THE FREEDOM NOT TO ASSOCIATE

by Jack VanNoord

Last week, before recessing for the 4th of July, the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that the Boy Scouts of America DOES have the right to determine who serves as Scout leaders.  Specifically, the Court ruled that the Scouts can NOT be forced to have homosexuals serve as troop leaders.

As the father of two children, I believe that my children’s life-experience is enriched by knowing and befriending people from all walks of life -- including those of varying sexual orientations.  So, in this regard, I disagree with the Scouts’ desire to take a hard-line stance against affiliating with homosexuals.

But, whether or not the Boy Scouts have the correct attitude about associating with homosexuals is not the issue.  The issue and the question the Supreme Court had to answer was whether it is the appropriate use of the law and government to force the Boys Scouts to associate with someone with whom they have no desire to associate.

As much as we may disagree with the Boy Scout’s decision, who are we --including the Justices of the Supreme Court-- to tell the Boy Scouts whom they MUST associate with?  In a free society, the freedom of association must also include the freedom NOT to associate.

We just finished commemorating the 4th of July.  We spent a long weekend celebrating the fact that we live in a free society.  But the test of that freedom is whether we are willing to fight for the peaceful choices other people make no matter how unpopular or un-P.C. those choices may be.  To paraphrase an old cliche:  I disagree with the choice the Boy Scouts have made, but I will fight long and hard for their ability to make that choice.  This is the price of living a free society.

The reason there is a lack of clarity surrounding issues such as this one, is that the participants in the dialog  frequently fail to distinguish between public organizations and private organizations.

Whether you’re the Illinois Department of Transportation, the local police force or the President's cabinet, if you are a public organization supported by tax money then you can rightfully be expected to make your organization look like America in terms of color, age, shape, gender, ethnicity, creed and sexual orientation.  If you are using everybody’s money (taxes) to fund your entity, then you better make sure that everybody is represented.  If I find that MY minority group is not represented on the staff of a State University or at the Secretary of State’s office, you can be sure that I am going to raise a mighty stink.  I’m funding those intuitions, my demographic group better be represented.

On the other hand, if  you are a private organization (that is to say, you fund what you do with your own money) then go ahead and form your associations (or not) however you choose.  I may not approve of the associations you make or choose not to make, but I do not have the right to force you to do otherwise.  For example, The Gideons (those people who place Bibles in hotel night stands) not only require their members to be men, but they limit their membership to men who are white-collar professionals.  I don’t pretend to agree with or even understand their rational.  But, it would be a misuse of the law and of government to force them as a private organization to structure themselves otherwise.

Here is the mistake the Boy Scouts made:  they blurred the line between being a private and a public organization.  They accepted funding from the federal, state and local governments; they enjoyed the free use of  municipal buildings and other perks.  Once they began to accept government financial support they started to look like a public entity.  They opened themselves up to their recent batch of legal woes.  They forgot the old adage:  he who pays the band, chooses the tune.  Government money always comes with strings attached.

Let this serve as a lesson to the rest of us. As tempting as it is to dip into the public coffers to fund whatever organization we are part of, when we accept money that comes from everybody (taxes), we relinquish control over the identity of our organization. 

It is for this reason that I support tax credits for education rather that vouchers.  As long  as my educational dollars pass through government hands --as they would be with a voucher program-- someone other than myself will always be in the driver’s seat of my children’s education.  Herein lies the danger in continuing to allow government --and government money-- to touch more and more areas of our lives.  It undermines our ability to structure our lives, schools, homes and communities as we see fit.

I hope that the Boy Scouts of America have learned a lesson about the value of remaining a strictly private organization supported by non-tax dollars.  I am glad that the Supreme Court saw its way clear on this issue.  I am relieved that the freedom to associate (and the freedom not to associate) has been preserved . . . at least for the time being. 

P.S.  Closing thought:  Instead of  “Supreme Court says Scouts can ban gay leaders”, couldn’t the story just as easily have been reported as “Court strikes down activists’ attempts to ban freedom of association”?  Why the use of the word “ban”?  The Boy Scouts don’t want to “ban” anyone.  They simply want to be able to choose whom they associate with, like the rest of us do every single day.  When I chose to marry my wife, did anyone say that I “banned” the millions of other women I chose not to marry?  Of course not.  It was simply a choice to associate and many more choices not to associate.  Nobody “banned” anybody.

07-01-2000

Written by Jack VanNoord - West Dundee.