Did they do the direct your money to a specific charity after the controversy with the Boy Scouts or any other controversial organizations? Do they give to Planned Parenthood?
Others with longer memories will be able to help on this topic. My 1st experience with the UW "fair share" and "dircted giving" was 1990-1995. The homosexual issue in BSA was bubbling, but had not reached a hard boil by that time.
1980 - Tim Curran, an 18-year-old Eagle Scout, applied to be an assistant scoutmaster in a local CA troop. Members of the BSA, however, had recently learned that Curran was homosexual after reading an Oakland Tribune article on homosexual youth which featured an interview with Curran. Based on his sexual orientation, the BSA refused to allow Curran to hold a leadership position. Curran sued in 1981, alleging that the BSA's membership requirements amounted to unlawful discrimination under CA's Unruh Civil Rights Act, which required "Full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges or services in all business establishments". The case was ultimately decided in 1998, when the CA Supreme Court ruled in favor of the BSA in Curran v. Mount Diablo Council of the Boy Scouts of America. The court held that because the BSA was not considered a “business establishment” under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, it could not be required to change its membership policies so as to include homosexuals.
JUL 1990 – Rutgers University student, James Dale, attended a seminar on the health needs of lesbian and gay teenagers where he was interviewed. Dale was co-president of the campus’s Lesbian/Gay student alliance. An account of the interview was published in a local newspaper. Dale was quoted as stating he was gay. BSA officials read the interview and expelled Dale from his position as assistant scoutmaster of a NJ troop. Dale, an Eagle Scout, filed suit in the NJ Superior Court, alleging, among other things, that the BSA had violated the state statute prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in places of public accommodation. The NJ Supreme Court ruled against the BSA, saying that they violated the State's public accommodations law by revoking Dale's membership based on his homosexuality. Among other rulings, the court …
1. held that application of that law did not violate the BSA’s' First Amendment right of expressive association because Dale's inclusion would not significantly affect members' ability to carry out their purposes.
2. determined that NJ has a compelling interest in eliminating the destructive consequences of discrimination from society, and that its public accommodations law abridges no more speech than is necessary to accomplish its purpose; and
3. held that Dale's reinstatement did not compel the BSA to express any message.
The BSA appealed to the SCOTUS, which granted certiorari (a type of writ seeking judicial review - meaning an order by a higher court directing a lower court, tribunal, or public authority to send the record in a given case for review) to determine whether the application of NJ's public accommodations law violated the First Amendment. The SCOTUS case, Boy Scouts of America and Monmouth Council, et al., Petitioners v. James Dale, was decided in JUN 2000.
6/28/2000 – The SCOTUS decided in Boy Scouts of America et al. v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000), in a 5-4 vote, that the constitutional right to freedom of association allowed a private organization like the BSA to exclude a person from membership when "the presence of that person affected in a significant way the group's ability to advocate public or private viewpoints." The SCOTUS ruled that opposition to homosexuality was part of BSA's "expressive message" and that allowing homosexuals as adult leaders would interfere with that message. It reversed a decision of the NJ Supreme Court that had determined that NJ’s public accommodations law required the BSA to readmit assistant scoutmaster (and Eagle Scout) James Dale, who had made his homosexuality public and whom the BSA had expelled from the organization in 1990.