Because of the nature of my job right now I find a lot of time to read periodicals. I try to avoid the gossip magazines but alas I succumb to them. So that should let anyone know that I read almost anything. On the way I’ve been pleasantly surprised and not pleasantly surprised. So in my quest to find interesting and useful reading I ran across a copy of “Outside”. The cover looks like it targets the “Men’s Fitness” crowd. I figured what the heck maybe I’ll learn about a new spot on the planet I can visit or learn some skills when it comes to being outside. One article was amazingly good. It was in regards to what has become of Mt. Everest. Another article was so, so regarding being alone in the outdoors with nothing to survive with, except a knife and a couple of knick knacks. However I’m not going to talk about those as neither effected me drastically in any way.
There was an article that bothered me to no end. It was titled “Demerit Badge” “Is Boy Scouts of America doing enough to keep kids safe?” There were some valid points in the article. One was that the BSA doesn’t share its accident data with other organizations. Another was that the BSA has fostered a culture of not taking responsibility. Another was that the BSA does not train its leadership enough when it comes to outdoor survival issues. Another yet was that the BSA leadership makes bad decisions. Now you can debate the truth of these claims. Fact is that the BSA can do better when it comes to ensuring the safety of the children that it has stewardship over. That’s not what bothered me about the article.
When making the point the BSA doesn’t train its leadership enough the author (Annette McGivney who teaches journalism at Northern Arizona University) points to a defense the BSA raises to that issue. The author paraphrases Frank Reigelman, “it’s hard to enforce requirements in a volunteer organization with 47,000 troops across the country.” Now the author replies with this statement. “That argument would be more convincing if they didn’t manage to exclude gays and atheists from all BSA chapters.”
Now the argument itself I can see. The BSA does manage to enforce some requirements in its organization. But why do you have to drop the gay and atheist card? You could have said the BSA doesn’t allow felons to be in its organization. The BSA also makes sure the leaders are all adults. But these requirements are of a different kind than Outdoor safety requirements. The BSA does enforce some level of training when it comes to say water activities and such, but the statement of Annette McGivney were more than just an argument. It was an underlying statement that the BSA is a non socially desirable entity cloaked in an argument. That what the BSA stands for is sort of stupid.
This bothers me to no end. I have mixed thoughts about the wisdom of the BSA having a ban on gays in its leadership. More and more religious sects are accepting openly gay individuals in their church leadership. As the BSA is a religious organization that accepts nearly all religions I think it is unwise to establish this excluding policy. But you never hear about how stupid the Orthodox Greeks are and how silly and stupid their ways are. The BSA makes an easy target. While I welcome the arguments as I feel that they give new perspectives on the organization, I could do without the condescending nature of the arguments. As for the atheism comment yes that bothers me to no end. The BSA is a religious organization. Atheism and the BSA are two mutually exclusive forces. Anyone who was halfway involved with the BSA or bothered to understand the organization on any level would understand this. I think the atheism card diminishes the argument that the BSA could perform better controls. It also smacks of the condescending tone that in prevalent in attacks against the BSA. I don’t know why people just don’t say what they really mean, “I don’t like what the BSA stands for and the lifestyle that it tries to advocate.”
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
A couple of quick comments. I think one thing is highly misunderstood when most people talk about the BSA. It is only loosely a national organization.
Decisions and rules are almost solely on the local level. Enforcement is also almost exclusively on the local level. You mention that there is some training required, but that really isn't true.
Besided a background criminal check a leader is required to do nothing in order to be registered. All training classes, though provided, are not required.
This is both a good and a bad thing. It allows local groups, on the council and district level to more specifically take care of local concerns and problems.
I think it is not the BSA, but local leaders and groups who have fostered the don't take responsibility ideal. The BSA offers the training necessary to be qualified to lead groups into the outdoors, but with an all volunteer leadership, it is difficult to force them into it. In many areas it is hard enough to get men willing to give their time. If extensive training were required, many boys would go without the opportunities afforded by having a local troop.
You say the BSA can do better. While it is easy to say such when one sees an accident caused by or involving scouts, you have to look at the numbers. Thousands upon thousands of scouts go out into wilderness areas every year. The safety record of the Scouts, I think, could be put up against ANY organization, ANY other group. This of course doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement. But to pick them out of the crowd, is, in my opinion disingenuous.
To the second discussion point. Gay leaders. One must remember that the BSA neither goes around finding gay leaders, nor does it enforce that rule AGAINST local chapters. It comes to the defense of local chapters. Because the BSA believes in ALL denominations, they allow them to set many of the rules. If an episcopal troop chose to have a gay leader, I am nearly positive that the BSA on a national level would do nothing to try to stop it. Why would they.
In my mind it is absolutely paramount that local groups have such ability. It is the only way the Boy Scouts can remain all denominational.
Annette McGivney’s article, “Demerit Badge,” was dead on and did not scratch the surface. I have been a leader, scoutmaster, District and Council Board member over my years of involvement with the Boy Scouts of America. I have come to understand that the Boy Scouts of America is a fundraising, business and political organization. Over the years, I have watched qualified leaders leave the organization and Scouts leave the BSA due to the political nature of the organization and its relevancy to today’s young men.
I stopped being a believer when I witnessed more than 1,500 scouts suffer from dehydration and heat exhaustion at the National Jamboree in 2005. I watched the Boy Scouts of America allow boys to march miles in 100 plus degree heat and make them sit for hours in the sun before the Jamboree show without adequate water or cover. It developed into a scene out of a war movie with boys and leaders lying on the ground, helicopters and more than 100 ambulances lined up to take boys to the local hospitals. Our medical centers were filled throughout the night, and to this day the march of the scouts to the 2005 Jamboree show is called the “Death March.” The Boy Scouts of America was not prepared for the weather conditions and the number of participants. Thank God the US Army took over the management of the Jamboree after that incident. At a lunch after the event, the Boy Scouts of American leadership at my table only spoke about their pensions and retirement benefits. No mention was made of what the boys experienced.
In my Council, there are very few leaders that I would trust with my son for any outside activity. The activities my unit is involved with are with other groups, such as the Florida Trail Association, that have qualified leaders who know what to do in an emergency situations. The problems the Boy Scouts of America face today is in finding qualified leadership, improving and developing strong training programs, relevancy for today’s youth and stopping the politics in the volunteer and Scout organization ranks. It was a great organization, and maybe under the new leadership, will be revitalized.
Dear Anonymous,
First a congratulations of sorts, you are my first anonymous poster. I don’t know if posting on this blog is a congratulations or something that one would rather hide for fear of social ridicule. I guess that’s probably why you selected the anonymous title. I think with you I can count my readership at about nine people, give or take six. I don’t know if you will read this response but I feel that I should respond as the BSA is something dear to my heart.
Second thank you for raising valid points. You stated, “The problems the Boy Scouts of America face today is in finding qualified leadership, improving and developing strong training programs, relevancy for today’s youth and stopping the politics in the volunteer and Scout organization ranks.” I agree with all the points with maybe an exception to the relevancy for today’s youth. I also think that the BSA can provide a bit of better guidance when it comes to handling certain situations. You know a leaders guide with standard and suggested SOPs for different kinds of wilderness situations. Granted there is the BS handbook, but I think a leader’s manual with SOPs would do wonders. To my knowledge such a document doesn’t exist, somebody correct me if I’m wrong.
Third my general frustrations wasn’t over the main point of the article itself, it was over the underlying tone. Instead of putting up a side by side comparison of a group that does have sufficient training and personnel the article just goes and bashes an aspect of the BSA that is more social in nature than targeting its actual training and certification procedures. My point is if you are going to criticize the BSA for safety, then criticize the BSA for safety and don’t add in the red herrings of the gay and atheist issues. The discussions on how to improve the BSA on safety issues would be much more productive if it wasn’t accompanied by an evaluation of the BSAs social value scheme.
Fourth I think you are doing a wonderful job as a parent in regards to associating with the Florida Trail Association. Parents need to familiarize themselves with the leadership the boys will under. If they don’t feel comfortable with it they need to insist on upgrading the leaderships training or simply just us other recourses. Ultimately the only place where the leadership is really accountable is to the parents and they are the enforcers of any standard under the current system. But to talk about what specifically can be done to change the current system is a post or blog unto itself. At most I only feel qualified to make broad suggestions on tweaking the system.
Fifth your experience with the Jamboree in 2005 is more of an event planning issue and not associated with the leadership level that needs to be targeted. Then again one could say that leadership is from the top down.
Sixth I still believe the BSA is a great organization. Can it be better? Yes. I’ve seen too many lives change for the better because of the BSA to say the BSA isn’t a great organization. Would the BSA be wise to try and make changes so that it can improve and grow in changing times? Yes, but I think that was your point.
Post a Comment