PX2337
PX0001

81ST CONGRESS
2d Session f

SENATE

IDOCUMENTI No. 241

EMPLOYMENT OF HOMOSEXUALS AND OTHERSEX PERVERTS IN GOVERNMENT

INTERIM REPORTSUBMITTED TO THE

COMMITTEE ON EXPENI)ITURES IN THE
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS
BY ITSSUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONSPURSUANT TO

S. Res. 280(81st Congress)

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE COMMITTEE ON
EXPENDITURES IN THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS TO CARRY OUT CERTAIN DUTIES

DEcnEMER 15 (legislative day, NOVEMBER 27), 1960.-Ordered to be printed
UNITED STATESGOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICEWASHINGTON : 1950

COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES IN THE EXECUTIVE
DEPARTMENTS
JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arkansas, Chairman
JAMES 0. EASTLAND, Mississippi
JOSEPH R. McCARTHY, Wisconsin
CLYDE R. HOEY, Nort'i Carolina
IRVING M. IVES, New YorkHERBERT R. O'CONOR, Maryland
KARL E. MUNDT, South Dakota
HUBERT IH. HUMPHREY, Minnesota
MARGARET CHASE SMITH, Maine
EDWARD L. LEAHY, Rhode Island
ANDREW F. SCIOEPPEL, Kansas
WILLIAM BENTON, Connecticut
ARTIUR H. VANDENBERG, Michigan
WALTEB L. REYNOLDS, Clerk
INVESTIOATIONS SUBCOM MITTEE
CLYDE R. HOEY, North Carolina, Chairman
KARL E. MUNDT, South Dakota
HERBERT R. O'CONOR, Maryland
MARGARET CHASE SMITH, Maine
JAMES 0. EASTLAND, Mississippi
ANDREW F. SCHOEPPEL, Kansas
JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arkansas
FRANCIS D. FLANAGAN, Chief Counsel
IX

CONTENTS
Page

Introduction
Sex perverts as Government employees -----------.--------------_-..
General unsuitability of sex perverts
Sex perverts as security risks
Extent of sex perversion in Governmentof sex perversion problem in Government
Handling
The rules of Government regarding the employment of sex perverts-Methods used to prevent sex perverts from obtaining Government
employment and to remove them from Government jobs-------The necessity of thoroughly investigating cases of sex perversion in----Government --- ---..---Failure to obtain police records.._----------------Lack of review procedures
branch --------Handling of sex perversion cases by the legislativeof sex perversion cases in the District of Columbia__
Handling
Deficiencies in the present criminal statutes of the District of Columbia---------------------------------------------------Action by local authorities in sex perversion cases
Conclusion--------------------------------.-----------------.

-----------------------------------.-.-------------------------.------------------------------------------------------.-----------------------------i

S. Doe., 81-2, vol. 11-- 111

1

3
3
4
6
8
8
9

11
12
13
14
15

15
18
19

f DocME T
SENATE
81ST CONGRISS£d Session fNo. 241

EMPLOYMENT OF HOMOSEXUALS AND OTHERSEX PERVERTS IN GOVERNMENTDECEMBER 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 auadopted June
Cong., 2d sess.,thority of Senate Resolutionto 280
(81st
into
the employmake
aninvestigation
7,ment(seeGovernment
1950), theAppendix I),of homosexuals and other sex perverts. Thisbyresolution was the result of preliminary inquiries made earlier thisof Columbia Subcomyear byona subcommittee of the Senateof District
Hill of Alabama and
Senatormittee Appropriations composed
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 andother sex perversion is unprecedented. Furthermore, reliable, factual
information on the subject of homosexuality and sex perversion issomewhat 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 experiencein the handling of sex perverts as law violators, but the subject as apersonnel
problem until very recently has received little attention
from Government administrators and personnel officers.
The primary objective of the subcommittee in this inquiry was todetermine the extent of the employment of homosexuals and other sex
why their employment
perverts in Government; to consider reasons
the Government is undesirable; and to examine into the efficacy ofbythe methods used in dealing with the problem. Because of the complex nature of the subject under investigation it was apparent that1

EMPLOYMENT OF HOMOSEXUALS IN GOVERNMENT
2
this investigation could not be confined to a mere personnel inquiry.
the subcommittee considered not only the security risk and
Therefore,
other aspects of the employment of homosexuals, including the rules
and procedures followed by Government agencies in handling thesewere also made into the basic medical, psychiatric,
cases, but inquiries
and legal phases of the problem. A number of eminentsociologicaland
who are recognized authorities on thisphysicians
psychiatrists,
were
some
consultedof these authorities testified before
andsubject,the subcommittee in executive session. In addition, numerous medical and sociological studies were reviewed. Information was alsosought and obtained from law-enforcement officers, prosecutors, andother persons dealing with the legal and sociological aspects of thein 10 of the larger cities in the country.
problem
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
out this policy it was determined at tie outset that all testicarryingwould
be taken by the subcommittee in executive session.
mony
all witnesses appearing before the subcommittee testified
Accordingly,
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 studyof 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 "sexand "homosexual" are given different connotations by thepervert"medical and psychiatric experts. For the purpose of this report thesubcommittee 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 inovert acts of perversion. This investigation is concerned only withthose 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 thanphysical 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 nothave feminine mannerisms, nor do all female homosexuals display
masculine characteristics in their dress or actions. The fact is thatmany male homosexuals are very masculine in their physical appearance and general demeanor, and many female homosexuals have every
in their outward behavior.
appearance of femininity
Generally speaking, the-overt homosexual of both sexes can be divided into two general types; the active, aggressive or male type, andEMPLOYMENT OF HOMOSEXUALS IN GOVERNMENT

3

the submissive, passive or female type. The passive type of maleoften is effeminate in his mannerisms and appearance,homosexual,towho
is attracted the masculine type of man and is friendly and congenialwith wonomen. On tlie other hand the active male homosexual often has
a dislike for women. He exhibits no traces of femininity in his speechor mannerisms which would disclose his homosexuality. This active
type is almost exclusively attracted to the passive type of homosexualor to young men or boys who are not necessarily homosexual but whoare effeminate in general appearance or bellavior. 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.
indulgence in sexually
Psychiatric physicians generally agree thatwhich has failed to reachperverted practices indicates a personality
sexual maturity. Tle authorities agree that most sex deviates respondto psychiatric treatment and can be cured if they have a genuine
desire to be cured. However, many overt homosexuals have no realdesire 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 actsof perversion should be considered as proper cases for medical andtreatment. However, sex perverts, like all other persons
psychiatric
who by their overt acts violate moral codes and laws and the accepted
standards of conduct, must be treated as transgressors and dealt withaccordingly.

SEX PERVERTS AS GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
Those charged with the responsibility of operating the agencies ofGovernment 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 emGovernment for two reasons; first, they are generally unployed inandsecond, they constitute security risks.
suitable,
GENERAL UNSUITABILITY OF SIEX I'PEVERTS

Overt acts of sex perversion, including acts of homosexuality, constitute a crime under our Federal, State, and municipal statutes andpersons wlio commit such acts are law violators. Aside from thecriminality and immorality involved in sex perversion suclh bellavior
is so contrary to tlle the normal accepted standards of social behavior
that persons who engaged in such activity arc 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. hllis situation is evidenced by the fact that perverts
are frequently victimized by blackmailers who threaten to expose tleir
sexual deviations.
Law enforcement officers l1ave informed the subcommittee tlat there
are gangs of blackmailers whlo make a regular pract ice of preying upon

the Ihomosexual. The lmodus operandi in these homosexual black-

4

EMPLOYMENT OF HOMOSEXUALS IN GOVERNMENT

mail cases usually follow the same general pattern. The victim, who
is a homosexual, has managed to conceal his perverted activities andin his community. The blackmailers,
usually
enjoysora good reputation
discover that the victim is addicted to homoby one means
another,sexuality and under the threat of disclosure they extort money fromhim. These blackmailers often impersonate police officers in carryingout their blackmail schemes. Many cases have come to the attentionof the police where highly respected individuals have paid out substantial sums of money to blackmailers over a long period of timerather 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 thevictims are very hesitant to bring the matter to the attention of theauthorities.
In further considering, the general suitability of perverts as Govermnent employees, it is generally believed that those who engage inovert acts of perversion lack the emotional stability of normal persons.
In addition there is an abundance of evidence to sustain the conclusionthat 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.
Most of the authorities agree and our investigation has shown thatthe presence of a sex pervert in a GoverneintA agency tends to have a
corrosive influence upon his fellow employees. These perverts willto entice normal individuals to engage in perverted
frequently attemptThis is particularly true in the case of young and imprespractices.
sionable people who might come under the influence of a pervert.
Government officials have the responsibility of keeping this type ofcorrosive influence out of the agencies under their control. It is parimportant that the thousands of young men and women who
ticularly
are brought into Federal jobs not be subjected to that type of influence
while in tle service of the Government. One homosexual can pollutea Government office.
Another point to be considered in determining whether a sex pervert is suitable for Government employment is his tendency to gather
other perverts about him. Eminent psychiatrists have informed
the subcommittee that the homosexual is likely to seek his own kindbecause the pressures of society are such tlat he feels uncomfortable
unless lie is with his own kind. Due to this situation the homosexual
tends to surroundI( himself with other homosexuals, not only in hislife. Under these circumstances if a homosocial, but in his business insexual attains a position Government where he can influence thehiring of personnel, it is almost inevitable that he will attempt to place
other homosexuals in Government jobs.
SEX PERVERTS AS SECURITY RISKS

The conclusion of tle 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 thosebest qualified to consider matters of security in Government,
the intelligence agencies of the Governmhent. Testimony namely,on thisphase of the inquiry was taken from representatives of the Federal

EMPLOYMENT OF HOMOSEXUALS IN GOVERNMENT

5

Bureau of Investigation, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the inand Air Force. All of thesetelligence services of the Army, Navythatsex perverts in Government
areincomplete agreement
agencies
constitute security risks.
The lack of emotional stability which is found in most sex perverts
and the weakness of their moral fiber, makes them susceptible to theblandishments of the foreign espionage agent. It is the experience ofintelligence experts that perverts are vulnerable to interrogation bya skilled questioner and they seldom refuse to talk about themselves.
tend to congregate at the same restauFurthermore, mostandperverts whichbars,
places can be identified with comrants, night clubs,in
it possible for a recruitingease
community,
makinganyparativeagent to develop clandestine relationships which can be used for espionage purposes.
As has been previously discussed in this report, the pervert is easy
the blackmailer. It follows that if blackmailers can extort
prey tofrom
homosexual under the threat of disclosure, espionage
money can usea thesame type of pressure to extort confidential inforagents or other material
be seeking. -A classic case of thismlationthey mightwho
became chief of the AustrianRaedl
type involved one Captainservice in 1912. He succeeded in building up an
counterintelligenceexcellent 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 homosexualand 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
the intelligence reports which his own Austrian agents weredestroyedfrom
Russia with the result that the Austrian and German
sending
General Staffs, at the outbreak of World War I in 1914, were commisinformed as to the Russian's mobilization intentions. On
pletely
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 madeavailable 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 intelligenceagencies 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 virtuallycase despite protestations by the perverts that they would neverevery
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. The present danger of this security
problemof is well illustrated by the following excerpt from the testimony D. Milton Ladd, Assistant to the Director of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, who appeared before this subcommittee in
executive session:
The Communists, without principles or scruples, have a program of seeking

out weaknesses of leaders in Government and industry. In fact, the FBI has In

6

EMPLOYMENT OF HOMOSEXUALS IN GOVERNMENT

its possession information of unquestionable reliability that orders have been
issued by high Russian intelligence officials to their agents to secure details of
the private lives of Government officials, their weaknesses, their associates, andin fact every bit of information regarding them, hoping to find a chink in theirarmor and a weakness upon which they might capitalize at the appropriate time.

The subcommittee in pointing out the unsuitability of perverts for
Government employment is not unaware of the fact that there areother patterns of human behavior which also should be considered inpassing upon the general suitability or security-risk status of Government employees. There is little doubt that habitual drunkards, persons
who have engaged in criminal activities, and those who indulge inother types of infamous or scandalous personal conduct are also unsuitable for Government employment and constitute security risks. However, the subcommittee, in the present investigation, has properly
confined itself to the problem of sex perverts.
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
been brought to the attention
perverts are those whose activities haveof the authorities as the result of an arrest or where some other specificinformation has resulted in the disclosure of their perversion.
Not even the experts are in agreement as to the incidence of homoand other sex perversion among the general population andsexuality
to attempt to arrive at an estimated figure as to the number of pervertsin the Federal Government would be sheer speculation and serve nouseful 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 theGovernment. 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 Trleasury, and other sensitive jobs where all applicants
are thoroughly investigated prior to employment. Furthermore,some check is made of all Government employees prior to or soon after
their appointment and this would tend to eliminatemany undesirables.
In considering the extent of homosexuality in the Government, thesubcommittee lhas confined itself, as far as it has been reasonably possito those cases where specific information has led to the conclusion
ble,that a person is a pervert, or at least a likely suspect. It is realized
tlat there are bound to be some unknown perverts in Government, because in any organization as large as tle Federal Government it islogical to assume tlat there will be perverts whose clandestine activities may never be discovered. However, it is expected tliat tile number of perverts in Government can be kept to a minimum if tle problen is handled properly.
'lhe subcommittee has attempted to arrive at some idea as to theextent of sex perversion among Government employees by obtaining
inforn-ation from the personnel records of all Government agencies

EMPLOYMENT OF HOMOSEXUALS IN GOVERNMENT'

7

and the police records in the District of Columbia. Due to tile 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 beof little or no value to this investigation.
An individual check of the Federal agencies revealed that since
1, 1947, the armed services and civilian agencies of GovernJanuary
ment have handled 4.954 cases involving charges of homosexuality orother types of sex perversion. It will be noted that the bulk of tlese
cases are in the armed services as is indicated by the fact that 4,380of the known cases in Government involved military personnel and574 involved civilian employees. However, in considering these statistics it is pointed out that the incidence of homosexuality and otherforms of sex perversion is usually higher in military organizations orother groups where large numbers of men (or women) live and workin 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 fromthese statistics is the fact that the military services, unlike most other
Government agencies, traditionally have been aggressive in ferretingout and removing sex perverts from their ranks and this is bound to
make for a larger number of known cases in the services. Attached
as appendix II is a breakdown of the statistics gathered from thearmed services and the attached appendix III is a breakdown of similar statistics obtained from the civilian agencies of Government.
In considering the statistics it will be noted that two types of action
are taken in sex perversion cases in the military establishments,
namely, removal after general court martial or removal by means otherthan general court martial. Usually in the latter cases the accused isallowed to resign in lieu of court martial. Information is not available
from the military establishments as to the number of cases in which
persons were cleared of the charges and restored to duty.
suspected
These statistics indicate tlat of the total 4,380 military removals since
1, 1947, 470 persons have been separated as the result of gen,Januaryeral court martial and 3,910 lhave been separated by means other than
general court martial. An effort was made also to obtain the numberof civilian employees of tle armed services which have been separated
from the services sillce January 1917 and it was found that because of
the record system of these services the cost of obtaining suchl informat ion would be prohibitive. It will be noted in the footnote of appendix
II tlhat 42 civilians are known to have been separated from tle armed
services at various times since *Tanilary 1. 1950. However, these statistics on civilian employees of tle armed services are very fragmellntaryand incomplete and for tllat reason only a passing reference is being
made to them in tilis section of tlhe report.
An examination of the statistical data gathered from t1lie civilian
of Government (see Appendlix III) indicates that from Jlyanagencies 1947
uarv 1,through October 31, 1950. 574 cases have been handled
in these agencies. Of that niluber 207 have been dismissed from tle
Government service and 213 have resigned. In 85 cases it was determined by the employing agency that the facts did not substantiate the

8

EMKPLOYMIENT OF HOMOSEXUALS IN GOVERNMENT

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 theof sex perverts in Government was given widespread
employment
astheresult of preliminary studies by the Senate Appropublicity Subcommittee.
Shortly after that time records of persons
priationsarrested in the District of Colulnbia on charges of sex perversion weremade available to the various Government agencies and since tlat
time there has been a marked increase in the number of cases handled
the Government

bydepartments. Excluding the military and civilian
personnel of the armed services the statistics reveal that out of a totalof 574 known cases involving employees in all civilian agencies ofGovernment only 192 cases were handled in a period of over3prior to April 1, 1950. However, 382 cases have been handled years
sincethat 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 allother civilian agencies of the Government prior to the time that theCongressbegan 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 lightas the result ofcongressional action.
On the other hand an examination of the statistics on military personnel slows tlat 3,245 persons werefrom the military
services prior to April 1, 1950, and 1,135separated
havebeen separated
since tlhat time. These figures indicate persons
the military establishtliat
ments over a period of years have followed a rather uniform and constant pattern in ferreting out and removing these persons from theservices while most of the civilian agencies
of Government have taken
action in thle majority of cases only in the past few months.
The subcommittee compiled tlese statistics on abasis in tile belief that this was the best method of Government-wide
arriving at somefactual basis as to the extent of homosexuality and other types of sex
perversion in Governlent. The subcommittee is aware that il someinstances the statistics furnished are not
but thecompletecases reported for tile period covered, namely,entirely
1, 194-7, throughJanuary
October 31, 1950, are based upon all of the reasonably available facts
and are not predicated upon1 sketchy spot checks, estimates, or
speculation.

IIANDLING OF THE SEX PERVERSION PROBLEM IN
GOVERNMIEN T
TIHE IULE:S OF CGO VERIMENT1EC.GARI)ING TIIHE: EMPLOYMENT OF SEX PERlvrrTS
rT'Ie regulations of tle Civil-Service
Commission for many years
have provided tliat criminal,
infamous, dishonest, immoral or notoriously disgIracefu l con(lduct, wllichl includes lhomosexualitv or otler
types of sex perversion, are suficient grounds for deriving aplointment to a Governmeiit position or for the removal of afrom
the Federal service. Furtierlmore, under the civil serviceperson
relations(Ch. SI-21, Federal Iersonnel Mlanual), specific procedures have been

EMPLOYMENT OF HOMOSEXUALS IN GOVERNMENT

9

set up under which unsuitable Federal employees who are subject tothe civil service regulations shall be removed from the Government.
These civil service regulations are applicable to over 90 percent of thecivilians employed in the Federal Government and the remaining
civilian employees who are not subject to the rules of the Civil Service Commission are covered by agency regulations which are similar
to those of the Commission. In addition to the rules and regulationsof the Civil Service Commission, the armed services have promulgatedand adopted their own regulations for the handling of this problem
As was previously pointed out in thisamong thepersonnel.
military
have
armed
servicestraditionally taken a firm and agressive
report,attitude toward the problem, but until early this year, each service washandling the problem in its own way. In December 1949, the Department of Defense effected standard procedures for the handling anddisposition of homosexual cases among military personnel. Since
that time each of the services has issued regulations based upon theseprocedures and the problem is now being handled uniformly in all of
the military services.
METHODS USED TO PREVENT SEX PERVERTS FROM OBTAINING GOVERNMENTEMPLOYMENT AND TO REMOVE TIEM! FROM1 GOVERNMENT JOBS

In reviewing the methods and procedures in the handling of theof sex perversion in the Government, two factors must be
problemconsidered. First, consideration must be given to preventing such
persons from obtaining Government employment and, second, themethods used in detecting and removing perverts 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 thesesubject to a so-called full field investigation, theirapplicants arearenotcheckedagainst the files of the FBI to determine
fingerprints
whether they htive a prior arrest record, and other name checks arealso made. As a result of this screening process, the Civil Service
Commission is notified in the event the applicant has a police recordof sex perversion; and, if such a record does exist, further investigafacts. A
check of thetion is conducted to determine thecompletespot

records of tle Civil Service Commission indicates that between Jan1, 1947, and August 1, 1950, approximately 1,700 applicants foruary
Federal positions were denied employment because they had a recordof homosexuality or other sex perversion.
Flurtherinore, in most of the sensitive agencies of the Government,
including the Atomic Energy Commnission, tle State Department, andthe FBI, all applicants are subjected to a full field investigation.
Needless to say, this type of investigation should eliminate most sex
and other undesirables from positions in these agencies. Howperverts
it must be borne in mind that as a practical matter even the mostever,elaborate and costly system of investigating applicants for Government positions Will not prevent some sex perverts from finding their
Government service. Considering the fact that it is notway into thetomakea complete preemplloyment investigation of every
practical
Government employee, it is believed that the present system of clecking applicants is adequate: and. if the employing agencies will makeit a standard policy to refuse employment to those persons who have

10

EMPLOYMENT OF HOMOSEXUALS IN GOVERNMENTa background of perversion, the number of such perverts who get into
the Government service can be kept to a minimum.
On the other hand, the subcommittee lhas found that many civilian
have taken an entirely unrealistic view of theagencies ofof government
sex
perversion and have not taken adequate steps to get
problemthese people out of government. Known perverts and persons sushave been retained in some Government
pected oforsuch activities
been
have
allowed to leave one agency and obtainagencies, theyin
the regulations of the Civil
another,notwithstanding
employment
Service Commission and the rules of the agencies themselves. There
are several reasons why this situation existed. In many cases thefault 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 personalin tle matter. To further confuse the problem, there wasjudgments
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
tr'lu in- those instances where the perverted activities of the employee
were carried on in such a manner as not to create public scandal ornotoriety. Those who adopted that view based their conclusions on
tlie false premise that what a Government employee did outside of
the office on his own time, particularly if his actions did not involve
his fellow employees or his work, was his own business. That conclision may be true with regard to the normal behavior of employees inmost 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 ofsex perversion. Some agencies tried to avoid tle problem either by
real effort to investigate charges of homosexuality or bymaking tonotake
firm and positive steps to get known perverts out of
failing
Government and keep them out. In other cases some agencies did get
rid of perverts, but in an apparent effort to conceal the. fact that they
had such persons in their employ, they eased out these perverts by one
means or another in as quiet a manner as possible and circumvented
the established rules with respect to the removal or dismissal of unsuitable personnel from Government positions. As a result of thissituation a sex pervert would be forced out of one department and in
obtain employment in anotherpromptly
many instances lie would
cases
occurred
IecauseSuch
tle pervert was usually
public agency.
allowed to resign and tle real reason for his resignation wa^ not notedin his regular personnel file. nor was tle Civil Service Commission
notified of the actual reason for tle resignation. In order to prevent
tliat tyl)e of abuse, tile civil service regulations. for a number ofexactlyllsave
ears,
provided that when an employee resigns or is dismissed
froman aency tile real reason must be niote( in his personnel fileand the Civil Service Commission must also be notified. This acts asa dloible check in that tile regular personnel file must be forwarded tothe employee might transfer and tle derogaagency to whichcarried
any new
in the central files of the Civil Service
isalso
information
tory
Co-mmission.

EMPLOYMENT OF HOMOSEXUALS IN GOVERNMENT

11

A glaring example of this latter situation involved the 91 homosexuals who left the State Department between January 1947 andhomosexuals, wereJanuary 1950. In most of those cases these known
allowed to resign for "personal reasons" and no information wasin the regular personnel files of the State Department indicatplaced
resignation; nor was the Civil Service Coming the real reason offor thetrue
reason for the resignation. Tlie actual
mission informed thefacts involved in tle removal of these individuals were entered in certain confidential files of the States Department. Due to the mannerin which these cases were mishandled, 23 of those 91 State Department employees found their way into other departments of the Government. The Civil Service happened to uncover 6 of tlese 23 cases
as the result of independent investigations but no notification wasgiven to tle Commission by the State Department concerning the realreason for the dismissal of any of these persons until March of thisAt tile present time 22 of these homosexuals have been removed
year.
from the agencies to which they transferred after leaving tlhe SateIn one case tie individual involved was retained in the
Department.
new agency after a reconsideration of tle facts in his case.
Tlie Civil Service Commission does maie periodic inspectionsof personnel files in the various (Government agencies for tlhe purposeof determining whether civil service regulations are being violated
suIch as was (lone ill tlhse 23 cacies. Recently the Commission expanded
the operations of this inspection service and anticipates tliat more
intensified inspection in the future will prevent this type of violation.
T'he Commission lhas assured tle slbcomllittee that it will make every
effort to prevent violations of the rules in -tle future and that at
tlhepresent time the State department and other agencies are notifying
the Colinimiission and are properly recording tlhe dismissals of sex
perverts in tleir personnel files.
As lhas been previously stated, the regullations of thle Civil Service
Commission provide that certain lprocedulres must l)e followed byGovernment agencies in removing sex perverts or otlier undesirable
civil service employees from tlie Government. In essence tle reg(ulations provide tllat the employee must be informed in writing of thle
against him: that lie must be allowed a reasonable time tochargesfile an answer; and that if tile employee answers the charges, his answers must be considered by the agency and lie must be flurniseld withla written decision in his case. While this procedure give the employee
an opportunity to know and answer the charges against him, tIhe
subcommittee is convinced that unless tlhe persons who
administer these procedures are in possession of sufficientactuallyfacts upoll
which to draw up the charges and to make their final decisions, tlie
public interest will not be protected adequately.
TIHE NECESSITY OF TIIOROUGIHLY INVESTIOA.lTNG CASES OF SEXPIERVERSION IN GOVERNIMENT

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

hlhe

12

EMPLOYMENT OF HOMOSEXUALS IN GOVERNMENT

these cases first come to the attention of a Government agency as theresult of an arrest on a morals charge. In such a case the investigation
should not be confined to a mere review of the arrest record. While
it is not deemed advisable to set forth in this report a detailed outlineof the investigation that should be made in sex p1erversion-cases, there
are certain investigative steps that should be followed out in thesecases. In this regard the subcommittee has found that many persons
in and out of Government believe that evidence tending to prove or
disprove homosexuality or other types of sex perversion is difficult,if not impossible to obtain. That is not a fact. On the contrary thesubcommittee has found that in most of these cases concrete information can be adequately developed by experienced investigators using
medical psychiaaccepted investigative techniques.can Examinationsbutbythere
be helpful
is evidence
trists experienced in this fieldthat such tests are by no means conclusive. Some psychiatrists havebeen successful in detecting homosexuality and other forms of sex
perversion
by means of psychiatric tests, but they have been mostsuccessful in those cases where information concerning the patient's
life and activities has been made available to them as a result of collateral investigations.
Most of the large Government departments have trained investigative staffs which are capable of making investigations in these sex
cases and many of the smaller agencies which do-not have such staffs
can refer these cases to the Civil Service Commission or obtain advice
and counsel from the Commission on the investigative steps to be takenin these cases. In spite of the importance of a thorough investigationin these cases, the subcommittee found that a number of the 41 Government agencies which were checked were unaware of the necessityof making such an investigation. A few agencies had little or no idea
as to what should be done in these cases, and others indicated that theywould have the inquiry made by personnel or legal officers or otheradministrative officials of the agency. Such a hit-and-miss method of
the responsibility for these investigations in the hands of perplacing
sons with little or no investigative experience is not the proper way
to handle cases of this serious nature. Those officials responsible formaking the indecisions in these cases must fortify themselves with adequate facts each individual case.
FAILURE TO OBTAIN POLICE RECORDS

One of the chief sources of information on sex perverts is to befound in the arrest records of law-enforcement agencies.
The lack ofliaisonbetweenlaw
enforcement
in
District oftheproperagencies
Columbia and departments of Government has resulted in many known
sex perverts being retained in Government jobs. For a period ofyears prior to April 1950 the Metropolitan Police
approximatelyand3 theNational Park Police are known to have arrested
Department
1,209 sex perverts in the District of Columbia and 457 of these perverts
indicated that they were Government employees at the time of arrest.
By April and May of this year, when the Civil Service Commission
was finally furnished with these police records only 198 of those previously arrested on morals charges were still in the employ of theGovernment. This discrepancy can be accounted for in two ways.

13
Some persons arrested indicated that they were employees of the Government, when, in fact, they were not, and others left the Government
service between the time of their arrest and the time the police records
were made available to the Civil Service Commission. The military
services were the only agencies of Government which maintained any
regular liaison with the police authorities in the District of Columbia
for the purpose of obtaining
information concerning the arrest of theirpersonnel on perversion havecharges.
now been established to correct this reAdequate procedures
grettable situation which existed up until April of this year. At thattime the FBI obtained all available police records in the District ofColumbia of persons who had been charged with perverted sex offenses
and this information was furnished promptly to the Civil Service
Commission and the other agencies of Government. The FBI alsobegan furnishing to the Civil Service Commission the criminal recordsof persons currently arrested by the police throughout the country
on charges of sex perversion who were known to be Government employees. Upon receipt of that information the Civil Service CommisEMPLOYMENT OF HOMOSEXUALS IN GOVERNMENT

sion transmits the data to the employing agency and later checks up
with the agency to determine what, if any, action has been taken ineach case.
In view of the fact that the police departments in the District ofColumbia and elsewhere fingerprint persons arrested for sex perversion
and forward these prints to the FBI, the present system of channelingthis arrest information on Government employees from the FBI
through the Civil S2rvice Commission to the employing agency meansthat Government agencies are notified promptly when a Governmentis arrested here or in other parts of the country for perverted
employeesex activities. Under these circumstances the agency will have an
to make an immediate investigation and will be in a posiopportunity
tion 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 thethe individuals involved in these cases. Under present
protection ofcertainof Federal employees have a right tocategoriesCommission
proceduresin the event they are disthe
toCivil-Service
appealmissed from an agency as sex perverts or for any other reason. Iowexists by which persons without veterans'machinery
ever, no present
can appeal dismissals from the destatusservicecivilor
preferenceof Government. The subcommittee believes
partment or agencies
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.
On the other hand, under the Federal employees loyalty program,any person who is found to be disloyal by an agency loyalty board
has the right to appeal to the Loyalty Review Board. This Review
Board has the power to review the entire case. It is believed that theends of justice would be better served by setting up a similiar type ofreview in cases involving the removal of sex perverts from the Fed-

14

EMPLOYMENT OF HOMOSEXUALS IN GOVERNMENT

eral Government.

However, should any such review machinery be

set up it is further recommended that the Review Board be given theauthority to subpoena witnesses and records, which powers the Loyalty
Review 1Board does not have at present. It might be stated parenthetically at this point that homosexual or other sex perversion cases
are not handled under the Federal employees loyalty program. The

agency loyalty boards cnd the Loyalty Review Board are authorized
to consider only that evidence bearing on an employee's loyalty; theseboards have no power to act upon cellarages of sex perversion or othermatters reflecting upon a person's suitability for Fedelrl employment.

Considering the fact that eacll agency anld department of Govern-

ment is primarily responsible for the hiring and firing of its own personnel this subcommittee does not propose to set forth or recommend
any detailed blueprint for the handling of the problem of sex per-version in Government. However, our investigation has disclosed
certain shortcomings in the present methods of handling the Iproblem
and it is believed that the following recommendi-ations should be considered in the futlurre handling of tllis problem:
1. All reasonable complaints of sex perversion should be thoroughly
investigators. Those agencies witllout
investigated by qualified
trained investigative staffs should request investigations by the Civil
Service Colmmission, or some otlier investigative agency.
2. T'lec present rules and procedures of the Civil Service Commission,concerning tlh employment and discharge of sex perverts should
be enforced and carried out l)y all agencies of Government.
3. (Consideration should be given to tle establishment of a board ofreview outside of the employing agency so that all persons who areordered dlislissed on charges of sex erversio n nmay appeal the findings of tle employing agency.

IHANDLING, OF SE.X lE.:VEI\'lsI

CASES BY ''1T

LECISLATIVE BtRANCH

Generally
speaking tlie subcommittee found that thle same shortand deelillqiellcies existed in the handling of this problem
comings
by tle legislative branch as were found in tle executive branch ofGovernlmelt. As tlle result of this situation there were cases where
legislative employees wlho lad been arrested on cllarges of sex perversioln were able to remain in tleir jobs. However, since tie initiationi of tils investigation all known perverts in the legislative agencies
have either been removed or the cases are being given active consideration. With the exception of the General Accoulntinhg Office and theGovernmenit Printing Office, which come under theprovisionsof tie Civil Service Commission although they aregeneralin the legislative
branch of the Government, tle legislative branch lhas adopted no defiiitc irocedtlires for tlle handling of sex perversion cases.
of Congress, the Botanical Gardens, andEiliployees of theof Congress, are subject to the general
1he mllllloyeesof of botlhLibrary
HIousestlhe Senate
Committee on Rules and Administration
jurisdiction
orthe Commllittee on I-Iouse Acldministration. Arrangements have been
made to have tle Department of Justice furnish thesecommittees withinformation coming to the attention of the IFBI concerning
the arrestof legislative employees in these departments in order that investigations can be lmad(e in each case and proper administrative action taken.

15
It is expected that this arrangement will make it possible for thesetwo congressional committees to handle properly any future cases ofsex perversion which might be discovered in these legislative departEMIPLOYMENT OF HOMOSEXUALS IN GOVERNMENT

ments.

HANDLING OF SEX PERVTERSION CASES IN THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Because of the large concentration- cf Federal employees in TVashD. C., and vicinity, the subcommittee made specific inquiries
ington,into the handling of sex perversion cases by the authorities in theDistrict of Coliunbia. A study was made of the manner in which thesecases were handled by the police, the prosecutors, and the courts of
the District. This study revealed that these cases were not being
handled properly and as a. direct result of this investigation some ofthe deficiencies found to exist have been corrected. Furthermore, theof Columbia on sex perverpresent criminal statutes of the Districtbesion and related matters were found to inadequate and proposed
amendments to the Criminal Code of the District of Columbia havebeen drawn up by the subcommittee.
DEFICIENCIES ( N THE PRESENT CRIMITNATL STATUTES OF T'ITl DISTRICT OF

COLUMBIA

At thle present time acts of sex perversion including homosexual activities are punishable, in the District of Columbia as sodomy (22 1).
C. 302), attempted sodomy under the general attempt statute (22 D.
C. 103), solicitation for immoral purposes (22 D. C. 2701), indecent
exposure (22 D. C. 112), or under the disorderly conduct statute (22D. C. 1107). Other sex offenses are punishable under other sectionsof the District of Columbia Code? In effect this means that any lewd
or obscene act of sex perversion, except those cases involving children
under tle age of 16 years, which does not amount to sodomy, attempted
solicitation for immoral purposes, or indecent exposure, cansodomy,be prosecuted only as an act of disorderly conduct for which the mnaximum penalty is now a fine of $25. Thle fact is that sex perverts, andand indecent acts
homosexuals'in particular, indulge in many obscene
As a result ofconduct.
which are now punishable only as disorderly
whoarehomosexualsofthethis statutory situation mostapprehended
for lewd or indecent acts committed in the District of Columbia are
only with disorderly conduct. If such acts are committed in achargednational park in the District of Columbia, the offender could bewith a violation of the rules and regulations of the NationalchargedParks Service which specifically prohil)it the commission of such obscene or indecent acts in the parks under a penalty of $500 fine or 6months in jail or both (sec. 3.25, Rules and Regulations, National Park
June 7, 1950). However, as a practical matService, Federal Register,
unable to find any cases in recent years
has
been
ter the subcommittee
in the national parks of the District of
acts
or
lewd
indecent
involving
through
Adultery (22 D. . 201); Incest (22 D. C. 1001); prostitution (22). D.C. c. 2701seduction01) ;2722) ; rae (22 I). C. 2801): assault with intent to commit rape of(22(22 I). C. 504) ; indecent publications (22 D. C. 2001) ; treatment sex psycopaths (22 D. C.
3501 through 3511).
S. Doe., 1- 2, vol. 11--112

EMIPLOYMENT OF HOMOSEXUALS IN GOVERNMENT
16
Columbia which have been prosecuted under the national park regulations.
In order to correct this statutory deficiency the subcommittee has
drafted a proposed amendment to the Criminal Code which will makeit unlawful lo comnIit any lewd, obscene, or indecent act in the Districtof Columbia under penalty of not more than $500 fine or imprisonmentof not more than 6 months, or both. This amended section of the code
would strengthen the existing indecent exposure statute (22 D. C.
to prohibit indecent exposures any place in the District of Co1112)2
lumbia. Under the present statute, it is impossible to prosecute indecent exposure cases occurring in residences and other places not enumerated in the statute. This proposed bill which contains all of theamendments and additions recommended by the subcommittee is set
forth in full appendix IV.
At the present time the prosecution of indecent exposure cases ishandled by the Corporation Counsel of the District of Columbia.
under the proposed statute these indecent exposure cases,
However,
as well as cases involving other lewd and obscene acts, will be prosecuted by the office of the United States attorney. The subcommittee
believes, and the Corporation Counsel and the United States attorney
agree, that these sex offenses should be handled in the office of theUnited States attorney, particularly in view of the fact that all othertypes of sex offenses which are handled under the recently enacted
Sex Psychopathic Act are now prosecuted by tlat office. Placing thefor all major sex offenses under the single
prospective responsibilityof the United States attorney should result in a morejurisdiction
uniform administration of such cases.
The penalty in the proposed statute covering indecent exposure andobscene or indecent acts was set at a fine of $500oi: 6 months' imprisonment, or both, because that same penalty now is in effect for thecommission of obscene or indecent acts in the national parks in theDistrict of Columbia under the national parks rules and regulations.
If this amendment is made law, the penalties
for the commission of indecent acts in the District will be the same whether the crime is committed in the District proper or the national park areas. At thepresent time if a personis commits an obscene or indecent act in the District of Columbia he subject to a fine of only $25 under the disconduct statute while if he committed the same act in a naorderly
tional park area in the District he would be subject to a fine of $500
or imprisonment for 6 months, or both. Needless to say, there is no
logical reason for these discrepancies in the existing criminal laws.
2 It shall not be lawful for any person or persons to makeany obscene or Indecent exposureof his or her person or their poisons in any street, avenue, alley, road or highway,
or
other
or
place
in
space, public
publicsquare,inclosure, the District of Columbia, oropen
tomake any such obscene or indecent exposure of person in any Ndwelling or other building
or other place wlherefrom the sane may be seen in any street, avenue, alley, road or highIwa1
open space, public square, or public or private building or inclosure. under penalty o
Imprisonment for not more than 00 days, or a fine of not more than $250, for each andevery such offense.
Any person or persons who shall make any obscene or indecent exposure of his or her
person or their persons, as described in subsec. (a), knowing he or she or they are in thepresence of a child under the age of 16 years, shall he punished by imprisonment of not
more than 6 months, or fined in amount not to exceed $500 (as amended, september 20,
1942, 50 Stat. 760, ch. 565 ; June 9, 1948, 62 Stat. 340, ch. 428, p. 101).

EMPLOYMENT OF HOMOSEXUALS IN GOVERNMENT

17

It is further recommended by the subcommittee that the present
statute prohibiting solicitation for immoral purposes (22 D. C. 2701) s
be amended to make it more effective in dealing with homosexuals andother sex preverts who solicit persons for immoral purposes. It has
been the experience of the prosecutors in the District of Columbia that
one of the big loopholes in the existing solicitation statutes rises fromthe fact that under the present statute the person solicited must be
invitedto accompany, go with, or follow him or her to his or her residence, * *for the purpose of prostitution or any other immoral or lewd purpose, * ***The fact is that in many instances persons are solicited for lewd or immoral purposes under circumstances where the proposed lewd act is
to be committed at the place of solicitation rather than at some otheras is necessary for prosecution under the present statute.
place,
Another weakness in the present statute arises from the fact that thesolicitation for immoral purposes must occur in one of the places
statute. It has been the experience of the police andspecified in thesolicitations do occur in places not specified in thethatprosecutors
statute and for that reason cannot be prosecuted. Tile suggested
amendment which is set forth in section 3 of the proposed bill (seeappendix IV) will make it unlawful to solicit for immoral purposes
in any place in the District of Columbia.
The subcommittee further recommends that the present disorderly
conduct statute (22 D. C. 1107) be amended to increase the penalty
from a fine of $25 to a fine of $100 or 90 days' imprisonment or both.
The authorities in the District of Columbia feel that the ends of justice will be better served by this increase in the penalty of the existing
disorderly conduct statute.
general
In considering these proposed amendments to the Criminal Code of
the District of Columbia, the subcommittee conferred with representatives of the municipal court for the District of Columbia, the Police
Department, the United States attorney, and the Corporation Counsel.
These officials who are charged with the enforcement, prosecution,and judicial determination in sex cases are in complete accord withthe proposed changes in the law and agree with the subcommittee thatthese amendments will materially strengthen the sex laws of the District of Columbia and will make for more uniform and just application of the laws.
8 It shall not be lawful for any person to Invite, entice, persuade, or to address for theof inviting, enticing, or persuading any person or persons 16 years of age or over,purposen or upon any avenue, street, road, highway, open space, alley, public square, enclosure,public building, or other-public place, store, shop, or reservation or at any public gathering
or assembly In the District of Coumrlbia, to accompany, go with, or follow him or her
to his or her residence, or to any other house or building, enclosure, or other place, for the
purpose of prostitution, or any other immoral or lewd purpose, under a penalty of not morethan $100 or imprisonment for not more than 90 days, or both. And it shall not be lawful
for any person to invite, entice, or persuade, or address for the purpose of
enticing, or persuading any such person or persons from any dcor, window, porch, orinviting,of any house or building to enter any house, or go with, accompany, or follow him porticoor herto any place whatever, for the purpose of prostitution, or any other immoral or lewd
purpose, under the like penalties herein provided for the same conduct in the street, avenues,
roads, highways, or alleys, public squares, open spaces, enclosures, public buildings or otherpublic places, stores, shops, or reservntions or at any public gatherings or assemblies. (Aamended, June 9, 1948, 02 Stat. 340, ch. 428, p. 102.)

18

EMPLOYMENT OF HOMOSEXUALS IN GOVERNMENTACIION BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES ]:N SEI.X PERIVERSION CASES

Two separate police departments operate in the District of ColumPolice Department, which has generalbia, namely, the Metropolitan
National
andPark Police, who are charged withtle
jurisdiction,
the national parks in the area. These national parks include
policing
many of the smaller parks in the downtown area of Washington which
are frequented by homosexuals and other sex perverts. A survey
the police records for the past 31/ years up to August 1950
coverinll thatrevealed
a total of 1,339 known or suspected sex perverts weroapprehended by tlhe two police departments during that period. Only
19 percent. or 261 of these 1,339 cases were ever brought to the attentionof the prosecutors or disposed of in the courts. Of thle remaining
1,078 cases, collateral was forfeited at police stations in 6G8S instances,
350 persons were released outright, 34 cases were turned over to the01 otler authorities, and the dispositions are not available
militaryin 20 cases. In a great majority of those 668 cases in which forfeitures
were made to the police, the persons arrested for engaging in perverted
sex activities were charged by tlhe police with disorderlly conduct andcollateral of $25 or less was forfeited. Each day tle police record ofthese forfeitures was filed in routine manner with the clerk of thethe District of Columbia. This practice, howMuInicipal Court for
only in the District of Columbia branch of the Municipal
ever,appliedCourt in cases within the prosecutive jurisdiction of the CorporatonCounsel. Forfeitures in cases in the United States branch of the
Court are permitted only at tle discretion of the court.
Municipal
With regard to tlhe forfeiture of collateral in this type of case, itappears that over a period of years the police have been taking collateral of $25 or less in disorderly conduct and other cases involving
minor criminal violations. Under these circumstances tile police intheir discretion were making all determinations witl regard
to eachcase in whlicli forfeitures were made. This procedure completely bypassedtthe prosecutorss and the courts and in effect meant that no represelntative of the Corporation Counsel or the United States attorneyorthe Municipal Court for the District of Columbia made any reviewof the facts or took part in any prosecutive or judicial determinationsin these cases. A survey of the laws and procedures of several otherlarge cities revealed that the District of Columbia was the only juriswherein forfeitures were allowed in cases of this nature involv.diction
sex
ing violations without having tlhe facts and the circumstances ofeach arrest reviewed by the prosecutive or judicial authorities, or both.
It was also found that as a result of thispersons were charged
with disorderly conduct and collateral practice
was forfeited to the police,
the facts as they appeared on tle arrest records indicated that
although
il soIm instances more serious crimes such as "solicitation for immoral purposes" and sodomy or' attempted sodomy had been committed.
mndesirable
arose at least partly as theresult of the statutory defects in practicethe District of Columbia
Criminal
Code, there appears to be no logical reason or no real excuse for handling sex cases in that slipshod manner.
As soon as this situation withto tie forfeiture of collateralin these cases was discovered byrespecttlie
subcommittee, tie matter was
brought to the attention of lion. George P. Barse, chief
judge of the

Although thisEMiPLOYMENT OF HOMOSEXUALS IN GOVERNMENT

19

court for the District of Columbia. Shortly thereafter themunicipal
judges of that court met and on August 18, 1950, issued an order tothe prosecutors and lawn enforcement officials of the District of Columbia which provided that all persons charged with sex offenses withina minimum collateral of $500
the District of Columbia shouldpostbond or $300 cash and that no forfeiture of collateral should be madeat the police precincts in any cases involving sex offenses. That order,
which became effective on August 21, 1950, lhad the immediate effect ofcorrecting the previous deficiencies in the handling of forfeitures insex cases. If the proposed statutory changes are made in the Districtof Columbia Criminal Code, it is believed that the laws and prosecutive and judicial procedures in sex cases in the District will be entirely

adequate.

The Superintendent of Police in the District of Columbia las informed the subcommittee that additional men have now been assigned
to the detective squad which handles homosexual and similar cases,
and further additions will be made to that squad in the near future
as soon as trained officers are available. Tle subcommittee believes
that this added emphasis on the law enforcement aspect of the probwith the proposed changes in existing laws, will be most]em, togetherinhelpful controlling sex perversion in the District of Columbia.

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
Such persons are not suitable for Government
personal conduct.
inthecase of doubt the American people are entitledandpositionsto have errors of judgment on the part of their officials, if there mustbe errors, resolved on the side of caution. It is the opinion of thissubcommittee that those who engage in acts of homosexuality andother perverted-sex activities are unsuitable for employment in theFederal Government. This conclusion is based upon the fact that
who indulge in such degraded activity are committing not only
personsand
illegal 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 notdiscovered 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 thetlle problem of sex
part of many Government officials to face squarelyasresultaandFederalthey did not takeemployees
perversion among
the proper steps to solve the problem. The rules of the Civil Service
Commission and the regulations of tle agencies themselves prohibit
the employment of sex perverts and these rules have been in effect for
Had the existing rules and regulations been enforced
many ofyears.
theperverts who were forced out of Government in recent
manymonths 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

20

EMPLOYMENT OF HOMOSEXUALS IN GOVERNMENTof the employment of sex perverts in Government and in
problemrecent 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 fromJanuary 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 diligencein the handling of tle problem of sex perversion, and it is urged thatthey follow the recommendations of this subcommittee in that regard.
While this subcommittee is convinced that it is in the public interesttosex
out of Government and
them
this
get

perverts

keep

out,

pro-

gram 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 thepart of Government employees should be thoroughly investigated anddismissals should be ordered only after a complete review of thefacts and in accordance witl the present civil-service procedures.
These procedures provide that the employee be informed of thehim and be given a reasonable time to answer. Furcharges against
in view of the very serious consequence of dismissal front
thermore,
the Government oni charges of sex perversion, it is believed that consideration should be given to establishing a board of review or similar
appealmachinery whereby all persons who are dismissed from theGovernment 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 insex 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 tle great majority of these an'ests
did not come to the attention of tle Civil Service Commission or theother agencies of Government until April of this year. This deplorable situation resulted from tle 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 beencorrected. Since April information concerning (overnment emarrested on charges of sex perversion inl the District of Columployees
bia and elsewhere has been promptly reported from the FBI to the
Civil Service Commission and the employing agencies of Government
in order tlat appropriate action may be taken in each case.
Tllle subcommittee also found that the existing criminal laws in theDistrict of Columbia with regard to acts of sex perversion are inadequate and tle subcommittee has drawn up proposed amendments to
the District Criminal Code which should materially strengthen theselaws. It was also discovered that most of the homosexuals apprehended by tle 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 atpolice stations. This slipshod method of disposing of these cases with

EMPLOYMENT OF HOMOSEXUALS IN GOVERNMENT

21

little or no review by the prosecutive or judicial authorities was corrected after the subcommittee brought this situation to the attentionof 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. H(cwever, it should be borne inmind that the public interest cannot be adequately protected unlessresponsible officials adopt and maintain a realistic and vigilant attitude
toward the problem of sex perverts in the Government. To pussyfootor 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
in Government the subcommittee plans to reexamine theperverts
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.

APPENDIX I[S. Res. 280, 81st Cong., 2d sess.]

RESOLUTION
Resolved, That the Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments,
or any duly authorized subcommittee thereof, is authorized and directed to makea thorough and comprehensive study and investigation of (a) the alleged

employment by the departments and agencies of the Government of homosexuals
and other moral perverts, and (b) the preparedness and diligence of authorities of
the District of Columbia, as well as the appropriate authorities of the Federal
Government, for the protection of life and property against the threat to security,
inherent in the employment of such perverts by such departments and agencies.
The committee shall report to the Senate at the earliest practicable date, but
not later than January 31, 1951, the results of its study and investigation andsuch recommendations for legislation and other remedial action as it may deem
desirable.
For the purposes of this resolution, the committee or any duly authorized
subcommittee thereof is authorized to employ upon a temporary basis suchtechnical, clerical, and other assistants as it deems advisable. The expenses of
the committee under this resolution, which shall not exceed $10,000, shall be paid
from the contingent fund of the Senate upon vouchers approved by the chairmanof the committee or subcommittee.

22

Table: Sex perversion cases, armed services (military person el)1

APPENDIX II
Sex perversion cases, armed services (military personnel)'Number of sex perversion cases handled

Method of separation

Jan. 1,1947, Apr. 1, 1950, Total
throughthroughMar. 31,
Oct. 31,
martia1950rtal
1950

Other than
generalcourt

1, 405
2, 04

' 272
174

1,133
1,890

4,380

470

3,910

Gnrta

Army
Navy

.....................................

.....................................

Air Forco ...........................

Total

.

...............................

1,10

1,605

301

'476

399
435

3,245

1,135

911

24

martial887

I Statistics on civilian personnel of the armed services are not included in this study. Due to the system of
maintaining civilian personnel files in tho armed services, prohibitive costs would be incurred in obtaining
data concerning the number of civilian employees dismissed for sex perversion. Procedures are now being
worked out whereby such information will be available in future cases. however, an incomplete examination of the civilian employee files indicates that at least 42 civilians are known to have been separated fromthe armed services on charges of sex perversion at various times since January 1, 1950.
t Includes a few separations resulting from rape charges.
* Air Force figures included with Army until separation of records of these two services in January 1948.

24

Table: Sex perversion statistics, civilian agencies of Government-.

APPENDIX III

Sex perversion statistics, civilian agencies of Government
Cases of sex perversion
Total
Jan. 1, Apr. 1, Jan.
1, Re1947 to 1950, to 1047 toDiss Pendmissed
ing Cleared
Apr. 1, Nov. 1,
signed
1050
1950
1950

Department or agency

Agriculture-..----------.

American Battle Monument Comnmission_--Atomic Energy Commission --............
Bureau of the Budcet ------..--......--.-Civil Aeronautics Board ..........-.......
..Commerce
Displaced Persons Commission.....District of Columbia ..-....
.........
Economic Cooperation Administration --..
.....Export-Import Bank...-....-..---...
Federal Communications Commission.......
Federal Ieposlt Insurance Corporation......
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service..
Federal Power Commission.--..
Federal Reserve System......................
Federal Security Agency .....................
Federal Trade Commission ........
General Accounting Office----..............
General Services Administration ..
......
Government Printing Office....Housing and Home Finance Agency-........
Indian Claims Commission.........-.
.....
Interior.--------------. .... ...
Interstate Commerce Commission ..........
Justice .. .. ...........
.------..
.
..------Labor ................................Branch:
Legislative
Botanical Gardens..........--------.
.--...---.----.-------------..-..---.-.....

..------..

..--.

-

--.--------.-..------

Congressional employees.................
Library of Congress..................

National Advisory Committee for Aeronautlcs---...---... ...-..---.--National Capitol HIousing Authority-........
National Labor Relations Board ...-......
National Mediation Board.................
National Security Council......-----------National Security Resources Board..........
Office of Housing Expeditor.... ..........
Panama Canal..-.......
Phillipinc War Damage Commission-........
Post Oflice ...-........
..
..-......
Railroad Retirement Board...........
Reconstruction Finance Corporation .......Securities Exchange Conilnis:ion.............
Selectivc Ser-vice System....................Smit l-ontmi:i Institute............----------..
Statel)epari rmelnt..................-----.Tennessee Valley Authority.....
....
Treasury
U. S. Civil Service Colnmission..
...........
U..S. Motor Carriers Coiiunisnuioii...........
U. S. TarilT Coimiission ..
...............
Veterans' Aduinlslrat ioni ...................
lWar Claims ConmiuiFion ..-..----------.
White iouse Oic ..........................
Total ..................................
.-.........

.....................

---.

' Allowed to retire.

.-.----

-----

10
0

5
0
0
0
1

7
27
0

0
0
0
0

0
0
1
3
0
0
0
0
7
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
2

0
0
0

0
106
1
3
8
0
0
4
0
0

102

22
0
3
2
2
49
1
0
0
0
3
0
0
2
0
22
0
10
19
2
10
0
24
2
6
4
0
4
15

0

0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
6
1
3
1
0
2
37
020

32
0
8
2
2
49
2

7

1
25
2
2
0
0
1

27
0
3
0
0
0
0
2
2
0 0'
22
11
1

13
19

2

10
0
31

2

7
6
0
4

15
0
0
2
0
0
1
1
0
0

J8
3
3
1
0

0

2
143
1
2:3
18
0
0
101
1
0

382

574

10
0
0
97
1

24
0
4
2

0
8
8
2

7
0
4
2
6
2

0
1
9
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
3

2
0
1
0
1
15
0

31G
12
0
0
39
0
0
213

7
0
1
0
0
16
0
6
19
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
4
0
0
1
0
12
0
0
3

1
0
3
0

0
4
0

0
2
0
2

0
0
0
0
4
0
1
9
0
0

0
5
0
1
1

0

0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0

2
5

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0

1

0
0
2

3

1
2
0
0
0
10G
1
4
6

0
0
9

1

207

1

0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
2
0
2
0
10
0
1

0

0
0C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
10
0
0
0

0
10
)
0

43
0
0

69

1
0
0

0

85
--

Covers only employees in the Department at Washington, D. C.; other figures not available.

' 2 allowed to retire.

0
0
0
1
4
0

0
0
0
0
1
12
0
3
0
0

0

0

26

APPENDIX IV
A BILL To amend the laws relating to obscene or indecent exposure acts committed in
the District of Columbia

Be it enacted by the Senate and Iouse of Representatives of the United Statesof America in Congress assembled, That section 9 of the Act of July 29, 1892,
entitled "An Act for the preservation of the public peace and the protection ofproperty within the District of Columbia", as amended (D. C. Code, 1940 edition,sec. 22-1112), is hereby amended to read as follows:"SEC. 9. It shall not be lawful for any person or persons to make any obscene
or indecent exposure of his or her person or to commit any other lewd, obscene
or indecent act in the District of Columbia, under penalty of not more than $500
fine, or imprisonment of not more than six months, or both, for each and every
such offense."
SEC. 2. Section 6 of -such Act of July 29, 1892, is amended by striking out"under a penalty of not more than twenty-five dollars for each and every suchoffense." and inserting in lieu thereof: "under a penalty of not more than $100
fine or imprisonment of ninety days, or both, for each and every offense; andProvided, That all prosecutions under this statute shall be conducted in thename of and for the benefit of the District of Columbia by the Corporation Counsel of the District of Columbia, or his assistants."
SEC. 3. The first section of the Act of August 15, 1935, entitled "An Act forthe suppression of prostitution in the District of Columbia", as amended (D. 0.
Code, 1940 edition, sec. 22-2701), is amended to read as follows:"That it shall not be lawful for any person to invite, entice, persuade, or toaddress for the purpose of inviting, enticing, or persuading, any person or persons sixteen years of age or over in the District of Columbia, for the purpose of
prostitution, or any other immoral or lewd purpose, under a penalty of not morethan $100 or imprisonment for not more than ninety days, or both."260