Boy Scouts of America should be true to itself
According to Tom McDermott's commentary, "the passage of HB 2403 would be a victory" for the Boy Scouts in Arizona. Removing restrictions on funding and access to facilities would help scout troops function more easily, but the real problem has nothing to do with the government or "radical" homosexual-rights groups.
The Boy Scouts of America needs to be true to itself. The Scout Law says "A Scout is brave," and the BSA needs to be courageous enough to change its practice of excluding homosexuals. The policy is based on the outdated belief that all homosexuals are perverts and molesters. Worst of all, it teaches youth that it is acceptable to hate. No matter how many bills are passed, or court cases the BSA wins, scouting will always lose until the BSA remembers its original purpose of creating outstanding young men.
Unfortunately, it will be difficult to generate any real change until the scouts are less dependent on funding from conservative groups like the Mormon and Catholic churches. I look back on my 11 years as a scout as an important and valuable period of my life. I just hope that by the time I have a son, he will take as much pride in wearing the uniform as I did.
Justin Cranmer
management information systems junior
McDermott columns contradictory
In response to Tom McDermott's latest column "Boy Scouts finally get a break," I would like to remind him of a previous article that he wrote: "Wisconsin student government will be brought to justice." I am having a hard time reconciling these two articles, and I hope McDermott will explain how he hasn't contradicted himself.
In his Wisconsin article, McDermott applauded a recent court decision that precludes public universities from funding student organizations that are not viewpoint-neutral. He complained about the University of Wisconsin's funding of liberal groups, such as MeCHA and LGBT.
However, in his "Boy Scouts" article, McDermott applauded a legislative bill (HB 2403) that precludes local governments from denying public funding to private groups based on their discriminatory beliefs. He complained about Tucson's denial of funding to the Boys Scouts because of the Scouts discrimination against homosexuals.
What McDermott seems to be saying is that it is illegal for a public entity, such as a university, to give money to a liberal student organization, but it shouldn't be illegal for another public entity, such as the city of Tucson, to give money to a conservative, quasi-religious organization that discriminates against homosexuals. If there has ever been a clearer case of hypocrisy, I haven't seen it.
I fail to see how the Boy Scouts are any less viewpoint-neutral than the student groups at the University of Wisconsin. The Boy Scouts actively discriminate against homosexuals. What is so viewpoint-neutral about that? There is nothing viewpoint-neutral about the Boy Scouts when their acceptance policy is based on fundamental Christian values. The ironic part of McDermott's argument is that liberal groups generally tend to be more inclusive of others than conservative groups. I'm straight, but I could join the UA's LGBT group if I wanted to and they wouldn't exclude me because of my heterosexuality.
McDermott writes: "He (the student who sued UW) argued his forced funding of these (student) groups amounted to a violation of his First Amendment rights." Under this logic, I will also argue that the public funding of the Boy Scouts violates my First Amendment rights. As a taxpayer and concerned citizen, I am entitled not to have my tax dollars go to this group. What HB 2403 amounts to is a public subsidy of bigotry.
William Li
James E. Rogers College of Law student
US should reexamine its pro-Israeli policy
The important thing to note at this juncture is not who is to blame in the Israel-Palestinian conflicts, but the issue of U.S. involvement. Our pro-Israeli policy supports one side in a war where both sides are culpable.
Yes, Israel's attack on Ayad was more focused, killing fewer civilians. They are supported by powerful forces like the United States. The Palestinians resort to less precision-oriented weapons like rocks and buses because they don't have this support. To call them cowards, as Greitzer does, shows the kind of prejudice that the U.S. government is guilty of. Both sides have a claim to the area, and Slavin's assertion that "the Palestinians want in less than 60 years what took the Jews 2000" arises from a Judeo-Christian view of history. We support the Jewish claim on Israel because this tradition is part of our heritage. However, it may be noted that, while the Native Americans have an older claim to this land, we haven't exactly stayed away.
While there are undeniable problems with land allocation here, we, too, have had to accommodate both groups in a single land. That is what needs to happen in Israel, and for the United States to support one group over the other shows our hypocrisy. Rather than spouting platitudes about "peace" and loving "children more than they hate the Israelis" - turning the Palestinians into inhumane monsters threatening the civilized world - as Greitzer does, perhaps we had better re-evaluate our own participation in the conflict.
Rebekah Wilce
classics sophomore
