Scoutmaster

BSA and BMI

I am too massive to participate in our Troop's annual canoe trip to Algonquin Provincial Park.
I was too massive last year and the year before that, and the year before that and... well you get the idea.

My excessive adiposity is determined by consulting the body mass index (BMI) chart found in the new BSA health form that becomes mandatory next year. Apparently I am not alone; there seem to be a lot of overweight Scout leaders out there who have now had their gravity reduced to a metric.

Scoutmaster Francis Monty wrote a rather compelling and informative essay found here. He references several sources that question the wisdom of using BMI as the sole way of determining an individuals physical fitness:

In 2004, research published in the official journal of the American College of Sports Medicine stated that in most cases studied, the BMI did not accurately reflect the subject’s percentage of body fat ...

Joshua Ode, Ph.D., Michigan State University stated this exact point when commenting on BMI, “whether you’re an athlete or a 75-year-old man, all the same cut points are used.” Another of the circumstances that impact the reliability of BMI is the subject’s heritage. Studies conducted by McMaster University, Duke University, Michigan State University and California University all show that BMI thresholds are significantly inaccurate base upon the racial heritage of individual groups. On average BMI numbers drastically underestimate health risks in people of South Asian, Chinese and Aboriginal descent while at the same time overestimate the risk in people of African American and South Pacific descent.
Salim Yusuf, Ph.D., National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute states, “Many of us now realize that body mass index is a very poor measure of adiposity – how fat you are – and how much health risk you face. BMI is a tool best used at home to get a person’s attention but for true health markers a person needs numerous tests including waist size, blood cholesterol levels and blood pressure.”

I unwittingly predicted this development in a tongue-in-cheek way here. I have attempted to discuss discrimination in the BSA at length if you are interested. My goal has been to elevate the discussion beyond the angry young (old) man shaking his fist (cane) and formulate a reasonable appeal for tolerance.

I find that I am ambivalent towards the BMI protocols. Official rationale for adoption is the safety of leaders and Scouts; a laudable goal. I do have to wonder if financial concerns over liability are driving the policy.

Determining fitness requires a more sophisticated analysis that the BMI chart just as determining character requires knowing more about a person than their sexual orientation or system of belief.

Character and fitness are complicated equations that do not yield well to overly broad single standards. Both are better determined by a careful analysis of many factors on a case-to case basis; work best done locally rather than dictated nationally.

Honorary President of the Boy Scouts of America

President Obama accepted his role as the honorary president of the Boy Scouts of America this week. There were predictable calls from some for him to refuse the position in protest of the B.S.A.'s discrimination against athiest or gay leaders.

Born in an era of racial discrimination the B.S.A. followed cultural norms allowing de-facto discrimination against Afro-Americans (as explained in this post ). Scouting reflects rather than leads cultural change and has always evolved behind the curve. Open racial and gender discrimination are no longer tolerated.

The day will come, hopefully sooner than later, when the B.S.A. will cease to discriminate against gays and athiests. It takes a little high stepping to get there but a careful analysis of the B.S.A's take on religion makes the question of athiesm moot.

Fellow fans of The West Wing may recall one of my favorite characters in the show Admiral Percy Fitzwallace, chairman of the Joint Cheifs of Staff. Here's a transcript of a discussion about gays in the military.

MAJOR TATE
Sir, we're not prejudiced toward homosexuals.

FITZWALLACE
You just don't want to see them serving in the Armed Forces?

MAJOR TATE
No sir, I don't.

FITZWALLACE
'Cause they oppose a threat to unit discipline and cohesion.

MAJOR TATE
Yes sir.

FITZWALLACE
That's what I think too. I also think the military wasn't designed to be an instrument of social change.

MAJOR TATE
Yes sir.

FITZWALLACE
The problem with that is that what they were saying to me 50 years ago. Blacks shouldn't serve with Whites. It would disrupt the unit. You know what? It did disrupt the unit. The unit got over it. The unit changed. I'm an admiral in the U.S. Navy and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff...Beat that with a stick.

Positive change is a process accompanied by pain and dsitress that leads to greater strength. I'd Like to think that President Obama's acceptance of this Honorary Presidency is an endorsement not of discrimination but of confidence in the thoughtfulness and sensitivity of our Scouts, volunteers and national leadership to bravely embrace change.

Reinventing the BSA?

What I carry away from this widely distributed AP Article is
- The BSA is in the midst of a membership crisis owing to two basic factors -

"...a still-standing ban on gay or atheist leaders, and scandals surrounding inflated membership numbers. In addition, teenagers raised on TV and shoot-'em-up games had less use for learning to build a campfire or memorize the Scout oath."

- The BSA has not yet figured out how to close the deal with an ever growing population of Hispanic families in spite of Soccer and Scouting and other initiatives.
- Studies by experts have resulted in a new initiative that will be piloted in several cities during 2009.
- This initiative is lauded as "... a reinventing of the Boy Scouts of America."
- The article does not elaborate on the details of exactly what this reinvention involves, but mentions an emphasis on family based activities.

I am somewhat troubled by the idea that we are going to 'reinvent' Scouting. I may be hopelessly behind the times but it seems to work pretty well as it is.

Just about all of my Scouts are tech savvy video gamers, watch plenty of TV and are involved in activities of every description. The argument that boys are no longer interested in an active, challenging program of Scouting is, and always has been, specious.

The sharpest declines in membership followed the highly publicized controversies over sexuality and belief. Scouting has benefited, grown and flourished with the participation of many gay and atheist Scouts and Leaders - we just don't ask and most people don't tell. Without addressing these issues the relevance of the BSA will continue to dwindle away as society continues to evolve.

A heightened campaign directed at Hispanic families is laudable. I have a fair amount of experience with this myself and have found limited success - perhaps a breakthrough is possible. I hope it can be accomplished without any radical alteration to the program. It would be absurd for a national leadership who has refused to alter membership standards in the name of integrity to significantly change a program with a century of proven results in an attempt to shore up flagging membership numbers.

Two Lessons from the Girl Scouts

The GSA (Girl Scouts of America) arrived at an elegant solution to the question of including girls who have diverse spiritual beliefs.

The Girl Scout Promise

On my honor, I will try
To serve God* and my country
To help people everywhere
And to live by the Girl Scout Law.

*Since Girl Scouting is for all girls, girls whose beliefs are expressed by a word or phrase other than "God" may substitute that word or phrase when they say the Girl Scout Promise.... the Girl Scout organization makes no attempt to interpret or define the word 'God' but encourages members to establish for themselves the nature of their spiritual beliefs, it is the policy of the Girl Scouts of the U.S.A. that individuals when making the Girl Scout Promise may substitute wording appropriate to their own spiritual beliefs for the word 'God'."

"For some individuals, the word 'God', no matter how broadly interpreted, does not appropriately reflect their spiritual beliefs. Since the belief in a spiritual principle is fundamental to Girl Scouting, not the word used to define that belief, it is important that individuals have the opportunity to express that belief in wording meaningful to them. It is essential to maintain the spiritual foundation of Girl Scouting, yet be inclusive of the full range of spiritual beliefs. This [policy change] does not take the word 'God' out of the Girl Scout Promise. It gives those individuals who wish to do so the option to state their commitment to the spiritual concepts fundamental to the Movement with a word or words more appropriate to their own beliefs. For instance, an individual may say 'my faith' or 'Allah' or 'the Creator'."

The GSA has a cogent, useful and inclusive take on sexuality as well;

As a private organization, Girl Scouts of the U.S.A. respects the values and beliefs of each of its members and does not intrude into personal matters. Therefore, there are no membership policies on sexual preference. However, Girl Scouts of the U.S.A. has firm standards relating to the appropriate conduct of adult volunteers and staff. The Girl Scout organization does not condone or permit sexual displays of any sort by its members during Girl Scout activities, nor does it permit the advocacy or promotion of a personal lifestyle or sexual preference. These are private matters for girls and their families to address.

Wouldn't  it make sense for the  BSA to to adopt similar policies?

Chief Scout Executive in USA Today

Chief Scout Executive Robert Mazzuca was recently interviewed in USA Today. I am encouraged by much of what he has to say and differed with him on some points. Here are some excerpts with my comments:

Q: The Scouts are retooling as they head into their second 100 years. What changes are being made?

A: We've been engaged with (management consultant) McKinsey folks for months. Over 100 years, you get a little arthritic and bureaucratic. We are steeped in tradition, which is a good thing, but we're not particularly good at innovation and renewal. We don't want to abandon tradition, but we want to be nimble.

My  take - There is a difference between tradition and habit. The BSA is a hierarchical organization and hierarchical organizations tend to preserve habits, some good some bad. The challenge is communicating core methods and goals, and to do that you have to understand them thoroughly. We often get bogged down in the small stuff and miss the bigger picture.

Q: Is it possible the Boy Scouts are like the buggy whip, obsolete and irrelevant?

A: That's two questions. Obsolete? Absolutely not. The day that trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent become obsolete, I'll turn out the lights.

They've never been more relevant. The delivery mechanisms need to be tweaked. We still use a compass to show kids how to get around, but we also teach them how to use GPS. We leave them for a week on a wilderness elk reserve and tell them to leave the place better than they found it. You can teach a kid about character and leadership using aerospace and computers. The secret is to get them side by side with adults of character.

We run the risk of becoming irrelevant if we don't adapt to things that attract kids today, but we run the risk of losing our way if we abandon the principles, which is the Scout Law.

My Take - I think that trying to keep up with the cultural changes is important. The basic tings that appealed to boys, camping, etc., 100 years ago still appeal to them today. Mazzuca acknowledges, though, that adult association remains a core method - but what about the others?

Q: How much of this retooling is public relations, to get the Scouts past God and gay controversies?

A: It's time to reintroduce the American people to the Boy Scouts and quit letting other people define us. For a decade, we have abandoned the field of public relations and dialogue, and we have such a positive story to tell. Everybody has a good feeling about Scouting, and we have not been telling that story at all.

My Take - Well, everybody does not have a good feeling about Scouting. I believe part of the real task is honestly examining the objections. I would really appreciate an increased  dialog within the organization - there doesn't seem to be much at all.

Q: As a strategy, some companies avoid publicity. Has that worked for Scouts?

A: For the first time in our history, we had adversaries. Back in the day when I started, it was motherhood, apple pie and Boy Scouts. We were thrust into a situation that we weren't equipped to deal with. The decisions at the time were probably correct for the time. Because of one issue, we abandoned all dialogue about Scouting. That doesn't make any sense. We can't be afraid.

My Take - Why do we have adversaries? (I believe we have always had them, perhaps it is only now that they are getting any traction). This is an important question. We haven't done too well ignoring or fighting them. Again, I think we need to intensively explore these criticisms and respond thoughtfully. Can we reconcile everything we do and our policies with the core methods and goals of Scouting as laid out by the founder?  I think that Baden Powell had a far more expansive vision for Scouting than we do.

Q: Companies often wrestle with the same problem. They want to get positive news out, but doesn't that mean they also have to address controversies?

A: Occasionally. If you're not proactive in defining yourself, somebody else will. We have become a pawn in political issues, because we've allowed ourselves to be co-opted.

My Take - Co-option works both ways. I think it is a mistake to seek or encourage political support or react to political censure. We should be above this kind of wrangling.

Q: Scouts require a belief in God. Many business leaders are religious, but they keep their faith to themselves so they won't offend customers and employees who have a diversity of beliefs.

A: The Scouts have a duty to God, but we in no way have tried to define God. We have wonderful Jewish Scouts and Christian Scouts and Muslim Scouts.

We accept any faith, but they have to embrace some faith. In the middle of faith are the principles of good and the kinds of things that are good lessons for business. Most good business leaders are men of faith.

But you don't have to wear it on your sleeve. "If you're coming to work for my company by God, you're going to be a Christian," I think is not acceptable. But the idea that we live a life of faith and don't hide from a life of faith is an important part of who we are.

My Take - Faith is certainly an important aspect of life. I believe we should adopt the ideals of the U.S. Constitution and, while encouraging spirituality by protecting its expression, should recognize that those who choose no faith are equally capable of being moral as those who do.

Q: Companies are eager to boast of their diversity programs, and many have extended benefits to same-sex partners. The Boy Scouts prohibit homosexual adult leaders. Do you see a conflict?

A: All of our research points to the fact that the vast majority of Americans believe that is the right decision for the Boy Scouts in terms of role modeling for young men. Diversity is important, but we've had a number of companies articulate that their continued support of Scouting is not contrary to their embracing of diversity within their organizations.

We have every faith, every color, every creed. On the one issue of role modeling, we feel strongly. Most businesses understand. There are some that will not continue to support Scouting. We agree to disagree and move on.

Most companies don't see their philanthropic policies as being the arbiters of social justice. They see the good that Scouting does. They can also see the good in gay and lesbian alliances, but they see greater harm coming to society if Scouting were not here. They have no problem doing that, and there are many, many of them.

My Take - The 'vast majority of Americans' are not always right, not by a long shot. If we are defending our policies based on this we are engaging in the weakest of defenses.

We are engaged in the wrong fight based on some broad misunderstandings of sexuality. Gay men and women are not a danger to youth, they will not 'make' anyone gay. The simple solution is leaving the determination of who is an appropriate role model to chartered partners. Only the broadest prohibitions on those with criminal records need apply nationally.

Q: Children are being raised differently. Does that mean a new brand of leadership is coming when they grow up and run things?

A: Yes, and it's going to be less effective. It's going to be less bold, less courageous, less visionary. If we believe as a society that we should only be as good as the least of us we will be stifled. It's not going to take us to the moon and Mars and beyond and make this country great.

My Take - Throughout human history every generation is sure of one thing; the next generation is making big mistakes.

What stifles us is not 'we should only be as good as the least of us'. What stifles us is elitism and the idea that we must all be evaluated by a single standard of achievement. There are so many ways to succeed in life, so much potential for excellence in every Scout. It is a challenge to recognize the best in everyone, but it is there when you look for it.  What makes our country great is not elevating the few but in defending the opportunity for all.

Seeking Solutions for the Cradle of Liberty

Cradle of Liberty Headquarters.

Back in May 2003 the good folks at the Cradle of Liberty Council adopted an explicit non discrimination policy in part to resolve the revocation of a 80 year old preferential lease agreement with the city of Philadelphia. If you don't already know the story read this post, and this one.

For whatever reason the council changed its stance that June and changed the policy. Most sources agree that this was a result of pressure from the National Council of the BSA. At the time Cradle of Liberty officials asked for some time to resolve the issue. Five years later there has been no resolution and the city is ready to revoke the preferential lease.

For all the good that Scouting does it seems a shame that this has to happen to Philadelphia - neither side wants to be in this position.

Scouting has two possible honorable courses to resolve this and numerous other conflicts with government entities:

The first is to stop discriminating against gay and atheist leaders. (I will not argue these points here, if you want my take on the matter read this post and this one too.)

The second honorable resolution is to scrupulously reject any preferential access to public accommodation or funds.

I don't think that policy changes should be made under pressure so that preferential arrangements are maintained. Once one concession is made others are sure to follow, in this respect I agree with our National Leadership. With equal conviction I believe that we should not continue to discriminate because it is inconsistent with our own oath and law.

True moral decisions are made regardless of the impact it makes on ones finances or reputation. Morality often requires great sacrifice.

Perhaps, as our centenary year approaches, we will honorably resolve to end all preferential access. Perhaps we can survive in smaller accommodations, perhaps we can have a national jamboree unsubsidized by the military, perhaps we don't need quite so many professionals. If our movement can't maintain its own buildings, its own funding and its own program perhaps we should reexamine the way we do things rather than blame others for our problems.

Philadelphia Story Continued

June 1, 2008 Editorial in the Philadelphia Inquirer

The city and the local Boy Scouts council should have settled their clash over the scouts' antigay policy without the need to file a federal lawsuit.

Given the scouts' discriminatory policy, the city shouldn't allow the Cradle of Liberty Council to stay rent-free in city-owned headquarters near Logan Square. But the council says it cannot afford the city's exorbitant rent demand of $200,000. ...

... The suit contends that the city is violating the Boy Scouts' right to free speech by punishing the group for its antigay "viewpoint." That's an ironic argument from an organization whose national membership rules essentially muzzle or exclude some individuals due to their sexual orientation.

Nobody is questioning the essential service that the Cradle of Liberty Council performs for 70,000 scouts in Philadelphia, Montgomery and Delaware Counties. But the fact remains that the national organization's policy discriminates by banning gays and atheists from scouting. ...

... But the city's correct legal stance doesn't absolve the city of trying everything within its power to keep the scouts in Philadelphia. Eighty years ago, the Boy Scouts' Cradle of Liberty built the headquarters on city property. The local council spent $1.5 million in 1994 to renovate the building, and has spent about $60,000 annually in recent years on maintenance. ...

... The best of all solutions would be for the city and the scouts to agree on a fair rent that takes into consideration the contributions to the community provided by this venerable local nonprofit.

Short of that, the city should put a dollar value on the improvements to the scouts' headquarters and make an offer.

Read the full editorial here

Jun. 2, 2008 Editorial in the Philadelphia Inquirer:

THE SUPREME COURT ruled in 2000 that the Boy Scouts could legally discriminate against gays. But that doesn't mean the city or its taxpayers should be required to aid or subsidize the Scouts as they carry out this discrimination ...

... We have little patience for the claims the Scouts are making. It's a simple equation: taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize private, discriminatory groups, no matter how much other benefit they bring to a community. But we agree with them on one point: the city should be scrutinizing all similar arrangements it has with organizations and groups to make sure they are in line with fair-practice ordinances. And if they aren't, they should end the arrangements.

The city rents at under-fair-market value to about 100 groups, both nonprofit and for-profit. The list includes the Boys Club, youth centers, athletic clubs, a children's crisis treatment center and a senior center run by Zion Baptist Church. The suit claims that some of these organization limit membership or services to particular groups, too.

But delivering social services to a targeted group - like seniors - and discriminating against someone for their race, sexual orientation or other reason are two different things, and the Scouts should be ashamed they're trying to equate them. It does a disservice to the boys who look to the Scouts for guidance and leadership.

Read the full editorial here.

From Letters to the Editor
Leave Scouts alone
As an Order of the Arrow member and a former assistant scoutmaster, I wish to voice my complete disagreement with Eric Eckstein in regard to the Boy Scouts and homosexuality ("The Boy Scouts need to wise up, or they'll lose out," May 29). The Scouts have flourished for many years with no intrusion by Big Brother, and they certainly do not need it now. If Philadelphia officials want to perform a good deed, let them stop the murders, clean the streets, lower the wage tax, and get off the Scouts' back.

Bill Hinski - Harleysville

I would have to point out to Bill that decades of subsidized rent constitutes a considerable 'intrusion'.

Related Posts at Scoutmaster;
The Boy Scouts need to wise up, or they'll lose out

The Boy Scouts need to wise up, or they'll lose out

Eric Eckstein is assistant Scoutmaster. He posted this opinion at philly.com

I have been associated with the Boy Scouts since I was a Cub Scout in the Northeast during the early '70s.

I served on the staff at Treasure Island and am a member of the Scouting Order of the Arrow. My son is an assistant senior patrol leader and I am an assistant scoutmaster in his troop. I proudly refer to myself as a Scout and am honored by the associations I have had with fellow Scouts.

I disagree with State Sen. Gib Armstrong (R, Lancaster) who wrote in The Inquirer on Monday that Philadelphia should forget its anti-discrimination policy and support the Scouts, despite a stance against homosexuals. Boy Scouts of America discriminates.

There are no two ways about it. If you are a homosexual, you're out. No offense - a Scout is kind - but please leave. Scouting is classified as a nonprofit religious organization. It is a convenient legal category that allows a group to determine who its members can be and who they cannot be, without oversight or legal action by the government. This is very much a part of the freedoms we as Americans have in our country, and should not change.

While I love Scouting, the Boy Scouts organization has two serious flaws: its stance on sexuality and its stance on religion. It hides those flaws behind a disguise of morality. If you're gay or agnostic, you are simply not moral enough to be a Scout.

I and many others have chosen to engage the Scouts and work within the system to bring about change. It is a slow process.

I have had several conversations with the local Cradle of Liberty Council leaders and numerous ones with parents and other concerned adults. But they are all powerless individually to make changes to an organization that is ruled from national headquarters in Texas.

(This week the Boy Scouts sued the City of Philadelphia, alleging that constitutional rights had been trampled by the city's effort to force the Scouts to vacate their Beaux Arts headquarters on city land because of the organization's policies prohibiting homosexuals and atheists. The city set a deadline of May 31 for the Scouts to change policies or begin paying market-rate rent of about $200,000 a year.)

When I first heard of the lawsuit, my question to the Boy Scouts was: "What will you do when you lose?" They did not have any answer. Perhaps they hadn't considered a possible loss in the case. The result of a loss in this case could be good for Scouting, though.

The only way to gain attention with the National Council and its discriminatory policies - legal as they are - is to cease having public dollars support this organization. And we can try to inspire those within the Scouts - most of whom do not really understand the discriminatory rules of the group - to stand up and speak out on the policies. This is why the United Way of Southeastern Pennsylvania does not support the Cradle of Liberty Council, but does support its Inner City Program, with different rules.

The United Kingdom has the oldest Scouting group in the world and that group doesn't discriminate against homosexuals. How ironic.

Many say that Scouting is under attack. That could not be further from the truth. Scouting is a wonderful group, full of amazing people almost all of whom donate their time, skill and love so that young boys can learn to grow to be good, moral leaders in society.

All that is being asked of it is to be trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent, regardless of the race, creed, sexuality or religious preference of its members and of society as a whole.

U.S. Religious Landscape Survey

Ask Scouts how they observe their "Duty to God" and you are sure to get a wide variety of answers.

The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life recently released their U.S. Religious Landscape Survey. Results based on interviews with more than 35,000 Americans age 18 and older find religious affiliation is increasingly diverse and fluid.

The survey finds that a growing number of Americans are unaffiliated with any religion. 28% of American adults left the faith in which they were raised in favor of another religion or no religion at all. 44% have either switched religious affiliation, moved from being unaffiliated with any religion to being affiliated with a particular faith, or dropped any connection to a specific religious tradition altogether.

Every major religious group is simultaneously gaining and losing adherents. Those that are growing are simply gaining new members at a faster rate than they are losing members. Conversely, those that are declining in number simply are not attracting enough new members to offset the number of adherents who are leaving those particular faiths.

My own religious journey is mirrored by these statistics, so I may be allowed the conclusion that my experience is being shared by a growing number of Americans. I was raised attending two different protestant churches chosen by my parents based, not any denominational loyalty, but on their own evaluation of the church's articles of faith. Our first church was an independent congregation, our second was an established denomination.

In my teens I began reading and studying on my own and made my own affiliation with much more independent, fundamentalist groups that I retained into my mid to late twenties. By the time I reached thirty I had basically ended any affiliation with any religious body. Further searching, reading and independent study have led me to observe Buddhist teachings.

This evolution has changed my view of that part of the Scout Oath pledging duty to God and the point of the Scout law aspiring to reverence. For example there is no God in Buddhism; the Buddha is not a deity. We follow a robust philosophy or set of teachings called the Dharma that encourages us to sharply question even its own basic teachings. We do not worship or pray, in the traditional Judeo-Christian sense, to the Buddha or anything else for that matter. Though my practice has changed I am still an ethical and moral person. Functionally some would identify me as an atheist but thankfully the BSA has accepted the moral and ethical underpinnings of Buddhism are sufficient for a Buddhist to fulfill the Scout Oath.

I would venture to guess that our Scout Troop is almost a perfect microcosm of the Pew Study findings with commensurate percentages of religiously observant and non-observant families. One of the finest aspects of Scouting is plurality and tolerance of this kind.

Organizations like Boy Scouts of America will continue to be relevant in a society that is evolving and changing by embracing these changes. We must maintain and advocate the highest ethical and moral aspirations for our membership without compromise. But we cannot continue to deny membership to a growing number of people who's interpretation of "duty to God" is changing.

Associated posts at Scoutmaster
Duty to God
Reverence

New Chief Scout Executive

Roy Williams, Chief Scout Executive since 2000, has retired and will be succeeded by Robert (Bob) Mazzuca.

Roy Williams presided over an embattled BSA and had little more to say other than he was going to stick to his guns. Leadership is more than doggedly holding fast to a position - it is also a process of consensus building, reflection and listening. I believe, as do others, that William's intractable stance is, at least partially, responsible for the precipitous drop in membership over the past seven years. Perhaps there has been enough of a drop at this point that his successor will revisit our discriminatory policies.

When we most needed an open, frank dialog about our collective future. Our national leadership, with Williams at the helm, saw any discussion of its decisions as an attack. Their response was cold and mechanical - they simply dismissed or threatened dissenting individuals, units and Councils. Perhaps our new leadership will find a better way to deal with dissent. Perhaps they will recognize the corrosive, immoral effect of discrimination and lead by bringing it to an end.

Our new executive officer should encourage dialog within our own organization at the most basic levels. He should not be reluctant to test every aspect of the program, structure and direction of the B.S.A. against the simple promises we extend to the youth we serve. Healthy organizations thrive on the process of vigorous reviews that end policies and procedures no longer serving its goals and strengthening those that do.

Looking at things from the top down is important - but seeing things from the bottom up is equally so. Looking from the inside out and the outside in are quite different too. Hopefully we have named a Chief Scout Executive with the fortitude to take a hard, honest look at things from all perspectives.

I realize that some of you reading this will not see this as I do. Most recently I have been accused of being unfaithful to the BSA because I disagree with its discriminatory practices. I have been told that I should leave the movement, that I don't belong, that I am a traitor, that I should start a new organization

I don't want to destroy the BSA, I don't even want to change your mind . I simply want to advocate we develop the positive potential within our own creed. That we decentralize the decisions over who can and can't lead scouts to where it belongs; in the hands of local people.

The founding principles of our nation: the peaceful tolerance of many systems of thought and the freedom to express ideas,  finds no clearer  expression than the scout oath and law. Let's live up to that incredible potential for good