I appreciate the fine work you and your colleagues are doing on TAP. It is not in the spirit of negative criticism that I write this letter. On the contrary, I have two suggestions.
One has to do with the limitations on the “rights” of any individuals to have letters to the editor published that attack political or ideological enemies in personally degrading ways.
The second: I don't see why TAP is obligated to sell space to organizations not directly concerned with us. Why should we, particularly if we risk simply opening up more and more accusations of “unfairness” or “taking sides”? The little income generated isn't worth it.
In the last issue some of the letters ostensibly having to do with homosexuality and psychoanalysis included very accusatory, demeaning, and insulting public accusations of colleagues—including gratuitous and unpleasant personal interpretations. That is simply shameful, whatever the subject.
Couldn't Robert's Rules of Order be used by the editor as a kind of analogue in making the decision of whether to publish, at least without revisions, such letters? In any event, the organization has already discussed these specific matters in painful detail. The American has decided its group stance as well as it can. The decision can always be changed, of course. But do we really need to permit inflammatory and intemperate personalized attacks that vilify colleagues for having different opinions? I think the loss of civility in public harms the organization and gets in the way of making decisions. Robert's Rules of Order, or some similar covenant, is accepted practically everywhere there are meetings of democratic
organizations. That is true because it is pragmatically useful. A mob cannot deliberate. In an actual meeting, a chair is obliged to maintain order and at least a reasonable level of civility. If that is not possible, the chair should adjourn the meeting. Obviously, I think editors deserve comparable authority.
Vann Spruiell
TAP has decided to call a temporary halt to printing letters about the Committee on Homosexuality and NARTH. A repetition in the debate has begun to appear, and a report on homosexuality edited by Bertram Cohler under the aegis of the Committee on Scientific Activities is expected soon. At that time, and with new information, TAP pages will again be open for opinion. It is possible that individuals on both sides will feel this moratorium is unfair. TAP has tried to be equitable and print all viewpoints, however, over eighty years of history of The American's attitude toward homosexuality is converging on its pages. TAP has run out of space before its readers have run out of convictions.
Editor