Sorry I can’t copy/paste a link from this tablet but there it is - too much sexual abuse & coverup.
If only the Catholic church could take a hint.
Does this mean it actually goes away? Or does it just mean they get to keep existing without having to pay their legal debts?
The latter, more likely.
Only individuals middle-class or lower have to pay their debts, after all.
Organizations, corporations, and the wealthy can just skate on them, screwing over everybody else.
So that large national organization has less than $50,000? Wheeere’s yooour Goood nooow?
I suppose you could burn down the organization and salt the earth. Not sure exactly who it helps.
It’s not like the BSA is owned by some rich fat-cat who gets to keep his money by screwing over his victims. The only people who are actually going to “pay”, when you get right down to it, are the families of today’s scouts. It’s certainly not going to be the people who committed the abuses.
Found this informative article from last month on some right-leaning site.
The Boy Scouts has always been an organization that fights to preserve and perpetuate the status quo hierarchy. It’s benefits everyone when an organization like that is destroyed.
Those noble little bastions of democracy.
Right. It’s a pretty decentralized organization- the structure is generally like this:
National Organization- owns the major “high adventure” facilities that are national in scope, sets standards at a national level- stuff like what is required to be an Eagle Scout, what the uniforms look like, etc… They also arrange the production of uniforms and other gear, publication of books, etc… They don’t really interact with individual scouts or even troops, and their focus is on national-level stuff and events, like the Jamborees, etc…
Council. The local council is probably the single most… pertinent level of scouting for this kind of thing. Most big cities are their own councils, and rural areas are a little more wide-ranging. The councils themselves are the ones who own the local summer camps, approve/deny the big scout awards (Eagle, Order of the Arrow, etc…), certify the scoutmasters/cubmasters/den-leaders, and handle most of the administration for the various troops/packs within their area. AFAIK, the individual Councils are incorporated as separate entities within the aegis of Scouting, sort of like franchisees are. They have to toe the line on certain things if they want to keep calling themselves Boy Scout councils, but otherwise they’re nearly wholly independent.
So for Dallas, the council is the Circle Ten council.
District. Most councils are subdivided into districts. They tend to be organized roughly by school district lines. They seem to be primarily used to organize things that would be too big for whole-council stuff, but too big for individual troops/packs, like day camps, some leadership training, etc…
My sons’ Cub Scout pack is part of the Northern Trail district.
Finally, there’s the troop/pack. These are the local units, which at least in Cub Scouts, are organized primarily by elementary schools, where several schools are assigned to one pack. This is the primary level of Scouting- the Scoutmaster/Cubmaster approves the award giving, meetings are held at this level, etc…
I’d almost guarantee that any abuse was handled at the Council level, and was likely troop/pack level adult leaders who perpetrated it. The national organization’s involvement was likely tangential at best, and my guess is that if they are liable, it would be to the extent that they didn’t have good vetting/reporting procedures in place in say… 1965. And even that’s debatable, in that
I think the problem with this is that like **Cheesesteak **says, it seems to be ultimately punishing today’s scouts for something in the past, and to make it worse, they’re attacking the wrong organization, IMO. They should be going after their local councils, not the national organization, as the local councils were the responsible layer.
What the hell are you talking about?
I just hope other groups step up and provide outdoorsy/social experiences like the scouts have.
I had nothing but exciting, positive* outings: wilderness camping, SCUBA diving, hiking the Appalachian trail, and helping with conservation efforts (like controlled burns, woohoo!).
Okay, there was that week-long Boundary Waters canoe trip with rain and bugs (someone thought it’d be fine to pitch our tents on Mosquito Point… the fuck?)* Oh, and we learned great swear words from our leaders (gritty WW2 vets, who would’ve beat any abusers to a pulp).
I guess I lucked out, and I feel terrible for kids that were preyed upon. But I hope kids can get the same adventures somehow (YMCA? Private groups? Incredibly organized parents with tons of free time?)
My kids never were into scouting, but I took them camping, hiking, and kayaking. They were just things that we did. When my daughter wanted to learn about canine obedience training, I signed her and her dog up for classes. She learned an awful lot, but never got a badge.
Sure, but it sounds like your family was already outdoorsy to begin with.
Lots of kids have parents who aren’t outdoorsy, or who choose to do other stuff with the little free time they have. Scouts is a great way for them to if nothing else, get exposed to outdoor recreational activities without a large investment in equipment, etc…
Even without the financial liabilities (and bad press) from the sexual abuse cases, the Boy Scouts have been suffering substantial declines in participation for decades. This source indicates that there were 6 million boys involved in Scouting in 1969, and only 2 million as of last year, despite the fact that the U.S. population had grown by over 60% over that time.
I suspect that the clean-cut image of the Scouts, and Scouting’s traditional focus on outdoorsy activities (camping, hiking, swimming) made it seem increasingly uninteresting or irrelevant to many boys and families.
I also know that Scouting is tremendously dependent on the time and energy of adult volunteers, especially at the local level. With many families having both parents working (or single parents), I would imagine that they struggle to get those volunteers, even from families who support Scouting for their sons.
Also, though the Scouts are, ostentisbly, a non-religious organization, the Scout Oath includes “duty to God,” and many of the local troops and dens are organized through churches. As fewer (particularly younger) Americans identify themselves as religious, this, too, may be making Scouting seem less relevant to some.
And, they’ve suffered defections from within. As Scouting tried to make itself more inclusive and relevant, by removing bans on homosexual Scouts and leaders, this angered many conservatives who were involved in Scouting, and caused at least two schisms that I know of – the LDS Church was responsible for about 20% of all Scouts, and they are now forming their own Scout-like organization, while the Southern Baptist Convention is sponsoring an alternative organization, Trail LIfe USA.
Finally, in an effort to shore up membership, the Boy Scouts started allowing girls to participate in all branches of Scouting a few years ago. This violated a longstanding handshake agreement with the Girl Scouts, who sued the Boy Scouts for poaching their potential members.
As long as you are a Christian–or willing to lie about it.
Instutionalized anti-LGBT bigotry, on top of all the abuse.
It’s a shitty organization hiding its pervasive bigotry behind “good works”, just like the Salvation Army.
Not a defender of the Boy Scouts, but that is really not true. They support all religions though technically they require a religion. My sons troop ignored even that. No shortage of non-Christians in the Scouts in the North East at least. Maybe it is different elsewhere, but not here.
I don’t like the anti-atheist bit as an agnostic but they really don’t discriminate against race or religion and many troops just ignore the religion thing all-together.