In 1968 Dr. Howard Brown resigned his position as New York City Health Commissioner rather than risk being named in Drew Pearson's impending exposé of homosexuals in city government. Unable to reveal the real reason for his sudden departure, Brown left office leaving Mayor Lindsay baffled at the loss of this highly valued, dedicated commissioner. Several years later, Brown made history as the first public official of such stature to proudly acknowledge being homosexual—and thus ended a life of fear. His book, Familiar Faces, Hidden Lives, is a moving account of the oppression and daily anguish of a homosexual man living in fear of exposure and with a sense of being inherently impaired. Four years of psychoanalysis only deepened this view of himself, Dr. Brown wrote; it took many more years to recover a belief in himself as worthwhile and capable.
A similar atmosphere of intimidation and rejection vis-à-vis homosexuals pervaded many psychoanalytic institutes—only we did a better job of keeping them out rather than having to ferret them out. Our tactics were less witch hunt and more rationalization—applicants were told they were “unanalyzable” or to “reapply when you've been cured”—but no less damaging. Several gay psychiatrists have told me their stories of being advised not to apply for analytic training or of being rejected when they did. One respected leader in psychiatry, now retired, was rejected by two institutes when he acknowledged his homosexual orientation but was accepted by a third when he did not reveal it to interviewers. However, after telling his training analyst in the first session, the analyst reported it and he was immediately dropped from the institute. Another psychiatrist told me, with deep bitterness, “You have to realize—lives and careers were harmed.”
It's true that we had no formal policy of discrimination against homosexual individuals, but we must ask ourselves, Where are they, then? Exploring probable reasons is beyond the scope of this report, but the lack of numbers speaks loudly. For a group our size, even conservative estimates would predict about a hundred or more homosexual members. Ask yourself how many lesbian and gay analysts you know.
But all that's in the past, and it's different now, isn't it? After years of resistance and bitter opposition, we adopted the 1991–92 Statement on Homosexuality, a policy that states simply that candidates, faculty, and training analysts must be selected on the basis of qualifications for those roles and not on the basis of sexual orientation. Most institutes are making good-faith efforts to comply, as was evident in discussions at last December's Workshop on Selection. Informal reports indicate that a third of our institutes (perhaps there are more we don't know of yet) have openly gay or lesbian candidates. Interest is growing among potential applicants as word spreads of the new openness. In The American's highly competitive Resident Fellowship program, at least one winner each year has voluntarily acknowledged being homosexual; it is reasonable to conclude from this figure that in the course of our history perhaps 7 percent of the best and brightest have been excluded from our profession.
Adopting the nondiscrimination policy was the first step. A second was taken in 1992 in appointing the Committee on Issues of Homosexuality, whose purpose is to become aware of persisting bias and discrimination and to facilitate changes in attitude and policy through consultation and education. This committee's purview is bias and discrimination, not theoretical and clinical questions regarding sexual orientation, which were to be addressed by a separate task force. That third step was finally taken this year, when the Committee on Scientific Activities agreed to evaluate and report on the validity of our theoretical and clinical ideas about homosexuality.
Meanwhile, our committee continues to work toward full acceptance of the official policy, going beyond legalistic, unbiased decisions and toward an atmosphere of genuine acceptance. It is important that we acknowledge past acts of injustice, that we recognize continuing areas of disagreement over theory, and that we not let these differences keep us from a commitment to evaluate applicants, candidates, and faculty on individual merit, without ever again pronouncing individuals unsuited for our profession simply because they are homosexual.
Our committee sponsors workshops on Homosexuality and Psychoanalytic Education for institute representatives; the fourth is to be held this month at the meetings. Issues discussed have included special considerations in interviewing homosexual applicants, difficulties of being the first gay candidate in an institute, faculty prejudice, and unrecognized ignorance about gay people's lives. Gay candidates report that classroom discussions are often uncomfortable for them because of teachers' theoretical positions or lack of understanding about what it's like to be gay or lesbian.
We have learned that at least six institutes have started faculty study groups to explore newer views of homosexuality, and that three institutes have made it the subject of weekend faculty retreats or symposia. Some institutes have actively sought gay applicants; another awarded its first research fellowship to a lesbian candidate.
The committee has compiled a bibliography on homosexuality, representing the different points of view, as well as a summary report from the workshops. Copies have been sent to the institutes and are available to individuals upon request. We also offer consultation to institutes or individuals concerning selection decisions or other educational issues. It should be emphasized that we are not an appeals board and have no authority to overturn institute decisions. However, we can help individuals explore their institute's own appeals processes or act as confidential consultant to institutes with difficult situations. (To request a consultation or copies of reports, contact Ralph Roughton, 1175 Peachtree St., Atlanta, GA 30361, 404–892–7561.)
Another function of the committee, an attempt to overcome The American's negative reputation for its past positions on homosexuality, is communicating to professional colleagues and to the public that changes are being made. Our best advertisement is the positive experience of the growing number of homosexual candidates now in our institutes. News travels fast through the network of residents and young psychiatrists who are interested but wary, and therefore it is doubly important that we make these experiences realistically positive.
We have responded selectively to published statements that cast The American or the profession of psychoanalysis in an unfavorable light. Letters have been published in TAP, as well as in Psychoanalytic Psychology, Psychiatric News, and the New York Times, some of which were responses to statements by other members of The American. This last is a difficult issue, controversial even within our committee, some of whom perceive it as “attacking our own.” Nevertheless, the Executive Committee of The American and a large majority of our committee have backed these
attempts to make it clear that no one speaks for all psychoanalysts on this subject, no matter how much he may have created that impression in the past.
For example, should we leave unchallenged the chillingly negative portrayal of homosexuals as seriously disturbed and predatory that one of our members submitted as a deposition in support of the repressive Colorado Amendment 2? This issue, now before the U.S. Supreme Court, would overturn all gay rights ordinances in Colorado and restrict the rights of homosexuals to participate equally in the political process. Should we ignore insensitive statements, attributed to a member in the New York Times, concerning a brutal homophobic murder, and ignore statements on national TV impugning the scientific credibility of research because it was conducted by scientists who happened to be gay? Such positions by a prominent psychoanalyst are used by others to rationalize their hatred and oppression of homosexuals. Because psychoanalysts and The American have been widely regarded as homophobic, official silence in the face of such public statements is perceived as agreement. Our committee strongly supports academic freedom and opposes intimidation. But free speech does not guarantee unchallenged speech.
A related question: should The American, or our committee, become involved in public advocacy in the area of discrimination? For example, should we have joined the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, and other professional groups in supporting efforts to lift the ban on gays in the military? Our psychoanalytic colleagues in Denver were leaders in the successful fight to overturn Amendment 2 at the state level, and their amicus curiae brief will be available to the Supreme Court. As yet The American has not taken such steps. Should we? Our committee welcomes the input of members on these controversial issues.
Now for some better news. As early as 1980, just four years after the publication of Familiar Faces, Hidden Lives, one psychoanalytic institute accepted two applicants who were open about their homosexuality and remain so. Both are now graduate analysts and respected members of their analytic community. One of them, in fact, has recently been elected a society president. I heard this as news of historic proportion, juxtaposed to that earlier resignation in fear. This election also is evidence of the process of overcoming prejudice. In some institutes that process began years ago, simply through the process of accepting qualified individuals. In other institutes, it is just beginning. Perhaps someday we will all be there, where talent trumps labels and where knowing people dispels stereotypes.
But we are not there yet. Our committee has recommended that a nondiscrimination statement be included in institute bulletins. One education committee debated this issue and voted against it because, as one committee member said, they didn't want to appear “too welcoming.” How much that reflects prejudice, or reaction to feeling coerced, or the conflation of administrative policy with analytic neutrality, I cannot say. But I do know that news of that action will spread rapidly in the network of gay psychiatric residents and will be interpreted as a loud “keep out,” and not at all as neutrality. We still have miles to go.