The American's Resident Fellowship program was started in 1991 to encourage psychiatric residents interested in psychoanalytic training to learn more about psychoanalysis. It is perhaps no coincidence that 1991 is the same year The American passed its antidiscrimination policy on homosexuality, which stated that it “opposes and deplores public or private discrimination against male or female homosexually oriented individuals.” The statement of policy went on to say that candidates for psychoanalytic training should be selected on the basis of “interest, talent, proper educational background, psychological integrity, and analyzability and educability, not on the basis of sexual orientation.”
These two steps toward the future by The American have come together to yield a unique result: a number of recipients of the Resident Fellowship are gay and lesbian residents exploring the possibility of pursuing psychoanalytic training.
The fellowship program has been quite successful, evidenced by the large numbers of fellows who have indeed begun analytic training after their initial exposure during their fellowship year. The antidiscrimination policy has been a more qualified success, but it has caught the attention of gay men and lesbians who might become interested in training and piqued their interest about what changes are happening within The American. It is therefore not surprising that a number of the first openly gay candidates at institutes of The American have also been Fellows.
As former fellow Michael Feldman (1994–95), now a first-year candidate at Columbia, put it, “The fellowship caught the crest of the wave. There were increasing numbers of openly gay psychiatric residents, many of whom were interested in pursuing analytic training but who would have found it difficult, if not impossible, to do so within The American in the past. The fellowship provided a first-hand look at The American, allowing me to judge for myself whether The American's policy had indeed been put into practice. I found it heartening that there was an atmosphere of open discussion, including several interesting things on the programs of the meetings I attended about treating gay patients.”
Justin Richardson (1993–94) is the founder and director of the Columbia Center for Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Mental Health. He says, “I was especially appreciative of the programs for students, which gave me the opportunity to present the case of a homosexual man I was treating during my residency to Richard Isay. It was nice to find that issues such as countertransference and self-disclosure could be approached from an analytic and yet gay-affirmative viewpoint. The fellowship solidified my sense that psychoanalytic training within an institute of The American would be a path that was both open to me as a gay man and worth pursuing.”
As a former fellow (1992–93) and Columbia's first openly lesbian candidate (currently in my fourth year of training), I found that the fellowship gave me that one last push I needed to go forward with my plans to apply for training. But I have learned that the fellowship seems to do that for many Fellows, gay and straight alike. As I have been increasingly involved with The American over the past four years, I have come to believe that most analysts within The American do not equate homosexuality and psychopathology. Though there are notable and disturbing exceptions to this general rule, I have found through my work on the Committee on Issues of Homosexuality that many analysts want to be educated so that they might understand the issues facing homosexual patients and candidates. Many are concerned about their own lack of knowledge on the subject and most seem to feel somewhat guilty about the ways that unproven theories have influenced and biased their thinking—and in doing so inadvertently hurt their patients—in the past.
Ubaldo Leli (1994–95) shares his perspective: “I think things have changed even since my fellowship year. There seems to be more interest in learning about homosexuality and less concern about having homosexual candidates.”
In researching this article, one of the Fellows I spoke with was Jonathan Nye (1996–97). A fourth-year resident at UCSF, Jonathan will attend his first analytic meeting this December. I thought that because Jonathan's exposure to The American thus far has been indirect (occurring mostly through supervisors in his residency program who are analysts at the San Francisco Institute), he would be a perfect litmus test of sorts for judging how The American is doing at showing we have changed our policies and our attitudes about homosexuality. Jonathan said he had not heard anything negative about The American and did not know the past or current policies on homosexuality, but had the impression The American was more conservative than his San Francisco residency program. He said he believes, to his surprise, that the San Francisco institute admitted an openly gay candidate for the first time only in the past two or three years. But this perception of The American as conservative had already affected his behavior. Despite being openly gay in his applications to both medical school and residency, Jonathan did not mention that he was gay in his fellowship application.
I think Jonathan's story shows what I have come to believe: The American is beginning to get less negative press within the gay community, but many gay people believe there is still a need for caution. I hope we will show Jonathan that things have changed within The American. It is time we acknowledge openly that, to quote lesbian writer Rita Mae Brown, “the only queer people are those who don't love anybody.”