Should The Government Discriminate To Prevent Discrimination?

An openly gay Vineland, NJ student is protesting the use of Cumberland County College facilities by the Boy Scouts of America. He makes the claim that the Scouts should be banned from campus because they discriminate against gays and atheists.

Ignoring the obvious fun that could be had with this (he was intimidated by a Boy Scout ceremony?), I believe that he is absolutely wrong. Simply because the Boy Scouts legally, as a private organization, discriminate and the college receives public funding does not mean that the Scouts should automatically be banished from campus. To say that they should be is completely inconsistent with the concept of freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech requires that sometimes public facilities get used for purposes, congregations, rallies, or events with which we disagree. And that is a principal that has been upheld by the courts time and time again. People burn flags in public parks. Are we to eject all flag burners and make them do their deed on private property? The KKK holds marches and rallies on public streets and in public parks. Taxpayers fund those streets and parks, just like they do the college. Is the Klan to be denied their right to hold public gatherings because allowing them to walk down the street might be construed as government sanction of the Klan position?

Even on campus, fraternities and sororities would be illegal as they are gender discriminatory. Sports like women's softball, women's soccer, and men's swimming would all become illegal because of gender discrimination. Book clubs would be taboo because they might discriminate against the illiterate. Engineering organizations would become illegit because they might discriminate against mathematically challenged liberal arts students. Atheist organizations would be a no-no because they would discriminate against believers. And gay organizations would be out because they might discriminate against heterosexual students.

Taken to the extreme, in an effort to protect Mr. Brandon's sensibilities (which I think are lacking - oops, sorry. I said I wouldn't do that. Bad, Chris. Bad!), we would essentially outlaw the freedom of association and the freedom of free speech in the very atmosphere where there is the greatest cry to protect those freedoms.

"If you select to discriminate against one organization because of its viewpoint," [David Perry, executive director of the Southern New Jersey Council of the Boy Scouts of America] said, "you must do the same to all organizations with a viewpoint."

If the Boy Scouts have paid to use the facility and they are engaging in a perfectly legal activity, then the state has no right to coerce the Scouts to change their beliefs as a condition of use any more than they have the right to coerce the Klan to give up racial prejudice as a precondition of walking down the street in sheets and carrying signs. A private meeting in a public building is no different than a private congregation on a public road. So long as all the actions of the participants are legal, the state has no right to interfere with their freedom of association.

This is going to turn into a great waste of taxpayer money with there either being no change in policy or a new policy in which we take away basic fundamental freedoms from all in order to protect the sensibilities of one person.