Boy Scouts Forbid Fat Kids to Attend Jamboree

[dcmhejbl62]

From [link=http://www.scout.org/en/node_64/node_199/reaching_out/disabilities]BSA's Scouting for People with Disabilities[/link] website:

"Whether it is regular Scouting activities or a large Scout event, like a Jamboree, people with disabilities can be easily included, with some targeted modifications and adaptations to the programme."

One difference between overweight (yes, even the "OMG! deathfat!!1!!") Scouts and Scouts who, for example, use mobility devices is that the later Scouts are in a protected class according to the American with Disabilities Act. Overweight Scouts aren't. And until they are, there's every possibility they will continue to be excluded from events and activities their legally disabled Scouting brothers are easily included in, like the Jamboree.

It's been a few years, but aren't there local "Jamborees" and then the big "Jamboree" that is only every few years or so? I thought our troop went to an area Jamboree every year. They even invited the 5th grade Webelos to part of it, iirc.

So what are the Scouts supposed to do about Philmont, etc.? Just drop them, because some won't be able to participate?

[Jinger Jar]

Or that they should be registered as legally disabled?

I think there is merit in considering weight a protected class so that employers and organizations serving the public have to make reasonable accommodations for people who are fat.

[treemom]

It's been a few years, but aren't there local "Jamborees" and then the big "Jamboree" that is only every few years or so? I thought our troop went to an area Jamboree every year. They even invited the 5th grade Webelos to part of it, iirc.

So what are the Scouts supposed to do about Philmont, etc.? Just drop them, because some won't be able to participate?

You are thinking of smaller events. National Jamboree is only every 4 years. Camporee is every year by district and usually Councils have a big event every other year. All of those are considerably less scouts and liability.

[OkToBeTakei]

I think there is merit in considering weight a protected class so that employers and organizations serving the public have to make reasonable accommodations for people who are fat.

I do agree. Here recently they are discussing disabled badges for morbidly obese adults who have difficulty negotiating the walk from the car park in supermarkets. It has as you can imagine had mixed responses. I think that any condition which can limit your ability to function in society should be considered. For some it will never be possible to 'change' be that via a legitimate health problem or inability to do so for other reasons.

I totally disagree though that children should be classed this way. There is an opportunity to reverse this condition that may not be feasible in adults but I think by what you suggest in children it would be counterproductive.

[treemom]

I think there are very good arguments in making weight a protected class.

Weight is tricky because so much plays into it and heavy does not always mean unhealthy. I certainly don't have any answers regarding the bigger issue. And even my opinions on this are limited to this very specific, occasional situation and heavily influenced by my personal experience.

[Evilbad]

I think it's very unfair to expect a group of 80,000 to water down their activities because there were kids who, even with 2 years of prep time and warning, are still too overweight to participate as the activity is currently run. If it is a medical condition causing the obesity, then by all means get it documented but that doesn't change the fact that they just physically can't participate in some activities.

Would you rather all the kids just sat and poked campfires and built derby cars? What is your recommendation on how to acommodate all the kids (all 80,000)? How will you keep them challenged and how will you make the jamboree more special than the regular camporees they regularly attend?

[ceg045]

I have a colleague who is teaching one of the merit badge sessions. He was...not looking forward to it, to say the least (his employers basically roped him into it). I think he gets back later this week...I can't wait to hear the stories. :mrgreen:

[Jinger Jar]

I think it's very unfair to expect a group of 80,000 to water down their activities because there were kids who, even with 2 years of prep time and warning, are still too overweight to participate as the activity is currently run. If it is a medical condition causing the obesity, then by all means get it documented but that doesn't change the fact that they just physically can't participate in some activities.

Would you rather all the kids just sat and poked campfires and built derby cars? What is your recommendation on how to acommodate all the kids (all 80,000)? How will you keep them challenged and how will you make the jamboree more special than the regular camporees they regularly attend?

I don't think anyone here is saying that all 80,000 kids have to do the same activities. And I don't think anyone is arguing that the BSA should water down their activities for all Scouts. And no where have I've read on this thread has anyone said that all Scouts at Jamboree should just sit on their duffs and poke campfires...

What some of us are arguing is that since the BSA does modify at least some Jamboree activities for some Scouts, it should be willing to so for all Scouts.

How is accommodating certain Scouts taking away from the Jamboree experience for other Scouts? If the kid sharing my tent can't go on the 20-mile hike tomorrow and is going to spend the day building derby cars or poking a campfire with a stick, how does that stop me from going on the 20-mile hike and having one heck of a good time? How does that make Jamboree less special for me?

I find the idea that for children to have a challenging, special, meaningful experience, other children have to be excluded baffling.

[treemom]

There will always be scouts who can not safely participate. I have assumed the argument is where that line is drawn, not whether there is a line.

[treemom]

I have a colleague who is teaching one of the merit badge sessions. He was...not looking forward to it, to say the least (his employers basically roped him into it). I think he gets back later this week...I can't wait to hear the stories. :mrgreen:

I doubt they will be fun. It has rained nearly every single day. And the days it did not rain, it was really high heat advisories. I suspect he is leaving today or tomorrow. Most of the scouts are leaving tomorrow. My son will be home after the 10 hours drive before dinner I think.

[Jinger Jar]

I do agree. Here recently they are discussing disabled badges for morbidly obese adults who have difficulty negotiating the walk from the car park in supermarkets. It has as you can imagine had mixed responses. I think that any condition which can limit your ability to function in society should be considered. For some it will never be possible to 'change' be that via a legitimate health problem or inability to do so for other reasons.

I totally disagree though that children should be classed this way. There is an opportunity to reverse this condition that may not be feasible in adults but I think by what you suggest in children it would be counterproductive.

I think if weight became a protected class, people who fall outside of socially acceptable size ranges would be de-stigmatized. They and their bodies would - hopefully - cease to be fodder for public discourse and condemnation.

Disability can be a fluid thing. One of my students broke her leg playing powder puff football this past spring. She used her handicapped placard to use handicapped parking spaces and the elevator normally reserved for teachers and staff. She was quite proud of that placard because it enabled to to be legitimately tardy to class. She reminded me of her protected status every day. :lol: When the cast came off, she was not longer considered disabled, and her placard was rescinded. Who's to say that if a child's weight changes, the same couldn't occur?

[treemom]

"They and their bodies would - hopefully - cease to be fodder for public discourse and condemnation."

i doubt it. People who make sweeping judgements about weight and a human's value are not going to stop because of a protected class. What it does is prevent those things from impacting your employment, etc. It doesn't stop it from being public discourse.

[salex]

[

I think if weight became a protected class, people who fall outside of socially acceptable size ranges would be de-stigmatized. They and their bodies would - hopefully - cease to be fodder for public discourse and condemnation.

Because it has worked so well for every other protected class... once they became protected, no one ever thought less of them, joked about them, condemned them or viewed them as included only because the law forced it.

I am not sure overweight shouldn't be a disability in some instances, but have no illusion that it will "destigmatize" anyone.

[Jinger Jar]

I live in hope.

No, laws aren't going to stop ignorant people from making ignorant statements, nor will it end sophomoric humor, but I think that laws would eventually help people who are fat - as a group - have their dignity restored, at least partially.

As the ADA was first wending its way through Congress, I remember reading and listening to all kinds of bigoted, hateful ignorance about people with disabilities, about what they (as if those with disabilities are a monolithic group :roll: ) could and could not do, and of how far businesses and and the government should have to go to accommodate them. As if we were somehow weakening ourselves as a society if we accommodated those with special needs.

About the only people I hear these days publicly saying that we should have the right to not accommodate protected classes is Rand Paul and his ilk.

When I was in college I did a lot of reading about the history of education in the US. Some of the ideas and attitudes among parents and education professionals I read after Mills v. Board came down were stunning in their intolerance and ignorance. Including SPED kids in mainstreamed classrooms was going to bankrupt schools, drag down the quality of education for "normal" kids, lower the IQs of "normal" kids. I found one book, a professional book for teachers written in the late 1970s, on how to cope with all of these specials needs kids who were going to start flooding into regular classrooms any minute. I wish, I wish, I wish I could remember the title exactly, but it was something like How to Teach Johnny, Even Though He's Retarded.

Anyway, I digress and have derailed the thread to Timbuktu. I'm for acceptance, inclusion, tolerance, and for anything that might help us as a society to get to the point where we no longer believe that for the majority or the "desirables" to get what they want, groups we've identified as others or "undesirables" have to be marginalized, objectified, and/or vilified, which strips people of that intrinsic dignity all people are born with. Even if that takes legislating it.

[treemom]

While I might support weight as a protected class, I actually think it will make things harder for people who overweight when it comes to the discussing of their body. Everyone will have an opinion on it...more so then now.

I don't think people should lose their jobs over weight or be discriminated against, but I also don't wear rose colored glasses. I don't believe it will make things easier culturally at all.

[treemom]

My son is home and only popping it to just mention some things he said about accessibility.

His camp was approx a mile from the activities. It rained a lot. A ton. Every day. Everything he is and owns smelled musty. I feel bad for all the kids and staff there!

At each base camp they had wheelchair accessibility tents which was maybe 100 yards max from the furthest troop camp. They had golf carts that had a place for wheelchairs and they would drive you anywhere. You could schedule them to pick you up at your campsite if needed.

He summited Kilimanjaro last year and said this was not as physically challenging, but the general difficulty in just living there for two weeks was harder. While there were bathrooms and showers the relentless rain was sort of miserable.

The lines were long and put of control.

They electricity has issues, both the phone charging stations and places to charge cpap, electric wheelchairs, etc. he things they will learn from this and do better next year.

His has a couple of kids who are probably border line BMI in his troop. He said one would have done great because he is good at sucking it up and just dealing with it. The other wouldn't have because he just isn't a fan of the camping and hiking anyhow. We only talked about it because it came up at camp. He thinks the Restrictions might get a little bit better next year. He thinks there are valid arguments both ways....and that it is a tough choice. He wants inclusive scouting for kids who like scouting stuff and thinks that there is a problem with kids who fall above that BMI but would have liked jamboree. At the same time he mentioned the insurance thing and he also said it was tough and maybe on a different year less so, but with the constant rain and heat it made things a lot harder on everyone and he can see how more weight might makes that harder.

He also commented that it would be difficult and weird on some of the things that will have a weight limit, like the zip line. How would they be able to safely deal with a kid who might exceed it but also do so discretely.

Anyhow, like I said, not wanting to argue more, just wanted to offer the comments my 13 year old made.

I have pounds of laundry to do. He and everything he owns smells.

Oh and I forgot the one thing he said, one of the things he liked the best is the general camaraderie and that it sucks that kids are excluded from experiencing that.