University of Virginia Library

V. Findings of Fact

Homosexuality is an extremely complex condition and many conflicting views concerning homosexuality have been expressed. Much of the clinical data concerning homosexuals, with the exception of that assembled by Dr. Kinsey for his "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948)" and data assembled by a few other investigators, has been for the purpose of gauging the efficacy and wisdom of criminal provisions aimed at homosexual physical acts. The purpose for which the data has been assembled has determined its scope and content. Consequently, investigations of this nature have yielded little of immediate value to the Committee.

For various reasons, the Gay Student Union has managed no consistent and detailed pattern of activity. Dr. Franklin Kameny, of the District of Columbia gay organization, has spoken to the Union. His reported remarks, however, are stated by Mr. Cress not to be an accurate statement of local organizational policies. (BR-24-25.)

Members of the GSU and Women's Liberation jointly sponsored a dance about equally attended by males and females. This event was described by Mr. Vogel as "a chance *** to get together in an agreeable environment and have a little dialogue". (AR-30.) One issue of a newspaper has been published, although an article in this, indicating that "non-homosexuals" (or "straights") would not be welcome as members of the GSU, drew censure from the members. (AR-33.) Pamphlets have been published announcing meetings and the Kameny speech. (AR-30.) The GSU was represented by spokesmen at a meeting of the Society on Human Sexuality of the Unitarian Church. The spokesmen appear to have answered questions at this meeting for about three or four hours. (AR-32.) A typical question, as described by Mr. Cress was:

What if my child grows up to be gay? ***What sort of life can I expect him to have? (BR-44.)

These activities certainly offer some indication of the future direction of effort by the GSU. It is fair to assume that the GSU will have more speakers, more dances (with or without the women's liberation contingent) and will sponsor a publication which may or may not be similar to the one issue of "Mr. Jefferson's Gay Student Journal". (Ex. 7.) In its petition for recognition, the GSU states it will "Present outside speakers on gay liberation; maintain a library of gay newspapers and books on gay liberation; provide counselling service to gays; present films on gay liberation." (Ex. 6.)

In its endeavors to ascertain the purposes and proposed activities of the GSU, the Committee relies primarily upon the Constitution and Statement of the Purposes of the Union as submitted to Student Council. (Exhibits 2 and 5.) Mr. Cress, the current President of the GSU, and a witness offered at the hearing by the Student Activities Committee, as well at the hearing by this Committee, states his opinion that these documents probably should be the principal guide for the Committee in determining the purposes and activities of the organization. In addition to the information contained in these documents; however, the Committee has heard explanatory statements by Mr. Cress and has examined statements by Mr. Vogel, a GSU officer, appearing in the transcript of hearing by the Student Activities Committee.

Possible Efforts to Change Laws

The Constitution of the GSU, in its preamble, states, in essence, that heterosexuals (society) are responsible for the emotional and personal difficulties experienced by homosexuals. The premise of the Union is that homosexuals are normal. The members of the Union thus organize to change present societal attitudes toward homosexuality and:

to assist homosexuals to refuse to conform to societal attitudes toward and expectations of homosexuals.

There are no laws making homosexuality illegal. Virginia Code § 18.1-212 penalizes certain physical acts between persons of the same sex, which, by common knowledge, are usually involved in the physical consummation of a homosexual relationship. That the phrase quoted indicates a purpose of the GSU to seek the repeal of § 18.1-212 is denied by Mr. Cress (AR-33; BR-36.) The Committee accepts his statement without reservation as an accurate reflection of his personal view.

The Committee recognizes, however, that this statute is the only formal (legal) expression of public attitude concerning an aspect of homosexuality. The statute may be described as the legal linchpin by which diverse attitudes concerning homosexuals are joined in a semblance of uniformity. It is the "symbol" of a "public" attitude towards homosexual acts.

C.S. Lewis wrote concerning this public attitude: (Lewis, "Surprised by Joy" (1956))

Persons appearing before this Committee have discussed the "public" or "society" as if this were a monolithic entity, assuming a particular posture or demonstrating a particular attitude. Mr. Cress appears to see the public as the "straights" -- those other than homosexuals. His adversaries see the public as the majority to whom homosexuality is repugnant. This Committee is fully aware that heterosexuals, the great majority in this country, reject the minority of homosexuals when these individuals are identified. But even though this rejection occurs, attitudes of the rejectors range from sympathy for an "oppressed minority" to active physical violence against the identified homosexual. At only one point in public policy statements have these attitudes been brought to a single bearing. This is in the sodomy statute. Until this statute has been declared unconstitutional, or is repealed by the General Assembly, it is unlikely that organized homosexuals in Virginia will progress significantly toward general acceptance of their particular pattern of life. This pattern has, as one of its major ties, the specific acts which the statute prohibits.

A majority of Student Council and of the Student Activities Committee apparently have accepted disavowals by Messrs. Cress, Vogel and, perhaps others, of any intent to operate against the sodomy statute other than by a gradual effort to change public opinion. (AR-31-33, Rinaca-Cress Dialogue.) The Committee concludes from the testimony of Mr. Cress that one major object of the GSU is simply to gain recognition from the heterosexual majority of the condition of the members of the GSU as a "normal" aspect of sexual diversity. The homosexuals might continue to be rejected by the heterosexual majority after this "normal" sexual diversity is recognized; but the homosexuals, when identified, would not be actively oppressed.

The Committee also concludes from the testimony of Mr. Cress and Mr. Vogel (the latter appearing before the Student Activities Committee) that homosexuals are aware of the risk that a society organized with the heterosexual family as the basic economic, social and political unit will always regard the advocacy of homosexuality as an attack upon it. If this is the case, the homosexual will not be fully accepted so long as the heterosexual family is the foundation unit of the society in which the homosexual seeks full participation.

If this assessment of the remote chance of the homosexual for full acceptance in a heterosexual society is accurate, it may well be that an effort to make changes in law is not a matter of particular priority in the planning of members of the GSU. We must observe, however, that the Constitution of the GSU was prepared before funds were sought and that the testimony of Messrs. Cress and Vogel was not offered other than as representation of their personal opinions.

The Committee finds the Constitution of the Union sufficiently broad to embrace an effort to change state law. This effort might be immediate if a member of the Union were prosecuted under § 18.1-212 of the Code for an act prohibited by that section. Such a defense might not be regarded as "political action" under the guidelines of the Rector and Visitors.

The effort would appear to have no major priority as a concern of the Union without such a prosecution. This lesser priority would involve the "political activity" which the guidelines contemplate as a basis for denial of funds. The Committee considers, however, that this "political aspect" of the work of the GSU would, in any event, be only part of its effort. The Committee finds, however, another "political" aspect reasonably contemplated in the activities of the Union as well as social activities involved in its organization. These social activities will be necessarily intensive if the GSU is to survive.

Social Activities

If the GSU is to function as its constitution and statement of purposes contemplate, it must organize and remain organized for an extended time. One of the requirements for its continued organization (or group cohesion) is the development of an intense sense of identification among the members. In the case of the GSU, this will require extensive social activity, confined largely to the membership, and perhaps extending to other groups regarding themselves as "oppressed". Also required will be a GSU posture that society is hostile and that GSU is under active or potential attack. The informational contact with the public will involve the supply of facts favorable to the Union, the suppression of facts that are unfavorable, and the publication of statements that are "non-controversial" in the sense that the statement is made with the intention that analysis of it and counter-statements will be rejected.

It is probable that the grant of recognition by Student Council, with the local University acceptance of GSU that this recognition implies, is the seed from which destruction of GSU will grow. Financial support might well seal its doom. The major element of cohesion among homosexuals, whose personal attachments, as noted by Kinsey and others are ephemeral and subject to rapid change, is the presence of the overbearing and hostile "society".

All sexual demands and expectations are essentially private in nature. But these demands among homosexuals are intensely private when compared to similar demands among heterosexuals. This intense element of privacy is due principally to the social pressure upon homosexuals -- expressed in the abuse, ridicule, economic pressures and, infrequently, criminal action -- to which these persons are subject. Mr. Cress has mentioned the insecurity of homosexuals which sometimes tends toward paranoia (BR-31, 52).

To organize, the homosexual must "externalize" or "socialize" his intensely private expectations and demands. Mr. Cress has testified that his organization is reluctant to disclose its membership except to exclusive audiences. The officers of the Union are probably the only members likely to be available to public view as identified homosexuals (BR-32). If the Union is to develop any cohesion and degree of permanence in organization, its members must engage in intensive intra-group activity, not only through discussions in which they reassure each other that their condition is normal and that they are the subjects of unjust repression, but also through social events restricted to the members or to persons who share a sense of social alienation or repression. By increasing their sense of identification, or reliance upon each other, they will attempt to reinforce their predisposition (whether the predisposition is or is not based upon preference) toward a homosexual pattern of life. (BR-61, Alford-Cress Dialogue).

Mr. Cress has testified that promoting a particular style of sexual life is not a purpose of the Union (BR-60). But the Committee is of the view that the Union cannot remain organized unless this promotion occurs and that Mr. Cress will find that his position must change if his organization is to endure. Mr. Cress has testified that social events have been a small part of the very limited activity which the Union has been able to undertake. He notes, nevertheless, the sense of solidarity and confidence such events might instill in members. (BR-59-60, Harrison-Cress Dialogue.)

Political Activity through Propaganda

Once organized and acting internally in an effort to assure its existence, the Union will have to supplement this internal action by external activity. It is clear from all the testimony on the point offered by the GSU representatives that this action will take basically three forms:

1. Protective -- the individual homosexual being supported by the strength the Union can marshal.

2. Informational -- members of the Union appearing to answer questions in an environment in which controversy is not foreseen -- or in which the homosexual is to explain himself while not being on the defensive.

3. Propaganda -- the dissemination of "non-controversial" opinion -- or opinions for which analysis or conflicting response is neither sought nor accepted.

The protective features of contemplated action by GSU are amply stated in its constitution and in its statement of purposes. No special problem on the part of the University is seen here. Experience with gay organizations at other universities indicates that the use of violence by GSU members is essentially defensive when violence occurs.

General informational activities appear to be conducted by most of the gay organizations at other institutions. Mr. Cress refers at both hearings to the successful question and answer period conducted with the Society on Human Sexuality of the Unitarian Church (AR-31; BR-44). Mr. Cress states at BR-32:

***And a lot of the people there were parents. After the meeting they came up to me and they told me that we answered a lot of their questions and if--should--any of their children turn out to be gay that they would feel a lot better about it from seeing us and talking to us. They decided it really wasn't the horrible thing they thought it was. They more or less reached these conclusions not through propaganda but through talking with us. This is the sort of thing we want to do towards changing attitudes ***.

Mr. Cress also refers to possible participation in the instruction of classes such as those in abnormal psychology. But in these the GSU representatives were not to participate in the give and take of class instruction but, in the words of Mr. Cress (BR-61):

***[t]he professor gives his lecture on homosexuality from the sick point of view one day, and the next day a panel of three or four members of the GSU will go and field questions from the class, so that both viewpoints are presented***

Mr. Cress also thought that colloquiums or perhaps seminars could be set up on homosexuality (BR-62).

It is clear that in periods permitting questions to be addressed to a GSU member, the questioner and others in the audience might leave the meeting better informed.

There is an aspect of the GSU informational effort, however, that brings GSU within the Board guideline exclusion. "Propagandizing" is defined as "any activity whose purpose is to procure, or present, the acceptance of any social, economic or political theory, as an operating principle of polity; propagandizing shall not be interpreted to include engaging in non-partisan analyses, study or research or making these results available to the public."

If we are to rely principally upon the Constitution and statement of purpose, the GSU postulate reflects the militant stand of the new gay organization. In "coming out" the gay student is declaring that his condition is a normal aspect of sexual diversity. He rejects psychotherapy which in many cases may serve to restore a heterosexual life pattern. He resents suggestions of psychiatric assistance as a response rooted in outdated morality. The organizations exist to cultivate and consolidate the homosexual predisposition of members of the gay group. This general line of reasoning was stated repeatedly before the Committee. The position stems from the basic assumption that society is responsible for the difficulties of the homosexual. This is the essential party line and is essentially propaganda. It is opinion which is not to be controverted and which the gay representatives do not wish subject to analysis or response. This may be in the view of the GSU not opinion but "truth"--but if it is truth then it is assumed "noncontrovertible". The GSU clearly will assist the member in making his adjustment to a hostile society--but that hostile society must be fended off with arguments which are basically partisan statements to secure public acceptance. The GSU spokesmen apparently took pains to play down this militant constitutional statement and equally militant statement of purpose and it is possible that the actual stance of the GSU will be less rigid than its formal statements of purpose suggest.

Role of Conscious Decision Making in Determining Homosexual Conduct

Whether the homosexual makes a conscious decision to adopt this particular style of sexual life or whether he is genetically programmed to this pattern is a question which has perplexed all investigators engaged in clinical studies of homosexuality. Members of the Committee raised the possibility that an immature student might be induced to adopt a homosexual pattern by the influence of GSU members with whom he associated at GSU events. (BR-45-50.) The Committee also was concerned that the point be clarified whether homosexuality was a predisposition from birth, so that a person was locked in such a pattern -- much as race or sex is non-volitional -- or whether simply a question of sexual bias based on choice was involved. Although Mr. Cress attempted to give the best answers he could on this subject, his testimony casts only fitful light upon this matter. From this testimony and studies by the Committee, the following propositions seem fairly accurate.

1. Homosexuality is not an "all or nothing" proposition but all gradations can exist -- from exclusive homosexuality to exclusive heterosexuality with minor homosexual leanings.

2. Some males adopt homosexuality for the novelty of experiment. Others resort to homosexuality under special environmental pressures -- prison conditions, for example. And yet others are predisposed to this particular style of sexual conduct. This predisposition varies quantitatively with various individuals and perhaps quantitatively at different times of life.

3. When a male adopts homosexuality for the sake of novelty or under pressure, physical homosexual acts usually are involved. When a male is predisposed to homosexuality, his predisposition can affect his conduct in a number of ways and it is possible that his sexual behavior will not be affected. Nevertheless, sexual behavior usually is affected by the predisposition of the male and as few homosexual males are continent as heterosexual males are continent.

4. Overt homosexuality, whether manifested as an experiment, under pressure, or by predisposition, is a deviation from the prevailing sexual conduct pattern in society. Much of the repugnance to homosexuality manifested in Western society stems from religious values and to recognition that efforts to popularize homosexuality pose a threat to the heterosexual family which is the basic social, economic, and political unit of the western scheme of public order.

5. There is no firm evidence to indicate that the basis of homosexuality is disease, although instances of homosexuality are sometimes associated with mental diseases, such as senile dementia. This, of course, depends upon the definition of "disease". Abnormal symptoms are present but there is no agreement upon a pathological or psychopathological condition that might contribute to homosexuality; and it is possible, as the homosexual spokesmen assert, that we deal in this situation with a natural and biological deviation.

With these propositions in view, and based upon testimony before the Committee pertaining to the element of choice on homosexuality, particularly the testimony of Mr. Cress, the Committee concludes:

1. GSU members are likely to advocate homosexuality as a normal and desirable form of sexual life.

2. In most instances in which a male adopts or rejects homosexuality as a style of sexual life, he makes a voluntary choice to favor or disfavor homosexual practices.

3. Students who are not dominantly or overtly homosexual may be attracted to homosexuality by association with GSU members, as, for example, by attending GSU events, even though GSU members state they are engaged in no active program of recruiting or seducing others.

4. While University officials no longer stand in loco parentis to students, the voluntary choice of a student who opts for a homosexual life alienates the student from the majority of heterosexuals at the University. The process is disintegrative. To compensate for this disintegrating effect, there are no clear reciprocal advantages to the intellectual community. The members of the GSU may well anticipate tolerance by an informed public of the future, but cannot reasonably anticipate acceptance so long as the organization of that public is keyed to the heterosexual family. The disintegration that occurs within the University community as a result of GSU activities is crystallized by the character and purposes of the organization.

Number of Students Probably Involved in GSU Activity

Dr. Kinsey, in his monumental and controversial study "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948)", estimated that approximately 4% of adult white males were exclusively homosexual; 10% have strong homosexual tendencies for at least three years between sixteen and sixty-five; and about 37% have some overt homosexual experience between adolescence and old age. Another study indicates about 1% of male Swedes have been estimated as exclusively homosexual with about 4% having both homosexual and heterosexual impulses. The British Committee on Homosexual Offenses and Prostitutes (the Wolfenden Committee) could produce no accurate estimate on the number of homosexuals in the British population. The records of psychiatrists and records of criminal prosecutions have proved no satisfactory guide.

The Gay Student Union "statement of purpose" suggests that there are 1,000 homosexuals in the University student population. The Union started with from 12 to 24 members. A student membership of 40 was listed in the request for an allocation from the student activity fund. About 40 or 50 persons heard the speech of Dr. Kameny (AR-31). Mr. Cress has referred to 90 to 100 members currently, some of these not being active. (BR-34.)

There are no adequate criteria to define "homosexuality". This is a major basis for criticism of the Kinsey study. For example, the familiar and transient attachments among adolescents of the same sex have been described as "homosexual". Some psychiatrists have suggested that every human has latent homosexual tendencies.

The main concern of the Committee presently is with the overt homosexual who has identified his homosexual tendencies in unequivocal fashion and who is prepared to defend and advocate homosexuality as an acceptable life style. The Committee estimates based on clinical studies by others that persons in this category within the University do not exceed 300 and that among these not more than 50 will be consistently active members of the Gay Student Union. These figures are comparable to those estimated at other major universities.