Pranks

[SctDad]

Sorry I misunderstood about who turned it into the SM.

 

Do I think expulsion is the best way to go. No. I think that if you expell the boys, they will learn nothing. Make them give apologies. Give them specific service hours that they have to do, and make them give a class on hazing. Maybe have them point out the differences between hazing and practical jokes.

[Lisabob]

I like zippy's point that giving a boy a chance to learn a lesson, even if it means putting some onerous conditions on him, is not the same as expulsion. Another argument I hear too often for my tastes is "well if we do X, that's tantamount to expulsion for that boy because his family will never agree to it" My answer: if you do nothing, that's tantamount to telling every boy in the troop that you condone the behavior in question. Make the boy responsible for his own action. If he leaves because of your conditions, so be it, that's his/his family's choice.

 

One other thing: I don't like service hours as a response to behavioral issues, unless it includes hours spent repairing and restoring property that was vandalized, or something like that. In this case, service hours are an imperfect fit for the misdeeds in question. We shouldn't turn "service" into punishment because then, who would willingly do service just for the sake of helping others? For those reasons, I think I'd lean more toward a suspension, plus some of the things Sctdad suggested in his most recent post.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Beavah]

Yah, lots of good comments here on how to handle da situation.

 

Just to be clear for others, what yeh read on the internet ain't always true . The text defining hazing from an advocacy group like stophazing.org is what it is, eh? The text from a lobbying organization that benefits from having da broadest definition possible.

 

The legal definitions in the subset of states that actually have laws on the books are (happily) far more narrow. And da traditional definition of hazing is somewhere in between.

 

So in most jurisdictions this does not meet da legal definition of hazing as described. In fact I'm not sure it does anywhere, but it's a big country. And unless this was really part of an initiation where the lad was expected to drink urine or suffer repeated nasty pranks or whatnot, it doesn't meet da general definition.

 

None of that matters much, eh? It's still poor behavior, bad judgment, possibly nasty and malicious. Still need to deal with it with the lads. Still should end up with some serious consequences. But we have to be trustworthy and accurate in our use of terms, and we shouldn't need some website's mumbo-jumbo definition in order to respond appropriately to what happened.

 

Beavah

 

[zippyboro]

Beavah,

I used the web site's definition, because it it described hazing in the broad general sense that it really is. I am not part of that advocacy group as you describe it, nor am I lobbying to stop hazing in any political sense. It seems to me, without ever having looked up a legal definition, hazing is a process of initiating or testing someone, usually younger or less experienced by someone older and more experienced through the exertion of power and influence over the younger, less experienced participant. Whether the process used is dangerous, harmful, reckless or just plain stupid, in my opinion, is beside the point. We are not here trying to determine the degree of the misdeed, but rather the simple fact that an older scout inappropriately used his power as a more experienced scout in a completely inappropriate and unscout-like way.

 

As far as Lisa's sense that handing out service hours makes serving them seem like a punishment, I still feel that the greater good is being served by doing them and it is really no different than an individual being ordered by a judge to perform x number of hours of community service. First and foremost though, troop and family apologies are in order.

[evmori]

I agree that this prank was in poor taste (pun intended) but it was not hazing.

 

I don't think expulsion is in order either. Maybe some extra latrine duty on the next years camping trips would be appropriate.

[OldGreyEagle]

personally I would like to know the difference between hazing and practical jokes

[Brian85]

The difference between practical jokes and hazing is your position. If you are the victim, then it is hazing. If you are the practical joker, then it is just that.

 

I would suspend the involved individuals until a BoR can be held and the incident be reviewed fully. The CoR would be invited, as well as the DE. The seriousness is not to be diminished and needs to be addressed in a formal enviroment. The CC, SM, and the boys parents need to understand the seriousness. You may want to bring up the issue in South Carolina. Continuance in the program is the decision of the CoR to decide.

 

Thirty years ago, "playing doctor" was noted as just play. We know were this has gone!

[Brian85]

NOT HAZING!!!! (YES, I AM YELLING.) Are you out of your mind? It is a textbook case of hazing. The older boys didn't even own up to the SM that they were involved. You have multiple victims and several bullies involved.

I would argue that this incident be reported to the Council Executive IMMEDIATELY.

 

There is a tipping point where boys being boys is no longer acceptable behavior. The law decides what is juvenile behavior and what is adult. The line is being lowered daily. Our private organization is open to criticism from every outside group that disagrees with our views, that is why we need to police our own ranks. This is the point where adult leadership needs to step in and take the reins from the "boy-led" and take definitive and prompt action. I challenge you to write the headline and spin it into a positive light. We are continually tried in the court of public opinion based on following the Scout Law.

 

[Eagledad]

>>The difference between practical jokes and hazing is your position. If you are the victim, then it is hazing.

[evmori]

Good definition Barry.

 

And I would like to state that having "Happy Birthday" sung to anyone by the staff at any restaurant is hazing.

 

It is a textbook case of hazing. The older boys didn't even own up to the SM that they were involved. You have multiple victims and several bullies involved.

 

This is a textbook case on how to pull a prank. The older boys didn't own up because they didn't have to! They should have regardless!

 

I agree this was handled poorly but suspension is way over the top.

[SMT224]

Trying to pigeon-hole this particular act as "hazing" or a "prank" or "practical joke" is irrelevant. It doesn't matter how you categorize it, tricking someone into drinking urine is a disgusting and repulsive act and must be dealt with accordingly.

 

Could you imagine if this happened at your place of work?! What would you think of a co-worker who tried to give someone (maybe you) urine? Do you think the perpetrator of such an action would be let off with some service hours or just an apology? I think not. It would likely be grounds for immediate dismissal.

 

Scouting prepares boys to be leaders. As such, we as involved adults need to help our Scouts understand the consequences of their actions. To allow this to happen without appropriate consequences hurts not only those who committed the act, but sends a the wrong message to the rest of the Troop.

 

[Brian85]

So let me get this straight...filling a bottle with urine, passing it off to another with directions to make a third party drink the urine is...a...prank. Seriously? You guys are just pulling the new guys leg right?

I always thought that putting someones backpack into a bear bag, then hauling it up the highest tree was a prank.

I know the last few camps I have attended, the lunch on tuesday was set aside for "birthday" celebrations. No one was called out directly, just anyone having a birthday this week. Now, if you take your friend to dinner on their birthday, it is not beyond reasonable expectations that being sung to by the staff UPON REQUEST is not unreasonable. Now, if it is not that persons birthday and malicious intent can be proven, then you might be able to argue that it is hazing.

 

[Beavah]

Yah, SMT224 has it right, eh? Doesn't matter what we call it, it's behavior that's unacceptable and must be addressed.

 

"Hazing", however, has a legal meaning as a crime in many states. And it just ain't trustworthy to accuse anyone, especially children, of a crime if it isn't so.

 

Generally speaking, da criminal definition of hazing involves (1) forced participation; (2) initiation ; (3) intention and recklessness; (4) bodily harm or serious risk of bodily harm. Most also limit it to (5) schools or organizations affiliated with school.

 

This case fails on (1), (2), possibly (4), and probably (5). Now, OA ordeals come much closer to da legal definition. They are forced participation for initiation.

 

So let's just call it what it is, eh? Stupid, mean, inappropriate. We don't need to have a law or a regulation or a definition to teach the kids right from wrong.

 

Beavah

 

[Lisabob]

"We don't need to have a law or a regulation or a definition to teach the kids right from wrong."

 

Amen to that. Don't get so wrapped up in policy or definition that you miss this bigger point, whatever else you do. I am dealing with a case where a boy was making racist comments about Hitler, white power, and Jews, to a fellow scout. The response of several adults is (in part) that maybe we should make a policy defining what counts as racist and what doesn't. DUH! We need a policy for this? How about just some common sense and high expectations? Same thing here. Not one of us, I think, would say the behavior the original poster described is acceptable. Not one would be happy to have it happen to us, or to our kids. Not one of us needs to sit back and wait for a definition or a policy to be promulgated, in order to address it.

 

 

[Brian85]

OA ordeals are VOLUNTARY. The expectations are established up front and the candidate may back out at any time. Now, as for the TAPOUT ceremony, that is a whole different pickle. Each eligible candidate has a reasonable expectation that selection can occur with the requisite votes. They attend the tapout ceremony not knowing (wink,wink) they are to be tapped. I still have the arrow that was broken over my shoulder from my selection ceremony.

 

We may not want to agree, but the older, more experienced Scout has a level of influence over the younger Scouts that we as adults will never have. The younger Scouts cannot always see what we see in the different aged boys. The older boys have a position of trust with the younger Scouts. They abused that trust. The abuse of trust is why we have predatory problems within our organization. The predators prey on the naive and innocence of the young Scouts. Criminal intent does not have to occur to have a crime.

 

I completely forgot to address the question by asm1429. The answer is yes. Even if the Scout did not drink, they could be charged with intent to commit. IMO, it would more than likely be thrown out due to LOE, but in the hands of a nifty DA, it could at least get a headline and get picked up by a national network. The court of public opinion is more vicious than any court of law will ever be. So, if bad PR is the goal of a nifty DA, he wins without ever having to open a single code book.