DEI is an acronym for Don't Expect Improvement

[Mrjeff 248]

For further clarification I would like for your attention to focus on Harvard College, Florida State College, Budweiser Beer and Nike Athletic Shoes.  The public reaction indicates that the majority of regular sensible people are fed up and sick of the foolishness that has overshadowed our country.  I'll probably get more warnings and maybe even kicked out but what I said needs saying!

 

 

[AwakeEnergyScouter 247]

9 hours ago, Mrjeff said:

Bwell I  have given examples but if you are having trouble understanding at the last National Order of the Arrow Conference Conference there were specific meetings/gatherings for women,  LGBTQ, and People of Color. 

Only the last NOAC? Or also the last US national jamboree? Were these the first such events, or were there previously held events? Are such events held more widely? If BSA is pushing DEI so hard, how come I haven't heard a DEI peep despite being an active scouter? Please provide the wider data basis for your subjective description of DEI in the BSA.

You've previously called them "sanctioned" by BSA, what does that mean exactly? Organized by? Allowed to occur organized by some group of scouts and/or scouters but not the BSA itself?

What was the stated purpose of the "meetings/gatherings"? Were they meetings or social gatherings? As someone else already quipped, did the poor straight white men miss out on an ice cream social? Were they in fact actually excluded, or were white straight men actually allowed to attend the "meetings/gatherings"?

That last one is absolutely imperative for you to address if you actually want to engage in civil discourse, especially since it still seems rocky to let go of the anger. Your core intellectual claim hinges on that they were actually excluded in the first place. But were they? I have my doubts.

In grad school, I was a Society of Women Engineers officer. Men are not, in fact, excluded from SWE membership, and we had a very active male member in our chapter. The national conference was full of men looking for jobs.

As for woke being an acronym - never heard of that, and apparently neither has any online dictionary including Urban Dictionary. If you use nonstandard meanings of words, it's on you to explain how you're using the words.

Edited March 6 by AwakeEnergyScouter
Forgot the point about 'woke' not being an acronym

[Mrjeff 248]

If you are an active scouter you already know the answers to all of things you are asking.   Is it this, what is that, when did this, who did that, if its that then what is that.  I have no desire to word joust and no requirement for further clarification.   You should be able to figure it out, active scouter and all.

[InquisitiveScouter 1656]

34 minutes ago, Mrjeff said:

If you are an active scouter you already know the answers to all of things you are asking.   Is it this, what is that, when did this, who did that, if its that then what is that.  I have no desire to word joust and no requirement for further clarification.   You should be able to figure it out, active scouter and all.

Check out the "WORKFORCE RESOURCE GROUPS"

https://www.scouting.org/about/diversity-equity-inclusion/

And ask yourself, what is the hidden message?

[Eagle1993 2161]

27 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

And ask yourself, what is the hidden message?

To expand scouting beyond those who typically participated?  

[InquisitiveScouter 1656]

4 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

To expand scouting beyond those who typically participated?  

LOL, no...

and btw, has it worked?

[Eagle1993 2161]

Just now, InquisitiveScouter said:

LOL, no...

and btw, has it worked?

What is the hidden message?

I do think there are more girls and gay scouts than there were in the past (so in part it is working). I'm not sure about other groups.

[InquisitiveScouter 1656]

6 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

To expand scouting beyond those who typically participated?  

And that isn't "participants"... that's a website for employees...

[InquisitiveScouter 1656]

The hidden message is that if you are not in one of those groups, you do not matter.

All Lives Matter 😜

 

Edited March 11 by InquisitiveScouter

[Eagle1993 2161]

Just now, InquisitiveScouter said:

And that isn't "participants"... that's a website for employees...

I know probably the best employee at our local council is gay.  He was promoted and I didn't know he was gay until after he left.  The council is worse off after he left.  If DEI helps us get employees from more walks of life and expands the pool of talent, I don't see it as a negative. 

If it is used to push out people than I have an issue with it. 

I think how an organization handles DEI is really what is important.  I'm not an employee of BSA so I'm not sure how they are using it.

[InquisitiveScouter 1656]

3 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

I know probably the best employee at our local council is gay.  He was promoted and I didn't know he was gay until after he left.  The council is worse off after he left.

Great!  So, it sounds like he knew his sexuality didn't matter one whit to his job performance, so he didn't flaunt it.  Kudos to him.

5 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

If DEI helps us get employees from more walks of life and expands the pool of talent, I don't see it as a negative. 

That is (I think) the real point the OP was making... while DEI may be getting employees from more walks of life, it is not expanding the pool of talent.  The examples he cited (and you can find multitudes more) are showing that the implementation has gone badly... to the detriment of many organizations, because talent standards are lowered, often to the point of allowing unethical behavior, and, therefore, unfortunately bolster the perpetuation of stereotypes. (which, ironically, it set out to try to help do away with...)

I agree with your underlying position that it is not a negative, if merit is the true measure.

11 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

If it is used to push out people than I have an issue with it. 

Concur.  The double-edged sword here is that, by segregating out groups for special treatment or recognition, DEI programs do, in fact, push people out.

 

[Eagle1993 2161]

13 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Great!  So, it sounds like he knew his sexuality didn't matter one whit to his job performance, so he didn't flaunt it.  Kudos to him.

That is (I think) the real point the OP was making... while DEI may be getting employees from more walks of life, it is not expanding the pool of talent.  The examples he cited (and you can find multitudes more) are showing that the implementation has gone badly... to the detriment of many organizations, because talent standards are lowered, often to the point of allowing unethical behavior, and, therefore, unfortunately bolster the perpetuation of stereotypes. (which, ironically, it set out to try to help do away with...)

I agree with your underlying position that it is not a negative, if merit is the true measure.

Concur.  The double-edged sword here is that, by segregating out groups for special treatment or recognition, DEI programs do, in fact, push people out.

 

I will say for my company, DEI has gone well (overall).  There are a few times where I think it went sideways, but overall we have greater pools of talent for hiring, our profits have increased substantial over the last few years and year end bonuses are the highest they have ever been.

Personally, I have been happy with my career progression.  When I hire, I have never been pressured to hire an under or unqualified candidate. 

If someone quits because they are against diversity, inclusion or equity... So be it.  I haven't seen many people quit my company and definitely no one with talent that is not easily replaced.

Edited March 11 by Eagle1993

[AwakeEnergyScouter 247]

2 hours ago, Mrjeff said:

If you are an active scouter you already know the answers to all of things you are asking.   Is it this, what is that, when did this, who did that, if its that then what is that.  I have no desire to word joust and no requirement for further clarification.   You should be able to figure it out, active scouter and all.

I am attempting to engage you in civil discourse, rather than jumping to conclusions of what you're actually trying to say, your motivations, and your opinions. I am asking you to articulate clearly and factually what you think. This is because without you stating your position clearly and factually, civil discourse is a nonstarter and this thread is, at least in response to you specifically, not going to be civil and as such lacks value for scouting. I am not asking you questions because I cannot find information and form an opinion of my own on it, I am asking you questions to ensure that I understand your point in relevant detail. What I cannot find on the internet or by being an active scouter is your personal view of things. I am asking you to tell me what you think so that I can listen to understand. All I'm really clear on right now is that you are very angry, and I am hoping that my best understanding of why is incorrect. At the very least, you should have a chance to clarify... or two, or three, or four, or five...

Just to be clear, what I mean by 'civil discourse' is the view found at Civcs for Life, American University, and the National Institute for Civil Discourse.

Since you decline to articulate, again and again, the message I get is that you aren't actually interested in civil discourse. You even explicitly say you have "no desire to word joust and no requirement for further clarification". So, I must ask again, if you are not interested in civil discourse to further understanding among scouts and scouters of differing opinions, what was the point of starting this conversation? How is this helpful to scouting?

The internet doesn't need another flame war.

46 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

That is (I think) the real point the OP was making... while DEI may be getting employees from more walks of life, it is not expanding the pool of talent. 

Even people who generally agree with your general POV aren't sure what exact argument you're trying to make. This sounds plausible as a possibility, but there are so many possibilities and/or you're making five or six different but related arguments with nothing but argument by assertion to back them up that everyone who has responded has had to make an assumption about what you mean based on commonly made (by others) arguments rather than what you're actually saying. Some of these offshoots are in fact civil discourse; but how about we make this conversation as a whole about developing better understanding as a result of deep commitment to civil discourse instead?

[AwakeEnergyScouter 247]

2 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

I will say for my company, DEI has gone well (overall).

Mine too. All of them.

One of my bosses responded rapidly to a somewhat problematic situation with a co-worker and I never had to deal with that harassment again at one job. HR helped a few folks a level below me with harassment issues, one of which had also raised eyebrows quite widely and so was quite important to deal with. The nonwhite nonstraight nonmale workers that were excellent at their jobs were recognized as being such and promoted at least at most of my employers. (An exception comes to mind.)

But I have never heard anyone say that we should give an iffy candidate a chance because of DEI. I have also never thought it. Have iffy candidates been hired? Yes. Were they hired because of their gender, sexual preferences, or skin color? Nope. (One was literally the hiring manager going "I am too tired to interview more people".)

My current company is very into literal DEI - including for disabled people (primarily veterans) and ex-military folks. My company goes out of its way to hire ex-military personnel and military spouses. The idea is clearly to make sure meritocracy reigns; that's what they're trying to do and that seems to be working.

So my personal experience with DEI policies is positive and doesn't even confirm to the view that "liberals" approve of "DEI" and "conservatives" oppose "DEI". I know that's a narrative out there, but I'm not convinced it describes reality that well. 

[Navybone 170]

4 hours ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

The hidden message is that if you are not in one of those groups, you do not matter.

 

 

Why do you say that?  where is that happening?  Are you saying that white males are being pushed out of scouting?  Where?