Update On Adult Leadership Standards

[Stosh]

It's unfortunate that this political football ended up in BSA's lap because the more they play with it the worse it gets.

 

Local option?  ONLY if the CO is a religious organization, otherwise there is no local option.  Double standard hypocrisy.  So much for trying to please everyone, it always ends up pleasing no one.

 

We'll just have to see how militant the issue becomes because it has the potential to really raise havoc on the program.

[AZMike]

It will be interesting to watch.  Gates and Co. are pretty naïve if they think the social justice warriors will leave the BSA alone after the 27th.  In the text from Zach Wahl's response on Scouts for Equality (below) you'll notice the explicit invocation of the local option as still imperfect:

 

“Today’s announcement hopefully marks the beginning of the end of the Boy Scouts of America’s decades-old ban on gay leaders and parents like my two moms. In two weeks, the BSA’s national executive board will vote to ratify a resolution that has already been unanimously adopted by their executive committee.

“For decades, the Boy Scouts of America’s ban on gay adults has stood as a towering example of explicit, institutional homophobia in one of America’s most important and recognizable civic organizations. While this policy change is not perfect—BSA’s religious chartering partners will be allowed to continue to discriminate against gay adults—it is difficult to overstate the importance of today’s announcement

 

Here's another quote from Wahl's in WaPo:

 

“This is a step in the right direction, but we’re still really concerned that there are still going to be groups that are going to be hostile to adult leaders,†Wahls said.

 

The headline on slate.com "Boy Scouts Moves to Lift Ban on Gay Leaders, Will Continue to Allow Troops to Discriminate."  The article also contains this quote:

 

"Half measures are unacceptable and discriminatory exemptions have no place in the Boy Scouts," Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign, the national LGBT-rights group, said in a statement. "It's long overdue that BSA leaders demonstrate true leadership and embrace a full national policy of inclusion."

 

The headline on CBS (cbsnews.com), "Boy Scouts move closer to ending ban on gay adult leaders."  (Italics are mine)

 

This resolution may resolve the hiring issue and it will make liberal groups feel good, but it won't ease any pressure on money flow or anything else.

 

 

.

 

Although we have been assured by many that it won't happen, and that the LGBT pressure groups will be happy with the scalp they got, it seems likely that the lawsuits against COs (whether religious or religiously affiliated (like the Knights of Columbus and church PTAs) will begin soon against COs, without the legal protections of the Dale decision or Headquarters to back them up. Unless they have the legal resources and the will to back them up, they will fold, either by acquiescing or closing up shop. The LDS will probably be safe as their troops are an official youth program of their religion, other groups will probably find they are not. Even religious groups who are the subject of a discrimination suit will still need the funding to defend themselves legally against LGBT legal funds and, probably, the government, which many will not have.

 

Victory has to be total for the LGBT groups, it would appear. 

 

I'm ending my involvement with scouting. The old Scouting program is gone, and I honestly wish good luck to those of you who will continue with the new organization. Perhaps you will see more money and corporate sponsors come in for headquarters and youth enrollment will shoot up, but I doubt it.

 

Take care, everyone.

Edited July 14, 2015 by AZMike

[qwazse]

You are probably right (although naturally I see it more positively than I'm guessing you do) but looking in from outside it seems to me that the BSA heirarchy will have learned, or at least should have learned, a few things in all of this.

......

If I were Mr Gates right now I would be instigating a root and branch restructuring of BSA. Nothing to do with the programme, simply change how it is run and move away from the chartering model, make sure that the decisions on how BSA is run sits in the hands of BSA, not outside bodies.

Not quite following your logic here ... the ban was originally a central decision that overrode decisions of chartering organizations. An insistence, if you will, that BSA choose sides in a nation that is divorcing itself into "restrictive" and "permissive" camps. Each one fervently desiring to constrain the other's movements. That fervor has not diminished.

 

A lot of us are cynical about the vision of scouting promulgated by National. We don't trust that they will find an equitable uniform national policy that will instill confidence in our nation's parents.

 

Folks like @@Oldscout448 and @@AZMike were looking for BSA to endorse their "restrictive" camp. Well, that's no longer part of the package. I hope they find a way to get youth hiking and camping independently, but for parents to entrust them with their children, they may need a moniker other than BSA.

[packsaddle]

Qwazse, I note that Oldscout448 and AZMike and others who are not happy about this change are still welcome within scouting and I hope they can find a way to reconcile themselves within scouting the same way that others have done for decades under the restrictive rules. They are free to remain or go, their choice, but the last thing I would do is to invite them to leave if they don't like it (as so many others have done to me). I would like them to stay. But if they do decide to go, I respect their views and their decision. I wish them well either way.

Edited July 14, 2015 by packsaddle

[robert12]

More information, including a FAW, https://www.scoutsforequality.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Adult-Leadership-Standards-Update-and-Resources-for-Key-3.pdf

 

A few key points

 

 

 

No adult applicant for registration as an employee or non-unit-serving volunteer, who otherwise meets the requirements of the Boy Scouts of America, may be denied registration on the basis of sexual orientation

 

 

 

Why doesn’t the entire membership get to vote?
Under the BSA national bylaws, decisions of this nature are the responsibility of the National Executive Committee and Executive Board. This action is in full accordance with the bylaws of the BSA. As the governing body of the BSA, the National Executive Committee and Executive Board will act in the best interest of our organization.

**The vote at the national meeting a couple of years ago in regard to the youth membership standard was not needed, per the Rule and Regulations, and the By-Laws the Executive Board is empowered to do basically what ever they want to.  The purpose of the National Council(the voting members at the national annual meeting) meeting at the national annual meeting is to elect members at large and honorary members of the National Council, and regular members of the Executive Board.

 

 

 

 

Will non-religious chartered organizations have an option in this matter?
No, but as they always have, all chartered organizations will select their leaders and can require adult leaders to demonstrate behavior that exemplifies the highest level of good conduct and respect for others. For example, units chartered by the American Legion may allow only veterans to serve as Scoutmasters.

[Cambridgeskip]

Not quite following your logic here ... the ban was originally a central decision that overrode decisions of chartering organizations. An insistence, if you will, that BSA choose sides in a nation that is divorcing itself into "restrictive" and "permissive" camps. Each one fervently desiring to constrain the other's movements. That fervor has not diminished.

 

A lot of us are cynical about the vision of scouting promulgated by National. We don't trust that they will find an equitable uniform national policy that will instill confidence in our nation's parents.

 

Folks like @@Oldscout448 and @@AZMike were looking for BSA to endorse their "restrictive" camp. Well, that's no longer part of the package. I hope they find a way to get youth hiking and camping independently, but for parents to entrust them with their children, they may need a moniker other than BSA.

 

 

Maybe you don't like some of the decisions that your HQ take, but at least they are decisions of your HQ.

 

The logic is this, none of us knows what the next major social change will be. Forget gay rights, that's irrelevant. There will be other changes ahead that will be controversial. Quite deliberatly I won't suggest what they will be, but they will come.

 

At present before it makes changes BSA has to basically have LDS and Catholic Church on board before it can make any major change sbecause through the chartering model they own most of BSAs assets, both tangible and intangible. Those are two highly conservative organisations. And by conservative I don't mean politically, I mean in the more traditional sense, ie their willingness and ability to change rapidly.

 

If BSA remains at their beck and call they will be stuck at their pace of change. And when the next major change in the world comes BSA may find itself unable to move at the pace necessary to keep up, thrive or even survive.

[T2Eagle]

In the years prior to the membership change people who heard me speak enthusiastically about my own and my sons’ involvement in scouting would occasionally ask me how I could be a part of an organization that discriminated in the way BSA did.  My response was always that I thought the policy was mistaken and I hoped it would change.  I would then add that I have never been a member of any organization, including my own marriage and family, with which I always 100% agreed, and that although this was a policy it had so little to do with what actually happened in scouting that the benefits of being involved in the program for myself and the young people I served far outweighed any negative consequences.  I don’t know why folks who used to agree with the policy can’t have the same approach now that I did then.

 

If the parent of one of my scouts wants to come huddle around a campfire with me next January when the snow is howling and the temps are in the single digits they're welcome to, gay or straight.  It puzzles me why anyone wouldn’t want to be there serving the scouts with us.

Edited July 14, 2015 by T2Eagle

[walk in the woods]

You are probably right (although naturally I see it more positively than I'm guessing you do) but looking in from outside it seems to me that the BSA heirarchy will have learned, or at least should have learned, a few things in all of this.

 

The big thing is that they were way behind the curve on gay equality. The big damage was done not by the change itself (although there will be some who will walk away, that is clear) but by waiting until the pressure on it became intollerable. And that delay was caused by the chartering model of BSA's structure.

 

BSA will need to be far more agile on its feet going forward. The world is changing and it's changing at an ever quickening pace. Organisations that don't keep up are going to find themselves in a lot of trouble. As I've said before the Uk Scout Association had just that problem in the 1990s. It stagnated, didn't keep up, and went through a crisis as a result that we are still recovering from.

 

If I were Mr Gates right now I would be instigating a root and branch restructuring of BSA. Nothing to do with the programme, simply change how it is run and move away from the chartering model, make sure that the decisions on how BSA is run sits in the hands of BSA, not outside bodies.

 

I don't really have a dog in the hunt and don't really care about gay scoutmasters.  I do care about American leftist's tendency towards scorched earth against anything and anyone they oppose.  I once took an oath to "defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic" and we have some domestic "enemies" these days, including our own government, in regards to portions of the first amendment (and the 2nd and 4th but those are another discussion  ). 

 

Let's be honest, there will be no respite for the BSA until their policy reads, "all units must accept otherwise qualified gay adults."  So, regarding this particular issue I don't believe anything will change on July 28th.  In fact, I suspect the pressure will only increase.  If I was a betting man I'd put money on seeing the first test case of a gay adult trying to join an LDS or Baptist unit before the summer of 2016, maybe even before the end of this year.  And when it happens NBC and CNN will be blaring headlines about the bigotry of the BSA. 

 

Ending the Charter Org system is interesting.  I'm not a BSA historian so others can let me know if I'm right or wrong, but, I think it's entrenched because it was the way the founders here got reticent organizations (like the LDS and Catholics) to join the movement to begin with.  Ending it would likely end the BSA, certainly in regards to it's current size and scope.  There are examples in the US of government-owned youth programs (4H) and organization-owned youth programs (GSUSA) but the transition would be difficult.  Not the least of which would be convincing private charter organizations to transfer all their money and equipment to a BSA council. 

[pargolf44067]

Qwazse, I note that Oldscout448 and AZMike and others who are not happy about this change are still welcome within scouting and I hope they can find a way to reconcile themselves within scouting the same way that others have done for decades under the restrictive rules. They are free to remain or go, their choice, but the last thing I would do is to invite them to leave if they don't like it (as so many others have done to me). I would like them to stay. But if they do decide to go, I respect their views and their decision. I wish them well either way.

 

@@packsaddle, I don't think Quasze was inviting them to leave.  He was just noting what the two of them had said in their posts.  I hope we don't lose good leaders but I am afraid we will.  I know there are a lot of people that have strong feelings on this, but as I said before, I am in this to help boys become leaders and help them grow.  I don't agree with what BSA does all the time, but if I am helping young boys become a young men and have fun while doing it, that is what matters to me.

Edited July 14, 2015 by pargolf44067

[Stosh]

 

No adult applicant for registration as an employee or non-unit-serving volunteer, who otherwise meets the requirements of the Boy Scouts of America, may be denied registration on the basis of sexual orientation

 

Mark my words, pedophilia is a sexual orientation.  This can of worms is far from over. 

[eagle77]

In the years prior to the membership change people who heard me speak enthusiastically about my own and my sons’ involvement in scouting would occasionally ask me how I could be a part of an organization that discriminated in the way BSA did.  My response was always that I thought the policy was mistaken and I hoped it would change.  I would then add that I have never been a member of any organization, including my own marriage and family, with which I always 100% agreed, and that although this was a policy it had so little to do with what actually happened in scouting that the benefits of being involved in the program for myself and the young people I served far outweighed any negative consequences.  I don’t know why folks who used to agree with the policy can’t have the same approach now that I did then.

 

If the parent of one of my scouts wants to come huddle around a campfire with me next January when the snow is howling and the temps are in the single digits they're welcome to, gay or straight.  It puzzles me why anyone wouldn’t want to be there serving the scouts with us.

 

 Good point. I was always under the belief that it was all about the boys. I couldn't understand either why so many complained and walked away when BSA finally allowed women to be SM and ASM.

[packsaddle]

@@packsaddle, I don't think Quasze was inviting them to leave.  He was just noting what the two of them had said in their posts.  I hope we don't lose good leaders but I am afraid we will.  I know there are a lot of people that have strong feelings on this, but as I said before, I am in this to help boys become leaders and help them grow.  I don't agree with what BSA does all the time, but if I am helping young boys become a young men and have fun while doing it, that is what matters to me.

I apologize if I seemed to imply that Qwazse (I have trouble with the spelling too) was inviting anyone to leave. I just wanted to make it clear to everyone that they were still welcome. But I guess because I replied to Qwazse I can see how it had that appearance. That was not my intent at all.

[walk in the woods]

 I don’t know why folks who used to agree with the policy can’t have the same approach now that I did then.

As my friends on the left are so fond of saying, your values are your values and you shouldn't try to force them on anybody else.  The fact that you chose to stay in spite of disagreeing with the policy has no bearing on the value systems and/or decisions of others.  Your understanding isn't required, just your tolerance for those with a different opinion.  Unless of course you are trying to force people to change their value systems.

 

 Good point. I was always under the belief that it was all about the boys. I couldn't understand either why so many complained and walked away when BSA finally allowed women to be SM and ASM.

See above. 

 

Plus, both of your arguments suffer from the assumptions that service to the BSA is the only way to serve boys and that the BSA's program is the only way to develop young men.  Both are false.

 

The forces of change have won the day and on July 28th those forces will need to stand and deliver.  Revolution is a funny thing. Once won, the hard work of leading begins.  Time will tell how that works out.

[qwazse]

Maybe you don't like some of the decisions that your HQ take, but at least they are decisions of your HQ.

 

The logic is this, none of us knows what the next major social change will be. Forget gay rights, that's irrelevant. There will be other changes ahead that will be controversial. Quite deliberatly I won't suggest what they will be, but they will come.

 

At present before it makes changes BSA has to basically have LDS and Catholic Church on board before it can make any major change sbecause through the chartering model they own most of BSAs assets, both tangible and intangible. Those are two highly conservative organisations. And by conservative I don't mean politically, I mean in the more traditional sense, ie their willingness and ability to change rapidly.

 

If BSA remains at their beck and call they will be stuck at their pace of change. And when the next major change in the world comes BSA may find itself unable to move at the pace necessary to keep up, thrive or even survive.

No need to sweep it under the rug 'Skip. Atheists have made it clear that they are knocking on the same door.

 

In fact the ban runs paralell to the ACLU successfuly appealing that public facilities cannot sponsor BSA units. Lacking advise from non-religious CO's, the board entrenched with their religious base. (That's not entirely accurate. At the time, many public institutions here had morality clauses with which the membership policy meshed well.)

 

As others have mentioned, the board can operate by caveat. However, each of its moves since 1972 has not resulted in membership gains.

[walk in the woods]

The logic is this, none of us knows what the next major social change will be. Forget gay rights, that's irrelevant. There will be other changes ahead that will be controversial. Quite deliberatly I won't suggest what they will be, but they will come.

Why not say?  We all know what the other G's represent. 

 

The US SECDEF just ordered a review for how to integrate openly transgender members into service in the US Armed Services.  How many times have articles referenced Gates' role in ending DADT? 

 

Now that the BSA has created, or is about to create, a religious and non-religious class of units, it will create the crack Athiests need.  Along with the abandonment of that G as a requirement in the rest of the scouting world.

 

Sometimes the honorable thing to do is just say no.  Two saying come to mind.

 

- Every improvement is a change, but not every change is an improvement

- If all your friends jumped off a bridge would you jump to?