The Shoulder Tap Contradiction: When Youth Protection Becomes Orwellian

How can ritualistic taps between consenting team members be banned as “Youth Protection violations,” while mandating unauthorized physical contact with candidates is considered acceptable?

The Shoulder Tap Question: A Call for Consistency and Restoration

National leadership must restore traditional ceremonial practices wrongly prohibited, and to withdraw proposed changes that contradict their own stated standards, including Barriers to Abuse.

Required Changes

1. Restore the traditional shoulder taps between ceremonial officers

2. Withdraw the proposed “Admonition” ceremony requiring physical contact with candidates and each other

3. Commit to keeping the Admonition as it has always been: whispered reverently

These aren’t unreasonable requests. They’re calls for consistency, for adherence to the principles National itself has established, and for preserving practices that have served the Order well for generations.

Background: The Traditional Shoulder Taps

For many decades, OA ceremonies included ritualistic shoulder taps exchanged between ceremonial officers. This was part of the traditional fraternal format where candidates are blocked by each officer in turn:

How it worked:

  • The Guide would tap each officer’s left shoulder three times (symbolizing the three points of the Scout Oath)
  • The officer would respond by tapping the Guide’s shoulder once, then twice (representing the twelve points of the Scout Law: 1+2=12)
  • These taps occurred between trained ceremonial team members who practiced together
  • All participants understood and consented to this traditional practice
  • The teams worked under adult leadership with opportunity to address any concerns

What happened: Over a decade ago, National determined these shoulder taps violated Barriers to Abuse policies. Lodges were instructed to eliminate them. Many lodges replaced the taps with drum beats, though this required additional training and coordination, and weakened the symbolic interaction between officers.

We accepted this guidance at the time, though many questioned whether consensual, symbolic touches between trained team members truly violated any reasonable interpretation of Barriers to Abuse.

The Contradiction: New Required Shoulder Contact

Now National proposes an “Admonition” ceremony that includes this instruction:

“One member comes before another member face to face and places the right hand on the other’s shoulder.”

Let’s be clear about what this means:

  • This is the same shoulder contact that was prohibited when it occurred between consenting, trained team members
  • Now it’s required between members who may not know each other
  • It occurs during daytime activities, not even during the solemn evening ceremony
  • No consent is obtained beforehand from either party
  • There’s no assessment of individual comfort levels with physical touch
  • The person placing their hand does not know the other’s trauma history or sensitivities

The obvious question:

If shoulder taps between trained, consenting ceremonial team members violated Barriers to Abuse, how can required shoulder contact with candidates possibly be acceptable?

Why This Matters

This isn’t about being difficult or resistant to change. This is about consistency and principle.

Either physical contact in ceremonies is problematic, or it isn’t.

If it is problematic, then:

  • The ban on traditional shoulder taps was justified
  • The new required shoulder contact must be withdrawn

If it is not problematic, then:

  • The ban on traditional shoulder taps was unjustified overreach
  • The traditional practice should be restored

National cannot have it both ways.

We Must

1. Restore the Traditional Shoulder Taps

The ban was wrong. The traditional shoulder taps between ceremonial officers:

  • Carried deep symbolic meaning (Scout Oath and Law)
  • Occurred between consenting, trained team members
  • Were practiced under adult supervision
  • Were part of the traditional fraternal ceremony structure
  • Never posed any genuine threat to youth safety

Action required: Remove the prohibition. Allow lodges to restore this meaningful traditional practice.

2. Withdraw the Proposed “Admonition” Ceremony

The new ceremony is problematic for multiple reasons, but the required physical contact is particularly concerning:

  • It contradicts the stated rationale for banning traditional shoulder taps
  • It imposes unwanted physical contact on participants
  • It occurs in a non-ceremonial context (daytime activities)
  • It creates genuine Barriers to Abuse concerns that didn’t exist in the traditional practice

Action required: Withdraw this proposed ceremony entirely.

3. Preserve the Traditional Whispered Admonition

The Admonition has always been part of the Pre-Ordeal ceremony. It has always been whispered reverently in the candidate’s ear. This traditional practice:

  • Maintains the solemnity and mystery appropriate to the moment
  • Respects the candidate’s space and dignity
  • Transmits the core principle privately and powerfully
  • Has worked successfully for generations

Action required: Commit publicly that the Admonition will remain in its traditional form—whispered, not performed as a face-to-face ritual

4. Maintain the Lenape Word for the Admonition

The Admonition has always been spoken in Lenape, the language of the people on whose cultural respect the Order of the Arrow was founded. This word:

  • Honors the Native American heritage that shaped our Order
  • Connects us to E. Urner Goodman’s original vision of cross-cultural respect
  • Represents genuine cultural appreciation, not appropriation
  • Has been treasured by generations of Arrowmen

The concern: National has systematically removed Native American words from proposed ceremonies, claiming this constitutes “cultural appropriation.”

Let’s examine this logic:

If using Native American words is cultural appropriation, then:

  • 25 of our 50 states have Native American names (including Massachusetts, Connecticut, Mississippi, Alabama, and many others). Should we rename them?
  • Thousands of cities, rivers, and landmarks carry Native American names. Cultural appropriation?
  • The word “Elangomat” which I created decades ago to describe a meaningful mentoring role, must be eliminated because it’s Lenape. Does my lack of Lenape ancestry make this word off-limits?
  • By this logic, I cannot use words like “marinara” or “spaghetti” because I have no Italian blood. No one can say “kindergarten” unless they’re German. “Safari” is reserved for Swahili speakers only.

The deeper question: Isn’t it actually racist to say that only people of particular ethnicities can use certain words?

The reality: The Order of the Arrow was founded on cross-cultural respect and appreciation. E. Urner Goodman chose to honor Native American culture, not exploit it. When we use Lenape words reverently, we’re continuing that tradition of respect.

The irony: An organization founded on honoring Native American culture is now erasing that heritage to avoid giving “offense” – offense that, notably, seems to exist primarily in the minds of National leadership, not among the Native Americans or Arrowmen who have cherished these traditions for a century.

When we welcome foreign Scouts to our camps, we’re delighted by the strangeness of their uniforms and accents. That wonder at the universality of Scouting doesn’t require us to abandon who we are. Neither does genuine respect for Native American culture require erasing Native words from our ceremonies.

Action required: Commit publicly that the Admonition will continue to be spoken in its traditional Lenape form, and explain the principle that allows this while simultaneously prohibiting other Native American words throughout OA ceremonies.

The Test of Leadership

Good leadership admits mistakes and corrects them.

The shoulder tap ban was a mistake. It took something meaningful and replaced it with something awkward, all while claiming to protect youth from a threat that didn’t exist.

The proposed Admonition ceremony compounds that mistake. It requires the very physical contact that was supposedly problematic, but in a context where consent and comfort are even less certain.

We’re asking National leadership to:

  • Acknowledge the contradiction
  • Restore what was wrongly taken
  • Withdraw what shouldn’t have been proposed
  • Return to consistent, principled decision-making

Questions That Deserve Answers

  1. What Barriers to Abuse principle distinguishes prohibited shoulder taps (between consenting team members) from required shoulder contact (with candidates)?
  2. Who reviewed the proposed Admonition ceremony for Barriers to Abuse compliance, and how did this requirement get approved?
  3. Will National acknowledge that if the new shoulder contact is acceptable, then the traditional shoulder taps should never have been banned?
  4. What process will National implement to prevent such contradictory policies in the future?
  5. When will National restore the traditional practices and withdraw the problematic proposals?

A Clear Path Forward

This isn’t complicated:

Step 1: Admit the shoulder tap ban was unjustified overreach

Step 2: Restore the traditional shoulder taps between ceremonial officers

Step 3: Withdraw the proposed “Admonition” ceremony with its required physical contact

Step 4: Commit to preserving the traditional whispered Admonition in its Lenape form

Step 5: Establish clear, consistent principles for future ceremony changes

The Order of the Arrow deserves better than contradictory policies that dismantle traditions while claiming to improve them.

What You Can Do

Lodge leaders and advisers:

  • Raise these questions with your Section and Region leadership
  • Advocate for restoration of traditional practices
  • Resist implementation of contradictory proposals

Ceremonial team members and Elangomats:

  • Share your concerns about these changes with your lodge leadership
  • Document how the traditional practices served the program well
  • Speak up for preserving what works

All Arrowmen:

  • Make your voice heard through appropriate channels
  • Support those who are advocating for traditional practices
  • Remember that the Order belongs to all of us, not just to current National leadership

National leadership: The ball is in your court. Restore what you wrongly took. Withdraw what you wrongly proposed. Return to principled, consistent leadership.

The Order of the Arrow—and the generations of Arrowmen who built it—deserve nothing less.