Clicking on banner ads enables JWR to constantly improve
Jewish World Review Jan. 15, 2003 / 12 Shevat, 5763

Nat Hentoff

JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
David Limbaugh
Michelle Malkin
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

Boy Scouts still under legal fire --- even after winning in High Court | In California, bar associations in San Francisco, Los Angeles and Santa Clara have urged that state's Supreme Court to prohibit California's 1,600 judges from being members of the Boy Scouts of America because that organization discriminates against gays. California's high court is seriously considering this proposal.

California judges are already forbidden to join organizations that discriminate based on sexual orientations, but there is an exemption for nonprofit youth organizations, and that includes the Boy Scouts. Says Angela Bradstreet -- outgoing president of the Bar Association of San Francisco -- in the Los Angeles Daily Journal: "Ending the Boy Scouts' exemption is a matter of preserving a fundamental perception of fairness within our court system. It's absolutely no different from judges being excluded from sporting groups and other organizations that exclude women, African-Americans or other minorities."

If the Supreme Court of California agrees with Bradstreet, its decision will collide with a June 28, 2000, decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale. The case involved James Dale, an assistant Boy Scout scoutmaster who had publicly proclaimed his homosexuality. He was expelled from the Boy Scouts for violating one of its basic principles of membership.

In its majority decision, the U.S. Supreme Court said that "we are not, as we must not be, guided by our own views of whether the Boy Scouts' teachings with respect to homosexual conduct are right or wrong." What cannot be justified, said the court, is "the state's effort to compel the organization to accept members where such acceptance would derogate from the organization's expressive message. ... The fact that an idea may be embraced and advocated by increasing numbers of people is all the more reason to protect the First Amendment rights of those who wish to voice a different opinion."

Freedom of association is one of the core rights embodied in the First Amendment. In an amicus brief to the Supreme Court, the Boy Scouts emphasized that "a society in which every organization must be equally diverse is a society which has destroyed diversity." Would these organizations of lawyers in California insist that the NAACP must admit as members, particularly in leadership positions equivalent to assistant scoutmaster, those blacks who thoroughly oppose affirmative action and who believe in the crucial need for publicly financed vouchers to religious schools?

Should gay and lesbian organizations be compelled to admit as members and leaders those who are convinced that active homosexuality violates religious commandments and that its practitioners must be converted to a heterosexual life?

In Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the First Amendment "right to associate with others in pursuit of a wide variety of political, social, economic, educational, religious and cultural ends."

The High Court emphasized that "this right is crucial in preventing the majority from imposing its views on groups that would rather express other, perhaps unpopular, ideas. ... Forcing a group to accept certain members may impair the ability of the group to express those views, and only those views, that it intends to express."

In the weekly Washington-based Legal Times, professor Thomas Baker -- who holds Drake University's James Madison Chair in Constitutional Law -- distilled the essence of the First Amendment right to associate: "We cannot limit the Boy Scouts' First Amendment rights ... without limiting everyone's First Amendment rights."

I hope the California Supreme Court will make that constitutional point clear to the bar associations of San Francisco, Los Angeles and Santa Clara. Those lawyers should have learned this basic principle in law school. But, as in many colleges and universities, political correctness often triumphs over the fundamental diversity of beliefs that the First Amendment protects, for associations as well as individuals.

The Boy Scouts have already lost support from certain municipalities, including public schools and some private charities, for winning this U.S. Supreme Court decision. But to force judges to publicly scorn the First Amendment rights of the Boy Scouts will set a precedent that could enable public opinion in other states to violate legitimate free-association rights of gay and lesbian organizations, too.

Individual California judges clearly have the right to resign from the Boy Scouts on principle, but to compel the entire judiciary to make pariahs of the Boy Scouts mocks the Constitution.

Enjoy this writer's work? Why not sign-up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.

JWR contributor Nat Hentoff is a First Amendment authority and author of numerous books. Send your comments to him by clicking here.

Nat Hentoff Archives


© 2002, NEA