Critics of Gay Ban Battle Boy Scouts Over Results of Internal Survey

The Boy Scouts asked members, parents, and scoutmasters whether they’d recommend the organization to others. The results were controversial.

<a href="http://www.scoutsforequality.com/img/Fall2012VOS.pdf">Boy Scouts

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


In the fall of 2012, months before the Boy Scouts of America announced it would consider overturning its decades-old ban on gay Scouts and scout leaders, the group sent a survey to Boy Scouts, parents, and scout leaders. The survey did not include a question about the ban, but it did ask respondents to explain what impacted their decision to recommend the Boy Scouts to their friends and families. Despite the open-ended nature of the question, around 5,500 (about eight percent) of the 68,441 respondents volunteered that the gay ban negatively affected their “customer loyalty” to the Boy Scouts. Only a tiny fraction of the respondents—a few hundred—expressed explicit support for the gay ban. Now a fight over how to interpret those results is brewing between the Boy Scouts and Scouts for Equality, an independent organization pushing for an end to the gay ban.

“The biggest takeaway from the survey is that there is a ton of energy in the scouting community for changing the policy,” says Zach Wahls, an Eagle Scout raised by two lesbian mothers, and founder of Scouts for Equality.

But Deron Smith, director of public relations for the Boy Scouts of America, tells Mother Jones that since the survey didn’t include any specific questions about the ban, and only nine percent of respondents brought it up in an open-ended question about why they would or wouldn’t recommend the Boy Scouts, “it is insufficient to accurately predict the beliefs of our membership as a whole.” The Boy Scouts’ summary of the survey also noted that people who were happy with Boy Scouts were less likely to comment on the ban, “perhaps since the reinforcement of the policy did not put the current status at risk.” In other words, because the Scouts hadn’t yet considered ending the ban when the survey went out, the Scouts and parents who back it didn’t feel they needed to express their support.

The politics of the gay ban have changed significantly since the fall survey. Several major funders, including UPS, United Way, Merck, and Intel dropped their support for the organization late last year, and in January, the Boy Scouts announced it would reconsider the policy. Since then, pop stars and Tex Mex fast food chains alike have joined the fight against the gay ban. What Scouts, leaders, and parents think about the ban should be clearer soon. A 2013 spring survey specifically addressing the ban was sent to about 1.1 million scouts and their families earlier this month. It includes questions like, “David, a Boy Scout, believes that homosexuality is wrong… Steve, an openly gay youth, applies to be a member. Is it acceptable or unacceptable for this troop to deny Steve membership in their troop?” The results of that survey are expected? April 4, just over a month before 1,400 members of the group’s national council will vote on whether to end the ban.

Boy Scouts of America

Even if the national ban on gay Scouts and Scoutmasters is lifted however, local troops could still decide for themselves whether or not to discriminate.

Wahls says that the fall 2012 survey indicates that even in conservative areas, there is still some support for overturning the ban. “I think we’ll see at least one inclusive unit in each state, and when people see that the unit is going to the same jamborees, it’s fundraising, it’s flourishing, they will realize that including gay youth and their parents makes the most sense… I had a lesbian den mother* [one of Wahl’s mothers], and she was great. It was the most fun unit.”

But just because the certain members support inclusive scouting, doesn’t mean that the ban is going to go down without a fight. On Saturday, Boy Scouts leaders and parents launched a national coalition to “keep sex and politics out of scouting” and “influence the resolution committee.”

“That’s the problem with folks who are intervening on the other side of this issue,” says Wahls. “This isn’t about scouting to them, this is about their problem with gay people.”

*A “den mother” is a term for the supervisor of a den of Cub Scouts. Wahl’s “den mother” was also one of his mothers. 

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate