Posted on 04/08/2002 9:43:12 PM PDT by Buffalo Bob
They are mirror images, really, two photos that are exact opposites despite looking awfully similar at first glance.
Jeffrie Herrmann, executive director of the South Florida Boy Scouts Council, is in both of them. So is a podium. And a speaker at the podium. But that’s where the similarities end.
In the first shot, the speaker is presenting Herrmann with an award for refusing to sell out to homosexual activists.
“Our values aren’t for sale,” Herrmann said before receiving the award. “You can offer us tens of thousands, millions, bazillions . . . it won’t make any difference. We believe and will fight to the end for our beliefs.”
But then there’s that other photo, taken just a year later. The speaker in it is a homosexual lobbyist, announcing, as Herrmann looks on, what the media reported as an “agreement” between the Boy Scouts and homosexual activists to, among other things, provide diversity-training classes for Scout leaders.
Confused? You’re not alone. So is Janet Folger, director of the Center for Reclaiming America and the woman who gave Herrmann the award. “This is confusing,” she said. “What should we believe?’ ”
It’s a question being repeated across the nation.
Though the Boy Scouts of America have won high-stakes legal battles in the last two years, disturbing signs indicate they may be capitulating in the cultural arena. And if the pressure being brought by pro-gay forces can sway a leader like Herrmann, then any council in any city is susceptible.
After all, just months before the photo of him and the homosexual lobbyist appeared in The Miami Herald last July, Herrmann actually faced down the Broward County United Way’s demands that he sign a “nondiscrimination policy.” His convictions cost his Scout council, which serves about 42,000 boys, close to $130,000.
An anonymous donor covered the shortfall by sending the South Florida Boy Scouts $200,000, expressing appreciation that the council had “not backed down on its commitment to the BSA’s membership standards.” But not even that, or a court win giving Florida Scouts equal access to Broward public schools, has kept the homosexual activists at bay.
Most Boy Scout backers assumed the fight was over when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Scouts’ right to prohibit homosexual Scoutmasters in June 2000. And this year, the U.S. Congress passed legislation prohibiting federal funding to school districts that ban the Boy Scouts because of their moral stance (see “Schooled by the liberals,” page 22). With the law clearly on their side, you would think the Scouts, with some 6 million members in 320 councils, would unabashedly defend themselves in the public square.
Since then, however, several Scout leaders around the country have made behind-the-scenes pledges to comply with United Way “nondiscrimination” policies — in an apparent attempt to placate homosexual activists. And some rebel Scout councils have drafted their own policies that seem to contradict the national stance. Even worse, other Scout leaders have threatened to sue the pro-family groups trying to defend the Scouts’ ban on homosexuals.
At a time when they should be brandishing the victory banner, the Scouts seem to be waving the white flag.
Florida debacle
Take what’s happening in Florida, for instance.
Just one year after the national Scouts’ Supreme Court victory, the South Florida Scouts “agreed to give up public funding, stop recruiting at public schools and develop a training program to help its leaders deal more sensitively with gay youth,” The Miami Herald reported last July.
Turns out this so-called agreement was brokered by the local United Way, which donates $350,000 a year to the Florida Boy Scouts. During a telephone interview with Citizen, the chairman of the Miami-Dade United Way, Harve Mogul, confirmed that, on his advice, the Boy Scouts agreed to all the terms the newspaper reported.
How was Mogul able to persuade Herrmann to abandon his pledge to “fight to the end for our beliefs”?
Citizen has learned that shortly after the national Scouts’ high court win, Herrmann and national BSA Vice President Anthony Burns (at the time, also president of the South Florida Boy Scouts Council) began year-long negotiations with homosexual activists and United Way board members. Those talks culminated last July at a news conference with the homosexual advocacy group SAVE Dade (Safeguarding American Values for Everyone).
According to SAVE Dade, the Scouts “voluntarily walked away from public funding” and would allow homosexual activists to train Scout leaders in “what to do with a child who identifies himself as gay.”
But Herrmann denied the existence of a formal agreement. “I take issue with the word ‘agreement,’ ” he told Citizen. “ ‘Agreement’ was never a word that we used. We have been engaged in what I would refer to as an ‘ongoing dialogue.’ . . . They offered to help us embellish the diversity training that the BSA already does, but that’s about as far as it’s gone; we have not accepted.”
“If that’s true,” countered Anthony Verdugo of the Miami-Dade Christian Coalition, “why won’t they say so in public and in the [secular] press? Why don’t they say, ‘Look, it’s just not true, there is no signed agreement?’ ”
Even more disturbing, Herrmann did not deny the most ominous part of his “dialogue” with homosexual activists: “A promise to sue any group that uses the Boy Scouts’ name to ‘further its political agenda.’ ”
So was it just circumstance that when Herrmann announced his pledge to sue, pro-family activists in Broward were publicizing the Boy Scouts’ plight in their effort to repeal the county’s “human rights” ordinance — the same ordinance used to defund the Boy Scouts and ban them from public facilities?
“Broward County took away funding from the Boy Scouts because our human-rights ordinance includes sexual orientation,” said a petition circulated by Equal Rights Not Special Rights, a grassroots pro-family coalition. But instead of bolstering a petition meant to protect them — or at the very least remaining neutral — Scout leaders undercut them.
Herrmann wrote an editorial in the July 9, 2001, edition of Fort Lauderdale’s Sun-Sentinel lambasting pro-family groups for seeking “to confuse the public by using our name to gain support for their causes. We are not involved in these petition drives.”
Interesting statement, considering that Herrmann acknowledged to Citizen that he signed a Broward petition and took one to his church. Still, Herrmann and his national counterpart, Burns, also issued a joint statement threatening to “prosecute any outside group that attempts to use copyrighted BSA identification to imply endorsement of their political agenda by our organization.”
Asked if they considered suing SAVE Dade — which at one point displayed the Boy Scout logo on its Web site — for making false claims about diversity training, Herrmann responded, “That’s a question for national attorneys.” Burns declined to comment.
After the Herrmann-Burns threat, Broward pro-family groups failed to obtain the 62,000 petition signatures needed. “Fewer people signed because people said, ‘If the Scouts aren’t for you, it doesn’t make sense,’ ” Folger explained.
Asked if the Miami-Dade United Way put financial pressure on the Boy Scouts to negotiate with homosexual activists, its chairman, Mogul, responded, “We were putting pressure on them to be good community players. Our role in the community is helping others to talk through or at least learn about differences. That was the message.”
It’s a pretty powerful message, too, considering that Florida United Ways provided 18 percent of the council’s $3.6 million budget before the Supreme Court decision.
The Florida debacle is not an isolated incident. United Way chapters across the country are joining with gay activists to strong-arm the Boy Scouts into endorsing homosexuality. And Herrmann’s not the only Scout official surrendering hard-won ground.
Michigan madness
The Scouts also demonstrated double-mindedness in Michigan, where the Ann Arbor and Detroit city councils used human-rights ordinances to ban city payroll deductions to the Scouts and bar police and fire departments from sponsoring troops.
To pre-empt similar attacks, family advocates in Traverse City, Mich., distributed postcards depicting three Scouts saluting an American flag above the words “Protect Our Scouts. Support American Values.” The back of the card asked residents vote for an amendment prohibiting similar ordinances.
Once again, Boy Scout leaders publicly opposed pro-family efforts. “We are saddened to see this organization using a specific group of children to advance its political agenda,” said a media statement from Peter Magoun, president of the Scenic Trails Council. “We are pursuing legal remedies for this issue.”
The resulting backlash forced a local pro-family group to apologize to the Boy Scouts, promising it would “not make further use of the postcard.”
The same week, a Scoutmaster circulated letters in the Detroit area stating his Boy Scout troop supported a homosexual-rights ordinance, but wasn’t asked to apologize.
“The Troop Committee said I could sign it as a Scout leader so the community will know that this troop is not in favor of discrimination and is not afraid of the ordinance,” said David Carpenter, a 61-year-old troop leader who canvassed 200 homes a day.
Scout leaders later asked Carpenter to remove his name from the letters before any more were sent out. “I support David,” said John Primrose, chief executive officer of the Scouts’ Detroit Area Council. “He’s been a Scoutmaster a long time. However, I had to tell him that he’s breaking policy. I agree with him, though. I don’t like what [people circulating petitions] are trying to do.”
Predictably, the Traverse City ballot vote met the same fate as Broward’s petition. That frustrated Gary Glenn of the Michigan American Family Association: “It was nothing short of astonishing that they would harshly and publicly attack supporters of the Boy Scouts.”
Asked why the local Scouts chastised pro-family groups while meeting with homosexual activists, national BSA spokesman Gregg Shields told Citizen it was “reasonable” for Scouts to attend meetings they were invited to as “members of the community.” As for the legal threats, “We have a right to defend our image, and have to be careful of those who might misuse it.”
Ripple effect
That sort of discouragement from the national office coupled with publicity surrounding the Florida and Michigan battles has made it easy for a growing number of local councils to compromise.
When homosexual activists pressured local United Ways to stop funding the Four Lakes Boy Scouts Council in Wisconsin, Scout leaders extended an olive branch: a new patch called “Respect for All” that teaches 7- to 10-year-old Cub Scouts about families with two fathers or two mothers.
But that wasn’t good enough for homosexual activists who, unlike the Scout leaders, don’t waver from their hard-line position. In January, local activists held a news conference calling for the United Way to punish Scouts because “there’s still a discriminatory policy in place.”
Dane County United Way President Leslie Howard kept them at bay by citing the Boy Scouts’ “progress”: a resolution calling for the national BSA headquarters to change its ban on gay Scoutmasters.
“They [the Boy Scouts] have fostered a lot of positive movement, including . . . adopting the resolution that they disagree with the national policy. So we are working with them to create that change,” said Dane County United Way spokeswoman Meg Van Gompel.
Asked if his group allowed homosexual Scoutmasters, Four Lakes Council Scout Executive Chuck Dobbins would only repeat, “We are part of the national organization.”
The Gamehaven and Gateway Boy Scout councils in Minnesota also capitulated last November, announcing an agreement with the United Way of the Greater Winona Area to “not discriminate regarding someone’s sexual orientation.”
Meanwhile, one of Massachusetts’ largest Scout councils — the Boston Minutemen Council, with 18,000 boys in 330 troops — announced a “policy of nondiscrimination” against “sexual orientation” last July. Asked if his council allowed openly homosexual scoutmasters, Minutemen Executive Director Brock Bigsby told Citizen: “We don’t inquire into their orientation” and then abruptly ended the phone call.
Once again, there was evidence of behind-the-scenes deal-making: “United Way leadership and Boy Scouts leadership are exploring ways to continue to support programs that do not discriminate,” said Carmen Field, director of communications for the United Way of Massachusetts Bay.
Vermont’s Green Mountain Boy Scouts Council also adopted a policy that “unlike national rules, permits gay Scouts and Scout leaders,” according to a Dec. 17 Associated Press (AP) article.
In a telephone interview, Green Mountain Council Executive Director Jerry Lupien claimed the report was untrue. But when Citizen asked if his council allows openly homosexual Scoutmasters, Lupien skirted the issue: “All I can tell you is that we uphold the policies of the [Boy Scouts of America] and we will enforce them, and we will treat every single case as an individual.”
His comments to the AP were more revealing: “Somebody called and said it was rumored that the person proposed to be Scoutmaster was gay. And I said, ‘So?’ . . . That’s none of my business. If you’re going to call me and tell me that he behaved in an improper way with the kids, then please let me know.’ ”
Don’t ask, don’t tell
Instead of squashing local insurrections and rewarding councils that uphold Scout policy, BSA headquarters has continued to send mixed signals that weaken its national stance.
Pro-family groups applauded last year when BSA headquarters disbanded seven Cub Scout troops in Oak Park, Ill., for announcing a new policy allowing homosexual leaders. And a few months later, when leaders of Cleveland’s oldest Scout group (Troop 98) asked national leaders if they could sign a nondiscrimination pledge, the Boy Scouts forbade it. Another positive signal came this January when BSA national headquarters rejected resolutions proposed by local Scout leaders to allow “avowed” homosexual Scoutmasters.
But now the message seems to be: You can change policy as along as you don’t announce it or put it in writing. When asked about recent United Way agreements and “nondiscrimination policies” adopted by local councils, Shields responded, “I haven’t seen those documents that the local councils have signed, but nothing they have done has been out of compliance.”
The national Boy Scouts Web site says the organization “makes no effort to discover the sexual orientation of any person.” However, it also somewhat contradictorily states, “We believe an avowed homosexual is not a role model . . . and homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the values we wish to instill.”
In other words, the Boy Scouts have resorted to a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, allowing local councils to make nondiscrimination “agreements” without technically violating national policy.
This is the loophole through which rebel councils hope to put avowed homosexuals in leadership positions. But that’s a dangerous escape hatch, said Robert H. Knight, director of the Culture and Family Institute in Washington, D.C. — one that ultimately leaves boys unprotected and the Scouts open to lawsuits for sexual molestation:
“I see the national leadership wishing this would all just go away, but not doing what it takes to make it go away,” Knight said, “which is to draw a line in the sand and make it clear what’s at stake.”
But at least one Scout executive has proved it is possible to resist homosexual pressure and prevail. In Michigan, Michael Sulgrove — director of the Gerald R. Ford Council comprising 30,000 boys in 12 counties — received overwhelming community support for refusing to sign a United Way diversity pledge. “The entire community rose up,” Sulgrove said. “They had yard signs saying, ‘We support the Boy Scouts and so should our United Way.’ We received several thousand dollars more than our allocation ever was in the first place.”
In fact, response was so great, he said, that other United Ways felt the heat: “They were frightened they would lose support because [people thought] they weren’t supporting the Boy Scouts. It got so bad that . . . we had to take out an ad saying they support the Boy Scouts in other communities.”
Sulgrove said Christians can help other councils by donating directly to the Scouts instead of going through third-party charities.
“There are Boy Scouts councils that have not had the watershed support we have,” he said, “and they have been extremely hurt by the . . . attitudes of some of the United Ways and community organizations.”
TAKE ACTION: Encourage the Boy Scouts to continue defending moral principles:
Roy L. Williams, chief Scout executive
BSA National Headquarters
PO Box 152079
Irving, TX 75015-2079
Phone: 972-580-2000
Web: www.bsa.scouting.org
Are they also going to take out a separate insurance policy to handle all the lawsuits that will inevitalbly come their way?
I am sorry to see a credible organization such as Foucus on the Family publish a not terribly credible article like this. The Boy Scouts have always had a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. However when credible information becomes available, they take swift action. They do not do inquisitions.
The author has collected a bunch of stories about renegade volunteer boards, vague agreements designed to finesse problem situations, and cases where Scout professionals have refused comments to the press. From that she has tried to weave an ominous story in a manner similar to that of the ultra-liberals. She does the Boy Scouts a dis-service.
I was at a dinner last year where Roy L. Williams (Chief Scout Executive, yes the top dog in the country) was guest of honor. Our local Scout Executive for most of Northern California said to the gathering in no uncertain terms that the BSA will never bow to the homosexual lobby. His bluntness surprised even me.
Perhaps Focus on the Family (an organization I respect) should get the encouragement "to continue defending moral principles" as far as their honesty in reporting the news.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.