A Distressing Idea

THE CONTROVERSIAL: LETTER that appeared in last week's Independent warrants the reprobation of the entire Harvard community, not just that of the Gay Students Association members who immediately--and rightly--blasted it. The suggestion by Edward L. Pattullo, director of the Center for Behavioral Sciences, that society should exert "negative social pressures to deter homosexuality, shows gross intolerance towards the gay community University officials should swiftly affirm that Pattullo's views are not Harvard's.

Pattullo's letter hinged on the fact that the causes of homosexuality remain unknown--that scholars are still unsure whether homosexuality is genetic or prompted by environmental factors. The conclusion he drew from the openness of the question is what is so distressing. Precisely because environmental factors may play a role in causing homosexuality. Pattullo concludes, it would be a "good thing" for society to act somehow to discourage homosexuality.

That the genesis of homosexuality remains uncertain, however, is exactly why society should not get involved. Sexual preferences may well be transmitted generally or early in childhood Penalizing homosexual behavior--or attaching a stigma to it by trying to discourage it--represents the most invidious form of discrimination Pattullo would treat an alternative lifestyle as pitiable and to be discouraged--though its proponents may have had no choice over their preferences.

And even it Pattullo could say with perfect assurance that only environmental factors cause homosexuality, neither the government, society nor the University should presume to know what lifestyle is worthy of encouragement. By imputing unsavory values to homosexuals. Pattullo made just that presumption. We can only hope that government at all levels, as well as the University, will behave in such a way as not to discriminate against individuals because of their sexual habits.

In particular, no matter what Pattullo's personal views are, he should not let them influence his professional behavior. We hope, too, that we are wrong to share the fears of many in the GSA--that what Pattullo chose to say publicly, many administrators and faculty feel privately.

Though the GSA was correct in angrily dismissing Pattullo's outlook and circulating a petition to that effect, it erred seriously in calling for an official investigation of the academic practices of the center Pattullo heads. We have traditionally supported the GSA's quest for an official University-wide non-discrimination policy and have strongly backed the group's political activities--stances we took because gay students deserve the same civil liberties enjoyed by all others. The group's defensive call for an inquisition into the scholastic behavior of Pattullo and the center would intolerantly undermine others' liberties and academic freedom.

We shudder to think of the consequences if the University were to scrutinize the work of all professors with whom an undergraduate group differs. Reprehensible as Pattullo's personal views are, it is his privilege to air them without tempting scrutiny of his professional performance. On the other hand, of course. Harvard should not hesitate to explore the professional performance. On the other hand of course. Harvard should not hesitate to explore the professional behavior of one of its officers if it has evidence of professional bias.

To clear up any misunderstandings caused by the recent controversy, the University should publicly declare anew that all its components--including the Center for Behavioral Sciences--do not discriminate on the basis of sexual preference. That statement will likely do little to alleviate the bias many people privately harbor toward gays. But perhaps it can allay the GSA's legitimate fears that Harvard the institution is less than evenhanded in its treatment of homosexuals.