Update on new Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion MB

[MattR]

We'll, at least there is a lot of diversity in the whining around here. 

[qwazse]

1 hour ago, JoeBob said:

I say we make Cooking MB really mean something: "Catch, kill, clean, cook and eat a small animal native to your area."  For diversity, you can require one fur-bearing animal and either a fish or reptile.  Equity will allow the vegans to make acorn bread or cattail pancakes.  Be sure to be inclusive of the condiments. Tobasco Catsup makes anything taste good.

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."

Edited December 17, 2020 by qwazse

[qwazse]

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.)

[CynicalScouter]

On 11/20/2020 at 4:08 PM, Navybone said:

And to be clear, I was calling out PragerU as a source and revealing its bias for anyone who may be unaware.  I was not offering a counterpoint to any to its statements, no matter what I think of them.  I will not convince you otherwise on a message board like this - its imporssible.  All I can do it make sure that there is no doubt on the bias of the source.

Still no word on the requirements, but I was in an email exchange with my advancement chair and another person who will be the other MBC for this.

He's planning on using Prager U. and Ben Shapiro videos as well. As he put it, if the point is to "discuss" this stuff, showing a video that argues that a) institutional racism doesn't exist b) systematic racism doesn't exist and c) intersectionality = Marxism and asking scouts to discuss should work fine.

That, and a Blue Lives Matter vid (to counter BSA's Black Lives Matter endorsement)

I really don't think BSA is going to like how this is implemented in some places.

Edited January 1, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[Navybone]

2 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

Still no word on the requirements, but I was in an email exchange with my advancement chair and another person who will be the other MBC for this.

He's planning on using Prager U. and Ben Shapiro videos as well. As he put it, if the point is to "discuss" this stuff, showing a video that argues that a) institutional racism doesn't exist b) systematic racism doesn't exist and c) intersectionality = Marxism and asking scouts to discuss should work fine.

That, and a Blue Lives Matter vid (to counter BSA's Black Lives Matter endorsement)

I really don't think BSA is going to like how this is implemented in some places.

Well this is a wasted opportunity to have a non-political discussion about how some people are disadvantaged because racism exist in this country.  It’s an opportunity on how to recognize racism and step up and live up to the values of the Scout Law.  
my biggest concern is that the approach you are mention will make some scouts think the issue is a blue lives matter vs diversity and racism.  And it’s not.  There is a part of the population of this country who are disenfranchised based on they way they are engaged based on skin color, religion or maybe their sexual leanings.  This is an opportunity to prepare scouts for college and being an adult.  What a wasted opportunity.   

[CynicalScouter]

1 hour ago, Navybone said:

my biggest concern is that the approach you are mention will make some scouts think the issue is a blue lives matter vs diversity and racism. 

That ship sailed with a) BSA's letter endorsing Black Lives Matter (note the caps) and b) having to send a "just kidding" letter to Law Enforcement Explorer units after that backlash.

[Bowsprit]

1 hour ago, Navybone said:

Well this is a wasted opportunity to have a non-political discussion...What a wasted opportunity.   

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.

[InquisitiveScouter]

A little tongue-in-cheek, bit maybe something along these lines, instead?

Be a Decent and Stand-up Scout Merit Badge (aka BADASS MB)

1.  Show that you can currently repeat the Scout Oath from memory.

2.  Show that you can currently repeat the Scout Law from memory.

3.  Define tolerance and acceptance.  Explain the difference.  Give an example of a belief or practice held by someone else that you tolerate, but do not accept.  Then, tie a square knot.

4.  List five different categories people often classify others or themselves into.  Explain how excluding people based on categories can violate the Scout Oath and Law.  Then, tie a bowline.

5.  Define stereotypes.  List one stereotype associated with the five different categories you named in requirement 4, and explain how each one of those stereotypes violates the Scout Oath and Law.  Then, tie a sheet bend.

6.  Define discrimination.  Give an example of how someone in each of the five categories you chose in requirement 4 may have been discriminated against.  Give one example of illegal discrimination. Then, tie a two half hitches.

7.  Recite from memory the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.  Explain its meaning in your own words.  Then, tie a taut line hitch.

8. Recite from memory the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.  Explain its meaning in your own words. Then, tie a timber hitch.

9.  Explain the concept of freedom of association and how it is based on the First and Fourteenth Amendments.  Explain how freedom of association allows for discrimination.  Give an example of legal discrimination. Then, tie a clove hitch.

10.  With a parent or guardian, explain how something can be legal, but still immoral, according to your faith.  Give to your parent or guardian an example of legal discrimination that is immoral, according to your faith.  Then, without help, and within five degrees, plot a magnetic course between two points on a topographic map.

Anyone want to add anything else?

 

 

[Scouted2000]

Where are the official requirements. Its January 1st almost 2nd

[Navybone]

2 hours ago, Bowsprit said:

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.

“the practice or quality of including or involving people from a range of different social and ethnic backgrounds and of different genders, sexual orientations, etc.” 

this is political?  Really, that is what you think?  If you do, then this is a waste of time even trying to discuss it.  

[Navybone]

1 hour ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

0.  With a parent or guardian, explain how something can be legal, but still immoral, according to your faith.  Give to your parent or guardian an example of legal discrimination that is immoral, according to your faith.  Then, without help, and within five degrees, plot a magnetic course between two points on a topographic map.

Anyone want to add anything else?

I would only add that when discussing something that is legal, that while you can consider it immoral, it does not mean you can ostracize or otherwise exclude someone who does not agree with your assessment of that something being immoral. 

[MattR]

27 minutes ago, Scouted2000 said:

Where are the official requirements. Its January 1st almost 2nd

Welcome to the forum, @Scouted2000, and good question. It could help knowing what we're arguing about.

[fred8033]

1 hour ago, Navybone said:

“the practice or quality of including or involving people from a range of different social and ethnic backgrounds and of different genders, sexual orientations, etc.” 

this is political?  Really, that is what you think?  If you do, then this is a waste of time even trying to discuss it.  

Value statements such as the above are usually not political.  The daily application can be political.  How it's taught especially now is usually very political ... especially now.

 

[BQZip]

1 hour ago, Navybone said:

“the practice or quality of including or involving people from a range of different social and ethnic backgrounds and of different genders, sexual orientations, etc.” 

this is political?  Really, that is what you think?  If you do, then this is a waste of time even trying to discuss it.  

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:

1. 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
2. Black Lives Matter (the organization with "trained Marxists" in charge, by their own claims). Whose goals include the destruction of the nuclear family
3. 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. 
 

1 hour ago, Navybone said:

I would only add that when discussing something that is legal, that while you can consider it immoral, it does not mean you can ostracize or otherwise exclude someone who does not agree with your assessment of that something being immoral. 

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

[MikeS72]

6 hours ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

A little tongue-in-cheek, bit maybe something along these lines, instead?

Be a Decent and Stand-up Scout Merit Badge (aka BADASS MB)

1.  Show that you can currently repeat the Scout Oath from memory.

2.  Show that you can currently repeat the Scout Law from memory.

3.  Define tolerance and acceptance.  Explain the difference.  Give an example of a belief or practice held by someone else that you tolerate, but do not accept.  Then, tie a square knot.

4.  List five different categories people often classify others or themselves into.  Explain how excluding people based on categories can violate the Scout Oath and Law.  Then, tie a bowline.

5.  Define stereotypes.  List one stereotype associated with the five different categories you named in requirement 4, and explain how each one of those stereotypes violates the Scout Oath and Law.  Then, tie a sheet bend.

6.  Define discrimination.  Give an example of how someone in each of the five categories you chose in requirement 4 may have been discriminated against.  Give one example of illegal discrimination. Then, tie a two half hitches.

7.  Recite from memory the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.  Explain its meaning in your own words.  Then, tie a taut line hitch.

8. Recite from memory the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.  Explain its meaning in your own words. Then, tie a timber hitch.

9.  Explain the concept of freedom of association and how it is based on the First and Fourteenth Amendments.  Explain how freedom of association allows for discrimination.  Give an example of legal discrimination. Then, tie a clove hitch.

10.  With a parent or guardian, explain how something can be legal, but still immoral, according to your faith.  Give to your parent or guardian an example of legal discrimination that is immoral, according to your faith.  Then, without help, and within five degrees, plot a magnetic course between two points on a topographic map.

Anyone want to add anything else?

 

 

In honor of Fred McMurray, one of those knots ought to be a sheepshank.