Bowsprit

This I agree with you on. It is only partially a cost problem, with rising tuition but programs heavily geared to assist racial minorities, and to a lesser extent low income whites. It is hard for a person who spent their youth in an apathetic, underfunded school, in a high crime area where getting through the day unscathed is more top of mind that getting good grades, to decide it might be better in college. Regarding DEI, more talking about this helps nobody. Been doing that for 50 years, with minimal results. This is an action item for localities.

Remimds me of another metric or two. Boys and young men are measurably less interested in dating than they ever used to be. And not by a little bit. Girls are increasingly frustrated with the difficulty in finding a respectful and responsible boy to date. They seem to have the most consistent luck... at all boys schools. That's from Dr. Leonard Sax

No, but your enrollment numbers tell the same story. That's a 9 percent gap, before actually doing any higher schooling. It was 50/50 for a long time, and heavily weighted male prior to that for well known reasons of cultural disuasion for girls to attend college.

You are not going to convince me with cherry picked stats like raw numbers, esp. when the population itself has grown considerably... And ultimately there remains a 60:40 graduation gap favoring females that relates more to the question at hand than simply saying "more boys than ever attend college". Where raw numbers do count is number of suicides. Girl suicide growth is associated with social media addiction, not school. Boy suicide growth is associated with feelings of disenfranchisement in the world at large, which comes from cultural shifts that present themselves most accutely to the age we are talking about, in school. So no, I have not "been lied to".

To be sure, there is a link between widespread racism in the past and the poverty of non-whites, specifically in the US. There is also racism now, but seems to be attributed to "them" and "they" and "the system" etc. rather than specific culprits, such as specific public officials making specific laws targetted at specific groups , well studied and known to cause economic degeneration. But that isn't included in DEI.

I respectfully disagree, based on many metrics, including the current success rates of boys vs girls in school at all ages, the 60:40 college graduation rate favoring females, and the disproportionately higher rate of suicide for boys. I also don't believe the "short" camping period has a relationship with the retention quality of what is being taught at those camps.

Yes. Absolutely. There is significant data showing both genders benefit from gender specific teaching styles, because both genders mature different areas of personality and cognitive ability at different rates. For example, boys frequently fall behind in elementary school because they tend to have a more active, physical learning style early in life and do not do as well as girls sitting in a chair for 5 hours a day. Girls learn high school science just as well as boys, but tend to have poorer grades when the teaching style is boy centric, ie "If you shoot a bullet at 1200 fps..." vs "You and your friends are flying to Paris at 600mph...". The social constructionist crowd and the people they influence who don't know they are being indoctrinated with social constructionist ideas attribute this to society teaching girls to act like girls and boys to act like boys, but this has been thoroughly debunked for decades. The effect is nearly completely biological in nature. Introducing girls to BSA is reasonable. Expecting an equal number of girls as boys without diluting the program in ways that makes it less interesting to boys is unreasonable.

No, you don't "got it". You're not understanding what we're explaining at all. After you chill try reading again and think about it.

That's not it at all. The concept that belief does not necessarily equate to reality is pretty sound. While half the people I was talking about believe eeoc hurts their chances of getting a job, half the people believe it does not hirt their prospects. If we flip the "ringing endorsement" statement we can jist as easily say half the people believeing it doesn't hurt their chances is a ringing endorsement that systemic racism doesn't exist. All we are saying is that perception doesn't necessarily make a thing true. If it did my wife would always be right... Oh wait nevermind.

You are both correct, and not talking about the same thing.

It's a ringing endorsement that people believe it exists, and IMHO it does (I won't get into who is largely responsible for creating it - separate topic), but is not an endorsement that it *does* exist.

Imagine if Apple had to sell THEIR product according to ethnicity and gender quotas. They would have to adjust prices based on race and gender of the consumer to make it happen. Last I checked that was 100% illegal.

I read somehwere that around 50% of African Americans choose not to self identify with the belief it hurts their chances for employment. I've spoken with a few AA friends about this too and they, being a very small sample, confirm this is likely true. I don't know if it hurts their chances for employment or not, but this data is supposed to be helpful and a large number of the people it is supposedly helping feel it is harmful. Maybe the knee jerk sledgehammer approach to problem solving doesn't work well on complicated, delicate problems. DEI is in general much more sledgehammery than EEOC. Take bullying for example. Be all upstanders and mob people you percieve as acting like bullies. Sounds good on the surface, then you realize that the definition of bullying in that instant depends almost exclusively on who is doing the percieving. For example, a skeptical guest speaker getting shut down at a university. Are those kids being upstanders or are they the real bullies? Just one example of why I am personally quite skeptical and pessimistic about DEI.

I accept your declaration of intent at face value, but you still have not specified what is "vile". Your further comments indicate you find the conversation worthwhile after all, so I'm glad you apparently see it that way.

Ok, then who's making vile comments? You painted the whole conversation with that brush. I can tell you for certain that people not coming together and having this conversation can't change anything. Shutting down the conversation because you don't see the value isn't very scouty. We're teaching kids to think and lead not be silently accepting of whatever the world throws at them. In short, your comment was pessimistic and dismissive, hence you coming across as righteous.

No, you are getting downvoted for resorting to name calling and insisting we don't get to be skeptical about DEI training. In effect, you're trying to shut dow the conversation and declare your position indisputably righteous.

Well put position. Here is the hook about DEI that gets peoples' attention. Zero posters on this thread, regardless of their position on this issue, are coming across as racist or sexist to me. Yet, as I read through these comments, especially from certain commentors, there is a clear implied accusation that those of us against DEI training must be racist, despite a complete lack of any evidence to the effect. This is attempted bullying from the people who are telling us we all need to stop being bullies. Outside this forum, which is thankfully mostly respectful, the accusations are much more direct. When someone tries to shut down resistance or skepticism regarding an idea by resorting to doing the very thing they claim to be trying to stop, you should be getting alarm bells. You should be thinking these are not the people who should be making the rules about this thing. Make sense?

I'm not going in circles with you about this. If you don't want to discuss it stop discussing it.

This is an inherently political discussion. If BSA doesn't want to have it they shouldn't be requiring a MB about it. The law and oath exemplify scouting enough, and apolitically, to get the message we all agree on across. DEI comes from one side of the political spectrum, the quality of the 'science' supporting it is on par with Eugenics, and we don't all agree it's a good thing or that it is even consistent with the law and oath. Hence this conversation.

Generally BSA seems to have done well in determining merit badges. Some people have said the requirements have been nerfed over time, that wouldn't suprise me. It's hard to compete on a basis of hard work in a culture that prizes instant gratification. Yet providing opportunities and direction for becoming a principled human being is what scouts are supposed to be about. Hence the disagreement about this specific badge and the greater concern over the direction of BSA in general. If it isn't going to provide the expected value, and continue its slow morphing into merely another vessel for propaganda laden entertainment, I'm out.

You make a good argument with that Ford quote, however with Ford and BSA both adopting a stance that supports BLM's (the organization) narrative, and with BLM being an openly Marxist organization, I do not find that argument compelling.

Hence why I said we need to wait and see, with the caveat that I am not optimistic about it.

No, that's equality of opportunity. Equity is very different. I know this seems like splitting hairs, but it is important to properly define the key issue of topic if we're going to discuss it. "The terms equality and equity are often used interchangeably; however, they differ in important ways. Equality is typically defined as treating everyone the same and giving everyone access to the same opportunities. Meanwhile, equity refers to proportional representation (by race, class, gender, etc.)" It is in fact a Marxist idea, one that has become increasingly popular among people who don't know it is a Marxist idea because they think Equity is a synonym for Equality of opportuinity, the same way you do. Originally Marxism was all about class, but this grew to include any potentially divisive "identity" group in the 60's and 70's. The allure of Marxism is that it sounds like everything people say they want, prosperity for all, fair treatment, etc. The effect of Marxism on a population, it turns out, is the exact opposite. But this appeal, being a natural human desire, is intentionally used to lead people in a Marxist direction without the Marxists typically telling those people where they are being led. You see, Lenin's tactics were effective enough to be used around the world and proven to be more effective the more ignorant a population was about Marxism, hence the common term Leninist-Marxist to describe those who use them.

That's exactly right, total, 100% agreement. If this DEI badge is to teach these boys what DEI typically teaches we're talking about training derived from critical race theory. There is solid psychological evidence that CRT exaserbates racism and creates it where none previously existed. Of course we'll wait and see if this is the case with the MB, but with who is running BSA and the direction the org is going I'm not optimistic that it will be something different. Parents who don't want their kids going in certain neighborhoods may have other reasons besides race for making such rules. Chances are most of them remember the 90's crime wave and their memories of what happened in certain parts of town rather than race is what colors their perception. I know many a "woke" person who feels that way exactly. Some have been teaching their kids never to buy pot in certain neighborhoods.

That's a good and relevant question. You address the ideas of what divesity and inclusion are supposed to be, bit not Equity and how D and I support it in the context it is given. Equity is the idea that everyone should get the same outcome regardless of their ability or effort. This is completely counter to equality of opportunity, as well as not possible to accomplish. For example, does BSA now give every kid an Eagle regardless of the effort they put in? No, and if they start the Eagle becomes valueless. In this context "Diversity" is not what you described. It is a justification for Equity and takes the form of disfavoring individuality, which is how we teach scouts to see other people - as unique individuals - and replaces that with a concept of group identity so that some groups are 'oppressors' and others 'oppressed', which in turn gives direction to Equity in the form of moving resources such as jobs or tax dollars from members of one group to another. Inclusion is not about including everyone, it is about choosing who to exclude - namely anyone who disagrees that Equity is a good idea. Inclusion is also about ensuring that ideas which are not supported by sound principles (such as Equity and other things we wouldn't consider "morally straight") are allowed into the culture rather than excluded. Ultimately these are Marxist ideas, and Marxism is hugely contentious, mostly because the last 100 years proved these ideas result in millions of dead people. That's not trivial, therefore neither are the concerns about it.