Ralph Roughton's “Progress Report” on homosexual admissions policy (TAP 29/4) begs us to let political correctness shape science. It is a disjointed lecture on what the psychoanalytic community should do to stop hurting homosexuals' feelings—an emotional indictment of colleagues who offered “years of resistance and bitter opposition” to his concept of progress.
Roughton's article is fraught with inconsistencies and flawed logic. He proposes that sexual orientation should not be an issue when assessing admissions; yet he advances the contrary position that special consideration should be given to gay candidates and even applauds the fact that “some institutes have actively sought gay applicants.” He says it is important that “we recognize continuing areas of disagreement over theory,” yet he drives hard toward his personal conclusion that those who disagree with a politically correct position on homosexual admission are bad for the profession.
I do not fault Roughton for reminding us that gays continue to endure pain from society's discriminatory practices. I must fault him, however, for using numerous mea culpas in his article as a means of blocking any discussion that homosexuals suffer from being homosexual. Roughton creates the false impression that the motivation of psychoanalytic institutes to deny admission for psychoanalytic education to homosexuals was equivalent to Drew Pearson's motivation in exposing homosexuals in government. That's a hideous distortion of the truth.
Admission to psychoanalytic training should, for obvious good reasons, routinely include the screening of candidates regarding their mental health status. In his zeal to normalize homosexuality, Roughton would rather have homosexuality be a desirable trait for admission. He wants to look the mainstream press straight in the eye and declare, “Look how many of them we have in our ranks. See how fair we are!” But the core issue, if we use scientific, rather than political, protocols, is that many applicants are refused admission for excellent reasons that include acts of sexual expression — homo- or heterosexual — that are pathological. It may “look bad” when a candidate rejected on these grounds is homosexual, but public trust must supersede public relations. To retain public trust, our admissions policies must be based on firm clinical and scientific grounds before we undertake to normalize any behavioral pattern that has been regarded as pathological.
My major concern with Roughton is simply that he tries to suppress any further debate on the health issue of homosexuality, even to the point of making wild accusations against those who disagree with him and dare to voice their opinions in a scientific, legislative, or public forum. Admissions policies have changed to his liking; now he wants scientific data to follow suit. A change in policy does not mean the debate should stop, nor should it respond to popular beliefs—one way or the other.
As psychoanalysts, we strive for regard as seekers of the deeper truth of mental life. We should continue to seek that truth. Accordingly, I believe the Committee on Scientific Activities, as well as the Committee on Issues of Homosexuality, should be guided by good science rather than public relations concerns.
Benjamin Kaufman, M.D.
Sacramento