POLICY CHANGE, Diversity and Inclusion MB

[InquisitiveScouter 944]

1 minute ago, TAHAWK said:

One  issue was candidates calling me without anyone else on the line  or emailing me withouit copying anyone else - both contrary to YP procedures.  

I struggle with this daily...Scouts emailing me directly without cc-ing parents.  I have a cut and paste now to add to all those emails:

Please include a parent or another registered adult on all communications.

At least, when they contact me through Scoutbook, the system automatically includes parents.  I do like that feature.

[JustanMBC 0]

With regard to religious COs that adhere to more traditional moral beliefs, the main issue obviously is going to be with the sexual orientation and gender identity components of the D&EI requirements.  Given that the original stated idea behind the DE&I endeavor was "BSA's commitment to act against racial injustice" (6/15/20 ScoutingWire statement), the inclusion of other areas of diversity/inclusion was perhaps a bit of scope creep that might have been avoided.  But now that the draft requirements are out there publicly, it will be difficult (impossible?) for BSA to scale back to its original stated intent without taking a lot more heat than they are probably willing to endure.

I guess the question now is, "Is it even possible to draft something covering these issues that will be satisfactory to most of the diverse constituencies inside and outside of Scouting that are involved?"  (I say "most" because "all" is pretty much definitely impossible.)  

Maybe it would help to add some discussion of religious tolerance -- right now, there are passing mentions of "faith" in requirements 3 and 8, but no substance about faith-related issues.  Perhaps a fourth scenario might be added -- "how to be upstanding for a friend disciplined at school for discussing his religious beliefs," or maybe "imagining how a civil discussion might occur between young people with differing moral values, in which all viewpoints are respected."

At the end of the day, I hope this doesn't cause additional religious COs to follow the LDS out the door.  (If news accounts are correct, the LDS took 400,000 scouts with them).

[BQZip 67]

On 2/24/2021 at 1:07 PM, JustanMBC said:

With regard to religious COs that adhere to more traditional moral beliefs, the main issue obviously is going to be with the sexual orientation and gender identity components of the D&EI requirements.  Given that the original stated idea behind the DE&I endeavor was "BSA's commitment to act against racial injustice" (6/15/20 ScoutingWire statement), the inclusion of other areas of diversity/inclusion was perhaps a bit of scope creep that might have been avoided.  But now that the draft requirements are out there publicly, it will be difficult (impossible?) for BSA to scale back to its original stated intent without taking a lot more heat than they are probably willing to endure.

I guess the question now is, "Is it even possible to draft something covering these issues that will be satisfactory to most of the diverse constituencies inside and outside of Scouting that are involved?"  (I say "most" because "all" is pretty much definitely impossible.)  

Maybe it would help to add some discussion of religious tolerance -- right now, there are passing mentions of "faith" in requirements 3 and 8, but no substance about faith-related issues.  Perhaps a fourth scenario might be added -- "how to be upstanding for a friend disciplined at school for discussing his religious beliefs," or maybe "imagining how a civil discussion might occur between young people with differing moral values, in which all viewpoints are respected."

At the end of the day, I hope this doesn't cause additional religious COs to follow the LDS out the door.  (If news accounts are correct, the LDS took 400,000 scouts with them).

Well, if we go this route and cite leftist dogma, we're actively countering what many mainline religious positions. I can't see them continuing this way.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/03/15/vatican-says-catholic-church-cant-bless-same-sex-unions/4698628001/

By BSA definitions, one of its COs is "discriminating" against those with certain sexual preferences. Oh, excuse me, "sexual identity". I didn't realize they changed the definition in the middle of my statement/testimony just to vilify me (despite Snopes' claim, this wasn't AFTER the testimony, but DURING it... https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/merriam-webster-barrett-sexual/) 
 

[CynicalScouter 1432]

9 minutes ago, BQZip said:

By BSA definitions, one of its COs is "discriminating" against those with certain sexual preferences

What BSA said in the latest Scouts, BSA Office Hours is that no scout would be forced to contradict their religious views.

See this for the discussion.

 

[BQZip 67]

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

What BSA said in the latest Scouts, BSA Office Hours is that no scout would be forced to contradict their religious views.

See this for the discussion.

 

"Oops! That page doesn’t exist or is private."

[CynicalScouter 1432]

3 minutes ago, BQZip said:

"Oops! That page doesn’t exist or is private."

Check again.

https://www.scouting.org/program-updates/scouts-bsa-office-hours-session-february-25-2021/

That pages leads to the video (mod policy is no direct link to videos, but the link is on that page).

You'll want to watch 19:00 to 22:00

 

Edited March 15, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[InquisitiveScouter 944]

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

Check again.

https://www.scouting.org/program-updates/scouts-bsa-office-hours-session-february-25-2021/

That pages leads to the video (mod policy is no direct link to videos, but the link is on that page).

You'll want to watch 19:00 to 22:00

 

File this under PR examples of ""How to Walk Back"

[JustanMBC 0]

From the Office Hours discussion, it looks like the basic merit badge may not change much, but for scouts whose "family or religious principles" run contrary to some of the contents, "There will always be an alternative for them to do, or just things for them to consider."

How is that going to work?  (Particularly since this is a "classroom"-style merit badge).

[CynicalScouter 1432]

17 minutes ago, JustanMBC said:

From the Office Hours discussion, it looks like the basic merit badge may not change much, but for scouts whose "family or religious principles" run contrary to some of the contents, "There will always be an alternative for them to do, or just things for them to consider."

Already discussed here

 

[BQZip 67]

4 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

Already discussed here

 

"Scouts should never be political in nature...we aren't looking to push any agenda whatsoever"
At best, this statement is disingenuous/insincere. At worst, it is misleading. When you are actively promoting far-left ideals, it is INHERENTLY political and it IS pushing an agenda.

"a Discuss with your merit badge counselor the following terms and why they are important
(1) Diversity    (2) Equity    (3) Inclusion    (4) Bigotry (5) Intersectionality
...
2.    Discuss racism with your counselor including the four types of racism listed below For EACH type, give one example from personal experience or historical or current events. Tell how racism negatively affects people. Describe one action you can take in response to one of your examples
(1) Individual    (2) Interpersonal    (3) Institutional    (4) Systemic"

The premise of this discussion/political indoctrination is that equity and intersectionality are important and comes straight from hyperleftist dogma. Equity is defined as equal results based on assessments across race, sex, etc. Anything that doesn't have equal results does not have "equity" and is , therefore, racist/sexist/etc. But that's ridiculous on its face. If you give a group of scouts in a predominantly minority area and another with a predominantly <insert any group you want here>, you aren't going to get equal results. 

"No, we mean 'on average"

Fine, do it "on average". You still won't get equal results. That isn't because of any inherent flaw in "the system". That's natural order. Different cultures will respond to life in different ways (which is true diversity). That means that some cultures will be more successful than others. Basketball and football have a strong presence of black people. There are few short, white people in the NBA/NFL. Does that mean they are racist? Of course not! Boy Scouts has a predominantly white/hispanic population. While that somewhat mirrors the makeup of the US, it still leans heavily that direction and is not in proportion to the areas they serve.

The question is: why not?

Is it because of a lack of recruiting efforts? Is it because of racism? Is it because of differing cultural values within the communities we serve? Is it a lack of funds? A lack of interest? A lack of PR in these areas? We can address some of these, but to those on the "anti-racist"* bandwagon, they insist that the reason is irrelevant. The outcomes are unequal and, therefore, this is an example of institutional and/or systemic racism. Based solely on the outcome, BSA is racist. Intent doesn't matter. Effort doesn't matter. The personal choices of people/cultures/communities don't matter. Only the result matters. And if it isn't in perfect alignment, it's racist/sexist/etc. Moreover, many Boy Scout values are due to "whiteness" and, if you disagree, that's just more evidence of how racist the organization is (see how poor/circular this reasoning is?). Similar discrepancies toward minorities are not racist. But if it leans towards whites in the exact same way, it is racist. 

Equity alone is neither important nor desirable. We want equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome (which is an impossible pipe dream). UNEQUAL outcomes result in motivation for ALL; no one wants to be last. Even if you want equity, you cannot focus solely on outcomes. You HAVE to focus on getting the necessary resources to ensure equality of opportunity first or the outcomes you want will never happen.

*"Anti-racism" is a philosophy promoted by Ibram X. Kendi, Nicole Hannah Jones, & others which basically states that if you aren't actively opposing any inequity, you are part of the problem and just as guilty as white supremacists. It teaches that any opposition is inherently racist

"We don't want anyone to go against their religious beliefs..."
That flies in the face of "Tell what more your unit can do to ensure anyone can participate regardless of their ability, ethnicity, faith, financial background, gender Identity, race, or sexual orientation.  Review the plan with your counselor and then discuss with your unit's leadership how you might implement your plan"

For example, with a Catholic CO (FWIW, I am NOT Catholic, but I recognize their problems with this), this basically assigns scouts the opportunity to openly question/criticize their charter organization and then the unit has to discuss how they would implement something that runs counter to their stated faith. In addition to being a waste of time, it is inviting dissent and criticism. Rather than being inclusive of all beliefs, it openly invites hostility toward the CO and leadership. This isn't a unifying effort. If they claim otherwise, it's absurd (unless you subscribe to the belief that by stamping out all dissent, you'll be unified).
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/pope-same-sex-unions-licit/2021/03/15/8c51ee80-8581-11eb-be4a-24b89f616f2c_story.html

Our diversity of IDEAS and EXPERIENCES are what make us unique INDIVIDUALS. We are not defined by the color of our skin, but by the content of our character.

Edited March 19, 2021 by BQZip
clarify points/fix typos

[BQZip 67]

I forgot to touch on intersectionality...

https://quillette.com/2018/05/08/illiberal-logic-intersectionality/

This sums up a lot of the centrist criticism of the subject. To simply declare it "important" and ask scouts to explain why shows that BSA HQ doesn't seem to understand that even declaring this an "important" concept is an inherently leftist idea. It is about as FAR from being "not political" as possible

[qwazse 3963]

Well, let's come back to equity. That has a long tradition in jurisprudence.

As a scout, we got to talking with judges and one of the key lessons one taught was that his responsibility was to meet out justice with equity.

The requirement would be far more interesting if it asked scouts to talk to a judge or magistrate about equity.

[BQZip 67]

27 minutes ago, qwazse said:

Well, let's come back to equity. That has a long tradition in jurisprudence.

As a scout, we got to talking with judges and one of the key lessons one taught was that his responsibility was to meet out justice with equity.

The requirement would be far more interesting if it asked scouts to talk to a judge or magistrate about equity.

If we're talking about meting out justice and being equitable with regards to the outcome based on the evidence presented, I'm all for it. But that does not appear to be the "equity" in question here

[PACAN 166]

I'm assuming nothing happened on this at the NAM???

[CynicalScouter 1432]

34 minutes ago, PACAN said:

I'm assuming nothing happened on this at the NAM???

Nothing was announced, no. The phrase was used several times in terms of BSA's goals to expand "diversity, equity, and inclusion" in terms of board representation, outreach to scouts, etc. But not the merit badge.