“An Indelible Mark”: Gay Purges in Higher Education in the 1940s

Abstract

In June 1948, Wisconsin Superior Court Judge Roy H. Proctor sentenced four University of Wisconsin students to one year probation for “participating in abnormal sexual activities.” The four students were among a group of twelve men on and off campus who had been arrested by city and university police. Their sentence was mild, given that the judge could have put them in prison for up to five years. Judge Proctor warned them that if there was a second offense, they should not expect leniency. “Each and all of you should feel deeply ashamed,” Proctor told them; “your conduct has caused an indelible mark to be placed against you. Certainly you will have to watch your step in the future, not only to avoid becoming second offenders, but to allay all suspicions of your becoming involved again.” Indeed, when one of the young men tried to move on with his life, university administrators made sure that the “indelible mark” followed him.

A retrospective of LGBT issues on US college campuses: 1990–2020

“…For example, in 1920, a ‘secret court’ of five administrators was appointed to investigate charges of homosexual activity among students (Wright, 2005). During the 1940s, at least three public universities expelled students and fired faculty who were, or, were presumed to be, homosexual (Nash and Silverman, 2015). A climate of fear, due to campus administrations covertly searching for ‘homosexual’ faculty, staff, and students, sent queer-spectrum and trans-spectrum people underground.…”

“Gay People Pay Activity Fees Too”: The Committee on Gay Education’s Pioneering Legal Victories at the University of Georgia

“…Across the country and across institutional types, LGBTQ students were expelled with weak evidence and little ability to defend themselves. Institutions put the reason for the expulsion on transcripts, thereby preventing them from transferring elsewhere (e.g., Nash & Silverman, 2015). These expulsions forestalled promising careers and led some students to commit suicide (e.g., Wright, 2005).…”

“…Like LGBTQ student organizations elsewhere (Dilley, 2019), disagreements sometimes arose over the organization's activism and whether it should hew closely to educational activities or promote social ones as well. Similarly, CGE's sponsorship of a member's drag performance as Liza Minelli raised concerns about how the organization's activities might contribute to prevailing stereotypes (e.g., Little, 1974;Mullin, 1974). Those in the LGBTQ rights movement were often divided over the effectiveness of drag to advance their cause, even as drag performers and trans and gender queer people proved to be some of the earliest and strongest activists in the community and on campus (Clawson, 2018;Duberman, 1993).…”

Connectivity, Community, and Kinship as Strategies to Foster Queer and Trans College Student Retention

“…Queer and trans students have always been present and found ways to survive and thrive within higher education organizations, despite evidence that higher education institutions sought to eradicate queer presences on campus both historically (Nash & Silverman, 2015;Wagner, 2019;Wright, 2006) and presently (Associated Press, 2013;Bauer-Wolf, 2018). Although it is certainly the case that private religiously affiliated colleges are more likely to outright expel queer or trans students today (Associated Press, 2013;Bauer-Wolf, 2018), across institutional types, queer and trans students may not be retained by institutions that do not understand nor center their needs.…”