OFFICIAL NEWS RELEASE: Girls as Youth Members, All Programs

[NJCubScouter]

Selling Philmont it is.   The reason organizations like the BSA hires firms that do surveys and polls is because its more expensive to set it up and do it on their own.  You are advocating for the BSA to create a special survey database for approximately 2 million youth members.  They'll have to hire people to do so.    Survey Monkey isn't going to work.  They'll then have to hire people to track and interpret the results.  Now we're up to about $25 per Scout.  No kidding - surveying 2 million people will cost millions - multiple millions.   That's why no one surveys everyone (and no, those internet snap polls don't count - they're just counters - they are meaningless) and instead surveys a limited number of people.  Do you know that the unemployment number we hear about every month is based on a poll of just 66,000 people a month?  Just 66,000 people to represent approximately 200 million citizens over the age of 16.  That's how surveys and polls are done.

 

And if your going to survey all youth, does that include Tiger cubs?  Do you think a 7 year old has enough of a grasp on the world to make a decision?  Heck, most 7-year olds don't have a grasp on whats for lunch until its lunchtime.

 

I respect your zeal - but zeal often slams in to the roadblock called reality - and usually loses.

 

You and your facts. 

[AltadenaCraig]

Could GS/USA have built troops based on charter partners, removed size limits on units, and highlighted multi-age units that engage in outdoor activities? Yes. They didn't. So here we are...

 

... And could the GSUSA have promoted their Gold Award as effectively as they do their Thin Mints and Doe-si-Doe's to bring it on par with our Eagle (as it should be), and worked with the NYC chapter of NOW to retain their support of single-gender programs instead of badgering the BSA to open its ranks to both?  Yes.  They didn't.  So here we are ...

[qwazse]

... And could the GSUSA have promoted their Gold Award as effectively as they do their Thin Mints and Doe-si-Doe's to bring it on par with our Eagle (as it should be), and worked with the NYC chapter of NOW to retain their support of single-gender programs instead of badgering the BSA to open its ranks to both?  Yes.  They didn't.  So here we are ...

It seems that the GS/USA is on the right track for public recognition given that Gold is less than 4 decades old. Admissions officers generally put it on par with Eagle Scout, even if the man-on-the-street doesn't.

 

But, content matters. The girl-on-the-street can earn Gold without ever having camped 1 night. For a young woman who wants to be recognized for outdoor skills, she would have to be matched up with a unit that practices those skills. Effectively girls with such ambition are sold short.

 

(By the way, does anyone have the original requirements for the Golden Eaglet and subsequent GS/USA awards?)

 

NYC/NOW recognized the difference in content. It just didn't have the insight or courage to demand GS/USA make outdoor activity required for its highest awards.

[walk in the woods]

So let me turn your question around. What is it about girls that the boys can't deal with? 

 

Flag on the play, shifting the burden of proof.  It's the BSA's and supports proposition to change the membership requirement, therefore their responsibility to prove the benefit.

[skeptic]

All kibitzing aside.  Until we get the more detailed info from National, we can only kick it back and forth.  IF, note the caps, the CO is the ultimate decider, then we will see variants, but most likely could be compatible if people simply are not intimidated by other ideas and approaches.  

 

Maybe we should simply run with it as we, that is our individual units and districts, feel is best.  But while running, be open to what might not be working and make adjustments.  

 

Ultimately, we either believe in the foundation of BSA, no matter what genders are involved, or we do not.  Flexibility is key, but without blinders or unwillingness to find better ways when necessary.

[RememberSchiff]

Flag on the play, shifting the burden of proof.  It's the BSA's and supports proposition to change the membership requirement, therefore their responsibility to prove the benefit.

 

Let me know if you can find anything in the BSA Rules and Regulations which states the BSA is obligated to explain their decisions let alone any benefit.

[David CO]

Let me know if you can find anything in the BSA Rules and Regulations which states the BSA is obligated to explain their decisions let alone any benefit.

 

Yet they are.

[Hawkwin]

Flag on the play, shifting the burden of proof.  It's the BSA's and supports proposition to change the membership requirement, therefore their responsibility to prove the benefit.

 

Actually, the original question posed by Backpack was a bit of a Straw Man fallacy. To quote:

 

why change at all? What’s broken that adding girls fixes?

 

 

I don't think BSA made such a claim - that adding girls fixes anything that was broken.

 

The, "Why change at all?" question seems rather straight forward - people have asked for the change. The benefit is to those that want to join that were previously excluded. That should be self-evident.

 

The mission of the Boy Scouts of America is to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law.

 

This change allows BSA to prepare MORE young people to make ethical and moral choices under the Scout Oath and Law.

 

I would say that benefits all of us - and is the reason for the change.

 

Taken directly from the news release:

 

“This decision is true to the BSA’s mission and core values outlined in the Scout Oath and Law. The values of Scouting – trustworthy, loyal, helpful, kind, brave and reverent, for example – are important for both young men and women,†said Michael Surbaugh, the BSA’s Chief Scout Executive. “We believe it is critical to evolve how our programs meet the needs of families interested in positive and lifelong experiences for their children. We strive to bring what our organization does best – developing character and leadership for young people – to as many families and youth as possible as we help shape the next generation of leaders.â€

 

[Col. Flagg]

Actually, the original question posed by Backpack was a bit of a Straw Man fallacy. To quote:

 

I don't think BSA made such a claim - that adding girls fixes anything that was broken.

 

The, "Why change at all?" question seems rather straight forward - people have asked for the change. The benefit is to those that want to join that were previously excluded. That should be self-evident.

 

           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Nope, this argument is the straw man. Boy Scouts is for boys. So a member of an organization for boys -- that has been for boys only for over 100 years -- has a very valid argument asking why girls should be allowed. 

 

You say "people asked for change". People also asked for things NOT to change. In fact according to BSA's own surveys more people asked for NO change than asked for change. So, again, the question @@backpack asked is valid. Why change? Using your own argument if it's so self-evident that "why change" is "because people asked for it", then it should be similarly self-evident that someones asks "why was change necessary? what was broken?" because OTHER people asked these questions. Your logic is flawed.

 

Everyone knows BSA is hemorrhaging members. This is no surprise to anyone here. They see opening up Scouting to girls as a way to introduce another revenue stream. Oh they SAY it's not about money or membership, but that's bull and we know it. They didn't just chuck 100 years of serving boys because Sarbaugh had an epiphany about how wrong it is not to include girls in one part of the BSA umbrella. BSA made the change 1) for money/membership and 2) to push Sarbaugh's (and a few other minority players within BSA) agenda.

 

Frankly, @@backpack makes a cogent argument. Why change? Why didn't they ask the boys how they felt? Why did they feel the need to open up Boy Scouting rather than just push Venturing from 14 to 11? These are great questions. Still waiting for the answers for Irving.

Edited November 1, 2017 by Col. Flagg

[Hawkwin]

           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Nope, this argument is the straw man.

 

What about my statement is a straw man?

 

 

Boy Scouts is for boys.

 

And it was once an organization, for most of the country, for only white boys. Then it changed. Voting used to only be allowed for men, then it changed. Nothing requires Boy Scouts to be for boys only, forever. BSA is an organization that serves youth of both genders.

 

 

So a member of an organization for boys -- that has been for boys only for over 100 years -- has a very valid argument asking why girls should be allowed. 

 

And I specifically answered that question. The mission of BSA answers that question.

 

You say "people asked for change". People also asked for things NOT to change.

 

And those people were accommodated by allowing them to remain exclusively for boys.

 

 

In fact according to BSA's own surveys more people asked for NO change than asked for change. So, again, the question @@backpack asked is valid. Why change?

 

??? I don't claim his question was invalid. In fact, I specifically answered that question - why change. BSA changed to provide the Scout Oath and Law to more youth because more youth were asking for it. It is really quite that simple. Those that objected to extending the Scout Oath and Law to more youth were accommodated by not being forced to change.

 

 

Using your own argument if it's so self-evident that "why change" is "because people asked for it", then it should be similarly self-evident that someones asks "why was change necessary? what was broken?" because OTHER people asked these questions. Your logic is flawed.

 

A little less hostility please.

 

To ask what was broken is to assume someone made the claim that it was broken. Here, please allow me to assist:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

 

BSA did not claim that they were making this change to fix something that was broken, hence asking someone to justify the "why" of this change based on such is a straw man. Why change, valid question. What was broken, straw man.

 

 

Frankly, @@backpack makes a cogent argument. Why change?

 

He does, and such is why, again, I answered his question with both my opinion and the official statement from BSA.

 

 

Why didn't they ask the boys how they felt?

 

I gather that they did survey members. That being stated, such decisions are not simply about how the majority of current members feel. This is not a good ole boy club that only accepts those we want to let in. For all we know, if BSA were to survey every single existing member, a majority might support this change, how would your opinion change based on such a possibility?

 

Why did they feel the need to open up Boy Scouting rather than just push Venturing from 14 to 11?

 

I assume because girls of 11 to 14 wanted to join BSA and reap the benefits of scouts and not the benefits of Venturing.

 

On a more personal note, please help me understand why you seem to have such hostility toward this change. If your CO doesn't want to accept girls, then how does this change impact you or your boys?

 

 

[Back Pack]

I am amazed at how anyone can take my position of Boy scouting being only for boys and twist it to being only for white boys. I think I said we couldn’t put the genie back in the bottle. That reference was about all the recent changes.

 

By the way bringing segregation in to your response to Flagg’s last reply is a text book staw man argument. I’m speechless at how argumentative you guys are. Hard to believe you’re Scout leaders.

Edited November 1, 2017 by Back Pack

[numbersnerd]

I am amazed at how anyone can take my position of Boy scouting being only for boys and twist it to being only for white boys. I think I said we couldn’t put the genie back in the bottle. That reference was about all the recent changes.

 

By the way bringing segregation in to your response to Flagg’s last reply is a text book staw man argument. I’m speechless at how argumentative you guys are. Hard to believe you’re Scout leaders.

 

It is unfortunate that your suggestion has been twisted and distorted into a WAY too specific line of questioning. The premise of youth membership having a voice in the program is valid and I, for one, would like to apologize on behalf of far too many that appear to be attacking that suggestion. It's that type of "welcome to the real world" treatment that breeds apathy.

 

As for the behavior of some persons, observation over time has shown to me that there are some here who will defend their position with no stronger facts or logic than that forthcoming from National. They defend it on the merit of what they feel and want and disregard or dismiss those the sentiments of those opposed to their position yet simultaneously clamor for factual arguments when they themselves offer none. It's a tactic that increasingly succeeds in a world that moves further away from true debate and towards emotion based validation. 

[fred johnson]

... wow ... 29 pages ... wow ... that's way, way past my pain limit to read. ... is this like some record?

[RememberSchiff]

... wow ... 29 pages ... wow ... that's way, way past my pain limit to read. ... is this like some record?

 

Good point, more arguing than answering.  May be time to lock it.

[Hawkwin]

I am amazed at how anyone can take my position of Boy scouting being only for boys and twist it to being only for white boys. 

 

With respect, my reply was to Flagg. There is nothing you should infer about your original comment and my response to Flagg. They are two different comments and should not be conflated to be the same thing.

 

Flagg was stating that Boy scouts should not change because 100 years of tradition - that it has always been boys only. I replied to him to illustrate that, "we have always done it this way" is not necessarily a valid reason to keep a policy - that BSA used to exclude people of color, then BSA changed.

 

By the way bringing segregation in to your response to Flagg’s last reply is a text book staw man argument. 

 

 

I don't see how you can talk about one form of segregation and not see correlations to others. It isn't a straw man to bring up the fact that BSA used to be segregated by color and no longer is.

 

But, I digress. I think we have beat this particular horse enough.