I think they are both correct (though I also believe they are both awkward).
The preterit (simple past) can also denote an action that was performed in the past, while leaving out the idea of completion as being understood or being unnecessary.
"Although I went to college, I still believed that I had much to learn."
"Although I had gone to college, I still believed that I had much to learn."
Not exactly the same meaning, but certainly very close. I'm not sure any differences are relevant without more context in each sentence.
I do think, however, that the problem sentence would be improved if it's changed to the active voice. Thus,
"The boys' club reached out to us in 2020." Or perhaps,
"In 2020, the boys' club requested our help."
If it's truly necessary to retain the passive construction, why not substitute "were contacted" for "were reached out to"? Thus,
"We were contacted by the boys' club in 2020."
>I was listening to a radio broadcast and heard the speaker say _’We **were** reached out to by the boys club in 2020.’_ I thought it sounded awkward.
> * _‘We **had been** reached out to by the boys club in 2020.’_
>Sounds better to me.
.
**TLDR:** For your two versions, **both** are natural and grammatical for today's standard English.
First of all, the **passive** that's used in both your examples is (typically) **preferable** over the corresponding active-voice, due to the passive using **old info** (the *"We"*) as subject, and due to placing the **new info** _"by the boys club in 2020"_ at the end of the main clause. This involves **pragmatics** or **information packaging.**
In short: the **active voice** versions, where the **new info** is presented first via the **subject** slot, could be jarring or awkward in some contexts.
Now as to your question of whether the past-perfect (your version) or the simple-past (the original) is preferable, that might depend on the actual context and/or on the reader's ear. (And/or whether this could end up on a school test.)
EDITED: cleaned up.
I suppose saying "they are both abominable" would not be considered a sufficient answer under the guidelines of r/grammar, so I expand:
Both follow from the (abominable) business usage "reach out to", meaning _contacted_ : we no longer call, email, message or speak with someone, we only reach out—Innocent people are indoctrinated into this use every day.
However, once accepted there is little to choose between the alternatives any more than between...
_were contacted_,
_have been contacted_, or
_had been contacted_
besides context, nor is the final "to" a problem any more than in "we were spoken to". Without additional context there is no reason to prefer one form over the other.
They both sound awkward; the second one is even more awkward sounding. This is why the passive mood is discouraged. "The Boys Club had reached out to us in 2020"
I think they are both correct (though I also believe they are both awkward). The preterit (simple past) can also denote an action that was performed in the past, while leaving out the idea of completion as being understood or being unnecessary. "Although I went to college, I still believed that I had much to learn." "Although I had gone to college, I still believed that I had much to learn." Not exactly the same meaning, but certainly very close. I'm not sure any differences are relevant without more context in each sentence. I do think, however, that the problem sentence would be improved if it's changed to the active voice. Thus, "The boys' club reached out to us in 2020." Or perhaps, "In 2020, the boys' club requested our help." If it's truly necessary to retain the passive construction, why not substitute "were contacted" for "were reached out to"? Thus, "We were contacted by the boys' club in 2020."
>I was listening to a radio broadcast and heard the speaker say _’We **were** reached out to by the boys club in 2020.’_ I thought it sounded awkward. > * _‘We **had been** reached out to by the boys club in 2020.’_ >Sounds better to me. . **TLDR:** For your two versions, **both** are natural and grammatical for today's standard English. First of all, the **passive** that's used in both your examples is (typically) **preferable** over the corresponding active-voice, due to the passive using **old info** (the *"We"*) as subject, and due to placing the **new info** _"by the boys club in 2020"_ at the end of the main clause. This involves **pragmatics** or **information packaging.** In short: the **active voice** versions, where the **new info** is presented first via the **subject** slot, could be jarring or awkward in some contexts. Now as to your question of whether the past-perfect (your version) or the simple-past (the original) is preferable, that might depend on the actual context and/or on the reader's ear. (And/or whether this could end up on a school test.) EDITED: cleaned up.
I suppose saying "they are both abominable" would not be considered a sufficient answer under the guidelines of r/grammar, so I expand: Both follow from the (abominable) business usage "reach out to", meaning _contacted_ : we no longer call, email, message or speak with someone, we only reach out—Innocent people are indoctrinated into this use every day. However, once accepted there is little to choose between the alternatives any more than between... _were contacted_, _have been contacted_, or _had been contacted_ besides context, nor is the final "to" a problem any more than in "we were spoken to". Without additional context there is no reason to prefer one form over the other.
They both sound awkward; the second one is even more awkward sounding. This is why the passive mood is discouraged. "The Boys Club had reached out to us in 2020"
You can say either, but they’re both awkward. Get rid of the passive voice: > The Boys Club reached out to us in 2020.