BARRIERS TO SCOUTING CAN BE PROTECTION FOR GROOMERS

Our Barriers to Abuse are essential. But they have been misinterpreted to become barriers to good Scouting. Ironically, they can also make it harder to detect grooming. Easier for it to go unseen. How? When rules are regularly bent or broken, it creates an environment of shared secrecy and dishonesty. Groomers are camouflaged if everyone looks suspicious.

The recent revisions (the Barriers to Abuse compared to Youth Protection) resolve some of the issues. I’m rather impressed with the new training. And have changed the material below accordingly. But there remains some need for a change in emphasis and some rules that, due to being impractical, are widely ignored. With significant side-effects.

Good Scouters Get Expelled

Youth Protection began as a promise. A safeguard. A trust. Shockingly, the policies screen out those who listen. Those who mentor through trust, not distance. Those who remain close to the Scouts.

One of the finest Scouters I’ve ever known. He was seen talking one-on-one with a girl. In the main part of camp. Where people walked. He was kicked out. Friends intervened. Reinstated. Later told a joke that could be interpreted as offensive. There was a Scout in the room. When friends tried to intervene again, he said no. “If this is what Scouting has become, I’m through with it.” He died heartbroken. But grieved and lauded by hundreds who had received his love and guidance.

Groomers get Camouflage

Predators don’t need to break the rules. They need only to perform them. Mandatory reporting is a matter of opinion for the reporter as to whether it needs to be reported. “Two-deep” becomes proximity theatre as no one expects two leaders to spend all day in view of each other. The phrase “inappropriate conduct” is vague. And those who ask for clarity risk looking guilty. It can become a camouflage system built on reputational choreography.

Three Fears, One System

Scouting applies a single apparatus to three radically different fears: teen romance, inadvertent mistake, and real abuse. All are breaches of Scout rules that can result in termination. But only the last is illegal.

The rules blur them, treating affection, innocent violations, and predation with almost equal alarm. No one-on-one started as a form of protection from others. But it is usually seen as protection from each other, to discourage romance. Scouts and Scouters are afraid of an inadvertent membership-terminating mistake if they appear “too close”. They are afraid of connection. But what is Scouting without connection? The forced distancing undermines friendship and trust.

Some restraint is righteous. A Scout is Clean and A Scout is Reverent call youth toward ethical discipline and modesty. Displays of affection aren’t appropriate at a Scout event. Friendship, not romance. Intimacy of common purpose, not physical.

Scouters avoid mentoring to avoid accusations. And predators? They look normal when policies make everyone look suspicious.

Mentoring

Mentoring is historically understood as essential. It’s absolutely required for a BSA troop to function. And it’s one of the best and most effective tools for a Scouter to use in good times and bad. Yet mentoring appear to be a direct violation of the “no one-on-one” Barrier to Abuse.

This is a pillar of Scouting’s transformative power. An essential part of one of the Methods of Scouting. Early BSA literature, such as the Scoutmaster Handbook, emphasized the value of adult male role models. Not just as supervisors, but as examples of manhood. The adult leader was someone a boy could emulate, confide in, and grow beside. (The same principle obviously applies to the female leadership of today’s girl troops.)

“The Scoutmaster is a friend to the boys, not a boss. He is a guide, not a commander.” — BSA Handbook, mid-century editions

The Shift: From Mentors to Monitors

Today, the “Association with Adults” Scouting Method is framed in compliance terms:

• “Two-deep leadership”
• “No one-on-one contact”
• “Always in view of others”

These requirements have become the dominant lens through which adult-youth interaction is viewed. The result?

Mentorship is no longer encouraged. It’s discouraged.

Even the official BSA page on mentoring admits: “Mentoring is rarely a critical part of an individual’s role, but rather an extra element….”

That’s a stunning reversal. What was once central is now optional and suspect.

“To get a hold on boys you must be their friend.” — Baden-Powell

And so, mentorship is discouraged. Not because it is actually forbidden, but because the rules are unclear.

National has changed its training to clearly state that one-on-one conversations are permitted, even if no one else can hear, as long as others can see you. But they have not made it clear that mentoring is encouraged, not discouraged. Both Scouts and Scouters must understand this. Any general suppression of mentoring is counterproductive. In that irony, can you see it? The true barrier to grooming is not rules, it’s relationship. When rules forbid relationship, the camouflage covers the guilty.

The hard reality is this: only the Scout can possibly know if he is being groomed. If that Scout is also being mentored by someone else, has someone he trusts, in Scouting or outside, he may talk about it. And the situation will be stopped. Otherwise, probably not. So by discouraging mentoring in Scouting, we weaken the only real barrier to abuse.

A Scout who feels forbidden to speak privately to a trusted adult is not protected. He is silenced.

The only real safeguard is plural mentorship: a culture where youth have multiple guides, where no adult can monopolize trust. Mentoring should be encouraged. The more the better. Scouting without mentoring is not cautious. It is broken.

One Scoutmaster told me in detail how his troop handles Scoutmaster Conferences (for rank advancement) without violating the “no one-on-one between youth and adult” rule. The Scoutmaster sits against a wall. The Scout sits facing him, with a low wall and counter at his back. Behind him are troop committee members. The pretense is that committee members can see the Scoutmaster and hear his voice, but cannot see or hear the youth. This absurdity does not actually give the Scout a true mentoring experience where he feels free to talk. This compliance theater would be laughable if it was not so tragic. The theatrics will protect the Scoutmaster’s reputation. But it distroys the intent of the conference.

I shutter to think how little other mentoring takes place in that troop. There is a mine field between the adults and the youth. Hopefully, this extreme misinterpretation is unusual.

Two Deep Leadership

The Two Deep Leadership rule says that every unit activity must have two or more adult leaders present who are registered with the unit. They both have to be in attendance at the event, but they don’t have to stay together. If there are female youth, at least one of the adult leaders must be female.

This rule is particularly difficult to follow if the unit is small. If two qualified leaders are not available, the event cannot be scheduled, or if already scheduled, it must be cancelled. Cancellation (or inability to schedule) a meeting or campout is a severe blow to a unit. Parents and Scouts will not want to set aside a weekend and then have no event. A troop that only rarely camps cannot thrive. If a troop does not consistently have weekly meetings at the same place, day, and time, it will likely shrink and ultimately dissolve.

Linked troops (separate boy and girl troops that are both sponsored by the same organization) often have leaders who are registered in both units. The larger pool of leaders allows leaders from one troop to fill in when the Two Deep Leadership rule might have otherwise prevented the event from being held.

Unfortunately, the rule is being interpreted to mean that if the two linked troops are camping together (with separate sleeping areas for the boys and girls), then they need two qualified leaders for each troop, meaning four total. This standard is being enforced at summer camp, where a linked pair of troops without four qualified leaders has to send either all their boys or all their girls to provisional.

But if they were a combined (family) troop, where all meetings and camping trips are together, they would only need two qualified leaders in the same scenario! This is patently absurd. The two scenarios have the exact same risks (romance and grooming) regardless of the details of the unit charters. Thus, the rules ACTUALLY PRESSURE TROOPS TO BECOME FAMILY TROOPS. Which means co-ed troop meetings. Which, if anything, increases the risks!

The Buddy Pair Rules

The reality is that in many common scenarios, the Buddy Pair “Barriers to Abuse” rules are impractical and largely ignored.

The only stated exception to the need for buddy pairs is when many youth are present together as a troop, where everyone can see each other. By implication, Scouts in their patrol campsite are not required to track buddy pairs either.

Camps have asked whether central open areas could qualify for the same exception. National said no. Yet clearly, an open field with many Scouts in view of each other does not require buddy pairs to prevent grooming or romance.

As written, the rules mean a Scout cannot travel to a Merit Badge class unless another member of his troop is going to the same class at the same time. That restriction is so onerous that no one enforces it. In theory, a Scout must identify a buddy (or two) as they leave their campsite and remain together until returning to the campsite. In practice, Scouts simply declare themselves buddies with whoever is nearby. Only a Scout who is alone — or a boy/girl couple — is confronted.

The deeper problem is this: if Scouts must break Barriers to Abuse rules to participate in camp life and lie about their buddies, then the program itself teaches that rules can be ignored when inconvenient. That undermines Trustworthy and Obedient. And creates cover for abusers. If no one else is following the rules, their violations are not noticeable.

Even camp staff are told to stay in buddy pairs, per the training syllabus. Yet most Merit Badge classes have a single youth instructor. How are they supposed to get there without walking alone? The only way to comply would be for two adults to escort the youth instructor until Scouts arrive — an absurd and impossible workaround. Camps don’t have the personnel or time for this, so the requirement is simply ignored.

The gender-related criteria suggest the rule is aimed more at discouraging romance than preventing grooming. Groomers already break the one-on-one rule if they approach a Scout walking alone. The buddy rule adds nothing to prevent grooming. It only restricts Scouts from traveling alone outside of their campsite.

But traveling alone is one of Scouting’s most profound experiences. It signals trust. To suggest that a Scout (not a Cub) cannot safely walk within camp is offensive to the spirit of Scouting and insulting to the Scout. (Of course, no Scout should wander without permission from their SPL or SM.)

Since the Buddy Pair rules are primarily tied to discouraging attraction between Scouts, we should consider alternatives that achieve that goal without undermining the program or asking for the impossible. One simple solution: group troop campsites by gender. Boys here, girls there. They would only mix in public areas with plenty of leaders present. Each gendered area would be off-limits to the other, creating a safe space where Scouts can relax without cross-gender pressure.

Combined (family) troops with both boys and girls could be placed in a third area of their own.

“It is risky to order a boy not to do something; it immediately opens to him the adventure of doing it.” — Baden-Powell. Let’s not give them ideas by telling them not to act as a couple.

Trust

“A Scout is Trustworthy. A Scout’s Honor is to be trusted. If he were to violate his honor … he may be directed to hand over his Scout badge.” — Early Handbook for Boys.

Three sentences. We have abandoned the last two. (1) A Scout can be trusted. (2) The Scout must experience our certainty that he can be trusted. (3) Trust is the rule that defines a Scout.

Modern policy starts with doubt. The opposite of trust. It presumes risk, not character. It whispers: Do not trust. Do not be alone. Do not believe that Scouts or Scouters are safe.

The Scout came to me ready to work on the Merit Badge. “I have pictures,” he said. “Proof I did the prerequisite. ” He held up his phone. Eager. Proud.

“Tell me about it,” I said. He did, walking through the process, the effort, the result. Then he waited for me to inspect the image.

“I don’t need it,” I said. “A Scout is Trustworthy. You are a Scout. I trust that you did it.”

He looked stunned. Then quiet. Then a kind of contentment. I could see it settle. His word matters.

Trust is not just a value. It’s the first condition of growth. To be trusted is to be seen, to be held to account, and to be believed capable of integrity. The Scout who is never trusted will never learn to be trustworthy.

When rules say he cannot walk alone, we are telling him that the world is unsafe. Worse, that he is a fundamentally bad person, a danger to others. When rules say no adult may speak with him in private, we are saying his mentors are threats. When rule-breaking becomes routine, it proclaims that honor is flexible. That violation is normal. That truth is a problem to avoid, not a virtue to uphold.

“Correcting bad habits cannot be done by forbidding or punishment.” — Baden-Powell

The camp has wifi, but only for staff. A Scout, while talking with the health officer, mentioned that he has wifi. Officer asked him, “How? You aren’t supposed to have the password.” He replied “So what?” “You should have respect.“ “What are they going to do, kick me out of Scouts?“

This is not Youth Protection. This is Trust Collapse by Policy. And its consequence is silent, systemic, and devastating. It replaces moral instruction with legal insulation. It replaces honor with optics. Trust with fear.