By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The U.S. military is considering ending its century-long partnership with Scouting America, formerly the Boy Scouts, due to concerns about the organization’s shift away from its traditional values. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, in draft memos, criticizes the organization for being “genderless” and promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion, arguing these changes undermine the group’s meritocratic nature and attack “boy-friendly spaces.” The proposed policy includes ceasing logistical and medical support for the National Jamboree and prohibiting Scout troops from meeting on military installations. This move has sparked debate, with potential negative impacts on military recruitment and families, while also facing potential pushback in Congress due to the military’s long-standing support for the organization.
Read the original article here
The U.S. is apparently considering cutting ties with Scouting America, and the accusations are that they’re somehow attacking “boy-friendly spaces.” It’s a bit surprising, especially given the historical connection between presidents and the Scouts. Remember when presidents used to make it a point to connect with the Scouts? It’s a long-standing tradition. It feels like this is more about optics and a particular ideological stance than the actual function of the organization.
The heart of the matter seems to be about the Scouts’ inclusivity, specifically the decision to welcome girls. It’s hard to ignore that the whole world has largely already accepted the inclusion of girls in scouting programs. The U.S. was the odd one out for so long, explicitly banning girls, which is why the Girl Scouts existed. Now, the argument seems to be that by embracing female members, the Scouts are no longer a “meritocracy.” The implication is that any move toward inclusion is inherently biased, which says a lot about the perspective of those making the claims. You can’t have a merit-based system that also includes everyone?
The proposed changes include halting medical and logistical aid to the National Jamboree and no longer allowing troops to meet at military installations. It’s a significant blow because Scouting, especially in locations like foreign military bases, is a substantial social support network. It’s also worth pointing out the Scouts have always been a recruitment pipeline. Many active military personnel were Scouts. This doesn’t exactly seem like a strategic move, especially considering military recruitment challenges.
The core values of Scouting – trustworthiness, loyalty, helpfulness, friendliness, and so on – are not just good values for Scouts, they are good values in general. It seems that certain political figures, however, don’t believe in these values. It’s a bit hypocritical, frankly. And the ironic thing? The vast majority of Scouts and their families lean conservative. It feels like the goal isn’t conservatism, but rather, performative posturing.
The arguments being used against the Scouts are interesting, to say the least. The claim that the Scouts are “genderless” and promote “diversity, equity, and inclusion,” and the criticism is that they’re supposedly attacking “boy-friendly spaces” simply by allowing girls to join. What is more, it seems this is happening in part because the Scouts rooted out all the pedophiles. The whole situation feels like a distraction, especially with so much other news going on right now.
The fact is, even with the changes, troops can still choose to have separate boy and girl troops or a mixed-gender troop. Nothing has really changed regarding “boy-friendly spaces,” so the whole thing feels manufactured and disingenuous. And let’s be real, you’re not taking away the value of boy orientated spaces just by including girls. It’s the right choice, though. It’s worth considering whether some of these arguments would even exist if more people had grown up socializing with girls in non-dating settings.
The criticism from people like Pete Hegseth seems to harken back to a specific vision of America, one that is becoming more and more isolated. He wants to return to the old ways, but in reality, is it a space friendly to overbearing scoutmasters? This entire situation feels like a case of cutting off one’s nose to spite their face. At a time when recruitment is low, you are cutting off a major recruitment pipeline. It seems shortsighted at best, destructive at worst.