Connect with us

Intel Explains Boy Scout Funding Policy

Published

on

Activist’s focus shifts to UPS

Intel has revealed new details about its plan to exclude organizations that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation from its corporate giving, a move that could cost some Boy Scout troops thousands of dollars in donations.

Meanwhile, the activist whose campaign helped pressure Intel into announcing the plan has turned his attention to UPS, another of the Scouts’ corporate backers.

In an interview last week with The American Independent, Intel’s foundation explained that it will require all recipients — including individual Boy Scout troops and councils — to sign a letter agreeing to comply with the company’s non-discrimination policy, which bars funding for any group that discriminates based sexual orientation.

In September, a TAI report showed that the company had given $700,000 to various Boy Scout groups in 2010 through its “Intel Involved” volunteer matching grant program — despite the Scouts’ policy excluding gays and lesbians.

Zach Wahls of Scouts for Equality subsequently launched a petition drive calling on Intel to halt donations until the Boy Scouts reversed their exclusionary policy. That petition drive spurred Intel to issue a statement indicating that its foundation had already decided to apply “new rigor” to its grant-making process to ensure that all recipients complained with its non-discrimination policy.

On Wednesday, Wahls launched a similar campaign against UPS, which donated $167,000 to the Boy Scout in 2010 and about $85,000 in 2011. As of Monday, Wahls’ petition had nearly 14,000 signatures.

In an earlier interview, a UPS spokesperson told TAI that the Boy Scouts’ reaffirmation of its discriminatory policy “has not and will not impact The UPS Foundation’s decision to provide funding to BSA although we evaluate each funding request on an individual basis.”

In Intel’s case, the company’s donations to various Boy Scout entities appeared to clash with its own policies regarding its volunteer matching program, which donates funds to charities based on employees’ volunteer hours. According to its website, the foundation disqualifies “organizations that discriminate on the basis of race, color, creed, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, veteran, or disability statuses” from the grant program.

TAI’s original report included several comments from Intel Foundation executive director Wendy Ramage-Hawkins:

When asked about the Intel’s funding policies, Intel Foundation executive director Wendy Ramage-Hawkins told TAI via email: “All organizations seeking financial support from the Intel Foundation are required to affirm their compliance with Intel’s non-discrimination corporate donation policy. Organizations that cannot affirm their compliance will not receive funding from the Intel Foundation.”

Intel wouldn’t say whether or not it would continue to fund the Boy Scouts.

“We will know if and when they affirm our non-discrimination policy and request our support,” Ramage-Hawkins said.

She later clarified that the Intel Foundation will be asking for a statement of agreement with their nondiscrimination policy in the next grant cycle but had not done so in the past.

“We have not previously asked for affirmation, so this will be the first time the question is raised,” she said.

Shortly after Wahls launched the petition drive to urge Intel to end donations the Boy Scouts until they ended their exclusionary policy, Intel sent a statement to Think Progress.

“In an effort to recognize our employees commitment to the communities we call home, Intel expanded its volunteer matching grants program in 2009,” Intel’s Chief Diversity Officer, Rosalind Hudnell said. “Through it, Intel matches the amount of time employees’ volunteer with non-profits with dollars from the Intel Foundation. Due to significant growth in the number of organizations funded, earlier this year we revisited our policies associated with the program, and applied new rigor that requires any organization to confirm that it adheres to Intel’s anti-discrimination policy in order to receive funding.”

TAI asked Intel Spokesman Chuck Mulloy what that “new rigor” looks like.

Mulloy said that individual Boy Scout troops that participate in the volunteer matching program will be contacted to ensure that they follow Intel’s non-discrimination policy.

“We want them to acknowledge that they have read and will comply with the non-discrimination policy,” he said. “For example, let’s say Troop 222 is going to get funded. They will get a letter that says, ‘You understand — and your organization will comply with — the non-discrimination policy.’”

If the troop does not sign that letter, it will not get funded, said Mulloy.

He said that the new scrutiny being applied to the matching grant program came about last spring when Intel noticed that it hadn’t been checking whether organizations receiving funds were following Intel’s non-discrimination policy.

“We needed to be in compliance with our non-discrimination policy,” he said.

“When we set up the ‘Intel Involved” matching grant program, we said, ‘That’s a great idea,’” explained Mulloy. But as the program saw tremendous growth, the company realized it hadn’t properly vetted the organizations. “We looked at it and said, ‘Wait a minute, we forgot to check this.’”

Mulloy said that the new rules in the program will apply to every organization slated to receive funds, not just the Boy Scouts, and scout troops that sign the non-discrimination statement will still receive funding.

TAI contacted Boy Scout entities that received money from Intel in the past, including the Golden Empire Council in Calif., the Knox Trail Council in Mass., and the Cascade Pacific Council in Ore. But they said they hadn’t yet heard from Intel and wouldn’t say whether they had plans to sign a non-discrimination statement.

Still, at least one Boy Scout council has prepared a document that it hopes will start the conversation with Intel.

Chris Shelby, the executive scout with the Great Southwest Council in New Mexico — which got about $4800 from Intel in 2010 — told TAI via email, “We will work with Intel to develop a better understanding of how GSWC will deal with the issue.”

He sent TAI what he called the council’s membership standards, which appears to mirror the national Boy Scouts policy and does not appear to explicitly prohibit discrimination.

The document states, in part:

Great Southwest Council does not teach any program dealing with human sexuality, other than to encourage members to be sexually responsible to themselves and others. Programmatically, it places other issues of human sexuality, including heterosexual and homosexual sexuality, outside of its program;

Great Southwest Council does not initiate inquiry into the sexual orientation of existing or prospective members;

Great Southwest Council believes that issues or questions of human sexuality arising among its members are the province of that member’s family, religious leaders, doctors or other qualified advisors;

Great Southwest Council asks its members or those who seek to become members to subscribe to its programs, policies, principles and standards in support of Scouting’s mission. Among other reasons, Great Southwest Council reserves the right to exclude a member if his or her sexuality or behavior becomes publicly inappropriate;

Inappropriate sexual behavior is inconsistent with the Scout program and may hinder, distract or prevent Great Southwest Council from attaining its long sought and well established goals to foster the development of youth;

Great Southwest Council does not permit its organization to be used as a vehicle to promote any personal, political, social or other agenda that is inconsistent with Scouting’s mission or attaining its goals;

Great Southwest Council follows applicable laws and regulations dealing with employees’ rights and the fair treatment of people generally.

The Boy Scouts national policy, which the organization reaffirmed in July, is very similar.

In June, the BSA released the following statement:

The BSA policy is: “While the BSA does not proactively inquire about the sexual orientation of employees, volunteers, or members, we do not grant membership to individuals who are open or avowed homosexuals or who engage in behavior that would become a distraction to the mission of the BSA.”

Scouting believes same-sex attraction should be introduced and discussed outside of its program with parents, caregivers, or spiritual advisers, at the appropriate time and in the right setting. The vast majority of parents we serve value this right and do not sign their children up for Scouting for it to introduce or discuss, in any way, these topics.

The BSA is a voluntary, private organization that sets policies that are best for the organization. The BSA welcomes all who share its beliefs but does not criticize or condemn those who wish to follow a different path.

This article originally appeared at The American Independent and is republished here by permission.

Related:

Boy Scouts Lose Largest Donor Over Anti-Gay Policies

Hundreds Of Boy Scouts’ Child Sex Abuse Cases Covered Up For Decades

Boy Scouts Determined To Continue Ban On Gays After Secret Study

There's a reason 10,000 people subscribe to NCRM. You can get the news before it breaks just by subscribing, plus you can learn something new every day.
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

‘Better Without It’: Trump Now Trashes the Deal He Once Called the Best Ever

Published

on

President Donald Trump spent years praising the trade deal he signed into law in 2020, the USMCA — United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement — which was his replacement for NAFTA — the North American Free Trade Agreement.

“America’s great USMCA Trade Bill is looking good,” Trump wrote in 2019. “It will be the best and most important trade deal ever made by the USA.” Declaring it would be good for everybody, he cheered, “we will finally end our Country’s worst Trade Deal, NAFTA!”

One year earlier, Trump said that his USMCA would serve as a means for Mexico to pay for his border wall:

“Mexico is paying for the wall through the many billions of dollars a year that the U.S.A. is saving through the new Trade Deal, the USMCA, that will replace the horrendous NAFTA Trade Deal, which has so badly hurt our Country. Mexico & Canada will also thrive – good for all!”

On Wednesday in Paris, the president gave reporters a different take on his deal, suggesting he would prefer to have no trade deal with America’s top trading partners, Canada and Mexico.

“I think it’s better without it,” Trump said. “I mean, to be honest with you. I’m not a big fan of it.”

He said the reason he had “liked it” was it helped get the U.S. out of NAFTA.

“That is the thing I liked about it the most,” Trump insisted. “We do better without an agreement.”

The president then offered two different scenarios. He said he would rather leave any USMCA extension “unsigned,” but then declared, “I’d rather have it terminated.”

When a reporter explained that those are “different things,” Trump replied, “I would rather not have the agreement, but I may sign it.”

“I would rather not have the USMCA,” he said. “I would prefer not having an agreement, but I’m open to doing it. We’ll see what happens.”

“It’ll be terminated,” he continued, as opposed to it expiring and not being renewed.

“I view it as possibly expiring immediately,” the president said.

The USMCA is up for renewal on July 1, but the U.S. has ruled that date out, Bloomberg News reported. “The US is negotiating on a bilateral basis. Talks with Mexico are ongoing, including sessions this week, while formal talks with Canada have not been launched.”

Last week, Trump said: “We don’t need anything that Canada has, we don’t need anything that Mexico has, but they need everything that we have, and they have to treat us better.”

 

Image via Reuters 

Continue Reading

News

Carville Predicts When Trump Will Resign — and Why

Published

on

President Donald Trump will not serve out his full second term in office, argues political strategist James Carville, but rather, he will resign and “walk away.”

Carville points to two major reasons looming over Trump as to why he believes the 47th president will exit the office.

“I want to be very clear on something,” says Carville. “I’m not doing this as a crazy a—— prediction. I’m doing it because I genuinely think that he will resign next spring.”

“He’s going to walk away because the pain that is coming for him, both the emotional pain and the physical deterioration, you watch it right in front of your eyes,” said Carville. “I don’t have to be a doctor to see this guy can’t move. He can’t get out of a chair. I know what it’s like to be in the 80s. And unlike a lot of people, I know what that job is like, and it’s not compatible. You know, maybe there’s some people 80 who could do that. He’s not one.”

Acknowledging that he is not a medical doctor, Carville does note that he is close to Trump’s age: the president is 80, Carville is approaching 82.

He highlights Trump’s “rate of decline from Election Day to now,” and warns that “it’s not linear. You don’t lose a quarter of a percent a month. When it goes down, it goes quickly, and you can look at him and see how just fat and unhealthy he is.”

The other reason Carville believes Trump will exit the White House next spring: he suggests a tremendous loss in the November midterms for Trump, and explains how devastating that will be.

“I know what it’s like to lose a massive off-year election,” says Carville. “We did in 1994. It’s so monumental. It’s so massive. It hurts so deep. You just can’t imagine it. The entire world around him is going to change after November of this year.”

“People don’t pay attention to you,” says Carville. “They’re making jokes. Everybody knows you’re on a short leash. You got two years left to go. You don’t have any power. Everybody around you is being subpoenaed for everything that you can imagine. Your life is miserable.”

Carville went on to declare, “I’m doubling down on this prediction. He is just going to walk away.”

Trump, Carville predicts, will tell Vice President JD Vance — who would become president should Trump resign — that as president Vance can likely pardon himself. And while there is “some uncertainty as to whether you can do that,” there is “no uncertainty” as to whether a President Vance can pardon Trump and his family.

“So, I’m sticking with my prediction,” says Carville. “I think the son of a b—— is just going to walk away.”

 

Image via Reuters 

Continue Reading

News

‘Five-Alarm Fire Bell at GOP HQ’: Conservative Warns of Brutal November for Republicans

Published

on

Republican National Committee leadership is staring at a “five-alarm fire bell,” conservative analyst Henry Olsen warns, as President Donald Trump’s sinking poll numbers put the GOP’s Senate majority at risk in November.

“The Republicans’ Senate fortunes,” Olsen writes at The Washington Post, “are tied to the man in the Oval Office. If the president can recover his standing even a few points, the GOP will probably retain Senate control. But all bets are off if he remains as unpopular as he is now.”

Olsen, a longtime Republican strategist and a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, explains that at the start of the year the road map for Democrats looked daunting. They had to gain four Senate seats to win the majority, while holding three open seats — Minnesota, New Hampshire and Michigan — that were seen as “far from safe.”

At best, the “most politically favorable remaining states” on the Senate map — Ohio, Iowa and Alaska — “were all carried by Trump by over 10 points. Democrats have not won a Senate seat in a state that red since 2018, when Jon Tester prevailed in Montana and Joe Manchin carried West Virginia.”

The tables have turned, and now it is Republicans who are facing an uphill battle.

Democrats are “leading or statistically tied in all of the seats they need to retain,” and “also lead or are statistically tied in six GOP-held states: Alaska, Iowa, Maine, North Carolina, Ohio and Texas.”

Plus, retired Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the expected Democratic nominee for Senate in Florida, is ahead of Republican U.S. Senator Ashley Moody, according to one recent poll.

Of course, as Olsen suggests, the campaigns have yet to get into full swing, there is still time, and the Democrats’ Maine nominee, Graham Platner, could be seen as a wild card.

“Perhaps Platner’s troubles will allow Collins to equal or slightly surpass her earlier result, but even then, the vast majority of her support will come from Trump approvers,” says Olsen. “If that total is under 40 percent, as it surely is right now, Collins probably won’t win.”

“But surely no one in the Republican high command thought they would be trailing or tied in 10 critical Senate races at this stage,” writes Olsen. “That sound you hear is a five-alarm fire bell at GOP HQ.”

In today’s polarized era, Olsen notes, many voters back their party rather than the candidate — and a party whose leader is underwater on most key issues weighs on every candidate on the ticket.

 

Image via Reuters 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2026 AlterNet Media.