The Main Menu

[ Main Page | Dates | Places | People and Events ]

Daily Californian, 1965


Late in 1965 Cal students picked up their Daily Californian and saw this bold front page headline: 2,700 Homosexuals at Cal. The headlined article began a week’s worth of articles on “sexual minorities” at Cal, focusing on the gay male community. All five articles are reproduced here along with related news articles, editorials, and letters to the editor that also appeared in the Daily Cal in response to the series.

The author of the series, Feature Editor Konstantin Berlandt, interviewed students, staff, and alumni who — quoted anonymously — described underground gay life at Cal including restroom sex and “cruising” on and off campus. Berlandt went on to interview local police and a campus psychiatrist. His most startling revelations included the claims of one former student that a prominent member of the 1961 football squad was gay and that several fraternities routinely brought gay men to their houses to “service” the members.

The articles seem tame by today’s standards, but they should be understood in the context of their times. Traditional sexual roles and mores were still not broadly liberalized in Berkeley. During the same period that these articles on “sexual minorities” ran, the Daily Californian was reporting, editorializing, and fielding indignant letters from students on the then-controversial possibility that residence hall rules might be relaxed to allow women students to come to dinner in the dining commons wearing pants instead of dresses or skirts.

Even before the publication of the series was complete, a bright blaze of indignation arose in some sectors. The series was criticized both by the ASUC’s elected Senate and its Publications Board (the Daily Californian was then part of the ASUC, not an independent newspaper), and was allegedly edited mid-stream to tone down the content of the final articles.

Konstantin Berlandt went on to be Editor-in-Chief of the Daily Californian and, later, an independent writer and journalist. He came out himself and is remembered today as an early gay activist who pushed the limits of convention in forums well beyond the University of California, where he began his writing career.


Minorities— 2,700 Homosexuals at Cal

November 29, 1965

The following is the first of a number of articles on homosexuality in an extended Daily Californian series on minorities — racial, sexual, political and religious.

Feature Editor

The campus police have recently removed the door of every other stall in the men’s restroom in the basement of the library. Just prior to the door removal, seven persons were arrested for homosexual activity. The theory is that four feet in one stall is suspicious, so resourceful homosexuals drill holes between the stalls (“glory holes” in homosexual parlance.) However, according to a Berkeley police officer, homosexual activity in campus restrooms is so common that students view what’s happening and just walk out without reporting it.

“There are probably 2,700 homosexuals at Cal,” according to Harold Call, President of the Mattachine Society of San Francisco, a homophile pressure group. His estimate is based on a Kinsey Report figure that one in ten men studied had most of their sexual experiences with men.

On Aug, 8, 1963, the campus police broke up a gathering of homosexuals in the no-longer-existent Men’s Quiet Room of the Student Union, after setting a carefully arranged trap for one of them and baiting it with a police officer. According to the University police at that time, the arrest was the first of its kind made on the campus. However, the Men’s Quiet Room had been under observation for some time as a meeting place for homosexuals. Other places on campus were also being watched, a police department spokesman said then.

Campus police refuse to comment on the subject now.

However, Berkeley Police Patrolman Joe Mulvey would comment. “Berkeley has its share of homosexuals,” he said, although “percentage-wise I cannot even project how many.”

In a 21 month period from September 1963, the Berkeley police arrested 240 people for homosexual offenses of “soliciting or committing a lewd act in a public place or open to the view of the public” or “loitering in a public restroom for the purpose of engaging in a lewd act,” Mulvey said. He added however, “Very seldom is a professor or student arrested for this, but I can’t speak for the campus problem.”

(Tomorrow: A Homosexual’s Description of the “Wild” Gay Life on Campus.)


Ex-Student Recalls Campus “Gay Life”

November 30, 1965

The following is the second of a number of articles on homosexuals in an extended series on minorities — racial, sexual, political, religious.

Feature Editor

“I never walked into a head at Cal that there wasn’t someone there waiting. There’s a lot of sex on the Cal campus for homosexuals and a lot of sex for guys who aren’t homosexuals but are looking for sexual gratification.” A former University student in the fall of 1961, he was short, thin and blonde, blue-eyed, 31, but looked about 24. He described the situation as it appeared then.

He had spent time in the Marine Corps. He described it as “the most whory time in my life. I never had to leave the base. Anything I wanted (sexually) was always available. The Cal campus reminds me quite a bit of that.”

“The boys out-number the girls,” he continued. There are about 17,000 boys and 9,000 girls on campus. “They (the boys) go along until pretty soon they get to a point where they’ve got to do something. So they hit the (gay) bars. They’ll try anything once, and it seems if they try it once they always go back to it, though with great guilt feelings at first.”

He sipped a martini.

“I go to San Francisco State now. I couldn’t hack Cal. There’s too much going on. San Francisco State is cruisier, but it’s a different kind of cruising. They meet you during the week and arrange a date for the weekend. At Cal I was always cutting classes. I couldn’t even get from class to class. There’s a gay bar down Telegraph, the Student Union — that’s great cruising territory — and the Bear’s Lair — that’s wild — and a few rest rooms but those change.”

He explained the pick-up operation.

Homosexuals can recognize each other, he said. “Other homosexuals can tell by the way they look at each other. Also they can tell when someone is looking for sexual gratification. You see available things on campus, eye contact, follow them, sit down for coffee, suggest you go home together.”

The blonde boy wore a T-shirt, light green levis and pale blue parka, white tennis shoes. He mentioned the “glory holes” (a hole drilled between two stalls in a restroom. Recently every other door was removed on the stalls in the men’s restroom in the library basement) and ascribed their use partially to “straight” (heterosexual) boys seeking release. Often impersonal, the sexual partners may not even see each other.

“There’s a famous spot at Stanford,” he said, “where there’s practically a line waiting” for service. “There’s quite a bit at fraternities,” he said. “I know of two fraternities at Cal that go out and get homosexuals at bars and bring them home for everybody, and I have a friend who goes to a fraternity at least once a month on stag night and blows them all while they watch stag movies.”

“It is also very prevalent in the sports world,” he continued. “A homosexual friend of mine, who was a famous Olympic winner, told me, ‘To like sports you have to like body contact.’ One of the big stars of the football team at Cal in 1961 was ‘married’ to a boy not on the team.” Some people object to the term “marriage” for homosexual unions, he said.

“When a homosexual first hits the age to go barring, etc. he discovers the physical act so easy to find. When you first hit homosexual life you know you can go out and find a bed partner, so you start looking for more in a partner, someone with whom you can live and grow. Sometimes there can even be children: adopted, black-market babies, if the man is divorced or widowed. However, most don’t look upon it as a husband and wife relationship.”

He stressed, “The public has to drop the idea that homosexuals are effeminate or that effeminate men are homosexuals. Girls and boys who get to know homosexuals know they’re not like the effeminate stereotypes. Some of your most masculine looking people may be leading homosexual lives,” he said. “The effeminate homosexual is definitely the minority. The masculine homosexual looks down on this minority. He may speak to them in a bar but at other times he will ignore them. They are pitied by other homosexuals and not included in their groups. They stick together. If I wanted to go to bed with a girl, I’d go to bed with a girl, not an effeminate homosexual,” the boy said.

(Tomorrow: “Bisexuality”)


Outlook on Sex: “Part of Total Relationship”

December 1, 1965

The following is the third of a number of articles on homosexuality in an extended Daily Californian series on minorities — racial, sexual, political and religious.

Feature Editor

The attitude of Cal students towards “sex in general” results in more bisexuality, according to one 24-year-old homosexual, a University student in the social sciences.

“It’s quite possible on this campus to talk someone into having sex,” he said. “But it’s certainly not the usual cruising-pickup scene of other universities and cities — there’s more bisexuality. …[S]ex is part of the total relationship with other persons, to be enjoyed and not called ‘sinning’.”

He said he had had an affair with a woman this summer “but girls don’t generally excite me as much as boys. I don’t tend to see a girl as being a sex object, though I can conceive of her as being one.”

The Kinsey Report on the Sexual Behavior of the Human male presents a sliding scale of homosexuality. According to Kinsey, every other man has felt desire for or arousal by, another man. One out of every three men has had at least one homosexual experience to the point of orgasm, and one out of every eight men has had a majority of his sexual experiences over at least a three year period between 16 and 55 with people of the same sex, Kinsey’s report said. One in ten men studied had most of their sexual experiences with men by choice rather than opportunity. Kinsey found that only four men in 100 were entirely homosexual, never having had sex with women.

The University homosexual tried to explain the lack of obvious homosexuals here. “My experience at another state university was that a majority of homosexuals were very weak intellectually,” he said. “They tended to devote more time and thought to the fact that they were homosexuals and to sex in general then they did to intellectual pursuits. The problem (of ignoring intellectual pursuits),” he said, “is involved with the change of ‘coming out’ as they say, some sort of traumatic experience.”

"Coming out” is the entering of gay life and gay society. It is frequently combined with the self-classification that one is a homosexual and the inner turmoil often generated by that admittance.

“I think it’s possible for someone here to have homosexual experiences but not go through this identity crisis,” he continued. “I can’t conceive of somebody who is a student and who is interested in politics and social change — as Cal students are to a certain degree — …all of a sudden going into the non-intellectual homosexual world, dominated by homosexual experiences.”

“Therefore,” the student said, “he won’t become as set in the role of a homosexual as the person that finds out that he’s a homosexual and immediately moves into the homosexual underground where other homosexuals convince him not to like women, etc.” He knew of no gay community at Cal. He admitted it was quite possible there was one, “but if it is, it’s very well hidden.”

There was “much more freedom,” he said, “for the homosexual here within the student society where there is a much greater tendency to accept homosexuals as persons and not as part of a strange group of people who are depraved. Nevertheless the University is not a center of open homosexuality.” He added, “a lot of the obvious aspects of cruising may be drawn off to the city to a certain degree.”

“It is certainly possible to meet people on Telegraph,” he said, “but it’s a chance sort of thing. There’s not a permanent group of people there all the time cruising. If you go to the City there’s not the chance involved; within one evening you can easily meet somebody.”

(Tomorrow: “Closet Queens”)


Gay Life At the University

December 2, 1965

The following is the fourth of five articles on homosexuals in an extended Daily Californian series on minorities — racial, sexual, political and religious.

Feature Editor

“A college homosexual will frequently be more active in the college heterosexual society life than a normie [sic],” according to a 27-year-old homosexual and University employee. “One of the most profound things about all college students I have observed is the great deal of effort they take to conform," he said. “Their homosexual lives are kept as remote and separate from their college social lives as could be imagined.” He calls those who cover up their homosexuality “closet queens,” a homosexual term.

“The genuine, commonplace homosexual is an average person; the only difference between him and the average normie is that the love object of the homosexual is another of the same sex. The closet queen, while appearing normal and concealing his homosexuality, allows society to form its stereotype of the homosexual from the most obvious nonconformists. As a result of this, our country is fraught with laws, mores and thoughts by the general public of the weird creatures roaming the streets at night attacking their children and their wives,” whereas usually your neighbor, your brother, the ticket taker on your commute train can be and often are homosexuals.

“But you never see a homosexual face to face,” he said. “The great wall of silence built up around homosexuals by themselves is one of the most disgusting things I know of in gay life.”

(Tomorrow: “The Disturbed Homosexual and Help”)


Homosexuals View Problem

December 3, 1965

The following is the last of a number of articles on homosexuals in an extended Daily Californian series on minorities — racial, sexual, political, and religious.

Feature Editor

“I was 17 when I suddenly realized I was a homosexual; it was a horrifying discovery.”

He is now 22, a University student and attempting a psychotherapeutic cure for homosexuality.

“I have never been happy about being a homosexual; I know I will never be happy as a homosexual. Since going through psychotherapy for a year I’ve come a long way. I’ve found out it’s something that doesn’t have to be for always. Homosexuality has always been an unvoiced fear in our home,” he said. “My father said it was a man’s duty to fight it (homosexuality), which I had done since I was six. As a result I missed out on the most important and necessary development period to becoming a man in a child’s life — the gang stage, a predominately homosexual period every boy goes through before becoming a man,” he continued.

“When fear is implanted in you on an unconscious level,” he said, “falling victim to it is all the more humiliating and devastating. How could this be happening to me?” However, “When you discover there’s a perfectly logical reason for the anguish and hell you’re going through, it just makes it a lot easier,” he said.

The student discovered, “My problem is not basically homosexual; many heterosexuals have very similar problems which manifest themselves in different forms.” His life on campus, he said, is very lonely. “I’m not ready yet to have normal healthy friendships and at the place I am in therapy it is impossible for me to indulge myself homosexually without getting deathly ill.” He has been to six psychiatrists, some of whom have suggested he try to adapt himself and his feelings were normal. The last private psychiatrist suggested he could outgrow homosexuality.

Records are not kept of the number of homosexuals going to the Cowell Hospital Psychiatric Department for help. “‘Homosexual’ is not a term I use,” said Dr. Harvey Powelson, chief of the Psychiatric Department here. “I assume most people I see have either sexual feelings or sexual relations with people of the same sex. I don’t bother myself about it unless it becomes an issue either legally or for the person,” Powelson said. Furthermore, “People can be totally heterosexual in one environment, but are not put in another such as in prisons where a high percentage of guys are only having relations with persons of their own sex. On the other hand, there are guys who seem clearly (homosexual) from a very early age,” he said.

He blamed the difference on sociological, psychological and maybe biological factors, but, he added, “I don’t know what they are nor how to weigh them.” As for cures for homosexuality, Powelson said, “I don’t think of it as a disease, and, as such, it is hard to think of cures. People decide to give up homosexuality on their own,” he said. With many cures “you never know what you did to cause the outcome,” he added.

A University employee, exclusively homosexual, described his method of treatment.

“I meet people through all circumstances and very frequently they’re all (mixed) up. I find the simplest and most effective help for them is to find out precisely what it is that they find wrong with themselves,” he said. “Usually they think they are perverse or weird and this bothers them. It is only necessary to point out that human animals are not all ‘normal’ or ‘average’ and that there is an extremely wide variation in all people and that one need not necessarily confirm in order to be a complete, healthy, happy, well-adjusted human being. You don’t have to be a psychiatrist. By virtue of this feeling of sincerity and compassion and love for people one can help them better than if they went to a psychiatrist or doctor,” he said.


Pub Board Criticizes Daily Cal

December 2, 1965

The Daily Californian Publishers Board yesterday declared the Daily Californian “in recent articles…has failed to meet accepted standards of journalistic ethics.”

Discussed at a Board meeting where the recent series on minorities run in the paper and articles concerning the Dec. 2 celebration of the Free Speech Movement. A motion passed by the Board reads: “The Daily Californian has failed to meet accepted standards of journalistic ethics, has allowed its use for publication of anonymous allegations which are damaging to the reputation of groups and individuals, and has failed to exercise the discretionary responsibility of a community journal of communication. Therefore the Board will move to study the possibility of offering professional journalistic advice for The Daily Californian and to make closer the relationship of the Board to the (Daily Californian) Senior Editorial Board in order to ensure a more consistently higher standard of journalistic practice.”

Editor Peggy Krause spoke for the Daily Californian Senior Editorial Board saying: “We do not consider the article irresponsible, but an unfortunate product of the normal newsroom rush. We are always aware of the desirability of lengthy and careful consideration of the content of news articles. The solution decided upon by Publishers Board was constructive. We too have been considering hiring a professional journalist for some time, to help us train staff members and give us day-to-day advice. We understand Publishers Board in no way intended this advisor to have the power to censor the news,” she added.

The Daily Californian Publishers Board, [is] composed of six student representatives, the ASUC President, two University administrators, two faculty members, one member of the journalism department, and two professional journalists (all voting members) and the Daily Californian Business Manager and Editor, and the ASUC Director of Publications.


Letters to the Editor

November 30, 1965

Presumably I was not the only one to anticipate with interest your series on minorities, especially so because I hoped for an intelligent and, where possible, objective treatment of social controversy in the context of University life.

Very much to my surprise I found the attention and the camera of at least one of your staff members focused on University bathrooms. One should think it would be possible for a college newspaper to attempt the treatment of a controversial matter in its entirety and not by its excesses. Some common sense tells me that one would expect a population explosion in Cal bathrooms if only a small fraction of the number of homosexuals quoted in yesterday’s (Nov. 29) patronized the facilities as described.

It should be of interest to know how many outsiders are involved in activities described as reflecting the behavior of a minority group of students.

This is not to question the inordinately large number of students quoted as involved in the problem. It is to question the purpose in presenting the most sensational and least desirable aspects of a minority group — aspects, one might suspect, that are rejected even by many members in that group itself…

Christian Holinka, Graduate


December 2, 1965

My congratulations to the ASUC Senate for discussing the recent articles on homosexuality in the Daily Californian. I feel that they could have gone a step further and condemned the writing of the articles. While I do not believe in censorship of speech or writing, I feel that there is a point of ethical journalism and good writing practices and that Mr. Berlandt has gone beyond this point.

A newspaper with the readership of the Daily Cal owes the students, faculty, and members of the Berkeley community responsible reporting.

As far as I am concerned, such explicit descriptions of homosexuality belong back in the Kinsey report or in cheap novels but not on the front page (or any page) of a responsible campus newspaper. Granted, homosexuality is a problem in any community and there is no reason for it to be ignored. However, it is possible to tastefully approach the subject. And Mr. Berlandt, I am afraid, appealed more to sensationalism than to the tastes of his readers. Frankly, these articles were sickening and I hope that in the future Mr. Berlandt, and other Daily Cal reporters, will consider the sensibilities of their readers.

Leslie Lafayette
Senior, political science


December 2, 1965
"Apology Owed"

The ASUC Senate Committee owes the Public an apology for its offensive attack on responsible journalism. During a time when responsible journalism either withholds information from the public, or does not supply an adequate source from which the information originated, the Senate’s criticism of the November 30, 1965 article concerning Campus Homosexuality, jeopardized the Public’s right to be informed.

Responsible journalists must be more concerned with reporting the social conditions that exist rather than concerning themselves with the social groups which the conditions may offend.

A social condition was discovered. The campus police took steps to control a social activity. It was therefore the responsibility of the Campus Press to inform the Public of the condition and the possible areas of its activity. It is a general practice of journalists to interview individuals close to a representative amount of information. They should then clearly identify the source and write an unbiased report without doctoring the conditions or its communicative language. Precisely what Konstantin Berlandt accomplished.

C. Ray Moore


December 3, 1965
"Cheap Journalism"

I don’t think many people would argue with me if I said that Cal is a liberal campus and that the Daily Cal is run by some of our more liberal, vocal students. Today liberals seem to be screaming for responsible action on the part of those who are in positions where the responsibilities are great. It seems ironical that Daily Cal printed a series of articles on homosexuality in the manner that they did. To me, this cheap style of journalism neither approached the problem truthfully and logically nor did it help the image of the University. This irresponsible act of running such an article, in the manner it was, can only bring more public scorn and furor.

The general public thinks that we are all a bunch of commies. Do you (members of the Daily Cal) want them to start thinking that we are all gay too? What are you trying to do to yourselves and your fellow students anyway? Why did you print such a series filled with lies, half truths, and misleading statements? I suggest that a more academic and responsible approach to campus problems be followed in the future — namely, getting the facts straight and then writing the “news” in such a manner and style so as to better the situation and enhance Cal’s sagging image, rather than tearing it down.

P.S. Of course this particular series of articles does stir up needless controversy and brings a large stream of controversial letters to the Ice Box. I really don’t see any merit to this type of journalism either.

Charles Watson
Sr (Senior) Bus. Admin.


December 6, 1965

Congratulations to the ASUC Senate for its cautious approach to censuring (or censoring) the Daily Californian. As the University thrives best when free of direct interference from the state legislature, so a newspaper — also promoting the ends of free inquiry and expression — thrives best when free of direct interference from the student legislature.

One may argue that the Daily Californian can be “irresponsible” because subscriptions are [not] required, and its finances and circulation are guaranteed by the ASUC. There are two ways to prevent possible “irresponsibility”; stifling legislative control, which nobody wants, or complete financial independence for both the newspaper and the student body. If the newspaper could control its own financing and if the students could choose whether to subscribe, the paper would feel a healthy normal and democratic pressure for responsibility.

Allan A. Metcalf
Grad., English


December 6, 1965
"Right to Publish"

Page Van Loben Sels used the word “filth” in connection with the D.C. homosexual articles.

1. Because the subject is considered filth does not mean that the article is filth, much less that the article should not be printed. Theoretically newspapers to report, not necessarily beauty. [sic] 2. Is the subject filth? The homosexual is treated horribly; I dream that news can lead to understanding. It is the right of newspapers to publish the important and controversial news (along with the rest); I would like to see the newspapers assume the duty of stimulating controversy.

It is your right to publish these articles: and congratulations for doing it.

Mike Smedberg
Soph(omore), L&S


[Excerpt from Opinion Column, “A Reliable Source”]

December 6, 1965
"Soleful Paines"

By Glenn Becker.

…FINISH THE JOB: despite loud cries of protest from the ASUC Senate and our sponsors, the Publishers Board, Konstantin Berlandt’s series on homosexuals on campus received many well-deserved plaudits. While he might have deleted a certain quote in the second article, the series was a good effort at a difficult subject.

It left a few questions unanswered, however. First, I have been told that the locks have been removed from the doors in the women’s restrooms in Barrows Hall. Was this the work of the Campus Police? Whoever did it — why? Secondly, does the Administration realize that by removing every other door they have effectively halved the number of useable stalls in the library men’s rooms?

Might it not be better to restore our doors and the women’s locks and set aside a few special restrooms for minorities? They could be especially equipped with drills and the like…well, it’s something to think about.


December 7, 1965
"Fright or Ignorance?"

The Daily Cal under the byline of Konstantin Berlandt, has featured a series of articles concerning homosexuals. Many students and other members of the campus community have become openly upset because these articles have touched on a subject that most people do not discuss. WHY DO PEOPLE NOT DISCUSS HOMOSEXUALS? Is it because they are so aware of the subject that the subject frightens them or is it because, instead, they are so ignorant of the subject that they are actually afraid to learn of it?

I feel that the staff of the Daily Cal should be complimented, instead of chastised, for bringing this delicate subject to light. I agree with the critics of the series that, in certain places, the manner of presentation could have been improved, without loss to the educational benefits that could be derived from the series if people would read the articles open-mindedly and not with tabooed eyes.

Dave Engel
FSB Chairman, ASUC Cabinet


December 7, 1965
"Daily Cal Fear"

During the last couple of days we have been treated to an example of what the threat of unreasonable censorship can do to the quality of expose-type stories in the Daily Cal.

I had the opportunity to read Mr. Berlandt’s articles on homosexuality at the University before they appeared in the newspaper. I was rather disgusted this morning to see that the heart had been cut out of the fourth of Mr. Berlandt’s articles: what was left was a mangled and worthless article that, I’m sure, offended none.

Apparently higher-ups on the Daily Cal staff emasculated the article due to fear of further outbursts from the Senate or the Publications Board. considered the magnitude of the reaction from these bodies, their decision was probably the safest one in view of the threats directed at the newspaper and the ultimate harm that might be done to campus journalism by the execution of those threats.

Commendations, rather than condemnations are due the Daily Cal and Mr. Berlandt for its attempts this semester to make itself felt as an active force in exposing, shaking up, and in the long-run improving student life on this campus.

Pete Benjaminson
Junior, Poli. Sci.


December 7, 1965
"Logical Conclusion"

The University has recently removed the doors from several bathrooms, presumably in order to stop homosexual activity in these places. As in all administrative decisions, the assumptions which have led the University to these actions are of interest: that doors removed curb or stop homosexual activity. It is unfortunate, however, that the University has not gone far enough in its logic. Consider, for instance, the following.

If homosexuals live in apartments, then clearly the University’s action is not one of preservation, but rather just forces the homosexual to go home. If, on the other hand, the homosexuals live in dorms, then the University action of removing doors to some of the johns is clearly insufficient. For in dormitories, where individuals may remain in darkened rooms all night, the doors remain. Similarly, in fraternities, the doors remain.

It is clear what the University’s next acts must be: the removal of all doors in all dormitories and the suggestion that all fraternities also remove their doors. These actions will be much more effective in stopping homosexual activities.

Of course the removal of all doors in all dorms and frat buildings will only displace the problem onto the community. Homosexuals, deprived of the privacy afforded by doors on campus, will flock to private apartments. Therefore, the University must campaign to remove all doors in the community; surely THAT will solve the problem.

Daniel del Solar
Grad., Sociology


[From opinion column, "Way Out Where"]
December 7, 1965

“Fair Play”
[by] Leymour Samuel Davis

The Daily Cal’s series on minority groups bothered me. They neglected a group, a significant one to my mind. So I decided to research it myself and arranged to meet Tania.

She took me behind the campus to an imposing looking house where she lives with her pals.

“We call in the cloister,” she told me as we went into the drawing room to meet the house mother, a Mrs. Hummingbird.

“Hy ya, Bulldog,” she said as we approached her, flexing. “Who’s the oyster you got with you?”

“A friend,” Tania told her.

“But this is Tuesday.”

“So?” I queried.

“You don’t understand,” she said matter of factly. “Tuesday is Fishbowl night.”


“Oysters aren’t allowed,” she explained. “But you can come by Monday if you like.”

“Monday?” I asked. Naturally I was a bit curious.

“That’s Ring Around the Rosy night.”


“Yeah King,” Tania informed her. “You understand. He just came by to look.”

“Oh, sorry,” she said. “Then why don’t you show him around. But don’t go into the games room. She’s practicing again.”

“Who’s that?” I interrupted.

“The ‘Toaster’,” Tania replied, with a far-off look in her eyes. I began to feel a bit warm.

“Why don’t you take off your coat and look around,” suggested King.

“How many of you live here?” I asked, looking for a place to hang it.

“Fourteen…and a half,” Tania replied. “No!” she yelled. “Don’t hang your coat in there. That’s Carol’s closet. She’s the one who’s not sure.”

I laid it on the chair. “Say,” I managed when King had left the room, “what’s all this about Fishbowl night.”

“Oh, that’s nothing, really. You get a billiard table — we’ve got one in the games room — and you take a baloon [sic], a box of matches, an aerosol can of deodorant, the inflammable kind, a white glove…” It was really quite ingenious. “Actually,” she continued. “Thursday’s much wilder.”


“That’s contact sports night. Of course we all have a natural affinity to that kind of thing. It’s a gas really. The “Mouse” is quarterback. She’s marvelous. Always coming up with a new play and one time…”

“Wait a second,” I interrupted, trying for more objective data. “Do you find it hard to get members.”

“Not really. Being number two, we try harder.”

“Well, what about school,” I asked. “Don’t you find it difficult to get by?”

“We use the quiet rooms.”

“That’s not exactly what I meant,” I said. “Anyway” I went on, “what about discrimination. Do you find it a problem?”

“Hardly” she said curtly. “We’re broad-minded.”


December 8, 1965


A homosexual shouldn’t have to hide.

But social and legal pressure will not allow honesty.

The Daily Californian articles last week stresses there are indeed homosexuals, and many people on this campus looked out of the corners of their eyes at groups of ten or more men and asked themselves, “Which?”

As they consider what they are admitting in that question, they will admit there are a great number of average people who happen to enjoy persons of the same sex for sexual partners, and these average people are included among their friends and relatives.

Stereotyping homosexuals as limp-wristed effeminates who “cruise” restrooms is irrational. Some do; some don’t.

But as one homosexual said in article four, “You never meet a homosexual face to face.”

We received a number of letters from admitted homosexuals on the campus, but none signed their names. They cannot sign their names. They would be admitting to a crime, a felony.

Our society and our law has forced homosexuality underground and fostered dishonesty among friends. The homosexual brother or friend cannot tell truthfully what he did this weekend or about the boy with whom he is in love. It is an additional barrier between friends and an additional limitation upon our world.

Our “enlightened” community has a responsibility to further enlighten itself and society.

We urge that sexual relationships between consenting adults and done in private be taken out of the law. This is not radical — it has been adopted in England, legalizing homosexuality following its suggestion in the Wolfenden Report.

Only then can a homosexual be honest with friends without admitting to a crime.

Yet law is only a reflection of Society’s attitude which can only be changed through enlightenment.

And enlightenment will be extremely difficult as long as our homosexual friends and relatives are silent.

Open discussion before the public is the only solution to the paradox.


[Opinion column, “We Shall Overcome” on the editorial page, next to the “Homosexuals” editorial]
December 8, 1965

“Fairy Tale”
By David Levy

The time has come for all good liberals to rise and denounce the Daily Cal for its performance in the now famous article on campus homosexuality. The time has also passed. The campus liberals, hypnotized by the claim to freedom of the press, are unable to perform their duty. Nonetheless the action of the Daily Cal must be opposed even if a conservative must take the burden on himself.

Specifically in the offending article Mr. Berlandt reported that his informant from the underground revealed that one of his friends was hired by a fraternity for abnormal sexual purposes.

Consider the facts. Mr. Berlandt utilized an unidentified informer to describe an [sic] heinous act of which he had no direct knowledge. Furthermore, Mr. Berlandt did not name the fraternity which was alleged to be involved. The consequences are obvious: all fraternities’ reputations will suffer, their chance of survival on [sic] this hostile community will probably be greatly hurt, and possibly they will feel the lash of financial retaliation. And all this because Mr. Berlandt decided that it would be terribly interesting to print a second hand allegation against a nameless party.

The solution is obvious: all good liberals have been advocating such action to counteract the evils of McCarthy and HCUA (House Committee on UnAmerican Activities). Name the informants and name the specific fraternity involved. If Mr. Berlandt’s informants are correct then he will have done a service to the campus community. Individuals will now know what kind of fraternity they are pledging. On the other hand if Mr. Berlandt’s informant was slightly shading the truth (mind you I am not suggesting that such a horrible thing would happen in the pages of the Daily Cal) then the innocent part would be left with obvious remedial measures. I imagine a libel judgment would help ease the pain of the social stigma.

The problem, of course, is that the Daily Cal has seen fit to charge this action against a most unpopular group. The fraternity system is not highly regarded by the campus guardians of freedom; indeed, aside from conservatives per se I cannot think of a more unpopular group.

In spite, or according to liberal tenets, because of this, these guardians should be most alert to protecting the rights of those with whom they disagree. Perhaps their consciences are eased by the remembrances of great freedom actions in the past such as the sponsoring of Captain Forbes of the Nazi Party. Captain Forbes and such cretins present no threat. The fraternity system does.

I politely suggest that Mr. Berlandt either name his informants and the specific fraternity or help found a J. McCarthy fan club. I also suggest until such time comes the campus liberals get off their copies of On Liberty and help a persecuted minority.


December 8, 1965

(Editor’s note: The Daily Californian has received several letters in response to the articles on homosexuality from persons who asked to remain anonymous. Excerpts from these letters follow.)

The Daily Californian has issued an apology to the “sports world” and the fraternity system. As yet, however, no apology has been made to the group which the first article was supposedly about: the campus homosexuals.

We are in no position to speak out against this article which I’m sure the vast majority of homosexuals must have found humiliating. To associate homosexuals strictly with campus restrooms did not exactly uplift our pride and only served to reinforce the widespread misunderstanding of homosexuality….

If you lack information on homosexuality on the campus, which is undoubtedly the case, it would be best not to write anything than produce this kind of trash.

Am I being unreasonable in asking that the homosexuals on this campus be given an apology?….


…The informant and writer seem to have forgotten that homosexuals are a proscribed group. We have been one of societies scapegoats as long as history records. It is not the average homosexual, then, who wishes to flaunt societies mores or indeed, in any way, expose himself or herself to the ‘self rightousness’ [sic] of the dominant moral system. That there are many homosexuals at this campus I will not deny, but what are the comparative statistics? What is the import of the data? That there is a gay society cannot be denied, but to what extent does that society mix, wish to mix or is cable of mixing with the dominant social system?

I have become tired of these expose’s which lack any deliberate study, which seek to shock rather than inform, which ignore taste and project the uncommon as the every day.


As an active member of homosexual circles, I wish to indicate that the enormous majority of such persons do not frequent the depraved places which you seem to have associated with such activities. On the contrary, a decent and constructive concept of life is nourished by most.

Hence the dangers to equate the vileness of the actions of the maniacs (such behavior is found in a similar fashion among the heterosexuals) with the purposiveness [sic] and the constancy of life found to be preponderant among the majority.


The two articles on the campus homosexual minority are very unfair. A series of articles on minorities pre-supposes a certain degree of understanding and feeling; certainly this most subterranean and hounded of minorities is entitled to a more thorough consideration than you have given it. What you have published is merely a titillating survey of the more extreme elements of the minority, outlined in the most lurid manner possible, short of vulgarity.

I came to Cal to study (1) because of the superiority of my department here and (2) because I knew of and sympathized with the Bay Area “pressure” groups (your term not mine). Generally, San Francisco and the Bay Area seemed much the place to be for one who, like myself, wished to live as a homosexual, relatively free from pressure and anxiety. Such organizations as SIR (Society for Individual Rights) are real footholds in our fight for rational, enlightened treatment by our heterosexual peers.

What the older generation must come to realize is that attitudes are changing, thank God… Your report mentions that many students know what is going on but don’t bother reporting it. They, like many others I know, are of the mind that what two consenting adults do (horizontal or erect) sexually is entirely their own and not the police business. If such an enlightened opinion eventually becomes the basis for humane legislation, perhaps the necessity for glory holes will wane…

In hopes that one day I can sign my name to these very important thoughts of mine, you understand that I am forced to say simply -- A graduate student.


…I am a Lesbian. I am also a senior at Cal, a woman, a liberal, and most important of all: a human being. I do not consider myself sick. I am not mannish, queer, or insane. Besides studying for a profession at Cal, I work here. My associates at work and my fellow students are not aware of my sexual preference: they regard me highly. I sometimes wonder to what extent their attitude towards me would change if they knew of my deviancy. I have a hunch that I would regret finding out.

I have homosexual friends here. Curiously enough I know few Lesbians at Cal and many male homosexuals. There are many people whom I am almost certain are homosexual but since I cannot be sure, I can’t approach them and thereby reveal myself.

The problem really is not finding someone to talk to — the problem is finding someone to talk to freely. One gets tired of living a life of pretense. Instead of saying to a fellow who asks for a date “I can’t make it,” or “my boyfriend and I have already made arrangements for tonight” thereby inhibiting a further relationship, I would welcome the freedom to answer honestly “I like you as a person, but have no sexual interest in you. If you can share my feelings I would like a friendship to develop between us.”

Our intent is not to recruit people. There are enough of us around socially that we have no reason to make an active effort to increase our number. (This truth is quite contrary to the erroneous sensationalism attached to the “lustful” homosexual who is envisioned “licking his chops” while preying upon his next innocent victim…)

Nor is it to arouse the phoney sympathy afforded Negroes now that they are “in.”

We simply challenge the hypocritical attitude of so-called liberals who cry “Freedom for all” and really mean “Freedom for whatever group I happen to belong to.”

It is time for advocates of liberal thinking to redefine their goals. In restricting the goal of freedom to particular groups are they not negating their very position?


[From the editorial column]

December 9, 1965

Contrary to yesterday’s editorial, homosexual acts have not been legalized in England. The latest attempt to repeal section 13 of the Sexual Offences Act of 1956 was made in May when the House of Lords voted for the repeal but the House of Commons voted not to vote on the issue.

The Daily Californian received misinformation from a legal advisor.


[Letter to the Editor]

December 9, 1965

Your embryonic series on homosexual “minority groups” reflects a virtuosity hitherto claimed solely by the tawdry tabloids which comprise the reading matter [of] semi-literate New Yorkers.

The articles proved neither enlightening (save such imported jargon as “glory hole”) nor entertaining. The statistics (e.g. figures derived from “Kinsey” national averages) were badly misleading and, while I am not affiliated with a fraternity, it seemed grossly malicious to impute to an unspecified fraternity devious homosexual activities.

May we look forward to an installment dealing with the sex life of those congeries of pederasts who doubtless may be found on campus, or will you raise your eyes from our collective groin and inform us in the tradition of intellectual journalism to which we would like to become accustomed.

Peter Bauby
Senior, Speech

Links on This Page


Document Path

[ Main Page | Dates | Places | People and Events ]


Copyright 2002 Regents of the University of California. Email: