By: Mary Mostert, Analyst, Original Sources (www.originalsources.com)
August 30, 2000
Efforts to close down the Boy Scouts of America by opponents of the Supreme Court Decision upholding the Scouts' First Amendment rights are carbon copies of the efforts made in Arkansas by segregationists in the 1950s to close down the public schools by opponents of the Supreme Court Decision to uphold blacks Fourteenth Amendment rights. The history of those opposing both decisions suggests that the initial success of the anti-First Amendment crowd may not be the final answer.
In the Spring of 1957, the Little Rock Schools, in a voluntary, not court ordered, decision selected 17 black students to attend the previously All-White Little Rock Central High School. On September 2, 1957, almost exactly 43 years ago, Gov. Governor Orval Faubus called out the Arkansas National Guard to surround Little Rock Central High School to preserve the peace and avert violence that may be caused by extremists who came to Little Rock "in caravans."
On September 3, 1957 Federal District Judge Ronald Davies ordered desegregation to start the next day.
On September 4, nine black students attempt to enter Central High but are turned away by the National Guard. On September 20, Judge Davies ruled that Gov. Faubus used the National Guard to prevent the black students from enrolling the black students and Faubus removed the Guard, turning the crises over to the Little Rock Police. Fearing they could not handle the threatened violence, Little Rock Mayor Woodrow Mann sends President Eisenhower a telegram asking for federal troops to maintain order and complete the integration process. The President announces he was sending 1,000 members of the 101st Airborne Division to Little Rock. He federalizes the 10,000-man Arkansas National Guard and on September 25, 1957, Under escort by the Army troops, the nine black students are escorted back into Central High.
And on what was all this extraordinary activity based? It was based on a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, on May 17, 1954 in Brown V. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, which said: "Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment."
The conflict in Little Rock was between citizens who planned to abide by the new law of the land, which declared segregated schools unconstitutional, and those who did not plan to abide by that new law. Eventually, the supporters of the Law prevailed and the public schools were integrated.
On June 28, 2000 the U.S. Supreme Court handed down another landmark decision in Boys Scouts of America vs James Dale in which it held: "We have already concluded that a state requirement that the Boy Scouts retain Dale as an assistant scoutmaster would significantly burden the organization's right to oppose or disfavor homosexual conduct. The state interests embodied in New Jersey's public accommodations law do not justify such a severe intrusion on the Boy Scouts' rights to freedom of expressive association. That being the case, we hold that the First Amendment prohibits the State from imposing such a requirement through the application of its public accommodations law."
In an almost exact parallel to the actions that took place in Arkansas in 1957 when the governor of the state and a number of his supporters decided to defy the law of the land by thumbing their nose at the Supreme Court, we are witnessing another generation of state officials, private parties and even once respected businesses seek to nullify the Supreme Court decision by taking the law into their own hands in an effort to win by intimidation and threats a battle they lost in the courts.
This time it is the First Amendment they wish to nullify, rather than the Fourteenth Amendment. In yesterday's New York Times reporter Kate Zernike wrote:
"Chicago, San Francisco and San Jose, Calif., have told local Scout troops that they can no longer use parks, schools and other municipal sites. Companies like Chase Manhattan Bank and Textron Inc., have withdrawn hundreds of thousands of dollars in support to local and national scouting groups nationwide. Dozens of United Ways from Massachusetts to San Francisco have cut off money amounting to millions of dollars each year.And Connecticut, in what may become a test case, has banned contributions to the Scouts by state employees through a state-run charity. The state is also considering whether to block the Scouts from using public campgrounds or buildings.
"It's a watershed issue," said C. Joan Parker, assistant counsel to the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities, which must issue a ruling by Nov. 8 on whether the Scouts violate state antidiscrimination laws.
"We have to decide, Are we aiding and abetting someone that discriminates?" Ms. Parker said. "Clearly, any public entity needs to have clean hands."
If the commission rules that the group does violate those laws, the Boy Scouts would be prevented from using any public facilities.
Of course, the issue of "discrimination" has already been decided by the U.S. Supreme Court on more than one case. In its decision to turn down a homosexual group's demand that they be allowed to march in the St. Patrick's Day parade in Boston, they wrote:
"Hurley is illustrative on this point. There we considered whether the application of Massachusetts' public accommodations law to require the organizers of a private St. Patrick's Day parade to include among the marchers an Irish-American gay, lesbian, and bisexual group, GLIB, violated the parade organizers' First Amendment rights. We noted that the parade organizers did not wish to exclude the GLIB members because of their sexual orientations, but because they wanted to march behind a GLIB banner. We observed:
"A contingent marching behind the organization's banner would at least bear witness to the fact that some Irish are gay, lesbian, or bisexual, and the presence of the organized marchers would suggest their view that people of their sexual orientations have as much claim to unqualified social acceptance as heterosexuals ... . The parade's organizers may not believe these facts about Irish sexuality to be so, or they may object to unqualified social acceptance of gays and lesbians or have some other reason for wishing to keep GLIB's message out of the parade. But whatever the reason, it boils down to the choice of a speaker not to propound a particular point of view, and that choice is presumed to lie beyond the government's power to control." 515 U.S., at 574-575."
The court held that the homosexuals could not censor or cancel the message the organizers of the St. Patrick's Day Parade wished to convey by carrying signs and banners about their sexual orientation. During the 1990s, a number of lawsuits sought to alter or eliminate altogether the positive message of the Boy Scouts of America by forcing the organization to adopt their views. Some wanted girls to be allowed into the Boy Scouts. Some wanted atheists to be allowed into the Boy Scouts, in spite of the organization Oath which Boy Scouts are required to repeat: "On my Honor I will to do my duty to God and my country and obey the Scout law." Others demand that the Boy Scouts allow homosexuals into the organization, in spite of them being required to repeat that on their honor they would keep themselves "physically strong, mentally awake and morally straight."
Even homosexual groups and differentiate between "gay" and "straight" people. A "morally straight" person is not merely heterosexual, but is a moral heterosexual. Forcing the Boy Scouts to accept homosexual Scoutmaster would deny them their first Amendment rights of free expression and assembly.
It is one thing for businesses wishing to change the meaning of the Scout Oath and Law to seek cancellation of the Boy Scout's First Amendment rights and for a public, tax-supported entity to do so. Gregg Shields, a national spokesman for the Scouts, said the organization respected the right of private companies to donate only to groups of their choice. But the organization is suing the State of Connecticut to restore state employees' ability to donate to the Scouts, and Mr. Shields said his group would fight to maintain access to public schools and public places in other states as well.
"The Boy Scouts of America since 1910 have taught traditional family values," Mr. Shields said. "We feel that an avowed homosexual isn't a role model for those values."
In recent years, when same-sex benefits, diversity training and nondiscrimination policies have become routine, some companies are trying to change the Boy Scout Oath by withholding their contributions and they have every right to do so, of course. However, the supporters of the Boy Scouts may also without their contributions to the solvency of those companies by taking their banking and other business elsewhere.
"Their position is, on the face of it, in conflict with our commitment and our values on diversity," said Jim Finn, a spokesman for Chase Manhattan Bank, which had contributed about $200,000 annually to the Boy Scouts until stopping it last month. Wells Fargo Bank has also stopped supporting the Boy Scouts and I know of at least one customer of theirs who is looking for another bank to show their disapproval of the banks' action.
There is a concerted effort by homosexual, feminist and atheist groups to bring pressure on public officials to deny the local Boy Scouts the right to meet in places like public schools and state campgrounds. This is in response to a pro-homosexual activist group that urges:
Funders of the Boy Scouts of America: We call upon the businesses and organizations such as the United Way who fund the BSA to follow their own business and organization's anti-discrimination policies. Only donate/contribute funds to youth organizations that don't discriminate. Inform the Boy Scouts of America that they must rescind their discriminatory policy against gay youth and adults and atheists or be terminated as a beneficiary.Public Organizations: This includes the military, municipalities, schools, police and fire departments, PTA's, etc. We ask that you reexamine your relationship with the BSA in light of your own anti-discrimination policies. Insist that discrimination be prohibited by any group that uses your services and or facilities. We ask all school districts to think about the message that you would be giving our gay and straight students if you allowed organizations that discriminate against gay youth such as the Boy Scouts of America to use your school facilities and allow adult BSA leaders to recruit in your schools. Just think about the harmful message you would be giving our gay and straight youth
The New York Times reported yesterday that
"The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit against the city of San Diego on Monday asking a federal court to revoke a 50-year-old agreement that lets the Scouts lease 18 acres of parkland for $1 a year. The lease is set to expire in 2007.
In 1957 those who sought to nullify the 1954 Supreme Court decision also used these same tactics. In fact, a full year after the 1957 confrontation, Governor Faubus called a special session of the state legislature to pass a law allowing him to close public schools to avoid integration and to lease the closed schools to private school corporations. The Supreme Court ruled that Little Rock must continue with its integration plan. The School Board then announced the opening of the city's high schools on and Governor Faubus, in a futile effort to nullify the Supreme Court ruling, ordered Little Rock's three high schools closed.
In September 1958 Little Rock public high schools closed for a year, sending the city's 3,698 high school students to seek alternatives. More than 750 whites enrolled in the newly established private T.J. Raney High School. Others left town or the state to live with friends or relatives to continue their education.
Then the reaction began. On December 6, 1958, a new school board was elected with its membership evenly divided between those favoring compliance and those favoring resistance to the U.S. Supreme court's desegregation plan. In March of 1959, Little Rock Chamber of Commerce voted 819 to 245 to reopen the public school and begin the plan to de-segregate them. In May of 1959 an effort to re-call the segregationist school board members succeeded and in August of 1959 the Arkansas public schools reopened.
At this writing the anti-Supreme Court groups that seek to deprive the Boy Scouts of their First Amendment rights are having initial success. However, organizations all over America are beginning to respond. There is a rapidly rising groundswell all over America to save the Boy Scouts. People who want to defend the Supreme Court Decision and the Boy Scouts of America seem to be organizing more quickly than in the 1950s.
In the next few days, watch this website for more information. Or, if you want to be notified by e-mail, contact mmostert@originalsources.com
To Subscribe to the Reagan Monitor, the newsletter that gives you news FACTS you can USE to make your life, and the world, better go to:
Start Your Subscription
