Bowsprit

This I agree with you on. It is only partially a cost problem, with rising tuition but programs heavily geared to assist racial minorities, and to a lesser extent low income whites. It is hard for a person who spent their youth in an apathetic, underfunded school, in a high crime area where getting through the day unscathed is more top of mind that getting good grades, to decide it might be better in college. Regarding DEI, more talking about this helps nobody. Been doing that for 50 years, with minimal results. This is an action item for localities.

Remimds me of another metric or two. Boys and young men are measurably less interested in dating than they ever used to be. And not by a little bit. Girls are increasingly frustrated with the difficulty in finding a respectful and responsible boy to date. They seem to have the most consistent luck... at all boys schools. That's from Dr. Leonard Sax

No, but your enrollment numbers tell the same story. That's a 9 percent gap, before actually doing any higher schooling. It was 50/50 for a long time, and heavily weighted male prior to that for well known reasons of cultural disuasion for girls to attend college.

You are not going to convince me with cherry picked stats like raw numbers, esp. when the population itself has grown considerably... And ultimately there remains a 60:40 graduation gap favoring females that relates more to the question at hand than simply saying "more boys than ever attend college". Where raw numbers do count is number of suicides. Girl suicide growth is associated with social media addiction, not school. Boy suicide growth is associated with feelings of disenfranchisement in the world at large, which comes from cultural shifts that present themselves most accutely to th

To be sure, there is a link between widespread racism in the past and the poverty of non-whites, specifically in the US. There is also racism now, but seems to be attributed to "them" and "they" and "the system" etc. rather than specific culprits, such as specific public officials making specific laws targetted at specific groups , well studied and known to cause economic degeneration. But that isn't included in DEI.

I respectfully disagree, based on many metrics, including the current success rates of boys vs girls in school at all ages, the 60:40 college graduation rate favoring females, and the disproportionately higher rate of suicide for boys. I also don't believe the "short" camping period has a relationship with the retention quality of what is being taught at those camps.

Yes. Absolutely. There is significant data showing both genders benefit from gender specific teaching styles, because both genders mature different areas of personality and cognitive ability at different rates. For example, boys frequently fall behind in elementary school because they tend to have a more active, physical learning style early in life and do not do as well as girls sitting in a chair for 5 hours a day. Girls learn high school science just as well as boys, but tend to have poorer grades when the teaching style is boy centric, ie "If you shoot a bullet at 1200 fps..." vs "You and

No, you don't "got it". You're not understanding what we're explaining at all. After you chill try reading again and think about it.

That's not it at all. The concept that belief does not necessarily equate to reality is pretty sound. While half the people I was talking about believe eeoc hurts their chances of getting a job, half the people believe it does not hirt their prospects. If we flip the "ringing endorsement" statement we can jist as easily say half the people believeing it doesn't hurt their chances is a ringing endorsement that systemic racism doesn't exist. All we are saying is that perception doesn't necessarily make a thing true. If it did my wife would always be right... Oh wait nevermind.

You are both correct, and not talking about the same thing.

It's a ringing endorsement that people believe it exists, and IMHO it does (I won't get into who is largely responsible for creating it - separate topic), but is not an endorsement that it *does* exist.

Imagine if Apple had to sell THEIR product according to ethnicity and gender quotas. They would have to adjust prices based on race and gender of the consumer to make it happen. Last I checked that was 100% illegal.

I read somehwere that around 50% of African Americans choose not to self identify with the belief it hurts their chances for employment. I've spoken with a few AA friends about this too and they, being a very small sample, confirm this is likely true. I don't know if it hurts their chances for employment or not, but this data is supposed to be helpful and a large number of the people it is supposedly helping feel it is harmful. Maybe the knee jerk sledgehammer approach to problem solving doesn't work well on complicated, delicate problems. DEI is in general much more sledgehammery than EEOC. T

I accept your declaration of intent at face value, but you still have not specified what is "vile". Your further comments indicate you find the conversation worthwhile after all, so I'm glad you apparently see it that way.

Ok, then who's making vile comments? You painted the whole conversation with that brush. I can tell you for certain that people not coming together and having this conversation can't change anything. Shutting down the conversation because you don't see the value isn't very scouty. We're teaching kids to think and lead not be silently accepting of whatever the world throws at them. In short, your comment was pessimistic and dismissive, hence you coming across as righteous.

No, you are getting downvoted for resorting to name calling and insisting we don't get to be skeptical about DEI training. In effect, you're trying to shut dow the conversation and declare your position indisputably righteous.

Well put position. Here is the hook about DEI that gets peoples' attention. Zero posters on this thread, regardless of their position on this issue, are coming across as racist or sexist to me. Yet, as I read through these comments, especially from certain commentors, there is a clear implied accusation that those of us against DEI training must be racist, despite a complete lack of any evidence to the effect. This is attempted bullying from the people who are telling us we all need to stop being bullies. Outside this forum, which is thankfully mostly respectful, the accusations are much

I'm not going in circles with you about this. If you don't want to discuss it stop discussing it.

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.

Generally BSA seems to have done well in determining merit badges. Some people have said the requirements have been nerfed over time, that wouldn't suprise me. It's hard to compete on a basis of hard work in a culture that prizes instant gratification. Yet providing opportunities and direction for becoming a principled human being is what scouts are supposed to be about. Hence the disagreement about this specific badge and the greater concern over the direction of BSA in general. If it isn't going to provide the expected value, and continue its slow morphing into merely another vessel for prop

You make a good argument with that Ford quote, however with Ford and BSA both adopting a stance that supports BLM's (the organization) narrative, and with BLM being an openly Marxist organization, I do not find that argument compelling.

Hence why I said we need to wait and see, with the caveat that I am not optimistic about it.

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

That's exactly right, total, 100% agreement. 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 solid psychological evidence that CRT exaserbates racism and creates it where none previously existed. Of course we'll wait and see if this is the case with the MB, but with who is running BSA and the direction the org is going I'm not optimistic that it will be something different. Parents who don't want their kids going in certain neighborhoods may have other reasons besides race for making such rules. C

That's a good and relevant question. You address the ideas of what divesity and inclusion are supposed to be, bit not Equity and how D and I support it in the context it is given. Equity is the idea that everyone should get the same outcome regardless of their ability or effort. This is completely counter to equality of opportunity, as well as not possible to accomplish. For example, does BSA now give every kid an Eagle regardless of the effort they put in? No, and if they start the Eagle becomes valueless. In this context "Diversity" is not what you described. It is a justification