The Devastating "Unintended Consequences" of those Glib Laws on "Discrimination"

Freedom to Associate Being Quickly Eroded

By: Mary Mostert, Analyst, Original Sources (www.originalsources.com)

September 8, 2000

In recent years there has been a concerted effort to create a new definition of "discrimination" in our society which is almost diametrically opposite the definition of the word 50 years ago, when I was involved in a movement called "race relations." That movement, which later was switched into something called "Civil Rights" was centered on the notion that people ought to be free to associate with one another without laws telling them they COULDN'T associate with each other.

Fifty years ago people were trying to open up our society to free association and some of us were involved in trying to change segregation laws in the South.

As an old warrior in the movement to allow blacks the same free right of association as whites, I am finding the new "discrimination" movement a real puzzlement. Yesterday, in an effort to verify a list of United Way chapters who had been accused of halting funds going to the Boy Scouts of America, I called them. The list included : United Way of Santa Cruz County (CA), United Way of the Bay Area, (San Francisco), United Way Silicon Valley (Ca), United Way of Greater New Haven, (CT), United Way of Greater Portland (ME), Way of Santa Fe County (N.M.), the United Way of Southeastern New England and others I didn't get through to.

All of them were willing to talk. It was an old news story to a couple of them. The Portland United Way office and the San Francisco area United Way office had stopped designating funds to the Boy Scouts in 1992. The United Way of Southeastern New England and the Santa Cruz United Way tried to convince me that the Boy Scouts in their area "chose" to not receive money. The way the Boy Scouts "chose" to turn down the money they use primarily for boys in the inner cities was by refusing to sign the United Way "policy" statement.

Most of the groups had a "policy" statement which they required the Boy Scouts to sign in which the Scouts would have to abandon the portion of the Scout Oath where they promise to be "morally straight." When I pointed that out to them, all of them in effect said that the Scouts would NOT have to abandon the Oath because being "morally straight" was written years ago. It isn't the Boy Scouts who have changed, It seems to be the United Way and that has concluded, after what they call "months of discussion" that the Scouts have to promise to adhere to the new guidelines. While there are some differences, those new guidelines are similar to those announced as an "expanded policy on inclusion" by the United Way of Southeastern New England, which is headquartered in Providence, Rhode Island:

"At its meeting on July 14, the Board of Directors of United Way of Southeastern New England (UWSENE) approved a new policy that clarifies its position on inclusion. The policy contains the requirement that its affiliated agencies must adhere to the same policy which guides UWSENE. The text of the policy follows:

"United Way of Southeastern New England shall not discriminate on the basis of age, sex, color, race, veteran status, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, or disability with respect to employment, volunteer participation, or the provision of services. Agencies choosing to receive funding from the United Way Fund or the Critical Issue Funds and those choosing to be associate agencies will comply with this policy."

The decision comes after ten months of consideration following events last year involving the Boy Scouts of America and its local chapter. At that time, United Way released a statement that said, in part:

"While it is true that private organizations have the right to set their own standards within the parameters of law, we would point out that, in response, individual and organizational supporters have the right, and in some cases the obligation, to re-examine their own policies and decisions. United Way clearly is one of those organizations. We are obligated to evaluate the nature of our relationships with organizations we support, and to assess through careful consideration by our leadership what, in their judgment, is in the best interests of our community."

This has all been decided approximately a year after an event described in the Providence Journal on August 15, 1999 by Assistant Managing Editor Tim Murphy, as follows:

"IT'S BEEN A TOUGH couple of weeks for the Boy Scouts in Rhode Island. The dispute over a gay Eagle Scout's job at Camp Yawgoog, followed by the arrest of a Scout leader on molestation charges, have saddened everyone involved with the organization.

The events have also given ammunition to critics who view the Boy Scouts as a sexist, homophobic organization that is, at the least, outdated, if not vaguely sinister.

Murphy never once addressed the problem of the Scout leader who was arrested for molesting the boys. In fact, his article seems to castigate anyone in Rhode Island who would have a problem with a Scoutmaster who sexually molested the boys in his charge.

Journal publisher Howard Sutton was asked about the issue of corporate money going to the Boy Scouts, since the Journal had donated money to the Scouts. However, "the gay controversy" gives him pause. He was quoted as saying that he was "struck by the organization's basing its policy on a 1910 oath saying Scouts must be "morally straight..... In my opinion, 'morally straight' should not exclude gays from being in the Scouts."

Since a Scoutmaster molesting the scouts didn't seem to phase his Assistant Managing Editor, I suppose we could expect the paper's publisher to see no problem with a Scoutmaster sexually molesting the boys in his troops. The interesting thing about this sudden concern for a non-discrimatory "policy" is how totally focused on the Boy Scouts the policy is. I asked several of the United Way spokespersons to read their "non-discrimination" statement. The New Jersey United Way told me that their "policy" was New Jersey State law which states:

". The Legislature finds and declares that practices of discrimination against any of its inhabitants, because of race, creed, color, national origin, ancestry, age, sex, affectional or sexual orientation, marital status, familial status, liability for service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or nationality, are matters of concern to the government of the State, and that such discrimination threatens not only the rights and proper privileges of the inhabitants of the State but menaces the institutions and foundation of a free democratic State; provided, however, that nothing in this expression of policy prevents the making of legitimate distinctions between citizens and aliens when required by federal law or otherwise necessary to promote the national interest.

What that means is that, while ordinary folk cannot discriminate because of race, creed, color, national origin, ancestry, age, affectional or sexual orientation, marital status, familian status, liability for service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or nationality, the feds can, and of course, they DO.

I asked a couple of the United Way spokesmen if they helped fund the Girl Scouts or Girls' Clubs, or Women's shelters. They proudly announced that they did. I asked how they could fund organizations like the Women's shelters, which do not allow males, when they felt they could not fund the Boy Scouts because they did not allow homosexuals. I was quickly told that they also fund Men's shelters. I pointed out that if they felt it necessary to de-fund the Boy Scouts because of its policy of being only for boys, those willing to repeat an oath about their "duty to God" and being "morally straight," logic would certainly impel them to also de-fund the Girl Scouts, Girls' Clubs, Women's Shelters, and Men's Shelters. Apparently neither of them had thought about those implications of this modern law about "discrimination."

What appears to be happening, of course, is that some organizations ARE signing the "pledge" but have no intention of abandoning their current practice of

They also were not willing to admit that this new "policy" was in response to threats and pressures from a small well-organized pressure group that has been working to seize control of and undermine the Boy Scouts of America. Having lost in the Courts, they now hope make freedom too expensive for the Scouts to continue to champion.

If the Boy Scouts surrender to the intimidation, the finest organization for boys that exists in this country will be destroyed. The unintended consequences of that destruction will be devastating.

To comment: mmostert@originalsources.com .