than half the states still permit discrimination against gay people in employment, public accommodations, etc. I'm not even talking about marriage here, just the more "traditional" forms of discrimination -- and very similar to what the BSA itself engages in. The fact is that this country is very divided about whether it is acceptable to discriminate against gay people. In some places (like where I live) the BSA is out of step, in some places it is not.

 

In any event, I certainly wish the BSA would change the policy to allow local option, and I have been advocating for that in this forum for 10 years. But as for when it is going to happen, I see little point in extended arguments about predictions of the future, especially when nobody here (as far as I know) has any direct say in making the change happen. My prediction of 20 years is not based on when I think it should happen, but when I think it will happen. Do you know the difference?

[BadenP]

NJ

 

Yes I do know the difference but I think you are way off. If you are basing your argument by what you find on the internet then I would be very cautious as to your conclusions. If you get out into the REAL world you might find what I have said is true. There will ALWAYS be prejudice against gays but as the society is rapidly changing and becoming more tolerant and accepting those bigoted people are becoming a smaller and more isolated group.

 

But again these decisions by the BSA will be based on dollar and membership factors alone and not by public sentiment as you seem to be so fixated on in your argument.

[packsaddle]

"There will ALWAYS be prejudice against gays but as the society is rapidly changing and becoming more tolerant and accepting those bigoted people are becoming a smaller and more isolated group."

 

There may be fewer of them but I still wish they'd stay in Idaho or someplace rather than moving to the South.