Was the Girl Scouts right to delete a post honoring Amy Barrett's appointment to the supreme court?

Story HERE. and HERE

Apparently someone made a post honoring Amy Barrett’s appointment to the Supreme court and pointing out she was only the 5th woman ever to do so. You can see the post at the links above. It includes pictures of all 5 including the late Ruth Ginsburgh.

BUT, the Girl Scouts thought it was “Political” and took it down. To me, I think the post was a-political and was just to honor women.

Now the Girl Scouts say they honor ALL women. Yet apparently that doesnt cover women who’s politics they do not agree with.

What do you all think?

What a shock, you misrepresented what they said:
“Earlier today, we shared a post highlighting the five women who have been appointed to the Supreme Court. It was quickly viewed as a political and partisan statement which was not our intent and we have removed the post… Girl Scouts of the USA is a nonpolitical, nonpartisan organization. We are neither red nor blue, but Girl Scout GREEN. We are here to lift up girls and women.”

I think the girl scouts can do whatever the hell they want with their Twitter account. So what?

Then it stands to reason that they should not celebrate the appointment of someone who is outspokenly anti-woman.

I understood the story different from the way the OP presented. I thought GSA posted something on the social media-sphere congratulating Ms Barrett on becoming one of only 5 women to be appointed to the Supreme Court. I suspect GSA was celebrating a women’s achievement that could be aspirational to young girls. Sounds a-political to me.

But then people from the left started complaining because of what they think Ms Barrett represents on the court and the threat she poses to their causes. So GSA took it down and posted what AlsoNamed Bort shared. And now they are dealing with backlash from those on the right who say GSA is becoming political. Looks like a no-win situation.

Does anyone know how the Girl Scouts honored O’Connor, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan when they were appointed?

It all depends on whether they’ve done this before.

If they never honored another woman justice before, but only started now with Barrett, then yes it may be partisan.

If on the other hand they celebrated all other women on the Supreme Court and Barrett just happened to be the latest one, then it’s the critics who have a problem.

Well, GSA has blogged about Hilary Clinton.

I am no supporter of ACB but it sucks that everything is so dammed political these days. It’s just the Girl Scouts, ferchrissakes.

^^^And they praised the others back in March 2019, though not at the time they were appointed, which might have been hard since social media didn’t exist when O’Connor was appointed.

Your right. But everything that goes out now can come back.

I do know the GS have been criticized before for being to far to the left. And I know personally from my work with the boy scouts that they are losing many girls switching to the BSA now that its been open to girls this past year.

I don’t see how right or wrong applies here. They are just a glorified social club. When my wife tried to fly up from the Brownies to the Girl Scouts she was denied because she wasn’t in the “in” group.

What exactly were the days when everything wasn’t so political?

Since when was the Girl Scouts a battle ground for ideologies? The Girl Scouts represent girls. A girl made it to the Supreme Court. The Girl Scouts clap their hands. They did this already for the others. It’s not a BFD.

I think it’s fine for Girl Scouts to make a post honoring a prominent woman for her successes, and also fine for them to reconsider after the response was taken as a political endorsement.

Is… there really another position people want to take here? Anyone want to argue that it was deeply wrong of them to make an anodyne statement about a woman succeeding in a historically incredibly male dominated field? Or that once they realized that it was taken as a political stance, they should have to live with the misunderstanding and let their statement be misconstrued as political? Those both seem like pretty bad ideas.

This former Girl Scout agrees completely.

That’s sickening! When I was in the Girl Scouts, anyone could participate, although whether you wanted to be in X, Y, or Z troop depended on who you were, who the leader was, and who else was in that troop, and that’s OK with me.

My old pastor and his sister were kicked out of their Scout troops, both Boy and Girl, when their parents divorced - and this was in the mid 1970s, the same time that I was in it! He did live in rural West Virginia, and they’ve said that it was literally the first time anyone in their town had gotten a divorce, which led to the ostracism on every level of them and their mother. (I asked his wife if their father had any comparable fallout; she replied, “I don’t know. I’ve never asked him.”)

I am not sure how they responded to those appointments (I made a cursory search and found nothing one way or another but it was a very lazy search I admit.)

My sense of it is they wanted to just note that a woman made it to the Supreme Court with no regard for anything beyond that.

Then people went after them because they claim Coney Barrett is actually a threat to women’s rights.

So, being non-partisan, they deleted the post. They simply did not want to wade into that fraught discussion.

And then the deleting became political.

It’s a tough spot to be in. Should an organization dedicated to uplifting girls and women uncritically applaud any woman’s rise to power or should they assess that person and decide if that woman is worthy (which inherently brings bias and politics and judgement into the question).

I’m not sure. Tough choice.

Missed the edit window:

Thinking on this my personal opinion is an organization which claims to care about certain values and wants to instill those values in its members simply cannot be uncritical of those it chooses to hold up as an example and applaud their success.

Whether Coney Barrett meets the Girl Scouts’ measures of good values I will leave to others to decide since I am not up on how GS maps these things out.

Just my $0.02

I agree 100%!

I think this is exactly what transpired, and they find themselves in a no win situation. And I think everything they have done is right. Their only hope of avoiding getting sucked into a vortex of toxic division, that harms everyone.

But it was not anodyne was it?

And while it was a historically male dominated profession women have been on the court enough now to not be an especially notable occurrence when another one gets on. I’m not dismissing it but I don’t know that it is any longer a special occasion (I would have said the same for Kagan or Sotomayor too).