Woke Polices

Scouting’s turn toward “woke” policies isn’t just a boardroom debate. It’s a lived rupture for many practicing Christians and Jews. And others who may not be church going, but agree on essential cultural and scriptural issues. This includes most conservatives. There is conflict with the bedrock beliefs of many sponsoring organizations on DEI, gender, sexuality, and identity. When their convictions collide with national directives, families don’t argue policy; they stop coming. This page reframes the crisis: it isn’t the charters of church and conservative organizations that first fracture, but the faithful and conservative families that make up the sponsoring organizations. The uncomfortable truth is, political and theological convictions do drive decisions at the family and sponsorship levels.

When families stop participating, they stop bringing friends to join them, and they stop sending money. When someone loves something, they become an evangelist for it. When they feel betrayed by that thing, they become activists, encouraging others to stop as well.

DEI: Inclusion or Division?

Scouting’s historical openness required no identity‐based programs. Young Scouts from different backgrounds naturally bonded at early campouts and jamborees. Yet modern DEI frameworks define Scouts first by race, gender, or orientation, which feels foreign to Scouts and Scouters who value universal brotherhood rooted in shared beliefs, not categories.

When foreign Scouts have visited our camp, we are all “tickled pink” to have them among us, to welcome them. The strangness of their uniforms and accents fill us with wonder at the vastness and universality of Scouting.

Thus, DEI initiatives are a solution looking for a problem. Some groups are underrepresented in the BSA. But studies run by national have shown that the primary reason is economic, not prejudice. Even the lower middle class has trouble affording the BSA program, let alone the poor.

Unfortunately, DEI in practice leads to treating people based on their differing characteristics. Which is unscoutlike. And un-American. Scouts (and anyone else for that matter) should not be viewed as the intersection of their outward characteristics such as race, gender, national origin, economic status, and sexuality. Such a description does not define me. Nor you. Nor anyone else. And if I may be so bold, such “descriptions” are not only insufficient, but encourage the very deviciveness that DEI is supposed to overcome.

Many parents believe that identity‐based material is political and thus inappropriate in Scouting.

The Citizenship in Society Merit Badge was originally called the DEI Merit Badge. Besides generating discord, it added yet another totally indoor Eagle required merit badge. It should be eliminated.

Sexual Restraint: Clean and Reverent

The Eleventh Point of the Scout Law, Clean, and the Twelfth, Reverent, imply sexual restraint, modesty, and respect for marriage. Today, national BSA policy actively embraces practices that many religious and conservative parents find at odds with those ideals. And at odds with their personal beliefs.

• Openly homosexual Scouts and Scouters are welcomed as such. Historically, neither sex nor its discussion was allowed.
• Gender-affirming care is endorsed: training on pronoun usage, referral resources, and affirming transitions.
• Discussions of sexual orientation and gender identity appear in Youth Protection and merit badge materials.
• Required “Digital Safety” training for all new Scouts introduces 10- and 11-year-olds to sexting, online grooming, and abuse scenarios as part of the Personal Safety Awareness series.

At summer camp, it was quietly decided that Scouts should not complete the “Digital Safety” requirement on site. Young Scouts felt unsettled rather than protected. We knew that some parents would object.

For many church-going and conservative families, these are not neutral accommodations but active promotions of values they cannot reconcile with their faith. They see them as contrary to the simple, sex-free space Scouting once guaranteed. And what is meant to safeguard children includes content they might prefer to postpone or address elsewhere.

Linked and Combined Troops: Broken Promises

Sponsoring organizations were assured that girl troops would always meet separately from boy troops. Then came the nationwide “combined troop” pilot. And with it, a broken promise that left parents uneasy.

• Age-Appropriate Boundaries — Parents see mixed-gender units, especially at preteen and early‐teen ages, as developmentally premature. They worry that normal camp activities become awkward or inappropriate when girls and boys live side by side.
• Erosion of Single-Sex Separation — Families trusted clear boundaries. The pilot raises the fear that those boundaries will vanish if “combined” becomes the default.
• Reversal Without Warning — The policy shift signals to parents that guarantees can be rescinded. If this commitment could be broken without consultation, what assurances remain reliable?
• Trust and Convictions at Stake — Faith-based families counted on Scouting to uphold clear, safe spaces. This reversal undermines the very trust that underpins their decision to enroll and support Scouting.

When linked troops occupy different sides of the same campsite, it is, for that event, a pseudo-combined troop. Girls and boys mingle in the common areas. This situation sometimes occurs to reduce expenses for the linked troops.

For practical reasons, very small troops are forced to operate as a combined troop. Fortunately, this means more leadership present, and thus less likelihood of inappropriate activities. But ideally, girls should have safe spaces without the distraction of boys. And boys should have safe spaces without the distraction of girls.

Transgender Policy

The BSA’s embrace of gender identity, placing youth based on self-identification over biology, directly conflicts with the two-gender model taught in most congregations.

• Families struggle to reconcile BSA’s respect for self-chosen identity with their belief in immutable gender.
• Many are opposed to gender change procedures for children. They are opposed to any encouragement of children to consider being a different gender. Including changing pronouns, which implies gender is “fluid”. And particularly opposed to their own children receiving such encouragement. Thus, some may be concerned that the BSA, based on its policies, might do exactly that.
• BSA policy allows a physical boy to fill out his application claiming to be a girl. In which case, rules require them to be in a girl troop, not a boy troop. Or a physical girl in a boy troop. This policy is concerning and outrageous to many parents.

Fortunately, a sponsoring organization can place limits or requirements on their membership beyond those declared by National. Yet all of this is troubling (and even absurd) to many faith-based and conservative parents.

Sponsorship Loss

Church sponsors have departed over inclusion policies (detailed above), resulting in significant membership drops in councils historically chartered by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), United Methodist (UMC), Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod (LCMS), Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) congregations, and locally others. LDS completely stopped sponsoring BSA troops in 2019. They were the largest single sponsoring organization. The UMC alone dropped from over 10,000 chartered units in 2020 to about 6,600 by mid-2022, following a shift to affiliation agreements amid broader denominational tensions. LCMS and PCA had similar contractions.

This has required significant effort in every district and council to replace former religious sponsors. However, replacing them with sponsors that allow or even encourage the policies detailed above does not solve the underlying conflict. Parents wonder, “If my church believes that the BSA cannot be trusted for ethical reasons, why should I trust the BSA with my children?”.

When Families Walk Away

Ultimately, charter renewals mask the real loss: the parents and youth who stop registering.

• Troop failures aren’t financial reallocations; they’re community voids.
• Families vote with their feet, choosing faith-aligned alternatives over a Scouting program they see as culturally misaligned.

Go Woke, Go Broke: Membership Fallout

Budweiser’s Pride campaigns, Disney’s “woke” storylines, and Cracker Barrel’s inclusive rebrand each alienated faith-based and conservative audiences. Each brand underestimated the power of its core constituency.

In Scouting’s case, those “customers” are believing parents and kids in the pews. When they no longer trust that Scouting will uphold their values, they stop registering their Scouts.

By aligning BSA policies with the convictions of conservative families, we can stem the exodus and rebuild real trust, just as Cracker Barrel reversed course to win back customers.

I’m not proposing national rules against Homosexual or Transgender people. But there is no reason for a Scout’s sexuality to be a factor at all. No sex. No mention of sex.

Relationship with the US Military

Historically, the U.S. Military stood shoulder-to-shoulder with Scouting:

• Bases sponsored units for service families, even overseas (e.g., Transatlantic Council, Black Eagle Lodge).
• Eagle Scouts entered service with an advanced rank.
• National Jamborees relied on military logistics and support.

Now, however, the government is said to be preparing to withdraw this support. The reasons cited include:

• Loss of meritocracy and masculine values once central to Scouting.
• Promotion of diversity, equity, and inclusion agendas.
• Genderless policies that erode boy-friendly spaces.
• A shift from cultivating character to diluting tradition into something that stands for nothing.

Whether or not each charge is fully accurate, the perception is clear: Scouting no longer reflects the values it once championed. And just as congregations and parents have walked away, the military’s conservative values now push it to reconsider its support. It makes no sense for the BSA to offend its customers (Scouts and their parents) and supporters (such as the U.S. Military) by introducing programs not core to Scouting, but tied to political perspectives unpopular with those stakeholders.

To link to a news article about this emerging issue, click here. To view a PDF capture of the article, click here.

Fertility Rates, Politics, and Religion

Numerous studies reveal that conservative women have more children than liberal ones. And are more likely to marry. The inverse relationship also exists: after women have children, they tend to adopt more conservative values. Similarly, there is a widening gap in fertility rates between more religious and less religious Americans.

Our policies seem to be designed to please those least likely to have children. And least likely to support an organization that wears military-like uniforms, values national patriotism, and expects belief in God. It seems strangely counterproductive.

Conclusion

Restoration must include reversing policies that clash with the convictions of churchgoing and conservative families. Only then can Scouting reclaim the people in the pews: the true heart of historical sponsorship. It is inconceivable that the BSA can restore its numbers and status otherwise.