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

Related Topics:
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.

OPINION

‘I Hope You Find Happiness’: Moskowitz Trolls Comer Over Impeachment Fail

Published

10 hours ago

on

April 24, 2024

By

U.S. Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL) is mocking House Oversight Committee Chairman Jim Comer over a CNN report revealing the embattled Kentucky Republican who has been alleging without proof President Joe Biden is the head of a vast multi-million dollar criminal bribery and influence-peddling conspiracy, has given up trying to impeach the leader of the free world.

CNN on Wednesday had reported, “after 15 months of coming up short in proving some of his biggest claims against the president, Comer recently approached one of his Republican colleagues and made a blunt admission: He was ready to be ‘done with’ the impeachment inquiry into Biden.” The news network described Chairman Comer as “frustrated” and his investigation as “at a dead end.”

One GOP lawmaker told CNN, “Comer is hoping Jesus comes so he can get out.”

“He is fed up,” the Republican added.

Despite the Chairman’s alleged remarks, “a House Oversight Committee spokesperson maintains that ‘the impeachment inquiry is ongoing and impeachment is 100% still on the table.'”

RELATED: ‘Used by the Russians’: Moskowitz Mocks Comer’s Biden Impeachment Failure

Last week, Oversight Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-MD) got into a shouting match with Chairman Comer, with the Maryland Democrat saying, “You have not identified a single crime – what is the crime that you want to impeach Joe Biden for and keep this nonsense going?” and Comer replying, “You’re about to find out.”

Before those heated remarks, Congressman Raskin chided Comer, humorously threatening to invite Rep. Moskowitz to return to the hearing.

Congressman Moskowitz appears to be the only member of the House Oversight Committee who has ever made a motion to call for a vote on impeaching President Biden, which he did last month, although he did it to ridicule Chairman Comer.

It appears the Moskowitz-Comer “bromance” may be over.

Wednesday afternoon Congressman Moskowitz, whose sarcasm is becoming well-known, used it to ridicule Chairman Comer.

“I was hoping our breakup would never become public,” he declared. “We had such a great thing while it lasted James. I will miss the time we spent together. I will miss our conversations. I will miss the pet names you gave me. I only wish you the best and hope you find happiness.”

Watch the video above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

Continue Reading

OPINION

‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

Published

12 hours ago

on

April 24, 2024

By

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case centered on the question, can the federal government require states with strict abortion bans to allow physicians to perform abortions in emergency situations, specifically when the woman’s health, but not her life, is in danger?

The 1986 federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), signed into law by Republican President Ronald Reagan, says it can. The State of Idaho on Wednesday argued it cannot.

U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, The Washington Post’s Kim Bellware reported, “made a clear delineation between Idaho law and what EMTALA provides.”

“In Idaho, doctors have to shut their eyes to everything except death,” Prelogar said, according to Bellware. “Whereas under EMTALA, you’re supposed to be thinking about things like, ‘Is she about to lose her fertility? Is her uterus going to become incredibly scarred because of the bleeding? Is she about to undergo the possibility of kidney failure?’ ”

READ MORE: Gag Order Breach? Trump Targeted Cohen in Taped Interview Hours Before Contempt Hearing

Attorney Imani Gandy, an award-winning journalist and Editor-at-Large for Rewire News Group, highlighted an issue central to the case.

“The issue of medical judgment vs. good faith judgment is a huge one because different states have different standards of judgment,” she writes. “If a doctor exercises their judgment, another doctor expert witness at trial could question that. That’s a BIG problem here. That’s why doctors are afraid to provide abortions. They may have an overzealous prosecutor come behind them and disagree.”

Right-wing Justice Samuel Alito appeared to draw the most fire from legal experts, as his questioning suggested “fetal personhood” should be the law, which it is not.

“Justice Alito is trying to import fetal personhood into federal statutory law by suggesting federal law might well prohibit hospitals from providing abortions as emergency stabilizing care,” observed Constitutional law professor Anthony Michael Kreis.

Paraphrasing Justice Alito, Kreis writes: “Alito: How can the federal government restrict what Idaho criminalizes simply because hospitals in Idaho have accepted federal funds?”

Appearing to answer that question, Georgia State University College of Law professor of law and Constitutional scholar Eric Segall wrote: “Our Constitution unequivocally allows the federal gov’t to offer the states money with conditions attached no matter how invasive b/c states can always say no. The conservative justices’ hostility to the spending power is based only on politics and values not text or history.”

Professor Segall also served up some of the strongest criticism of the right-wing justice.

READ MORE: ‘They Will Have Thugs?’: Lara Trump’s Claim RNC Will ‘Physically Handle the Ballots’ Stuns

He wrote that Justice Alito “is basically making it clear he doesn’t care if pregnant women live or die as long as the fetus lives.”

Earlier Wednesday morning Segall had issued a warning: “Trigger alert: In about 20 minutes several of the conservative justices are going to show very clearly that that they care much more about fetuses than women suffering major pregnancy complications which is their way of owning the libs which is grotesque.”

Later, predicting “Alito is going to dissent,” Segall wrote: “Alito is dripping arrogance and condescension…in a case involving life, death, and medical emergencies. He has no bottom.”

Taking a broader view of the case, NYU professor of law Melissa Murray issued a strong warning: “The EMTALA case, Moyle v. US, hasn’t received as much attention as the mifepristone case, but it is huge. Not only implicates access to emergency medical procedures (like abortion in cases of miscarriage), but the broader question of federal law supremacy.”

READ MORE: ‘Blood on Your Hands’: Tennessee Republicans OK Arming Teachers After Deadly School Shooting

 

 

 

Continue Reading

News

Gag Order Breach? Trump Targeted Cohen in Taped Interview Hours Before Contempt Hearing

Published

14 hours ago

on

April 24, 2024

By

Hours before his attorneys would mount a defense on Tuesday claiming he had not violated his gag order Donald Trump might have done just that in a 12-minute taped interview that morning, which did not air until later that day. It will be up to Judge Juan Merchan to make that decision, if prosecutors add it to their contempt request.

Prosecutors in Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office told Judge Juan Merchan that the ex-president violated the gag order ten times, via posts on his Truth Social platform, and are asking he be held in contempt. While the judge has yet to rule, he did not appear moved by their arguments. At one point, Judge Merchan told Trump’s lead lawyer Todd Blanche he was “losing all credibility” with the court.

And while Judge Merchan directed defense attorneys to provide a detailed timeline surrounding Trump’s Truth Social posts to prove he had not violated the gag order, Trump in an interview with a local television station appeared to have done so.

READ MORE: ‘They Will Have Thugs?’: Lara Trump’s Claim RNC Will ‘Physically Handle the Ballots’ Stuns

The gag order bars Trump from “commenting or causing others to comment on potential witnesses in the case, prospective jurors, court staff, lawyers in the district attorney’s office and the relatives of any counsel or court staffer, as CBS News reported.

“The threat is very real,” Judge Merchan wrote when he expanded the gag order. “Admonitions are not enough, nor is reliance on self-restraint. The average observer, must now, after hearing Defendant’s recent attacks, draw the conclusion that if they become involved in these proceedings, even tangentially, they should worry not only for themselves, but for their loved ones as well. Such concerns will undoubtedly interfere with the fair administration of justice and constitutes a direct attack on the Rule of Law itself.”

Tuesday morning, Trump told ABC Philadelphia’s Action News reporter Walter Perez, “Michael Cohen is a convicted liar. He’s got no credibility whatsoever.”

He repeated that Cohen is a “convicted liar,” and insisted he “was a lawyer for many people, not just me.”

READ MORE: ‘Old and Tired and Mad’: Trump’s Demeanor in Court Detailed by Rachel Maddow

Since Cohen is a witness in Trump’s New York criminal case, Judge Merchan might decide Trump’s remarks during that interview violated the gag order, if prosecutors bring the video to his attention.

Enter attorney George Conway, who has been attending Trump’s New York trial.

Conway reposted a clip of the video, tagged Manhattan District Attorney Bragg, writing: “cc: @ManhattanDA, for your proposed order to show cause why the defendant in 𝘗𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘷. 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 should not spend some quiet time in lockup.”

Trump has been criminally indicted in four separate cases and is facing a total of 88 felony charges, including 34 in this New York criminal trial for alleged falsification of business records to hide payments of “hush money” to an adult film actress and one other woman, in an alleged effort to suppress their stories and protect his 2016 presidential campaign, which experts say is election interference.

Watch the video below or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Blood on Your Hands’: Tennessee Republicans OK Arming Teachers After Deadly School Shooting

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.