on his capabilities, usefulness and sense of responsibility in his occupation. The fact that an individual is homosexual does not per se make him more unstable and more a security risk than any heterosexual person." It is as simple as that. And from now on the question of the suitability of homosexuals for placement in those positions of trust heretofore denied them must be determined on the basis of the individual merits of the case and not on some intolerant view of homosexuality as the highest sin-automatically to be equated with subversion.

The details of Jenkins' misadventure remain largely obscured, but that is his choice. We do notice that he was arrested from evidence that in a California court could not be used against him. Peeping through holes from rooms not accessible to the public, and into toilet booths to see what the occupants (both innocent and guilty alike) are doing, is considered illegal search and seizure on the part of the police in this state. But the disgusting practice on the part of the Washington, D. C. vice squad merely serves to strengthen by its disclosure at this time the ugly disparity and irrationality of the police methods throughout the country. Thoughtful men and women must now see that the extent to which the police follow up suspicions of homosexual behavior varies considerably between one police force and another and in accordance with the outlook of the officers in charge and on duty. We couldn't suppress a shudder upon learning the name of the cop who questioned Jenkins at police headquarters was Louis A. Fochett. Now a Lieut., Fochett during the middle 1950's as a Detective Sergeant vicecop was known in the D.C. area for his brutality and sadism, and at one time he was under Grand Jury investigation for it. And Fochett was equally wellknown for suggesting physical intimacies to suspects and otherwise "enticing" them to effect his arrests. In the Guarro case and many others he was admonished by the trial judges for making "advances" but he persisted in the practice until one suspect in a park flipped him into the bushes and we heard nothing more of him until he turned up with a promotion, questioning Jenkins.

In effect, by saying that his investigation shows Jenkins' security to be good, J. Edgar Hoover has raised a contradictory note to some of the standard rules that govern our affairs. Might we then inquire where is the evidence for the common belief that homosexuality has greatly increased, that it has led to the "widespread" incidence of blackmail, or that there is really a vast network of organized vice surrounding homosexual groups such as Hoover himself likes to assume? Might we conclude that the present laws about homosexuality are absurd? Why shouldn't we abolish the illogical distinction by which according to the sex of the partner of a physical intimacy one man is to be considered less subject to blackmail than another?

The task now is to encourage the government to speedily carry out a change in its attitude toward the hiring of homosexuals. The temptation will be for the conformist government to continue to deprive itself of the distinguished services of many men like Jenkins rather than face the outcry of the more primitive sections of the public and press. We believe that the country as a whole is prepared for this change, and now that J. Edgar Hoover in sending flowers to an extremely foolish homosexual has put himself decidedly on our side, the opposition should offer full cooperation in ridding us of this offensive anomaly.

Don Slater, Editor