Eagle BORs - Scout is not successful

[WVBeaver05]

Requiring a uniform for a EBOR isn't adding a requirement, because the requirement for wearing a uniform already exists.

Actually the instructions on wearing the uniform are not requirements, so it would be adding. Not everything in the Scout Handbook is a requirement for a rank. If you look at the Boy Scout Requirements book, you will find the requirements without all of the other stuff. Also, while I don't have first hand knowledge of an appear to National overturning a local requirement that a uniform be worn, I understand that it has happened. I did have a discussion with a Scouter trained at Philmont Training Center on advancement, and it definitely is not a requirement and cannot be made so locally.

On the other hand,

By the time a Scout is eligible for Eagle Scout, wearing the Scout uniform should be a matter of course.

I couldn't agree more with that! I would even agree that it should be a requirement.

It is the SM's responsibility to see that it happens.

Not 100% sure it's the SM's responsibility to see that it happens, but he/she should bear part of the responsibility.

YiS

[Lynda J]

I personally think that each boy should have a uniform. Or at least a shirt and neckerchief. You can do troop closets for outgrown uniforms that are passed down. Also one of the local thrift stores calls me when they get any Cub or Boy Scout uniforms parts in. Recently I purchased two BSA shirts for $1.49 each. Last summer I got three pair of Cub blue pants for $.99 They had small tears inthe bottom of the legs so I cut them off and made shorts out of them. I know that not everyone can do this. But I would be that if you checked around you could find someone in the unit that was able to do minor repairs.
When the boys in our troop get their Scout Patch they are given a small hand sewing kit. They are encouraged to sew their own patches on their uniforms. I think it is a good tool to have the boys sew their own patches. And I don't see any difference in having the boys that are simply using the uniforms do the same thing.

I

[smtroop168]

Does anyone have the official BSA piece of paper that says uniforms are not required? I know we've beat this horse pretty hard but if it's written down somewhere in a policy statement, it would be helpful to see.

[OldGreyBear]

I don't know if turn-about is fair play, but consider this, take a look at the requirements for the Scout Badge all the way through to Eagle Palms. These requirements are the base of advancement. Nowhere in any of the requirements is the uniform mentioned. A boy could very easily complete each requirement and never wear the uniform, as its being worn is not specified as required.

[FrankJ]

I am not recommending this... But you could require field uniform for travel to camp outs or attending troop meetings & activities. No uniform-no troop activities-no advancement.

If you think that is far fetched, how many complete uniforms are required for a scout to attend the national jamboree?

[PaulSWolf]

You MAY NOT require a Uniform. PERIOD.

[evmori]

Does anyone have the official BSA piece of paper that says uniforms are not required? I know we've beat this horse pretty hard but if it's written down somewhere in a policy statement, it would be helpful to see.

Scoutmasters Handbook. Don't have mine with me & don't recall the page number.

[RWSmith]

Okay folks,

The posts are getting shorter and more "what ifs" or absolute... and that's a bad sign. Let's stop with the back-and-forth thing and start quoting sources. Also, IMO... there really is some middle ground here. A couple of thoughts...

Yes, uniforms may be required by National for attendance at NSJs... But, what's that got to do with advancnement? Nothing.

"....You could require field uniform for travel to camp outs or attending troop meetings & activities. No uniform-no troop activities-no advancement." (Note, FrankJ did say he was not recommending this.) However, this one happens all over the country... Which is the very reason we should be prepared to address it and correct it. The fact is, the BSA is a uniformed organization and wearing that uniform is a core aspect of our organization's aims and methods. (Check the first couple of pages of your insignia guide.) As a UL, you certainly may expect a Boy Scout to wear his uniform at the appropriate times; but, you may not ever use the lack of wearing the uniform to interfere with his advancement. And, if he does wear the uniform, you can require him to wear it correctly. (Also in your insignia guide.)

FWIW, IMO, the proper wear of the uniform is one of the many facets (indicators) of Scout spirit... living the Scout Oath and Law in your daily life. But, the uniform alone, is not a deal-breaker concerning Scout spirit. However, I feel it should be noted, as a Scout moves up in rank, the requirement concerning Scout spirit becomes more stringent --See the Eagle Scout appl., in particular-- and, as such, the increased expectation to wear the uniform is justified.

[Hubert]

As a lot of you know, I just returned from Mackiniac Island. There, you are REQUIRED to have FULL uniform, and wear it all the time, unless told otherwise. You also have to match, everyone is unifromal. You get a hat and bolo, but it is YOUR responsibility to get the shirt, pants, jacket (red wind breaker), socks, and deck shoes. If you have a shortage of ANY of those, you cant go. Plain and simple. Harsh or not, when dealing with that kind of crowd, you have to look good. We have to march in step as well but thats another thing.

If the whole troop is in their complete scout uniform, but three are in blue jeans, how does that look while marching downtown? It looks like crap. To be blunt, it looks bad. If you want to represent the entire scouting group as a whole on front of THAT many people, dress the right way in complete uniform. Thousands of people saw us each day, from around the world, if one looked like crap, it would show them (in their mind not knowing other things) that scouting is bad. (I do not feel that way but its true, only knowing partial facts you form opinions.)

I do tihnk a uniform SHOULD be required for an Eagle BoR. I also think its the charter org. job to help those who need money assistance. We help them by getting their name out there, they can help us.

[mhjacobson]

Here is where the BSA is sort of confusing. If you read the current Scout Handbook (pp 12-13), you will find on p 13 the followign statement: "Wear full uniform for all ceremonial and indoor activities, such as troop meetings, courts of honow, and most other indoor functions." However, if you read the COH information, it states "appropriately dressed." I wonder what 'appropriately dressed' means in BSA-speak?

[joat]

BSA is never confusing. The stuff we find confusing is really so simple that our confusing minds can't figure out the simple stuff.

Page 13 tells the boy to wear his uniform for courts of honor. Thus, the appropriate dress for a court of honor would be the uniform.

[mhjacobson]

The confusion does not arise from the Scout Handbook, it comes from the BOR training that simply states ". . .dressed appropriately. . ." It would have been much simpler to deal with the issue if the training mirrored the wording of the Scout Handbook and pointed out that the BOR requires the wearing of the uniform. But then what do you do if there is a case where the scout (and the troop) can not afford to purchase uniforms as ofter is the case in inner city troops. Does this really mean that a scout who can not afford a uniform can not progress in rank?!?!?

I believe that is the reason why the BOR training uses the wording that it does.

[joat]

If a boy has a uniform, it is appropriate that he wear it for a board of reveiw. If he has no uniform he wears something else. A uniform is not required to be a Scout, nor is it required for a board of review.

Note this does not equate to the uniform being optional for a BOR. If a boy has one, he should wear it as his Handbook instructs.

[Swim4lyfe]

Not sure these are the only two reasons. If I was sitting on a EBOR & the Scout was asked why he wanted to be an Eagle & his answer was "Because it looks good on a resume." I would have to vote against this Scout. Why? He wants the Eagle for all the wrong reasons.

That would be adding to the requirements. There is nothing in the Eagle requirements that says they have to want it for the right reasons. It is not the job of the BOR to determine if the boy has the correct Eagle Attitude.

Legally, you are correct. Ethically I would disagree with you. I would hold the Scout who wants Eagle so it makes him a better man higher than one who just wants a free ride to college. However, as you pointed out, it is illegal and would be considered added to the requirements, although it would be ethically wrong.

[Nuts4Scouts]

Legally, you are correct. Ethically I would disagree with you. I would hold the Scout who wants Eagle so it makes him a better man higher than one who just wants a free ride to college. However, as you pointed out, it is illegal and would be considered added to the requirements, although it would be ethically wrong.

I take it this means that when/if you attain Eagle you do not plan on putting it on any resume or application of any kind?

Phooey!

Since when is it "ethically wrong" to want to better oneself in this world? That is why many of our ancestors came to this country in the first place. That is why we send our kids to college.

What difference does it make "why" a Scout works his tail off and earns the rank of Eagle? The bottom line is that he did work his tail off and completed all of the BSA requirements to earn the rank of Eagle.

To me, "ethically wrong" would be for the Scout to make up some sappy response just to make the dunderheads on his BOR happy!

[Swim4lyfe]

*shrugs*

I take it this means that when/if you attain Eagle you do not plan on putting it on any resume or application of any kind?

No. That's not what I meant.

Since when is it "ethically wrong" to want to better oneself in this world? That is why many of our ancestors came to this country in the first place. That is why we send our kids to college.

That's not what I said. I compared the reasons for two Scouts attaining Eagle; one wanting to prepare himself for life and the other just wanting free college and not caring about the skills, etc. It's not ethically wrong to make yourself better; that's what I said. You misunderstood me.

What difference does it make "why" a Scout works his tail off and earns the rank of Eagle? The bottom line is that he did work his tail off and completed all of the BSA requirements to earn the rank of Eagle.

Yeah, that's what I said about it being legally correct.

To me, "ethically wrong" would be for the Scout to make up some sappy response just to make the dunderheads on his BOR happy!

Agreed. I'm sorry to say I've known Eagles who have done that.

[Mrw]

It really doesn't matter why the boy wants his Eagle award. The one who wants to better himself may be better grounded in reality than the one who just wants it to look good on his college app. It would be only one small peice of many that the college would use to decide who to admit.

As for the "free college" comment above, any boy expecting his Eagle will get him that is going to be sadly disappointed.

When I went off to college and decided to major in Chemistry, I did not have a compelling life purpose in mind. In retrospect, if you asked me why, I have to say that I liked it in high school and it seemed like a good idea at the time. It has worked out well for me, but wanting to do all the work for Eagle just for a college app really isn't any different.

My younger son really wanted his Eagle to show up his brother by finishing at an earlier age. I don't think he would have admitted it at the time, but that was the biggest motivator for him. In doing it, he clearly learned some leadership skills that are showing up in the way he has taken the point position in his group of friends to get their college apartment found, leased, furnished, etc. And I think he realizes where he learned this and is already appreciating it more than he did at the time. (He is 18, earned it at 15 5.)

[ccjj]

I sat on my first Eagle Board of Review this week. It was a unique experience. Unfortunately, the Scout was unprepared. It was the decision of the board to postpone his advancement at this time. They told him what he needs to do, and after 3 months, provided the Scoutmaster says okay, then the board will meet again. That was a very hard thing to do.
We know, that is the troops fault, as much as it is the Scouts. Hopefully, this will be a learning experience for all involved.

ccjj

[ASM-142]

I sat on my first Eagle Board of Review this week. It was a unique experience. Unfortunately, the Scout was unprepared. It was the decision of the board to postpone his advancement at this time. They told him what he needs to do, and after 3 months, provided the Scoutmaster says okay, then the board will meet again. That was a very hard thing to do.
We know, that is the troops fault, as much as it is the Scouts. Hopefully, this will be a learning experience for all involved.

ccjj

Why 3 months?
Why does the SM need to approve? Once he has signed off on everything else then it is no longer in his/her control.
How was this scout not prepared?

[Nuts4Scouts]

I too wonder how the boy was unprepared, why on earth he must wait 3 months, and why his new BOR can only be held with his SM's approval?

Was the appeals process explained to him? Was a letter sent to the Scout reiterating the things he needs to do?