qwazse

Welcome to the forums. When this happens to our scouts (we have is one district scouter review proposals and give feedback ... mostly very good, but sometimes directing a boy to pick a new project unnecessarily), I let the scout know that if he chooses to go with his first choice the committee will stand behind him, no matter what the esteemed scouter said. Usually the scout picks a different project, but it means a great deal that we stand behind our Life scouts. I agree with @MattR. Talk to your SM. He might assign someone in your troop to be your Eagle project advisor and look over your proposal before it goes to the district. You want that person to be brutally honest, but open-minded. Beyond that, councils and districts vary a lot. That's a good thing. These scouters probably at one time or another have had to propose projects in your community or, based on their jobs, submit bids for contracts or apply for grants. The way that happens varies across the country. So, you aren't going to see one-size-fits-all behavior. But, your experience going through the process will reflect what these scouters feel it takes to get good work done in their fields.

Here's an update from an Indian SM on the "longer" other side of the pond: Hope it helps to know we are not alone in our trials.

I did 2 v 23 last summer camp. The new ASM and I could have easily welcomed seven more ... so long as they came with at least one first class scout. Hitting 2 v 40 pushes it. The staff was very helpful, and kept an eye on our site when I was re-updating my BSA guard and the other adult was chaperoning our four 1st years. That said (and somewhat back to the OP), I could have benefited from our Scoutbook expert (who is registered and trained as an ASM) on site to help me navigate some advancement questions and log sign-offs. That task took me away from camp; however the wifi was in a location where I could see my scouts crossing from one activity area to another. More importantly, I'm still in the middle of the learning curve with that thing, so I was also E-mailing him and the SM for some clarifications.

@RememberSchiff, this goes to the crux of the suit. GS/USA would argue that this constitutes continuing use of their brand: allowing a headline with “girl” and “scout” to garner goodwill toward any organization other than their own. It’s not relevant that you and I are hungry for a story of scouts of both sexes working together in a chipper mood.

For the record, I have not implied, but rather explicitly stated that some scouts or their parents espouse racism. I spared the details for various reasons ... mainly to avoid speaking for scouts who might proudly assert a view now, but grow to regret it. Implying that any posters here are racist would be ad homenim that violates forum rules and is largely irrelevant when weighing the points someone puts forward. My main interest in this thread is determining if this MB improves scouts' abilities to address problems of the day.

I have many other things to work on with my troop.

@CynicalScouter, leaks don’t count. The official requirements and 2021 changes are here: https://www.scouting.org/programs/scouts-bsa/advancement-and-awards/merit-badges/ That’s where all of the scouts and scouters in the country go to get an outline of their badges. (BTW, it annoys me that this can’t be a single page of plain text with a navigation bar on the margin.) As of today, there is no DE&I MB. I got nothing to tell my scouts/scouters about. I’m not that surprised. Even without controversy, publishing on a six month time frame is a challenge. I’m pretty sure at least a year’s work went into each 2021 requirement change that is published. Fact is, if they hadn’t rolled it out two weeks ago, National should have plainly announced that they will push back their timeline a couple of months. But, speaking plainly is not in marketing and public relation’s wheelhouse.

I’ve always figured RS was giving his best tupence. And they say the best things in life are free. So, I’m running with that! Happy New Year!

@Owls_are_cool (and anyone in his position), as a general rule, if your son wants to take a break from scouting or leave it altogether ... let him. Don’t let current events be a tipping point one way or another. Regarding requiring this badge for Eagle. Nobody has to earn Eagle. No SM has to encourage a scout to earn it. I recommend that you take this as an opportunity to use advancement for something different: fun. Enjoy the hiking and camping and service projects and get scouts to Life rank. The few who want to be Eagle Scouts will find their way.

That's a topic in itself. If I had time, I'd link to it. The short answer: "no". The lack of outside leadership to force BSA and GS/USA to work in lock-step led to their mutual erosion. Reflecting on them, both organizations needed to do two things: 1. Enable its members to pursue the opposite members awards and share each other's camps. 2. Sign GS/USA on as a WOSM member so that they could be invited to World Jamborees and other events. This would have had to have been started 5 decades ago. It would have enabled sex segregation to continue, but with mutual growth and cooperation. Compared to the "we have the perfect program for a given sex" rhetoric, a more mature discussion of when coed vs. sex-segregated activities and events are better or worse for development (as we often found ourselves on scouter.com having) would ensue.

Seen personally? The few girls I've met were plodding along just like our boys. I'm inferring that the are plodding along just like our boys of a similar age. BSA just loves to hype the overachievers. Case in point: there are no stories about # and age distribution of Tenderfoot badges.

The month that "scout" is no longer proprietary, the S in BPSA will revert from "Service" back to "Scouting", TL/USA and AHG will rebrand as Trinitarian Scouts of America - Boys and Trinitarian Scouts of America - Girls, respectively, Makers will be Maker Scouts, etc ... If GS/USA thinks their potential recruits are confused now, they will drain their wallets on cease and desist orders to these other groups.

@PACAN, I would not hew to the press releases. The age range of this class seems to be wide. Moreover, they seem to be the "tip of the iceberg" as troops for girls seem to be sticking. This year's rechartering will tell us a good bit about brand loyalty. If BSA really cared about not drawing off girls who might feel awkward about working a program whose evolution was all about American boys, they would brand so that every girl knows that she is signing up to work a "Boy Scout" program. On the other hand, if GS/USA really cared about families of girls being "confused", they could estimate the cost of rebranding to "Girl Guides" and sue BSA for the cost of new letterhead. What GS/USA really wants is for BSA to "stay in its lane" and retain their monopoly on "girl power."

@Cburkhardt, I think the number of girls who signed up shows that a very small number were confused about organization. However, I also think the corporate name injects a little marketing doublespeak. The program is, at its core, Boy Scouts for girls. So, retaining the program name “Boy Scouts of America” and adding a “for Girls” or “4G” would have been more plain spoken. But, the larger problem is we have inherited West’s and Lowe’s intransigence. This disadvantages American youth in both groups.

@CynicalScouter, I agree. The return of Cooking to the required list was long awaited. Moreover, the specific change in requirements was announced a year in advance, and the grace period to work the badge under the existing requirements was almost that long. I was not involved in scouting when Family Life rolled out. I wonder if anybody who was can recall boots-on-the-ground opinions of it. Until June, nobody was asking for DE&I MB. Many of us in the corporate or academic world probably have a low view of our HR’s take on the subject. But since Eagle Scouts will also have to shortly encounter this in the professional/military world, being somewhat conversant might help. But, since BSA has never crowd-sourced its MB development, there’s was no way to avoid the requirements representing anything other than a narrow slice of corporate America.

The way I do this is I have a questions that have to be answered at certain controls. Usually controls just have a key word written on the flag, and the scout records it on the control sheet when he finds it. But the control sheet also has bonus questions like: What is the height of the trunk this control is on? How wide is the ravine just west of this control? How tall is the pole on the opposite side of this field? Isn’t Mr. Q the best SM ever? 😀 The right answer to each question can shave 10 minutes off of the scout’s time. Usually I rate controls worth 10 minutes as well. So the scout who spends time finding every control and answering every question can usually cut their score in half.

Our boards often, if not always ask questions on religion. No self-destruction ensued.

The number of elective badges for scouts will remain 122. One less of those will be needed for Eagle, bringing the total elective MBs for that rank down to 7. That leaves 115 and allows those scouts who earn all available MBs to score a 23rd Palm. (DE&I is my shepherd, I shall not want ...)

@Cleveland Rocks, if it's not too late, I grant your district permission to adopt anything from my Syrian heritage for a name/mascot. It would tickle my family pink if a council had an Alleppo or Homs district!

How is it that counselors "injecting their own biases" is a problem here, but not for any of the other MBs? As I mentioned in other threads, MBC's are, by definition, selected because they have a "bias" in favor of the skill being taught. We literally want our youth to meet people outside of scouting so that they discover what and how they can learn stuff form folks who are not their SMs.

@Navybone, I think @InquisitiveScouter was referring to “perceived sexual orientation.” But, specifically to my issue, many people who could counsel on DE&I in a practical sense (e.g., anyone who owns a business of any size and needs to follow state hiring practices), might not be interested in helping a scout navigate these particular requirements. For example, they might not know anything about WOSM, so already there’s a disconnect. IMHO, any requirement that’s self-referential — that uses language that one would only understand if they were a scout — is a poor one. Secondly, it is one-sided. It discusses what DE&I initiatives can do in a positive sense, but it makes clear that a scout is not to explore how DE&I initiatives might conflict with someone’s ideals. Many counselors — for any badge — want to help a scout approach the content forthrightly. This is especially true for older scouts who want to understand if a skill has limits. One limit of DE&I is that it costs real money and takes time and energy to implement. Some forms of implementation are a facade, while others can be deeply rewarding without requiring a “commitment to the cause.” I am concerned that many good counselors have never themselves written out any kind of DE&I promise or made any kind of commitment. Being people of action, they did one or two things in their profession or hobby that wound up promoting DE&I and then kept at it. Those are the people who I’d like my scouts to meet. But this is still a draft, and not what I’d show prospective counselors. So I’m happy to suspend judgment.

The badge will only be as good as the counselor. That applies to every MB ... especially the "bookwork" badges. These draft requirements disappoint because the people who I would like to counsel my scouts to for them might not feel like the material is relatable.

@CynicalScouter, got a link?

DEnIed, DE&I'd (dee-ee-an-ied,v,adj): modified so as to render explicitly applicable to diversity, equity, and inclusion. (See also STEM'ed.)

It'd be all fine and good until the requirement gets DE&I'ed to say, "while killing/cleaning/eating give honor to the meat in accordance with a cultural tradition other than your own."