Outside Magazine: Boy Scouts Should Allow Girls

[sst3rd]

AltadenaCraig,

 

    I can only speak for myself concerning your thoughts. I'm old and old fashioned. My observations over just the last 10 years let's say concerning our Roundtables for Cubs and Boy Scouts; I've seen approximately half of those participating were old folks who love scouting, but whose sons have long gone on to their future. We're still enthusiastic about our program, but can't seem to get younger parents to step in. We keep it going because we believe in the program.

 

    If your scout troop has an exciting and patrol organized program (after 44 years as a SM), your scouts will shout from the roof tops the fun they're having. Your program grows. How national BSA changes things can still be managed on the troop level. Call it the traditional program or what have you. Patrols, patrols, patrols. The program belongs to the scouts. Your statement about option #2 isn't surprising. You were having a discussion about adding girls. You gave them options. They picked one.

 

    Adding girls will change the dynamics. Period. I think a majority of the reasons pro and con have been discussed. Keep THIS organization for the boys.

 

sst3rd

[Col. Flagg]

I just returned from a week of backpacking in the Sierras which included several younger (~13-yr-old) scouts. During a layover day we discussed the issue and I posited three "models" of co-ed Scouting: 1) girls sprinkled in all patrols throughout the Troop, call that "full integration"; 2) girls in the Troop but contained in their own patrol(s), call that "girl patrol"; and 3) girls in their own troop, call that "separate charter". I'm curious, sst3rd, if either the "girl patrol" or "separate charter" options would fly with you or the volunteers in your area (as I assume "full integration" would be DOA in your world).

 

FWIW I was surprised my Scouts were strongly supportive of option #2, girl patrols.

 

Curious, but why didn't you give them a fourth option and ask them if they wanted to remain boys only? Or a fifth option saying girls could join Venturing at 11 but Boy Scouts stayed boys only?

 

It seems the questions engineer the answer that may have been desired, rather than giving them ALL possibilities and ask them which they truly prefer.

[EmberMike]

Curious, but why didn't you give them a fourth option and ask them if they wanted to remain boys only? Or a fifth option saying girls could join Venturing at 11 but Boy Scouts stayed boys only?

 

It seems the questions engineer the answer that may have been desired, rather than giving them ALL possibilities and ask them which they truly prefer.

 

Does it matter? They had an option to not have girls in their troop at all. They didn't choose that option. I think that's the answer right there to how they feel about girls in BSA anyway. 

[Stosh]

My Ex was a school teacher and of course she was responsible for creating test questions and she learned an important lesson on the first test she created.  Just because one creates a test question does not always mean one's answer is wrong just because it answer what YOU wanted it to be is not what they put as the answer.  Be careful of what you think you know is what you are asking. 

 

1) A zoologist is a scientist who studies ________________.  Of course we all know the answer to this question is "hard".  

Edited July 5, 2017 by Stosh

[Stosh]

Not having girls in THEIR troop is not the same as not having girls in the BSA.  That was not one of the options.  The "ding" you gave Col. Flagg was uncalled for.  

 

Yes, the boys could have opted for no girls in THEIR troop, but then they have to alter all programs beyond THEIR troop.  No girls in THEIR troop is not the same as no girls at camporees, no girls at summer camp, no girls in the Boy Scout program was not one of the options that Col. Flagg was pointed out.

[Col. Flagg]

Does it matter? They had an option to not have girls in their troop at all. They didn't choose that option. I think that's the answer right there to how they feel about girls in BSA anyway. 

 

Yes, it does. Because it gives them the option they have today (no girls) and a second option to open BSA up to more girls, but not necessarily in Boy Scouts. 

 

Curtailing the options engineers the outcome. If you want dessert, but I only tell you all the appetizers and entrees and then you see everyone else sucking down a sweet dessert while you eat something you didn't want, you'd be pretty ticked off.

 

A neg rep? Really? Figures.

Edited July 5, 2017 by Col. Flagg

[AltadenaCraig]

Curious, but why didn't you give them a fourth option and ask them if they wanted to remain boys only? Or a fifth option saying girls could join Venturing at 11 but Boy Scouts stayed boys only?

 

It seems the questions engineer the answer that may have been desired, rather than giving them ALL possibilities and ask them which they truly prefer.

 

Hi, Col.:  you're quite right that I forced an answer with the way I structured the question.

 

However, I wasn't getting at "whether" to incorporate girls into the BSA, but rather "how".  I'm assuming that decision is a fait accompli, as girls like Sydney - and their supporters - won't rest until girls are able to wear an Eagle Scout badge.  My expectation is that Dallas sees only upside as current registration numbers suggest the exodus predicted during the earlier contretemps hasn't materialized.  I'm pleased that sst3rd and you have taken the time to reply to my comment - and I respect and admire how those with long scouting coattails have carried the water for all of us through recent dark days - but unless the GSUSA immediately steps-up their program to promote high-adventure and their marketing to bring the Gold Award on more or less equal footing with Eagle Scout, I think we all will be better-off discussing "how" rather than "whether".

 

In addition to the method behind my madness, I'll offer that the Scouts in my troop aren't wallflowers - and I was certainly surprised that they didn't push-back on the way I structured the question - but none of them even hinted at "no girls".  Additionally I fully expected that any scouts who appeared resigned to the issue would then promote the Separate Charter option.  Again, however, the scouts in my troop appeared to look forward to showing the girls "how Scouting is done" - and they didn't feel they could do that unless they were part of our troop.  They stopped short, though, of including them in their patrol.

 

BTW, your Venturing option is intriguing; however, my admittedly slight understanding of Venturing tells me Eagle Scout can't be earned without having sometime been a Boy Scout -

- Craig

Edited July 5, 2017 by AltadenaCraig

[Col. Flagg]

However, I wasn't getting at "whether" to incorporate girls into the BSA, but rather "how".  I'm assuming that decision is a fait accompli, as girls like Sydney - and their supporters - won't rest until girls are able to wear an Eagle Scout badge. 

 

Thanks Craig. That makes sense. 

 

It would be interesting (at least for me) to hear what they would have thought of the other two options. Our PLC ran a straw poll a few weeks back at the results were interesting. The younger Scouts didn't want girls in. The older Scouts did, but only 20% of them favored such a move.

[EmberMike]

If you read, bathrooms are but one of issues mentioned. All the things you mentioned were pointed out above. But you're wrong about bathrooms. Those and shower facilities are HUGE issues in some councils. In mine there's not one camp that has non-communal shower AND bathroom facilities IN THE SAME LOCATION. So adults have to wait for Scouts. Then adults have their time. No wonder we stop actitivea at 3:30 so everyone can shower before dinner at 5pm. Now add girls? That's TWO more shifts!!! Morning and night. Don't tell me it's not about bathrooms. It sure as heck is!

 

I think you have the only scouts in the country who shower not just daily, but twice daily.

 

I'm sure it's an issue for some camps and councils. Likewise, for others it's not an issue. Ever camp in my local council currently has the ability to accommodate male and female scouts and scouters. For every story of camps like yours where bathrooms and showers are inadequate even for the existing male memnbership, there are just as many stories not being told about camps that would have no problem if we went co-ed tomorrow. Maybe even more so. Horror stories about the less-then-stellar facilities we've all encountered at one point or another make for better conversation about the kids than the ones about the fancy bathrooms. 

 

My point was and still is, bathrooms aren't the issue that will break the bank is the BSA goes co-ed. We're talking about a massive re-branding of a national organization with millions of members who each have a pile of materials and uniform pieces that all say "Boy Scouts of America" that will have to be changed. Books that will have to be re-done. signs at offices and camps that need to be changed. Redesigning the BSA name and logo, website, all marketing materials, literature, building a whole new library of images and documents, etc. There is a brand guidelines book for the BSA that details every element of the BSA brand, and how it is all used. That book needs to be entirely re-written. This is the sort of thing that companies of similar size spend many millions of dollars on, tens of millions sometimes.

 

I really think National could send crews around to every camp that needs bathroom upgrades and it would still cost less than a co-ed rebranding initiative. There are what, maybe 1,000 scout camps across the country? Out of that 1,000, there are probably fewer than 500 that would need help going co-ed in terms of bathroom and shower facilities. But for the sake of argument, let's say this would affect 500 camps to the extent that they needed to significantly upgrade existing facilities. Maybe even build an entirely new bathroom. At most, the cost should be $5,000. We're talking about extending existing facilities in most cases, tapping in to existing plumbing and electric, and using cheap materials. It's scout camp, they're not getting glass tile and brushed nickel fixtures here. 

 

If National said, "We decided to go co-ed, we'll pay for the camp upgrades," we'd be looking at a cost of around $2.5 million to spend $5,000 on 500 camps. Which I think is probably a high estimate. I really don't think there are 500 camps that would need help, nor do I think most camps would even need $5,000 in upgrades. But again, let's just say that maybe all of this were true. I guarantee you the cost of re-branding the organization and overhauling every piece of scout supply that would need to be changed to reflect the inclusion of girls will cost a lot more than $2.5 million. 

 

Are bathrooms an issue? Sure. Are bathrooms the most important and significant issue, as they seem to be when they're the most talked-about aspect of co-ed scouting whenever this topic comes up? No, they're not. 

[Col. Flagg]

My local camp spent over 150k to install and upgrade 5 bathroom and shower facilities in ONE camp. I think your estimate is quite low. concrete slabs run $1.88-2.25 sq. ft. Cement runs $5.50-7.15 sq. ft. It's $4,500 just to pour a low-end cement slab 20x40 (our current standard communal bathroom/toilet slab size). Add the steel beams, roof, plumbing, trenching, sewer access lines, water, etc., and you are well over $5k per facility. 3-5 facilities per camp and you can see where 150k gets spent in just one camp.

[TAHAWK]

And donors prefer their name on a climbing tower or cabin vs. a toilet.

[Eagledad]

I realize you said, "don't use the argument of increasing the declining membership...", so I hate to say it, but...

 

At least in terms of addressing the question of why anyone is willing to change the program, declining membership is a fair place to point to for an answer. And you could apply that answer to any apect of the program, and any type of change, from program to policy and beyond. 

 

When the generation of kids entering scouting today could quite possibly be the last generation of boy scouts in America, I think that's a good reason to want to change something. Anything, really. If the rate of decline we've seen over the last 10 years continues, scouting might not have another 20 years left in it. 

 

Is co-ed the right answer to this problem? Maybe. Maybe not. But at some point we'll get to a place where something major has to be done, even if it's a longshot. There has to be a number at which, if we go below it, National hits the panic button and things really start to change drastically. Surely co-ed is on that list of things to try. 

So, you are proposing that if passing ships could have handed over their passengers with bailing buckets, the Titanic might have been saved. Hmm, an interesting approach to a successful business models.

 

My engineering mindset just doesn't work that way. If something is failing because of a flawed design, the design needs to be changed, otherwise permanent failure is inevitable, no matter how many work-arounds are thrown at it. Work-arounds only add layers of confusion to finding the fix, if a search is even being conducted. 

 

Barry

[qwazse]

...

My point was and still is, bathrooms aren't the issue that will break the bank is the BSA goes co-ed. We're talking about a massive re-branding of a national organization with millions of members who each have a pile of materials and uniform pieces that all say "Boy Scouts of America" that will have to be changed. Books that will have to be re-done. signs at offices and camps that need to be changed. Redesigning the BSA name and logo, website, all marketing materials, literature, building a whole new library of images and documents, etc. There is a brand guidelines book for the BSA that details every element of the BSA brand, and how it is all used. That book needs to be entirely re-written. This is the sort of thing that companies of similar size spend many millions of dollars on, tens of millions sometimes.

...

 

Facts not in evidence. Are you saying that, by renaming unisex, Cub- and Boy- scouts will not waste millions revamping logo and literature? How's that worked out over the past couple of decades?

 

I would suggest that the boy scouts should not change a stitch of logo if they open to girls, and I'm not just basing this on one Italian exchange student who proudly wore her uniform with its "Boy Scouts Italy". The girls who joined my crew over the years were proud to be members of the BSA.

 

The girls who want to join us want to do so because of who we are and what we offer. Changing logo and literature would represent a level of pandering that would undermine recruitment efforts.

[MattR]

All the scouts I know couldn't care less about the toilets and showers. A nearby council's camp has the worst shower and bathroom facilities I've ever seen and every troop I know loves the place. That's because they put all their money into the staff. They have the best staff I've ever seen. That's what the scouts like.

 

The scouts do not care about the showers. As long as they take a shower on Friday I don't care either. Move on. Scouts can figure out shower schedules.

 

Asking the scouts what they think about girls in scouts would be much more useful. Based on previous membership issues I suspect the scouts have a much better insight than the adults.

[Eagledad]

Asking the scouts what they think about girls in scouts would be much more useful. Based on previous membership issues I suspect the scouts have a much better insight than the adults.

Maybe, but the parents generally start their kids in scouting, and generally for a different reason.

 

My wife surprised me last week after she read news article in the paper about BSA considering coed. Without any discussion, her knee-jerk reaction was,"we would not have joined a coed Boy Scout program".  She was also a Girl Scout leader with only bitter memories of that experience.

 

Barry