The Image of a Scout

A recent letter to the editor in the LA Times responded to an op-ed piece by Charles Fleming (a former Scout, current professor at USC) that criticized the Boy Scouts of America and its continued discrimination against gays.

The writer of the letter (Howard Lockwood) expressed his resentment towards Fleming's article, saying that, "It appears he [Fleming] became politically liberal and ashamed of being an Eagle Scout [...] Fleming and the ACLU want to kill Scouting unless it conforms to their liberal views."

It appears that Lockwood wants to preserve the traditional, conservative nature of the organization. He references several prominent past scouts that appear to epitomize the image of scouting.

Lockwood believes that "Scouting builds character and responsibility and develops personal fitness. Any boy would be lucky to be in Scouting, and now more than ever its positive influence is needed."

It is difficult to see how one's sexual orientation could inhibit them from building their character and responsibility and developing their fitness through Scouting. If Lockwood truly stands behind his claims, shouldn't "any boy" truly mean "any boy," regardless of their sexual orientation?

It is understandable that Lockwood wants to preserve the traditional, historic image of Scouting, and apparently manhood, that he hold so closely to his personal life and heart, but does it necessarily have to be a postwar, uncritically bourgeois and stridently heterosexist image? Perhaps Lockwood needs to re-imagine what it means to be a Scout.