InquisitiveScouter

Systemic racism holds that our societal and governmental structures are all synergistically designed to be racist. (But you will find other varying definitions, which is why putting this term in a merit badge is bad news right now. ) It is still a "neologism." Here's an opinion piece (some of which I disagree with, btw) from USA Today recently https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/09/23/systemic-racism-how-really-define-column/5845788002/ For example, saying that our all our schools, language, justice system, etc. is racist...combined in toto. That is, our whole societal and cultural structure is designed to target purple people for persecution. I find no proof of this. When I say pervasive racism, I mean that widespread individuals, people from different cultural backgrounds, use their power or influence to deny opportunities to people who are not like them. I do not deny that this exists. The resume study you cite is evidence of this. But it is a cultural issue, not a systemic or institutional one. Institutional racism should be charged to a specific institution, like the school system only, or to a corporation. For example, say the corporate board at XYZ, Inc, and the senior executive leadership created a climate of racism and instructed their hiring department to "be more careful when selecting ethnic sounding names for interviews", I would call that institutional racism. Again, definitions vary widely. In this piece, written last Feb, the author equates the two. https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-systemic-racism-and-institutional-racism-131152 If society on the whole is confused about these terms, how can we clarify them for Scouts?? People in the sphere of public and corporate organizations who engage in racist practices should have consequences for their behavior. If it can be proven, consequences do already exist in our laws. If you are a private racist, then fear, sarcasm, ridicule, and ostracism are our collective tools to address and correct their behavior.

Yes, I saw that study...and the results were horrible. But that is not systemic racism. It does show pervasive racism, which I would agree exists. But you have to identify those companies, call them out, fire the interview screeners who did it. Sue them for violating your civil (human) rights for triple the damages...hit em where it hurts. Also, you might want to clarify...this study identified several different types of ethnic sounding names that generated fewer call backs. It was not just about African Americans.

I do like most of the JTE metrics...whoever designed those put some thought into it... Wait...hold that thought...I'd better go review the new JTE stuff to re-confirm

Concur. That is why BSA doesn't do it. They give you the minimums. We use BSA directives to establish the minimums, and then rely on judgment, experience, activity or subject matter expert advice, committee advice, and the input from other leaders on the trip. It's a pretty good recipe for success.

That is the secret sauce, my friend. We have a program wherein a Scout may earn First Class in one year. But, you would have to participate in every activity, and take responsibility for your own advancement. (Like seeking out older Scouts to show your skills to and get them signed off.) The vast majority do not. And, IMHO, they are better Scouts for it. Bingo.

Equality of outcomes versus equality of opportunity?

Agreed, that increasing the number is an achievable goal. But to target it at 50% may not be. Basically, the question is...why 50%??

There is a potential huge error in that Churchill plan goal of "try to achieve 50% of your membership male and female" It assumes that females want the BSA program in the same numbers that males do. Or, another way to put it...it assumes that, of all the youth out there who want to do this Scouting program, that half of them are female. If empirical market research does not back that up, it is a doomed proposal. Do you think they did that market analysis? Here's some reasonably good stuff... https://rmsresults.com/2013/05/15/market-research-case-study-girl-scouts-needs-assessment/ Read the 12 themes...sound familiar?

Reminds us of A Modest Proposal

Lol, last question was "any other suggestions for improvement" I said something like, "Yes, don't send out a survey with a due date in the past, especially in light of the PR mess you are trying to deal with. That lack of diligence sends a bad message."

@RememberSchiff Well, in this case, past performance is probably a guarantee of future results. But one can always hope, right?

Here's a good one in the survey: ----------------------------------------- 9. Which of the following best describes you? Asian or Pacific Islander Black or African American Hispanic or Latino Native American or Alaskan Native White or Caucasian Multiracial or Biracial A race/ethnicity not listed here ---------------------------------------- I chose the last one....identifying people like this is part of the problem. Until we stop the underlying divisions, you will always perpetuate the underlying divisions. "Human" isn't one of the categories...

Ha...just got this email this morning from council Dear Scout Leader, If you have not already done so, please take a moment today to complete this brief survey about your experiences with diversity and inclusion in the local Scouting program. Please take 10-15 minutes to complete this survey between now and December 31. Your responses will help us identify areas for improvement over the coming years. Thank you for all you do for young people in our community! Yes, this morning (31 Dec deadline??)...I'm going to do the survey now...

@yknot No. We are not in any bankruptcy situation...that is squarely on a non-profit corporation called BSA. I am a part of the Scouting movement. BSA is just the current purveyor of Scouting I use. Current challenges? Too nebulous to address... PR...Again, that is on BSA and another non-profit, this council. The only PR we concern ourselves with is for our Scouts, our unit, and our CO. We are not here as showpieces for either the local council or National. and otherwise? Again, too nebulous. "Kind of irresponsible"...no. Parents are fully informed on the complement of adult leaders and the numbers of Scouts going on every outing. Parents also sign a Permission Slip for every outing, where they acknowledge "I understand that participation in Scouting activities involves the risk of personal injury, including death, due to the physical, mental, and emotional challenges in the activities offered. Information about those activities may be obtained from the venue, activity coordinators, or local council. I also understand that participation in these activities is entirely voluntary and requires participants to follow instructions and abide by all applicable rules and the standards of conduct." Before and during each outing, I perform a modified Operational Risk Management approach. I allow Scouts to take lots of risks. Parents understand my approach, in that I have Scouts take risks a lot of the time. (...like letting an 11 year old use an ax!!) Most people who know me or camp with me think I am too cautious (Rather than making snap judgments based on a few lines in a forum.) Adults don't select our Summer Camp location...Scouts do through the PLC. In the case mentioned, that supervision requirement was but one factor in the decision process, albeit a significant one that steered our PLC away from that camp. Please don't read too much into comments made. Ask questions first before jumping to conclusions and resulting to hyperbole. "adequate adult supervision" is outing and activity specific. I would be fine with 30 Scouts and 2 adults, depending on the situation. (If we are camping at our local camp, or in our CO's field.) Would I go into the backcountry with 30 kids and just two adults? Nope. Young people need adventure and risk. Do I let them go too far sometimes? Yes. From time to time, I look at an activity or situation and say, "OK, stop...let's pull back here." Do I not let them go far enough sometimes? Yes. From time to time, I look at an activity or situation and say, "OK...you can go a little farther here." Here's a good read for you... https://www.fatherly.com/parenting/how-to-raise-adventurous-kid/ Best quote from it? "In other words, if kids don’t run to the edge every once in a while, that sense of limitation will harm their brain development." Wanna know why anxiety, fear, and depression are on the rise in our country? It is because adults aren't adequately managing risk for their kids (or Scouts). Having an adult constantly watching everything they do sends this message, "You cannot succeed without an adult." Not taking risks sends this message, "The world is too dangerous for you, and you cannot handle it." https://www.cdc.gov/childrensmentalhealth/features/anxiety-depression-children.html The only way to eliminate all risk is to not do Scouting. I choose to identify, evaluate, and mitigate risks. And where acceptable, I take risks. This makes life (and Scouting) very fun...you should try it I comply with all BSA directives regarding adult supervision. You and your CO have the prerogative to impose more stringent requirements. Fill your boots

1:10 is lifeguards to participants for Safe Swim. Not for adults. Our Scouts were looking at Summer Camp selections one year....one had in their brochure a 1:10 adult ratio, and said that Scouts must stay in sight of adults at all times. Needless to say, we didn"t go to that camp

@sunshinescout You said you were very close to completing your project... 1. Take all of your concerns to your Scoutmaster and Eagle Project Coach (if you have one.) They are closest to the fray, and may have dealt with these situations before. 2. You must use the Eagle Scout Service Project Workbook. If you did, you should have also gotten your proposal approved by your unit, the beneficiary, and some district/council representative. If you don't have this signature page, then you have a problem. See #1. 3. When your project is complete, as long as you did not deviate substantially from your proposal, you will be fine, even if you have to go through some appeals process. As long as your unit leader and the beneficiary sign the project completion page, you will be fine. The National office (if it has to go there, which I doubt) always sides with the Scout. You will notice, there is no Council or District signature line on the Project Approval page (Project Report Page C) 4. Fundraising is never required. If you wanted to pay for Eagle Project entirely out of your own pocket, that is just fine. As to the leadership question, the requirement says you must "...plan, develop, and give leadership to others..." It doesn't say anything about fundraising, and it doesn't say anything about how many others, or what their ages must be. This is where your unit leader comes in, and why they must sign your project approval, stating "In my opinion, this Eagle Scout service project meets Eagle Scout requirement 5, as stated on page 4 of this workbook." Hopefully, enough other people (Scouts?) were involved that this will not be an issue. Again, talk to your Scoutmaster. I will tell you, as I always tell leaders and parents, "It's not about the project. It's about the Scout." If you planned the project, developed it, and led others to complete it, you are fine. If someone else did any of those for you, then you did not complete your project. Your Scoutmaster is your adult advocate if any questions do arise. Finally, take this advice, "Don't fight dragons that aren't there." If your proposal is approved, and you work that proposal while leading others, you will be fine, even if someone at District or Council doesn't "like" it. Work your proposal as approved, and all is well. Congrats!!

Dad-brag... Son has been with it since Tigers...Eagle BOR last December. Is 15 and has 143 nights with BSA. This does not include all the camping we have done just Dad and son. Dad-shame... I have failed to communicate to him the value in pursuing the NMOA. Just not his thing, it seems.

Great discussion...perhaps for a new thread? I'm with @fred8033 on this one, in the frontcountry. Backcountry (more than one hour from definitive care), no way. I push for four adults, minimum. Primarily to help handle the psychological impacts of worst cases scenarios. "What experts do know is that children and teens tend to be more vulnerable to the effects of trauma than adults whose brains have fully developed. The underdeveloped brain is not mature enough to integrate the traumatic experience and process it in a way that facilitates moving on from it." https://paradigmtreatment.com/teens-vulnerable-ptsd-adults/ In both scenarios, minimizing adult "presence" is key. Youth camp where they want...adults camp far away, but within reach if there is a problem. Our Scouts love this, and the culture from the older ones passed on to the youngers is "Don't mess up this good deal for us!" I want them to experience adventure and independence/interdependence, without removing the safety net.

Ahhh...I see where the confusion lies... Commas matter! The requirement, as written in the 2020 Scouts BSA Requirements book (the source document) says for requirement 2a: "Cycling merit badge or Ranger Cycling/Mountain Biking elective and 100 miles of cycling" Grammatically speaking, this should be separated into two options, A. Cycling merit badge OR B. Ranger Cycling/Mountain Biking elective and 100 miles of cycling This is exactly the way this is parsed out in Scoutbook, if you can look there and see it under any Scout in their awards section. If they wanted an additional 100 miles over and above "Cycling merit badge or Ranger Cycling/Mountain Biking elective", then it should be written as "Cycling merit badge or Ranger Cycling/Mountain Biking elective, and 100 miles of cycling" with the serial, or Oxford comma. They could have written it more clearly by capitalizing the conjunctions with the comma, "Cycling merit badge OR Ranger Cycling/Mountain Biking elective, AND 100 miles of cycling" Or even more clearly: "Cycling merit badge AND 100 miles of cycling, OR Ranger Cycling/Mountain Biking elective AND 100 miles of cycling" Since the mechanical structure of the sentence is ambiguous without the comma, I'd say you may interpret it in favor of the Scout, and therefore with less mileage required. If you are the "spirit of the requirement" - type person, you could interpret it more stringently. Here's why... Just using the road requirement, the Range candidate has to complete 160 miles (8 x 20-mile tours) and another 50 miles (1 x 50 miler), for a total of 210 miles. This is more than Cycling merit badge candidate, who has to complete 150 miles road riding. Do you think the award designers wanted the Ranger to tack on an additional 100 (for a total of 310 miles), and not the the Merit Badger (still at total of 150), just for this requirement? Commas do matter... "Let's eat Grandma!" or "Let's eat, Grandma!" Whichever you choose, just be consistent with all Scouts until the requirements are clarified (in an official source.) For another set of perspectives, you can see the thread at https://discussions.scouting.org/t/national-outdoor-riding-award/125461

I have been listening. And have taken sides with reason and evidence. Developing the vaccine, if you will https://www.wsj.com/articles/social-justice-warriors-wont-listen-but-you-should-11570832255

Not at all. But, your proposed statement doesn't fit the narrative BSA is kowtowing to.

Agreed. And I believe you agree with me that the BSA is misguided (at best) in thinking they can address societal issues in any better and more meaningful way if this commission of "experts" and the US government has difficulty getting to the the meat of the matter. I do find this report, so far, to be a good basis from which to start the scrutiny of our human rights traditions and progress. I withhold final judgment until I have digested the entire report.

Although I am still in the midst of reading it, I recommend this read to all. https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Draft-Report-of-the-Commission-on-Unalienable-Rights.pdf Recommendations to BSA 1. Change the name to Human Rights Merit Badge. 2. Rework the content of merit badge to encapsulate perspectives released in the Commission report above. 3. If you want to provide rank requirements, use an "ages and stages" approach to address increasingly complex views and examples of human rights issues, with regard to the prerogatives reserved to family and faith. P.S. Report was released to public on 26 August 2020.

I wish I knew who said this...until I can find out who, I'll take credit. "When we disguise our feelings as reason, we make all nonsense possible." This is the ultimate problem in all of this... properly identifying the use of emotion as support for a position. It is a logical fallacy. The forces which push the current agendas (aka, the left) tend (I said "tend") to think with their emotions rather than demonstrable facts. You can see the results in the news every day. The greatest accomplishment of our Western civilization and thought is that INDIVIDUALS MATTER. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." We have sought over the history of our country to embody these principles in our Constitution and laws. We will always be a work in progress. Whenever, and wherever we diverge from these basic principles, we fail. Slavery was a fail. Denying rights and citizenship to natives was a fail. Denying property rights and suffrage to women was a fail. All these failures were the result of focusing on a GROUP, rather than the INDIVIDUAL. BLM, White supremacists, Antifa, Proud Boys, SJWs, robber barons, Marxists, monopolists, postmodernists, diversity worshippers, etc. etc. etc. all fail to hold to these basic principles. Identify for me a specific case where some individual is denied these unalienable rights by another individual, institution, or government, and I will fight with you for change and justice. If you look at a list of landmark decisions for civil rights by the Supreme Court, you will see that one party is almost always an INDIVIDUAL. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landmark_court_decisions_in_the_United_States

But, pursuing diversity as an end, and including someone simply because they help you reach that end, is evil.