21 As Required Age For Unit Leaders

[Twocubdad]

I don't disagree OT. If tomorrow national eliminates adult age requirements entirely, I'm not going to get too wound up -- as long as COs have the ability to exceed the national requirement.

 

But what if they did? Don't you think those 20yo "acting" SMs would be come 17yo "acting" SM? Don't you think those committees which now go the extra mile to find an older, qualified SM would shrug their shoulders and just go with the 18yo? I really don't know how the program would be affected, but I can see good and bad things coming of it. I suppose that should tell us the rule of Unintended Consequences will go into overdrive.

[moosetracker]

Beav - I don't know if I would call "Mother-Bear" protective mode prejudice.. I agree there is a lot of good reason to let the rule be anyone of adult age, instead of 21 with exceptions if the troop can show just cause for an 18 to 21 yo.. I agree the kids have the skills, and some may have the experience and skills to deal with parents who are either treating them unfairly due to their age, or will treat everyone and everything unfairly to give their precious the unfair edge over everyone else..

 

I can even name a part time job that my son had at 18 that he was treated unfairly.. Let's say he wasn't the winner of that, but got a lot of experience from it, enough so I can say he has seen the evil's of the adult world.. The working world is life, so learn to deal..

 

Still I will be Mother-Bear, and believe the BSA's mission is all about empowering the boys and the young adults.. They are not about using, abusing, or taking advantage of a situation with young people who will thrill at the chance of being given the opportunity and grab it. Therefore I will cling to my belief that if a SM or CC under 21 is wanted by a unit, the district should have a right to assure that it is for the right reasons..

 

Call it prejudice if you will..

 

I will not even try to comment on all that has been stated (I don't have the time to write a book on the subject.) So I will just make comment to a few things that caught my eye..

 

KC9 - Merit Badge councilors are 18 & over.. That is something that BSA holds up as their poster child of adult association. Even though I do think more adult association is formed with the adults within their troop.. But Beav has got those arguments covered.

 

I can tell you if the committee adults had their act together, our troop would be a good place for a young enthusiastic adult.. (18, 21, 25.. I don't care).. Over an older SM at this time.. Our ASM are all fairly new and have only run under the current SM who has taught them how to run a troop in Webeloes III mode.. The boys who have not left the troop, are either there to finish their Eagle and can't wait to finish and leave, or are just following the SM without any enthusiasm, sort of going through the motions as if in a school class (sorry teacher/scout.) My husband has the ability to take over, but not the enthusiasm he used to, it has eroded over time having all the other adult leaders with vision and drive having left, and supporting an incompetent SM.. I think someone said that it is bad to just choose a young SM over an experienced one.. But, the troop is in need of a shot of adrenalin, and so yes the thought was to utilize the adrenalin and ambition of a young adult. Have his energy and enthusiasm wake up the boys from the comma state they are in.

 

But I would disagree with disregarding the rules that are in place that state over 21 for SM & CC.. Yet I am fine with currently putting the 18 - 21 year olds into committee roles, as just personalizing your unit..

 

Call this my rational for how far down the slippery slope I will go... That is because of the lying going on with the paperwork for the recharter. If you are putting someones name on that who is truly not the SM or CC you are being dishonest.. Having ASM's doing committee functions, is done in units all the time regardless of age.. Giving SM's and or CC's, or other unregistered people a vote on the committee is also at the discretion of how a unit wants to run their committee, and is done all the time regardless of age..

[KC9DDI]

As far as the adult association argument goes, I suggested that the BSA may feel that its best if some adult leaders are 21 or older. As I've said several times before, those between 18 and 21 provide valuable service in certain adult leadership positions.

 

Beav - So if I'm understanding you correctly, the BSA may legally discriminate based on certain traits because they feel that these traits are not consistent with the Scout Oath and Scout Law. And its not really a discussion of "can" vs. "should" - for the purposes of this discussion we can agree that the BSA is justified in discriminating in this way, correct? So, can I suggest that its decision to discriminate to some extent of the basis of age is a result of it feeling that leaders of certain ages in certain positions is incompatible with the Aims and Methods of the Boy Scout program?

 

Again, I feel that objective arguments as to why the SM position is best filled by an adult over 21 have already been discussed previously in this thread. But I guess to recap:

 

I think one critical area to look it is how the Scoutmaster must work with the oldest Scouts in the troop - Scouts who may be only weeks to months younger than the Scoutmaster. Scouts who may be in the same high school classes as the Scoutmaster. This presents a variety of potential issues: how would you feel about a Scoutmaster having access to medical and other personal information about his peers (as would be common for overnight and long-term camping activities). How about a Scoutmaster who needs to be involved in a request for campership money made by the parents of one of his peers? Or a Scoutmaster who needs to step in and intervene in a youth protection-related concern regarding one of his high school classmates? Or just a generic disciplinary issue? I'm not saying that it can't be done, or that there's not a single 18 year old in Scouting that couldn't handle any of this, but is it really fair to either the young SM or his 17 year old peers to put them in these kind of positions? This is how its different from a school teacher type position - in a classroom there is a clear separation between teacher and student. I think that a responsible 18 or 19 year old teacher would try to limit his or her social interaction with his or her students outside the classroom as well. In Scouting, while you could argue that there is a clear separation between Scout and Scoutmaster, the difference is that the Scouts and Scoutmaster would often be forced to have social interactions outside of Scouting, and those interactions have a huge potential for carrying over into the Scout troop, and negatively impacting its operation.

 

I think we also need to consider the "sub conscious" expectations we have of the SM's role. I worry that often young adults in leadership positions are seen more as "older brothers", and less as mentoring adults. I feel that there is ample room for both types of adult roles in a Boy Scout troop - but I feel that the SM needs to be seen as something more than an "older brother." The SM needs to be somewhat of a "the buck stops here" figure in his troop when it comes to working with the youth membership. While its true that from an administrative side, the SM can rely on the committee, his UC, and the district/council structure for backup and support on certain issues, I feel that when it comes to working directly with the youth, he needs to be the "top dog." I don't feel that he would be serving either the youth or the parents in the unit well by having to rely on another older, more experienced leader for validation or for backup. You may argue that this is due to prejudice on the part of others in the unit, and that may be true, but that's still something that needs to be taken into account.

 

And, to reinforce what others have said, putting a young adult in this position will certainly lead to parents keeping their children from attending certain activities, or provoke them to leave the program all together. The generalizations upon which they base these decisions may or may not be valid, but, again, its something that will happen, and needs to be accounted for. And I've always thought that Scouting had more of an incentive to make itself available and accessible to youth members, rather than adult members.

 

Why should this decision not be all in the hands of the CO? Well, the BSA already places some requirements on the leadership selection process, in terms of character traits, as well as required training. I still don't understand how age is any different - be it justified by the Oath and Law, by copyright law, by the Aims and Methods or by recognising that the program the BSA wants in best delivered within a certain context. Also, CO's as a whole do not have a great track record for selecting quality leadership, as the decade worth of archived threads on this forum can attest to. I feel that by relying on some generalizations made in good faith based on age, the BSA can, as a national program, at least limit some types of potential problems and conflicts that will occur in the context of delivering a program to a wide age range of youth.

 

And yes, I know that there are 18-20 year olds perfectly capable of handling these issues in a responsible way. I would argue, though, that those people are a small minority, and that it may not really be fair to ask those people to take on some of these responsibilities in light of their other social interactions and obligations.

 

Beav - can I again ask you whether there is any strictly legal reason for requiring the SM to be a legal adult? I am personally not aware of any.

 

MIB and Moose - Speaking only for myself, I can see no reason to not allow 18-20 year olds to fill the CC and committee member positions. You've made very convincing arguments for that area.(This message has been edited by KC9DDI)

[qwazse]

MItBl -- For those that think Venturing is the answer to retaining these young adults its not ...

 

I wholeheartedly agree with you on this point. And rest assured I jump down DE's cases when they use lines like "Venturing is an open market" or "we can keep our boys longer". Because it simply is not the solution to retention problems.

 

But that doesn't mean it is not a solution. Just like restricting 18-20 y.o.s to ASM is not the solution for all the aprehensions that folks might have about someone just below drinking age being top dawg in a scouting unit. It is still a solution.

 

My experience with most 18-20 year old ASM's is that they do great job -- one might even say they were SM-ready, until they pull a bonehead move and nobody will forgive them for it. Whereas, that boy may get a second chance in a crew or ship and the transition to leader at 21 is more rock-solid.

 

So yeah, I tend to be universally cautious with young adult leaders well into their mid 20's. It's a lot easier to be pleasantly surprised by the "straight arrow" than to have unrealistic expectations about the whole quiver.

 

Even though I can't put my hand on it, there is something to be said for telling everyone that our principals will have lived at least 3 years as an adult in our society.

[lrsap]

First of all, as a daily reader and poster to these forums, I would like to say how pleasant it has been to see a thread this long full of honest opinion, but every post being written in a Scout-like, friendly manner.

 

My 0.02 in this issue is intended as a generalization, not specific to the parties involved in this issue. Actually, MIB, as someone who is going to be the SM of a brand new troop here in the extreme near future, based on everything I have read you would not only be a highly appreciated member of the troop, but I suspect you would get very tired from me leaning on you all the time.

 

The one argument I have thought of against an 18-20 year old SM that I haven't seen is one of the perspective of the young man assuming the role. I have seen advice given to Webelos den leaders to take some time off before jumping into an ASM role. This is to give the Cub Scout mentality time to clear the leader's mind. I suggest that in certain cases this could happen to a young man that has been a fantastic Boy Scout, clearly a leaders amongst his peers, that is suddenly in charge of a troop as THE MAN, being the SM the next day.

 

Properly administered, the program is about the youth. We are there to be noticed as little as possible. My goal for my new troop is to receive my first "what are you doing? the boys are doing everything." compliment as soon as possible. To go from being the focus of the program, receiving all the kudos and accolades that go along with it, to making that big step back can be difficult for anyone. To expect that kind of turn-around from an 18 year-old in one day is a lot to ask.

 

If you think about a well run troop, the boy leaders decide where to go, how to get there, what is needed, etc. Imagine the temptation of making this decision for the boys as an 18 SM just because "I know what to do. I've been doing it for ** years." That could lead the way from being boy lead to adult lead in a very short amount of time.

 

But like I said, this is a generalization. I would be on board with an approval process that goes to council level, not just the committee. I'm aware that we don't all live in councils of equal quality, but to leave this to just committee approval gives too much opportunity for chaos. Maybe even something along the lines of a BOR for the candidate. Just a thought, brainstorming for common ground.

 

Also, the scenario of the two attending HS together is an interesting spin on the subject. Perhaps a criteria of having graduated HS would be acceptable to all?

 

Anyway, MIB as someone who I will maybe never have the chance to meet, I would welcome the chance to share a spot at the campfire. I'm sure I this middle-aged guy could learn a lot from you.

[Beavah]

So, can I suggest that its decision to discriminate to some extent of the basis of age is a result of it feeling that leaders of certain ages in certain positions is incompatible with the Aims and Methods of the Boy Scout program?

 

Sure, yeh can suggest it. But then yeh have to explain where in da BSA literature that case is made. All of the BSA literature I'm aware of runs in the other direction. But I'm game, eh? Find us one BSA document anywhere that claims that young adult leadership is incompatible with the Mission to instill the values of the Oath and Law.

 

Then, if we actually find that da BSA makes such a claim, the next hurdle is to decide whether that claim is valid. Da BSA can claim the moon is made of green cheese, but that doesn't make it so.

 

I think one critical area to look it is how the Scoutmaster must work with the oldest Scouts in the troop

 

The oldest scouts in a troop might be 12. And, too, yeh might well find that a 19 or 20 year old student leader who was looked up to by his old high school mates might be an exceptional leader. Seems to me that da best people to be able to decide either of those things are the parents and committee and CO that run the unit.

 

People in businesses get promoted all the time, and find themselves supervising former coworkers. It's not that big a deal, really, especially if da coworkers aren't prejudiced against young people. But if your troop thinks it is, you're free to select an older SM. Why shouldn't someone else's troop be able to make a different decision?

 

I worry that often young adults in leadership positions are seen more as "older brothers", and less as mentoring adults.

 

Older brothers are mentoring adults, eh? Mine sure was for me.

 

I worry that often older adults in leadership positions are seen more as "parents" or "officials" and less as mentoring adults. There's a special magic to younger adults, eh? They don't tend to dictate rules, they tend to listen and guide. Yeh rarely see a young adult yell at kids da way yeh see with older adults. Plus, a young scout can see himself someday becoming a cool college kid, where he can't see himself ever becoming an old, married guy. In that way, da young folks are better role models.

 

I'll let yeh have your worry and let your troop make its own choice, eh? Why won't yeh let me have my worry and let my troop make its own choice?

 

putting a young adult in this position will certainly lead to parents keeping their children from attending certain activities, or provoke them to leave the program all together.

 

Putting some older adults in da Scoutmaster position certainly leads to kids leaving the program all together. So what else is new? Yeh seem to be assumin' a perfect older adult vs. a caricature of a young adult. I can't tell yeh how many older adult SMs I've seen destroy units.

 

And like I said, da same was once true of women Scoutmasters. Still is in some places. Causes parents to keep their kids home and quit. So what? That's da parents' problem, not the troop's. Sometimes yeh just do what's right and let those with biases go pound sand.

 

I've seen young early-20s Scoutmasters that da parents simply adored, eh? Young lads who grew their troop by leaps and bounds in a few years. They would have done da same thing had they been 19 or 20, without a doubt.

 

So yeh see, the assumption that age alone will cause what you describe is just that, eh? It's an assumption, and one based in prejudice no different than da same assumption made of women Scoutmasters. That's how prejudice works, eh? We find or make up reasons to support it, because we hold it so tightly.

 

Why can't yeh let other troops experiment? You keep your old SM, let a troop who wants a young fellow have one. Then we might actually see which does better.

 

Also, CO's as a whole do not have a great track record for selecting quality leadership, as the decade worth of archived threads on this forum can attest to.

 

Doesn't matter what their track record is, eh? It's their right and their responsibility. Either that or go back to Congress and ask for a different charter and amend da BSA's Bylaws.

 

This forum is an odd lens that can lead yeh astray. The vast majority of scouters out there are wonderful, dedicated, caring people. The notion that a few folks here have of fellow scouters runnin' around like half-cocked egotistical lunatics is just balderdash. Yah, a few are in positions that don't use their talents well, a few are old and tired, some get cliquish. No different than any organization.

 

But calling 'em low quality is just a lie that any scouter should be ashamed of. They are some of the finest people I have ever met.

 

I would be on board with an approval process that goes to council level, not just the committee.

 

Again, that's not da structure of the BSA, or somethin' it would ever agree to.

 

Chartered Orgs. use the scouting program to achieve their own goals. Council officials can't make judgments on who is best for an LDS Ward or a Catholic Church or a VFW post, eh? All those organizations have different goals. So it's up to those organizations to pick their leaders.

 

If you are a unit scouter, you are selected by, and work for and on behalf of the Chartered Organization, not the BSA.

 

That's also a part of da BSA's risk management, because it means that the council and the BSA itself are shielded from liability for unit scouting. We act as insurer only, and insurance has limits. If we are involved in the actual selection of unit leaders, then we become vicariously responsible for everything that happens in a unit, eh? If a claim blows through the insurance cover, now da council camp or Philmont are on the line. As da Catholic Church has shown us, that ain't so farfetched.

 

So you're not goin' to see councils interviewing and deciding on unit scouters. Nuthin' more than helping the COs by providing background checks and da like.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[KC9DDI]

Sure, yeh can suggest it. But then yeh have to explain where in da BSA literature that case is made. All of the BSA literature I'm aware of runs in the other direction. But I'm game, eh? Find us one BSA document anywhere that claims that young adult leadership is incompatible with the Mission to instill the values of the Oath and Law.

 

I'd point to the adult application which states, among other restrictions, that a Scoutmaster must be age 21 or older.

 

People in businesses get promoted all the time, and find themselves supervising former coworkers.

 

While working among other adults, not among children. A better analogy would be the hypothetical 17 year old high school student who becomes the school principal on his 18th birthday.

 

If we are involved in the actual selection of unit leaders, then we become vicariously responsible for everything that happens in a unit, eh?

 

But that's what the BSA is doing now, no?. The practice right now is that the BSA can and does accept or reject applications for adult leaders based on age, sexual orientation, and whatever other factors it choses to. So it is playing a part in selecting or rejecting candidates based on its view of what constitutes a quality leader. If its solely up to the CO, why do we even have an adult application that can be rejected by the BSA? Why not just have the COs report on the contact information of the leaders it selected to the local council, without giving anyone in the BSA organization the opportunity to reject its chosen leaders? Or are you saying that the BSA is currently putting itself into substantial legal and/or insurance liability based on these adult leader restrictions which have been in place for decades? And since we're now back to the insurance question, is there any more data to suggest or refute that this restriction is a requirement being passed on from the BSA's insurance carrier?

 

I've asked you a direct question regarding the legal requirements associated with being a Scoutmaster a couple times now. Maybe your ignoring these questions is an answer unto itself? Here's my theory: looking at this from a strictly legal issue, there is no inherent reason that a Scoutmaster needs to be a legal adult. A scoutmaster has no duties or responsibilities that cannot be performed by a qualified minor. So there's no real reason to require the an SM be a legal adult, right? As long as he is qualified to do the job, and he has the approval of his unit's CO, he should be golden, regardless of whether or not he is a legal adult, right? The BSA rejecting his application because he is not a legal adult would be akin to rejecting it based on an age guidelines, since neither issue affects his ability to do the job, right? You could even point out examples of minors taking on significant responsibility outside of Scouting - babysitting, driving, serving as a firefighter or EMT for some departments, etc.

 

Thus, Beavah, why would you only support a 16 year old as an SM if he is an emancipated minor? The only thing that differentiates an emancipated 16 year old from a regular 16 year old is a legal status that permits the one to enter into some contracts and be free from the custody of his parents. Issues which have no bearing on his suitability for the SM position. Even if we do look at this through the eyes of the law, the eyes of the law would be neutral, because no law is being broken, right?

 

So, my question is, how would your decision to consider an emancipated 16 year old for an SM position, while not considering a non-emancipated 16 year old, not be based on prejudice?

[Scoutfish]

One thing I have always felt isd this: I want the best qualified person for the job - to be the one with the job!

 

I ndo not believe in Affirmitive Action because it is based on the diversity of who has the job instead of who uis most qualified.

 

But ai will insert this too, as to be sure I am not misunderstaod: I do not believe in discrimination based on sex, race, ethnicity, or such either.

 

Way back wehn, AA meant nothing to me either way. But as a young man who was planning on a long carrer of being a firefighter, I learned all about city and federal ( marine Coprs Base) policies of following AA.

 

I along with 72 other people went to an physical agility test for a city fire Dept. After that test, only 12 of us were left. Then came several board of reviews, and deeper back groud investigations and checks( not neccisarrily cof the criminal type mind you). At the end, it was down to me and one oter person.

 

Both of us were given the standard "Thank you, but.." replies as the FD had to hire a minority woman in order to meet the AA quota.

 

Now, I do not hold it against the person who got the job..not their rule . But I hated the idea of the rule.

 

Nowe, it doesn't apply to every situation eirthert, but some jobs..Police, medical, EMS, Bomb squad, phamacists, etc,...

 

should not be subject to any AA requirements - it should be the best person for the job...PERIOD!

 

So in this case, I completely support MoosetheItalianBlacksmith - if he is indeed the best candidate. Or at vthe least, the best candidate of those who nvolunteered to step up.

 

But as a committee person, COR , or whoever I'd be in the position to make it happen...

 

I'd consider something just as entirely important to the survival of the troop:

 

Would the mom and dad's trust, support and allow their sons to be under the supervison of an 18, 19 , 12 year old or whoever it may be.

 

I mean, let's get real...ALOT of mom and dads do not trust their babies witrh 45 year old Navy Seals who do nothing but oversee an indoor Eagle Mill.

 

Sure, MoosetheItalianBlacksmith may be absolutely perfect for the job, but getting mom and dad to see it that way may be what's important!

 

 

[MoosetheItalianBlacksmith]

Everyone seems to be talking a lot about the getting parents to put their trust in young adults. Ive literally been the acting scoutmaster on multiple trips and my best friend another young adult was acting SM on another we had more people attend those trips then the ones run by our normal SM.

 

I know this may be an oddity and not admissible in the court of forum but its just showing that it really is not as big an issue as everybody thinks it is. Once people start to see that you are there you are responsible and you know what youre doing they relax and treat you like any other adult.

 

My recommendation for new crossover parents if they dont trust you as a young adult is that yha have a camp out where they are invited with the one proviso is that their boy tents with another boy and they are not leaders they observers at that point (unless theyve already done paperwork to become a leader). Then they start to see how the Troop functions and they see how you function as a leader. If they are still nervous after that then you tell them to fill out the paperwork and become an ASM or committee member and come to some outings.

Then you have both yourself and an over 21 year old there. This is another thing people seem to be forgetting. It is unlikely that even if you have a young SM that you older adults will be leaving scouting.

 

So #1 there will always be at least 1 other adult on an outing and # 2 the likely hood that the other adult is over 21 is very high. Especially since unless it changes that is a Tour Permit policy and one that I really dont see an issue with.

 

But even adults can lose boys when they take the SM position when the current SM we have took the role we mysteriously had 6 or 7 boy leave the troop. So the fact that its a young adult really doesnt change this fact.

 

 

 

 

Im sorry I dont understand the principle analogy. In all the schools Ive gone to the principle is just in charge of discipline and running the school you didnt see them except for that. To me that all powerful position behind the scenes position sounds more like the COR or CC.

 

Sorry I just dont see the correlation. The Scout Master position Is in front of people empowering the boys to run their own troop meetings and Troop in general so its a position that is an odd mixture of being in the front but being able to step into the background as well.

 

I just dont see that with the Principle analogy.

 

 

The SM needs to be somewhat of a "the buck stops here" figure in his troop when it comes to working with the youth membership. While its true that from an administrative side, the SM can rely on the committee, his UC, and the district/council structure for backup and support on certain issues, I feel that when it comes to working directly with the youth, he needs to be the "top dog."

 

Again young adults are not fragile and if they learned what they were supposed to from the BSA Program then they have the leadership skills that you trained them with. Some are natural leaders and some are not and have to develop a comfort to leading and their own leading style but they can all get the boys to listen to them if they are any good as a leader.

 

We had one Patrol leader that is in college now and when he started being a patrol leader he leader by yelling and screaming and trying to bully people into submission. But over time he learned how to finesse the situation and now you would swear he was a natural leader if there is any fooling around that shouldnt be going on he has the buck stops here. That was before he got out of the troop so again that particular thing is something that people should be able to learn right from your Troop program.

 

Now I myself am not ashamed to admit that I am not a natural leader. But I know how to lead and have developed my own personal style and people follow me and I have been mistaken for having natural leadership ability.

 

 

I worry that often young adults in leadership positions are seen more as "older brothers", and less as mentoring adults. I feel that there is ample room for both types of adult roles in a Boy Scout troop - but I feel that the SM needs to be seen as something more than an "older brother."

 

I have also already told you all that the boys do look at the young adults I know as leaders. But also as leaders they can relate too. Theyll come to us to talk after a meeting or during if there is nothing going on (yes thats how bad our meeting are). But if we tell them something its done first time. Once or twice weve had better luck getting them to listen then the adults. And Ive seen this in another troop that Im closely affiliated with as well.

 

Difference between a young adult and older adult is its enough of an adult to get response but not enough to get the rebellious teenager side. Ive heard the boys complain about being told what to do by leaders because they were old farts (sorry direct quote no offence meant) and it was supposed to be a boy led troop.

 

 

So as I said I would greatly prefer the age limit just dropped across the board and let the Troops and Parents and COR all decide what is best for their troop and their situation. But I also see merit in a hybrid program listed by Moosetracker and Oak Tree awhile ago. In one all but CC and SM are 18 and the others are allowed by exception. In the other all but SM is at 18 and thats allowed with exceptions.

 

I also dont have an issue with the out of high school exception since this may be a problem if they are still actively going to school with the scouts but at 18 your usually senior moving on to college so its not that big of a deal to wait just that period of time. That to me is another acceptable arrangement.

 

And thank you Irsap for the compliments.

(This message has been edited by MoosetheItalianBlacksmith)

[Beavah]

I'd point to the adult application which states, among other restrictions, that a Scoutmaster must be age 21 or older.

 

Nope. That doesn't make the case that you suggested. By contrast, you can find any number of places where we make the case for our other restrictions.

 

I'm surprised you'd make such a weak and completely unsubstantiated claim, but then I can't even figure out the bit about children as Scoutmasters, which is why I haven't commented on it. Yes, the BSA can rename the Senior Patrol Leader job "Scoutmaster" and can call the adult leader "Advisor". So then da "Scoutmaster" can be a kid. Otherwise the responsibilities require a legal adult.

 

But I reckon that these things along with the comment about low-quality leaders means we've hit da end of the discussion. Folks who hold prejudices always come up with reasons in their own mind why da way they see other people is the way it must be for everybody else. Neither argument nor example can sway them.

 

Our old adult brains, yeh know. They get hard-wired in and don't learn well anymore. Da way we learned it once upon a time is da way it must be. Morse code should be required for all license classes above Novice and all da rest, eh?

 

73

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[KC9DDI]

Beav - How many places does it need to appear? And why that number? How many of the examples of justifications for the other restrictions were around before those policies was challenged through the legal system?

 

but then I can't even figure out the bit about children as Scoutmasters

 

Its essentially a yes or no question - is there any legal reason to require that the role of Scoutmaster be filled by a legal adult?

 

Otherwise the responsibilities require a legal adult

 

So, "yes." But why is that? Which of the SM's numerous responsibilities require that the position be held by a legal adult? Strictly speaking, do these responsibilities need to be carried out by the SM, or would a 18 year old ASM or committee member suffice?

 

Folks who hold prejudices always come up with reasons in their own mind why da way they see other people is the way it must be for everybody else. Neither argument nor example can sway them.

 

Sounds like a bit of self-fulfilling prophecy, eh? If we're playing fast and loose with the definition of prejudice, we can just use that as an excuse for disregarding the other side's arguments. Its what allows us dismiss the generalizations made by others, while still being justified in making our own, right? You're begging the question - I'm prejudiced because your arguments aren't changing my mind because I'm prejudiced.

 

And I absolutely can be swayed by arguments - when those arguments are something with more substance than "awww, you're just prejudiced!" And I've tried to point out very clearly and specifically where I see an inconsistency in your argument. I may be handicapped by not having your in-depth knowledge of the legal system, so some of what may be obvious to you is not to me. But I would think that if you have a valid consistent argument, it should be easy to show why, for example, the BSA is justified in placing some general restrictions on adult membership to further its program, despite the significant legal/insurance liability, but cannot restrict based on age. Or why, based on our national charter, the BSA should not yield all responsibilities for vetting leader applicants to the CO. Or why the 16 year old emancipated minor can be the Scoutmaster, but the non-emancipated minor cannot. Or why the SM position needs to be held by a legal adult at all. Saying "Just because" sounds an awful lot like what some have been calling "prejudice" around here....

 

(And as an aside, the novice license was the entry-level one that did require Morse code. They actually dropped the code requirement a few months after I upgraded to General. I've since forgotten most of it. :-)(This message has been edited by KC9DDI)

[SeattlePioneer]

>

 

Unfortunately Beavah, you seem to be the best example of this phenomena, since you persist in pretty much the same line of argument throughout this lengthy thread, including repeatedly describing those who disagree with you as being motivated by prejudice.

[BartHumphries]

"Which of the SM's numerous responsibilities require that the position be held by a legal adult?"

I think the original Patrol Leader Handbook said it best: http://www.thedump.scoutscan.com/patrolleader.pdf -- see pages 5 & 6.

The Sunday evening found them together again in the barn, and the Leader had not been wasting his time. He had re-read Scouting for Boys, and when they met the first thing he said was: 'Look here, chaps, I have been reading the book again and it talks about a Scoutmaster. I think that is what we want. He would have kept the policeman away!'

Well, that is one of the jobs of the Scoutmaster and is one of the reasons why your Patrol or Troop needs one; somebody who will arrange for you to carry out Scouting without fear of being interrupted.

As far as what age a person must be in whatever branch of Scouting they're in to be considered an adult, I really have no opinion on that, but that's why you have to have at least one "adult" around -- to keep the policeman away.