- Joined
- Jan 10, 2012
- Messages
- 2,006
- Reaction score
- 2,644
The line two lines later (for some reason I can’t copy paste from the letter on my phone) seems clear to me that the diversity component of training is downgraded from a measured standard to a flakey value that’s not going to be part of accreditation review.This part of the letter seems to contradict that, though:
"Programs will continue to adhere to accreditation standards specific to professional competency and curriculumin psychology where the educational benefit of diversity is a core tenet. These accreditation standards includethe obligation for accredited programs to engage in offering teaching that indicates respect for andunderstanding of cultural and individual differences to promote the provision of quality psychological servicesto all individuals."
I am confused.
You mean footnote 4 not title ix I think. In fairness APA did push back on footnote 4 once. The, I believe Bush II, administration told them they if they don’t like footnote 4 they don’t need to be empowered to accredit programs.Many of these standards never appeared to be applied in any meaningful way to begin with. APA has had no issues with accrediting programs in schools with anti-LGBT lifestyle agreements or title IX waivers to discriminate, for example.
Maybe but they include specific mention of the curriculum, which seems to indicate that some coursework will still be required. My guess is that they have no clue what they are going to do here and are writing this letter in a vague, unclear, and non-committal way because of that.The line two lines later (for some reason I can’t copy paste from the letter on my phone) seems clear to me that the diversity component of training is downgraded from a measured standard to a flakey value that’s not going to be part of accreditation review.
Hmm, I'm not familiar with footnote 4. https://assets2.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/Title_IX_Exemptions_Report.pdfYou mean footnote 4 not title ix I think. In fairness APA did push back on footnote 4 once. The, I believe Bush II, administration told them they if they don’t like footnote 4 they don’t need to be empowered to accredit programs.
Thanks for that link. You’re right; different but related issue https://www.apa.org/monitor/jan02/exemptionHmm, I'm not familiar with footnote 4. https://assets2.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/Title_IX_Exemptions_Report.pdf
I think in the end it would have been necessary. But it does come after I heard people from APA talk about how they were going to push back on anything like this, back before the election and just after it. And surprise to no one, instead of that they preemptively complied (which people should learn will not save anyone).This unfortunately seems necessary for APA to continue to offer accreditation to federal internship programs. This has been a big topic of discussion at my VA. We are doing all these gymnastics to be able offer didactics on diversity focused topics and I know of other sites that have already pulled all their diversity training even innocuous seeming things like "Addressing MST with Male Veterans."
And if we don't have federal internships I don't think we can offer any graduate training at scale anymore. An overwhelming amount of psychologists get their internship and fellowship training at VA alone and then you have BoP, IHS, DoD, federally funded positions at academic medical centers and rural hospitals.
I hate it but I think APA made the only call they could with this.
This unfortunately seems necessary for APA to continue to offer accreditation to federal internship programs. This has been a big topic of discussion at my VA. We are doing all these gymnastics to be able offer didactics on diversity focused topics and I know of other sites that have already pulled all their diversity training even innocuous seeming things like "Addressing MST with Male Veterans."
And if we don't have federal internships I don't think we can offer any graduate training at scale anymore. An overwhelming amount of psychologists get their internship and fellowship training at VA alone and then you have BoP, IHS, DoD, federally funded positions at academic medical centers and rural hospitals.
I hate it but I think APA made the only call they could with this.
The problem is that when you try to appease these people they just ask for more. Required courses in Christian counseling, which requires hiring someone from Liberty, coming next.I agree. Diversity is important, but it'd also be worse to close all of these programs and limit training opportunities. It's not the programs' fault and this may eventually extend beyond federal training sites (you've seen how universities are getting challenged on DEI as well).
I wish APA had a spine. They don't earn my dues. I did just see the total match number for this cycle and without the BoP and related sites it was 87% matched after both phases versus 94% last year. And that doesn't account for students who pulled their applications. That may have spooked them.I think in the end it would have been necessary. But it does come after I heard people from APA talk about how they were going to push back on anything like this, back before the election and just after it. And surprise to no one, instead of that they preemptively complied (which people should learn will not save anyone).
The problem is that when you try to appease these people they just ask for more. Required courses in Christian counseling, which requires hiring someone from Liberty, coming next.
And that there- to quote the famous fictional dane- is the rub. We can sleep on all this and dream of better days, doing along with things now in the hope that appeasement will put an end to the attacks, or (as did the dane) refuse to put the dagger into our own hearts because what happens if we do is likely more frightening than what happens if we don't. As a cisgendered, white, upper middle class male is easy to say "I'll be ok, just wait it out." But the behavioral professional in me allows me to see that this is just a process of shaping and systematic desensitization. It may have to all be shut down before it can be made anew into a better form. People will definitely suffer, but that suffering is now most likely inevitable, and that suffering will mean less will suffer in the future. Bleak days ahead for all but a select few.The problem is that when you try to appease these people they just ask for more. Required courses in Christian counseling, which requires hiring someone from Liberty, coming next.
I agree, but I'm not sure what APA could do other than send a strongly-worded letter. Also, is this really "in advance"? This programming has already been banned from federal sites.
Anyone with even a cursory understanding of christofascism knows this to be highly accurate.The problem is that when you try to appease these people they just ask for more. Required courses in Christian counseling, which requires hiring someone from Liberty, coming next.
I think it’s clear that their hands will be tied. A statement included in the memo that the change is something other than just rushing to kiss the ring would at least be better. Especially since APA has pledged institutional change since Hoffman that never materialized.Yeah, their hands are somewhat tied. I'm not sure what option they had other than lengthy lawsuit procedures and putting trainees in a sort of limbo state at the moment.
I used to think this too, but some of the smaller town people I've met have really done wonders in shedding some of their homophobic attitudes after exposure to queer friends. Granted, they had to be willing to challenge their own preconceived notions to begin with, which isn't exactly a given.1 ) I think education in diversity is similar to education in ethics:
Information is not going to transform an unethical person into an ethical person. Information is not going to transform a bigot into a normal caring person.
2) Treaty of Tripoli - Wikipedia
3)
![]()
A quote by Lyndon B. Johnson
If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to loo...www.goodreads.com![]()
A Psychiatrist Invited to Yale Spoke of Fantasies of Shooting White People (Published 2021)
The Yale School of Medicine said the tone and content of a lecture by Dr. Aruna Khilanani, who has a private practice in New York, were “antithetical to the values of the school.”www.nytimes.com
I think in the end it would have been necessary. But it does come after I heard people from APA talk about how they were going to push back on anything like this, back before the election and just after it. And surprise to no one, instead of that they preemptively complied (which people should learn will not save anyone).
BoD Letter Re: Recent CoA Decision
Nothing says "solidarity" like going public with the CoA decision without seeking comment from colleagues and then waiting 2 weeks to address it.
There's a petition against this now too. Again, I don't know if people are understanding that if APA doesn't have more flexibility around DEI, federal training sites will lose accreditation.
There's a petition against this now too. Again, I don't know if people are understanding that if APA doesn't have more flexibility around DEI, federal training sites will lose accreditation.
COA is also a federal contractor so may also affect their ability to accredit programs in general. I get the ire given APA's long history of capitulation, but this is a fight they probably cannot win.
I understand that CoA’s decision was unavoidable. My concern is less with the decision itself and more with how the APA chose to communicate throughout this event. Immediate stakeholders—individuals volunteering their time within governance—were informed of CoA’s decision at the same time as the general public. When immediate stakeholders investing in the Association feel betrayed because they were the last group the APA addressed regarding the rationale, implications, and necessity of this decision, trust breaks down. APA members who aren’t involved in governance don’t have a favorable view of the Association to begin with, and this approach to communication (or lack thereof) leaves those who have supported the Association feeling disrespected and disenfranchised. The way this situation was handled further undermines confidence in APA across the board and alienates the individuals who serve as the Association’s ambassadors. Imo, creating fractures within the org doesn't bode well for the next 4 years.
We live in an era where Dr. Oz is the head of CMS, and the head of HHS is a heroin addict who makes his living from suing vaccine manufacturers.… The way this situation was handled further undermines confidence in APA across the board and alienates the individuals who serve as the Association’s ambassadors. Imo, creating fractures within the org doesn't bode well for the next 4 years.
This wasn't capitulation, this is picking battles.
Do we want to take bets on when the APA sees a battle it does want to fight?
I’m hoping the inevitable curriculum change demands spur them onto something.
our profession has a bunch of ties to political issues they fixate on for clout though (the existence of trans people, conversion therapy).Personally, I wish they'd step back from the advocacy piece on societal issues and redouble guild specific issues, especially in the cluster**** we currently have politically.
our profession has a bunch of ties to political issues they fixate on for clout though (the existence of trans people, conversion therapy).
If the criteria is “don’t get the profession in trouble,” then there is no line. They will threaten to remove the APA’s ability to accredit programs.
This specific issue was probably a loss. I would have written the letter to say “we have to comply with this, and here is the decades of research on bias in hiring that it contradicts.”
What did they actually do though? Codes changed, things got worse. Did they make it better or just shepherd us to worse times?Unfortunately, their most pitched battles occur out of the spotlight. I actually do think they've done a good job at advocating and lobbying on the reimbursement/CMS/RVU side of things, all things considered. No one sees this, though. We probably have more info on it in neuro due to Tony P being a key player in this over the years. Personally, I wish they'd step back from the advocacy piece on societal issues and redouble guild specific issues, especially in the cluster**** we currently have politically.
What did they actually do though? Codes changed, things got worse. Did they make it better or just shepherd us to worse times?