Gay People and Government Security Clearances: A Social Science Perspective

Gregory M. Herek* Department of Psychology University of California at Davis

American Psychologist, 1990, 45 (9), 1035-1042

Abstract author gratefully acknowledges the comments of Allan Bérubé, Matthew Coles, Richard Gayer, and gay male applicants routinely and Franklin Kameny on earlier drafts. The are denied government security clearances or author also is grateful to other participants in the are subjected to unusually lengthy and intensive debate: Donald Bersoff, Theodore Blau, and investigation. This article reviews social science Richard Bloom. Address correspondence to the data relevant to the principal justifications that author, Department of Psychology, University of have been offered for this policy and presents California, Davis CA 95616. the following conclusions: (a) and gay men are no more likely than heterosexuals to ______suffer from a personality disorder or emotional stress, or to be psychologically unstable; (b) Many Americans working in defense-related lesbians and gay men are no more likely than industries have access to sensitive heterosexuals to be unduly sensitive to coercion, compartmented information (SCI), more blackmail, or duress; (c) lesbians and gay men popularly known as classified information. are no more likely than heterosexuals to be Because unauthorized disclosure of SCI could unwilling to respect or uphold laws or interfere with the ability of the United States to regulations, or to be unreliable or defend itself against foreign enemies, the untrustworthy. Three major flaws are discussed government has instituted procedures for that underlie current government policies screening employees on the basis of their toward gay applicants for security clearances: trustworthiness, reliability, and good judgment. (a) Groups rather than individuals are screened These procedures are intended to prevent for undesirable characteristics; (b) applicants individuals from having access to sensitive are rejected on the basis of problems created by information if they are judged likely to leak it. government policies themselves; and (c) Although SCI clearance criteria have homosexual applicants are scrutinized changed frequently since a centralized program according to criteria that are not applied to protect the security of classified information similarly to heterosexual applicants. An first was established in 1949 (see McCrary & alternative hypothesis, that experience with Gutierrez, 1979/1980), they consistently have stigma actually may increase a gay applicant’s been hostile toward . Early ability to maintain secrecy, is discussed. Finally, policies, formulated in the midst of post World some consequences of current policies are War II purges of homosexuals from military and noted. government service, automatically denied a ______clearance to anyone believed to be gay (Bérubé, Note. An earlier version of this paper was 1990). More recent directives treat presentedPre-Publication as part of a debate, “Should Lesbians homosexuality as one of Draftmany factors to be and Gays Be Given Security Clearances by the considered. Director of Central Intelligence US Government?” (Richard Bloom, chair) at the Directive Number 1/14 (hereafter referred to as 1989 convention of the American Psychological DCID 1/14, 1987) states that “to be eligible for Association in New Orleans, Louisiana. The SCI access, individuals must be stable” and that

1 “homosexual conduct is...to be considered as a Homosexuality and Psychological factor in determining an individual’s...stability” Functioning (p. 10). As already noted, DCID 1/14 (1987) states This directive is applied variously by that homosexual conduct is to be considered as a different government entities. Some agencies, factor in determining an individual’s stability for such as the CIA, appear to reject all clearance a security clearance. A subsequent section, applications by gay applicants (see Dubbs v. Emotional and Mental Disorders, in the same Central Intelligence Agency, 1989; hereafter document somewhat clarifies the basis for this referred to as Dubbs v. CIA, 1989). Others grant requirement: “Emotional and mental disorders them, although frequently only after appeal (F. which interfere with an individual’s perception Kameny, personal communication, August 1, of reality or reliability are of serious concern...in 1989). When not rejected outright, gay male and determining whether an individual is able or lesbian applicants usually are subjected to more willing to protect SCI information” (DCID 1/14, intensive investigation than are heterosexual 1987, p. 12). The intent clearly is to assure that applicants (see High Tech Gays v. Defense persons with SCI access are free from Industrial Security Clearance Office, 1987; psychopathology. Applicants who engage in hereafter referred to as High Tech Gays v. homosexual conduct automatically are suspected DISCO, 1987). of being psychologically unstable, personally The present article considers current unreliable, or impaired in perceiving reality. government policies concerning security Such suspicions are based on outdated clearances for gay civilians from a social science prejudices and unfounded stereotypes. A large perspective. Do scientific data indicate that body of empirical research now clearly refutes lesbians and gay men should be denied security the notion that homosexuality per se is indicative clearances on the basis of their sexual of or correlated with psychopathology. The orientation? Should gay applicants be subjected classic study in this area was conducted by automatically to more intensive investigation Hooker (1957). She administered the Rorschach, than are heterosexual applicants? In addressing Thematic Apperception Test, and Make-A- these questions, I have examined the three most Picture-Story Test to 30 homosexual and 30 frequently raised objections to granting security heterosexual men recruited through community clearances to gay people: (a) that gay people are organizations. The two groups were matched for more likely than heterosexuals to manifest age, IQ, and education; none of the men were in psychological disorders, (b) that gay people are therapy at the time of the study. Outside experts more susceptible than heterosexuals to on projective tests, unaware of each subject’s blackmail, and (c) that gay people are less likely sexual orientation, evaluated his overall than heterosexuals to be trustworthy and adjustment using a 5-point scale. The experts 1 respectful of rules and laws. categorized two thirds of the heterosexual men and two thirds of the homosexual men in the three highest categories of adjustment. When 1Although the question of the suitability of lesbians asked to assess which protocols were obtained and gay men for military service is related to the from homosexual respondents the experts were issue of security clearances for civilian personnel, unable to identify the men’s sexual orientation at consideration of the former topic is beyond the scope a level better than chance. Hooker concluded of the present paper. Readers are referred to Bérubé (1990), McCrary and Gutierrez (1979/80), Melton from her data that homosexuality as a clinical (1989), Sarbin and Karols (1988), Sciolino (1989), entity does not exist and that homosexuality is and Williams and Weinberg (1971). Readers not inherently associated with psychopathology. interestedPre-Publication in the legal issues associated with security Draft clearance procedures for gay people are directed to McCrary and Gutierrez (1979/80), Rivera (1979), and anti-gay stance regarding security clearances within to the written opinion of Judge Thelton E. Henderson the context of its post-World War II policies in High Tech Gays v. DISCO (1987). Readers concerning lesbians and gay men in the military are interested in the origins of the government’s current referred to Bérubé (1990).

2 Since Hooker’s pioneering work, dozens of indicative of psychopathology is now widely subsequent empirical studies have supported her considered to be scientifically indefensible, a conclusion that no correlation exists between variation of the argument recently has gained sexual orientation and psychopathology. popularity. Gay people are claimed to be more Gonsiorek (1982), for example, reviewed susceptible to psychopathology, not because of published studies comparing homosexual and their sexual orientation per se, but because of heterosexual samples on psychological tests. He society’s negative reaction to them. In High found that, although differences have been Tech Gays v. DISCO (1987), for example, the observed in test results between homosexuals U.S. government argued that a “homosexual and heterosexuals, both groups consistently may face emotional tension, instability, or other score within the normal range. Gonsiorek difficulties since society has not recognized his concluded that “Homosexuality in and of itself is sexual practice as mainstream [italics added]” unrelated to psychological disturbance or (p. 1374). The roots of this argument can be maladjustment. Homosexuals as a group are not traced at least to 1950, when military more psychologically disturbed on account of intelligence officers testified before Senator their homosexuality” (Gonsiorek, 1982, p. 74).2 Clyde Hoey’s Subcommittee on Employment of Similar conclusions were reached by Hart et al. Homosexuals and Other Sex Perverts in (1978) and Reiss (1980). Government that homosexual personnel were Confronted with the overwhelming empirical dangerous because, among other reasons, they evidence refuting the linkage of homosexuality were high-strung and neurotic from leading with psychopathology, psychiatrists and double lives (Bérubé, 1990). psychologists have radically altered their views Members of any stigmatized minority may of homosexuality. In 1973, the American indeed experience psychological stress because Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality of their hostile treatment by the societal majority as a diagnosis from the third edition of the (see Crocker & Major, 1989; Goffman, 1963; Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Jones et al., 1984). This observation applies to Disorders; (DSM -III; American Psychiatric Blacks and other people of color, religious and Association, 1980), replacing it with the more ethnic minorities, people who are physically restrictive ego-dystonic homosexuality. In 1986, disfigured or unattractive, and disabled people. even the ego-dystonic homosexuality diagnosis Because of continuing patterns of gender was eliminated; consequently, the revised DSM discrimination in American society, women also III contains no diagnostic category for could be considered a group at risk for homosexuality (American Psychiatric psychological instability within this line of Association, 1987; see Bayer, 1987, for an reasoning. Unlike gay people, however, Blacks, account of the events leading up to the 1973 and women, physically unattractive people, and 1986 decisions; see Bérubé, 1990, for discussion other minority group members are not of the original inclusion of homosexuality in systematically excluded from SCI clearances. DSM I). The American Psychological The government’s fears about the deleterious Association (APA) endorsed the psychiatrists’ effects of being out of the mainstream are actions, and has worked intensively to eradicate suspiciously selective. the stigma historically associated with a Even if the government consistently homosexual orientation (APA, 1975, 1987). attempted to screen out members of all Although the position that homosexuality is stigmatized groups, however, the policy would not be valid because experiencing stigma does not necessarily lead to psychopathology. In the 2 APre-Publication revised version of the Gonsiorek chapter is previously cited studies comparingDraft the mental forthcoming (Gonsiorek, in press). In a personal health of heterosexuals and homosexuals communication (August 10, 1989) Gonsiorek (Gonsiorek, 1982, in press; Hart et al., 1978; indicated that his updated review of the literature has Reiss, 1980), most research subjects, yielded the same conclusions as those in his original heterosexual and homosexual alike, scored article.

3 within the normal range on a variety of contrast, need not manage that information (they psychological tests. Like other minority group already are “discredited”). An openly gay members, most gay people function effectively person, therefore, cannot be coerced by threats in American society. Indeed, as members of a of exposure of her or his sexual orientation. Nor stigmatized group, lesbians and gay men can a gay person be coerced by threats to expose probably develop a variety of strategies for her or his partner’s homosexuality if that partner coping with their status and minimizing its is openly gay. negative psychological consequences (see A significant proportion of gay people in the Crocker & Major, 1989; Freedman, 1971). Such United States have not disclosed their sexual strategies can protect one’s self-esteem, “not orientation to others and consequently might be only from explicit prejudice or discrimination, considered potential targets for blackmail. In a but also, in some cases, from daily setbacks, 1989 national telephone survey of 400 lesbians failures, and rejections” (Crocker & Major, and gay men,3 between 23% and 40% of the 1989, p. 612). Some lesbians and gay men respondents (depending upon geographical undoubtedly experience emotional problems region) had not told their family of their sexual adjusting to their sexual orientation, just as some orientation, and between 37% and 59% had not Blacks undoubtedly experience problems in told their coworkers (“Results of poll,” 1989).4 dealing with racism. Similarly, some No estimates are available for the number of gay heterosexuals experience emotional problems people with partners who pass as heterosexual; adjusting to their adult sexuality or to their status at least some partners, however, can be assumed as wife or husband. Those few cases, however, to do so. do not provide a basis for disqualifying all Surveys conducted during the 1970s with homosexual people, or all Blacks, or all nonrepresentative samples indicate that some heterosexuals from security clearances, or even gay people indeed have been the target of a for subjecting their applications to unusually blackmail attempt (Bell & Weinberg, 1978; intensive review. Harry, 1982). Most attempts involved demands Homosexuality and Susceptibility to for sexual favors or small amounts of money; in Blackmail some cases, the would-be blackmailer was a The second major argument against granting lover attempting to keep the relationship from security clearances to lesbians and gay men is ending (Bell & Weinberg, 1978). The majority that they are at greater risk for blackmail than of the blackmail attempts reported to Harry were are heterosexuals. In order to be justified, this concern requires two conditions: The gay person 3 must be hiding her or his own sexual orientation In March and April of 1989, the or that of a partner, and the threat of exposure Examiner commissioned Teichner Associates to conduct telephone interviews with a gay male and must be so frightening or repellant that the lesbian national sample (n = 400) as well as a sample individual is willing to betray her or his country of gay residents of the San Francisco Bay Area (n = in order to avoid it. Although the first of these 400). Approximately 27,000 calls were made to conditions is somewhat plausible, the second is obtain 800 responses; 6.2% of the national not. respondents and 10% of the Bay Area respondents Susceptibility to coercion or blackmail is a identified themselves to the interviewer as lesbian, characteristic of individuals who attempt to gay male, or bisexual (Hatfield, 1989). Although the sample is biased by the willingness of respondents to conceal their stigma and “pass” as a member of identify themselves as gay to a telephone interviewer, the majority (see Goffman, 1963, for an the poll represents the first published study of its kind extendedPre-Publication discussion). Gay men and lesbians who in the United States. Draft pass (and are “discreditable,” in Goffman’s 4 Because of ambiguities in item wording, it remains terminology) must be concerned with managing unclear whether respondents answering in the potentially damaging information about negative meant that they had not disclosed to any themselves (i.e., their sexual orientation). Gay family members or coworkers, or had disclosed to people whose status is known to others, in some but not all.

4 described as unsuccessful (i.e., the intended No evidence exists to suggest that gay victim did not accede to the perpetrator’s Americans have betrayed their country in order demands). Bell and Weinberg did not provide to avoid disclosure of their sexual orientation, data on how many of the blackmail attempts even in times when public disclosure of reported by their respondents succeeded. homosexuality carried more serious negative Although these observations indicate that consequences than it does today. lesbians and gay men attempting to hide their Perhaps because the data indicate that gay sexual orientation have been targets for people do not pose a threat to national security, blackmail attempts, they do not support the the government has extended its argument to government’s contention that gay men and purely hypothetical situations. In a letter denying women pose a heightened risk for disclosing SCI approval for SCI access to a lesbian applicant, through blackmail attempts. Most gay people’s William Kopatish, Director of Security for the experiences with blackmail attempts have CIA, cited a risk to national security posed by involved very minor stakes related to personal “the clear possibility that any future [italics deprivation (e.g., money, sexual favors), and added] relationships that you establish may most of these attempts appear not to have [italics added] involve a partner who is not an succeeded. open homosexual, and who fears public The most meaningful data for assessing exposure” (Dubbs v. CIA, 1989, p. 1116). This whether gay Americans are likely to disclose charge is based on several major assumptions, classified information as a result of blackmail including (a) that the applicant will someday are the government’s past experiences with establish a relationship with a partner who is security breaches. In the approximately four passing as a heterosexual, (b) that she will be the decades during which the United States has had target of a blackmail attempt, and (c) that she security clearance programs, no instance has will reveal classified information to a foreign been recorded of successful blackmail of an government in order to protect her partner from American for espionage in which homosexuality involuntarily coming out as gay. was involved. Of the 40 significant espionage The government is willing to accept all of cases documented by the FBI and Defense these hypothetical circumstances in the case of Intelligence Agency for the Senate Permanent gay SCI applicants. Yet they are not equally Subcommittee on Investigations, none involved thorough in considering the possible future blackmail of a gay person (Federal Government vulnerabilities of heterosexual applicants. A Security Clearance Programs, 1985, cited in spouse or partner (current or future) might wish High Tech Gays v. DISCO, 1987).5 to conceal many stigmatized conditions other than homosexuality, such as a cancer diagnosis, a history of mental illness, an “illegitimate” 5 The argument cannot be made that the lack of cases birth, or the suicide of a family member. None results from the effectiveness of screening of these conditions are rare, and all continue to homosexuals from SCI access. Many lesbian and gay be sufficiently stigmatized in our society that male Americans have served in the U. S. military and some people try to prevent their public in defense-related civilian jobs, often with disclosure. But the government does not reject distinction, despite official policies treating them as applicants for SCI clearances on the grounds that undesirables (Bérubé, 1990; Harry, 1984; Dubbs v. a partner or loved one might someday bear such CIA 1989; High Tech Gays v. DISCO, 1987). Two of the 40 cases documented for the Senate a stigma and wish to conceal it. Once again, the subcommittee involved gay people, but in neither of government’s criteria for SCI clearance are them was the breach of security related to blackmail. suspiciously selective. The Pre-Publicationmotivations were monetary (Eugene Lee Madsen In summary, although lesbiansDraft and gay men in the 1980s, p. 920) and ideological (James Allen with access to SCI hypothetically might be Minktenbaugh in the 1950s, p. 915). (I am grateful to susceptible to blackmail if they were attempting Franklin Kameny, who reviewed this 1,341-page to hide their sexual orientation (or that of a document for cases involving homosexuality, and who shared his notes with me.) partner), no cases of security leaks resulting

5 from such blackmail have been documented. As sexual behaviors available to two men or two the American social climate becomes more women, it can be stated simply that many people tolerant and gay people feel less pressured to engage in forms of homosexual conduct that are hide their homosexuality, opportunities for such not prohibited by these statutes. Such coercion will decrease even further. If the noncriminal homosexual activity is especially government truly is concerned about blackmail, common among gay men in this era of AIDS it should take positive steps toward protecting (acquired immunodeficiency syndrome) and gay employees and their partners from safer sex (Delaney & Goldblum, 1987; Preston discrimination or harassment and, once such & Swann, 1986; Sisley & Harris, 1977). safeguards are in place, encouraging gay Even if we assume that many gay people employees to disclose their homosexuality. engage in specific illegal sexual acts, however, Homosexuality, Trustworthiness, and we must ask whether violation of these obscure Respect for Laws and rarely enforced statutes somehow reflects “adversely upon the individual’s reliability or In addition to specific allegations that they trustworthiness” (DCID 1/14, p. 13). No are psychologically impaired or unduly evidence exists, however, to indicate that susceptible to coercion, gay women and men violating state sodomy statutes generalizes to an have been targeted as security risks because the overall disrespect for law or authority. Rather, government alleges that they manifest a variety empirical research dating back to the classic of character flaws, in particular that they are studies by Hartshorne and May (1928-1930) prone to illegal conduct and to dishonesty. As suggests that rule violation in one situation is a with the previously stated governmental poor predictor of behavior in other situations arguments, no data exist to support these (see also Burton, 1976). More generally, allegations. empirical research has demonstrated repeatedly Homosexuality and Illegal Conduct that possession of a particular disposition or trait DCID 1/14 (1987) requires that any record of poorly predicts an individual’s other behaviors law violations by an applicant must be weighed in different situations (Snyder & Ickes, 1985). carefully in determining whether that individual According to some theorists, a principled choice is “stable, trustworthy, and of excellent to violate a law that is perceived as unjust may character, judgment, and discretion” (p. 13). even indicate an unusually high level of moral Convictions for criminal activity clearly are development (Kohlberg, 1976). Thus, relevant considerations in evaluating knowledge that a gay man or woman has applications for security clearances. The violated a state sodomy statute does not permit government has argued, however, that an inferences about her or his respect for other applicant’s homosexuality in itself can be laws, general adherence to rules, or overall considered an indicator of criminal conduct or morality. disregard for the law (High Tech Gays v. A double standard is evident here in the DISCO, 1987). This argument was based on the government’s practices. All but six of the state existence of sodomy laws in one half of the statutes outlaw heterosexual as well as states and the District of Columbia (Melton, homosexual sodomy (High Tech Gays v. 1989). Technically, lesbians and gay men who DISCO, 1987). Consequently, in most states engage in certain forms of homosexual activity with sodomy statutes, heterosexuals are in those jurisdictions are violating statutes, lawbreakers to the same extent as are gay people whether or not they are prosecuted. if they engage in fellatio, cunnilingus, or anal In examining this argument, scrutiny first intercourse. These heterosexual practices are not shouldPre-Publication be directed to the statutes themselves. All uncommon, and no evidence Draft indicates that but four outlaw only those acts involving the heterosexuals avoid them in states in which they genitalia of one person and the mouth or anus of are prohibited by statute (see, e. g., Brecher, another (High Tech Gays v. DISCO, 1987). 1984; Hite, 1976, 1981; Hunt, 1974; Kinsey, Without cataloging the entire repertoire of Pomeroy, & Martin, 1948; Kinsey, Pomeroy,

6 Martin, & Gebhard, 1953; Wolfe, 1981). In during the course of another security contrast to its treatment of gay SCI applicants, investigation was this information however, the government does not presume disclosed by you. The initial silence of heterosexuals who engage in illegal sexual both you and your partner regarding practices to be unreliable or untrustworthy, nor such highly significant security does it subject them to intensive investigation; information indicates a perception of indeed, the government does not collect vulnerability, on your part and a information about heterosexual behavior in most willingness to engage in deceptive cases (Dubbs v. CIA, 1989; High Tech Gays v. behavior in order to prevent the DISCO, 1987). The government does not disclosure of possibly damaging consider heterosexual conduct as a negative personal information. These factors raise factor in security clearance determinations serious doubts about your reliability and unless “promiscuity or extra-marital relations your susceptibility to compromise by a actually reflect lack of judgment or discretion or hostile intelligence service. (Dubbs v. actually offer a potential for exploitation by a CIA, 1989, p. 1116) foreign intelligence service” (Dubbs v. CIA, 1989, p. 1119). The questionnaire completed by applicants In summary, current data do not demonstrate for a security clearance does not include a any relationship between engaging in illegal, question about sexual orientation. If, private, consensual sexual conduct and an nevertheless, an applicant volunteers overall propensity to disrespect laws or information about her or his homosexual regulations in some manner that constitutes a orientation, the consequences are likely to be security risk. If the government were able to negative. For example, one individual in the establish such a connection, it also would have High Tech Gays v. DISCO (1987) lawsuit, on to explain why the relationship holds for gay his own initiative, submitted with his application people but not for heterosexual people. for a secret clearance a statement affirming that Homosexuality and Honesty he was gay and that this information was known The government has contended that a by his family, friends, coworkers, and homosexual applicant may be unfit for a security supervisors. He subsequently was subjected to clearance because of her or his “acts of omission an in-depth interview regarding his sexual or commission that indicate poor judgment, activities, and his application for a clearance unreliability or untrustworthiness” (DoD 5200.2- then was delayed for months. Similarly, Lloyd R, II-1-II-3, 32 C.F.R., § 154.7, 1987, cited in Andrew Leifer, a gay man who had disclosed his High Tech Gays v. DISCO, 1987). This sexual orientation on his SCI application, accusation arises from the fact that lesbian and testified before a congressional subcommittee gay male applicants for security clearances do that his clearance interview included irrelevant not always volunteer the information that they and highly personal questions about his private are gay. The government’s position is articulated sexual behavior. These included whether he was in the previously cited letter from CIA Security “on top or on bottom” during sex and whether he Director Kopatish: engaged in anal or oral sex (Committee on the Judiciary, 1989). You have acknowledged that you have been an active homosexual since your Gay people clearly are caught in a double teenage years and that you have had bind. If they volunteer the information that they lasting relationships with various are gay, their application will be subjected to women lasting from four months to two extensive and time-consuming investigation, at Pre-Publicationthe least (McCrary & Gutierrez,Draft 1979/1980). years. However, this information does not appear to have been volunteered or Sometimes this process takes so long that the in any way acknowledged by yourself, applicant loses the job for which a security or your partner, during the course of clearance was sought (as happened to at least your initial security investigation. Only one of the plaintiffs in High Tech Gays v.

7 DISCO, 1987).6 With agencies such as the CIA, individuals, for characteristics that are disclosure of one’s homosexuality eliminates or manifested by individuals, rather than groups. A severely reduces the chances of receiving a group (gay people) is presumed to be more security clearance (Dubbs v. CIA, 1989). If, on likely than the rest of the population to manifest the other hand, applicants fail to volunteer that an undesirable characteristic (e.g., they are gay, even though they were not asked psychopathology); consequently, all members of about their sexual orientation, they can be the group are denied security clearances or are accused of withholding relevant information. more intensively investigated as a strategy for Their security clearance then might be denied on screening out the undesired characteristic. that basis. Gay women and men, however, do not Does failure to volunteer the information that uniformly share any characteristic except their one is homosexual under these circumstances sexual orientation. The correlation between indicate general unreliability or being gay and possessing any other untrustworthiness? Judge Thelton Henderson characteristic is likely to be moderate or low. answered this question in the negative. After Consequently, screening on the basis of group noting that heterosexuals are not expected to membership is an unacceptably inefficient volunteer information about their sexual strategy for eliminating applicants with the conduct, even if they have violated state sodomy undesired characteristic. It inevitably results in statutes, he stated many false positives (i.e., denying SCI clearance The fact that people have aspects of to group members who do not manifest the their lives that they do not on their own characteristic) and false negatives (i.e., granting initiative tell supervisors, associates, or SCI access to applicants who manifest the even close family members does not undesirable characteristic but are not members imply that those people are security of the group). If a particular characteristic is risks. All people have aspects of their judged undesirable, screening should be for that lives, often private consensual sexual characteristic. activities, that they prefer to keep Consider, for example, Blau’s (1989) private. This fact does not mean that argument that gay people should be subjected to those people would be susceptible to more intensive SCI clearance investigation than blackmail if someone were to learn of heterosexuals because, he contended, they are the private information. (High Tech more likely to manifest drug or alcohol Gays v. DISCO, 1987, p. 1376) 7 dependence. Blau’s allegation, based on studies with nonrepresentative samples (Craig, 1987; Saunders & Valente, 1987), has not been Three Errors in SCI Screening of Gay supported by empirical data. Ignoring this fact Applicants for purposes of the present argument, screening The arguments against granting security for homosexuality rather than screening directly clearances to gay people or in favor of for chemical dependence clearly is an inefficient subjecting them to more intensive scrutiny than strategy. Even if a disproportionate number of heterosexuals display three patterns of error. gay people were substance abusers, eliminating First, the government screens groups, rather than all members of the group would exclude a large number who do not manifest the undesired characteristic and would miss many 6 Personal communication from Richard Gayer, San (heterosexual) others who did manifest it. Francisco (8/8/89). Gayer is the attorney for the Instead, investigations for SCI clearance should plaintiffsPre-Publication in High Tech Gays v. DISCO (1987) and directly assess applicants’ Draftuse of alcohol and Dubbs v. CIA (1989). other drugs, not their sexual orientation, in order 7 Judge Henderson’s ruling for summary judgment in to screen for substance abuse. favor of High Tech Gays subsequently was Another problem with the group-screening overturned by a higher court decision which, at the time of this writing, was not yet final. approach is that selection of homosexuality as

8 the criterion variable for screening is arbitrary. people is the pervasive use of a double standard. Other demographic groups invariably can be Heterosexuals as a group are not subjected to the identified that also are disproportionately likely same sorts of inquiry and scrutiny as are gay to manifest the undesired characteristics. Black people. Their possible violation of state sodomy Americans, for example, are statistically more statutes is not investigated, nor would their likely than Whites to be infected with the admission of violating such statutes Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV; Institute automatically render suspect their reliability or of Medicine, 1988). Race, however, would not trustworthiness. They are not expected to be considered a legitimate screening variable for disclose aspects of their private lives to the same SCI clearances even if, as Blau (1989) also extent as are gay applicants. In the congressional suggested, HIV status were somehow a relevant testimony of Lloyd Andrew Leifer cited earlier consideration in determining SCI clearance. (Committee on the Judiciary, 1989), the The second major flaw in policies interviewer was described as readily surrounding security clearances for gay acknowledging that he would not ask questions applicants is that they themselves create many of about personal sexual behavior of a nongay the problems that they supposedly are needed to applicant. Nor is a heterosexual person’s address; if the policies were changed, many of membership (or that of her or his partner) in a the arguments for denying SCI clearance to gay stigmatized group automatically considered applicants also would be eliminated. As already grounds for denial of clearance. No concern is detailed, for example, gay people are susceptible raised about the possibility that a hypothetical to blackmail only to the extent that their sexual future partner might belong to a stigmatized orientation remains hidden. But much of the group and might wish to keep that information motivation for gay people to keep their sexual private. This double standard clearly reflects orientation a secret (and, therefore, much of the prejudice against lesbians and gay men (see basis for blackmail) derives from existing Herek, 1984, 1990, in press). discriminatory employment policies. Many An Alternative Hypothesis: lesbians and gay men justifiably fear or have Experience With Stigma Provides Skills directly experienced employment discrimination and, consequently, keep their homosexuality for Protecting Security hidden or carefully control disclosures to others No empirical or logical grounds exist for (Bell & Weinberg, 1978; Levine, 1979; Levine expecting lesbians and gay men to pose a & Leonard, 1984; Schneider, 1986; Wells & security risk because of their homosexuality. A Kline, 1987). If the opportunities for credible argument can be made, however, that discrimination were eliminated, gay people gay people actually can be better suited to protecting government security than are many would feel encouraged to disclose their sexual 8 orientation to others, thereby eliminating any heterosexuals. This is because most lesbians basis for blackmail. Similarly, gay people are and gay men, like members of other stigmatized considered suspect because they don’t volunteer minorities, inevitably acquire some experience information about their sexual orientation, even with “passing” (concealment of one’s though to do so would destroy or significantly stigmatized condition during social interaction) decrease their chances for SCI clearance. If and “covering” (minimizing the obtrusiveness of homosexuality were no longer used as a a stigmatized condition so that it does not justification for denying clearance, however, gay disrupt social interaction) in order to avoid applicants could disclose that information freely harassment, persecution, discrimination, and during the investigation. Ironically, such a physical violence (Goffman, 1963; Herek, 1989; changePre-Publication in policy also would make knowledge of Humphreys, 1972). The governmentDraft has viewed an employee’s homosexuality largely irrelevant to the entire application process. 8 A third major weakness in the rationale I am grateful to Allan Bérubé for suggesting this underlying denial of SCI clearances to gay argument.

9 attempts to pass in negative terms, as indicating security risks, therefore, the government could a “willingness to engage in deceptive behavior alternatively consider members of stigmatized in order to prevent the disclosure of possibly minority groups as potentially superior to the damaging personal information” (Dubbs v. CIA, nonstigmatized in safeguarding secret 1989, p. 1116; Blau 1989, also made this information. This argument is not based on any argument). Yet, their experience at passing may characteristic inherent in sexual orientation (or well enable gay people to maintain the race, religion, or physical status). Rather, it is confidentiality of SCI more effectively than based on the experiences and skills that most others. stigmatized people acquire as a result of their Effective passing and covering require membership in a minority group. defining a particular aspect of one’s life as Consequences of Current Policies private and managing others’ access to information about it (Goffman, 1963). Gay The policy of denying SCI clearances to people, like other stigmatized individuals, must lesbians and gay men or subjecting applications learn to be close observers of social situations, to unusually intensive scrutiny has far-reaching attending to details of social interactions usually negative consequences. Most obviously, it adversely affects the employment and careers of taken for granted by the nonstigmatized. countless gay people. Those who try Whereas everyone delimits certain aspects of their lives as private, stigmatized people often unsuccessfully to get SCI clearance may must privatize information that the subsequently be isolated from their coworkers nonstigmatized routinely disclose and expect to and may find their opportunities for career be disclosed by others in normal social advancement severely limited. Others may interaction. Examples include the gender of consciously choose an alternative but less satisfying career that does not require SCI one’s romantic partner, one’s favorite clearance. Gay people who must endure the establishments for socializing and entertainment, and one’s place of worship. Disclosure of any of prolonged investigation likely to accompany these might reveal an individual’s their SCI application undoubtedly experience homosexuality. considerable psychological stress, as well as an intensified sense of being the target of stigma In the course of effectively managing private and prejudice. information about themselves, lesbians and gay Also, policies that promote discrimination on men must learn to monitor their conversation the basis of sexual orientation in security and behavior to avoid disclosing particular bits clearances have adverse effects for heterosexual of information. They must learn to anticipate social situations that might make concealment of applicants. Such policies simultaneously private information difficult, and to avoid or reinforce antigay prejudice among heterosexual manage them. And they must learn to do this employees and pressure them to monitor their while maintaining relationships with individuals own behavior to avoid any possibility of being who are not privy to the protected information, labeled homosexual. This includes even nonsexual behaviors such as dress, mannerisms, which may include relatives, friends, and hobbies, and displays of physical affection with neighbors. These skills can be highly useful for maintaining security. In American society, the same-sex friends. By reinforcing rigid norms for questions of “What do you do for a living?” or behavior, current policies inevitably limit all “What did you do at work today?” generally are employees’ opportunities for psychological considered innocuous and inoffensive. growth (Herek, 1986). Individuals whose work involves access to SCI, Finally, antigay security clearance policies however,Pre-Publication must be able to answer such questions ultimately hurt the government Draft and the nation as without disclosing classified information and a whole by preventing many patriotic, also without severely disrupting their routine intelligent, dedicated Americans from serving in social interactions. jobs for which they are qualified. For all of these Instead of rejecting gay people as likely reasons, current policy should be changed.

10 Sexual orientation per se should not be a stigma. Psychological Review, 96, 608-630. relevant criterion for denying security clearances Delaney, M., & Goldblum, P. (1986). Strategies nor for subjecting applicants to extensive for survival: A gay men’s health manual for the age investigation. of AIDS. New York: St. Martin’s. Dubbs v. Central Intelligence Agency, et al. References (1989). 866 F.2d [9th Circuit], p.1114. American Psychiatric Association. (1987). Federal Government Security Clearance Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Programs: Hearings before the Permanent Disorders (3rd ed., Revised). Washington, DC: Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Author. Governmental Affairs. (1985). 99th Congress, 1st American Psychiatric Association. (1987). Session. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders Freedman, M. (1971). Homosexuality and (3rd ed., rev.). Washington, DC: Author. psychological functioning. Belmont, CA: American Psychological Association. (1975). Brooks/Cole. Minutes of the Council of Representatives. American Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the Psychologist, 30, 633. management of spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs, American Psychological Association. (1987). NJ: Prentice-Hall. Policy Statements on Lesbian and Gay Issues. Gonsiorek, J.C. (1982). Results of psychological Washington, DC: Author. testing on homosexual populations. American Bayer, R. (1987). Homosexuality and American Behavioral Scientist, 25, 385-396. psychiatry: The politics of diagnosis (2nd ed.). Gonsiorek, J.C. (in press, 1991). Psychological Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. testing on homosexual populations. In J. Gonsiorek & Bell, A.P., & Weinberg, M.S. (1978). J. Weinrich (Eds.), Homosexuality: Social, : A study of diversity among men and Psychological, and Biological Issues (2nd Ed.). women. New York: Simon & Schuster. Newbury Park: Sage. Bérubé, A. (1990). : The Harry, J. (1982). Derivative deviance: The cases history of gay men and women in World War II. New of extortion, fag-bashing, and shakedown of gay York: Free Press men. Criminology, 19, 546-564. Blau, T.H. (1989, August). Debates on sexuality Harry, J. (1984). Homosexual men and women and personnel security criteria: Should lesbians and who served their country. Journal of Homosexuality, gays be given security clearance? Paper presented at 10 (1/2), 117-125. the annual meeting of the American Psychological Hart, M., Roback, H., Tittler, B., Weitz, L., Association, New Orleans. Walston, B., & McKee, E. (1978). Psychological Burton, R.V. (1976). Honesty and dishonesty. In adjustment of nonpatient homosexuals: Critical T. Lickona (Ed.), Moral development and behavior: review of the research literature. Journal of Clinical Theory, research, and social issues (pp. 173-197). Psychiatry, 39, 604-608. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Hartshorne, H., & May, M. (1928-1930). Studies Brecher, E.M. (1984). Love, sex, and aging. in the nature of character. New York: Macmillan. : Little, Brown, & Company. Hatfield, L. (1989, June 5). Method of polling. Committee on the Judiciary. (1989, October 5). San Francisco Examiner, p. A-20. Standards and due process in granting, denying, and Herek, G.M. (1984). Beyond “homophobia:” A revoking security clearances: Hearing before the social psychological perspective on attitudes toward Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights of lesbians and gay men. Journal of Homosexuality, 10 the Committee on the Judiciary, House of (1/2), 1-21. Representatives. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Herek, G.M. (1986). On heterosexual masculinity: Some psychical consequences of the Craig, R.J. (1987). MMPI-derived prevalence social construction of gender and sexuality. American estimatesPre-Publication of homosexuality among drug-dependent Draft Behavioral Scientist, 29, 563-577. patients. International Journal of the Addictions, 22, 1139-1145. Herek, G.M. (1989). Hate crimes against lesbians and gay men: Issues for research and policy. Crocker, J., & Major, B. (1989). Social stigma American Psychologist, 44, 948-955. and self-esteem: The self-protective properties of Herek, G.M. (1990). The context of anti-gay

11 violence: Notes on cultural and psychological Signs, 9, 700-710. heterosexism. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 5, McCrary, J., & Gutierrez, L. (1979/80). The 316-333. homosexual person in the military and in national Herek, G.M. (in press, 1991). Stigma, prejudice, security employment. Journal of Homosexuality, 5, and violence against lesbians and gay men. In J. 115-146. Gonsiorek & J. Weinrich (Eds.), Homosexuality: Melton, G.B. (1989). Public policy and private Social, Psychological, and Biological Issues (2nd prejudice: Psychology and law on gay rights. Ed., pp. 60-80). Newbury Park: Sage. American Psychologist, 44, 933-940. High Tech Gays v. Defense Industrial Security Preston, J., & Swann, G. (1986). Safe sex. New Clearance Office (1987). 668 F.Supp. [N.D.Cal.], York: New American Library. p.1374. Reiss, B.F. (1980). Psychological tests in Hite, S. (1976). The Hite report: A nationwide homosexuality. In J.Marmor (Ed.), Homosexual study of female sexuality. New York: MacMillan. behavior: A modern reappraisal (pp. 296-311). New Hite, S. (1981). The Hite report on male York: Basic Books. sexuality. New York: Knopf. Results of poll. (1989, June 6). San Francisco Hooker, E. (1957). The adjustment of the male Examiner, p. A-19. overt homosexual. Journal of Projective Techniques, Rivera, R.R. (1979). Our straight-laced judges: 21, 18-31. The legal position of homosexual persons in the Humphreys, L. (1972). Out of the closets: The United States. Hastings Law Journal, 30, 837-855. sociology of homosexual liberation. Englewood Sarbin, T.R., & Karols, K.E. (1988). Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Nonconforming sexual orientations and military Hunt, M. (1974). Sexual behavior in the 1970s. suitability. Monterey, CA: Defense Personnel Chicago: Playboy. Security Research and Education Center. Institute of Medicine. (1988). Confronting AIDS: Saunders, J.M., & Valente, S.M. (1987). Suicide Update 1988. Washington, DC: National Academy risk among gay men and lesbians: A review. Death Press. Studies, 11, 1-23. Jones, E.E., Farina, A., Hastorf, A.H., Markus, Schneider, B.E. (1986). Coming out at work: H., Miller, D.T., & Scott, R.A. (1984). Social stigma: Bridging the private/public gap. Work and The psychology of marked relationships. New York: Occupations, 13, 463-487. W.H. Freeman. Sciolino, E. (1989, October 22). Report urging Kinsey, A.C., Pomeroy, W.B., & Martin, C.E. end of homosexual ban rejected by military. New (1948). Sexual behavior in the human male. York Times, pp. 1, 24. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders. Sisley, E.L., & Harris, B. (1977). The joy of Kinsey, A.C., Pomeroy, W.B., Martin, C.E., & lesbian sex. New York: Wallaby. Gebhard, P.H. (1953). Sexual behavior in the human Snyder, M. & Ickes, W. (1985). Personality and female. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders. social behavior. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Kohlberg, L. (1976). Moral stages and Handbook of social psychology, (3rd ed., Vol. 2, pp. moralization: The cognitive-developmental approach. 883-947). New York: Random House. In T. Lickona (Ed.), Moral development and Wells, J.W., & Kline, W.B. (1987). Self- behavior: Theory, research, and social issues (pp. disclosure of homosexual orientation. Journal of 31-53). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Social Psychology, 127 (2), 191-197. Levine, M.P. (1979). Employment discrimination Williams, C.J., & Weinberg, M.S. (1971). against gay men. International Review of Modern Homosexuals and the military: A study of less than Sociology, 9 (5-7), 151-163. honorable discharge. New York: Harper & Row. Levine, M.P., & Leonard, R. (1984). Wolfe, L. (1981). The Cosmo report. New York: DiscriminationPre-Publication against lesbians in the work force. Arbor House. Draft

12