Is there ANYTHING a scout is ALLOWED to do anymore ?!?!?

[Gold Winger]

A punching contest is a typical guy thing. You punch your buddy in the deltoid and he puches you back in your deltoid. One punch at a time, carefully aimed. The first to flinch or cry "Hold, enough!" loses.

 

It has nothing to do with Scouting, it is just something that boys used to do.(This message has been edited by Gold Winger)

[Mr. Boyce]

It is interesting that enough time has passed by---and the rationale for change has been so disseminated---that now the idea of an OA tapout is automatically assumed to be hazing.

 

'T'weren't so in my precincts. I was tapped out, and like others, it wasn't hazing.

 

I can "see" where abuse could take place, BUT (quiet here!) it's still possible to haze in scouting, in OA, in the Elk Club, in Little League, and so forth.

 

My earlier consideration of the general social influence of women, I believe, isn't total malarky. The campus at my alma mater has been extensively reworked for female safety---after generations and generations of female students. Perhaps this is just a sign of social affluence: we have enough money, and we want to put it into safety.

 

I like GoldWing's suggestion that we ourselves, as parents are responsible: overindulgence, helicoptering, etc. I was surprised this summer to find that a few high school student age kids of my friends weren't even looking for summer jobs. Their parents just give them cash. Probably a bad thing all around, there.

[DeanRx]

Ok... looks like I started a little tempest here...

 

BobWhite - you are correct and I agree with you that the BSA program is not the hinderance. Followed correctly and in the correct spirit, it is a time tested and enjoyable program.

 

However - my beef is specifically with the INTERPRETAION of many (to include many of the PAID adult leaders in council and district positions) that cause a hyper-vigilant attitude.

 

In my expiriences thus far, that hyder-vigilant attitude pertains to three areas in particular:

 

1) YPG. Because of the sins of the past - it has run amok in BSA now. Sorry if I seem old fashioned, but I disagree with having a discussion with Tigers or Wolves about child molestation! Yet there is some very frank talk the BSA video series relating to this topic, and YES - BSA strongly recommends sharing these videos with packs (to include youth)at least once a year! That's overkill and sends a "fear everyone" message to BOTH the youths and the parents of the program. But-at least BSA won't get sued and they can keep a lid on their insurance premiums...

 

2) The overboard PC crap that has eliminated the majority of the "old" skits and songs you can perform. You can't have scouts dress up like girls, can't make fun of adults, can't change the lyrics to patriotic songs... Part of the "fun" in scouts (heck in being a boy and bonding with other boys) is being able to do something that is a little off-color, in good humor. Its not malicous and its not meant to single out anyone. Prime example: One training this summer, the instructor was "corrected" by a member of the audience for calling his visual aids a "flip chart" ?!?!? Can't do that - "flip" is a derogatory term for a person of Philopino decent? OK - new to me.... but GOD forbid we might offend someone.

 

Which leads me to point #3...

 

3) There seems to be a pervasive subculture in BSA (often perpetuated by the PAID adult leaders and thus taken as endorsed by BSA) of an attitude of, "I'll demonstrate my excellent knowledge, and thus my importantance / status within the group by reciting as many rules and regulations as possible and pointing out to the 'lesser' scouters when they are WRONG, thereby ensuring my place as the top scout b/c I know the regs better than anyone else...."

 

Sorry if I offend any of the "older" scouters on the forums, but in my expirience #3 becomes more pronouned the LONGER you have been in scouting and the higher up the food chain you go.

 

The ironic piece is that if you actually ASK someone to SHOW you where in a BSA publication this "rule" is actually stated, the majoirty of the time, they can't come up with it, or it is an off-shoot of a very broad regualtion and has been cemented as so by the indivual's own INTERPRETATION of the "rules".

 

So BobWhite - I do agree that it is the INDIVIDUAL that causes this perception. The problem is when the INDIVIDUAL is a person of status and/or a paid adult leader within the program, then the PERCEPTION by those new to the program can be that such an attitude is ENDORSED by the program and BSA.

[Bob White]

I guess as far as people who have been in the program knowiung a lot about the program, you will learn from forums such as this and from your own experiences that often that is not the case.

 

But let me ask you something Dean. What do you think would be the sadder condition...someone who has been in the program who has continued to learn, or someone who has been in the program for a long time who refuses to learn or never learned?

 

Wouldn't you expect people who participated in any program for a long time would gain more knowledge as they gained experience? It would not be surprising to me if a person who spent a decade or more as a leader would and should have more knowledge than a person who has been in for less than a few years.

 

I am far more concerned when that isn't true then when it is.

 

Are there right and wrong ways to do things in the BSA? Yes, of course there are. Just as they are right and wrong ways to do nearly anything.

 

Is there a right or wrong way to do everything? No of course not, and I have never met any scouter who thought that there was.

 

 

[fleetfootedfox]

When I've gone for new jobs, I've had to take drug tests and background checks. When other people complain about these things, I wonder, what do you have to hide? When scouters complain about youth protection or having to submit to a background check, I have the same thought.

[DeanRx]

Scouter760 -

 

Your attitude is EXACTLY the issue I am raising. First of all, I never once said I object to being submitted to a background check - I understnad WHY they have the policy, just not why its hammered on relentlessly all the time. But, thanks for questioning my personal integrity, just the same. I'm sure you know me - so you have every reason to be suspicious of me and my intentions with the youth!

 

Its this very type of environment I find troubling. Where we've gotten to a point in society (especially within the BSA) when if someone voices concern because of an over-zealous policy, that person must automatically have something to hide! Go back to watching Nancy Grace or Geraldo - I for one think of the adult volunteers as people who want to HELP the youth, not hurt them - but hey - I must be crazy. Salem witch hunt - anyone ?

 

Thanks for the unwarranted personal attack - great scout spirit, eh?

 

BobWhite - Again, I agree with you. The folks who have been in the program for a long time SHOULD have the most knowledge and be the ones to train the newbies.

 

I just feel that a good deal of the time, its not an attitude of, "I've been doing this awhile, so let me show you whats worked and what hasn't..."

 

A lot of the time its an attitude of, "You don't know what you're doing, you're in violation of such and such..." and a general attitude of "I'm a better scouter b/c I know this and you don't." I don't see this from the kids, but it sure is prevalent in the adult leadership. Anywhere from RT training, to BALOO, to last week when I called the council office and asked to speak to the "camping office" about an upcoming fun-w-son (used to be called Dad-&-Lad, but thats not PC anymore) weekend... instead of "Oh, thats part of the activities office, I can help you...." A PAID adult leader at council retorted, "That's not camping! You need to talk to me in activities...." As if asking for the camping office was the stupidest thing I could have asked for.

 

IMHO - scouting could use a LOT more, "let me help you learn..." out of the adults towards other adults, and a LOT LESS, "You can't do it that way b/c you're in violation of x,y,z...."

 

BTW - the guy that spun off the "What do you want from RT's?" question from this thread - has it right... upper adult leaders should be asking, "What do you need from us to support you and your Pack, Troop, Crew...?"

[Gold Winger]

" When other people complain about these things, I wonder, what do you have to hide? "

 

I suppose that you wouldn't object to the po-leese just stopping by to do a random search of your underwear drawer.

[Bob White]

DeanRx,

Consider an alternate possibility. Perhaps what causes that perceived attitude is frustration on the part of the experienced Scouters, when they find they are confronted by scouters either new or experiend who seem to purposely misuse or ignore the program that they and so many have worked to help develop and deliver.

 

They see the scouts that are being chased away not by the BSA program but by individuals refusing to learn and or use the BSA program?

 

I know personally that when a scouter shows interest in learning the program by attending training or asking questions I am thrilled to help them. But when someone who does not read the handbooks and ignores the training wants to tell me all the things that are wrong with the program, or when they blame their inability to deliver the program on the kids, or their parents, or the uniform or the handbook, I have a distinctly different reaction. I have very low tolerance for that kind of egotism and ignorance when it comes to serving youth and the community.

 

Perhaps the veteran scouters you refer to feel the same?(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[fleetfootedfox]

I just said sometimes I wonder. The reason I wonder is because I have known some very nice people that had criminal records or that might not always be able to pass a drug test. I've also known people who told me they were molested as kids by people I thought were respectable adults.

 

So, I beg your pardon if you were offended, but we don't live in a "Leave it to Beaver" world. The safety of our kids is worth some minor inconveniences.

 

Regarding the comment about police making a random search, while sort of humorous, that's just not even a logical argument. Of course, if they do want to do that, they'll be wasting their time at my house.

[Gold Winger]

"Regarding the comment about police making a random search, while sort of humorous, that's just not even a logical argument."

 

Wasn't meant to be humorous. The police would love to be able to do it. Sure they might not find anything but then again, you never know. Maybe your brother-in-law dropped a percodan behind your refrigerator and now you're going to jail. However, we shouldn't worry about intrusions into our lives because, after all, they're necessary.

[DeanRx]

BobWhite -

 

I see what you mean. I agree 100% that the program (as it is intended) has been refined over many, many years (almost 100 now) and many of the issues faced today have been addressed in earlier years in other forms.

 

I can also understand how a seasoned scouter might be quick to become frustrated with a new adult leader who is unwilling to take advice / mentorship.

 

I just hope as my time goes on, I can find more of the, "Let's help each other - let me show you how this can be done in a positive way..." type of attitude and less of the, "Gee, another newbie that doesn't know the proper terms, the proper regs, and the proper way to do this... I better step in and 'save' them.... even though its really putting me out to do so...".

 

Thanks for the insight and discussion - its good to look at it from angles other than my own.

[fleetfootedfox]

The reason the police argument isn't logical is because now you're talking about government employees making a random search. You're comparing apples to oranges. There isn't a court of law in the US that isn't going to uphold a private company's right to ask their employees or volunteers to submit to a background check.

 

The alternative is that you have convicted sex-offenders and other felons being allowed to be Scoutmasters.

 

And why would the police get upset over finding a legal prescription pain-killer anyway? They wouldn't have to look behind the refrigerator at my house. They'd find plenty of it in the medicine cabinet.

[Gold Winger]

"And why would the police get upset over finding a legal prescription pain-killer anyway?"

 

The police wouldn't be upset, they'd be overjoyed. Why? Because it isn't your and now they can drag you down to the station and use the rubber hoses on you.

 

" There isn't a court of law in the US that isn't going to uphold a private company's right to ask their employees or volunteers to submit to a background check."

 

That's because the courts are a crooked as the government and the corporations.

 

Here are my questions for you. How many "predators" have been stopped by these background checks? How many Scouters would have have been properly denied membership by the background checks before they were instituted. Have any prosecutions resulted from all of this?

 

It's all flummery. I especially like the credit check part of the deal.

[shortridge]

I dislike that sort of stuff too on general principles... but do you necessarily want someone with an undisclosed history of bouncing checks and overdue accounts in a position of responsibility over, say, unit finances?

 

If the ability is there to check for that kind of background, an organization would be irresponsible these days not to do it.

[fleetfootedfox]

According to the New York Times, "About 1,800 Scoutmasters suspected of molesting boys were removed by the Boy Scouts of America from 1971 to 1991, but some simply went elsewhere and continued to abuse Scouts, organization files show."

For the full story, see http://tinyurl.com/2u7e8q