 
|
|||||||||
              
|
Editorial -- Scouts' honor A court ruling won't end the debate over Boy Scout bias Thursday, March 26, 1998
In ruling that the Boy Scouts of American are free to exclude atheists and homosexuals from their ranks, the California Supreme Court has made it clear that, in California at least, a more tolerant policy will have to develop from within that venerable organization, and not as the result of a judicial decree.
That may be an appropriate legal result, but it does not end the discussion about whether the virtues of scouting are really compatible with such narrow-minded policies. As that conversation continues, enlightened parents and community leaders can and should press the Boy Scouts to reconsider their exclusionary policies.
The California decision turned on whether the Boy Scouts in that state are a "public accommodation" subject to anti-discrimination laws or a belief-based private club. Not only are purely private clubs exempt from most civil-rights laws, but their existence also is protected by the freedom of association guaranteed by the First Amendment.
The legal line between a public accommodation and a private club isn't always a bright one; the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1984 that the Jaycees were a public accommodation and thus required to admit women, and a New Jersey appeals court recently held that Boy Scouts in that state are a public accommodation. The California decision to the contrary is defensible legally, but it begs the question of what the Boy Scouts themselves should do.
This controversy should occasion some soul-searching among Boy Scout leaders and thoughtful parents who want their sons to share in the scouting experience.
Is it really necessary for Boy Scouts to exclude children who cannot in good conscience (or with the consent of their parents) profess a belief in God? Is atheism or agnosticism really incompatible with the virtues -- loyalty, trustworthiness, community spirit -- that the Boy Scouts try to instill?
No less a document than the U.S. Constitution holds that there should be "no religious test" for public office. Even if one believes that as a general proposition religion is the ally of morality, no one can deny that atheists and agnostics can be good citizens, just as churchgoers can and do run afoul of the law and morality.
The California decision upholding the requirement of belief in God effectively excommunicates Michael and William Randall. The 16-year-old twins have persevered in their desire to be scouts since they were 9 years old, satisfying the requirements to become Eagle Scouts while they awaited the outcome of the litigation. The Boy Scouts are the poorer if they have no room for these boys.
Many Americans who would agree that the Boy Scouts shouldn't impose a religious test may feel differently about the organization's attitude toward homosexuals. They shouldn't.
The California Supreme Court ruling upheld the decision of the Boy Scouts to use sexual orientation as a reason to deny an 18-year-old Eagle Scout's application to become a Scout leader. According to the Boy Scouts, homosexuality is incompatible with part of the oath in which scouts promise to be "morally straight." To construe the "straightness" of which the oath speaks as a requirement that scouts must be heterosexual is a pernicious play on words.
Looming over the question of sexual orientation is the resilient myth that a homosexual Boy Scout leader must be a pedophile. Like other organizations that serve young people, including schools and churches, the Boy Scouts obviously must be wary of adults -- married or single, gay or straight -- who might sexually abuse children. But equating homosexuals with child molesters is not just an error, it's an injustice.
Parents who themselves would not condone blanket bigotry against homosexuals should, and we hope will, question the Boy Scouts about why such discrimination is presumed to be compatible with "moral straightness" in scouting.
|
||||||||
