PBS News Hour | The Hidden History of the Cold War-Era Lavender Scare | Season 2024

ON THIS LAST DAY OF LGBTQ PRIDE MONTH, TODAY’S EPISODE OF OUR HIDDEN HISTORIES SERIES IS NOT ABOUT INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE.

IT’S ABOUT ONE EPISODE.

HOW THE ANTI-COMMUNIST PARANOIA THAT SWEEPS WASHINGTON AT THE BEGINNING OF THE COLD WAR LEAD TO AN OFTEN OVERLOOKED CHAPTER IN LGBTQ HISTORY.

Fueled by Senator Joseph McCarthy’s headline-grabbing claims, fears of communist subversion led to a hunt for communications agents in the government.

>> JUSTICE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS HAVE PROMISED MORE ARRESTS AS CRACKS AGAINST SUSPECTED SUBVERSIVES INTENSE.

JEFFREY: MCCARTHY HAS EXACTLY LINKED COMMUNISM TO LGBTQ PEOPLE, AND SOME HAVE EVEN SAID THEY ARE THE GREATER THREAT.

The fear of the Reds developed into the fear of the Lavender Panic. The name is borrowed from the term that Senator Everett Dirksen used to describe gay men as “lavender boys”.

A 1950 U.S. Congressional investigation concluded that LGBTQ people were “unsuitable” for federal service and posed a security risk because they were vulnerable to blackmail due to their fear of exposure.

THOUSANDS OF EMPLOYEES ACROSS ALL AREAS OF GOVERNMENT WERE INVESTIGATED, INTERROGATED AND FORCED OUT OF THEIR JOBS.

Over time, society’s attitudes toward LGBTQ people changed, but until 1975 they were still denied access to public service.

AND IT WAS NOT TILL THE 1990S THAT PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON ENDED OFFICIAL DISCRIMINATION BASED ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION FOR ALL NON-MILITARY GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES.

MARC STEIN IS A PROFESSOR OF HISTORY AT SAN FRANCISCO STATE UNIVERSITY.

FOR THE FIRST TIME, SOMEONE YOUNGER THAN THE BABY BOOMERS, AND CERTAINLY THE AGE OF THEIR STUDENTS, MAY BE WATCHING ALL THE CELEBRATIONS WE HAD DURING THIS PRIDE MONTH AND WONDERING ABOUT THE ATTITUDES THAT GAVE RISE TO IT IN THE 1950S AND EARLY 1960S.

HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN IT?

>> IT’S COMPLICATED.

BUT I THINK MOST HISTORIANS BELIEVE THAT THERE WERE REALLY THREE PILLARS OF ANTI-LGBT HOSTILITY THROUGHOUT THE 20TH CENTURY.

One of them was a religion that considered homosexuality and gender transgression a sin.

One of them was the law and the state, which considered these statements to be criminal behavior.

AND THEN THERE WAS SCIENCE AND MEDICINE AND PSYCHIATRY THAT VIEWED HOMOSEXUALITY AND TRANSGENDER AS SIGNS OF ILLNESS AND PASSION.

When you put those three together, you get an enormous cultural authority, a political authority that cracks down on LGBTQ people.

JEFFREY: WHAT WAS IT LIKE TO WORK FOR THE GOVERNMENT AS AN LGBTQ PERSON AT THAT TIME?

>> Well, for those who were in Washington, DC, there was a thriving, vibrant, community-based culture in bars, parks, and parties.

AND SO YOU CAN LEAD A RELATIVELY FULFILLING, INTERESTING AND DYNAMIC PRIVATE LIFE.

BUT AT WORK IT WAS DIFFERENT.

And if you worked for the federal government in Washington, DC or elsewhere, there was always the risk of being discovered or threatened.

And this didn’t just affect people who identified as LGBTQ, because even rumors or innuendo, such as if a person wasn’t married or didn’t go out after work and didn’t behave in a classically heterosexual manner, could cast a shadow of distrust on federal government employees who didn’t identify as LGBTQ.

JEFFREY: AS WE SAID, ONE OF THE REASONINGS GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS WAS THE SECURITY RISK, THE POSSIBILITY OF BLACKMAIL.

BUT, IRONICALLY, HAVE NOT SOME GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS ACTUALLY PROVEN SOMETHING THAT COERCING FEDERAL EMPLOYEES IS POSSIBLE?

>> YES.

So you know, while there is little evidence that there were cases of extortion by outside actors, what you say is absolutely true: the worst forms of extortion often came from within the government itself.

AND SO THE THREAT OF BEING OUTED IN THE WORKPLACE COULD ITSELF BE A FORM OF BLACKMAIL IN THE WORKPLACE.

JEFFREY: WHY DO YOU THINK THIS EPISODE WAS FORGOTTEN?

Mostly now.

>> Well, for decades in the United States, there was really intense censorship of teaching about LGBTQ history in public and private schools.

WHEN I WAS GROWING UP IN THE 1960s, 1970s, AND 1980s, CERTAINLY LITTLE OR NOTHING WAS SAID ABOUT THE HISTORY OF LGBTQ SOCIETY.

AND I THINK THAT’S PARTLY WHY IT WAS FORGOTTEN.

EVEN DURING THIS ERA ITSELF THERE WERE EUPHEMISMS.

THERE WAS NO EXPLICIT OPPORTUNITY TO TALK ABOUT THIS PHENOMENON.

THERE MAY BE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT PERVERSE, DEVIANT AND EXTRAORDINARY PEOPLE.

AND SO THIS WOULD NOT NECESSARILY BE UNDERSTOOD OR INTERPRETED BY THE WIDER POPULATION AS A INDICATION OF LGBTQ PERSONALITY.

JEFFREY: A LOT OF THESE GUIDELINES WERE IN THE BOOKS, MAYBE NOT FOLLOWED, BUT THEY WERE OFFICIAL GUIDELINES UNTIL THE 1990S AND EARLY 2000S.

WHY DID THE CHANGE TAKE SO LONG?

>> I BELIEVE THAT WE ARE STILL LIVING WITH THE CONSEQUENCES OF THIS POLICY TODAY.

AND MAYBE WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT TOO.

BUT AS FOR PREVIOUS DECADES, THESE THREE PILLARS OF ANTI-LGBTQ OPPRESSION – RELIGION, STATE, AND SCIENCE – HAVE CONTINUED TO RECORD MANY OF THE SAME ATTITUDES FOR DECADES.

AND SO IT TAKES UNTIL 1973 FOR THE AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION TO CLASSIFY HOMOSEXUALITY AS A MENTAL ILLNESS.

AND EVEN AFTER THAT, THE APA CONTINUED TO CONSIDER GENDER IDENTITY DYSPHORIA AND SEXUAL ORIENTATION DISORDERS AS ILLNESSES.

AND THE OTHER TWO PILLARS HAVE CONTINUED TO EXPRESS INTENSE HOSTILITY TOWARDS LGBTQ, EVEN AFTER CHANGING OFFICIAL POLICIES ON PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYMENT.

JEFFREY: TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE HEIRS THAT YOU THINK WE STILL LIVE WITH.

>> Well, it is no longer officially acceptable to refuse to hire a person for a job in the civil service, for the federal government, or to fire them from a job in the federal service, based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.

– – IDENTITY, THERE IS STILL A LOT OF UNOFFICIAL DISCRIMINATION.

I think we still see traces of those earlier policies, for example in the banning of teaching about gender and sexuality in public schools, which several states have done in recent years.

AND I WOULD SAY WE STILL SEE THIS IN THE REFUSAL OF MANY PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SCHOOLS TO TEACH LGBTQ HISTORY.

IT IS AS IF THIS IS SIMPLY AN UNACCEPTABLE SUBJECT, INAPPROPRIATE FOR CHILDREN, AND AS IF THIS FORM OF CENSORSHIP AND REPRESSION WILL IN FACT RESIST COMPREHENSIVE DEMOCRATIZATION, COMPREHENSIVE OPENNESS AND COMPREHENSIVE EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE.

JEFFREY: MARK STEIN FROM SAN FRANCISCO STATE UNIVERSITY, THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU.