United Way fails diversity test with inaction on Scouts

BLUMNER E-mail: Click here Archive

By ROBYN BLUMNER

© St. Petersburg Times, published April 23, 2000

If you've ever been part of corporate America then chances are you've heard the spiel from the United Way. In exchange for a small weekly donation oh-so-painlessly deducted from your paycheck, you will be a local hero, supporting good works in the community. The accompanying slide show inevitably features smiling underprivileged youngsters in learning and recreational programs.

It all seems so uncontroversial, so beyond the fray.

And it was ... before the Boy Scouts.

Not since the early 1990s, when the United Way's disgraced director, William Aramony, stole $600,000 to lavish trips and luxury apartments on himself and his girlfriends has the organization been engulfed in such a firestorm of controversy. The exclusionary policies of the Boy Scouts of America, a major recipient of United Way funds, are testing the United Way's commitment to inclusion, diversity and tolerance -- a test it's failing miserably.

The Scouts say part of their mission is developing character in boys through the inculcation of morals. Therefore, they say, they choose to bar atheists and homosexuals from membership and leadership. This Wednesday, the organization is scheduled to argue in the U.S. Supreme Court that it is private and as such should be free to discriminate.

Suddenly the United Way's images of smiling youngsters at a marshmallow roast are replaced by the specter of lawyers blocking certain kids from the campfire.

You would think this openly discriminatory stance would have the 1,400 member United Ways defecting in droves. Wrong. To date, only six United Ways -- three in California -- have cut the Scouts off.

Instead, United Ways continue to underwrite Scouting to the tune of tens of millions of dollars annually. In 1996, the last year figures are available, United Ways distributed $83.7-million to Scouting councils across the country -- an amount nearly equal to the total budget of the Scouts' national organization.

In 1999, the Pinellas County United Way gave the local Scouting council $232,260, the same amount as the year before. But in order to qualify for the largess, the local Scouts, like all funding recipients, had to vow it doesn't discriminate on the basis of religion and sex, among others, in its provision of services. John Cabeza, Scout executive for the West Florida Council, says he signs the non-discrimination statement every year despite keeping girls out of its Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts programs. He says the Scouts and the United Way have an "understanding" about the meaning of the statement. He also refuses to admit that the Scouts discriminate on the basis of religion even though Cabeza says "to be a member you have to have a belief in God."

No one would be looking the other way if the Scouts maintained a policy of racial exclusion, but since all we're talking about is gays and the godless (and of course girls, who the Scouts have always kept out of their treehouse), the reaction is a collective shrug. Or is it a collective shiver? Do the United Ways fear a donor revolt if they are seen as supporting homosexuality and atheism?

When the Santa Fe County, N.M., United Way dropped the Scouts in 1994 because of the policy on gays, there was an initial dip in contributions and a barrage of angry calls from donors. Since then, Ron Stevens, the organization's executive director, said donations have more than recovered. The move, Stevens said, "increased our credibility in the community -- we were going to do what was right not just what was popular."

Ah, the perennially missed lesson for the weak of spirit: doing what's right may cause short-term pain but pays off in the end.

Sadly, the tragedy here is bigger than just the integrity of the United Way. By standing on the sidelines, the United Way is not only embracing exclusion, it's putting at risk our right to freedom of association.

Allow me to explain.

Cutting off one of the Scouts' major funding sources would have pressured them to reconsider their narrow-minded policies. Without that pressure, the Scouts have blithely continued to discriminate, which has led to a series of lawsuits from atheists and gays.

The Scouts' defense to these suits is the Constitution -- a perfectly appropriate place to hide. As a private organization, the Scouts should have the right to establish criteria for membership even if those rules run counter to enlightened society. Private groups, even ones like the Scouts with millions of members, are protected by the right to free association and simply shouldn't be forced by the government to open their doors to everyone.

But that individual right is at risk. The U.S. Supreme Court will decide this term whether to uphold an August 1999 ruling by the New Jersey Supreme Court that the Scouts violated state anti-discrimination laws by ousting James Dale, an assistant scoutmaster, after it was discovered he is gay. If the Supreme Court does as it's being urged to do by numerous civil rights groups and upholds the New Jersey court's ruling, our right to interact with people of our own choosing, who share our values, beliefs and interests, would be undermined.

That's why the best way to get the Scouts to change is not by using the courts to wrench open their membership, but through persuasion. The Scouts' tune would change in a hurry if boys refused to join, parents refused to volunteer and if funders walked.

Shamefully, the United Way is staying put.

© St. Petersburg Times. All rights reserved.