would not have completed statements. The Banquet went ahead as scheduled moderated by W. Dorr Legg, Director of ONE Institute and commentators Evelyn Hooker Ph.D. of UCLA, a local attorney who has done much work in this field, Hal Call, editor of The Mattachine Review, and Del Martin of The Ladder. The Preamble was read. The Social Rights section was presented as an outline rather than as a finished piece, and the Chairman explained that the Committee never was quite able to cope with the word "rights." The Religious Rights finished statement was read. The Scientific Questions and Overpopulation section offered an outline with alternate recommendations. Legal Rights Chairman read the most complete and finished statement with the exception of the Preamble.

As "A Group-Participation Project in Homophile Education" the participants might have gotten grade F. As a Bill of Rights the final product was probably pretty sketchy. Yet, three out of the five sections were able to come to grips, perhaps in rough and general terms, with the question at issue, i.e. the drafting of "A Homosexual Bill of Rights." Dr. Hooker criticized the Scientific Outline, this being her field, and found much of it useful. She analyzed as fear the tremendous distress the word "rights" had caused so many. The local attorney gave ample example of just where homosexuals in particular and especially are subject to a loss of rights, justifying the need for such a program by citing incident after incident. He emphasized that lesbians are seldom subject to law enforcement. Hal Call found that the position of The Mattachine had changed to a more comfortable one, and that they found more areas of agreement with the meeting than some of

one

them had expected. But Del Martin speaking for the Daughters was adamant. She repeated that a Bill of Rights for the homosexual could be actually damaging to the movement. Jaye Bell, President of DOB, climaxing the opposition, introduced a resolution adopted by a vote of the members of the DOB present, directed against the endorsement of "A Homosexual Bill of Rights" and the work of the Seventh Midwinter Institute. (This statement along with a favorable commentary and breakdown of the Institute program will be printed in the April ONE.) Thus ended an experiment never before tried anywhere on earth to this reporter's knowledge. (See also current Letters Column.)

What is to be learned from the experience of this weekend? Were the planners of the Institute too bold? Was James Barr right when he said in Game of Fools "The time is not yet ripe. The homosexual minority is too amorphous . . . At present the group must find and identify itself"? The February San Francisco Mattachine Newsletter has this to add: "ONE Institute stirs interest of participants... This year,

. committee groups were assigned sections of a topic, 'The Homosexual Bill of Rights,' to discuss. and present in draft form. That an actual draft was made is significant, it seems, considering the nature of the topic and some of the reaction. to it."

That the question of "rights," including homosexual rights is currently and constantly causing a stir and concern that touches the national interest, no one can afford to deny. For thorough examination of the values of the Bill of Rights, read "Mr. Justice Black, the Supreme Court, and the Bill of Rights" in the February 1961 issue of Harper's.

20