APA Resignations

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
neothanos said:
"The heightened, unceasing conflict since the October 7, 2023, including attacks by Hamas inside Israel, threatens the human rights, life, liberty, physical and psychological health, and well-being of civilians in the Middle East." It's just a poorly constructed sentence. I've edited it to make what I perceive to be their intent clearer.

"Further, military actions have disrupted access to resources needed to fulfill basic needs and destroyed critical infrastructure, including medical facilities, educational institutions, and cultural centers"

That is directed at Israel. Hamas doesn't really have a military nor are they capable of directly affecting infrastructure in Israel.

"The immediate and long-term harms from military conflict disproportionately impact vulnerable populations, such as children (Akbulut-Yuksel, 2014; APA, 2021b; APA, 2023b; Çelik, & Özpınar, 2017; Werner, 2012), women (Plümper & Neumayer, 2006), refugees (Melese et al., 2024), older adults (Kimhi et al., 2012), people with disabilities (Al-Masri & Serhan, 2024) and people living in impoverished conditions (Goodhand, 2003; Jordans et al., 2016)."

i.e., Palestinians are being hurt.

The immediate deleterious impacts of armed conflict on individuals have also been associated with significant long-term negative psychosocial outcomes that ripple out to families and communities and persist across generations

I.e., The bad things coming later are Israel's fault.

All interspersed with the missive to stop fighting.

What APA fails to appreciate in my opinion is that Palestinians largely support Hamas and would very much like to eliminate Israel's control in the area and Jewish presence. Hence, "From the river to the sea." That is a direct call for genocide. Israel is a small country and the only non-muslim lead state in the region. They are the hated minority. Further, this conflict has roots in the fall of the Ottoman Empire. There have been multiple wars that have resulted in the current configuration, stemming back to the Roman Empire. For APA to wade into this with "Hey guys, stop fighting," is beyond stupid.

It's interesting that they pick this particular conflict. Why not say, Syria, a civil war that has been ongoing since 2011? What about the elimination of non-muslims in Lebanon? Did APA forget that Hamas isn't the only terrorist organization nor country operating in Gaza? Gaza is a launching point via which Lebanon and Iran kill Jews and harass Israel. Most sanctioned human rights violator in the world by the UN today is Israel. Anyone think that's reasonable and not the consequence of antisemitism? People seem overly focused on Israel. One way to decrease violence in the region, if that's the goal, would be to stop giving billions of dollars to Iran.
Click to expand...
Funny how the Palestinians are never mentioned in those fairly complex statements, but attacks BY Hanas sure were. Nothing like equivocation, is there?

Also, did you go talk to the Palestinians in person and they told you "Palestinians largely support Hamas and would very much like to eliminate Israel's control in the area and Jewish presence" ??
 
msc545 said:
Funny how the Palestinians are never mentioned in those fairly complex statements, but attacks BY Hanas sure were. Nothing like equivocation, is there?

Also, did you go talk to the Palestinians in person and they told you "Palestinians largely support Hamas and would very much like to eliminate Israel's control in the area and Jewish presence" ??
Click to expand...

I mean, pollsters in the West Bank have confirmed as much. Even over time, the lowest figure was still a majority of folks there.

"Two-thirds of respondents said they continue to support the Hamas-led Oct. 7 attack on Israel."



Lot of controversy and nuance in the whole situation, but Palestinian support for the attacks has generally always been >50%.
 
Regardless of anyone's personal religious beliefs, it would be really nice if our profession explored the psychological processes that lead to the adoption of religious and tribal beliefs, and created large scale interventions to shift towards logic. So long as those primitive thought processes are the bases of behavior, you're not going to get one group of religious zealots to like another group of religious zealots.
 
PsyDr said:
Regardless of anyone's personal religious beliefs, it would be really nice if our profession explored the psychological processes that lead to the adoption of religious and tribal beliefs, and created large scale interventions to shift towards logic. So long as those primitive thought processes are the bases of behavior, you're not going to get one group of religious zealots to like another group of religious zealots.
Click to expand...
I used to think that way. I'm somewhat ambivalent about that now. I believe Southpark has an episode about this. Go God Go XII Fundamentalism within political parties in the US, independent of explicit religious view, seem to operate in a similar manner.

Religions and political ideologies serve as moral frameworks, common grounds by which societies function. Sometimes they are more overtly mixed than others, eg Sharia. If it's a homogenous society, this generally works fine. Unfortunately, when various frameworks clash and new ones gain traction, it creates conflict. I think part of the problem in the middle east relative to Israel is there appears to be very poor assimilation. To me, some of this is driven by religious fundamentalism. Hard to reason with people who lean back on supernatural claims to justify their positions. I think a big part of Israel's approach to Gaza and the Palestinians was to try to normalize relations with them, do business, build infrastructure, help them socioeconomically. Westernize them. That would be movement to a secularized solution to an eventual two state scenario. Obviously, not all factions within Israel think that way. Certainly not Netanyahu. Long term, it does seem movement away from religious fundamentalism and the mixing of political and religious control in the middle east would be beneficial.
 
PsyDr said:
Regardless of anyone's personal religious beliefs, it would be really nice if our profession explored the psychological processes that lead to the adoption of religious and tribal beliefs, and created large scale interventions to shift towards logic. So long as those primitive thought processes are the bases of behavior, you're not going to get one group of religious zealots to like another group of religious zealots.
Click to expand...
It would probably be helpful if one candidate for president was not basing their entire platform on tribalism and zealotry. 🙂
 
Pragma said:
Yeah, this is stupid. APA has no business commenting on geopolitical affairs. I might rescind my membership despite wanting to support our lobby. But if our lobby isn’t clear, then who cares? Just a bunch of power hungry partisans.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, it's getting harder and harder to find a psychology guild organization that isn't somewhat involved in partisan politicking/advocacy at this point. Seems to be the prevailing trend, much to these organization's detriment.
 
WisNeuro said:
Unfortunately, it's getting harder and harder to find a psychology guild organization that isn't somewhat involved in partisan politicking/advocacy at this point. Seems to be the prevailing trend, much to these organization's detriment.
Click to expand...
Yes. Well, you’re either racist or anti-racist, right? Societal pressures and modern sociopolitical ideology makes it more and more difficult to maintain a neutral stance. And, if you’re group is very heavily skewed one direction in that regard, it may struggle to identify a neutral stance.

This escalated dramatically after 2016 and then much more rapidly after G Floyd. Many people feel obligated to spin political positions as moral imperatives. The reactions to it from the right, or even non far left, are most often clumsy. In our social media dominated discourse, nuance is challenging.

I think apa attempted to be neutral in their statement on Israel/hamas. I don’t think they’re capable of neutrality.
 
Last edited:
neothanos said:
Yes. Well, you’re either racist or anti-racist, right? Societal pressures and modern sociopolitical ideology makes it more and more difficult to maintain a neutral stance. And, if you’re group is very heavily skewed one direction in that regard, it may struggle to identify a neutral stance.

This escalated dramatically after 2016 and then much more rapidly after G Floyd. Many people feel obligated to spin political positions as moral imperatives. The reactions to it from the right, or even non far left, are most often clumsy. In our social media dominated discourse, nuance is challenging.

I think apa attempted to be neutral in their statements on masculinity and Israel/hamas. I don’t think they’re capable of neutrality.
Click to expand...

The men/masculinity document was far less politicized than most made it out to be, and very much within the wheelhouse of psychology, so I could care less about that after reading the document. But yes, they should probably generally stay out of geopolitics, particularly outside of the US.
 
WisNeuro said:
The men/masculinity document was far less politicized than most made it out to be, and very much within the wheelhouse of psychology, so I could care less about that after reading the document. But yes, they should probably generally stay out of geopolitics, particularly outside of the US.
Click to expand...
I edited that out as beyond the scope of this discussion.
 
It’s tough because money=power. I’m disappointed that APA seems to be loosening professional standards (e.g. master’s encroachment) and is comfortable doing so for the almighty buck it gets them by capturing more subscriptions. I respect people that serve as leaders and have barked up that tree myself with the idea that you can make change from within, a mantra commonly summoned. But a corporation takes on a life of its own at some point and that is what we seem to be witnessing - it’s needs come before the needs of those they supposedly serve.
 
Pragma said:
It’s tough because money=power. I’m disappointed that APA seems to be loosening professional standards (e.g. master’s encroachment) and is comfortable doing so for the almighty buck it gets them by capturing more subscriptions. I respect people that serve as leaders and have barked up that tree myself with the idea that you can make change from within, a mantra commonly summoned. But a corporation takes on a life of its own at some point and that is what we seem to be witnessing - it’s needs come before the needs of those they supposedly serve.
Click to expand...
Fair criticism, though I have been to talks by several leaders in PCSAS and one of their criticisms of APA that supposedly motivated them to create PCSAS was that APA wasn't accrediting master's-level programs and basically doing what the APA is starting to do now. They were more explicit that they don't think psychologists should be doing more forms of psychotherapy, especially generalist work, but rather they should be supervising master's-level providers who would be the primary clinicians.
 
psych.meout said:
Fair criticism, though I have been to talks by several leaders in PCSAS and one of their criticisms of APA that supposedly motivated them to create PCSAS was that APA wasn't accrediting master's-level programs and basically doing what the APA is starting to do now. They were more explicit that they don't think psychologists should be doing more forms of psychotherapy, especially generalist work, but rather they should be supervising master's-level providers who would be the primary clinicians.
Click to expand...
They hate school psychology 🙁
 
borne_before said:
They hate school psychology 🙁
Click to expand...
They hate counseling psychology too. When someone in the audience asked what would happen to counseling psychology PhD programs that have just as much scientific orientation and research commitment as the clinical PhD programs they are recruiting for PCSAS, the presenter was at a loss and stammered for a moment before saying that counseling psych programs would figure something out.
 
I am confused by the resistance to apa accrediting masters programs.

Doctoral programs do not produce remotely enough people to be front line MH workers, as one point. I’m also skeptical that 5-7 years is required to do most front line behavioral health work. If apa controls it apa manages scope. If apa doesn’t do it, the market will create it. If someone else controls it they are incentivized to expand that masters scope into areas like assessment.

I sort of get thinking that psych SHOULD be a doc level profession. But that seems to really run against the clear market forces that will just make a thing like cacrep exist, then.

Maybe there’s another reason I’ve not heard articulated well, though.
 
Last edited:
MCParent said:
I am confused by the resistance to apa accrediting masters programs.

Doctoral programs do not produce remotely enough people to be front line MH workers, as one point. I’m also skeptical that 5-7 years is required to do most front line behavioral health work. If apa controls it apa manages scope. If someone else controls it they are incentivized to expand that masters scope into areas like assessment.

I sort of get thinking that psych SHOULD be a doc level profession. But that seems to really run against the clear market forces that will just make a thing like cacrep exist, then.

Maybe there’s another reason I’ve not heard articulated well, though.
Click to expand...
I think there are two main problems/criticisms.

1. The APA is accrediting master's programs, but not doing anything about existing accreditation or licensure, e.g., SW, MHC, MFT. Accrediting master's programs isn't really doing anything about the scope creep in other areas. Those other disciplines are actively attempting encroach on the scope of practice, which makes it a bigger issue in than what these currently unaccredited programs might hypothetically do if the APA doesn't accredit them.

2. What the scope of practice will be for those master's level programs accredited by the APA is unclear. I skimmed the proposal a while back (I think when it was first posted here) and it seemed like the plan would, at the very least, create confusion, if not result in eventual scope of practice creep. I think some skeptics would be more amenable to accrediting these programs if there were clear and firm delineation of scope of practice and some kind of guardrails to prevent or minimize creep.

I agree with many of your points and think that the APA accrediting these programs would help with some of the issues that plague master's level providers, especially the inconsistency of the training models in other disciplines.
 
psych.meout said:
I agree with many of your points and think that the APA accrediting these programs would help with some of the issues that plague master's level providers, especially the inconsistency of the training models in other disciplines.
Click to expand...

One thing that APA could do differently, that was not in that proposal, is build out a similar post-degree supervision structure akin to what we have for internship and postdoc. That would be far better than endowing a student with just enough clinical knowledge to be dangerous and then unleashing them to the world for 'post-degree supervision,' which can range from fine to farce depending on where you live.

And I do worry about further confusion about what exactly a psychologist does given that many, many psychologists are doing front line direct service work either in hospitals, clinics, or private practices.
 
R. Matey said:
One thing that APA could do differently, that was not in that proposal, is build out a similar post-degree supervision structure akin to what we have for internship and postdoc. That would be far better than endowing a student with just enough clinical knowledge to be dangerous and then unleashing them to the world for 'post-degree supervision,' which can range from fine to farce depending on where you live.

And I do worry about further confusion about what exactly a psychologist does given that many, many psychologists are doing front line direct service work either in hospitals, clinics, or private practices.
Click to expand...
Exactly. From what I recall from the framework, it's repeating the same issue that plagues the other midlevel MH disciplines, namely the inconsistency of their post-degree training. This is why the quality of midlevel providers is so variable. You have some great SWs, LMFTs, and LMHCs but others are terrible and then there are many in between those ends of the spectrum and you never really know what you're going to get until you work with them.
 
Agreed. I personally don't have a problem with APA accrediting masters-level providers if done so responsibly. I had a big problem with the ASPPB (I think it was) proposal that came across with a track focused on assessment. I also wasn't a big fan of the title they chose. Standardizing the post-degree training would be something APA could focus on to address issues in other masters-level training pathways.
 
MCParent said:
I am confused by the resistance to apa accrediting masters programs.

Doctoral programs do not produce remotely enough people to be front line MH workers, as one point. I’m also skeptical that 5-7 years is required to do most front line behavioral health work. If apa controls it apa manages scope. If apa doesn’t do it, the market will create it. If someone else controls it they are incentivized to expand that masters scope into areas like assessment.

I sort of get thinking that psych SHOULD be a doc level profession. But that seems to really run against the clear market forces that will just make a thing like cacrep exist, then.

Maybe there’s another reason I’ve not heard articulated well, though.
Click to expand...
I agree that in theory the accreditation could help mitigate some of the scope creep and harness some degree of quality. But at the end of the day, having been in some of those rooms, I don’t see a future where quality is chosen over more financial reach.
 
Pragma said:
I agree that in theory the accreditation could help mitigate some of the scope creep and harness some degree of quality. But at the end of the day, having been in some of those rooms, I don’t see a future where quality is chosen over more financial reach.
Click to expand...
Yes, I was recently wondering if the APA was finally getting around to accrediting masters programs because of the progression of PCSAS. I.e., they're worried about losing even more money as PCSAS students and grads won't be APA members, so they want a new revenue source through master's students and grads.
 
Pragma said:
I agree that in theory the accreditation could help mitigate some of the scope creep and harness some degree of quality. But at the end of the day, having been in some of those rooms, I don’t see a future where quality is chosen over more financial reach.
Click to expand...
Problems with the implementation make sense to me. I think on some lists I saw people say things like “psych is a doctoral profession,” which seemed less well thought out to me.
 
I was an APA member for around 25 years. I paid all my membership dues, practice dues, section dues, and often gave extra $. I quit around 3 years ago. The primary reason was due to their increasing leftist agenda. The second reason was because I failed to see how being a member of APA has ever helped me being a private practice Psychologist. Quit my State Association generally for the same reasons.

Still part of ABPP (to maintain my Board Certification) and NAN. NAN continues to be a great organization.

- Peace
 
psych.meout said:
Yes, I was recently wondering if the APA was finally getting around to accrediting masters programs because of the progression of PCSAS. I.e., they're worried about losing even more money as PCSAS students and grads won't be APA members, so they want a new revenue source through master's students and grads.
Click to expand...

I imagine that this would gain them a much larger following than anything they would lose related to PCSAS. Then again, losing PCSAS is more a hit to vanity then it will be to dollars.
 
Last edited:
Sanman said:
I imagine that this would gain them a much larger following than anything they would lose related to PCSAS. Then again, losing PCSAS is more a hit to vanity then it will be to dollars.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's a weird coincidence that the PCSAS proponents have a lot of complaints about APA that they used to justify leaving for PCSAS but so few of them were dues-paying members. I wonder if there is a connection between these things.....
 
psych.meout said:
Yeah, it's a weird coincidence that the PCSAS proponents have a lot of complaints about APA that they used to justify leaving for PCSAS but so few of them were dues-paying members. I wonder if there is a connection between these things.....
Click to expand...

Honestly, if we were to assess where APA makes it money, I think one would find it comes from undergrad through early career folks along with the professors that teach them. APA does not cater to niches well outside of specific division with their own budgets. Hardcore research and even private practice have other orgs more catered to their specific interests. However, APA is the only org with a chance of having any political clout and affecting national level issues.
 
Sanman said:
Honestly, if we were to assess where APA makes it money, I think one would find it comes from undergrad through early career folks along with the professors that teach them. APA does not cater to niches well outside of specific division with their own budgets. Hardcore research and even private practice have other orgs more catered to their specific interests. However, APA is the only org with a chance of having any political clout and affecting national level issues.
Click to expand...
I'm saying that all these people complaining about APA to the extent that they are leaving for PCSAS were already eschewing membership and the associated financial dues. Why would APA listen to them and their criticisms if they aren't dues-paying members? What material interest does APA have in following the demands of people who aren't members or paying dues and whose demands are against the interests of their actual members (e.g., PsyD programs and their students and grads)?

I.e., you can't make demands of an org you aren't part of and expect them to follow those demands when you are already explicitly refusing to be a member and aren't willing to become a member if they accede to your demands.
 
psych.meout said:
I'm saying that all these people complaining about APA to the extent that they are leaving for PCSAS were already eschewing membership and the associated financial dues. Why would APA listen to them and their criticisms if they aren't dues-paying members? What material interest does APA have in following the demands of people who aren't members or paying dues and whose demands are against the interests of their actual members (e.g., PsyD programs and their students and grads)?

I.e., you can't make demands of an org you aren't part of and expect them to follow those demands when you are already explicitly refusing to be a member and aren't willing to become a member if they accede to your demands.
Click to expand...

I'm not disagreeing with you. My opinion of APA is that a lot of what they say will continue to be true regardless of whether those folks are members. However, splintering into ever smaller groups just assures no one actually cares what you think. The 48 programs in PCSAS probably produce less than 300 graduates annually. Just mental health counseling programs produce more than 8k. Think that this is a better trade off even if they were dues paying members in a game where numbers is the most important issue. It is kind of like Rhode island saying they don't feel seen in a national election.
 
Last edited:
Sanman said:
Honestly, if we were to assess where APA makes it money, I think one would find it comes from undergrad through early career folks along with the professors that teach them. APA does not cater to niches well outside of specific division with their own budgets. Hardcore research and even private practice have other orgs more catered to their specific interests. However, APA is the only org with a chance of having any political clout and affecting national level issues.
Click to expand...
Afaik it’s still true that most of apa’s actual money comes from its real estate holdings in DC.
 
MCParent said:
Afaik it’s still true that most of apa’s actual money comes from its real estate holdings in DC.
Click to expand...

You may be correct. Google AI says $125 million annually. $86 million from publication sales and licensing. $10 million from dues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
APA-endorsed midlevel practitioners
Replies
11
Views
1K
PsyDr
PsyDr
P
  • Question Question
Nicotine and APA
Replies
35
Views
2K
Therapist4Chnge
T
MCParent
APA no longer enforcing diversity criteria for accreditation
Replies
40
Views
5K
WisNeuro
WisNeuro
Action_Potential
PhD/PsyD APA ELT Re-org
Replies
1
Views
517
PsyDr
PsyDr
Neurocaterpillar
VA Neuropsychology Post doc - with APA accreditation on contingency
Replies
12
Views
1K
Neurocaterpillar
Neurocaterpillar
Top