Harvard's Secret Court: The Savage 1920 Purge of Campus Homosexuals

September 29, 2005 9:43 AM

“In 2002… [Harvard student Amit Paley]…came across a restricted archive labeled 'Secret Court Files, 1920.' The mystery he uncovered involved a tragic scandal in which Harvard University secretly put a dozen students on trial for homosexuality and then systematically and persistently tried to ruin their lives. ^[1]

“The pages that file contained, first reported [by Paley] in a[n]…edition of the Harvard Crimson's weekend magazine, describe Harvard's desperate attempts 80 years ago to hide from public view a secret gay subculture on campus.” ^[2]

“The article prompted an apology from University President Lawrence H. Summers to the men and their families; led to a campus-wide discussion about homophobia; and was even cited in Lawrence v. Texas, the historic Supreme Court case that struck down anti-sodomy laws.” ^[3]

Prolific biographer William Wright’s newly-published book, ‘Harvard's Secret Court: The Savage 1920 Purge of Campus Homosexuals' digs deep into the shameful events of the early 20th century at one of the United States' leading universities.
posted by ericb (29 comments total)

Why do people always put a freakin lable on a secret file that says SECRET FILE? If I had a secret file it would be labelled "Pictures of my Colonoscopy". Sheesh.

I'm sorry to start this very serious and interesting thread off with that.
posted by spicynuts at 10:09 AM on September 29, 2005

Wow, I wonder if there's a link between this and Yale's "posture" photos.. (I couldn't find the MeFi link but I swear I read it here.)
posted by kindle at 10:18 AM on September 29, 2005

How freudian of you to label the gay purge file "colonoscopy"!
posted by djfiander at 10:33 AM on September 29, 2005

The whole affair is just too sad for words.
posted by caddis at 10:54 AM on September 29, 2005

Well, at least it was 80 years ago and all those bigots are dead or too old to matter.
posted by cleverusername at 11:04 AM on September 29, 2005

djfiander, of course, spicynut's (or is it spicynuts'?) nick says a lot too : )
posted by Laotic at 11:05 AM on September 29, 2005

great post, ericb!
what is it with this country's obsession and feeling treatened by other people's sexuality?
posted by threehundredandsixty at 11:20 AM on September 29, 2005

From another perspective, can private institutions require any code of conduct or ethical standard for students? Could a private institution require that there be no alcohol or orgies or sex in dorms or even cross dressing or skateboarding on campus?

What if I object, not to the sexuality of those students, but to their extravagantly licentious conduct on school grounds?
posted by ewkpates at 11:28 AM on September 29, 2005

Live and let live is not really accepted. It's more like live the way I do, or at least the way I say I do. Libertarian values are not accepted, and even those who say they are libertarian fail to practice what they preach. I wish people could just leave each other the f*** alone and let them live their lives the way they want to. As long as someone isn't hurting anyone else just let them live their life they way they want, even if it somehow offends you own version of morality.
posted by caddis at 11:29 AM on September 29, 2005

can private institutions require any code of conduct or ethical standard for students?

Yep -- GOD AND COUNTRY -- A college that trains young Christians to be politicians. [New Yorker Magazine | June 27, 2005]
posted by ericb at 11:32 AM on September 29, 2005

See also Bob Jones University, for private institutions having the freedom to require whatever code of conduct they'd like, no matter how dumb.
posted by Drastic at 11:37 AM on September 29, 2005

So much for our "liberal" higher educational system, eh. Nice find ericb.
posted by tkchrist at 11:49 AM on September 29, 2005

what is it with this country's obsession and feeling treatened by other people's sexuality?

Are you seriously saying that, in 1920, gay rights were generally accepted everywhere else? Because I don't think they were.
posted by me & my monkey at 11:49 AM on September 29, 2005

what is it with this country's obsession and feeling treatened by other people's sexuality?

it was these guys
posted by poppo at 11:51 AM on September 29, 2005

Not quite on topic, but here's the MeFi thread kindle was thinking of.
posted by yhbc at 11:53 AM on September 29, 2005

Almost inevitably I guess, I want to find out about the members of 'the Court' and their life histories.

Not for dirt-digging, mind you. Oh, no. Purely because I want to know whether male authority figures back then needed any special prerequisites to be such monstrous fuckwits.

There really is such a bare-floorboards, prayers-and-manners atmosphere surrounding the story, a pervasive bleakness. Thank goodness I arrived on this earth in the late 70s. I certainly would'nt have survived university back in the '20s... *shudder*
posted by paperpete at 12:00 PM on September 29, 2005

Excellent post, ericb. Thanks.

Though it might have benefited a wee bit from "more inside."
posted by languagehat at 12:27 PM on September 29, 2005

Good to know that the august snotty Ivy League isn't above some pretty ugly hateful actions.

And the Yale posture photo link was bizarre. My step-father went to Yale, I'm going to ask him about his "photo-shoot".
posted by fenriq at 12:39 PM on September 29, 2005

Good to know that the august snotty Ivy League isn't above some pretty ugly hateful actions.

Fenriq, you're kidding, right? Harvard had a "Jewish quota" until the late 1950s, I believe, and they were by no means unique.
posted by scratch at 12:58 PM on September 29, 2005

Great post, ericb.
posted by Rothko at 1:29 PM on September 29, 2005

Harvard had a "Jewish quota" until the late 1950s, I believe, and they were by no means unique.

Nope. It looks like one was proposed, but never instituted.
posted by I Love Tacos at 1:41 PM on September 29, 2005

Most interesting.
posted by Specklet at 3:24 PM on September 29, 2005

Nope. It looks like one was proposed, but never instituted.

From your link:

By 1931, because students from urban states were replaced by students from Wyoming and North Dakota who ranked in the top of their high school classes, Harvard's Jewish ranks were cut back to 15% of the student body.

Which was the proposed quota. But if we call it "geographical diversity," it's not the same thing at all!
posted by languagehat at 5:30 PM on September 29, 2005

They did have a quota--many many schools did (and some now have Asian quotas).

I certainly would'nt have survived university back in the '20s... *shudder*
Many of us wouldn't have been allowed in at all.
posted by amberglow at 8:03 PM on September 29, 2005

Languagehat is correct. This is how they kept the Jews out during the same period that they were persecuting these poor boys. To be honest, some of this has not really ever changed.
posted by caddis at 8:07 PM on September 29, 2005

See also: the Johns Committee in Florida (timeline). There's also this page, which seems to be down at the moment.
posted by Tuwa at 9:13 AM on September 30, 2005

Of course such discrimination against people on the grounds of their sexual orientation is nonsense, but at that time, here in the UK at least, homosexual acts were against the law and punishable by fairly serious prison terms.

Now, I also feel that the laws against possession of any drugs for personal use is similarly nonsensical, but I wonder how much support a bunch of Harvard students would get today if they were expelled for attending crack smoking parties?

My guess is that a large bunch of people here would be posting 'serve them right -- they knew what the law was, and they chose not to obey it.'

Either way though, I guess the Harvard administration at that time would feel forced to act much the same way as the administration today would feel if they happened upon a crack smoking ring. Even if they didn't have a personal animosity towards gay students, they'd feel an obligation to protect the other students and the reputation of the school.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 11:43 AM on September 30, 2005

Of course such discrimination against people on the grounds of their sexual orientation is nonsense, but at that time, here in the UK at least, homosexual acts were against the law and punishable by fairly serious prison terms.

Oscar Wilde, for example, was sentenced to two years in prison for "sodomy and gross indecency".
posted by dejah420 at 1:14 PM on September 30, 2005

PeterMcDermott, I'd only agree with you on the gay animosity point to a certain extent, and even then uncertainly. Strikes me that at that time, homosexuality was so closeted that very few people would have known a gay person and therefore felt personal animosity. But there was a widespread general animosity, and I'd say that on balance the reason Harvard set up the secret court was because of that animosity and not for PR reasons. They could have shut it all away, ignored it, and it would have been swept under the carpet just as a lot of things are.
posted by paperpete at 5:41 PM on October 1, 2005