from The Providence Journal
Scout controversy is a chance for you to make an impact
by M. Charles Bakst
August 17, 1999
News item: A panel of the Boy Scouts of America will spend the next year
studying such issues as what makes a person homosexual, perhaps prefatory
to the organization's ending its policy against gays as members or leaders.
Hmm -- possibly, at some point, maybe, the policy might change. I suppose
some people call this progress.
You can make things complicated and spend a year studying anything. Myself,
I don't think it should take more than a minute to see, recognize and vow
to erase discrimination.
The sooner the Scouts have that moment, the better. Individual citizens can
help by acting for justice.
I refer, for instance, to business moguls who contribute corporate funds
or otherwise help raise money for the Scouts. But I refer also to rank-and-file
employees who can approach their bosses with questions about this participation.
It was a jolt to read a Journal story by Jennifer Levitz that the United
Way and other donors in Rhode Island who annually funnel millions to the Scouts
say that while they disagree with the organization's ban, they have no plans
to cut off financial support.
There have been some moves around the country to stand up to the Scouts.
But here, a United Way aide said, "We're not moral arbiters." A Fleet aide
said, "We try not to focus on their discriminatory practices, but on the good
they do." Spokesmen for churches and police, who have close ties with the
Scouts, also bit their tongues.
Maybe we should be moral arbiters and focus, at least for a moment, on the
discrimination.
Spare me talk about what fine work the Scout organization does in shaping
citizens. I know it. That's why it's so crucial for gays to feel welcome,
so they can gain from what the Scouts offer. By the same token, when the Scouts
discriminate, they may, however unintentionally, be nurturing among their
youngsters a strand of bigotry. These kids will some day be in teaching and
other influential roles.
An enterprise that discriminates doesn't deserve financial aid or such logistical
help as facilities for meetings. If, while the gay ban lasts, business and
community leaders, private or governmental, cut off support, they'd be acting
on principle. People who work in companies, or belong to or support churches
or other organizations that make Scout programs possible, need to review their
positions.
It is not enough to say, "Well, we don't discriminate," or " We welcome gays."
To see discrimination elsewhere but to ignore it is to tacitly condone and
perpetuate it.
We must speak up and ask, "What are we doing? If we don't immediately end
support, can't we find some way to have an impact?" Perhaps we need such declarations
of conscience as public statements of outrage by community leaders. Perhaps
those in whose schools or other buildings Scouts hold their activities should
set a date certain for the Scouts to change policy or face eviction.
I asked Providence Journal publisher Howard Sutton about the issue of corporate
money. He said the company has donated to the Scouts. But the gay controversy
gives him pause. He is struck by the organization's basing its policy on a
1910 oath saying Scouts must be "morally straight."
Sutton said, "In my opinion, 'morally straight' should not exclude gays from
being in the Scouts."
As for the idea of no longer giving financial support to the organization,
Sutton said, "We're going to wait and see what happens locally and as the
New Jersey Supreme Court opinion continues to work its way through the legal
system." This was a reference to a decision in favor of a former assistant
scoutmaster who was kicked out of the BSA nine years ago when Scout leaders
found out he was gay. A recent Journal editorial called the Scout policy "morally
wrong."
Mr. and Ms. Rhode Island, you know it is morally wrong.
What will you do about it?
M. Charles Bakst, The Journal's political columnist, can be reached by E-mail
at mbakst@projo.com
Time, perhaps, to add 'tolerant' to
the list of Boy Scout values
by Tim Murphy
August 15, 1999
IT'S BEEN A TOUGH couple of weeks for the Boy Scouts in Rhode Island. The
dispute over a gay Eagle Scout's job at Camp Yawgoog, followed by the arrest
of a Scout leader on molestation charges, have saddened everyone involved
with the organization.
The events have also given ammunition to critics who view the Boy Scouts
as a sexist, homophobic organization that is, at the least, outdated, if not
vaguely sinister.
That's highly unfortunate. There are few groups that have done more than
the Boy Scouts to help boys learn basic values -- cooperation, respect for
yourself and others, and willingness to help people in need.
America's boys grow up immersed in a culture of commercialism and self-absorption.
The message they receive in music, movies and advertising is "get what you
can for yourself." The Boy Scouts, for more than 90 years, have pushed another
idea, embodied in the Scout oath: "to do my duty to God and country and to
help other people at all times." That's the message I hope my three teenaged
sons -- all Boy Scouts -- embrace.
As a volunteer leader for nearly a decade, speaking solely for myself, I'd
like to offer some thoughts on the events of the past few weeks.
First, let me dispel some misconceptions. I've heard people criticize the
Boy Scouts for their "militaristic" nature. It's true that Scouts wear uniforms
and have ranks. Wearing uniforms helps boys feel they're part of a fraternity
of Scouts around the world and gives them a sense of pride.
But anyone who's ever witnessed the organized chaos of a Cub Scout or Boy
Scout meeting -- or watched Scouts parade proudly, but hardly in lockstep,
at Camp Yawgoog every Sunday afternoon -- would have few worries that the
organization is turning boys into young soldiers.
Second, it's regularly reported that Boy Scouts bar women from membership.
This is not true. Many women serve as Scoutmasters and in other leadership
positions throughout Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts. Girls 14 and older may join
the Venturing program for teenagers.
It's true that girls are not allowed to be Boy Scouts. While some object
to this policy, I believe that younger boys and girls have very different
interests and temperaments, and enjoy and benefit from single-gender groups.
I'm sure the leadership of the Girl Scouts, which doesn't allow boys to be
members, would agree.
Finally, the recent events, and the reaction from state and national Boy
Scout officials, might suggest that the Boy Scout policy prohibiting membership
to homosexuals is one of its core convictions, endorsed by the vast majority
of its members.
Certainly, many in the organization agree with it. But you'd be hard-pressed
to find the policy anywhere in the official Boy Scout handbook. In conversations
I've had with Scout officials and leaders, the prevailing sentiment is that
a Scout's sexuality is a personal and private matter, totally irrelevant to
the qualities that make him a good Scout.
I've known the Eagle Scout involved in the highly-publicized job dispute
for several years. I've watched as he advanced through the ranks of Scouting
and matured, as a Scout and as a young man. He's an excellent student, a community
leader and an accomplished musician. He is the epitome of what an Eagle Scout
should be.
Perhaps I'm naive but I believe that the national Scout organization, sooner
rather than later, will recognize that a policy that would deny membership
to this Scout and others like him is wrong and needs to be changed.
If not, the organizations that support Scouting, from the community groups
that sponsor individual troops to the corporations and charities that provide
its funding, may well force it to change.
Why should anyone care what happens to the Boy Scouts? Because, like it or
not, the Boy Scouts exert substantial influence on millions of boys, teaching
them not only how to tie knots and perform first aid but also how to set and
achieve goals, work with others and become tomorrow's leaders.
And there aren't many codes of conduct more concise and noble than the Scout
Law, recited at every meeting by Scouts, as they promise to be: trustworthy,
loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave,
clean and reverent.
Perhaps it's time to add "tolerant." But who can argue with the rest?
Tim Murphy is the Journal's assistant managing editor/Sunday.
Boy Scouts' top officials
launch study of homosexuality
Approved at the Scouts national conference, the study will be used to decide
whether the organization’s membership policy should be based on sexual orientation
or sexual behavior.
by Jennifer Levitz
August 14, 1999
Even as the Boy Scouts of America reaffirmed this week its policy to ban
homosexuals, policymakers at the national organization are launching a major
study into what makes a person gay, The Journal has learned. Over the next
year, a 12-member national Boy Scout panel, which includes some of the country’s
most influential businessmen, will review “the scientific and medical basis
for the determination of sexual orientation.”
The study will essentially determine whether the Boy Scouts’ membership policy
should be based on sexual orientation, as it is now, or instead on standards
of sexual behavior.
The top executives of the national Boy Scouts organization approved a resolution
authorizing the study at their annual national council meeting in May, scout
officials at headquarters in Irving, Texas, confirmed yesterday, after The
Journal obtained a copy of the two-page resolution.
The resolution outlines the reasons for the study and how it will be conducted,
and lists the evidence that Boy Scout officials will examine. It does not,
however, detail that evidence except to say that expert witnesses and medical
literature will be consulted.
The executive board, led by Edward E. Whiteacre Jr., president of Southwestern
Bell, will review findings from the study next year and ultimately decide
whether to change Boy Scout policy or reaffirm it.
The study comes in the face of a slew of legal battles over the organization’s
long-standing membership policy, which excludes homosexuals, atheists and
agnostics.
Last week alone, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that the Boy Scouts’
anti-gay policy is unconstitutional. Then the issue hit home in Rhode Island
when a 16-year-old Eagle Scout said he was refused a job at Camp Yawgoog,
a premier Boy Scout camp, because he is gay.
In the resolution, Scout leaders concede that such conflicts may be hurting
the image of scouting, a tradition-filled institution considered by many to
be a rite of passage for young males since it was formed in 1910.
“Further delay in addressing this issue may result in the diminution of scouting’s
leadership as one of the nation’s most effective character-building programs
for youth,” the resolution states.
According to the plan, the study will focus on three main areas:
- “The moral and religious basis for defining homosexuality as a moral issue”
and the effect upon the Boy Scouts of America if homosexuals are admitted
as members.
- The "scientific and medical basis for the determination of sexual orientation
and the effect of homosexual orientation upon youth in dealing with their
own sexuality.” The study should consult expert opinions, current medical
and scientific literature, and religious doctrine, the resolution states.
- The consequences of the policies, such as the loss of financial support
by an increasing number of public agencies and sponsors, such as the United
Way.
WHILE CONFIRMING the study, a national Boy Scout spokesman said yesterday
that the Boy Scouts are simply opening up a topic for discussion, as they
often do. He didn’t say who brought the resolution to the floor, but said
a resolutions committee approved the document, and then sent it along to a
“relationships committee,” which will conduct the study.
"All this shows is that there are six million people who are members of the
Boy Scouts and that not everyone agrees with all of our policies,” said national
spokesman Gregg Shields. “It shows that we’re a democratic organization and
that we listen to ideas.”
But the resolution questions the sacred Boy Scout oath. Boy Scout leaders
have long argued that a provision in the oath that requires a Scout to be
“morally straight” is antithetical to homosexuality.
The resolution, however, concedes that many in the scouting community “interpret
those terms to refer to proper behavior,” not sexual orientiaton.
But what’s tricky about embarking on such a study is that churches are the
largest single sponsors of scouting, with the United Methodist Church and
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints -- the Mormon church -- each
sponsoring 12 percent of troops nationwide, according to statistics from the
Boy Scout headquarters.
In fact, of the top 16 sponsors, 8 of them are churches.
“Many are religious organizations that proscribe homosexual orientation as
immoral,” the resolution states. “Still others accept homosexual orientation
as an existent condition within the general population.”
The Mormon church declined comment on the resolution yesterday, saying it
hadn’t reviewed it yet. But it released a statement affirming its opposition
to homosexuality.
“Our hearts reach out to those who struggle with feelings of affinity for
the same gender,” church president Gordon B. Hinckley said in a statement.
“However, we cannot condone immoral practices on your part any more than we
can condone immoral practices on the part of others.”
In Rhode Island, Anthony Gibbs, an official from the Narragansett Council,
which represents troops throughout the state and parts of Connecticut, said
only that the organization supports current Boy Scout policy.
State Boy Scout leaders came under fire last week when they admitted they
asked an Eagle Scout if he was gay just as they dismissed him from the staff
at Camp Yawgoog.
Under criticism, state and national officials reaffirmed their policy against
gays, but said the openly gay teen could remain a scout and work at Camp Yawgoog
because scout `officials went against policy in asking him about his sexual
orientation.
In other words: Don’t ask, don’t tell The Boy Scout resolution adopted in
May states that many organizations, from the military to private colleges
to fraternal lodges, have looked at the issue of homosexuality.
But not all have taken the same route.
The Girl Scouts have no policies excluding gays or any other groups, said
James Randall, a Los Angeles-based civil rights attorney, who’s argued several
Scout-related discrimination cases.
Randall said the Boy Scouts won’t change their policies, mainly because of
supporters such as the Mormon church.
"It would be great if that actually happened, but I think this is window
dressing,” he said. “They’re just doing it to appease some angry groups --
they’ll never change.”
The Boy Scouts are coming
apart from the top down
by Bob Kerr
August 11, 1999
The Boy Scouts are coming apart from the top down We need the Boy Scouts,
perhaps now more than ever. They are the caretakers of things that used to
be important and might be important again -- community, honesty, even tolerance.
They are a little like the Marine Corps, without the weapons or the salty
way of making a point.
Boy Scouts bear the corny burden of maintaining the things that got us here.
But there is a big difference between preserving the past and living in it.
The Boy Scouts have to get real. They are doing no one a service if they
insist that the things worth preserving include a bigotry, once comfortably
invisible, that is now out in the open in all its ugliness.
For the Boy Scouts to declare that gay boys cannot be a part of them is to
hold on to something old and battered and totally dishonest. To insist that
all that knot-tying, campfire-building, lifesaving, wood-crafting, and mountain-climbing
affirmation of the scouting ideal can be entrusted only to heterosexual hands
is a serious case of denial.
It is setting up Scouts for some tough social adjustments once they leave
the troop.
When the Narragansett Council of the Boy Scouts of America declared on Sunday
that a 16-year-old gay Eagle Scout from South Kingstown could remain in scouting,
it showed at least an acceptance of the fact that the real world includes
homosexuals.
When a national spokesperson for the Boy Scouts of America declared that
such acceptance can't be tolerated, he showed that the organization is being
run by people far less aware of what's going on than many of the Scouts themselves.
This national rejection of the Narragansett Council's fairness and compassion
is a bad clich , a Dr. Strangelove take on "pre-version" that would be darkly
funny if it weren't so darkly cruel and out of touch.
And lurking somewhere in this murky piece of social engineering is the implied
statement Do you really want your red-blooded, girl-crazy son bunking beneath
a ho-mo-sek-shu-al?
There is the seedy, snickering implication that after lights out the gay
Boy Scout would be on the prowl. It is the worst kind of sexual fear-mongering.
If the Boy Scouts of America were all they are supposed to be, they would
be a showcase for sexual tolerance and understanding. They would prepare Scouts
for a world where gays no longer hide who they are and where there is a very
good chance that the boy who runs the fastest and climbs the highest is morally
strong but not sexually straight.
They would not try to keep scouting a heterosexual fantasy camp where every
Scout's impure thoughts are at least the right kind of impure thoughts.
The insistence by the national Boy Scout organization that gays cannot participate
in its councils seems to spring from some grainy black-and-white production
-- possibly from the people who brought us Reefer Madness in the 1930s --
in which gay men are easily spotted by their spit-soaked chins, leering eyes,
and fancy way of walking.
The men at the top of the Boy Scouts clearly do not want to surrender their
firm grip on cherished stereotypes.
But it is way past time for something like this to be occupying our time
and energy. Homosexuals are too vital a part of us to be subjected to this
kind of crude, stupid intolerance.
And the Boy Scouts are, potentially, too good an organization to be pulled
down by leaders who insist on clinging to an idea of sexual exclusion that
denies reality.
The Boy Scouts really could provide a healthy counterbalance to all the cynical,
exploitative, Clintonesque excess that has befallen us. They do stand for
something good and enduring.
But if they continue to be led by dinosaurs, they will only become part of
the problem.
Bob Kerr can be reached by E-mail at bkerr@projo.com.
Gay rights
and the Scouts
Providence Journal editorial
August 10, 1999
The New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled in favor of James Dale, a former
assistant Scoutmaster who was kicked out of the Boy Scouts of America nine
years ago when Scout leaders found out that he was homosexual. The court ruled
that Scouts fall under New Jersey's anti-discrimination law and so cannot
deny any person "accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges" because
of sexual orientation.
The legal basis of the ruling is questionable, given that the Boy Scouts
are a private, voluntary organization: After all, no one is compelled to join.
So the question of whether government can or should coerce it to change internal
policies is far from settled. We ourselves are leery of government interference
in voluntary organizations.
And it is far from clear whether the ruling will stand, especially given
the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling last year refusing to hear the appeal of a
California man who had been thrown out of the Scouts for homosexuality. The
New Jersey case will probably end up in the U.S. Supreme Court. Tune in.
However, the Scouts' policy seems to us to be morally wrong. No one should
be penalized because of his or her sexual orientation. If Mr. Dale had tried
to actively exercise his homosexuality in his role in the Scouts, or to promote
homosexuality or any message inconsistent with Boy Scout policies, the Scouts
would have had an iron-clad argument to remove him. But in fact, Mr. Dale
apparently had not done anything of the kind: He kept his orientation out
of his Scout activities. It bears noting, by the way, that Mr. Dale was an
Eagle Scout and earned 30 merit badges and other awards in his 12 years in
the Scouts. He was a model Scout and a fine citizen.
To deprive him of membership in such a group, especially one so large, simply
on the basis of orientation (who he is, as opposed to what he does) and not
actions, is unfair. It is also deeply hypocritical. There are many (silent)
homosexuals in the Boy Scouts, at all levels, and the Scouts' leadership knows
that.
UUA/Scouts Main Page
| 
