Jump to content

Update on new Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion MB


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, CynicalScouter said:

Yep. And any peer reviewed research that shows racism doesn't exist is fake news. Made up. Hoax.

Got it. No, I'm clear on your concept. African Americans and others only "believe" there is racism. There's no racism! Fake news! Hoax!

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.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 299
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I have major issues with BSA actively entering the political arena.  By mentioning B. Taylor, they have gone way beyond selling war bonds and into anti-police propaganda.  That is something that they

Likewise. Which is all I'm looking for. But by the chosen phrasing, I fear that this is NOT what we are seeing. If "white privilege"/"check your privilege" or "systemic racism" is brought up

Let's start with the "equity" portion. Equity is an impossible goal to achieve. No matter how we strive we will never achieve equal outcomes. The goal of "equity" is a myth, an impossible achieveme

Posted Images

1 minute ago, Owls_are_cool said:

Current JTE is a good start, but could use refinement as others noted. What is the process to update the JTE nationally?

You would need to start by getting your Council Executive on board to complain to National.  There is a group of people at National that look at it every year and decide on changes.  If you know the person at National that is in charge of the program for the part of scouting you practice, you could email them.  I know the Sea Scouting and Venturing person.  We have talked in person and on Zoom, and agreed to disagree on some issues and agree on others.  Change is slow at BSA.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Bowsprit said:

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.

No, I got it. I am now convinced. There's no racism. African Americans only have that as a "belief". It isn't true! Fake news!

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Owls_are_cool said:

Current JTE is a good start, but could use refinement as others noted. What is the process to update the JTE nationally?

1ST:  measure the things that BSA no longer cares about enough to actually do anything to promote them -"Scouting," esp, but not exclusively, the two most important official BSA "methods" long neglected:  Patrol Method; outdoor program.

2nd: have any competent person(s) assign points to things that should be measured to reflect progress to adequacy, which is a distant goal at present.  Opinions may legitimately differ as to alocation pf points

The following are not asigned points in JTE: but should be:

- patrol and troop leaders democratically elected by the Scouts;

- significant, separate, active patrol program, including outdoor program; led by respective PLs;

- instruction of skills and for advancement primarily in the patrol context;

- advancement requirements passed in the first instance primarily in the patrol context;

- every patrol member appointed by respective PL to a functioning job;

- Scouts democratically planning the program of the patrols and troop, not just being "involved" in some unspecified way; 

- SPL leading the troop-level program and the planning thereof.; and

- active troop outdoor program, including one long term camp, that may, but need not, include camping at council or BSA camps.  For troops not camping at all at pesent, and I know of several, goal for initial recognition level needs to be modest.

 

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

Of course, research has shown that just having an African-American sounding NAME or other indicator that the person is an African American leads to fewer job interviews.

Yes, I saw that study...and the results were horrible.  But that is not systemic racism.  It does show pervasive racism, which I would agree exists.  But you have to identify those companies, call them out, fire the interview screeners who did it.  Sue them for violating your civil (human) rights for triple the damages...hit em where it hurts.

Also, you might want to clarify...this study identified several different types of ethnic sounding names that generated fewer call backs.  It was not just about African Americans.

 

Edited by InquisitiveScouter
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

But that is not systemic racism.  It does show pervasive racism, which I would agree exists

What's the distinction between the two in your mind? Systemic vs. pervasive? Since the draft merit badge requirements had a requirement that scouts define these terms, I'm curious what the distinction is?

Edited by CynicalScouter
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

What's the distinction between the two in your mind? Systemic vs. pervasive? Since the draft merit badge requirements had a requirement that scouts define these terms, I'm curious what the distinction is?

Systemic racism holds that our societal and governmental structures are all synergistically designed to be racist.  (But you will find other varying definitions, which is why putting this term in a merit badge is bad news right now. ) It is still a "neologism."

Here's an opinion piece (some of which I disagree with, btw) from USA Today recently

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/09/23/systemic-racism-how-really-define-column/5845788002/

For example, saying that our all our schools, language,  justice system, etc. is racist...combined in toto.  That is, our whole societal and cultural structure is designed to target purple people for persecution.  I find no proof of this.

When I say pervasive racism, I mean that widespread individuals, people from different cultural backgrounds, use their power or influence to deny opportunities to people who are not like them.  I do not deny that this exists.  The resume study you cite is evidence of this.  But it is a cultural issue, not a systemic or institutional one.

Institutional racism should be charged to a specific institution, like the school system only, or to a corporation.  For example, say the corporate board at XYZ, Inc, and the senior executive leadership created a climate of racism and instructed their hiring department to "be more careful when selecting ethnic sounding names for interviews", I would call that institutional racism.  Again, definitions vary widely.

In this piece, written last Feb, the author equates the two.

https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-systemic-racism-and-institutional-racism-131152

If society on the whole is confused about these terms, how can we clarify them for Scouts??

People in the sphere of public and corporate organizations who engage in racist practices should have consequences for their behavior.  If it can be proven, consequences do already exist in our laws.

If you are a private racist, then fear, sarcasm, ridicule, and ostracism are our collective tools to address and correct their behavior.

Edited by InquisitiveScouter
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ParkMan said:

RIght - it strikes me that they believe the Scouting membership should mirror general population trends.  We saw something similar with minority recruiting.

I think one could argue that they could have introduced a series of graduated steps with milestones for councils to achieve.  It looks to me like they just took the overall goal and said - "councils, make this your goal too." 

We can differ on whether it's the right goal or not, but it does seem to be what is happening.

UK Scouts has been at it for what, 20 years now?

Screenshot_20210105-152552.png

  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

The Churchill plan calls for Councils to either meet the diversity goal OR show year over year improvement. Is that what you mean by graduated steps?

I was thinking something more like: By 2030, we want to achieve 30% female youth membership.

But, you are correct - simply saying that councils should show annual improvement towards the goal does allow for councils to claim success prior to achieving the 50%.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

@walk in the woods,

Awesome reference, thanks...

Overall about one third females...

You'd think BSA might use that as a more "realistic" goal.

I am sure this is the trade off of all such strategic goals.  Do we set an attainable goal or do we set an aspirational goal?

I believe the BSA went for aspirational, not attainable.  Both approaches have merits.  I think it's just a choice in style.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Alrighty, Scouters...

Here's what your Scouts are learning in NYLT, and what your military officers learn as well...

Aspirations are your "Vision" of who you want to be...the destination.

Goals (steps you will take to reach your vision... the path you will take to your vision) must be SMART.

Specific - you have to understand what the goal is, and why it is important.

Measurable - you have to know when you have reached it

Attainable - something you can actually reach (here is where the 50% females mark fails)

Relevant - they must pertain to your mission / purpose

Timely (or time-definable) - you need a deadline

@ParkMan has a good start

57 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

By 2030, we want to achieve 30% female youth membership.

Just need a bit of the why there...what is the purpose of the goal, so to speak?

"In order to reach gender diversity" (this is a poor purpose, imho, but it is BSA's purpose in setting this goal...see the Churchill stuff), we will achieve 30% female youth membership by 2030.

What they have written...50% parity met and maintained, is probably unattainable.  Sounds good, until you look at those with experience like UK.

So, what happens if you don't meet the goal?  or the "year over year improvement"???

Edited by InquisitiveScouter
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

To reach 50% female, I believe they will have to significantly alter the program, or create a different program for females.

There are physical and psychological differences between the genders.  Adequate research exists to substantiate this.  Males and females are built, plumbed, and wired differently.  They have different affinities.

The more egalitarian a society becomes, the more pronounced these differences become.

Awesome debate with Steven Pinker and Elizabeth Spelke @ Harvard University...

A good mind chew...

[the youtube video can be found at www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Hb3oe7-PJ8]

Edited by MattR
media not allowed
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

@walk in the woods,

Awesome reference, thanks...

Overall about one third females...

You'd think BSA might use that as a more "realistic" goal.

Interesting that the numbers get closer as the scouts are older in that chart.  I don't know much about UK scouting.  Are there competing programs at the younger ages?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...