Interim Report on Employment of Homosexuals and Other Sex Perverts in Government (1950)

Employment of Homosexuals and Other Sex Perverts in Government

December 15 (legislative day, November 27), 1950.––Ordered to be printed

Mr. Hoey submitted the following Interim Report [Pursuant to S. Res. 280, 81st Cong.] made to the Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments by its Subcommittee on Investigations.

Introduction

The Senate Investigations Subcommittee of the Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments was directed, under authority of Senate Resolution 280 (81st Cong., 2d sess., adopted June 7, 1950), (see Appendix I), to make an investigation into the employment by the Government of homosexuals and other sex perverts. This resolution was the result of preliminary inquiries made earlier this year by a subcommittee of the Senate District of Columbia Subcommittee on Appropriations composed of Senator Hill of Alabama and Senator Wherry of Nebraska. The reports and testimony of that subcommittee were of considerable valve to the Investigations Subcommittee in the conduct of this inquiry. 

An investigation on a Government-wide scale of homosexuality and other sex perversion is unprecedented. Furthermore, reliable, factual information on the subject of homosexuality and sex perversion is somewhat limited. In the past, studies in this field, for the most part, were confined to scientific studies by medical experts and sociologists. The criminal courts and the police have had considerable experience in the handling of sex perverts as law violators, but the subject as a personnel problem until very recently has received little attention from Government administrators and personnel officers.

The primary objective of the subcommittee in this inquiry was to determine the extent of the employment of homosexuals and other sex perverts in Government; to consider reasons why their employment by the Government is undesirable; and to examine into the efficacy of the methods used in dealing with the problem. Because of the complex nature of the subject under investigation it was apparent that this investigation could not be confined to a mere personnel inquiry. Therefore, the subcommittee considered not only the security risk and other aspects of the employment of homosexuals, including the rules and procedures followed by Government agencies in handling these cases, but inquiries were also made into the basic medical, psychiatric, sociological and legal phases of the problem. A number of eminent physicians and psychiatrists, who are recognized authorities on this subject, were consulted and some of these authorities testified before the subcommittee in executive session. In addition, numerous medical and sociological studies were reviewed. Information was also sought and obtained from law-enforcement officers, prosecutors, and other persons dealing with the legal and sociological aspects of the problem in 10 of the larger cities in the country.

The subcommittee, being well aware of the strong moral and social taboos attached to homosexuality and other forms of sex perversion, made every effort to protect individuals from unnecessary public ridicule and to prevent this inquiry from becoming a public spectacle. In carrying out this policy it was determined at tie outset that all testimony would be taken by the subcommittee in executive session. Accordingly, all witnesses appearing before the subcommittee testified in executive hearings. In the conduct of this investigation the subcommittee tried to avoid the circus atmosphere which could attend an inquiry of this type and sought to make a thorough factual study of the problem at hand in an unbiased, objective manner.

It was determined that even among the experts there existed considerable difference of opinion concerning the many facets of homosexuality and other forms of sex perversion. Even the terms "sex pervert" and "homosexual" are given different connotations by the medical and psychiatric experts. For the purpose of this report the subcommittee has defined sex perverts as "those who engage in unnatural sexual acts" and homosexuals are perverts who may be broadly defined as "persons of either sex who as adults engage in sexual activities with persons of the same sex." In this inquiry the subcommittee is not concerned with so-called latent sex perverts, namely, those persons who knowingly or unknowingly have tendencies or inclinations toward homosexuality or other types of sex perversion, but who, by the exercise of self-restraint or for other reasons do not indulge in overt acts of perversion. This investigation is concerned only with  those who engage in overt acts of homosexuality or other sex perversion.

The subcommittee found that most authorities agree on certain basic facts concerning sex perversion and it is felt that these facts should be considered in any discussion of the problem. Most authorities believe that sex deviation results from psychological rather than physical causes, and in many cases there are no outward characteristics or physical traits that are positive as identifying marks of sex perversion. Contrary to a common belief, all homosexual males do not have feminine mannerisms, nor do all female homosexuals display masculine characteristics in their dress or actions. The fact is that many male homosexuals are very masculine in their physical appearance and general demeanor, and many female homosexuals have every appearance of femininity in their outward behavior.

Generally speaking, the overt homosexual of both sexes can be divided into two general types; the active, aggressive or male type, and the submissive, passive or female type. The passive type of male homosexual, who often is effeminate in his mannerisms and appearance, is attracted to the masculine type of man and is friendly and congenial with women. On the other hand the active male homosexual often has a dislike for women. He exhibits no traces of femininity in his speech or mannerisms which would disclose his homosexuality. This active type is almost exclusively attracted to the passive type of homosexual or to young men or boys who are not necessarily homosexual but who are effeminate in general appearance or behavior. The active and passive type of female homosexual follow the same general patterns as their male counterparts. It is also a known fact that some perverts are bisexual. This type engages in normal heterosexual relationships as well as homosexual activities. These bisexual individuals are often married and have children, and except for their perverted activities they appear to lead normal lives.

Psychiatric physicians generally agree that indulgence in sexually perverted practices indicates a personality which has failed to reach sexual maturity. The authorities agree that most sex deviates respond to psychiatric treatment and can be cured if they have a genuine desire to be cured. However, many overt homosexuals have no real desire to abandon their way of life and in such cases cures are difficult, if not impossible. The subcommittee sincerely believes that persons afflicted with sexual desires which result in their engaging in overt acts of perversion should be considered as proper cases for medical and psychiatric treatment. However, sex perverts, like all other persons who by their overt acts violate moral codes and laws and the accepted standards of conduct, must be treated as transgressors and dealt with accordingly.

Sex Perverts as Government Employees

Those charged with the responsibility of operating the agencies of Government must insist that Government employees meet acceptable standards of personal conduct. In the opinion of this subcommittee homosexuals and other sex perverts are not proper persons to be employed in Government for two reasons; first, they are generally unsuitable, and second, they constitute security risks.

General Unsuitability of Sex Perverts

Overt acts of sex perversion, including acts of homosexuality, constitute a crime under our Federal, State, and municipal statutes and persons who commit such acts are law violators. Aside from the criminality and immorality involved in sex perversion such behavior is so contrary to the normal accepted standards of social behavior that persons who engage in such activity are looked upon as outcasts by society generally. The social stigma attached to sex perversion is so great that many perverts go to great lengths to conceal their perverted tendencies. This situation is evidenced by the fact that perverts are frequently victimized by blackmailers who threaten to expose their sexual deviations.

Law enforcement officers have informed the subcommittee that there are gangs of blackmailers who make a regular practice of preying upon the homosexual. The modus operandi in these homosexual blackmail cases usually follow the same general patter. The victim, who is a homosexual, has managed to conceal his perverted activities and usually enjoys a good reputation in his community. The blackmailers, by one means or another, discover that the victim is addicted to homosexuality and under the threat of disclosure they extort money from him. These blackmailers often impersonate police officers in carrying out their blackmail schemes. Many cases have come to the attention of the police where highly respected individuals have paid out substantial sums of money to blackmailers over a long period of time rather than risk the disclosure of their homosexual activities. The police believe that this type of blackmail racket is much more extensive than is generally known, because they have found that most of the victims are very hesitant to bring the matter to the attention of the authorities. 

In further considering the general suitability of perverts as Government employees, it is generally believed that those who engage in overt acts of perversion lack the emotional stability of normal persons. In addition there is an abundance of evidence to sustain the conclusion that indulgence in acts of sex perversion weakens the moral fiber of an individual to a degree that he is not suitable for a position of responsibility. . . .

Sex Perverts as Security Risks

The conclusion of the subcommittee that a homosexual or other sex pervert is a security risk is not based upon mere conjecture. That conclusion is predicated upon a careful review of the opinions of those best qualified to consider matters of security in Government, namely, the intelligence agencies of the Government. . . .

The lack of emotional stability which is found in most sex perverts and the weakness of their moral fiber, makes them susceptible to the blandishments of the foreign espionage agent. It is the experience of intelligence experts that perverts are vulnerable to interrogation by a skilled questioner and they seldom refuse to talk about themselves. Furthermore, most perverts tend to congregate at the same restaurants, night clubs, and bars, which places can be identified with comparative ease in the community, making it possible for a recruiting agent to develop clandestine relationships which can be used for espionage purposes.

As has been previously discussed in this report, the pervert is easy prey to the blackmailer. It follows that if blackmailers can extort money from a homosexual under the threat of disclosure, espionage agents can use the same type of pressure to extort confidential information or other material they may be seeking. A classic case of this type involved one Captain Raedl [Alfred Redl] who became chief of the Austrian counterintelligence service in 1912. He succeeded in building up an excellent intelligence net in Russia and had done considerable damage to the espionage net which the Russians had set up in Austria. However, Russian agents soon discovered that Raedl was a homosexual and shortly thereafter they managed to catch him in an act of perversion as the result of a trap they had set for that purpose. Under the threat of exposure Raedl agreed to furnish and he did furnish the Russians with Austrian military secrets. He also doctored or destroyed the intelligence reports which his own Austrian agents were sending from Russia with the result that the Austrian and German General Staffs, at the outbreak of Work War I in 1914, were completely misinformed as to the Russians' mobilization intentions. On the other hand, the Russians had obtained from Raedl the war plans of the Austrians and that part of the German plans which had been made available to the Austrian Government. Shortly after the outbreak of the war Captain Raedl's traitorous acts were discovered by his own Government and he committed suicide.

Other cases have been brought to the attention of the subcommittee where Nazi and Communist agents have attempted to obtain information from employees of our Government by threatening to expose their abnormal sex activities. It is an accepted fact among intelligence agencies that espionage organizations the world over consider sex perverts who are in possession of or have access to confidential material to be prime targets where pressure can be exerted. In virtually every case despite protestations by the perverts that they would never succumb to blackmail, invariably they express considerable concern over the fact that their condition might become known to their friends, associates, or the public at large. . . .

Extent of Sex Perversion in Government

It is not possible to determine accurately the number of homosexuals and other sex perverts in the Government service. The only known perverts are those whose activities have been brought to the attention of the authorities as the result of an arrest or where some other specific information has resulted in the disclosure of their perversion.
 
Not even the experts are in agreement as to the incidence of homosexuality and other sex perversion among the general population and to attempt to arrive at an estimated figure as to the number of perverts in the Federal Government would be sheer speculation and serve no useful purpose. While most authorities agree that the incidence of sex perversion follows a rather constant pattern throughout our entire social structure, regardless of education, wealth, or social position, it clearly does not follow that the same relative number of perverts should be found in the Federal service as are found outside of the Government. In this regard we must consider the fact that homosexuals and other persons with arrest records or other known indications of unsavory character are largely eliminated from a great many Federal positions in such agencies as the Atomic Energy Commission, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the State Department, certain branches of the Treasury, and other sensitive jobs where all applicants are thoroughly investigated prior to employment. . . .
 
The subcommittee has attempted to arrive at some idea as to the extent of sex perversion among Government employees by obtaining information from the personnel records of all Government agencies and the police records in the District of Columbia. Due to the manner in which personnel records are maintained it was found that any effort to obtain statistics from these records prior to January 1, 1947, would necessarily involve a prohibitive cost and that the fragmentary information obtained from such records prior to that date would be of little or not value to this investigation.
 
An individual check of the Federal agencies revealed that since January 1, 1947, the armed services and civilian agencies of Government have handled 4,954 cases involving charges of homosexuality or other types of sex perversion. It will be noted that the bulk of these cases are in the armed services as is indicated by the fact that 4,380 of the known cases in Government involved military personnel and 574 involved civilian employees. However, in considering these statistics it is pointed out that the incidence of homosexuality and other forms of sex perversion is usually higher in military organizations or other groups where large numbers of men (or women) live and work in close confinement and are restricted in their normal social contacts. Furthermore it must be borne in mind in relation to the larger numerical figures of the military departments that the armed services are numerically several times larger than any civilian agency of government. Another important consideration in drawing conclusions from these statistics is the fact that the military services, unlike most other Government agencies, traditionally have been aggressive in ferreting out and removing sex perverts from their ranks and this is bound to make for a larger number of known cases in the services. . . . 

An examination of the statistical data gathered from the civilian agencies of Government indicates that from January 1, 1947 through October 31, 1950, 574 cases have been handled in these agencies. Of that number 207 have been dismissed from the Government service and 213 have resigned. In 85 cases it was determined by the employing agency that the facts did not substantiate the charges and the persons involved were retained. In addition investigation is pending in 69 cases in which no final determination has been made as yet. . . .

It is significant to note that it was about April 1 of this year that the employment of sex perverts in Government was given widespread publicity as the result of the preliminary studies by the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee. Shortly after that time records of persons arrested in the District of Columbia on charges of sex perversion were made available to the various Government agencies and since that time there has been a marked increase in the number of cases handled by the Government departments. Excluding the military and civilian personnel of the armed services the statistics reveal that out of a total of 574 known cases involving employees in all civilian agencies of Government only 192 cases were handled in a period of over 3 years prior to April 1, 1950. However, 382 cases have been handled since that time. When it is considered that 133 of the cases handled prior to April 1, 1950, involved employees of the ECA and the State Department this means that only 59 perversion cases were handled by all other civilian agencies of the Government prior to the time that the Congress began its inquiries early this year. These figures clearly indicate that many of the civilian agencies of the Government were either negligent or otherwise failed to discover many of the homosexuals in their employ until after this situation was brought to light as the result of congressional action.

On the other hand an examination of the statistics on military personnel shows that 3,245 persons were separated from the military services prior to April 1, 1950, and 1,135 persons have been separated since that time. These figures indicate that the military establishments over a period of years have followed a rather uniform and constant patter in ferreting out and removing these persons from the services while most of the civilian agencies of Government have taken action in the majority of cases only in the past few months. . . .

Handling of the Sex Perversion Problem in Government

The Rules of Government Regarding the Employment of Sex Perverts

The regulations of the Civil Service Commission for many years have provided that criminal, infamous, dishonest, immoral or notoriously disgraceful conduct, which incudes homosexuality or other types of sex perversion, are sufficient grounds for denying appointment to a Government position or for the removal of a person from the Federal Service. Furthermore, under the civil service regulations (Ch. S1-21, Federal Personnel Manual), specific procedures have been set up under which unsuitable Federal employees who are subject to the civil service regulations shall be removed from the Government. These civil service regulations are applicable to over 90 percent of the civilians employed in the Federal Government and the remaining civilian employees who are not subject to the rules of the Civl Service Commission are covered by agency regulations which are similar to those of the Commission. In addition to the rules and regulations of the Civil Service Commission, the armed services have promulgated and adopted their own regulations for the handling of this problem among military personnel. . . .

Methods Used to Prevent Sex Perverts from Obtaining Government Employment and to Remove Them from Government Jobs

In reviewing the methods and procedures in the handling of the problem of sex perversion in the Government, two factors must be considered. First, consideration must be given to preventing such persons from obtaining Government employment and, second, the methods used in detecting and removing perfects who are already in the Government service should be examined. Under present procedures all applicants for Government positions are screened by the Civil Service Commission soon after their appointment. While these applicants are not subject to a so-called full field investigation, their fingerprints are checked against the files of the FBI to determine whether they have a prior arrest record, and other name checks are also made. As a result of this screening process, the Civil Service Commission is notified in the event the applicant has a police record of sex perversion; and, if such a record does exist, further investigation is conducted to determine the complete facts. A spot check of the records of the Civil Service Commission indicates that between January 1, 1947, and August 1, 1950, approximately 1,700 applicants for Federal positions were denied employment because they had a record of homosexuality or other sex perversion. . . .

On the other hand, the subcommittee has found that many civilian agencies of government have taken an entirely unrealistic view of the problem of sex perversion and have not taken adequate steps to get these people out of government. Known perverts and persons suspected of such activities have been retained in some Government agencies, or they have been allowed to leave one agency and obtain employment in another, notwithstanding the regulations of the Civil Service Commission and the rules of the agencies themselves. There are several reasons why this situation existed. In many case the fault stemmed from the fact that personnel officers and other officials were acting in outright disregard of existing rules, and they handled the problem in accordance with their individual feelings or personal judgments in the matter. To further confuse the problem, there was considerable ignorance and wide difference of opinion among Government officials as to how personnel cases involving sex perverts should be handled. Some officials undoubtedly condoned the employment of homosexuals for one reason or another. This was particularly true in those instances where the perverted activities of the employee were carried on in such a manner as not to create public sandal or notoriety. Those who adopted that view based their conclusions on the false premise that what a Government employee did outside the office on his own time, particularly if his actions did not involve his fellow employees or his work, was his own business. That conclusion may be true with regard to the normal behavior of employees in most types of Government work, but it does not apply to sex perversion or any other types of criminal activity or similar misconduct. 

There also appears to have been a tendency in many Government agencies to adopt a head-in-the-sand attitude toward the problem of sex perversion. Some agencies tried to avoid the problem either by making no real effort to investigate charges of homosexuality or by failing to take firm and positive steps to get known perverts out of Government and keep them out. . . . 

A glaring example of this latter situation involved the 91 homosexuals who left the State Department between January 1947 and January 1950. In most of those cases these known homosexuals were allowed to resign for "personal reasons" and no information was placed in the regular personnel files of the State Department indicating the real reason for the resignation; nor was the Civil Service Commission informed of the true reason for the resignation. . . . Due to the manner in which these cases were mishandled, 23 of those 91 State Department employees found their way into other departments of the Government. . . . At the present time 22 of these homosexuals have been removed from the agencies to which they transferred after leaving the State Department. In one case the individual involved was retained in the new agency after a reconsideration of the facts in his case. . . .

As has been previously stated, the regulations of the Civil Service Commission proved that certain procedures must be followed by Government agencies in removing sex perverts or other undesirable civil service employees from the Government. In essence the regulations provide that the employee must be informed in writing of the charges against him; that he must be allowed a reasonable time to file an answer; and that if the employee answers the charges, his answers must be considered by the agency and he must be furnished with a written decision in his case. While this procedure gives the employee an opportunity to know and answer the charges against him, the subcommittee is convinced that unless the persons who actually administer these procedures are in possession of sufficient facts upon which to draw up the charges and to make their final decisions, the public interest will not be protected adequately.

The Necessity of Thoroughly Investigating Cases of Sex Perversion in Government

Rules, regulations and procedures are of little value in dealing with sex perverts in Government unless full and complete facts, which can only be stablished by a thorough investigation, are available for the review of the agencies in each specific case. The only effective way to handle sex perversion cases in a Government agency is to make sure that every reasonable complaint is thoroughly investigated. . . . 

Failure to Obtain Police Records

One of the chief sources of information on sex perverts is to be found in the arrest records of law enforcement agencies. The lack of proper liaison between law enforcement agencies in the District of Columbia and departments of Government has resulted in many known sex perverts being retained in Government jobs. . . .

In view of the fact that the police departments in the District of Columbia and elsewhere fingerprint persons arrested for sex perversion and forward these prints to the FBI, the present system of channeling this arrest information on Government employees from the FBI through the Civil Service Commission to the employing agency means that Government agencies are notified promptly when a Government employee is arrested here or in other parts of the country for perverted sex activities. Under these circumstances the agency will have an opportunity to make an immediate investigation and will be in a position to take the necessary administrative action in each individual case.

Lack of Review Procedures

In view of the very serious consequences of dismissal from the Government based on charges of sex perversion, the subcommittee is of the opinion that reasonable safeguards should be set up for the protection of the individuals involved in these cases. Under present procedures certain categories of Federal employees have a right to appeal to the Civil Service Commission in the vent they are dismissed from an agency as sex perverts or for any other reason. . . . The subcommittee believes that every person dismissed from the Government as a sex pervert should have the right to appeal the findings of the employing agency and these appeals should be handled in a uniform manner. . . .

Conclusion

There is no place in the United States Government for persons who violate the laws or the accepted standards of morality, or who otherwise bring disrepute to the Federal service by infamous or scandalous personal conduct. Such persons are not suitable for Government positions and in the case of doubt the American people are entitled to have errors of judgment on the part of their officials, if there must be errors, resolved on the side of caution. It is the opinion of this subcommittee that those who engage in acts of homosexuality and other perverted sex activities are unsuitable for employment in the Federal Government. This conclusion is based upon the fact that persons who indulge in such degraded activity are committing not only illegal and immoral acts, but they also constitute security risks in positions of public trust.

The subcommittee found that in the past many Government officials failed to take a realistic view of the problem of sex perversion in Government with the result that a number of sex perverts were not discovered or removed from Government jobs, and in still other instances they were quietly eased out of one department and promptly found employment in another agency. This situation undoubtedly stemmed from the fact that there was a general disinclination on the part of many Government officials to face squarely the problem of sex perversion among Federal employees and as a result they did not take the proper steps to solve the problem. The rules of the Civil Service Commission and the regulations of the agencies themselves prohibit the employment of sex perverts and these rules have been in effect for many years. Had the existing rules and regulations been enforced many of the perverts who were forced out of Government in recent months would have been long since removed from the Federal service.

It is quite apparent that as a direct result of this investigation officials throughout the Government have become much more alert to the problem of the employment of sex perverts in Government and in recent months they have removed a substantial number of these undesirables from public positions. This is evidenced by the fact that action has been taken in 382 sex perversion cases involving civilian employees of Government in the past 7 months, whereas action was taken in only 192 similar cases in the previous 3-year period from January 1, 1947, to April 1, 1950. However, it appears to the subcommittee that some Government officials are not yet fully aware of the inherent dangers involved in the employment of sex perverts. It is the considered opinion of the subcommittee that Government officials have the responsibility of exercising a high degree of diligence in the handling of the problem of sex perversion, and it is urged that they follow the recommendations of this subcommittee in that regard.

While this subcommittee is convinced that it is in the public interest to get sex perverts out of Government and keep them out, this program should be carried out in a manner consistent with the traditional American concepts of justice and fair play. In order to accomplish this end every reasonable complaint of perverted sex activities on the part of Government employees should be thoroughly investigated and dismissals should be ordered only after a complete review of the facts and in accordance with the present civil service procedures. These procedures provide that the employee be informed of the charges against him and be given a reasonable time to answer. Furthermore, in view of the very serious consequence of dismissal from the Government on charges of sex perversion, it is believed that consideration should be given to establishing a board of review or similar appeal machinery whereby all persons who are dismissed from the Government on these charges may, if they so desire, have their cases reviewed by higher authority outside of the employing agency. No such appeal machinery exists at the present time.

Although 457 persons who were arrested by police authorities in sex perversion cases in the District of Columbia during the past 4 years indicated that they were employees of the Government at the time of their arrest, information concerning the great majority of these arrests did not come to the attention of the Civil Service Commission or the other agencies of Government until April of this year. This deplorable situation resulted from the lack of proper liaison between the law enforcement agencies and the departments of Government. The subcommittee is gratified to report that this situation has now been corrected. Since April information concerning Government employees arrested on charges of sex perversion in the District of Columbia and elsewhere has been promptly reported from the FBI to the Civil Service Commission and the employing agencies of Government in order that appropriate action may be taken in each case.

The subcommittee also found that the existing criminal laws in the District of Columbia with regard to acts of sex perversion are inadequate and the subcommittee has drawn up proposed amendments to the District Criminal Code which should materially strengthen these laws. It was also discovered that most of the homosexuals apprehended by the police in the District of Columbia were booked on charges of disorderly conduct. In most cases they were never brought to trial but were allowed to make forfeitures of small cash collateral at police stations. This slipshod method of disposing of these cases with little or no review by the prosecutive or judicial authorities was corrected after the subcommittee brought this situation to the attention of the judges of the municipal court in August 1950.

Since the initiation of this investigation considerable progress has been made in removing homosexuals and similar undesirable employees from positions in the Government. However, it should be borne in mind that the public interest cannot be adequately protected unless responsible officials adopt and maintain a realistic and vigilant attitude toward the problem of sex perverts in the Government. To pussyfoot or to take half measures will allow some known perverts to remain in Government and can result in the dismissal of innocent persons.

In view of the importance of preventing the employment of sex perverts in Government the subcommittee plans to reexamine the situation from time to time to determine if its present recommendations are being followed and to ascertain whether it may be necessary to take other steps to protect the public interest.