CynicalScouter

1 hour ago, ParkMan said:

I'm sorry to hear about the impact of this badge on LEO.  In prior discussions on this, I had not recognized that law enforcement officers were feeling offended by the badge itself.  Yes, I can understand that.  

The Explorers program had to issue a "we didn't really mean it" email to LEO Explorer posts after BSA National's Black Lives Matter letter.

29 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

But there is:

• In the Webelos level there is a Duty to God adventure.
• At the Bear level there is a Fellowship and Duty to God adventure
• At the Wolf level there is a Duty to God Footsteps adventure
• At the Tiger level there is Tiger Circles: Duty to Good 
• At the Arrow of Light level there is Arrow of Light Adventure: Duty to God in Action
• It's well known that at Eagle Boards candidates often are asked how they demonstrate their Duty to God.  Further, they are required to submit a letter of recommendation from a faith leader or parent that supports that.

 

Every single one of these are between a) the scout and their parent b) the scout and their religious leader c) both. The checkoff/approval is by the parent or the religious leader (OR for the religious awards, a mentor/instructor approved by that faith/denomination).

This however allows a Lutheran MBC to instruct and sign off on the Catholic scout and his/her's views on inclusive as they relate to gender identity and sexual orientation. And if the Lutheran thinks the Catholic Church's teachings on women priests and and sexual orientation are stupid? No sign off.

Putting aside that these conversations should be happening parent to scout (or parent to religious leader), many religious denominations provide that only those ordained or under the supervision of someone ordained my offer moral instruction.

This is BEYOND driving a wedge between the scout and parent, this is now a wedge between the scout and their religion.

When is enough, enough?

43 minutes ago, qwazse said:

How is it that counselors "injecting their own biases" is a problem here, but not for any of the other MBs? As I mentioned in other threads, MBC's are, by definition, selected because they have a "bias" in favor of the skill being taught. We literally want our youth to meet people outside of scouting so that they discover what and how they can learn stuff form folks who are not their SMs.

There's a reason why at the Cub Scout level the Duty to God related adventures and at Scouts, BSA the Family Life merit badge explicitly provide for the PARENTS to certify/sign off.

Because while I would be hard pressed to find a religious or moral objection to using two half hitches vs. a taut line hitch, I absolutely know and can identify families and major religious denominations in the U.S. that religious or moral objections to how "inclusive" we as a national are regarding sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity.

Case in point: I honestly have no idea how a unit with a Catholic CO can work with this merit badge given that the MBC will have to condemn the Church's views on same sex marriage and the role of women in the Church as not being "inclusive".

5 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Lol...then someone is asleep at their "narrative steering wheel". It's been there since June.

They locked, archived, and unlisted that thread to hide it.

19 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

@CynicalScouter, I begin to see a way through this... I sign up as a Merit Badge Counselor for this badge.  I ask the parents to discuss all these topics and do any items with their Scout.  When they tell me it is complete, I sign off the badge.  I think I could do that ethically.  A Scout is Trustworthy!

Isn't that exactly what happens with Family Life Requirement #6 anyway and the required family meeting (I am not a MBC for that)?

11 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Please help me understand which rule this violated?

I am going to bet this rule.

Quote

Posted videos, images, and links must pertain to the original post and respectfully move the discussion forward. Failure to do so may result in deletion or editing of the post, and in egregious or repeated instances, may result in a warning to the member.

12 minutes ago, Owls_are_cool said:

MBC lists: I like how scoutbook makes a council's list publicly available to all units. The problem is that the list is not updated constantly (as applications are approved). Anyway, that is how it appears to me, so I could be wrong. I think the application process should be done on scoutbook and approved by the council in scoutbook.

The plan is that by March 2021 Scoutbook will automatically update with whatever is approved by your Council (or within a few hours) in terms of applications.

The problem is that Scoutbook was designed to be a unit level tool. MBCs are technically district positions. That has required a good amount of overhauling. Where the MBC is in the same unit as the scout, that was easy. But of the MBC is from the troop next door (or with virtual merit badges) a state away, that was a problem.

The other problem was units were putting in MBCs and not sending applications/paperwork to Council OR keeping those items up to date. The power of units to add MBCs was taken away; from now on only the Council approved list will be in scoutbook.

This was the announcement and details

https://discussions.scouting.org/t/september-21-2020-scoutbook-updates-merit-badge-counselors/184960

3 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Because subversion and deceit go against the Scout Oath and Law, and my own personal code of ethics.

Got it. Ok, that makes sense.

2 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Because of the inherent political agenda of the entire enterprise, and the misguided intent with which it has been established.

OK, but the scouts are going to be forced to take this MB (well, at least those seeking Eagle). And that's in addition to the forthcoming rank requirements concerning DE&I which national has said are coming.

If you are worried, why not try and lessen it? Or pencilwhip the scouts through?

The massive, massive backpedaling from National continues.

Since the leak of the documents on Facebook, National is getting the FB and Reddit groups to lock down and/or delete posts and denying that the requirements are real.

6 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

I would never in a million take this merit badge on as a counselor

Why? In all seriousness, this merit badge will happen. If you are concerned, then why not become your unit's MBC for it so you can approve it in a way you are comfortable with, including that video?

Or if you truly object to the merit badge, pencilwhip the scouts through it and be done with it?

3 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

This is the video I would share as a MBC:

You realize you'd immediately be bounced as a MBC, right?

2 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Discusses DE&I requirements and says they are already approved.

So much for the "it's just a draft".

27 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

One of the Scouting FB groups that had these requirements posted, took down the post and 153 (last time I looked) comments down and is asking folks to report anyone who does post them.

This is what happens when you only circulate for comment to SEs for input.

They are backtracking as fast as they can.

27 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

And considering that the requirements have not been approved 11 days before go live

This for me is the biggest shock (although I shouldn't be shocked). 10 days to launch. Middle of the Christmas/New Year weeks. And nothing is out yet? And they think they can ram and jam something fast enough?

I'm sure they can, but it will be a mess.

9 hours ago, 1980Scouter said:

The SE makes $165k and another employee over $100k. These salaries and number of employees are excessive.

Welcome.

Without knowing what Council we are talking about, it is hard to say if $165k is or is not "excessive".

As I noted here, the non-profit standard is 1%-10% of all expenditures = CEO salary.

Thus if you Council's annual expenditures are $1.65 million or greater, then $165k for the a SE is within the realm of standard.

2 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Where was that one?  Do you have a link?  All we saw was this...

https://scoutingwire.org/bsas-commitment-to-act-against-racial-injustice/

It circulated as an email.

I found it here from a Council website https://etac.ihubapp.org/posts/54906/important-message-from-the-national-director-of-exploring

31 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

And it is not just racists who have issues with the DEI MB. We have lost some Scouts who families are LEOs because of national's BLM statement

I recall that after that BSA National statement came out that the Exploring program had to come out with a "we didn't really mean it" statement or else lose their LEO Explorer posts.

https://etac.ihubapp.org/posts/54906/important-message-from-the-national-director-of-exploring

51 minutes ago, Navybone said:

But that is exactly why this is an important opportunity.

Yes. And I am also saying that you are going to get SM and parent push back on the idea that this is a merit badge that teaches sex ed. I'm not saying it is right. I am saying WE HAVE ALREADY SEEN THE PUSH BACK.

3 minutes ago, Navybone said:

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.

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.

6 minutes ago, Navybone said:

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.  

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.

10 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Thanks, @CynicalScouter!  This crucial piece hadn't even crossed my thoughts...

Wonder if the MB writers and those who will make the final decision to promulgate will consider the wide body of state law??  Or will they push something and have it blow up in their faces?? 

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.

This is a list of states that allow for parents to opt in/opt out their children from sex education in public schools.

I suspect there will be a push to have a similar opt-in/opt-out for scouts.

https://siecus.org/resources/opt-in-vs-opt-out-state-sex-ed-parental-consent-policies

•34 states + DC: Opt-Out

•4 states: Opt-In

•2 states: Both Opt-In & Opt-Out

•10 states: No Opt-In or Opt-Out

15 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

I am fine discussing that this is a topic that involves some politics, but let's leave our own personal politics out of this. 

That is never going to happen for three reasons:

1) There mere statement of these terms is a political statement. There's no neutral. There is no "personal politics". If you use the term, you've endorsed that it is a debatable point. To many, that's not true (they don't believe gender identity exists or the institutional racism exists).

2) It is going to raise a giant conflict with COs. Imaging being a unit chartered with a Catholic Church. "Sure, we have to be inclusive, but women will never be priests." "Sure, we shouldn't discriminate, but this Catholic-chartered unit will never, ever have an openly gay leader, ever.")

And that's "Easy". Again, the mere MENTION of sexual orientation and/or gender identity runs count to tenets of some CO's.

3) The parents are going to rebel on this. I can absolutely assure you they will. And they won't charge the parapets at national or even at council. They will simply let it be known to the SM or the MBC (or both) that they are no happy and the MBC will be sure to skip that part of the merit badge.

This is designed to fail