On my Honor - Documentary on BSA Sex Abuse Scandal

[InquisitiveScouter]

10 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

He was the one responsible for Youth Protection, and if he failed in his job, I want to know why.

Money.  Big money.

[ThenNow]

5 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

I have not seen it yet, but did see the list of folks who are in it and contributed, and know our former national Youth Protection Director, Michael Johnson, is involved. I have two questions regarding him and his info.

 

1. What raw data is he using when he state, “The truth is clear: no child is safe in Scouts BSA programs.” I want to see stats, trends,  reports, etc to prove this is the case. And I want the raw data because as Mark Twain once said, " There are three types of lies: lies, damn lies, and then there is statistics."

2. If his statement is true, then what the heck was he doing for 10 years?

I ask this not to be a smart aleck, but to get some understanding. He was the one responsible for Youth Protection, and if he failed in his job, I want to know why.

Same here. It's veddy veddy interesting and the info vacuum is killing me. One way or the other, I really want/need to understand. I find it very odd how shrouded everything surrounding MJ seems to be. (I know, I know. Legal issues and what not.) But, why did he leave? What did BSA not do that he recommended? He publicly and strenuously touted the YP program then, not so long after, excoriated and condemned it. He worked for 10 years and then gave a press conference and tearfully stated, "We failed you. I failed you." I found it genuine, but would really like the backstory and the data.

[malraux]

2 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

I have not seen it yet, but did see the list of folks who are in it and contributed, and know our former national Youth Protection Director, Michael Johnson, is involved. I have two questions regarding him and his info.

 

1. What raw data is he using when he state, “The truth is clear: no child is safe in Scouts BSA programs.” I want to see stats, trends,  reports, etc to prove this is the case. And I want the raw data because as Mark Twain once said, " There are three types of lies: lies, damn lies, and then there is statistics."

2. If his statement is true, then what the heck was he doing for 10 years?

I ask this not to be a smart aleck, but to get some understanding. He was the one responsible for Youth Protection, and if he failed in his job, I want to know why.

 

 

I'm pretty sure he made that claim in the bankruptcy specifically regarding the 72 hour rule being a major loophole. I would like to see data that the 72 hour rule was a significant source of risk though.

https://www.andersonadvocates.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Michael-Johnson-Letter-to-Congress.pdf would seem to be a good statement of Mr Johnson's views.

[skeptic]

The idea that there is an "absolute" to keeping abuse out of the program is simply not real.  That, to me, is where the train derails, as it simply not possible in the human environment.  I take pause at the statements that suggest that those making bad decisions could have stopped ALL the abuse, especially in the time contnuem about which we are speaking.  It still comes down to two things.  NO ABUSE is acceptible, and it is impossible to take abuse out of the world unless you find a way to keep all human in separate, non interacting environments.  And then we have nothing, as it is simply a utopian idea in this world and broader realities.  

[qwazse]

47 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

That was not the question. Why do you find it so hard to answer a basic question? I am sure scouting has been a great program for many people but that is not the question.

@johnsch322, the reason why is because, as some lawyers have noted, 800,000 expected victims have not come forward. (That is at the rate of 7% of adult males who reported CSA when asked - in a single survey with no expectation of compensation.) That's what we'd expect if BSA was performing no better than background. As inadequate as the IVFs were, it is a reasonable inference that 9 of 10 scouts who would have been victimized were spared.

• No other organization has been brought forward to be scrutinized to see if they have done better.
• No survey has been done of a large enough body of survivors to identify the specific organizations where they experienced CSA.

As I've mentioned, I've met CSA survivors mostly out of scouting. I'm fairly convinced that absent BSA, predators would have had a much easier time of it.

So, when, even in 2019, that 5% of male and 17% of female high school students experience sexual violence (again with no offer of compensation based on how they answer), I look at BSA as part of the solution. It's absence would only put more youth at risk.

I hate that so much about scouting triggers so many victims. But I hate more that the mundane about other spheres of a child's life triggers ten-fold as many survivors. (IF they managed to survive at all.) Therefore, I choose to volunteer what little time that I have in the organizations that give a respite from the mayhem.

[MYCVAStory]

51 minutes ago, elitts said:

I don't generally see a problem with information being made public, though I get a little leery about a public broadcast of someone's ouster from the program. 

A critical change is for troop parents to be informed when there was a YP breach in their troop and prospective ones knowing report frequency for past two years.  Details to be worked out.  No one has suggested impinging on privacy or due process to the best of my knowledge.

51 minutes ago, elitts said:

Kids LIKE being able to do things on their own and they need it to develop independence and leadership skills.

Michael Johnson reported that HIS reviews of YP reports showed that 50% were youth-on-youth.  THAT was a surprise and must change how we think.

31 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

1. What raw data is he using when he state, “The truth is clear: no child is safe in Scouts BSA programs.” I want to see stats, trends,  reports, etc to prove this is the case. And I want the raw data because as Mark Twain once said, " There are three types of lies: lies, damn lies, and then there is statistics."

We all do.  In the meantime, we are getting it from the person who was at the center of the reporting.

31 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

2. If his statement is true, then what the heck was he doing for 10 years?

By his account, trying to enact change.  When that didn't happen he grew frustrated and left AND, AND THIS IS IMPORTANT, said that he did NOT take a payout to sign an NDA.

[MYCVAStory]

43 minutes ago, qwazse said:

As I've mentioned, I've met CSA survivors mostly out of scouting. I'm fairly convinced that absent BSA, predators would have had a much easier time of it.

This interests me.  Given that Scouting has built-in overnight experiences central to its operation, and was until recently essentially solely male, how would predators have had a "much easier time?"  I'm reminded of Willie Sutton when asked why he robbed banks; "Because that's where they keep the money."  So where would the predators have gone where their horrors would have been "easier" to commit?

[elitts]

30 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

A critical change is for troop parents to be informed when there was a YP breach in their troop and prospective ones knowing report frequency for past two years.  Details to be worked out.  No one has suggested impinging on privacy or due process to the best of my knowledge.

 

Section 7.b

Incidents that result in a youth or adult offender being placed on the Volunteer Screening Database for child sexual abuse must be reported to the affected Troop’s parents, volunteers associated with the affected Troop, and the affected Charter Organization. The Local Council will provide notification to its Executive Committee. Notification will also be provided to the the YPE, YPC, and the Organization as part of the summary reports required by 7(a).

If the only scenario that results in someone ending up in the "Volunteer Screening Database" is  confirmed child sexual abuse, then I have no problem with people being notified.  But if they are putting people in the database for suspicion of abuse or suspect behavior (like a leader inviting scouts over to their house alone, but with no abuse taking place), I would be against making personal information and identities public.  I'm not against people being publicly informed that an action was taken without identifying information though.

[MYCVAStory]

3 minutes ago, elitts said:

But if they are putting people in the database for suspicion of abuse or suspect behavior (like a leader inviting scouts over to their house alone, but with no abuse taking place), I would be against making personal information and identities public.

I believe the intent is confirmed abuse cases only.  This is consistent with privacy laws and why employers only report dates of employment and not cause of termination.   

[elitts]

 

2 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

I believe the intent is confirmed abuse cases only.  This is consistent with privacy laws and why employers only report dates of employment and not cause of termination.   

Yeah, I get that's probably what people are thinking when they read that line, and hopefully that's where it stays.  But people only intended for rapists to end up on Sex Offender registries too; then in addition to rapists we ended up with teenage couples, public urinators, drunks that go streaking through the quad and so on.

BTW, actual privacy laws have nothing to do with why employers restrict their reporting; they do that because they don't want to deal with defamation lawsuits.

[skeptic]

1 minute ago, elitts said:

 

Yeah, I get that's probably what people are thinking when they read that line, and hopefully that's where it stays.  But people only intended for rapists to end up on Sex Offender registries too; then in addition to rapists we ended up with teenage couples, public urinators, drunks that go streaking through the quad and so on.

BTW, actual privacy laws have nothing to do with why employers restrict their reporting; they do that because they don't want to deal with defamation lawsuits.

Oh please, don not bring up actualities and what actually happens.

 

[ThenNow]

On anything and everything related to YP, please keep in mind there will soon (?) be a Youth Protection Committee made up of BSA management, LC representatives, CO representatives, for now Praesidium as a consultant, and the 50% balance BSA CSA survivors. As soon as available, get the names and contact information for whoever is listed and keep your cards and letters coming. I intend to do so. I'll bet dollars to donuts the survivor reps will be readily accessible. BSA and the others would be wise to open the door, too. From everything I've heard, this can be a serious pivot toward change. Take it or leave it, but the past refrains of "No one will listen to us" and "we have no access," at least on YP, should no longer be sung around the campfire if this comes to pass. 

[johnsch322]

3 hours ago, qwazse said:

the reason why is because, as some lawyers have noted, 800,000 expected victims have not come forward.

My original question was:

How many ruined lives are acceptable to add good morale decision makers to this world?

Followed after a no answer reply so I asked:

Why do you find it so hard to answer a basic question?

I get the above "800,000 expected victims have not come forward".  So I guess the 82,000 is acceptable because 800,000 did not come forward.  Wow!!  I really am starting to feel as if myself and all other survivors (and the thousands who did not survive) were just part of the cost of doing business as the BSA worked to to add some good morale decision makers to this world.

[sierracharliescouter]

1 hour ago, johnsch322 said:

My original question was:

How many ruined lives are acceptable to add good morale decision makers to this world?

Respectfully, you seem to be demanding a black and white answer to a question that only has shades of gray. It is absolutely horrible what happened to all the victims. But, there is no promise that they would have not been victims had they been engaged in some other activity, with greater or lesser frequency. Or maybe they would not have been victims, but someone else who wasn't abused in the program would have been abused in the absence of their participation in scouts. You are asking the unknowable.

[johnsch322]

6 minutes ago, sierracharliescouter said:

Or maybe they would not have been victims, but someone else who wasn't abused in the program would have been abused in the absence of their participation in scouts.

This is the great "tell" in how so many feel about the abuse.  If not you it would have been someone else or should I say so many feel that someone would be abused and better them than me?