Update on new Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion MB

[InquisitiveScouter]

33 minutes ago, BQZip said:

Equity

Equality of outcomes versus equality of opportunity?

[CynicalScouter]

5 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

I think one could argue that they could have introduced a series of graduated steps with milestones for councils to achieve. 

The Churchill plan calls for Councils to either meet the diversity goal OR show year over year improvement. Is that what you mean by graduated steps?

[Eagledad]

37 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

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

Basically, the question is...why 50%??

When I coached scouters developing their Woodbadge ticket, I spent most of my efforts on showing them how to set realistic goals. The goal that I had to contend with the most was getting all new scouts to first class in one year. I had to explain that in a boy run program, they don't have, or shouldn't have, that kind of control over the scouts. So, instead set the goal to develop a program where any scout of any age could earn First Class in one year if the scout chooses to make that their personal goal. 

It doesn't occur to many people that improving the program has more long term benefits than just trying to push one group of scouts to a goal they may not like. With the irony that the scouts leave the program as a result

Of course National could create a few temporary drives to recruit scouts that reach their goals, but does that help in the long term? What if they don't reach these carelessly thought out goals? You think the sexists' GSUSA is going to stand back and watch the so called BSA professionals recruit out or their only resource without responding? They might even make a goal to beat the BSA's recruiting goal of girls.

Folks that know me know that I am highly critical of the changes National has made to the program for the last couple of generations because they have only added more burden on the adults and fed a continued membership decline. These goals they are setting or a reflection of their mindless approach to changes in the program. 

Barry

[Owls_are_cool]

Still not listed on the Merit Badge Page. Since it is not required until May 1, they will not list the requirements to this badge until closer to that date?

 

[CynicalScouter]

Just now, Owls_are_cool said:

Still not listed on the Merit Badge Page. Since it is not required until May 1, they will not list the requirements to this badge until closer to that date?

Even if it doesn't become Eagle-required until May 1, it becomes optional January 1. Or was supposed to until National screwed up the roll out.

[InquisitiveScouter]

5 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

So, instead set the goal to develop a program where any scout of any age could earn First Class in one year if the scout chooses to make that their personal goal. 

It doesn't occur to many people that improving the program has more long term benefits than just trying to push one group of scouts to a goal they may not like. With the irony that the scouts leave the program as a result

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.

 

6 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

These goals they are setting or a reflection of their mindless approach to changes in the program. 

Bingo.

[Owls_are_cool]

27 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

Folks that know me know that I am highly critical of the changes National has made to the program for the last couple of generations because they have only added more burden on the adults and fed a continued membership decline. These goals they are setting or a reflection of their mindless approach to changes in the program. 

This is a good point. Journey to Excellence wants a certain percentage of scouts to advance one rank to to a summer camp, etc. This measure should be revisited to measure the correct things.

[InquisitiveScouter]

1 minute ago, Owls_are_cool said:

Journey to Excellence wants a certain percentage of scouts to advance one rank

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

[Owls_are_cool]

2 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

I do like most of the JTE metrics

Me too.

[TAHAWK]

22 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

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

JTE "metrics" fail to  give any points for actualluy using the Patrol Method - not a decision or any leadershipo by Scouts is required.  Morteover, it does not give points for election of Scout leaders, so the adult-run troop method is AOK with "JTE."

It does not necessarily require a single actual outdoor activity, defining indoor activities as "camping" in the official Q&A.    So no poutdoor program whatsoever is AOK with "JTE."

Wretched at best.

 

[TAHAWK]

2 minutes ago, TAHAWK said:

JTE "metrics" fail to  give any points for actually using the Patrol Method - not a decision or any leadership by Scouts is required.  Morteover, it does not give points for election of Scout leaders, so the adult-run troop method is AOK with "JTE."

It does not necessarily require a single actual outdoor activity, defining indoor activities as "camping" in the official Q&A.    So no outdoor program whatsoever is AOK with "JTE."

Wretched at best.

 

It does give points for fund-raising camping at a council summer camp.  Just not for any other outdoor activity.  Hike? Nah!  Bacjpack? Nope.  Weekend camp - in the out-of-doors?  Unnecessary for the "journey" to  "excellence."

 

They are just not very good at their jobs.

[Bowsprit]

4 hours ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

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...

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.

[Bowsprit]

4 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

Councils are going to be scrambling to get MBCs for this PLUS all Councils have been told to expand their diversity up to and bordering on the creation of quotas.

This was part of the Churchill plans
 

 

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.

[CynicalScouter]

19 minutes ago, Bowsprit said:

I read somehwere that around 50% of African Americans choose not to self identify with the belief it hurts their chances for employment

Which is a ringing endorsement for the notion that systemic racism still exists.

Of course, research has shown that just having an African-American sounding NAME or other indicator that the person is an African American leads to fewer job interviews.

Bertrand, M., & Mullainathan, S. (2003). Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination. doi:10.3386/w9873

Quote

We study race in the labor market by sending fictitious resumes to help-wanted ads in Boston and Chicago newspapers. To manipulate perceived race, resumes are randomly assigned African-American- or White-sounding names. White names receive 50 percent more callbacks for interviews. Callbacks are also more responsive to resume quality for White names than for African-American ones. The racial gap is uniform across occupation, industry, and employer size. We also find little evidence that employers are inferring social class from the names. Differential treatment by race still appears to still be prominent in the U.S. labor market.

See also Kang, S. K., Decelles, K. A., Tilcsik, A., & Jun, S. (2016). Whitened Résumés. Administrative Science Quarterly, 61(3), 469-502. doi:10.1177/0001839216639577 http://www-2.rotman.utoronto.ca/facbios/file/Whitening MS R2 Accepted.pdf

Quote

In one study, the researchers created resumes for black and Asian applicants and sent them out for 1,600 entry-level jobs posted on job search websites in 16 metropolitan sections of the United States. Some of the resumes included information that clearly pointed out the applicants’ minority status, while others were whitened, or scrubbed of racial clues. The researchers then created email accounts and phone numbers for the applicants and observed how many were invited for interviews.

Employer callbacks for resumes that were whitened fared much better in the application pile than those that included ethnic information, even though the qualifications listed were identical. Twenty-five percent of black candidates received callbacks from their whitened resumes, while only 10 percent got calls when they left ethnic details intact. Among Asians, 21 percent got calls if they used whitened resumes, whereas only 11.5 percent heard back if they sent resumes with racial references.

 

 

Edited January 5, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[BQZip]

3 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Which is a ringing endorsement for the notion that systemic racism still exists.

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).