The Boy Scouts of America is expected Monday to end its blanket ban on gay leaders — a turning point for an organization that has been in turmoil over the issue.As most people who read this feature know, the Benster is an Eagle Scout. I have been involved in Scout leadership at the Cub Scout and later Boy Scout level since Ben started in Scouts, for well over a decade. Is this a big change? Not as big as it would seem.
But some scouting groups will still be able to limit leadership jobs to heterosexuals.
To gain the acquiescence of conservative religious groups that sponsor many dens and troops, like the Mormon and Roman Catholic churches, the policy will allow church-run units to pick leaders who agree with their moral precepts.
Scouting has had a very good and effective Youth Protection program in place for the entire time Ben was a Scout. Any scouting organization that follows the guidelines properly can avoid problems with sexual abuse by adult leaders.
There are two keys to the program:
Two-deep leadership on all outings is required. A minimum of two registered adult leaders, or one registered leader and a participating Scout’s parent or another adult, are required for all trips and outings. One of these adults must be 21 years of age or older.Two-deep leadership provides another set of eyes to ensure that a scout and an adult leader aren't in a position that could become an issue. And to make it explicit:
One-on-one contact between adults and youth members is prohibited. In situations requiring a personal conference, such as a Scoutmaster’s conference, the meeting is to be conducted with the knowledge and in view of other adults and/or youth.The ban also extends to electronic communication:
The policy of two-deep leadership and no one-on-one contact between adults and youth members includes digital communication. Leaders may not have one-on-one private online communication or engage one-on-one in other digital activities (games, social media) with youth members. Leaders should copy a parent and another leader in digital and online communication, ensuring no one-on-one contact exists in text, social media, or other forms of online or digital communication.I have served as a merit badge counselor, which requires me to communicate with scouts concerning the progress in earning the merit badges they are seeking. Whenever I need to communicate anything to a scout, I always copy the scoutmaster and/or the scout's parents in the communication. We take these guidelines seriously.
I will always recommend Scouting. It's a great program and provides life lessons that endure.
44 comments:
Shouldn't the leaders be expected to live up to the same Oath, including "morally straight"? I wouldn't let my kids be Scouts knowing the leader was gay, simply because being gay is "catching." Quietly gay, I wouldn't know until there was misbehavior. Openly gay is unacceptable. Glad my scouting leadership days are behind me.
Jerry, methinks if the Supreme Court can mis-define marriage, it will be no trouble for the BSA to re-define what it means by "morally straight." The words mean nothing more than what we choose them to mean, as Professor Dodgson instructed us in "Alice in Wonderland."
I don't anticipate huge fallout here--there are a lot of pedophiles and pederasts who do not identify as homosexual, and those that do would have to know that a target will be painted on their back if they misbehave. But on the supply side of Scouts, I personally know a lot of parents who are not OK with the Scouts increasingly rejecting the moral stands of their churches. They are going to alternatives that teach about the same skills, but are explicitly church-based.
Setting aside the idea that gayness is "catching" for the purposes of this conversation, that's not how it works, Jerry. In many of the troops, the scoutmaster is a parent. In our troop, the only adults who are involved who aren't parents of active Scouts are guys like me, who had sons who participated in Scouting but are now adults. We are involved because we see the advantages of the program and we want to support our sons. We follow the guidelines and we are watching for misbehavior. We take it seriously.
But on the supply side of Scouts, I personally know a lot of parents who are not OK with the Scouts increasingly rejecting the moral stands of their churches. They are going to alternatives that teach about the same skills, but are explicitly church-based.
It all depends on the chartering organization, Bubba. I'm Catholic, but the chartering organization for my son's troop is a Covenant church. The church that sponsors our troop tends to be pretty hands off on our day-to-day operations, but all of the families in our troop are church-goers in one way or another; one of the kids is a member of the sponsoring church and the rest of us are Lutherans or Catholics.
Probably depends on who the families are, too--in my circles, it's mostly evangelicals and fundamentalists, and we're used to the idea of separating from those organizations with which we disagree. So when the Scouts started to waffle on some of these stands, we headed for the exits quickly. There are obviously good and bad sides to that attitude, to put it mildly.
There are obviously good and bad sides to that attitude, to put it mildly.
Yes. I think Scouting is worth it. It's also a lot of work to try to recreate something that took 100 years to establish. I'd rather stay and fight.
Understood, but after a few more compromises, what's left besides Philmont and the (former) prestige of the Eagle? You can rewrite the handbook and the 137 (?) Merit badges pretty quickly to avoid violating copyright law, and a few more compromises send all those experienced Scoutmasters over to Trail Life and related organizations.
I hope I am dead wrong on this, but I had the thought this morning that I would not be surprised if in 20 years, Philmont was either sold or a National Park. All you need to do is make life untenable for the Mormons or conservative Protestants, and it's all but done. Not that it's not worth fighting for, but it's extremely tenuous right now.
Uh, Bubba? Don't tell my son that the Eagle Scout award has lost its prestige. He oversaw a project that included two separate construction sites and involved over 750 volunteer hours, over the course of five weekends, with a budget in the thousands of dollars.
I categorically reject the idea that being an Eagle Scout has lost its prestige.
I don't know about that. Suppose your young Scout were sexually molested by a gay Scoutmaster, or the leader stood idly by while he was molested by another Scout? Suppose he made Eagle Scout but, as a result of the Scoutmaster's influence, became gay himself? Is that really what you wanted when you encouraged or allowed him to join the program?
Jerry, none of those things happened. And they wouldn't have happened. Adult leadership in my son's troop, and in every other troop I know of, is almost entirely comprised of the mothers and fathers of the scouts. I guarantee you — if any of the other adult leaders had so much as tried to do anything of the sort you're suggesting, we'd have removed that individual from the troop immediately and turned the individual over to the police. Your hypothetical is simultaneously wrong and insulting to everyone I know in the Scouting program.
I had no intention of insulting anyone. I was trying to establish a radical counterpoint to the BSA leadership saying "if we don't do this [allow openly gay leaders] we're finished as a national organization." I believe the opposite is true because of just what you say. I can live with "don't ask, don't tell," but once the leader is "open" he raises the questions and generally must be removed. Scouting doesn't need leaders that badly.
And not to quibble, but one of the problems I suggested was that the gay leader might "influence" youngsters in that direction, and that would not be so obvious as to warrant alarm from parents. Any gay man that is "open" about it will have some of that influence, so I think the ban was completely justified. The BSA is simply being politically correct and it shouldn't be tolerated.
Mr. D, currencies are not debased by those who earn and spend them. They are debased by those who issue them. In this case, the BSA national (and many affiliates) have been running away from moral stands, and hence too many people think that, in effect, Eagle Scouts (like your son and my nephew) are those who have learned to tie knots and camp especially well. The principle of honor that was once at the core of Scouting is in the process of being discarded.
The ideas of Baden-Powell are worth fighting for, but if the Mormons don't get national's attention as they threaten to leave, his ideas will live on somewhere else besides the BSA.
You're choosing to interpret the BSA's statement incorrectly. The issue isn't the leadership falling prey to political correctness; rather it's where we are as a society. BSA understands that any legal protections it once had in enforcing its policies wouldn't hold up in the courts. You can either get with the government program or be sued out of existence. Do you honestly think BSA really wants to adopt a policy that is going to alienate the religious organizations that charter troops? If they had their druthers, they would have left things as they were. But they didn't have a choice. BSA is being forced to change. If you object to that, take your concerns to the government, not to the Boy Scouts. You're coming onto the battlefield and shooting the wounded, Jerry.
As for the rest of your concerns — the point you keep missing is that the safeguards BSA has put in place will prevent the behavior you discuss. We have two-deep adult leadership for a reason. We have prohibitions against one-on-one contact for a reason. Everyone who comes into the organization, either as a scout or as the parent/guardian of a scout, understands the rules. And everyone I know take the rules quite seriously. As for the "influence" issue, do you honestly think that in a society where all things gay are celebrated and shouted to the housetops, the theoretical possibility of a gay scoutmaster is going to make a damned bit of difference? Seriously?
In this case, the BSA national (and many affiliates) have been running away from moral stands, and hence too many people think that, in effect, Eagle Scouts (like your son and my nephew) are those who have learned to tie knots and camp especially well. The principle of honor that was once at the core of Scouting is in the process of being discarded.
Then it's my job to defend those principles, not take the ball and go home. As for the rest, read my latest response to Jerry. You're with him on the battlefield, shooting the wounded.
And one more thing -- if you think a different organization is going to somehow avoid the larger societal pressures that BSA is dealing with, you're delusional.
Mark, the trouble with your logic is that the core of the legal threat to the BSA lies in their character as a "nonreligious" organization that requires some religious expression on the part of their members. Hence many courts are, despite the Dale ruling, close to the point of arguing that they are a public accommodation to which 1st Amendment protections do not apply. Re-forming Baden-Powell's dream in explicitly religious organizations solves this problem.
At least until John Roberts makes the 1st Amendment a dead letter in the same way he's gutted the 10th, I guess. But until then, reforming the BSA along the lines of "AWANA" makes a lot of sense. You'll lose some public facilities, sure, but that beats gutting the whole enterprise.
I couldn't disagree more. If you make BSA an explicitly religious organization, you're going to lose just as many people on the other side of the equation. You can engage the world as it is, or you can follow a separatist path. I'd rather engage.
You'd like to engage, but take a close look at what's going on, legally speaking. Dale is vulnerable with Kagan and Sotomayor on the Court. Attorneys general in multiple states took on cases regarding discrimination with hired positions. It's only a slight change in legal briefs to bring forth the same cases for volunteer positions, so all the BSA has done here is to buy time.
So the end game is still the same. Either the BSA toes the government line on what constitutes morality, or they part out into several specifically religious organizations that are (at least for now) entitled to 1st Amendment protections. Trying to keep the BSA as its currently situated is more or less letting the secularists choose the field of battle--you're always going to lose that way.
It's only a slight change in legal briefs to bring forth the same cases for volunteer positions, so all the BSA has done here is to buy time.
Right. But by moving to a different organization, all you're doing is buying time in a weaker vessel. There is still a lot of institutional support for BSA and many thousands of former Scouts who value the organization. Their voices will be heard. We have to engage the world as it is.
No, it's not just buying time, but rather placing the debate behind the bulwark of the 1st Amendment. That's a trump card to be played, really. Well, at least until John Roberts joins Kagan and Sotomayor in some decision that makes it a dead letter.
There is an awful lot of space for "honor" between being a professing theist and merely "learn[ing] to camp and tie knots especially well". And last I checked, the prestige of the Eagle rank had a great deal less to do with explicitly identifying with the dominant religious culture (because let's be real, there's nothing exceptional about that) than with having successfully organized, led, and completed a service project that requires an uncommon level of commitment and initiative for a teenager (or most adults.)
Maybe I just had a unique experience in scouting (c. 1986-1991), or this stuff was just opaque to me, but the explicit (albeit broad) religious requirement for participation appears to be a fairly recent development in the organization. My troop was quite ecumenical; I think only one or two boys attended the Lutheran church that sponsored us, roughly half attended other churches (mostly Baptist or Methodist, probably, plus the token Jewish kid) and the other half didn't go to church at all. I wouldn't presume to categorize any of them (or their families) as agnostic or atheist, but I would be genuinely surprised to find that *none* of them were.
But more to the point...religiosity just didn't figure prominently into our activities, apart from brief devotionals given at Courts of Honor that more or less boiled down to the ceremonial deism involved in, say, a typical city council meeting.
Frankly, it seems to me that--notwithstanding the recent change in national policy re gay people--scouting has already moved substantially towards being an explicitly religious organization, however broadly defined (i.e., "no atheists".) And really I think that's a shame, because I do think scouting has an awful lot of intrinsic value. Mark is absolutely right that moving that way means you lose people--good people--who would otherwise be happy to support and/or participate in the organization.
Brian, great comment. The description of experiences you provide is a lot closer to how BSA operates, at least at a troop level, than what Bubba or Jerry seem to think happens. More later.
There is an awful lot of space for "honor" between being a professing theist and merely "learn[ing] to camp and tie knots especially well".
Yes.
And last I checked, the prestige of the Eagle rank had a great deal less to do with explicitly identifying with the dominant religious culture (because let's be real, there's nothing exceptional about that) than with having successfully organized, led, and completed a service project that requires an uncommon level of commitment and initiative for a teenager (or most adults.)
Again, yes. And as far as the ecumenical nature of such things -- our troop is sponsored by a Covenant church. My family is Roman Catholic. My son's project was for the benefit of a Lutheran congregation that is located nearly 40 miles from our home.
Maybe I just had a unique experience in scouting (c. 1986-1991), or this stuff was just opaque to me, but the explicit (albeit broad) religious requirement for participation appears to be a fairly recent development in the organization.
It's not particularly explicit in many troops. We didn't have that much day-to-day contact with our chartering organization. In fact, we wish they'd been more supportive.
My troop was quite ecumenical; I think only one or two boys attended the Lutheran church that sponsored us, roughly half attended other churches (mostly Baptist or Methodist, probably, plus the token Jewish kid) and the other half didn't go to church at all. I wouldn't presume to categorize any of them (or their families) as agnostic or atheist, but I would be genuinely surprised to find that *none* of them were.
Most of the families that are part of our troops are actively religious, but again, from a variety of denominations. We weren't the only Catholics in the troop, either.
But more to the point...religiosity just didn't figure prominently into our activities, apart from brief devotionals given at Courts of Honor that more or less boiled down to the ceremonial deism involved in, say, a typical city council meeting.
Operationally, that is correct. We didn't have prayers at every meeting. We did say the Pledge of Allegiance at every meeting. Our troop is pretty typical.
Frankly, it seems to me that--notwithstanding the recent change in national policy re gay people--scouting has already moved substantially towards being an explicitly religious organization, however broadly defined (i.e., "no atheists".)
Based on my experience, and again at an operational level, being an atheist wouldn't be a barrier to joining the Scouts. We would hope that the civic and religious virtues that undergird the organization might have an impact. It certainly is useful for people who might be atheists to witness people of faith acting in accordance with their faith in a different context.
And really I think that's a shame, because I do think scouting has an awful lot of intrinsic value. Mark is absolutely right that moving that way means you lose people--good people--who would otherwise be happy to support and/or participate in the organization.
I agree. If you are going to operate in 2015, you have to take people as they are. And if the ideals of your organization mean anything, you shouldn't be afraid to engage people who might disagree with you on doctrinal matters.
"...do you honestly think that in a society where all things gay are celebrated and shouted to the housetops, the theoretical possibility of a gay scoutmaster is going to make a damned bit of difference? Seriously? "
Absolutely. There is the matter of "looking up to" the Scoutmaster that has a tremendous influence, here. It is one of the reasons we put our boys in scouting, to have "positive role models." And the fact that WE put them there makes the boys believe that we approve of the role models they find. Where do you think gay men come from? They are made, not born.
Where do you think Scoutmasters come from, Jerry? In most troops, the Scoutmaster is the father of a scout in the troop. Many of them were scouts in their youth. It's not as if the BSA has a hiring office in the Castro District.
Beyond that, these days Scouting is a self-selecting organization. We're a long ways away from the days when half the boys in school were scouts. My son's troop has never had more than 15 boys in it at a time. Families that believe in Scouting tend to be ones who are already attuned to the civic and moral values that Scouting espouses, and the parents of the scouts are all paying attention to what happens within the troop. I don't see much chance that a predatory gay male is going to have any success in Scouting, given the way the Youth Protection program operates and given the vigilance of the families who are part of Scouting. Your assumptions about how troops actually operate are, to be charitable, at wide variance from reality.
Jerry, I am astonished that you remember to breathe.
Be astonished all you want. I was a scout leader for quite a number of years, even after my boys moved past it. You are correct in all you say (at least you were back then) and I suspect you are still correct today. It's not that I'm particularly worried about it, for exactly those reasons, BUT... If the BSA really wanted me to feel comfortable about the moral and civic values being imparted to our kids, WHY on God's Green Earth would they change the policy and allow even the possibility?
BUT... If the BSA really wanted me to feel comfortable about the moral and civic values being imparted to our kids, WHY on God's Green Earth would they change the policy and allow even the possibility?
It's the summer of 2015. The world has changed. The BSA has chosen to engage the world as it is. It's the only real choice available.
Not a very good answer, IMHO. You don't "engage" the world by going along with every passing nuttiness or politically correct fad. You engage by standing up for certain fixed principles. Some even take an oath to that effect.
You don't have to like the answer. All I can tell you is this -- my son started out as a Tiger Cub Scout and will forever be an Eagle Scout. He had experiences in Scouting that he never would have had otherwise. He has had a chance to meet countless quality people, including a wide variety of male role models who are moral and decent men, and a number of women who are equally moral and decent. He has learned life skills that he will carry with him for the rest of his days. Although my son is now an adult, I have chosen to remain involved in Scouting as a merit badge counselor because I'd rather teach young men the importance of citizenship in the nation and the community than decry a decision that was a fait accompli. You can stand on principle on the sidelines, or you can get in the arena. That's the choice we have.
Obviously, the thousands/millions of boys and adults involved with scouting over the years have had a greatly positive experience or it would not continue as it has. Mine was very positive and you have caused me to remember it fondly. One of my troop is returning home in a few weeks and I look forward to meeting him. They've all become fine young men and I'm glad to have helped in some small way.
But why can we not do BOTH? I'm not questioning the value of scouting, and I'm certainly not denying that "the decision is made." I'm asking WHY. Are you not, by doing what you are doing, "decrying" and resisting the decision of the BSA? Why aren't you out recruiting an openly gay scoutmaster?
Why aren't you out recruiting an openly gay scoutmaster?
Why would I?
Because that is the POLICY. If nobody is going to follow the policy, and we all suspect that to be the case, then why was it changed? Is this a sort of Potemkin policy, all for show but with no substance?
The policy isn't to go out and recruit gay scoutmasters. The policy is to no longer reject potential scout leaders who are gay. What is permitted is not required.*
Perhaps, as the national BSA suggested, a sponsoring organization might want a gay leader, for whatever reason -- the example they used would be the Unitarians. I don't suppose a troop sponsored by a Catholic church would want to do that, and there's no requirement they do so.
As for our troop, we're quite happy with our Scoutmaster, who earned his Eagle as a young man and who is the father of two scouts in the troop, who are fine young men and both well on their way to earning Eagle. Troops usually find their scoutmasters from within the troop itself. There's no reason to post a want ad.
*I think you know all this, by the way.
Is it not also true that what is permitted cannot be denied? Suppose your Scoutmaster retires after his sons reach Eagle, and a young gay man volunteers for the job. On what basis can you possibly deny him the position? We're all so certain that it's not going to happen, but it used to be you could refuse to bake a wedding cake for somebody. Here's a more extreme reaction than mine:
http://www.gopusa.com/freshink/2015/08/01/boy-scouts-sign-their-own-death-warrant/?subscriber=1
We already have our next Scoutmaster waiting in the wings, a major in the Reserves with three sons. I see no evidence that we will see a flood of sexual predators trying to take over troops. And with youth protection and two-deep leadership in place, it's not a promising opportunity for predators.
Once again I am aware of, appreciate and am reassured by all you say, but I ask again, why the change in policy if not to allow the possibility of such problems? The policy was intended and I am sure did, protect against the possibility, regardless of how unlikely it might be. And it doesn't take a "flood" to cause unacceptable damage. How many incidents is too many, especially when that former simple policy could have prevented them?
OK, maybe it's not the "death of Scouting," as the article screams, but did this policy change really make Scouting BETTER?
I stand corrected. The sky is falling. All is lost. It's a Golem merit badge. All theoretical possibilities must come true. The new head of the BSA is Nathan Lane and Barney Frank is the Scoutmaster of every troop in the Twin Cities. Instead of repeating the Scout Oath and Law, all troops will now sing "It's Raining Men."
Oh, come now. You said yourself that "what is permitted is not required." You've offered repeated assurances that it is highly unlikely to happen, and you are without doubt absolutely right about that. I earnestly hope that continues to be the case, across the board. So I come back to the question of: WHY is it permitted? If the BSA never wanted to allow openly gay leaders, why did they change the rules to allow openly gay leaders?
So I come back to the question of: WHY is it permitted? If the BSA never wanted to allow openly gay leaders, why did they change the rules to allow openly gay leaders?
Because they were going to be sued into oblivion if they didn't. And because they have confidence that their safeguards will minimize (at worse) or obviate (at best) any problems. Which is what I've said about a half-dozen times in this thread. You don't believe me, apparently. So be it.
Pardon me if you've said that before. It's a perfectly reasonable explanation, though not one I would have liked. Some day, somebody is going to have to stand up to political correctness and then succeed in court. These thugs (pushy leftists) need to be stopped. Strangely, in reading reporting on this, it seems like the BSA was WANTING to make this change. Perhaps that was just part of the show? At any rate, I won't be scanning the news to be able to say "I told you so." I would absolutely hate to be right in my concerns, even for one incident.
Pardon me if you've said that before. It's a perfectly reasonable explanation, though not one I would have liked. Some day, somebody is going to have to stand up to political correctness and then succeed in court.
True, but it's easy to call for someone else to march into the bayonet.
Strangely, in reading reporting on this, it seems like the BSA was WANTING to make this change. Perhaps that was just part of the show?
More than perhaps. The BSA knew the choice it had and so they ate their spinach.
Thank you for confirming my impressions, and can I thank you for your ongoing service to Scouting?
Yes. It's worth it -- Scouting has given my son and our family more than I can ever repay.
Post a Comment