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

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.

BREAKING NEWS

DOJ Signals It Is Conducting a Criminal Investigation of George Santos

Published

on

The U.S. Dept. of Justice Friday signaled it is conducting a criminal investigation of U.S. Rep. George Santos‘ campaign finances when it asked the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to pause its probe into the embattled New York freshman GOP lawmaker.

“The request is the clearest sign to date of an active criminal investigation examining the congressman’s campaign finances,” The Washington Post reports.

But NBC News goes one step further.

“Federal prosecutors in New York have opened an investigation into Rep.-elect George Santos, two law enforcement sources confirmed Thursday,” NBC states. “The probe by federal prosecutors from the Eastern District of New York is at least the second investigation into Santos.”

READ MORE: Another Santos Financial Concern: GOP Lawmaker Claims Campaign Paid WinRed Triple the Fees It Should Have

“The two sources confirmed that prosecutors are examining Santos’ finances, including potential irregularities involving financial disclosures and loans he made to his campaign as he was running for Congress,” NBC adds.

The Santos campaign this week, according to The Daily Beast, amended FEC filings that originally claimed about $625,000 in “personal” loans from the candidate’s personal funds were actually not from the candidates personal funds. Santos has since refused to state where the money came from.

DOJ also asked the FEC for any “relevant documents” for the Santos’ campaign, The Post noted.

READ MORE: Watch: Santos Responds to Report He Joked About Hitler, ‘The Jews’ and Black People

“Separately, the Securities and Exchange Commission on Friday interviewed two people about Santos’s role in Harbor City Capital, an investment firm that was forced to shut down in 2021 after the SEC accused it of operating a ‘classic Ponzi scheme,'” according to The Post’s reporting.

Continue Reading

News

Watch: Nancy Pelosi Says ‘I Have Absolutely No Intention of Seeing the Deadly Assault on My Husband’s Life’

Published

on

U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) the former Speaker of the House, told reporters she has no intention of watching just-released video of the almost fatal, brutal attack on her 82-year old husband, allegedly by a hammer-wielding, far-right conspiracy theory promoting extremist.

DePape had “posted antisemitic screeds and entries defending former President Donald Trump and Ye, the rapper formally known as Kayne West who recently made antisemitic comments,” CBS News reported one day after the attack.

Earlier Friday, before the video had been released by a judge’s order, Rep. Pelosi said did not know if she would watch the video.

Later, Friday afternoon, Pelosi said she would not.

READ MORE: Pelosi Attack Video Release Leads to Criticism of Musk, Right Wingers Who ‘Trafficked in Homophobic Conspiracy Nonsense’

“As you know, today there was a release of some information. I have not heard the 911 call. I have not heard the confession. I have not seen the break-in, and I have absolutely no intention of seeing the deadly assault on my husband’s life.”

Prosecutors have described the attack as “near-fatal.”

She also thanked “people for all of their prayers,” and for “asking about the progress my husband is making, and he is making progress, but it will take more time.”

Apparently choking up, she added that she would not be making any more statements about this case as it proceeds, except again to thank people and inform them of Paul’s progress.”

Watch below or at this link.

 

Continue Reading

RIGHT WING EXTREMISM

Pelosi Attack Video Release Leads to Criticism of Musk, Right Wingers Who ‘Trafficked in Homophobic Conspiracy Nonsense’

Published

on

News organizations won the release of police body cam video that shows the horrific moment when an intruder, “without warning or hesitation,” whacked Paul Pelosi, the 82-year old husband of the now-former Speaker of the House, with a hammer, knocking him unconscious and to the ground in a pool of blood, in what prosecutors called a “near-fatal” assault.

The alleged assailant is David DePape, a purveyor of far-right conspiracy theories, including QAnon and Pizzagate, COVID-19 disinformation, along with “Big Lie” videos from My Pillow CEO Mike Lindell. He is facing multiple state and federal charges.

Depape reportedly broke into the Pelosi home, screaming, “where’s Nancy?” which some including The Atlantic’s David A. Graham  have noted eerily echoes insurrectionists hunting for Nancy Pelosi on January 6, 2021, screaming, “Nancy! Nancy Pelosi!” “Where you at, Nancy?” “Where’s Nancy?”

From the moment news broke of the October 28, 2022 attack on the husband of the Speaker of the House, who told police he was there to violently attack Nancy Pelosi, those on the right, including Elon Musk, ex-president Donald Trump,  and other anti-Pelosi and pro-Trump activists, quickly suggested, implied, or even claimed Depape was Paul Pelosi’s boyfriend, or that it had somehow been an anonymous sexual tryst that went bad – despite no evidence.

READ MORE: Man Charged With Attacking Paul Pelosi Is a MAGA Cultist Who Said the Speaker Was Using ‘Fake Evidence to Spy On’ Trump

In the video, which should be watched only with extreme caution, police can be seen approaching the front door of the Pelosi home, the door opening, DePape holding Paul Pelosi by the wrist with one hand, and a hammer in the other. Within seconds he attacks Pelosi, who falls to the ground. Police take DePape down to the ground, and moaning can be heard, although it’s unclear if it is from Pelosi or his alleged assailant.

DePape told police he wanted to break Nancy Pelosi’s kneecaps and hold her hostage. Since she was across the country in D.C., he ended up fracturing her husband’s skull instead.

Despite the video, the far-right refuses to let go of its false claims about Paul Pelosi, which are hurtful not only to the Pelosi family, but to the LGBTQ community.

Just days after the almost deadly attack Donald Trump falsely claimed, “You know, probably, you and I are better off not talking about it. The glass, it seems, was broken from the inside to the out and, you know, so, it wasn’t a break in, it was a break out.”

Kara Swisher, the well-known tech journalist and opinion writer, blasted those who are ignoring the clear video evidence (not to mention the massive reporting) of the attack.

READ MORE: ‘Suicide Mission’: Pelosi Attacker Named ‘Prominent State and Federal Politicians’ He Wanted to Target

“All those who trafficked in homophobic conspiracy nonsense about this,” she wrote Friday on Twitter, “such as the owner of this increasingly shitty platform, should be ashamed,” Swisher said, referring to Elon Musk.

“They won’t be, but they are heinous & utterly lost,” she added, linking to a Washington Post article titled, “Judge releases evidence, video footage in attack on Pelosi.”

Indeed, two days after the attack, Elon Musk tweeted then later deleted the claim that “there is a tiny possibility there might be more to this story than meets the eye.” The Independent reported Musk, “attached a screenshot of a bogus report accusing Mr Pelosi of getting into a drunken fight with a male prostitute.”

Politico’s Sam Stein also highlighted Musk pushing the apparent falsehood: “The release of the Paul Pelosi video is a useful reminder that the owner of this here platform pushed conspiracy theories around the attack.”

Entrepreneur and programmer William LeGate, who won a Thiel fellowship at the age of 18, on Friday tweeted: “Now that the Paul Pelosi surveillance footage & 911 call have been made public, it’s time homophobic bigots like Elon Musk, Tucker Carlon, & the like to issue a public apology for spreading the ‘lover’s quarrel’ conspiracy theory.”

MSNBC executive producer Kyle Griffin made remarks similar to Swisher’s: “A lot of conservatives spread disgusting, nonsensical conspiracies about the Paul Pelosi attack — including Elon Musk. Some are still spreading them. Those people should be ashamed.”

Republican former U.S. Congressman Adam Kinzinger, linking to a Politico report on the release of the video, said, “Can we please dig up every persons tweet who made fun of this or cast doubt? This was a sick attack and politicians minimizing it suck.”

READ MORE: ‘Break Her Kneecaps’: Feds Charge Suspect Who Attacked Paul Pelosi as New Details on His Motivation Are Revealed

Salon’s Amanda Marcotte defended the release of the video with this explanation: “Seeing folks question why it was necessary to release the footage of the attack on Paul Pelosi, which is incredibly violent and disturbing. Well, a big reason is Republicans have treated the attempted murder as a joke.”

She linked to an article she wrote in early November titled, “After the Pelosi attack, Republicans have quit pretending they oppose political violence.”

Journalist and SiriusXM host Michelangelo Signorile also went after Republicans.

“The Paul Pelosi video — and the surveillance video — show the danger and brutality of the attacker,” he tweeted. “Every Republican who mocked this attack is filled with nothing but hate and bile.”

NCRM is embedding the video below, from The Associated Press. We caution watching the brutal video, which is longer than many others and includes the actual attack and the moments after. Again, we urge caution.

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.