Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 17:04:14 -0700 From: Jean Richter Subject: 10/25/99 P.E.R.S.O.N. Project news 1. NJ: Column on Boy Scout court decision 2. MTV airing PSA against anti-gay harassment 3. CA: Lawsuit against San Leandro teacher dismissed ========================================================== Chronicle of Philanthropy, September 23, 1999 1255 23rd Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 20037 (E-Mail: editor@philanthropy.com ) ( http://www.philanthropy.com ) A Fair and Just Verdict in Boy Scouts Case By Evan Wolfson The New Jersey Supreme Court's unanimous decision against the Boy Scouts of America's anti-gay policy stands as a persuasive, respectful, and important vindication both of members' rights and civil-rights laws. But Leslie Lenkowsky's opinion piece on the case ("Let Scouts, not Courts, Determine Beliefs," August 26) made it sound as if the court had somehow done something radically new in upholding the state Law Against Discrimination and rejecting a specious First Amendment claim. In fact, Chief Justice Deborah Poritz, a Republican appointee, writing for the court, delivered a "win-win-win": a win for my client James Dale, who, because he is gay, was expelled from the organization in which he spent more than half his life; a win for the other gay young people who deserve the support, inclusion, skills, and opportunities this valuable program represents; and a win for all Scouts, who join Scouting to be with others of different backgrounds learning to do good, not to be part of bigotry. First, the court correctly held that, although "private" (in the sense of not owned by the government), Boy Scouts of America is properly subject to the anti-discrimination law as a "place of public accommodation" because it is large (over six million youth and adult members at present), holds itself out as "open to all boys," and has a close and beneficial -- indeed special -- relationship with government entities such as schools, police and fire departments, and the military. Boy Scouts of America is not some club meeting in a tree house; it is a Congressionally chartered organization that seeks and accepts special privileges from every level of government -- and goes to funders holding itself out as the Boy Scouts of America, not the anti-gay Scouts for some Americans. Second, the justices unanimously rejected Boy Scouts of America's effort to use the First Amendment as a shield, relying on the U.S. Supreme Court's framework for balancing the compelling government interest in the eradication of discrimination and expressive associational freedom. Under that framework (established in cases rejecting efforts by groups like the Jaycees and the Rotary to exclude women, as well as prior cases involving discrimination against racial minorities), a court weighing First Amendment claims must test their validity by looking at the core "expressive purposes" that brought the members together, not just a "policy" proclaimed by a group's officers, board, or lawyers. If courts were to abdicate making such assessments, as Mr. Lenkowsky recommends, then any would-be discriminator would simply claim the protections of the First Amendment at the drop of a hat, and there would be no further recourse to civil-rights laws for any American in the face of blatant discrimination. The New Jersey Supreme Court followed the U.S. Supreme Court's precedents rejecting such an abdication, which were laid out in three back-to-back unanimous decisions in the mid-1980s joined by Justices Warren Burger, William Rehnquist, Sandra Day O'Connor, and Antonin Scalia. Moreover, the New Jersey Supreme Court did not, as Mr. Lenkowsky suggests, ignore Boy Scouts of America's expressive purposes. Rather, it sifted the voluminous record and noted three proofs that Boy Scouts' expressive purposes do not entail anti-gay bigotry and exclusion: (1) not a single document seen by the members (not the Scout Handbook, application, manuals, or even the Web site) mentions that the Boy Scouts of America stands for such exclusion; indeed, in seeking special privileges and wide-open membership, Boy Scouts of America declares itself to be "open to all boys"; (2) since 20 per cent of the Scout troops in New Jersey are sponsored by public schools while other troops are sponsored by entities such as churches and synagogues that differ widely in their views on gay people, sexuality, and other matters, clearly anti-gay prejudice and discrimination -- or even any particular religious identity -- are not what bring the members together in Scouting; (3) the true and important mission of Boy Scouts of America is fun activities, development of skills, building teamwork and a sense of self, and teaching the values contained in the Scout Handbook definition of "morally straight": "guide your life with honesty, purity, and justice. Respect and defend the rights of all people. Your relationships with others should be open and honest." All three of these proofs, as well as the stellar Scouting career of James Dale himself, demonstrated that by Scouting's own words, deeds, and standards, a person does not have to be "straight" to be "morally straight" or a good Scout. Accordingly, the court correctly found there is no true First Amendment problem with enforcement of the civil-rights law, as abiding by the non-discrimination law would not force Boy Scouts of America to change its central message or purposes, nor interfere with the worthwhile activities and values for which its members join. One further point deserves mention. Whether or not the U.S. Supreme Court takes this case if Boy Scouts of America appeals, which it says it will do, and whether or not Boy Scouts of America ultimately is deemed to have a special license to discriminate based on the First Amendment, the litigation has exposed the gap between the way Boy Scouts of America presents itself to schools and funders and how its lawyers portray it when in court. The question for philanthropies is not whether Boy Scouts of America has a legal right to discriminate, but whether funding should support the faction in Boy Scouts of America that is trying now to make it into a program that excludes members based on their sexual orientation (despite telling schools and others they are "open to all boys"), who go into court arguing that Boy Scouts of America is a quasi-religious organization (despite its Congressional charter, its diverse membership and sponsorship, and its own Handbook requirement of pluralism), and who seek to be exempt from anti-discrimination laws and thus free to discriminate on the basis of race or religion, as well as sexual orientation (despite its central teaching to "respect and defend the rights of others"). By speaking out now, philanthropies can help bring Scouting back to what its members already believe it is: a valuable organization about community service, skills, and respect for all, not bigotry and exclusion. Evan Wolfson is the senior staff attorney at Lambda Legal Defense & Education Fund, in New York and is the head lawyer in the James Dale v. Boy Scouts of America case. ================================================================================ Associated Press, October 3, 1999 Mother Launches Anti-Harassment Ads By SHELLEY HILL ATLANTA (AP) -- The mother of Matthew Shepard, the gay college student who was beaten and left for dead, launched a public service announcement Sunday aimed at curbing anti-gay taunting. [Deleted article. filemanager@qrd.org] ........................................................... Visit the GLSEN Blackboard online: http://www.glsen.org/ Past GLSENAlert posts are archived on the GLSEN Blackboard: http://www.glsen.org/pages/sections/news/glsenalert/ ........................................................... TO SUBSCRIBE OR UNSUBSCRIBE You may add or remove yourself from this mailing list by going to: http://www.glsen.org/pages/sections/news/glsenalert/ If you have problems or questions, you can contact the list server administrator at: ........................................................... =========================================================================== Daily Review, October 5, 1999 Alameda County Newspaper Group Newspapers 116 West Winton Avenue,Hayward,CA 94544-1211 (Fax 510-783-6111 ) (E-MAIL: khulac@angnewspapers.com ) ( http://www.dailyreview-ang.com ) Court rejects gay talk lawsuit San Leandro parents objected By JEFF CHORNEY, Staff Writer e-mail: jchorney@angnewspapers.com A federal court has thrown out a lawsuit filed by San Leandro parents who say a teacher used class time to indoctrinate their child with his gay agenda. [Deleted article. filemanager@qrd.org] Jeff Chorney is the courts, crime and public safety reporter. To reach him, call (510)293-2463 or send e-mail to jchorney@angnewspapers.com. =================================================================================== Jean Richter -- richter@eecs.berkeley.edu The P.E.R.S.O.N. Project (Public Education Regarding Sexual Orientation Nationally) These messages are archived by state on our information-loaded free web site: http://www.youth.org/loco/PERSONProject/