Why there is no turning back on changing membership standards...

[packsaddle]

Well, it's a statement in a dustbin that was never endorsed and made public until the 1990's..

 

No one followed it. If they did, the BSA would have not made George Takei a spokes person for the BSA in 1985, nor allowed him to be an assistant SM.. Nor, given George Takei's view on people who discriminate, would he have been associated with the BSA, let alone be a spokesperson endorsing the program.. George Takei being gay was a well known fact among the Star trek fans since the 1970's and with anyone who was a personal friend.. Some non-star trek fans may have been shocked when he stated it more publically in 2005, but his sexual orientation was public enough before then with anyone who knew (or followed his career) closely.

 

The majority of BSA did not know of the existance of that paper until 1990, and therefore it was not followed or enforced.. Even by people high up enough in the organization who scrutinize over who their spokesperson should be..

 

If a tree falls in the woods, but no one is around to hear it. Does it make a sound??

Man you are sure right about that! So much for out-of-touch-with-youth leadership in Texas. It wouldn't have taken much effort on the part of any of their PR people to fill them in on things that were relevant to the times back then. In this case, either they knew and didn't worry about it, or they didn't listen to their PR people, or else they just didn't think to look into it in the first place. Which of those is the good thing?

But I'm OK with it. Their lack of awareness has provided one more wonderful irony for the stupid membership policy.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

There's plenty of irony... When the Dale case was heading to the supreme court, Boy's Life had an article on Langston Hughes (around January of 1999) about how he successfully ended segregated seating in his classroom at age 12. So while the BSA was arguing that gays were not good role models, they had a story about a gay man as a good role model.

 

I pointed out in this forum that at least one of the 20 subcamps named after living explorers in the 2005 Jamboree was an outspoken atheist (James D. Watson).

 

[packsaddle]

There's plenty of irony... When the Dale case was heading to the supreme court, Boy's Life had an article on Langston Hughes (around January of 1999) about how he successfully ended segregated seating in his classroom at age 12. So while the BSA was arguing that gays were not good role models, they had a story about a gay man as a good role model.

 

I pointed out in this forum that at least one of the 20 subcamps named after living explorers in the 2005 Jamboree was an outspoken atheist (James D. Watson).

As BSA incorporates STEM into the program, that is a minefield they'll have to tread through very carefully.

[Peregrinator]

There's plenty of irony... When the Dale case was heading to the supreme court, Boy's Life had an article on Langston Hughes (around January of 1999) about how he successfully ended segregated seating in his classroom at age 12. So while the BSA was arguing that gays were not good role models, they had a story about a gay man as a good role model.

 

I pointed out in this forum that at least one of the 20 subcamps named after living explorers in the 2005 Jamboree was an outspoken atheist (James D. Watson).

Where can one find out more about Langston Hughes' supposed homosexuality? Scholarly articles and the like, I mean.

 

As far as Watson is concerned, do you think that the BSA's naming of a subcamp after him indicates some sort of approval or even tolerance for his views? Because he's said quite a few strange and/or silly things that the BSA would probably not want to be associated with.

[Peregrinator]

Well, it's a statement in a dustbin that was never endorsed and made public until the 1990's..

 

No one followed it. If they did, the BSA would have not made George Takei a spokes person for the BSA in 1985, nor allowed him to be an assistant SM.. Nor, given George Takei's view on people who discriminate, would he have been associated with the BSA, let alone be a spokesperson endorsing the program.. George Takei being gay was a well known fact among the Star trek fans since the 1970's and with anyone who was a personal friend.. Some non-star trek fans may have been shocked when he stated it more publically in 2005, but his sexual orientation was public enough before then with anyone who knew (or followed his career) closely.

 

The majority of BSA did not know of the existance of that paper until 1990, and therefore it was not followed or enforced.. Even by people high up enough in the organization who scrutinize over who their spokesperson should be..

 

If a tree falls in the woods, but no one is around to hear it. Does it make a sound??

"George Takei came out of the closet in 1995" ... actually, it wasn't until 2005. I guess those to whom Takei's sexuality was an open secret were disappointed when he did not speak out against the Dale decision.

[packsaddle]

There's plenty of irony... When the Dale case was heading to the supreme court, Boy's Life had an article on Langston Hughes (around January of 1999) about how he successfully ended segregated seating in his classroom at age 12. So while the BSA was arguing that gays were not good role models, they had a story about a gay man as a good role model.

 

I pointed out in this forum that at least one of the 20 subcamps named after living explorers in the 2005 Jamboree was an outspoken atheist (James D. Watson).

That's for sure about Watson. He didn't hold back one bit. Gotta admire him for that as well as his intellect, not so much for the way he and Crick treated Franklin. Science isn't immune to jerks.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Where can one find out more about Langston Hughes' supposed homosexuality? Scholarly articles and the like' date=' I mean. As far as Watson is concerned, do you think that the BSA's naming of a subcamp after him indicates some sort of approval or even tolerance for his views? Because he's said quite a few strange and/or silly things that the BSA would probably not want to be associated with.[/quote']

 

Why would someone write a "scholarly" article about a particular person's sexual orientation? Sounds to me like you're just trying to construct impossible-to-meet requirements.

 

As for Watson, the BSA did write this:

 

 

The 2005 jamboree subcamps are being named after great modern-day American explorers. All of the

 

 

explorers are members of the Explorers Club in New York City, and many of them have been Scouts.

 

 

Their accomplishments and achievements are an example for our Scouts of what is possible when you

 

 

dedicate yourself to the pursuit of expanding mankind's knowledge and the quest to go where others

 

 

have not yet gone.

 

 

Certainly doesn't sound like they disliked him or anything. Why are you so desperate to pretend that Hughes wasn't gay or that the BSA wasn't honoring Watson?

 

[Peregrinator]

Where can one find out more about Langston Hughes' supposed homosexuality? Scholarly articles and the like' date=' I mean. As far as Watson is concerned, do you think that the BSA's naming of a subcamp after him indicates some sort of approval or even tolerance for his views? Because he's said quite a few strange and/or silly things that the BSA would probably not want to be associated with.[/quote']

 

Why would someone write a "scholarly" article about a particular person's sexual orientation? Sounds to me like you're just trying to construct impossible-to-meet requirements.

 

As for Watson, the BSA did write this:

 

 

The 2005 jamboree subcamps are being named after great modern-day American explorers. All of the

 

 

explorers are members of the Explorers Club in New York City, and many of them have been Scouts.

 

 

Their accomplishments and achievements are an example for our Scouts of what is possible when you

 

 

dedicate yourself to the pursuit of expanding mankind's knowledge and the quest to go where others

 

 

have not yet gone.

 

 

Certainly doesn't sound like they disliked him or anything. Why are you so desperate to pretend that Hughes wasn't gay or that the BSA wasn't honoring Watson?

"Why would someone write a "scholarly" article about a particular person's sexual orientation?"

 

How about a biography or something like that. You know, something better than "He had gay friends, wore a mustache, and was well-groomed -- therefore gay."

 

I did not say that the BSA wasn't honoring Watson. I was noting that in honoring him they were not honoring him for his personal opinions (such as melanin affecting sex drive, whites being smarter than Africans, etc.).

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Where can one find out more about Langston Hughes' supposed homosexuality? Scholarly articles and the like' date=' I mean. As far as Watson is concerned, do you think that the BSA's naming of a subcamp after him indicates some sort of approval or even tolerance for his views? Because he's said quite a few strange and/or silly things that the BSA would probably not want to be associated with.[/quote']

 

Why would someone write a "scholarly" article about a particular person's sexual orientation? Sounds to me like you're just trying to construct impossible-to-meet requirements.

 

As for Watson, the BSA did write this:

 

 

The 2005 jamboree subcamps are being named after great modern-day American explorers. All of the

 

 

explorers are members of the Explorers Club in New York City, and many of them have been Scouts.

 

 

Their accomplishments and achievements are an example for our Scouts of what is possible when you

 

 

dedicate yourself to the pursuit of expanding mankind's knowledge and the quest to go where others

 

 

have not yet gone.

 

 

Certainly doesn't sound like they disliked him or anything. Why are you so desperate to pretend that Hughes wasn't gay or that the BSA wasn't honoring Watson?

PBS station WNET seems to think Hughes was gay: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/ihas/poet/hughes.html

 

Your objection to Watson doesn't change the irony. The BSA honored him but would not allow him to be a member because of his atheism (while his racist remarks would not have kept him out).

[AZMike]

Where can one find out more about Langston Hughes' supposed homosexuality? Scholarly articles and the like' date=' I mean. As far as Watson is concerned, do you think that the BSA's naming of a subcamp after him indicates some sort of approval or even tolerance for his views? Because he's said quite a few strange and/or silly things that the BSA would probably not want to be associated with.[/quote'] Why would someone write a "scholarly" article about a particular person's sexual orientation? Sounds to me like you're just trying to construct impossible-to-meet requirements.

 

I think that's pretty much all anyone writes about now in academia, Merlyn - whether someone is or isn't gay. Usually, you can make an academic career by claiming someone - anyone - is. Claiming they aren't really won't earn you any points. The sliding scale for gayness is pretty easily met nowadays.

 

Some biographers have claimed Hughes was gay, others (like Arnold Rampersand) have written that he wasn't. No gay lovers ever came forward. He could have been asexual, and lacked a strong sex drive, or felt largely romantic but non-sexual feelings. Some people are that way. He could have had a same-sex attraction or a bisexual attraction, but remained celibate, which seems likely. That's not unknown. Not everyone feels a need to play out their sexual fantasies, and some people with a SSA may realized that they will not ultimately be happy if they become a practicing homosexual. A man who has an overwhelming attraction for a woman (who happens to be married to another man) may never pursue her, out of a realization that such an act would be immoral (as fornication or adultery), or likely to lead to greater unhappiness than he feels now.

 

Ultimately, who cares? We'll probably never know.

 

 

 

[packsaddle]

Where can one find out more about Langston Hughes' supposed homosexuality? Scholarly articles and the like' date=' I mean. As far as Watson is concerned, do you think that the BSA's naming of a subcamp after him indicates some sort of approval or even tolerance for his views? Because he's said quite a few strange and/or silly things that the BSA would probably not want to be associated with.[/quote'] Why would someone write a "scholarly" article about a particular person's sexual orientation? Sounds to me like you're just trying to construct impossible-to-meet requirements.

 

I think that's pretty much all anyone writes about now in academia, Merlyn - whether someone is or isn't gay. Usually, you can make an academic career by claiming someone - anyone - is. Claiming they aren't really won't earn you any points. The sliding scale for gayness is pretty easily met nowadays.

 

Some biographers have claimed Hughes was gay, others (like Arnold Rampersand) have written that he wasn't. No gay lovers ever came forward. He could have been asexual, and lacked a strong sex drive, or felt largely romantic but non-sexual feelings. Some people are that way. He could have had a same-sex attraction or a bisexual attraction, but remained celibate, which seems likely. That's not unknown. Not everyone feels a need to play out their sexual fantasies, and some people with a SSA may realized that they will not ultimately be happy if they become a practicing homosexual. A man who has an overwhelming attraction for a woman (who happens to be married to another man) may never pursue her, out of a realization that such an act would be immoral (as fornication or adultery), or likely to lead to greater unhappiness than he feels now.

 

Ultimately, who cares? We'll probably never know.

 

 

Who cares? I guess that would be Peregrinator, perhaps Merlyn.

I'd like to note that in my academic career I have never written about someone being gay. Perhaps I need to rethink my strategy....

[AZMike]

Where can one find out more about Langston Hughes' supposed homosexuality? Scholarly articles and the like' date=' I mean. As far as Watson is concerned, do you think that the BSA's naming of a subcamp after him indicates some sort of approval or even tolerance for his views? Because he's said quite a few strange and/or silly things that the BSA would probably not want to be associated with.[/quote'] Why would someone write a "scholarly" article about a particular person's sexual orientation? Sounds to me like you're just trying to construct impossible-to-meet requirements.

 

I think that's pretty much all anyone writes about now in academia, Merlyn - whether someone is or isn't gay. Usually, you can make an academic career by claiming someone - anyone - is. Claiming they aren't really won't earn you any points. The sliding scale for gayness is pretty easily met nowadays.

 

Some biographers have claimed Hughes was gay, others (like Arnold Rampersand) have written that he wasn't. No gay lovers ever came forward. He could have been asexual, and lacked a strong sex drive, or felt largely romantic but non-sexual feelings. Some people are that way. He could have had a same-sex attraction or a bisexual attraction, but remained celibate, which seems likely. That's not unknown. Not everyone feels a need to play out their sexual fantasies, and some people with a SSA may realized that they will not ultimately be happy if they become a practicing homosexual. A man who has an overwhelming attraction for a woman (who happens to be married to another man) may never pursue her, out of a realization that such an act would be immoral (as fornication or adultery), or likely to lead to greater unhappiness than he feels now.

 

Ultimately, who cares? We'll probably never know.

 

 

What's your field, Packsaddle? If you're in a department that never uses the terms "deconstruction" or "Queer Studies," you probably don't have to worry.

[perdidochas]

Do you dare put that down for fear you do not KNOW the stance of the college admissions counselor who will read your application?

Unfortunately' date=' that may have already happened. At my last college reunion, I was with a group of alums and university folks, one of which worked in the admissions office. She said that mentioning you were an Eagle Scout on the application was a negative because of the association with bigotry. She recommended leaving any reference to the BSA off any application. Very sad. I didn't follow up, so I don't know if she was just giving her personal opinion, or the official opinion of the admissions office.[/quote']

 

 

I'm not sure I would want my son in a college where being an Eagle Scout is considered a bad thing......

[packsaddle]

Where can one find out more about Langston Hughes' supposed homosexuality? Scholarly articles and the like' date=' I mean. As far as Watson is concerned, do you think that the BSA's naming of a subcamp after him indicates some sort of approval or even tolerance for his views? Because he's said quite a few strange and/or silly things that the BSA would probably not want to be associated with.[/quote'] Why would someone write a "scholarly" article about a particular person's sexual orientation? Sounds to me like you're just trying to construct impossible-to-meet requirements.

 

I think that's pretty much all anyone writes about now in academia, Merlyn - whether someone is or isn't gay. Usually, you can make an academic career by claiming someone - anyone - is. Claiming they aren't really won't earn you any points. The sliding scale for gayness is pretty easily met nowadays.

 

Some biographers have claimed Hughes was gay, others (like Arnold Rampersand) have written that he wasn't. No gay lovers ever came forward. He could have been asexual, and lacked a strong sex drive, or felt largely romantic but non-sexual feelings. Some people are that way. He could have had a same-sex attraction or a bisexual attraction, but remained celibate, which seems likely. That's not unknown. Not everyone feels a need to play out their sexual fantasies, and some people with a SSA may realized that they will not ultimately be happy if they become a practicing homosexual. A man who has an overwhelming attraction for a woman (who happens to be married to another man) may never pursue her, out of a realization that such an act would be immoral (as fornication or adultery), or likely to lead to greater unhappiness than he feels now.

 

Ultimately, who cares? We'll probably never know.

 

 

I 'profess' in a sub-field of biology, mostly related to ecology or environmental sciences but it involves a good bit of physics and chemistry.

What some of us refer to as 'hard' science is really the kind that searches for explanations from a reductionist view. Engineering is a good example of the applied outcome of that approach. The so-called 'soft' sciences are ones that attempt to find explanations for what sometimes are called, 'emergent properties' of complex systems, often in fields focused on human or other animal behavior. These suffer from having to employ a holistic approach and aside from the problems of working with human subjects, this approach just doesn't lend itself to experimentation very readily. Sadly, my field encompasses some of both and while I do quite well crossing boundaries to interact with physicists and engineers, others of my peers don't seem as comfortable.

One of my engineering buddies needles me by claiming that biology is the intellectual equivalent of stamp collecting. He's right, of course, for some levels (comparative anatomy, taxonomy) but at others (genetics, molecular biology) he's way behind the times. I enjoy his sense of humor, though, and needle him back about the apocalyptic blunders that engineers make from time to time.

Anyway, you're right. My studies of people mostly occur while I'm waiting at the boarding gates at airports. I really enjoy phenotypes. It's a kind of stamp collecting, you know.

[King Ding Dong]

Do you dare put that down for fear you do not KNOW the stance of the college admissions counselor who will read your application?

Unfortunately' date=' that may have already happened. At my last college reunion, I was with a group of alums and university folks, one of which worked in the admissions office. She said that mentioning you were an Eagle Scout on the application was a negative because of the association with bigotry. She recommended leaving any reference to the BSA off any application. Very sad. I didn't follow up, so I don't know if she was just giving her personal opinion, or the official opinion of the admissions office.[/quote']

 

 

I'm not sure I would want my son in a college where being an Eagle Scout is considered a bad thing......

Yeah I would take a pass on that diploma mill.