Noble Principles, Misguided Protests

What do the Ku Klux Klan and the Boy Scouts have in common? Not much. But recently, the fight against discrimination--once targeted at obvious villians such as the Klan and the American Nazi Party--has broadened to encompass such symbols of Americans as the Boy Scouts, the Army and the St. Patrick's Day Parade.

Due to these organizations' less than enlightened view of homosexuality, supporters of gay rights denounce and boycott them. But while the principle behind this protest is noble, the underlying logic is flawed. Moreover, the effects of such boycotts, and the means used to implement them, are actually more harmful than beneficial.

I do not propose to defend the anti-gay policies of the Boy Scouts, the armed forces, or the Ancient Order of Hibernians. All three groups do, however, have reasons for their opposition to the presence of homosexuals. The first two are concerned about the tensions homosexuals could cause in intimate all-male situations, while the latter considers itself a religious organization which must obey the clear Biblical condemnation of homosexuality.

Too often protesters against perceived discrimination deny the legitimacy of the other side's claims. "My" opinion is a conviction; "Your" opinion is merely a prejudice. In fact, both parties are attempting to serve a principle they find valuable.

Even if one fails to be convinced by the arguments for anti-gay policies, how to behave towards groups with such policies is a far more complex issue than it seems. The absolutist solutions that have so far prevailed--boycotts of one sort or another--appear morally pure at first but are really a form of "not in my back yard." Boycotts express the naive belief that refusal to be tainted by association with offending groups will have as salutary an effect on the community as it will on one's own character.

For example, Colorado's recent discriminatory law prompted right-thinking folks to cancel trips to and performances in that state, and even sparked a debate over whether Harvard should turn down a gift of a Colorado ski resort. This type of divestment, however, merely deprives pro-gay rights people and organizations of the opportunity to exercise an influence in the state. it thereby worsens the condition of gays and supporters of gay rights there.

A similar incident of hands-off righteousness occurred at Yale last week. Dwight Hall, the student-run public service center (analogous to Harvard's Phillips Brooks House), refused space to the Boy Scouts, despite their admirable public service record, because they do not allow gay members or scoutmasters. Even had the Connecticut branch of the Boy Scouts wanted to change its policy due to these local pressures, the national headquarters would not permit it. (This is the same dilemma that the ROTC branches face when boycotted by universities.)

The good that this public service organization might have done was entirely discounted by the Yale students. They forfeited an opportunity to persuade the Boy Scouts to change the discriminatory policy while supporting the group's considerable public service potential. A willingness to compromise temporarily, and to see good as well as bad in the offending organization, could lay the foundations for dialogue with discriminatory groups about their policies. By contrast, the current all-or-nothing spirit of self-righteous boycotters makes institutions like the Boy Scouts and the army feel defensive and hostile towards advocates of inclusion.

In the case of New York's St. Patrick's Day Parade, the good of the community was disregarded in a more subtle manner. By taking a permit away from the Ancient Order of Hibernians and granting it to a group that would allow a gay organization to march under a progay banner, the city government established the dangerous precedent that the government can selectively withhold the right to use public space based on the opinions of the user.

The rationales for such boycotts have generally invoked a university's or a city's non-discrimination policies. While these policies are ethically and constitutionally justified, they are being misused.

Consider a university which officially designates itself an equal opportunity employer that does not discriminate on the basis of race, sex, religion, etc. All this means is that the university is prohibited from refusing to hire, admit, or deal fairly with homosexual teachers, employees and students.

Having such a policy does not give a university--and still less a city--the right to decide that some groups' means of restricting membership are more legitimate than other. Harvard, for example, grants official recognition and support to student groups that define their membership by exclusion of one gender (Radcliffe Union of Students), race (Asian-American Association) or sexual orientation (Bisexual, Gay and Lesbian Student Association). If this does not violate the non-discrimination rule, neither should ROTC or the Boy Scouts.

Exclusion is not always discrimination. Even when it is, believers in equal justice for all should think twice before responding to discrimination with discrimination and purchasing their own moral purity at the expense of others' interests and rights.

Boycotts of groups with anti-gay policies are ineffective--and often misused