Update on new Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion MB

[CynicalScouter]

This just came in from our Region and Area Advancement chairs:

Quote

I wanted to provide you an update on the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion merit badge. As you might know, the Development Team has been working feverishly on developing the requirements for the DEI merit badge for the past several months.

The requirements have been completed and approved. The DEI Team has developed notes for the Merit Badge Counselor and currently working on Content for scouts to use as they begin earning the merit badge.

January 1, 2021 is the date that scouts can begin earning the merit badge, and May 1, 2021 is when the DEI merit badge becomes an Eagle required merit badge.

As more information is made available, we will send it out.

 

[RememberSchiff]

So does this mean another membership change?

Specifically that mostly all BSA scouting units will be coed (inclusive) on Jan 1, 2021 as UK Scouting Association units did in 2007?

[qwazse]

I love all of the white Lake Erie Council scouters in the comments lining up to counsel this badge ... without even seeing the requirements.

I wish them well.

[Armymutt]

I'm not clear on why this is a merit badge.  Surely the basic tenets of Scouting already incorporate these ideas.  I suppose if one wants to explore them, fine, but I don't think it needs to be required for Eagle.  American Cultures isn't required, but it is essentially a diversity merit badge. 

[qwazse]

11 minutes ago, Armymutt said:

I'm not clear on why this is a merit badge.  Surely the basic tenets of Scouting already incorporate these ideas.  I suppose if one wants to explore them, fine, but I don't think it needs to be required for Eagle.  American Cultures isn't required, but it is essentially a diversity merit badge. 

For “why”, you need to look at the source ... https://scoutingwire.org/bsas-commitment-to-act-against-racial-injustice/, specifically, the signatories. This bypasses the usual MB process and comes from the top down. The CEO’s bio https://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2020/01/28/getting-to-know-roger-c-mosby-the-new-president-and-ceo-of-the-boy-scouts-of-america/  explains:

Quote

... Mosby’s day job included running the entire Human Resources operation for more than 11,000 employees as a vice president at leading energy infrastructure company Kinder Morgan, before retiring in 2015 and running his own consulting firm focused on executive coaching.

In the past decade, HR folks have benefited greatly from mandatory D&I. It stands to reason that if you put a person with that background at the top of your organization, this is the solution he will push down to every level he can.

[jjlash]

25 minutes ago, Armymutt said:

I'm not clear on why this is a merit badge.  Surely the basic tenets of Scouting already incorporate these ideas.

Yes, the basic tenets of Scouting incorporate the ideas but they do not, in themselves, raise awareness of different kinds of diversity, and what equity and inclusion looks like for different groups or different circumstances.  Our goal is to make "good human beings" and Eagle Scouts should be the best examples of this - so it seems like a really good life skill for Eagle Scouts to have had an introduction to DEI beyond what they might experience in their own little corner of the world.

 

[Eagle94-A1]

My concern is the 5 month transition period. Most advancement changes, except for the Cub Scout December 2016 which were made easier than the June 2015 changes,  have had a 1 year phase in, not a 5 month phase in. Depending upon the requirements, especially if their is a 90 day period involved, this will affect many Scouts, especially those girls who are on the Eagle extension.

[Eagle94-A1]

Well I found my answer in the GUIDE TO ADVANCMENT, and of course it is doublespeak.

Page 16 has the answer, and the doublespeak is bolded

 If a new or revised rank or Eagle Palm requirement is introduced in a reprinting of the Scouts BSA Handbook after the annual release of the Scouts BSA Requirements book, then the Scout has until the following December 31 to decide what to do. The Scout may continue—or begin work—using the old requirements, or may switch to—or begin work—using the new requirements. Any Scout who chooses to use the old requirements may continue using them until the rank has been completed. Sometimes, however—especially for more significant changes—the Scouts BSA Handbook, the Scouts BSA Requirements book, or official communications from the National Council may set forth a different procedure that must be used and may establish a date by when use of the old requirements must cease.

Gotta love it.

 

[RememberSchiff]

On 11/7/2020 at 7:17 AM, RememberSchiff said:

So does this mean another membership change?

Specifically that mostly all BSA scouting units will be coed (inclusive) on Jan 1, 2021 as UK Scouting Association units did in 2007?

Found it, well maybe , in Churchill Plan. https://www.dropbox.com/s/84zg3a6lccmza2p/BSA Churchill Plan-Proposed New Territory Structure and Council Standards presentation 10.6.20.pdf?dl=0

 

Edited November 11, 2020 by RememberSchiff

[PACAN]

The presentation looks like an administrative overhead shuffle the deck with zero mention of cost savings to the scout.

There is mention of how many councils are currently meeting or not meeting some of the metrics but the numbers on gender and youth of color is not.

[carebear3895]

16 hours ago, RememberSchiff said:

Churchill Plan

I like how that presentation deflects all blame off National and puts it on the Local Councils. It kinda assumes Councils are below these "quotas", for lack of a better term, because the field staff simply aren't trying hard enough. 

 

Want to make scouting more accessible to low income families…..maybe stop raising the membership fee and get rid of that horrendous new member tax. 

[Jameson76]

4 minutes ago, carebear3895 said:

I like how that presentation deflects all blame off National and puts it on the Local Councils. It kinda assumes Councils are below these "quotas", for lack of a better term, because the field staff simply aren't trying hard enough. 

 

Want to make scouting more accessible to low income families…..maybe stop raising the membership fee and get rid of that horrendous new member tax. 

But .... but .... we are always told Scouting's a great value, less than sports..yada yada yada.  Worth WAAAY more than being charged.  Also they (National) did a survey and 129% of families want a program *like* Scouting (note that does not actually mean they want to join Scouting...but we digress).

If the Brain Trust does not truly understand and accept the reasons for Scouting's decline (muddled program initiatives, Zero National marketing, no real "benchmarking" to determine best practice for successful units, etc etc) they will never be able to correct, improve, and move forward.

I am thinking 16 National Subset ZONEs will have NO impact on actual units and improvement in membership rolls.

[ParkMan]

5 minutes ago, Jameson76 said:

But .... but .... we are always told Scouting's a great value, less than sports..yada yada yada.  Worth WAAAY more than being charged.  Also they (National) did a survey and 129% of families want a program *like* Scouting (note that does not actually mean they want to join Scouting...but we digress).

If the Brain Trust does not truly understand and accept the reasons for Scouting's decline (muddled program initiatives, Zero National marketing, no real "benchmarking" to determine best practice for successful units, etc etc) they will never be able to correct, improve, and move forward.

I am thinking 16 National Subset ZONEs will have NO impact on actual units and improvement in membership rolls.

Where this has the potential to help is that it will lead to weak councils being merged together. 

Where this will not help is that it's not proscriptive.  It doesn't add much in terms of new ideas on how districts & units operate any differently.  As this is where the magic needs to happen, I am not optimistic.  One big concern about the new 16 territory structure is that it will funnel territory support through council boards and professionals.  As the real challenge is in the districts and units, I don't see how the new structure will actually help resolve problems.  Council board people & professionals will make things look rosey for the territory folks which will end up not having any real impact where it's needed.

[carebear3895]

10 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

Where this has the potential to help is that it will lead to weak councils being merged together. 

I don't agree with this line of thought. All bigger councils create is bigger problems and more overheard cost. (See Michigan Crossroads) 

[ParkMan]

Just now, carebear3895 said:

I don't agree with this line of thought. All bigger councils create is bigger problems and more overheard cost. (See Michigan Crossroads) 

That will be an interesting thing to watch.  I can see your point - simply making larger, less manageable councils won't necessarily solve anything.

Yet, I look around the map and see lots of small councils with probably just a couple thousand Scouts.  I suspect that in some of the less well managed councils one of the primary issues is the lack of operational knowledge.  Lots of inefficient, mismanaged teams - council boards that don't know how to build council & district teams to accomplish their goals.  I believe the core theory is that by merging an underperforming council with a high performing council that things will improve.  The fallacy of that of course is that the governance model in Scouting makes that exceptionally hard to achieve.