ference, letting the psychological profession, as well as the general public, know that homosexuals can and do, in an organized way, assert their rights, provide for enlightened discussion, and handle the study of their problems with candor and discretion. So strong was the reaction to all this that the conference was almost never held at all.

An excellent job of advance publicity was done to attract interest in the event, with one significant breakthrough: the New York Times for the first time agreed to carry an advertisement of such a meeting— an ad in which the word "homosexuality" prominently appeared. Two Philadelphia radio stations carried programs on the subject: WPEN and WCAU. The latter, a CBS affiliate, had a panel discussion, with three ECHO speakers as guests, while WPEN broadcast brief interviews with several members of ECHO affiliates.

"Homosexuality-Time for Reappraisal" was the topic of the conference. As the time for the meeting drew near, the management of the Drake Hotel, where the meeting was to be held, received several telephone calls asking about the meeting, and became panicky. "We can't have sex discussed at this hotel," a manager stated, and the emphasis surely should have been on the word "discussed." But after many meetings, with lawyers and others, and after advance payment was demanded and given, the management did relent.

ECHO officers gave brief talks of welcome, made introductions of the active representatives of the constituent groups who were present, and then embarked on the program. The first speaker announced was R. E. L. Masters, author of The Homosexual Revolution, Forbidden Sexual Behavior and Morality, and other works. Unable to be present at the meeting, Mr. Masters had sent his

talk, which was read. His topic: "The Homophile Movement and the Effeminate Homosexual." The speaker contended that homophile organizations, such as Mattachine and ONE give little aid and encouragement to the effeminate homosexual, the transvestite, and the transsexual. Feeling that their presence would generate too much public distaste and antipathy toward all homosexuals, the leadership, Mr. Masters contended, considers these people a liability. But in rejecting them, he maintains, the organizations display bad faith, for the movement is presumably for the benefit of all homosexuals.

Next on the program was Donald Webster Cory who traced the history of the homophile movement up to the present day, commenting on some of its sociological aspects, pointing out some of the obstacles in its path, and underlining its accomplish-

ments.

Looking at the movement as it exists today, Cory summarized what he felt to be the greatest difficulties and obstacles:

1. Insufficent leadership and incentive.

2. Many deepgoing emotional problems faced by homosexuals, giving rise to neurotic interaction within the leadership groups.

3. The tendency of the organizations to present homosexuality, not as it is, but in a form believed to meet ready public acceptance.

4. The belief of some that any kind of publicity, no matter how bizarre and absurd, constitutes a breakthrough, especially if it is presented over mass media. The mention of homosexuality is confused with the content of the message.

5. An obsequious attitude adopted toward speakers and guests, with fear of offending anyone who might turn out to be somewhat friendly, resulting often in the organizations' becoming a party to the distortion