Negotiations between Philadelphia Boy Scouts and the city government have ended; the Scouts are being evicted.
For three years the Philadelphia council of the Boy Scouts of America held its ground. It resisted the city’s request to change its discriminatory policy toward gay people despite threats that if it did not do so, the city would evict the group from a municipal building where the Scouts have resided practically rent free since 1928.
Hailed as the birthplace of the Boy Scouts, the Beaux Arts building is the seat of the seventh-largest chapter of the organization and the first of the more than 300 council service centers built by the Scouts around the country over the past century.
Municipal officials drew the line at the Beaux Arts building because the city owns the half-acre of land where the building stands. The Boy Scouts erected the ornate building and since 1928 have leased the land from the city for a token sum of $1 a year. City officials said the market value for renting the building was about $200,000 a year, and they invited the Boy Scouts to remain as full-paying tenants.
Jeff Jubelirer, a spokesman for the local chapter, said it could not afford $200,000 a year in rent, and that such a price would require it to cut summer-camp funds for 800 needy children. […]
So they’re saying that if a group does some sort of good, they should be exempt from anti-discrimination law? “Well, it’s true we fired all the Jews, but we also built a home for stray cats, so we should be exempt from the law!”
I’m sorry for the decent scouts and boys this hurts, but the city did the right thing, and dealt the Scouts an important symbolic loss. It’s right that the Scouts suffer some consequences for their decision to support bigotry. The Scouts will be much better off in a few decades, when enough of the yahoos currently running the organization have died that their homophobic policies can be removed.
I’m not sure if discrimination against atheists was also at issue in this conflict.
(I previously posted about this conflict in August of 2006.)
A deal which included the option to end said deal on one year’s notice. What’s the issue again, beyond “we <3 BSA”?
Ron F;
1) its kind of irrelevant to this discussion, because your comparison is so wacky, but Rosa Parks DID have as part of her intention/hope building a bigger movement for civil rights. Also, her actions were not novel, simply well organized.
2)Do you really support the boyscouts ban on gays? If so, why?
What would it take to change your viewpoint regarding the “unilaterally renege” issue?
I mean, don’t you have the ability to change your views based on, you know, the underlying facts of the actual agreement (as opposed to what you WISH the facts of the actual agreement WERE?)
I base my opinion on what is true, not what I would like to be true. if someone dug around in the city archives and found something with a requirement to pay then $10,000,000 to terminate their lease… hey, i’d change my position. I still wouldn’t like the scouts, though.
Pingback: Ehrenreich on female moral superiority. | Feminist Critics
With regard to gay adults I support what’s become known as “local option”, which means that a given unit would be free to either accept them or ban them as they please. This is the current policy with regards to female leaders. The Mormons, for example, have female leaders in Cub Scout Packs but do not have them in their Boy Scout Troops. It’s got to do with their religious doctrines; apparently boys are supposed to be under the supervision of their mothers until they turn 12, at which point the fathers are supposed to take over. Most other units don’t care. So if a unit wanted to accept them, fine, and if they didn’t, fine again. I suspect that if “local option” was accepted, you’d see a number of urban units with gay adult leaders, but not so many in suburban or rural units.
Personally, for about 2 years we had a man in our unit who I figured was gay, but he never discussed his private life and it wasn’t my place (though both personal inclination and National policy) to ask. He was great with the kids, being much closer to their age than I am, and really helped the program. I was sad to see him leave.
“Local option” was considered and rejected at the National level a few years ago. The Relationships Committee killed it. That committee at the National level is comprised of representatives of all the major organizations that sponsor units throughout the country; thus, they have a representative from each of the various churches, the American Legion, the VFW, the Lions Clubs, the Odd Fellows, etc. I believe that the Mormons explicitly stated that they’d pull out if it was approved, and the Roman Catholics are said to have done so as well. Between them that would be 22% of the membership right there. Other organizations would likely follow suit. The Mormons profess that their opposition to local option (which, remember, would not require them to accept gay leaders) was that this meant that their kids might run into gay leaders at Jamborees and camporees and other multi-unit activities. How the kids would know that some leader that they’d never met before and would only see for a day or so (or maybe even an hour) was gay is not obvious to me. Maybe they’re worried about a week at summer camp.
If the BSA was mandated to accept gay leaders by the courts it’s my guess that the membership lost would not come close to be being made up by the membership gained. Local option would not have the same effect at the parental level, but at the organizational level it probably would (i.e., due to the RCC and the LDS pulling their units out).
Openly gay kids are another matter. For one thing, don’t forget that Scouts sleep together a fair amount. This could lead to kids having sex together, which is a real bad idea for numerous reasons and is also against National policy (usually brought up in the context of Venture Crews, which are co-ed, or when we have the rare outing with a Girl Scout Troop). In fact, it’s against National policy for unmarried adults to have sex on a campout. People have been tossed out (both adults and kids) for violating that policy.
The other thing is that campouts can be stressful for kids for various reasons; they’re outdoors 24/7 regardless of whether it’s nice weather or thunderstorms, they’re working hard, they’re doing unfamiliar things, they are often quite physically tired at the end of the day, they are truly dependent on each other for things like eating, etc., etc. I have seen a number of physical confrontations. Not all of them have been limited to fisticuffs. Adding sexual tensions to that is something that in my judgment is truly dangerous. Don’t forget that we have saws and axes around and that every kid has a knife. While I discredit the definition of “homophobia” that the left promotes, unreasoning fear of homosexuality does exist, especially on the part of kids who are just going or have just gone through puberty and are trying to figure out which team they play on. The last thing I want to have to do is to call up Mom and Dad and tell them that their kid got stabbed because he made a mistake as to how receptive his tentmate was going to be towards his advances. What, you never made a pass at someone only to find you’d completely mis-estimated their level of interest? You think 13-year olds or 14-year olds are going to do a better job?
I have no moral qualm about having a gay kid in my Troop or having gay kids in the organization overall. But I see a safety issue, and on that basis I say “no”. Now, if society changes in such a fashion that this is no longer a worry, I’d be open to changing my mind. But the BSA will have to follow, not lead, on this issue I’m afraid.
It’s my guess that you are exposed to plenty of homophobes in the BSA, but due to selection bias you have little contact with those parents who keep their kids out of BSA to avoid having them exposed to the BSA’s bigoted attitudes.
Kids are already having sex together. Even the “straight” ones.
Are you shitting me? You’re worried about kids assaulting each other, and you GIVE THEM KNIVES AND AXES??? And your strategy to cope with this is to keep the gay kids out???
(I suppose they might trade racial insults, too, which might also lead to murder. Better keep the nonwhite kids out as well.)
Seems to me that the BSA shouldn’t be giving knives and axes to children who haven’t thoroughly demonstrated their ability to control their temper at least enough to refrain from murdering each other. I know this seems like an extreme opinion, but I’m going to have to stick by it.
Indeed I have. Somehow, these folks have consistently managed not to assault me, though IIRC various cutlery and large bludgeoning instruments have often been available. They must have picked up the “reject a pass without resorting to murder” skill somewhere — though clearly not at the BSA, as it appears, shockingly, that the BSA doesn’t teach this skill.
“the local option” reminds me of “states rights”.
I’m in a ‘gay’ relationship now, but I lost my (straight) virginity on a BSA campout–I ended up doing the same kids eagle scout project for him four years laer, but that is another story.
Sex happens., and has nothing to do with gay people. Straight boys also have sexual tension with each other. Give me a break.
What a long tortured rationalization of discrimination. The oddest thing is that you seem to be totally okay wiht closted adults and youth participating in BSA; is that a fair reading?
Thanks for the info, Ron.
Exposing your precious children to, say, people who’s deeply-held religious views deny the primacy of Christ in God’s creation? No problem.
Exposing your precious children to gays? Out of the question.
Always fascinating to learn what is really central to someone’s world view. Who needs the love of Christ when we can unite behind the hatred of fags?
It’s my guess that you are exposed to plenty of homophobes in the BSA,
Unlike you I don’t have to guess; I’ve been active in the BSA for 16.5 years as an adult (plus about 12 years as a Scout). I haven’t met any homophobes. I’ve met people who think that National’s policy in this regard is all wet, and I’ve met people who think local option is the way to go. I haven’t met anyone who thinks that gays should be kept out purely on a moral basis, although I don’t have much contact with LDS Scouters (they tend to keep to themselves).
but due to selection bias you have little contact with those parents who keep their kids out of BSA to avoid having them exposed to the BSA’s bigoted attitudes.
I’ve met a couple of people who have voiced dissaproval of the BSA’s membership standards. Of course, there’s a certain number of people who I wouldn’t meet at all on that basis, but I don’t know how many.
Kids are already having sex together. Even the “straight” ones.
Yep. No doubt. So are some of the adults, for that matter. No human endeavor is perfect. But we do a pretty good job of a) setting standards and b) living up to them. The fact that we can’t do so perfectly is no reason for abandoning them. Heck, I was solicited myself by one of my fellow staff members at Owasippe Scout Reservation when I was 16. The fact that this is going to happen occasionally is unavoidable, but you want to minimize it, not bless it.
Are you shitting me? You’re worried about kids assaulting each other, and you GIVE THEM KNIVES AND AXES??? And your strategy to cope with this is to keep the gay kids out???
No. Our strategy for coping with this is to teach kids proper usage procedures and safety standards and enforce them. I also have had occasion to tell a couple of parents that “It turns out we can’t trust your son. Either one of you will have to come out on outings with us or your son will have to leave our Troop.”
I suppose they might trade racial insults, too, which might also lead to murder. Better keep the nonwhite kids out as well.
Racism turns out not to be a problem. Nor do differences in religion or economic class. When the Hindu kid professed vegetarianism to everyone who wanted to listen when his parents were around and then started woofing down bacon on the campout, the Christian kids didn’t turn a hair. They were the ones trying the vegetarian sausage substitute that we’d bought for him. He liked salami sandwiches, too.
Seems to me that the BSA shouldn’t be giving knives and axes to children who haven’t thoroughly demonstrated their ability to control their temper at least enough to refrain from murdering each other. I know this seems like an extreme opinion, but I’m going to have to stick by it.
When I come across a kid like that we do take action. But it hasn’t been a problem. So far. Generally the kids are quite attentive to proper handling and use of edged tools, since they know that no one else will let them near them. Actually, the one kid who came closest to landing a fatal blow on another kid tried to use a stave, not an edged tool. Fortunately the other kid was faster and ducked. That kid was out of the Troop pretty fast after that.
Indeed I have. Somehow, these folks have consistently managed not to assault me, …. They must have picked up the “reject a pass without resorting to murder” skill somewhere — though clearly not at the BSA, as it appears, shockingly, that the BSA doesn’t teach this skill.
That skill is up to the parents to teach, not the BSA. And I don’t know how old you are, but I’d imagine that you weren’t 12 at the time and in a tent with them.
Exposing your precious children to, say, people who’s deeply-held religious views deny the primacy of Christ in God’s creation? No problem.
Actually, the Mormons tend to be pretty insular within the organization. They don’t mix much with the Christians, Buddhists, Moslems, etc. in any case. From what I can see a lot of them DO think it’s a problem. Sometimes I think they’re a little deficient in that “A Scout is a friend and brother to any other Scout” department, not to mention the bit about respecting religious differences. I’m not tremendously thrilled with the LDS flavor of Scouting for a number of reasons.
“the local option” reminds me of “states rights”.
Also known as “federalism”, the basis of our government?
I’m in a ‘gay’ relationship now, but I lost my (straight) virginity on a BSA campout.
To one of your fellow Scouts? Presuming you were both male, how is that losing your straight virginity?
Sex happens, and has nothing to do with gay people. Straight boys also have sexual tension with each other. Give me a break.
Indeed, sex does happen. But in a mixed heterosexual environment we can at least keep the sleeping and bathing arrangements organized to minimize opportunities. That kind of thing is non-obvious, though, when you’ve got gay kids in the mix.
What a long tortured rationalization of discrimination.
Not really, it’s pretty straightforward.
The oddest thing is that you seem to be totally okay wiht closted adults and youth participating in BSA; is that a fair reading?
Hm – define “closeted”. A kid who never talked about his love life (either in reality or on a hypothetical basis) at a campout or Troop meeting would be pretty much like every other kid at that campout or Troop meeting.
Sexual activity or attitudes towards the same is not part of the BSA program and is not something we talk about. The parents sure as hell don’t want it discussed. Teaching kids what’s right and what’s wrong about sex is the parents’ job and neither I nor they want me involved in it, especially the ones who disagree with National on the matter. That’s right, there’s plenty of parents who think the BSA is wrong on this but have their kids in the Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts. We talk about it, when the kids can’t hear. We do have one woman who’s a conservative fundamentalist Christian (most everybody else is Catholic or Lutheran or Methodist, with a couple of non-denominational folks, and a few who don’t seem to go to church). She doesn’t rant in front of or proseltyze the kids, though; I’ve spoken to her about that, parents don’t send their kids to us for us to teach them our political or religious views.
See, when people say “I don’t want my kids exposed to the BSA’s attitude towards gays”, you have to understand that there is no teaching on the matter in the BSA program. All the kids would know would be what they see or hear in the media, and that doesn’t get much play these days since it’s pretty much a settled issue. Dale vs. BSA was settled, when – 2000? I was driving home from a Troop Canadian canoe trip when I heard the news on the radio. There isn’t a kid in my Troop who was older than 8 then, and most are much younger.
Wow. Had it not been for a BSA member lovingly describing the BSA, I never would have come to actually loathe the BSA – I would have remained with a mild dislike.
The BSA just seems creepier and creepier the more we get descriptions of it from one of its more fervid members. It also seems more and more discriminatory each time we hear more about its internal functioning.
Surely you understand that we wouldn’t want our children participating in a ‘whites only’ summer camp either, whether or not their curriculum specifically included doctrine on how ‘black people are dirty.’
—Myca
Gotcha. “I’m not homophobic; I don’t dislike gays. I just don’t want them anywhere near me or my family, ’cause they might sex us up.”
Well, proper safety standards include not hitting people with axes. Even if they’re gay. Even if you’re mad.
Ron, the whole “Gays might drive my kid to murder” thing is a cop-out. If a kid can’t be trusted with a knife in an environment that includes gays, then they can’t be trusted with a knife in an environment that excludes them, either.
Excellent. Problem solved. Let the gay kids in, throw the murderous kids out.
Nine, actually. And we weren’t in a tent, but even if we had been I find it hard to believe that bloodshed would have ensued.
Just to clarify; no, I am not male. I dropped out of girl scouts when it got boring and my female best friend and I “joined” her brothers boy scout troop. I suppose her dad/leader was violating the other segregationist principle of BSA, but I’m glad he did. I learned a lot of things I couldn’t in girl scouts.
Incidentally, he did keep an eye on us, but adults can only do so much. I ‘m not advocating for BSA sex free-for-alls or anything, but in my case, I don’t think the chaperone-failure hindered my scouting experience or my boyfriend’s, as, like I said, he made Eagle Scout, a lot of friends, found role models and we were together for four years.
The reason I asked about closeted kids, is to point out that even with your careful attempts to keep the “straight” and “gay” kids neatly separated, unless you search and root out any secret homos (or secret homo tendencies) all the “sex” issues you mentioned still remain.
And, what about a kid that does his best to stay closeted, per your standards, but is “outed” by another scout, parent etc. Does he still have to go? Even if he tried “not to talk about his dating life”? Please. What about the kid that is obviously effeminate whether or not he thinks of himself as gay? He cant go in the closet to hide that, but he provokes all the sexual anxiety you seem to think scouts and leaders need protection from. Should you be able to boot him too, on that basis?
Finally, as for your comment about federalism–my point, as you know, is that when it comes to persecuting minorities “the local option” and “states rights” are hollow principles standing in as a justification for otherwise unjustifiable bigotry.
Why should the Mormons have a right to discriminate against gays? Why should you? Besides, past history shows that Mormon theology is very responsive to immediate political exigencies–they are perfect targets for reform.
So instead of, say, educating young Scouts about homosexuality and changing Scout social policy to accept homosexuality as a credible, “clean” orientation –
You ban the gay kids.
Interestingly enough, that is not going to help other children be more comfortable, and by association less violent, toward those different from themselves. It just reinforces the idea that gay kids are different in a way that makes them targets, and that it’s okay to be violent toward them.
You claim to be afraid for them, and yet your solution does nothing but continue to put them in danger.
…I’m not even sure I have a coherent response for that, just a lot of spluttering and going “But how does that help?!”
aroundthebend213 writes:
I was one of those feminine straight guys during my time in the BSA.
I made it all the way to First Class before the abuse at the hands of two boys in the troop became so bad, and the leadership so unwilling to do anything about it, that I quit. The weren’t the only boys in the troop who were abusive, they were just the worst. After reaching First Class, I started working with one of the other boys in the troop — the son of the Scout Master — to start working towards Star. I guess they realized that I’d make it to Eagle at the rate I was going and decided I wasn’t going to make it to Eagle.
That’s what the policy does, Ron. I was a good Scout. I learned a lot from my 9 years or so in Scouting, but in the end, homophobia drove me out, and I wasn’t even gay.
I think that’s the problem Ron’s not seeing here. He seems to be saying that life for a closeted Scout is the same as life for a straight Scout – “A kid who never talked about his love life (either in reality or on a hypothetical basis) at a campout or Troop meeting would be pretty much like every other kid at that campout or Troop meeting”.
If your organisation says that gays can’t be members because they’re unclean, how can you condemn homophobic abuse that occurs at the hands of those members? How can you protect Scouts (straight and gay) who suffer from it within the organisation?
I’m also not getting the Crazed Homophobic Scouts with Hatchets argument. If the problem is that some Boy Scouts react to perceived homosexual advances with violence, that’s a problem even if there are no gay Scouts in the group.
I made it all the way to First Class before the abuse at the hands of two boys in the troop became so bad, and the leadership so unwilling to do anything about it, that I quit.
Which was a gross failure of the Troop leadership.
I’m also not getting the Crazed Homophobic Scouts with Hatchets argument.
The examples and discussion above seem to think that this is what I’m worried about; some kid who is a known bully or shows some other kind of anti-social attitudes towards other kids in general or gay kids in particular going after an effeminate or gay kid. It’s not. Not because it’s not bad, but because that kind of kid is a standard problem in Scouting – indeed, in any youth group, school, etc. There are techniques for dealing with that.
No, what I’m worried about is the situation with a kid who has never acted out, never bullied anyone or stolen anything or been disruptive but who does something stupid for the first time ever in our experience when he perceives his sexuality to be challenged. Sexuality is a hot spot; kids, even adults, who are otherwise quite reasonable people can be capable of quite anti-social stuff when sexuality is involved.
The presumption here seems to be that there’s a continunum; someone who’s will react inappropriately where sexuality is involved is an overall problem and I’ll know who to watch. That would be consistent with the worldview that of course alternative sexuality is entirely acceptable and that someone who doesn’t accept it is therefore unenlightened and intolerant and is also racist and sexist and [whatever]-ist and that this will be apparent. I don’t think that’s true. It has not been my observation. I think that I stand a pretty good chance that somewhere along the line I’ll end up finding out that this is a problem with someone who’s otherwise a great kid only after the fact. And then it’s too late.
For my part this is not a hypothetical discussion. I actually take responsibility for 20 of other people’s kids eating, sleeping and working together often. I ensure that they get the Scouting program, but my #1 responsibility is not pushing a particular political viewpoint, it’s ensuring the safety of the children entrusted to me. Should something happens that makes the news, you all get to talk about how horrible it was and how this is due to discrimination and homophobia and society’s attitudes. I get to make the phone call; “Mr./Mrs./Ms. X, please prepare yourself for a shock. I regret that I have to tell you that ….”
My dad helped run a summer camp for years and he had to make that phone call twice. I knew one of the victims personally at age 13. I don’t want to make that phone call. I have to be able to look in the mirror and at our parents and the community at large and honestly say that I did what it took to not have such a thing happen. And I can’t blame it on society at large or an individual or anyone or anything. It’s my personal responsibility and my judgement. Right now it’s my judgement that this is a bad idea, based not on my own personal feelings about homosexuality but on what I think is the best way to ensure the safety of each and every child that I work with. I can’t afford to say things like “Getting to know a gay kid is the best way for straight kids to learn that gay kids are just like them.” Teaching kids is a process. I start teaching them “Trustworthy, Loyal, …” at age 11 but they don’t magically get it and live by it at their first Troop meeting. What if a kid who we perceive is a pillar of the community has been pumped full of homophobia by his parents for years? What do I say to the gay kid’s parents?
I made it all the way to First Class before the abuse at the hands of two boys in the troop became so bad, and the leadership so unwilling to do anything about it, that I quit.
Which was a gross failure of the Troop leadership. The examples and discussion above seem to think that this is what I’m worried about; some kid who is a known bully or shows some other kind of anti-social attititudes going after an effeminate or gay kids. It’s not. Not because it’s not bad, but because that kind of kid is a standard problem in Scouting – indeed, in any youth group, school, etc. There are techniques for dealing with that.
No, what I’m worried about is the situation with a kid who has never acted out, never bullied anyone or stolen anything or been disruptive but who does something stupid for the first time ever in our experience when he perceives his sexuality to be challenged. Sexuality is a hot spot; kids, even adults, who are otherwise quite reasonable people can be capable of quite anti-social stuff when sexuality is involved.
The presumption here seems to be that there’s a continunum; someone who’s will react inappropriately where sexuality is involved is an overall problem and I’ll know who to watch. That would be consistent with the worldview that of course alternative sexuality is entirely acceptable and that someone who doesn’t accept it is therefore unenlightened and intolerant and is also racist and sexist and generally anti-social and that this will be apparent. I don’t think that’s true. It has not been my observation. I think that I stand a pretty good chance that somewhere along the line I’ll end up finding out that this is a problem with someone who’s otherwise at least apparently a great kid only after the fact. And then it’s too late.
For my part this is not a hypothetical discussion. I actually take responsibility for 20 of other people’s kids eating, sleeping and working together often. I ensure that they get the Scouting program, but my #1 responsibility is not pushing a particular political viewpoint, it’s ensuring the safety of the children entrusted to me. Should something happens that makes the news, you all get to talk about how horrible it was and how this is due to discrimination and homophobia and society’s attitudes. I get to make the phone call; “Mr./Mrs. X, please prepare yourself for a shock. I regret that I have to tell you that ….”
My dad helped run a summer camp for years and he had to make that phone call twice. I knew one of the victims personally at age 13. I don’t want to make that phone call. I have to be able to look in the mirror and at our parents and the community at large and honestly say that I did what it took to not have such a thing happen. And I can’t blame it on society at large or an individual or anyone or anything. It’s my personal responsibility and my judgement. Right now it’s my judgement that this is a bad idea, based not on my own personal feelings about homosexuality but on what I think is the best way to ensure the safety of each and every child that I work with. I can’t afford to say things like “Getting to know a gay kid is the best way for straight kids to learn that gay kids are just like them.” Teaching kids is a process. I start teaching them “Trustworthy, Loyal, …” at age 11 but they don’t magically get it and live by it at their first Troop meeting. What if a kid who we perceive is a pillar of the community has been pumped full of homophobia by his parents for years? What do I say to the gay kid’s parents?
I expect that in time things will change. But they’re not there yet. Until they do, the safety of individuals under my care takes precedence over any particular social agenda. Those of you who feel differently are quite welcome to form your own youth groups and run your own program, and good luck to you. Sincerely. I hope I’m wrong. I’m not going to take the chance.
Oh man, or what if he’s a member of a gay-hating gay-exclusionary youth group? That would be even worse!
—Myca
Mythago, thank you for helping me crystallize what I see going on here vs. what you all see what’s going on here.
You see, the argument isn’t about Crazed Homophobic Scouts with Hatchets. It’s about Decent Kid Horrified Over What He Just Did. Which I’ve seen in other contexts a couple of times.
You would like to think that any kid who would react badly to a sexual advance is a Crazed Homophobe. Sorry – not so. A kid who has been taught that homosexuality is wrong is not a Crazed Homophobe. He’s going to be a decent kid who holds a quite mainstream viewpoint on homosexuality. He’s going to be a lot of the kids in my Troop. He’s going to be a lot of American kids in school, church, soccer teams, etc. all over America. And he knows he’s supposed to be, and is, quite tolerant of gay kids in all those places. But he’s a kid, he’s not an emotionally mature adult, and he quite possibly react wrongly in a given circumstance.
how does forcing gay kids into the closet help with this Ron F? Not infrequently its the conflicted closted teens that react the most strongly to “advances,” advances which will happen in any context in which you have teenagers and adults.
A curious discussion. I’m reminded of the passionate disputes over whether Thomas Jefferson had sex with his slave Sally Hemings – because once the issue of SEX enters the discussion, the larger and undisputed fact that he exercised absolute right over every aspect of her life somehow faded into the background.
We’re talking about the Boy Scouts of America, people. We’re obsessing over the degree to which the BSA discriminates against maybe 10% of the population, with nary a mention of the undisputed fact that the BSA openly discriminates against 50+% of the population: girls. Concerns about sex and gender roles seem to be embedded in the organization’s core, and no resolution of the “gay scout” issue is going to change that.
The real dispute is not about whether Philadelphia should remove a subsidy to the BSA because the BSA discriminates. The real question is why Philadelphia waited so long.
The real question is why Philadelphia waited so long.
Possibly because the Scouts are providing services to the community that Philadelphia wanted.
Services which I am sure the liberal-left will be jumping into the fray to replace. Right?
@nobody.really
While I hate participating in a threadsurrection, I feel I should point out that there is a seperate-but-equal facility within the Boy Scouts, in the form of the various counterpart girls’ programs (Girl Guides et al). Now, obviously, this seperate-but-equal crap is inferior to an integrated program, but it exists. That’s a completely different caliber of problem from the outright ban that gays face.
The Girl Scouts are a separate organization, just fyi.
SiF, The egalitarian solution appears to be an integrated scouts community: boys and girls, gays and straights, all cohabitating, where they can all learn to get along, but the segregation of boys and girls is rooted in the desire to minimize the opportunity for children to initiate sex in what is a relatively intimate, relatively unsupervised environment, where children of widely differing ages and maturities intermingle.
If the barriers fall away as you wish, how would you prevent sexual contact between these minors, and how would you handle the parents who are apt to tar and feather you, and the entire scout organization, for it?
Actually, i did mention sex-segregation in my early post about my experiences with scouting.
As for Ron F’s concerns, I have not been operating on the “crazed homophobe” argument, but I fail to see how banning gays and forcing gay kids into the closet makes the situation you describe more and not less likely.
Which specific services have the BSA been providing to Philadelphia that they will be unable to provide from a different address? Or are we to understand that scouts were actually camping on the grounds of the Beaux Arts building?
In any event, the best guide I have to what the “community of Philadelphia” values is reflected in their elected officials – the same officials that voted to terminate the lease. But admittedly it all seems so unnecessary, given the conservative-right tradition of jumping into the fray to remedy the harms of discrimination. Right?
That said, this discussion raises an interesting question: To what extent should government resources be expended on useful bigotry? The films Miracle on 34th Street and Santa Clause II each feature a competent, independent lead lady who skeptically refuses to believe in Santa Claus (and, metaphorically, in God). Unlike Miracle, however, the lead lady in SCII is a public school principal who will not tolerate non-curricular distractions in the school, including Christmas decorations (and, metaphorically, religious expression). Let’s take it up a notch: What accommodations should government make to retain the services of a public school principal who was talented but insisted on discriminating against religious kids? Would the argument, “But, gosh, she’s really good, and education is important” be good enough?
And again, Ron, this is a problem that doesn’t require any gay Scouts to be in the troop, and isn’t limited to issues of sexuality. What about the kid who completely misinterprets an innocuous comment or action from another straight Scout as a homosexual advance? What about the kid who perceives his masculinity to be challenged? Or his deeply-held religious beliefs? To say “we must exclude gay Scouts in order to protect them” is, let’s just call it convoluted.
On the subject of the actual dispute between Philadelphia and the BSA, I’m still not seeing the basis for the suit. Philadelphia apparently attempted to negotiate something that would not require it to violate the law; when it could not, it terminated the agreement pursuant to terms of that agreement permitting it to do so. Other than “Stop being mean to the Boy Scouts!” what is the problem?
mythago, i keep asking that question as well: no response yet.
Anyway,
I think it is reasonable to accede that putting people in close proximity at certain ages frequently requires at least some assumption of, hmm… mutual ignoring? At this point and age I could care less who sees me in my altogether, but as a child I’d have been quite dismayed to know that there were people in the room who were viewing me as a sexual object whilst I changed/showered.
At the time, i’d have made not very much distinction between the imagined discomfort of bing watched by a gay boy and the discomfort of being watched by a woman; if anything, I’d have been more squicked by the gay boy. (*1) It would have been imagined discomfort, probably: surely some of the people who saw me WERE gay, and I didn’t know, and they were in all likelihood too busy getting on with their lives to think about my patootie one way or the other. But if you had asked me at the time I’d have been against sharing a bathroom, changing space, tent, etc with a gay boy–because it would have made me uncomfortable, and I wouldn’t have cared about him then. (*2)
But I think there’s a valid distinction to be made between
1) thinking that discrimination is bad (right on); thinking that we should not encourage, in the long run, discrimination (again: right on)
and
2) acting as if there is no discrimination, right now.
From the BSA perspective, it’s obviously easier to remove anyone who is the likely source OR TARGET of trouble, than it is to deal with or prevent it. The first seems “fair,” the second seems cruel. But from a pure efficiency standpoint, it may make sense. It’s not how I would choose to run a charitable and putatively “good works” organization though; seems a bit backwards.
(*1) In context of other discussion, folks here seem to have no problem with the concept that veing VIEWED AS a sexual object is problematic. It’s even more problematic for youung kids, i agree. And because of the U.S. socialization against gays, it is–unfortunately–more problematic for young men.
(*2) See, e.g., the “who should be allowed in women’s bathrooms?” argument that I recall has popped up here a few times, mostly w/r/t to trans.
The problem, Mythago, is that working with kids can be stressful for Boy Scout administrators. Adding legal action to that is something that is truly dangerous. Don’t forget that there are saws and axes around, and every administrator carries a knife. The last thing we want is to have to call up some city official’s Mom and Dad and tell them their kid just got stabbed because he evicted the Boy Scouts.
@Maco:
I went to a mixed-gender school with mixed-gender classes, as I’m sure most folks did these days.
I was continually disappointed with the lack of orgies. I’m sure a mixed-gender scouts organization would be similarly uninteresting.
And for the record, I’ll take blue feathers, if you please. They bring out my eyes.
Bjartmarr: ROTFL ;)
SiF, I don’t think that analogy is a useful one. You don’t remember any orgies in high school, ergo you don’t foresee a problem with a thousand male scouts and a thousand female scouts sleeping in adjacent bunks in the mountains for two weeks?
What two kids do under the bleachers after class is not the school system’s problem. What happens at camp is the scouts problem. I’m asking you, if the scouts integrate, how would you deal with the risk of sexual activity among the children, and how would you address the parents afterward?
Bjartmar, thanks for setting me straight. I don’t know WHAT I was thinking.
And again, Ron, this is a problem that doesn’t require any gay Scouts to be in the troop, and isn’t limited to issues of sexuality.
I believe you’re wrong about that.
What about the kid who completely misinterprets an innocuous comment or action from another straight Scout as a homosexual advance?
Haven’t seen that happen. I don’t see much of a risk that it will happen. I’m not worried about innocuous comments. I’m worried about out-and-out sexual advances made mistakenly.
What about the kid who perceives his masculinity to be challenged? Or his deeply-held religious beliefs?
Reactions to challenges to masculinity (as opposed to a sexual advance) tend to involve insults, etc., not physical reactions. At least, they don’t get physical before they get loud enough that someone steps in. I’ve never seen or heard of a reaction to violations of religious beliefs. The Mormon kids can be a little snotty in general, but I don’t know if that’s religious or not. Kids keep those to themselves.
To say “we must exclude gay Scouts in order to protect them” is, let’s just call it convoluted.
Seems pretty straightforward to me. Sex is a special case; it engenders extreme feelings and reactions where other stuff doesn’t.
SiF (if you’ll permit the acronym), at that school you reference how much of the time did you spend sleeping in your own bed at home and how much time did you spend sleeping 100 miles away from home in a tent with someone else? After busting your ass a good part of the day in conditions you’re not used to?
Sailorman:
At this point and age I could care less who sees me in my altogether, but as a child I’d have been quite dismayed to know that there were people in the room who were viewing me as a sexual object whilst I changed/showered.
[ old_fogey ]
When I was a kid you cleaned up in a gang shower both after Phys. Ed. in school and at summer camp. That’s one room (at camp, a solid wooden fence enclosure) with shower heads two feet apart around the perimeter. At summer camp it was not at all unusual for 20 kids and 4 mature male leaders to all shower together. Hell, that’s how I found out what I was going to look like when I got older. There was a certain amount of reluctance among kids who were behind the group average in the puberty curve. Some kids didn’t like it at all, but trying to exercise the alternative of staying dirty would eventually end up with your peers encouraging you to take a shower. The occasional joke/insult was made, but not too often. Probably too often for those who were the subject of them, though. Again, I’m talking overall, not just in Scouts. Going to class funky more than a day or two was not tolerated by either the teachers or your peers.
[ / old_fogey ]
When I first returned to Scout camp they all still had the old gang showers. But now adults never shower with youth, they have separate times assigned for them. When the kids use such showers they wear their bathing suits in and wouldn’t dream of taking them off. These days the camps are spending $$ building shower houses where there are a number of individual stalls, often partitioned so that they can be used by adults and youth simultaneously.
When I tell the kids the “old_fogey” story above, their reaction is “How gay is that!?” My rejoinder is “Back then people might suspect you of being gay if you wouldn’t take a shower with everyone else.” Attitudes have changed. Attitudes like that towards getting naked with each other for purely utilitarian reasons partially fuel my concerns.
At one camp where there is still a gang shower we had the Cub Scouts in. Youth until 8:00, adult females from 8:00 to 10:00, adult males from 10:00 on. Given it’s Cub Scouts, there’s plenty of adult females. The shower accomodates about 15 people at once. Five other adult males and I show up at 9:50 to take a shower, anticipating that we’d have to wait until 10:00 PM, no problem. We’re pretty funky, though. There are women waiting outside. 10:00 PM we get out of the car. A woman leaves, another woman goes in. We want to shower and then get to bed, 0600 comes awfully fast. “Hey, it’s guys’ time now” “Well, we have to finish our showers.” “So, get in and shower. What are you waiting outside for?” It turns out that the women are showering one woman at a time in a shower that would accomodate all of them. They were scandalized when we suggested that they were all women and could all go in at once.
Attitudes are very different these days. Lots different from, say, Japan. When I was there with a Venture group all they had were gang showers in the camps, and no concept that the youth and the adults should be separated (by age – we were separated by sex). There was insufficient time to do the youth/adult separation so we just told the kids “We’re in a foreign country, deal with it and don’t tell National” and they accepted it. We stripped down, the kids stripped down and everything seemed fine. I found out later that on the women’s side the girls went in with their bathing suits on and promptly got yelled at by the female Japanese leaders for being unhygenic. They stood their ground defending their modesty, though. The Japanese leaders must have thought those Americans were pretty prudish.
Oh, and I had forgotten about the “we can end this lease in a year” bit. So I’ll concede that point. They are within their legal rights on that basis. Whether or not the reason they gave for ending the lease is something that makes a difference legally is not something I have sufficient knowledge of. We’ll see what the lower courts think and whether the Supremes a) grant certorari and b) agree.
SiF, the GSUSA is a separate organization from the BSA and takes great pains to make sure people understand that. The relationships between the two organizations is arms-length. Given the numerous stories I hear from fathers with daughters in the Girl Scouts, the GSUSA seems to be a lot less accepting of men getting involved as leaders than the BSA does of women doing the same.
BTW, if you don’t want your kid in a discriminatory organization, the GSUSA is not the way to go. Unlike the BSA, they have a complete ban on boys in all parts of their program, whereas the BSA is co-ed from ages 14 (or graduated from 8th grade) through 21. I personally have no problem with accomodating young girls in all aspects of the program in principle. I’d like to see how that would be done before I sign off on actually doing it.
The GSUSA is opposed to the idea; they want their monopoly on the franchise. The GSUSA and the BSA looked into a merger about 10 years ago and there were some position papers written. The GSUSA decided to pull out.
I can just see a mixed group going on a campout and the boys assuming the girls will be doing the cooking and cleanup. Someone would get their shit straightened out ….
Is there anything in the specific language of the lease REQUIRING a reason for ending it? Or does it simply say that the city may end the lease on a year’s notice? If the latter, then what’s hard to understand, legally?
RonF, again, you phrased your concern as “what if one Scout freaks out and goes after another one with a hatchet”. If that is a concern, then you have a problem regardless of whether you have gay Scouts.
If that is a concern, then you have a problem regardless of whether you have gay Scouts.
Well, yes. And the problem is, “dealing with teenage humans [males]” – which is something we as a species have struggled with for a long time. The Scouts are one answer, with an established track record, however imperfect it may be. Talk to me about YOUR successes in running camps for thousands or millions of gay-and-straight integrated youths, and your critique of the Scouts’ handling of the situation gains some relevance in my eyes.
Ron is saying “I have a difficult situation to deal with. Adding another factor would make it even more difficult or impossible.”
Parallel: there is domestic violence against both men and women. There are no good non-bigoted moral reasons to segregate the sexes in domestic violence shelters. There are outstanding pragmatic reasons to do so.
Ron is acknowledging that there isn’t a good (in his lights) moral reason to keep gay youth out of Scouts. He is asserting a pragmatic one. I was in Scouts for a long time; his reasoning is not insane.
Let’s just say, for the purposes of argument, that this problem of completely normal-seeming youth with no track record of aggressive or antisocial behavior suddenly arming themselves with deadly weapons and attempting murder when they perceive they have been propositioned for hot male-on-male smoochin’ and stuff is actually statistically significant, that it exists outside the realm of anecdote and bizarre what-if scenarios.
Absent such behavior occurring in a rampant and ubiquitous fashion, this is not a reason to ban gay youth from the group.
The BSA is not an organization devoted to safety above all things. They take kids out into the wilderness where opportunities for injury abound, they take them out to sea on boats, and they give them weapons and sharp tools, expose them to poisonous animals and plants, freeze ’em, cook ’em, . These dangers are not just theoretical or historical: they are real and ongoing and an integral part of the activities — I’m sure the BSA (and its insurers) plan for a certain number of injuries every year. I wouldn’t be surprised at all to learn that kids have died while on BSA sponsored activities. Kids Do Get Hurt.
They expose the kids to these dangers because they judge, correctly, that teaching a love of nature, self confidence, self respect, and various other skills are all worth a small risk to kids’ safety. And yet, bizarrely, they judge that the teaching of respect for others, and respect for people who are different, and inclusiveness, and non-discrimination, are not important enough to outweigh the “risk” of gay-induced homicide.
Sorry, I’m not buying it. It trips the bullshit-meter. What doesn’t trip the bullshit meter, is the idea that they’re discriminating because they think gays are icky.
Oh, and for the record, from the sixth through the twelfth grade I went on ten school-sponsored, co-ed, gays-included outdoor trips each lasting from three to six days. We slept in tents, in cabins, and under the stars. We were at times in dangerous situations, and sharp tools were available. There were zero fights due to unwelcome sexual advances, gay or otherwise. There have been zero murders in the history of the program (I’m fairly certain I would have heard about them.) And while I can’t testify to the absence of gay orgies in other guys’ tents, I find the concept laughably unlikely.
Oh, bite me. If the discussion is limited to high-level leaders of the BSA, then you need to STFU just as much as I do.
RonF is trying to justify the exclusionary policies of an organization he loves by inventing a rather far-fetched problem that a) he’s apparently never encountered in real life, b) would exist even if there were no gay Scouts and c) is the sort of behavior BSA is supposed to teach these boys not to do.
BSA is already straight-and-gay integrated. The question is how to deal with gay scouts. Force them into the closet, shame them and blame their existence if some homophobic violence happens? Or develop a policy of non-discrimination and education?
Fine, then. Talk to me about your success is running a camp for 25 kids for a week. For participating in it for 12 years as a youth and running them for about 17 years as an adult for a total of at least 1 year total under canvas (well, rip-stop nylon these days …). Because the high level leaders have to deal with corporations and organizations like churches and the VFW and the media, etc. But I have to deal with parents and kids, and answer to them.
Yeah, we do risky things. And in fact, kids do occasionally get hurt and very rarely die. But overall those risks are ones that both we as an organization and I personally know how to deal with and manage. We have rules in place and get training and I feel confident that given the training I get and the experience I have I can manage the risk. If something happens to one of my kids I can look Mom or Dad in the eye and say “I’m sorry, but I did everything I could to keep this from happening.”
Importantly, there are things that I don’t do and things I don’t permit because I don’t have the confidence I can manage them. And that goes for Scouters in general – I take kids rock climbing, but lots of Troops don’t because they don’t know how. But what we’re talking about here is one risk that in my judgement I can’t handle. If someone else can handle it, more power to them. Go for it. I believe that if I don’t think I can handle a particular situation I am obligated to not lead a bunch of kids into it. And I know a lot of Scouters who feel the same way; they don’t want it not because they have a big moral issue with gay kids but because they see the likelihood of conflicts they can’t forsee and can’t resolve and risk they can’t manage.
My job isn’t to wait until something bad happens and then deal with it. My job is to do my best to make sure nothing bad happens.
Oh, and for the record, from the sixth through the twelfth grade I went on ten school-sponsored, co-ed, gays-included outdoor trips each lasting from three to six days.
Good for you. You were fortunate. I don’t think I’d be so lucky. Not from what I’ve seen in my time in Scouts. And I think that the group of you overall are underestimating this risk, at least in part based not on experience with doing such things with kids but on your political beliefs.
Talk to me about YOUR successes in running camps for thousands or millions of gay-and-straight integrated youths
I can talk about MY experience in participating in a BSA camp, presumably including both gay (though closeted) and straight scouts.
My experience was that a groop of about 5 other scouts from my troop held me down, tied me to a tree, stripped me to my underwear, threw mud at me, and poured it down my underwear. This was done with the tacit approval of the scoutmaster. His actual words were, “heck, before I took over the troop, the initiation lasted for a week”
When I tried to fight back in order to prevent them from doing this, I was told by one of the eagle scouts in our troop that I was out of line for fighting, and that it was a harmless initiation.
This took place in the late 80’s (not sure of the exact year) at Camp Silverado, on Silver Lake, near Kit Carson, CA and my troop was from Vallejo, CA. There were no openly gay scouts there to trigger the kind of ‘gay panic’ RonF is (laughably) theorizing.
So what do we learn from this? Well, we learn that in an atmosphere where exclusion and scapegoating is accepted, kids get excluded and scapegoated. Exclusion never makes its targets safer. We also learn that the BSA is disinterested in protecting weaker scouts from stronger ones . . . that the ‘boys will be boys’ mentality of it (contra what RonF has to say) has to do with indulging the atrocities of youth rather than protecting against them. Finally, we learn that the most important safety priority of the BSA in that context is in keeping the victim from fighting back, because, after all, fighting back says that the exclusion and scapegoating is not okay.
—Myca
Cue, “boy, I’m sure sorry that you experienced that, but it sure doesn’t indicate any larger problem, and the systematic endorsement of exclusion and hatred by the BSA certainly had nothing do do with the development of that kind of culture.”
Yeah. I can hardly wait.
—Myca
Actually, cue the “I am sorry that happened to you” (and I am) but I don’t see the relevance. If you don’t like the values of the BSA, or think they are teaching exclusivism and hatred, then don’t participate.
Translation: if you don’t like the values of BSA because we exclude you and tolerate your persecution, then don’t participate! See, everybody wins!
Hazing/initiation rites are hardly persecution. Myca had dirt thrown at him. Alert Amnesty.
When I was picking a college, I didn’t want to engage in the kind of fraternity assholery that was extremely prevalent at the time (this was before all the out-of-control type behavior led to scandals). I didn’t join Phi Delta Gamma and then demand that they behave in the way I wanted them to, I refrained from joining a fraternity. (In fact, I decided to go to a college that didn’t even have them.)
Certainly, there is hazing or initiation rites that go beyond the level of kinds being stupid and into the area of kids being hateful or dangerous. That shouldn’t be tolerated in any circumstance.
But what does any of this have to do with gays in scouting?
Heya Robert. Fuck you too.
Maybe you could discuss something painful from your life for me to mock?
—Myca
What this has to do with gays in scouting is that the scouting leadership is clearly and obviously not interested in preventing persecution and attacks on other scouts, and that RonF brings that up solely as a way to justify their bigotry.
Or, as Mythago says:
I’m making the point that b) is right on. Scouts do gang up on and attack other scouts regardless of sexual orientation, and that Mythago’s point c) is correct, the BSA is supposed to teach them not to do it, but the problem is that they’re not teaching them not to do it. They’re condoning it.
I’d also like to add a point d) of my own . . . that the exclusion of gay scouts is symptomatic of the kind of organization that would condone something like that.
—Myca
Oh and by the way, It’s mighty convenient how you ignored that the whole thing was nonconsensual.
I was literally grabbed by other scouts, tied to a tree, stripped, used for target practice, and reprimanded for fighting back.
I did not say that this was okay. I did not consent. I fought.
Just good fun, right? I wonder what your reaction would be were a random group of, say, your co-workers to do this to you?
—Myca
I’m not mocking you. I’m saying that what happened, while regrettable and undoubtedly uncomfortable for you, was not that big a deal. If my coworkers did it to me, my reaction would be negative. I’m 40, and we have a professional office. I’m not 12, at summer camp with a bunch of boys. What’s grossly inappropriate today is mildly inappropriate, though understandable, then.
And you’re right, the BSA is not supposed to teach/condone this kind of behavior. Good leaders try to prevent such things – and I imagine that RonF, who seems an exemplary Scout leader, does his best – but as you note, the BSA hasn’t achieved 100%. So this, by you, supports the notion that we should introduce a new and volatile element to the situation?
The failure to achieve a desirable goal 100% is not an argument for not pouring fuel on the fire. “You haven’t got that fire out yet anyway, so me dumping this gasoline on it will not make any difference.”
Ron F;
It has to do with gays in scouting because the BSA policy and your justification of it 1)pretends that there aren’t already gay scouts or denies that they are as important/deserving as straight scouts and 2) blames (the potential for) violence and conflict around gender and sexuality within BSA on the presence and existence of gays.
Myca’s story disproves the latter assumption.
I don’t know about Ron, but I’m perfectly aware that there are gay kids in scouts, and I’m not blaming the potential for violence on the existence of gays. The potential for violence is a human intrinsic. Openly gay boys simply add a potential outlet of that violence that scout leaders are ill equipped to handle.
RonF writes:
Children have to be TAUGHT to hate. It’s a TEACHING process that adults typically engage in.
And it wasn’t limited to Troy and Travis (the two boys), it was a pervasive problem that they just happened to be more involved with. When NO ONE, not the Scout Master, not the Assistant Scout Master, not any of the more senior boys, NO ONE does anything about, it’s pervasive.
The problem in Scouting, with the potential for violence you’ve described, is a gross failure of male socialization. It really is “kill or be killed” as a way of raising a child. Women are far more likely to be victims of unwanted sexual attention, and I don’t see a rash of women up and killing the boys and men who are doing it. I don’t even see girls TRYING to kill boys who make passes at them at the ages those Scouts would be. What I learned about men from birth to age 33 is that men aren’t just socialized to solve things with violence, but that men MUST solve things with violence or become a victim of that same violence. What you and the BSA are doing is enabling that dysfunctional form of socialization. Feminism offers men a different way of relating that isn’t based on the biggest, meanest, least self-disciplined boys (and men) “winning”, but based on recognizing the shared humanity of everyone. Which to me — lowly 1st Class Scout that I was — seems more like a Boy Scout value than what you’re advancing.
4 Points,
1. I’m really sorry for what happened to Myca. The leaders of the troupe did a crap job and shouldn’t have been trusted to look after other peoples kids.
2. I won’t put my sons (if I have any ) in BSA because of the ‘no gays’ rule. I think the rule is stupid.
3. I was in the scouts and had a positive experience. I love the out of doors and camping. If the scouts didn’t exist I think there would be a lot of boys that missed out on camping/outdoor experiences. (Knew a few, no idea on the numbers)
4. My scout masters had a zero tolerance with hazing and cliques. You weren’t allowed to be rude or mean to other scouts. They’d point out that it violated ‘Trustworthy’, ‘loyal’ and ‘courteous’ from the scout law. It was strictly not allowed to pick on the weaker, dorky, obviously gay (once he was out of the closet after college) kids.
Oh 5th point
If they’re so against homosexuality why do they have a rank name We Blo?
Children have to be TAUGHT to hate. It’s a TEACHING process that adults typically engage in.
Hmm? I’m not really sure that I agree with this at all. Do you have kids yet?
This was also my Dad’s experience . . . he and a good friend of his (Who later turned out to be gay. Heh.) were in scouts together from their childhood, and his friend went all the way to Eagle, while my dad did one below. It really upsets us all what’s happened to scouting over the years, and how stubbornly they’ve clung to hate and bigotry while much of the rest of the world has moved on.
It used to be a great organization.
I think it has something to do with a changing definition of what being a ‘good kid’ means in American culture, and the weird identification of being a good kid as somehow meaning ‘culturally conservative’.
—Myca
Myca,
I think you’re right, but I also think that scouts are in a lot of ways old fashioned and conservative (in the non-political meaning of the word). This makes them attractive to a lot of people who are conservative in the political sense of the word. There’s some overlap there.
They’re odd in a lot of ways. They’re the only organization I can think of that offers awards in both Environmentalism and marksmanship.
It used to be a great organization.
When?
So far you’ve brought up the treatment of gays, adult leadership as it relates to keeping boys’ behavior in check, and exclusion/scapegoating.
Which of those things do you think used to be handled well? Because from what I know of Scouting, all of those are areas where the standard of practice now is considerably superior to any point in the past.
Or do you actually think that the Scouts of the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s were a gay-tolerant hazing-free zone of multicultural love and harmony?
I thought he was saying that relative to the rest of society the scouts used be better than they are now. But I could have misread him.
Exactly right, Joe. I grade on a curve.
Excluding black scouts would mean one thing in 1790, another in 1890, and a third in 1990.
Similarly, excluding gay scouts (while never admirable), meant one thing in 1958 and another in 2008. History is not static, no matter how many terribly silly people want to stand athwart it yelling Stop.
—Myca
Additionally, the weird-ass Mormon takeover of the scouts is a fairly recent thing, which is a big part (I think) of why the BSA is standing by their stance on bigotry rather than shrugging and saying, “Yeah, times change. Looks like we need to stop being assholes. Sorry, sorry,” which is what I suspect would have happened had it not been for the strong cultural conservative influx.
So both: 1) it seems like the BSA cares more about being committed to bigotry than they did 50 years ago and 2) since the world has changed, it matters more and makes them look much worse then it would have 50 years ago.
—Myca
I think the safety issue w/r/t gays contains a bit of special pleading – all sorts of things can drive people to violence, from race to religion to hobbies to opinions on popular music, we don’t use that as an excuse to exclude and thus implicitly disapprove of anyone in the pariah camp – but I’ve never led a camp like this before, only been a participant (and not with the Boy Scouts), so I’ll just leave it at that.
An important question to ask is, do you think the Boy Scouts’ historic and continuing discrimination against gay Scouts is and always has been solely a safety concern? Has there never ever been an element of “teh gays are UNCLEAN”?
You could historically, it was about sexual morality, but currently, it’s about safety. In that case, you’d have to accept that the rest of us find this hard to believe, and we find ad hoc rationalizations of this sort common with other forms of historical prejudice – and that some of the rest of us are legislators and city officials.
I don’t find this odd at all. You find a lot of hunters and sport fishermen among hiking and nature retreat enthusiasts. I know several myself. Anyone with a passion for the wilderness will have views that would be considered “environmentalist” from a political standpoint.
>An important question to ask is, do you think the Boy Scouts’ historic and continuing discrimination against gay Scouts is and always has been solely a safety concern? Has there never ever been an element of “teh gays are UNCLEAN”?
Sylphhead: the ban on open gay scouts and leaders in the BSA to my understanding is based on the code that says that members should be “morally straight.” Never mind that ‘straight” doesn’t mean the same thing in the 1930s as today, or that the idea of morality and sexual identity are not necessarily exclusive, and so on and so on.
The BSA leadership’s interpretation of “morally straight” is a bit self-serving, methinks.
For people who go, “If you don’t agree don’t join,” what about a cub scout who starts as a little kid and loves scouts, but doesn’t know he’s gay until much much later? Why should they give up maybe the one activity they really enjoy, at a really sensitive age when you really haven’t figured yourself out yet anyway, in order to make other people happy?
Well, and furthermore, that being gay is ‘unclean’, and thus gay scouts and leaders are unable to take the scouting oath.
It really highlights the tortured justifications for why bigotry isn’t really bigotry, doesn’t it?
“What? The BSA called gay people unclean and morally bent? Why, that’s no reason to doubt that the policy is about keeping them safe! We just thought that the best way to keep them save was to convince everyone that they’re moral degenerates who are unfit to associate with our scouts lest their taint spread like an oily sheen, and . . . ”
—Myca
The “safety” issue is RonF’s personal justification.
The BSA as an organization justify the ban in explicitly moral terms. Homosexual conduct is immoral, etc.
So they might be wrong by your lights, but they aren’t hypocrites about it. They’re right up front.
Some Scout leaders, like RonF, don’t agree with the moral position of the national organization (or at least that is my understanding, please forgive if I’ve gotten it wrong) but do agree with the policy for pragmatic reasons.
Effeminate boys who are not gay could drive other boys to violence. Disabled kids? Hard not to be violent toward them. And what about those brown kids? Or, worse, those kids who worship God-not-mine? Gotta beat them up. And the kids with poor social skills. I wanna give them a smack myself.
Actually, we’d better just ban everyone from boyscouts. For their own safety. I mean, surely, something about every one of them must have the potential to inspire someone else to violence.
It wasn’t clear to me, as someone who just walked in on the thread, that Ron wasn’t claiming to speak for the entire BSA. If we can all agree that casting gays as “unclean” is unconscionable, I think we’re about 70% in alignment anyway.
I somehow doubt that. If BSA leaders were personally confronted about their policy – as opposed to speaking from a press release – I’d bet a shiny nickel that they would hem and haw, shift the blame, offer wild excuses.
Bigots aren’t the unshaven, steadfast, in-your-face he-men of backwoods imagining. They are for the most part cowards and weasels who would wilt under the light and would take the first opportunity to pass the buck of responsibility.
Myca, when I was 15 back in the late ’60’s I joined my Council’s Boy Scout camp’s staff as a Counselor in Training. There was a weeding-out process based on competency, attitude, work ethic, etc. About 1/2 way though the year, everyone who was left was going to be offered a contract next year. At which point the “initiation” began.
When my turn came I was stripped to my underwear, had lard and dirt rubbed in my hair and Ben-Gay and pine needles stuffed in my underpants. At which point I was blindfolded, bound with ropes on both wrists and led through the woods for various experiences meant to humiliate and upset me. I ended up the evening tied between two posts using “five clove hitches”. This is a single rope being tied round a post, then my wrist with my arm extended straight out, then my neck, then my other wrist extended straight out and then the other post. Clove hitches (as you know) being uninterrputed loops, letting my wrists drop meant the hitch around my neck tightened. This was next to the main camp road in the middle of the night while being mocked and with passersby being invited to enjoy the spectacle. It was the middle of the night so there were few passersby, but the one car that passed by and stopped was driven by my parents. Mom and Dad pretty much took the attitude that “everyone goes through it.” My two older brothers took the same attitude; in fact, they were both on camp staff already and pretty much organized the initiation. I suspect they took great glee in finally having a socially acceptable means of abusing their younger brother.
Afterwards it was adjudged that I had taken it in good grace and was an O.K. guy. Meaning that I hadn’t cried and didn’t go complaining to the Camp Director, I’d “taken it like a man.”
It’s called “hazing”. A common component of sports teams, fraternities (and from what I’m told, sororities), Scouting and just about any youth group back in the day. Nowadays that kind of thing will get you tossed out of Scouting, and adults who either turn a blind eye or participate get tossed out of Scouting and possibly brought up on charges. That’s a good thing. I have no nostalgia for the “good old days” in this regard at all. It served as a common experience to bind the Scouts together and to the institution, but it was a horrible way to do it. These days things like communal service projects where you get filthy and do hard physical labor for long hours next to your fellow Scouts/fraternity brothers/etc. does the same thing and produces something useful that you can be proud of in the bargain. Hazing is pretty much eliminated in Scouting.
So what do we learn from this?
Something different, it seems.
Well, we learn that in an atmosphere where exclusion and scapegoating is accepted, kids get excluded and scapegoated.
Except that initiation wasn’t exclusion. It was in fact a means of inclusion. Once you’d passed initiation, you were considered part of the gang, accepted at a basic level as someone to defend and be defended from outsiders despite whatever faults you might otherwise have. But the key to that was to go along with it, to submit. Some resistance was acceptable, but a complete refusal to submit or an appeal to authority (especially adult authority) was the red line you couldn’t cross. If you did, you would be excluded.
We also learn that the BSA is disinterested in protecting weaker scouts from stronger ones . . .
As I noted above, times have greatly changed. Also, I was far from a “weaker Scout”. Everyone got hazed.
that the ‘boys will be boys’ mentality of it (contra what RonF has to say)
Don’t put words in my mouth.
has to do with indulging the atrocities of youth rather than protecting against them. Finally, we learn that the most important safety priority of the BSA in that context is in keeping the victim from fighting back, because, after all, fighting back says that the exclusion and scapegoating is not okay.
Again, times have greatly changed. This kind of behavior is no longer acceptable and is punished. It comes from outside Scouting. I’ve had to periodically stop kids from trying to start it up.
Effeminate boys who are not gay could drive other boys to violence.
Reread my upthread posts – if you read them at all in the first place. I’m not talking about the sight of gay kids enticing abuse. I’m talking about misplaced sexual advances being met with what an adult would view as an out-of-proportion response.
I do not claim to speak for National Council. Their policies are stated on their web site and are the product of the organizations that sponsor Scout units. While the Mormons are highly influential, there are other organizations with almost as many kids in Scouting that have similar beliefs, notably the RCC from what I hear.
My attitude towards this is my own, but I know that many other Scouters share it. No one I know involved in running camping activities has a good word to say about having openly gay kids in the mix.
Joe:
They’re odd in a lot of ways. They’re the only organization I can think of that offers awards in both Environmentalism and marksmanship.
I’m curious as to why you see a conflict between these two?
Ron F
Why not just ban “sexual advances” between scouts then, rather than gays?
particularly as banning gays doesn’t have any impact on closet cases, who seem to me more rather than less likely to make inappropriate and unwelcome sexual advances of the sort you are focused on.
Or even discuss what is and is not appropiete in making sexual advances, and how to deal with inappropriete or unwanted attention.
You could have a sexual advances awareness badge :)
Maybe because people who strongly believe in gay rights tend to avoid the Boy Scouts?
The Girl Scouts manage to run camps without excluding lesbians, and I’ve never heard of anyone jabbing someone in the eye with a popsicle stick, or bashing them over the head with the friendship totem, over misplaced sexual advances…
The Girl Scouts manage to run camps without excluding lesbians, and I’ve never heard of anyone jabbing someone in the eye with a popsicle stick, or bashing them over the head with the friendship totem, over misplaced sexual advances…
The two programs are not comparable. Neither are the populations they serve. The average GSUSA member is going to have far, far fewer nights in camp than a BSA member is. I don’t believe that they have access to woods tools (the generic name for knives, axes and saws). Girls are much less physically agressive than boys. And the attitudes towards femininity and lesbianism are much different than attitudes towards masculinity and gayness.
VKWrites says:
You could have a sexual advances awareness badge :)
Apparently there already is one. I especially like the design of the badge. I’ll have to get on the committee in a few years that does the research to revise the requirements.
Maybe because people who strongly believe in gay rights tend to avoid the Boy Scouts?
I’ve met a number of people in Scouting who believe in gay rights. The real reason is that the people involved with the program at that level have an acutal understanding of the practical issues involved.
Sorry, you can’t believe in the inherent dignity and worth of gays and lesbians and then say they can’t be in your club because they aren’t morally straight, and somebody might stick in a knife their ribs anyways.
Because environmental activism is aligned with the left, as is anti-gun activism. There’s no inherent conflict between the two. That just how the political coalitions have fallen out.
Sorry, you can’t believe in the inherent dignity and worth of gays and lesbians and then say they can’t be in your club because they aren’t morally straight,
Sure you can. I believe in the inherent dignity and worth of shoplifters – they’re human souls, same as me. But I won’t hire one.
It is possible to disagree about values, even fundamental values, and still respect people’s humanity.
Being gay is analogous to being a criminal?
Snowe, Excellent summary of what he said.
In terms of not being morally straight according to my lights, yes.
If you’re looking for a comparative with something you consider morally wrong, generally speaking it is going to be something with a negative connotation.
Well, most Christians aren’t morally straight with me, but I’d never advocate banning them from national organizations just because one of them might try to proselytize an uninterested person.
Shoplifting is a criminal act, being attracted to those of the same sex is not. I know you’re clever enough to spot the difference between CRIMES and different moral codes.
Of course. One is illegal and one is not. Not all law maps to morality, and vice-versa. Indeed, that would not be possible, since we all need to live under the same code of law, but we also all have the right to individual moral conscience.
Then why equate homosexuality to criminality as a justification for excluding them? I know that the national organization bans them b/c Teh Gays are icky and gross, but RonF was arguing that it due to improbably safety concerns, and that the discrimination is for their own good.
I really think that boys need some lessons on gracefully turning down romantic advances. When I was sexually harassed in middle school, I wasn’t allowed to turn around and start whaling on someone with my purse or textbooks! No one would have suggested banning the boys from school because they subjected the girls to unwelcome advances.
Then why equate homosexuality to criminality as a justification for excluding them?
I didn’t. I analogized homosexuality (a morally objectionable behavior) to theft (a morally objectionable behavior) to illustrate the point that a person can reject a morally objectionable behavior, while still respecting the humanity of the person practicing it.
The BSA states that gays cannot be considered moral or “clean” people. That sounds remarkably dehumanizing to me.
Oh, of course it’s dehumanizing. And of course scout leaders who support the ban are supporting the hate and dehumanization.
That’s obvious.
Don’t mind the tortured justifications. Whether you think up philosophical justifications for treating your fellow humans like shit or not, it’s still treating them like shit.
—Myca
I think when I say “gay rights” and when ya’ll say “gay rights” we dont mean the same thing. Since my version involves to the right to not be closeted and not be shit on for whom you love. And the right not to be fired/banned for it either. Or called “morally objectionable” for …what exactly? What is it that is morally objectionable about me–please enlighten me, Robert.
I don’t think Amp wants his blog turned into a “let’s talk about why homosexual behavior is disordered behavior” site. The arguments are out there and are easy to find; look up the Catholic catechism if you want the basics.
At first i was stuck on how the heck disorder (if I give you that for a minute) is immoral, and was offended.
After looking it up, I see that your idea of morality is based on what appears to me to be an arbitrarily defined “natural law;” I was looking for something rational to explain adhering to that, but basically we are just operating under two entirely different definitions of “morality.” I think all love and commitment is generally a moral good and that harm to living humans is a moral ill and I try to calculate accordingly. Sometimes I forget that others have wildly different definitions of morality. Based on my definition, discrimination against gays is immoral, and the premises supporting it are a good example of disordered, illogical thinking
But I guess you already knew that. Based on the catechism, why not exclude birth control users from BSA leadership and membership on the grounds of not being morally straight? What about chaste gays?
Robert, you’ve been called out on indefensible analogies about gay people before. Just as it is not acceptable to analogize homosexuality to pedophilia for historical reasons, it is not acceptable to analogize it to criminality for historical reasons.
That’s the moderator hat, so stop.
“Theft” was amps alternative suggestion last time, if I recall correctly. To my lights, its not okay to call homosexuality disordered and immoral on a site that wants to remain free of homophobia, but I know Robert is permanent feature around here, and that his reactionary opinions and love of debate keep things interesting.