Unjust revocations

[Kahuna]

BW, if the volunteers don't "own" the BSA, then who in the heck does? Yes, I'm a lawyer so I know the BSA is a corporation and governed by etc, etc, etc, but the BSA was established by volunteers. Most of the early professionals were recruited from the ranks of volunteers. In the early days, the heads of councils who couldn't afford to hire an SE were volunteer commissioners. It's not the professionals who make this thing work, it's: yep, volunteers. While I agree with you that the best units are those who follow the program, even you must admit it's pretty hard to keep up with the latest change to G2SS and YP procedures. It sort of reminds me of how when I was a practicing attorney, you had to read the case summaries that came down in order to keep up the changing laws.

 

To say you are not judging when you say the things you say about how we should love it or leave it is to say that you understand this thing and nobody else does. The professionals I know would shudder to hear a volunteer express that viewpoint at a roundtable or training experience. I have 50 years experience as a Scouter and 30 years as a military officer, twenty something as a lawyer and I have to say that, without thoughtful dissidents those organizations would not be as good as they are today. Because people are willing to stand up for what they believe - as a part of the organization, not as outsiders - they have been able to make changes for the better. Sometimes not for the better, but it's how things change. As I mentioned above, it's how we force our government to change things we don't like. And to say that you aren't judging when you say that people who will dissent in private and not in public are some kind of traitors to the organization when they fear they may be expelled if they do so is unfathomable.

[evmori]

Would it be right if the BSA revoked your membership because you use the handle Bob White? No. But according to you, the BSA can revoke your membership for any reason they want to. After all, The reasons are whatever reasons they choose, they have the right to set their rules.

 

And yeah, I am reading clearly. Since it is the BSA's organization it is because they said so according to you.

 

No one except maybe Merlyn has said they don't share the BSA's values. That's never been an issue. And your house example is old & doesn't apply.

 

The people you have labeled as malcontents actually care for the BSA more than you will ever know or understand, Bob. We just don't accept things at face value. We want to know why. And there is nothing wrong with that.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Hunt]

Yes, yes, we understand that BSA is a private organization that has the legal right to kick out members for virtually any reason. That isn't the question here--the question is whether it is ETHICAL and SCOUTLIKE for BSA to do that to somebody who is simply disagreeing with a policy. Bob, are you going to argue that it doesn't matter whether BSA acts ethically or not?

Now, you seem to be saying that nobody has been kicked out for simply disagreeing, but only for disagreeing in the wrong way, by becoming a nuisance or impeding the delivery of the program. If that's true, great--although one would certainly like to know what is the threshold for being considered a nuisance. So maybe what I'm asking is a hypothetical question, but most assuredly Bob has not answered it. Again, it's this: "Would it be Scoutlike or ethical for BSA to remove a person for membership merely for expressing disagreement with a BSA policy (specifically, say, the ban on openly gay leaders)?"

 

Also, Bob says: "But why stay in a volunteer program you do not like?"

 

Why indeed? I'm not aware of anybody on this message board to whom that question could sensibly addressed, however. I've only seen people criticize discrete elements of the program, because they want the overall program to be better. I still like my son, even though I think he needs a haircut.

[Prairie_Scouter]

I can safely say that with the several years of experience I have in BSA, I am perfectly happy trusting the BSA leadership when it comes to matters of program.

 

I'm equally sure that I have no trust whatsoever in BSA's actions in matters of social policy. They give every impression, to me at least, of swaying in the direction of whatever religious organization has the most clout with them. That isn't the way an organization like BSA should be run, and I think everyone in the organization, professional or volunteer alike, has a responsibility to try to correct the situation in any way they can if they don't agree.

 

While posters like BW may consider these discussions as "whining", what I consider whining is trying to avoid the issues by just falling back on the tired old "BSA is a private club, they can do what they want". That's legally true to some extent, but that doesn't make what they do right. I think the people who REALLY care about BSA aren't the ones who blindly follow their dictates without a second thought, but those who are willing and think it's necessary for the health of the organization to bring issues to light and let them see the light of day. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that and volunteers shouldn't be forced out simply for being vocal.

 

 

[packsaddle]

Needless to say, I agree with the views of the previous posters, and some of us have disagreed on other topics. As Kahuna mentioned, criticism can be a healthy thing. There are few things I want less - than to be wrong about something if I can know better. If I don't have the benefit of honest criticism by Kahuna and others, I may be more likely to let my beliefs become prejudices. I depend on my friends to reel me in when I have gone out too far. It is a healthy response and part of a healthy community. I do the same for them.

 

Bob White, the key to avoiding such prejudice is to remain open to the possibility that we might be wrong - and to remain open to honest criticism that might show us how to correct the situation.

BSA is not above criticism. However, IF they try to stifle internal criticism, I consider that to be intellectually bankrupt. I have seen this before in churches and other venues and it is often associated with prejudice.

 

As Ed noted, no one here (including me) rejects the values of scouting. Some of us ARE critical of BSA policies regarding membership. To me, setting aside membership policies, an important issue IS the apparent attempt by BSA to stifle internal criticism. I see this as unhealthy and I reject it as a bankrupt approach and a self-deception on the part of BSA. I see it as an artificial (and false) mechanism to 'protect' any policy that otherwise (if it was subjected to open criticism) might not stand. The question Hunt has asked repeatedly (and you have repeatedly left unanswered) relates to BSA's response to that criticism.

 

I also agree with Prairie_Scouter's trust in BSA regarding matters of the program. I think that BSA is trustworthy regarding the program. And (speaking for the locals, now) when they are mistaken, they ARE receptive. BSA evidently is NOT receptive, however, regarding policies that have little direct relevance to the program. I merely respond accordingly. But I think we all would like to know the truth about BSA's response...which takes us back to Hunt's good question.

 

Bob White, do you truly not understand these things?

[Hunt]

It seems to me that there a few topics tangled up here, and maybe we can unravel them a bit. What we have been talking about for the last bit has been the idea that BSA would remove somebody from membership for disagreeing with BSA on some policy issue, such as the ban on gay leadership. I don't know if this has clearly been done or not, and it can be discussed on primarily ethical terms.

On the other hand, the revocations jkhny complained about are not of this sort. The two leaders, Willis and Knaul, are essentially claiming that they were removed for being "whistleblowers" who pointed out irregularities or waste. But if you google them and read the news stories, it's a bit more complex than that.

Knaul says that he was removed for writing a letter to the local paper criticizing the council's decision to spend money on a new service center, money he thought would be better spent on program. He appealed his removal all the way up to National, and lost. The spokesman for the coucil said that there was more to it than just the letter, that Knaul had caused trouble, that he had been warned, etc. It would certainly make for better PR for BSA if they could list this guy's wrongdoings, but from reading about him you get the impression that he may be a very stubborn and troublesome person, and maybe he really did impede the program.

As for Willis, the only reasons given for his removal involved alleged sexual impropriety--which if true, would certainly justify removal. He says they aren't true (or not all true), and were just a pretext for getting rid of a whistleblower. That kind of dispute is what courts are for, and it least it doesn't constitute a case in which BSA claims to be removing somebody for his views.

 

jkhny has said that he is a third party to removals, but apparently there was somebody removed from membership over objections to the sale of a camp--perhaps this is somebody close to jkhny, which would explain his vehemence.

[Guest OldGreyEagle]

I am not sure the BSA wants to have a portion of its website dedicated to the deeds and/or misdeeds of everyone who has had their membership revoked , you know the name, what they did, maybe a picture as well. It would be the BSA Rogues Gallery.

 

Then again, maybe there are laws about what can be said about private people and the BSA is trying to follow those laws. Personally the only people I have known that had membership revoked were due to child abuse.

 

I do know that writing letters to newspapers to protest the actions of a private club is no way to get the private club to listen to you. I dont know what was said or anything about the people being talked about and that bothers me as well. We toss around names like they are well known public figures when actually they came from jkhny, well except for Smith.

 

And Ed, I understand the contempt you have for bobwhite and I can see how he can be abrasive but picking on him for grammar errors should stop. Then again, just thinking here, having to decide just how far fellow scouters can go to lambast, impugn, insult, deride and generally bronx cheer each other is as distastefull as any duty I have had to perform. Bobwhite, you are not innocent either in this, I know if you had two scouts who behave the way you guys do, neither of you would put up with it. Go ahead, scream whine and complain on how you are the only ones singled out, but at this point I dont care(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[Hunt]

I also looked up the Owasippe situation, and it appears that the person who was removed from membership led a demonstration picketing outside the service center, and had considered picketing board members' homes until warned not to do so by BSA legal counsel. This is getting pretty far from constructive criticism from the inside. It does seem reasonable at some stage of escalation of conflict for BSA to kick a person out. Where exactly you draw that line I don't know--a single, respectfully worded letter to the editor of the local paper probably shouldn't do it, but picketing the service center? I'd have to say it's on the far side of the line.

[jkhny]

Food for thought......on many levels

 

I am NOT saying that BSA is Fascist but there are disturbing similarities noted in CAPITAL LETTERS as addendums to the original.

 

The fact that one can even make such a comparison should be DEEPLY disturbing.

 

 

"Characteristics of Fascism

 

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

PRETTY CLEAR PARALLEL

 

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

REPHRASE AS "IGNORING INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS IN SUPRESSING DISSENT AND QUESTIONING" - FREE SPEECH SEEMS NOT TO BE A RIGHT IN BSA. YOU CAN BE THROWN OUT FOR EXPRESSING DISSENT.

 

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

IT'S THE LIBERALS, THE ACLU, GAY RIGHTS GROUPS, DECLINING "VALUES"

 

4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

BSA VIEWS THE US MILITARY AS A STRONG PARTNER - AND VICE-VERSA

 

5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.

ONLY RECENTLY HAS BSA LOOSENED THEIR ATTITUDES TOWARDS WOMEN AND GIRLS (ISN'T THAT THE WHOLE REASON FOR VENTURING?)

 

6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

THERE IS A CLEAR "IMAGE" PRESENTED BY BSA AND BSA DOES USE "INFLUENCE" TO TRY TO PRESENT THE MOST POSITIVE IMAGE POSSIBLE AND KEEP NEGATIVE NEWS SUPRESSED. EVER READ SOME OF THE BSA LITERATURE ON "PUBLIC RELATIONS?"

 

7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

ANY QUESTIONING OF BSA IS REPOSITIONED AS AN "ATTACK"

 

8. Religion and Government are intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

BSA HAS STRONG RELIGIOUS UNDERTONES "OFFICIALLY" - AND TOUTS IT REGULARLY

 

9. Corporate Power is protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

THOSE IN POWER IN BSA PROTECT THEIR POWER

 

10. Labor Power is suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

REPHRASE AS "THE POWER OF VOLUNTEER MEMBERS - THE 'WORKERS' - IS SEVERELY LIMITED" THOSE THAT DO THE WORK HAVE LITTLE SAY IN HOW THINGS ARE RUN.

 

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.

NOT DIRECTLY APPLICABLE

 

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

EVER READ "PROCEDURES FOR MAINTAINING STANDARDS OF MEMBERSHIP?" - IT DOES NOT READ LIKE AN AMERICAN TEXT - NO 'RIGHTS' FOR 'THE ACCUSED'

 

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

THE CRONYISM IS CLEAR ENOUGH TO BE COMMENTED ON BY OTHERS AND THERE ARE CLEAR SIGNS OF CORRUPTION. BSA HAS VERY WELL PAID LEADERSHIP AND ISSUES WITH FAKED PERFORMANCE AND QUESTIONABLE CIRCUMSTANCES BEHIND MANY PROPERTY SALES RAISE QUESTIONS.

 

14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

BSA TIGHTLY CONTROLs WHO IS 'ELECTED' AS 'REPRESENTATIVES' HANDPICKING CANDIDATES AND ALLOWING ONLY VOTES FOR OR AGAINST WHOLE SLATES

 

(Source: The Fourteen Defining Characteristics of Fascism, Dr. Lawrence Britt, Spring 2003, Free Inquiry)

[evmori]

OGE,

I have contempt for no one. And I was not picking on Bob's grammatical errors. I just asked if he would please review his posts before he hit the submit button. You have to admit some are down right impossible to understand.

 

I never mind being singled out as long as it is accurate.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Bob White]

evmori,

 

So do you agree that like it or not the BSA has the right to revoke memberships based on their own criteria whatever they choose that to be.

 

Do you agree with the statement that 'you knew the rules coming in and if you do not like them you can leave?'

 

[evmori]

Bob,

Just for the sake of argument, let's say I agree with you knew the rules coming in and if you do not like them you can leave. What's your point? Are you inferring I have violated the BSA rules? If so, what rules have I violated?

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Hunt]

"So do you agree that like it or not the BSA has the right to revoke memberships based on their own criteria whatever they choose that to be."

 

If you mean the LEGAL right, I don't think anybody has ever denied this. What I keep asking you about is what is ethical and scoutlike. Surely even you, Bob, can imagine a BSA official acting unethically and revoking someone's membership unfairly or based on improper motives. What I've been saying is that, in my opinion, it would be unethical and contrary to the basic values of Scouting for BSA to revoke a person's membership for simply expressing disagreement with BSA on one of its policies as long as (1) the person was not violating any rules and (2) the disagreement didn't take some unreasonably disruptive form (like picketing the Service Center, for example). I don't see how anybody raised with American ideas about fairness and free speech could possibly disagree with this.

[Bob White]

Evmori

I am not asking "for the sake of argument" I am asking to have a better understanding of where you actually stand on this. Do you agree with the statement that "you knew the rules coming in and if you do not like them you can leave."

 

 

Hunt

If it is legal then it cannot be "unjust". You might find it disappointing, but the guy who gets a ticket for speeding is disappointed that does not make the ticket unjust.

 

 

 

[molscouter]

Bob,

 

To use your speeding example aqnd dovetail it with Hunt's statement "Surely even you, Bob, can imagine a BSA official acting unethically and revoking someone's membership unfairly or based on improper motives.". You are driving through a noted speed trap town at/under the speed limit and the officer didn't like where your license plate is from and gives you a speeding ticket. You know you are correct and politely say so to him. Now he adds resisting arrest. He has the legal right to do so. He has now acted unethically, but you are not likely to be in any position to argue. The judge isn't going to believe you. You're are saying that that's just?