Duty to God question

[mrkstvns]

2 Points
Just 2 points I'd like to make:

1. The Board of Review is *not* to re-test a scout.

2. If a person on the Board of Review is unreasonable, stubborn, or biased against a Scout, the BOR Chair person has an obligation to dismiss that adult from the BOR. (like every adult scouter, Committee members have an over-arching duty to enable scouts to succeed, not to put up obstacles to them).

 

Why do I say that....

Point 1:    See Guide to Advancement, section 8.0.1.1:
 

8.0.1.1 Not a Retest or “Examination”

Though one reason for a board of review is to help ensure the Scout did what was supposed to have been done to meet the requirements, it shall become neither a retest or “examination,” nor a challenge of the Scout’s knowledge. In most cases it should, instead, be a celebration of accomplishment. Remember, it is more about the journey. A badge recognizes what a Scout has done toward achieving the primary goal of personal growth. See “Personal Growth Is the Primary Goal,” 2.0.0.3. It is thus more about the learning experience than it is about the specific skills learned. See also “Mechanics of Advancement in Scouts BSA,” 4.2.0.0.

A Scout must not be rejected at a board of review for reasons unrelated to advancement requirements. For example, the Scout must not be rejected for not bringing a Scouts BSA Handbook or being tardy for a board of review, but the reason for the tardiness may certainly be a topic for discussion.

 

Point 2:    See Guide to Advancement, section 8.0.1.0:

...Board members who cannot be fair and impartial should recuse themselves."

 

[Thunderbird]

@mrkstvns  Yes, agreed.  My only point was that the requirement for BOR is for Scouts to "successfully complete" them.  Board members can approve, not approve, or adjourn and reconvene later.  The requirement for SM conferences is for the Scout to "participate".  Again, not trying to take the thread off on a tangent.

[Eagledad]

19 minutes ago, Thunderbird said:

@mrkstvns  Yes, agreed.  My only point was that the requirement for BOR is for Scouts to "successfully complete" them.  Board members can approve, not approve, or adjourn and reconvene later.  The requirement for SM conferences is for the Scout to "participate".  Again, not trying to take the thread off on a tangent.

Exactly. My experiences with scouts not getting past a BOR had nothing to do with testing, it was confusion with completion of the requirements. 

Murkiness of reality often challenges the idealism of stated policies and guidelines. Adding the SM in the mix, an agnostic scout could be dealing with four different opinions of Duty to God.

If that weren't a real concern, then why would the OP even ask the question. Or rather, why would this OP be one of many who have asked this question over the years. The answer is more often than not a simple answer, provided everyone is on board.

Barry

[SSScout]

Always good to see reasoned discussion here in the Faith and Chaplaincy forum.   Oh, wait....

[MattR]

@SSScout: silly rabbit, God is everywhere, as is your Faith and Chaplaincy forum

[Liz]

Man, I'm so sorry for my oversimplified pass/fail comment. 😂

I was only intending to refer to what mrkstvns posted above about it not being an examination or a re-test. We have come *really close* one time to asking a Scout to come back and try his BOR again on another day when he was more ready. The Scout was having a really hard day and was frankly being downright belligerent (something that was a regular challenge with this Scout due to some special behavioral/developmental needs). When we told him we were going to stop the BOR and revisit in the future, he begged us to reconsider, we started over, and the Scout mustered all the self control he could to get through it without snarky, snide commentary on our questions. So yes, there are circumstances when a Scout may not "successfully complete" his BOR, but that doesn't mean that the questions we ask should be like exam questions that he has to pass. 

Edited June 21, 2019 by Liz

[qwazse]

@Liz if you have to feel sorry for "pass/fail", @Eagledad has to feel sorry for talking about when a scout "doesn't get past" his board of review.

Sure, not a retest, blah blah blah ...

But,  it is a trial, and one that scouts usually pass and sometimes fail, until they finally get past whatever shortcoming they have.

It's just like the folks who bought into national's doublespeak and bust my chops for saying I was an Eagle Scout. I reply, "Until my SM can work on rank advancement, like SMs in the first 50 years of BSA, I will continue to speak plainly."