Perspectives

A merit badge in stupidity

Banning the Sea Scouts

By James Fullmer
From the April 2006 Print Edition

Six years ago, the Supreme Court of the United States decided in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale that the Boy Scouts’ policy of barring homosexual scoutmasters was protected under the First Amendment. As usual, though, our beloved city of Berkeley enjoyed being different, and it targeted the Sea Scouts, a subsidiary of the Boy Scouts, for that very policy.

At issue was a free berth at the Berkeley Marina that the city had provided to the Scouts for more than 50 years. Having passed a law stipulating that all nonprofits using the marina for free must comply with the city’s nondiscrimination laws, the Berkeley City Council began charging the Sea Scouts rent for their berth. This past month, the California Supreme Court sided with the city in the case Evans v. City of Berkeley.

There are so many things wrong with this that it boggles the mind. Legalistically, it is not even clear that the case was decided correctly according to jurisdiction and precedent. While at first glance it may seem like the Sea Scouts were in violation of city policy, the amicus curiae brief filed by the Boy Scouts in support of the Sea Scouts argues that the city was actually in violation by creating the policy in the first place. The brief lists a number of cases in which the Supreme Court held that “government cannot condition access to government benefits on the relinquishment of First Amendment rights.” Also noted is the idea that such an action on the part of the government is a form of “viewpoint discrimination,” in which a group is denied benefits or access simply because of its beliefs.

Furthermore, in targeting the Sea Scouts, Berkeley ignored other organizations that were in violation of the nondiscrimination law. Berkeley therefore denied the Scouts their equal protection of the law — which, as the brief dryly notes, is itself a form of discrimination. Other organizations, such as the Bay Area Association of Disabled Sailors, have membership requirements in violation of the nondiscrimination policy, but not one of these organizations has seen its free berthing taken away.

For those who are interested in delving deeper into the legal issues, the ruling itself is available online. Let us leave the legal issues for now and move beyond, to the practical implications of Berkeley’s crusade against the Sea Scouts. Why would the city do this?

In most communities in this country, the general idea is that the city government should promote activities that benefit civic life and the public good. If something contributes to the vitality of a city and its citizens, it should be encouraged. The reverse is true, as well; the city should restrict activities that are bad for the community, within the limits of protecting freedom. This is a model for governance that works valiantly for most places — but not Berkeley.

In almost any other community, the Sea Scouts would be applauded, not persecuted. The Sea Scouts teach children — many of whom come from low-income or minority families — skills associated with sailing, as well as carpentry and plumbing. Even more important, they impart a sense of responsibility and discipline that kids aren’t going to get in public school. Certainly the more responsible and disciplined a community’s youth are, the better for that community.

In Berkeley, however, this public good is subordinated to the ruling liberal ideology. It is more important to members of the Berkeley City Council to self-righteously declare themselves champions of nondiscrimination than to think about what is really important for the city. This is the same type of thinking that led to the policy of spending taxpayer funds on the refrigeration of lost shopping carts of homeless people. I’m not one to pass judgment on individuals who are in the unfortunate situation of domicile displacement, but I do realize that a large homeless population isn’t a good thing for a city.

Likewise, the Sea Scouts’ “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy may be anathema to politically correct sensibilities, but considering that it’s never actually been used to bar a single homosexual from the organization, it doesn’t seem to be the type of thing worth making a big deal over. And even if one is uncomfortable with the moral standards of an organization, does the good not outweigh the bad? The instilling core of the Sea Scouts more than absolves petty disagreements.

But then again, this is Berkeley. Pragmatism is nice, but why be led by common sense when you can be leashed by ideology?

Meanwhile, as the Berkeley City Council is patting itself on the back for a job well done, the retired schoolteacher who runs the Sea Scouts is paying the rent for the berth out of his own pocket. He’s not going to let political correctness get in the way of tangible benefits to passionate youth. But his noble efforts do not pay all the bills. Already the Scouts’ fleet has been cut from three boats to one, and now the skipper can no longer subsidize the program fees for the disadvantaged youngsters who want to be a part of the group. The poor get punished yet again.

Social justice is a wonderful thing.

If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting the Patriot