Boys and Girls (Co-Ed) Cub and Boy Scouts Are Coming

[Stosh]

Which is why they won't be redesigned.  They'll just announce that Charter Orgs have the option to charter co-ed Packs and Troops.  The Packs and Troops that already allow female siblings to attend events will hand them a membership form and parents will go buy a uniform.  BSA will update YPT and that will be it.

 

At this point, I can't even see it causing any disruption.  The Charter Orgs that are with the BSA for the long haul have already reconciled with homosexual leaders and transgender youth.

 

Not necessarily.  Until it comes home to roost, many are taking a wait and see position before making a final decision.  If the local option falls apart, more units might just be moving on down the road.

[Col. Flagg]

Which is why they won't be redesigned.  They'll just announce that Charter Orgs have the option to charter co-ed Packs and Troops.  The Packs and Troops that already allow female siblings to attend events will hand them a membership form and parents will go buy a uniform.  BSA will update YPT and that will be it.

 

At this point, I can't even see it causing any disruption.  The Charter Orgs that are with the BSA for the long haul have already reconciled with homosexual leaders and transgender youth.

 

Again, wait until the first law suit comes out for the boys' only troop. The CO says, "Forget it, not worth the hassle." and the unit is forced to go coed.

[jrush]

Again, wait until the first law suit comes out for the boys' only troop. The CO says, "Forget it, not worth the hassle." and the unit is forced to go coed.

 

Like all the all-male Venture Crews that have been sued out of existence?  It's a private organization.  Until the US Supreme Court revisits the issue (which is unlikely), it's a done deal. 

 

Now, I can see a unit that went co-ed getting sued if they kick out all the girls at recharter to go back to all-male.  That's a vulnerability.  Once a unit goes co-ed, they are going to have to stay co-ed.  If they have an issue keeping co-ed leadership or whatever else, I think the CO would have to fold the unit and start up a new one from scratch as all-male. 

[Back Pack]

Like all the all-male Venture Crews that have been sued out of existence?  It's a private organization.  Until the US Supreme Court revisits the issue (which is unlikely), it's a done deal. 

 

Now, I can see a unit that went co-ed getting sued if they kick out all the girls at recharter to go back to all-male.  That's a vulnerability.  Once a unit goes co-ed, they are going to have to stay co-ed.  If they have an issue keeping co-ed leadership or whatever else, I think the CO would have to fold the unit and start up a new one from scratch as all-male.

 

I think you miss his point.

 

It's not about equality or equity. It's about smashing down things perceived as privilege.

 

If you think anything is a "done deal" you haven't been paying attention the last 4 years.

[EmberMike]

If you think anything is a "done deal" you haven't been paying attention the last 4 years.

 

 

But the things that have happened in the last few years have been done in accordance with the unofficial mission of BSA National, that being to reach more youth. It's much harder to go back the other way on any of these policy changes since that would effectively be counter to that mission and make the BSA more restrictive than it is today. They're never going to do that. 

 

I think it is a done deal in this case. I don't think National would view a reversal as simply just going back to how things were before. From where we stand today, a reversal in policy is a limiting of program accessibility and a reduction of availability to the largest number of youth possible, something that I cannot ever see National doing. 

Edited March 7, 2017 by EmberMike

[Col. Flagg]

But the things that have happened in the last few years have been done in accordance with the unofficial mission of BSA National, that being to reach more youth. It's much harder to go back the other way on any of these policy changes since that would effectively be counter to that mission and make the BSA more restrictive than it is today. They're never going to do that.

And here we have an illustration at how out of touch BSA is. Their own survey of the membership showed the majority were against the policy change. Another survey a few years earlier showed that religious institutions that were COs were fairly conservative in their values, but were the overwhelming majority of their COs. Only a group of completely clueless businessmen would alienate their largest customer base. HOPING they won't leave.

 

The result? An increase in the loss of membership. No ground swell of new members from those communities that were previously prohibited from joining. Certainly not enough of one to off set the 6-7% year on year membership loss since 2013.

 

Do you really want to hold up THAT as a model for growth? 

 

I think it is a done deal in this case. I don't think National would view a reversal as simply just going back to how things were before. From where we stand today, a reversal in policy is a limiting of program accessibility and a reduction of availability to the largest number of youth possible, something that I cannot ever see National doing.

I don't think any reasonable person expects BSA to put the genie back in the bottle. I also don't think any reasonable person thinks BSA is going to grow in membership with the changes they've made. Let me be clear: BSA will make small gains in small areas, but they will not replace the 6-7% losses they've experienced since 2013. They won't even stem the 3-4% year on year losses they've experienced for the last 25+ years.

 

What I have read here -- from those who don't support the policy changes -- is that they believe (I among them) that BSA's best long-term interests are served by finding equilibrium among their CURRENT membership; meaning boys. If they go coed I predict you will see double-digit membership losses among those who want an all-boy program. I don't believe the "influx" of girls will be enough to offset those losses over a long period.

 

I think in 20 years you will see BSA at the 1 million mark if they go coed. Why? The tradition of the program is a single sex outdoor program. You will lose the traditionalists and the progressives -- mostly Millennials - won't ever replace them.

[numbersnerd]

And here we have an illustration at how out of touch BSA is. Their own survey of the membership showed the majority were against the policy change. Another survey a few years earlier showed that religious institutions that were COs were fairly conservative in their values, but were the overwhelming majority of their COs. Only a group of completely clueless businessmen would alienate their largest customer base. HOPING they won't leave.

 

The result? An increase in the loss of membership. No ground swell of new members from those communities that were previously prohibited from joining. Certainly not enough of one to off set the 6-7% year on year membership loss since 2013.

 

Do you really want to hold up THAT as a model for growth? 

 

I don't think any reasonable person expects BSA to put the genie back in the bottle. I also don't think any reasonable person thinks BSA is going to grow in membership with the changes they've made. Let me be clear: BSA will make small gains in small areas, but they will not replace the 6-7% losses they've experienced since 2013. They won't even stem the 3-4% year on year losses they've experienced for the last 25+ years.

 

What I have read here -- from those who don't support the policy changes -- is that they believe (I among them) that BSA's best long-term interests are served by finding equilibrium among their CURRENT membership; meaning boys. If they go coed I predict you will see double-digit membership losses among those who want an all-boy program. I don't believe the "influx" of girls will be enough to offset those losses over a long period.

 

I think in 20 years you will see BSA at the 1 million mark if they go coed. Why? The tradition of the program is a single sex outdoor program. You will lose the traditionalists and the progressives -- mostly Millennials - won't ever replace them.

 

Anyone who has ever studied and worked with customer and client retention, product development, and marketing will understand and agree with this. Hoping/wishing/dreaming that that a nirvana of societal cooperation and coexistance will be the solution is ignoring reality and merely a path of appeasement that will only exacerbate an already concerning problem and trend. Which is why I doubt it was even 'businessmen' (or at the very least, savvy ones) that cooked up this plan. There are some dreamy-eyed idealists hoping that the PR goodwill and corporate fundng will pick up and carry the org through if these changes are put in place. How's that been working out? Alter your product and significantly changing it to appeal to a population smaller than the one it dissatisfies is plainly and simply stupid continuity planning. 

[David CO]

Oh, I'm not so sure about that.  It may very well have been a businessman who came up with the new policy changes.  Perhaps it was the same marketing genius who brought us New Coke.

[Gwaihir]

Oh, I'm not so sure about that.  It may very well have been a businessman who came up with the new policy changes.  Perhaps it was the same marketing genius who brought us New Coke.

 

New Coke ultimately proved to be the single greatest marketing move Coke ever did.  New Coke was so awful, so poorly received that Classic Coke sales blew the roof off the previous sales figures. 

[Stosh]

New Coke ultimately proved to be the single greatest marketing move Coke ever did.  New Coke was so awful, so poorly received that Classic Coke sales blew the roof off the previous sales figures. 

 

Maybe BSA ought to develop a program called "Classic Scouting" and quit with this New Scouting "stuff".

[Col. Flagg]

New Coke ultimately proved to be the single greatest marketing move Coke ever did.  New Coke was so awful, so poorly received that Classic Coke sales blew the roof off the previous sales figures. 

 

Totally unplanned.

 

So is the implication that people will hate the New Scouting so much they will join Classic Scouting?

[jrush]

And here we have an illustration at how out of touch BSA is. Their own survey of the membership showed the majority were against the policy change. Another survey a few years earlier showed that religious institutions that were COs were fairly conservative in their values, but were the overwhelming majority of their COs. Only a group of completely clueless businessmen would alienate their largest customer base. HOPING they won't leave.

 

...

 

I think in 20 years you will see BSA at the 1 million mark if they go coed. Why? The tradition of the program is a single sex outdoor program. You will lose the traditionalists and the progressives -- mostly Millennials - won't ever replace them.

 

There is a difference in a majority being against a policy change, and a majority being so morally opposed that they would leave the program.  It wasn't a "hope" that people and COs wouldn't leave; the BSA KNEW people and COs would leave.  So short term retention of members and COs wasn't the point.

 

The point was moving socially from a 20th century organization to a 21st century organization.  Yes, the BSA could have delayed the membership loss by backing down, but the bill would have come due eventually.  You know what else is falling in the US?  Church membership and opposition to gay marriage.   You want to talk about "clueless business moves"?  How about maintaining a discriminatory policy to appease a shrinking population? 

 

As to the "tradition" of a single-sex outdoor program?  You could have fooled me.   I'm not talking about 50 years' worth of co-ed Ventures and Explorers or sisters attending events, I'm talking about moms have been part of pack and troop leadership for a long time.  I'll wager that the number of COs that prohibit female leaders for their single-sex units because of the "single sex tradition" wouldn't fill a soccer stadium.  The BSA has no single-sex tradition.  

 

It's possible that others won't take up the slack from the numbers lost from lifting bans on gays and girls, but one thing's for sure, the shrinking population of those who support the bans won't.

[jrush]

Totally unplanned.

 

So is the implication that people will hate the New Scouting so much they will join Classic Scouting?

 

The implication is a total shift from sugar to corn syrup is an assault on the senses, so you punt and the next time, you gradually replace sugar with corn syrup and nobody notices.

[David CO]

Those who say that BSA has no single-sex tradition are engaging in historical revisionism of the worst kind.

 

That is why I say that the liberals not only want to change BSA, they also want to rewrite BSA history.  

[Col. Flagg]

There is a difference in a majority being against a policy change, and a majority being so morally opposed that they would leave the program.  It wasn't a "hope" that people and COs wouldn't leave; the BSA KNEW people and COs would leave.  So short term retention of members and COs wasn't the point.

 

The point was moving socially from a 20th century organization to a 21st century organization.  Yes, the BSA could have delayed the membership loss by backing down, but the bill would have come due eventually.  You know what else is falling in the US?  Church membership and opposition to gay marriage.   You want to talk about "clueless business moves"?  How about maintaining a discriminatory policy to appease a shrinking population? 

 

As to the "tradition" of a single-sex outdoor program?  You could have fooled me.   I'm not talking about 50 years' worth of co-ed Ventures and Explorers or sisters attending events, I'm talking about moms have been part of pack and troop leadership for a long time.  I'll wager that the number of COs that prohibit female leaders for their single-sex units because of the "single sex tradition" wouldn't fill a soccer stadium.  The BSA has no single-sex tradition.  

 

It's possible that others won't take up the slack from the numbers lost from lifting bans on gays and girls, but one thing's for sure, the shrinking population of those who support the bans won't.

 

I don't know where to begin with this.

• Some how BSA's morals -- and those held by a large portion of their membership and COs -- is some how not "21st Century" thinking? Let me point out there was some really nasty thinking once thought of as "progressive" which was proven over time as abhorrent. But let's not go there. No one is changing anyone's mind on that point.

   

• Not sure where you get that church membership is shrinking. I invite you to come to Texas and show me where that's happening. The LDS church is growing, albeit slower than historically. The Baptists and UMCs are building more space than Starbucks. One Baptist church (25,000 members) had to build a new CAMPUS to fit their near doubling in membership.

   

• BSA doesn't have a single-sex tradition? Really? I won't even comment here. Go back and read about Boy Scouts, OA, etc. Only in the last 30 years were these open to adult women. They are still closed to youth girls. I'd call that a tradition...since 1910.

   

• Your last statement is just, well, odd. Why would ANYONE give MORE support to an organization that has trashed the values and policies that it held so dear? Would YOU go to restaurant where the food has gone so far down hill that it's basically dog food? Your statement is just silly on its face. No one is arguing that. The point was who does BSA think will fill the gap?