James Dale spent 12 years of his life working with the Boy Scouts of America (BSA). As an assistant scoutmaster, he was proud of the work he was doing and the organization itself. In 1990, the Scouts learned he was gay and expelled him from the organization. In an interview with The Advocate, Dale was quoted as saying, “I think what the scouting program teaches is self-reliance and leadership. Giving your best to society. Leaving things better than you found them. Standing up for what’s right. That’s one of the ironies of this whole story—that when they found out that I was gay, suddenly I wasn’t good enough anymore.” Searching for help, Dale turned to the courts. A state court ruled that the BSA’s restriction was illegal and Dale should be allowed to serve as a scoutmaster. The court further concluded that there was no evidence that a gay scoutmaster could not care for or impart the BSA’s values to his Scouts. When the BSA appealed this decision, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the state supreme court’s decision and ruled against Dale and for the Boy Scouts of America. In essence, the decision allowed the BSA to continue to be able to determine who could or could not join their private organization.

The United Way realized that their anti-discrimination policies were in conflict with the national BSA policy that allowed discrimination against avowed gays. Yet, in many towns, the United Way provides funds to support the local Boy Scouts. The national United Way organization issued a statement emphasizing that local United Way chapters determined their own anti-discrimination policies. Several independent United Way agencies had funding policies requiring agencies wishing to receive funds over which the United Way has discretion to agree to provide services without discriminating on the basis of age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, national origin, or disability.

UNITED WAY OF COLUMBIA-WILLAMETTE

Larry Norvell, the local head of the United Way of Columbia-Willamette (UWCW), knew that the time had come for his agency to face the issue of allocations to the local BSA organization, the Cascade Pacific Council of the Boy Scouts of America (CPCBSA). By this time, three United Way board members had spoken to the media accusing the BSA of teaching hatred and intolerance. Besides these board members, Norvell had to work with several other groups of stakeholders (agency heads, UWCW personnel, donors, community people, etc.) who strongly felt that the agency’s anti-discrimination policy should be applied to the local Boy Scout organization.

Norvell experienced his own personal struggles over the matter. He realized that, as the head of the local United Way, his task was to obtain donations for the numerous agencies in the Portland area that served the needy, not to pursue a personal agenda over an issue that could be construed as divisive.

LARRY NORVELL’S PERSPECTIVE

Larry Norvell stated his perspective in an interview:

Long before the Dale case, our allocation volunteers had raised questions about the Scouts’

outreach to minorities and gays. We have an anti-discrimination policy within the United Way but don’t impose it on agencies. It originated in 1984 when one of our board members became very concerned about the Boy Scouts and the gay issue. I wasn’t here at the time, but I was told that the board didn’t want lots of negative publicity during the campaign.

They came up with a policy statement strongly encouraging agencies to have policies of anti-discrimination, including sexual orientation.

When the Dale story broke in the paper last summer [2000], my board chair told me to get on it. One board member, in particular, was very concerned. Other board members were equally concerned about the possibility of negative publicity occurring during our campaign.

There are a couple of board members who are particularly conflicted about this issue. I know it is going to be a difficult decision for them as well as the other board members, but I am convinced everyone will go into this with an open mind and make the best decision for us. We have to put aside any personal agendas. The central issue is, “How can the United Way best serve the community?” We have to look beyond the immediate situation. We can decide to not fund the Scouts because of our policy against any kind of discrimination, but we have to weigh the consequences for all of our stakeholders.

We have to consider the future implications of any decision that we make. If we adopt a policy that precludes allocation of United Way funds to any agency that discriminates, we might lose $2 million in contributions, which is about 10% of our total campaign.

A bigger issue is future controversy; how does a decision today set us up for the next controversial issue to affect our community? Several years ago we had a controversy over allocations to Planned Parenthood. Catholic Charities withdrew from the United Way in opposition to Planned Parenthood’s stance on abortion. Should we take stances on community issues and run the risk of losing agencies, funding, and other types of support? And yet these are exactly the types of agencies we are pledged to help.

Others argue that we represent 83,000 contributors in this community and those contributors do not speak with one voice. People make contributions to the United Way without advocating a particular moral set or philosophy. They’re saying we want the United Way to be the big umbrella that makes decisions based on where the dollars can have the greatest impact.

Another thing to consider is that we have one of the most progressive donor-directed giving programs in the nation. Donors have the ability to direct their gifts to a specific agency or away from a specific agency. If people feel an agency such as the Boy Scouts is unacceptable to them, they can [tell us to] send their gift where they choose.

This past year we only had 11 agencies that were negatively designated and the Scouts were one. I believe they were negatively designated to the tune of about $380,000, most of which were corporate funds. In particular, Wells Fargo Bank and Portland General Electric asked us to withhold funds from the local BSA because of their companies’ nondiscrimination policies.

In addition, we had 140 companies that told us they would not conduct their United Way campaigns until we resolve this Scout issue.

We also met with 30 to 40 key business leaders who told us, “United Way, why are you into this mess? We are not supporting you to weigh in on political or controversial issues.”

Personally I don’t want anyone discriminated against. I believe that people don’t choose to be gay. I spoke with several ethicists about our situation. Does discrimination against gays fall in the context of a moral issue? Both said it did. But one told me that at least half of the energy devoted to the gay issue would be feelings-oriented rather than rational. He said I wouldn’t be likely to persuade people with reason.

I also spoke with African-American leaders and several Jewish leaders and asked for their advice. One advisor told me to look at how the United Way can serve the greater good. If the United Way weighed in for gays, who would be helped? Who would be hurt? Would it change the public’s feelings about gays? What about the poor elderly lady who lives in isolation and needs assistance—what if she isn’t able to receive help from an agency because our contributions fall? Is taking a moral stance worth it? Can we really change the Scouts?

CASE QUESTIONS

1. In your opinion, does Larry Norvell face an ethical challenge? Or can he simply handle this situation as a business decision and focus on the bottom line? Explain.

2. If you were Larry Norvell, how would you prepare for your meeting with the United Way board to discuss the issue of whether to continue providing funds to the Boy Scouts?

Identify the three key points that you would make and your rationale for each point.

3. If you were a board member, what would your position be on the question of whether the Columbia-Willamette United Way should continue to provide funds to the local Boy Scouts? Would you be in favor of, or against, providing United Way funds to the Boy Scouts? Explain your thinking.