Is diversity or affinity our greatest strength?

[Armymutt]

We've been told for many years that diversity is out strength.  Now we have various groups wanting to have their own exclusive events and we are told that "Affinity outings strengthen Scouts and Scouters ties to Scouting. They bring us together, they don't divide." by our Council President.    So which is it?  The Boy Scouts was, arguably,  an affinity group.  I'm all for groups hosting Scouting events, but I believe that we are strengthened when all Scouts are invited to participate.  Otherwise, where is the learning?  If you're not inviting all Scouts, exactly how are these events bringing us together?  

[skeptic]

Sadly, most of the issues are political in my view.  We now live in a loosely garbled society that makes claims for fairness and "diversity", but often does not demonstrate such.  When we have done the new Citizenship badge, the youth did not get why we needed to do it, as we already pretty much accepted everybody if possible.  And, most pointed out that all the "stuff" in the badge was already an expectation, though not in their words, of being a scout and a Brother to other Scouts.  We will never get total acceptance or even feigned acceptance from those that choose to be selfish and labor under skewed perspectives.  But, overall we do a good job, and most problems seem to me, frankly, to come from adults intruding on the youth and their interactions.  

     One of the things I always noted as a kid was how easily Huck and Tom got along when left to their own interactions.  And history is replete with how often plantation children of the "owners" played with the children of the "slaves" and did not know the difference until the adults decided it was time to separate them before they actually found friendship as adults.  Where this need to somehow be "better" or more "important" comes from as we get older has never quite been clear to me, though in my own family there was, and still are difficult and prejudiced people.  

[Navybone]

8 hours ago, Armymutt said:

?  If you're not inviting all Scouts, exactly how are these events bringing us together?  

I don’t get it.  This was all hashed out in May/June, what has changed?  This is not about excluding for the sake of excluding.  It is about offering some focused targeted to increase recruitment or retention to smaller minority groups.  There is nothing devious about most of these meetings.  It is all about creating a welcome environment where minority groups might now have felt welcome or accepted.  It’s about having a meeting to show why Scouts is for them and thier children, and then have them join the larger Scout population.  

)

[InquisitiveScouter]

8 hours ago, Armymutt said:

We've been told for many years that diversity is out strength.  Now we have various groups wanting to have their own exclusive events and we are told that "Affinity outings strengthen Scouts and Scouters ties to Scouting. They bring us together, they don't divide." by our Council President.    So which is it?  The Boy Scouts was, arguably,  an affinity group.  I'm all for groups hosting Scouting events, but I believe that we are strengthened when all Scouts are invited to participate.  Otherwise, where is the learning?  If you're not inviting all Scouts, exactly how are these events bringing us together?  

"affinity outings"... gobbledygook

"They bring us together; they don't divide."... LOL... more woke gobbledygook.

I'm with you.  We are ALL SCOUTS.  That is what binds us together.

[InquisitiveScouter]

https://substack.com/@seandietrich/p-148425885

No mention of affinity groups here, thank goodness...

[Navybone]

33 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

https://substack.com/@seandietrich/p-148425885

No mention of affinity groups here, thank goodness...

Just scouts being scouts!  

[SSScout]

Perhaps (perhaps) a case in point....   Fellow Commish once helped a Catholic church stand up a Scout troop. They REQUIRED their Scouts to be Catholic.  They averred that ANY male youth could join, so long as the family belonged to a Catholic church.  The Troop lasted exactly three years.... 

Scouts is Scouts.  Our diversity and acceptance of any who will agree to the Scout Promise and Law , at least to say them together(?), and do Scouty things, is what we must/should be about.   The CHARTER ORG is another issue.  By BSA/SA edict, the CO can define who will join their Unit.  How big the included community is may well define it's success and longevity.    In our council we have Vietnamese community Troops that are large and successful, and Muslim Units that survived the pandemic and abuse emergencies when others folded.   

 

[AwakeEnergyScouter]

I don't know that people believe Scouting America scouters or Scouting America national for that matter when you say that scouts are scouts.

It's true - or should be. When it hasn't been, it's been a serious mistake on the part of Scouting America. I completely agree that scouts are scouts.

But since it actually, sadly, has been the case that Scouting America profiled itself primarily on exclusion for decades, it's not exactly believable to the public (whom we're trying to recruit to join scouting) that Scouting America just now got with the program and their own Scout Law and Oath and is truly welcoming to all. You can't just turn around and say "mea culpa" and expect to be believed. The fastest way to fix this is specifically reaching out to the people Scouting America is known for excluding to say "hi, we really would welcome you if you like to join. Sorry about that."

I do not believe that all Scouting America scouters and staff actually believe that scouts are scouts either and I'm a scouter myself. This very forum is full of examples in writing. I'm honestly surprised that so many are suddenly saying what has seemed taboo to say, that scouts are scouts. There's years of pro-exclusion image to undo in the public eye, and I would suggest we hop to it.

[Eagledad]

I don't know what all this "Scouts are Scouts" stuff is about. But I think many here wish for a program that is as respected as it was in the 1990s but fits all today's culture check marks. As I see it now, the program is the most inclusive it has ever been but has the lowest numbers in decades. Maybe the program that many are pushing is not really Scouting, and folks today can see the difference.

Barry

[AwakeEnergyScouter]

5 hours ago, Eagledad said:

I don't know what all this "Scouts are Scouts" stuff is about. But I think many here wish for a program that is as respected as it was in the 1990s but fits all today's culture check marks. As I see it now, the program is the most inclusive it has ever been but has the lowest numbers in decades. Maybe the program that many are pushing is not really Scouting, and folks today can see the difference.

Barry

What specifically about the program today would you not consider scouting?

[Armymutt]

1 hour ago, AwakeEnergyScouter said:

What specifically about the program today would you not consider scouting?

Excluding registered Scouts from events bigger than the unit level because they aren't like you?  

[mrjohns2]

16 hours ago, Armymutt said:

Excluding registered Scouts from events bigger than the unit level because they aren't like you?  

This could be an issue in some councils, not areound here. 

[Eagledad]

20 hours ago, AwakeEnergyScouter said:

What specifically about the program today would you not consider scouting?

Good question; my perspective is complicated, so I had to think about how to simplify my opinion.

The answer is Expectation. 

There is a saying, "Scouting is a game with a Purpose."

As an engineer, I think pragmatically and study gray areas presented to me to see how to change them into black and white.  During 1993 and 2005, I was a member of the District and council. As a result, I worked on membership numbers and studied where the numbers fell. I think the BSA membership was highest since the 1960s around 1995. There was a slight decline after 2000, but this can be attributed to National shooting itself in the foot with an overburdened Cub Scout program that drove away adults from burnout.

Lets look at this forum. During the 1990's this forum displayed the number of members logged in to the forum. I don't know if we have that now, but I never saw less than 300 between 1995 and 2005. It was typically around 800 or so and even got up to 1200. I don't know what it is today or even the last few years, but I can't see it getting up to 50. Maybe I'm wrong, but the same dozen or so of us are active. 25 years ago 85 percent of the discussions were in the General Scouting forum and the Patrol Method forum. When was the last time there was a discussion in the Patrol Method forum lately? Folks don't come to Scouter.com to talk about the process; they basically come to push an agenda that has little to do with the interaction of running a unit. This forum is basically dead from its intended purpose. 

What has changed? The first time I saw a big hit in forum membership was when National changed membership to include gays. Now, while you and a few others like to downcast the BSA as the evil organization that wanted to keep religious males as privileged members, gays wasn't a general issue to the population. Yes, a few folks came on and said the sky was falling because we weren't being inclusive. But, as I said, the slight drop in membership was, and still is, a reflection of internal mismanagement of the program. So, when the National changed the membership policies to accept gays, it was a bit of a surprise. Many folks cheered the change and were waiting for membership to rise and funding to grow. In fact, quite the opposite happened. Membership dropped, I think, around 20 percent, but funding took a huge turn. 

I believe that policy change did greater harm than anyone realized; it exposed the leaders at National to being more liberal and shifting the program left. And that changed the perspective of the scouting to population as a real shift away from a Game with a Purpose to a Game, or as I like to call it, an after-school camping program. 

For almost 100 years, the image of Scouting has been a program for developing character in our youth. As a troop leader, I have heard many parents admit putting their sons in the program to further develop them into better men of character. Not a program to busy the young lads for camping, but actual growth of values. Of course, that was the motivation of single mothers. However, many, my own parents included, wanted their sons to experience an environment where positive character was displayed and practiced. National is losing that image. First by changing membership and then by driving away from a character values program. 

But, the change was made and for the first time that anyone can remember, the image of scouting was changing (Expectation). 

A lot of folks here believe that accepting girls into the program was the straw that broke the camel's back, but I think it only solidified to most people outside of the program that the organization leaders were going full speed into a progressive program. It was no longer a program of values for developing values; it changed into just another youth activities program. And giving a choice of travel soccer or going camping once a month, well, somehow camping doesn't have the appeal.

Personally, I think the worst thing National could have done was change the name. The traditional name Boy Scouts is attached with honor and might be of some consideration for parents looking for a program to place their kids. The only thing this program has left is the uniform. I didn't realize until Scouts in the traditional uniform approached me for making a popcorn sale. That basic uniform image has been around for at least 100 years and still has an emotional pull. But I expect that will change here pretty quickly. Even folks on this forum can't speak kindly of the program before the membership changes.

OK, that was a lot, and that is a tenth of what I planned to say. But that is what I see changed in scouting. 

Barry

 

[BetterWithCheddar]

I struggle mightily with the broader inclusion topic.

And please, let me clarify, I've been supportive of the membership changes of the past decade. Further, I value decency above all else. Yet we try so hard to not offend and accommodate everyone (particularly a small number of boys with behavioral issues) that it weakens the program for the boys that have traditionally benefited from it. Then we wonder why membership has dropped from 3 million to 1 million over the last 20 years and we resolve to be even more inclusive.

[AwakeEnergyScouter]

I don't see youth with behavioral issues as being connected to nondiscrimination at all. They're not the same topic.

Maybe this is a cultural thing. I thought that the US shared a value foundation with Sweden (and wider Europe) and thus also with Scouting, but perhaps some parts of the US do not? A whole bunch of you here seem to be framing "inclusiveness" in a way I've never heard or seen it framed before in my life.

I didn't live in the US in the 90s, so I can't speak to what was happening here "on the ground" but I remember the 90s as the decade when LGBTQIA+ discrimination awareness went mainstream. Pride parades, support hotlines, special youth support at government activity centers, lots of media coverage about the suffering that the anti-LGBTQIA+ bullying caused, the increased suicide rates, all that was in the news a lot, and it triggered both near universal social acceptance of being LGBTQIA+ as well as legal changes (first registered partnership and then marriage equality). It seemed like a societal "oh, whoops, so sorry" moment. Since then, opposing LGBTQIA+ discrimination is among the most milquetoast social stands one could take - up there with opposing bullying of differently abled people and donating to Save the Children.

I looked up some numbers on this to see if my perception might reasonably be shared by Swedes in general, and that is indeed the case. 94% of Swedes agree that LGBTQIA+ people should be accepted in society.1 Among supporters of the far-right populist party literally founded by a returning old Nazi after WWII, that support is very low at only 80%, not surprisingly since their whole outlook is centered on discriminating against almost everyone.1 Their supporters have made news by stealing a Pride flag off a flagpole and burning it, for example. These would also be the party getting Russian dark money, that had to institute a uniform ban at meetings, and whose now former leaders were photographed sieg heiling in brown uniforms at a secret training camp. Their members often defect to a party even further right that openly advocates for destroying democracy in favor of national socialism.

I say all this to thoroughly explain my next point, which is that to me this is a straightforward, uncontroversial in mainstream society Duty to Country point to support full LGBTQIA+ rights and social inclusion. It's hardly just progressives who support it, it's all of mainstream society! The voices raised against it are the ones on the margins of society kicking up a stink about something for political purposes. The six EU values2 include equal rights and respect for the human dignity of all, so that's not exactly my personal interpretation, it's the standard interpretation in my cultural universe. Support for equal civil rights and social acceptance of all groups of people is a governance/strong civil institutions matter, opposed not to kicking disruptive kids out but being jailed, fired, or treated poorly for some detectable and unchangeable thing like appearance, gender, sexual orientation, disability, neurodivergence, etc. As such, related to freedom of speech, democracy, and in this serious security situation in Europe defending our values and our institutions from attempts at weakening them by a foreign power. The exclusion we're trying to avoid with inclusion is modelled on the other side of the eastern Finnish border, complete with the general effects on society of not having strong civil rights for individuals. They don't call us Gayrope for nothing - our support for liberal democracy is inextricable from our support for equal civil rights for all. They know that and we know that.

And the reason this is so is the Holocaust. We Europeans took Niemöller to heart. If LGBTQIA+ rights aren't secured, how do I know mine are? Etc, etc. I have to come to help the first group targeted if there's to be anyone left to help me later, because there's always some just-so story explaining why such and such group is evil. And if you look - which I highly suggest that you do - you will find that WWII also changed some of BP's outlook, not surprisingly, given how the discovery of the death camps made a kink in European history in general. We no longer say that scouts are to follow directions unquestioningly, because of the Nuremberg Trials. We realized collectively that we didn't actually literally mean that, there was an unspoken context asterisk on that that we needed to verbalize and say clearly, and not just in scouts but in society at large. Brush your teeth without whining every night, but say NO when someone asks you to kill thousands of civilians for belonging to some ethnic or political group. We were always thinking about brushing your teeth and packing your own stuff when we said that, not genocide or agreeing to keep secrets about CSA. So now we clarify.

I saw in the Pew Research study (1 below) that the US is quite the outlier when it comes to attitudes to LGBTQIA+ people among what we used to call Western countries during the Cold War, and that both age and being Christian makes people less accepting. I don't know where any of you live, but based on what Eagledad wrote, perhaps he and some others here live in a particular cultural bubble where you think of equal civil rights for all citizens very differently. 

I say bubble, because this forum is the only place I hear these opinions. I've lived in the US for 20 years and the Americans I meet, including in Scouting America, seem to share my view of the importance of equal civil rights for all citizens. 72% of Americans say that LGBTQIA+ people should be accepted in society.1 Trying to exclude them from Scouting America is, as Krone said, limiting. If you're looking around and everyone around you is anti-LBGTQIA+, then know that your community is not representative of wider society.

Bubble may also describe your experience of scouting if you think exclusion of certain groups is key to good and proper scouting. The values I was taught as a scout in the 90s were what I say above, and wouldn't you know it there is a fleur de lys on my old worn scout shirt. It's not a WOSM vs WAGGGS thing. There have already been literally millions and millions of coed WOSM (and WAGGGS, I also have a trefoil on my scout shirt) scouts, LGBTQIA+ scouts, scouts in every imaginable skin color, scouts with nontheistic religions and atheist scouts. It's a fait accompli, decades ago. The choice Scouting America has isn't whether or not to allow that in scouting, it is whether or not to follow the societal and/or scouting mainstream.

WOSM explicitly says that tolerance is a key scouting value3 and has a whole position paper on it.4 We explicitly advocate for gender equality and LGBTQIA+ rights. This seems to be news to many of you. Of course we are, we have been for decades. It's Duty to Others (Duty to Country and doing a Good Turn) and living by the Scout Law.

Going back to the start of this thread and what Navybone said about it, complaints about hypothetical events from which boys are banned, or declined to have an equivalent event for them, from the same individuals that think that exclusion/discrimination is a key part of scouting and who repeatedly say they want to reverse the membership policy changes ring very hollow. It comes off less as a principled stand and more as an attempt to build momentum to do just that - kick now registered scouts out of Scouting America. Not cool, guys, not cool.

And that's completely unrelated to the need to manage disruptive kids in scouts. Now that's an issue I would be interested in discussing. Where should one draw the line between normal, age-appropriate squirreliness (which admittedly can make it hard for them to get things done at the younger ages) and real disruption for which one gets asked to leave?

Not sure I have a handy-dandy suggestion, but in our unit we stay in close touch with parents about any neurodivergence as well as to ask them to help manage their child's behavior as needed and so far I that has worked, but it's probably a matter of how bad the kids are and obviously won't work at all in Scouts BSA.

1 https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020/06/25/global-divide-on-homosexuality-persists/

2 https://www.europarl.europa.eu/topics/en/article/20210325STO00802/eu-values-explained-in-one-minute

3 https://www.scout.org/what-we-do/young-people-and-communities/diversity-and-0

4 https://learn.scout.org/resource/diversity-and-inclusion-position-paper