Renouncing Your Medals

Last week, the Boy Scouts of America finally ended their ban on gay youths joining the organization, though the position of adult members is still unclear. As the debate reaches a partial degree of closure, it is worth reflecting on the course such a controversial issue took.

While BSA leadership vacillated over the past years, the public debate over whether their ban was morally acceptable or constitutional carried on. The Supreme Court ruled in BSA v. Dale that constitutionally mandated Freedom of Association protected the BSA’s right to accept or reject people as they saw fit. The Crimson published a roundtable debate on the subject, asking whether such a decision was just.

Passing a moral judgment on a group in our free society is a potentially treacherous thing to do. Enforcing the views of the majority over the minority is precisely the kind of thing the United States tries to strictly limit, especially when it comes to highly sensitive social issues. But if legal reform is thus limited, how can change be effected? Often it seems, that the champions that rise for these causes are those with the loudest voices, and the most endorsements, and the money to bring it all the way to the Supreme Court. This characterizes the cumbersome, often ineffective response which has sadly become the norm.

Yet, while the debate raged on, there was one group that actually made a statement. Not by talk or media campaigns, but by the simple act of saying: “I want no part in this.” I am talking, of course, about the Eagle Scouts who returned their medals to the BSA, renouncing their claim to the title, in light of the organization’s prohibition against gay members. The act was small, but its impact enormous. Those Eagles have become the centerpiece for the movement for Scouting Equality, each of them honored by organizations like Scouts for Equality. Out of all the bluster of the media, these few who sacrificed something for their beliefs are the ones driving this movement. Beyond all the celebrity endorsements and petitions, court rulings and advertisements, the simple act of putting an end to involvement is what speaks most powerfully.

After all, it is our time, energy, and money—even our attention—that keeps organizations alive. Therefore, by removing ourselves, we can exhibit a powerful force over the behavior of large organizations. The institution of the boycott is nothing new, with the Montgomery Bus Boycott probably being the most famous example. Nevertheless, the actions of these Eagle Scouts have been overshadowed by the louder debate over legal action in the media.

While a media firestorm might help to raise awareness of an issue, nothing is going to upset the balance of power more than those willing to exercise their own right to free association. Because the power of an organization lies in the people it represents, the threat of a morally driven resignation has the potential to affect policy. Making a change is as easy as refusing your support.

So while it might be beneficial to keep the broader public debate alive, we might also advocate a change in focus in that debate. Rather than asking whether the BSA is permitted to carry on with its admissions policy, perhaps the time would be better spent asking if we want to support an institution that does discriminate based on sexual preference. The answer to the latter question is likely far easier to find than to the former.

At Harvard, we are exposed to a marketplace of ideas and outlooks that are alien to our own, and with that exposure comes an understanding of respect for those ideas, even if they might be quite contrary to our own point of view. However strongly we might disagree, it is rare for one student to morally condemn another for his views. All of this is contingent on the idea that, even if we disagree, there is nothing to say that I must follow the edict of another.

We can bring that sense of respect beyond the confines of the college experience and into the world at large. There will undoubtedly be things that offend our sensibilities, and even might be considered unjust, the BSA’s membership rules being a good example. But it is within our ability to bring an end to such offenses, not by loudly condemning them, but by firmly choosing a different path.