21 As Required Age For Unit Leaders

[moosetracker]

KC9 - I don't fear the forum members swatting, I argue all the time with this person or that.. I fear my son & fiance swatting (Physically) because they can..

 

I am somewhat in agreement with them & somewhat not, because I like allowing the 18 - 21 yo to do what they can, because they learn more by expirencing rather then watching. They can do a lot on their own at 18.. But, somethings benefit from good mentors.

 

I guess with me it is just looking at the organization as a whole. Venturing go to 21 with mentoring, but the crew gets to do similar troop positions but add on allowing them to do most of the committee work too, treasure, outdoor coordinator (Sorry I have been away from Venturing to remember all the positions, but remember it is a hodgepodge of the two.)..

 

The arguement for SM under 18 are that they are still the youth members of the troop. They have alot of postions to learn about leadership from..

 

My son was not saying that 18-21 yo's leave because they can not be SM.. They leave because they are pigon hold into one position ASM.. They cannot hold any of the other positions held by adults.. Many boys may enjoy the ASM position and can jump right into the changed status, if the troop does it correctly.. Some of the boys would prefer a more "behinds the scenes" positions.. Some might feel the need to go into the committee to get a different challenge, because the drop from being a productive youth member to and ASM in which it is far more of a supportive role, and for many energtic youth this is a sit back and watch, but no longer participate position.. They get board.. These people would be better feeling very productive in the committee, and get the expierence of how to be supportive there. Then they can take this knowledge back to becomeing ASM or SM after they learn the difference between participant to becomeing supportive of the participants, and can apply it effectively.. This can be learned quickly, or take some time dependin on the individual..

 

Bottom line ASM is not the right fit for all the 18 - 20 yo's just as when they were youth members SPL or PL wasn't the right fit for everyone either, some prefered Quartermaster or Scribe or Historian etc.. If it is not the right fit, the youth that are not comfortable with the fit will choose to leave..

[SeattlePioneer]

Hello Blacksmith,

 

 

>

 

 

I thought you wanted to GET RID of age limits! Why keep the age 18 limit for Scouts? Isn't that just as arbitrary as an age limit of 21?

 

As a matter of fact, adult leaders were eligible to earn the Eagle award at one time.

 

And of course Venturing allows youth members to age 21.

 

Suppose Scouting raised the age of leaving Scouting to 21 and kept the restriction on adult leaders at 21. Would that make you happy by keeping those other positions open for youth leaders? I don't think so!

 

 

[MoosetheItalianBlacksmith]

Moose tracker is right about that its not just about the scout master position and by not giving 18-21 year old responsibilities I mean the BSA.

 

We cant be the only one that finds it odd that you have an option to decide what you want to do right up until you turn 18 and then all of a sudden you no longer have options. Till you turn 21 that is then everything opens up to you as if at 21 you suddenly become intelligent again.

 

I have not really asked about people that leave because of scoutmaster positions not being available or not getting that position. Just havent thought of it. I asked the other question because I was interested in knowing why they left scouting.

 

And nobodys saying that there shouldnt be an age requirement we just feel that it should be the age at which you become an "adult in this program.

 

Sorry if this is brief its family time..but we may e off and on as we get some free time.

 

>

 

Think of it this way. Scouting has a hard time keeping people in starting at 16 due to girls cars sports and jobs. (As I said before I limited what I was talking about before to those that made it to 18). This is why Ventures was created was to try and keep those boy that werent "lifers" (people that will stay in scouting past what they need) in a little longer.

 

By age 18 youve figured out who the active scouters are and who wants to be there. But they are also ready to move on to new challenges such as college, full time jobs, family ect. How do we keep them offer them a new challenge allow them to take committee roles or other adult roles. Whatever is of interest to them.

 

So no raising the age to 21 wouldnt make me happy and would actually be detrimental to scouting as a whole. As by 18 they are off trying to find new challenges. If allowed those could be found right in the comfort of their own troop with people that will support them and help them out.

(This message has been edited by MoosetheItalianBlacksmith)

[MoosetheItalianBlacksmith]

Sorry the last message may have been confusing as the quotes I was using disappeared and everything else got italicized. So Ill try again. I know these all come from the same person and Im really not picking on you and I agreed with most of your last posting. Its just that I already said most of these and just wanted to clear them up.

 

I thought you wanted to GET RID of age limits! Why keep the age 18 limit for Scouts? Isn't that just as arbitrary as an age limit of 21?

 

No the point is to get rid of age restrictions on the ADULTS. And not it is not arbitrary. Everyone knows of the 18-21 year olds as Grey area scouters they dont know what to do with them because they cant do anything with them. Since they are not youth and not allowed to be full adults.

 

You change that age all of a sudden they are no longer Grey area scouters and full fledged adults.

 

Suppose Scouting raised the age of leaving Scouting to 21 and kept the restriction on adult leaders at 21. Would that make you happy by keeping those other positions open for youth leaders? I don't think so!

 

Think of it this way. Scouting has a hard time keeping people in starting at 16 due to girls cars sports and jobs. (As I said before I limited what I was talking about before to those that made it to 18). This is why Ventures was created was to try and keep those boy that werent "lifers" (people that will stay in scouting past what they need) in a little longer.

 

By age 18 youve figured out who the active scouters are and who wants to be there. But they are also ready to move on to new challenges such as college, full time jobs, family ect. How do we keep them offer them a new challenge allow them to take committee roles or other adult roles. Whatever is of interest to them.

 

So no raising the age to 21 wouldnt make me happy and would actually be detrimental to scouting as a whole. As by 18 they are off trying to find new challenges. If allowed those could be found right in the comfort of their own troop with people that will support them and help them out.

 

But we've explored reasonable ideas on why that might be a problem in this thread, and I don't think we have the information or expertise to resolve the issues raised

 

This is the new one that was not on the last post. Yes some reasonable things as to why it shouldnt be done have been brought up but there have been very solid reasons as to why young adults should/ or could be allowed to be SM or CC.

 

 

 

 

Heres another question as a fellow scouter(from me to everybody out there) following the scout law and having been in scouting a long time if somebody decided the best person for one of those positions was somebody between the ages of 18 to 21.

 

Would you HELP them in any way you could and try to be there for them if they needed you. Would you be LOYAL to the committee or COR that put them there and to the person doing the job. Would you be FRIENDLY to them so that they have somebody they know they can come talk too or just to be a smiling face to brighten their day and make them feel better. Would you be courteous and not try to get in the way of their job all the time and not put them down for doing the job. Would you be BRAVE enough to accept the change and work with the young adult and listen to what they have to say. ECT.

 

I dont need an answer to that question but its something to think about if you truly believe in the scout law then even if a 21 year old is the best candidate and put in the position youll be there for them.

 

Whether its your favorite candidate for the job maybe a different situation but you would be there for them. And if you have multiple people that believe strongly in the scout law as demonstrated above then adults dont have a reason not to listen to the young adult they can listen to the other people following the young adult.

 

But dont take this to mean that the young adult cant deal with adults and make them listen on their own Im just showing another reason that it is not an issue for people to be in those roles.

 

Im not trying to start anything again just throwing some more info out there.

(This message has been edited by MoosetheItalianBlacksmith)

[Beavah]

Well, Beavah, you can't have it both ways.

 

Nah, KC9, yeh need to understand relevance in argumentation. That the military has a prohibition on women in combat is irrelevant to an argument that women should be denied access to engineering schools. Saying "look, in society we use gender to prohibit some other things!" is irrelevant to da question of whether it is just to use gender to decide on engineering admittance.

 

Your only remaining claim to justify an age restriction on being SM is that there is something so unique about da Scoutmaster role that it requires something more than being an adult approved by the troop committee and chartered org. So to make your argument, you have to justify that claim, eh? Otherwise your claim fails. Just as we'd expect anyone who proposed that adult women can't be engineers to justify that claim. There are arguments that adult women shouldn't be engineers. I listed a few. But those arguments have failed.

 

So, again, unless you can clarify what is so all-fired special about the position of Scoutmaster that it requires an age restriction more than being an adult, what you have described is prejudice against young adults, pure and simple. You are judging a person without just basis for doing so.

 

Now I'll throw you one bone, eh? In some jurisdictions, it is illegal age discrimination to set auto insurance rates based on age. Insurers in those states use years of driving experience, which is far more rational. I agree with that statute.

 

Which raises an interestin' question. In those same states, it would be illegal for the BSA to impose an age requirement other than adulthood on the Scoutmaster position if it were a paid position. So if da Chartered Organization establishes a policy that they pay the Scoutmaster $1 a year, the BSA age-21 rule is voided. And remember, unlike da Dale case, we do not have an expressive association interest in claiming that young adults are incapable of taking on leadership roles in da program, so there is no cogent rationale for Constitutional challenge.

 

How do yeh like them apples?

 

I think moosetracker's age biases are showin' as well. I agree with MoosetheItalianBlacksmith that young people really aren't that fragile. I expect they'd deal with dysfunctional adults about as well as any of us. Seriously, lots of young people serve in waiter/waitress jobs, where they have to deal constantly with dysfunctional adult behaviors! In fact, my guess would be that they'd be more rational about it than da average adult committee member whose ego often gets wrapped up in things.

 

As a commish I once worked with a unit that had a young 22-year-old Scoutmaster and a dysfunctional unit committee. Old SM quit over it; but what happened was the young Scoutmaster after a few months just stopped attending or paying any attention to da Unit Committee. He and some other young scouters ran the program and communicated directly with da parents themselves while the committee argued with each other. If da treasurer didn't reimburse them the SM just billed the parents directly. Gradually, people realized da committee was irrelevant and fewer and fewer people showed up for committee meetings. Da troop did fine. As commish when I got it, I just convinced da IH to dissolve the old committee and appoint the folks who were really doin' the job. Can't remember if any were under da official age, but it really didn't matter. I must say, that was one of the most effective "unit transitions" I'd ever seen.

 

MtIB is also right on da bit about how young people tend to pull in other young people, eh? I've seen that many times over the years. Seems like every time yeh really give a young adult responsibility, he or she draws in at least 3 more young adults to help out. I've also found da young adults are more reliable. Unlike older adults, who will often make promises and not deliver, the young adults who make promises will bust their buns to deliver.

 

We've been trainin' these young people for 4-7 years or more, eh? Why wouldn't we use 'em? What is so all-fired special about da SM role that it is fundamentally different from all of the many jobs and roles we as a society allow young adults to do?

 

Equal pay for equal work. Equal opportunity for equal ability. Welcoming our young alumni as adults. These things are moral issues, eh? And it's right to expect da BSA to live up to 'em.

 

As an aside, a Happy Passover and a Happy Easter to all of you, eh?

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[SeattlePioneer]

>

 

 

I suspect that the primary reason why Scouts drop out is that they have completed the journey that attracted them to Boy Scouts in the first place: usually a desire to learn to be competent hikers and campers --- the Trail to First Class.

 

Youth who stay longer either have more hiking and camping experiences they want to do, want to experience the greater challenges of more sophisticated and adventurous outings, or they adopt new goals and challenges they wish to pursue.

 

It is the last group I suspect that might be attracted to the idea of becoming Scoutmaster or other adult leadership positions. A few Scouts of this stripe are probably the ones who participate in Order of the Arrow on a significant scale, as an example.

 

And of course were BSA to decide to reduce the age for adult positions, I would be glad to support those new leaders. Indeed, I've considered looking for ways to encourage youth leaders to assist with various district activities such as membership recruiting and Cub Scout day camp.

 

I'm promoting the idea of having packs and troops take ownership of a Cub Scout Day Camp activity --- nature study, wood working, cooking or some similar thing, and presenting that activity each year at day camp. Boy Scouts could participate on the day camp committee, decide on a program and then staff it with youth leaders and adults as needed. ( Great way to showcase a troop program for boys who will be looking for a troop to join, too).

 

Troops in my district organize the district Pinewood Derby and a Webeloree, too. These tend to have adults taking a primary leadership role in organizing the event, but there is no reason youth leaders couldn't take on that role if they wished to do so.

 

However, I don't see much of a grass roots demand for more such opportunities by youth leaders. If the opportunity were created more might take it, but I see nothing like Blacksmith's initiative in proposing to be district Popcorn Kernel. That is a rare initiative by a youth leader.

[SeattlePioneer]

>

 

 

Hello Beavah,

 

Once again you fall into the trap of stigmatizing "discrimination" as being something morally wrong. The idea attracts you like an ant attracted to honey.

 

 

I again remind you that the fundamental liberty is the freedeom of association which allows people and institutions to decide who will be permitted to join.

 

Those who set up voluntary organizations have wide freedom to set the terms of membership. There are a lot of good reasons why that funadamental liberty is important.

 

I earlier compared that to freedom of speech, another fundamental liberty. But there are a few limitations of freedom of speech, such as not shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater.

 

But you don't use those few limitations to launch a general attack on the funadamental liberty. You don't say, well, you can't shout "fire" in a crowdeed theater," therefore it's morally wrong to do any kind of shouting in a theater, crowded or not.

 

That's what you keep doing over and over again. You want to require BSA to justify it's age restriction, which it has NO obligation to do.

 

Blacksmith finds it tedious for me to point out that there is no downward point at which your argument against age restrictions would naturally stop. I've pointed out how the "Wild in the Streets" movie dramtizes that point.

 

The simple fact is that BSA doen't NEED to justify it's policy. It has the authority to adopt such a policy as part of the fundamental right of freedom of association.

 

You can ALWAYS ridicule an age restriction or limitation by pointing out that a restricting someone from doing something one day when it's permitted the next day is arbitrary. Yet age restrictions are ubiquitous in society and government.

 

There are rational reasons why BSA has a wide variety of age tests in it's programs. We have discussed several possible reasons why such tests may be there in this thread. You may decide the reasons aren't good enough for your taste, but your taste isn't the issue. BSA is entitled to decide the issue for whatever reasons seem appropriate to them. They don't even owe you an explanation of their reasons and purposes.

 

 

[Twocubdad]

This thread has gone from the sublime to the ridiculous and back a couple times now.... actually it hasn't been sublime in a few pages now, but.....

 

You all have completely ignore to elephant in the room. Parents.

 

You're telling me parents will not take issue with an 18-year-old as THE unit leader? You've ignored the whole emotional response of parents being asked to send their kids off into the wilderness for days with another kid. All your rational, reasoned arguments will go right out the window when the parents show up for a weekender and no one on the trip shaves regularly.

 

Look, I'm over 50 and have been a Scout leader for nearly 15 years. We typically travel with a half-dozen ASMs who aren't far behind me in age and experience, and a few ahead. Yet we constantly deal with parents who are afraid to sent Sweet Little Thing out with us. Every year we have at least one new scout dad go camping with us with no interest in becoming an ASM or helping with the program. Sooner or later it comes out that he's there only because his wife won't let their Scout go without him. Do you really believe a 19yo SM with 6 months time in position will allay those parents' fears?

 

Last fall, we planned a campout at our Scout reservation where the adults would camp in our regular campsite but the patrols would fan out to the far corners of the camp, some a mile or two away. Holy Smokes! I can't tell you how many parents I had to talk down off the ledge. We were on Scout property with all the usual security and support, our usual complement of adults were still in camp just a little further away than usual, and we allowed the PLs to take cell phones for emergency communications (plus all the guys who smuggle them in anyway.) And still, we had a much smaller than usual turn out. I think you're all under-estimating the nervous-nelly parents.

 

Secondly is the ability of an 18yo to handle difficult parents. I've had numerous moms leave Scoutmaster conferences crying. I had one dad get off work early just to come tell me how big a son-of-a- **** I am. I've discussed serious youth protection issues with parents. I don't know many 18-19yos who have the chutzpah to go toe-to-toe with difficult parents. Those who do, don't have the maturity to do so tactfully and guide the parent to the desired understanding.

 

Okay, let's look at the other side:

 

1 -- the parents are just prejudiced against young people. That's correct but irrelevant. The basis for the parents' decisions is not within our control or necessarily rational. That's just a given we must deal with.

 

2 -- "But 'Our' 19yo SM is exceptional and works well with the parents." Is it really useful to debate the far bottom corners of the bell curve? From a national policy point of view, does this come up often enough to warrant a new set of procedures for managing these exceptions? Interestingly, in nine years on these boards, I don't recall this coming up before.

 

3 -- But with a supportive committee and committed ASM, a very young SM can succeed. If you have such a great friggin' troop, why is there no better sucession plan that to go with a 18yo SM?

 

4 -- Everywhere else in the world 18-24yo Rovers run Scout troops. No, not really. Rovers don't run Scout troops in the way a BSA Scoutmaster does. They operate under the aegis of a Scout Group. But that's a whole 'nother thread.

 

It's not really related to my point about parents, but all the discussion about 18yo EMTs and teachers is irrelevant, too. Beav's example that excluding females from combat is irrelevant to a discussion of females in engineering school is on point. Gender is not the relevant issue, just as age is not the relevant issue between Scoutmasters, teachers, EMTs and firefighters. The relevant issue is the totallity of the circumstances in which they may find themselves. A more fitting comparison would be between a Scoutmaster and principal.

 

Edited to add:

 

If somewhere on the far corners of the bell curve there is a troop situation and an 18yo Scout who would be the best candidate for SM, I honestly don't have a problem with it. I'm generally in favor of greater local control within the BSA anyway. But I frankly have a hard time envisioning a unit in which that would be the case.

 

I absolutely would NOT support the appointment of a very young SM unless the troop's situation was such that he would be successful. Throwing a young man to the wolves in a weak or embattled unit is wrong on many levels. I would think in most cases it would be better to let the unit fold and find other troops for the boys. But if you have a strong unit with lots of support for the SM young or old, then why don't you have other options? To me the one factor is in inverse relation to the other. Unless you're just playing games with job titles with a young "Scoutmaster" and folks behind the scenes with the real power and control. But that's just baloney too.(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

[Beavah]

Yah, SP, I don't know how much more clear I can be, eh?

 

The Bill of Rights defines restrictions on the power of government, not on the freedoms of private individuals or groups. So every claim that you are makin' is just spurious. Nobody is talkin' about asking the government to sanction the BSA for the audacity of setting Scoutmaster registration to age 21.

 

Da argument at hand as BSA members is whether such a limit is justified and whether it is consistent with our mission and values. That has nothing whatsoever to do with "rights" and everything to do with our own morals. People have a right to be dishonest, eh? But they shouldn't be. Certain whites-only clubs have a right to set that as a condition of membership, but that's morally wrong and they should change that rule. This is da same. The BSA has a right to set age 21, but should it? It is entitled to make that choice, but it may be wrong for it to do so. In some ways it is a question of whether those of us who are votin' members of the BSA should act to amend that paragraph in the R&R, much as the votin' members of a whites-only club should act to amend that paragraph in their bylaws.

 

It has nothing to do with rights, but everything to do with values. So now are yeh more clear about da difference between legal right and moral wrong?

 

Blacksmith finds it tedious for me to point out that there is no downward point at which your argument against age restrictions would naturally stop.

 

Nah, I think MtIB probably finds it childish, not tedious, eh? It's been asked and answered. The downward point stops at the when the person is no longer an adult in the eyes of society and the law. A scoutmaster has to be recognized by the state as being someone who is legally able to make, and is responsible for, his or her own choices and decisions. No one has advocated for making a child the Scoutmaster. We just don't recognize two different classes of adult citizens.

 

Separatin' adult citizens into two different classes, one privileged, one not... gee, what does that remind you of?

 

The simple fact is that BSA doen't NEED to justify it's policy.

 

The BSA could implement a policy that because the BSA doesn't want to be seen as a paramilitary organization, no serving member of the armed forces or veteran will be permitted to serve as Scoutmaster. That's within it's rights. It wouldn't need to justify its policy.

 

But we as citizens and members would still have every right to debate whether such a policy was justified, whether it was a good idea, whether it unjustly discriminated against our servicemen and women. And I would have every right to call such a policy stupid, prejudiced, and not consistent with our Mission and our Timeless Values. If the BSA wants to refute a claim of prejudice, then it must explain how the discrimination against veterans is justified. As you say, there is just discrimination, eh? But when we discriminate against people as a group, sound ethics require us to exercise strict scrutiny of such claims.

 

So debate da issue on its merits, eh? Yeh seem to be sayin' "Daddy BSA said so. Don't talk back!" That's not a very effective argument from an adult.

 

Beavah

 

 

 

[Beavah]

Ah, TwoCubDad, now that's a rational argument! I was wonderin' when someone was goin' to get around to it.

 

While I admit it's rational, I confess I don't have much sympathy for it, eh? Yeh see, I've had to referee fights in a mess of units over adding a woman as an ASM or SM. It used to be prohibited, but now is not. Many parents believe for a variety of reasons that only men should be Boy Scouters. They are better role models, they are more outdoorsy, women will be inclined to sexually harass teenage boys, boys have too many women in their lives already, ... on and on. Holy Smokes! I can't tell you how many parents I've had to talk down off a ledge.

 

So, should women not be allowed to be ASMs or Scoutmasters?

 

Of course not. At some point, somethin' is just the right thing to do, so you do it. Those who harbor prejudices can suck it up or move on down the road. Even if they couch their prejudices in arguments about role-modeling and point to figures on female teacher sexual liaisons with teenage boys. Those arguments don't refute da prejudice, eh? They are simply a manifestation of it.

 

Honestly, I've never seen da problems you mention be any worse for young adult leaders than for older folks. In fact, quite the opposite. I have had many parents express serious reservations about the capabilities and fitness levels of older adults, and their ability to "carry Johnny out of the woods" if he needed it. So by that measure, young folks are better in parents' eyes.

 

Plus, odds are that a 19- or 20-year-old SM is goin' to be someone like MtIB, eh? A boy who has grown up through the troop whom everybody knows who has been leading people's kids on independent patrol outings and teaching skills for years. It's the unknown that breeds fear, eh? But such a boy is a known quantity. Remember, half of da parents in MtIB's troop voted for him as SM, eh? That's not a set of parents who are afraid of da capabilities of a young adult.

 

So again, if a troop committee and a chartered organization decide that an under-21 adult is the most skilled, best candidate for their troop community, why would we want to substitute an admittedly arbitrary restriction for their considered judgment?

 

Beavah

 

 

 

 

[KC9DDI]

Beav - What you're saying is that in wider society there are examples of where age restrictions are not applied, and thus should not be applied to Scoutmasters. I've pointed out examples in society where age restrictions do apply. You either need to show that my counter examples are not relevant, or we need to agree that this argument is not valid. If you chose the latter option, arguments for imposing an age restriction have been presented already throughout this thread.

 

I have been trying to avoid the gay/atheist issue, as that's just opening a whole other can of worms. But since you brought it up... You say the BSA has in interest in the faith and sexual orientation of its adult leaders, and thus may make some guidelines on BSA membership that cannot be overruled by the CO. Now clearly, a gay person could safely take a bunch of kids camping, as could an atheist. But the BSA doesn't allow that. This may not be the "official explanation," but I think its safe to say that the BSA does not feel that in the context of its "adult association" method, that youth are best served by associating with certain adults. Is it possible that the BSA also feels that quality "adult association" needs to occur by having some adults around who are of at least a certain age? If not, could you please explain again how the age requirement is inherently different from the sexual orientation and religious requirements? (And I should note that I'm not saying that I either agree or disagree with the sexual orientation and religious requirements, but I'm willing to operate under these assumptions for the purpose of this discussion.)

 

And, can I ask you again to draw on your legal background and take at stab at whether or not there's any strictly legal reason to require that the role of the Scoutmaster be filled by a legal adult? That is, would a BSA unit, or anyone in that unit, be in violation of any law should the person in the SM role be a minor (and not the emancipated kind, just a regular minor). Assume that there are an adequate number of adults aged 18 or greater around as well.

 

TwoCubDad makes a very good point as well, and is something that I tried to start to allude to several pages ago. I think this highlights the issue that the "problem", if there is one, may not be with the young adult in the SM role, but with others in the unit. This problem may be based on inaccurate generalizations or even on actual prejudice, but that is a problem that still must be allowed for and acknowledged.

[Twocubdad]

Beav writes, ... odds are that a 19- or 20-year-old SM is goin' to be someone like MtIB, eh? A boy who has grown up through the troop whom everybody knows ...

 

Not true.

 

One of the relationship issues I'm dealing with is that after six years as SM, none of the new Scouts or their families know me. They're coming into a troop with a leader they've never worked with before. Until now, the new Scouts coming into to troop knew me as the Cubmaster their Tiger year, if not longer. I was the guy at School Night Roundup, the fellow who guided the parents through orientation, organized their first Cub camping trips and was director of the district day camp. It was a long time ago, but there is still a basis of trust and a relationship there.

 

Now, so long removed from the pack, I no longer have those relationships with incoming families to build on. And an 18yo SM would be in the same positions. While neither of us have personal relationships to fall back on, I do have something an 18yo can't have -- experience.

 

All those knots and do-dads may not be worth a pitcher of warm spit, but they are a walking resume. I've taken every pertinent training course available to me and taught many of them. The district trusted me to run their day camp. The council trusted me to take a troop to jamboree. Region trusts me to teach at National Camp School. I've been responsible for the troop at summer camp seven times. I can count on one hand the campouts I've missed. I've dealt with homesick kids. I've taken boys to the ER. I've raised two sons. IT AIN'T MY FIRST RODEO and the parents understand and appreciate.

 

That 18yo couldn't possibly have those bonafides. That may not matter. I may still be the biggest dolt in the county, but after seven years, chances are I'd have been found out. No one's tested the 18yo yet. Not as a Scoutmaster, not as an ASM. Daddy always said never buy the first model year of anything. And rational or not, parents are going to look at a 18yo in that light.

 

Sure, I understand the experience and skills of a good Eagle Scout. But new parents don't. The toughest sell we make every year is selling new parents on youth leadership. I would be comfortable with a fellow like MIB taking the troop for a weekend. Shoot--pair him up with some do-nothing dad and you're legal. But even in our troop, my experience shows there will be parents who will keep their boys home that weekend.

 

And again, you're argument of prejudice fails your own relevance test. Race and gender are not relevant to SM performance. Experience and maturity are -- at least they are when we're talking about someone turning their son over to you for the weekend.

 

Listen, big picture, I agree with you. In particular, I don't understand why ASM is different than a committee member. BSA does a terrible job with young adults. Not just 18-20, but through Tiger-age parents. At World Jamboree I saw a young, 20-something couple in uniform with a year-or-two-old kid in a stroller -- also in uniform! How cute was that! But importantly, the UK Scouts had a program which cemented the relationship with that family YEARS before their child was old enough for Beavers/Tigers.

 

We slam the door on 18yo Scouts then offer them lame stuff like college reserves and Chi Rho (do I have that right?). Venturing somehow misses the mark, but putting kids in top-level positions of responsiblity for units isn't the answer either.

[Beavah]

What you're saying is that in wider society there are examples of where age restrictions are not applied, and thus should not be applied to Scoutmasters.

 

Nope. I'm sayin' in society we recognize that young people under age 21 are perfectly capable of doin' all the sorts of tasks demonstrating the same and greater maturity and judgment that are expected of a Scoutmaster. Therefore a claim of lack of capability on the part of those under 21 is refuted.

 

So let's flip it around, eh? What evidence would you accept that would demonstrate that it's OK for an adult under age 21 to be a Scoutmaster?

 

You have rejected the notion that the parents in the unit agreeing the under-21-year-old is the best candidate for Scoutmaster is enough. You have rejected the notion that the committee and chartered organization agreeing the person is the best candidate is enough. We have demonstrated that adults under age 18 serve successfully in every manner of field successfully, including long-term mentoring relationships with youth, social work fields, outdoors fields, and fields which entail significantly more stress. We have pointed out that it is quite possible that an under-21 year old has more experience leading youth groups, more experience in scouting, more experience in the outdoors, etc. than any available parent candidate for the position. We have shared research data that personality and judgment are well-formed at that age, and that interpersonal differences swamp any small age-based generalities. We have shared personal experiences that show under-21 year olds are perfectly capable of dealing with obnoxious, fearful, or prejudiced parents just as effectively as women were once able to deal with obnoxious, fearful, or prejudiced parents.

 

You have answered that Scoutmastering is different.

 

So what does it take?

 

If no argument or evidence will suffice, then I respectfully submit that is prejudice, not prudence.

 

TwoCubDad gives a passionate plea based on his own experience, eh? But if we're honest, not many adults in da BSA are TwoCubDads. If his qualifications were a requirement for Scoutmaster, we'd have very few adults of any age who could be SM.

 

I think his argument works in favor of under-21 Scoutmasters, eh? After all, a unit may have a 19 year old Eagle Scout, OA member, who is NCS trained and worked as senior camp staffer the last two years, is a LNT Master, is in his 3rd year of a teaching degree, serves on da district training team, who has hundreds of nights in the field working with young people and more danglies on his uniform than any adult in his unit. Indeed, relatively few Scoutmasters have that 19-year-old's bona fides. Their alternative could be a loudmouth second year parent who was once a cub scout, whom the other parents don't trust, and who only comes camping when it's good weather.

 

Justify to me telling the unit it should accept a 2nd year dad with no experience as Scoutmaster when the CO and the parents want the young adult above.

 

Is it possible that the BSA also feels that quality "adult association" needs to occur by having some adults around who are of at least a certain age?

 

Clearly not, since we routinely use under-21 year old adults as ASMs and camp program staff.

 

If not, could you please explain again how the age requirement is inherently different from the sexual orientation and religious requirements?

 

The BSA has no expressive association interest in age restrictions. Under Dale, the BSA is permitted to discriminate on the basis of faith and sexual orientation only because those things are incompatible with the Scout Oath and Law, and it is the mission of the BSA to instill the values of the Scout Oath and Law. So the operant question is da one I raised, eh? Is a claim that adults under age 21 are inherently inferior or incapable of certain tasks a fundamental principle of the Scout Oath and Law? Is that something it is our mission to instill in young people? If not, then why are we doin' it? Heck, it might even be illegal in some jurisdictions.

 

Just as an aside, the "Wild In The Streets" movie I referenced earlier...

 

Yah, I just love da way SeattlePioneer clings to a work of fiction as justification for his argument, eh? Yeh see some parents who can't wrap their brains around youth leadership cling to Lord of the Flies in the same way. Apparently they don't recognize it's both a work of fiction and an allegory about adult society, not about kids.

 

SP, we are stuck with society's legal definition of adulthood, eh? If yeh want to argue that should be different, take it up over in Issues and Politics. Da question at issue here is whether all qualified adults should be allowed to be Scoutmaster if chosen by the committee and chartered organization as the best candidate.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Beavah]

Oops, missed one. Better respond so da red herring doesn't resurface

 

Should Cub Scouts discriminate against the mentally retarded (by limiting age)?

 

No, they should not, and in fact they don't. The official policy is quite clear:

 

Youth members with permanent developmental, mental, or physical disabilities may be registered with units outside the normal age range. In other words a Cub Scout may be older than 11 years of age and a Boy Scout can be older than 18 years of age.

 

Many units are happy to serve boys with special needs outside of da normal age range, and the BSA provides special needs units to serve others when that seems the more appropriate course.

 

Beavah

 

[Oak Tree]

Twocub,

 

I happen to be in exactly the same position as you. This year's crossover Scouts and their families are the first ones that didn't know my as Cubmaster (unless they had an older brother in the pack).

 

I agree that parents would like some evidence the Scoutmaster knows what he's doing. In any well-established troop there is almost certainly someone around who has some experience. But an 18 year old could easily have more experience than any parent in a small and/or new troop. Your argument is a good one for why an experienced adult would *usually* be a better choice - but why do we need to preclude choosing the 18 year old if everyone involved agrees that he's the better choice? Are we afraid that a bunch of troops are going to put an 18 year old in charge, have him make bad decisions, and have the troop fall apart? Do we really think that troops won't try to select the best Scoutmaster for the job? Or that they will be swayed by his youth and enthusiasm? Maybe we should go back to having state legislatures select our senators, too, because people can't really be trusted to do this well on their own.

 

I too am missing what the actual argument is here. I see lots of things about why it would *normally* be better to select an older adult, but I don't see an argument about why it would *always* be better to have someone with more experience. Some people argue that the Scoutmaster should have a couple of years on the oldest Scouts. I don't concede this, but even if it were true, is it that hard to imagine troops with a bunch of young guys who want an 20-year-old Scoutmaster? He could easily have five years on the oldest Scout.

 

Essentially, you have to argue why you know better than the CO who would be the best Scoutmaster. You are somehow, in their best interests, stopping them from shooting themselves in the foot (feet?)

 

Right now, I'll bet there are troops out there who have an Acting Scoutmaster who is under 21. Someone has agreed to be the official figurehead Scoutmaster, but leaves the running of the troop to the Acting Scoutmaster. If there's a troop who really wants a young Scoutmaster, they're already doing it. Changing the official rule won't even change much in the way of troop operation, but somehow we're hell-bent on keeping it. I don't get it either.