The Committee of Concerned Psychoanalysts made a motion at the Washington, D.C., May 1992 meeting that the Executive Council consider the petition which it had received bearing the names of many analysts throughout the country. The petition asked that no vote be taken on the expansion of the New Orleans Resolution on Homosexuality by the addition of the words, “supervising and training analysts,” without first bringing this Expansion Amendment (the “Roughton Amendment”) to the membership at large for discussion and clarification. We believed that this was vital, as the Amendment could be subject to a wide range of interpretations or possible misunderstandings. We made a second motion that the Roughton Amendment be voted on only by mail ballot of the total membership, in the interest of inclusion and the widest possible discussion possible. A vote on our motion could not take place validly, as there was not a quorum at the May Meeting of Members. Nonetheless, the Roughton Amendment was somehow “adopted” even though it was never presented to the Business Meeting for a vote, nor was there a quorum present to allow such a vote to take place.
The New Orleans Resolution stated that we deplore discrimination. This of course is true. We are concerned, however, vis-á-vis the Roughton Amendment, that we have a clear understanding of whether or not homosexuals who are candidates in training would be analyzed for their homosexuality; also whether homosexuality is now considered a normal form of sexual behavior. If a diagnosis of homo-sexuality is going to be deleted by the American Psychoanalytic Association, as it was by the American Psychiatric Association, let us be clear. We believed that what would be decided now would have far-reaching consequences regarding teaching in medical schools and departments of psychiatry, the publication of books and papers, the presentation of papers and panels, and the freedom of psychiatrists to help patients who had come to them because they were not satisfied with their homosexuality and did not believe that they were born homosexual. We were further moved in this direction by the threat of various committees within the American Psychiatric Association about “organizing some action” against psychiatrists who treat homosexuals for their homosexuality. (American Journal of Psychiatry, February, 1992). We believed, furthermore, that it was wrong for anyone to threaten the American Psychoanalytic Association with an American Civil Liberties action if we did not adopt the Roughton Amendment. (Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 1992, Vol. 40, no.4.). If the treatment of homosexuality were to become an “unethical practice,” as advocated by certain factions in the American Psychiatric Association, certainly one can see that the de facto result would be the censorship of teaching in medical schools, of writing, publishing, presentation, and of clinical investigation. Indeed, such censorship has already been experienced by members of this Association other than the authors. Censorship does not have to be de jure to be de facto.
During the nine months following the May meeting, our committee sought to find a way to remove the threat of ACLU action, which we had been told by the leadership “would bankrupt the American,” and so we put forth a “compromise” proposal. This proposal, the “New York” Amendment to the Resolution on Homosexuality, guaranteed equal treatment for all, as well as preserved the academic freedoms of investigation and presentation. Our proposed New York Amendment of December 1992 to the Resolution on Homosexuality reads as follows:
“It is furthermore expected that the adoption of this Resolution should in no way be construed as limiting or promoting the free investigation and exploration of every aspect of human behavior and personality, including sexuality (its origins, meaning, and function) during the course of a psychoanalytic treatment. As a guideline for the training analyst, this is understood to hold true whether the candidate is of homosexual or heterosexual orientation. It is in keeping with Freud's assertion that the “fundamental task” of psychoanalytic inquiry is the understanding of human behavior in all its manifestations.
“In furtherance of this goal and in the spirit of civil rights (including academic rights) for all, the membership asserts that there shall be no exercising of censorship or abridgment of the freedom of speech, thought or writing in connection with the presentation or publication of material on the subject of homosexuality. Furthermore, analysands who wish to change from a homosexual orientation to a heterosexual one shall not be discouraged or impeded from realizing this goal.”
At the Washington meeting in May 1992, the president of the American Psychoanalytic Association, George Allison, M.D., recommended that the matter be taken up more fully at the General Membership Meeting in December 1992. However, this did not take place as discussion time was severely limited at the December meeting and very few members were allowed to speak. At that meeting we deferred the question of voting by mail in order to introduce the New York Amendment to the Homosexual Resolution. This was done in the hope of working out a compromise solution. The New York Amendment was accompanied by 87 proxies in furtherance of its acceptance. The final vote at the Business Meeting was tallied as follows: 87 proxies for, 5 votes on the floor for; 80 proxies against, 93 votes on the floor against. There was no roll call vote on the floor, nor was there a bi-lateral examination of proxies.
Finally, we believe that a matter of such importance should involve the serious, indepth, and inclusive scientific discussion of as many members as possible. To date, this has most definitely not been the case. We believed that the New York Amendment to the Homosexual Resolution was a balanced solution as regards civil rights and First Amendment issues, as well as the intellectual issues involved in this controversy. We respectfully urge that all psychoanalysts give thoughtful consideration to the concerns stated herein.
Charles W. Socarides, M.D.
New York
C. Downing Tait, M.D
Atlanta
Co–chairmen, Committee of Concerned Psychoanalysts