A small group of our members, who are also officers of NARTH, have repeatedly written letters to TAP, criticizing the work of our Committee on Issues of Homosexuality. The Executive Committee takes this opportunity to state clearly and definitely its approval and support for the work of this Joint Committee of Board and Council. It is carrying out official policy of The American, directed by and fully supported by the Executive Committee, the Executive Council, and the Board on Professional Standards. To further demonstrate the support of the Committee by Board and Council, the Committee's designation was changed in December from Ad Hoc to Standing.
Marvin Margolis, as president, has elsewhere acknowledged the incorrectness of past psychoanalytic a priori assumptions that homosexuality is pathological, a view that undoubtedly resulted in many potential psychoanalysts being denied acceptance for training, directly or indirectly, because of their sexual orientation (New York Times, October 10, 1996).
Attitudes toward gay and lesbian candidates are now changing, catalyzed by the efforts of Ralph Roughton and the Committee on Issues of Homosexuality. In fact, it is this success that evokes letters of criticism from those who also opposed the American's nondiscrimination statement.
Although there are many errors both of fact and assumption in letters from Charles Socarides and C. Downing Tait in TAP 30/4, one point must be clarified. After considering factual evidence of Socarides' written misrepresentations of The American's position on homosexuality, the Executive Committee, not Roughton, instructed the attorney for The American to inform Socarides in writing that such misrepresentations must cease.
Conflicts involving sexuality remain central to our psychoanalytic approach to understanding and ameliorating mental distress. Clearly such conflicts may be core issues in the treatment of heterosexual or homosexual patients.
Our clinical and personal experience does not allow us to uphold simplistic notions that would associate any sexual preference with primitive, narcissistic pathology. The capacity to love, to be loyal, to be honest, to be committed in deep friendships is associated with both homosexual and heterosexual individuals. This does not mean that we have all the answers needed to fully understand sexuality. We still have much to learn and understand about sexuality.
In fact, our Committee on Issues of Homosexuality has served to enhance our scientific discussion of these issues by helping us become acquainted with a growing clinical and experimental body of scientific knowledge dealing with sexuality. The committee has also supported our efforts to recruit gay and lesbian candidates who are today in training in more than half of our institutes. Our experience with this new effort at inclusion repeats our experience when we dropped the barriers to training of non-medical colleagues. It also repeats our current nascent attempts at augmenting the recruitment of candidates from all racial and ethnic groups. Each effort at broadening the base of recruitment brings a new vital segment of our society to psychoanalysis who enhance our field with their energy, intelligence, and often special perspectives that contribute to our science and profession.
We end as we began. The Executive Committee voices its strong support of the Joint Committee on Issues of Homosexuality. We believe our membership-at-large is equally supportive.