site approach of Mr. Zeff and spoke of "The Price of Rejection" to society.

That society does reject the homosexual, as assumed in the panel topic, Miss Coleman said, was beyond argument. She said that society pays a high price for rejecting homosexuals who are not socially destructive, but simply because they were "different". This price could be outlined but never really totaled. There is the loss of productivity of the outcast group, the high cost of mental illness, alcoholism, severe neurosis, the throttling of creativity. There is the loss to the art, music and dance group that many people, including heterosexuals, will not enter, despite their talents, because they fear being branded "que er".

She felt that society had a definite responsibility to study the causes, implications and cure, if any, of the homosexual problem; that the field had never been studied in an adequate or scientific manner; that such research as had been done had been in prisons and institutions. Instead of financing and setting up an adequate study program, it was so much "easier" to have the police make a few arrests, but so much more expensive in the long run. The knowledge gained from such study would extend its value far beyond the immediate investigati on. Any other route leads to a contempt for the law which spells the disintegration of its authority in society.

The immediate results to the individual rejectors in soole ty who hate and scorn by pre-conceived stereotypes is that they have a warped view of reality and become, themselves, stereotypes. Such emotionally charged

reactions denote anxieties and fears within the rejector that are being avoided. It is small wonder that people do this when society teaches that "difference" is evil; nevertheless hatred and scorn wreak their inexorable toll in brutalizing and cancerous effects on the rejector.

Miss Coleman concluded her address with the thought that responsibility lies not alone with the homosexual groups, but that society as a whole must act on the

8