Advancement Resources
Scouting ranks, merit bades, and the advancement programs
2426 topics in this forum
-
- 27 replies
- 8.6k views
-
- 20 replies
- 4.4k views
-
- 37 replies
- 7.4k views
-
- 13 replies
- 3.1k views
-
- 415 replies
- 62.7k views
-
- 11 replies
- 3k views
-
- 1 reply
- 2k views
-
- 68 replies
- 14.9k views
-
- 11 replies
- 3.2k views
-
- 6 replies
- 7.1k views
-
- 3 replies
- 2.3k views
-
- 13 replies
- 3.2k views
-
- 12 replies
- 2.7k views
-
- 68 replies
- 11.2k views
-
- 10 replies
- 2.8k views
-
LATEST POSTS
-
By BinTharDunThat · Posted
Concur and withdraw my conclusion. (Wish I could edit above, but so be it). As you noted, per Jeremy Castleberry, "the council offered to a a boys only also.. But the idea lacked interest from boys only troops." Therefore no argument can be made that this is a problem as the non-elected group chose not to have a like event. -
If you read the comments on the facebook site, the council did offer a boys-only version, but there was not enough interest. If true, then there is no issue here, huh? -
Iteration is the number of events occurring of the same type. Normally one reviews what happens and make changes for the next event with an eye toward improving. I think you are creating a strawman. The event doesn't address any of the concerns you bring up. Frankly, it create more friction by identifying girls as special members rather than equal members. If this was something like the Catholic Camporee in that it is hosted by the Catholic Committee on Scouting and the Knights of Columbus are cooking a dinner and a breakfast for the participants, but it is open to all Scouts, then I would have no issue. If the girl troops want to host a camporee for all the Scouts in the council and staff the stations, cool, but I'm 90% sure that is not what is happening here. -
By BinTharDunThat · Posted
A Council-sponsored exclusionary event raises red flags. Perhaps those issues were addressed in the Council before announcing this program. Any program in Scouting which explicitly excludes a portion of the membership should be scrutinized (not necessarily barred). There are a few questions which must all be answered "yes" to establish this is consistent with Scouting values 1) "Is the exclusion of a portion of the BSA programs consistent with the Guide to Safe Scouting?" (So, only Cubs, AOLs and Scouts, Cubs and Scouts doing Cub stuff, only Scouts doing Scout-age stuff, only Crews doing Crew approved stuff (such as hunting). This seems to meet that criteria. 2) "Does this increase recruiting and/or retention?" Arguably yes, because it provides tighter re-enforcement of retention. It might also provide an avenue for AOL (girls) to attend and observe folks just like them. 3) "Is the Council providing a like program for those being excluded?" Equal programming for all is critical. I'm in favor of a campout for any group so long as other groups can likewise do so (Catholic Campout means campout for any and all other religions as well). Here, I doubt Council is providing a male-only Council-wide Camporee. In light of Item 3, this female-only campout by the Council is a fail for DEI. Alternative - what if one Troop (G) wanted to host a few other Troops (not nearly every other Troop in the Council or in the District) in a patrol competition? (I recognize this rises to a District-level program because of multiple CORs). Then, yes, totally permissible because its a Troop-run activity. -
That would be entirely logical. The position largely invalidates the perspective.
-
-
Who's Online (See full list)