Re: SM Conf / BoR
Cheryl Singhal (csinghal@CAPACCESS.ORG)
Fri, 1 Aug 1997 15:19:48 -0400
On Fri, 1 Aug 1997, Bruce E. Cobern wrote:
> At 10:35 PM 7/30/97 -0400, Cheryl Singhal wrote:
> >On Wed, 30 Jul 1997, Steven G. Tyler wrote:
> >> awarded. The key is to get the Scout to accept personal responsibility
> >> for satisfying all requirements, rather than accept the "windfall" of an
> >That still, IMO, sets the Scout up as knowing more about the requirements
> >than the Counselor, since it is unreasonable to expect someone to accept
> >responsibility for something he knows little or nothing about.
> Pardon the sarcasm, Cheryl, but don't your Scouts read, write and understand
Sometimes I wonder. :(
> You are saying that your Scouts are incapable of reading the requirements
> and making an informed, personal decision about whether they actually
> completed each and every one of them as written or in a manner that they
> themselves feel meets the requirement. That does not set them up as knowing
No, that's not what I'm _trying_ to say at all. As is all too-evident on
this list, there is no requirement ever written by Man or God that cannot
be mis-interpreted. That being true, whom do we trust? The Scout who is
taking this MB because there's nothing else he'd rather do at 10 a.m., or
the Counselor who has proven some avocational or vocational competency?
> more about the subject matter than the counselor, only a personal sense of
> integrity and responsibility about whether they actually completed the
Has everyone looked at the unintended consequences of this heightened
personal sense of integrity? Is everyone going to be as impressed by the
20-yr-old who asks his professor to reduce his grade from B to C because
"I didn't really earn a B"? Or by the 35-yr-old who turns down a
promotion because "I don't really deserve it"? THAT is the next logical
step for someone with an active code of ethics and deep personal integrity.
Don't get me wrong: I value ethics and integrity as highly as the next
person (and more so than some of the folks I've been next to lately).
But there are _always_ unintended consequences and there are _always_
> remains the same. You can't tell me that the 16 year old doesn't KNOW that
> he is getting over on the counselor if he isn't doing all the requirements.
The 16-yr-old may _think_ he's getting over on the counselor, but he may
not actually be doing so. Which is one of my points. I know from
nothing about leatherworking and wouldn't know if the boy earned it or
not; however, a man who makes a living off handtooled leathergoods would
certainly know as would, I assume, the MB Counselor. It isn't _MY_
opinion about whether the badge was earned that counts, it's the Counselor's.
> He is RESPONSIBLE for knowing what is required of him to advance and what is
> required of him for each merit badge. HOLD him to that responsibility. Let
> HIM tell you that HE feels he has earned the merit badge.
Then, once more, if the boy truly believes the counselor was wrong in
signing the blue card, he need not turn it in. If he doesn't turn it in,
the SM and the advancement chair and the committee won't know anything
about it. That has as one of its shining advantages the fact that if the
SM doesn't have the blue card and doesn't put it on the advancement form,
he doesn't have to sign an oath saying he knows it's right.
Terry Howerton Sakima Group, Inc. SCOUTER Magazine Kansas City