YPT Changes in TCC Proposal

[CynicalScouter]

2 hours ago, fred8033 said:

We have mandatory reporting.  IT's THE LAW !!!!! 

• How often does BSA report the number of YP violations? Answer: 0.
• How often does BSA report the number of adults removed from or disciplined within the BSA system for YP violations? Answer: 0.
• And when the TCC (and I'll give them credit here the Coalition supports) the requirement for annual reporting of this data? Tons of opposition.

And I'm not even asking to take the step the Catholic dioceses have taken to annually report that names some of the offenders. I am simply asking for BSA to report at the LC level number per year.

https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/child-and-youth-protection/upload/2019-Annual-Report-Final.pdf

Again, the Catholic dioceses do this annually at the national level. See Appendix I.

Quote

Between July 1, 2018 and June 30, 2019, 4,434 allegations were reported by 4,220 victims/survivors of child sexual abuse by clergy throughout 194 Catholic dioceses and eparchies...

Chart 1-2 below summarizes the status of the 4,434 allegations as of June 30, 2019...

The number of clerics accused of sexual abuse of a minor during the audit period totaled 2,982.

Etc

Edited October 4, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[PeterHopkins]

I think a blanket ban on shirtless Scouts would be too draconian. As has been mentioned above, do we really need to tell a 16-year-old summer camp staffer that he cannot remove his shirt while laboring on a hot day?

I've never been involved with Mic-O-Say or similar non-OA honor societies. However, the little I know f Mic-O-Say indicates it is substantially adult led. Having ceremonies in which the Scout is required (or at least expected) to be shirtless is tantamount to the adults directing the Scout to remove his shirt. Unlike aquatics activities, I don't se how having such a thing improves the Scouting program. In other words, it is unnecessary. The Scout and other youth present will make no progress toward satisfying the BSA's Mission because the shirt is removed. Undeniably, the optics of adults removing their shirts are bad. If bad optics are the best possible outcome, why are we doing it?

I would support explanatory language in the Guide to Safe Scouting in the Barrier to Abuse section (where appropriate attire is mentioned) that makes it clear that adults should never request or direct youth to remove any articles of clothing. Perhaps flush language immediately below the list of program requirement could say:

The modesty of youth members must be respected by adults at all times. Adults must refrain from requesting or demanding that youth remove any articles of clothing resulting in the youth's modesty being compromised for superfluous reasons, including participating in ceremonies or skits.

If I spent more time on it, I could improve the language. We don't want to end up with a YP violation when a den leader tells Cub Scouts to get changed to go swimming, change for dinner or remove wet socks. Common sense should rule the day; apparently it doesn't. That makes something as specific as this necessary.

I don't think "appropriate attire" should be defined. We should know it when we see it. Perhaps I'm too optimistic about that.

I've also heard that wedgies are included in the Mic-O-Say induction ritual. I don't think that belongs in Scouting.

Edited October 4, 2021 by PeterHopkins

[qwazse]

JMHO, fretting over scouts in various states of undress does nothing to deter a predator.

Ten years from now, shirtless might be the cultural norm, and harping over uniform shirts might be considered CSA. (Come to think of it, one of the victims who has been kind enough to recount their story here mentioned how their SM obsessed about scouts’ patch placement, getting out a ruler to measure them during inspection.)

If YP reporting is flooded with these kinds of complaints, it will be completely useless to anyone.

[HelpfulTracks]

9 hours ago, fred8033 said:

It's just a snide mean incindeary post.  We have mandatory reporting.  IT's THE LAW !!!!! 

 

6 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

• How often does BSA report the number of YP violations? Answer: 0.

Once again, intentionally or not, it appears that you have conflated two separate things (filing a report with authorities and a summary report of violations report)  to make a untrue statement. 

Fred said violations of YPT are required by law to be reported to the authorities. You quoted him and replied that BSA  has reported 0 times. Not only is that blatantly false,  it is accusing many good people of violating the law. 

Generally I give people the benefit of the doubt, but I no longer feel that is a courtesy I can extend to you. 

I urge to be more clear in your use of quoting people and in your verbiage. At a point, the continued "mistakes" begin to look less like mistakes and more intentional misinformation 

[BAJ]

5 hours ago, PeterHopkins said:

The modesty of youth members must be respected by adults at all times. Adults must refrain from requesting or demanding that youth remove any articles of clothing resulting in the youth's modesty being compromised for superfluous reasons, including participating in ceremonies or skits

From my perspective @PeterHopkins proposed language addresses the key concern (though I would add “and other Scouts” after “respected by adults.”)

It isn’t that scouts are sometimes shirtless while cutting trail on a hot day or sometimes wear swim shorts or a swimsuit when they aren’t swimming, it is a situation where the removal of clothing or some state of semi-undress is a requirement for participation in an “honor society” or access to privileges that they couldn’t get otherwise. Doing that models sets an example that such a requirement or transaction is acceptable, and that it is ok to exclude people who aren’t comfortable doing it.  “Oh, ok, if you don’t want to do the ceremony in the loincloth that’s fine, you just will be part of the out group…. Don’t worry about the fact that the rest of your patrol are doing it.”

Take the analogy is to a professional environment where there isn’t even the more serious issue of youth involvement — if in a company, employees could join the “Acme Corporation Honor Society” (which meant they could get an extra day of vacation a year and access to a special coffee machine in the office lounge) and the requirement for induction was a ceremony where everyone had to be semi-clothed… I don’t think there would be much debate about whether it was appropriate or not, no matter what statements were made about the ceremony being “steeped in the traditions of the Company going back to its founding” or “effective in building Company esprit de corps and engagement.”

[ThenNow]

17 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

1 TBD

Did I mention I changed my name? Henceforth, I shall be referred to as To Be Determined, TBD for ease of use. Has a nice ring to it, right?

[CynicalScouter]

45 minutes ago, HelpfulTracks said:

Not only is that blatantly false,  it is accusing many good people of violating the law. 

I never said they were not reporting to law enforcement. Read what I wrote.

Quote

How often does BSA report the number of YP violations? Answer: 0.

Sure they report to police. But do they provide data so parents and others can make informed decisions? So we can see if the much vaunted YP training is actually being enforced? Nope.

As I said: the Catholic Church got the message. Annually they report this data. BSA? No way. Hide, hide, hide.

BSA: "YP violations? What YP violations? Nope. No YP violations here."

https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/child-and-youth-protection/upload/2019-Annual-Report-Final.pdf

Again, the Catholic dioceses do this annually at the national level. BSA mean while is only going to do it thanks to the TCC making them do so as part of a bankruptcy court's order.

That's openness I'll tell you. Yep.

Just look at this Catholic annual report.

• Lists the individuals responsible for enforcement of child protection (pages 8-10 and then 13). Does BSA list who is on its YP committee? Nope. Hide, hide, hide. https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Ascouting.org+youth+protection+committee
• 10-15% of dioceses are audited annually (page 19). BSA? Nope. Hide, hide, hide. Don't collect that data, you don't have a YP problem!
• Reports on the following data points
  • Total Allegations in the previous 5 years (page 27)
  • Status of allegations as of reporting year, number (page 28)
  • Status of allegations as of reporting year, percentage (page 29)
  • Number of accused leaders and their positions (page 29)
  • Status of accused leaders as of reporting year, such as removed, resigned, etc. (page 30)
  • List of audited dioceses and on-site visits by an OUTSIDE INDEPENDENT auditor, as opposed to cronies and insiders (page 32)
  • Survey of allegations and costs (pages 37-45)
  • Type of allegation (page 38-40)
  • Age of victim (page 40)
  • Costs, including settlements, payments to victims other than settlement, attorneys fees, etc (page 43)

And as noted: this entire report was generated and created by an OUTSIDE auditor, not cronies and insiders.

I'll start to take BSA seriously about YP when it does even a FRACTION of this. And it will: ONLY due to the TCC's insistence and a COURT ORDER.

Yet one more reason to say: thank you TCC!

 

Edited October 4, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[elitts]

2 hours ago, BAJ said:

From my perspective @PeterHopkins proposed language addresses the key concern (though I would add “and other Scouts” after “respected by adults.”)

It isn’t that scouts are sometimes shirtless while cutting trail on a hot day or sometimes wear swim shorts or a swimsuit when they aren’t swimming, it is a situation where the removal of clothing or some state of semi-undress is a requirement for participation in an “honor society” or access to privileges that they couldn’t get otherwise. Doing that models sets an example that such a requirement or transaction is acceptable, and that it is ok to exclude people who aren’t comfortable doing it.  “Oh, ok, if you don’t want to do the ceremony in the loincloth that’s fine, you just will be part of the out group…. Don’t worry about the fact that the rest of your patrol are doing it.”

The problem with this idea is that it sets the bar of acceptable at "whatever no one is uncomfortable with" and that's a standard that isn't functional.  I wouldn't support a membership requirement for OA (or anything else) that was based upon a willingness to be shirtless in public but I draw the line at not allowing those who ARE willing to appear shirtless to perform or appear that way because we don't want some kid to feel excluded. 

If Ryan doesn't want to participate in an activity with their patrol for whatever reason, that's their choice, as is any resulting feeling of exclusion.  I wouldn't allow a patrol to badger a scout into participating, or to tease them afterwards for sitting something out, but I'm also not going to tell any patrol they can't do something (that is otherwise acceptable) just because some patrol member is reluctant.

Peer pressure (overt or not) and FOMO (fear of missing out) is often given a bad rap, it can also be an excellent force for getting kids to broaden their horizons and stretch their perceived limits by getting them to try things even when it might be a little intimidating or scary.

[HelpfulTracks]

11 hours ago, fred8033 said:

Indian lore ...  but the 2020 Super Bowl winners are still the KC Chiefs.  These changes will continue for decades.    

I find it somewhat telling that KC Chiefs and Mic-O-Say are from the same area. 

This is also the same general area that the OA has problems getting them to adhere to certain standards such as one lodge per council. 

[BAJ]

It actually sounds like we agree more than disagree:

52 minutes ago, elitts said:

I wouldn't support a membership requirement for OA (or anything else) that was based upon a willingness to be shirtless in public

 

3 hours ago, BAJ said:

it is a situation where the removal of clothing or some state of semi-undress is a requirement for participation in an “honor society” or access to privileges that they couldn’t get otherwise

The key issue is what is what is required.  I agree that “shirtlessness as a state of being” shouldn’t be prohibited because not all scouts are always comfortable shirtless… only that there shouldn’t be power dynamics that push them to be shirtless when they aren’t comfortable with it (@PeterHopkin’s “Adults must refrain from requesting or demanding that youth remove any articles of clothing”).

So I do disagree with your first sentence that this is seeking to set a bar at a point where no one is ever uncomfortable ever…

 

[HelpfulTracks]

3 hours ago, BAJ said:

From my perspective @PeterHopkins proposed language addresses the key concern (though I would add “and other Scouts” after “respected by adults.”)

It isn’t that scouts are sometimes shirtless while cutting trail on a hot day or sometimes wear swim shorts or a swimsuit when they aren’t swimming, it is a situation where the removal of clothing or some state of semi-undress is a requirement for participation in an “honor society” or access to privileges that they couldn’t get otherwise. Doing that models sets an example that such a requirement or transaction is acceptable, and that it is ok to exclude people who aren’t comfortable doing it.  “Oh, ok, if you don’t want to do the ceremony in the loincloth that’s fine, you just will be part of the out group…. Don’t worry about the fact that the rest of your patrol are doing it.”

Take the analogy is to a professional environment where there isn’t even the more serious issue of youth involvement — if in a company, employees could join the “Acme Corporation Honor Society” (which meant they could get an extra day of vacation a year and access to a special coffee machine in the office lounge) and the requirement for induction was a ceremony where everyone had to be semi-clothed… I don’t think there would be much debate about whether it was appropriate or not, no matter what statements were made about the ceremony being “steeped in the traditions of the Company going back to its founding” or “effective in building Company esprit de corps and engagement.”

 

55 minutes ago, elitts said:

The problem with this idea is that it sets the bar of acceptable at "whatever no one is uncomfortable with" and that's a standard that isn't functional.  I wouldn't support a membership requirement for OA (or anything else) that was based upon a willingness to be shirtless in public but I draw the line at not allowing those who ARE willing to appear shirtless to perform or appear that way because we don't want some kid to feel excluded. 

If Ryan doesn't want to participate in an activity with their patrol for whatever reason, that's their choice, as is any resulting feeling of exclusion.  I wouldn't allow a patrol to badger a scout into participating, or to tease them afterwards for sitting something out, but I'm also not going to tell any patrol they can't do something (that is otherwise acceptable) just because some patrol member is reluctant.

Peer pressure (overt or not) and FOMO (fear of missing out) is often given a bad rap, it can also be an excellent force for getting kids to broaden their horizons and stretch their perceived limits by getting them to try things even when it might be a little intimidating or scary.

I think, I hope, we can all agree that forcing/requiring/pressuring any youth to remove clothing for any reason is wrong, regardless if it falls under a YPT violation.( I'll go ahead and stipulate there are exceptions, like an examination by trained medical personnel in a private space - and requiring the substitution of clothing, like boots or baggy clothing, for safety purposes)

And I do not like seeing ceremonies done shirtless period. 

[HelpfulTracks]

2 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

I never said they were not reporting to law enforcement. Read what I wrote.

I read what you wrote. I stand by my post. 

[MikeS72]

10 minutes ago, HelpfulTracks said:

I find it somewhat telling that KC Chiefs and Mic-O-Say are from the same area.

If I read the information at one of the Mic-O-Say links correctly, they and the KC Chiefs are not just in the same area, but owe their name and history to the same person.

[David CO]

3 hours ago, BAJ said:

Doing that models sets an example that such a requirement or transaction is acceptable, and that it is ok to exclude people who aren’t comfortable doing it.

Many kids are uncomfortable wearing form-fitting tights.  As correctly stated on The Breakfast Club, tights are the regulation uniform for the wrestling team.  

Tights are required for participation on some dance activities.  Male dancers are often expected to perform shirtless if the choreography calls for it.

These are two examples of when such a requirement or transaction is acceptable.  I'm sure there are many others.  The fact that people can come up with other examples where such a requirement or transaction in not acceptable does not change anything.

 

[PeterHopkins]

3 hours ago, BAJ said:

(though I would add “and other Scouts” after “respected by adults.”)

I agree with this, particularly given the age range of Scouts BSA youth.

Edited October 4, 2021 by PeterHopkins