It was both sad and regrettable to read Benjamin Kaufman's comments on Ralph Roughton's “Progress Report” from the Committee on Issues of Homosexuality. I had read that report and come away with a very different, positive impression that Roughton and the Committee had issued an honest and courageous report. I believe that Roughton made it clear that he was referring to the until very recently routine practice of institutes affiliated with the American Psychoanalytic Association to exclude from the consideration for training any psychiatrist whose orientation was homosexual. This in no way took into account the overall personality, stability, talent, or motivation of the individual male or female applicant. Homosexuality was considered in itself sufficient to exclude any applicant from training as a psychoanalyst. Previous statements by officials of the American Psychoanalytic Association always denied the existence of such a policy, but anyone interested in the treatment of homosexuals by the component institutes of the American Psychoanalytic Association was aware that this was indeed the case. Such discrimination, and there is no other way to describe this policy, was strongly defended by large numbers of psychoanalysts based upon an unsubstantiatable theory that supposedly all homosexuals suffered from severe pre-oedipal, narcissistic disturbances and hence were unfit to function as psychoanalysts. In some instances, a monstrous image of homosexuals as molesters of all male patients was put forward directly by otherwise rational psychoanalytic colleagues. This stance represents an unfortunate aspect of the history of psychoanalysis and the APA.
Kaufman's attack on Roughton's attempt to set the record straight is direct evidence that homophobic prejudice dies hard, or not at all. His argument, that in attempting to redress legitimate grievances Roughton sacrifices “science” for the politically correct, is an attempt to retain the very fallacious science that was used to discriminate against homosexuals. Could such global judgments of homosexuals as a group possibly be considered scientific? Charles Socaride's observations about homosexuals have always had the sound and feel of bigoted denunciation rather than vigorous clinical observation. For anyone who has analyzed homosexuals, the blatant absurdity of claiming all homosexuals to be “severely handicapped in the most vital area—interpersonal relations”—leads to the conclusion that Socarides' observations must be dismissed as biased beyond the point of acceptability. Ralph Roughton has had the courage to stand up against such bigotry disguised as “science”. Furthermore, he has insisted that this history of discrimination not be ignored and considered irrelevant. Rather he points out the need of component institutes to acknowledge the impact of their past exclusion and actively make it clear that homosexuals will be evaluated on their suitability for training in psychoanalysis rather than be automatically rejected because of their sexual orientation.
As psychoanalysts and members of the American Psychoanalytic Association we share a collective guilt and responsibility for the policy whether written down officially or practiced as a “gentlemen's agreement” of excluding homosexuals from training as psychoanalysts. Having done this on the basis of so-called scientific theory makes this practice even more reprehensible than if it was simply acknowledged to have been a politically wise position at a time when psychoanalysts were reluctant to appear too radical for establishment political favor. Ralph Roughton and the Committee on Issues of Homosexuality have made an honest and courageous attempt to acknowledge that the practice of excluding homosexuals from psychoanalytic training did exist and that an attempt to educate the analytic community about this practice and its inequity and incorrectness is absolutely essential. This incorporation of a prejudice into our theory represents a grave mistake and danger in the history of psychoanalysis. The existence of a changing attitude toward homosexuality within American Psychoanalytic Association institutes is to be applauded. However, it would be most unfortunate to bury the existence of this prejudice under a cover of self-congratulations. In this instance we are dealing not with an issue of political correctness but an effort to reeducate and heal wounds of considerable depth and significance with the community of dynamically oriented homosexual therapists of all disciplines. Attacking Ralph Roughton and the Committee on Issues of Homosexuality isn't politically incorrect but it is mean-spirited and based on unresolved prejudice.
Henry J. Friedman