Re: Are You Afraid......
Susan Ganther (susan@EMAIL.UNC.EDU)
Fri, 10 Feb 1995 12:50:55 -0500
On Wed, 8 Feb 1995, Gary Sherwin wrote:
> If it is a moral issue, then COST IS NOT A VALID PLAYER. If the
> founders of our nation had not done such, the USA would not exist, If
> many slaves and sympathisers had not done so, Slavery would still be
> the norm in the USA.
> When I leave this life my bank accounts and depts do not follow me
> but both my antagonist and I will have to answer to our maker, for the
> investments and profits of our journey to meet that one.
Gary, I respect your feelings on this issue, and I resoect the choices
you make. I want you to realize though that they are choices, and they
are YOURS to make.
What do you make of a person in a district leadership position that does
NOT give people a choice? This is NOT limited to the individual who
rigidly enforces the rules, but includes the person who does not let you
know what the rules are, or the person who contradicts someone who has
stated what the rules are with comments like, "who told you that?" or
"don't worry about that, we don't do it that way". That individual has
taken away your choice about what kind of liability exposure is
acceptable as surely as the one who refuses to sign a tour permit because
you have not followed the rules.
Also, just how do you decide what "the right thing" is?
Here is an example from my personal experience.
A high adventure outing has been planned, I ask to go along as long as no
boys will be displaced if it is not a problem having a female along.
Not all of the openings are filled, so I go along on the trek. The high
adventure base issues only one tent for the adults. An error which we
should have caught but did not until after we have been left in the
wilderness. There is no discussion about making other sleeping
arrangements since it is pouring down rain, so all four adults,
3 male, 1 female end up in the one tent. Is this the right thing to do?
Assuming that everyone will be guided by the Scout Oath and Law, one
might think so.
It is, however in direct violation of BSAs rules.
Should they have forced me to sleep on the soggy ground under the
dripping dining fly? Should they have offered to let me have the tent to
myself? These solutions while unattractive would have been the course
that would have protected them from any liability arising from an
allegation of misconduct in the form of innapropriate (but allegedly
inadvertent) physical contact.
Had I been forced to sleep outside of the tent, I might have found that
choice to have been morally repugnant. They are discriminating against me
because I am female, so I am being made to sleep in the rain.
Had the others insisted on sleeping outside the tent, some of the
individuals involved might have found me to be something less than
courteous since there were three of them and only one of me.
All of us sleeping in the tent together is a violation of the rules, a
Scout is obedient.
So which is the moral high ground here?
Terry Howerton Sakima Group, Inc. SCOUTER Magazine Kansas City