Venturing Eligibility for OA - An Idea...

[sherminator505]

To BrotherhoodWWW,

 

Welcome to the discussion! For my part, I won't call you names or be disrespectful. But I will not hesitate to challenge your thinking, as that would make this thread boring.

 

You say in your post that you don't see the benefit to OA being coed at the youth level. Fair enough. I will agree with you to the point that it wouldn't make a difference one way or t'other. I will also agree with your proposition that having elections to OA shouldn't be about getting/recognizing camp staff. John might disagree with me on that point, but to my mind (at least with regard to my Scouting experience) those two aspects are and should be decoupled.

 

Now I do think that your opposition to making OA coed is clouding your mind to what I believe is the larger issue here, namely the recognition of Venturing as the senior youth program of Scouting. When we speak of the Order as "Scouting's National Honor Society," it evokes a much larger image than what is currently practiced.

 

As an organization we have created Venturing to encompass what we perceive as the best of the Senior Scouting and Exploring programs before it, with a decidedly outdoor emphasis. Now some of us seem to be perfectly willing to relegate it to a second-class status after only a dozen years of existence and convince ourselves it's not "real Scouting." Why? Because it's different? Because it's coed? Because it's not as grounded in the straitjacket of tradition as "real Scouting?" When you get right down to it, are any of those reasons valid?

 

I feel that this change would benefit both the Order and Venturing. It would enhance the Order's standing as a force for fostering camping and service both in Venturing and traditional Boy Scouting, and it would expand the youth leadership pool in districts and councils by allowing senior youth leadership more opportunities to meet, train, communicate and grow. It would also enhance Venturing's visibility within the Scouting movement and encourage its growth and development.

 

As for your statement that Venturing isn't experiencing "exponential growth," I'm not sure what this adds to your argument, as the traditional Boy Scout program hasn't exactly been experiencing exponential growth, either. And as for your question: "If Venturing wants an honors program why do they not develop their own?," I would reference my previous statements and ask: "Why should they have to?"(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

[BDPT00]

I see this as much ado about nothing. There are requirements for entry into the OA. Some people are excluded, and murderers don't happen to be among them, by the way. But there are others who are.

I happen to like things as they are. Just thought I'd throw in a vote (opinion).

BDPT00

[sherminator505]

So you agree with the proposition that murderers have more business in OA than Venturing youth, then?

[BDPT00]

Did I say that?

Someone assumed murderers were not allowed, and that's not true.

Fact.

Venturing crews cannot hold elections.

Fact.

Is that proposing something? No.

BDPT00

 

 

[BadenP]

So BDPT you have never heard of requirements being changed in the BSA before?

Scouting and society is in a constantly changing cycle and "evolves" over time, and for better or worse so will the OA. When that happens and you see the new REVISED requirements what will you say then?

[sherminator505]

BDPT00-

 

Let's look at your post:

 

"I see this as much ado about nothing. There are requirements for entry into the OA. Some people are excluded, and murderers don't happen to be among them, by the way. But there are others who are.

I happen to like things as they are. Just thought I'd throw in a vote (opinion)."

 

By pointing out that murderers are not excluded from OA membership, and that you happen to like things the way they are, you are indeed indicating a membership preference to murderers over Venturing youth.

[BDPT00]

BP: "When that happens and you see the new REVISED requirements what will you say then?"

** Welcome.

Sherm: "By pointing out that murderers are not excluded from OA membership, and that you happen to like things the way they are, you are indeed indicating a membership preference to murderers over Venturing youth."

** There are a lot of people who are not excluded from membership. Someone decided to pick on murderers. My point, obviously missed, was that some people ARE excluded. Again, I'm satisfied with how it is. Repeating what I just said to BP, when Venturers are allowed elections, I'll welcome them (whether or not they're murderers).

Someone picked murderers as an extreme to make a point. So did I. I guess I must have crossed a line somewhere. Someone also mentioned cross-dressers. Haven't seen them excluded from elections either. Should I have chosen them instead?

BDPT00

[DeaconLance]

Many seem hung up on the Scouting's National Honor Society which is a bad subtitle for the Order. I remember when I was inducted it has the subtitle was National Brotherhood of Scout Honor Campers. The purpose of the Order is to recognize those campers who best exemplify the Scout Oath and Law (not the Venturing Oath and Code) in their daily lives, to develop and maintain camping traditions and spirit, to pormote Scout camping, and to crystalize the Scout habit of helpfulness into a life purpose of leadership cheerful service to others.

Camping is inseperable from the Boy Scout program, one cannot advance without doing it. Venturing has five activity areas only one of which involves camping and even then the Outdoor Bronze and Ranger Awards may be earned with a minimum of camping. Review the Ranger 8 core and 18 electives, only 3 of the cores and 2 of the electives require any camping. Boy Scouting and Venturing programs are different programs. If it is felt that Venturing needs an honor society let them have their own. I suggest supporting the Corps of Discovery. http://www.sageventure.com/COD/

[sherminator505]

Do you honestly believe that Venturing youth do not subscribe to the same ideals as Boy Scouts? That a Venturing youth who has met the camping requirement has not demonstrated a commitment to Scout camping? That Venturing youth are not deserving of membership in the Order? Please, elaborate.(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

[BDPT00]

What DeaconLance states is factual. It has nothing to do with what you, he, or I "honestly believe."

BDPT00

 

[nldscout]

There is no elaboration necessary, Venturing youth that were not Boy Scouts are not qualified under the present rules. You, I nor anyone on this list is ever going to change that. It will take a major rethinking at National, and thats not going to happen anytime soon.

 

The biggest problem I see is people keep bringing it up and mentioning it to Venturers. Then when nothing happens someone get bruised feelings. The answer is if asked, those are the National rules, end of subject.

[BadenP]

You know an old mule gets pretty set in his ways and when he doesn't want to move sometimes he just needs a good ole slap on the ass to get him to see that stubborness is not to his benefit. Reminds me of some people.

[sherminator505]

"What DeaconLance states is factual. It has nothing to do with what you, he, or I "honestly believe.""

 

Actually, it does. What I am proposing is a change to the rules. Obviously, this change has not occured. I guess what I'd like to see is a genuine explanation of what the opposition is beyond "because those are the rules." In other words, what are your real reasons for opposing a change like this? Please tell us, when you say you like things the way they are, why is that?

 

"The biggest problem I see is people keep bringing it up and mentioning it to Venturers. Then when nothing happens someone get bruised feelings. The answer is if asked, those are the National rules, end of subject."

 

Interesting point. Why do you suppose that this discussion would bruise any feelings at all? After all, if rules are rules and they cannot be changed to accomodate Venturing youth who exemplify the ideals of the Order, then shouldn't they just accept that blindly?(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

[scoutdad_tx]

I just read through this entire thing. I dont usually reply to any of these forums. But I think this one has hit a nerve. I must say, there appears to be a lot of people that just don't get it. We are now in the 21st century. Let's start leading and embracing change. Or you'll just get left behind. Especially when these youth we serve get older and start taking care of us, you dont want them to wonder why we didn't do everything we could. Remember, we are not doing this for ourselves; we are doing this for the youth. Regardless of gender.

 

I also wanted to comment on the amount of inconsistencies and lack of knowledge on some. I recommend that you do your homework before posting on any forum. Here are just to examples that stand out on this thread;

 

Example one referencing a comment about Wood Badge; Wood Badge has been open to registered adults. You can register as an adult when you are 18. Therefore Wood Badge has been open to anyone 18 and older. It is just recently, 2010, that it has changed to allow anyone 18 or older, regardless of their registered position. Adult or youth.

 

Example two about young ladies in Venturing uniforms; first off, Venturing has no set uniform. The Crew decides what their uniform will be. So, technically, having the camp require them to wear the spruce uniform is not valid. And, yes they can wear the tan uniform, if they are 18+ and a registered adult outside of Venturing. So, therefore it is false to say that young ladies can only wear a Venturing uniform. (if your talking about the spruce one)

 

I know Im going to get blasted, but as I said this thread had hit a nerve.

[BadenP]

scoutdad

 

What a great post, very valid points and very well stated. As far as getting blasted by others just look at them as badges of honor, it means you made them think about the issue, even if they disagree with you. Welcome to the lions pit, lol.