Follow
Yesterday a Boy Scouts of America review of ‘Values and Membership Polices’ was announced on the Scouting Magazine Blog where a link to this B.S.A. website with comprehensive information about the review is available.
I’d suggest reading the information available there for a pretty thorough understanding of how the membership policy of excluding people based on sexual orientation is being addressed.
Here’s my summary of the information on the site:
- In 2010 a committee was convened to study the membership policy question (specifically excluding people based on sexual orientation).
- Last summer the finding of that committee was announced.
- This announcement “began an even deeper dialogue within Scouting” and “created an outpouring of feedback from the American public”.
- This conversation led to the announcement in January 2012 that the National Executive Board would be discussing the policy at their annual meeting in February.
- At the annual meeting of the National Executive Board it was determined that a broader discussion was in order and that a proposed membership standards change would be presented at the 2013 B.S.A. Annual Meeting in May for a vote . (According to the website the voters are ” … made up of volunteers serving at local councils across the country. Each council receives a set number of votes and an additional number of votes proportionally based on the council’s membership number. The National Council does not share the names of those voters.“)
- Yesterday’s announcement included this timeline of the phases being implemented leading up to the Annual Meeting:
Planning—The BSA defines the desired process and intended outcomes. (Feb. 6–28)
Listening—The BSA’s standing committees engage key stakeholders for input and develop a summary impact report. (March 1–April 5)
Evaluating—The BSA’s officers review the summary impact report and prepare a resolution for the consideration of the National Council voting members. (April 5–17)
Educating—The report and resolution are shared with the voting members of the National Council. (April 18–May 24)
Deciding—The BSA conducts on-site information sessions for registered participants at its National Annual Meeting. (May 22–24)
Implementing—Based on the resolution and vote, the BSA will determine and implement next steps for the organization. (May 24–ongoing)
As you well know this is an issue that elicits strong responses. You are welcomed to comment on it here, but keep in mind:
Comments are not the place to discuss the question of sexual orientation itself (See these resources if you’d like more information on the subject.)
It is understood that there are religious differences on the question, think twice before repeating them in the comments (here’s resources on the B.S.A’s polices on religion.)
I have read and studied the comment streams of many, many articles about this issue. The predictable repetitive arguments that usually arise don’t advance useful discussion so I will not publish them here – however I am happy to discuss any issue with you via email.
While I support the proposed membership policy change in concept, I can’t help but wonder about the practical application issues it will create. I’m naturally nervous about the prospect of placing adolescent boys who are going through their hormone charged sexual awakening in potential situations where it may be natural to experiment with their emotional and physical feelings. Some questions come to mind, such as continuing the practice of two boys alone in a tent and the practice of mixed age patrols where boys of 17 are camping in close quarters with 11 year old boys. I realize that the overall issue being considered by the BSA is one of principle and not one of behavior…but still, I can see a potential behavior mine field ahead. Just wondering how veteran, experienced Scoutmasters see the Scouting method working through this proposed change in membership.
This particular set of concerns has come up many times in the discussion. My reply, as always, is that we ought to look at programs that are inclusive and see what they have encountered. Speaking to my friends in Scouts Canada and Scouts UK, both inclusive and co-ed programs, they tell me that they don’t encounter these problems and that they have never become an issue. They have not seen any reason to have separate gay-straight sleeping arrangements, bathroom facilities or anything of the kind.
So the “potential behavior minefield” just hasn’t panned out in their experience.
My practical experience echos the reporting of others. For me this isn’t theory. The current two-deep leadership policies,and separate bathing and bedding policies are excellent. I have attended co-ed church campouts, school overnighters and campouts at elementary, high school and collegiate levels, and experienced first-hand how the Army dealt with co-educational living arrangements and watched with keen interest as the Army became open and affirmative.
These models work. They are not foreign to us. Scouts are Brave. We can do this. We should do this. The current policy of banning and eliminating boys and leaders who are gay violate our core values. We. Must. Change.
Scouts know how to move into new territory. Its what we are about.
All well and good, but begs the question. I wish someone would help me figure out how to manage asking boys to tent together without any concern for their sexual interest, especially where we have mixed age patrols. I’m pretty sure we don’:t allow venturers of opposite genders to tent together…or even adult leaders for that matter. I have seen this become an issue in our council, even where the leaders were spouses. Let’s get practical and talk about the nuts and bolts here. Help those of us who will have to deal with the youth (and the parents)!
I don’t know how I can be any plainer or more practical than to say, once again, that inclusive Scouting organizations in the UK and Canada do not make provisions for separate tenting or facilities based on sexual orientation. Our own department of defense does not make such provisions and specifically prohibits them.
I understand that some people simply can’t be dissuaded from thinking this is a problem, but if we look at the experiences of these other organizations we see that it isn’t – there is no ‘there’ there.
I know there are some folks (mostly outside of Scouting) that are demanding for a blanket non-discrimination policy from National. From my understanding of the membership policy proposal, I believe this proposal of leaving the decision to the chartered organizations will eventually evolve into that. If a troop is to be sustainable in the future, they will realize that discrimination against any segment of our population is not good for business even if they retain the right to discriminate. Those troops who continue to dig in their heels as a matter of “standing their ground” will eventually see themselves fall by the wayside because discriminatory membership policies will be seen as unattractive by parents who wish to enroll their kids in a troop. With more and more troops, packs and crews openly declaring themselves as inclusive in spite of the current membership policy (especially in California where I reside), the prospect of presenting the idea of sponsoring a Venturing Crew and Boy Scout troop to my church, an Open and Affirming congregation of the United Church of Christ, is looking more attractive by the minute.
Scouting survived the urban upheaval of the 1970s. Scouting survived letting women serve as Scoutmasters. Scouting will survive if they let LGBT youth and adults serve.
Matt, not only with BSA thrive but BSA will grow and prosper if the change is made. Yes, there are many churches that are open/welcoming and affirming that would love to charter an troop/pack/crew but do not because of the discriminatory policy. There are many other organizations, including school districts, that would also support BSA if the change were made.
We not only survived letting women like me serve as Scoutmasters (actually I’m an ASM but still). Were it not for women like me, we would not have a committee chair, a popcorn kernal, an ASM, numerous MB counselors, etc. Scouting is richer because of the women that participate in the lives of our scouts. The men all still have a very significant role and thinking about it, at my son’s Eagle Court of Honor on Saturday, it was three male scoutmasters who he honored with mentor pins because they all had been significant influences in his life. So together we make a difference. Together we build community. Together we grow and make a village a home.
While I am more than ready to see an inclusive membership policy for the BSA, I know that not everyone shares that viewpoint. This will be a trying time for a lot of long-time Scouts and Scouters because many of us have strong opinions one way or the other. However, as is the case in my neck of the woods (Madison, WI), many potential new Scouts and Scouters are turned off by the ban on homosexual membership and the policy makes recruiting incredibly difficult.
I am pleased to see that there are clearly defined steps for implementation, whether for change or for stagnation. It shows that the BSA is thinking things over and giving it a thorough review. When I learned that the vote had been delayed, we heard that a decision had been pushed to May–a date I found arbitrary. Now that I see the breakdown listed above, I have faith that the BSA is going to give this decision a lot of serious time and effort.
Thanks, Clarke, for sharing this with us.
It is interesting that they were surprised by the response of Scouters after the reaffirmation of the policy last June.
I think they realized that the decision process was flawed, because they clearly missed the opinions of a lot of BSA members.
They are smart to try it again with a more public process. I’m sure this has blown their Q1 and Q2 schedules to bits, but I applaud them for giving this the attention and time it needs, right now.
The rather secretive two year study referred to in the statement reaffirming the policy last year left a lot of us asking questions. It was, In my opinion, a very poor way to handle a policy issue like this. There’s a lot of shouting and noise right now – people understandably feel strongly one way or the other – but I join you in applauding the present approach.
I was thinking that if all of the councils abstain and make national make the decision as it should be! Then nationals can ratify there draft and that would make it better, Nationals is exactly like the US government and they want to be able to say that they have clean hands. What is nationals showing our scouts by not making a decision? Make them make the decision and that will teach the scouts a better lesson then many councils taking their own view and direction. Nationals should make this decision for one and all not leave it to the councils however if you do not have the intestinal fortitude to make the decision it begs me to ask the question of why are we supporting them? If Mississippi says no to Gays and then California say yes what happens when a young man life scout moves and or an adult moves to that sate and they want to join? We have just created an even worst nightmare. If we leave it up to the councils and then the units we as an origination are kicking the can down the road! Sooner or later someone is going to get burned!
While it’s certainly within the National Executive committees power to decide this for themselves they have not ‘kicked the can down the road’- they decided that they want to look at the issue in more detail and involve more of the membership in making it. As I understand it the national meeting will vote to recommend whatever proposal is created and the executive board will choose to accept or reject the recommendation.
I think this is actually a pretty good lesson for our Scouts, big complex decisions require quite a bit of work and participation.
As for Councils and chartering organizations having different directions and ways of doing things – they always have and they always will.
D Brown and Clarke Green: I commend both of you for your articulate conversation, willingness to engage and exposition of the various angles on this.
From where I sit, when the National BSA Headquarters Public Relations Representative Professional Scouter Russ Buffkin and the legal representative David Parke started this with a memo to all scouting units in 1978 they did this without consulting with _us_. At the time I was a 13 year old scout. I also freely admit that I’d probably never given it a second thought up to that point. But… it being a free country, I hope I would have erred on the side of freedom – and not agreed with the policy. I do have a memory of my father discussing it. Discussing it with derision. My father was a pastor.
In 1991 the National BSA HQs Executive Council doubled down and issued the current policy in question. Again, they did this on their own, and without consultation with _us_. At this time I was a Scout Master and up to my eyeballs in troop issues (prepping for the 110 mile Bowron Lakes Provincial Park trip). However, two years prior to this my twin brother (and Eagle Scout) told me he was gay. I certainly had an opinion on it at this time and was appalled by the National decision. It violated about half of our Scout Laws and offended my idea of what it meant to be morally straight. The policy looked to me to being morally bankrupt.
Similarly, I was appalled at the 2000 decision to defend discrimination as merely a “private organization” before the Supreme Court. That did it for me. We finished our summer Super Event (building 10 cedar strip canoes in my garage and circumnavigating Yellowstone Lake) and I ended my “official” volunteer relationship with BSA.
I admit I showed no courage in this. I was appalled, but silent. I thought I was being respectful. Instead I was respecting power, and not the little guy. The little guy who happened to be gay.
Now I have two gay sons (out of six sons total). None of them chose to engage with scouting as they came to understand the policy of discrimination.
Naturally, I am _advocating_ for the Scouts to do the right thing. _This_ is the Good Turn they should do _today_.
National Executive Board Professional Scouters brought this problem on us. I think it a very interesting suggestion that the National Council abstain from voting to let the National Executive Board do the right thing. After all – they created the problem.
I apologize if I overstayed my welcome. I have the highest regard for the work you are doing and the quality of Scouts you are trying to raise.