had works in sociology published under another name. My sociological studies in such fields, inter alia, as sociolinguistics and race relations, have been reviewed in American Sociological Review, American Anthropologist, Phylon, and numerous other journals, in the United States and abroad. These works are on college reading lists, have been cited in bibliographies, have been quoted. have been discussed, and have been criticized.

In addition, as Evans could have determined by having the editors of One contact me before rushing irresponsibly into print, I have been on the sociology faculty of four universities in the United States, and am presently a member of what is generally considered one of the dozen . or so outstanding such faculties in the United States. (The names of the four universities and the one where he is presently teaching are here given by Cory, but are deleted, at his request, by the editors of One).

If further credentials are needed, I have in my possession a letter from a nationally renowned educator (the photostat of this letter can be sent to One on request) in which I was referred to, at the time between the publications of the "first and second Cory reports," as offering more promise of making a contribution to social science than any other student ever encountered.

Finally, inasmuch as matters of this type tend to be judged by some people exclusively on the basis of formal education. I have taken 75 graduate credits in sociology and social psychology in two outstanding schools, have been awarded fellowships, have earned an Aaverage, and will shortly be honored with a doctoral degree, as soon as a dissertation on homosexuality will have been completed.

Now, all of this would be of secondary interest, except that the ques-

tion raised by Evans has very serious implications, that go beyond the implied slander that Cory is probably or even possibly a fourflusher, and beyond the absurd notion that one must be formally trained (which I am) to have an orientation in a discipline. For Evans should understand, and One editors should know. that the major characteristic of homosexuality is anonymity; that it has no other feature so all-pervasive as the virtual impossibility for anyone to openly proclaim his adherence to this way of life and to continue to earn a living, particularly in the teaching professions.

It would therefore have been more proper for Evans, had he not been so disturbed and anxiety-ridden by our work, to have accepted my claims as coming from a person whose integrity had been established. Why, One has published material in the past in which they have identified the author as a "well-known novelist" -understanding that further identification was impossible in the present cultural milieu.

I do not know anything about the sex life of Evans. If he is heterosexual, then he does not function under conditions that determine my inability to reveal, on a book jacket, certain personal, albeit relevant, information. If he is homosexual and has not so stated, in the explicit form that has characterized my work, then he is likewise in no position to call for me to put my credentials on the table. But if he is homosexual and has so stated, in words as clear about himself as I have about myself, and if this has been done without benefit of pseudonym, then he must know the consequences to be suffered.

However, I cannot absolve the editors of One of responsibility for this remark. Not only because they have information about me, and could obtain still more with an airmail

11