Is The Boy Scouts of America Public or Private?

[Rooster7 11]

I don't understand the debate.

 

The BSA IS a private organization. The BSA has no obligation, legally or ethically, to declare that fact. They are - what they are. To the contrary, if they declared themselves to be a public organization, it would be lie. Furthermore, the appropriate government agencies would be encumbered to rectify that distortion and perhaps even levy penalties against the BSA. The claim of being a public entity is not the same claim as being open to the public. Most theme parks are open to the public. However, they are not public parks.

 

As to any help the BSA may receive from the government, it is the responsibility of the sponsoring agencies to determine whether or not their help is appropriate and legal. Again, the BSA is not acting unethically or illegally when they accept help from the government. It is not their job to determine whether or not such aid is legal its the governments duty.

 

As to this claim - The BSA is unethical because they accept public assistance yet they do not accept homosexuals, all religious faiths, or atheists. It is a ridiculous notion. First, as I have ready noted, it is the governments job (more pointedly, the appropriate agencies, and possibly those in our judicial system) to determine whether or not such aid is legal. Second, this claim rests on ones interpretation of the Constitution and some court rulings. Its ludicrous to assume that the BSA would have the same understanding of these legal matters as those who criticize them. Not because it hinders their current operations, but because these matters are not clear-cut. Third, despite the assertion of some, many in and out of our government believe that this kind of aid (given to the BSA) IS perfectly legal that it does not constitute the establishment of a state religion.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[OldGreyEagle 5]

If a governmental agency/unit in the area where I live donated money to the BSA, I would be livid. I do not expect my tax money, whether its to the school district or the township to be donanted to the Boy Scouts, the Girl Scout, the Y or any other private organization. I might have a beef with the Girl Scouts accepting lesbian leaders and don't want my money funding such a group. I may not like the way cattle are treated in slaughter houses and would have a real problem with a donation to the local 4-H. Why would any rational person want to have their money "laundered" by a govermental unit on its way to the Campfire girls? If I want them to have my money, I will give it to them so they get all of it

 

Ed, do you know of governmental units that donate money to youth organizations where you live?

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Rooster7 writes:

As to any help the BSA may receive from the government, it is the responsibility of the sponsoring agencies to determine whether or not their help is appropriate and legal. Again, the BSA is not acting unethically or illegally when they accept help from the government. It is not their job to determine whether or not such aid is legal its the governments duty.

 

Rooster7, here's where a BSA council accepted government aid, and signed a nondiscrimination agreement as part of that deal:

http://www.bsa-discrimination.org/Old_Blady_Complaint.pdf

 

Now, that council agreed they would not discriminate on the basis of religion in the use of that money, yet they used it for their religiously discriminatory Scout program, which is why they're being sued.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

I do think its disingenous of the BSA to sign a statement of non-discrimination to receive a grant when it knows it can't honor the non-discrimination clause of the grant application. Actually, such non-discrimination clauses are the reason Learning for Life was created as an non-discriminatory part of BSA.

 

In todays charged atmosphere, I think its not very prudent of the BSA to enter into contracts with the plan if its against the rules, we simply say we didnt know. We should know if what we do is legal or not

[Rooster7 11]

Merlyn,

 

Im not up to reading a 30 page summary of the case. I will take your word that the Old Baldy Council is guilty of signing an agreement which they did not intend to honor. However, this proves that this particular council acted unethically. I dont view it as being representative of the entire organization. Furthermore, Im not predisposed to believe that the signers of this agreement knew better from the onset. That is, I dont buy the argument that every council and/or its legal representation will always know with confidence how the courts will interpret specific wording of an agreement. Not every court will interpret every clause the same way. Im just saying that there is room for human error in this as opposed to someone acting unethically, i.e. fraudulently entering an agreement.

[jkhny 10]

There is a larger issue here. What is the purpose of BSA?

 

Doesn't BSA exist to serve and support BOY SCOUTING in the US?

 

What are the "ideals" of Scouting? (let's ignore the gay/athiest issue for now).

 

IMHO, if you preach independence and self-reliance you shouldn't WANT help from others- whoever they are.

 

If you steadfastly define yourself as "private" it seems that you'd TURN DOWN governmental aid on a matter of principle.

 

I am appalled to see a Council host "grant writing seminars" and hear a Cub Scout Pack talk of seeking a governmental grant to buy a Pinewood Derby track (and this is in an AFFLUENT AREA). I went out and built one - with boys hepling (and learning in the process).

 

Yet look at the effort now being put into "Learning for Life" - which seems to be a contrived program WITHOUT an natural free-market constituancy. Would ANYONE voluntarily enrol in LFL if funds weren't provided to PAY for "membership?" LFL seems to exist ONLY to let BSA collect politically directed charitable and governmental funding that SCOUTING cannot collect.

 

Of note, LFL is the ONLY area BSA can claim "growth" - LFL will soon have more members than Cub Scouting. Yet would LFL even exist without directed funding? Schools are given funds to pay ONLY for this program. They are happy to take the money - for whatever reason. If it pays for someone teaching crafts to learning disabled kids - as it is here - fine, less time needed for a real teacher to cover the class. But don't be delusional. This is NOT Scouting. LFL seems like opening a Clinic to take advantage of Medicade funding. LFL is NOT helping "Scouting" in any way shape or form.

 

Seems like BSA SHOULD be focusing on fixing SCOUTING instead of claiming "success" by boosting counts through LFL. SCOUTING has 3.1 million boys by official numbers. There were probably only 2.5 million ACTUAL memebers when school ended this spring (BSA gets to count the new influx in the fall without deducting those that don't come back - a clever way to boost totals through accounting methodology.

 

Look at all the enrollment scandals - Alabama had as many kids in LFL as they claimed Scouts......though those numbers sure dropped. They are looking at ways to "restore funding" to "reinstate" the LFL program in full and pay for more members...... Hmm sure sounds like "buying" numbers to me. We USED to have REAL units for handicapped and "special needs" SCOUTS. Now any money collected for these programs goes to LFL. NOT the same.

 

I'd settle for BSA being treated the SAME as any other group and having the same accountability. Ever look at GSA's annual reports? or even BSA's OLD reports - lots of detailed numbers. No longer.

 

BSA is a private ogranization trying to milk as much aid as possible from "outsiders" - be it government or other charitable causes - under terms that it cannot honestly comply with. It uses legal weaseling like "Learning for Life" which is NOT a "discrimanatory" organization to get aid "Scouting" cannot receive. BSA solicits preferentiall treatment and exclusion from laws that other groups have to comply with. That is hardly ethical and more than a few people see the hypocrisy.

 

 

[GernBlansten 10]

My yacht club is a private non-profit org. Although we don't have any membership restrictions that are in contrast with the government, we definitely retain the right to have them. If a local government agency, say the park service, granted us money to build a marina on a local lake, our club would probably jump on that in a heart beat. I also would expect the general public to screamed about the grant. The yacht club would look bad, and so would the agency. The honorable thing for the club to do would be to turn down the grant in the first place. Just not a proper thing for governments to do. Now if our club restricted membership to non-Jewish only, the outcry would be even louder.

[Rooster7 11]

BSA is a private ogranization trying to milk as much aid as possible from "outsiders" - be it government or other charitable causes - under terms that it cannot honestly comply with.

 

I think the BSA is a private organization that seeks to improve the lives of boys, which happily accepts support wherever they can get it. I dont see that as a huge evil.

 

It uses legal weaseling like "Learning for Life" which is NOT a "discrimanatory" organization to get aid "Scouting" cannot receive.

 

I suppose thats one Scouters viewpoint. You are a Scouter right?

 

BSA solicits preferentiall treatment and exclusion from laws that other groups have to comply with.

 

I think the BSA welcomes a friendly government. So long as they are not signing agreements which they know they cannot keep (which apparently happened at least once at the council level), I dont think its their responsibility or obligation to figure out what an agency of the government can or cannot do.

 

That is hardly ethical and more than a few people see the hypocrisy.

 

If my viewpoint on this subject gets me called a hypocrite, so be it. Ive been called worse. Id rather live with that slight than embrace the cynical views stated above.

 

[Backpacker 11]

OGE

 

I think you summed up this thread very well, the BSA should not accept cash donations from any government agency. However that is very different from being able to use governmental resources for something like a jamboree. The DOD is required to put their troops through training exercises to make them mobile and combat ready and usually this is done in isolated areas out of public eye. The local Marine base in my district used to fly out a water buffalo for our district camporee and were happy to do it because it was part of their required exercise routine, and they usually had to dump the water, so they were happy to see it getting used. The point is some people think that this exchange with the military is a one way exchange and that is simply not true, they enjoy seeing their efforts go to a worthwhile cause.

 

Another example was an Air Force military hospital unit who was preparing to go to the middle east set up a first aid training site for our district scouts who got to complete their first aid requirements by working on simulated accident victims under the guidance of the medics. Their CO told me that the unit really enjoyed the experience and that the scouts kept them on their toes with all their questions. So if the DOD is going to spend all this money to train the troops on a regular basis anyway why not let them work with scouts or any other group who can also benefit, after all it sure beats the $1,000 screwdrivers or $2,000 toilet seats that are spent every year by government agencies using tax dollars.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

...So if the DOD is going to spend all this money to train the troops on a regular basis anyway why not let them work with scouts or any other group who can also benefit,

 

The statute that the judge struck down only authorized military support for the Boy Scouts; no other group benefited.

 

And Rooster7, I know of a number of similar HUD grants that state they are for Scoutreach programs or other Scout programs; all HUD grants require the same nondiscrimination agreement that the Old Baldy council signed. This is one reason why I don't consider the BSA to be an honest organization.

[evmori 11]

I would agree the BSA is a private organization. And by being private doesn't prevent the BSA from accepting funding from public or government sources.

 

I sorta equate it to professional athlete salaries. Most are over paid but if someone is willing to pay them that much, so be it. The same if a public or governmental source wants to fund the BSA. So be it. If another group is upset because it feels the BSA is a discriminatory agency then their beef is with the funder not the BSA.

 

And an ACLU member calling the BSA dishonest is funny. Sorta like the pot calling the kettle black!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[OldGreyEagle 5]

So Ed,

 

You see no problem with Planned Parenthood taking tax dollars and then advocating abortions? I sure do,

 

 

 

[evmori 11]

OGE,

Our tax dollars fund tons of things. If Planned Parenthood is one of them, so be it. I don't like Planned Parenthood but the only control you or I have over that is who we vote for. They are the ones spending our tax dollars.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Hunt 11]

A few points:

1. The government can't--and doesn't--simply donate money to private charities. It does make grants to them, with restrictions and with strings attached. The complaint against Old Baldy Council and the HUD grant is that purportedly Old Baldy violated the restrictions (this happened in 2001--and I haven't seen any evidence that this is a current or widespread problem.) As long as BSA follows the rules, I see no reason it shouldn't get grants like any other non-profit.

2. The creation of Learning for Life appears to be an effort by BSA to do some good while following just these kinds of rules. Whether you think it is a worthwhile program is another question, as is the question of whether BSA has adequately followed the rules.

3. Rooster said, "Most theme parks are open to the public. However, they are not public parks." It's important to note that BSA is not "open to the public." In fact, that was a key issue in the Dale case, which involved a claim that BSA units were places of public accomodation, and that therefore the New Jersey non-discrimination laws applied (just as they would to a theme park).

4. So to me, this is pretty simple: First, BSA should stop accepting direct government sponsorship of units and activities that have restricted membership--which it has now largely done. Second, for any other activities which involve government grants or cooperation or interaction, BSA should scrupulously obey the rules. For Jamboree, the next couple of years may be needed to establish with finality just what those rules are. If BSA did those things, people who oppose gov't support of BSA (like Merlyn) should be satisfied. Those who want to force BSA to change its membership requirements won't be satisfied, but after Dale, they won't have much legal recourse. For those who would like to see BSA voluntarily change its membership requirements, the elimination of ACLU challenges and controversy might allow the underlying issues to be considered in a more peaceful and thoughtful environment.

 

[Prairie_Scouter 10]

OGE,

Planned Parenthood doesn't "advocate" abortion. Abortion is one of several options that people are counseled on when they visit a Planned Parenthood location. Abortion is available, yes, because it is legal in the U.S. But they don't try to talk people into getting abortions.