|
No one who has ever studied the history of the Boy Scouts of America can deny that the organization allowed (and in some cases, encouraged) councils to adopt a policy of racial discrimination until the mid-1970s. For the
first 10-20 years of its existence, many councils (and not just in the Deep South), banned African Americans (as well as Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, and other minority communities) from even being Scouts. In many cases, if the
BSA National Council had previously commissioned an African American to be a Scoutmaster (or issued a charter to an African American troop), when a white-led council was formed in the area, these leaders and units would be expelled from
the BSA, with the full support of the BSA and its Chief Scout Executive at the time, James E. West. (For an example of this, see the NAACP Papers.)
While the National Council, as per the instructions of the
organization's original incorporator -- William D. Boyce -- was to be "open to all boys," encompassing all races; by 1914 things had changed. (See the Finding of Facts in the Pool case for the following BSA statement – "Our federal charter sets forth our obligation to serve boys. Neither the charter nor the bylaws of the Boy Scouts of America permits the exclusion of any boy. The National Council and Executive Board have always taken the position that Scouting should be made available for all boys who meet entrance age requirements.")
When the National Council held their annual meeting in 1914, newly chartered Southern councils learned that there were already troops of "Negro boys" in their community. This was unacceptable. Instead of reaffirming
the policy that the BSA was open to all boys, regardless of race, or that the BSA was a private religious youth organization (as they have now asserted) open to only white men and boys, they did neither.
What will not
be found in any BSA authorized history is the fraud the new organization perpetuated on the American public. In response to the Southern councils the National Council publicly asserted that race was not a barrier to membership, while at
the same time it adopted a policy that gave local councils the power to deny membership to persons on the basis of race, national origin, ethnicity, each council did not wish to be included in their membership rolls. In other words, the
BSA adopted a policy that would exclude non-WASP boys in those communities that did not want them and in those that would later choose to graciously grant membership privileges to minorities, allowed the local councils to create segregated
units, segregated districts and even segregated camps. (The 1914 incident clearly demonstrates that the BSA has no problem in publicly telling the American public one thing, while doing the exact opposite. For the past 30 years, they have
done this when it came to questions of their discriminatory policies.)
The adoption of the policy of white supremacy -- and given the published views of many of the people involved in the BSA at the time warrants that
term -- continued well after the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court ruling against the principle of "separate, but equal." Even the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act did not move the National Council to adopt a national non-discrimination policy on the issue of race that local councils would have to follow.
During the 1960s the BSA quietly suggested to councils that they should integrate their Scouting programs as soon as their local community was ready to do so. This usually meant well after local public schools had
been integrated, as the BSA was never one to make changes simply because it was a moral course of action. The BSA only made changes when it felt that resisting such change would cause the organization more harm, regardless of the morality
of the situation.
What is of note to this web site is that the BSA has never publicly stated that it prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin in any of its programs, or allows local
councils to practice such discrimination. A review of it Annual Reports since the 50s to the present, fail to assert any such non-discrimination policy.
In 1974, the BSA was sued by the NAACP for racial discrimination. The lawsuit was eventually settled out of court. As part of the settlement, BSA was required to issue a statement regarding discrimination. Instead of the BSA issuing a
blanket statement that they prohibited any form of racial discrimination throughout its organization, it stated that the BSA did not discriminate on the basis of race in leadership positions.
In other words, the BSA did
not take the opportunity to publicly repeal its 1914 racial policy allowing local councils to discriminate, if the local community would have problems with a non-discriminatory BSA council. While the BSA has asserted its right to free
expression trumps state and local laws regarding public accommodations, specifically involving sexual orientation and religious belief, it has also rejected federal civil rights laws dealing with race.
In a recent case (See Adams v. Boy Scouts of America, No. 3CV98 313, 2000 WL 33671779, at 5 (E.D. Ark. Jan. 5, 2000), the BSA was alleged to have discriminated on the basis of race. The case was eventually rejected by
the 8th Court of Appeals, but not before the BSA argued before the appellate court that they were not subject to any anti-discrimination laws, even those relating to race (aff'd, 271 F.3d 769, 778 (8th Cir. 2001)). Apparently the BSA had
no local or national policy that prohibited racial discrimination that would have allowed the plaintiffs to claim that the BSA violated its own rules. It does not have such rules.
So, not only has the BSA asserted in
the courts that it is a private religious youth organization, but an organization that is free to not only discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation and religious belief, but one that can discriminate on the basis of race, national
origin, and ethnicity. In other words, if it wanted to become a WASP-only private religious youth organization, there is nothing and no one from stopping it from doing so. And, according to its admissions to the courts, they have reserved
their right to do just that!
With the exception of the BSA's narrow statement issued as a part of the settlement with the NAACP in 1974, the BSA National Council has never stated that it prohibits discrimination on the
basis of race, national origin, or ethnicity. Local councils have issued non-discrimination statements in regard to employment, but none on youth/adult membership. Since the Dale decision, many local councils have crafted "non-discrimination" policies in an attempt to obtain taxpayer funds. What many of these so-called policies contain is the wording that the BSA does not allow any "unlawful discrimination." The problem with that wording is that with the Dale decision in hand, they are free to practice any and all sorts of discriminatory acts, whenever they want. They have interpreted the Dale decision as a carte
blanche to operate and treat its members any way they see fit, without any regard to federal, state, or local anti-discrimination laws. If that is not the case, then they would have no problem in spelling out what forms of discrimination are "unacceptable" in their organization.
This article does not suggest that the BSA intends to expel African American Scouts in the near future, nor even allow a local council to do so. But the history of the BSA in regards to its treatment of minorities
(African Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans, immigrants, etc.) in the past and minorities (Homosexuals, Atheists, Agnostics, Pagans, etc.) in the present, coupled with its failure to publicly reject its 1914 racial policy is deeply
troubling.
The BSA's reliance on lawyers (from its founding) to guide its moral compass resulted in its alignment with those who subjugated and discriminated against people because of the color of their skin for some
60+years. This tradition has continued into the present day when the BSA is listening to its lawyers in aligning itself with those who advocate and persecute people because of their sexual orientation or religious belief. As with the Adams
case, the organization's dependence on its legal team is so extreme that it had no problem in objecting to the application of civil rights laws that prohibit racial discrimination.
A major problem with the BSA, Inc. is
its refusal to acknowledge its historical participation in America's discrimination against minority communities. This is self-evident in the absence in its Annual Reports during the 60s-70s of a rejection of segregated councils, because to do so would be to admit that many councils across the country operated on a segregated basis well into the 70s. That would be antithetical to the BSA's national message of being an organization "open to all boys."
Until the BSA expels its lawyers from its decision-making process and starts to live by the principles espoused by the Scout Law, it will be unable to assert any moral authority within this country. This is not a
position one wants to find themselves occupying when one is asking parents to entrust them with teaching their children moral principles. As can be seen in the steady and precipitous decline in BSA's traditional membership, parents are already making the decision that BSA's refusal to live by the Scout Law is not what they want for their children.
|
