The Supreme Court ruled in 2000 that the
New Jersey public accommodations law, which required the Boy Scouts of America to admit James Dale as a gay scout leader, violates the BSA's First Amendment right of expressive association. This means, in other words, that the Supreme Court has allowed the BSA leaders to discriminate based on sexual orientation and to teach young Americans that homosexuality is immoral.
But clearly, the BSA leaders are wrong. Not only that, the Supreme Court is wrong.
For one, neither the Scout Law nor the Scout Oath, both guiding tenets of the organization, mentions homosexuality. Not even their definitions of being "morally straight" and "clean" (two main objectives to which all Scouts are expected to adhere) mention sexuality.
The original mission of the BSA -- "to serve others by helping to instill values in young people and, in other ways, to prepare them to make ethical choices over their lifetime in achieving their full potential" -- has not been represented in more current statements made by Scout leaders. After dismissing Dale in 1990, the BSA issued statements asserting that homosexuality is not consistent with its expectations, though it had never made such judgments public in the past.
Even if Scout leaders hadn't erred in their interpretation of the organization's true mission, the Supreme Court still misinterpreted the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.
Undeniably, the First Amendment must be protected, for freedom remains one of the most important principles of this country. However, we must not let vagueness cover the tracks of discriminators.
The Court ruled that since the BSA does not wish to promote homosexuality, it is under no obligation to allow gays to represent the organization (because of the right of expressive association). Permitting a gay leader, according to the Supreme Court case "Boy Scouts of America, et al. v. Dale," "would interfere with the Scouts' choice not to propound a point of view contrary to its beliefs."
But Dale's sexual preference surely had little -- if any -- influence over the members of his troop; his homosexuality did nothing to interfere with the BSA's mission. An active Scout since age eight, when he joined as a Cub Scout, until his prestigious rank of Eagle Scout, Dale was surprised to hear about the revocation of his membership.
So, the wrongdoing is obvious. Dale's sexual identity did nothing to harm the BSA's mission, and thus the New Jersey law -- "a state statute prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in places of public accommodation" -- certainly does not interfere with BSA's right of expressive association.
Indeed, when ruling in favor of the right of expressive association, the Court must "inquire whether the group is, in fact, expressing a message (whatever it may be) and whether that message (if one is expressed) is significantly affected by a State's antidiscrimination law," according to Justice Stevens, in the case's dissenting opinion. And the BSA's message certainly was not affected; Dale should not have been expelled.
Still, as the case went all the way to the Supreme Court, it's evident that the situation is far less than simple. A complicated organization, the BSA, while a private volunteer group, has the qualities of a rather public organization. "The BSA is allowed to recruit at public schools [and] the National Jamboree takes place on an Army base in Virginia," Eagle Scout Rob Karl '03 said.
Clearly prominent in places of public accommodation and clearly the recipient of government aid, the BSA should be held to the standards of the law, if not higher. They should not be teaching young boys that homosexuality is wrong, a lesson detrimental to both gay and straight youth. They should not force their most active and dedicated members to question the position of the organization.
"I'm less opposed to the Supreme Court decision than to the policy in the first place," Karl said. "The problem here is that the definition of the BSA [that has been] put into place was decided upon by a group of Scouters in Texas The views of the decision-makers in Irving, [Texas] reflect those of many Scouts and Scouters, yes, but I do not think that it is a majority consensus."
It's too bad that an organization that has done so much for so many young men is being tainted by the ignorant views of a few members. "What scares me is that the BSA is going to be pushed out of the mainstream and into the fringes," Karl said. "I still believe that the BSA is the greatest organization for youth that exists in this country."
And the Supreme Court should not let this "great" organization continue its legal and moral wrongdoing. The judges should not waste their time distorting the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment; they should focus on requiring such a prominent and active group to adhere to quite basic standards of humanity.
The harm of prejudices against and misconceptions of homosexuals, as well as others, will only be "aggravated by the creation of a constitutional shield for a policy that is itself the product of a habitual way of thinking about strangers," Stevens wrote in his dissent. "If we would guide by the light of reason, we must let our minds be bold."
