Posted on 09/19/2002 5:37:52 AM PDT by luv2ndamend
A Washington, D.C. court hearing last Tuesday — 9/10 — offered a sobering reminder that 9/11 did not, in fact, change "everything." The proceedings, at the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, dealt with a government rebuke of the Boy Scouts of America last year for dismissing two Washington-area Scout leaders because they're gay. The Scouts asked the court to overturn the June 2001 command by the District of Columbia Human Rights Commission that Michael Geller, 39, and Ronald Pool, 40, be readmitted as adult members and receive $100,000 in damages.
Although the Commission submitted no briefs of its own (angry members of Congress had denied the agency funding to defend its decision), lawyers for Geller and Pool didn't give an inch at the hearing. They insisted that the Scouts cannot be allowed to escape the District's anti-discrimination law, and the hefty fine was right and just.
Carla Kerr, an attorney for the Scouts, reports that the judges questioned the Geller and Pool attorneys aggressively. But even if the appellate ruling favors the Scouts, the fact that they had to go to court to win back their rights highlights some disturbing continuities between pre- and post-911 America. Not all of today's agents of destruction work with bombs, bullets or box cutters. There are saboteurs in coats and ties as well - social and cultural saboteurs, some with government or academic status, who continue their long-running siege against venerable institutions that have nourished the nation's soul. The Scouts remain a prime target. They are loathed by the Left for resisting reeducation on sexual morality and for transmitting a cultural framework, stressing God and country, that was supposed to be marginalized by now.
Most of all, perhaps, the Scouts are hated simply as an obstacle to the Left's Taliban-like project of imposing a general conformity of thought on the country. Lovers of liberty - even those who might disagree with Scouting's membership policies - should toast the Scouts' tenacious stand for the First Amendment and the right not to be PC.
The District of Columbia assault on the Scouts may be unique in one respect: its unusually direct defiance of the United States Supreme Court. In the 2000 case of Dale v. Boy Scouts, the Court settled the question that the D.C. bureaucrats have tried to reopen. A five-justice majority ruled that the Scouts are free to follow their own philosophical precepts. Therefore, government - New Jersey, in the Dale case - can't compel the Scouts to admit avowed homosexuals as leaders.
The Commission claimed that the case it dealt with differs from the case of New Jersey assistant scoutmaster James Dale because Pool and Geller were not public about their homosexuality. But the Supreme Court's teaching in Dale still applies: a private, philosophically based organization is free to craft its own creed and tailor membership rules accordingly.
The Commission also accused Scouting's leaders of lying, in effect, when they say that Scouting considers homosexuality incompatible with the Scout Oath's pledge to stay "morally straight." The Commission alleged that the Scouts haven't held this belief historically. It touted as "evidence" the fact that formal position statements were drafted only in recent years. If this line of argument sounds familiar, it's because New Jersey tried to sell it to the Supreme Court in Dale. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice William Rehnquist declined the invitation to instruct a private organization on what it does and does not believe. The Court in Dale accepted Scouting's own interpretation of the Scout Oath and the Scout Law.
So the District of Columbia Human Rights Commission has demonstrated about as much respect for Dale as southern school districts showed for Brown v. Board of Education when they waged "massive resistance" to desegregation orders in the 1950s. Like Brown, Dale is a civil rights decision; it affirms liberty of association and freedom from thought codes. A "Human Rights" commission worthy of the name would honor Dale, not subvert it.
Most of the recent government assaults on the Scouts have not been as shamelessly frontal. The trend is to try to coerce rather than openly compel. For instance, there's the scheme of shunning, as practiced in San Francisco, where local judges are now barred from participating in Scouting. There's stigmatizing, as Connecticut has attempted by dropping the Scouts from the list of charities that state employees can support through payroll deduction. There's singling out for the withholding of public benefits, as Berkeley has done by starting to charge a Scout-affiliated group, the Sea Scouts, for use of the city's marina. No other nonprofit faces such a requirement. High school teacher Eugene Evans now must pay $532 a month out of his pocket so the Sea Scouts' ship can berth in the marina and 20 or so boys can sail the Bay on weekends and learn carpentry and plumbing by working on the ship during the week. Because he's covering berthing costs, Evans can no longer afford to pay membership fees for boys from poorer neighborhoods around Oakland and Berkeley. Some, including some black and Latino kids, have had to drop out.
These anti-Scout ploys raise constitutional issues by attempting to do indirectly what the Supreme Court has said cannot be done directly - force Scouting to abandon its First Amendment rights. A long, twilight struggle of legal battles is assured.
The Scouts are learning that the totalitarian temptation survived the Berlin Wall; it's an impulse that isn't necessarily confined to nations patrolled by tanks and jackboots. Totalitarian arrangements share a principle: independent, voluntary associations aren't allowed. A totalitarian community "is made absolute by the removal of all forms of membership and identification which might, by their existence, compete with the new order," wrote sociologist Robert Nisbet. "It is, further, made absolute by the insistence that all thought, belief, worship, and membership be within the structure of the State."
Tocqueville saw this phenomenon in fledgling form on his home continent 170 years ago: "In all European nations some associations cannot be formed until the state has examined their statutes and authorized their existence. In several countries efforts are made to extend this rule to all associations. One can easily see whither success in that would lead."
The Scouts' fight, then, is for the survival of an authentically private sector — a sphere where beliefs can be embraced and explored without preclearance, editing or censorship by the state.
"They hate freedom." President Bush's words about terror networks also describe the bullies who would force Scouting to march to a new and "progressive" tune. By standing their ground, the Scouts put themselves on the front line of today's war against tyranny, as surely as the soldiers tracking Al-Qaida or any battalions that might be bound for Baghdad.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Harold Johnson is an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation.
I gave to the United WAy the first year I worked (1959). A friend of a friend worked as a typist for UW. When she showed up sporting a diamond watch the UW had given her for Christmas, I decided they didn't need my hard earned dollars.
Also, I don't know if it is encouraged by the UW or not, but many companies have a very heavy-handed way of trying to force you to give to UW. Both my husband and I, have had employers attempt to intimidate us into giving. The old 'team player' thing, and all. We had to be very firm. I am not sure what the employers got out of the 100% participation, but it sure seemed to mean a lot to them.
I've never heard of a male Girl Scout leader. But, assume what you say is correct. Why do they need a female in the primary position? I think it has more to do with the fact that no parent will allow their daughter to go off on campouts, with a bunch of 15-16 year old girls, and only a male as a chaperone.
Men by nature, whether homo or hetero sexual are usually the initiators of sex. Instinct should tell a parent that their underage daughter shouldn't be off alone with a male who isn't related. Most likely nothing will happen, but it sets up an unconfortable situation for both the male scout leader and the Girl scout. Why not the same consideration to adolecent boys? Chances are, nothing will happen between the boy & the homosexual scout leader, but why set up an uncomfortable situation and open all parties up to false acusations.
I am told by the GSUSA that it's got nothing to do with parental concerns; they want to make sure that the girls see a female role model as the top leader. Self-esteem, etc.
As far as worrying about chaperones, who's primary leader has nothing to do with that. I don't know the GSUSA policy, but the BSA never allows only one leader to take a group out, and they always require at least one female adult present if there's female youth present. I can't imagine that the GSUSA is less stringent, so I think that your projection of young women alone in the woods with a man if men are allowed to be the Troop's primary leader is unrealistic.
You are to be commended for your service to your community.
I am posting to clear up some of the incorrect or misleading information that has been posted so far.
Thank you!
Girl Scouts have a rule book called Safet-Wise. This gives you the rules on who can be leaders (ie: over 18), how many adults are need for various activities (ie: 2 adults per 12 girls), any special training for various activities (ie: lifeguard for swimming), who can drive on trips, etc.
The BSA's equivalent is called "Guide to Safe Scouting", often referred to online as the "G2SS". There's an on-line version of it posted on the BSA's national site.
For male chaperones Safety-Wise (p. 69) states "It is not appropriate for males to sleep in the same space with girl members. They may participate only if separate sleeping quarters and bathrooms are available for their use."
What's "the same space"? I can certainly understand if we're talking about the same tent. What about the same campsite? If we are talking about a cabin, if there's one large room is it acceptable to wall off one area with curtains, or do men have to sleep outside? What about adult women? Would they be able to sleep in the same room with curtains up, or would they have to sleep outside as well? If there are separate rooms, is it O.K. for men to sleep in the cabin as long as they use separate rooms? What about the adult women? If there's only one bathroom, the BSA O.K.'s it as long as there's a way to post that the bathroom is in use by adults. For shower/bath facilities, if there's only one it's allowed to be used by mixed sexes by setting a schedule. Each gender and age group would have a separate time; thus, for a Venture Crew that has both adults and youth of both genders, you'd need to set up 4 separate time periods. How does the GSUSA handle this?
As to men being leaders, yes they can. In fact in Cape May County, NJ (in my council) there has been a male leader for about 15 years. He is the Head leader, not the assistant. Safety-Wise (page 69) states "Because the female role model is essential to fulfilling the purpose of Girl Scouting, at least one member of the leadership team must be an adult female."
There was a time when men could not be the Head Leader of a GSUSA unit; I'm glad to hear that that time has apparently passed. The BSA has a similar rule regarding that at least one leader of the same gender as any youth be present at all activities, but they do not justify it on the basis of making a judgment on whether or not a female leader can be a fit role model for a male Scout (or vice versa). It's on the basis that a youth might be reluctant to disclose a health problem in an intimate area to a leader of the opposite sex, and this in turn could endanger their health.
All Girl Scout troops and activities require at least two trained unrelated adults. It doesn't matter if they are male or female, straight or gay. The unrelated part is the key.
I believe that the BSA has a similar rule regarding the relationship among the leaders, but I won't swear to it. As far as the heterosexuality or homosexuality of the leaders, the BSA does not have a blanket prohibition on homosexuals. It bans "avowed" homosexuals. If a leader does not discuss their sex life in front of the kids, or otherwise make their sexuality obvious, no one's going to say anything or mount any investigations. All the issues that the BSA has had with homosexual leaders has involved someone who has stood up and sought publicity about their sexual choices. There are certainly homosexual youth and adults in the BSA.
Girl Scouts are more careful than most schools. My daughter has had male teachers and there is not requirement to have a teaching assistant in the room too. Yet when I go to the male dentist to get my teeth cleaned he brings in a female assistant.
I've noticed that schools are often surprisingly lax on this subject. OTOH, the two situations you describe are a little different. A male teacher in a class is not one-on-one with their students; there are 20 or 30 other witnesses to what's going on. But when you are being worked on by your dentist, you are alone with them, so it makes sense to bring in a female assistant.
Regarding one-on-one; the BSA has a program called "Youth Protection". Among it's requirements is a provision that says that no leader of any gender can be alone with a youth of any gender, unless there is a blood relationship or guardianship relationship between them. If one-on-one counseling is necessary (and it often is), they are to do so in the sight of other people, while far enough away that confidentiality of what's being said is preserved. Does the GSUSA have a similar requirement?
Yes, there are some gay people that are perverts but the same can be said of straights.
10-4 on that. The BSA has specifically stated that their ban on avowed gays has no basis on any suspicion that they are more likely to be child molesters. The BSA's Youth Protection and Two-Deep Leadership policies have nothing to do with the genders or sexual practices of the leaders involved (with the one caveat I noted earlier).
I have a son in Cub Scouts. And no, I do not want my son to turn out gay. I also don't want him to be Jewish or Buddist either. I do not care if his leader is not Christian and I do not care if he is gay.
The BSA makes no distinction among religious beliefs and practices; all it requires is that all leaders have some kind of religious belief. Whether it's Buddhist, Shinto, Zoroastrianism, Christianity, Islam, Hindu, or personal beliefs that have nothing to do with any formal or organized religion is immaterial to the BSA.
The GSUSA is organized differently than the BSA. In the BSA, each unit is operated by a sponsoring organization. About half of it's units are sponsored by churches; the other half are sponsored by service organizations, PTAs, veterans organizations, civic organizations, etc. It is the responsibility of the sponsoring organization to see that the unit has trained leadership, a safe place to meet, owns the necessary equipment like tents and cook kits, is operated according to the policies of the BSA and of the sponsoring organization, etc. A BSA local Council office provides guidance regarding policies, sells uniforms and badges, provides or sells various printed materials like handbooks, owns and operates the summer camp and other such things, but has nothing to do with normal unit operations. Unit operations are the responsibility of the sponsoring organization.
If the sponsor is a VFW and they decide that the Scoutmaster should be a male veteran, they are free to make that choice. If they decide that the Scoutmaster should be a female anti-war activist, they are free to make that choice as well. A Roman Catholic Church parish is free to require that all leaders be members of their parish.
Because of this organization, the sponsoring organizations across the country have a great deal to say about the BSA's policies. The Relationships Committee (comprised of representatives of the major sponsors of BSA units) considered the question of homosexual and atheist leaders a couple of years ago and issued a position that "avowed" homosexuals are unfit leaders for youth; that they set an example that these organizations do not want their children to see as being something to be accepted or emulated. Some of these organizations are reported to have let the BSA know that if the BSA allows avowed homosexuals as leaders, they will cease sponsoring units. This probably totals at least 1/4 of BSA's total membership, and my guess would be that there are local individual sponsors that would make the same choice regardless of their national organization's position.
A few years ago, I was doing a self defense seminar for a group of boy scouts on a camping trip in Pennsylvania. After, I was walking around the camp and came upon a group of Boy Scout leaders, assistant leaders, den leaders, and chaperones smoking pot and having a few beers. If my son or daughter had been at this camp they would have been leaving with me.
Had I been there I would have called the local Council office and the cops.
I guess that it should have been okay with me because they were all straight.
Why would you say that? And, how do you know they were all straight? Were they all engaged in heterosexual sexual activities?
If you are so afraid of the morals that you son's Boy Scout leader has, I suggest that you go volunteer as a helper or better yet become a leader. BSA does not stand for babysitters of America. I know the excuse, "I don't have the time". Well, most leaders are not stay at home dads or lottery winners. They work too. And most of them are parents too.
On what basis do you presume that I am not a BSA volunteer?
So, if some gay childless man want to give his time to be a leader, we should be supporting him, not running him out of town.
My guess, without going into detail, is that my son's unit has had a childless homosexual as a leader. To my knowledge, the person never talked about their sex life. That made them no different than anyone else in his unit; discussion of sexual activity has no place in a Scouting activity. I can't say for sure whether or not the person was homosexual because I never asked, and frankly didn't think it was any of my business. Nothing in BSA policies would require anyone to ask, and there are BSA policies that forbid anyone to ask.
I am curious as to what the discussion in Safety-Wise says about why the same standards for sleeping arrangements, toilet usage, shower usage, etc., are not applied equally to adult men and adult women. If the GSUSA thinks that molestation of girls by women is not something they have to guard against with as much concern as molestation by men I think they are very much mistaken. The BSA certainly treats adult men and women equally in this regard. Why does the GSUSA discriminate between the two?
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.