An open letter to the Boy Scouts of America

Last week, there was some discussion about reviewing your policy barring homosexuals from joining the Boy Scouts in any capacity, as either a troop member or a leader. Although for me it’s really a non-issue, I recognize there’s a lot of concern, and, having been a Scout myself, having earned my Eagle rank, and having thought a fair amount about homosexuality, I want to weigh in.

As I understand the debate, people are uncomfortable having gay members of the Boy Scouts at any level. There’s concern that gay leaders will be predatory or simply bad role models, leading the boys to become gay themselves; there’s also concern that gay scouts will make events uncomfortable for their peers. Scouts should be a safe place for fun, exploration, and personal growth. Another argument is that the Boy Scouts promote good morals; part of the oath is to be “morally straight.” The problem with these arguments is that they’re based on faulty logic and premises.

First, let’s look at the issue of gay leaders. If you believe all gay men are pedophiles, then you’re unfairly generalizing. If all gay men are pedophiles, then so, too, are all priests – and, since every bishop, archbishop, cardinal, and pope are also priests, then there’s no getting away from pedophiles in the Catholic Church. Using that same logic, the one where the frightening example stands for all with the same characteristic, then all Baptists hate homosexuals, just like the Westboro Baptist Church, all veterans have PTSD, and all bankers are greedy, money-oriented crooks. My experience is that most Baptists are welcoming people, most veterans are adjusting just fine, and the bankers I know are genuinely decent people who happen to like helping people manage their money. I also know a number of gay men who are kind, generous guys who are no more attracted to children than anyone else. So excluding them from leadership roles because they might be dangerous is just foolish stereotyping.

The fear that the leader might find some time to be alone with the boys is a reasonable one, but again, it’s not likely to happen if there’s any common sense in the troop. A single adult leading a group of boys is never a good idea. It’s not safe. I can’t think of a single event I ever attended where there weren’t at least two adults, and that includes patrol meetings and a few years in Cub Scouts. Most longer trips (day hikes and overnight camping trips) included three adult leaders. If one adult were to be injured, or had to leave with a scout because of illness or injury, there were always others around. And the trips we took included scouts of many ages, and the older boys often took on leadership and mentoring roles, keeping an eye on the younger boys. So there’s very little opportunity for a leader to be alone with a single boy if the troop emphasizes safety and community.

“But,” you might say, “These men are mentors. They’re role models.” Well, yes. Yes, scouts look up to the leaders. But not all of them; each of the boys in my troop had his favorites, and we admired different things about different leaders. I don’t think anyone ever changed his (or her) sexual orientation because someone they admire is gay. However, many people have come out of the closet because someone else did, and I think that’s great. It’s worth showing boys that they don’t have to be ashamed of themselves, be it sexual orientation, religious belief, hobbies, or anything else that’s seen as outside the norm. If we want to encourage an open society, a diverse culture where self-expression is a positive thing, then we should have different kinds of people in prominent positions. If there’s a gay assistant scoutmaster, then boys who are themselves gay will not feel ashamed by their sexual orientation. If that man’s not around to lead by example, then the boys who need that positive role model will be ashamed, and they’ll keep a terrible secret. Further, if boys never meet a gay man, or a Muslim, or any of a number of other minorities, then they’ll never learn that these are just people, too — they’ll never know that these differences aren’t something to fear, but just a difference. The same can be said of gay scouts: if they’re a foreign other, never encountered, then they’ll be more frightening because of that alien nature. But if the boys see one of their own is gay, and that boy is also good at capture the flag and fire-building, if he’s a good friend and person, then there will be little to fear. The frightening unknown will become familiar, and no longer threatening.

The trickiest argument to refute is the morality argument, because Boy Scouts have always been interested in producing good, upstanding, moral citizens. But here’s my question: whose morality are the Boy Scouts promoting? Many troops are sponsored by Christian churches. Does this mean that the Scouts are a group for just Christians, or are Jews, Muslims, and Buddhists welcome? How about atheists? Agnostics? There is an argument that the Scouts, as a private organization, can be exclusive, and I’m OK with setting up requirements for membership. But the requirements when I was a scout were simply age and gender: you had to be an 11-year-old boy to join, and you had to transition to adult leadership at 18. That was it. Excluding anyone because of fear or misunderstanding, because of stereotyping or hate, is not something that the Boy Scouts I knew and loved would ever accept, never mind promote. This is not a means of advocating no moral stance, but I do think it's important to take cues from society, and American society is becoming far more tolerant of many different groups. Boy Scouts should similarly allow for, if not embrace, that expansion.

There have been many changes since Baden-Powell founded the Boy Scouts in 1910. World War I saw Boy Scouts on the front lines, literally scouting during the war. Mid-century troops were uncomfortable with racial and religious integration. I think now the big change will be accepting different sexual orientations. And that development reflects changing social attitudes: as society becomes more accepting, so, too, should their organizations.

So, Boy Scouts of America, please accept change. Gay scouts and leaders are no more threatening than any other group, and their presence can be a positive influence on scouts and, by extension, society. Don’t exclude anyone from your group based on faulty logic, inappropriate beliefs, and antiquated notions, or you, too, will find your influence and importance shrinking into irrelevance, and scouting is far too important a factor for far too many boys to have that positive influence disappear.