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.

News

Trump Appears to Confuse America’s Revolutionary War With the Civil War

Published

6 hours ago

on

June 18, 2025

By

President Donald Trump, speaking about war as he attempts to decide whether or not to actively support Israel by bombing Iran, appeared to confuse America’s war for independence —the Revolutionary War—with America’s Civil War.

Asked in the Oval Office on Wednesday afternoon if he’s made a decision about what, if anything, he will do regarding Iran, the President told reporters, “I have ideas as to what to do, but I haven’t made a final.”

“I like to make the final decisions one second before it’s due, you know, ’cause things change. I mean, especially with war, things change with war, it can go from one extreme to the other.”

READ MORE: ‘Feckless or Complicit’: Hegseth Blasted in Heated Hearing Over Social Media Influencer

“War’s very bad. There was no reason for this to be a war,” he said, apparently about Israel and Iran.

“There was no reason for Russia, Ukraine. A lot of wars, there was no reason for.”

“You look right up there,” Trump said, pointing to the wall, “I don’t know, you see the Declaration of Independence, and I say, I wonder if you, you know, the Civil War always seemed to me maybe that could have been solved without losing 600,000 plus people.”

The Declaration of Independence was America’s declaration it would no longer be ruled by England. It effectively became a declaration of war: the American Revolutionary War, or the American War of Independence, which lasted from 1775 to 1783.

By contrast, the American Civil War was fought in the following century, from 1861 to 1865, over slavery.

READ MORE: ‘Middle Finger to Parental Rights’: SCOTUS Conservatives Scorched Over Trans Kids Ruling

Critics were quick to mock the President.

“I think we all remember our schooling, when we learned how the Declaration of Independence led to the Civil War,” snarked former journalist Landon Hall.

“As a Canadian, even I know that the Declaration of Independence has absolutely zero to do with the Civil War, what is going on down there?” asked filmmaker Robert Fantinatto.

“Does he think the Declaration of Independence was written in response to the Civil War?
What is he talking about?” asked attorney Robyn J Leader.

Watch the video below or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘It’s Biblical’: House Republican Defends His Support for Israel

 

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

News

‘Feckless or Complicit’: Hegseth Blasted in Heated Hearing Over Social Media Influencer

Published

9 hours ago

on

June 18, 2025

By

U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth faced sharp and stern criticism during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing over his highly controversial decision to fire Air Force General Timothy D. Haugh, head of the National Security Agency and U.S. Cyber Command. Reports suggested a far-right social media influencer was behind the move to terminate the NSA Director in what some have called a “loyalty purge.”

Calling General Haugh’s dismissal “sudden and inexplicable” and “deeply concerning,” U.S. Senator Jackie Rosen (D-NV) told Secretary Hegseth it “raises significant questions about the decision-making process,” and “its potential consequences.”

“Public reports indicate that the removal of General Haugh, who has served his country proudly, has been influenced by social media influencer, an influencer— a personality on social media, Laura Loomer—spreads conspiracy theories. She’s been denounced even by Republicans,” Senator Rosen charged. “And the idea that any leaders within our agency responsible for out nation’s security—somebody would be dismissed based on the advice of a social media influencer is alarming to say the least. It’s surely not how we should be running our military.”

READ MORE: ‘Middle Finger to Parental Rights’: SCOTUS Conservatives Scorched Over Trans Kids Ruling

Senator Rosen demanded to know if Hegseth was “consulted” regarding the dismissal of General Haugh.

“Well, Senator, I would not advise believing everything you read in the media,” was Secretary Hegseth’s response.

After a heated back-and-forth, Hegseth declared, “I’m the decision-maker for the department. And we all serve at the pleasure of the President, and we have the prerogative to make those decisions.”

Refusing to state specifically that he personally relieved general Haugh, Hegseth served up a more generic response.

“Anyone at that level who was relieved would be relieved by the Secretary of Defense,” he stated.

Hegseth also refused to respond when asked if there was a specific justification for General Haugh’s dismissal.

“Uh, Ma’am, we all serve at the pleasure of the President and the President deserves the type of Commanders and advisers that he thinks will best equip…to accomplish the mission.”

Hegseth also refused to say if he discussed dismissing Haugh with Laura Loomer.

“I don’t discuss who I talk about anything with, but ultimately, this is my decision, and he serves at the pleasure of the president, and that’s why he’s no longer there,” was the Secretary’s reply.

After another question, Hegseth told Senator Rosen, “Uh, I believe your time is up, Senator.”

READ MORE: ‘It’s Biblical’: House Republican Defends His Support for Israel

“Oh,” Rosen vehemently responded, “it is not up to you to tell me when my time is up.”

“Well, the time—” Hegseth continued.

“I am going to say, Mr. Secretary, you’re either feckless or complicit. You’re not in control of your department. You are unserious. It is shocking. You’re not combating antisemitism within your ranks. It’s a dangerous and pivotal time in our nation’s history,” Senator Ro9sen warned.

“And I don’t appreciate the smirk, sir. You are the Secretary of Defense.”

Watch below or at this link.

READ MORE: Dr Oz: Americans Must ‘Earn the Right’ to Be on Medicaid

 

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

News

‘Middle Finger to Parental Rights’: SCOTUS Conservatives Scorched Over Trans Kids Ruling

Published

11 hours ago

on

June 18, 2025

By

Legal experts, advocates for transgender youth, and the liberal justices of the U.S. Supreme Court are condemning SCOTUS’s 6–3 decision to uphold a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for minors. All six conservative justices sided with the ban—some going further to disparage scientific expertise, dismiss the value of medical consensus, and signal that transgender Americans should not be granted protected class status.

Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion upholding the ban, known as SB1.

“An estimated 1.6 million Americans over the age of 13 identify as transgender, meaning that their gender identity does not align with their biological sex,” Justice Roberts wrote at the opening of his opinion, acknowledging that transgender youth exist. In his footnotes he also acknowledged their use of pronouns: “We use ‘transgender boy’ to refer to an individual whose biological sex is female but who identifies as male, and ‘transgender girl’ to refer to an individual whose biological sex is male but who identifies as female.”

Approximately 25 states across the country have some form of ban on medical care for transgender youth. Those bans—including puberty blockers—likely will now stay in place, affecting more than 100,000 transgender youth (as of 2023), according to the Williams Institute.

READ MORE: ‘It’s Biblical’: House Republican Defends His Support for Israel

Justice Amy Coney Barrett took extra steps to write that “transgender status” does not constitute “suspect,” class deserving of strict scrutiny, a higher level of judicial review.

“The Equal Protection Clause does not demand heightened judicial scrutiny of laws that classify based on transgender status,” she also wrote.

Justice Clarence Thomas denigrated what he called “the expert class.”

“There are several problems with appealing and deferring to the authority of the expert class,” he wrote. Justice Thomas added, “whether ‘major medical organizations’ agree with the result of Tennessee’s democratic process is irrelevant.”

“To hold otherwise would permit elite sentiment to distort and stifle democratic debate under the guise of scientific judgment, and would reduce judges to mere “spectators . . . in construing our Constitution.”

Meanwhile, Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent is being praised by transgender advocates and trans-supporting legal experts. And in her dissent she directly opposed Justice Barrett’s claims.

“To give meaning to our Constitution’s bedrock equal protection guarantee, this Court has long subjected to heightened judicial scrutiny any law that treats people differently based on sex,” Justice Sotomayor wrote.

She said in her opinion that Tennessee’s law discriminates against transgender adolescents, and “expressly classifies on the basis of sex and transgender status.” In its ruling, the Supreme Court, Sotomayor wrote, “abandons transgender children and their families to political whims.”

“Tennessee’s ban applies no matter what the minor’s parents and doctors think, with no regard for the severity of the minor’s mental health conditions or the extent to which treatment is medically necessary for an individual child,” she noted.

READ MORE: Dr Oz: Americans Must ‘Earn the Right’ to Be on Medicaid

“This case presents an easy question: whether SB1’s ban on certain medications, applicable only if used in a manner ‘inconsistent with . . . sex,’ contains a sex classification,” Justice Sotomayor concluded. “Because sex determines access to the covered medications, it clearly does. Yet the majority refuses to call a spade a cspade. Instead, it obfuscates a sex classification that is plain on the face of this statute, all to avoid the mere possibility that a different court could strike down SB1, or categorical healthcare bans like it.”

“The Court’s willingness to do so here does irrevocable damage to the Equal Protection Clause and invites legislatures to engage in discrimination by hiding blatant sex classifications in plain sight. It also authorizes, without second thought, untold harm to transgender children and the parents and families who love them. Because there is no constitutional justification for that result, I dissent.”

Attorney Andrew L. Seidel labeled Sotomayor’s dissent, “Clear, concise, and brilliant.”

Attorney Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, responding to the ruling, wrote: “Solidarity with trans people today, who are facing growing state oppression here and globally.”

Writer and former Human Rights Campaign spokesperson Charlotte Clymer wrote on the ruling: “The Supreme Court’s ruling prioritizes the discomfort and fear of some non-trans people over the health and wellbeing of trans youth. It disregards science and every major medical authority. It endorses the state controlling parents and doctors. Every resulting suicide is on the hands of these anti-trans justices.”

Illinois Democratic Governor JB Pritzker, responding to news of the decision, wrote: “Illinois has enshrined protections to meet this very moment. In a time of increasing overreach and hateful rhetoric, it’s more important than ever to reaffirm our commitment to the rights and dignity of the LGBTQ+ community. You have a home here always.”

Political scientist Dr. Norman Ornstein, a contributing editor to The Atlantic, declared: “In effect, the Supreme Court has given a middle finger to parental rights by accepting a Tennessee law banning gender- affirming care for youth. This is a decision that should be made within the family. They love parental rights when it fits right wing aims.

READ MORE: Tapper Tells Ex-Viewer Trump’s Behavior Is More About ‘Personality’ Than Cognitive Decline

 

Image via Shutterstock

 

 

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.