21 As Required Age For Unit Leaders

[KC9DDI]

Venturing is a different program with different goals and methods. It would be expected that it would have different guidelines for quality leaders.

[Beavah]

The competent adults made back handed deals to get what they wanted, but later backed out of that same deal to get what they wanted.

 

All that suggests to me is that we should be skeptical of da maturity and competence of people over age 21, eh?

 

BSA's rule for 21 years old may be to prevent the folks who bed or break every rule from electing a 18 year oild SM, CC anD CM who would do even worse and dumber stuff that could cause the collapse of a unit or district within a few years. Plus, just as in firefighting, you ever see what happens when an 18 year old tels somebody twice his age what to do? Doesn't matter if it's correct thing to do or not...the older person is is jesitant and resistant to having a young snot nosed pun k telling him what to do.

 

And both of these things would be clear examples of prejudice, eh?

 

There's nothing at all wrong with expecting a firefighter to be an adult (age 18). Nor a Scoutmaster. You were successful as a firefighter and indeed a responsible supervisor before age 21. Why assume the same can't be true for a Scoutmaster? Older folks often serve as employees under younger folks' supervision. If they have a problem with that, that's their problem, eh? If it becomes too big an issue, da younger person should fire their ass.

 

That's not entirely consistent with what your position thus far has been (allowing a 16 year old emancipated minor to be a Scoutmaster, for instance).

 

It's perfectly consistent. An emancipated minor is an adult in the eyes of the law.

 

I, for one, am saying is that the rare occasions where a troop will be best served by an SM under 21 do not outweigh the occasions where a troop is best served by an SM older than 21

 

This quote above is where I took you to be saying otherwise. If the two are independent, then there's no reason one would "outweigh" the other. In the occasions where a troop is best served by an SM older than 21, they can select a SM older than 21.

 

Along your same train of thought, why do we not allow each individual unit to set its own rank requirements, or uniforming standards, or positions of responsibility?

 

LOL. Now you're really stretching. I suspect you're not really serious about this, eh?

 

Advancement and uniforming are things, not people, and there is a difference. They are national program elements, which belong to the national council by virtue of copyright and trademark law. To protect their copyright and trademark, they have to do certain things.

 

By contrast, Scoutmasters are people, and they don't "belong" to anybody. They are volunteers who work for a Chartered Partner, and da selection of unit leaders is primarily the responsibility of the Chartered Organization, in which the BSA only assists. To put it another way, a school can reasonably set graduation requirements or the dress code for graduation. But it would be unreasonable for a school not to allow a person over 40 (or a woman, or...) to enter the engineering program. Even if a school were allowed to (as they once were allowed to discriminate based on gender or age), it still wouldn't be reasonable. It would be prejudice.

 

No different with da BSA. It can set an age limit, but if that age limit is based primarily or solely on prejudice, it shouldn't. Since we all agree that young adults can and do serve in a wide variety of positions demanding maturity and responsibility successfully, including Scoutmaster, there is no reason other than prejudice to prevent them from doing so. Da argument that Americans are more culturally prejudiced against young people than other countries doesn't count.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Scoutfish]

I used my firefighting as an example that I know tere are exceptions.

 

BUT..... Lets be honest: Can I accurately and unbiasedly judge my own ability?

 

Too many people think there are skilled enough, smart enough, ready enough to do "X". but they are not really ina possition to see themselves objectively.

 

Again, I know there are natural born leaders and there are people who are just awesome people people!

 

But I'd guess that vast overwhelming majority of us/them are not.

 

 

"By contrast, Scoutmasters are people, and they don't "belong" to anybody"

 

True, but they belong to a club. And that club said you must follow these rules to play the game. The members of that club signe a piece of paper stating they would follow the rules of the club!

They don't have to be a member of that club because the club doesn't own them.

 

You wanna play the game, either follow the rules or quit.

 

And I don't see it being predjudiced any more than the states laws that say you can die for your country at 18, be arrested like an adult at 15, but cannot drink a ber after combat until you are 21.

 

Yeah, there is a reson for it, even if I do not completely understand or like it.

[Scoutfish]

I used my firefighting as an example that I know tere are exceptions.

 

BUT..... Lets be honest: Can I accurately and unbiasedly judge my own ability?

 

Too many people think there are skilled enough, smart enough, ready enough to do "X". but they are not really ina possition to see themselves objectively.

 

Again, I know there are natural born leaders and there are people who are just awesome people people!

 

But I'd guess that vast overwhelming majority of us/them are not.

 

 

"By contrast, Scoutmasters are people, and they don't "belong" to anybody"

 

True, but they belong to a club. And that club said you must follow these rules to play the game. The members of that club signe a piece of paper stating they would follow the rules of the club!

They don't have to be a member of that club because the club doesn't own them.

 

You wanna play the game, either follow the rules or quit.

 

And I don't see it being predjudiced any more than the states laws that say you can die for your country at 18, be arrested like an adult at 15, but cannot drink a ber after combat until you are 21.

 

Yeah, there is a reson for it, even if I do not completely understand or like it.

[Beavah]

Too many people think there are skilled enough, smart enough, ready enough to do "X". but they are not really ina possition to see themselves objectively.

 

I agree. Which is why da Scoutmaster should be selected carefully by the troop committee and da Chartered Organization, no matter what age they are. But if those other, more objective people decide the best person for the job is a 20-year-old, then that should be OK.

 

True, but they belong to a club. And that club said you must follow these rules to play the game.

 

But that's not da question. The question is whether it is justified for the club to set a particular rule or not.

 

A private club can set a rule discriminating based on various personal features or demographics. Da question is whether or not it should. Many a club has been embarrassed and ashamed of da rules they set that were based on prejudice of that type.

 

So what is consistent with our Mission and our "Timeless Values"? I submit that our entire program in Scouting is based on the belief that young people of all ages can exhibit real leadership, and should be allowed and encouraged to do so. Every document and publication we have, every speech and presentation we give extols the amazing abilities and achievements of young people! Da Oath and Law that we take resists unjust prejudices with every syllable we utter. Our duty to God demands fairness, our duty to country requires equality among adult citizens, the Scout Law rejects prejudice, our duty to others demands we help them use their full talents and our duty to ourselves demands we rise above our own biases.

 

That's how we instill da values of the Oath and Law. If a quiet, introverted young adult Eagle Scout isn't well suited to be an ASM but is a great organizer and support person, what good reason can there possibly be not to put da fellow on the Committee?

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Scoutfish]

The question is whether it is justified for the club to set a particular rule or not?

 

Yes! The club sets the rules. Nobody ever said that you or I have to join that club. That club does not owe us the oppertunity to be a member.

 

It is not crucial to our survival, a Constitutional right, nor is it even a God given right for us to be a member.

 

Is the club justified? Absolutely as they own and are the club.

 

Does it mean I have to like te rule? Nope! I can hate it all I want.

 

 

[Beavah]

Is the club justified? Absolutely as they own and are the club.

 

Nope. Because we're a club that believes in ethics and values and sound judgment.

 

And we teach young men and women that all choices, even those of "owners" - be they bank owners or business owners or club owners - should be thoughtfully evaluated on those grounds.

 

Choices based primarily on prejudice don't pass that test, nor do choices that are inconsistent with our mission and values.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Scoutfish]

"should be thoughtfully evaluated on those grounds. "

 

And you are saying they haven't based on that you do not agree with their conclusion ?

 

Thing is, I do not agree with all of BSA's rules either. Especially those that determine what constitutes Good Morals baed on a narrow view by only a select group of religions.

 

I have no issue whatsoever over a gay person being a leader any more than a heterosexual. Why has been debated too many times in other threads)

 

But again, it's not "OUR" club whan it comes to ownership, just because it is "OUR" club when it comes to membership and association with that club.

 

 

 

" nor do choices that are inconsistent with our mission and values" Yet another oxymoron in my opinion! Those values encourage some types or prejudiced while abhoring others.

 

And good morals are subject to the people, the culture and the time at which they are followed.

[MoosetheItalianBlacksmith]

We already in this forum have 4 solid "exceptions" of young adults being mature enough to take on adult roles. With Beavs SM that he talked about, with Scoutfishs firefighting stuff, and according to some other people on the forum both teacher/scout and myself. And I personally know of multiple other exceptions and Im sure other people do too.

 

Again we are not just talking about the SM role we are talking about Leader Roles in general anything more than ASM (since that all they allow young leaders to do). And the lack of roles leads to young leaders leaving, unfortunately its a fact.

 

In my opinion the age should be lowered so that people capable of doing roles are allowed to do them.

This wouldnt effect anybody because if you dont want young leaders in your troop that would then be up to you because at that point its up to the troop to decide whether the person is qualified to do the role or not. This as I said before, is what we do any way with adults over 21, so the only thing that changes is that nobody capable of doing jobs is excluded.

 

Just because somebody isnt 21 doesnt mean they arent a great candidate for any one of those positions if given the chance to do it. They may do it differently than an older adult would but theres nothing saying there way is wrong. And if they are a good candidate why cant you give them a chance?

 

[KC9DDI]

I, for one, am saying is that the rare occasions where a troop will be best served by an SM under 21 do not outweigh the occasions where a troop is best served by an SM older than 21

 

Yeah, I guess I didn't phrase that very well. I was trying to convey that I don't believe that a baseline guideline should be changed based on the rare occasions where installing an SM younger than age 21 is the best possible option. Though I wouldn't be opposed to the BSA being able to make exceptions to its baseline policy for those rare occasions.

 

LOL. Now you're really stretching. I suspect you're not really serious about this, eh? ... Advancement and uniforming are things, not people, and there is a difference. ... Scoutmasters are people, and they don't "belong" to anybody

 

No, Beav, its just an analogy or similarity, much like comparing the SM to an EMT or school teacher. Its not intended to try to show equality between two different concepts, right? Its much less of a stretch if you don't try to bring in all the unrelated copyright and trademark legalese. And we're certainly not talking about anybody owning or belonging to anybody else.

 

Does the BSA have any interest in making provisions to ensure that its program is delivered with some baseline level of consistency and quality, other than legal protection of its words and ideas? Are there any national requirements that are not based on trademark and copyright? I would say yes. And that one way that the BSA can help to set a baseline standard for its unit-level program is by making some baseline national requirements for the qualifications of the leader responsible for delivering that program at the unit level.

 

An emancipated minor is an adult in the eyes of the law.

 

Not quite. An emancipated minor is able to enter into some legal contracts without parental approval, and is legally no longer in the custody of his/her parents. The specifics vary somewhat from state to state, but the emancipated minor typically must still attend school up to the appropriate age, may not be able to marry until reaching a certain age, etc. Not really anything relevant to determining suitability for a given leadership role in the BSA.

 

I submit that our entire program in Scouting is based on the belief that young people of all ages can exhibit real leadership, and should be allowed and encouraged to do so.

 

Absolutely. But there's more to the SM position than exhibiting leadership. Young adults are welcomed and encouraged to take on other leadership positions until they develop some additional experience and objective age difference, at which point they will be better qualified to hold an SM position.

 

And again, Beavah, the question of consistency. How do you respond to age requirements for school teachers based on grade level? On restaurants giving senior discounts? The age of candidacy in the United States? On auto and health insurers treating people differently based on age?

 

And I guess why should the age of a legal adult be set to 18 at all? Surely there's 17 year olds that have the level of maturity found in a typical 18 year old.

 

And, looking at this only from the legal perspective, is there any reason that an SM could not be a minor, provided that a legal adult is available to sign whatever paperwork needs signing?

 

Again we are not just talking about the SM role we are talking about Leader Roles in general anything more than ASM (since that all they allow young leaders to do).

 

Very true. I think there are some excellent reasons to put a bit of an age buffer between the SM and the oldest youth members of the troop, but I can't think of any good reason to apply the same standards to the committee. I agree with you there.

 

And the lack of roles leads to young leaders leaving, unfortunately its a fact.

 

Now this I'm not so sure about. How many young leaders are we talking about? Do we think that if we allow young leaders at a national level to take on the SM position, that we might also see a number members and leaders leave the organization? Pure speculation, but how would those numbers compare?

 

[Beavah]

Though I wouldn't be opposed to the BSA being able to make exceptions to its baseline policy for those rare occasions.

 

Well, then I think we're done!

 

Does the BSA have any interest in making provisions to ensure that its program is delivered with some baseline level of consistency and quality

 

Goodness gracious no! When have you ever seen that happen?

 

The BSA does not supervise unit programs. If it did, then it would be liable for unit programs and the actions of those running unit programs. The BSA regularly asserts as a matter of fact that units are owned and operated by Chartered Organizations, eh? So as a matter of law it is the role of the Chartered Organization to supervise and ensure "quality." The BSA offers some tools like JTE to help with that, but using them or not is up to the unit. In fact units are free not to use advancement, not to use da uniform, ignore patrol method, be adult-run, and so forth and so on.

 

The BSA does have an interest in protecting the reputation of its program and its copyrights and trademarks. So it has an interest, for example, in its copyrighted and trademarked awards, like Eagle Scout, and da use of its name and insignia. It also has an expressive interest in the faith and sexual preference of the adult leadership. But all those are very different things than ensuring uniform program quality, eh? Da BSA doesn't do that.

 

An emancipated minor is able to enter into some legal contracts without parental approval, and is legally no longer in the custody of his/her parents.

 

Yah, yah there are some subtleties in some jurisdictions. Not mine as it happens, but perhaps yours. Describin' those nuances can go on and on, and none of it is particularly relevant to da question at hand, which is whether the young man or woman can make and be responsible for their own decisions.

 

How do you respond to age requirements for school teachers based on grade level? On restaurants giving senior discounts? The age of candidacy in the United States? On auto and health insurers treating people differently based on age?

 

I don't. None of those things are relevant to da question at hand.

 

But there's more to the SM position than exhibiting leadership.

 

Yah, so you keep saying. More to being a Scoutmaster than being a teacher, or firefighter, or pilot, or social worker, or a nurse, or a parent, or even a scoutmaster in any other country. Who'd have thought?

 

So tell us clearly. What is it about being a Scoutmaster in da U.S. that is so all-fired challenging and unique? What makes it so vastly different from all of da other things society allows young adults under age 21 to do?

 

I don't think there is anything, eh? Which is what makes this an issue of prejudice rather than prudence. But I'm all ears!

 

Beavah

 

 

[SeattlePioneer]

>

 

 

Hello Beavah,

 

 

You keep returning to this bias over and over again, but you are unable to answer the logical problem this bias creates.

 

For the third or fourth time, no one is going to say that someone magically becomes competent to fill a position on their birthday but is objectively incompetent the day before.

 

But that's true on someone's 18th birthday and their 16th birthday and 14th birthday too. Your argument can't escape the conclusion that every age based restriction should be abolished for the same reason.

 

A 14 year old Scoutmaster? Leave the issue open for the committee to decide ---- perhaps a committee of other 14 year olds?

 

This reprises the 1960s film "Wild In The Street" which proposed to examine how this kind of argument would lead to a fourteen year old voting age and a 25 year old President of the United States:

 

 

In the end, younger children yet bitterly resented that they weren't eligible to vote, using the same line of argument.

 

It may be that BSA will decide to reduce the adult leadership age, and if they choose to do so I wont object. Neither do I find your "discrimination" and "prejudice" arguments persuasive at all.

 

Freedom of association is the fundamental liberty at issue here.

 

Freedom of speech is another fundamental liberty, but despite that you aren't permitted to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. But the fact that there are a few limitations on a fundamental right doesn't allow you to tear down the fundamental right based on a few exceptions.

 

Neither should we be influenced to abandon our freedom of association based on waving the red shirt of hot button language like "discrimination" and "prejudice," which even you concede doesn't limit BSA's discretion on this issue.

 

BSA has the privilege and responsibility to define membership requirements. "Discrimination" is the essence of the freedom of association, a fundamental right. It is the JOB of private organization to set standards for membership ---- to discriminate. We have stigmatized discrimination in this country, but it remains one of the most vital and important characteristics of all private organizations.

 

Of the enormous variety of ways private organizations discriminate every day, only a very few have been recognized as exceptions which cannot lawfully be enforced, just as there are only a handful of restrictions on freedom of speech.

 

I have no objection to BSA deciding that they CHOOSE to lower the minimum age. I have every objection to your contention that they have some moral obligation to do so. They don't, and they need to resist any claim that they do.

[moosetracker]

Well I have not said much for a few pages.. Part of it is, that 2 people in this debate can physically swat at me..

 

This argument of under 21 SM & CC for me always go personally back to the two young adults in question and our unit in question..

 

Though the young people are very very confident, and have exceptional skills to do alot of things.. The unit is very, very dysfunctional, and has a few people, who I think all are good at heart and are trying their best (at least I hope).. But are screwing things up royally.. There are also not enough parents and adults who should be stepping up who are stepping up, leaving the need for any warm blooded body..

 

I can agree with the leaving the baseline for SM & CC at 21, with an exceptional override that needs to be reviewed at the council/District level.. And maybe to a point where it is more than just reading a piece of paper.. It would require a visit..

 

For sure my son would be 10 times better then what we currently have for SM, if just looking at that job.. But the dysfunction of the committee, and the adult out & out wars we get into, maybe it is as a mother, but I just don't like them being a part of.. I think they learned a lot from this last go round, and some of their belief in trusting people at a base level has been lost..

 

Still with this go round, there were 3 adults involved in this vote thing, the decision was made, the fallout happened.. And 2 of the adults tried to get out from under by throwing one under the bus as the sole person.. The scapegoat.. I just don't trust this adult leadership.

 

If the rest of the adult leadership is in place to support the young SM or CC, and a visit to the troop and a talk with the young person and the rest of the adult leadership finds this to be true.. Then I have no issue with the 18 t 21 SM or CC.

 

As stated earlier, as for being on the Committee and having a vote, they age should be 18 & up there is no reason why it shouldn't be..

 

In fact a few years earlier we were looking a different just 21 person.. The troop was at a better time, it was just starting to go under with the current SM's influence.. My husband and the UC were in full support of him, his father and one other guy would have come back to the committee to support him, I was thinking of returning also, my son & his fianc would have supported him, he would have had 5 older adults and younger adults as a support network. The dysfunction of the rest of the adults was not so apparent.. Had this man been under 21, I would have still said great candidate.. If my son & Fianc had this adult support network around them, I would say they would be fine in these positions under 21.. If I still was not aware of how dysfunctional the other adult leaders were.. But, with the COR & CC I would be hesitant..

 

Don't know if a visit by a district member would see the whole thing, but they should be able to tell somewhat how well the unit is currently running by the program they put on.. There just needs to be something better then "Warm body.. We will take it.."

 

I don't have any problem imagining a unit with a healthy sprinkling of 18 to 21 yos involved with over 21's putting on a great and healthy program by being in whatever role they are best suited to, if the program is healthy.. This is what is called continuing the mentoring process for the youth up through 21 by allowing them to associated with good role model older adults.. Like everything, they learn more by doing not watching.. But you should not throw 18 to 21 year olds into a situation where they are taking on the sole responsibility, because the rest of the troop is either in names only with no real people in the jobs, or they are totally dysfunctional changing rules and breaking promises, and offering little to no support.

(This message has been edited by moosetracker)

[MoosetheItalianBlacksmith]

Seattle Pioneer: Stop with the 16 and 14 year old stuff. Well all know nothings ever going to change with them as do they and theres no issues there. They are Scouts until the age of 18.

 

As scouts they have choices to be patrol members PL, APL, SPL, ASPL, Scribe, Historian, Quartermaster, Librarian, ECT ECT ECT.

 

But after 18 they become adult leaders. Right now they have one choice ASM or leave.

 

So why do we go from giving the boys all types of responsibility to giving the young adults none. and why is it the position we are allowed to take at 18 is the one where we work directly with the boys if the issue is that we are not old enough to be taken seriously as adults. Instead of one the committee where we are helping out but not really in direct contact with the boys.

 

 

KC9DDI: Ive talked to lots of scouter parents and college kids that were in scouts and have had long conversations about lots of scouting things but one thing I always like to talk about just because I personally find it interesting is why they left scouting in the first place. Ill narrow to people who made it to their 18th birthday for convince sake. I will admit that some times it has to do with other issues such as family problems and or going to college. But a lot Say they stayed in as an ASM for awhile and got BORED. If the reason was college then I tend to go on to ask why they didnt find another troop to join out where they were going to school. Answer is usually either was too busy or that they were not thrilled with what position they would be forced to hold.

 

Im a huge scouter I talk about it to a lot of people and I learn a lot. SO no its not the only reason we lose bright young minds that we have been training for years but thats sure a big one.

 

MooseTracker:

 

You have a nice hybrid idea I would prefer if they just dropped the age to 18 all together across the board but what your suggesting works too. But to add on she is correct about young people bringing their own support group. If youve ever noticed how young adults work now they can do things alone and are not afraid of doing things on their own but if they have a choice they will bring people with them. So quite often Young people bring a support network into the troop with them if they take on a massive job or they develop one from the people around them. People they feel are aptly suited to mentoring them and helping them out. They will not take the job from them but rather be an advisor.

 

But MooseTracker the dysfunction shouldnt be the only consideration to whether somebody can do a job or not. That would leave the boys high and dry and at the hands of the dysfunction and us young people are not as fragile as older adults tend to think we are. We can deal with a lot. The only thing is the more dysfunctional the troop is the more work that a person is gonna have to put in to get it functioning again. Be it a young adult or not. As always there are different issues with the different ages. But nothing that is unworkable.

 

[KC9DDI]

How do you respond to age requirements for school teachers based on grade level? On restaurants giving senior discounts? The age of candidacy in the United States? On auto and health insurers treating people differently based on age?

 

I don't. None of those things are relevant to da question at hand.

 

...

 

Yah, so you keep saying. More to being a Scoutmaster than being a teacher, or firefighter, or pilot, or social worker, or a nurse, or a parent, or even a scoutmaster in any other country. Who'd have thought?

 

So tell us clearly. What is it about being a Scoutmaster in da U.S. that is so all-fired challenging and unique? What makes it so vastly different from all of da other things society allows young adults under age 21 to do?

 

Well, Beavah, you can't have it both ways. Either the way the rest of society does things should affect the way we set qualifications for SM, or it should not. Let me ask you the same question - what is it about the SM position that it should not have an age requirement? How is it so vastly different from these other things which society puts age restrictions on?

 

moose - No swatting, I promise. I wouldn't even swat at Beavah. This is just a good discussion which strong arguments on both sides. Nothing wrong with that. This whole situation could be improved with a campfire on a warm clear night, maybe with some dutch oven cobbler.

 

MIB - The reason that I and others ask about how to address those under 18 is because the arguments made by those who say age restrictions are based only on prejudice need to be able to explain how they would apply their argument to people of all ages. I had previously asked if, from only a legal standpoint, there was any reason why an SM could not be younger than 18, provided a legal adult was kept around to sign the paperwork. Assuming that there is no legal reason, I would think people arguing along yours and Beavah's trains of thought would need to explain why we should not allow 16 or 17 year olds to be SMs, as long as they are otherwise qualified. A good argument must be logically sound. Of course it won't change anything, but this discussion almost certainly won't change the 21 age requirement either.

 

And I'm quite surprised to learn of the relative number of Scouters who leave Scouting due to not be able to be an SM before 21. I've personally never heard a single person who has left Scouting before 21 give that as a reason, but I guess you've come across several such people. Could I ask how that number compares to the number of over-21 Scouters who leave Scouting due to their not being an SM position available in their area, or not being selected for an SM position?

 

And how does an ASM have no responsibility? It sounds like those troops aren't making very good use of their ASMs (prejudiced against ASMs?)(This message has been edited by KC9DDI)(This message has been edited by KC9DDI)