Follow
After reviewing this BSA Membership Standards Review Information on Thursday, May 23, approximately 1400 voting members representing 265 local councils will vote on a resolution that, in short, removes the stipulation that boys can be excluded from membership in the BSA based on sexual orientation alone.
The BSA has prepared a Voting Member Information Packet (PDF file) that describes the voting process and includes the findings of the membership standards review.
In addition National President Wayne Perry, National Executive Committee Member Nathan Rosenberg, and Chief Scout Executive Wayne Brock hosted an in-depth discussion of the BSA’s Membership Standards Resolution on April 29, 2013. As we are all aware this membership standards review is a historic effort on the part the BSA and the thousands of volunteer hours and staff time that went into the process deserve our thanks.
It’s a long presentation, but worth your time. Listen to a narrative of what happened at the meeting assembled to draft the current resolution from Lyle Knight National Executive Committee V.P. for human resources at [40:30], “…whatever your personal opinion is someone at that table shared your opinion”.
If you’ll listen to the live-cast you’ll soon understand that we are not going to be the same organization after this historic vote. We’ll be choosing one of two paths. In my opinion the most important considerations of the proposed policy change is reflected in this analysis:
Slide from the video live-cast.
If the current proposal is approved it is projected we will experience an initial decline in membership (around 15% of youth and 15% adult volunteers), significant financial loss, and possibly lose a significant number of chartered partners.
This is a sobering reality, but the projections if the resolution is not approved are even more dire.
We have lost nearly thirty percent of our membership over the past dozen years. No change to our membership policy means, at best, a continued loss of membership and could likely accelerate that rate of loss, a continued erosion of financial support, and (I think) an accelerated marginalization of the B.S.A..
I doubt that the change in membership policy will immediately open the floodgates and result in a significant increase in membership, perhaps our rate of loss will slow, perhaps we’ll see that loss level out, perhaps we’ll see a modest increase.
I do agree that no change almost guarantees that, five years from today, the B.S.A. will be a significantly smaller and will be deemed irrelevant by the vast majority of American families.
I join the members of our National Executive Board in calling for both support for the resolution and a spirit of cooperation. No matter what happens this Thursday we are going to see some of our valuable adult volunteers and chartering organizations decide that they can no longer identify themselves with the B.S.A. As unfortunate as this is I can understand the depth of emotion involved in such a decision.
Over and over again our National Leadership has emphasized that their actions are in response to a single question “What is the best course of action for our Scouts?” I believe that they are earnestly trying to provide the best answer they can.
I believe that’s the question for all of us “how do we best serve our Scouts?’. I’ve endeavored to answer this question to the best of my ability, as does any responsible volunteer. On this particular issue we will reach different conclusions, but we ought to be able to find a way forward that best serves all of our Scouts.
Discussing any hotly debated issue in the comment stream below almost always leads to a predictable and circular set of arguments. You are welcome to comment on this post but I will not post any comment replying to another reader’s comment, pro or con. Remember what you write is not contextualized by a facial expression or tone of voice.
You can always contact me directly if you prefer.
Thank you for your information and responses. I wish there were more Scouters like you. I’ve been a Scouter for over 10 years… a Cub Leader for all ten, a Boy Scout Leader for the last 6. My brother is an Eagle. I was a “First Class” Girl Scout (before Gold came to be in existence)… my parents were leaders. Scouting was part of the fabric of our family… and continues to be, with my own sons – one who just crossed over into the Troop, the other who attained Eagle in January 2011 at the age of 14. The youth that we serve should be our focus… ALL of them. Everyone deserves the right to learn outdoor skills, go camping and hiking, and learn to work with others (even if they’re different than yourself) — that’s the point of the program. Exclusion is NOT what Baden Powell envisioned. I hope that the resolution passes… and that the next step is taken to include leaders soon.
My only worry about this is surrounding youth protection. Youth protection is already a BIG part and very hard on the scoutmasters in my area, and I fear that this only going to make it worse, and open the BSA to more lawsuits.
I don’t understand what you are trying to say – what aspects of youth protection will be affected and who is likely to sue who over what?
After thee decades of Scouting as an adult, having known hundreds, if not thousands of adult volunteers who have put in tens of thousands of days of service to Scouts I know of one civil lawsuit filed in our council and that was against an abuser who was already convicted and imprisoned.
The idea that the change in policy will somehow unleash a flood of lawsuits is a straw-man touted by those who oppose the resolution. I wouldn’t buy in to this sort of fear mongering.
I recall this was also used as a straw-man to resist the change that allowed women to be adult leaders. It wasn’t true then and it isn’t true now.
Clark,
You mention in the article that the BSA could loose charter organisations.
I’ve heard them mentioned in the Colorado project as well.
We don’t have these in Australia.
How important are these to the BSA?
And why is the BSA set up to require this form of external sponsorship?
Charter organizations are the community organizations that sponsor Scouting in their community. Interested partners apply for a charter that allows them to form a unit of Scouting (Cub Pack, Scout Troop or Venture Crew).
As to why we have this arrangement rather than another I couldn’t really say. I will say that it is a system that could use some revision. We don’t have groups here, just single units and that causes a lot of duplication of effort and a continuity problem between the age divisions.
I, too, have spent many an hour considering this issue, but reading through what I have followed here confirms that much of what I have concluded follows much the same approach as Clark, Tom D. and others. I simply cannot find anything in any of Scouting’s fundamental elements that would lead me to believe that we who support and trust Scouting, serving the develpment of youth, would want to deny any of nothese elements or program from the very people and youth who could derive so much benefit from its proven success and positive moral direction. This is really about fairness, tolerance and chracter. What Baden-Powell encompassed in his 1922 report “Education in Love in Place of Fear” among many other positive influences, under “training”, was #1: “Character and intelligence, individual ‘manliness’, i.e. responsibility and self-reliance”. Again, I don’t see anything there that defines or excludes any one group. I see part of a plan for assisting the development of good citizens of good, moral character with the added factors of handicraft, skills, health, physical fitness and, importantly, “service for others, collective cooperation and goodwill”.
Like Clark, I have passed that divide where i should be handing off responsiblity to the next generation of volunteers but feel i must pass through this ordeal with my fellow Scouters to bring along a program that still retains relevence in the face of cultural change which needs to be embraced in order for it to continue. As was recently expressed at a leadership conference for my company, No change = no change. That is a comfortable spot but it is zero sum in the long run.
I had only to poll two leaders of the next generation, my daughter, a Gold Award Girl Scout who, with her mother, weathered the same seachange within Girl Scouts and my son, an Eagle. They will be parents in the future and will make their decisions relative to the values that both scouting organizations provided them as well as the footing we as parents provided. I trust their opinions implicitly in their adulthood, and knowing my own contemplation related to this issue, they fully supported my decision to remain true to what I as a Scout and now as a 20 year Scouter believe are fundamental to the Promise, Law, Motto, Slogan and even the Obligation and Admonition of the OA. I would encourage us all to ensure that these are more than just words and support the future of Scouting by supporting this new direction. I believe we can by embodying B-P’s words through, “service…collective cooperation and goodwill”.
You know, this is a huge debate and I realize the implications. My question really focuses on intention….and I believe that comes down to a personal decision. I do think there are enough left wing liberals who will jump into Boy Scouts and all of a sudden force Gay Pride as their agenda down everyone’s throats. At the same time, there are enough right wing conservatives who still base all of their decisions on judgemental stereotypes…which have no place in scouting either. It’s a hard decision. I believe in scouting and I have pros and cons to all sides. I encourage everyone in the scouting organization to pray for our organization…that it endures….that scouting will be relevant to the youth of America and will be continued on by the incredible efforts of our amazing volunteers. To Scouters everywhere, good luck in all that you do for our scouts.
Chad, Please forgive my critique of your characterization of the situation.
You are making a composition fallacy in your argument in your attribution of intention and action by liberals and conservatives. The range of each of these political identities provides a wide variety of responses rather than the limited reactions that you suggest.
I earned my Eagle in 1974, and am currently a Scoutmaster in a very large troop. My personal reaction to your characterization of those who would engage in either reactions that you assert is simple: I doubt it. The Scouters I know welcome and deal with boys of all types, and are faithful to the mission of Scouting: Character development, citizenship training, and personal fitness.
Those who put their own personal beliefs and identity ahead of serving the boys probably does not fir into Scouting. I am am sure there are a few of these type persons, however. Most Scouters will put this issue behind them and continue to serve their boys, and thereby do good in the community.
The Boy Scouts of America will do fine as it navigates what have become unwanted political waters.
“… A house divided against itself cannot stand …” We cannot long endure half and half. Either the policy is all inclusive or excluded. We have opened the door to any one who wants to take a shot at us. Had we dealt with issues of pedophaelia and homosexuality in the sixties we would not have wasted millions of dollars in lawsuit after lawsuit, even now we still face law suits. We have not solved the problem we have only sealed the leak and are hoping for the best.
Not too sure what you are saying here. What potential lawsuits do you imagine? The BSA is being sued over concealing and enabling abusers in the past but I don’t understand what this has to do with our membership standards.
Scouting once held the principle of white racial superiority. It took a societal shift to finally put and end to Jim Crow policies in some councils in the 1970’s. The BSA allowed this discrimination to continue implicitly for years before this. My eyes were widened about this when I saw a small exhibit at the 2010 Jamboree. This included an article about the black summer camp in my own council that I’d never heard of.
The reason I believe this is analogous is that this was a change in society that forced the BSA to change. Again this seems to be the case.
This issue does seem to split the US society differently but none the less. The BSA could become irrelevant and face a long slow death. We are not just Christian or Baptist or white or black. We are Scouts and Scouters. We live by the Oath and Law.
No matter what the decision is, I will continue support Scouting and youth leadership development. Eventually they will do the right thing.
I don’t know about you but I’m already planning training for the Fall.
If I may take some minutes. I believe this to be a good step forward for the BSA. We are here as leaders to teach young boys into young men. I am today who I am because of my Scout leaders. Thank you. I willmmention I believe homosexual behavior is wrong. Countless passages in the Bible show that. Countless more passages show Jesus saves. His bloodshed wasn’t for a select group. God loves the sinner and hates the sin. BSA is here for the Scouts, regardless of orientation. Subtle words of encouragement may lead a Scout out of different persuasion. Maybe they have bought a lie, and realize through Scouts that it is a lie. What better an organization to be there at that time? Scouts is still respected. Membership decline isn’t because of this trend, it is the other nine thousand activities a young person chooses to do, #1 being the brain drain video games. We as leaders need to encourage, motivate, and inspire youth to reach new heights. Scouts is that conduit.
I want to note that the Scouting program is sometimes used by churches as an extension of their religious training but Scouting does not endorse or dictate any specific religious dogma.
If the policy does change, does anyone really expect a big, long line of gay kids that want to join scouts?
A kid will probably not even recognize he is gay until he is in his middle to late teens. How many boys have joined scouts that are over 13? From my experience the problem at that age is to even keep them involved.
If anyone ever did have to deal with this it would be a boy who is already a scouts, maybe for a long time. It would be a scout you know and like. Who wants to tell that boy and his friends and his family why he can’t be a scout anymore, while others that may lie and cheat and steal are OK.
It has been said, “let he who has not sinned cast the first stone,” this may want to be considered when dealing with this situation.
I don’t understand what you are trying to say>
The change is not aimed at “a big, long line of gay kids that want to join scouts”, it’s about common human decency.
It’s not just about the gay Scout or the gay adult volunteer: it’s about what we want to teach our Scouts about fairness, tolerance and acceptance.
I am trying to take a realistic view of the situation.
I believe if anyone ever has a gay scout in their troop it will be from a scout they know, not someone that wants to join. Most scouts come through cub scouts and into boy scouts. At some point when he is in boy scouts he might realize he is gay. Someone might ask, “would you have your son share a tent with someone that is gay?” – But that is the wrong question to ask, because it’s likely that they are friends they have already shared a tent with him a bunch times.
I wish people would think about the scouts they know and then think about kicking any of them out.
Similarly, with adult leaders – they either come from people who grew up in scouting or as a boy’s mom or dad.
When you think of it this way, that these are people we know – not strangers descending on our units, it seems that those opposing this change are making a big deal about something very small.
Thanks Jason, that helps – I agree, we aren’t talking about a bunch of people trying to attack or take over the BSA, the strongest voices for change our our own Scouts and adult volunteers.
So many people keep insisting that “sexuality doesn’t belong in Scouting,” and using that as an excuse for maintaining the current policy. But by explicitly restricting an entire class of people, based SOLELY on their sexual orientation, Scouting is deliberately inserting sexuality into the equation.
The best course of action would be to remove the exclusion entirely. It simply would not be a topic for conversation. Everyone would go on with their lives, just as we do at school, church, work, and everywhere else. No need for special rules, no need for extra procedures. Just get back to the business of camping, service, and self-development.
The currently-proposed resolution is a half-measure. Better than nothing, but it will certainly not end the debate. Only a full non-discrimination policy will solve the problem, and I hope we see one proposed as soon as possible.
I agree Gene!
Clark – you have two questions that sum it up for me – “What is the best course of action for our Scouts” except I would word it “What is the best course of action for our youth of today ?” . the other being “how do we best serve our Scouts?” Again I would word it how do we best serve our youth of today? I hope that the leaders of today realize before it’s too late that the youth of today are the leaders of the world tomorrow and hope they are able to have the virtues and values that the Boy Scouts Oath and Law have provided us in the past – regardless of race, religion, creed or orientation.
Clarke, do you know if any thought was given to adopting a more German model for American Scouting: Catholic Scouts, Lutheran Scouts, etc., with an umbrella organization belonging to WOSM? I hear my more liberal friends talking about joining BPSA — all-inclusive but with the apparent virtue (IMHO) of closer adherence to Scouting for Boys? (But currently you give up membership in WOSM.) Haven’t heard about a similar organization on the right but that doesn’t mean there isn’t one.
I wonder if a German-like system is not where this is headed if we’re going to keep scouting and let everyone have their belief system… no single local congregation can defend itself against the ACLU, but each national church might… and I’m the closer I get to Irving the more it tends to reflect being a huge bureaucratic, self-preservative organization, I personally am willing to let Irving go… and good riddance.
Hey John
A lot of European countries do have Scouting organizations divided between Protestant and Catholic so far as I understand. The BSA has a congressional charter that specifies it is the only organization that can call use the name “Scouting” and has a heavily protected brand so any other organization has to be called something else and, as you note, can’t be recognized by WOSM because the prefer to recognize one ‘official’ Scouting organization in each country.
This makes the BSA a ‘one size fits all’ organization, and that’s a difficult thing to do. The BSA has had several monopolistic advantages for the past century that has kept any kind of parallel organization from forming. There are conservative faith-based scout-like organizations out there; the Royal Rangers, Royal Ambassadors, the Seventh Day Adventist Pathfinders, The Calvinist Cadet Corps and The Colombian Squires (no I did not make the last two up).
It wouldn’t surprise me if, after the resolution passes, something along the lines of the American Heritage Girls is founded for boys.
I have been a card carrying-member of the ACLU, and I would challenge you to show me any case they are party to that is aimed at forcing churches to accept members contrary to their system of belief.
I think that one of the better things about Scouting is it’s decentralization and adaptability. The folks down in Irving are good people trying to do the best they can, I may do it differently if I was in their shoes, but so would just about any of us.
I do not think the policy should change. Maybe public opinion supports the change, but Scouting does not (based on polling information). Shouldn’t the BSA make a decision based on the opinions of the Scouters FIRST and not the general public at large?
I really think that BSA has gotten into an area that has always been reserved for the “family”, that is, questions about sexual orientation and/or sex in general. Boy Scouts never has been (and never should be) a part of this discussion. These are questions left for family discussions, not a Troop Meeting or other Scout function. We know the questions will be coming. I am a Scoutmaster in my Troop and they have already started, not just the parents mind you but the boys too. I can tell you that I would rather be out hiking or camping than trying to figure out what to say (or what NOT to say) to these boys. Before all of this started, I never had one question about sex or sexual orientation posed to me as a leader in Scouting.
The general public at large are the people we serve and I can tell you from long experience that we Scouters are not always right.
There’s a general misunderstanding or fear that somehow now we’ll all have to talk about sexuality in the context of Scouting, I just don’t see how that happens.
Whenever I get a question from a Scout that touches on any debatable area that is better left to the family like politics, religion, or sexuality I answer by saying something like “That’s a question that would be better asked of your parents or your religious leader. My opinion on it doesn’t really count, I will talk to you all day long about Scouting, but when it comes to these things it’s my responsibility to direct you to your parents. You can tell them that I’d be willing to discuss any questions they may have, or to talk to you and your parents together.”
Thanks Clarke for your reply.
I think our differences here stem from the point of “the people we serve”. You are saying that we serve the general public at large but I feel that is not the case. We should be serving the Boy Scouts, and their leaders first. I agree that Scouters are not always right. The general public is not always right either. Look at it this way, who should we be polling for this decision, the Scouters and the Scouts, to whom this affects, or the 98% of the public-at-large that have no involvement/interest in Scouting?
Even though we may disagree on things, I am glad we have the freedom to voice our thoughts.
I welcome respectful disagreement, you ought to see the comments that didn’t make the cut! Phew! there’s a lot of hard feelings out there and, in the opinion of some folks I am a pretty bad person.
I am a Scouter who is over 50, and in the grand scheme of things I don’t matter all that much, it’s well past time I moved on. I am honored to continue serving but I certainly don’t want to hold back change and innovation. I may not like change and innovation at all but I am at a time of life when it’s up to me to hand Scouting over to the next generation of adult volunteers.
These volunteers will be younger parents who will choose to do Scouting because it corresponds to their values and realizes their aspirations for their children. It is very clear that these younger parents, in overwhelming numbers, will not choose an organization that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation.
I didn’t agree with the everything last generation of Scouters believed, and things have changed since then. I don’t expect the next generation of leaders will agree with everything I believe, they will change things, but they have to be there first.
This is not about me, or even just about the Scouts I am serving right now (the majority of whom disagree with the current policy), it’s about the whole next generation of Scouts and volunteers.
Clarke, I’ve very much appreciated your approach to our present predicament. The following are my thoughts on a face-saving way forward.
I’ve been in Scouting a long time. So if a Cub Scout announces to me that he’s gay, it causes me about as much concern as if he wants to be SpongeBob SquarePants. That is, neither the present policy nor the proposed policy will affect the youth in our largest program.
At the Board of Review for an Eagle Scout candidate, one of my favorite questions is “Of the 12 points of the Scout Law, which is the most challenging?” A Christian fundamentalist is pretty clear on the first part of “A Scout is reverent toward God.” He commits to be faithful in his religious duties. The second part can be the challenge because he also commits to respect the beliefs of others. For example, he must respect that his fellow Hindu Scout does not have a single God and Buddhists are uncomfortable with the notion of a creator. Jews and Muslims have dietary restrictions and we can’t even seem to agree on which day is the Sabbath. Which is why, in the Charter and Bylaws of the BSA, it is clear that Scouting is absolutely nonsectarian. Scouts recognize that these disputes are best left to those in the Scout’s home and religious institution.
And so I am saddened that we are presently distracted by a religious dispute. Scouting is struggling to reconcile the stance of the Episcopal Church and the Presbyterian Church (USA). After much prayerful reflection these denominations and others recognize that homosexual persons are children of God. The way forward is to recognize that Scouting may remain faithful to its Declaration of Religious Principle by remaining absolutely nonsectarian. Scouting cannot settle spiritual disputes and the past decade has shown that presuming to do so has been a burden to the movement.
In Scouting, our values relating to minorities and women have clearly changed for the better. The way forward on the present issue is to consider it from the point of view of Scouting’s “duty to God” core value. My troop has been in Ashland VA for 100 years, and I know that our brass plaques of Eagle Scouts include those who happen to be gay. Throughout our history we’ve had straight Scouts tent with gay Scouts. It will be no more problem now that we know than when we didn’t know. I’ve worked hand in hand with Venturing youth who have achieved the Silver Award who have a variety of sexual identities. I presume that I have worked with fine Scouting volunteers with all sorts of identities. I am proud to stand up for all these fine men and women.
The parents of Scouting age children are looking for fun and safe youth programs run by ethical, moral, and caring individuals. Skin color, gender, religion, nationality, and sexual identity is completely beside the point. Scouting’s methods continue to prepare young people to become responsible, participating citizens and leaders.
Yours in Scouting,
Al Best
Al Best is an Eagle Scout. He has been awarded the Silver Beaver by the Boy Scouts and received the Cross and Flame Award from the United Methodist Church
I have read many of the comments above and I do not believe that the BSA is perceived as or is going to be marginalized. My stance is this and it has been for sometime and many in my community agree that the one value we do not truly teach is tolerance of others. Many in my community view the BSA as stoic and not keeping up with society. I do agree with many of you in regards to the declining moral bedrock of society but that is not solely on us as Scout Leaders. Out of the 12 scouts in my troop and the 14 venturers in my crew only 4 have a two parent family. Morals and values start at home not in scouts. We are there to reinforce those beliefs.
I talked to my CO executive and he would have preferred that the first proposal had gone through because this latest proposal paints him into a corner as far as what the archdiocese will make him do. Being the proactive leader I already have a backup plan. At least in my area we have more than enough organizations that will charter us and aid us in delivering a positive and safe program.
I think my biggest issue with this whole mess is that sexuality should not be a part of scouting. Should not be in the meeting, at the campsite, or at an activity. In our unit the simple rule is if it has to do with sex you deal with it outside of scouts that way there is a safe and comfortable environment for all.
Over the years I have lost a lot of friends, potential leaders, and scouts over this policy. I am constantly asked how I could be part of an organization that is so bigoted towards a significant part of the population. My answer is that my only concern is for the youth. As adult leaders your personal feelings about a subject should be put aside and ask yourself, “What is truly in the youth’s best interest?” I realize different communities have different points of view on topics but in my area we have a significant and strong gay demographic that will not allow they’re youth in our organization. I could have a troop of 40 kids if it weren’t for this policy. I could have a strong leadership base if not for this policy. Think of the damage we do to the organization and the youth by keeping this policy of exclusion.
After reading and listening to much of this it is too bad people didn’t find the initial proposal acceptable – which was to let charter organizations decide their own policy on this. The proposal now seems more divisive. Too many people found middle ground unacceptable and now seem even more displeased.
I am not even sure what people think will happen if this passes. Are people expecting long lines of gay kids waiting to join scouts. How many kids 14+ even join scouts? How many kids less than 14 really even think about it. If anyone ever really has to deal with this it will be with a kid who has been in scouts for years. It will be a kid you know well and has friends in your unit. Who wants to be the one that has to explain to him, and his friends – other scouts, and his family, why he can no longer be part of scouting. Not me.
I am sure there are lots of leaders who when this situation becomes evident just turn away. A revised policy would recognize this and avoid this conflict of interest. It is just too bad that it cannot be the policy that allows charter organizations to decide.
I was in favor of the first resolution devolving the decision to chartering organizations too, that seemed to be the most workable idea. But the the information collected over the past few months revealed that most people found it unworkable because it would cause more problems than it solved by creating different standards for different units.
I think the only motive for this change is a response to the changing status of sexual orientation in our society. We changed our membership policies in the past to respond to the changing status of race and the place of women in our society – so this is sort of thing is nothing new.
At first I wasn’t a big fan of the present resolution, but as I studied the results of the surveys and listened to the reasoning behind it I changed my mind. I think that the more youth we serve the better we are, I don’t see any reason to discriminate on the basis of orientation, system of belief, or gender, for adults or Scouts.
I would agree with you, ultimately. But change is sometimes better done in small steps than in large leaps. In a few years it would be seen that inclusive units would thrive and exclusive units would decline and the question would become irrelevant. (Or perhaps, for those on the other side, the opposite might happen.)
I would love to see the word “eligible” come out of the BSA Vision Statement.
Regardless of the decision made by National later this month, my Charter (Friends of SOF) will continue to sponsor my troop. I WILL continue to Scout On. I will provide a supporting environment for my boys to explore leadership opportunities and the world around them.
A Scout is a Scout, they may have a different skin color, cultural heritage, sexual orientation or religious background – but they are, first and foremost, Scouts, and that’s all that matters.
I am sure I will loose some of my families, but I will do my best to remain in touch with those youth and let them know I am still there to support them.
You can’t save them all, but save what you can.
I want to thank you for sharing this information. As a long-time Scouter I am very familiar with the opinions expressed in my local community, but it has been eye opening for me to see what a wide range of opinions exist in the Scouting community, parents, youth and public. I just want to thank Clarke and the BSA for doing such a diligent job of sharing the information with the Scouting community. And I hope we can listen to all points of view and consider that the “other guy” might have some valid points. This will be a fascinating vote and it will be equally interesting to see what unfolds after the vote.
I agree with everyone except Clarke. My chartered org will cancel our charter and I will quit as Scoutmaster if this policy is voted in. I will then work completely and wholehearted to replace the BSA.
I have prayed about this a lot and continue in prayer. I have been in Scouting 16 years which covers my son from Tiger to Eagle and many other Scouts as Scoutmaster after he left to later return in college as Asst. Scoutmaster. Many have served longer and I only provide the information to provide a context for what I am about to say. I have seen many young boys grow into young men and the confusion many carry through adolescence about many areas of life in their relationship to family, other Scouts and other youth. Now, BSA is asking Scoutmasters to add homosexuality to that list of items to consider when boys interact in a Troop. I, for one, am not equipped for that role as homosexuality has no place in my world. At this point, I am over 50 and see no need to learn how to add it when I have never encountered it in Scouts. I encounter homosexuality in my community and in the culture almost daily. You can’t escape it. I watched the BSA presentation and listened carefully to their reasoning. I now see some Scout leaders nationally seeking a way to go along with it. I think their reasoning is flawed. BSA National looked to the least experienced Scouters and immature young people just starting adulthood to make this decision. As people mature, they generally become more conservative as they have children and discover how the world works. Yes, membership has been declining, but I believe it is more due to the decline or moral values that not being open to homosexuals. I believe Scouting should stand on its moral principles and if it becomes smaller, then that is due to Society becoming less principled and principled leaders will become even more valuable to society. After much prayer, I have concluded that I will leave Scouting if the proposed resolution is adopted. My CO has said they will give the new policy a chance if adopted but will surrender their charter once affirmation of homosexuality in Scout training and acceptance of homosexual leaders is allowed which both of us believe is inevitable. My church wants to reach youth to teach that acting on homosexual attraction is wrong and a sin. That will not be accepted in Scouting at all or for long. I leave with knowledge Scouting left me and I am comfortable with my decision.
Thanks Fred, for your thoughts. I can certainly understand your position and your decision. I am over 50 too and have quite the opposite take on the situation.
Based on the result of the poll, the BSA is, I think, already deemed irrelevant by the vast majority of American families. Only 2% of the general, non-scouting adult population polled by the BSA said that their family or sons would be likely to become involved with the BSA even if the policy changed.
Scouting in America, for all its iconic status in American popular culture, is and is likely to remain a niche social activity. Most of us are fine with that.
Changes in American leisure time activities, and in the views of youth concerning what leisure-time activities are considered socially acceptable among their peers, are the two factors that have led to the marginalization of the BSA. Changing a policy that concerns about the sexual identities of about 3% of the total population, and presumably the much smaller proportion of that 3% that are youths and that want to become involved in Scouting, will have absolutely no appreciable effect on that decline. Retaining the current policy will also have no effect, to be honest. Neither the current nor the proposed policy is likely to lead large numbers of uncommitted youth to join the BSA, but the effect of a radical change in policy, based on the slide you posted above, Clarke, will have an immediate and negative effect on existing troops and COs.
I don’t think is is prudent to exchange current membership for the possibility of future increases, especially when such a change is (based on the BSA’s own polling) very unpopular with a majority of the volunteer scouters. When I look at the slide you posted above, I don’t see anything that would lead us to the view that the proposed change in policy would benefit us as an organization, or that it would benefit the scouts.
Clarke, I appreciate your blog post and I agree wholeheartedly with you that “that we are not going to be the same organization after this historic vote.” I have talked to too many friends in Scouting around the country who will be leaving scouting if the policy is changed, or who know that their CO will no longer be able to support their troop based on the CO’s moral convictions. Others may disagree about those moral convictions, but the effect will still be felt. What is rarely discussed regarding this issue is that, unless we also agree to admit adult homosexual or bisexual leaders as well as atheist scouts and leaders, there will not be many non-religious organizations, military units, or schools that will step up to be the COs for all the orphaned troops, due to the organizational policies they are required to follow. As a worst-case scenario, we could become a movement of Lone Scouts. And Scouters.
The Boy Scouts of America has been heralded throughout the last century because it took a stand for doing what was right, not always what what popular. With this subject the Boy Scouts will create themselves as irrelevant. He who doesn’t stand for principals stands for nothing!
While they can account for the losses to be suffered immediately by making this poor decision, they can do nothing more than speculate that the decline will continue and judge this to be worse. How?
If people think that the principals are irrelevant in today’s world, how will our own abandoning of these principals make us more relevant?
This change certainly not an abandonment of principles in fact it is a very strong expression of principle. The single point of consensus was that it was unfair (or unprincipled) to deny a Scout Eagle based on sexual orientation.
I believe the projection of continued losses is based on the changing status of sexual orientation made clear in the material released by the BSA. Younger parents grow more accepting of differences in orientation with every passing day, and are less likely place their sons in the BSA while this policy is in place.
Clarke,
I always find it kind of cute to watch you youngsters argue about stuff.
I am past 70 and have been an active leader for more than 50 years. So, yeah, a lot of what has been posted on this thread is reminiscent of discussions I have overheard. To be fair, I am not a professional evesdropper, but tent walls do little to mute a conversation. And, sometimes, someone will ask for my sage(?) opinion.
So here are some of my own, unsolicited, words. Some might find some wisdom in them while others might wonder how I am able to ambulate with such a huge hole in head.
1. If this is a moral question, then there is no single moral stance we can take in Scouting.
Religious organizations have taken divergent positions on the issue of inclusion of gays in society: some hold the traditional view that homosexual behavior is wrong in all times and all places (although, as a careful student of the bible – in Hebrew, not in any translation – I am not sure if that is what the bible is referring to), others are accepting of gays as members with or without their being celibate, still other faiths fully accept gays, even as far as officiating at single-gender marriages and ordaining openly gay clergy.
I find it interesting that many or the same people who find Scouting acceptable even though it allows members in who follow beliefs defined a seriously sinful by their faith have hit the proverbial brick wall over the gay issue. If anyone needs examples of what I mean, I will be glad to answer any courteous emails on the topic.
2. Is there anyone out there who thinks we have NOT had many gay youth and leaders who have given tremendous service to Scouting in the last 100+ years?
3. Is there anyone who really thinks that there is no discussion of sex and sexuality in the Scouts? Some of the best misinformation I learned as a boy came from conversations with my buddies in Scout and other venues. No Scout leader ever discussed those matters with the boys although I confess that I have spoken to some parents over the years and suggested that a frank family discussion might be of value to their son. The only Scouts I ever discussed human sexuality with were my own sons.
One can have very good conversations about respectful, enriching inter-personal relations without ever having to go into the mechanics of human reproduction.
4. I would have preferred that BSA just strike any references to sexual orientation from the membership requirements and left it up to the individual Chartered Organization or Unit to determine if a prospective member is going to be a good fit in their Units. My unit has, in its 27+ years of operation refused to register a few adults because we felt they were not suitable for one reason or another – the question was always one about our Scouts’ safety. And, yes, we did not register one youth whose psychological problems were more than we could handle without degrading the quality of the program for the rest of the Troop.
All in all, my take is that, after the dust settles, we will ask, “What was all the fuss about?