Luther Allen

Dr. Dorothy Baruch Dr. Edgar Berman

Miss Jeanne Brown

Prof. L. Whiting Farinholt

Dr. Hans Froelicher

Dr. Joseph Francis

Dr. Edward Hoffman

Dr. Fred Hacker

Milton Jacobs on

Gerald Johns on

Alvin Kaplan, M.A. Joseph Katz

Samuel Kling

Dr. Harold Lindner

Wendell Little

Max Lerner

Rabbi Morris Lieberman Dr. Arthur Mandy Eugene Marlowe

Howard S. Pollack

Henry Rogers Leonard Rosen

Mrs. Odell Smith

Robert Taylor

Dr. Milton Wexler

In April, almost 1000 persons attended a Lindner testimonial meeting in Baltimore at which the Foundation was officially launched.

Dr. Hacker, of Correctional Service Associates, Los Angeles, made a fine impression in an informal talk, relating his close professional association with the late psychologist.

Dr. Reik, speaking on "The Future of Psychoanalysis," quoted Freud as having once predicted that the day would come when words such as "homosexual" and "perversion" would disappear from the language. He spoke of the change in public attitude in the past half century, mentioning the nightmarish Wilde trial and compared it with the more enlightened attitudes which are growing in prevelance today. Dr. Reik also mentioned another Freud prediction that someday, in the far future, men would be little concerned with sex; their energies would be liberated from instinct and devoted to larger interests and achievements.

Norman Mailer appeared on the program and in a brief talk reversed the name of one of Dr. Lindner's books to apply in tribute to the author: "Dr. Lindner," he said, "was a rebel with a cause."

That cause should be allowed to grow in influence for the broadening of man's knowledge about himself, the Foundation's leaders and sponsors believe. That is why the project was developed.

Contributions to the Foundation are solicited. They may be mailed to The Robert Lindner Foundation, c/o Dr. William Zielonka, 1120 St. Paul street, Baltimore 2, Maryland.

mattachine REVIEW

Homosexuals and Society

Sir, From the press reports of the B.M.A. memorandum on homosexuality one would suppose that it was only those men who are unlucky enough, or unwise enough, to fall into the hands of the police upon whom the present state of the law bears hardly. It is remarked that there are practising homosexuals in parliament and other high places as though this were surprising. There is a commonly accepted fallacy that all homosexuals are effeminate and obvious, and that they are especially attracted to certain professions. Both these opinions are contrary to what little evidence is available. It is probable, if not certain, that homesexuality is fairly evenly distributed throughout all levels of society, anu has been so in all ages. Its greater or lesser apparent prevalence at different levels and at different times is due solely to the degree of tolerance obtaining, more or less, in those times and places. Thus in certain fields such as e. g., the theatre, where tolerance is greater, it is less necessary for a man to wear a mask. It is true, of course, that some whose effeminacy places them beyond concealment are attracted to work in spheres where concealment is less necessary. An actor, dress designer, writer, or musician is not likely to be ostracised by his colleagues because he is known to be «queer.» Could the same be said of bank managers, civil servants, clergymen or schoolmasters, for example? The fact is that there are thousands of men who look no different from anyone else, who dress quietly, live sober lives, perform their social duties and try to give offence to no one. It is upon these that the law presses so heavily. These are the potential victims of blackmail and assault. Dr. Claxton suggests that religious conversion is the answer to this problem. I maintain that this is a quite unrealistic view. There are few individuals of sufficient quality to be able to direct their total sexual energies into <good works». Most people need to live a life which includes the companionship and understanding of another person, and a fairly regular sexual life. The so-called normal man obtains these benefits through marriage. Does Dr. Claxton suppose that all homosexuals are so much better than the normal that they can pursue the way of sanctity, or so much worse that they must be treated as felons?

It has further been suggested that homosexuals tend to be loyal to one another first and to employer or country second. While this may be true of a few, it is certainly a gross exaggeration. It is said that homosexuals give their own kind preference in office where it is possible for them to do so. This may to some extent be true. Other minority groups such as Freemasons, Rotarians, Roman Catholics, Jews, etc., do the same thing. It is not always undesirable, but becomes so when the minority is a persecuted minority. In this case the group feels that it has a genuine grudge against the persecuting majority; and thus place filling may take an anti-social turn if a member of the minority prefers one of