Jump to content

Talk:Boy Scouts of America membership controversies

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Brian Westley (talk | contribs) at 04:22, 16 June 2009 (→National Jamboree). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Featured articleBoy Scouts of America membership controversies is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 3, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
April 12, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 24, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Template:V0.5

Archive
Archives

Please place new messages at bottom of page.

BSA membership size

The section now says: "Volunteers say paid Scout leaders have created fictitious 'ghost units' for years to pump up membership numbers to trick donor groups and charities, including the United Way, into giving them more money."
Is or was there also a problem with some BSA councils or Scouting units continuing to carry on their membership rolls the names of people who quit or stopped participating for a long period of time? --Jagz 16:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's unlikely that it's a much of a problem in a regular (non-disadvantaged or LFL) units which are the overwhelming bulk of BSA. No unit wants to pay a registration fee out of it's own funds for a non-existant Scout. It also works against the unit in earning Quality Unit awards as X percentage of registered members need to advance during the year, etc. Rarely as a Commissioner, I see a unit carrying a boy or two for one year (you renew your members for a year when you recharter as a unit) as they're not sure if he's going to get active again, but that's the exception that proves the rule. Most units want to avoid paying their hard-earned funds to pay for someone not participating.
The few cases mentioned all seem to involve atypical units in disadvantaged areas where direct funding grants were available and lack of adequate local community adults resulted in paid Scoutmasters running them without volunteer commisioner oversight. If the district and council has an adequate volunteer commisioner staff, such abuses would be extremely obvious at charter renewal time. The new Membership Validation process (where the volunteer commisioners have to sign off on the registration rolls) should also help curtail that. As a volunteer commissioner, we have no financial interest in attesting to a professional's false document and lots to lose, starting with the first point of the Scout Law. GCW50 19:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why the older Strategic Plan logo? --Gadget850 ( Ed) 20:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It says "timeless values". The section discusses values and how the Scout Oath and Law have not changed since 1911. --Jagz 20:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
<blink> I have some of these going back to the Scouting/USA logo of the 1970s then. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 03:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the previous logo, Character Counts. Theat fits in as well. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 19:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Character Counts". It is too vague as to what this means. --Jagz 19:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Old versions of this article

For historical purposes, here is the article as it was on 27 February 2006 [1] and here it is on 28 February 2006 after Alecmconroy rewrote it [2]. --Jagz 02:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nondiscrimination policies and statements

The article now says:

"In 2001, nine BSA local councils requested permission to sign nondiscrimination statements but were denied by the BSA National Council.[1] Since then, at least one council in New Jersey has signed such a statement in order to continue receiving United Way funding by complying with their nondiscrimination policy."[2]

How many local councils have adopted nondiscrimination policies to continue to get funding, such as United Way funding? See [3]. Do the councils really adhere to the policies? --Jagz 18:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My previous comments seem to have been deleted here. As long as the wording of the non-discrimantion agreement is designed to prevent "illegal discrimination" there usually is no conflict, as post-Dale, BSA doesn't engage in "illegal discrimination". GCW50 16:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This section needs to point out that a BSA nondiscrimination policy that only talks about "illegal discrimination" is a meaningless policy, since the BSA cannot engage in illegal discrimination, and it only appears to be used to try and deceive United Ways and other agencies into believing that they will not discriminate.Brian Westley 02:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also the statement concerning the the packs in Chicago isn't quite correct and the reference link is dead. The pack committees in question drafted their own membership policies post-Dale that differed from the BSA national position. Units have to follow all of BSA's programs and policies, not pick and choose them. When this was pointed out to them and they refused to follow the BSA policies, their charters were not renewed. GCW50 16:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "Reaction to nondiscrimination policies" section needs a rewrite. --Jagz 22:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some BSA local Councils have signed nondiscrimination statements to continue receiving United Way funding. Is this in conflict with BSA National Council policy? Since local Councils can't abide by a true nondiscrimination policy (because of National Council policy), signing a nondiscrimination statement would seem to be against National Council policy as well. --Jagz 15:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the nondiscrimination statements that the national BSA allows local councils to sign typically refer to "illegal discrimination," which is meaningless as far as the BSA is concerned, as they engage in legal discrimination.Brian Westley 02:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the sentence on nondiscrimination statements back to its original wording. It is true according to its cited source. --Jagz 16:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

A quick review of references:

  • Coalition For Inclusive Scouting
Since their site is dead and the domain has been jacked, the links for references 1 and 64 are dead.
  • No listed work or publisher
References 4, 6, 13, 14, 23, 51, 71, 86
  • UUA
The UUA site has been in reorganization for quite a while. References 13, 21 and 97 are 404.
  • Scouting for All
As noted above, the links for references 42, 52, 54, 58, 59, 65, 66 and 86 are 404.
  • Other dead links
14, 23 (error 500, may be a VML block on my side), 35, 47, 57, 81 (three uses)
  • Other issues
22 - listed title does not match actual article title
26 - what is "in-line citation"; date is malformed
27 - should be split into two proper references
37 - seems to be trying to encompass several references in one
38 - title is incomplete
43 - "discussed here" is just a few sentences- this can be better
48 - retrieval date, but no link
49 - returns a blank page
55 - page no longer available

--Gadget850 ( Ed) 20:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update 1

  • Since references have been added and deleted, the above numbers are now off.
  • Current references 26 and 27 are now the same- they should use a named reference. I still do not understand the use of "in-line citation" in these references. There is a pipe (|) missing between date and accessdate.
I'll try to fix it. --Jagz 09:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed it. --Jagz 23:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The UUA references are currently on their archive site [4].

--Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kicked out

People are getting expelled from the BSA or Scouting units. "Removed" is too vague of a word to use in this article. --Jagz 17:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • I'm going to have to agree. "Kicked out" just does not work for me. The lead-in has always bugged me, especially that dangling last paragraph. I tried to make this more concise while keeping the same points. Before we start fiddling with the article, how about we hash it out here a bit. I bulleted the paragraphs for ease of discussion. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 18:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Boy Scouts of America, the largest youth organization in the United States, has policies which prohibit atheists, agnostics and homosexuals from membership in its Scouting programs. The BSA also does not allow girls to participate in the Cub Scouting and Boy Scouting membership levels. These policies are controversial and have resulted in the revocation of membership for some adults and youth.
Recently it said that memberships were being revoked but GCW50 changed it to the memberships are not being renewed. That may be true but they are getting kicked out prior to their registrations expiring. --Jagz 18:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, thus the use of revocation. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 19:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do they really revoke their memberships though? How about expel? That is the word used when someone gets kicked out of school. --Jagz 18:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Schools are different- attendance is generally mandatory and expulsion is covered by law. The BSA is like a club in this case- they can only revoke membership. The YMCA could revoke your membership and expel you from the building and tell you not to come back. But, BSA units do not own the building- it belongs to the chartered organization. The CO could tell a person they could no longer enter the building, but that isn't "expel". I think expel would only apply if you were a member of a church and a troop for example; if your BSA membership was revoked and the church revoked your membership and told you to go away, then I would use the word expel. From my reading, I don't recall this scenario ever happening. As I understand it, in these instances the BSA has returned the latest registration fee and given a letter revoking membership. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 11:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Advocates contend that these policies are essential in the mission of the BSA to instill the values of the Scout Oath and Law in young people. Critics believe that some or all of these policies are wrong and discriminatory.
    • The BSA's right to set such policies has been upheld repeatedly by both state and federal courts. The Supreme Court of the United States affirmed that the BSA is a private organization which can set its own membership standards. These policy disputes have led to litigation over the terms under which the BSA can access governmental resources including public lands.

How about this as a new introduction:

The Boy Scouts of America (BSA), the largest youth organization in the United States, has policies which prohibit atheists, agnostics, and known or avowed homosexuals from membership in its Scouting program; boys and adults have had their memberships revoked as a result. The BSA contends that these policies are essential in its mission to instill in young people the values of the Scout Oath and Law. The BSA also prohibits girls from fully participating. These policies are controversial and are considered by some to be wrong and discriminatory.

The organization's right to have these policies has been upheld repeatedly by both state and federal courts. The Supreme Court of the United States has affirmed that as a private organization, the BSA can set its own membership standards. In recent years, the policy disputes have led to litigation over the terms under which the BSA can access governmental resources including public lands. --Jagz 21:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I would say "youth and adults have had their memberships revoked as a result"- I have no idea one way or the other if any Venturer females have been affected. "The BSA also prohibits girls from participating at all program levels. Since the girl issues is a policy, it should go after the first sentence. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 22:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with moving the girls issue up is that this sentence is not applicable to it, "The BSA contends that these policies are essential in its mission to instill in young people the values of the Scout Oath and Law." --Jagz 08:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So- we have a statement that the BSA justifies the God and gays issue, but not one for girls? --Gadget850 ( Ed) 09:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article covers the girls issue in more depth. I don't think we have to address it in the introduction. You can rewrite it if you want to. --Jagz 15:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to get hung up on that one. How about this:

The Boy Scouts of America, the largest youth organization in the United States, has policies which prohibit atheists, agnostics, and known or avowed homosexuals from membership in its Scouting program; both youth youths and adults have had their memberships revoked as a result. The BSA contends that these policies are essential in its mission to instill in young people the values of the Scout Oath and Law. The BSA also prohibits girls from participating at all levels in Cub Scouting and Boy Scouting. These policies are controversial and are considered by some to be wrong and discriminatory.

The organization's right to have these policies has been upheld repeatedly by both state and federal courts. The Supreme Court of the United States has affirmed that as a private organization, the BSA can set its own membership standards. In recent years, the policy disputes have led to litigation over the terms under which the BSA can access governmental resources including public lands.

--Gadget850 ( Ed) 16:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about now? --Jagz 20:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes- this looks good. Much more succinct. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 01:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should we also note that girls are prohibited from being on Varsity Teams, or would that be included under Boy Scouting? meamemg 20:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Varsity Scouts are part of the Boy Scouting program division, as is the Order of the Arrow. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 20:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Learning for Life

These issues do not affect Learning for Life or Exploring (Learning for Life). LfL is a separate subsidiary of the BSA and does not have any religious or sexual orientation restrictions. I'm also sure that girls can participate in all levels of LfL. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 20:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, Exploring is part of Learning for Life. Also, this article is about the BSA's Scouting program. --Jagz 21:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then change the title of the article. It currently states it's about BSA, which does include LFL GCW50
LfL is a subsidiary of the BSA, but it is not Scouting. LfL has none of the polices noted in this article, thus none of the issues presented here affect it. Introducing LfL and Exploring without adding context is confusing to anyone who may not know these programs or the relationship to the BSA. I'm not sure where you were going with this, but it doesn't add to the article. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LfL is already mentioned in the "Other American youth organizations" section. --Jagz 22:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a mention about the 1998 split of Exploring into Exploring & Venturing, since it was triggered by the Winkler lawsuit and is, so far, the only time a large part of the BSA program was changed from excluding gays & atheists to including them.Brian Westley 03:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See History_of_the_Boy_Scouts_of_America#Venturing_.28preceded_by_Exploring.29. --Jagz 14:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes- this article has a section titled "Historical membership controversies" with links. It was decided to limit the scope of the article to only current issues. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minority group inclusion?

When did the BSA start admiting blacks, Jews, and other historic candidates for discrimination in the United States? Did this correspond with any official or unofficial policy changes? (For example, who was the first black boy scout and when did he join?) Does anyone know how this has changed by geographic region over time?

Much of this is in History of the Boy Scouts of America- see the Early controversies section. The BSA did not track ethnicity then, so there is no way to know the first black Scout- see Edgar Cunningham for example. As far as Jews and Catholics, you have the question backwards- those groups only allowed their members to join the BSA (which had strong ties to the Protestant YMCA) after much discussion. --Gadget850 ( Ed)
Ok, thanks for the info.
Pretty much from day one the BSA was open to all such minorities. The Catholics 'approved' scouting around 1912. There were many Jews involved from pretty much the begining (the Schiffs, who were heavily involved at the national level are Jewish). The BSA worked hard to make scouting available to blacks early one. American Indian youth were also involved early on. Many Americans were impressed that Scouting allowed for Protestant, Catholics, Jews, etc, to be involved together early on. --Emb021 19:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. BTW, the dreaded Declaration of Religious Principles only dates from the time of trying to get the Catholic Church to approve Scouting. The Catholic Church was afraid that the YMCA founded BSA would try to convert Catholic kids to Protestanism. Hence the DRP was drafted to require leaders to agree that that religious education belongs to the kids parents and church to assuage the Catholic church. BSA was open to all religions and races from day one, however local norms in some areas (such as the South) resulted in some local councils setting up separate but not equal troops and camps for Blacks. National Council started applying pressure on local councils to correct this in the 1940's ahead of the US Military (1948), public schools (1954) and places of public accomodation (1964). BSA has nothing to be ashamed of in this regard. See "The Boy Scouts, An American Adventure" published by American Heritage in 1985 for a good discussion of this issue.GCW50 18:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elements of the DRP are in the 1911 Handbook for Boys; from page 250:

The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no boy can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing his obligation to God.

Boy Scouts of America therefore recognizes the religious element in the training of a boy, but it is absolutely nonsectarian in its attitude toward that religious training. Its policy is that the organization or institution with which the boy is connected shall give definite attention to religious life.

As I understand it, West developed and insisted on this. This part of the DRP has changed only slightly, mainly from "boy" to "member" and combining the two sentences. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 23:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have to remember that Scouting in the US was started by a committee of the YMCA. West was their employee assigned to work for that committee. Similarly, even Baden-Powell when first writing "Scouting for Boys" was doing so as a leader of the "Boys Brigade" in the UK. Scouting most definitely was started as an adjunct method for non-denominational religious organizations. Trying to take support of non-specific religion out of Scouting is like trying to take the concept of promoting physical fitness out of basketball. GCW50 12:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not recall that B-P was a leader of the Boys brigade but he certainly talked to the leader of the BB and hoped that they would make use of his ideas. Indeed many BB Companies did use his ideas, but after a few years they either changed to be Scout Troops or moved back to the old more religious-based program of the BB. --Bduke 13:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True statement?

In the Reaction to nondiscrimination policies section it says that in 2001, "nine BSA local councils requested permission to sign nondiscrimination statements but were denied by the BSA National Council". Is this a true statement? (The citation link is no longer good.) --Jagz 16:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewAllPosts.asp?userID=291&p=17 . The Boston Globe has it in its archives also. Boston Globe A fee is required for the full article. The nine councils seem to have wanted it to be left up to the chartering organizations. In other words a given troop could ban gays but another troop could have a non-discrimination statement and would not face repercussions from National. --Erp 21:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, one patently false statement that persists in the article is "Also in 2001, the National Council "revoked the charters of several Cub Scout packs in Oak Park, Illinois, because the sponsors, a parent-teacher group, adhered to a nondiscrimination policy." What we're doing here quoting from a newspaper story that got it wrong. (Not uncommon). What actually happened was the Pack committees (not the sponsoring organizations) of the nine packs post-Dale adopted their own non-discrimination policy saying that they would allow openly gay leaders. (This was in the Chicago area, home to many of the controversies (Welsh, Jambo, etc.)) When National informed them that they could not appoint such a person or adopt leadership standards that differ from BSA national policies and they still insisted on carrying forth after a warning, the local council revoked their charters, not national. National charters councils; local councils charter units. Of course, National might have pressured the local council. GCW50 16:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be a bit pedantic here: it is "chartered organization". Chartered means the charter is granted by the council to the organization, chartering is the other way around. I see "chartering organization" in the newspapers fairly often. "Sponsoring organization" is not used by the BSA, but it is not necessarily an incorrect term. These terms are misused by many Scouters, so it is not surprising that it propagates. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 17:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)would ever question whom they appointed as leaders.[reply]
It would be an unlikely coincidence if 9 Pack committees in the same town just happened to adopt non-discrimination policies at about the same time without the encouragement or at least the blessing of their chartered organizations, especially if the chartered organizations were the same or related. --Jagz 18:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It was a concerted effort of pressure on the local PTA council by those activists who filed the Winkler suit at about the same time and location. Of course, no one at National Council would have even known about it (it takes a lot of work to get their interest in a unit out of tens of thousands of them) except for the fact that, as always, the activists ego required them to call a news conference to proclaim their "victory". That guaranteed that their victory would be short lived. Of course, if the packs just went about their business normally, no one would ever question whom they appointed as leaders. GCW50 18:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another one: "The Boy Scouts of America requires youths and adults to subscribe to the precepts of the Declaration of Religious Principle". Unless things have changed lately, I'm pretty sure that the typical kid in Scouts doesn't even know about the DRP. The DRP was only on the adult applications per above. But correct me if I'm wrong. GCW50 18:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The new youth application states:

"The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation of God and, therefore, recognizes the religious element in the training of the member, but it is absolutely nonsectarian in its attitude toward that religious training. Its policy is that the home and organization or group with which the member is connected shall give definite attention to religious life. Only persons willing to subscribe to these precepts of the Declaration of Religious Principle and to the Bylaws of the Boy Scouts of America shall be entitled to certificates of membership." --Jagz 22:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update. Any idea when that was added to the youth application? I know it had been removed from the Tiger Cub application after the Welsh case GCW50 15:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure but I don't think it was in the previous youth application. Here's the link to the new application: http://www.scouting.org/forms/ --Jagz 04:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link. It's interesting. The adult application requires the applicant to actually agree to the BSA policies, but such an agreement is not required of a youth applicant nor their parent. GCW50 20:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can anybody explain what the connection between membership controversies and Scouting sex abuse cases was? I have removed this link since the two subjects seem completely unrelated to me. Tim Vickers 00:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA)

The article currently states, "The Unitarian Universalist Association opposes the BSA's membership exclusions and this has led to a dispute and dissolution of ties between the organizations". I know there is a dispute over the UUA's religious emblems program but has there really been a total dissolution of ties between UUA and BSA? If so, what citation can we use in the article for this issue? --Jagz 15:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The BSA barred the Unitarian Universalist denomination from its Religious Relationships Committee in 1992, and threw the denomination out of its Religious Emblems program in 1998. Documentation is provided in my article published in volume 17 of the George Mason University Civil Rights Law Journal: Eric Alan Isaacson, Traditional Values or a New Tradition of Prejudice? The Boy Scouts of America vs. The Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations, 17 Geo. Mason U. L. Civ. Rts. L. J. 1 (2006).

Eric Alan Isaacson 01:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support by religious groups

As it stands in the article at present, the sentance:

Atheism is inconsistent with the beliefs of most religions and some religions regard homosexuality as immoral (see Homosexuality and religion).

is Original Research implying that any religion that sees homosexuality as immoral somehow automatically supports the discriminatory policies of the BSA. This isn't true. There are religious sects that do not condone homosexuality, but believe that the discriminatory polices of the BSA are also wrong and many sects that belive that discrimination against atheists is also wrong. The sentance above needs to be reworded, cited or removed.207.69.137.20 23:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why Strategic Plan Logo?

right|75px|thumb|Original image I do not understand why the 1910-2010 BSA 'Strategic Plan' logo is included in this article. The inclusion of 2002-2005 logo might be justified by the 'Timeless Values' tie in to the reasoning the BSA has its controversial membership policies - but unless the current strategic plan is somehow incorporated into the article, I think that the other logo should go.207.69.137.39 00:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think "When Tradition Meets Tomorrow" is appropriate for this article. It has only been relatively recently that these membership controversies have become public issues. The BSA's old fashioned traditional values have met with nontraditional values of the present, the result being controversy. --Jagz 02:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Non-free content policy, the non-free use of the image is acceptable if along with the other conditions the image has "8. Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." The logo of the BSA strategic plan(s) do not illuminate anything about the membership controversies. If you wish to add some specific content from the Strategic Plan and place the logo within that context in the article, or if you can produce a free-use image, the logos can stay, otherwise I intend to remove them.207.69.137.10 12:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you remove the image after properly tagging it first, I'll restore the original image. However, I think it is better to use the current image. --Jagz 13:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Under what reasoning is the strategic plan logo better related to this article?207.69.137.10 13:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the reason I list above but this ends my discussion on this topic. --Jagz 14:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tags

I removed the tags on some procedural points:

  • {{di-no fair use rationale}} is for the image page only, it does not belong in articles.
  • {{deletable image-caption}} is to be applied to images that are to be deleted *after* going though the deletion process. These images have not been prodded, thus the tag is inappropriate.
  • Image:BSA 2006-2010 Strategic Plan.png is used in two articles and has non-free media rationales for both. If it is inappropriate for this article, simply delete it from here and update the non-free media rationale on the image page. The image should be prodded *only* if it is inappropriate for both articles.
  • Image:American Civil Liberties Union logo.png was missing the non-free media rationale. I have updated it for the American Civil Liberties Union article. If the image is determined to be inappropriate for this article, simply delete it from the article; if it is kept, please update the non-free media rationale on the image page.

--Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strategic plan

What is the BSA Strategic Plan? --Jagz 15:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2006-2010 National Strategic Plan --Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone else find it ironic that one of the stated strategic goals is to 'Increase Membership Opportunities'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.28 (talk) 16:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also

Re the in-body "see also" sections; I recommend replacing them with {{details}}. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral point of view

Shortcut

Here is a shortcut to the Wikipedia policy regarding the neutral point of view (NPOV). --Jagz 21:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Philadelphia Development

Check it:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,314570,00.html

Basically, the scouts were renting a public building for 1$ a year, but now they have to pay full rent because they fail to meet the city's non-discrimination requirements. Very interesting, considering this is the same group, I think, that attempted to write a non-discrimination policy which was shot down by the national leadership.

May want to wait a bit to see how it plays out, but it's getting covered on CNN tonight and should continue to be interesting, so keep an eye on it.VatoFirme 19:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be completely honest here. We're talking about a building that was completely built and paid for by the local Boy Scout council in 1929 after the city asked them to place it on city owned land next to their school board building! The deal was that the city of Philadelphia would then lease them the city land underneath it for $1 per year. The council has further invested millions of it own dollars to renovate and maintain the building over the years, including $1.5 million of renovations in 1994, and presently spends about $60,000 each year just to maintain the historic building.
Also, the supposed "full rent" the city is now asking for is twice the price per square foot of the most expensive commercial real estate in the city, and they are not asking it of other organizations with restrictive membership policies (such as churches and womens only groups) that use city land for similar token rates, so it seems discriminatory, especially considering the votes were taken without the issue being on the published agenda or the Boy Scout council even being notified!
BTW, if you've ever walked past it as I have, you can see the small building is a marble shrine to Scouting, with Merit Badges carved into the frieze encircling the building, the Scout Oath carved above the bronze doors and fleur-de-lis in the ironwork fence. None of this can ever be removed as it's designated a historic landmark, so it's hard to see who else could ever use the old building. You can see a picture of it at [5] and here [6].
As a practical matter, the Philly council merged with Valley Forge council about a decade ago, so the main council office is now in suburbs anyway. But the building is still used as a district office and Scout shop to better serve the inner city kids who desperately need Scouting in gang-ridden and violent Philadelphia. You would think that the city attorney who initiated this action to change the 80 year old agreement probably should be better devoting his time to solving the horrendous youth murder rate in Philadelphia instead, but the fact that he's prominent in the Philadelphia gay community might have clouded his judgement here.
In any event, Cradle of Liberty Council is now countersuing Philadelphia over the breach of contract, and in the event they lose, they have also asked the court to then have the city reimburse them the millions that the council paid to build and maintain the building over the past 80 years, since that would constitute an undue confiscation of private property under Pennsylvania law. The result would be that the city would then be paying the council for the 80 year past cost of the building and then it would have to use city funds in perpetuity to maintain an unalterable historic shrine to Scouting!
I love the law of unintended consequences in this one. How much you want to bet that the city settles this out of court? GCW50 (talk) 13:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

Just finished a huge cleanup of the references. There are four marked with {{citation broken}}—these need templates. Some of them I was unsure as to the intent (and my brain is hurting after all that). --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 17:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My recent change of 21 years to 20

I just rolled a change from 21 years back to 20, using WP:Twinkle. I think that particular change has previously been cycled back & forth between those two ages. My edit summary got truncated in the process, and doesn't make sense as it appears. My un-truncated summary would have read "The cited supporting source says "Venturing is a youth development program of the Boy Scouts of America for young men and women who are 14 (and have completed the eighth grade) through 20 years of age." (that was truncated after the word "through"). -- Boracay Bill (talk) 21:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is confusing as some of the BSA marketing materials show 20. Depending on timing, a Venturer could stay in as a youth well past their 21st birthday.
Boy Scouts of America Youth Application (PDF). Boy Scouts of America. #28-406B. Retrieved 2007-10-06. Venturers and Sea Scouts registered in a crew or ship prior to their 21st birthday may continue as members after their 21st birthday until the crew or ship recharters or until they reach their 22nd birthday, whichever comes first. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 21:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References and links as checked by Linkchecker: [7] --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 02:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On My Honor: Why the American Values of the Boy Scouts Are Worth Fighting for, by TX Gov. Rick Perry

Folks, Texas Governor Rick Perry has just come out (Feb 12, 2008) with a book relevant to this page. Consider if/how it should be added. Here's a link to

I learned about this listening to WABC radio, 11AM hour, Feb 21, 2008, interview of Gov. Rick Perry by radio talk show host John R. Gambling. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What information in this book is relevant? --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 12:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Amazon says it's not available yet. --evrik (talk) 16:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't read it. It's just a suggestion. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess this ends the discussion. --Jagz (talk) 04:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's no discussion really, just a suggestion where people might want to go to get further info with which to improve this article. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This book has been available at my local Barnes & Noble here in Beaumont, TX, for about a week. The title is self-explanatory. The relevant content would be from where he rails against "liberals" and groups that have attacked the BSA. Deatonjr (talk) 17:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just read it. It's very good history of Scouting, organization and mission of BSA and a history of all of the lawsuits. He then adds why he thinks the ACLU is singling out the Boy Scouts. I've added it to the reference list. GCW50 (talk) 02:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1978 Memo on Incompatibility of Homosexuality and the Scout Oath/Law

The citation used to justify this claim in the article doesn't agree. The text doesn't mention the oath/law at all. Rather, it expresses the view that leadership positions are not appropriate for homosexuals. It may seem like a meaningless distinction, but it is quite different. The relevant text is reproduced below:

A 1978 position statement to the Boy Scouts' Executive Committee, signed by Downing B. Jenks, the President of the Boy Scouts, and Harvey L. Price, the Chief Scout Executive, expresses the Boy Scouts' "official position" with regard to "homosexuality and Scouting":

"Q. May an individual who openly declares himself to be a homosexual be a volunteer Scout leader?

"A. No. The Boy Scouts of America is a private, membership organization and leadership therein is a privilege and not a right. We do not believe that homosexuality and leadership in Scouting are appropriate. We will continue to select only those who in our judgment meet our standards and qualifications for leadership." App. 453-454. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.90.153.199 (talk) 23:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note that this is only talking about the claim that "as early as 1978...".

Overstatements

One of the contoversis is about atheists. There is a link to discrimination agansit atheists. Im a member of the BSA and I know that it is private and has the right to self select. So how can it be discrimnation? Plyhmrp (talk) Plyhmrp

Discrimination is a word where the meaning has become slanted. Neutrally used, the term simply means to differentiate or act on differences. Acts such as promoting an employee based on merit or failing a student based on grades are discriminatory, but both are certainly legal and discriminatory is rarely used in this context. In the current milieu, discrimination is almost always used to indicate illegal or immoral actions. Every employer has the right to discriminate by hiring employees based on their qualifications, but they cannot discriminate based on things that are protected by law such as gender or race. Private organizations such as the BSA, the Jewish War Veterans and the Daughters of the American Revolution (all federally chartered) can set standards for association. Discrimination is a proper term, but it must be used carefully and neutrally. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 13:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable.Plyhmrp (talk) Plyhmrp

If it is in a linked reference, then we have no control over the use of the term, if it is in the article, then we may need to look at how it is used. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 17:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edit appears to be based on the incorrect view that discrimination is only discrimination if it has been found to be illegal discrimination. Scouts in many other Scouting organizations think that exclusion of homosexuals is immoral discrimination even if it is quite legal to discriminate in this way. Denying membership to atheists is quite clearly discrimination even if again it is quite legal. I'll leave it to US editors however to sort out the best wording. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems to be quite clear about the discriminatory policies and practices of the BSA. The article also seems to be quite clear about the legality of the BSA discriminatory practices.

The BSA's policies have been legally challenged but have not been found to constitute illegal discrimination; as a private organization in the United States they have the right to freedom of association,[8] as determined in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale.[9]

Citing
This Wikipedia talk page is not a general discussion forum. Are any improvements to the article are being suggested here? -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed paragriph assigning individual rights to the BSA organization

I have removed the paragraph which read

The BSA's policies have been legally challenged but have not been found to constitute illegal discrimination; as a private organization in the United States they have the right to freedom of association

and which, until recently, read

The BSA's policies have been legally challenged but have not been found to constitute illegal discrimination, because as a private organization in the United States they have the Freedom of Assembly guaranteed in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

My understanding is that both those rights are individual rights and, while individuals inside and outside of the BSA organization have those rights, the BSA organization itself does not. Perhaps some judicious rewording can fix this. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the first case involving the BSA and freedom of association: Boy Scouts of America v. Dale. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 23:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I've undid my change and added some clarifying cites and a {{see also}}. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 20:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scouts Canada

I love it! The inferrence correlating Scouts Canada "Inclusive" Membership Policy and Membership Size as a comparison to BSA's was originally added to this article by critics of BSA about four years ago when BSA membership had a slight dip. But now that Scouts Canada membership has fallen off the cliff (by it's own admission in it's annual report) while BSA's membership has stayed relatively stable, reference to Scouts Canada membership size in this article is no longer "relevant". We wouldn't want the the facts to get in the way of bias, would we? GCW50 (talk) 15:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jergen reverted the content added by Silesia just before I got to it. Scouts Canada has had a drop in membership, but there is nothing that conclusively documents the reasons. Scouts Canada went through a major restructuring around the same time with a lot of opposition; I would be surprised if this was not involved, but I have no references. Unless there are reliable sources, that content is original research. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 20:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Girls are prohibited

In the intro, a section reads that girls are prohibited from joining. This is undoubtedly true, but I don't think this belongs in the Controversies section. After all, there is a Girl Scouts organization. Females are also permitted to be on the troop committee, and serve several leadership positions (for instance, my Committee Chairman is a female, as is the treasurer, and a lot of merit badge counselors and other, lesser positions. Should that part be removed? It does seem rather ridiculous; you wouldn't find boys joining the Girl Scouts. Abyssalstudios (talk) 18:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ADDITION: "According to the BSA, "The Cub Scout and Boy Scout programs were designed to meet the emotional, psychological, physical, and other needs of boys between the ages of 8 and 14."[27] While the BSA does not admit girls to these programs, the Venturing program is open to young men and women ages 14 through 21." I did not see that last time, but it seems rather redundant. Abyssalstudios (talk) 18:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See http://www.bsalegal.org/gender-cases-226.asp. Women could not be a Webelos den leader, Scoutmaster or Coach until 1988. The BSA won a lawsuit in 1987, but changed their policy policy in 1988. The BSA has been sued at least four times for denying amission to girls in Cub Scouting or Boy Scouting. Within the Scouting community, this is part of the 3Gs: God, gays and girls. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 20:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that explains it. Abyssalstudios (talk) 16:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sound like this needs some expansion. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 16:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pedophile priests

Do the Boy Scouts ever do any backup research on the possibility of pedophile priests serving with the organization ? I was reading a few horror stories about pedophile priests, some of them involving the Boy Scouts. [10] [11] ADM (talk) 21:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge, the BSA itself has never publicly released any studies. You really want Scouting sex abuse cases which notes the only real study of sexual abuse in the BSA by the Washington Times in 1991, but it will not answer your specific question. --Gadget850 (talk) 22:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

National Jamboree

The BSA is planning to move their national Jamborees from Fort A.P. Hill (a military center) to their own property, starting in 2013. Should this be mentioned in the section about government support of Jamborees?

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference opendoor was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ "United Way to Continue Aid to Central Jersey Scouts (in-line citation)". NY Times. August 31 2001accessdate =2006-11-03. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boy_Scouts_of_America_membership_controversies&oldid=296688899"