DEI is an acronym for Don't Expect Improvement

[Navybone]

3 hours ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Concur.  The double-edged sword here is that, by segregating out groups for special treatment or recognition, DEI programs do, in fact, push people out.

 

I guess the question is if the affinity groups are causing others to be excluded.  Is that occurring?  Are the affinity groups resulting in other groups being denied advancement, opportunities,  are there new standards that only the groups have to follow, but are stricter/more lenient with the group you associate with?  IS that special treatment or recognition occurring?

[AwakeEnergyScouter]

8 minutes ago, Navybone said:

I guess the question is if the affinity groups are causing others to be excluded.  Is that occurring? 

I know I certainly don't feel excluded or pushed out by the existence of all the affinity groups that aren't for me, which is most of them. Be welcome, have at it. Just like I don't feel slighted when a meeting opens with a round of applause for veterans but not me, a non-veteran. Exactly because I haven't seek the tiniest inkling of special favor a la sauna dealmaking.

[InquisitiveScouter]

1 hour ago, Navybone said:

I guess the question is if the affinity groups are causing others to be excluded.  Is that occurring?  Are the affinity groups resulting in other groups being denied advancement, opportunities,  are there new standards that only the groups have to follow, but are stricter/more lenient with the group you associate with?  IS that special treatment or recognition occurring?

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes...

Any time a company hires someone because they are in a certain group, they violate  Title VII of the Civil Rights Act - which prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of: sex (including sexual orientation / gender identity) • race • religion/creed • color • national origin

DEI initiatives around the country seek to add people to the workforce BECAUSE they are members of certain classes.  That is, a company looks at its workforce and sees low numbers of women, so they specifically tell their HR they have to hire a woman.  This is illegal.

A company looks at its workforce and sees low numbers of Hispanics, so they specifically tell their HR they have to hire someone who is Hispanic.  This is illegal.

And this is happening everywhere.  And you see the number of lawsuits against these practices rising.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/careers/2023/12/20/dei-reverse-discrimination-lawsuits-increase-woke/71923487007/

[Navybone]

25 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes...

Any time a company hires someone because they are in a certain group, they violate  Title VII of the Civil Rights Act - which prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of: sex (including sexual orientation / gender identity) • race • religion/creed • color • national origin

DEI initiatives around the country seek to add people to the workforce BECAUSE they are members of certain classes.  That is, a company looks at its workforce and sees low numbers of women, so they specifically tell their HR they have to hire a woman.  This is illegal.

A company looks at its workforce and sees low numbers of Hispanics, so they specifically tell their HR they have to hire someone who is Hispanic.  This is illegal.

And this is happening everywhere.  And you see the number of lawsuits against these practices rising.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/careers/2023/12/20/dei-reverse-discrimination-lawsuits-increase-woke/71923487007/

I am not asking about random companies around the country, this is a forum on scouts and scouting.  Let's focus on that. We should look at if BSA Scouts is excluding others, inhibiting opportunities for scouts or scouters.  

[InquisitiveScouter]

2 minutes ago, Navybone said:

I am not asking about random companies around the country, this is a forum on scouts and scouting.  Let's focus on that. We should look at if BSA Scouts is excluding others, inhibiting opportunities for scouts or scouters.  

Atheists.  Mike drop.

Edited March 11 by InquisitiveScouter

[Navybone]

1 hour ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Atheists.  Mike drop.

That was in what 2000?  Was that because of affinity groups or the recent BSA scouts DEI efforts.  I seem to remember that was an entirely different issue. 

[AwakeEnergyScouter]

1 hour ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Atheists.  Mike drop.

I doubt I am interpreting what you said here the way you meant it, because I just heard "Yes, atheists that don't belong to an organized religion are still being excluded from scouting with the BSA, and so we should remedy that".

[AwakeEnergyScouter]

Just read something someone said on social media that seems quite relevant here.

"The issue with a culture war based epistemology, where all things are seen through the lens of cultural war. Will always lead directly to conspiracy theories. For when you see normal people doing normal things, through that lens, it must take on all the misaligned power of a conspiracy against you personally. This happens to both the right and left side of politics. Yet more frequently on the right. Anyone's vision of a "correct" culture, will always fail. For culture is never isotropic."

We are all here in our role as scouters. In that role, our loyalty is to each other and the scout movement.

[Eagledad]

6 minutes ago, AwakeEnergyScouter said:

Just read something someone said on social media that seems quite relevant here.

"The issue with a culture war based epistemology, where all things are seen through the lens of cultural war. Will always lead directly to conspiracy theories. For when you see normal people doing normal things, through that lens, it must take on all the misaligned power of a conspiracy against you personally. This happens to both the right and left side of politics. Yet more frequently on the right. Anyone's vision of a "correct" culture, will always fail. For culture is never isotropic."

We are all here in our role as scouters. In that role, our loyalty is to each other and the scout movement.

Strange post. Experience cannot by definition be a conspiracy. Yet several members here still push their ideal program as best or preferred despite experiences showing to the contrary.

Doesn’t really matter, when left or right becomes part of the definition with one more so than the other, it’s just bias hype encouraging more bias hype. And, it show’s motivation for the post.

Loyalty to each other doesn’t mean hyping misaligned program practices over good practices. Expressing, discussing and educating good and successful practices is what this forum is all about.

Barry

 

[InquisitiveScouter]

All models are wrong.  But some are useful.

https://billmoyers.com/episode/how-do-conservatives-and-liberals-see-the-world/

 

[AwakeEnergyScouter]

27 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

All models are wrong.  But some are useful.

Of course, but that's why you need to remember the assumptions that went into it and the domain in which it was created. Can't get any sense of even a good model too far outside its domain. At some point, it's just not telling you anything. No model is useful in all situations at all times.

[AwakeEnergyScouter]

57 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

Expressing, discussing and educating good and successful practices is what this forum is all about.

I agree completely. Let's do that instead of starting conversations with culture war rhetoric with little connection to scouting.

[InquisitiveScouter]

16 hours ago, AwakeEnergyScouter said:

I doubt I am interpreting what you said here the way you meant it, because I just heard "Yes, atheists that don't belong to an organized religion are still being excluded from scouting with the BSA, and so we should remedy that".

I was responding to @Navybone question:

18 hours ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

We should look at if BSA Scouts is excluding others, inhibiting opportunities for scouts or scouters.  

BSA is excluding others, based on religious beliefs.  It does have the right to do so...

I hold Christian beliefs.  I do not accept the beliefs of other religions.  But, I tolerate them. 

All people have a right to believe as their conscience dictates.  And I vigorously defend that right.  (But it doesn't mean I have to accept it.)  BSA should not prohibit membership of atheists. 

It can still adhere to the Declaration of Religious Principle.  It can still ask Scouts to define what they mean by "morally straight" and what the foundations of their moral code are.

---------------------------

Creating affinity groups in and of itself is not wrong.  But, if a cultural climate exists where a group could not create say a "HMSC" affinity group (Heterosexual, monogamous, sexually chaste), then we have a problem.

If a cultural climate exists where a group could not create an affinity group for "Men in Scouting", to celebrate the differences and strengths that men bring to the table, then we have problem.

If a cultural climate exists where a group could not create an affinity group for White people, then we have a problem.

"Houston, we have a problem."  Or should I say "Irving, we have a problem."?  (It is still in Texas, so should be OK 😜 )

4 minutes ago, AwakeEnergyScouter said:

I agree completely. Let's do that instead of starting conversations with culture war rhetoric with little connection to scouting.

And yet you do it again 😜

 

Edited March 12 by InquisitiveScouter

[AwakeEnergyScouter]

1 hour ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

And yet you do it again 😜

I did not write the top post in this thread. 

I am sincerely trying to advocate for a return to civil discourse about issues where scouts and scouters might disagree. If you don't believe I am, well... Not sure what more to do about that.

I have shared a lot about where I'm coming from in the service of that, making sure to mention things that don't fit the culture war narrative so that we can leave it behind and get to scouting instead of fighting political battles. 

[InquisitiveScouter]

I have re-read the entire thread, and find the discourse generally civil.

Here is a primer:

What is not civil discourse?     Being disrespectful is not engaging in civil discourse. Here are some disrespectful behaviors that are typically considered out of bounds: profanity, name-calling*, derogatory terms (stupid, ignorant…), shouting, insulting body language (such as eye-rolling), insulting tone of voice (baby talk, speaking “down” to a person), ridicule, open hostility, biting sarcasm, any other disrespectful acts or ad hominem attacks, threats, or any behavior that could get a person banned from a social media site. A central theme of disrespectful discourse is that it employs tactics designed to dismiss the other person, rather than engage with the other argument.     

https://www.socialstudies.org/sites/default/files/guide_to_civil_discourse_student_version.pdf

Some examples of uncivil discourse in the thread are: 1) implying people are conspiracy theorists, 2) trying to derail the OP by accusing them of engaging in the rhetoric of "culture war", and 3) not answering the OP question, but instead, trying to dismiss him by asking tangential (and sometimes unrelated) questions in order to undermine the supposed premise of why he asked the question in the first place.

So, I'll re-post the OP question, and the answer I gave:

On 3/3/2024 at 2:56 PM, Mrjeff said:

So, can anyone explain to me the difference between these groups and how having segregated events develops the concept of DEI among Scouts?

On 3/4/2024 at 5:36 AM, InquisitiveScouter said:

No, there isn't any explanation that does not reduce into the very behavior that those creating the group are trying to correct, stand up against, or bring attention to.

What answer to the OP question did you offer?

And three of you gave him a down arrow for even asking the question...

Edited March 13 by InquisitiveScouter