As if overt discrimination against homosexuals and atheists wasn’t bad enough, the Boy Scouts have now been sucked into something far worse: sweeping abuse of children under the rug. Sound familiar?
Here’s the latest:
The Boy Scouts of America were ordered Friday to pay $18.5 million in a lawsuit that has focused new attention on the secret files the Scouts keep to document claims of sexual abuse by troop leaders and volunteers.
Known variously as the “perversion files,” the “red flag files” and the “ineligible volunteer files,” the documents have been maintained for more than 70 years at the Scouts’ national office in Texas. Yet even after scores of abuse cases against the Scouts in recent decades, the case here is one of the few times that substantial portions of the files have been made accessible to a jury….
Lawyers … said in court that the files detailed many instances across the country in which troop leaders or volunteers were allowed to continue working with children even after the Scouts had received complaints that they had committed sexual abuse.
And then there’s this:
Lawyers for the Scouts have argued that the files should be kept confidential to protect victims and wrongly accused adults. They also dispute the claim that the files have caused harm.
Yeah, um, sound familiar?
Another organization that promotes homophobia and misogyny — another culture that shields and protects sex abusers. The connection from morally bankrupt cultural values (such as homophobia and misogyny) to criminally abusive leadership behavior isn’t hard to draw.
<
p>Let’s see how successfully the abusers and the corporate officials who shielded them escape secular authorities.
…that assumes and focuses on the worst aspects of an otherwise worthy organization:( One thing that IS different about the BSA for me vs. the Catholic Church is that I’m actually a part of the former. There’s no excuse for their overt discrimination against gays in either membership or leadership, but the values they teach are solid and I strongly protest your notion that they promote either homophobia or misogyny. In my experience they do neither. I actually know someone in a scout leadership position who went to jail for this and his fellow leaders co-operated with the investigation that led to that. My position is same as for the Church: prosecute all offenders to the full extent of the law, sue where you can show institutional malfeasance, but do not judge an entire organization, all that it does and all the people involved in it. Here is what scouting has done for some boys statistically. I’ve long contended that our society as a whole would be much better off if every teenage boy (yes, including gays and athiests) had and took the opportunity to be a Boy Scout.
Um, Christopher, I fear that the anger you direct towards me is misdirected from its more appropriate target — the very organization you attempt to defend.
<
p>You concluded:
<
p>Leaving aside the question of misogyny for a moment, I enthusiastically agree — THAT is the point. The tragic truth is that the national organization (I remind you that it is the national organization that has been convicted) actively excludes gay and non-believing boys. There is no defensible reason to exclude gay adolescents from participation — I remind you that the Girl Scouts of America long ago dropped their restrictions on openly gay participants.
<
p>The homophobia and misogyny of the Boy Scouts of America (together with its discrimination against non-believers) is perhaps more apparent when seen in contrast to an organization with healthier core values — Camp Fire USA (emphasis mine):
<
p>
<
p>These are secular organizations. There are no pervasive religious ties that bound a child or family into one versus another. One organization, the Boy Scouts of America, promotes — in its core values and institutional policies — gratuitous discrimination based on gender preference, gender, and religious beliefs. I have offered a national organization that avoids such onerous values and policies.
<
p>I suggest that the values that the Boy Scouts of America teach are not so “solid”. It seems to me that “judging” those who voluntarily participate in an organization with offensive values is perfectly defensible.
<
p>It took generations of such “judging” to make racism and antisemitism unacceptable in civilized American society. I suggest that it is long past time that we do the same for homophobia and misogyny.
Religious prejudice, sure. Homophobia, sure. But the Boy Scouts allow girls to join their programs for 14 to 21-year-olds, so I doubt keeping them out at the younger ages is motivated by misogyny. And I don’t see you attacking the Girl Scouts for not letting boys join, even though they don’t let boys join at any age.
I offer the Campfire USA program as a positive example instead of attacking the Girl Scouts. In my view, the “Boy Scout”/”Girl Scout” dichotomy is too much like “separate but equal” — I feel that the benefits of the approach taken by Campfire USA far outweigh the claimed benefits of separation.
<
p>Would we encourage a “Black Scouts”/”White Scouts” program if it only enforced the separation based on race at young ages? In my view, the fundamental premise of “Boy Scouts”/”Girl Scouts” is as misogynistic as a “Black Scouts”/”White Scouts” program would be racist.
There are differences in the interests and concerns of the genders that are sometimes better addressed separately in a way that doesn’t exist between and among races. The other way is fine too as I’ve said I don’t feel strongly personally either way, but there are all kinds of gender-based organizations, including private schools which are acceptable, but wouldn’t be if the distinction was race. There should of course be equality between the genders and likewise among the races, but otherwise I would caution against always assuming that gender and race are identical issues.
…since that has previously been the source of misunderstandings between us. Homophobia and misogyny are (and I looked this up to be sure) the hatred of gays and women respectively. Patrick Long made a good comment about misogyny. It is the Explorer aspect of Scouting he is refering to as being coed. Many leadership positions are open to women and my experience with Boy Scouts included being taught to respect women and certainly not hate them. I personally don’t have a problem with gender-exclusive organizations, especially when an equivalent such as the Girl Scouts is available. We do have different interests and concerns that are sometimes best served separately. That being said the US is one of just a handful of countries that still has a largely gender-segregated Scouting program. I have heard and understand the arguments on both sides and don’t have a strong opinion either way.
<
p>Boy Scouts I think are welcome to define themselves as religious in one aspect, though I believe a Scout is perfectly capable of being “reverent” if all he does is respect the religious beliefs of others. The Freemasons are another example of an organization that requires some belief in any supreme being. It seems to me though that if an athiest is himself comfortable being in such an organization that promotes such belief it should be his decision to stay.
<
p>In practice the BSA tends to practice “don’t ask, don’t tell” with regards to gay members and leaders, though I would say it is not a phony military-style DADT that somehow results in even more people getting kicked out than when there was an outright ban. When you say “promote homophobia” I get the image of scout leaders preaching the supposed evils of homosexuality and turning out a generation of boys to hate gay people. You and I were both in scouts and we obviously didn’t come out with this attitude. So while there is no excuse for the policy they do have in this regard I would also say it’s not quite as bad as you make it sound.
<
p>I don’t mean to suggest that the BSA is the only such organization. Camp Fire is fine example, though I’ve always heard of Camp Fire Girls; I didn’t realize they had boys. I do know that the BSA is committed to youth protection in that I had to do a CORI check when I became an adult leader, and they’ve had a rule against a leader and a scout who are not father and son being alone together for as long as I’ve been involved. I’ll conclude by saying I wasn’t expressing anger at you; exasperation might be more accurate.
The national Boy Scout organization was convicted of protecting adult leaders who abused adolescents in their care. The thread-starter correctly highlighted the similarity with the Vatican.
<
p>Both organizations share institutional and formal policies that exclude homosexuals, exclude women, and demand that participants profess monotheistic religious beliefs. The institutional entity that heads each organization is charged with illegal acts — in the case of the Boy Scouts of America, the entity has been convicted.
<
p>In my view, the connection between these institutional and formal policies (and the cultural values they reflect and encourage) and the decision to shield, protect, and thereby enable leaders who sexually abused adolescents in their charge is not coincidental. Viable alternative organizations exist that choose a different approach — those organizations have not exhibited the same criminal behavior towards accused sex abusers.
<
p>I, too, am exasperated. I am exasperated, in particular, by the canard that each is an “otherwise worthy organization.” Far too many abuse victims face this spurious “defense” each time they find the courage to step forward. Battered spouses and children who finally expose the acts of their abuser all too often hear the same response. A husband who batters his wife is a criminal, no matter how much good he does in the community.
<
p>Good acts in one domain do not excuse unacceptable behavior in another.
Absolutely if you are an individual abusing someone then, as the saying goes, “If you do the crime you do the time.” Same goes for any individual abusing boys in this or any context. You certainly won’t hear a “pillar of the community” defense from me. There are, however, many facets to an institution that allow, and I believe require, compartmentalization in thinking about what they do. I still think that every teenage boy should have and take the opportunity to join. Are you really reading my comments to say I think it’s OK that there is abuse and coverup thereof because of the good they do? Of course I don’t believe that! There’s no excuse for this behavior whatsoever, but it’s also not what the BSA should be known for.
<
p>I am not as convinced as you are that policies such as held by either the BSA or the Catholic Church regarding whom they include automatically leads to the encouraging of abuse. The vast majority of scout leaders, like the vast majority of priests, would never hurt anyone. Just because an organization says, “No Gurlz Aloud” doesn’t mean they can’t do what is right regarding reporting of crimes. BTW, one nitpick about scouts and religion. There is absolutely no requirement that a believer be monotheistic. There are religious medals for Hinduism and Buddhism offered by the BSA.
I don’t understand why this concept seems so difficult.
<
p>I didn’t say that anything was “automatic”. I said, instead, that the connection between organizations that “exclude homosexuals, exclude women, and demand that participants profess monotheistic religious beliefs” and the “decision to shield, protect, and thereby enable leaders who sexually abused adolescents in their charge” is “not coincidental“.
<
p>”Not coincidental” is different from “automatic.”
<
p>Let me offer an example from the world of biology. A heritable genetic variation might make an individual who has it more likely to get lung cancer than another individual who doesn’t have it. That doesn’t mean that one automatically gets lung cancer and the other doesn’t, even if both smoke cigarettes. It does mean that, statistically, cigarette smoking is more dangerous for the population that has the variation than for the population that doesn’t.
<
p>I suggest that these policies are analogous to a genetic predisposition for a particular trait. It doesn’t mean that the result is automatic. It does mean that the incidence of the result is disproportionately high (higher than its incidence in the general population).
<
p>I’ve never said that “an organization that says “No Gurlz Aloud” “can’t do what is right regarding reporting of crimes.” I am saying that an organization that says “No gays, no girls, no atheists” is more likely to shield abusers than an organization that does not simultaneously impose those three policies.
<
p>Let me put a Bayesian spin on it. I’m saying that a man who sexually abuses adolescent boys is more likely to be protected in an organization that (a) prohibits homosexuality, (b) excludes women from positions of authority, and (c) strongly encourages monotheistic religious beliefs than in an organization that does not combine those three policies. I suggest that the additional requirement of celibacy exaggerates this effect.
Yes, there does seem to be a correlation, but I would not extend that to causation.
There’s actually no limitation on homosexual members; they just don’t allow homosexuals to be adult leaders. That’s a lot less discriminatory than you suggested. Yes, they do discriminate against atheists, but that is a part of the values they promote (and it’s fairly easy to slip past that one; I know several atheists who have made Eagle Scout). Look at the good the organization does. For a lot of boys, it provides a structure for their life that enables them to go on to great things and stay out of trouble
… tolerance is the natural byproduct of familiarity (more here). By deliberately segregating themselves from homosexuals, they ‘actively’ discourage tolerance. This might be seen as an indirect promotion of homophobia.
Truth of the matter is I went all the way through Scouts myself and didn’t realize they had this policy until I was an adult. Scouts also isn’t a cult that shields members from the outside world. It’s generally one meeting a week and one camping trip per month. This issue just wasn’t talked about one way or another.
I have been involved in the organization for almost 35 years, as a scout and as a leader. As a child, my first troop had a scoutmaster who seemed to want to re-create the camaraderie of his time in the army, in the Korean War. A lot of parades, straight lines, saluting, and we left quickly for a different troop, which was run by an avid outdoorsman. So we learned about hiking camping, wilderness survival, hunting, fishing, etc. It was great.
<
p>We have had gay scouts and gay leaders. We let it lie, and people who had an issue with it may have left to find a different troop more to their liking. There was a general sense that inflicting adult culture war issues on 12 year olds would be a nice way to wreck the troop, so we let it lie.
<
p>Same issue, really, with atheists, of which I have a cub scout now. Everybody has their own sense of spirituality, and everyone else needs to be respectful of that, which means, above all, no perpetual trolling for things to be offended about. I am content with the national policy, for the simple reason that altering it, as requested in the lawsuit of a decade or two ago, opens the door “separation of church and organization” squabbling not unlike the endless fights over the 1st Amendment. I’m not looking for an excuse to politicize monthly hikes and campouts.
James Dale, Eagle Scout and Assistant Scoutmaster, had a different experience from you. He wasn’t “looking for an excuse to politicize monthly hikes and campouts” — he was expelled from his troop and banned by BSA because the BSA learned from a newspaper article that he was gay.
<
p>Your scouts read the newspapers too. You have no way of knowing how many of your scouts are being harmed by the homophobia of the national organization — they are NOT going to tell you! You have no way of knowing how many of your scouts mouth the oath and the promise while internally resenting being forced to do so. You have no way knowing how many potential scouts miss the chance to go hiking, camping, hunting, fishing, and so on because they fear being ostracized for their gender preference or their lack of religious beliefs.
<
p>The “endless fights over the 1st Amendment” have put a stop to countless abuses. Thankfully, our newspapers no longer run classified sections with “jobs for women” and “jobs for men”. Women professionals in America generally don’t have to hear about how they are taking away jobs from “men with families.”
<
p>I’m reminded of the chorus of voices (almost all white) who whined during the mid-sixties about all the “unnecessary fuss about integration.”
<
p>I think you’re offering a rationalization that is, in essence, a cop-out from the very real pain that these misguided policies cause.
“forced to recite”…”fear of ostracism”
<
p>Buzzwords imported from prayer in public schools jurisprudence.
<
p>Exactly why it is a good thing that Mr. Dale lost that case. It would be a shame if the BSA had to operate under those rules– in which group A sets out to provoke group B, Group B is outraged, and sues; and then it all happens in reverse.
<
p>The policy is unfortunate. The litigation was damaging, in that, for a long while, membership or non-membership became a means for parents to make a political statement on the culture wars, which undermines the underlying goals of the organization. This has made it difficult for anyone remaining to obtain a change in the policy– lots of people who agreed with us absented themselves. I don’t know what they do with their kids now. Fortunately, it is generally ignored because individual units are almost completely independent, and run by parent volunteers. Sometimes, those volunteers are people who disagree with one another about political issues, and yet treat one another respectfully, and without resorting to denunciations.
<
p>In my experience, the policy is ignored, deliberately, because everyone involved is far more concerned with making sure that the kids in our troop or pack have a rich and rewarding experience.
You characterize my phrases “forced to recite” and “fear of ostracism” as:
<
p>My own experience contradicts that. The experience of my teenage sons contradicts that.
<
p>My family of origin worshiped in the conservative Southern Baptist tradition. I was raised in a church that taught that the King James Bible was the inerrant literal truth of God, all sex before marriage was a sin, all sexual impulses before marriage were a sin, evolution was a hoax perpetrated by godless unbelievers, the fossil record was a test of our faith set in front of us by God Himself.
<
p>I rejected that, during the time that I was in Boy Scouts. I was not then spiritually mature enough to know that different conceptions of “God” existed, and my Boy Scout troop offered no insight. When I attempted to elide the references to God from the Boy Scout Promise, I was forced to recite them or be expelled from the troop. My sons had a similar experience only a few short years ago. My troop, and the troop that my sons briefly attended, was an openly hostile environment towards gay men and women. Words like “queer”, “swishy”, and “fag” were used frequently by boys and leaders alike. When we struggled to complete a stiff uphill climb, and some of us stopped to catch our breath, we were berated as “sissies” and “fags”. When scouts saw women who they viewed as unattractive, and berated them to each other as “ugly lesbos”, everybody — including the leaders — laughed.
<
p>These weren’t political arguments debated in “culture war”, these were cruel and damaging attitudes openly displayed and formally supported by the national organization.
<
p>It doesn’t matter whether the leaders are volunteer or not — they wear the uniform, they distribute materials with the formal brand identity, and they call themselves “Boy Scouts”. No young African-American boy should have to hear racial slurs in any officially-sanctioned chapter of a reputable national organization. No young gay boy should have to hear slurs or fear being excluded because of his gender preference. No young non-believing boy should be forced to recite words he doesn’t believe, particularly in a group that claims to value “truth”, “honor”, and “respect.”
<
p>The fact that the litigation was necessary is the problem, not the litigation. I agree that American Nazi party members have a right to demonstrate and say whatever they want to say. That’s the legal aspect. I don’t want them in my home, and I don’t want my children associated with an organization that endorses such attitudes. That’s the practical aspect. I’m not claiming that the Boy Scouts are like the American Nazis. I am, however, claiming that the legal ability to promote offensive policies does not excuse or rationalize the exercise of that ability.
that you can take your family to other activities more in line with your requirements