When is behavior un-scoutlike.

[Bob White]

There are 3 posters on this forum who have met me and one that has scouted with me for about 2 years now (after we had been on this board not knowing each other).

 

I can say with fairly high confidence that none of them would consider me un-scoutlike in our interactions. While I accept the the decision of the moderator who used the term I would like to present a different view.

 

I have used this example before but its still a good example. if a thief breaks into your home and you call him a thief, are you being un-friendly, discourteous, unkind? Un-scoutlike?

 

If your boss asks you to lie to a customer and you refuse are you un-scoutlike for being disobedient? If a house is engulfed in flames and you know the families baby is in a nursery on the second floor are you unscoulike for not being brave and charging into the flames?

 

If you see a person getting mugged should you be helpful and help the mugger or discouteous to him and help the victim.

 

Being un-scoutlike is not as dependent on the action as it is on who or what the purpose or intent of the action is.

 

If I see a woman being hit, I will stop it, I don't care if I am unkind to the attacker, unfriendly to the attacker, un-helpful to the attacker. The intended vistim deserves defending. If I take some hits in the process it's better that I get hit than her. I feel the same about scouting and this forum.

 

The BSA is not the monster some posters would make IT to be. It is not even an it. Much of the BSA are my friends and family, and this program has been a part of my family community service since the 1920s. When it is attacked, I will defend it. That to me is being loyal, and trustworthy. Standing up to bullies who only what to discourage good people from a good program is brave as far as I am concerned. These people are not friends, they are not friendly, they are attacking my friends, good people who try to do good things and have good values. They do not deserve to be attacked, especially by those who have less than virtueous motives. They deserve to have someone defend them because that is the right thing to do.

 

Nowhere does the Scout Law say you can not get angry.

 

It asks that you be loyal to family, friends, my scout leaders and my nation, and I always have.

 

It asks that I been a friend to all regardless of race or beliefs or customs. And I have never with held friendship based on those grounds.

 

A Scout is courteous (this is the one some have waited for.) I would like everyone interested to read the passage in the handbook (pg 49)I have never been impolite because of a persons age or position. I shake hands, apologize when wrong, I will be courteous to those whom coutesy is owed. But as I explained before you cannot be "scout-like to an attacker and still be of use to the attacked. I could care less if some posters want to take shots at me personally, although this seems an odd vehicle to choose to do that in, but do not attack the people that I value and expect plaese and thank yous in return.

 

Take a look at the other points of Law and see if you find one that I have violated. Have I been defensive, absolutely, Do I defend the BSA, absolutely I would not have spend this much time in a program that I did not respect. Do I defend it more aggressively than others? why should that even matter? Some defend the ACLU with as much energy, some defend atheism with as much enthusiasm, some attack the BSA with more, I choose to like and defend what I see as the finest Youth program in America. I do not see where there is a negative there.

 

I have never refused to help a scouter, parent, or scout who had a question. I have spoken with nearly a dozen on the phone at their request to help them when no one in their district would or could. I have mentored a dozen or so more through PMs. I have never been un-scoutlike to anyone who wanted good scouting.

 

If being unscoutlike means that I defend the quality and purpose of the program and that I challenge those who carelessly malign it then fine I will accept your label as mis-applied as I believe it to be.

 

I can cannot ignore the attack and be scoutlike, I cannot challenge the attacker and be scoutlike. Given the choice I will choose to defend and support the BSA and its programs.

[bbng]

I can cannot ignore the attack and be scoutlike, I cannot challenge the attacker and be scoutlike. Given the choice I will choose to defend and support the BSA and its programs.

 

If I follow you, ignoring an attack on the BSA would not be considered Scout-like. Likewise, challenging an attacker of the BSA would not be Scout-like. Please correct me if I misunderstand.

 

You see, I agree that ignoring an attack on the BSA is not always an option. I say not always because there are times when it does seem best to ignore something posted online, though that is a judgement call and will vary from person to person.

 

However, I would disagree that challenging an attacker is not Scout-like. It is possible to disagree, to correct, or even to rebuke what someone has said without attacking the person. Courtesy and kindness would seem to indicate that we treat others with respect even when we don't think they deserve it (ie judging a person's ability to understand may lead to thinking they don't deserve an answer, and I cannot, by posts alone, determine that ability) and instead go after the issue.

 

My opinion, in a nutshell, is that when another's character is called into question or another is publicly ridiculed or brushed off as not worth bothering to answer, then the behavior is not Scout-like.(This message has been edited by bbng)

[Bob White]

I do not see defending those you owe loyalty to as un-scoutlike.

 

If a person cannot choose as a scout leader to be trustworthy, loyal helpful friendly, kind, obedient cheerful, clean, and reverent in their post, then they should not expect courtesy in exchange for their behavior.

 

I do not believe an attacker is owed courtesy. If you attack a member of my family do not expect me to request that you "kindly curtail your assault please and thank you".

 

When you attack the people I value or the people unable to defend themselves, do not expect courtesy in return. If you steal I will call you a thief, that is not being discourteous, its an aknoweldgement of what that person CHOSE to be.

 

If your are untrained saying you need training is not unkind or discourteous. The individual CHOSE to be untrained, no one stole the information from them. No one made them stay home from the training, no one kept them from reading the handbook.

 

 

[ljnrsu]

If a person cannot choose as a scout leader to be trustworthy, loyal helpful friendly, kind, obedient cheerful, clean, and reverent in their post, then they should not expect courtesy in exchange for their behavior.

 

I respectfuly disagree with your statement. IMHO a scout or scouter is to follow all points of the scout law at all times. The Scout Oath says "and to obey the Scout Law". Not some of the Law some of the time or only the ones I feel like when I feel like depending on circumstances.

 

You can chose to "talk to" instead of "talk at" there is a big difference between the two. Two wrongs never make it right.

 

As for specific points of the scout law that may have been "violated". I will leave it for you and others to decide.

 

Friendly- "A Scout is a friend to all. He is a brother to other Scouts. He seeks to understand others. He respects those with ideas and customs that are different from his own."

 

Courteous- "A Scout is polite to everyone reguardless of age and position. He knows that good manners make it easier for people to get along together."

 

Kind- A Scout understands there is strength in being gentle. He treats others as he wants to be treated. He does not harm or kill anything without reason"

 

(pg 7 Boy Scout Handbook tenth edition)

 

You and I will never agree on everything but from the passion you have for Scouting we both agree on one thing. We both want to deliver the best possible program and experience for the Scouts in our units and for Scouting in general.

[Bob White]

Courteous- "A Scout is polite to everyone reguardless of age and position. He knows that good manners make it easier for people to get along together."

 

I agree and comply wholey with that. I do not see how defending the people and values that are dear to you from attack as being in conflict with the responsibilities of a good scout or citizen. By attacking scouting the other person has already shown, just as the intruder in your home has show, that courtesy is not a concern of thiers. They are there to do harm , and loyalty and duty do not always allow for courtesy but do allow for use of other values such as loyalty, barvery, and trustworthiness.

[bbng]

Bob, I hope I'm misunderstanding this. Am I reading that when a poster here is offensive (not courteous, kind, etc) that is ok to be offensive in return? If that is what you are saying, and that is how I read it, then I disagree and believe that the Scout Law holds me to a higher standard than to simply strike back. I am loyal not only to the BSA but also to individual fellow Scouters. My fellow Scouters deserve my loyalty because we made the same commitment, though I often am frustrated that there are those who don't use available and necessary resources. As for those who come here simply to post against the BSA, I owe them no loyalty, but I will take the opportunity to live out what I claim to live--to treat others according to the Scout Law even when they don't treat me or the BSA in general according to the Scout Law. I can, have, and will continue to defend the BSA because I believe in it. I have and will continue to be outspoken on behalf of the BSA, and I will do so in a positive manner. Anyone can take a shot back at someone, anyone can complain, but there is a better way in my opinion. It is to focus on what is good, what is right, what makes it worth being part of and supportive of the BSA rather than complaining about those who don't do the same.

 

As for defending someone who is in harm's way or defending against an intruder, of course I would take action...and without apology. I just don't see that posts on public forums about whether has taken training or not or those that are political or policy issues can be equated with protecting my family, friends, and home, nor do I see how pointing out to others on the forum who is not trained or who doesn't practice what s(he) has learned is beneficial or how someone is just making an attack. It strikes me as mean-spirited rather than helpful, whereas the example of protecting family, friends, and home seems to be a loving response.

[evmori]

1st off, the examples in the original post are suspect. Being un-scoutlike if you refuse to lie because your boss want you to? A Scout is trustworthy. I won't even address the absurdity of the thief or mugger thing.

 

When is behavior un-Scoutlike? Good question and one which can only be answered on a case by case basis.

 

If my boss asked me to lie or fudge numbers I would politely refuse to do so since this is dishonest. Doing so would be un-Scoutlike.

 

I don't think anyone is making the BSA to be a monster. Some do make the BSA out to be infallible. All people are doing is asking questions & requesting posters to state facts instead of their opinion. Asking questions isn't attacking. Asking questions is a common form of gathering information. If you don't know something - ask.

If something doesn't make sense - ask. If you are unsure of something - ask.

 

We have all been impolite. So outright arrogant! And we have all been un-Scoutlike in our responses. Does that make us less of a Scouter? No. It makes us human.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[scoutldr]

Not sure what prompted all this. A sign of emotional maturity is being able to disagree without being disagreeable. Sarcasm, arrogance and condescension are never in good taste. None of us has the secret to the "perfect program"...we only have our own opinions and experiences as to what we feel works or doesn't work. For most of us, we learn most effectively by doing and by making mistakes...not by being preached at. The beauty of the Scouting program is that it allows us to make mistakes, Scout and Scouter alike, without fear of being ridiculed or punished. I expect the same from this Forum. The beauty of our Nation is that it is based on the right of everyone to have an opinion and to be able to voice that opinion, right or wrong, as long as we do it lawfully. No one's opinion is more important than anyone else's.

 

If BSA felt as passionately about the program and it's methods as some of the posters here, leaders (and COs)would not have an option...they would get trained and follow the program, or be removed. Maybe BSA realizes that we are just VOLUNTEERS with vaying degrees of commitment and has the wisdom to know that it's better to have SOME scouting, rather than to insist on perfect scouting. I, for one am thankful for what my fellow volunteers are able to contribute, and will not criticize when it's not quite by the book (as long as we stay safe).

[Bob White]

"If BSA felt as passionately about the program and it's methods as some of the posters here, leaders (and COs)would not have an option...they would get trained and follow the program, or be removed."

 

And that is exactly what they are doing!

Some Councils are already giving leaders 1 year fom the time they register to get trained or they are not letting their membership renew. While national has said that that this is not their prefered method (they would rather have the leaders learn and follow the program because that is the committment they made), they are not stopping the councils from doing it.

 

My guess is that if some councils can make this work it will becone a national practice. I hope it does. Many CO's have dropped the ball when it comes to selecting good leaders. You cannot lead a program that you do not know and understand.

 

There is no "perfect scout unit" the program is not attempting to achieve that. But there is is a a perfectly good "Scouting Program" and unit leaders have each agreed to follow it.... and too many have gone back on their word.

 

When leaders do not follow the program then boys and girls quit scouting because the promise made them in their handbooks was not kept. Good scouters should get mad. Adults who are unwilling to learn or follow the program hurt all of our units for years to come.

 

There is no acceptable excuse for an adult to be in this program for a year and not be trained. There is no acceptable excuse for leader who has been trained to not know where to go to find information on how to do any of their responsibilities. Adults who do not like the BSA should not be in the BSA. If you are unhappy you owe it to yourself to go do something you like SOMEWHERE ELSE.

 

Good scouters should get mad, bad scouters lose the scouts they serve quickly. Then they become complainers in an effort for you to lose the scouts you serve.

 

The idea that mailigning this program without offering one bit of informed information on how to implement change or evidence as to if that change would be an improvement is inane. And good scouters shouldn't turn a blind eye to it because the ONLY people who will be hurt are the scouts we serve, because the scouts they served have already quit.

 

Being trustworthy, loyal and brave enough to defend the scouts and the program is NOT un-scoutlike. Being helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, to thos who want to serve the community through scouting, is not un-scoutlike.

 

If you are going to punish the dog for barking at the intruder then be ready to have your house robbed.

[jkhny]

OK, you're really a nice guy. Point conceded. But I disagree with your semantics.

 

 

Should a scout ignore or "justify" ethically and morally unacceptable, even illegal acts?

 

Isn't it a Scout's responsibiltiy to question such behavior, investigate it and act to correct what is clearly wrong?

 

Hence my postings about "enrollment fraud," Abuse cover-ups, property sales and more.

 

A Scout is supposed to be able to act "ethically and morally" - teaching this is the stated MISSION of BSA. A Scout should THINK independently, NOT mindlessly obey.

Wasn't this the oft highlighted difference in WWII? Boy Scouts trump Hitler Youth. Our guys THINK and don't simply OBEY.

 

So, IMHO

 

It is UN-SCOUTLIKE to sit idly by and defend behavior that is clearly "Questionable" if not downright illegal.

 

It is UN-SCOUTLIKE to sit quietly in the presence of wrongdoing.

 

Evil thrives when good people are silent.

 

 

But some feel that any point of view counter to their own is wrong and SHOULD be silenced - not by refuting facts or making logical rational arguments but by rhetoric and attacks on the source.

 

Rational discourse and debate is not possible when valid questioning is portrayed as an "Attack" - THAT is the same diversionary tactic used by BSA

 

Saying that the ACLU is responsible for the 40% discrepancy in enrollments in Alabama is a lie and a diversion(when Holmes the SE there has been caught for the SECOND time in 5 years faking numbers. He wants to hold onto his $200,000+ a year salary in new $2million offices. so throw out the whistleblower, lie like hell and hope it blows over).

 

Refusing outside oversight and INDEPENDENT audits after your own audit shows only 5000 kids (3400 active) in a program Atlanta had claimed served 23,000, 15,000 or 10,000 (depending on the time and venue) does not help establish "transparency" and show a real desire NOT to let this happen again. When Scout Leaders as STILL saying there are only 500 kids in this program, there is still cause for concern. FIX the problem, don't keep HIDING it.

 

When child abuse has been personally reported to a Scout Executive on at least two separete occasions and they did nothing, in violation of the law and BSA procedures, it is valid to ask why is that person still employed by BSA.

 

And when the head of BSA has a compensation package that exceeds $900,000 (in 2003) - making him one of the HIGHEST compensated CEOS in the non-profit world - it is valid to ask if thsi is appropriate or deserved. After all, membership in Scouting has fallen continuously under Mr. WIlliams' leadership and his stated goal - to INCREASE Cub Scout enrollments has NOT been met - those numbers have declined for 7 years straight.

 

It IS valid to point out that even BSA is expressing concern over the exodus of adult members.

 

Ans it IS valid, ethical, moral AND most "Scout-like" to point out that hypocrisy evident in BSA actions of late has clearly cast a shadow on Scouting.

 

"Trustworthy" is the most important part of the Scout law - as even Mr. Williams noted in a NOAC interview. When BSA or its paid professionals - or its volunteers are NOT being "trustworthy" Scouting suffers.

 

"Obeidience" is low on the list. Even our military trains its members to question orders they feel are

illegal or immoral. They are told they should refuse to follow an illegal order. Nuremberg made that point clear. "Orders" are NOT a vaid excuse for illegal acts.

 

 

Scouting is a great progam for kids. Some of the best people I have met are Scout volunteers. BSA itself has staked out the high ground in claiming they represent "character and values" and that they expect members of BSA to meet the highest standards.

 

Why shouldn't its members expect BSA and its paid staff to meet the very standards tehy so publicly espouse?

 

Saying this is "good enough" or explaining away failures does not help Scouting. A Scout works to fix what goes wrong and make sure it won't happen again. Or at least they used to.

 

A SCOUT should expect the BEST possible from BSA - and I will argue, we are getting far than that. BSA Inc. and its paid leadership has NOT been meeting its own standards; THAT is far too clear in recent media coverage and THAT hurts Scouting and drives current and potential members away.

 

A Scout is BRAVE - he speaks out for what he believes in even if ridiculed or punished for doing so.

 

Still waiting for FACTS (not rhetoric or attacks) refuting points made elsewhere.

[Bob White]

Hi jhnky, welcome back neighbor,

 

Unfortunately you violated your own terms of the discussion. You asked that I respond to facts with facts and I did so on the only two items of your shopping list that you had any facts on.

 

I asked you for to return with facts that specifically supported your criticisms and yet you return to us empty handed.

 

As you have been requested, pick ONE item of your list. Present facts not opinions to rationalize and establish this is as a valid point and not just more ranting, and I think we can expalin what you do not understand.

 

"Evil thrives when good people are silent."

 

I agree. Why more scouters do not defend the program against some of the absolute folly that is posted by "scouters" on this board who malign scouting is beyond me.

 

As you say scouting is a great program for kids. But only if it has good adult leaders delivering it. Constantly wailing about the same few headlines over and over is hardly what anyone would call good leadership. Nor does it do anything to resolve any of your concerns.

 

We have an ESDA siren about a block from us. Every Tusday at 10 AM it wails the same loud noise for a few minutes and then stops. Everyone knows that thats all it does. There is no actual emergency, the siren is just set to make noise once a week. If there were a real emergency the siren has no effect on protecting anyone, for instance its loud whine doesn't actually turn away the tornado.

 

These days we don't even use it to know if there is a tornado, we have far better means of communications than a wailing siren.

 

Someday the siren will go away, because for all its noise it doesn't actually do anything.

 

As always, so nice of you to drop in, I look forward to you sharing the requested data.

BW

[jkhny]

Idaho facts

 

Kinda pointless to spoon feed someone who won't taste anything they don't like. Idaho's been detailed here previously and was a regular on "Headlines" - guess you never looked at the time.

 

The Idaho Falls Post-Register details the Stowell case and others in detail. The series used to be a free link but no longer. Go pay for an online subscription yourself and read the whole series. Printing out all the pages and references gives you an inch thick pile.

 

The series start:

 

http://www.postregister.com/story.php?accnum=53165-02272005&today=2005-02-27&keywords=stowell

 

short excerpts

 

Unsealed records (which the BSA was very eager to see stay sealed) show that many BSA officials, including National HQ, were informed years before this guy was caught:

 

"At least seven people within the organization were given reports about Stowell years before his arrest"

 

And this isn't an old case (the arrest was 1997):

 

"A letter from Richard Scarborough dated May of 1991 to the National Scouting Headquarters sends a warning that Stowell molested a 6-year-old Blackfoot child when Stowell was 16"

 

http://www.kpvi.com/index.cfm?page=nbcstories.cfm&ID=2216

 

CASE FILE UNSEALED

Mar 10, 2005

 

What did they know and when? The records in a three-year-old civil case between a molestation victim and the Boy Scouts of America are unsealed for the first time. Leaders with the scouting organization say they wanted

the case kept sealed because it contained the names of other young victims of former Scout Leader Brad Stowell. But the file also shows evidence that more people knew Stowell was a pedophile - and ignored it. Senior reporter Suzanne Hobbs looked at the files today.

 

There is damning evidence that not only did the Scout leaders know Brad Stowell had molested a child when he was 16, but others also witnessed Stowell engaged in inappropriate conduct with young Scouts at Camp Little

Lemhi.

 

The now unsealed civil case brought on by the parents of a then 11-year-old boy known only as "John Doe" consists of hundreds of pages in nine file folders filled with motions, testimony, witness lists and graphic details of what happened at camp. On order by the judge, the names of Stowell's victims are blacked out.

 

This is what the Boy Scouts of America did not want the public to know. Brad Stowell was arrested at Camp Little Lemhi in the summer of 1997 and charged with sexual abuse of a child. These court records show that

Stowell admitted that from 1988 to 1997, he repeatedly molested boys at camp and away from camp. The file shows that the Boy Scouts of America were 'repeatedly placed on notice' as far back as 1991 of Stowell's

pedophiliac propensity.

 

A letter from Richard Scarborough dated May of 1991 to the National Scouting Headquarters sends a warning that Stowell molested a 6-year-old Blackfoot child when Stowell was 16. There is case evidence of a note taken in 1995 by Hart Bullock, the area director for the Scouts Western Region. He was warned by a phone call that Stowell had fondled and sodomized a child and was now working with young boys at camp. The file shows Stowell could have been stopped much sooner. At least seven people within the organization were given reports about Stowell years before his arrest.

 

Despite an investigation by the Scouts, Stowell continued to work at camp several more years until his arrest. Was there intentional concealment by the Scouts? The records state that three Scout staffers observed Stowell engaged in some level of inappropriate conduct but failed to report it and the Scouts admit they knew that Stowell had been improperly touching some of the younger camp staff in 1997. The record also alleges that at the time, the Scouts did not notify the parents of other victims to avoid further liability - meaning there could be other victims out there who have not come forward.

 

Kim Hansen, the Scout executive for the Grand Teton Council, maintains that the council took swift action to remove Brad Stowell and did not turn a 'blind eye'. As for Stowell, he lives in Idaho Falls and is still on supervised probation for pleading guilty to the sexual abuse."

 

Stowell's back in prison, other abusers have come to light and case files have shown that BSA did NOT follow its own Youth Prtotection rules in any of this.

 

 

 

 

[Bob White]

So to shorten this up and to remove the emotional narrative let me see if I have the time line correct.

 

When he was 16 (no year given) a person who would later work at a BSA camp sexually abused a child but since he was a minor at the time the court records were sealed.

 

In or around 1988 this person began working at a scout camp

 

in 1991 the BSA recieved a letter and a phone call saying that this person had molested a child in the past but that it was a part of a sealed record.

 

At least 7 people were at the BSA were made aware of the letter

 

1996- at this point in time no one has made any report of any Youth Protection violations relating to this person that you know of.

 

1997- This individual was seen abusing a child he was arrested and convicted.

 

2002- 5 years later the family files suit against the BSA

 

2005- The files which were sealed when the individual was 16 years old, sometime prior to 1988 were for the first time made public. They showed that he had indeed been convicted of a crime at that time.

 

Before we continue, is this an accurate timeline of events based on the information you shared in your post. If not please tell me what FACTS were missed.(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[Eamonn]

To return to what I think was the original question.

When is behavior un-scoutlike?

Each of us who have made the Scout Oath have promised to "Do Our Best" Your best in some areas might be far better than mine. Your values might be in a different order than mine.

I'm perfectly happy to listen to the radio when I'm driving, some people use this time to become more mentally awake, by listening to educational tapes. I have friends who are up at the crack of dawn jogging, while I'm still in the land of nod, they are doing a far better job of being physically strong than I am.

Un-scoutlike behavior is when you know that you haven't lived up to your own high standards.

Eamonn.

[Bob White]

Thank you Eamonn I can agree to a large degree with that since the Scout promise is a oath to yourself and not to others.