No thinking person upholds Vassall's conduct. Americans, like citizens of Britain, condemn it soundly. There are, however, aspects of the situation which do raise questions-on both sides of the Atlantic and particularly in the U.S. where the homosexual is considered a security risk simply because he is a homosexual.

An outstanding answer to this question, we believe, was made-again in London-by Martin Ennals, general secretary of the National Council for Civil Liberties. He said, as he issued a warning against a "witchhunt" against homosexuals in government service:

"The Vassall case gives cause for considerable concern. It seems likely that homosexuals will be considered security risks. The present state of the law makes homosexuals particularly vulnerable to blackmail. The solution to this is to implement the recommendations of the Wolfenden Committee (which would make private homosexual acts between consenting adults no longer a crime) and change the law, rather than treat homosexuals as potential traitors." This statement was published in the Daily Mirror.

But not published generally in England was another statement even more important in this regard. It came from Anthony Greenwood, Member of Parliament from Rossendale, during the debate on the Vassall matter in Commons on November 2nd (here quoted from the published Hansard, which is the "Congressional Record" of the British Government):

"We fully appreciate what the Minister of Defense said, that no one could have known that this man was a homosexual. But I am bound to say that if the House had been more courageous in its attitude to the Wolfenden Report it would have removed one of the gravest threats to security, namely power which the blackmailer has over the homosexual."

the

More than 50 pages of the printed record dealt with the Parliamentary debate on the Vassall affair, and it is probably not over yet. Columns, even pages, of the British press in October and November played it up. Without doubt this event-like an earlier one in England and a defection in the U.S. a few years ago-set back the position of the "homophile movement" in its effort to regard the homosexual as a human being and to understand his differentness from the majority. But it did happen. Any defection or violation of classified material by a citizen is most reprehensible, and individuals unworthy of trust should not attain the place where they are capable of breaking that trust. This is not to say, however, that all homosexuals are unworthy of such trust, but rather to emphasize the fact that removal of legal penalties and stigma against the variant will go far to minimize the blackmail threat against him: remove the attitude of anti-sexuality inherited from the Puritans and this sphere of human "weakness" will less often be split by the wedge of foreign espionage.

mattachine REVIEW

PSYCHOLOGY

Varieties of Intolerance

ROBERT E. MOGAR, Ph. D.

IN A RECENT ISSUE of the Mattachine Review (December, 1962), a reader's letter entitled "The Cry for Acceptance," was reproduced and briefly commented upon editorially in the "Calling Shots" column (pp. 34-35). In this letter, the writer attacks the ostentatious and brazen conduct of the "swishy faggots." He says, "for the majority of us, it is due to these faggots who scream with defiance that we are not accepted (into heterosexual society)." He further berates his more conventional brethren who out of apathy or fear continue to tolerate these nonconformists. According to the reader's estimate, "there are hundreds and thousands of heterosexuals who want to accept us, but won't because some of us haven't eamed the right for acceptance or even have the intestinal fortitude to fight for what is right, by cleaning our own house."

Atfirst blush, the attitudes and sentiments expressed in this letter might seem a bit unusual for a reader of the Mattachine Review. Or, one might be struck by the touch of irony in its belligerent tone and righteousness. Indeed, there is more than a touch of irony in a cry for acceptance which is all about nonacceptance. But is this reader really so unusual? Is intolerance along with pity, its weak sister, the exclusive prerogative of ingroups? Does one automatically acquire a mature balance between reasoned judgment and genuine compassion merely through membership in a minority group? Even a superficial study of our current socio-political attitudes together with a cursory examination of an introductory textbook in psychology indicates that intolerance, like sexual diversity, is an all-toohuman failing. Hopefully, the two are inversely related.

The following comments are not directed against the reader who inspired them. Judging by the hostility and personal anguish expressed in the letter, it seems likely that his stated views arose from acute pain rather than quiet conviction. Since he lives in a relatively intolerant society, both his torment and reaction are understandable. Perhaps the only culpable failure is lack of receptivity to change since change is the fundamental condition of human growth. In any event, the following comments concern the more general issue of "maligning by the maligned" and some of the likely motivations underlying this seeming contradiction.