Jump to content

Update on new Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion MB


Recommended Posts

@InquisitiveScouter, I replaced your video with a link, to keep in line with the rules. If you'd like to put in more description of important points that you saw in the 2 hr video I can help you put them in.

As for the other reported post I saw, I think you're all doing better but let's remember, this isn't in the politics sub forum.

As for letting the scouts do their thing, I must admit that my absolute best memories as a scout and as an adult is from scouts doing the right thing on their own without any adults around, other than the adults reminding the scouts they owned the situation, so don't screw up. The trust had to be there, on both sides. The 30 & 2 scenario, given the right scouts, the right training and trust, I could certainly see. But if you were to select 30 random scouts from my troop as SM, likely not. But I gave 8 scouts and no adults permission to do some things on their own. I just don't know how you write a simple rule that explains this. I think it came from several years of watching scouts and just knowing who I could trust and who I couldn't, along with the fact that irrespective of the number of adults I was ultimately responsible for up to 70 scouts. There were plenty of adults that didn't want that responsibility, either.

 

  • Upvote 2
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 hour ago, mashmaster said:

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?

In 1995 when I worked at scout camps in the UK, I encountered both Scouts and Guides. Guides tended to be younger. I know one Guide troop lost 1/2 their members when my friend, a female Queen's Scout, became  adult volunteer with the troop. A lot of her ideas, based on Scouts UK,  were what the girls wanted, but could not be implemented. So she started her own Scouts UK troop.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, MattR said:

@InquisitiveScouter, I replaced your video with a link, to keep in line with the rules. If you'd like to put in more description of important points that you saw in the 2 hr video I can help you put them in.

As for the other reported post I saw, I think you're all doing better but let's remember, this isn't in the politics sub forum.

As for letting the scouts do their thing, I must admit that my absolute best memories as a scout and as an adult is from scouts doing the right thing on their own without any adults around, other than the adults reminding the scouts they owned the situation, so don't screw up. The trust had to be there, on both sides. The 30 & 2 scenario, given the right scouts, the right training and trust, I could certainly see. But if you were to select 30 random scouts from my troop as SM, likely not. But I gave 8 scouts and no adults permission to do some things on their own. I just don't know how you write a simple rule that explains this. I think it came from several years of watching scouts and just knowing who I could trust and who I couldn't, along with the fact that irrespective of the number of adults I was ultimately responsible for up to 70 scouts. There were plenty of adults that didn't want that responsibility, either.

 

The "simple" (if complicated) rule was embodied in: "with the Scoutmaster's approval."  Now, officially, the Scoutmaster is not trusted with the discretion

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mashmaster said:

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?

Yes. UK has a World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts (WAGGGS) member in Girlguiding UK.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't ever see the url in the editor.  When I copy the url from a browser window, and paste it into the editor, it places the video there, with no opportunity to edit the address pasted in.

I'll play with it and see if I can make it work.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

I don't ever see the url in the editor.  When I copy the url from a browser window, and paste it into the editor, it places the video there, with no opportunity to edit the address pasted in.

I'll play with it and see if I can make it work.

 

Oh sorry, I removed it before I pasted it into the editor. You have to think like a cheap editor. Honestly, having it reported and me fixing it is also fine.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, walk in the woods said:

Stop recruiting boys in order to protect your bonus? 🤣

DON'T GO THERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  😝

Seriously, I can see some pros doing just that.

Edited by Eagle94-A1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

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.

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 your friends are flying to Paris at 600mph...". The social constructionist crowd and the people they influence who don't know they are being indoctrinated with social constructionist ideas attribute this to society teaching girls to act like girls and boys to act like boys, but this has been thoroughly debunked for decades. The effect is nearly completely biological in nature. Introducing girls to BSA is reasonable. Expecting an equal number of girls as boys without diluting the program in ways that makes it less interesting to boys is unreasonable.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

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."

Well, I have to preface my point by saying I despise the overuse of the term "racism" as it is often used incorrectly simply to make someone's argument sound more important/persuasive/dramatic. (and I'm not pinning that on InquisitiveScouter)  A more appropriate phrase for what is actually being discussed is "Systemic Discrimination or Bias".

That said, while there are certainly people who believe the systemic racism in our society was built in on purpose, "intent" isn't actually a necessary component for an overall system to be considered discriminatory.  Take for example; states where the sole funding of public schools is through local property taxes (no state appropriation).  These systems were designed to allow for local control of schools by giving local districts the ability to raise or lower property taxes as they see fit.  However, a side effect of this system is that school districts in poor urban areas and core cities (typically with a high percentage minority population) end up with both older facilities (requiring increased maintenance) also end up having significantly lower funding per pupil because the value of the property (on a per capita basis) is much lower than suburbs.  And while levying a higher millage rate is an option to increase funds, this will tend to drive businesses out of the inner city areas and into the suburbs where the millage rates are lower because the overall tax base is higher.

Another example is what happened consistently around the country from the 1940s through the 2000s with municipal water and sewer systems.  The general mentality of water/sewer system operators was "expansion is good, so it should be subsidized".  And from the general business perspective, this makes complete sense.  However the net effect of those policies was that in order to make connecting to the water system attractive for developers, water authorities only charged developers a small fraction of the true cost of extending service into new areas and simply raised rates on the existing rate payers in the existing core cities, which because of red-lining laws with lenders and realtors (they were barred from moving), means minorities were/are disproportionately affected.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Bowsprit said:

Yes. Absolutely. There is significant data ...

There is also significant data (a preponderance of it so great that US public schools remain integrated) ... that shows that sex differences in learning styles is marginal at best, defined by prevailing cultures and fashion, and so biased by the educators themselves that it is not worth investing in separating sexes. The evidence leads one to conclude that a successful arrangement will keep sexes in the same environment and teach both how a given sex may acquire and retain knowledge differently. Individuals adjust accordingly and are able to segregate when needed.

Most all of this only partially applies to a scouting environment of 24+ consecutive hours living together.

Edited by qwazse
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, qwazse said:

There is also significant data...

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.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, elitts said:

Well, I have to preface my point by saying I despise the overuse of the term "racism" as it is often used incorrectly simply to make someone's argument sound more important/persuasive/dramatic. (and I'm not pinning that on InquisitiveScouter)  A more appropriate phrase for what is actually being discussed is "Systemic Discrimination or Bias".

That said, while there are certainly people who believe the systemic racism in our society was built in on purpose, "intent" isn't actually a necessary component for an overall system to be considered discriminatory.  Take for example; states where the sole funding of public schools is through local property taxes (no state appropriation).  These systems were designed to allow for local control of schools by giving local districts the ability to raise or lower property taxes as they see fit.  However, a side effect of this system is that school districts in poor urban areas and core cities (typically with a high percentage minority population) end up with both older facilities (requiring increased maintenance) also end up having significantly lower funding per pupil because the value of the property (on a per capita basis) is much lower than suburbs.  And while levying a higher millage rate is an option to increase funds, this will tend to drive businesses out of the inner city areas and into the suburbs where the millage rates are lower because the overall tax base is higher.

Another example is what happened consistently around the country from the 1940s through the 2000s with municipal water and sewer systems.  The general mentality of water/sewer system operators was "expansion is good, so it should be subsidized".  And from the general business perspective, this makes complete sense.  However the net effect of those policies was that in order to make connecting to the water system attractive for developers, water authorities only charged developers a small fraction of the true cost of extending service into new areas and simply raised rates on the existing rate payers in the existing core cities, which because of red-lining laws with lenders and realtors (they were barred from moving), means minorities were/are disproportionately affected.

Yes, these are effectively the impact of economic policies.  That it affects anyone negatively, I believe, was never the intent.  I'm with you...build a better mousetrap, but don't call it racism.

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