Scouting America

[qwazse 4382]

@AwakeEnergyScouter, I’m a statistician by trade — primarily in psychology and cardiology. My employers and clients pay me for my independent evaluation. That does not mean they have me in their back pockets. The opposite holds. I retain (and have exercised) the right to withdraw my name from any document that misrepresents facts. But by-and-large, authors  — even industry clients — defer to me on matters of presentation and interpretation. Reputation is the only capital worth acquiring. The same applies to time volunteered reviewing manuscripts for journals.

The questions you and @yknot raise regarding a lack of financial disclosure,  restricted data access, and/or statements that don’t apply in a larger context could speak to bias in Warren and Reed’s peer-reviewed article.  If how I’ve seen friends compensated is any indication, Warren probably was well paid as an expert witness, but she also did so under risk of perjury. Given the lack of financial acknowledgment, it’s more likely that BSA did not pay her to continue the long road to publishing in an academic journal. Furthermore, .Mackinem and Laufersweiler-Dwyer explicitly state that they had no conflicts of interest to disclose. This would generally be understood that BSA gave access without restriction.

Regarding data sharing in general, investigators tend to be quite cagey. They will often not share (or in this case, release license to) data until their initial results are published. That seems to have happened here. Although technically possible for BSA to self-publish more quickly, the legal liability in doing so would be great. And, I would trust them less. (Unless, of course, they hired me for the analysis. )

That’s not to say that the academic work presented so far is perfect. But, it’s not nothing.

[SiouxRanger 507]

1 hour ago, qwazse said:

Reputation is the only capital worth acquiring. The same applies to time volunteered reviewing manuscripts for journals.

Without doubt.

For all the rest, one word: "Tufte."

[yknot 1347]

9 hours ago, qwazse said:

@AwakeEnergyScouter, I’m a statistician by trade — primarily in psychology and cardiology. My employers and clients pay me for my independent evaluation. That does not mean they have me in their back pockets. The opposite holds. I retain (and have exercised) the right to withdraw my name from any document that misrepresents facts. But by-and-large, authors  — even industry clients — defer to me on matters of presentation and interpretation. Reputation is the only capital worth acquiring. The same applies to time volunteered reviewing manuscripts for journals.

The questions you and @yknot raise regarding a lack of financial disclosure,  restricted data access, and/or statements that don’t apply in a larger context could speak to bias in Warren and Reed’s peer-reviewed article.  If how I’ve seen friends compensated is any indication, Warren probably was well paid as an expert witness, but she also did so under risk of perjury. Given the lack of financial acknowledgment, it’s more likely that BSA did not pay her to continue the long road to publishing in an academic journal. Furthermore, .Mackinem and Laufersweiler-Dwyer explicitly state that they had no conflicts of interest to disclose. This would generally be understood that BSA gave access without restriction.

Regarding data sharing in general, investigators tend to be quite cagey. They will often not share (or in this case, release license to) data until their initial results are published. That seems to have happened here. Although technically possible for BSA to self-publish more quickly, the legal liability in doing so would be great. And, I would trust them less. (Unless, of course, they hired me for the analysis. )

That’s not to say that the academic work presented so far is perfect. But, it’s not nothing.

I am an editor by trade -- or at least by one of them. For many years, I edited peer reviewed medical journals in a variety of fields. It was part of my job, with the help of medical review boards composed of national and international experts in their fields, to assess the validity of research in articles, or the citations used to support a recommended standard of care. With sometimes millions or even billions of dollars at stake, major pharmaceutical companies often employ strategies similar to what BSA did to produce or highlight favorable research or recommendations. These strategies are obvious to anyone working in the field.  There is a gray area where reputable researchers, reviewers, and publications often operate as part of the medical publishing system and each person, publication and review board, and sometimes the medical board organization it might represent, has to assess for itself what is acceptable. In this case, though, maybe the best way to describe what happened to BSA and its paid consultant is to say that they veered out of grey areas and stepped directly into fudge. I think it's relevant that BSA doesn't seem to mention this episode itself much post 2019. I believe some future transparency and data reporting is eventually supposed to result as part of the bankruptcy settlement with survivors, and that probably will be the first useful information to emerge from BSA if it ever does see light of day. 

[swilliams 166]

On 5/8/2024 at 12:57 AM, AwakeEnergyScouter said:

Well, ok.. you have a point. I didn't want to get into program weakness details because I see this as a big picture reframing that will allow us to get to that with good windhorse. Of course, we do have to actually get to that, and I could be mistaken.

But check this brand new marketing video out - this is like a US version of Scouterna's We are raised by adventure video. This is our wheelhouse, we can "sell" it, and people want it. And I'm sure my unit isn't the only one that can deliver (age-appropriately) almost everything in that video to anyone that signs up today. 

 

I'll come back and read the rest of the thread later, but wanted to comment quickly on this video.  For the first half of the video, we see the boys doing the action (kayaking, biking, rock climbing, ziplining), and the girls standing on the beach at sunset, eating marshmallows, and walking across the Brooklyn Bridge.  It gets slightly better later on, but if the message with the name change is about meeting the needs of all youth, they need to start being more careful about their visual messaging. This female would greatly prefer the kayaking and ATVs to a walk across a bridge in the city.

[Armymutt 254]

On 5/7/2024 at 10:18 PM, AwakeEnergyScouter said:

I think a lot of you guys who are saying that renaming does nothing haven't quite appreciated how important this is for growing membership and strengthening the program again.

I don't expect to convince you now, but hearing not just that the organization is changing name, but what Krone said about the rationale and the context he put it in, makes it clear to me that Scouting America leadership is willing to do what it's going to take to keep delivering a quality scouting program, but to more young people.

I'll be out there helping make that happen. Back to basics - Scout Oath, Law, outdoors program. No exceptions or faking on the Scout Law and Oath anymore. Everyone is welcome.

https://apnews.com/article/boy-scouts-new-name-scouting-america-d583f5712680f155b4f6b762128734d3

I fully expect Scouting America to overtake GSUSA as the scouting program of choice for girls in 10-15 years now.

I'm curious how this inclusiveness jives with the annual girl only camporee.  Doesn't sound inclusive to me.
https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=844830384336661&set=a.554791236673912

[Navybone 173]

2 hours ago, Armymutt said:

I'm curious how this inclusiveness jives with the annual girl only camporee.  Doesn't sound inclusive to me.
https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=844830384336661&set=a.554791236673912

Yes, let’s try to have minority in scouting try to improve its membership.  This is about how to increase female membership.  Do you have a role in that?  If you do, I am sure they would include you.  

[mrjohns2 601]

20 hours ago, Armymutt said:

I'm curious how this inclusiveness jives with the annual girl only camporee.  Doesn't sound inclusive to me.

Agreed. That concept should no longer be done. I’m not in support of coed troops, but I am also not in support of girl only camporees or summer camp weeks. 

[Armymutt 254]

19 hours ago, Navybone said:

Yes, let’s try to have minority in scouting try to improve its membership.  This is about how to increase female membership.  Do you have a role in that?  If you do, I am sure they would include you.  

How do you figure that only aiming to increasing female membership is acceptable?  I also don't see any mention of this as a recruiting event.  It's a camporee.  Those are for active Scouts, not the general public.  Is demographic-based Scouting events where we really want to go?  That seems to fly in the face of universal brotherhood and becomes an "othering" type of program.  

[yknot 1347]

38 minutes ago, Armymutt said:

How do you figure that only aiming to increasing female membership is acceptable?  I also don't see any mention of this as a recruiting event.  It's a camporee.  Those are for active Scouts, not the general public.  Is demographic-based Scouting events where we really want to go?  That seems to fly in the face of universal brotherhood and becomes an "othering" type of program.  

My view is that such events have a targeted role in the short term while the organization is laboring -- still somewhat clumsily -- to adjust to the addition of girls. It's not exactly the same as leveling subject area courses for cohorts of kids who missed school opportunities due to things like Covid or disaster displacements, but it's a similar situation and approach. We have camporees for physically challenged scouts or other unique circumstances, so it's not like it's setting any precedents. There have been undeniable challenges for girls and girl units in scouting -- the start did not go smoothly -- and many units have struggled for access, skills building, etc. If in the short term this helps winnow away those challenges, I don't have a problem with it. If it's still needed in a few years, then scouting has more insurmountable girl problems than camporees. 

[Armymutt 254]

21 minutes ago, yknot said:

My view is that such events have a targeted role in the short term while the organization is laboring -- still somewhat clumsily -- to adjust to the addition of girls. It's not exactly the same as leveling subject area courses for cohorts of kids who missed school opportunities due to things like Covid or disaster displacements, but it's a similar situation and approach. We have camporees for physically challenged scouts or other unique circumstances, so it's not like it's setting any precedents. There have been undeniable challenges for girls and girl units in scouting -- the start did not go smoothly -- and many units have struggled for access, skills building, etc. If in the short term this helps winnow away those challenges, I don't have a problem with it. If it's still needed in a few years, then scouting has more insurmountable girl problems than camporees. 

This is at least the third or fourth iteration. There are boy troops younger than this and there are no special camporees being offered for them.  We're trying to stand up troops in areas devoid of scouting with leaders who have no scouting experience.  There are no special camporees for them.  There are ample opportunities for training available for both youth and adults.  I don't know of too many girl troops that don't have a boy troop in the same CO.  I do know of boy troops that have a Tenderfoot for an SPL.  Those kids are pretty much left to fend for themselves in a program that was designed to help them escape the poverty of the cities.  If anyone needs special events, it's those kids, not the girl troops who can simply walk across the hall and ask an older Scout in a boy troop.

[yknot 1347]

39 minutes ago, Armymutt said:

This is at least the third or fourth iteration. There are boy troops younger than this and there are no special camporees being offered for them.  We're trying to stand up troops in areas devoid of scouting with leaders who have no scouting experience.  There are no special camporees for them.  There are ample opportunities for training available for both youth and adults.  I don't know of too many girl troops that don't have a boy troop in the same CO.  I do know of boy troops that have a Tenderfoot for an SPL.  Those kids are pretty much left to fend for themselves in a program that was designed to help them escape the poverty of the cities.  If anyone needs special events, it's those kids, not the girl troops who can simply walk across the hall and ask an older Scout in a boy troop.

I'm not clear what you mean by iteration. 

I sympathize with any struggling unit, but the point is that at least there is a unit for those boys; at least there is a hall to walk across. Girls in a lot of places aren't wanted or welcomed despite the nice words. You can see that in many of the anonymous comments here.  People want to go back to the 1960s. No girls. That's what girls and women are encountering, and it's kind of hard to assimilate and find help in environments like that. If a special camporee helps, I support it. The net effect will ultimately mean more people experienced in scouting who can help future boys and girls like the ones in the struggling troop you cite.  

[AwakeEnergyScouter 260]

3 hours ago, yknot said:

I'm not clear what you mean by iteration. 

I sympathize with any struggling unit, but the point is that at least there is a unit for those boys; at least there is a hall to walk across. Girls in a lot of places aren't wanted or welcomed despite the nice words. You can see that in many of the anonymous comments here.  People want to go back to the 1960s. No girls. That's what girls and women are encountering, and it's kind of hard to assimilate and find help in environments like that. If a special camporee helps, I support it. The net effect will ultimately mean more people experienced in scouting who can help future boys and girls like the ones in the struggling troop you cite.  

I certainly don't trust people who make it clear that they don't think I should be where I am to give me advice or support.

I am curious about whether that it's girls only scout craft catch-up says something about just how stiff that cultural resistance is in that council. In principle, just make it a scoutcraft basics camporee open to all new units. But why didn't they? The comments that remain make me wonder if the reason is that so many male scouts are opposed to girls that it wouldn't work to help the girls, or that the council had solid reasons to think it would end up there.

[Eagle1993 2209]

When I go to most camporees and summer camp, the vast majority of scouts are white males.  If our scouting organization wants to include other demographics, it may need to have recruiting efforts or events targeted to those demographics.  It doesn't mean changing the program or, hopefully, removing standard events.  

Each year at summer camp, the leaders of the one girls Troop that attends has raised concerns about behavior.  Over time, I've seen less girls attending.  

If BSA wants to remain primarily a program for white males, then don't make any changes.  If they want to expand to other groups, then between the choice of changing the program or implementing some special events, Id support implementation of these special events. 

Over time, I would expect these special events would fade, but it takes a long time for acceptance of new members by existing organization members and for the general public to see scouting as a program for more than just suburban and rural white males.

When my daughter joined our mountain bike team, she was one of 3 girls on a 55 person team.  She was called slow by the boys.  She was called a boy by them and her non biking friends.  She dealt with a lot of crap my son didn't go through.  The mountain bike organizer created some special events for girls and that helps her feel appreciated.  Now, we have 7 girls out of 60 or so total.  Over time, if there are more girls, she won't feel she as isolated as she once did.

I would also agree we need to do better with suburban and rural white males as well, but I don't think think we need a dedicated event for them as every event I attend is 90%+ that demographic.

[yknot 1347]

8 hours ago, AwakeEnergyScouter said:

I certainly don't trust people who make it clear that they don't think I should be where I am to give me advice or support.

That would be entirely logical. The position largely invalidates the perspective. 

[BinTharDunThat 11]

16 hours ago, Armymutt said:

How do you figure that only aiming to increasing female membership is acceptable?  I also don't see any mention of this as a recruiting event.  It's a camporee.  Those are for active Scouts, not the general public.  Is demographic-based Scouting events where we really want to go?  That seems to fly in the face of universal brotherhood and becomes an "othering" type of program.  

A Council-sponsored exclusionary event raises red flags.  Perhaps those issues were addressed in the Council before announcing this program.  Any program in Scouting which explicitly excludes a portion of the membership should be scrutinized (not necessarily barred).  There are a few questions which must all be answered "yes" to establish this is consistent with Scouting values
1) "Is the exclusion of a portion of the BSA programs consistent with the Guide to Safe Scouting?"  (So, only Cubs, AOLs and Scouts, Cubs and Scouts doing Cub stuff, only Scouts doing Scout-age stuff, only Crews doing Crew approved stuff (such as hunting).  This seems to meet that criteria.

2) "Does this increase recruiting and/or retention?"  Arguably yes, because it provides tighter re-enforcement of retention.  It might also provide an avenue for AOL (girls) to attend and observe folks just like them.

3) "Is the Council providing a like program for those being excluded?"  Equal programming for all is critical.  I'm in favor of a campout for any group so long as other groups can likewise do so (Catholic Campout means campout for any and all other religions as well).  Here, I doubt Council is providing a male-only Council-wide Camporee.  

In light of Item 3, this female-only campout by the Council is a fail for DEI.

Alternative - what if one Troop (G) wanted to host a few other Troops (not nearly every other Troop in the Council or in the District) in a patrol competition? (I recognize this rises to a District-level program because of multiple CORs).  Then, yes, totally permissible because its a Troop-run activity.