When did the Boy Scouts of America become strict literalists? Here’s the Boy Scout Oath:
On my honor, I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country and
To obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake and morally straight.
When I was a Boy Scout, I never confused “morally straight” with “sexual-orientation straight.” Then, again, I thought God meant the same God that we invoke in the pledge of allegiance, a higher power that does not belong to a particular religion but one who wrote a universal morality on “the hearts of men.”
However, with “the worst kind of Christians” in leadership positions, the moral compass points straight in the most intolerant sense. Normally, I might simply be saddened to hear about the Boy Scouts’ decision, but remain silent. When they chose to exclude homosexuals from leadership positions within the organization, it was their (close-minded) right. Extending that policy to their membership is going too far for at least two obvious reasons:
1) Membership for many scouts begins in elementary school with Cub Scouts (including my own brief membership). At this age, every little boy claims girls are gross and morality is still being codified. Sexuality, in most cases, isn’t even a direction on the moral compass yet, unless that direction is the opposite of where the girls are hanging out.
Therefore initial membership can’t “weed out” the homosexuals. This means that homosexual boy scouts will be primarily targeted around high school age, when their sexual identities are manifesting, and when they’re the most vulnerable, emotionally. Nice policy, kick your members when they’re already down, dealing with hormones and high school.
2) The ultimate goal of a Boy Scout is, arguably, to become a member of the Order of the Arrow.* From BSA.org, the Mission of the Order of the Arrow:
The mission of the Order of the Arrow is to fulfill its purpose as an integral part of the Boy Scouts of America through positive youth leadership under the guidance of selected capable adults.
Boy Scouts are trained to become leaders, it’s a guiding principle throughout the organization. Do we want another generation of leaders who exclude homosexuals, and celebrate stagnation? More importantly, do we want more leaders who can define “positive leadership” as “making a definite contribution, constructive [...] guiding and supporting others,” while simultaneously turning their backs on their own members in a time of need?
*Correction, I had originally implied a connection between the Order of the Arrow and the Arrow of Light. The former is the highest society that a Boy Scout must be elected into by his peers. The latter is the highest award that a Cub Scout can achieve. The sentence has been redacted, but the sentiment it contained is still true, my father was a badass Boy Scout.
About John Dwyer
@John Certainly many boys get into Scouting from being Cubs, however there are just as many boys that join a Troop that were never Cubs.
I would argue that for point 2 the Ultimate goal for a scout would be to attain Eagle Rank, the highest rank a boy under 18 can attain. The Arrow of Light is the highest rank a Cub Scout can earn. It’s also the only patch from Cub Scouts allowed to be worn on the Boy Scout uniform. The Arrow of Light is not part of the Order of the Arrow (OA). The OA is a part of the BSA that one has to be elected into by peers. No doubt being inducted into the OA is an honor and says a lot about the character of the boys that are inducted and their roles in their troop as honor scouts and leaders.
Thanks for the clarification Will!
My memories of scouting did merge the OA (a sort of honor society at the top of Boy Scouts) with the Arrow of Light (the highest award of Cub Scouts).
I still stick by the assertion that joining the OA is the goal of most, if not many Boy Scouts and that most Boy Scouts started as Cubs. However, I admit, I can’t find any numbers on that assertion and it’s purely anecdotal.
But I do appreciate the correction and will reflect it in the piece!
How truly unfortunate that the BSA has chosed to uphold discrimination, prejudice and bigotry as upstanding manly values. The fact is that some dudes marry dudes — get over it, I want to say! At a time when there should be renewed efforts and increased sentiment in favor of protecting our children from harm, a major organization and self-defined source of authority should not be positioning itself to cause hurt and confusion to those young males who are discovering that their same-sex attractions are outweighing their opposite sex attractions. We want all boys to grow up to be Good Men — not just the heterosexual ones. And we need to think about how to get that done.
No one has the right to dictate what a person finds morally right.
I agreed with your first point about boys but note that boys are coming out as gay as young as 4 and 5 years old according to articles here.
Regardless, I don’t know that sex and sexual relationships is supposed to be part of the cub or boyscout experience. If you’re going to introduce sex and sexual relationships into the boy scout experience, I would argue that the scouts should also invite girls to join since they are also currently excluded.
True, and I tried to find them to link to but couldn’t, but I know they exist somewhere on the site. And one reason I love writing for GMP is that not all of us agree, hell it’s almost the point because otherwise the discussion would be pretty boring. However, on this point, I do believe there are a few kids that have an idea, or even a good grip on their sexuality so young, but doubt that the majority do.
Your second point is fantastic. That’s kinda is the point of having a “boys only” club, right?
Part of the point of boys’/men’s and girl’s/women’s only spaces is to eliminate the sexual/relationship dynamic so as to be able to focus on a task at hand.
If the scouts introduced sexuality and the sexual relationship dynamic between boy scouts, there is no reason to continue to exclude girls. They could do the very same activities.
your argument is logical on its face but it’s hyperbolic to assume that the presence of uncloseted scouts would have the same disruptive effect as opening eligibility to girls (which is already weak as seen by the fact that co-ed scouting not only already exists in the US (explorers, venture scouts, etc) but is the norm in many other countries)
your argument reminds of someone asserting that a university’s co-ed dormitories are an instance of heterosexual discrimination.
It is your claim, not mine, that adding girls would have a “disruptive effect.” I never even used that word here.
You haven’t provided any evidence that girls would have a greater “disruptive effect” than gays would. In fact you’ve done just the opposite.
You have defeated your own argument that adding girls would have a
“disruptive effect”, by showing that co-ed scouting is the norm in many other countries and works fine.
If the part of the objective of having a boys-only whatever is to enable the boys to focus on the task at hand without sexuality and sexual relationships being a distraction, then adding in gays or girls defeats that purpose.
How is distraction from tasks at hand not a disruptive effect?
as to the effect being greater, assuming it exists, consider that given an inclusive environment there will only be one or two gay scouts per troop, if that. Compare this to the 40% female membership in the Explorers.
either way, the BSA’s official stated rationale for excluding females makes no mention of sexuality so presumably this is not a factor.
How is distraction from tasks at hand not a disruptive effect?
Disruptive is a strong word. I have not used it.
And again, there is no evidence (according to your argument) that girls being no longer excluded would have any negative impact.
“as to the effect being greater, assuming it exists, consider that given an inclusive environment there will only be one or two gay scouts per troop, if that.”
How do you know this? Further, how do you know what the impact would be? For instance, where girls are included, when on field trips, do they maintain seperate sleeping/changing/showering arrangments, or are they integrated with the boys? If gay boys were included, would they be integrated or seperated? Those may be relevant factors..
“either way, the BSA’s official stated rationale for excluding females makes no mention of sexuality so presumably this is not a factor.”
Therefore, if gays are included, there is no reason to exclude girls.
I can’t help but feel like you are fixating on one piece of the puzzle, sex (as in the act), and inflating it to an unwarranted level of importance. The BSA states in its charter that it is to be open to all boys, and it has failed to provide such an organization to American youth.
An ideal co-ed program is still going to occasionally segregate scouts by gender according to differences in development. Deal with sleeping/hygiene the same way it’s dealt with in military boot camp: scouts would set up camp in single-gender units and perform other activities as a group. The military doesn’t operate straight-only shower facilities, nor are they under pressure to have male soldiers and sailors share facilities with female soldiers and sailors simply because of the existence of gays in the ranks.
Here’s the official BSA statement on girls in scouting:
“The Boy Scouts of America is chartered by Congress “…to promote… the ability of boys to do things for themselves and others, to train them in Scoutcraft, and to teach them patriotism, courage, self-reliance, and kindred virtues…” The Girl Scouts U.S.A. operates under a similar Congressional charter for the benefit of girls.
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. Boys in this age range seek out and enjoy group activities with other boys. The Cub Scout and Boy Scout programs were carefully developed with these considerations in mind.
The Exploring program, however, is designed to provide a variety of programs for both boys and girls between the ages of 14 and 21. Approximately 40% of the nation’s more than one million Explorers are female.
There are no plans to restructure Cub Scouting and Boy Scouting to allow for the registration of girls.”
“I can’t help but feel like you are fixating on one piece of the puzzle, sex (as in the act), and inflating it to an unwarranted level of importance. The BSA states in its charter that it is to be open to all boys, and it has failed to provide such an organization to American youth.”
It’s not fixating on one piece of the puzzle. It’s an issue of a newly introduced piece: sexuality and sexual / romantic relationships between boy scouts. That’s a very major change.
If that is going to be added to the scout experience, there is simply no reason to not also include heterosexual sexual / romantic relationships.
I don’t see it as introducing anything that isn’t already there. If the BSA changes its policy there be strict rules on fraternization similar to those of the Girl Scouts and scouts will be prohibited from so much as holding hands. Aside from the physical aspect, if an intra-scout romance is messing with group dynamics, scouts can be placed in different patrols or receive counseling from leadership, two occurrences which are already common for various reasons. The overwhelming majority of romantic relationships between scouts- gay, straight, whatever- will remain as they are now: unseen.
“I don’t see it as introducing anything that isn’t already there.”
If, by “already there”, you mean that homosexuals are already in the scouts, there is nothing to be gained here, other than drawing more attention to them, and therefore having to create and distribute rules and work-arounds, because of a open sexual element that doesn’t currently exist..
- things such as discipline for intr-scout romances, holding hands, fraternization discipline, placing scouts in different patrols, sexual / relationship counseling, etc. could be a distraction that does not currently exist. On the other hand, if you claim they do currently exist, truly nothing is accomplished by openly facilitating these sexual dymanics and sexual tension. Again, if they are going to take those measures for boys, there is no argument to be made to exclude girls and the potential heterosexual relationships and fraternization.
They are dealing with the same issues, except that some hetero boys may be concerned that a homosexual boy may be looking at him in a sexual way, much the same as some girls might be concerned if they had to bathe and bunk with hetero boys.
Adding in the sexaul element does change things in a major way.
You’re correct about the policy here–it’s just wrong. It’s a misguided idea that amounts to a sneaky way of saying gays are bad people.
Your argument, however, runs into a number of problems. The nature of the 1991 Supreme Court case on this issue was that the Boy Scouts have the freedom of association; like any private organization, they are allowed to set and maintain membership standards–and this is for all members, not just leaders. The problem is that the version of morality they’re holding out is simply not in line with most contemporary and widely-accepted views.
To your first point, while you’re correct about the development of sexual identity, you unfairly characterize what actually happens in Cub Scouts–or most Scouting units, for that matter. The individual Cub Packs, Boy Scout Troops, and Venturing Crews belong to the partnering organizations which charter them through the local Council. Unless that organization has some sort of anti-gay youth program, at the age you’re concerned with there isn’t any discussion about this issue–there’s no internal witch-hunt in Cub Scout Packs pushing young boys to come out one way or the other. Further, the local Council can’t control what individual units do unless there is an actual breach of the agreement, in which the partnering organization agrees to maintain certain standards of conduct. Also, the policy only applies to leadership positions as stated by National Council policy, and no Pack (or very, very few, to avoid speaking in absolutes) is going to kick out a little boy who discovers he’s gay. They would, however, be obliged to turn away an openly gay person applying to be a Den Leader or other leader in the Pack. If you’re worried about the boys’ mental health at this age, I’m reasonably certain Cub Scouts isn’t doing anything to hurt them. They’re too busy building soda-bottle rockets and pinewood derby cars to discuss the policy issues of the larger organization.
Your second point is inaccurate. There are many “goals” and many awards in the organization. The ranks of Boy Scout Troops represent levels of achievement in the program, and the rank of Eagle Scout is the highest award in the Boy Scouting program. There are further acknowledgments for staying active in Scouting after Eagle, up until a Scout turns age 18. The Order of the Arrow is more like an honor society within Scouting. It recognizes youth and adults who exemplify the ideals of the program, and one is elected to membership by one’s peers. The highest honor within the OA is the Vigil Honor, which is not a rank, only a recognition. Venturing has its own highest honor, the Silver Award. To say that there is one “goal” just doesn’t really touch on the nature of the Scouting experience.
My dilemma is that this is an organization I’ve been involved with most of my life, as a member, volunteer, and professional Scouter. I’m an Eagle Scout, and a Vigil Honor member in the OA. I’ve helped any number of young people have positive outdoor experiences which the could not have had anywhere else. This is an organization that does a lot of good in the world. It really is not one trying to indoctrinate people against homosexuals. There’s no teaching of that or anything like it–unless it’s at the level of the small individual unit because of the beliefs of their chartering organization, and the BSA has no say over that. This debate happens at a more abstract level, a more political level. Many people within the organization disagree with the policy, and are continuing to work to change it. James Turley, a national board member, dissented from the recent decision, committing himself to continued efforts to change this policy. I hope that eventually the organization will come around. Until then, it is a painful choice to have to sever oneself from association with decades of positive memories and irreplaceable experiences, from the opportunity to provide truly good and beneficial service to communities, and the opportunity to be engaged in the lives and education of young people who desperately need role models.
Perhaps the thing to do, rather than people expending way too much time and energy on getting the boy scout movement to change is for someone to create a similar org that is more open minded, Lets hypothesise for a moment and see where it leads. Say you were to create the boyz movement, a lovely rainbow covered flag as part of its emblem, warmly embracing homesexuals as pack leaders. You’d shout this from the rooftops, as being open minded, and open, you have nothing to hide,right? I suspect you wont be overwhelmed with phone calls from parents wishing to send little johnny along. So rather than continue to harangue the scout movement why not start instead where the real bigotry lies.
Haha, so your solution is, stop dealing with the little injustices, the ones you can fix – or even larger injustices, like bigotry within organizations – and move on to just fixing society as a whole? I think a few steps are missing inbetween … like dealing with the little injustices.
I’m still not clear on the explanation about how Cub Scout leadership has such different demands than Boy Scout leadership. Is there greater danger of sexual impropriety when the scouts are older but not younger?
I ask because, if the fear is having scout leaders who are attracted to their scouts, then I fail to see why it’s acceptable to have heterosexual women as Den Mothers in Cub Scouts. Am I correct in assuming that the ban on homosexuals would also mean that no lesbians could be Den Mothers? That seems like an odd policy, if the heart of the matter is some sort of sexual fear.
Unless there is a quite destructive assumption that men are much more dangerous and predatory than women are, and therefore you can trust women to be in charge of boys but must be more vigilant about having men in charge of boys.
Leaving aside for the moment the fact that the vast majority of male pederasts and male pedophiles identify as heterosexual.
The fear isn’t sexual predation as such. The policy isn’t based on the fear that there will be rampant sexual abuse, but rather it is simply a moral judgment that homosexuals aren’t fit role models for young people.
Did this become an issue because some kids were gay and openly discussing it? Making out? Having sex on a camp out? Honestly, it shouldn’t matter whether one is hetero or homo during ones childhood or teens because the focus should be on studies. The topic needn’t even come up. Who cares? This culture makes me smh at how important sexuality and talking about it in public has become. Like we all really need to know in the first place. TMI! There’s a private life and a public life. Kids – hit the books. You’ll have plenty of time in your adult years to hit “it”.
Sheesh. No wonder we are referred to as a “porn civilization”.