Dear Director Pattullo

I'm writing to congratulate you on the growing acceptance of your theories on "negative social pressure." Just last night in Quincy House, I was sitting with a group of about eight guys when this really ugly girl walks up to the salad bar. At first a few of the guys were just making the normal sack and rode jokes, but then one of my brighter friends made a good point, which he properly attributed to you "What we need," he said, "is some negative social pressure to get these grotesque women out of here." Most of us are of the opinion that it could work.

Now I know, Director, that you may not want to take credit for our application of your theories. After all, when you advocated the need for "negative social pressure" in a letter to the Indy, you were talking about guys, not ugly women. But hey, that's often the way it is with theories. They gain a life of their own and before you know it they're just taking off I'm happy to say I think there is that kind of potential for your ideas. Director, but you've got to keep working on it. Keep responding to your critics in letters to The Crimson and the Indy, make a few speaking engagements for The Harvard Campaign or the Alumni Association you'll see; word gets around.

But before you get all excited and organize a parade, Director I think we've got to talk a little more about long-term strategy. Applying negative social pressure to gays and other minority groups of our desire is not going to be easy at first. Until we're able to whip up a consensus against them, there will be some anger and some protests You need to look at the advice of sociologist Fred Hirsch, who seems clearly to foresee the implications of your ideas, but who provides a warning.

Suppose, for example, it were clearly demonstrated that society was becoming segmented on meritocratic-hereditary lines (elites being formed by merit groups that had a substantial hereditary component based on transmission of both genes and favorable environment); and suppose it were also clearly demonstrated that this segmentation induced frustration and anger among the less-favored groups herded increasingly together--the poor, the stupid, [the gays] and the ugly making up a ferment of continual rejection and violence. There is at least the possibility that society will be faced with the unpleasant choice between constant insecurity for all and a crackdown involving repression of the individual liberties of all.

Please don't take this personally, Director but Hirsch addresses a problem you haven't been willing, at least publicly, to deal with in your letters to the Indy and more recently to The Crimson, you have deftly explained the need and propriety of "negative social pressure" on gays. The idea is quite straightforward If society doesn't like gays, and it surely doesn't, society should try its damnedest to make sure that fewer people wind up that way. You haven't said explicitly what kinds of pressures would be used, but I think it's fairly easy to see that we would go with whatever is most effective Television ads with public personalities speaking out on the horrors of being gay, educational campaigns in the nation's schools on gayhood as a social deformity, that type of thing. It would probably be somewhat similar to President Truman's successful effort to stir up fear and hatred for the Russians. All we need are more elected officials, or a strong leader outside everyday politics (Director, could it be you?), who are willing to take a stand. And before you know it guys and other minorities of our choice will be at least back in the closet, and probably hiding in a few attics. They will be on the run.

But here comes the part that you're still a bit fuzzy on, Director: it's as if you had second doubts about your own perceptive (if not totally original) theories. You have stated that in cases where people are already confirmed gays and cannot be swayed by social pressures, society should respect their "basic rights," although you have not said in any of your letters what these rights are. Assuming you mean by "rights" certain powers or privileges to which Americans are universally entitled. I think, Director, that you need to take a hard look at Hirsch's point. The moment we begin to draw lines, separating the gays and the ugly from the rest, we take the chance of a "crackdown involving repression" of civil liberties and basic rights. By drawing lines we create an inferior class, and by applying "negative social pressure" to that class we begin to stir up a public furor that may lead to a consensus anti-gay, and anti-ugly opinion. Only such a consensus opinion will in fact prove effective in combating the pervasive influence of the gays, the ugly, and others.

At the same time, such a broad social conviction will almost immediately come into conflict with what you call "basic rights." These rights, though embodied in the Constitution, are not immune to limitation or even total abridgement. We've seen at before in the United States with the Alien and Sedition Act, with the century-long dormancy of the Reconstruction Amendments, with the imprisonment of Japanese-American citizens during World War II, with the Red Scare, and we've seen it elsewhere to an even greater degree. The existence of basic rights is in fact predicated on a consensus opinion in favor of freedom, equality, and other values. This consensus opinion for rights will be eroded, Director, by the negative pressures you hope to build against gays.

You'll see if you are persistent, Director, that it won't even be difficult to skirt the spirit of the Constitution once the public is sufficiently whipped into a "homosexual scare." No one will argue that Constitutional rights are absolute, on our side is the old adage that freedom of speech doesn't permit a scream of fire in a crowded theatre. "Negative social pressures" may well prove effective in covertly abridging gays civil rights. While supporting freedom of speech for gays, we will work hard to harass anyone who listens to gays' public speeches, while supporting freedom of the press for gay publications, we will antagonize any and all subscribers; while supporting gays' right to privacy, we will require special medical tests for avowed homosexuals. You see, Director, how easy it will be once we have an impassioned public on our side.

That is why I can't understand, Director, why you continue to pay lip service in your letters to basic rights I suppose it may just be a ploy to escape harsh criticism from civil libertarians and students of history who perceive dangerous precedents for your ideas. In that case I won't worry about rights any longer. But I do want to make sure you perceive the contradiction that underlies what has been your public stance of "negative social pressure" against gays and respect for "basic rights". The broad support that is necessary to wield effective negative social pressure will at the same time erode the foundation of gays' civil rights. In all likelihood, it will not be possible for you, Director even as the leader of our movement, to restrain the anti-gay social current that you fostered. A public furor, once aroused, will require a target and although you may add others to the list of your enemies, you will be unable to preserve fundamental rights of minorities against a majority faction. I'm telling you all of this now, Director, because I don't want to see you get cold feet as we near our goal the eradication of homosexuality.

We, a few of my friends and I, are ready to get started, Director. Our first few steps here at the College should be relatively easy, especially because Harvard has no official policy banning discrimination against gays and because old, rich and powerful alumni are notorious for their opposition to University support for gay-related activities. And as you know, we already have the Faculty Council on our side. Please write back, Director; we are awaiting your next instructions. Your faithful servant.   Andrew C. Karp