PC run amok, or kind to require BSA to award Eagle Scout to disabled whose parents/friends did what he couldn't

[bluebell]

50 minutes ago, toon said:

Thing is, it doesn't mean that much to society at large.

Whenever I review a resume that lists it as an accomplishment, I wonder, "You completed undergrad and graduated from a decent law school in the top 20% of your class, yet you still believe your Eagle, something that you earned before graduating from high school, is something that a prospective law firm employer would find impressive?"

And that's not to say that it's nothing more than a participation award..

 

I know people who were hired in part because of having their Eagle (and they weren't interviewing for a job in Utah and IIRC, the person doing the hiring was not a member), so while I kind of agree with you, I don't fault someone for wanting to cover all of their bases.

In the military, having an eagle can increase your rank and get you more money a month right from the beginning, so there are organizations which still value it.

[RevTestament]

On 3/20/2018 at 11:53 AM, rpn said:

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/03/17/utah-boy-who-has-down-syndrome-loses-merit-badges-and-his-shot-at-becoming-an-eagle-scout-because-of-discriminatory-policies-lawsuit-says/

I thought it would be worth having a discussion here about whether it is kind,  or PC gone amok, to award merit badges and Eagle Scout to those whose capabilities prevent them from fully completing the requirements on their own?   Is it unChristlike to refuse to award merit badges and Eagle Scout designations when the potential recipient isn't the one who did the work, because he cannot do the work for reasons beyond his control?

(As background, you should now that there have been multiple published stories of someone earning Young Women Medallions by doing all the work for someone whose disabilities make that impossible to do for one's self.)

I think Bluebell best answered this question.

I answered "other" because I believe this is the wrong question: "Should BSA award merit badges/rank based on capacity when disability prevents actual completion of the requirements by the scout?" 

I don't think it is incumbent on the scouts to mold the level of eagle scout so that it meets the capabilities and talents of each participant. This is getting just too PC for me. We all have different talents and affinities, and the point of the eagle scout is not to mold the program so each participant can obtain the level of Eagle Scout - it is for the participants to  mold their talents and capabilities to the point that accomplish the requirements. It is like the Olympics bending the requirements to say well you don't have to beat the fastest time, if you don't have legs. This is why there are Special Olympics. I think these parents are mad that the Boy Scouts won't honor the approvals of the local scout leaders, but from what I know of this suit, it is just wrong-headed. As Bluebell points out the BS do have merit badges those with disabilities can earn. I see this going down a very unrealistic road of trying to accommodate every kind of disability so that ultimately every child can earn eagle scout. I'm sure every child would like to get drafted to the NBA too, but they will not. It seems to me the scouts are doing what they should do. How far they will have to go is another question. 

[Amulek]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

But we also have the Scout Oath and Promise which includes, “To help other people at all times…,” and the Scout Motto (“Do a good turn daily”) which the accommodation seems to fall under.

"Do a good turn daily" is actually the Scout Slogan. The Scout Motto is "Be Prepared." 

The local unit leaders didn't do their part to make sure that their Scout was prepared to advance. It sounds like they knew about the alternate advancement program; they just didn't bother to follow it properly. I don't blame the Scout for that, but I don't blame the national organization either. If they provide a way to do something and you don't want to do it, that's not their fault. 

 

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, toon said:

Thing is, it doesn't mean that much to society at large.

Whenever I review a resume that lists it as an accomplishment, I wonder, "You completed undergrad and graduated from a decent law school in the top 20% of your class, yet you still believe your Eagle, something that you earned before graduating from high school, is something that a prospective law firm employer would find impressive?"

And that's not to say that it's nothing more than a participation award..

It's a signaling thing.

It might be helpful, harmful, or neutral depending on where you are applying. On balance, I think it's most often going to be on the helpful side of the spectrum. 

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Then again i got a resume for a skilled professional position that listed World of Warcraft Guild leader as a qualification so I have also seen worse than Eagle Scout on a resume.

That would go in the minus column for me.

Now, if they had put EverQuest instead... 

[toon]

3 hours ago, Amulek said:

It's a signaling thing.

It might be helpful, harmful, or neutral depending on where you are applying. On balance, I think it's most often going to be on the helpful side of the spectrum. 

Let me clarify.

If you're applying for a job a few years out of high school and before having graduated college, then include it in the resume. In most cases, there's not much else to distinguish you from other candidates.

If you've graduated college, grad school, or a post-grad professional degree, don't include it unless you know that the person reviewing resumes, making the hiring decision, etc., is heavily into scouting. If you're not sure about the decision maker's opinion re scouting, there's still the remote  possibility that it could be considered a positive, but more likely including it is a wasted opportunity. There's limited space on a resume to explain why, at this moment, you're someone to take a serious look at, and you ought to be careful about wasting that space on a somewhat meaningless accomplishment you achieved in high school, or perhaps even junior high school.

Also, the Eagle isn't considered as prestigious an accomplishment as it was 30 to 50 years ago.

[Amulek]

4 minutes ago, toon said:

Let me clarify.

If you're applying for a job a few years out of high school and before having graduated college, then include it in the resume. In most cases, there's not much else to distinguish you from other candidates.

If you've graduated college, grad school, or a post-grad professional degree, don't include it unless you know that the person reviewing resumes, making the hiring decision, etc., is heavily into scouting. If you're not sure about the decision maker's opinion re scouting, there's still the remote  possibility that it could be considered a positive, but more likely including it is a wasted opportunity. There's limited space on a resume to explain why, at this moment, you're someone to take a serious look at, and you ought to be careful about wasting that space on a somewhat meaningless accomplishment you achieved in high school, or perhaps even junior high school.

Also, the Eagle isn't considered as prestigious an accomplishment as it was 30 to 50 years ago.

Let me clarify as well.

You aren't signaling that you have achieved some prestigious accomplishment by including it on your resume. What you are hoping to signal to the hiring manager is that you are either like him in some way, or that you are the kind of person who would be a good fit for the organization.

If the person reviewing your resume is also an Eagle Scout, you are hoping to tap into their bias. Managers have a tendency to replicate themselves, and when they find similarities between a candidate and themselves they tend to like them better. The unconscious bias is that you assume that because the candidate is like you in this one way (e.g., Eagle Scout, SMU Alumni, etc.) then they will probably be like you in other ways as well (e.g., honest, hard working, etc.). If you went to the same school, clerked for the same judge, or did pretty much anything that the person reviewing your resume did, then there's an increased chance you'll get in the door for an interview, and that's all you're trying to accomplish with your resume.

And if the person wasn't ever a Scout, you're still signaling that you are a certain kind of person. There's a stereotype for Boy Scouts, and in some organizations that stereotype is going to be seen as a positive because that stereotype fits in with their corporate culture. So, if you're trying to get a job with the FBI it's probably going to be seen as a plus; if you're trying to hire on with GLAAD...well, yeah - not so much. 

 

[Calm]

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It used to be good for getting basic jobs years ago. I think I put it on my resume for a job right out of High School but I have not used it since then. I think it is at best neutral on a resume and it would not help if I was hiring.

 

Then again i got a resume for a skilled professional position that listed World of Warcraft Guild leader as a qualification so I have also seen worse than Eagle Scout on a resume.

When my dad was the first to get his in his area in California, it got a pretty big mention in the local paper along with a picture.

Times change.  Some people are slow in catching up.

Sweet on the WoW submission.  Did they get the job?

Edited March 22, 2018 by Calm

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

When my dad was the first to get his in his area in California, it got a pretty big mention in the local paper along with a picture.

Times change.  Some people are slow in catching up.

Sweet on the WoW submission.  Did they get the job?

I put that one in the No pile. Nothing against people who play MMOs but they do not belong on a resume unless you helped build the game.

[CV75]

16 hours ago, Amulek said:

"Do a good turn daily" is actually the Scout Slogan. The Scout Motto is "Be Prepared." 

The local unit leaders didn't do their part to make sure that their Scout was prepared to advance. It sounds like they knew about the alternate advancement program; they just didn't bother to follow it properly. I don't blame the Scout for that, but I don't blame the national organization either. If they provide a way to do something and you don't want to do it, that's not their fault.

Absolutely. Did the local leaders and parents understand or appreciate the military orientation reflected in the regulations? (I doubt it) Does the BSA facilitate such an understanding? (I haven't seen it in decades). The BSA certainly has the upper hand in this argument; it's a private organization and writes the regulations, and the leaders interpret them. I think they can do a better job in setting expectations, not by saying who can't do what, but by saying at what level of advancement (and its requirements) can realistically, actively help during civilian wartime emergencies. I would say the highest functioning level is Eagle. Either that or set the connection aside so that not so much is expected of a scout in the way of cold, hard outcomes called for in a crisis.

[mnn727]

On 3/20/2018 at 2:36 PM, pogi said:

They need to have modified requirements for the disabled. 

I thought they already did and used them for the badges he 'earned' then National comes along and takes them away.

Its time to drop all LDS activity in BSA --  Duty to God can be expanded/modified for boys. The "Sons of Helaman" group can do the campouts and have badges if we decide that's what is important for young men.

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, mnn727 said:

I thought they already did and used them for the badges he 'earned' then National comes along and takes them away.

Its time to drop all LDS activity in BSA --  Duty to God can be expanded/modified for boys. The "Sons of Helaman" group can do the campouts and have badges if we decide that's what is important for young men.

I appears he had earned the regular badges, with people helping him and modifying them when necessary so he could complete them, and that's why the BSA wouldn't accept them.  Badges have to be completely exactly as stated.

[Kenngo1969]

I am so unbelievably torn by this situation!   I'm developmentally (though not cognitively) disabled.  Broadly speaking, developmental disabilities and cognitive disabilities often are classed together (Developmentally Disabled & Mentally Retarded, aka "DDMR") because, in many cases (though not all, and I am an exception), they occur together.  Disability notwithstanding, I did everything any other Scout in my Troop did when it came to meeting the requirements to advance, including to the rank of Eagle Scout.

I understand and respect the desire of people with all disabilities to belong and to be included. That said, as I have said so many times before here when describing my own history, I was "mainstreamed" in school from day one. This was both a blessing and a curse: It was a blessing because it forced me to engage the world on its terms rather than demanding or expecting, because of my disability, that the world would engage me on my terms; it was a curse because my peers feared what they didn't understand, and some of them responded to the source of that fear (me) with teasing, taunting, and, in some cases, physical intimidation.

I am troubled by the idea that, for my benefit and because of my disability, the "rules of the game" (whether it's a game of ward basketball or pursuit of advancement in Scouting) should be altered.  I'm not sure how to respond to the idea that, in the name of inclusion, someone with a cognitive or physical disability is allowed to participate in a competitive athletic contest and is purposely defended "soft" so that, disability notwithstanding, he can "pad his stats."  If it doesn't have any effect on the "bottom-line" final outcome, some people might ask what harm results from such an occurrence, and I suppose there is some merit in that argument.

With one exception, I have been been the subject of "soft" defense or its equivalent, but not because of any prior agreement between the parties; rather, that's simply how my defender chose to play me. In the latter case, my team was getting killed once, and our opposition left me alone at the top of the key: I thought, "What the heck?" and let it fly.  Now, if only we'd been behind by two instead of by about twenty!   The exception?  After a Utah Jazz game which my family and I attended, the team ran a promotion for free airline tickets for fans who could sink a top-of-the-key three-pointer.  My brother, who had lettered for four years in high school basketball, had gotten back from his mission not too long before, and we both headed down onto the floor.  Noticing the cane I used for propulsion at the time (when not playing basketball or doing something similar: my gait and other movements look strange and ungainly, but hey! Whatever gets me where I need to go and/or lets me do whatever I want to (and can) do! ) the usher coordinating the promotion said, "Step up to the free throw line, young fella."  My brother just started laughing and said, "You just made a big mistake."  I made the free throw.

On the one hand, I laud the Boy Scouts of America for working with disabled youth, and I laud this young man's local leaders for honoring his desire to be included.  That said, whatever obligation the BSA has to the disabled, it also has an obligation to Scouting as a whole.  This comes with the usual caveats: I am not a lawyer; anyone needing advice regarding the legal aspects of such issues as this should contact a licensed attorney.  Now, with that out of the way ...   The Americans With Disabilities Act has done much to insure fuller integration and participation of the disabled in society.  But it doesn't do that by granting local officials who represent national organizations the authority to make ad hoc alterations to rules adopted by the national organizations.  (Hell, if it did that, I might've become a member of the Bar fifteen years ago! ) 

Yes, "the system" has failed this young man.  But the failure didn't come when the national organization derailed his dreams of becoming an Eagle Scout: that happened when the local officials involved decided, ad hoc, to alter requirements set by the national organization. That said, I'm puzzled why the national organization has determined that certain accommodations are acceptable for advancement to some ranks but not to others.  Is that distinction merely arbitrary?  If I were representing Plaintiffs in this case, I might not win, but I don't think I would be laughed out of court if I made that argument.

[Kenngo1969]

16 hours ago, Calm said:

... Sweet on the WoW submission.  Did they get the job?

Note to Self: In this case, "WoW" stand for "World of Warcraft," not "Word of Wisdom"!  

[rongo]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

I appears he had earned the regular badges, with people helping him and modifying them when necessary so he could complete them, and that's why the BSA wouldn't accept them.  Badges have to be completely exactly as stated.

Which is kind of laughable, given our "merit badge mill" culture of Merit Badge Clinics. Badges are routinely given out all the time that were not completed exactly as stated. 

I'm not lambasting BSA for holding firm on this, either. It's just that it seems completely arbitrary when BSA is hard line, and when it isn't. I think the larger scandal, and one of the reasons why Scouting has fallen into general disfavor among most Mormons, is because of the steady erosion of the integrity of the badges and ranks over the decades. It is a complete joke now. It would be an interesting reality/game show to pit Eagle Scouts against each other in situations where they have to use Scouting skills. It would be very embarrassing to the Eagles and to BSA.

I don't like Scouting generally, but I also recognize that Scouting (especially in the Church, but I'm also not convinced that Gentile Scouting is that superior to Mormon Scouting. That's the "conventional wisdom," but I have my doubts about that, too) in 2018 is a much different experience and value than it was in 1988 or in 1968. Part of the erosion of Scouting within the Church is that everyone kind of knows and can feel that it is a mere shadow and shell of what it was. I differ from "Restorationist" or "Reformists" in that I don't want to resurrect "true Scouting" (do it how it's supposed to be done) either. 

[bsjkki]

The family and BSA have reached an agreement. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/04/05/family-utah-boy-with-down-syndrome-drops-lawsuit-against-boy-scouts-after-agreement.html

“Logan’s existing merit badges will still be recognized and the BSA will take steps to avoid misunderstandings like this one in the future, according to the family's lawyer.”

Edited April 5, 2018 by bsjkki

[Kenngo1969]

I'm glad to see a resolution in this case, but, in a way, I wish it had gone to trial to resolve the question of whether the Boy Scouts of America having accommodations for advancement to some ranks but not to Eagle Scout is, in any way, arbitrary.  I would like to know how the BSA would answer that question.

[Thinking]

I voted other.

I think there should be an appeals process for special situations. The BSA could create alternative requirements.

[Exiled]

I think one would want to have a scenario where the special needs child had the experience of having to work for the goal but the ability to complete it without it being so obvious that the standards were lowered. Being around some special needs kids growing up, they desperately wanted to be like other kids yet their conditions didn't allow them to be. This is a tough one, but I think all should have the chance for success and the chance for real failure.