Article

[Sentinel947]

http://crosscut.com/2012/10/29/op-ed/111155/gay-eagle-scout/

 

Thoughts?

[pchadbo]

Well spoken and heart-felt, now is anyone in Irving listening?

[AnniePoo]

Good article.

[WasE61]

It is interesting that he places responsibility of the abuse scandal only at the doorstep of Irving. When every Council was actually involved. Kinda naive.

[skeptic]

Excellent!

[CalicoPenn]

"It is interesting that he places responsibility of the abuse scandal only at the doorstep of Irving. When every Council was actually involved. Kinda naive."

 

Irving (or New Brunswick for those cases prior to the move to Texas), set the tone for the Councils, just as the Vatican set the tone for the various Archdioceses. Ultimately, the responsibility for overseeing how the cases were handled rests with National (and in the case of the Catholic Church, the Vatican).

[Horizon]

He captures why I am still involved. Good stuff here, and we will get it to change eventually.

[WasE61]

I agree Calico.

 

The top is responsible because they made the policy.

 

Unfortunately, the men in the trenches didn't see past the immorality of that policy.

 

Maybe that is what changes now. I hope so anyway.

 

 

[skeptic]

While National has been very poor in their response to this, and not proactive, the files themselves are not nearly as bad as the media portrays. Even the ones they cherry picked had comments about family reservations or local officials outside of scouting choosing to sweep it under the carpet. Then you read the ones where actual prosecution occurred, and the individuals were put on probation for most of the sentence. Especially before the era of fast and more efficient computers, the scouts response was often pretty good.

 

There is enough blame to go around in the small amount of material we see, and much of it can be equally laid at the feet of cultural aversion and authorities avoidance of taking it seriously.

 

And the idea that it all should be made public is nothing more than an invitation to another MacMartin. Anyone remember that?

[DeanRx]

Overall great article and I'd agree with the sentiment, "Is anyone in Irving listening?"

 

A couple of thoughts...

 

1) He is incorrect in his assesment that he would not be allowed to be a leader or otherwise involved in BSA. He could be a leader, but is a don't ask don't tell kind of way. Aside from that, there is nothing that states a gay parent cannot be involved as a PARENT in scouting. Just not an openly gay LEADER! I don't agree with the policy, hoepfully it will change, but he could still be involved as a "dad".

 

2) WHY? Do so many people (both gay or straight) invoke the perversion files and BSA's handling (good or bad) of these incidents in the same breath as the national policy on gays? To me, they are two extremely different issues. Am I missing something?

 

Dean