Sunny
64°
Sunny
Hi 66° | Lo 42°

Scouts should allow gay leaders

I have been a Cub and Boy Scout leader for about four years, but I remained indifferent to the Scout policy barring open homosexuals until I came across a note from my grandfather.

While transcribing letters for a family history, I found a card that my grandfather wrote to his father-in-law, the editor-publisher of a small newspaper in Columbia, S.C., nearly a century ago. Suggesting a story, my grandfather attached a clipping from the Dec. 13, 1918, issue of the Washington Herald. The headline read: “Word ‘Nigger’ on Blacklist; Boy Scouts Will Be Urged to Discourage Such Nicknames.”

Charles Wilson, the Herald reported, had written to the federal Bureau of Education, asking Commissioner P.P. Claxton to add the racial epithet to the “blacklist of nicknames for ‘foreign-born Americans.’ ” Earlier, the bureau had given this list to the Boy Scouts of America “with a request that the scouts discourage the use of such names as ‘Dutch,’ ‘Frenchy,’ ‘Greaser’ and similar monikers of derision.”

That kind of language was more acceptable in 1918 than now, and the Boy Scouts were not immune from society’s prejudices. Still, I was stunned to learn that the organization that has helped my son grow once had to be asked to quit using racial and other epithets.

William Boyce, the man who brought Scouting to the United States in 1910, believed that whites were superior to other races. But when he agreed to give $12,000 a year to help organize the Boy Scouts, he wanted Scouting to be open to all, regardless of race or religion.

The Scouts’ first executive board gave prejudiced whites a loophole, allowing local councils to decide whether to accept black Scouts and leaders.

Official policy was that any boy could join, but blacks were often denied membership, especially in the South.

Where blacks were allowed to join, they were often relegated to separate troops and denied equal funding. But even that was too much for some whites, who threatened to burn Scout uniforms in public if blacks were allowed to wear them.

The prejudices of the times affected other groups, too. Some Scout leaders wanted to bar Catholics. Others felt that immigrants made poor Scouts.

By the 1930s there were at least 50,000 black Scouts, most in segregated troops. But it took until 1974, and a lawsuit from the NAACP, for the Boy Scouts to affirm that the group was open to all.

It took time. But the Scouts did change, just as the country changed.

I live in Virginia, where 50 years ago my son would have been forced to join an all-black troop. My wife and I couldn’t have been leaders because we couldn’t have lived together in Virginia. The commonwealth wouldn’t have recognized our interracial marriage or let us live here.

The Scouts’ national board will meet this month and decide whether to allow homosexuals to join and become leaders. At one time, it seemed that the organization might vote to let individual councils decide, in much the way it allowed local councils to discriminate against blacks for decades.

Recently, however, the Scouts announced it was considering allowing boys who were openly gay to join while maintaining its ban on gay leaders.

I only have to substitute the word “black” for “gay” in that sentence to understand how wrong it seems.

I’m mindful that many deeply religious people have strong feelings about this issue.

Still, it’s worth remembering that religion was once used to justify slavery and claims that women were inferior to men.

Some say that letting gays into the Scouts is a civil rights issue. I think it’s a matter of simple fairness, of living up to the promise of America and the values of tolerance and decency inherent in Scouting.

Legacy Comments2

I disagree. The Boy Scouts is not a conscripted military. Boy Scouts do not join and then give up all rights to their family values and at the whim of an autocratic leadership. I’m okay with GL BT voluntary association groups and leaders. It’s about a family oriented group being dictated to by outsiders. The Boy Scouts is about the boys and their families not anyone’s political agenda of the year. If the member families choose a gay orientation, all well and good. I can say with absolute certainty that a Boy Scout our Cub Scout troop established by gay families-sure as hell would not want to be forced to accept leaders with sexual orientation different than theirs. The operative word there is “forced”. You could say the same thing for other voluntary groups like the racial groups, ethnic groups, religious groups. Would you force a Jewish Boy Scout troop to accept a radical Muslim leader? This is not about whether a gay, black, Chinese, or any person in a group that our society currently (and unfortunately) chooses to pigeonhole. We have great people all around the world, wonderful groups and as a scout leader saw them function very effectively with true caring for the kids they were given the honor and responsibility to lead. It’s about any minority trying to dictate rules in life for the majority. That is a trend needs to be rebalanced.

SHOULD??? Every scout leader I ever had growing up was gay.

Post a Comment

You must be registered to comment on stories. Click here to register.