Madison Scouts 2022

[TenHut]

On 8/12/2022 at 10:24 AM, madisonsmiley said:

This is a hasty generalization and fallacy of argument. The Scouts did not discriminate when they were all male. The organization was within their constitutional rights to be all male. Claims by the ED they discriminated were false statements made to bolster his argument for going cooed. The city and business community was very supportive of the Scouts when they were all male. i've seen no evidence to show that going coed has made any significant change in their funding. Show me the money. What donors declined to support the Scouts because they were all male? 

Exactly right. 

[bobjective]

I see Madison lost their visual caption head. I really hope they can find one as good as Tim Darbonne was.

[madisonsmiley]

On 8/14/2022 at 4:34 PM, C.Holland said:

I claimed that not being discriminatory in their recruitment, opened up more financial doors than before.  In my last chat with anyone on the board, it has, and it has incredibly well.

Now, i dont know what Cav's apply for, but i do know that the $180K the village gives them barely makes a dent in a season's operations.  It might cover half the the housing costs, but not fields, food, fuel, or anything else.  So they dont exist strictly on the village's donation and the $3000 member tuition.  Its not possible.  And again, they're not my concern.  

And yes, inclusion has a line at toxicity.  Potential members unfortunately already know of problematic alumni, the ones who make sexist and snide comments on social media posts, on pictures, on tweets.  The ones who send snide PMs to members on social media.  Those things are all bad for building the corps.   The ones who continue to fling mud scare off business with their entitlement. 

Can you stay on point, which is how could a municipal government give funding to the Cavaliers if they discriminated? The size of the gift isn't relevant, even though $180,000 would be a major gift for any corps. Why be dismissive of it? And why bring alumni that are bad actors into this? This is all a deflection.

Before the Scouts went coed the ED claimed that donors were asking for it as a reason to do it, but couldn't provide the names of any donors that declined to donate because the Scouts were all male. Since going coed has "opened up more financial doors than before," what new institutional donors has the corps added, the ones that require a recipient doesn't discriminate? What were their donations? Absent specifics on donor names and amounts, statements like, "it's opened more financial doors than before" are a glib deflection.

Edited August 21, 2022 by madisonsmiley
Grammar and clarity.

[Slingerland]

13 hours ago, madisonsmiley said:

Since going coed has "opened up more financial doors than before," what new Institutional donors has the corps added, the ones who have requirements that a recipient doesn't discriminate? 

That's a good political phrase - "opening doors" is just a way of saying that no one could object based on the single-gender issue: it doesn't mean any additional funding has appeared or would necessarily appear.  As for programming, Scouts are right now in the same generic mix as most of the non-finalists (maybe Academy is an exception) - without someone with a vision being in charge of programming, they're going to stay mired there for awhile, as the one thing they had to recruit with has been taken away.