By David L.
Yesterday, the National Council for
the Boy Scouts of America announced that they would postpone a decision to
revise a long-standing policy excluding openly gay boys from being Scouts. As
an Eagle Scout, I think this was a sensible decision on their part.
When I learned a few days ago that the BSA was considering changing the policy, I was surprised. Last year, the BSA convened an 11-person committee to determine whether to continue their policy. The committee unanimously advised that the BSA keep the policy as it was. I thought that would be the end of the discussion, at least for a few years. However, several members of the National Council have been publicly critical of the policy, and I suppose this criticism was sufficient to bring the issue back up at this meeting.
Many conservatives are upset about the policy being questioned. It’s been my experience that people will point to the BSA as an organization not afraid to stick to its principles, and that gives them hope for the resilience of traditional principles. They are also worried about whether Scouting will remain a safe environment for their children. While I sympathize, I am somewhat hopeful about how questioning the policy might turn out. I think the policy needs certain nuances. If a Scoutmaster followed the current policy, it seems that he would be required to kick a scout out of his troop if the scout publicly came out of the closet. This seems neither properly sensitive nor prudent. Even if the Scoutmaster displayed great sensitivity in carrying out this directive, the Scout would almost certainly feel alienated, hurt, and rejected. He would be in an incredibly vulnerable state. Where might he go to seek some form of acceptance? Further along in his life, he would almost certainly have bitter feelings for Scouting, and would likely also be embittered towards traditional social values as well. In not having a more welcoming policy, we may have seriously alienated young men already in a vulnerable position.
However, I share fears that amending this policy could go horribly wrong. For instance, Eagle Scouts are required to earn the Family Life merit badge. This can foster a good understanding of the importance of the family; however, if it is amended to reflect modern understandings of alternative family structures, it could have the opposite effect. If scout troops became yet another place for pushing progressive social values, where can Catholic parents send their children? Catholic parishes are one of the most common sponsors for scout troops. If the BSA started pushing an ideology incompatible with Catholic social teaching, what are these parishes to do? That’s not even taking the Mormon scout troops into account; I can’t see them reacting well to this.
I hope that a more nuanced policy might be adopted- one that might uphold the BSA’s commitment to traditional social norms while also allowing greater sensitivity to young men with same-sex attraction. Naturally, such nuances could only be worked out at a major meeting, and with proper time and deliberation. Postponing the decision to a larger meeting in the spring, then, seems like the best way this could have played out. Hopefully, the result of this meeting will be a policy that includes both sensitivity and promoting the value of the family. I don’t mean to suggest that the specifics of such a policy will be easy to figure out; however, I am hopeful that this meeting might be able to come to a solution.
Very interesting take on the family life MB. My thoughts have always centered more on the mechanics of the Troop camping program. My guess would be that the basics of that MB wouldn't change. The chances that you end up with a counselor that had opinions contrary to your chartering org, unit, or family would be slim since the Scoutmaster should be able to match up the Scout with a counselor.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes down to it the definition of Family is no longer defined by Father knows Best or Leave it to Beaver (dated myself here). Families come in different shapes and sizes. The current writing is a bit netural towards what makes up a family except to mention a "father" which assumes the role the Scout will take on as an adult.
If they do make a change I'd hope they'd offer a bit of guidance or best practice on dealing with the youth. Do you want to offer a guess on how the National Catholic Committee on Scouting under the UCCB will direct Catholic chartered units?
If the policy is amended to just leave it up to individual troops, I imagine they'd be handled kinda like Girl Scout troops are now- I'm pretty sure they're sponsored by Catholic parishes, despite some of the GSUSA'a positions, since individual troops are left fairly autonomous. I'm not sure about specifics on that though.
DeleteThe USCCB through the NCCGSCF actually does have some issues with the GSUSA and their prmotion of certain issus. The key I think is more the promotion if the issues. You can find it at www.nccgscf.org and there's continued dialog about it. There's a big difference in the structure of the GSUSA and BSA. With the GSUSA they own the units. With the BSA the charter organization owns the unit and picks it's leadership. So the BSA, assuming they go as thought, will allow the Charer Org to open up or not.
Delete"However, I share fears that amending this policy could go horribly wrong. For instance, Eagle Scouts are required to earn the Family Life merit badge. This can foster a good understanding of the importance of the family; however, if it is amended to reflect modern understandings of alternative family structures, it could have the opposite effect. If scout troops became yet another place for pushing progressive social values, where can Catholic parents send their children?"
ReplyDeleteOpenly gay boys should not be excluded from scouting on the basis of their orientation. People tend to use the traditional family values concept as an excuse to maintain exclusive policies and views. I appreciate your sensitive words and attempts at understanding. However, as Bill said, families come in different shapes and sizes. Are you suggesting that the BSA deny openly gay kids from being scouts in order to protect the notion of the "traditional family" within the organization? Catholic parents can still teach that same-sex families are not "real families" according to the Church. But it seems like people are trying to create a bubble for there kids. What happens when they go out into the real world and see that same-sex marriage is legal in some states and even meet out gay people who may or may not be in relationships? They are going to face that eventually. Some will hold onto their "traditional values" and some won't. The Catholic Church, though it does fund many scouts, does not own the BSA.
I don't think openly gay boys ought to be barred from scouting, and I hope this policy might be changed. My concern is that reform might be more far-reaching than simply removing this restriction.
DeleteWhile creating a "bubble" for their children would be extreme, it's reasonable for Catholic parents (as well as others with similar understandings of social norms) to want to raise their children in an environment that fosters certain values. To some extent, it would be irresponsible for them not to try to impart some sort of value system to their children. While the BSA is not a Catholic organization, it's also not a value-neutral organization. It's founders, both in Britain and the US, meant for it to instill certain values of religious and civic duty; the camping and knot-tying is merely a medium for these values. You could argue about whether a more traditional understanding of social norms ought to be a part of these values. However, seeing as many Catholic parishes sponsor Boy Scout troops it would cause issues if the values of the BSA came into direct conflict with the values of the parish and its people.
Do you have a proposal for how the Scouts should walk the line between sensitivity and encouragement of traditional family values? As a Catholic man who has same-sex attractions, I appreciate your nuanced treatment of this topic, and the difficult nature of the subject. It is important to provide both love and support and to behave in a way that promotes morality.
ReplyDeleteI think dropping the ban on young men who, in the language of the ban, are “open or avowed homosexuals” would be a necessary step. Beyond that, it would get more complicated. For instance, Scout leaders are trained to address bullying, but that training would probably need to be updated to address instances of scouts being bullied for their attractions. During my time as a Scout, homosexuality wasn’t directly addressed in official programming. The BSA didn’t really function as a teaching body for traditional values, but rather as an environment where these traditional norms were assumed and nurtured. I think it would be best to preserve this culture, and that it would stay strong as long as the national policy continues to recognize the special place of marriage between a man and woman.
DeleteWould saying there shouldn't be anti-bullying training that includes sexual minorities on issues of orientation or gender identity/expression, along with race, ethnicity, creed, religion, gender, etc. be an implicit acknowledgement that it's not as bad, or even okay to bully lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals? What is the objection to discussing realities of the world that Scouts will grow into and have to function in outside of the conservative bubble you'd like them raised in? Isn't safety and inclusion a traditional value?
DeleteThe question is not one of anti-bullying training, but one of troop membership. No one objected to said training.
DeleteAlso, don't make accusations you can't confirm. It's a serious obstacle to genuine, open discussion when your tone is hostile.
I said nothing against an anti-bullying policy. In fact, I think an anti-bullying policy would be an excellent idea, and fully in line with the spirit of this post. The "objection to discussing realities of the world" is that I'd rather not have Scout leaders giving lectures about sexuality, and any scout leader I have spoken with on this subject has said they really wouldn't feel comfortable talking about sexuality with other people's kids.
DeleteAs an Eagle Scout myself, I'm not sure that having openly gay individuals involved in Scouting would be bad in and of itself, but some of the effects of that decision would be. I think that introducing an element of sexual tension into the dynamic of a Scout troop would be a distraction at best and conducive to scandal at worst, whether by sexual misconduct or bullying. Also, I hadn't thought about the issue of Family Life merit badge. Admitting gays into Scouts would probably mean changing the wording of said merit badge to explicitly include homosexual couples. So even if there was a way to ensure that problems at the troop level could be assuaged (which I'm not convinced there is), I think that allowing gays into Scouts would be viewed as a kowtow to the gay agenda and would pose very serious threats to the moral and ideological foundation of Scouting.
ReplyDeleteAnd what exactly is the "gay agenda?"
DeleteGroups that aggressively seek societal legitimization of the gay lifestyle and special recognition of gays as a protected minority, along with their friends in government and the media, all taken collectively.
DeleteI still have not heard, after two emails and a Facebook comment, a response from this author on what he means by "They are also worried about whether Scouting will remain a safe environment for their children. While I sympathize, I am somewhat hopeful about how questioning the policy might turn out."
ReplyDeleteHow would admitting there are already gay, bi, and trans scouts in the program (and then welcoming them!), and openly admitting GBT leaders endanger a safe environment for children?
This demands an answer.
It would introduce an element of overt sexual tension into the organization that would fundamentally change the atmosphere of meetings, camp-outs, and other Scout functions. Most conservatives view homosexuality as immoral, and an environment in which it is implicitly recognized as legitimate, coupled with the new sexual element of the Scouting dynamic, would drive many of them away.
DeleteWhen I said that I sympathize, I meant that I don't want to belittle the concerns of parents, who are expected to exercise caution where the interests of their children are concerned. As I said, I am hopeful regarding the outcome of this process. I think it would be good to not exclude youths with same-sex attraction, but I also hope that the process will not turn Scouting into an aggressively secularist organization, as has happened in some other countries.
DeleteAs for openly GLBTQ scout leaders, I really think that's a different issue with separate concerns, and to my knowledge isn't being strongly considered at the moment, which is why I didn't try to address it in a single blog post.
If we take an objective look at the John Jay Report done on the sexual abuse crisis in the Church, we see that there is an undeniable correlation between homosexual priests and predation on minors. This isn't bias, it's factual data. I'm a mom of Scouts and I don't want homosexual men as Scout masters. People can make assertions all day long about homosexuals' not being any more dangerous than straight men, but the facts don't back that up.
ReplyDeleteIt's a complicated situation. I don't want a straight guy who is shacked up with his girl friend being a troop leader either. Scouting is morally straight by definition. Unfortunately, the term "moral" has been made an ambiguous term in recent years. I don't object to a boy with a homosexual preference being in my troop. (I am also a committee member for a scout troop.) Sexual preference is morally neutral and should be a private matter. I object to any boy or man who openly declares himself a fornicator (homo or hetero) being in the troop at all. Sex is for bonding husband and wife for making babies. Any other "use" is immoral. Period. That's the standard according to Natural Law and it's the standard that BSA must hold if they want to maintain the integrity of the organization.
The whole homosexual agenda for this country is based on playing on people's sense of "fairness" and their emotions. They're marketing strategies. Reference the book at the link below for more information. Homosexual activity is socially and personally destructive. Forcing its acceptance on the Boy Scouts of America is a social and moral travesty.
http://www.amazon.com/After-Ball-America-Conquer-Hatred/dp/0452264987/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1362086663&sr=8-1&keywords=after+the+ball