Recent advisories from the Department of Defense urging organizations to reduce certain diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives or face potential loss of federal funding have put many groups in a difficult situation. If they comply, they risk alienating a portion of their supporters. On the other hand, if they resist, they may continue to struggle with dwindling resources, especially when finances and membership are tight.
However, Scouting America’s challenges point to a deeper, more systemic issue that transcends any single policy matter.
When groups tasked with shaping young minds allow their core values to shift in response to cultural or political pressure, they risk losing their moral authority—and in turn, the trust of the youth they serve. Effective character development demands moral stability; it cannot thrive on constant change.
Historically, Scouting was not primarily a political organization. It had a clear mission: to guide boys toward becoming responsible, principled individuals with qualities like courage and self-control. Though there have always been dissenting voices, the primary goals remained stable enough to endure changes in leadership, cultural climates, and societal views.
That stability, however, has eroded.
In the last ten years, Scouting America has frequently updated its policies to sync with shifting cultural norms, impacting everything from leadership standards to how young people are encouraged to understand their own identities. Each of these changes was framed as necessary for relevance, but collectively, they expose the organization to the political pressures it now faces, which call for more adjustments.
The issue isn’t adaptation itself. The real question is what happens to character development when core moral standards seem negotiable.
If young people learn that their foundational beliefs can be swayed by external forces, it doesn’t foster character. True character is grounded in something solid. When institutions show uncertainty about essential principles, they compromise the very development they claim to promote.
Organizations built primarily on the idea of adaptability tend to struggle over time. Values can become fragile when tightly linked to the whims of a particular moment. When the moment changes, organizations are left to either pivot again or defend their latest stance. Either way, trust diminishes.
Younger generations are often more attuned to this reality than adults realize. Perhaps they intuitively grasp that building on shaky ground is unwise. The wise person, after all, builds their foundation on rock. Formation relies on consistent leaders and organizations.
In my role at Trail Life USA, I’ve witnessed how astute young boys can be regarding the authenticity of the adults and groups around them. When standards shift regularly—when moral guidance feels provisional—it erodes trust. Genuine formation demands more than just good intentions; it requires consistency.
This could help explain why many young people gravitate toward traditional sources of meaning, like churches, classical literature, history, craftsmanship, and communities that emphasize stability over constant change. They seek not novelty but certainty—something that won’t shift with each new election cycle.
This doesn’t imply a blanket rejection of change or an ignorance of social dynamics. It does mean acknowledging an essential truth: one cannot teach responsibility while modeling uncertainty about core beliefs. You can’t nurture convictions while suggesting they are temporary.
The same holds for discussions on gender and differences. Regardless of societal or cultural beliefs, developmental and cognitive differences between boys and girls are evident and consistent across cultures. Dismissing these differences as irrelevant doesn’t foster freedom; it breeds confusion.
I often emphasize the importance of certain truths because these truths are consistent and unwavering. They were true yesterday, today, and will be tomorrow. While governments and cultural moods fluctuate, fundamental truths remain constant.
Boys need challenges and a sense of purpose. If they are to mature into trustworthy individuals, they require adults and organizations committed to unchanging truths, standing firm even as external winds shift.
Scouting America’s current challenges expand beyond financial concerns. This situation is a predictable result of an organization that has gradually yielded its moral direction to a shifting cultural landscape—only to find that consensus is now fractured.
The lessons here extend far beyond Scouting. Any organization responsible for nurturing the next generation should heed this warning. Fluctuating values do not cultivate open-mindedness in young people; they leave them adrift. When leadership lacks conviction, it doesn’t create a void—rather, it fills it with cynicism, confusion, and apathy.
This situation is detrimental for boys, for the organizations designed to support them, and for a society that relies on adults who are certain about their principles and their reasons for standing by them.
