| My Protests Against the American Psychological Association |
There has been a lot of discussion recently about whether to withhold dues from the APA in light of the
continuing use of psychologists in Guantanamo Bay and other sites in which 'enemy combatants' are being
held in violation of their international human rights and in conditions that the International Committee of the
Red Cross has called tantamount to torture. Some of us have made the decision to withhold our dues from
the organization. Others have been categorically opposed to withholding dues, arguing that it is better to
stay within the organization and work from there, saying that not paying dues is poor strategy. For some of us
this is not a question of strategy, it is a question of conscience. Which is not to say that sometimes acts of
conscience cannot also be strategic. Be that as it may, let me speak for myself, I simply cannot in good
conscience continue paying dues to an organization whose ethics code supports the use of psychologists in
facilities that do not observe international human rights law. I cannot support an organization whose
spokesmen do not speak for me; (recall Stephen Behnke, APA's director of ethics, telling a reporter from the
N.Y. Times in June 2006 that "helping military interrogators made a valuable contribution because it was part
of an effort to prevent terrorism"). I do not wish to be associated with an organization whose president
publishes columns on the question of psychological ethics that are at best naive and at worst disingenuous;
(see Gerald Koocher's President's columns in the February 2006 and July/August 2006 Psychological Monitor).
I have watched the struggle over the APA's ethics code for several years, hoping that morality would
prevail. Although the APA’s 2007 Resolution against torture was an improvement over the previous year’s
resolution, the Council of Representatives of the APA soundly defeated an amendment that would have
banned the use of psychologists in sites in which detainees are held without due process except as providers
of mental health services. The failure of this amendment ensures that the APA continues its collaboration
with the US government in its practice of imprisoning foreign detainees in facilities that contravene the
Geneva Conventions, making American psychologists vulnerable to charges of unethical conduct and poor
judgment in the international community.
Some psychologists opposed to these practices continue to work actively within the APA to change
the policy. Others are opting to withhold their dues. I do not believe that those of us who are withholding our
dues are in any way questioning or undermining what those who are working within the system are seeking to
accomplish. At best our action can add further impetus to the argument that current policies are offensive
to at least some of the APA membership.
To learn more about these issues go to ethicalapa.com; to join the growing number of psychologists who
are withholding their dues go to withholdapadues.com and follow the link to “join us.”
continuing use of psychologists in Guantanamo Bay and other sites in which 'enemy combatants' are being
held in violation of their international human rights and in conditions that the International Committee of the
Red Cross has called tantamount to torture. Some of us have made the decision to withhold our dues from
the organization. Others have been categorically opposed to withholding dues, arguing that it is better to
stay within the organization and work from there, saying that not paying dues is poor strategy. For some of us
this is not a question of strategy, it is a question of conscience. Which is not to say that sometimes acts of
conscience cannot also be strategic. Be that as it may, let me speak for myself, I simply cannot in good
conscience continue paying dues to an organization whose ethics code supports the use of psychologists in
facilities that do not observe international human rights law. I cannot support an organization whose
spokesmen do not speak for me; (recall Stephen Behnke, APA's director of ethics, telling a reporter from the
N.Y. Times in June 2006 that "helping military interrogators made a valuable contribution because it was part
of an effort to prevent terrorism"). I do not wish to be associated with an organization whose president
publishes columns on the question of psychological ethics that are at best naive and at worst disingenuous;
(see Gerald Koocher's President's columns in the February 2006 and July/August 2006 Psychological Monitor).
I have watched the struggle over the APA's ethics code for several years, hoping that morality would
prevail. Although the APA’s 2007 Resolution against torture was an improvement over the previous year’s
resolution, the Council of Representatives of the APA soundly defeated an amendment that would have
banned the use of psychologists in sites in which detainees are held without due process except as providers
of mental health services. The failure of this amendment ensures that the APA continues its collaboration
with the US government in its practice of imprisoning foreign detainees in facilities that contravene the
Geneva Conventions, making American psychologists vulnerable to charges of unethical conduct and poor
judgment in the international community.
Some psychologists opposed to these practices continue to work actively within the APA to change
the policy. Others are opting to withhold their dues. I do not believe that those of us who are withholding our
dues are in any way questioning or undermining what those who are working within the system are seeking to
accomplish. At best our action can add further impetus to the argument that current policies are offensive
to at least some of the APA membership.
To learn more about these issues go to ethicalapa.com; to join the growing number of psychologists who
are withholding their dues go to withholdapadues.com and follow the link to “join us.”
