On February 8, 1995 (the 85th birthday of the BSA), my son was approved by our local district's Board of Review as a new Eagle Scout. His grandfather earned the Eagle rank in 1934 and I received my Eagle in 1964. He has the proud distinction of being a third generation Eagle Scout. Our Troop was founded in 1922 and it has archives and photos dating to it's beginning. It is a 73-year-old Troop with an extremely rich heritage and for some years, I have had the honor to serve as Scoutmaster. So you see, the tradition of Scouting in our family and in our Troop traces back to nearly the beginning. And, as you can imagine, Scouting plays an extremely important role in our lives.
However, as we start Scouting's 85th year, it sometimes pays to objectively reflect on where we have been, where we are now, and where we are going. My son, the new Eagle, knows Scouting only as it exists now. His requirements did not include Morse Code, signaling, stalking or tracking. Grandpa remembers it as it was in the early heydays when Pathfinder Merit Badge required knowledge of the number of hogs and cattle within a 5 mile radius of your home. Although I knew Scouting from a different time, as a Scoutmaster who sees a program crying for involved volunteer leaders, with dwindling membership and desperately trying to define itself for the modern boy, I look to what the future holds.
One thing that is certain, we Scouts and Scouters on the Troop level are the real custodians of our Scouting heritage. And we as Troop Leaders can insure in the program of Scouting those qualities we all want to find in our sons and our grandsons--honesty, loyalty, integrity, consideration for others, and many more. These qualities are essentially summed up in one word--character. Good troops provide the experiences that build character and bad troops sometimes fall short. It was that way in 1910 and it is that way today. No, after 85 years, some of the requirements differ but the ethics and values of Scouting have not changed. The ideals Baden-Powell instilled within the system are, like Baden-Powell himself at Mafeking, still firmly entrenched. We have received a rich heritage from Grandpa's time at no cost to us personally. A danger lies in the fact that when a value is received without cost, it is usually not appreciated.
It is true, I think, that progress is made upon change. One generation builds on the progress of the other. But in my opinion, we must guard against changes that lead us backward rather than forward to a more rewarding evolution. Change without proper direction can be devastating.
I have been reading the on-line chat concerning the changing of the uniform and I find it interesting that the problems with the uniform seem to serve as an analogy to some of the problems of Scouting in general. The problem many old timers have with the new khaki shirts and changes in the uniform seems to boil down to the loss of its practical functionality.
The neckerchief was practical--it could be used as a bandage or a sling. It could be tied to a victim's wrists to perform a fireman's drag from a burning building. The neckerchief is now optional and most troops don't wear it anymore. The practical functionality of the neckerchief is gone.
"The olive green color of the uniform is the color of the outdoorsman" proclaimed the 1943 edition of the Boy Scout Handbook. You could blend in with the greenery when stalking or observing nature. Today, we call that low-impact camping. There was a practical functionality to the green color of the uniform. When you walk through the woods wearing a khaki and red Christmas tree or a red pullover activity shirt and khaki shorts, that practical functionality is gone.
The knee socks kept ticks and poisonous plants from touching your legs while hiking in tall grass or underbrush. Even in winter or fall when shorts were not worn, the legs of your pants could be tucked into the stockings to serve the same purpose. They also came in handy for keeping your pants leg out of your bike chain. Knee socks are no more. The practical functionality of the stockings is gone.
Interestingly, a green uniform with a neckerchief and knee socks is an image easily recognized by anyone as a Boy Scout. In a day when our ranks are dwindling, what is the logic of discarding our most recognizable features?
And goodbye also to the practicality of cargo pockets, Scout Handbooks sized to fit in pockets, field caps that tucked easily under a belt, etc., etc., etc.
We preach that a Scout is Thrifty. He has to be to save enough money to buy anything from the Scout Catalog.
But how are these uniforming problems an analogy of the organization of Scouting in general?
A few months ago in Scouting Magazine, I read about the National Council's internship program wherein they recruit new college graduates to serve internships as possible future professional Scouters. Sounds good. But I was surprised to read later in the article that 95% of these interns and future Scout Executives have had no previous exposure to Scouting. And if hired, most will have very little contact with actual Scouts. They will serve as executives on the District or Council level. But with no prior experience in Scouting, where is their vested interest in the program? How can we trust these people to be totally dedicated to our values or even know what they are?
When Grandpa was a Scout every leader knew the name of Daniel Carter Beard and Ernest Thompson Seton. I remember from my day, "Green Bar Bill" Harcourt. These were the rugged individuals who forged Scouting. They could teach the outdoors because they lived the outdoors. They wrote the Scout Handbook from experience. You knew the Scouting way of life worked and they were the proof. There was a functional practicality in the way they taught and practiced Scouting.
Mention the name, Jere Radcliff, in any room full of Scouts and Scouters today and the 95% statistic you will get will be the percentage of people saying, "Who?" Scouting has replaced the flamboyant buckskins of Dan Beard wih button-down suit anonymity.
Actually, I am being unfair to Mr. Radcliff. I'm completely certain that he is a dedicated Scouter and is totally intent upon making the corporation of The Boy Scouts of America a successful and respected enterprise. It is big business and needs to be managed as such.
The point is, the emphasis at the top has changed. The emphasis on the practical functionality of Scouting has been overshadowed by the Board Room where uniform changes can be determined by famous designers who have no previous camping or Scouting experience. The internship program is interested in hiring an individual because he is a good executive not because he is a good Scout. Does the corporation of Scouting practice what the principles of Scouting preaches? Where are the rugged pioneers? Where are the national role models, the outdoorsmen who not only teach Scouting but live it? I believe National needs to re-examine itself along these lines. Perhaps National Council itself needs a Scoutmaster to guide it.
There is a lot being said and written today about the need for discovering or rediscovering our nation's family values. The same can be said for our Scouting values.
As the custodians of Scouting we must watch our step and realize that with some of the changes occurring now, there is no built-in guarantee that our Scouting ideals (unchanged for 85 years) will continue without we as Scouts and Scouters assuming a personal responsibility as it relates to fundamental Scouting knowledge and a willingness to live and be examples of the principles we believe in. We must act like converts. We must preach our program but we must also VISIBLY PRACTICE what we preach. And this behavior needs to permeate Scouting from the lowest Tenderfoot to the Highest Scout Executive.
If we could all take more seriously this responsibility, we would be performing a good turn for Scouting equivalent to the one performed by a British Scout in a London fog over 85 years ago.
