BQZip

No, that's evidence that they PERCEIVE systemic racism. "I'm worried that..." isn't proof that anything actually exists outside their own perceptions (that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, only that this isn't proof of it).

Equity

You painted a WIDE brush with your claim. Let's say that, for example, the Catholic Church charters a unit. You think they are going to support a scout leader as a homosexual? They shouldn't. Not because of what I or anyone else says/thinks on the subject, but that their statements of faith prohibit it. https://www.usccb.org/committees/laity-marriage-family-life-youth/homosexuality If BSA is going to say "You have to embrace our opinions on homosexuality", they are asking the church to go against their own teachings. That goes against the whole "supporting people of faith" that scouts purports. Now if BSA decides that we should hear what people have to say and don't discriminate against them based on how they feel, then that falls in line with these teachings. Based on what has been released, I'm skeptical it will be.

Here we go again. You're taking what I said completely out of context (and is a SPECTACULAR example of how the left is twisting the discussion. You started with replying to: with You ignored the points made and gave a definition of an unspecified term. I attempted to further clarify the objection with examples of what this side of the political spectrum advocates. You decided to change the subject at hand and imply we are criticizing diversity (apparently the definition you gave). Neither of us are doing so. We are criticizing the abhorrently abysmal "research" (which is little more than just people's opinions) which bolsters DEI as a whole, not the minuscule, cherry-picked portion you decided to highlight. I've been clear from the beginning: I support diversity and inclusion in scouting (in general). I do NOT support teaching intersectionality and grievance studies as facts. I completely oppose the idea of equity, as it is an unachievable goal and could only possibly be achieved through draconian socialistic/Marxist practices that (at best) drive down the quality of life. Equal opportunity? Absolutely. Giving people assistance to help them where they may be lacking in experience? Sure. Handicapping/benefitting individuals based on the color of their skin/gender or telling someone their opinion doesn't matter because of their skin color/gender? Not on your life. (And yes, this has happened).

This right here is the problem. The terminology used includes a plethora of loaded words/phrases by design. Example: Black Lives Matter. The problem is that there are (at least) 3 definitions. All 3 are used as it suits the speaker to promote their agenda: Black Lives Matter (general concept): no objection here. The lives of Black people DO matter. Anyone who objects to that concept isn't within the realm of reason Black Lives Matter (the organization with "trained Marxists" in charge, by their own claims). Whose goals include the destruction of the nuclear family Black Lives Matter (the movement) - wide spanning and ill-defined, it encompasses everything from letter writing campaigns up to violence. So when I say "I oppose Black Lives Matter", I'm condemned as a racist when, in fact, I'm objecting to the aims of a hyperpolitical organization, not the general concept. And that changes as the conversation does. These loaded terms. As you've so clearly illustrated, those promoting political views conflate unobjectionable material as what their opponents oppose and ignore the objectionable parts. The whole BASIS for THIS MB (and not diversity/inclusivity in general) IS political in nature and originates with leftist and postmodernist/neoMarxist views. While it CAN be discussed in a neutral manner, what I've seen thus far gives me little hope when their sources are "scholars" and includes discussion of "intersectionality" (just two examples). This doesn't "prepare them for college"...it starts to indoctrinate them into an oppressive, bitter mindset. That's completely false. If you have a scout/leader that, for example, repeatedly lies or is disruptive, we can remove them from scouting regardless of whether their actions were legal or illegal. You are attempting to conflate reasonably objecting to immoral behavior with illegal acts of discrimination which is disingenuous, at best...manipulative at worst

Name one that wasn't: https://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2013/08/12/how-to-suggest-a-new-merit-badge/

The fact they didn't even ask for feedback is the problem. This is a top-down directed requirement based on appeasement.

This is the first I heard of ANY feedback being accepted. That they aren't interested in feedback from PAYING members at large is more than a little disconcerting

It's HOW we ensure "fair" treatment that is the issue. "Fair" is a loaded word. Some view it as "white privilege" being suppressed. Others view it as setting quotas/affirmative action. Others, just making sure we give an honest effort to recruit from the inner cities. The reason we are wary is because none of this is being spelled out.

You misread my statement...I agree with you. My comments are CRITICAL of CRT, not supportive.

Equity is a KEY component of critical race theory. Anything short of an equal start (which is impossible as everyone doesn't have the same life experiences) is discrimination and falls short of "equity". Offering some event to everyone regardless of race, gender, etc is not enough. You have to correct for all disparities or it isn't "equity".

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 achievement cooked up by Marxists/Postmodernists. We will ALL make choices in our lives that result in fortunate/unfortunate outcomes. In the US, the VAST majority of what we achieve is due to our personal choices, not the opinions of others. DEI philosophy is not merely "creating a culture that welcomes and respects diverse perspectives" or "creating a sense of belonging and build communities where every person feels respected and valued". If that's all it was, I'd be fine with it and no one in their right mind would oppose it. Should scouts not denounces racism, discrimination, inequality and injustice? You keep posing this question as if it is a neutral topic and people have repeatedly explained that the issue is not general definition of the words " Diversity" and "Inclusion". No one in their right mind is against that. The problem is the application of these topics, the material surrounding it, and the methods by which we achieve those laudable goals; they are highly slanted with leftist propaganda. I don't disagree with diversity as a laudable goals as long as they aren't at the cost of our values or mission. Example: If we utilize funds to recruit more POC, I'm all for it, but if we do so by shuttering camps and reducing opportunities for everyone, then we've gone too far. There is a balance between these. Denounce racism? Absolutely! Denounce injustice? Sure! Let's start with BSA categorizing the deaths of Breonna Taylor and George Floyd as "murder" when one was not and the other is (at a bare minimum) under some dispute. We can neutrally state with complete confidence that we want justice to be served without taking sides in a matter or inflaming hostilities. Denounce inequality? Probably, but that depends on what you mean. If you mean equality of opportunity, solid "yes" from me. If you mean equality of outcome, that's a hard "no"; it's an impossibility. There will NEVER be equal outcomes no matter what. Denounce discrimination? That depends. We discriminate ethically and legally all the time. That guy that offers you a deal of a lifetime? Yeah, we're reasonably skeptical. That Nigerian Prince in your email? Yeah...hard pass. You say "that's not what I'm talking about and you know it!", well, it really isn't that simple. Obviously we talk about discrimination based on race as being something pretty much everyone is against, but what about discrimination based on ability? Is it reasonable to expect that we have all camps and high adventure modified so that someone in a wheelchair can attend? There are some who believe this should be the case. So, in general, yes, I denounce discrimination, but within reason. I'm sorry, but no. Blind adherence to terms that are vaguely defined and can mean a WIDE range of things is NOT what scouts are part of. Again, if we are talking general terms, then yes, we're on the same page AND there's no opposition. However, the trend (from "Diversity and Inclusion" to "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion") seems to indicate a movement toward mandating the teaching of "check your privilege", promoting "anti-racism" , fixing "systemic racism", and a host of leftist mantras. Teaching that America's core principles are "racist" is both absurd and, by definition, antiAmerican. while it's true America was indeed founded during times of racism and oppression, that was the world they lived in. It isn't a reflection of America or its ideals.

Naturally, comments are disabled now on the video. They aren't looking for feedback or consensus, but to push it forward regardless of opinion.

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 as a given fact they have to learn about, then we are in an unnecessary fight. BSA has already put out a press release supporting BLM and IMMEDIATELY turned off all commenting. They stated "We condemn the murders of George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor..." Taylor's death was NOT murder and George Floyd's death is under dispute. We should NOT be involving ourselves in these matters with such definitive declarations. Instead, we should support the rule of law and ask that justice be served in each of these cases. We can certainly show empathy for the loss of life and strive to ensure that people are held accountable for their actions as well as potentially changing procedures to further minimize loss of life.

You are (intentionally?) conflating two separate things. My comments were about the "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion philosophy" and the issues I see with it, not diversity or inclusion as standalone terms. Wanting to have a wide-spanning, cross-cultural American organization is not bad. Wanting to be inclusive of people from every walk of life is fine a fine and laudable goal as well. I think we should invest time and effort and resources in recruiting in areas beyond traditional Scouting havens like the inner cities and rural America. It is the methods by which this is attempted to be achieved that are problematic: quotas, affirmative action, etc; all methods that have failed for quality in the past beyond anything other than checking boxes (example: in academics, underqualified students were admitted and later dropped out because they didn't have the requisite academic skills). "Diversity and inclusion" are indeed being used as cover in Academia to push radical leftist agendas and it is creeping into Corporate America. While the language used by another prior poster was not the best, why is a troop of 40 white and Hispanic scouts not as "good" as one of 25 white and Hispanic scouts and 15 black scouts? You cannot judge the quality of a troop based on diversity. Individuals and their choices matter. Perhaps they all just live in the same area! This is similar to the semantic overload of "Black Lives Matter". It has 3 meanings: Like every life, the lives of black people matter. This is uncontroversial. The movement of BLM which ranges from mostly peaceful protests to vandalism to assaults to riots The BLM organization which is run by self-proclaimed Marxists Pretending opposition to one of these (or even part of one of these) is the same as opposition to all of them is absurd, but the term is designed with this in mind. Another example is Antifa or Anti-Fascists (who are ironically engaging in acts of fascism). If you oppose them, they will accuse you of being anti-anti-fascist and, therefore, a fascist. Assuming you aren't being facetious (which I suspect you actually are), apology accepted.

You're "confused" because you are fighting back against something that wasn't said

I respectfully disagree with that point, but I understand the sentiment. BSA has accepted its role in this where the states have not. I agree with virtually everything else that was said!

And just like that, I think we solve this problem. We can agree on this and, to be blunt, I think we can probably agree on the same general, noble goals without indoctrination on any side of a political aisle.

Agreed...Also, do away with the citizenship in the world MB...There's no such thing as a citizen of Earth. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/weekly-standard/affirmative-disaster https://www.city-journal.org/html/multiculti-u-13544.html https://www.ocregister.com/2013/04/28/heather-macdonald-end-ucs-diversity-charade/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJSJcPKA1Ug https://www.amazon.com/Mismatch-Affirmative-Students-s-Universities/dp/0465029965/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1462287664&sr=1-5 https://www.amazon.com/Affirmative-Action-Around-World-Empirical-ebook/dp/B00155ZZPE/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8

I'm going to break this out piece-by-piece to demonstrate that your entire frame of reference is based on VERY poor assumptions. Prager doesn't attempt to come off as an academic institution in any way. They are a Corporate University (no more an academic institution than Disney University or Apple University) https://www.prageru.com/faq/ You didn't watch the video then. To the contrary. JP advocates for both diversity AND inclusion; it's the perversion of these concepts he rails against. This movement redefines these terms to suppress/repress conservative ideas and/or majority views. There is a VAST difference between being respectful and inviting vs (effectively) mandating compliance with dictated, heavy-handed, & conjured societal norms. I've been told to "shut up" solely because I'm a male or white or Christian or a number of other attributes, none of which had anything to do with whether my point/argument was correct. LOL. Keep drinking the lefty kool aid. He specifically claims that he is a "Classic British Liberal". While some of his views are right of center, his general tenets are HIGHLY mainstream and WELL backed by research. The conclusion is based on facts, not opinion. The research and numerous examples are listed below EACH of PragerU's videos. As explained above, no. No one said or implied that "including a wide ranging group of ideas is bad".

I never claimed they were an academic institute of any kind dismissing content as a "conservative mouthpiece" and "propaganda" without discussing substance effectively shows you aren't interested in discussing any points that conservatives have. Very convenient for discussions in which you want to dismiss all opposing views Indeed, they are stating opinions, but I don't see them stating such opinions as facts. I would HIGHLY dispute that "none are backed but any academic-level research". This speaker in particular, Jordan Peterson, is particularly noted for his highly researched materials/presentations. "None of its research or writings meet the minimum academic standards." I would dispute that, but they aren't an academic institution either, so...

Because, instead of talking to me one-on-one, he reported the action to the Military Equal Opportunity office as an act of racism (FWIW, they found no ill intent on my part). The intent of such an action isn't to create a dialogue, but use such power as a cudgel to beat down opposition to their control over your lives. I shouldn't have needed a lawyer, my commander, and character witnesses over a ****ing piece of fruit.

Logic like this is part of the problem. YES, we've had racism...in the past. The past will never go away. We could completely eliminate racism and do absolutely everything that BLM, et al want...and it would still be there. I'm not saying the racism of the past won't go away. I'm saying the past will always have existed. A thousand years from now, the racism of the past will have still existed. We are among LEAST racist countries in the world. We are among the most racially diverse countries in the world Racism definitely still exists in the US, but it also is NOT socially tolerated. Even suspected racist acts are universally condemned. Free speech IS part of our country's core, so racism WILL always be visible and legally allowed within our country, but it isn't socially condoned. I will fight for the right of racists to speak their mind as much as I will fight for BLM, Black Panthers, Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, etc. Free speech is more important While I want to be inoffensive, there are some people who are looking to be offended and will go so far outside what is reasonable that their demands to be inoffensive are themselves offensive. Example: while in the military, I had a complaint filed about me because I had an apple on my desk. Apparently calling a Native American an "apple" is an insult...red on the outside, white on the inside. The member felt the daily fruit from my lunch was personally directed at him despite the fact he was NOT in my flight and NOT even in my unit (he just happened to regularly go through our unit). So, no, I'm not going to go THAT far out of my way to be inoffensive. Intent matters. Context matters. Things that are offensive to some are inoffensive to others. In our melting pot, we should talk about it and understand each others' intent OVER how offended someone may be.

I see ZERO evidence of "supremacy"

Over 2 years ago, PragerU posted a video which warned of the dangers of the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion philosophy. https://www.prageru.com/video/dangerous-people-are-teaching-your-kids/ In short: "Diversity" doesn't mean "a wide ranging group of ideas". It means "increased influence by people more generally aligned with leftist ideals" (usually from groups that deem themselves "oppressed") "Equity" doesn't mean equal opportunity (a laudable goal!), but is instead a focus on equal outcomes, something NO society has EVER come close to achieving. Anything short of it is "evidence" of discriminatory bias; the choices that people make that cause most of these inequities (not all) are merely byproducts of more discrimination. "Inclusion" doesn't mean "be open to others joining your group". Instead it generally focuses on identity based quotas in order to achieve the aforementioned malformed concept of equity. Recently (yesterday?), BSA released a video regarding a new Merit Badge: the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Merit badge...if that doesn't raise a red flag, I'm not sure what does. https://vimeo.com/476454128?fbclid=IwAR2EfbOR-YLmhoDdKVztS0SpP73fJuEK49iua3_xiPJ7ps_VDDxcCDO4vYI I will grant you, they have NOT released the requirements for the MB, but the title and video content alone should be alarming. The video does nothing to dispel such alarm. This is an attempt to appease the leftists in our society. Appeasement NEVER works. They will only demand more. Despite claiming the material will be taught in an "apolitical manner", its title alone makes me question that assertion. Making such a hyperpolitical concept a REQUIREMENT for Eagle Scout Rank is more than absurd, it's pushing a political agenda. Unless this is a poorly phrased title and the video doesn't match the content of the Merit Badge (which doesn't appear likely), I call on all friends of Scouting to speak up and say "no" at your next Roundtable. This top-down directed Merit Badge is an attempt to usurp Councils/Units without input from the scouting community at large and dictate political correctness.