The editor's reply (TAP 30/3) to letters regarding antihomosexual bias ignored the serious issues raised, and somehow managed to interpret our letters as merely expressing “indignation.” If we were not indignant to start, you certainly give us cause.

I took you to task for juxtaposing a contentious debate about admission of gay candidates with a prominent free advertisement for a fanatical antihomosexual group, NARTH. You reduced my objection to a call for censorship of groups that we don't like. And in another striking juxtaposition, you highlighted The American's antidiscrimination policy on homosexuality alongside the reply in which you make it clear that TAP will continue to promote groups like NARTH, whose work is actively and unabashedly contrary to that same policy. By responding that TAP will “print what is submitted as space allows” you offer such groups reassurance that TAP has no limits.

NARTH's president made false claims of The American's “official position” in court documents geared toward limiting the civil rights of gay people in Colorado. The leadership of The American has remained publicly silent on this breach, decisively letting the public record stand. We should therefore not be surprised that TAP continues to support NARTH, and does not expect its contributors to be in consonance with The American's policies on discrimination.

Yet, in the form of Friedman's letter, TAP offers us hope for an association strong enough to take its nondiscrimination policy seriously. He suggests an honest look at our past and present actions, which is necessary to “… heal wounds of considerable depth and significance with the [gay] community… ” I am grateful that many of The American's members recognize the depth and significance of The American's bias and of the wounds it has created. Unlike the editor's “remedy” of pointing to and exacerbating our “indignation,” Friedman offers a promising path of reconciliation and collaboration.

Paul E. Lynch