APA Resignations

[Ollie123]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Per various listservs, there appears to be a large number of people submitting resignations from APA today, including a number of prominent members/fellows. Timed to occur on Oct 7th and based on the statements they put out on the Israel-Palestine conflict that were perceived as biased and antisemitic. Others expressed concern it was simply further evidence of APA focusing on political issues largely unrelated to psychology while ignoring central issues for the field.

Doubt it is widespread enough to really be "felt" in terms of membership fees and whatnot, but just an interesting note to share in light of some of the other posts about APA in recent history.

 

[cara susanna]

Jeez, this is the same issue that also tore apart the DBT listserv.

 

[Sanman]

For the life of me, I can't see the benefit of orgs commenting on political issues. Especially ones related to foreign countries.

 

[WisNeuro]

Out of curiosity, what were the comments?

 

[Ollie123]

Some people even said they would take absolutely no issue with APA making a statement calling for "Support and concern for psychological health and well-being of everyone impacted by this conflict" (or something like that) or something more within their jurisdiction, so-to-speak.

@WisNeuro https://www.apa.org/about/policy/statement-global-ceasefire.pdf

I actually hadn't even seen it til the listservs started firing off, but I left APA years ago over concerns they didn't represent the interests of the scientific community. I'm a scientist first and a psychologist second - frankly AAAS and biomedical societies do vastly more for me than APA.

 

[cara susanna]

Is anyone else puzzling over where they saw anti-Semitism in that statement? I mean, unless you're conflating support for a ceasefire in itself with anti-Semitism.

 

[neothanos]

Left APA a long time ago.

I would prefer they make not statement one way or the other. It is beyond the purview of our professional interests. But, they keep stepping on political piles of manure.

 

[neothanos]

Is anyone else puzzling over where they saw anti-Semitism in that statement? I mean, unless you're conflating support for a ceasefire in itself with anti-Semitism.

They're dictating Israel's political-war strategy in response to an attack that killed proportionally a huge number of Israeli citizens. Hamas took hostages, of which, the disposition of many remain unknown. It is incredibly arrogant and also beyond the scope of expertise of APA to comment on the topic. Iran uses Gaza to wage a proxy war. There is also incursion from Lebanon. This is a complex problem. It's not so much antisemitism in that statement as it is rank stupidity that they would offer it.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Complex problems don't have simple solutions. Given their membership that is ostensibly comprised of doctoral-level mental health experts, you'd think this would be apparent.

Their policy statement appears to be a run-on version of the sentence: "War is BAD...m'kay...BAD... as in B-A-D....umh...BAD...... ....m'kay?"

That appears to be the central thesis/point made in that entire overly-lengthy, obtusely pretentious, self-serving, under-edifying, polysyllabic slogan-riddled hyper-academic circlejerk of a 'policy statement.'

 

[R. Matey]

Is anyone else puzzling over where they saw anti-Semitism in that statement? I mean, unless you're conflating support for a ceasefire in itself with anti-Semitism.

I'm not entirely sure about this, but some of the references from the statement seem to imply that ideology is often responsible for geopolitical conflicts and propose changing ideology as a potential solution, which, if true, could be read as a subtle dig at Zionism.

 

[Ollie123]

Is anyone else puzzling over where they saw anti-Semitism in that statement? I mean, unless you're conflating support for a ceasefire in itself with anti-Semitism.

I also didn't really view it that way, but I'm an outsider in this so am trying to account for that. That said, they talk about "escalating conflict" and reference the Oct 7th attack in passing without condemning it, which seems to leave out some...critical...context for everything that follows. My subjective interpretation is that it clearly "leans" pro-Palestinian, but does so indirectly. Whether that should be labeled anti-Semitism doesn't seem like my call to make.

 

[WisNeuro]

I also didn't really view it that way, but I'm an outsider in this so am trying to account for that. That said, they talk about "escalating conflict" and reference the Oct 7th attack in passing without condemning it, which seems to leave out some...critical...context for everything that follows. My subjective interpretation is that it clearly "leans" pro-Palestinian, but does so indirectly. Whether that should be labeled anti-Semitism doesn't seem like my call to make.

Yeah, I also fail to see anything antisemitic there. Unfortunately, any criticism, or perceived criticism of Israel is a defacto antisemitic statement according to some people.

 

[MCParent]

So pessimistic. I for one am excited for a one pager from APA to bring an end to the conflict.

 

[WisNeuro]

So pessimistic. I for one am excited for a one pager from APA to bring an end to the conflict.

Nah, I'm willing to bet one of those stupid city council resolutions that were so fashionable months ago will eventually do it.

 

[Sanman]

Yeah, I also fail to see anything antisemitic there. Unfortunately, any criticism, or perceived criticism of Israel is a defacto antisemitic statement according to some people.

Again, when even this meaningless of a position on a political issue upsets people (war is bad, please stop), what is the upside to even releasing a statement? This is hours of work for employees, few people read it, and of those few that did some apparently took enough offense to cost APA membership dollars. If I ever run for APA office, my motto will be:

 

[Ollie123]

There are all sorts of issues with this one, but I almost find token statements by organizations worse than silence.

During the peak of the BLM movement, my previous university would send out canned statements following each incident. They came in a series from university-provost-dean-department leadership. You could quite literally set your watch by the interval between them and each was 100% written by some university PR person and not the sender. I always found it completely disingenuous and a way to posture without having to "do" anything, akin to "thoughts and prayers" in response to gun violence. Perhaps others found support in it but to me it came across worse than silence.

 

[MCParent]

Nah, I'm willing to bet one of those stupid city council resolutions that were so fashionable months ago will eventually do it.

I made it a joke, but…. Why was this released? This says ‘war is bad’ without any other stance. It’s almost insulting to distill the ongoing conflict to this one page. I am myself not against making factual statements related to political issues that intersect with psychology things by APA, but this one seems unusual to me.

 

[AbnormalPsych]

I've seen the same. Mostly views that APA is a scientific and professional org and should stop getting into politics, etc, and put their efforts into things that matter to our profession, like services for victims of trauma.

 

[Sanman]

As an aside, I feel like it is also the APA thing ever for a one page statement to have a two page reference list. I honestly feel bad for whoever had to put that list of articles together.

 

[Ollie123]

No, the "most APA thing ever" would be if it was prefaced with a 17 page introduction on the history of the region. Most of which discussed geography and had little to do with the origins of the conflict. Also including an entire page about water access in South America that has absolutely nothing to do with anything, but a reviewer asked them to add it.

Then a results section showing a pool of psychology undergraduates associated the words "war" and "bad" on the IAT.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Again, when even this meaningless of a position on a political issue upsets people (war is bad, please stop), what is the upside to even releasing a statement? This is hours of work for employees, few people read it, and of those few that did some apparently took enough offense to cost APA membership dollars. If I ever run for APA office, my motto will be:

You've got my vote

 

[MCParent]

I’m still thinking about how odd the statement is. There are dozens of conflicts around the world. Why jump in, late, on this one? Is it because of the involvement of the US in one side of the conflict? But that’s not even named in the statement (the reason why, of course, being so obvious that it doesn’t warrant mentioning).

 

[RxPsych]

For the life of me, I can't see the benefit of orgs commenting on political issues. Especially ones related to foreign countries.

Same. Even one of our organized graduate student committees sent out a Chat GPT-inspired email to the student body condemning it, calling for a cease-fire, and for the "international community" and university to work toward a resolution. What is it exactly that you reasonably expect our university to do? And I'm sure the "international community" is trembling at their knees because of your strongly worded letter!

Dang, am I jaded?

 

[PsyDr]

Uhhh, is a coordinated surprise mass event REALLY the best course of action here?

 

[quickpsych]

Hadn't heard of this, read the statement. Hope the door doesn't hit those resigning over this statement too hard on the way out.

It's almost as if human suffering and politics sometimes intersect and should be called out. Granted the APA's statement is like people posting on Facebook to "stop war now" and will have little effect, but would rather see speaking out rather than clutching pearls and saying "ooo it's too political to make a statement supporting the end to violence causing human suffering and psychological distress."

 

[Sanman]

Same. Even one of our organized graduate student committees sent out a Chat GPT-inspired email to the student body condemning it, calling for a cease-fire, and for the "international community" and university to work toward a resolution. What is it exactly that you reasonably expect our university to do? And I'm sure the "international community" is trembling at their knees because of your strongly worded letter!

Dang, am I jaded?

How does the saying go? There are two types of people in the world, those that have been punched in the face and those that haven't...

 

[MCParent]

Same. Even one of our organized graduate student committees sent out a Chat GPT-inspired email to the student body condemning it, calling for a cease-fire, and for the "international community" and university to work toward a resolution. What is it exactly that you reasonably expect our university to do? And I'm sure the "international community" is trembling at their knees because of your strongly worded letter!

Dang, am I jaded?

I think there’s value in programs doing messaging internally about things, even if it’s just to let students know that people in charge don’t see the program as existing in isolation from the world. Better when it is possible for that to be backed by something, eg in Texas I and other faculty went to the state legislature to meet with reps when the anti trans legislation was active there. But it’s not really good to act as though there is power where there isn’t, eg here that the university is going to do some critical thing about it. Feels like posturing.

 

[cara susanna]

I’m still thinking about how odd the statement is. There are dozens of conflicts around the world. Why jump in, late, on this one? Is it because of the involvement of the US in one side of the conflict? But that’s not even named in the statement (the reason why, of course, being so obvious that it doesn’t warrant mentioning).

When I told my husband about this, he also pointed out the AWFUL timing of the release (around the anniversary of Oct 7).

 

[MCParent]

When I told my husband about this, he also pointed out the AWFUL timing of the release (around the anniversary of Oct 7).

Maybe it just took a year for APA to be sure that none of the psychologists who are friends with the APA board of directors has a military consulting contract there.

 

[cara susanna]

Maybe it just took a year for APA to be sure that none of the psychologists who are friends with the APA board of directors has a military consulting contract there.

Lol, sure, but they could have waited a few weeks to release it.

 

[smalltownpsych]

APA getting involved in political stuff again. Stupid. Not much else to say.

 

[futureapppsy2]

I don't think APA should be commenting on this at all (because, really, what is that going to do to help anyone affected? If anything, it'll just piss people off regardless of what they say and no one with a more tangible connection to the Levant or any of its peoples needs more stress or hot takes right now). That said, I'd take a "war is hell, ethnic cleansing is always bad, and killing civilians is always bad" statement any day over a "these are the people who I think should be ethnically cleansed/these are the civilians who I think it's okay to kill" statement any day (I've seen a lot of those from all sides over the past year, sadly). But yeah, agree that there was really no need for the APA to put this out.

 

[DynamicDidactic]

These are a no-win situations. If APA stays silent, folks complain and leave. If APA has a relatively neural statement full of more references than content, folks complain and leave. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

One thing that seems to be consistent is that the APA can’t make everyone happy.

 

[neothanos]

These are a no-win situations. If APA stays silent, folks complain and leave. If APA has a relatively neural statement full of more references than content, folks complain and leave. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

One thing that seems to be consistent is that the APA can’t make everyone happy.

If APA consistently remained neutral and did not wade into political waters without a paddle erratically, people would get used to it. Further, it might influence our fellow professionals to leave politics out of the workplace. Engender professionalism, instead of activism.

 

[psych.meout]

If APA consistently remained neutral and did not wade into political waters without a paddle erratically, people would get used to it. Further, it might influence our fellow professionals to leave politics out of the workplace. Engender professionalism, instead of activism.

What about professional activism, like lobbying to the government and legislators on behalf of the profession and patients?

 

[MCParent]

If APA consistently remained neutral and did not wade into political waters without a paddle erratically, people would get used to it. Further, it might influence our fellow professionals to leave politics out of the workplace. Engender professionalism, instead of activism.

There are lots of politically charged issues about which psychology can and should advocate. Eg banning conversion therapy.

 

[WisNeuro]

There are lots of politically charged issues about which psychology can and should advocate. Eg banning conversion therapy.

Agree, the data here is pretty unequivocal. In areas where we have pretty good empirical consensus about issues that are directly relevant to mental health, we should definitely be involved. We were deeply involved in our state organization at getting this done at the state level with conversion therapy. I do think APA needs to be choosy about what they pick to advocate on, in that it needs to be fairly empirically driven and directly relevant to psychology, which they have strayed from.

 

[Sanman]

What about professional activism, like lobbying to the government and legislators on behalf of the profession and patients?

There are lots of politically charged issues about which psychology can and should advocate. Eg banning conversion therapy.

I don't think anyone has issues with APA holding stances on issues related to science or practice. It is a stretch to call this statement either one. Certainly something like conversion therapy is more relevant to us as a profession.

 

[smalltownpsych]

What about professional activism, like lobbying to the government and legislators on behalf of the profession and patients?

To me that is much different than political activism not related to our field and is where the focus of APA should be and is completely appropriate. Nevertheless, when weighing in on such relevant matters, we still need to provide research and evidence to policy makers and voters more so than opinions. That is my opinion on the best way to promote our field and stay out of needless controversy. It’s not that hard in my practice to stay pretty neutral on political issues. My patients will frequently relate political perspectives and thoughts to me and occasionally ask for comment or thoughts and I don’t provide them. Last week I told a family that I was Switzerland. Intentionally and insistently and necessarily neutral. That was in the context of Jewish family discussing current conflict and there was some split in the family on it. Definitely don’t want to take sides in that case! 😳

 

[MCParent]

I don't think anyone has issues with APA holding stances on issues related to science or practice. It is a stretch to call this statement either one. Certainly something like conversion therapy is more relevant to us as a profession.

Oh, I passed over the “without a paddle empirically” line in @neothanos ’ post. I think we are all on the same page.

 

[WisNeuro]

Oh, I passed over the “without a paddle empirically” line in @neothanos ’ post. I think we are all on the same page.

I think they said erratically as opposed to empirically.

 

[MCParent]

I think they said erratically as opposed to empirically.

This is what happens when I post between sets on leg day.

 

[PsyDr]

Programs create a paternalistic culture, and get adolescent rebellion.

Sixty five year olds tell us about who they trained under.

 

[borne_before]

If APA is going to make a statement - why make such a banal and morally bankrupt one?

Here's my completely non controversial statement to anyone outside of lefty land: Don't start wars and use human shields. Israel has a right to defend itself from groups that repeatedly break ceasefires. The other side lost territory because they lost a war that they started like 70 years ago. Don't go to wars unless you're willing to lose land. If Jewish conolonalizm is bad, then Islamic colonialism is also bad and Islamic colonialism is about one of the most colonalist forces to ever exist. Israel is showing too much restraint and they should completely eliminate any threats to their national security - that includes Iran and Hezbollah. The lefties who are sympathetic to the terrorists are just dumb pawns of Iran. The palestinian people, who I have no beef with, seem to tolerate being human shields and keep allowing their territory to be completely controlled by an Iranian proxy. If they want fewer civilian deaths, they should not allow an Islamic death cult financially funded by Iran to control their governable areas. Academics and leftists who are sympathetic to Hamas and Palestine are communicating that they are pro murdering, abducting, baby killing, and sexually assaulting civilians and that makes them morally bankrupt. Again, Israel didn't start the latest conflict but they have every right to finish it. If anything, a shorter and more intense war is more psychologically protective than a long and drawn out conflict.

 

[WisNeuro]

If APA is going to make a statement - why make such a banal and morally bankrupt one?

Here's my completely non controversial statement to anyone outside of lefty land: Don't start wars and use human shields. Israel has a right to defend itself from groups that repeatedly break ceasefires. The other side lost territory because they lost a war that they started like 70 years ago. Don't go to wars unless you're willing to lose land. If Jewish conolonalizm is bad, then Islamic colonialism is also bad and Islamic colonialism is about one of the most colonalist forces to ever exist. Israel is showing too much restraint and they should completely eliminate any threats to their national security - that includes Iran and Hezbollah. The lefties who are sympathetic to the terrorists are just dumb pawns of Iran. The palestinian people, who I have no beef with, seem to tolerate being human shields and keep allowing their territory to be completely controlled by an Iranian proxy. If they want fewer civilian deaths, they should not allow an Islamic death cult financially funded by Iran to control their governable areas. Academics and leftists who are sympathetic to Hamas and Palestine are communicating that they are pro murdering, abducting, baby killing, and sexually assaulting civilians and that makes them morally bankrupt. Again, Israel didn't start the latest conflict but they have every right to finish it. If anything, a shorter and more intense war is more psychologically protective than a long and drawn out conflict.

I'm not sure condemning APA's partisan political stance, with an even more partisan and strawman building opposing political stance is the best way to say that APA should not make partisan political stances.

 

[WisNeuro]

This is what happens when I post between sets on leg day.

SDN is a gains goblin.

 

[LM02]

Who resigned?

Late last October, conveniently without any context, the outgoing APA president posted what read to me (and several of my personal colleagues) to be a rather anti-semitic statement that called to the surface several tropes against Jewish people; that they are manipulative, selfish, greedy, controlling, and living on stolen land. When she got called out on it, she backtracked and insisted that her statement wasn't about Israel but was instead about "decolonializing stolen African art" - after she had made a visit to a museum earlier that week. APA backed her up. It's my understanding that Jewish staff at APA felt powerless to address the issue, and were dealing with a lot of backchannel communication from members and non-members alike. So I'm not surprised to hear, in the context of this recent statement, that people might have decided to walk out.

 

[neothanos]

What about professional activism, like lobbying to the government and legislators on behalf of the profession and patients?

I see that as a necessary and justifiable role for our representative organizations.

 

[neothanos]

Oh, I passed over the “without a paddle empirically” line in @neothanos ’ post. I think we are all on the same page.

I did say erratically. Empirically works too. I see a difference between making a statement against conversion therapy and what they've done with this conflict. Another example of wading into politics, perhaps unjustifiably, would be APA president condemns Florida’s ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill. Even the URL reveals the political spin of the day, "don't say gay." Or this, Apology to people of color for APA’s role in promoting, perpetuating, and failing to challenge racism, racial discrimination, and human hierarchy in U.S. or, 4 days after the Oct 7 Hamas attacks, APA released a statement calling for a cease fire and deploring Israel's response. Sure, they tried to both sides the situation. Similar to the current version, this isn't an area of expertise for the APA.

 

[neothanos]

Who resigned?

Late last October, conveniently without any context, the outgoing APA president posted what read to me (and several of my personal colleagues) to be a rather anti-semitic statement that called to the surface several tropes against Jewish people; that they are manipulative, selfish, greedy, controlling, and living on stolen land. When she got called out on it, she backtracked and insisted that her statement wasn't about Israel but was instead about "decolonializing stolen African art" - after she had made a visit to a museum earlier that week. APA backed her up. It's my understanding that Jewish staff at APA felt powerless to address the issue, and were dealing with a lot of backchannel communication from members and non-members alike. So I'm not surprised to hear, in the context of this recent statement, that people might have decided to walk out.

Yes. Very much in line with the college protests against Israel and the odd bedfellows some have selected based on apparent intersectional hierarchy logic. Not to mention the daily affirmations. Her twitter feed is embarrassing.