When the Democrats took over the Senate, I thought, as many other people did, that the most conservative agenda will not be passed. That was until I saw this article.
Unbelievable, I thought. I am not gay myself, but doesn’t this turn the Civil Rights Acts on its head? Now you can’t penalize a private group because of its discriminatory practices, lest your public funds be lifted from your hands. I haven’t seen any private group so protected in schools ever.
Welcome to the wonderful world of centralized government. It ain’t just drinking ages and speed limits anymore!
Public schools shouldn’t be in the business of penalizing private groups. Schools are public buildings funded by the tax payers of a particular district. If schools allow private organizations to use their campus after hours then I fail to see how they can discriminate. Members of GLAAD, the KKK, and the parents of Boy Scouts all pay taxes to support their local schools. They should all have the same access to the schools.
That said I really dislike the Feds blackmailing states with threats of removing funds. Sometimes I really wish for multiple states to give the Feds the finger, bite the bullet, and just live without the funding.
Marc
They aren’t in the business of penalizing private groups. They passed anti-discrimination rules that they had to follow, and then passed rules saying that those using their facilities had to follow the same rules. Just because an institution is publicly funded doesn’t mean it loses all control over it’s facilities. The boy scouts ran afoul of pre-existing rules that logically exclude them now. They should have seen it coming. Personally, I think it’s just deserts. Or was just deserts, until Senator Helms found a way to evade sound policies against discrimination.
What the ruling does is make a mockery of both anti-discrimination policies and local control of local institutions.
Oddest yet, that the same folks who cry about federal interferrance are mandating this one.
I’m loving where they want to treat special ed and regular ed kids with the same discipline code. Good lord, the senate is idiodic on both counts.
**
I find that rule to be unreasonable. Schools should not have the power to use their rules to single out certain groups. Rules regarding the use of school equipment and expected behavior is fine.
**
I agree. But if they have a policy of renting out public building space then they shouldn’t discriminate against groups they dislike. Like I said the KKK, the parents of Boy Scouts, and members of GLAAD all helped pay for the school. None of them should be excluded.
**
I don’t see how it was logical to exclude them from public buildings while permitting others.
Marc
The point you seem to be missing is that they’re not singling out the boy scouts. A public body passed a public policy governing themselves and their use of a public facility. They passed another public policy regarding the use of the public facility over which they had stewardship that anyone else using must follow the same public policies. They did so in the democratic fashion by which they must govern themselves–that is to say, local school boards of elected officials passed the policy with the support of the local public (as did municipalities with elected town councils). All of this happened in the eighties, long before the issue with the boy scouts came up.
When the boy scouts became an expressly discriminatory organization, the school boards and municipalities were bound by their own rules that were passed with no thought of the boy scouts. Every article I read about this, left and right wing, contained expressions of dismay by the people enforcing the policies that it had come to this, because, excepting the discriminatory policy of the Boy Scouts, they’re a great organization. But the public officials were trapped by policy that was generally supported.
Are anti-discrimination public policies fair? They are if they’re passed democratically, which they were. Is it a fair policy to say that users of public facilities must follow public policies regarding the use of that facility? Yes, if the policies are fair. Users must follow other policies regarding use of the facilities, like maintenance and fees. Could a mendicant order of monks demand to have the fees waived because the imposition of fee policies violates their vows of poverty? Could a group of homeless punks demand that the maintenance requirements be waived in their case because it’s part of their culture to be destructive? (I’m not saying punks have a destructive culture, it’s just a weak example).
The policies were in place. That the Boy Scouts have excluded themselves is an unfortunate but perfectly foreseeable outcome of their stance on homosexuality. I have zero sympathy for them.
Well said, hansel.
**
So schools in Utah should have been free to exclude after school activities that focused on homosexual topics? After all that was an example of a public body passing a public policy governing themselves and the use of their public facility.
**
First off I don’t care if they did it all legal like. Jim Crow laws were passed in a legal manner were they not? A city, county, state, or even the feds can pass all sorts of laws in a completely legal manner and be struck down in court. The manner in which the policy was set does not make the policy valid. And I seriously doubt you believe that.
**
You’ll excuse me if I don’t automatically equate democratically attained with fair.
**
The policies are not fair. In fact wasn’t there a Supreme Court ruling a few years ago in regards to the KKK renting out a Fire House in some city? I want to say Florida but my mind is a bit rusty.
You think I care about the Boy Scouts? This issue is bigger then the Scouts.
Marc
I’m not much for conspiracy theories, but the implications go much farther than the negation of the Civil Rights Act.
Check out this linkabout the Supreme Court’s decision on Monday to allow a prosletyzing Christian club to meet on school grounds.
The majority opinion was that the Christian group was not substantially different from groups like 4-H and the Boy Scouts, and that *school districts which allowed the Boy Scouts to meet in their facilities could not exclude the Good News club from meetng there as well.
In other words, access for the Boy Scouts = access for Evangelical Christians. So, naturally, the Senate voted to use the threat of lost federal funding to blackmail school districts into keeping their doors wide open for the Boy Scouts.
Coincidence? Hardly. It’s an appalling plot to forward the Christian Agenda by destroying the separation between Church and State.
Hope this is coherent! I previewed it, but I am up way past my bedtime. – Tenar
I’m not much for conspiracy theories, but the implications go much farther than the negation of the Civil Rights Act.
Check out this linkabout the Supreme Court’s decision on Monday to allow a prosletyzing Christian club to meet on school grounds.
The majority opinion was that the Christian group was not substantially different from groups like 4-H and the Boy Scouts, and that *school districts which allowed the Boy Scouts to meet in their facilities could not exclude the Good News club from meeting there as well.
In other words, access for the Boy Scouts = access for Evangelical Christians. So naturally the Senate acted to ensure continued access for the Boy Scouts by blackmailing school districts with the threat of lost federal funds.
Talk about a coup! Advancing the Christian agenda while legislating homophobia – all in one week!
(Hope this is coherent! I previewed it, but I am up way past my bedtime. – Tena
Damn! No sooner do I get the hang of linking than I completely blow my newfound confidence by messing up my post with italics and doing a duplicate post.
If there’s a mod out there, could you please delete the duplicate? Thanks. (Hangs head in shame.)
How does this advance the Christian agenda or promote homophobia? It is a double edged sword my friend. Schools can’t exclude groups like GLAAD from meeting in their schools either.
Marc
But is that as odd as the people who love mandating federal interference crying foul when the shoe’s on the other foot?
Hypocrisy works both ways.
Um, I don’t believe GLAAD meets on high school property. Nor do I believe the KKK fits the same criteria as an organization that the Boy Scout does.
Esprix
It doesn’t really matter whether or not GLAAD meets on high school property or not. The point is they could if the school district allowed such things. And what criteria does it take to be considered an organization? I’m just against any policy that prevents people from using public places simply because they have unpopular ideas.
Marc
I was hoping you wouldn’t catch this one…
You’re right, a law, rule or policy can be passed with procedural perfection, and still be unfair. I was hoping to avoid debating anti-discrimination law.
I support anti-discrimination laws. I think they are generally laudable and fair, and a step forward. That said, I think it’s perfectly just to exclude groups who do not meet the test of those laws. To have anti-discrimination laws and then support groups like the Boy Scouts or the KKK with special access to those public facilities is hypocritical, to say the least.
Which is to say, to have laws and policies that are supported in the general case means excluding anyone whom those laws would exclude, no matter how discordant the specific case might seem. If you’re not willing to apply to rule to everyone, Boy Scouts and KKK, then it’s not a rule, is it?
It isn’t against he law for private organizations to discriminate. Private organizations that do discriminate shouldn’t be barred from using buildings open to the public. And there are plenty of laws and rules that have exceptions.
That said I do not like the sneaky way in which the Boy Scouts were made exempt. But then I don’t like how the Feds blackmail states with highway funds either. I think we all would have been better off had the Boy Scouts simply sued schools that excluded them and they let the courts decide.
Marc