Creed is 'honor and prejudice'
By Julie Novak
UNIVERSITY WIRE
CHAMPAIGN, Ill. - Boy Scouts aren't supposed to be gay. It's one of those "facts" that everyone apparently knows, like the sun doesn't rotate around the earth or that it never really rains cats and dogs. Only I never knew this fact. In my naive childhood I thought the Boy Scouts took anyone who wanted to join. Scouts stood for everything noble and honorable. They were the boys who helped old ladies across the street at least five times a day (if not more) and they could survive in the wilderness with only a pocket knife.
It was a childhood fantasy to believe the Boy Scouts stood for everything good. I also thought fairies and unicorns were real and nothing bad could ever happen to me. I never questioned the motives of the police or military because they were there to protect everyone. Of course, I also believed you could eat flowers, like in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.
The best excuse I can give for most of my youthful failings is I watched far too many cartoons in a nice suburb where everything always appeared good on the surface. In this setting I was allowed to believe in the world's perfection. Much to my chagrin these were not the only idealistic notions I held. I never knew that homosexuals weren't allowed in the Boy Scouts. Apparently, I wasn't the only person surprised that the Boy Scouts could exclude members on sexual preference. Former Boy Scout James Dale was so surprised that after being kicked out of the Scouts for being gay, he sued the Boy Scouts for violating his civil rights, and won.
And everyone lived happily ever after ... almost.
Dale's victory was handed down by New Jersey's highest court at the beginning of August. One might assume that would be the end of the Boy Scouts' policy of discrimination. Yet Dale's victory is already being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court by the Boy Scouts. Will the Boy Scouts be exempt from anti-gay discrimination like every "public accommodation"? As of right now, no one knows.
In response to the ongoing court battles, local and national Scout officials released a new policy: They aren't supposed to ask members about their sexual orientation but homosexuals are still not allowed to be members.
Don't ask, don't tell. Hmm ... that rhetoric sounds all too familiar.
Now that the Boy Scouts have adopted a policy regarding its gay members that is similar to the military's, maybe we should examine some other similarities.
Both the Boy Scouts and the military wear uniforms. (Hopelessly out of fashion, don't they know that "khakis' swing" was last season).
Both admit women. However, both organizations have special rules for women. The Boy Scouts only allow girls in one program (Venturing), while the military similarly continues to bar women from combat. While they are not officially banned from high-ranking positions, there are very few women in these positions. This is known as the "girls have cooties" rule.
Word association: Tiger Cubs: private; Cub Scouts: sergeant; Boy Scouts: officers.
Both place a lot of emphasis on cheap badges.
Both chant as they march.
Now both organizations have come up with a new compromise regarding their gay members. Around the same time the Boy Scouts issued their "don't ask, don't tell" policy, the military was updating their own. The military doesn't allow its members to be openly gay but commanders are barred from asking whether their troop members are gay. No investigations regarding sexual orientation can occur unless senior officers give consent to military lawyers.
Ah, selective discrimination. Now the military can officially decide not to investigate an individual if they've invested thousands of dollars into his education and training. It's eerily logical: why fire the people you've spent time and money on?
In the mean time, one can only hope the Boy Scouts don't follow in the illustrious steps of the U.S. military.
|
An Independent Daily Newspaper