Is the BSA trying to bury the fact that Mark Foley was a boy scout leader?

Great Debates
1

There is a fact sheet on the website of The National Council of the Boy Scouts of America which lists the members of the current Congress who have been involved in scouting in the past: http://www.scouting.org/factsheets/02-571.html

It does not show the name of Mark Foley. However the Sept. 26, Google cache of that page shows something different: http://tinyurl.com/zxkl4

So someone removed Foley from that list sometime after Sept 26.

In case that cached page has been updated by the time you read this, here’s a page from a Columbus, Ohio scout troop that shows the same list including Foley:

http://post369.columbus.oh.us/scouting.d/fact.sheets.d/02-571.html

Both websites show an L next to his name which, according to their legends, indicates that he was an “adult volunteer leader”.

Are the Boy Scouts of America trying, after the fact, to bury the fact that they had someone leading one of their troops who has since been discovered to be a sexual predator with a preference for adolescent boys?

Now it could be argued that, since he’s no longer a member of the 109th Congress his name does not belong on that page and therefore the removal was appropriate. But isn’t that ducking the issue?

What is the right thing to do here? Should they just quietly remove the name and leave it at that (which seems to be their current course of action), or should they be announcing this loudly and asking scouts who were led by foley to contact authorities if they were mistreated in any way?

Certainly, to me, it seems like the second course of action is the moral and legal one. Are they creating legal problems for themselves by keeping quiet?

Are the BSA about to follow in the footsteps of the Catholic Church and the Republican Congress?

Of course, there’s no evidence that, if anything was going on in that troop, anyone knew about it at the time. So this may be different in that respect. But will they be treated any different, and should they be?

This all assumes that this receives wide media coverage which so far doesn’t seem to be the case. Will we be hearing about this on the news?

2

Well, yeah.
That, & trying to avoid the inevitavitable flood of dubious lawsuits. Sure.

3

Yes, I understand their reasons for doing it. But by trying to bury it (if that’s what they’re doing) aren’t they potentially creating more problems for themselves than if they were upfront about it? It’s highly unlikely that they can keep a lid on it.

If they didn’t know at the time (assuming anything was going on), they certainly shouldn’t be held liable in any way, and I don’t see any reason to believe that they did know anything. In fact IMHO it’s very likely that they didn’t know. But trying to cover it now won’t help them in the public eye, IMHO.

There’s also the issue that there may be people suffering out there from having been abused. Isn’t there some moral obligation to try to reach out to those people (if they exist) and get them some help? Wouldn’t that be more in line with the Boy Scout philosophy?

4

Could it be because Foley’s resigned (or is in the process of resigning) so he’s not a Congressman anymore?

5

I stated that possibility.

6

Well, sure. But that didn’t prevent anybody else from trying this basically foolish approach.

Try telling the jury that. :dubious:

The stated goals of an organization rarely coincide with the agenda of the blokes running the show.

7

Well sure, and I guess that’s my whole point. I don’t think we’re in disagreement here.

8

As an admitted homosexual, Foley is no longer eligible to belong to the BSA. By dropping Foley from the list of Congressmen who are Scout leaders, the BSA is simply taking the first step towards revoking his membership.

9

Announcing what loudly, and to whom? That he was a Scout leader? Surely everyone who was actually involved with the troop or whatever that he served with already knows this. That he’s “a sexual predator with a preference for adolescent boys”? By now is there anyone who doesn’t know this?

10

They must have been sitting on this for fear of offending the NAMBLA-loving, queer-friendly liberal press.

11

Well, maybe the BSA is *quietly * asking scouts who were led by Foley to contact authorities if they were mistreated in any way.

Seems like *that * could be going on without any mention of it on the BSA Web site.