A Scout's Oath of Law

Scouts pledge to be respectible and trustworthy.

The Boy Scouts of America requires adherence to the Scout Oath and Scout Law as a means to instill specific moral beliefs in members. The two documents serve along with the Scout Motto and Scout Slogan as somewhat rigid guidelines, by which the organization hopes to form ethical and moral values which will continue throughout the scouts' entire lifetimes. However, these guidelines have resulted in some controversial decisions, which critics claim violate the civil rights of some scouts or potential scouts.

Scout Oath

Scouts pledge to aspire to certain ideals, uphold specific beliefs and emulate behavior that is deemed appropriate by the Boy Scouts of America organization. Scouts who recite the oath pledge, to the best of their abilities, to be patriotic to their country and to follow the tenets of their church. They also devote themselves to helping others at all times. The oath also calls for scouts to stay physically fit, remain mentally alert, practice behavior deemed morally straight and obey the Scout Law.

Scout Law

The Scout Law is less a commandment or set of rules than it is a list of attributes the ideal scout should possess. These include many of the traits to which scouts pledge themselves in the Scout Oath, such as loyalty, helpfulness and kindness. The Scout Law also describes scouts as trustworthy and obedient, and notes that their dispositions are cheerful, friendly and courteous. In addition, the Scout Law denotes thriftiness, reverence, bravery and cleanliness.

Controversy

The Scout Oath and the Scout Law have been employed during some high-profile refusals of membership and dismissals of active, accomplished scouts. In 1990, an assistant scoutmaster named James Dale was removed from the organization upon discovery that he was gay and a gay rights advocate. The organization took the position that Dale's homosexuality violated the oath's pledge to be “morally straight,” as well as the law's pledge to remain “clean.” Dale sued the organization and his case was brought before the United States Supreme Court.

Two years later, a federal court ruled in favor of the Boy Scouts in a case brought by a young boy named Mark Welsh, who was denied membership because he was an atheist. Again, the wording of the oath and law were invoked to demonstrate that Welsh could not conform to the organization's requirements of reverence and loyalty to God. Welsh's family appealed to the Supreme Court, but the appeal was turned down without comment in 1993.

Legal Outcomes

Both James Dale and Mark Welsh argued that the Boy Scouts of America is a public organization which receives funding and services from the government and, as such, could not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or religion. The Supreme Court argued that ruling in favor of Dale would violate the Boy Scouts' First Amendment right of expressive association.

Some cities withdrew support for the Boy Scouts regardless of the ruling. Berkeley, Calif., ended their policy of providing free meeting space for the Boy Scouts in 1998. The city of San Diego revoked the group's special access to city parks in 2004. Congress became involved in 2005, overriding local discrimination laws and passing a law that would require all cities to restore the Boy Scouts' previous access to municipal properties and facilities.

References

• Boy Scouts of America: Scout Oath and Law
• “The Economist”; Boy Scouts: Discrimination and the Law; April, 2000
• “Los Angeles Times”; U.S. Judge Says BSA Can Reject Atheist Scouts; March, 1992
• Cornell University Law School: Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (99-699) 530 U.S. 640 (2000)
• “Time”; The Boy Scouts' Free-Speech Fight; Sean Scully; May, 2008
• "Chicago Tribune"; High Court Backs Boy Scouts On God Pledge; Linda Campbell and Robert Becker; December, 1993