U.S. Government Versus Homosexuals:1950-1955

A sampling of news stories from the years 1950 to 1955 conveys the mood created by the antihomosexual, anti-Communist witch-hunts occurring during that period and continuing for some time after.

UNDER CONSTRUCTION

In the early 1950s, the fledgling homosexual emancipation organization, the Mattachine Society, was just getting started in los Angeles, with a number of left-wing homosexuals prominent in the leadership. To understand the earliest years of the Mattachine movement it is essential to know about the simultaneous witch-hunting of "perverts" and "subversives" then taking place.

"persons in the shady category"

On March 1, 1950, the New York Times reports that John E. Peurifoy, in charge of the State Department security program, was asked by a Senate committee how many department employees had resigned while under investigation as security risks since the beginning of 1947. "Ninety-one persons in the shady category," replied Mr. Peurifoy. "Most of these were homosexuals."97

On March 9, the Times reports a Senate subcommittee inquiry into Senator Joseph McCarthy's charges that the United States government employed "red sympathizers." McCarthy was the first witness, and homosexuality as well as Communism was an issue.

"flagrantly homosexual"

McCarthy had earlier declared in the Senate that a "flagrantly homosexual" State Department employee, discharged as a security risk in 1946, had had his job restored under "pressure" from a "high State Department official." McCarthy refused demands by Democrats that he state the name of the official. Later, the Times reports, McCarthy told reporters he did not know the name of the official, but asserted it was in the files and could be found by the subcommittee.98

On March 15, the Times reports McCarthy's testimony about another government employee:

A former State Department official, whose name he withheld, was reported in the Washington police files to be homosexual and had been allowed to resign from the State Department in 1948 only to find employment in a "most sensitive" place, the Central Intelligence Agency. Mr. McCarthy gave his name privately to the subcommittee. It was an "important" case, he asserted, because such persons were officially considered to be security risks because they were "subject to blackmail."99

On March 20 the Times reports that Representative John J. Rooney, Democrat of New York, had accused the Commerce Department of laxity in weeding out homosexuals and praised the State Department for vigilance in that regard.100

On April 19, a Times news story is headed:

PERVERTS CALLED GOVERNMENT PERIL

A subhead reads:

Gabrielson, G.O.P. Chief, Says They Are as Dangerous as Reds

Guy George Gabrielson, Republican National Chairman, asserted today that "sexual perverts who have infiltrated our Government in recent years" were "perhaps as dangerous as the actual Communists."

He elevated what he called the "homosexual angle" to the national political level in his first news letter of 1950, addressed to about 7,000 party workers, under the heading: "This Is the News from Washington."

Giving National Committee support to the campaign of Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican of Wisconsin, against the State Department, but without mentioning him by name, Mr. Gabrielson said: ...

"Perhaps as dangerous as the actual Communists are the sexual perverts who have infiltrated our Government in recent years. The State Department has confessed that it has had to fire ninety-one of these. It is the talk of Washington and of the Washington correspondents corps.

"The country would be more aroused over this tragic angle of the situation if it were not for the difficulties of the newspapers and radio commentators in adequately presenting the facts, while respecting the decency of their American audiences. "101

On April 25, the Times reports a Republican demand

that an inquiry to determine whether "disloyal" persons were employed, be expanded to encompass the subject of sexual perversion within the Govemment.102

On April 26, the Times reports:

Senator Kenneth S. Wherry of Nebraska, the Republican floor leader, told the Senate that he had just been advised by "the head of a Government agency" that a man accused by Senator McCarthy of being a pervert, though not a Communist, had resigned.

The Times continues:

The identity of this person was not disclosed .... Senator Tydings had just stated that he had personally investigated the episode and was turning over "important matters" about it to his subcommittee. Tydings then asked his Republican critics:

"Won't you stop this continued heckling about homosexuals and let us get on with the main work of finding Communists?"103

On May 5, the Times reports that New York State's Republican Governor Dewey accused the Democratic national administration of tolerating spies, traitors and sex offenders in the Government service.104

On May 20, a Times news story is based on the testimony of police lieutenant Roy E. Blick. The headline is:

INQUIRY BY SENATE ON PERVERTS ASKED

The subhead says:

Hill and Wherry Study Hears There Are 3,500 Deviates in Government Agencies

A Senate investigation of alleged homosexuals in the Executive Branch of the Government was recommended unanimously today by a Senate Appropriation subcommittee of ten members.

Perverts are described by intelligence officers as poor security risks because of their vulnerability to blackmail.

The inquiry was proposed on the basis of a private, preliminary study made by Senators Lister Hill, Democrat of Alabama, and Kenneth S. Wherry of Nebraska, the Republican floor leader, during which a Washington police vice officer said it was his "own judgment" that 3,500 perverts were employed in Government agencies.

The officer, Lieut. Roy E. Blick, testified, it was disclosed this afternoon in the publication of a partial transcript of his evidence that he thought 300 to 400 of these persons were in the State Department.

A subhead in the Times report says:

"A Quick Guess," He Says

This, he said at one point, was a "quick guess," in the sense that it was based upon his experience that arrested persons not connected' with the State Department sometimes would say:

"Why don't you go get so-and-so and so-and-so? They all belong to the same clique."

"By doing that," Lieutenant Blick added "their names were put on the list and they were catalogued as such, as the suspect of being such."

The story reports that "Senators Hill and Wherry called many witnesses in closed hearings," and each filed separate and differing reports on the implications of their findings.

Both quoted a letter from Dr. R. H. Felix, Director of the National Institute of Mental Health, stating that the available data indicated that perhaps 4 per cent of the white male population of the country were "confirmed homosexuals."

A subhead stresses:

Finds Deviates Everywhere

"While corresponding data for females are lacking," Dr. Felix added, "the prevalence is probably about the same." The letter continued:

"All available evidence indicates that homosexuality can be found in all parts of the country, both urban and rural, and in all walks of life. I have been unable to find any evidence whatsoever which indicates that homosexuality is more prevalent in the District of Columbia than in other sections of the country."

Senator Hill's report stressed Dr. Felix's statement that homosexuality was no more prevalent in Government than elsewhere, and he proposed that one of the subjects of the investigation be that of medical treatment and rehabilitation.

Senator Wherry, for his part, asserted that by Dr. Felix's "reasoning one could argue, but not very intelligently, that because there are an estimated 55,000 Communists in the United States the Federal Government should have a pro rata share, and that because there are a million criminals in the country none should complain if the Government has its share. "105

On May 22, the Times reports that Senate Republican leader Wherry had

endorsed a move to hold secret hearings in the pending investigation of sex perversion among Federal employees.106

On June 15 a Times story is headlined:

Pervert Inquiry Ordered

A Senate subcommittee was ordered today to investigate police reports that about 3,500 sex perverts hold Federal jobs, some of them in the State Department.

The go ahead was given by the Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Department to its "super" investigating subcommittee. Authority for the inquiry has been given by the Senate.

Heading the group will be Senator Clyde R. Hoey, Democrat of North Carolina. . . . He said that the new study would be "complete and thorough" and "the paramount objective is to protect the Government and the public interest."

The subcommittee intends to make "every effort to obtain all of the pertinent facts," but it will not "transgress individual rights" or "subject any individual to ridicule," he asserted. Mr. Hoey further promised that he would not "allow this investigation to become a public spectacle."

Senator Andrew F. Schoeppel, Republican of Kansas, was named to succeed Senator McCarthy on the panel. The latter has asserted that Communists, perverts and other security risks infest the State Department. He bowed out of the inquiry to avoid being in a position of judging his own accusations.

Senator Margaret Chase Smith, Republican of Maine, another regular member of the investigating group, did not ask to be disqualified and will serve. Other members of the panel are Senators John L. McClellan of Arkansas, James O.

Eastland of Mississippi and Herbert R. O'Conor of Maryland, Democrats, and Karl E. Mundt, Republican of South Dakota.107

On June 17, the Times reports that among 130 State Department employees sent home from Germany as "questionable security risks" since the previous July, there were "two confessed homosexuals, ... and others of dubious character or connections...."108

On July 13, the Times reports that the House of Representatives, by a vote of 327 to 14, had passed a bill designed to permit department and agency heads to deal with persons who are bad security risks because they drink too much, talk too ~much, are perverts or have similar failings.109

Max Lerner: "why homosexuality gives our society so much concern"

In July, Max Lerner began a series of articles on homosexuality in his daily column in the New York Post. The first, dated July 11, entitled "The Tortured Problem ... The Making of Homosexuals," focuses on various psychological theories of the causation and character of homosexuality, briefly raising, without answering it, "the question of why homosexuality gives our society so much concern."110

On July 17, Lerner's Post column, entitled "The Senator and the Purge," includes a revealing interview with antihomosexual crusader Senator Kenneth Wherry:

In a long interview, Senator Kenneth Wherry (R-Nebr.) talked to me about his crusade to harry every last "pervert" from the Federal government services.... Now in his second term, he has been a power in the Senate as Republican whip and

now as floor leader. A man with a hearty manner in the traditional fashion of American politics, a bit pouchy, with glasses and graying hair, he looks like any small-town lawyer or businessman. Sometimes his answers to my questions became harangues so violent as to make me think he would explode, until I saw that they left him unshaken and friendly as ever. Despite years of hard work and political tension, life seems to have left no writing of any kind on his face. It is the face of a man for whom there are no social complexities, no psychological subtleties, few private tragedies.

I asked Senator Wherry whether the problem of homosexuals in the government was primarily a moral or a security issue. He answered that it was both, but security was uppermost in his mind. I asked whether he made a connection between homosexuals and Communists. "You can't hardly separate homosexuals from subversives," the Senator told me. "Mind you, I don't say every homosexual is a subversive, and I don't say every subversive is a homosexual. But a man of low morality is a menace in the government, whatever he is, and they are all tied up together."

"You don't mean to say, Senator," I asked, "that there are no homosexuals who

might be Democrats or even Republicans?"

"I don't say that by any means," he answered. "But this whole thing is tied together. "

I asked whether he would be content to get the homosexuals out of the "sensitive posts," leaving alone those that have nothing to do with military security. There might be "associations," he said, between men in the sensitive and the minor

posts. "There -should be no people of that type working in any position in the government. "

I asked whether the Senator knew the Kinsey findings about the extent of homosexuality in the male population. He had heard of them. "In the light of these figures, Senator," I asked him, "are you aware of the task which the purge of all

homosexuals from government jobs opens up?"

"Take this straight," he answered, pounding his desk for emphasis. "I don't agree with the figures. I've read them all, but I don't agree with them. But regardless of the figures, I'll take the full responsibility for cleaning all of them out of the government. "

I asked on what he based his view that homosexuals represent an unusual security risk. I cited a group of American psychiatrists who hold that a heterosexual with promiscuous morals may also be a security risk, that some men might

be reckless gamblers or confirmed alcoholics and get themselves entangled or blackmailed.

The Senator's answer was firm: "You can stretch the security risk further if you want to," he said, "but right now I want to start with the homosexuals. When we get through with them, then we'll see what comes next."

This brought me to the question of definitions. "You must have a clear idea, Senator," I said, "of what a homosexual is. It is a problem that has been troubling the psychiatrists and statisticians. Can you tell me what your idea is?"

"Quite simple," answered the Senator. "A homosexual is a diseased man, an abnormal man."

I persisted. "Do you mean one who has made a habit of homosexuality? Would you include someone who, perhaps in his teens, had some homosexual relations and has never had them since? Would you include those who are capable of both kinds of relation, some who may even be raising families?"

"You can handle it without requiring a definition," the Senator answered. "I'm convinced in my own mind that any homosexual is a bad risk."

"But how about those who get pushed out of their jobs when they are only in minor posts, when no security risk is involved, and when they are forced to resign for something they may have done years ago?"

"They resign voluntarily, don't they?" asked the Senator. "That's an admission of their guilt. That's all I need. My feeling is that there will be very few people hurt."

I cited a case in the State Department of a man who had once served in an American embassy and had allowed himself as a young man to be used by the ambassador. He is now in his forties, and his case is troubling the security officials.

"It might have happened," answered Senator Wherry, "but I'm not going to define what a homosexual is. I say not many will be hurt. The Army and Navy have used their rule of thumb on this. The military has done a good job."

"But not a complete job," I pointed out, "if we follow the Kinsey figures. They show that thirty per cent of the men between twenty and twenty-four-the age group most represented in the armed services-have had some homosexual experience.

Would you have all of them purged?"

"I repeat," answered Senator Wherry, "we should weed out all of them wherever they are on the government payroll." ...

I raised a question about the encroachments on privacy. "Get this straight," answered Senator Wherry, "no one believes. in freedom of speech more than I do. I don't like anyone snooping around. But I don't like Kinsey snooping around either."

I asked him what he meant by Kinsey's snooping around. He said, "That's how he got the figures, isn't it?" I said that the Kinsey interviews were voluntary and asked whether he had ever had a chance to study Kinsey's book or his methods.

up to page 97