Queering the Scouts


 

This was a right-wing nightmare that rivaled the image of Barbara
Bush and Nancy Reagan announcing that they are lovers on National Coming Out Day, or
Kenneth Starr excusing himself as Special Prosecutor because he had walked that mile in
Monica’s kneepads. This may have been even worse. This was about those iconographic
models of young American manhood, those paragons of preparedness and patriarchy: the Boy
Scouts.

On March 2, 1998 the New Jersey Appellate Court ruled that the Boy
Scouts of America (BSA) violated the state’s anti-discrimination law by ousting James
Dale—a highly commended Eagle Scout with 11 years of scouting and 30 merit badges
behind him—from the organization in 1990 after his name appeared in a newspaper as
co-chair of the Lesbian/Gay Alliance of Rutgers University. The three judge decision
overturned a 1995 ruling by NJ District Court Judge Patrick J. McGann that upheld the
BSA’s decision to terminate Dale’s relationship with the Scouts, claiming that
"[t]here is absolutely no evidence before us, empirical or otherwise, supporting the
conclusion that a gay Scoutmaster, solely because he is homosexual, does not possess the
strength of character necessarily to properly care for, or to impart BSA’s
humanitarian ideals to young boys." They also stated that, because the BSA recruits
members nationwide and because they meet in public spaces such as schools and churches
they were, like hotels or restaurants, public accommodations and subject to the
state’s anti-discrimination laws. Needless to say, the BSA is appealing the decision.

The high of the New Jersey victory was dampened just 20 days later
when the California Supreme Court ruled that the Boy Scouts of America can exclude
homosexuals, agnostics, and atheists from their ranks because they are a private
membership group which is not covered by the state’s civil rights or
anti-discrimination laws. The decisions were in two separate cases. Timothy Curren had
brought suit, claiming that he had been unlawfully rejected as a teenager by the Scouts in
1981 when his Scoutmaster discovered he was gay. The second California suit was brought by
Michael and William Randall who were barred from an Orange County Cub Scout den in 1990
when—at the age of nine—they refused to declare a belief in God.

One of the central legal questions in all of the cases revolved
around the status of the Boy Scouts of America as a private membership group who has the
right to exclude boys who do not fit their criteria. The California Supreme Court’s
unanimous decision was that the BSA was a private business with the right to restrict
membership. This was a new direction for the State’s Supreme Court that in the recent
past had ruled that Boys Clubs and a private country club were, in fact, business
establishments because their buildings and programs were open to the public. This new
direction was made clear in separate opinions by two Justices who stated that they would
advise the Court to overrule its earlier decisions about the Boys Club and country club
and to narrow the definition of "business establishments," and by extension the
ability of people to use anti-discrimination law and civil rights law to seek redress
under the rubric of "public accommodation."

In this sense, the Court’s pro-BSA ruling is in line with the
whittling away at statutes and judicial decisions that cover such issues as affirmation
action and laws that protect legal immigrants—thus implementing a vision of a more
privatized, restricting society that would allow (under the guise of a broadly interpreted
"freedom of association" argument) personal preference and prejudice to take
precedence over a more open vision of equal rights and accessibility. (Interestingly, the
rulings made a point of mentioning that while California civil rights law did not cover
the Scouts’ membership policies, the BSA was not "free to exclude boys from
membership on the basis of race, or other constitutionally suspect grounds, with
impunity," since other laws, including Federal tax laws granting tax-exempt status,
would apply.)

In contrast, the New Jersey Appellate Court argued that because the
Boy Scouts have over 5 million members nationwide (and over 90 million members since it
was formed in 1910), routinely use public buildings such as schools and churches, and
aggressively recruit membership with television and radio PSAs that they can be defined as
a public accommodation. Citing New Jersey case law—much of it from the mid-1960s when
racial discrimination was being successfully challenged in a wide range of venues, the
Appellate Court found no reason why the BSA should fall into the category of a
"private club or business."

The BSA responded that its membership practices and policies do not
"reflect an open and unrestricted invitation to the community at large to join
"the organization," and that membership is "redistricted to those willing
and able to understand and live by the Scout Oath and Scout Law." They also pointed
to BSA policies that explicitly deny open homosexual membership in the Scouts. A 1978
policy statement that was not made public, but was addressed to executive committee
members, stated that, "an individual who declares himself to be a homosexual would
not be selected to be a volunteer scout leader, be registered as a unit member, or be
employed as a professional or non-professional."

A 1993 Position Statement stated: "The Boy Scouts of America
does not ask prospective members about their sexual preference, nor do we check on the
sexual orientation of boys who are already Scouts. The reality is that Scouting serves
children who have no knowledge of, or interest in, sexual preference. We allow youth to
love as children and enjoy Scouting and its diversity without emerging them in the
politics of the day." But, they added: "The Boy Scouts of America has always
reflected the expectations that Scouting families have had for the organization. We do not
believe that homosexuals provide a role model consistent with these expectations.
Accordingly, we do not allow for the registration of avowed homosexuals as members or as
leaders of the BSA."

These arguments were essentially moot once the NJ Appellate Court
had decided that the BSA was a public accommodation, but the judges addressed them as
well. The Boy Scouts of America were arguing that they were being denied their
"freedom of expressive association" by not being able to discriminate against
homosexuals; that their essential moral and social message would be sullied or diminished
because of the presence of gay boys and men. Aside from the Position Statement, the BSA
noted that, according to their oath, Scouts had to be "morally straight" and
"clean"—both of which were incompatible with being a homosexual.

The tone of the Appellate Court’s rejoinder was both patient
and startling sharp. Noting again that with a national membership of over five million,
the BSA was hardly espousing one social or moral message. Further they claimed that since
it is an "undisputed fact that the BSA’s collective ‘expressive
purpose’ is not to condemn homosexuality [and] its reason to be is not to provide a
public forum for its members to espouse the benefits of heterosexuality and the
‘evils’ of the homosexual lifestyle" their "freedom of expressive
association" was not being hindered. In fact, they claimed, the general moral
precepts of the Scouting movement—honesty, truthfulness, leadership,
integrity—are "in many respects compatible with the purposes sought to be
achieved by the LAD" (New Jersey’s anti-discrimination law).

When addressing the anti-gay Position Statement, the court was
downright hostile. Because the Statement was drafted in 1993—amid a flurry of suits
against the BSA by homosexuals—they claimed that "it is not unrealistic to view
these Position Statements as a litigation stance taken by the BSA rather then an
expression of a fundamental belief concerning its purpose." After accusing the BSA of
easily exposed moral posturing, the Appellate Court then went after the earlier decision
by Judge Patrick J. McGann, in which he argued that James Dale was an "active
sodomite" (even though he also admitted that since New Jersey had no sodomy law, this
was a legal activity) and "cited the Judeo-Christian tradition condemning sodomy as a
‘grave serious wrong’." It was—in McGann’s logic—this
"wrong" that rendered James Dale not "clean" and certainly not
"morally straight." Through a legal and linguistic slight of hand the Appellate
Court claimed that Dale was kicked out of the Scouts because he was "an avowed
homosexual" not because he was an "active sodomite" and that homosexuality
per se was, in essence, morally neutral and not in variance with the Scouts moral
precepts.

It is at this point that the New Jersey Appellate Court decision
becomes a startling legal and social document. The decision is not only a necessary and
bold retort to the blatant discrimination of the BSA and a direct challenge to the
pervasive homophobia that is entrenched in everyday life, but it is a radical revision of
how homosexuality, manliness, and morality are conceptualized. It is a decision that,
while argued in clearly delineated legal terms, carries with it much broader implications.

But these implications (as well as the Court decision) are
overshadowed by a basic irony: Lord Robert Baden-Powell, the founder of the Scouts, was a
homosexual and a pedophile. Tom Jeal’s The Boy-Man<D>, <D>a
1990 biography, details Baden-Powell’s attraction to, and likely affairs with,
teenage boys, as well as his fondness for nude boy photos and requirements that Scouts in
his care should bathe outside naked. Today Baden-Powell would have made the top ten on a
Sex Offenders Registry list.

But Baden-Powell’s homosexuality is a superficial irony
compared to the fact that despite what the New Jersey Supreme Court declares, the Boy
Scouts of America are essentially correct: homosexuality is completely incompatible with
the history, meaning, and intent of Scouting as it has been understood until now. How
could it be otherwise? As conceived of and organized by Lord Baden-Powell in 1907,
Scouting’s mission was to make boys moral, patriotic, and healthy. Beneath the more
benign rhetoric exhorting Scouts to "help others," "tell the truth,"
and "be kind to animals," Baden-Powell’s Scouting principles focused on
obedience to authority, doing your "duty to God and Country," and "being
pure in thought, word, and deed." Scouting—which Baden-Powell referred to as a
"character factory"—was a regiment to inculcate a deeply conservative,
secular Christianity that espoused a defensive nationalism, racial intolerance, and sexual
prohibitions. Scouting would turn out real men who would maintain the status-quo, and not
challenge prevailing social standards. When World War I erupted Scouting was seen as the
breeding ground of good soldiers.

As World War II began Baden-Powell’s repulsive political and
racial attitudes, which inform the history of Scouting but are clearly separate from it as
well, became even more evident. In 1937 Baden-Powell was eager for the scouting movement
to establish official ties with Hitler youth groups. In 1939 he noted in his diary:
"Lay up all day. Read Mein Kampf. A wonderful book, with good ideas on
education, health, propaganda, organization etc.—and ideals which Hitler does not
practice himself."

While the Boy Scouts today are certainly not a neo-Nazi group, nor
as paramilitary as they were in the past, many of Baden-Powell’s original ideas still
remain—especially those that inform how "real men" are made in the
character factory. The Scout’s "duty to God" is defined, even now, by the
most narrow of moralities. (Although in California it is determinate to BSA membership.)
The injunction to be "pure in thought, word, and deed" reflected its founders
repressive views of sexuality (including an obsession with stopping masturbation among
Scouts) and allowed only reproductive heterosexual intercourse within marriage.

Such views are still at the heart of the BSA’s stand against
homosexuality. In their 1990 letter expelling Dale from the organization they claimed he
had "violated a provision of the Scout oath to remain ‘morally straight’
and a mandate under Scout law that members remain ‘clean’." Simply put, the
Boy Scouts are about manufacturing real men, and homosexuals are not "real men"
by their definition.

The Court’s challenge to the BSA’s anti-gay stance is not
just about homosexual rights, but is emblematic of a much larger cultural battle over how
society defines masculinity. While coached in the legal terms of "public
accommodation" and "discrimination" the Appellate Court’s ruling
represents a wresting away from the Boy Scouts of their patent on issuing the only
"real men" from the character factory. "Morally straight" and
"clean" are code words reinforcing stifling traditions of masculinity,
traditions accepted by fewer and fewer people.

In conjunction with this bid to redefine masculinity, the Appellate
Court’s ruling also contests the ever popular and still prevalent idea that gay men
are a menace to children. The Appellate court accuses Judge McGann of unfairly raising
"the sinister and unspoken fear that gay scout leaders will somehow cause physical or
emotional injury to scouts." They respond that "such assumptions, predicated on
stereotypical generalizations, rather than fact, cannot be employed as "shorthand
measures" in place of legitimate factors justifying First Amendment protection. This
is the question that hangs over the entire proceedings. The charge of child molestation is
intrinsic to how homophobia is constructed in our society, and any challenge to it is
welcome and necessary. Ironically, it is a change that has gained more credibility since
gay people have been struggling for their basic civil rights, and one which Lord
Baden-Powell never had to face in his own lifetime.

In their final paragraphs the Appellate Judges articulate an irony
that explodes the BSA’s unconscionable hypocrisy: "In our view, there is a
patent inconsistency in the notion that a gay Scout leader who keeps his
‘secret’ hidden may remain in Scouting and the one who adheres to Scout laws by
being honest and courageous enough to declare his homosexuality must be expelled." By
simply imagining—presuming—that homosexuality is natural and morally neutral,
the New Jersey Appellate Court has radically reordered how the world works: homosexuality
is now "clean," children may gain benefit from gay Scoutmasters, and coming out
is being honest and truthful.

Baden-Powell’s character factory—with its corrupt notion
of what it means to be moral, truthful, and honest—is in the too-slow process of
finally shutting down; it is a process that has been going on for years. The BSA’s
demand to continue to define "real men" is a last ditch effort to hold on to and
promote outdated, ugly values. In years to come it will seem—like Baden-Powell’s
attraction to Hitler Youth and Mein Kampf—simply repulsive.