MH boards removing DEI requirements

[WisNeuro]

Texas mental health care council removes ‘diversity’ requirements for therapists

At a Tuesday meeting, a Texas council that oversees mental health care professionals in the state got rid of certain education requirements for practitioners related to cultural diversity training

www.yahoo.com

Looks like the dominoes starting to fall, predictably in super red states first. Personally, I'm not in favor of any mandated CE requirements aside from ethics, or telehealth if you're doing that. Curious to see if/when psychology boards start taking the issue up.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[quickpsych]

Texas mental health care council removes ‘diversity’ requirements for therapists

At a Tuesday meeting, a Texas council that oversees mental health care professionals in the state got rid of certain education requirements for practitioners related to cultural diversity training

www.yahoo.com

Looks like the dominoes starting to fall, predictably in super red states first. Personally, I'm not in favor of any mandated CE requirements aside from ethics, or telehealth if you're doing that. Curious to see if/when psychology boards start taking the issue up.

The psychologist quoted in the article nailed it. We already have enough incompetent midlevels (and some psychologists), this will only further increase that problem. What's next, grad programs getting rid of cultural competency coursework and training?

This is "probably" less about evidence based training and education (and the public good) and more about trying to discredit professionals and experts. I mean RFK Jr is already on that warpath, and the early warning signs were the attack on guys like Fauci years ago. Hopefully I'm wrong.

 

[WisNeuro]

The psychologist quoted in the article nailed it. We already have enough incompetent midlevels (and some psychologists), this will only further increase that problem. What's next, grad programs getting rid of cultural competency coursework and training?

This is "probably" less about evidence based training and education (and the public good) and more about trying to discredit professionals and experts. I mean RFK Jr is already on that warpath, and the early warning signs were the attack on guys like Fauci years ago. Hopefully I'm wrong.

I really don't think this moves the needle much, if at all, when it comes to competency. Given how CEs are provided these days, many providers can simply have a Zoom CE talk on in the background while they do other work and get credit. Those who want, and are invested in certain CEs, can still get that experience. This does not change that.

If anything, this is an area where DEI kind of dug its own grave. I don't know many colleagues who don't have an absurd mandated training story. My favorite was when we were told that our mere physical presence, in the presence of a POC, was an act of violence. Unfortunately, that's only one of a dozen different similar stories I could report about mandated trainings when I was still in a hospital setting.

Now, I am against blanket removal of funding, or the imprecise "check for any buzzwords" and punish that approach of the current administration. We still need to do research about meaningful differences in diagnosis/evaluation and treatment, we just need to do that without all of the pseudoscience and ideology over the data that we've had to deal with.

 

[Sanman]

I really don't think this moves the needle much, if at all, when it comes to competency. Given how CEs are provided these days, many providers can simply have a Zoom CE talk on in the background while they do other work and get credit. Those who want, and are invested in certain CEs, can still get that experience. This does not change that.

If anything, this is an area where DEI kind of dug its own grave. I don't know many colleagues who don't have an absurd mandated training story. My favorite was when we were told that our mere physical presence, in the presence of a POC, was an act of violence. Unfortunately, that's only one of a dozen different similar stories I could report about mandated trainings when I was still in a hospital setting.

Now, I am against blanket removal of funding, or the imprecise "check for any buzzwords" and punish that approach of the current administration. We still need to do research about meaningful differences in diagnosis/evaluation and treatment, we just need to do that without all of the pseudoscience and ideology over the data that we've had to deal with.

That was a misunderstanding. They did not mean white people, just you specifically @WisNeuro. Apparently, your clothes were an affront to those with a fashion sense. 😉

 

[MCParent]

What's next, grad programs getting rid of cultural competency coursework and training?

….yes. That’s exactly what the next planned step is.

And I would not count on APA to do anything but say thank you sir may I have another.

 

[BuckeyeLove]

I’ve noticed a huge push back as of late against Sue’s work and that book everyone has to read. Especially amongst mid levels.

 

[WisNeuro]

It has been disappointing to watch the solid research from DEI get attacked by both sides of the aisle. Critique is necessary, but I feel like a lot of what rises to the surface is in bad faith. I can't imagine this administration will help the situation, and it'll push fringe movements even further. I guess I shouldn't be surprised with the amount of junk science being adopted by institutions that should know better just for the sake of placating grifters and their adherents.

I agree in part, but some of these are self-inflicted wounds. I've seen a lot of citations, wherein someone implies that they are citing a research finding or definitive statement, that links back to an opinion piece, or a qualitative survey of like 12 people. DEI research is far from the only area that does this, but they've been not great about characterizing the strength of certain research areas. Something similar to what Lillienfeld had pointed out. Relatedly, this area has seemed resistant to criticism, empirical or otherwise, generally circling the wagons and throwing the scarlet letter R on anyone who would question findings, for any reason.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

I agree in part, but some of these are self-inflicted wounds. I've seen a lot of citations, wherein someone implies that they are citing a research finding or definitive statement, that links back to an opinion piece, or a qualitative survey of like 12 people. DEI research is far from the only area that does this, but they've been not great about characterizing the strength of certain research areas. Something similar to what Lillienfeld had pointed out. Relatedly, this area has seemed resistant to criticism, empirical or otherwise, generally circling the wagons and throwing the scarlet letter R on anyone who would question findings, for any reason.

True. And I've always maintained that the best way to actually strengthen research in that area is to invite/encourage meaningful methodological and logical critique and debate. Just like in any area, really.

 

[WisNeuro]

True. And I've always maintained that the best way to actually strengthen research in that area is to invite/encourage meaningful methodological and logical critique and debate. Just like in any area, really.

There should be no golden calves in research.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

There should be no golden calves in research.

They all ultimately share the same fate of being melted down and repurposed into jewelry to adorn the proponents of the next theoretical paradigm

 

[WisNeuro]

They all ultimately share the same fate of being melted down and repurposed into jewelry to adorn the proponents of the next theoretical paradigm

EMDR begets brainspotting begets XXX and on and on.

In addition, we should not be withholding data or publications for political reasons, this goes both ways, and especially for tax funded research. Particularly bad optics on that front recently.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

EMDR begets brainspotting begets XXX and on and on.

In addition, we should not be withholding data or publications for political reasons, this goes both ways, and especially for tax funded research. Particularly bad optics on that front recently.

I had a mentor who once said that, for any research question, the 'real' (often hidden) answer is "$$$." And, if it isn't "$$$," it's 'serotonin.'

 

[R. Matey]

And I would not count on APA to do anything but say thank you sir may I have another.

At least it will be interesting to read all of the self-congratulatory formal apologies in American Psychologist 30 years from now.

 

[chicandtoughness]

I’ve noticed a huge push back as of late against Sue’s work and that book everyone has to read. Especially amongst mid levels.

To be fair, midlevels have been quietly seething about that book for ages (and I agree with some of their points- the delivery is not everyone’s cup of tea and some things in there are outdated and opinionated). The current political structure just allows them to say the quiet part out loud now.

 

[WisNeuro]

I mean, we don't have to throw out the baby with the bathwater, but we can also address the limitations and methodological issues of Sue's work. Again, pointing back to some of Lillienfeld's issues. This is the issue with this subfield, that any disagreement or criticism is nefarious. Some definitely is, but much of it is simply par for the course in academia. Our work should, and needs, to be criticized. That is how we advance the work.