The article gives short shrift to the real real crisis: you need to read 12 paragraphs down to find a casual mention of the "sexual-abuse bankruptcy", which also explains the precipitous 2020 collapse in membership in the chart that is prominently shown up top. Turns out parents aren't too keen on sending their kids into camps that have reported 92,000 cases of sexual abuse (and how many cases were not?).
Actually the 2020 drop in membership is more closely tied to the disproportionate “voices” of the LDS membership who did everything possible to change the culture of the organization to suit their ends. Yes the abuse issue is real, but don’t discount the Mormon influence. As a group, they have serious psychiatric issues (the most medicated state in the US by a huge margin) and frequently use dishonesty whenever it suits them (see: Mitt Romney and the caffeine prohibition change).
The LDS wanted it to continue to be more of a faith-based organization, and also objected to combining boys and girls together into the same program. Ultimately they left the organization at the end of 2019, taking about 20% of the membership with them.
A lot of Scout groups are church based and not only with the LDS.
I have heard that the LDS church got wind of abuse claims within scouting before they hit the mainstream. They have their own abuse scandals just now so probably didn't want to fight that war on two fronts. Either that or cost cutting, which is a major feature of modern Mormonism, except where temple construction is concerned.
Scouting hasn't taken off in Mormon churches much outside the USA by the way. Not really in the UK.
You don't have to be Mormon or even religious to think that there's value in having a youth program that is specifically male-only, such that you'd be highly motivated to abandon a youth program if it stopped being male-only.
> You don't have to be Mormon or even religious to think that there's value in having a youth program that is specifically male-only, such that you'd be highly motivated to abandon a youth program if it stopped being male-only.
Are you going to expand on this at all? What is the value in Scouts being male-only?
Boys need to learn how to be men. Just like girls need to learn how to be women. LOADS and LOADS of material available to young girls to accomplish this goal. Lots of funding for them too, to become women. Boys? Boys are _disposable_ and get _no investment_. I'll admit this is my personal perspective. I would be happy to be wrong about this but I just don't see it where I am in the Midwest.
So I think the value comes from having a male-only space where boys can learn to be men. This is especially true of young men in the throes of puberty where young women are such a huge distraction they cannot even _think straight_. I know this because I got to experience this _first hand_ and it took me many many MANY more years than it would have to integrate my feelings for women into my being or psyche or whatever the word is.
For the record I am neither Mormon, nor religious. In fact I wildly far to the left by most assessments. Admittedly I don't fit neatly into other people's labels.
What is the value in all programs being mixed gender?
> Boys need to learn how to be men. Just like girls need to learn how to be women.
Do they? That suggests not only that there's one right way to be a man/woman, and that you'll need to learn it from your peers and not just your parents.
I do think there's a point to gender-segregated spaces for kids, but that is because the social dynamics are different. There are some ways a boy can relax when there's only other boys around, and same for girls, and that's probably good for mental health. But you're still a man/woman even if you didn't get that chance and went through your whole childhood worrying what the opposite sex thought of you.
What is the value in all programs being mixed gender?
to learn that both genders are normal people and have some common and some diverse interest and capacities. to learn to respect each other and to collaborate. to avoid turning the other gender into a mysterious unknown.
there is room for gender segregated spaces. but it doesn't have to be at the organization level. you could have boys only and girls only patrols.
i also disagree that men need to be by themselves in order to learn to be men. the most important quality of a man is to be able to treat women with respect. and see them as their equal, not as something lesser. that can only happen in mixed spaces.
gender specific spaces are good for dealing with certain experiences, such as puberty, but beyond that y experience is that male only spaces are a breeding ground for toxic masculinity.
i also reject the idea that boys can't think straight when the see a woman. that only happens when those boys don't have enough contact with women and are not used to them and if they had bad role models (so blame their parents). if that was a serious issue all schools would be gender segregated everywhere. the whole idea that boys can't control themselves is insulting. it's perpetuated by an archaic view of gender differences. and in fact telling boys that they don't have themselves under control is only making them feel more helpless than they really are.
Yes, organizationally there's of course no reason scout groups can't be mixed. But I don't think that's why the Mormons left, was it? It was mixed troops as well, right?
Children are exposed to plenty of gender-mixed spaces, from school to most families in the first place, and no one is suggesting doing away with that.
I don't agree that men "can't think straight" when women are around (or vice versa) but of course as a teen or even as an adult, you need to consider how the opposite sex sees you, what "signals" you send, or you will almost certainly be unhappy for it. When we call it "the male gaze" I think you see why it might be nice to have a break from it, but women judge men's masculine qualities/conformance too.
I think it's more insulting to suggest men can't be trusted to be left alone with each other or they'll become toxic.
The way the program is currently set up, the boy and girl troops are separated completely. There's been no negatives of including girls, only positives that I have seen, and I've been involved for almost 20 years. It's amazing what people construct in their own heads without actually investigating to see the reality.
That is a very sectarian comment. Whatever you might think of Mormonism the religion, never confuse it with the membership who come in all shapes and sizes. (A large proportion of people in Utah aren't even LDS, at least 40% or more in some areas, and depression is a major issue throughout the other Rocky Mountain areas.)
There is some good evidence by the way that the LDS leadership got wind of the abuse compensation claims before they became prominent, which is why they disaffiliated. It may also be cost cutting, because the Mormon church is providing less and less money for activities of all sorts.
The spring membership numbers reveal this. Mid-spring is when the lapsed members from the prior year finally get dropped. Spring 2020 was before the pandemic had any real effect on membership (main recruiting is in the fall), so that is when LDS's withdrawal became apparent.
Then spring 2021 is when we see drops and poor recruiting during the pandemic.
Since then, membership has been largely flat, possibly declining modestly (hard to read precisely).
i disagree with you. The author is pointing at deeper cultural issue of lack of candor that unaddressed allows things like sexual abuse to flourish. It is an organization that is not willing to tackle serious or face hard things head on. Yeah and their product sucks, so improved marketing won't save it.
> Its historic advantages—brand recognition, inexpensive outdoor access, and the prestige of Eagle Scout—once masked program defects.
I don't think the product sucked at all I think the packaging of that product was terrible. My father took me to a scout meeting when I was 13. Afterwards, he asked if I was interested. I said no - they really come across as Nazi Youth combined with religious fanaticism, and neither appeals to me.
I was a Scout in four different places growing up. My family moved a lot. My experience (in the 1980s) is that program depended a lot on the priorities of local organizers. Anecdotally, I observed that in communities where Scouting was seen as important—measured by the percentage of children who participated-it was a positive experience.
My time as a Boy Scout in Maine was life changing. It was not just about activities and skills (although there were many), it’s clear that the leaders of that Troop saw Scouting as a kind of secular education in ethics and community. They made the various Scouting accomplishments (ranks, merit badges) feel like milestones along a path of self improvement. It felt important.
When my family left Maine, the local Troop was weird (the Hitler Youth comment by the earlier poster tracks) and activities consisted of playing checkers in a church basement. In particular, peer bullying of younger/new kids was routine. I lost interest at that point and stopped going.
It’s been difficult to follow news of Scouting’s decline for me, because I have seen how positive it CAN be. But perhaps local Troops like this are rare.
One of the issues is that their historical strengths became weaknesses. Scouting integrated into existing infrastructure, which is why religion is such a prominent aspect. (It’s also why as mentioned elsewhere the politics around the LDS church became so recently important.) Boy Scouts was mostly and overlay that slotted on top of church youth programs. (Also other secular groups but that was smaller)
The shifting of religious practice in the US impacted scouting as well. Mainline Protestantism and Catholic Churches are on the decline - that’s the backbone. In the Catholic environment I grew up in, Boy Scouts kept kids engaged after communion with the parish.
The other issue with the model is that the local organization leadership reflected the old model. (ie. It’s a bunch of white dudes) The most traditional, growing communities who would be attracted to scouting with Catholic and Episcopal communities are Hispanic, Filipino and in my area Indian.
It is sad. I was involved from age 7-14 (when we moved) and loved it. But institutions only survive when they can grow themselves.
When I was a child I was made to endure an organization called "Stockades". This was -- in the 1980s -- an extremely religious version of scouting. It... was not fun. After a few weeks of this, of literal begging and crying to not go, finally my parents relented. Neither of them had considered what a "stockade" really was: a place to barricade yourself inside for protection OR a literal prison. Neither seem appropriate for a child learning to take part in the world.
I was in the Boy Scouts and a lot of it was appealing at first, but it eventually became ugly to me. I loved the aspects that focused on nature, exploration, self-reliance, and to a degree the quasi-military sense of duty, brotherhood, structure, and (at least the illusion) of support which I craved. As I got older though, I became impatient if not infuriated with the organization’s preoccupation with dogma, ideological loyalty, and increasing focus on establishing in and out groups. The leaders and scouts that flourished where rigid top down authoritarian types that epitomized what I grew to strongly dislike about the rest of American patriarchal society that I was increasingly struggling with in day to day life: bullying, hypocrisy, cruelty, and fearful of anything that doesn’t conform to an embarrassingly narrow and ignorant standard. Of course, I understood that it perhaps said more about the fact a lot of dads in my community were assholes, but organizationally it seemed to reward those sorts of people and shit all over everyone else. I just wanted to camp and respect nature, not join the Hitler Youth and get bullied more. I was/am annoyed by people being surprised by the BSA’s problems with abuse, as logically and historically these sorts of institutions are fertile ground for abuse.
> The cost falls on both ends of Scouts BSA. That program is optimal for middle schoolers, but middle schoolers are not trusted to own it. They are managed by older youth instead. High schoolers fare no better. Instead of receiving programming built around autonomy, peer challenge, advanced outdoor adventure, and responsibility suited to their age, the vast majority are trapped in a middle-school program where their main role is supervising the younger Scouts. BSA romanticizes this as mentoring. Teenagers see it as babysitting. They know the difference, and they leave.
A kind of interesting statement. I dont know if i agree. I think it is a positive thing to have children from different age groups learn from each other. Obviously it shouldn't devolve into just babysitting, but the idea of mixed ages learning together doesn't seem inherently bad.
Former Eagle Scout here -- I agree a bit with this analysis. The absolute best parts of it for me were the high adventure camps, backpacking, etc. The absolute worst where the Monday meetings. Depending on the vibe of the troop your activities bias one way or the other.
My Troop spent a lot of the non-adventure time motivating us to learn skills that we would need on adventures. Knot tying, first aid, camp cooking, paddling technique, carpentry, etc. Many of the leaders were current or former Navy personnel (this was in a town with a maritime school), so they often told engaging stories about how they needed these skills. There were also low-commitment activities in town that children enjoyed: campfires with smores, tours of historical sites (old forts), bike rides, “hikes” around town, art projects, fund drives, etc.
the idea of mixed ages learning together doesn't seem inherently bad
it's not. the problem is that the teenagers are not given any real authority that would be appropriate for their age. but then on their 18th birthday they suddenly become assistant scoutmasters with the expectation of real authority that comes with that title. so they become leaders simply because of their age, and not by merit or experience. in germany a patrol is a self functioning unit with their own meeting times or spaces. a patrol leader is someone who has been shown to be mature and patrols are able to plan and execute their own events and trips without an adult needing to be present. in the US that rarely happens. that's not just a BSA problem though, it is a problem of american culture in general. anyone under the age of 18 is treated like a child.
Today's reality is that 90% of BSA's high schoolers are stuck in its middle-school program. They aren't getting age-level programming.
BSA has never strongly denied this. Instead, it acts as if handing the reins of its middle-school program to high schoolers constitutes age-level programming for high schoolers. It does not.
It even further muddies the water, recommending mixed-age patrols. Yes, for real, your freshly crossed-over 10 year old is supposed to be in the same patrol as a 17 yo high-school senior. That is weird. But BSA thinks it's appropriate.
To be clear, I think cross-age-band interactions can have value, but they must be optional, and they must never displace age-level programming. I have separately proposed a new position called Guide. It is a position of responsibility where any youth may elect to help with any younger program. This is a service role, not supervision, not displacing younger youth from owning their program. This replaces Den Chief, Instructor, Junior Asst. Scoutmaster, and Troop Guide.
But importantly, and to reemphasize, Guide must be OPTIONAL. Scouting in no way depends on cross-age-band interactions. They are a value add when they work well. But the BSA view on these interactions resembles a fetish and lacks a rational basis.
I like this revamp idea, actually. In the troop I help with, we have an older 'venture patrol', and separating these two groups (10-13 vs 14-17) makes a lot of sense. And I don't particularly like the idea of any boy or girl getting Eagle before at least 16...holding leadership positions is really important. I think this structural change would help keep boys and girls interested past age 14. But mostly, I think the organization, which has done over a century of good, needs money to get a branding facelift. If any of these billionaire types want to do good, they could consider that shaping the country's youth with a solid program focused on citizenship, moral judgement, and outdoor skills might be something positive they could be remembered for.
Yes, it is unfortunately. It is a great shame, because I believe scouting can be a positive experience when there are proper safeguards. They have paid out a lot of compensation recently.
In the USA, the Mormon church disaffiliated their programme from them a few years ago and that was a big blow to them too since a lot of LDS kids were members.
I remember, my older brother wanted to be an Eagle Scout, and I was of the age to initially join. Some respected counter culture person, I don't think I was him, but someone like George Carlin, started talking about the boy scouts being where men scouted boys. That was it, the boy scouts were instantly "uncool".
The point about leadership stands. One thing about leadership that, you must be someone worth following.
I went to a scouting event about a year ago and honestly none of the leadership was inspiring in any way. Timid communication, lack of eye contact, pudgy physique, unkempt appearance.
Look I'm not trying to bash anyone, but am I supposed to tell my kid to look up to these folks? There's no way.
As scoutmaster the article feels wrong. There are things that I'm sure are wrong but I don't know what they are. the article doesn't seem right either though.
As a scoutmaster you have probably noticed the problems go much deeper:
1) The BSA national organization sized itself in the 1970s based on the idea that membership would continue to increase forever. The national organization is grossly oversized relative to the needs of the troops. The result is that the national organizations needs are at odds with the troops needs. The national organization is primarily focused on funding itself, including its debt, which creates a net burden for troops.
2) This net burden manifests itself in multiple ways at the troop level including using troops for fund raising efforts for the national organization where little if any of the funds make it back to the troop, increasingly irrelevant mandatory merit badge requirements to appease national donors who want to make their mark (reducing scout choices) and increasingly expensive costs for camps and equipment.
3) Lack of a solid development program for Scoutmasters. Few men in corporate America truly know how to manage or lead anymore. This rot started in the 1970s when computer programs replaced middle management and operations was largely outsourced. Outdoor skills have eroded as the population became more urbanized. Scoutmasters can’t teach what they don’t know and the national organization hasn’t filled that gap. For example compare BSA with NOLS for quality of their skills training.
4) Without a strong selection and development program for scoutmasters there is no prestige. Corporate America’s doesn’t see it as a place to develop leadership from but a distraction. That means that the people the scouting organization can draw from are the very, very good and the very, very bad.
5) Sexual abuse is a significant problem for any youth development organization and that fact was ignored by the BSA for way too long. The majority of perpetrators are men. As an organization with a declining pool of volunteers to draw adult leadership from the ratio of abusers who volunteer is going to be uncomfortably high. Courts and the court of public opinion have shown that there is no limit to the liability for this type of behavior. This is a strong signal that American’s simply do not want youth programs where this kind of thing can happen.
6) Being an adult leader of a youth organization comes with breathtakingly high amount of personal liability. Simply moving a car full of youth from one place to another risks financial devastation. The BSA does little to nothing to mitigate that risk and the only other way to mitigate that is through 1:1 youth to parent involvement where children are under direct, parental supervision at all times. This is antithetical to a youth lead program like the BSA.
And I really get the impression that you're very out of touch with what's scouts is like today when you make comments like that. I mean, yes, there are problems, but they are not what you say. There are plenty of great leaders, at least from what I can see. There's lots of parents that are very good at this.
As for sexual abuse, the scouts have very good programs to stop it. The past is not the reality today. Comments like yours probably are the reality of public opinion. However, they are not the reality of scouting today.
There are many of parents who are good at running activity programs for youth but there aren’t many parents who are good at running a youth leadership training program. The article rightly points out that the Eagle Scout project, which is supposed to be a leadership capstone project has devolved into learning how to navigate bureaucracy.
The BSA settlement over sexual abuse allocations was $2.46B for claims going back to the 1970s. No matter how good the program to prevent abuse today, this generation of controls will be judged against the standards of 2070s. This makes any asset heavy youth program financially untenable.
Personally I think scouting, done right, is a beautiful thing but I don’t see how the program survives or how any similar volunteer program would she able to survive long term.
I am confident you invested greatly in the program in good faith.
It's hard to learn of problems with something we deeply invested in. I've been there. It took me years to work through this struggle and come to these positions.
But I find there's an excellent case that BSA can do much better. And it must, or it's going to collapse within 10 years.
The good thing is "do better" is right in front of us. It means catching up with international peers, adopting lessons learned from and norms in our own society, and eliminating irrational deviations from longstanding notions of what Scouting is.
On the one hand you're right, on the other hand all these complaints people are talking about really do feel like from the 1970s and that's not the reality of today
The AI writing patterns here are obnoxious on both a sentence by sentence level and at the level of overall meaning and content. Because a machine wrote this, lacks human intelligence, so is not worth reading.
I read the text myself and checked it with pangram, it's 95% plus human written (people hate hundred percent so the discount). So I'm asking myself if it is ragebait or Idiocracy. I know that's harsh to say, but throwing in written by AI is harsh as well. (Analysis: Pangram believes that this document is fully human-written https://www.pangram.com/history/c59610e0-aba7-469c-b762-21f7...)
The article gives short shrift to the real real crisis: you need to read 12 paragraphs down to find a casual mention of the "sexual-abuse bankruptcy", which also explains the precipitous 2020 collapse in membership in the chart that is prominently shown up top. Turns out parents aren't too keen on sending their kids into camps that have reported 92,000 cases of sexual abuse (and how many cases were not?).
Are you sure that's the only cause? I can think of some other events in 2020 that might have led to a lot of youth dropping out of in-person programs.
Actually the 2020 drop in membership is more closely tied to the disproportionate “voices” of the LDS membership who did everything possible to change the culture of the organization to suit their ends. Yes the abuse issue is real, but don’t discount the Mormon influence. As a group, they have serious psychiatric issues (the most medicated state in the US by a huge margin) and frequently use dishonesty whenever it suits them (see: Mitt Romney and the caffeine prohibition change).
I'm out of the loop on this, what changes did the LDS want?
The LDS wanted it to continue to be more of a faith-based organization, and also objected to combining boys and girls together into the same program. Ultimately they left the organization at the end of 2019, taking about 20% of the membership with them.
A lot of Scout groups are church based and not only with the LDS.
I have heard that the LDS church got wind of abuse claims within scouting before they hit the mainstream. They have their own abuse scandals just now so probably didn't want to fight that war on two fronts. Either that or cost cutting, which is a major feature of modern Mormonism, except where temple construction is concerned.
Scouting hasn't taken off in Mormon churches much outside the USA by the way. Not really in the UK.
You don't have to be Mormon or even religious to think that there's value in having a youth program that is specifically male-only, such that you'd be highly motivated to abandon a youth program if it stopped being male-only.
> You don't have to be Mormon or even religious to think that there's value in having a youth program that is specifically male-only, such that you'd be highly motivated to abandon a youth program if it stopped being male-only.
Are you going to expand on this at all? What is the value in Scouts being male-only?
Boys need to learn how to be men. Just like girls need to learn how to be women. LOADS and LOADS of material available to young girls to accomplish this goal. Lots of funding for them too, to become women. Boys? Boys are _disposable_ and get _no investment_. I'll admit this is my personal perspective. I would be happy to be wrong about this but I just don't see it where I am in the Midwest.
So I think the value comes from having a male-only space where boys can learn to be men. This is especially true of young men in the throes of puberty where young women are such a huge distraction they cannot even _think straight_. I know this because I got to experience this _first hand_ and it took me many many MANY more years than it would have to integrate my feelings for women into my being or psyche or whatever the word is.
For the record I am neither Mormon, nor religious. In fact I wildly far to the left by most assessments. Admittedly I don't fit neatly into other people's labels.
What is the value in all programs being mixed gender?
> Boys need to learn how to be men. Just like girls need to learn how to be women.
Do they? That suggests not only that there's one right way to be a man/woman, and that you'll need to learn it from your peers and not just your parents.
I do think there's a point to gender-segregated spaces for kids, but that is because the social dynamics are different. There are some ways a boy can relax when there's only other boys around, and same for girls, and that's probably good for mental health. But you're still a man/woman even if you didn't get that chance and went through your whole childhood worrying what the opposite sex thought of you.
What is the value in all programs being mixed gender?
to learn that both genders are normal people and have some common and some diverse interest and capacities. to learn to respect each other and to collaborate. to avoid turning the other gender into a mysterious unknown.
there is room for gender segregated spaces. but it doesn't have to be at the organization level. you could have boys only and girls only patrols.
i also disagree that men need to be by themselves in order to learn to be men. the most important quality of a man is to be able to treat women with respect. and see them as their equal, not as something lesser. that can only happen in mixed spaces.
gender specific spaces are good for dealing with certain experiences, such as puberty, but beyond that y experience is that male only spaces are a breeding ground for toxic masculinity.
i also reject the idea that boys can't think straight when the see a woman. that only happens when those boys don't have enough contact with women and are not used to them and if they had bad role models (so blame their parents). if that was a serious issue all schools would be gender segregated everywhere. the whole idea that boys can't control themselves is insulting. it's perpetuated by an archaic view of gender differences. and in fact telling boys that they don't have themselves under control is only making them feel more helpless than they really are.
Yes, organizationally there's of course no reason scout groups can't be mixed. But I don't think that's why the Mormons left, was it? It was mixed troops as well, right?
Children are exposed to plenty of gender-mixed spaces, from school to most families in the first place, and no one is suggesting doing away with that.
I don't agree that men "can't think straight" when women are around (or vice versa) but of course as a teen or even as an adult, you need to consider how the opposite sex sees you, what "signals" you send, or you will almost certainly be unhappy for it. When we call it "the male gaze" I think you see why it might be nice to have a break from it, but women judge men's masculine qualities/conformance too.
I think it's more insulting to suggest men can't be trusted to be left alone with each other or they'll become toxic.
The way the program is currently set up, the boy and girl troops are separated completely. There's been no negatives of including girls, only positives that I have seen, and I've been involved for almost 20 years. It's amazing what people construct in their own heads without actually investigating to see the reality.
That is a very sectarian comment. Whatever you might think of Mormonism the religion, never confuse it with the membership who come in all shapes and sizes. (A large proportion of people in Utah aren't even LDS, at least 40% or more in some areas, and depression is a major issue throughout the other Rocky Mountain areas.)
There is some good evidence by the way that the LDS leadership got wind of the abuse compensation claims before they became prominent, which is why they disaffiliated. It may also be cost cutting, because the Mormon church is providing less and less money for activities of all sorts.
Can't this argument be applied to every group that has more than one member?
The 2020 drop was 1/3 LDS pullout, 1/3 pandemic.
The spring membership numbers reveal this. Mid-spring is when the lapsed members from the prior year finally get dropped. Spring 2020 was before the pandemic had any real effect on membership (main recruiting is in the fall), so that is when LDS's withdrawal became apparent.
Then spring 2021 is when we see drops and poor recruiting during the pandemic.
Since then, membership has been largely flat, possibly declining modestly (hard to read precisely).
i disagree with you. The author is pointing at deeper cultural issue of lack of candor that unaddressed allows things like sexual abuse to flourish. It is an organization that is not willing to tackle serious or face hard things head on. Yeah and their product sucks, so improved marketing won't save it.
> Its historic advantages—brand recognition, inexpensive outdoor access, and the prestige of Eagle Scout—once masked program defects.
I don't think the product sucked at all I think the packaging of that product was terrible. My father took me to a scout meeting when I was 13. Afterwards, he asked if I was interested. I said no - they really come across as Nazi Youth combined with religious fanaticism, and neither appeals to me.
I was sad because the product is truly awesome.
Same experience except it reminded my dad too much of his time in the Soviet Young Pioneers.
I was a Scout in four different places growing up. My family moved a lot. My experience (in the 1980s) is that program depended a lot on the priorities of local organizers. Anecdotally, I observed that in communities where Scouting was seen as important—measured by the percentage of children who participated-it was a positive experience.
My time as a Boy Scout in Maine was life changing. It was not just about activities and skills (although there were many), it’s clear that the leaders of that Troop saw Scouting as a kind of secular education in ethics and community. They made the various Scouting accomplishments (ranks, merit badges) feel like milestones along a path of self improvement. It felt important.
When my family left Maine, the local Troop was weird (the Hitler Youth comment by the earlier poster tracks) and activities consisted of playing checkers in a church basement. In particular, peer bullying of younger/new kids was routine. I lost interest at that point and stopped going.
It’s been difficult to follow news of Scouting’s decline for me, because I have seen how positive it CAN be. But perhaps local Troops like this are rare.
One of the issues is that their historical strengths became weaknesses. Scouting integrated into existing infrastructure, which is why religion is such a prominent aspect. (It’s also why as mentioned elsewhere the politics around the LDS church became so recently important.) Boy Scouts was mostly and overlay that slotted on top of church youth programs. (Also other secular groups but that was smaller)
The shifting of religious practice in the US impacted scouting as well. Mainline Protestantism and Catholic Churches are on the decline - that’s the backbone. In the Catholic environment I grew up in, Boy Scouts kept kids engaged after communion with the parish.
The other issue with the model is that the local organization leadership reflected the old model. (ie. It’s a bunch of white dudes) The most traditional, growing communities who would be attracted to scouting with Catholic and Episcopal communities are Hispanic, Filipino and in my area Indian.
It is sad. I was involved from age 7-14 (when we moved) and loved it. But institutions only survive when they can grow themselves.
When I was a child I was made to endure an organization called "Stockades". This was -- in the 1980s -- an extremely religious version of scouting. It... was not fun. After a few weeks of this, of literal begging and crying to not go, finally my parents relented. Neither of them had considered what a "stockade" really was: a place to barricade yourself inside for protection OR a literal prison. Neither seem appropriate for a child learning to take part in the world.
yeah, very weird name. it's part of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Service_Brigade
I was in the Boy Scouts and a lot of it was appealing at first, but it eventually became ugly to me. I loved the aspects that focused on nature, exploration, self-reliance, and to a degree the quasi-military sense of duty, brotherhood, structure, and (at least the illusion) of support which I craved. As I got older though, I became impatient if not infuriated with the organization’s preoccupation with dogma, ideological loyalty, and increasing focus on establishing in and out groups. The leaders and scouts that flourished where rigid top down authoritarian types that epitomized what I grew to strongly dislike about the rest of American patriarchal society that I was increasingly struggling with in day to day life: bullying, hypocrisy, cruelty, and fearful of anything that doesn’t conform to an embarrassingly narrow and ignorant standard. Of course, I understood that it perhaps said more about the fact a lot of dads in my community were assholes, but organizationally it seemed to reward those sorts of people and shit all over everyone else. I just wanted to camp and respect nature, not join the Hitler Youth and get bullied more. I was/am annoyed by people being surprised by the BSA’s problems with abuse, as logically and historically these sorts of institutions are fertile ground for abuse.
> The cost falls on both ends of Scouts BSA. That program is optimal for middle schoolers, but middle schoolers are not trusted to own it. They are managed by older youth instead. High schoolers fare no better. Instead of receiving programming built around autonomy, peer challenge, advanced outdoor adventure, and responsibility suited to their age, the vast majority are trapped in a middle-school program where their main role is supervising the younger Scouts. BSA romanticizes this as mentoring. Teenagers see it as babysitting. They know the difference, and they leave.
A kind of interesting statement. I dont know if i agree. I think it is a positive thing to have children from different age groups learn from each other. Obviously it shouldn't devolve into just babysitting, but the idea of mixed ages learning together doesn't seem inherently bad.
Former Eagle Scout here -- I agree a bit with this analysis. The absolute best parts of it for me were the high adventure camps, backpacking, etc. The absolute worst where the Monday meetings. Depending on the vibe of the troop your activities bias one way or the other.
Once you earn it you are an Eagle Scout for life. So you are an Eagle Scout not a “former” Eagle Scout. At least that’s what I was thought!
Hahah yes. Eagle Scout here! Be prepared!
I'm currently scoutmaster and that is my thought. Camping is fun, but we do that once a month - what should we do the other times that is fun
My Troop spent a lot of the non-adventure time motivating us to learn skills that we would need on adventures. Knot tying, first aid, camp cooking, paddling technique, carpentry, etc. Many of the leaders were current or former Navy personnel (this was in a town with a maritime school), so they often told engaging stories about how they needed these skills. There were also low-commitment activities in town that children enjoyed: campfires with smores, tours of historical sites (old forts), bike rides, “hikes” around town, art projects, fund drives, etc.
This is all great, and it's even better when it's done in the context of properly age-banded programs.
Many times, the high schooler wants to do different things than the 6th grader. And even when they do the same activity, approaches will be different.
the idea of mixed ages learning together doesn't seem inherently bad
it's not. the problem is that the teenagers are not given any real authority that would be appropriate for their age. but then on their 18th birthday they suddenly become assistant scoutmasters with the expectation of real authority that comes with that title. so they become leaders simply because of their age, and not by merit or experience. in germany a patrol is a self functioning unit with their own meeting times or spaces. a patrol leader is someone who has been shown to be mature and patrols are able to plan and execute their own events and trips without an adult needing to be present. in the US that rarely happens. that's not just a BSA problem though, it is a problem of american culture in general. anyone under the age of 18 is treated like a child.
Seems like the problem is actually that we have decided children have and deserve no agency.
All age bands deserve age-level programming.
Today's reality is that 90% of BSA's high schoolers are stuck in its middle-school program. They aren't getting age-level programming.
BSA has never strongly denied this. Instead, it acts as if handing the reins of its middle-school program to high schoolers constitutes age-level programming for high schoolers. It does not.
It even further muddies the water, recommending mixed-age patrols. Yes, for real, your freshly crossed-over 10 year old is supposed to be in the same patrol as a 17 yo high-school senior. That is weird. But BSA thinks it's appropriate.
To be clear, I think cross-age-band interactions can have value, but they must be optional, and they must never displace age-level programming. I have separately proposed a new position called Guide. It is a position of responsibility where any youth may elect to help with any younger program. This is a service role, not supervision, not displacing younger youth from owning their program. This replaces Den Chief, Instructor, Junior Asst. Scoutmaster, and Troop Guide.
But importantly, and to reemphasize, Guide must be OPTIONAL. Scouting in no way depends on cross-age-band interactions. They are a value add when they work well. But the BSA view on these interactions resembles a fetish and lacks a rational basis.
I like this revamp idea, actually. In the troop I help with, we have an older 'venture patrol', and separating these two groups (10-13 vs 14-17) makes a lot of sense. And I don't particularly like the idea of any boy or girl getting Eagle before at least 16...holding leadership positions is really important. I think this structural change would help keep boys and girls interested past age 14. But mostly, I think the organization, which has done over a century of good, needs money to get a branding facelift. If any of these billionaire types want to do good, they could consider that shaping the country's youth with a solid program focused on citizenship, moral judgement, and outdoor skills might be something positive they could be remembered for.
The elephant in the room is
the pedophile in the Scoutmaster.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/boy-scouts-america-have...
Why would any responsible parent put their child in such danger.
Yes, it is unfortunately. It is a great shame, because I believe scouting can be a positive experience when there are proper safeguards. They have paid out a lot of compensation recently.
In the USA, the Mormon church disaffiliated their programme from them a few years ago and that was a big blow to them too since a lot of LDS kids were members.
The danger is the same as anywhere. It just got in the news and now you think it is worse.
Do you feel that it's also irresponsible for parents to take their kids to a Catholic church?
Looks like membership peaked in 1971. Add that chart to the list:
https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/
I remember, my older brother wanted to be an Eagle Scout, and I was of the age to initially join. Some respected counter culture person, I don't think I was him, but someone like George Carlin, started talking about the boy scouts being where men scouted boys. That was it, the boy scouts were instantly "uncool".
I assume that site is implying it's Nixon's fault? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_shock
He certainly contributed, but I personally would not agree that it was all his fault.
The point about leadership stands. One thing about leadership that, you must be someone worth following.
I went to a scouting event about a year ago and honestly none of the leadership was inspiring in any way. Timid communication, lack of eye contact, pudgy physique, unkempt appearance.
Look I'm not trying to bash anyone, but am I supposed to tell my kid to look up to these folks? There's no way.
As scoutmaster the article feels wrong. There are things that I'm sure are wrong but I don't know what they are. the article doesn't seem right either though.
As a scoutmaster you have probably noticed the problems go much deeper:
1) The BSA national organization sized itself in the 1970s based on the idea that membership would continue to increase forever. The national organization is grossly oversized relative to the needs of the troops. The result is that the national organizations needs are at odds with the troops needs. The national organization is primarily focused on funding itself, including its debt, which creates a net burden for troops. 2) This net burden manifests itself in multiple ways at the troop level including using troops for fund raising efforts for the national organization where little if any of the funds make it back to the troop, increasingly irrelevant mandatory merit badge requirements to appease national donors who want to make their mark (reducing scout choices) and increasingly expensive costs for camps and equipment. 3) Lack of a solid development program for Scoutmasters. Few men in corporate America truly know how to manage or lead anymore. This rot started in the 1970s when computer programs replaced middle management and operations was largely outsourced. Outdoor skills have eroded as the population became more urbanized. Scoutmasters can’t teach what they don’t know and the national organization hasn’t filled that gap. For example compare BSA with NOLS for quality of their skills training. 4) Without a strong selection and development program for scoutmasters there is no prestige. Corporate America’s doesn’t see it as a place to develop leadership from but a distraction. That means that the people the scouting organization can draw from are the very, very good and the very, very bad. 5) Sexual abuse is a significant problem for any youth development organization and that fact was ignored by the BSA for way too long. The majority of perpetrators are men. As an organization with a declining pool of volunteers to draw adult leadership from the ratio of abusers who volunteer is going to be uncomfortably high. Courts and the court of public opinion have shown that there is no limit to the liability for this type of behavior. This is a strong signal that American’s simply do not want youth programs where this kind of thing can happen. 6) Being an adult leader of a youth organization comes with breathtakingly high amount of personal liability. Simply moving a car full of youth from one place to another risks financial devastation. The BSA does little to nothing to mitigate that risk and the only other way to mitigate that is through 1:1 youth to parent involvement where children are under direct, parental supervision at all times. This is antithetical to a youth lead program like the BSA.
And I really get the impression that you're very out of touch with what's scouts is like today when you make comments like that. I mean, yes, there are problems, but they are not what you say. There are plenty of great leaders, at least from what I can see. There's lots of parents that are very good at this.
As for sexual abuse, the scouts have very good programs to stop it. The past is not the reality today. Comments like yours probably are the reality of public opinion. However, they are not the reality of scouting today.
There are many of parents who are good at running activity programs for youth but there aren’t many parents who are good at running a youth leadership training program. The article rightly points out that the Eagle Scout project, which is supposed to be a leadership capstone project has devolved into learning how to navigate bureaucracy.
The BSA settlement over sexual abuse allocations was $2.46B for claims going back to the 1970s. No matter how good the program to prevent abuse today, this generation of controls will be judged against the standards of 2070s. This makes any asset heavy youth program financially untenable.
Personally I think scouting, done right, is a beautiful thing but I don’t see how the program survives or how any similar volunteer program would she able to survive long term.
I am confident you invested greatly in the program in good faith.
It's hard to learn of problems with something we deeply invested in. I've been there. It took me years to work through this struggle and come to these positions.
But I find there's an excellent case that BSA can do much better. And it must, or it's going to collapse within 10 years.
The good thing is "do better" is right in front of us. It means catching up with international peers, adopting lessons learned from and norms in our own society, and eliminating irrational deviations from longstanding notions of what Scouting is.
On the one hand you're right, on the other hand all these complaints people are talking about really do feel like from the 1970s and that's not the reality of today
The AI writing patterns here are obnoxious on both a sentence by sentence level and at the level of overall meaning and content. Because a machine wrote this, lacks human intelligence, so is not worth reading.
I read the text myself and checked it with pangram, it's 95% plus human written (people hate hundred percent so the discount). So I'm asking myself if it is ragebait or Idiocracy. I know that's harsh to say, but throwing in written by AI is harsh as well. (Analysis: Pangram believes that this document is fully human-written https://www.pangram.com/history/c59610e0-aba7-469c-b762-21f7...)
I wrote that piece, and I am human. BTW, AI checkers are garbage. Even though your stat is heavily in my favor, I urge you not to use that stuff.
It is not rage bait. It's good-faith commentary on how a movement has become lost.
I wrote this. I am a human.
BSA rebranded itself “Scouting America.” The new name initializes to “SA,” common shorthand for sexual assault.
Well, as a german and history conscious person I think the acronym could also be taken in a completely different way.
Obviously they should have called it Scouting States.
More important context are current BSA youth and incoming generations of BSA Scout parents.
To them, SA = sexual assault.
AI;DR
I am a human, and I wrote that.