To be honest, it seems there isn’t much disagreement in the forums, only a small number of very vocal opponents trying to make this a bigger issue than it is.
The BSA Facebook page was has been really animated. Of course and Facebook page open to all for comments is the wild wild west.
Which transitions nicely into what the SUAC have been trying to figure out how to say.
These are forums to share Scouting ideas, problems and advice. These forums are not Social Media. If you feel the need to say someone else is wrong - that is Social Media, take it to Twitter, Facebook, anywhere but here. SUAC does not have the time to deal with it.
The Scouting Discourse forums are not the right place for this type of discussion
The uncertainty of the MB requirements is a problem.
If the MB requirements even mentions the heinous Black Lives Matter movement it will be a travesty of the greatest proportion.
The letter says “learn about and engage with other groups and cultures to increase understanding and spur positive action.”
Is this the positive action noted in the MB description?
Shaun King is the most famous Black Live Matter leader in the U.S.
“All murals and stained glass windows of white Jesus, and his European mother, and their white friends should also come down. They are a gross form white supremacy. Created as tools of oppression. Racist propaganda. They should all come down.”
Tearing down America’s monuments is a huge issue. Black Lives Matter considers it “positive action”
When the country of Lord Baden-Powels time no longer exists and when God no longer exists then the oath “On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country” becomes moot.
If I had read that this forum is for the Scoutbook User Advisory Council (SUAC) related to scoutbook only I would not have said a thing nor would anyone else I suspect. Someone else started this topic, not me… The top of the page it says “A forum for discussing the Scouts BSA Program” and the about page says “Discuss Scouting!” Both are pretty broad statements of purpose.
A high percentage of comments on BSA Facebook page express dissent and many state that they are or were scouts… That La’Trice Lott a very vocal supporter of Black Lives Matter on the BSA facebook page is not even a scout and interestingly has no friends.
The BSA does not monitor these forums. The moderators are volunteer members of the SUAC who spend considerably more than 1 hour per week (many more than 1 hour per day) helping users.
The BSA has stated they will be developing a new Merit Badge. At this time, no details about the proposed Merit Badge are available. There have been no advanced releases of this proposed Merit Badge nor a schedule for when the information will be available. Talking about what the proposed Merit Badge will or will not contain is nothing more than speculation without information.
If you wish to provide input on the proposed Merit Badge, the BSA’s statement on inclusion, or anything else related to advancement, please contact the BSA directly. Per the Contact Us page at https://www.scouting.org, for questions or comments go to membercare.scouting.org (To create a new account, email address should be used for user name)
As too often happens it may appear that we have the cart before the horse. The good folks at the National Office in the name of being politically correct felt the need to make a statement about what is going on so… New Diversity and Inclusion Merit Badge. However they were NOT PREPARED to put any substance behind the announcement like the requirements for the badge. This could become a real ‘hot potato’ now. In terms of density served, the BSA is nearing historic lows in membership. A wrong move with this REQUIRED merit badge could turn off many people with strong conservative religious and moral values. We don’t know what all will be included under the terms ‘DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION’. I hope that the folks at the national office have the wisdom of Solomon on this. One would think that any Scout or Scouter that follows the Oath and Law would have this covered already. For now, I am taking a wait and see attitude but with a large dose of concern.
I agree with you. They should have been more prepared.
There are more people on this form that disagree with it than do.
I don’t know that we have a large enough sample size to make that assertion (or, for that matter, the counter assertion). Presumably, there are thousands of scouts and scouters on this discussion group. Generally, there are only a few people who have participated in the discussion. It’s not clear that even if every person on the discussion group expressed an opinion we would have a representative sample of the scouting community. It’s also not clear that this is the best forum, although at the risk of making things more difficult for the mods, I don’t think that the wild west of social media is really the appropriate venue, either. I’d like to think that there is some space online where we could reasonably conduct uncomfortable conversations relating to scouting without getting our collective dander up, even if in the end we all just agree to disagree.
I think that @edavignon has the right of it. If we have strong opinions regarding the development of this (or any) proposed MB, the best place to address it is to the BSA groups that will be involved:
BSA Advancement Team
Merit Badge Team
or the various general feedback channels to which @edavignon and others have pointed.
I think we can all agree that we need to see more about what the badge will entail before we can really decide how this will fully impact anything - at least I hope we can. Perhaps those who are already feeling that the program is letting them down are more inclined to look at an announcement like this with distrust. I get that. Suffice it to say that each of our viewpoints are our own. Imposing our will into how this should be handled can only serve to further define our differing viewpoints. I’d prefer to focus on the common goals where possible.
As I’ve stated before, there are aspects of the program I do not agree with - honestly though, that’s irrelevant to this conversation. If we want to grow scouting (hopefully we all do) - then we need to consider how to view such an open canvas as positive. Diversity and inclusiveness in a vacuum should be able to be viewed as a positive. When the requirements are written, then you can start to pick apart specifics if you think they do not represent the values of scouting as you see them. We are simply not there yet.
I would say that if you are already so jaded as to suggest that scouting no longer provides the value you feel it needs to for your scouts, then there isn’t a whole lot that could be announced that will encourage you. I feel for those in that situation, but simply put a “my way or the highway” mentality isn’t getting anyone anywhere, especially when you don’t know that what they will provide won’t be reflective of your perspective.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
Here’s what I’ll say on this. We all need to have a little grace when talking about these issues. Try to understand where others are coming from, even if you don’t fully agree with them. Try to see the best in people rather than the worst.
The SUAC monitors these forums, because there is no one else. It doesn’t mean we have to discuss Scoutbook topics only, but they must remain courteous.
I have closed this topic because the discussion is getting out of hand. Any further posts in other threads that we deem to violate the Scout Law will be removed.
Test Reply 1 2 3 4 5 6 7