Talk:Controversies about the Boy Scouts of America/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Page history

  1. 20:36, 11 September 2005 . . Smack (Talk | contribs | block) (moving text to Boy Scouts of America controversies (article namespace))
  2. 17:52, 11 September 2005 . . Jagz (Talk | contribs | block) (Introductory points)
  3. 17:46, 11 September 2005 . . Jagz (Talk | contribs | block) (Introductory points - added point)
  4. 17:11, 11 September 2005 . . Jagz (Talk | contribs | block) (Introductory points - added point)
  5. 16:50, 11 September 2005 . . 146.201.175.93 (Talk | block) (Introductory points - added link)
  6. 16:50, 10 September 2005 . . Jagz (Talk | contribs | block) (Introduction)
  7. 16:47, 10 September 2005 . . Jagz (Talk | contribs | block) (Introduction)
  8. 16:45, 10 September 2005 . . Jagz (Talk | contribs | block) (Introduction)
  9. 16:40, 10 September 2005 . . Jagz(Talk | contribs | block) (added introductory points)
  10. 22:40, 9 September 2005 . . Evrik (Talk | contribs | block)
  11. 21:42, 9 September 2005 . . Johntex (Talk | contribs | block) (categories are not articles)
  12. 21:07, 9 September 2005 . . Evrik (Talk | contribs | block) (Responses)
  13. 21:06, 9 September 2005 . . Evrik (Talk | contribs | block)
  14. 20:57, 9 September 2005 . . Evrik (Talk | contribs | block) (Establish page)

(requested by Evrik on my talk page. cut and pasted because we cannot do a history merge on categories due to Mediawiki limitations). Syrthiss 20:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks. --evrik (talk) 21:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion that Scouting For All be merged into this article

I think that merging Scouting For All into this article is a bad idea. This article discusses the controversies while making no recommendation for change whereas the stated purpose of the non-profit organization Scouting For All is to eliminate the Boy Scouts of America's policies on not allowing members into their organization who are gay/lesbian, non-theist, and/or girls/women. People may favor some change in the BSA's policies while not necessarily supporting Scouting For All's goals.--Jagz 17:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I have to agree with Jagz on this one. Rlevse 18:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • As long as the Scouting for All article stays at its current length and doesn't become a repeat of the arguments in this article, it can stay separate.

Bulleted lists and citations

There are a lot of bulleted lists in this article and many claims made without inline citations. There are obviously many people contributing to this article, which is great. However, the referencing system used in inconsistent. Please follow [{Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/RulesStandards|Scouting Project Guidelines]] and also please work on these issues: using more prose, less list oriented, and better documented. Thank you. Rlevse 20:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Main Title

Any way we can get the new title of this article changed to "Controversies about the Boy Scouts of America" ? As almost any active Scouter will tell you, all of this isn't really much of a controversy or even a common topic of discussion within Scouting. It does appear to mostly concern a few who aren't active in the program. Thanks - GCW 22 Jan

Violence

Since the cites requested six weeks ago about the supposed "Goshen Incident" haven't been provided, I've removed the Violence section and moved the safe scouting section. - GCW

Since some seem to think that removing this totally unsubstantiated section might be "vandalism" I've flagged it with a Wikipedia disclaimer that the "facts" in it haven't been cited. - GCW

Example of Loss of BSA Access in San Diego

This for those who say there's never been a case of BSA being denied access to a public facility. The city has similar leases with other non-profit groups, so BSA didn't have any preferential treatment.

That isn't what the court found. "Access to a public facility" means anyone can use it, but San Diego has many requirements for getting subsidized leases (for example, some are only available to non-profit groups). This is not "access to a public facility". Brian Westley 22:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

This was easily found on the BSA legal Issues website as Barnes-Wallace on http://www.bsalegal.org/whatothe-123.htm BTW, once the President signs the 2005 Defense Appropriation Act, the City of San Diego can continue denying BSA access to the facilities, as long they agree not to accept any funding from HUD. Want to bet which way they go? ;-) - GCW

The city is not denying the BSA access to facilities; when the lease is broken, I'm sure the BSA can use the land on the same basis as any other group (and not have first choice as they have now, where only BSA members can use this public parkland during the summer months when the use of this public parkland is reserved exclusively for BSA members only). Brian Westley 22:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
instead of violating copyright, I'll just post this link that points out many of the errors Pulliam makes. Brian Westley 22:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Support Our Scouts Act

Once again, all references to the signing of the bill have been removed, I put them back again. If you dispute this fact, take it up with the Library of Congress, which list the bill as having become Public Law [1]

-APW 16:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Now the references to the fact that the President signed this into law on December 30th were deleted. Another FACT that it has become LAW seems to bother those with a POV agenda Here. I've put it back. Geez! I promise if the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 is ever amended to include "Sexual Preference", you can put it in and I won't delete it.

- GCW 11 Jan


Why have all the references to the FACT that both Houses of Congress overwhelmingly approved the Support Our Scouts Act on December 21, 2005 and that the White House website says the president will sign it shortly been deleted???? The bill is a direct response to the "controversies" discussed here. I guess some people can't stand FACTS when they don't suit their POV agenda!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm going to keep putting this very relevant fact back in- GCW

"But since all legislation has to pass constitutional muster, it will almost certainly be struck down on identical grounds if it is signed into law." Removed as it's pure conjecture and future speculation, unless the writer is the judge in question. Let's stick to facts, not future prognostication unless this is the "paranormal" article.

Put back in - mere legislation can't overcome constitutional problems Brian Westley 22:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

It's out again. It's still speculation about future events (thus POV) and not a FACT- GCW

The bill was written as direct response to the judge's illogical decision that the BSA is a religion, which now becomes moot as a result.

No, it doesn't become 'moot' - the bill does not address or change that part of the decision. And the judge's decision is in line with the BSA's own legal arguments where the BSA itself says they are a "religious organization" (it's dishonest to say the judge found the BSA to be a "religion" - his ruling says no such thing). Brian Westley 22:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, considering that the judge was a woman, it's hard to see how much research you actually did about "his" ruling. - GCW 28 Dec

I thought you were referring to Judge Jones' decision in the Balboa Park case, where he said the BSA was a "religious organization" and which was cited by Judge Manning. Brian Westley 00:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

It defines DOD support of the Boy Scout Jamboree (and other large national youth group gatherings including non-BSA ones) as military training exercises, which have nothing to do with "establishment of religion". Regarding the Constitutional question, in the bill the Congress found that the courts have little say over how the Congress raises funds for and instructs the executive branch how to train it's military.

And the President says on www.whitehouse.gov that he definitely will be signing the Defense Appropriation Act which this is now part of, so it's "when" (probably within two weeks) not "if". -GCW

As it's stated in many Boy Scout materials, Scouting requires boys to be "reverent," not to "believe in God."

The Boy Scouts' official legal website [2] says explicitly that atheists cannot be members.

Having recently attended the 2005 National Jamboree as a visitor, and seeing religious services held for myriads of religions (jewish, catholic, two christian faiths, mormon), dispelled my doubts that the BSA is a religious organization. If it were, it would be more organized. Also, since many troops contained members with similar religious beliefs, if no service was held for them, they did it themselves, and nobody harassed them because they weren't praising a God. As long as a scout has a religion, he is usually not bothered by anyone. Any judges who claim Boy Scouting is a religious organization should have their position stripped based on the fact they can't think. -Chewbacca

Judge Jones based his opinion partially on the fact that the BSA itself has claimed it is a "religious organization" in court.

Gays & Scouting

LETS STICK TO FACTS - Until someone can give me the name of a Scout in a non-leadership position who was removed from BSA for being openly homosexual, the fact remains that BSA policy as written on it's own page proscribes known and avowed homosexuals from LEADERSHIP positions not general boy membership! I'll probably be waiting for a long time as there never has been any. Atheism is another matter, altogether and is proscribed for general members. GCW

Greg Lattera
(http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Greg+Lattera&btnG=Google+Search)
evrik 16:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

18 Year Old Life Scout Greg Lattera - Obviously had to be in a leadership position to achieve Life Rank (and the previous Star). Also once he turned 18, he has to be registered as an adult leader. Once again, virtually every Scout who is over 12 will be in a youth leadership position. - GCW

Whether I can name a rejected member is irrelevant, since there are reasons why this may be hard even if the policy exists:
  • There may be few avowed homosexual 10 year olds because 10 year olds are too young to have many sexual feelings in the first place, let alone to identify with homosexuals as a group.

PRECISELY!

  • When there are such boys, BSA officials might refuse to believe they are homosexual at all, instead claiming the boys are "confused". Using this excuse on older boys would be harder.

PRECISELY! As you say "10 year olds are too young to have many sexual feelings in the first place" That's been BSA's position all along and why sexuality (homo or hetero) isn't an appropriate topic within Scouting to begin with.

  • 10 year olds who do get thrown out of the BSA may be less likely than older boys to make a national case out of it, so we probably won't hear about it.

As you say "MAYBE" - Seems to be in conflict with your previous argument that "10 year olds are too young to have many sexual feelings in the first place

The way to find out if the BSA has a policy isn't to name rejected members, it's to look at their policy. The policy quoted in BSA vs. Dale clearly says that homosexuals may not be members. You have yet to quote any later policy that changes that. You have quoted later policies that are silent on whether homosexual members are allowed, but that's not the same thing. Ken Arromdee 18:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The current 2004 policy is posted below under Youth Leadership. That's the current one on Youth and homosexuality.

There is no conflict with my previous statements, because those statements use words like "few" and "less likely". That means there won't be as many gay 10 year olds as there are of older boys. It doesn't mean there will be *none*. There will still be some younger members to whom the anti-gay policy applies; it's just that since there are fewer of them, it's harder to name names.
I can see the current policy below, but you seem to be under the impression that it lets gays be members. It does not. It's silent about the issue; it says that gays may not be leaders, but nowhere does it say that they may be members.
Moreover, the policy says that members must be morally straight in thought, and defines that such that members must believe homosexual conduct is wrong. Gay boys don't believe that (even if they don't exercise in that conduct themselves) so they'd be disqualified.
Would you be satisfied with something like this paragraph?:
The decision in BSA vs. Dale quotes a 1993 BSA policy which explicitly excludes homosexuals as members. The more recent 2004 policy mentions only leaders and does not say whether homosexuals may be members. However, it does require that BSA members must be morally straight in thought and be willing to accept BSA beliefs, including a belief in the wrongness of homosexuality; since homosexual boys would normally not accept that, they would be not allowed as members.
Ken Arromdee 02:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the below is more accurate and would have no problem with it. The "BSA Beliefs" have always been the Scout Oath and Law. You don't have to subscribe to the BSA position statements. Adults do have to also agree to the Declaration of Religious Principles.

The decision in BSA vs. Dale quotes a 1993 BSA policy which explicitly excludes avowed homosexuals as members. The more recent 2004 policy mentions only leaders and does not say whether avowed homosexuals may be members. However, it does require that BSA members must be morally straight in thought and be willing to follow the Scout Oath and Law. GCW

Does being morally straight in thought, and willing to follow the oath and law, have anything to do with homosexuality? Would a boy who doesn't think homosexuality is wrong, and who considers himself to be homosexual violate that? Ken Arromdee 15:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

This is all coulda, woulda, shoulda speculation, so let's please stick to the facts that have occurred as I have written. BSA has problems with folks using the program for political purposes of any type, hence the emphasis on AVOWED homosexual. You can even read that implied in their current policy on youth leadership which says it's unlikely a boy would come out and publicize that he's homosexual until after 18.

Now here's my opinion and observation as a leader for thirty years. (Notice it's labelled as that ;-) ) In all practicality, BSA's policy as actually practiced in the field by most councils is very similar to the US government's own "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" for the military. Most of us don't care what you do on your own time as long as you keep it private and out of the newspapers and Scouting. Folks around here aren't actually wasting time "outing" leaders.

As for "Morally Straight", when that was written in 1910 it basically meant being honest and good, as in a "straight arrow". It was the Gay community who subsequently took the word "straight" and made it mean heterosexual.

I wasn't referring to the use of the word "straight" as meaning non-homosexual, I was referring to it as including the idea that a boy must agree with the BSA's moral values. It refers to beliefs as well as conduct. A boy who is homosexual, almost by definition, will have values different from the Scouts. This would seem to preclude homosexuals as members without having to say outright "we haven't lifted the ban on homosexual members".
And how can it be a don't ask, don't tell, policy if Scouts must take oaths to follow the Scout code and agree with Scout beliefs? That is far from "don't ask" and much closer to "ask". True, they could lie and nobody will check to see if the lie is true, but Scout honesty would seem to rule out lying anyway. (And what about members? Is there a don't ask, don't tell policy about members too, and does that mean avowed homosexual members are rejected?) Ken Arromdee 18:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
In the absence of answers to my questions, I've changed the article. Ken Arromdee 01:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I was checking the current Boy Scout Handbook for it's discussion of Morally straight. Morally straight means doing the right thing and following the guidance of your parents and religion. There is no requirement for a member to follow what you call the "beliefs" of BSA, nor would the typical member or leader even know them.

BSA's prohibition is on outward behavior, not belief. Due to their age, it's an unlikely situation for a youth "member" not in a leadership position to be a known or avowed homosexual. Most youth over 15 and all adults are in leadership positions in BSA.

A Scout must be morally straight *in thought* and be *willing to follow* the Scout law. Both of these are prohibitions on beliefs, not just on outward behavior.
And what about my point about the "don't ask, don't tell" policy? Requiring that members show allegiance to a Scout oath that bans homosexuality sounds to me like they are being asked and must tell.

Where in the Scout Oath or Law is the word homosexuality mentioned? You won't find it on any application form or in the Boy Scout Handbook, nor in the interpretation of the Oath and Law that Scouts use from these sources.

Trust me, this is not a big topic of concern to most Scouts and Scouters. The national policy statements are just that, policy used when a problem arises. Same with the legal statements, etc, etc.

I'd also like to know on what grounds you claim that "it is unlikely that a youth member not in a leadership position would ever be a known or avowed homosexual and thus subject to removal". It's certainly less likely, but I don't think it can be described as unlikely. Ken Arromdee 16:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC) Virtually every Scout over the age of 12 is in some leadership position. As we both agreed before, it's very unlikely that a Scout under that age would come out. GCW
I've taken the reference out. Aside from the above problem, the statement that "no known case of this has ever occurred" is not true; someone has given the Matt Hill case below as an example. Ken Arromdee 23:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

--- Why has this article been spunoff from the Boy Scouts of America article? I think this might be construed as a POV fork, and, IIRC, there is a guideline/policy against such things. crazyeddie 06:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Omission

It's ridiculous that this (since long before it was a separate article) doesn't mention anywhere that the Boy Scouts bars gay members, only leaders. I've changed this. -

Well I've changed it back to show the actual current written policy. Let's stick to current facts, not opinions if this is going to be an encyclopedia and not an editorial page.

First of all, BSA is only concerned about AVOWED homosexuals who publicly declare that they are homosexual and are using their Scout position to advocate it or any other political cause. I know a few of my fellow Scout Leaders who are homosexual. Nobody cares as long they keep it out of Scouting and the newspapers.

Not true - James Dale did NOT "use his Scout position to advocate" any cause, he was identified as a member of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance at Rutgers in a Newark Star-Ledger story. He was not identified as a Scout in the story, nor did Dale try to "use" his Scout position in any way. He was kicked out ONLY because he was gay, period. Dennis St. Jean, the longtime director of the BSA's Florida seabase, was fired because, on vacation, he went to a "predominantly gay" resort and the BSA found out. St. Jean never attempted to use his Scouting position to advocate anything; it was weeks before this news was even made public. There ARE many BSA units that refuse to enforce the BSA's policy, but national BSA policy is to kick out gay members - there is no allowance for being gay and staying in Scouting by "not using your position to advocate homosexuality" or some such. What you're seeing locally are people deliberately ignoring the official BSA policy.

The Scoutmaster's Handbook instructs adult leaders to instruct boys who have sexual questions to discuss them with their parents or religious leaders. The general principle is that adolescent youth members (who are under 18) are not yet old enough to know if they are really homosexual.

(And if anyone needs a source for "Critics contend that some leaders within BSA have investigated and expelled non-avowed homosexual leaders and members from the organization." (with respect to members), there's several such contentions by a critic in the Pool/Geller brief in BSA vs. Dale.) Ken Arromdee 07:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC) That's right it's from a critic not BSA policy. Here's the policy:

Only Leaders, Not general members. Here's the BSA position on Youth members:

● Youth Leadership Boy Scouts of America believes that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the obligations in the Scout Oath and Scout Law to be morally straight and clean in thought, word, and deed. The conduct of youth members must be in compliance with the Scout Oath and Law, and membership in Boy Scouts of America is contingent upon the willingness to accept Scouting’s values and beliefs. Most boys join Scouting when they are 10 or 11 years old. As they continue in the program, all Scouts are expected to take leadership positions. In the unlikely event that an older boy were to hold himself out as homosexual, he would not be able to continue in a youth leadership position

So adult and youth leadership positions are proscribed, not general youth membership. GCW

There is more than one part of BSA vs. Dale that's relevant. One of them is from critics, and is relevant to the "critics contend that" statement. The other is *not* from critics; it's a direct quote from a BSA policy that states that the BSA does not allow homosexuals as members.
As you'll notice, the newer quote you gave doesn't say that homosexual members are allowed. It says that leaders aren't allowed, but it never says that members are. And considering that it says that membership is contingent on accepting Scouting's values, and Scouting's values are that homosexuality is wrong even in thought, it seems to implicitly say that members may not be homosexual even though it doesn't say so explicitly.

Ken Arromdee 04:43, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Here is an example from www.inclusivescouting.net of gay youth being removed from scouting:
Matt Hill

The reference doesn't describe Matt Hill's rank or leadership position, but does describe his age at the time as 14. Every Scout of First Class rank or higher has to serve in a leadership position to advance to the next level. Most Scouts who stay in the program achieve First Class by age 12. The national standard goal is First Class one year after joining at 10 1/2. So the odds are very great that he was in some leadership position, and not a general member. It's rare Scout over the age 12 who isn't in a leadership position. -GCW

But if a youth member in a leadership position WAS found out to be gay, and the official BSA policy was to not have gays in leadership positions, wouldn't he just be relieved of his leadership position? Brian Westley 00:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC).

As I read the current policy, that would be event if he came out. As a practical matter, though, I doubt a youth of that age would want to stay in the unit without being in a leadership position and obviously couldn't meet the leadership requirements for further advancement. Remember though, that the chartered institution sponsoring the unit also has it's own say on who can be in the unit it sponsors. In reality, district, councils, BSA national or chartered institution rarely get involved in membership issues within a unit. -GCW

The site also names Chris Strobel, Rob Schwitz, and Patrick Renner as being under-18 Scouts who had their memberships revoked for being gay, though there is no information on their cases.

66.77.224.152 18:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC) - Correct. There is no information. If they were 12 or under when asked to leave, I'd be surprised.

In the BSA's brief in Dale (PDF is [here]), this is found on page 14 of the PDF document, all text from the original:

2) In 1978, Boy Scouts of America prepared a policy statement providing 'that an individual who openly declares himself to be a homosexual would not be selected to be a volunteer [S]cout leader, be registered as a unit member, or be employed [by the Boy Scouts of America] as a professional. . . .' Later position statements affirmed that stance. 109a, JA 453-461 (emphasis added)

I know of no statement by the BSA rescinding the part about "be registered as a unit member"; since this was cited by the BSA itself in the Dale lawsuit in 2000, I think that shows that gays can't be registered as a unit member today. As the BSA's policy on gays is still an unwritten policy, policy statements and legal briefs are about the only way to determine what that policy is now. Anyone still wanting to dispute whether the BSA excludes gays as members ought to cite a BSA policy or legal brief that contradicts the BSA statement in their Dale brief. Brian Westley 02:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I already put in the 1993 statement from the Dale case, which also excludes members and is more recent, but there are people who won't let me keep that in without mentioning that the 2004 policy doesn't exclude members (even though that's just because it doesn't mention them at all--and it seems to exclude members implicitly anyway). Ken Arromdee 03:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

This is an obvious example of hearsay since I've never looked at a scouting manual myself, but I've heard that the manual prohibits masturbation and can kick members out if they catch them doing it. Can anyone confirm this?207.157.121.50 23:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)mightyafrowhitey

YOU FOUND IT IN ANCIENT HISTORY. The 1910 manual also teaches Scouts how to stop runaway horses.

Robert Baden-Powell, who died in 1941, warned budding Scouts in the book first published in 1908: “You all know what it is to have at times a pleasant feeling in your private parts, and there comes an inclination to work it up with your hand or otherwise.

“Well, lots of fellows, from not knowing any better, please themselves in this way until it often becomes a sort of habit with them which they cannot get out of.

“The practice is called self abuse and the result is that the boy after time becomes weak and nervous and shy.

“He gets headaches and probably palpitation of the heart, and if he still carries it on too far he very often goes out of his mind and becomes an idiot.” …

He wrote: “The use of your private parts is not to play with when you are a boy but to enable you to get children when you are grown-up and married.

“But if you misuse them while young, you will not be able to use them when you are a man.

“Remember too that several awful diseases come from indulgence - one especially that rots away the inside of men’s mouths, their noses and eyes.”

"I've never looked at a scouting manual myself, but I've heard that the manual prohibits masturbation and can kick members out if they catch them doing it. Can anyone confirm this?" if you're referring to the Boy Scout Handbook (10th edition and 11th edition), neither edition references masturbation IIRC. ~a 17:04, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Cites

The current page reads "Similarly, less than twelve other leaders and members have been asked to leave a BSA Council because of engaging in public dissent in the media." As I know of no official BSA announcement as to how many people they have kicked out due to public dissent in the media, where does the very specific "less than twelve" come from? I would not accept the writer's only hearing of 11 or fewer cases as sufficient support to state "less than twelve".

From your own postings of who has been kicked out over this. GCW

Huh? Just because someone has posted fewer than twelve examples doesn't mean that there *are* fewer than twelve, it just means he hasn't *posted* fewer than twelve. Ken Arromdee 18:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Since GCW has no cite, I've removed that sentence. Brian Westley 23:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Since you still haven't provided any cites for the "violence" section why is that still there? A double standard! - GCW 18 Jan

I didn't add that section; I'm not responsible for citing other people's work. Brian Westley 01:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Good then you'll have no objection to my removing it after it's author had six weeks to provide the needed cites - GCW

Lawsuits

I've just put BACK a sentence changed from:

The BSA's policies have made it the target of costly litigation, notably lawsuits filed by the American Civil Liberties Union.

Back to:

There have also been a number of lawsuits filed by the American Civil Liberties Union over such issues as BSA recruiting in public schools and government involvement with the BSA.

It is NOT accurate to summarize the BSA as the "target" of costly litigation, as MOST current lawsuits involving the Boy Scouts are against OTHER entities, and do NOT have the BSA as a party:

Winkler v. Chicago School Reform Board of Trustees, et al
Scalise v. Mount Pleasant Public Schools
Powell v. Portland Public School District

Notice the above lawsuits lack "Boy Scouts of America" as a party.

But the actual intent is for ACLU to force restrictions on BSA through proxies because BSA successfully won the "Dale" case! Let's be honest! ACLU hated losing that one.
Let's be honest. Government entities such as public schools and military bases can't discriminate on the basis of religion, and the ACLU is litigating where government involvement with the BSA raises issues with government support of religious discrimination. The BSA certainly didn't surrender its public school charters willingly, even though that would have been the only honest thing to do. Brian Westley 03:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

There is this one:
U.S. ex rel Glenn Goodwin v. Old Baldy Council of the Boy Scouts of America, Inc.
...which is against the Old Baldy Council for signing a nondiscrimination agreement to get a HUD grant, which paid for a Scout program (which does not admit atheists, in violation of the HUD nondiscrimination agreement). That one IS against the BSA.

There are also these cases:
Eugene Evans et al v. City of Berkeley
"Evans" was instigated BY members of a BSA Sea Scout group, for losing their free berth; the BSA isn't the "target" in this case, Berkeley is.

Barnes-Wallace, et al. v. City of San Diego and Boy Scouts of America/Desert Pacific Council
This case was against both San Diego and the BSA; the city has decided not fight the case anymore, but the BSA is continuing the case on its own.

So out of these 6 active cases, 2 "targeted" the BSA. And the Goodwin lawsuit isn't about the BSA policies per se, it's about the BSA defrauding HUD by not living up to the required nondiscrimination agreement that they signed to get funding.

Another recently decided case, Boy Scouts of America v. Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities, was also instigated by the BSA; the BSA was not "targeted".
Brian Westley 05:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

This legal stuff really needs to be put directly into the article itself as reference and footnotes. As it stands, this article is not only in real need of Wikification, it is severely POV and lacks documentation. "Twenty years ago..." and "A few volunteers..." and so on smack of "this one guy back in school..." What years did these things happen? Where are they documented? I am not saying they did not happen, I have heard the stories myself as long as I have been a Scout and I know there are issues that need addressed. But I've also heard the urban legends of Rod Stewart and the goat, and the woman whose house burnt down because she could not find the 11 button when dialling 911. If someone can show me the interview with that woman on Larry King, by all means document it. Same here, without citation of precedents, actual events and the steps taken or not taken afterward, a first-year law student would throw this article out. Before I get flamed, I have been in Scouting 26 years and have first-hand encountered several of the issues contained herein. This is not at all a taboo topic, but as yet it is a sketchy article, and needs a POV and Wikify tag, soon. Chris 02:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Schools

What's the cite for 10,000 units being sponsored by public schools? I'll bet those are Learning for Life units. Most traditional packs and troops would be sponsored by the PTA, not the school itself. I'll remove the reference in a day if we don't have a cite. -GCW

The article says over 10,000 chartered by government entities, primarily public schools.
Here's a database of most publicly-chartered BSA Cub Scout Packs and Boy Scout Troops as of January 2005. It doesn't include all BSA units (roughly 90% were examined) and it was largely generated by computer from official BSA data, so there are some errors (both in including some that should be excluded, and excluding some that should be included). It also does not include Venture Crews and Sea Scout Ships. For schools and other government agencies, the total from this database is 8,906, with about 7,500 being public schools. Assuming the unexamined 10% of units have government charters at the same rate gives an estimate of 9,800, but again, that doesn't include Venture Crews or Sea Scout Ships.
For comparison, here is a Boy Scout council website that has figures from 1998, showing public schools chartering 10,113 units. And here is a scouter.com posting that has a detailed breakdown for 1998, which shows "Parent-Teacher groups" as chartering 4,002 units, "Parent Teacher Associations" as chartering 1,965 units, and "Public Schools" as the aforementioned 10,113 units, plus there are a number of government agencies listed with even more units. And here is a Baptist Press article that quotes "BSA national spokesman Gregg Shields said units whose charters will be pulled from public schools would number in the thousands".
Brian Westley 03:06, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Venture Crews would never be chartered to a public entity as the program prohibited it from its inception in the 90's.

This is not true; I myself contacted Cambridge-Isanti High School after this newspaper article appeared, describing the school's Venturing program. The charter partner was the school district (district 911), and here is an article that mentions their becoming the charter partner for the Venturing program (scroll to bottom). The principal of C-I High School was also the chair of the Three Rivers District of the Viking BSA council.Brian Westley 00:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Interesting, as my own council has very few schools listed. We converted most of them to PTA's a few years ago to avoid the problem. Looking at the database for my own state, about 20% are listed there in error, being private schools, charter schools, volunteer fire companies, etc. So I would say the actual number in March of 2005 would be 8,000. Of course the real number is how many will be in March of 2006 after a years worth of re-chartering. It's not hard to transfer the charter to a parents troop committee. GCW

Well, since you've offered no specifics about which entries are in error, I don't consider your counter-estimate valid; plus, since public schools clearly HAVE chartered Venture Crews (I've found two more in Minnesota that still charter them, Monticello and Osseo), there are still some yet to be counted. Brian Westley 00:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. Any old Explorer unit chartered to a public institution was transferred to the Learning for Life division when the Venturing program was started. The unit seems to go against it.

For examples of private schools included in the "public school" list just go to the ones listed for New Jersey. Westminster Choir School, schools with religious names like "Notre Dame", "Mother Seton", etc. are obviously not public schools, nor are any "charter" schools. In addition, there are numerous volunteer fire companies listed, which are not municipalities. The same holds for other states.

Individual examples don't justify an "about 20% error" estimate. If you'd like to check all the entries and produce a corrected list, be my guest. And in my state, "charter" schools certainly can be public schools. Brian Westley 00:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

It's the responsibility of the "Scouting for All" folks to make sure that the list THEY posted on their website and you quoted is correct.

The list published CLEARLY states that it is an imperfect list generated by computer. The BSA itself was unable to come up with a definitive list of BSA units chartered by military bases as part of the Winkler settlement (I've spoken with Adam Schwartz of the Illinois ACLU about this case).

Anyone with half a brain looking at the database they've assembled can find a number of instances where TEN cub packs with sequential pack numbers chartered to the same school are listed. That's an impossibility and checking the unit on their council page shows the units don't even exist!

This list was generated nearly a year ago; when generated, that's what the BSA's own sources had listed. Since then, the BSA has announced that public schools can no longer charter them, so OF COURSE many public school units no longer exist.

Schools which Scouting for All's own links describe as Private are numerous. Montessori school and PTG's are listed. Etc,, etc.

Like I said before, if you won't bother to list any corrections, I won't bother listening.

It's just another example of POV reporting without checking the facts. I'm removing the entire section until the folks posting it can come up with accurate numbers that stand up to scrutiny.

I'm putting it back. The BSA's own past figures show public schools with over 10,000 units, and the BSA's official spokesman stated in news reports that it would involve "thousands" of units (and even HE couldn't come up with an exact or even ballpack figure on how many units would be affected).

66.77.224.62 05:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Discrimination against "Infidels" and Bisexual/Gay people:

See Talk:Girl Scouts of the USA#Discrimination against "Infidels" and Bisexual/Gay people:. --Mistress Selina Kyle 19:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

What is your point by posting this link here? Do you have a suggestion for this article? --jergen 19:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Discrimination Within BSA -- Against Women

Is there some evidence to back this up? Claims such as "in reality, a woman who is a scoutmaster must deal with prejudice from both volunteer and professional scouters. Women who are employees of the BSA deal with strong prejudices." need backing up, as does the claim that the BSA does not offer equal opportunities to both male and female employees. Mdwh 04:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

ummm.. I am a boyscout, I have never heard this or seen any evidence to support it, and there are more women leaders in my troop then there are men Mac Domhnaill 03:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I have two comments on this. The first: my mother is a Scoutmaster, and she is more competent than many male ones I've seen, and nobody "discriminates" against her in any way based on her gender. I know many women that work at the Council level, some in paid positions. If they were so discriminated against, they wouldn't be there. Next, there are positions in a scout troop for any adult interested, from treasurer, to secretary, to scoutmaster. But, and even my mother has said this, certain positions are only truly fulfilled by males, and only males that have been scouts in their youth. One such position is Scoutmaster. The role of the scoutmaster is more important than "running" the troop, he has to be a friend and mentor to all scouts. Scoutmasters also commonly participate in the "youthful humor," or some uncouth jokes and such that one would expect to hear at an event with 10-17 year old boys. That is part of the Scouting environment. From what I've seen, women usually frown upon and/or punish that behavior, which is an almost natural part of life for the boys. This is where that woman fails in her duty to the boys. If a woman can handle this humor, just ignore it if nothing else, then she can do the job fine. And yes, I'd like to see some of this evidence supporting all of this supposed discrimination. -Chewbacca 03:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for original research. If deep within the fabric there is widespread distrust of women, someone should have done a study or investigation and published it. If you can find something like that, cite it as an example of some people's opinion. I have grown up in the scouting program: first as a cub scout, with a woman leader, and second as a Boy Scout with a male leader. I often heard older scouts say the endearing sentence, "I helped my mom earn my Eagle Scout." Nothing in anything I have heard or observed comes close to what is presented in that section. I really need to see some facts about it before I can feel comfortable about a statement so powerful.

Neither is Wikipedia a place for fringe ideas. Surely there are some who think that BSA discriminates against women, but reason suggests that the overwhelming majority thinks otherwise. Consider the 2005 bill to support the BSA. Politicians thought it was fine to support it overwhelmingly. These people are extremely concerned about their appearance, and I seriously doubt that so many could be so wrong to support an organization that discriminates so terribly against women. That many people couldn't risk losing re-election.

As mentioned in the article, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, whose members constitute a large portion of the BSA, uses the BSA as part of its official program for the young men. They also participate in a more spiritual service program, the Aaronic priesthood. It has a standard of living for its young men that includes "Give proper respect to women, girls, and children" ("The purposes of the Aaronic Priesthood", Duty to God book, 7). Distrust of women is not compatible with this; for a distrust to exist within scouting, thousands of boys must be hypocrites.

Discrimination against and distrust of women is perfectly compatible with religious teachings that say to "respect" women, because "respect" is ill-defined enough that it needn't include what we would usually consider discrimination. If the scriptures said "equal treatment", that would be different. Ken Arromdee 16:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I am in favor of drastically editing this page and combining it with the main article about the BSA, in order to clean up the unsubstantiated claims and prevent a POV fork. Sjwheel 04:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I've take the "Discrimination against women" section out as it's it's strictly unsubstantiated POV without a single cite or external reference. Someone have any facts to back up these "feelings"? Until then, I'll keep taking it out. It doesn't jibe with my experience with women in BSA. There's a much better argument for discrimination against men in GSUSA!


Promoting Social Agendas

As a practical matter, all of the supposed "controversies" here are rarely a concern or even a topic of discussion among the average kid or leader in Scouts. We're talking at most about a few dozen "problem cases" among the hundreds of millions of members and leaders and tens of thousands of units over the ninety five year history of BSA. Statistically, that's insignificant.

Thus this "controversy" piece needs to be kept separate from the main Scouting and BSA pages to avoid giving the impression that this stuff really is a major part of Scouting. The fact that there is even a "controversy page" is that BSA actually had the nerve to stand up for what it believes in, didn't cave-in to pressure among radical folks wanting an "endorsement" from a mainstream organization for their unusual beliefs, and that the Supreme Court in Dale agreed that BSA had the right to do so. -GCW

Equal rights for those who aren't the same religion as those who run the organisation or for people that aren't heterosexual is "radical"? ................................... --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 10:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes. BSA allows virtually every religion to use it, so in fact it actually encourages and promotes respect for other's religions. It's position is in accordance with the Constitution that states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In Scouting, no member has to attend any religious service, but they do have to do their duty to God. How they define that duty and what "God" represents is totally up to them, their parents and their religious leaders, if any.

But that still excludes prospective Scouts who don't believe in God and don't think they have a duty to a nonexistent being. They get kicked out. Ken Arromdee 19:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, the world scouting organization has addressed that. Scouting is not for anyone. It's for those willing/able to accept the fundamentals of scouting, one of which is "duty to God", however YOU define "God". Scouting accepts a wide range of religious beliefs, despite what some inside and outside the program think. Take a look at all the existing religious awards available to scouts. Take a look a Venturing's new TRUST Award. --Emb021 22:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

As for promoting the rights of non-heterosexuals, the more appropriate forum for advancing such leading edge causes is to amend the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include "Sexual Preference" as a protected Federal Civil Right. Once you do that, then the concept would no longer be radical. But until you do, it isn't the role of BSA to act as a surrogate for federal legislation that Gay Rights activists haven't been able to get passed.

Should reword that to "Sexual Orientation"; Preference implies choice. Not that it matters in this discussion, I'm just OCD and can't let things go without commenting :P --Naha|(talk) 22:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Due to it's image as an icon with Motherhood and Apple Pie in popular culture, BSA has had such problems in the past with labor unions objecting to "loyal" in the 1910's and the Catholic Church feeling it was taking kids AWAY from church in 1920's. As a result, BSA has been very consistent in avoiding use of its program to promote certain political agendas. It's current positions are no different taken in this historical context.

The fact that we have this section in Wikipedia at all shows that some folks don't understand how miniscule this all is the actual operations of the hundreds of thousands of Scout Units and millions of members of BSA. Millions of kids benefit from the program as is, yet folks jump up and down and beat up the organization for few dozen extreme cases wishing to push the envelope. The envelope of what are mainstream American values is more appropriately defined in a democracy through legislation. - GCW

Fighting discrimination is a job that kids are very ill-equipped to do. Only in very exceptional cases will victims ever come forward. There are more gays and atheists discriminated against than a few dozen, it's just that they lie about it or quietly go home. Ken Arromdee 19:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

And I assume that such advocates as you are adults. Once again, the appropriate venue in a democracy is through legislation if such "discrimination" is a significant problem for the country. By their recent actions, the citizens of this country through their elected representatives of this country appear to feel that it's not. - GCW

The point of taking it to court is that we already have legislation and the courts need to enforce it.
You're also missing my point. You said it doesn't matter because the number of cases is small. I'm pointing out that because children can't fight discrimination very well, only a tiny minority of the ones discriminated against will make a case out of it, so a small number of cases doesn't mean a small amount of discrimination. Ken Arromdee 18:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually the term "discrimination" in it's pejorative sense just proves the POV slant of this entire article. The Supreme Court in the Dale case stated that freedom of association does not denote "discrimination" against those who do not meet membership guidelines or requirements.

Wrong. The supreme court said that New Jersey's Law Against Discrimination could not be applied to the BSA without unlawfully infringing on the BSA's first amendment rights. "Discrimination" is still an accurate description. Brian Westley 01:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Once again, the actual number of cases has been small, and most of those involve adults, not Scouts. Even before joining, even the youngest Cub Scout has to sign his own membership application (right under the Cub Scout Promise) agreeing that he'll try to live up to it (including the Duty to God part) so it's no surprise to anyone. His first advancement step has always been to memorize it and explain what it means to him.

The Scout Oath hasn't changed since 1910 and the Cub Scout Promise is essentially the same since 1930, so why this has suddenly become "controversial" is the real controversy. The real reason is the ACLU lost ground in the Dale case and is now on a vendetta.

Ridiculous speculation. What do you think the ACLU ought to have done in the case of, say, public schools chartering (that is, owning and operating) youth groups that have religious requirements for membership? Public schools can't DO that, period. Brian Westley 01:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Congress has recognized this through it's adding it's protections for BSA in the Education Act of 2001 and the recent Support Our Scouts Act. Without the ACLU encouraged lawsuits, the subject never would have been brought up. But the nation, through it's elected representatives, has now spoken twice on the subject in BSA's favor to help dissuade school boards and local governments from being coerced to join the ACLU campaign. - GCW 19 Jan

What's the difference in BSA promoting its social agenda and those opposed to BSA fighting the BSA to promote their social agenda? Rlevse 02:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Duplicate links / Repeating Category Links as External Links

Is there a reason for duplicating Category:Boy_Scouts_of_America_controversies as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Boy_Scouts_of_America_controversies ? (And at the least, it's better as an internal link like the former, rather than an external http:// link.) If there's a good reason I have missed, then fair enough. I do not claim to be a "Wiki expert" btw - citing reasons in edit summaries is good practice, and I'm sure something that non-experts can do too. Mdwh 04:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I could not get the link to work in the standard internal link format if that is your concern, however, it is essentially an internal link and properly placed under "See Also". I think the category name "Boy Scouts of America controversies" sounds too much like the name of this article "Controversies in the Boy Scouts of America" to draw people's attention. I think that the category name should be modified to make it more accurate as its links are not all controversies per se but only somehow related to controversies. Maybe if the category name was changed then the duplicate link would not be needed. The articles should be written to be user friendly.--Jagz 08:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

In that case, this suggests changing the name of the category is the best way to resolve this, if you feel a user would be confused. Although having said that, it's quite common to have similarly or even identically named articles and categories (eg, Apple Macintosh and Category:Macintosh computers, Amiga and Category:Commodore Amiga, Sexual orientation and Category:Sexual orientation).
In my opinion, it's more confusing to have repeat the same link in a manner in which the links look different, and I can't say I've seen a trend to repeat the Category an article is in under the "See also" - maybe others have some input on this issue? (Not that it really matters, hence I won't revert for now, but I feel it's important to be consistent.) Mdwh 12:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

As you guys hash this out, please change the title from "Controversies in the Boy Scouts of America" There isn't much controversy IN the BSA about these subjects. It's more "Controversies about the Boy Scouts of America". As almost any active Scouter will tell you, all of this isn't really much of a controversy or even a common topic of discussion within Scouting. It does appear to be mostly a concern to a few who aren't active in the program. Thanks - GCW 23 Jan

I changed the category name to "Boy Scouts of America controversy" and removed the duplicate link. The name of the article was changed slightly to "Controversies in the Boy Scouts of America" on January 22 by Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/Todo.--Jagz 17:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, "Controversies about the Boy Scouts of America" is probably better, but then so would the category name be better if it were "Boy Scouts of America controversies" or also "Controversies about the Boy Scouts of America"; many cats and articles have the same name. Rlevse 03:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC) (Scouting project coordinator)
This is America and everyone is entitled to their own opinion.--Jagz 17:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I believe everyone is always entitled to their own opinion no matter where they are. However, Wikipedia is not America. But that kind of thinking is the reason for the huge systematic bias this encyclopedia has. --Naha|(talk) 21:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
The category and article both talk about more than one controversy, which would make it plural. Rlevse 20:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Also, Scouting project policy is to generally put the "Boy Scouts of America" part at the end of titles, not at the beginning. Rlevse 20:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
As I stated earlier, "I think that the category name should be modified to make it more accurate as its links are not all controversies per se but only somehow related to controversies." I have since slightly modified the category name.--Jagz 21:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I've haven't come up with the right word for a category name change yet, but I do very much think the article should be "about", not "in". Rlevse 22:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm leaning towards "about" as well. --Naha|(talk) 21:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

BSA is Conservative

I removed "the BSA is conservative" statement. BSA has always been strictly apolitical and requires it's leaders to be so in public remarks, following the military officer corps model on which Scouting originally derived from.

Some of the controversy about removing leaders who speak publicly on political or controversial issues comes from folks who don't understand that they hold their commissions at both the pleasure of BSA and their chartered organization. If they wish to "speak out", then they need to first resign their commissions. Exactly the same as the military. I'm a retired USAFR Lt. Colonel and couldn't speak on political issues there either.

Historically, BSA tends to be pretty traditional and mainstream in keeping with it's charter to be a patriotic society and tends to reflect mainstream societal values, not lead them. For example, I'm a moderate Republican and when I was a Scoutmaster, my good friend and Assistant Scoutmaster was a moderate Democrat. We had interesting personal discussions round the campfire after the Scouts went to sleep, but neither of us would ever use our positions in Scouting to advance our political beliefs to the Scouts or publicly.

Now as Scouting has come under attack from folks on the left, folks on the right have rallied to support Scouting. But that's outside of Scouting as folks try to grab some of the motherhood and apple pie aura to support their positions. -GCW 23 Jan.

While I agree with the removal of that statement, due to their official apolitical policies, and I'm sure "conservative" does not really apply to every Scout, Scout Leader, Troop etc, discrimination against homosexuals and requiring a "duty to God" does seem just a tad conservative ;) --Naha|(talk) 21:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/o/n/Talk%7EControversies_about_the_Boy_Scouts_of_America_archive1_ef43.html"