Is The Boy Scouts of America Public or Private?

[berkshirescouter]

Interesting commentary on Fox News.com.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,164547,00.html

[GernBlansten]

The solution is simple. The Boy Scouts should cease to accept tax-funding and cut all official ties to government agencies. The Boy Scouts should live up to its self-declared status as a private organization. This would also be living up to the Boy Scouts' principles: it is the honest and honorable thing to do.

 

Sure seems clear to me. Could be the libertarian in me though.

[packsaddle]

She is right on. Perhaps BSA is counting on the good-ole-boy system to sustain them. And it might. But it would be better for BSA to take the action she proposed and come clean on the 'private club' status. Like Linda Hills says, BSA shouldn't expect to have it both ways. BSA should be more honest and make the 'private club' a truly private club.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

She makes the common mistake of apparently assuming that the United Negro College Fund does not grant scholarships to white students:

 

http://www.uncf.org/aboutus/faqs.asp

...

Q: Does UNCF only support African American education?

 

A: UNCF was founded to address the funding inequities regarding educational resources for African Americans. UNCF believes in higher education opportunities for all Americans, however. Though most funding supports African American students, UNCF member schools do not discriminate and UNCF administered scholarships are open to all ethnic groups.

...

 

Other than that, I've been saying the same thing for years.

[evmori]

If the BSA declares is a private organization, do they have to stop accepting funding from the government & other public sources?

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[GernBlansten]

If the BSA declares is a private organization, do they have to stop accepting funding from the government & other public sources?

 

That's exactly what they have been doing Ed. They use the private org label for membership policy, but take public funds like a public entity. The article suggests that BSA quit taking public money and act like any other private organization should.

 

If BSA wants to use public funds, then they must adjust their membership policies to be inclusive to the public, not discriminatory. That's the ACLU's arguement and like it or not, it's absolutely correct.

[stlscouter]

Coming from a Canadian writer-

 

My understanding of the Senate Bill is that it passed 98-0 (2 abstentions, one republican -one democrat) and that the wording is such that the BSA will only recieve that support as has been traditional. It is iinteresting that Kennedy, Boxer, Feinstein, Clinton et al all voted for this amendment.

 

Our Local council has been doing the Scouting for Food since it's inception-last tear 2.1 Million cans and consolidated these collections at local firehouses where they were boxed and up until last year picked up by the National Guard (this year the Guard unit was in Iraq and not available)for delivery to the various food pantries. You object to this use of government resources?

[GernBlansten]

I don't see how the Scouting for Food is accepting public funds for the benefit of BSA. Sound to me like a cooperative between public and private orgs to service the public good. Does BSA gain financially from this effort?

[stlscouter]

Gern-I don't know how to calculate the value of good deeds

 

Other threads have discussed the value of the training the government gets by helping to setup A. P. Hill (a 40,000 person city for a 10 day use period) and the contribution of$20 million by the BSA over the years. FEMA etc would only this opportunity if there were a major evacuation or tradedy somewhere and then it wouldn't be for training.

 

aside-The ACLU and the courts do look at the votes when a law has been passed, to some degree to get the sense of the strength (depth) of the support it had to become law. That being said, I believe the ACLU will take pause before filing another suit on this issue.

 

By the way, The Eastern Missouri Chapter of the ACLU elected a(n) (former) Eagle Scout as its president over the weekend. Ray Hartman.

 

I really do have trouble with the balancing act of the good things that the BSA does against the percieved slights some folks feel by not modifyig their behavior but rather trying to change the BSA

[Prairie_Scouter]

It looks like the intent is to bury the amendment in the Defense Authorization Bill for now. The amendment, along with a bunch of others, passed and were added, but the bill is nowhere near complete at this point, it appears. So, everyone can vote for the amendment right now and get political cover, but who knows what will happen once the bill gets into committee? I suspect it'll survive because no one in Congress wants to vote against the Boy Scouts, and they'll let the courts hash it out later.

 

Of course, the other side of the private/public debate would be for BSA to continue accepting federal and local support, and declare that they are a public organization, which would make even more funding available to them. Let's remember that this amounts to making just a couple of policy changes, and these could be done by making use of the "local option" which has been discussed on the forum several times. BSA itself "un-mandates" the anti-gay policy and the anti-atheist policy, and lets the local chartering organizations make that decision. The vast majority of the Scout program, the part that actually affects the Scouts on an everyday basis, requires very little change to support this. BSA extinguishes a long burning political fire, while allowing those chartering organizations that wish to continue with those policies, to do so. Seems like the best of both worlds to me.

[evmori]

So it a school district wants to donate $$$ to the BSA they can't do it?(This message has been edited by evmori)

[stlscouter]

I realize that the passage by the Senate only sends it to committee but my understanding is that the HOR passed its version overwhelingly also. I submit that the compromises may be very small, abeit important.

 

I also understand the local option as presented but I pose this (other threads have skirted this) but; by changing the policy at any level what will the gain/loss be 1. membership wise 2. financially 3. public confidence/support/accountability. Just a question.

 

By extension;

If one keeps expandig the argument where does the goverment support end and what by definition is government support- My proposal would be to exempt the BSA because it is non-profit. Do the same for all other non-profit orgs. Could one suspect that if National BSA changes policy, the next set of lawsuits will be application and inclusion of the BSA under Title lX?

 

Since for some it is not the changing of these rules or policy it is a Utopian Vision as guided by communism (small c)eg. give all you have take only that which the state dictates you need. Ridiculous LOL Can't happen here..or could it? Random thought-sorry.

 

I'm also reminded that those who regularly

pass laws and judge us in the courts exempt themselves from those very laws. (Congress and the Supreme Court are not bound by the 1964 Civil Rights Act) And Medicare and other federal payments are made to faith based hospitals, who allow doctors to not do abortions. Or why do church vans and buses display a handicap tag and get to park in special places when the driver or the passengers (usually old people from age discriminatory retirement villages)are not handicapped? Again random thoughts-sorry.(This message has been edited by stlscouter)

[Hunt]

In fact, BSA has already taken strong steps toward cutting its ties to government support. The most important one, of course, is the decision that it will no longer have units sponsored by government entities. That's really the big one. The others are more dependant on the particular facts. For example, private groups, even discriminatory ones (like churches)can use, rent, and lease government property under appropriate circumstances. The courts will have to decide whether a particular lease is an improper "sweetheart deal" or an "arm's-length agreement." Also, there is nothing wrong with public-private partnerships, even if the private entity is "faith-based." Thus, there is no problem with something like Scouting for Food. Also, various non-profits, including religious groups, accept government grants for particular social services--although they have to live with certain restrictions. BSA can do the same.

As I see it, after moving the units out of government sponsorship, the only really big issue left is Jamboree. BSA could short-circuit the debate by holding it somewhere else--or they could appeal the decision, and probably win. The Supreme Court will probably accept the training and other arguments, in my opinion.

Really, the people who have been fighting the Boy Scouts should declare victory with the unit sponsorship change, because they now face the risk that a more conservative Congress and Supreme Court will swing the pendulum back the other way if they continue to push.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

sltscouter writes:

My proposal would be to exempt the BSA because it is non-profit. Do the same for all other non-profit orgs.

 

Non-profit orgs include e.g. the Catholic Youth Foundation, which only serves Catholics and ministers to Catholic youth. You can't use government funds to discriminate on the basis of religion, whether it's the BSA or the CYF, even if they are non-profit organizations.

 

[evmori]

So if the a branch of government (local, state or federal) donated money to BSA unit with no strings attached, the BSA unit would not be allowed to accept it?

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10