Philly council looking at revised anti-bias policy

[MarkNoel 10]

Looks like the Cradle of Liberty Council in Philadelphia is working towards a new non-discrimination policy based on the one currently in use by Greater New York Council:

 

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/7538923.htm

 

 

Cradle of Liberty Council officials would not release a copy of the proposed policy, but they did say it was fashioned after one crafted by the Greater New York Councils in February 2002.

 

That policy states, in part: "All of our members repeatedly pledge to respect all people and defend the rights of others. Prejudice, intolerance, and unlawful discrimination in any form are unacceptable within the ranks of the Greater New York Councils, Boy Scouts of America."

 

"That's the model," said Cradle of Liberty executive director William T. Dwyer 3d. "Until the city is satisfied, we can't let anything out, until things are officially ironed out," he said.

 

David H. Lipson Jr., board chairman of the local council, said he thought the new policy would be sustainable, unlike the first antidiscrimination policy that the group withdrew after pressure from the national group.

 

[evmori 11]

Oh goody! Just what we need. Another PC council.

[scoutldr 726]

It took me two seconds to recognize the operative term, "unlawful discrimination". Unless the Supreme Court reverses its decision, the BSA policy is, by definition, lawful and constitutional. And unless the city changes its policy regarding public accomodation, I see nothing changing.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Actually, I didnt think the BSA had any PC Council's, don't all have to follow no Avowed Homosexuals? Which ones don't?

 

Just asking,

[evmori 11]

The language the NY council used is about as PC as it gets. Let's not hurt anyone's feelings! Bull!

 

[acco40 95]

I've got a great policy statement that they could use: "All our members pledge to be trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent."

 

respect all people => helpful, friendly, courteous, kind

 

defend the rights of others => trustworthy, loyal, brave

 

prejudice, intolerance are unacceptable => courteous, kind

 

unlawful descrimination is unacceptable => obedient

(This message has been edited by acco40)

[evmori 11]

Good point acco! If the council agrees to follow the Scout law, that should be good enough! And since the Supreme Court ruled the BSA was not violating any laws by not allowing gays membership the unlawful discrimination line no longer applies! Excellent!

 

Ed Mori

A blessed Christmas to all!

1 Peter 4:10(This message has been edited by evmori)

[OldGreyEagle 5]

OK Ed, you meant the PC wording, not actually allowing gays, sorry, with all the rush of the moment, I was confused

 

Exhilaro Natalis Natalis Jesu

[NJCubScouter 1389]

This all seems like a lot of meaningless wheel-spinning to me. The national policy is what it is, at least for now, and national has made very clear that councils have to abide by it, period. It seems to me that the Cradle of Liberty Council, out of a legitimate concern for losing its rent-free building and other resources, is trying to "trick" the city government, charitable organizations and others into thinking that it is not going to discriminate against gay people, while saying nothing that actually contradicts the national policy. It sounds like the city isn't buying it anyway, one of the other paragraphs that Mark did not quote says:

 

Christine Ottow, spokeswoman for the Street administration, said that city representatives had seen the new policy, but it was not yet acceptable. She said the Boy Scouts were going to go back and revise it. No further meetings are scheduled at this point.

 

And then there is the stuff about the secret "second paragraph." It's just game-playing. I suspect that there is also game-playing going on about what the New York Council "policy" actually is, as opposed to the vague words on paper. I'd be willing to bet that national is watching and listening very closely to see what the New York Council is actually doing if and when any openly gay leaders show up. I'd be very surprised if the actual practice is any different from what national wants it to be, even though public agencies in New York may be misled to believe otherwise.

 

It all doesn't strike me as being very... oh, I don't know... trustworthy?

 

 

[Big_Dog 10]

NJ

I agree, it doesn't sound very trustworthy. Whatever happened to just being straight-forward - say what you mean and mean what you say. If the Philly council wants to allow avowed homosexuals to be leaders, do it. Break off from BSA and just do it. Don't be mealy-mouthed, don't try to deceive folks about your intent, jump one way or the other. My ole granpappy used to say that the only thing straddlin' a fence will get you is a sore rear end. (not exactly like that, but...)

 

bd

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Big Dog says:

 

If the Philly council wants to allow avowed homosexuals to be leaders, do it. Break off from BSA and just do it.

 

Well, I am sure you know that if they did that, they would not be the "Philly council" anymore... they would just be a bunch of men and women who want to provide the Scouting program for the boys and young men of their area, but who would have no legal right to use the name Boy Scouting (not sure about just "Scouting") or any of the program, uniforms, facilities, camps, money etc. etc. They'd have to start from scratch. And I'm not complaining about that, I just want to make sure that when everybody else reads your suggestion that they "break off," that everybody understands what that really means. There is no "breaking off." What they would really be doing is quitting and trying to start a new organization from the ground up. Some have done so, and some may do so in the future, but I really don't think this is what the leaders of the Cradle of Liberty council have in mind. They want to continue to be "Boy Scouts" but in a way that is compatible with the views of a majority of the people in THEIR community. Right now, BSA national is insisting that every community enforce a policy that MAY have support in a majority of communities in the country, but that clearly is NOT the view in EVERY community. They are trying to enforce a national policy when the entire nation does not have the same view of what that policy should be. Now, that in and of itself does not determine whether the national policy is right or wrong, and there's no need to repeat here what my view is on that subject. I'm just pointing out what the problem is, and I would think that we should all be able to agree that that (the absence of a nationwide consensus on whether it is right or wrong to excluse gay people) is the problem, regardless of how we individually would "solve" the problem.

 

Don't be mealy-mouthed, don't try to deceive folks about your intent, jump one way or the other.

 

Just so it's clear what my opinion is, I think national is participating in the deception. No, I can't prove it, at least not based on what I have read so far. The article posted in this thread does not really say whether national has a role in this process that is going on between the council and the city government. However, I would be shocked if the council were sending any proposed policy wording to the city without having it cleared by national. (I'll bet that the fax machines have been working overtime on both ends while all this has been going on.) In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the wording proposed by the council was the product of a negotiation between national and the council.

 

[NJCubScouter 1389]

If I could edit my posts, I would probably take out the word "deception" in the last post. I was really just responding to Big Dog's use of the word "deceive" and decided not to dispute his use of that word. I don't want people to jump on just one word and ignore the whole point of what I am saying, which happens on a regular basis around here. Whether any "deception" is intended is beside the point. I do think the wording is "clever," "diplomatic" and the council (and national) are trying to "finesse" the situation and make everybody "happy." (Happiness meaning in this case, not being evicted by the city from their rent-free building.) This sort of cleverness has characterized statements coming from national itself, as I have pointed out in the past when something new appears on their web site. In national's case, they are reasonably straightforward about what the policy is, but I think they are overly "clever" in phrasing the reasons for it. Here, the "cleverness" is about the policy itself (on the council level), with the idea being to create the impression that the council has a policy different from national in a way that really matters, when in fact they don't.

[scoutingagain 20]

NJ, I agree that this process is primarily "diplomatic" in the UN sense of the word. It seems all parties want a statement that is sufficiently vague so all can go back to their respective constituencies and say, "They agreed with us." and life can go on as before.

 

SA

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Ok, so what we are saying is COL will draft something bordering on the esoterical linguistical equivalent to ether.

 

Eveybody shakes hands and goes home happy to put this issue "to bed"

 

Then when James Dale ( I mean he is from New Jersey, he could still be around) or some other avowed Homosexual submits an adult application, its accepted?

 

No, it won't be accepted unless COL does start that rival faction. In any event all the participants will be interviwed, the Gays will say the Boy Scouts tricked us, the Boy Scouts will say we never promised them anything, our values are known.

 

Who comes off looking worse? To borrow from another thread, if Scouter Survior Lil was held to a higher standard, so should COL and the BSA. If we mean no gays, we say no gays, anything less is unscoutlike and just opens up another round of nightly news lead ins

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Scoutldr pointed right to the problem; the CofL council can't merely refrain from "unlawful discrimination" to get rent-free government property, they have to refrain from discrimination as required by the city's Fair Practices Ordinance, which would mean they can't discriminate against gays or atheists. And their new policy will get tested immediately as local groups press for the reinstatement of Greg Lattera, who is both gay and an atheist.

 

An organization that didn't practice discrimination would take about an hour to write an acceptable policy; the fact that this has dragged on for months should be an obvious sign that the CofL council can't meet the city's requirements no matter what they attempt to do.