FRANK Book Pic MediumFrom Center for Gender and Sexuality Law Visiting Scholar Nathaniel Frank, originally published on Slate on May 24th:

In a clear effort to appease a divided membership, the Boy Scouts of America has voted to change its national policy on homosexuality: It will now allow gay youth to become and remain scouts, but it will still ban adult leaders “who are open or avowed homosexuals or who engage in behavior that would become a distraction to the mission of the BSA.” A spokesman told me the focus is on youth so as to ensure that the Scouts can “provide kids a place to belong while they learn and grow.”

Some will view the policy change as progress, which it certainly is for the estimated tens of thousands of gay boy scouts who will finally feel a sense of belonging that was needlessly denied them before. But this modicum of progress virtually dries up when you consider what those same boys will face as they age out of the Boy Scouts: a giant slap-down for anyone wishing to become a Scout leader, with the attendant message that, while being a gay kid is now sort-of OK, being a gay man is still shameful. How is that a place for gay kids to “belong while they learn and grow”?

But the real problem with the Boy Scouts’ new policy is the same problem the military suffered with its “don’t ask, don’t tell” compromise: It leaves the organization with a discriminatory policy that literally has no rationale besides the whim of opinion surveys and the vague sense that even talking about gay things is somehow untoward. To officially allow gay scouts while explicitly banning “open or avowed” gay adults sets up a climate of dishonesty and deception, a kind of “don’t ask, don’t tell” for the post-DADT era. It’s a badge of dishonor that will cling to the Boy Scouts for quite some time.

“Don’t ask, don’t tell” was formulated 20 years ago, which raises an obvious question: Why would any organization implement an outdated and spineless policy two full decades after the military tried the same, faced ridicule, found it a failure, and killed it as the 21st century began to leave it behind? As was said then about “don’t ask, don’t tell,” a policy that takes baby-steps forward while reinforcing groundless and increasingly unpopular discrimination is in many ways worse than a policy that just lingers on the books through inertia. It tars the organization as out of step and just plain mean-spirited.

I asked the Boy Scouts of America repeatedly for an explanation for why it would remove the ban on gay scouts but continue the ban on openly gay adults. But there isn’t one. Like “don’t ask, don’t tell,” the Boy Scouts’ policy is a compromise measure—devoid of all principle—that bows to opinion polls, fears, and the yelps of religious conservatives.

Boy Scouts spokesman Deron Smith took strong exception to any inference (such as my own) that the focus on banning adult leaders implied a belief that gay men are prone to molesting boys, and he cited academic experts refuting that notion. His only explanation for the distinction was this wholly empty assertion: “By reinforcing that Scouting is a youth program … this resolution rightly recognizes there is a difference between kids and adults while remaining true to the long-standing virtues of Scouting.”

Like the debate over gay troops, the debate over gay scouts has involved breathless assertions that ending discrimination could prompt a mass exodus of members who would bolt in protest. According to a voting member information packet designed to help members decide how to vote, “Many religious chartered organizations stated their concern is with homosexual adult leaders and not with youth.” The groups, according to the packet, estimated that a policy welcoming both gay youth and adults “could cause the BSA to incur membership losses in a range from 100,000 to 350,000.”

This argument perfectly echoes claims in the lead-up to ending “don’t ask, don’t tell” that 500,000 U.S. troops could resign in protest, decimating nearly a quarter of the force. As I’ve explained elsewhere, research shows that opinion polls surveying anticipated reactions to minority rights are terrible at predicting actual behavior, serving instead primarily as an outlet for expressing protest. And if that predictive research wasn’t persuasive enough, recent research I conducted and wrote about in Slate showed that despite predictions that half a million troops would leave if the ban ended, only two service members actually quit.

Of course, it’s no coincidence that it’s religious groups that are sounding this alarm the loudest, as their real objection to gay Boy Scouts is that it violates their beliefs, not that it will have a quantifiable impact on the organization. And this points to the real problem with the Boy Scout’s new “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy: No one has been able to provide an actual reason, beyond a vague allusion to personal beliefs, for discriminating against gay people. That is, no one has been able to answer the spot-on question of a recent book: What’s wrong with homosexuality?

Virtually every instance of anti-gay discrimination—access to marriage, military service, government employment, religious practice, the psychiatric profession—has justified itself by pointing to some alleged secondary effect of homosexuality, from national security risks to threats to the family to angering God. Not so discrimination by the Boy Scouts, who—almost admirably if you’re going to discriminate—simply stated their belief that homosexuality is inconsistent with the Scout duty “to be morally straight and clean in thought, word, and deed.”

But now that equation has been removed, with a new policy reflecting a belief that gay youth can be “morally straight.” Where does that leave gay adults, who most gay youth become? The Boy Scouts’ strange new policy makes an untenable distinction between the morality of gay boys and gay men, which reflects a defining feature of homosexuality in 21st-century America: that it’s virtually the only thing people seem content to call immoral without ever explaining why.

The Boy Scouts’ half-step forward is certain to keep the debate alive, with increasingly negative attention likely focused on the organization. If that debate does anything positive for our culture, perhaps it will be putting a renewed focus on this important but neglected question: What, in the 21st century, does it mean to be “morally straight”? The Boy Scouts owe America an answer.



  1. Pretty component to content. I simply stumbled upon your site and in accession capital to say that I acquire actually enjoyed account your weblog posts. Any way I will be subscribing on your feeds or even I fulfillment you get right of entry to persistently fast.

  2. You made some nice points there. I did a search on the issue and found most people will consent with your website.

Add a comment

Comments are subject to moderation and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of
Columbia Law School or Columbia University.



"Homeland" Security Abortion Rights Activism Adoption adultery Advocacy Affordable Care Act Alien Tort Claims Act Amicus Brief Asylum Bankruptcy BDS Bullying Census Politics Children Citizenship Civil Unions Clinic Columbia Law School Compulsory Marriage Condoms Contraception Contraception Mandate Cordoba House Criminal Law Cures for Homosexuality Defense of Marriage Act Disability Rights Discrimination Divorce Domestic Partnership Domestic Violence Domestic Workers Don't Ask Don't Tell Earth Day Economic Justice Education Egypt Elections Employment Discrimination ENDA Estate Planning Events Family Law Fellowships femininity Feminism Free Speech Gender and Technology Gender Identity Discrimination Gendering the Economy Gender Justice GSL Online Haiti Hate Crimes Health Care Hilary Clinton Hillary Clinton HIV HIV Discrimination Hobby Lobby Homelessness Homophobia Housing Human Rights Identity Politics Illegitimacy (sic) Immigration Reform In-ing Incest India International Law Intersectional Feminism Islamophobia Israel Jobs Justice Sotomayor King & Spalding Labor Trafficking Land Reform Law School Legal Profession Legal Scholarship Lesbian & Gay Parenting LGBT Parenting Marital Status Discrimination Marriage Marriage Equality Masculinity Medicaid Michelle Obama Migration Military National Security Obama Administration Obama Appointments Obergefell Outing OWS Palestine Parenting Pinkwashing Policing Politics of the Veil Polyamory Popular Culture Pornograpy Pregnancy Presidential Politics Prisons Privacy Products Liability Profanity Prop 8 Prosecutorial Discretion Publications Public Rights/Private Conscience Public Rights/Private Conscience Project Queer Theory Queer vs. Gay Rights Race and Racism Racial Stereotyping Rape Religion Religious Accommodation Religious Exemption Religious Exemptions Religious Freedom Restoration Act Religious Fundamentalism Reproductive Rights Reproductive Technology RFRA Romania Rwanda Sartorial Commentary Schools Sex Discrimination Sex Education Sex Stereotyping Sexting Sex Trafficking Sexual Assault Sexual Duplicity Sexual Harassment Sexual Health Sexuality and Gender Law Clinic Sexual Orientation Discrimination Sex Work Silencing of voices SMUG Sodomy Law Reform Solidarity Sports Supreme Court Surrogacy Technology Title IX Trafficking Transgender Uganda Uncategorized Violence Women and Poverty Women of Color Work Zimbabwe

Academic Calendar  |  Resources for Employers  |  Campus Map & Directory  |  Columbia University  |  Jobs at Columbia  |  Contact Us

© Copyright 2009, Columbia Law School. For questions or comments, please contact the webmaster.