by Karen Ocamb

Once again—this time on Oct. 20—the Los Angeles Police Commission will debate the link between the LAPD’s Explorers Program, operated by the nonprofit group Learning for Life, and Learning for Life’s parent company—the Boy Scouts of America. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled June 28, 2000 that the organization has the right to discriminate against LGBT people since it is a private religious institution.

That ruling prompted the L.A. city council on Nov. 28, 2001 to disassociate the Explorers program from the Boy Scouts by a vote of 11-0 (one councilmember was absent).

“We have to send a message that we will not tolerate discrimination,” said openly gay then-councilmember Jackie Goldberg. Under the city’s non-discrimination law, the city had a legal obligation to sever ties, said councilmember Mike Feuer. “We have no choice.”

Openly gay lawyer and police commissioner Dean Hansell, appointed by Mayor Richard Riordan, immediately started pressing the case, holding hearings that provided direct evidence of the link between Learning For Life and the Boy Scouts, and ordering the LAPD to create a suitable replacement for the popular Explorers program.

Hansell, followed by Shelley Freeman and now Rob Saltzman, along with scores of community leaders at the hearings and the LAPD Chief’s Community Forums, have been pressing the case ever since—to no avail.

A few things have changed recently that may finally force the severing of ties between BSA/LFL and the LAPD. First, LAPD Chief Bill Bratton—who has deflected attempts to make the change—is leaving. Second, L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who promised to sever the ties, started a pilot program with the Fire Department to prove to the LAPD and the Police Commission (his appointees, to whom he does not dictate positions, he says) that an equally effective alternative youth program can work. And finally—and most importantly—on Sept. 29, newly elected City Attorney Carmen Trutanich issued a clear and unequivocal legal opinion that the ties must be severed for contractual reasons as well as non-compliance with the city’s non-discrimination laws.

“LFL provided us with what it contends is the L.A. Scouts' policy on non-discrimination. The document is entitled ‘Sexual Advocacy or Behavior: Zero Tolerance Statement,’” Trutanich wrote. “This L.A. Scouts document falls well short of a policy of non-discrimination and does not comply with the city’s law. If LAFD or LAPD desire to continue to contract out the administration of their youth development programs and the L.A. Scouts desire to be a contractor or subcontractor, then the L.A. Scouts should adopt a non-discrimination policy that adheres to the city’s law on non-discrimination.”

Saltzman, who is also an associate dean at USC Law School, has taken up the mantle.

“Finally, after too long, we have a clear city attorney opinion confirming what we already knew: the Boys Scouts and Learning for Life are out of compliance with city law; as a result, the city’s arrangements with LFL should be ended. It seems to me that there are only two remaining issues: (1) what new program will replace these youth programs; and (2) how quickly can the changes be made,” Saltzman told Frontiers In L.A. in an email.

“While the arrangement with LFL must end, I also know firsthand the significant value of the Explorers Programs to the LAPD and for the young men and women who participate, many of whom are African-American or Latino,” Saltzman continued. “But no matter how valuable the programs, that value is no justification for them to be administered by an agency that does not comply with the city’s non-discrimination laws. Regrettably, when this issue has been considered in the past, the many supporters of the Boy Scouts have successfully used the quality of the Explorer Program to defeat efforts to separate the substance of the program from the Boy Scouts.”

Interestingly, the African American and Latino youth about whom the LFL and the commissioners are so concerned are always posited as heterosexual. Frontiers and others have repeatedly pointed out at the Chief’s Forums that scout leaders and youth of color might also be LGBT and while they may be tolerated by LFL in L.A., they are at risk for harassment at away games explicitly run by BSA. LAPD officials emphatically insist that would not be allowed to happen—as if the harassed leader or youth would actually report being hurt or humiliated.

Under the city attorney’s opinion, Saltzman said, “[t]he Boy Scouts are entitled to discriminate based on sexual orientation and religion in their own affairs, but they are not entitled to both discriminate and administer an L.A. city youth program. They must choose one or the other.”

Saltzman praised the Fire Commission for acting “courageously” to sever the Fire Department’s relationship with the Explorer Program and said he is “encouraged by preliminary indications that the LAPD may finally be ready to propose the creation of its own youth program, independent of the Explorers. I strongly support such an approach,” as does Villaraigosa.

“I welcome the LAPD’s many significant and substantive changes and improvements in recent years,” Saltzman said. “It is time to bring these valuable youth programs into full compliance with the city’s non-discrimination laws, so that these youth programs can take their rightful place in the ‘new LAPD.’”

L.A. Police Commission hearings are public. They start at 9:30 a.m. at their new location—100 W. 1st St., between Spring and Main. The agenda is posted online at lapdonline.org under Police Commission.