Navybone

4 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

And yet, BSA opted to do so. And then had to backtrack and issue an apology to the Law Enforcement explorer units.

So your issue is with BLM, got it.  But again, BLM does not equal diversity and the concepts behind it.  Even if BLM did not exist, there would still be a need to discuss diversity in this world.  BLM did not create the word or the idea of excluding people due to race, sex, sexual persuasion, socio-economic status, etc.  

8 hours ago, BQZip said:

That's completely false. If you have a scout/leader that, for example, repeatedly lies or is disruptive, we can remove them from scouting regardless of whether their actions were legal or illegal. You are attempting to conflate reasonably objecting to immoral behavior with illegal act

This is an example of what I was trying to address: Let’s say your faith does not support the concept of homosexuality and finds it immoral.  Homosexuality exists and is not illegal.  The scouts will experience someone who is homosexual, if they have not already.  The point I am trying to make is that these scouts will find themselves with a challenge, how do they reconcile this as they grow older?  What will they do if they end up working with a homosexual?  
 

8 hours ago, BQZip said:

The terminology used includes a plethora of loaded words/phrases by design. Example: Black Lives Matter. The problem is that there are (at least) 3 definitions. All 3 are used as it suits the speaker to promote their agenda:

Diversity does not equal Black Lives Matter.  One can discuss diversity, equity, and inclusion without discussing black lives matter.  The definition I used is from the dictionary.  
 

my point is that diversity and the idea that people of different races, religion, socio-economic backgrounds, etc, have value and should be included is not in of itself political.  

1 hour ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

0.  With a parent or guardian, explain how something can be legal, but still immoral, according to your faith.  Give to your parent or guardian an example of legal discrimination that is immoral, according to your faith.  Then, without help, and within five degrees, plot a magnetic course between two points on a topographic map.

Anyone want to add anything else?

I would only add that when discussing something that is legal, that while you can consider it immoral, it does not mean you can ostracize or otherwise exclude someone who does not agree with your assessment of that something being immoral. 

2 hours ago, Bowsprit said:

This is an inherently political discussion. If BSA doesn't want to have it they shouldn't be requiring a MB about it. The law and oath exemplify scouting enough, and apolitically, to get the message we all agree on across. DEI comes from one side of the political spectrum, the quality of the 'science' supporting it is on par with Eugenics, and we don't all agree it's a good thing or that it is even consistent with the law and oath. Hence this conversation.

“the practice or quality of including or involving people from a range of different social and ethnic backgrounds and of different genders, sexual orientations, etc.” 

this is political?  Really, that is what you think?  If you do, then this is a waste of time even trying to discuss it.  

8 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

No.

Advancement Chair is a committee position (Position Code 112 Unit Advancement Chair). No one can hold two positions in any unit EXCEPT the Chartered Organization Rep who can be both COR and on committee.

https://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2016/04/29/can-volunteer-serve-multiple-volunteer-roles/

EDIT: Here's the official rule
Registration Guidebook of the Boy Scouts of America

https://www.scouting.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Registration-Guidebook.pdf

 

This is the reason this forum is so useful, good solid experience and advice on how the Boy Scout program is run.   

2 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

Still no word on the requirements, but I was in an email exchange with my advancement chair and another person who will be the other MBC for this.

He's planning on using Prager U. and Ben Shapiro videos as well. As he put it, if the point is to "discuss" this stuff, showing a video that argues that a) institutional racism doesn't exist b) systematic racism doesn't exist and c) intersectionality = Marxism and asking scouts to discuss should work fine.

That, and a Blue Lives Matter vid (to counter BSA's Black Lives Matter endorsement)

I really don't think BSA is going to like how this is implemented in some places.

Well this is a wasted opportunity to have a non-political discussion about how some people are disadvantaged because racism exist in this country.  It’s an opportunity on how to recognize racism and step up and live up to the values of the Scout Law.  
my biggest concern is that the approach you are mention will make some scouts think the issue is a blue lives matter vs diversity and racism.  And it’s not.  There is a part of the population of this country who are disenfranchised based on they way they are engaged based on skin color, religion or maybe their sexual leanings.  This is an opportunity to prepare scouts for college and being an adult.  What a wasted opportunity.   

1 minute ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

No flaming or down votes.  Most of us feel a level of frustration with this.

I hope it isn't as ominous as it seems to be from this stop-start rollout.

i watched the video, did it seem ominous?

1 hour ago, fred8033 said:

Why would this badge have a different MBC vetting process?  I really, really hope this is not an issue.  

maybe because some leaders intend to  pencil whip (aka fake) the merit badge and disregard what BSA is trying to do. 

5 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Please read for comprehension.  It is vitally important in order to relate to others.

Wow. I guess civil discourse has truest gone the way of the dodo.  Please let me know what your preferred agreements are in favor of your position so I can just feed them to you.   

3 hours ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

"There are real problems with this agenda, however. The first is that it’s dangerous, in exactly the manner it is hypothetically designed to fight. The argument made by those who are truly prejudiced has always been that the differences between groups are so large that discrimination, isolation, segregation and even open conflict–including war and genocide–are necessary, for the safety of whatever group they are part of and are hypothetically protecting. Why is it any less risky for the argument to be made in the reverse manner? The claim that group-based differences are so important that they must take substantive priority during hiring and promotion merely risks validating the opposite claim."

https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/blog-posts/lie-of-diversity/ 

This merit badge is a poison that will kill off a portion of what remains of the Boy Scouts of America.

To state that this merit badge will kill of scouts is quite dramatic.  If scouts survives the child abuse, admitting homosexuals, and girls, this should not be the last chapter.

However, Jordan Peterson is only one voice in this discussion, and one with a very limited and pointed perspective.  He is the darling of of the conservatives in the media when discussing diversity.  And if we welcome his point of view, should we also then not include the opposite side of the conversation?  

16 hours ago, fred8033 said:

Because pushing this badge is offensive.

Without knowing what the definitions are of diversity, equity, inclusion, and bigotry,  you call this offensive.  Why?  Why are these principles offensive?  
 

or are there other specific parts of the draft requirements that are offensive?  

36 minutes ago, TAHAWK said:

So long as they are "different" in a policitcally correct way?  

 I propose that one be polite to everyone.  IS he or she "one"?  Be polite.  No mpore "education" required. 

Of course that;s naive.  It's impolite to shake hands or eat with the left hand to a traditional Muslim., or to look at their daughter's bare ankles.  Being reprectful turns out to be darned hard in a homogenious society.  I have an Ohio American Flag license plate and my car got keyed with a lrge "PIG" Wednesday in a parking lot.  Perhaps I made someone feel unsafe.  I shudder to think a sticker supprting my son who's a State cop would bring.  After all, "ACAB."

No "edit" link.

I agree that everyone should be polite, but we do not life in a utopia.  Look at politics now.  We have a general break downs in basic courtesies in this country. 

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

Because they view issues related to sexual morals as being entirely in the discretion of the parents? And that even MENTIONING the words "sexual orientation" or "gender identity" crosses that line.

But that is exactly why this is an important opportunity.  What should a scout do if he/she meets someone who is gay (and they will)? Ignore them, pretend they do not exist?   Pick on them, bully them?  Or maybe accept them as a person with a different view.  This is not about changing anyone’s mind, it’s accepting people for being different than them.  

4 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

I agree. But as noted elsewhere in this thread, there are at least two units (and I know my own committee chair, so there's a third possibly) who are looking at this as sex ed and therefore will be requesting a) waivers or b) that these portions get parental approval/instruction.

When Adults try to use this to to push one agenda or create obstacles to the MB being implemented, I can not help but wonder why. What do they have against the basic premise or Diversity and inclusion?  Not the liberal or conservative interpretation of the terms, but the idea of treating people fairly, with respect, with equality.  Maybe they also need to earn the MB. 

16 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

It depends.

First, these laws apply to public schools. Private organizations (like BSA, see Dale case) can require or not require sex ed.

Second, this all depends on whether you consider even MENTION of sexual orientation or gender identity as "sex education". Someone people will and will then insist that no MBC talk to their kids about sex education.

There is talking about someone’s sexual orientation or their gender identity sex Ed.  It’s not, this is about respecting their choices.  If the scout wants to learn more, then they need to talk to their parent.  

2 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

I also suspect that the MBCs involved will simply skip those items outright and go with the rest. Although Scenario  2 requires it be discussed

 

Kind of defeats the purpose.   

4 hours ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Also, how does this jive with the Scouter's Code of Conduct?

"6. I will not discuss or engage in any form of sexual conduct while engaged in Scouting activities. I will refer youth with questions regarding these topics to talk to their parents or spiritual advisor"

As a parent, I would not want anyone else talking to my kids about topics of sexual orientation and gender identity.  Our public schools don't even tread this ground... 

Which requirement includes discussing any form of sexual conduct or gender identity other than welcoming them or that generalizations or stereotypes are wrong?  

13 minutes ago, qwazse said:

 

These draft requirements disappoint because the people who I would like to counsel my scouts to for them might not feel like the material is relatable.

Interesting.  How so, when you say not relatable?  

7 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

This seems like a trivial merit badge to earn.  Basically you do:

• talk about some stuff around DEI - can probably be done in 30 minutes
• create and give a presentation - an hour maybe
• attend a local event - an hour or two depending on the event.

In the grand scheme of things, this seems pretty simple.

I do not think it is too hard, but that is OK.  the challenge will be how it is led.  If MB Counselors take a laissez faire or dismissive/negative tone while leading this, then it is not only a wasted opportunity, but could actually strengthen counter-DIE efforts.   

29 minutes ago, BQZip said:

That they aren't interested in feedback from PAYING members at large is more than a little disconcerting

Based on the comments on this site, I think BrianWylie1, who asked the question, was pretty clear in why they looked at a small group on how to implement the merit badge.  I would not assume that the leadership has not seen the response on sites like this and others.

On 11/27/2020 at 3:34 AM, Bowsprit said:

No, that's equality of opportunity. Equity is very different. I know this seems like splitting hairs, but it is important to properly define the key issue of topic if we're going to discuss it.

"The terms equality and equity are often used interchangeably; however, they differ in important ways. Equality is typically defined as treating everyone the same and giving everyone access to the same opportunities. Meanwhile, equity refers to proportional representation (by race, class, gender, etc.)"

It is in fact a Marxist idea, one that has become increasingly popular among people who don't know it is a Marxist idea because they think Equity is a synonym for Equality of opportuinity, the same way you do. Originally Marxism was all about class, but this grew to include any potentially divisive "identity" group in the 60's and 70's.

The allure of Marxism is that it sounds like everything people say they want, prosperity for all, fair treatment, etc. The effect of Marxism on a population, it turns out, is the exact opposite. But this appeal, being a natural human desire, is intentionally used to lead people in a Marxist direction without the Marxists typically telling those people where they are being led. You see, Lenin's tactics were effective enough to be used around the world and proven to be more effective the more ignorant a population was about Marxism, hence the common term Leninist-Marxist to describe those who use them.

That is one definition from a scholarly article. Not the normal definition by any means.  Another is the definition Ford uses when they discuss diversity, equity, and inclusion.  And Ford is not a Marxist company.

”Equity seeks to ensure fair treatment, equality of opportunity, and fairness in access to information and resources for all. We believe this is only possible in an environment built on respect and dignity.”

fair treatment, equal opportunity, and fairness are consistent with how BSA operates and the scout law and oath.  There is no reason to believe this definition is not consistent with the BSAs approach to equity.  There is nothing to suggest that the BSA would suddenly  adopt a Marxist philosophy regarding scouting.  

1 hour ago, Bowsprit said:

If this DEI badge is to teach these boys what DEI typically teaches we're talking about training derived from critical race theory.

There is nothing to indicate the CRT is what the badge will be based on. Maybe an open mind?  

4 hours ago, Bowsprit said:

 

Equity is the idea that everyone should get the same outcome regardless of their ability or effort.

In this context "Diversity" is not what you described. It is a justification for Equity and takes the form of disfavoring individuality, which is how we teach scouts to see other people - as unique individuals - and replaces that with a concept of group identity so that some groups are 'oppressors' and others 'oppressed', which in turn gives direction to Equity in the form of moving resources such as jobs or tax dollars from members of one group to another.

Inclusion is not about including everyone, it is about choosing who to exclude - namely anyone who disagrees that Equity is a good idea. Inclusion is also about ensuring that ideas which are not supported by sound principles (such as Equity and other things we wouldn't consider "morally straight") are allowed into the culture rather than excluded.

Ultimately these are Marxist ideas, and Marxism is hugely contentious, mostly because the last 100 years proved these ideas result in millions of dead people. That's not trivial, therefore neither are the concerns about it.

I do not even know where to start.  Equity is not the idea that everyone should get the same outcome.  Wherever you got your definition, it is a corruption of the idea of fairness and having an opportunity - as in everyone should have the same opportunity.  Same with your definition of inclusion and diversity.   

BSA has pretty much already articulated what their intent is and how it is absolutely inline with scouting.  There is nothing Marxist (or socialist, or communist).   And if BSA was turning  into a Marxist organization where everyone is made Eagle, I would think adding a new requirement might be the last thing they would do.  Don’t you think they would eliminate requirements....

1 hour ago, Bowsprit said:

Maybe you were being tongue in cheek. If not, are they supremacists because they are not being taught the DEI ideology or because someone is teaching them to be supremacists? Plenty of people who disagree with DEI who have not a shred of supremacist feelings in them, and plenty who think anyone who disagrees with the DEI package as commonly understood must by definition be a supremacist of some sort. And BSA want to insert themselves into this mess.

 

What part of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion would people disagree with?  They would disagree with the ideal of creating a culture that welcomes and respects diverse perspectives?   Do we not want Scouts to be an organization that creates a sense of belonging and builds communities where every person feels respected and valued?  Should scouts not denounces racism, discrimination, inequality and injustice? 

This is what BSA is saying when they talk about the principles behind the new Merit Badge.  And I would say that if a scout or a scouter does support all these principles, then they are not living up to the values of the Scout Law - Friendly, Curious, Kind, Brave.