From the Associated Press:
Internal documents from the Boy Scouts of America reveal more than 125 cases in which men suspected of molestation allegedly continued to abuse Scouts, despite a blacklist meant to protect boys from sexual predators.
So, uh, that whole “no gay men in order to protect kids from child molestation” plan is working out really well, huh?
An internal blacklist is not a bad idea, in its place; I know of several organizations that have similar lists. Many of the cases were evidently reported to the police, so it wasn’t used instead of the criminal justice system. And there are many cases where the evidence is insufficient to convict but perfectly sufficient to make one incredibly leery of leaving the person alone with children– not to mention that survivors may not want to report to the police but will be quite happy to ensure that the abuser gets kicked out of Boy Scouts.
But, you know, the internal blacklist only works if you use it. If you don’t document or report abuse, if you don’t check the blacklist, it’s exactly like you don’t have one, except that you get to handwave that you’re doing all you can so all of these people seriously need to stop getting upset about the more than 125 boys that were abused because you fucked up.
Also, the fact that the Boy Scouts fought the release of the documents up to the Supreme Court level smacks of “organization desperately trying to cover its ass” to me. I mean, sure, privacy concerns… but if you redact the names, locations, and other identifying details, the important information (how many children were abused, why it happened) is still there, and the privacy risk is slim to none. Boy Scouts, you fucked up. It’s time to re-examine yourselves and create a new process that won’t have children being abused again and again because of motherfucking clerical errors.
And while we’re at it can you let queer people and atheists in? Thank you. You appear to be doing a terrible enough job running the place by yourselves, it’s not like we’d make it worse.
About ozyfrantz
Its the whole “Institutional Character” thing again. Institutions and the people who staff them often have little-to-no character. They go into self preservation-mode and lie, lie, lie — cheat, steal, cover-up, etc to survive.
When my son was a scout, he was attacked by a knife-wielding nuckle-head peer. The incident was handled by my son and other boys around him. They reported all details and modus to the staff. My son texted my wife and I about the incident. I called the camp to ensure the boy was reported to the police. They refused to even speak of the incident that “never happened.”
I called the Sheriff’s office near the camp and told them I suspect cover-up and to go dig! They went, they dug and they helped the staff cover it up more effectively. Then, after the cops departed, HE was in greater trouble than the knife-boy, as he used a contraband cellphone and texted the incident to an outside source. THAT was official heresy to the scouting org. They bullied and interrogated him regarding how wrong he was to even have the phone…but I taught him to be prepared for emergency regardless of how fkd your leaders may be. I’ve drilled into his head to never follow blindly and always think for yourself for your own preservation. If the rules are a risk to your safety…fk the rules!
He left the scouts as he had no tolerance for corruption. Now he’s learning the corrupt nature of humanity. He’ll do just fine!!!
Technically, I’m an Eagle Scout (I became an atheist after I turned 18) and finding out about this embarrasses me more than anything you’ve said about the Boy Scouts before. That’s because being safe for the boys is something the organization prides themselves on and up until now, I thought they had it down. For how many safety precautions the troops are supposed to take to protect the Scouts, and for how serious they claim to be about our safety, they still couldn’t protect the boys and even covered it up. There’s no excuse for this.
And then I read the link. The most recent case of abuse in that report is from 1991. I retract my embarrassment.