What is the offensive, racially insensitive and inappropriate comment that was made during a CE session at INS by a presenter?

[PsyDWannabe]

Everyone keeps muttering about it, but no one is saying exactly what was said.

This is me entirely being a gossip, because I’m curious.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[PsyDr]

Someone asked a presenter how they would score an item "if the patient said (insert racist comment here)".

Reportedly, the question was apropos of nothing. It sounded like the person just wanted to say something racist (and tank their career).

Ideally, the community would have said the individuals' ability to practice was clearly impaired by racism, and/or cognitive impairment, and reported him to the appropriate licensing board. Instead, the profession decided to act as if they could not handle cognitively impaired people saying F'ed up things.

 

[WisNeuro]

Yeah, there's been a lot of clutching of pearls and projecting this individuals remarks as definitive of the entire field. We even have organizations who had nothing to do with this conference apologizing, for some reason.

 

[PsyDr]

 

[WisNeuro]

Someone asked a presenter how they would score an item "if the patient said (insert racist comment here)".

Reportedly, the question was apropos of nothing. It sounded like the person just wanted to say something racist (and tank their career).

Ideally, the community would have said the individuals' ability to practice was clearly impaired by racism, and/or cognitive impairment, and reported him to the appropriate licensing board. Instead, the profession decided to act as if they could not handle cognitively impaired people saying F'ed up things.

Are they still practicing?

 

[PsyDr]

Are they still practicing?

1) I think Austin powers quit practicing right after dr Phil lost his license.

2) I have no idea who said that ish. Just have friends in low places. I only “go” to INS for a tax write off international vacation. They’re a bunch of academics who worry about things that have no clinical utility.

 

[WisNeuro]

1) I think Austin powers quit practicing right after dr Phil lost his license.

2) I have no idea who said that ish. Just have friends in low places. I only “go” to INS for a tax write off international vacation. They’re a bunch of academics who worry about things that have no clinical utility.

Yeah, INS stopped being useful quite some time ago for me.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Yeah, INS stopped being useful quite some time ago for me.

Is there a neuropsych conference you find better/more useful?

 

[WisNeuro]

Is there a neuropsych conference you find better/more useful?

For practice-related CEs/Workshops and networking, AACN has been my go to, particularly with its forensic offerings of late. NAN has some good content here and there as well.

 

[PsyDWannabe]

Yeah, there's been a lot of clutching of pearls and projecting this individuals remarks as definitive of the entire field. We even have organizations who had nothing to do with this conference apologizing, for some reason.

My curiosity was piqued because the general reaction from my corner of the field was ‘it was an innocent slip up, it was not meant maliciously’. Without knowing what happened or even which group was affected, that felt a bit dismissive/folks not wanting to confront the discomfort of the situation/not wanting to restart the DEI wars.

@PsyDr if you witnessed this statement in person, sounds like you feel this was an intentional statement made to rile folks up? And not an innocent slip up?

 

[PsyDr]

My curiosity was piqued because the general reaction from my corner of the field was ‘it was an innocent slip up, it was not meant maliciously’. Without knowing what happened or even which group was affected, that felt a bit dismissive/folks not wanting to confront the discomfort of the situation/not wanting to restart the DEI wars.

@PsyDr if you witnessed this statement in person, sounds like you feel this was an intentional statement made to rile folks up? And not an innocent slip up?

I did not witness it. Only heard second hand.

To paraphrase the neurologist who asked about alcohol and Mel Gibson’s antisemitic comments, “I can pour a bottle of vodka in a bunch of radishes, and they won’t say stuff about the Jews.”.

Racists gonna racists. As Nixon said, if you can convince the lowest man that he is better than X race, you don’t have to steal from us, he’ll empty his pockets for you.

 

[PsyDWannabe]

I did not witness it. Only heard second hand.

To paraphrase the neurologist who asked about alcohol and Mel Gibson’s antisemitic comments, “I can pour a bottle of vodka in a bunch of radishes, and they won’t say stuff about the Jews.”.

Racists gonna racists. As Nixon said, if you can convince the lowest man that he is better than X race, you don’t have to steal from us, he’ll empty his pockets for you.

Wow. Well put. Not funny at all but I laughed at the radish anecdote, never heard that one before.

 

[PsyDr]

"You can't pour vodka on a turnip and have it say anti-Semitic remarks," says Gary L. Malone, MD, an addiction psychiatrist and the medical director and chief of psychiatry at Baylor All Saints Medical Center in Fort Worth, Texas.

Is Alcohol A Truth Serum?

Doctors Ponder The Effects Of Booze In The Wake Of Mel Gibson's Tirade

www.cbsnews.com

 

[jdawg2017]

Someone asked a presenter how they would score an item "if the patient said (insert racist comment here)".

Reportedly, the question was apropos of nothing. It sounded like the person just wanted to say something racist (and tank their career).

Ideally, the community would have said the individuals' ability to practice was clearly impaired by racism, and/or cognitive impairment, and reported him to the appropriate licensing board. Instead, the profession decided to act as if they could not handle cognitively impaired people saying F'ed up things.

I was at this talk and this is not what happened (not sure if your colleague was there or not). A presenter in the CE panel, not an audience member, told an uncensored, racist anecdote about an examinee’s verbatim response to a test item (it’s from WAIS-IV info, so you can put that together). I don’t know the speaker but don’t believe it reflects his views; the point might have been useful, but it didn’t need to be delivered the way that it was and several folks I know personally were very upset by the comment.

The bigger issue, IMO, is that no co-presenters took time immediately to address that comment, and INS’ initial response was an apology letter (including apologies from the presenter and co-presenters) only to registered attendees of that talk. It was 3 weeks later and at the prompting of a lot of public outcry that they issued a society-wide email that was still quite vague.

I think by not addressing this head on, it’s actually created a lot more issues (e.g., the false info that’s spread ranging from what your colleague told you to the presenter being outright explicitly racist). I frankly have found the responses by outside NP orgs not helpful or solution-focused, although I think we can all be responsible for making meetings like INS, APA, AACN, etc. more welcoming and supportive.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I was at this talk and this is not what happened (not sure if your colleague was there or not). A presenter in the CE panel, not an audience member, told an uncensored, racist anecdote about an examinee’s verbatim response to a test item (it’s from WAIS-IV info, so you can put that together). I don’t know the speaker but don’t believe it reflects his views; the point might have been useful, but it didn’t need to be delivered the way that it was and several folks I know personally were very upset by the comment.

The bigger issue, IMO, is that no co-presenters took time immediately to address that comment, and INS’ initial response was an apology letter (including apologies from the presenter and co-presenters) only to registered attendees of that talk. It was 3 weeks later and at the prompting of a lot of public outcry that they issued a society-wide email that was still quite vague.

I think by not addressing this head on, it’s actually created a lot more issues (e.g., the false info that’s spread ranging from what your colleague told you to the presenter being outright explicitly racist). I frankly have found the responses by outside NP orgs not helpful or solution-focused, although I think we can all be responsible for making meetings like INS, APA, AACN, etc. more welcoming and supportive.

This coincides with what I've heard, although as it's all second- and third-hand (I was not at the talk), I couldn't have vouched for its accuracy.

 

[Freud’sMommy]

I personally know two of the three presenters. It was a panel re: PVTs. The panelists were discussing uncooperative patients. One of the panelists shared an anecdote where his patient used the N-word with regard to a WAIS Information item (the implication being that the patient potentially knew the answer, but refused to answer directly) and asked how would a scenario like that be handled and how it should be scored. He used the hard R verbatim and out loud in his retelling. Actually, one of panelists responded "Well, that's cringe-worthy." Like jdawg said, no one reacted during the presentation otherwise, so anger fomented soon after. IMO, an interesting and relevant anecdote shared at the wrong time and place to capitalize on shock factor. The presenter that shared the anecdote works in private practice and all three have completed struggle sessions.

 

[eeor1006]

I don't think psychologists or most people for that matter, are not good with handling racism in action. We can produce a 20page article debating microaggression vs microassault. While we don't handle them well in reality.

Sue did an experiment where he had his psychology graduate students sit in a room with an actor make all kinds of racist jokes, like Jews and their noses etc. What he got was nervous laughs and super awkward silence. One person actually joined in on the joke. I wonder how that person felt when they was told the real purpose of the study.

 

[Sanman]

I personally know two of the three presenters. It was a panel re: PVTs. The panelists were discussing uncooperative patients. One of the panelists shared an anecdote where his patient used the N-word with regard to a WAIS Information item (the implication being that the patient potentially knew the answer, but refused to answer directly) and asked how would a scenario like that be handled and how it should be scored. He used the hard R verbatim and out loud in his retelling. Actually, one of panelists responded "Well, that's cringe-worthy." Like jdawg said, no one reacted during the presentation otherwise, so anger fomented soon after. IMO, an interesting and relevant anecdote shared at the wrong time and place to capitalize on shock factor. The presenter that shared the anecdote works in private practice and all three have completed struggle sessions.

In am going to infer from this response and the thread that the presenter is a white male. If not, I am surprised at the response.

 

[Sanman]

I don't think psychologists or most people for that matter, are not good with handling racism in action. We can produce a 20page article debating microaggression vs microassault. While we don't handle them well in reality.

Sue did an experiment where he had his psychology graduate students sit in a room with an actor make all kinds of racist jokes, like Jews and their noses etc. What he got was nervous laughs and super awkward silence. One person actually joined in on the joke. I wonder how that person felt when they was told the real purpose of the study.

Because we are still people and reality happens. Even a practiced psychologist can be tired, have a few glasses of wine at lunch, be jetlagged, or generally not at their best during a presentation. The response is just as important as the behavior. Apology emails teach nothing and simply encourage people to not discuss difficult topics in public. While this was a boneheaded move, my guess is that the response was over the top. Why are all three presenters completing "struggle sessions"?

 

[WisNeuro]

Because we are still people and reality happens. Even a practiced psychologist can be tired, have a few glasses of wine at lunch, be jetlagged, or generally not at their best during a presentation. The response is just as important as the behavior. Apology emails teach nothing and simply encourage people to not discuss difficult topics in public. While this was a boneheaded move, my guess is that the response was over the top. Why are all three presenters completing "struggle sessions"?

You're surprised at this? Because the virtue signaling has to be as public and wide reaching as possible.

 

[borne_before]

If I ever have anything like this happen - I think the move is to not apologize or do any struggle sessions. Yuck.

 

[WisNeuro]

If I ever have anything like this happen - I think the move is to not apologize or do any struggle sessions. Yuck.

Well, if you were the one who did it, an apology would be in order. But yes, I don't apologize for others' behaviors in principle.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

First off, just don't do it. I wouldn't want excuses of being tired, "should have used better judgment", etc. There is no Rosanne Barr "the sleep meds made me do it!" There are some things you just don't do, especially as a white male, and using the N-word in any form is one of them. Using a hard R is its own choice, and a bad one.

I'm not saying this to virtue signal, I'm literally just sharing common sense in 2024. There doesn't need to be a big discussion or rehashing. Sending "official statements" and whatnot is the antithesis of common sense because now the Streisand Effect is here, and now we are wasting more time on one person's poor decision at a conference. There were probably people in the audience who agreed silently and they will continue to agree silently, and we have better things to do than have blanket apologies when only ONE apology should be needed, in the moment, and then everyone could move on.

 

[Sanman]

You're surprised at this? Because the virtue signaling has to be as public and wide reaching as possible.

Surprised that it happened? No. Surprised that anyone thinks with is effective in changing behavior? Yes.

 

[WisNeuro]

Surprised that it happened? No. Surprised that anyone thinks with is effective in changing behavior? Yes.

I think the field is currently in a zeitgeist where they would rather be "right" than effective.

 

[Sanman]

I think the field is currently in a zeitgeist where they would rather be "right" than effective.

I'm not sure it is even about being "right" than landing on the proper side of popular opinion. My first thought was what the reaction would have been had the psychologist relaying the story been Black. I don't say this to defend the presenter, but rather how opinion of the same event may change based on the identity of the individual relaying the information. It is not always easy to see the line. Though, I think this guy should have seen the reaction coming. Just don't say it without at least qualifying it as not appropriate first and leaving off the hard R.

 

[AbnormalPsych]

I'm afraid to ask. What is a struggle session? Should I know what this is? Is this a common term?

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

You're surprised at this? Because the virtue signaling has to be as public and wide reaching as possible.

Just gotta post 'A Boy Named Sue' by Johnny Cash. We need more Cash.

 

[ClinicalABA]

Can you conclude that the presenter is a racist due to their comments? No- does not logically follow. You can conclude, however, that they said something very unwise and unacceptable in the context of a professional presentation. I'd argue that it's not unreasonable to expect that a presenter at a conference not use that word in a context where it's not necessary (e.g. where there are other ways to convey that someone else said that word without actually saying that word yiurself). Should the other panelists have experienced any repercussions? Well, we could "musterbate" ad nauseum about that. However- regardless of your take on that- it would seem that if any us are in a public situation where we are professionally associated with someone who uses such a word, it would behoove us to publicly admonish them for such behaviors. We should do this not just to protect ourselves, but also because it may inform/educate the other person that it's not acceptable, as well as convey to any listeners that such use of the term is not acceptable. It really doesn't matter whether or not such language offends you. It obviously offends others and we don't need that in our field. Yes- there may be research that not addressing such behavior is the de facto norm, but should that research guide us to do otherwise?

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Can you conclude that the presenter is a racist due to their comments? No- does not logically follow. You can conclude, however, that they said something very unwise and unacceptable in the context of a professional presentation. I'd argue that it's not unreasonable to expect that a presenter at a conference not use that word in a context where it's not necessary (e.g. where there are other ways to convey that someone else said that word without actually saying that word yiurself). Should the other panelists have experienced any repercussions? Well, we could "musterbate" ad nauseum about that. However- regardless of your take on that- it would seem that if any us are in a public situation where we are professionally associated with someone who uses such a word, it would behoove us to publicly admonish them for such behaviors. We should do this not just to protect ourselves, but also because it may inform/educate the other person that it's not acceptable, as well as convey to any listeners that such use of the term is not acceptable. It really doesn't matter whether or not such language offends you. It obviously offends others and we don't need that in our field. Yes- there may be research that not addressing such behavior is the de facto norm, but should that research guide us to do otherwise?

I think it's all about getting to know one another over time and in detail. People may say things out of hate, out of ignorance, or out of an intent to do harm. People may also say things out of a spirit of trying to inflame debate or bring out a different perspective. People may say the truth out of a sincere spirit of love. People may also just plain make mistakes. I think the antidote to thinking of everything as groups at war with one another is a good faith effort to get to know individuals as individuals and to go from there.

 

[ClinicalABA]

I think it's all about getting to know one another over time and in detail. People may say things out of hate, out of ignorance, or out of an intent to do harm. People may also say things out of a spirit of trying to inflame debate or bring out a different perspective. People may say the truth out of a sincere spirit of love. People may also just plain make mistakes. I think the antidote to thinking of everything as groups at war with one another is a good faith effort to get to know individuals as individuals and to go from there.

I agree to a certain extent. However, even if this guy made a mistake, I have a hard time excusing ignorance in this case. You really just need to know that you don't say that in that context, especially when it's just a easy to tell the antidote saying that someone else said "the n-word." It wouldn't hurt the point he was trying to make, and viewed would expect a professional representing our field in a public context not to use that word in that situation. His career shouldn't be ruined, but he should experience a bit of discomfort as result. It's not an end of the world mistake, but I'd bet that even those of you who don't think saying that word in such a context SHOULD be problematic understand that it IS problematic. It would also now seem that not directly calling out or clearly separating yourself from a fellow panelist in such bad situation is also problematic, whether or not we think it SHOULD be problematic. That's just a word you NEED to know not to say in such a setting.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

I agree to a certain extent. However, even if this guy made a mistake, I have a hard time excusing ignorance in this case. You really just need to know that you don't say that in that context, especially when it's just a easy to tell the antidote saying that someone else said "the n-word." It wouldn't hurt the point he was trying to make, and viewed would expect a professional representing our field in a public context not to use that word in that situation. His career shouldn't be ruined, but he should experience a bit of discomfort as result. It's not an end of the world mistake, but I'd bet that even those of you who don't think saying that word in such a context SHOULD be problematic understand that it IS problematic. It would also now seem that not directly calling out or clearly separating yourself from a fellow panelist in such bad situation is also problematic, whether or not we think it SHOULD be problematic. That's just a word you NEED to know not to say in such a setting.

Of course. Saying such a thing in private (let alone in public) is an 'outlier event.'

 

[Sanman]

Can you conclude that the presenter is a racist due to their comments? No- does not logically follow. You can conclude, however, that they said something very unwise and unacceptable in the context of a professional presentation. I'd argue that it's not unreasonable to expect that a presenter at a conference not use that word in a context where it's not necessary (e.g. where there are other ways to convey that someone else said that word without actually saying that word yiurself). Should the other panelists have experienced any repercussions? Well, we could "musterbate" ad nauseum about that. However- regardless of your take on that- it would seem that if any us are in a public situation where we are professionally associated with someone who uses such a word, it would behoove us to publicly admonish them for such behaviors. We should do this not just to protect ourselves, but also because it may inform/educate the other person that it's not acceptable, as well as convey to any listeners that such use of the term is not acceptable. It really doesn't matter whether or not such language offends you. It obviously offends others and we don't need that in our field. Yes- there may be research that not addressing such behavior is the de facto norm, but should that research guide us to do otherwise?

I think the bolded is a dangerous precedent overall. There many words and ideas that are offensive to others. The expectation that no one is allowed to offend others or make a mistake is the part that concerns me. Progress often requires offending others and tolerance for minority opinions. It is important not to silence those voices as well.


Lenny Bruce

Very NSFW:

 

[PsyDWannabe]

I was at this talk and this is not what happened (not sure if your colleague was there or not). A presenter in the CE panel, not an audience member, told an uncensored, racist anecdote about an examinee’s verbatim response to a test item (it’s from WAIS-IV info, so you can put that together). I don’t know the speaker but don’t believe it reflects his views; the point might have been useful, but it didn’t need to be delivered the way that it was and several folks I know personally were very upset by the comment.

The bigger issue, IMO, is that no co-presenters took time immediately to address that comment, and INS’ initial response was an apology letter (including apologies from the presenter and co-presenters) only to registered attendees of that talk. It was 3 weeks later and at the prompting of a lot of public outcry that they issued a society-wide email that was still quite vague.

I think by not addressing this head on, it’s actually created a lot more issues (e.g., the false info that’s spread ranging from what your colleague told you to the presenter being outright explicitly racist). I frankly have found the responses by outside NP orgs not helpful or solution-focused, although I think we can all be responsible for making meetings like INS, APA, AACN, etc. more welcoming and supportive.

Wow. Thank you so much for the detail!!

 

[PsyDWannabe]

I personally know two of the three presenters. It was a panel re: PVTs. The panelists were discussing uncooperative patients. One of the panelists shared an anecdote where his patient used the N-word with regard to a WAIS Information item (the implication being that the patient potentially knew the answer, but refused to answer directly) and asked how would a scenario like that be handled and how it should be scored. He used the hard R verbatim and out loud in his retelling. Actually, one of panelists responded "Well, that's cringe-worthy." Like jdawg said, no one reacted during the presentation otherwise, so anger fomented soon after. IMO, an interesting and relevant anecdote shared at the wrong time and place to capitalize on shock factor. The presenter that shared the anecdote works in private practice and all three have completed struggle sessions.

I had a feeling it involved the use of the N-word, and I know how much the racists amongst us are always itching to use that word publicly under the guise of… whatever. So those were my suspicions, and it is unfortunate that they were confirmed.

Now is the offending party racist? I don’t know, but there is no reason to use the hard ‘er’ under ANY circumstance, especially in a public forum. I also felt the overall reaction to the incident was vague and dismissive, and trying to brush past it without making a big stink, which I think does/did more harm than good.

Also goes to show that no matter how strongly certain people feel about DEI and effortfully increasing representation, we still don’t know how to have conversations about these kinds of issues amongst ourselves, based on the described reaction of everyone present. I can’t believe that nobody knew what to say in that moment, and instead pretty much said nothing. This is how harmful attitudes are perpetuated - because they are not confronted obviously, immediately, and swiftly.

 

[PsyDWannabe]

Because we are still people and reality happens. Even a practiced psychologist can be tired, have a few glasses of wine at lunch, be jetlagged, or generally not at their best during a presentation. The response is just as important as the behavior. Apology emails teach nothing and simply encourage people to not discuss difficult topics in public. While this was a boneheaded move, my guess is that the response was over the top. Why are all three presenters completing "struggle sessions"?

Context is important always, but this just sounds like you’re bringing up a lot of excuses for why a presumed white male would use the n-word with a hard ER in front of a group of professionals. Jet lag and tired does not cause such an intentionally harmful and possibly racist act. I can excuse a lot of people for a lot of things, but I cannot excuse an adult in America for not knowing the consequences of using the word, no matter how jetlagged they are.

 

[PsyDWannabe]

First off, just don't do it. I wouldn't want excuses of being tired, "should have used better judgment", etc. There is no Rosanne Barr "the sleep meds made me do it!" There are some things you just don't do, especially as a white male, and using the N-word in any form is one of them. Using a hard R is its own choice, and a bad one.

I'm not saying this to virtue signal, I'm literally just sharing common sense in 2024. There doesn't need to be a big discussion or rehashing. Sending "official statements" and whatnot is the antithesis of common sense because now the Streisand Effect is here, and now we are wasting more time on one person's poor decision at a conference. There were probably people in the audience who agreed silently and they will continue to agree silently, and we have better things to do than have blanket apologies when only ONE apology should be needed, in the moment, and then everyone could move on.

Well said. And I think a lot of the casually dismissive attitudes been shown by a lot of people regarding this incident is a microcosm of the casually dismissive attitudes shown on a larger sphere regarding such incidents (which happen in our field and in the general professional realm more often than anyone would like to acknowledge).

I’m not saying every psychologist is running around using the N-word with a hard ER, but I am saying that the attitude that underlies the audacity to make such a statement publicly is a lot more prevalent in our field than a lot of people would like to admit.

If you’re not or have never been in a position to be victimized by such attitudes, please don’t respond gaslighting any sentiments I shared above.

 

[PsyDWannabe]

I'm not sure it is even about being "right" than landing on the proper side of popular opinion. My first thought was what the reaction would have been had the psychologist relaying the story been Black. I don't say this to defend the presenter, but rather how opinion of the same event may change based on the identity of the individual relaying the information. It is not always easy to see the line. Though, I think this guy should have seen the reaction coming. Just don't say it without at least qualifying it as not appropriate first and leaving off the hard R.

But the psychologist relaying the story WASN’T black. You can’t change that detail because it changes everything else. Are we arguing over whether it is more acceptable for Black people to use the N-word than white people to use the N-word? Is that really the issue here? Taking away the n-word from Black people is what’s going to solve the issue that occurred?

Also, the hard ER is simply a detail of the story, it’s not the main issue. There’s no iteration of the full word that would’ve been acceptable.

 

[The kitchen sink]

The amount of mental masturbation and gymnastics in this thread attempting to rationalize and defend this individuals actions is satirical at this point.

The lack of immediate response during the incident itself is indicative of the pervasive internalized racism, bias and bigotry still present in the field. If you do not call it out, you are complicit. It’s not rocket science.

 

[Shiori]

George Carlin spent so much time setting up these jokes because he knew that the context was key to the conversation. The whole point of the broader discussion was to satirize how people were offended by specific words regardless of context. None of the words included racial slurs and spoke about vulgarity and decency. Carlin used the N-word regularly, but he always carefully set up the context. Bill Burr is another comedian who pushes the envelope in similar ways, but his jokes almost always have a set up.

Even Dave Chappelle, when he is not talking about trans folks, and is instead discussing the nuanced relationship with his wife sets up the context and subverts expectations. This is why it got almost no attention other than to point out that it was like "old Dave." A Dave who did created a thought-provoking joke rather than lampshading

They have all received their share of criticism and can smartly points out the hypocrisy while satirizing it.

If we think about the context of this situation, it's hard to get my clear cut than this. If you use a word like that, people will consider whether it was necessary to the point. Some people may feel it's never appropriate, but this is probably going to be a misstep except to people arguing the importance of free speech in all contexts. Just like I don't drop any of the 7 words (or their expanded version in this forum), a professional venue is probably going to punish or censor me for their use, even moreso if I start using racial slurs.

Comedy is my passion.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

George Carlin spent so much time setting up these jokes because he knew that the context was key to the conversation. The whole point of the broader discussion was to satirize how people were offended by specific words regardless of context. None of the words included racial slurs and spoke about vulgarity and decency. Carlin used the N-word regularly, but he always carefully set up the context. Bill Burr is another comedian who pushes the envelope in similar ways, but his jokes almost always have a set up.

Even Dave Chappelle, when he is not talking about trans folks, and is instead discussing the nuanced relationship with his wife sets up the context and subverts expectations. This is why it got almost no attention other than to point out that it was like "old Dave." A Dave who did created a thought-provoking joke rather than lampshading

They have all received their share of criticism and can smartly points out the hypocrisy while satirizing it.

If we think about the context of this situation, it's hard to get my clear cut than this. If you use a word like that, people will consider whether it was necessary to the point. Some people may feel it's never appropriate, but this is probably going to be a misstep except to people arguing the importance of free speech in all contexts. Just like I don't drop any of the 7 words (or their expanded version in this forum), a professional venue is probably going to punish or censor me for their use, even moreso if I start using racial slurs.

Comedy is my passion.

Country roads still need to bring us home, regardless of skin color or party affiliation. In the end, we all love working together, virtue, and hating on politicians :

and, it's cool to see young people creating something (at least musically) beautiful



It is the love of the light--and not the fear of the darkness--that makes human society functional.

 

[PsyDWannabe]

The amount of mental masturbation and gymnastics in this thread attempting to rationalize and defend this individuals actions is satirical at this point.

The lack of immediate response during the incident itself is indicative of the pervasive internalized racism, bias and bigotry still present in the field. If you do not call it out, you are complicit. It’s not rocket science.

That was the attitude I was first met with in the listserves. And that’s why I came over here because I didn’t want to jump to conclusions, I wanted to know exactly what happened for people to be so dismissive and lackadaisical in their attitudes towards the incident. I didn’t even know what group was affected or what word was used, I just know something seriously offensive by any standards took place (no, this is absolutely not an issue of a slippery slope of censorship where the offense is ambiguous in nature, it was clearly offensive with racist undertones), and even pioneering individuals in different organizations were simply content with making excuses about how the statement was innocent and acting like it was just another day at the office.

Shameful that a lot of those making the most excuses for this individual across organizations are the older & more seasoned amongst us. These are individuals who presumably have trained many persons of color. So you can only imagine what kind of environment is fostered when this is the general attitude towards incidents such as this, and how trainees of color are expected to thrive in such an environment compared to their peers who are not on the receiving end of such things. But when trainees of color talk about their experiences, they are immediately gaslighted and accused of politicizing psychology.

Disappointed and appalled by those willing to so freely give all the benefit of the doubt to this individual, but also grateful for the voices that are speaking up.

 

[PsyDWannabe]

The amount of mental masturbation and gymnastics in this thread attempting to rationalize and defend this individuals actions is satirical at this point.

The lack of immediate response during the incident itself is indicative of the pervasive internalized racism, bias and bigotry still present in the field. If you do not call it out, you are complicit. It’s not rocket science.

I just want to re-quote this again without all my blabbing, because I agree with it so hard. Especially the bolded. And those who are acting complicity are fully aware that they are being complicit because they’ve been called out on it several times (and I am not only referencing this forum, I’m talking about the field as a whole). But they will defend their rights to the death to be complicit because they would rather be right than just. I don’t care to speak to whatever personal psychological issues are driving that approach, because I honestly don’t know and it’s irrelevant.

I am expect the usual deflections:

What about (insert group here)? Why are we always only talking about (insert group here)? (Like bigotry is a zero-sum game).

It’s not as big problem in the field as people make it out to be, it is just another attempt to politicize psychology

I grew up white and poor, so we are all suffering the same discrimination. Where’s MY crusade?

There I go blabbing again.

 

[WisNeuro]

I think the bolded is a dangerous precedent overall. There many words and ideas that are offensive to others. The expectation that no one is allowed to offend others or make a mistake is the part that concerns me. Progress often requires offending others and tolerance for minority opinions. It is important not to silence those voices as well.

Jeez, as a white male, you would say that.

 

[ClinicalABA]

I think the bolded is a dangerous precedent overall. There many words and ideas that are offensive to others. The expectation that no one is allowed to offend others or make a mistake is the part that concerns me. Progress often requires offending others and tolerance for minority opinions. It is important not to silence those voices as well.

Let's look at the bolded part: It obviously offends others and we don't need that in our field

The "It" clearly references the specific incident at hand (i.e., the us of the n- word in a professional forum where said use was not necessary). Are you really saying that such behavior is important for the development of our field? I'm guessing not. Now, if the bolded part read "Doing anything potentially offensive to others should not be part of our field" I'd consider some debate on that point. However, the tactic of being offensive in order to educate and challenge others (in our field) to be better professionally is an EXTREMELY difficult one to employ effectively and is probably best avoided by 99+ percent of us. for every person who can pull it off, there's probably thousands that can't.

As to Lenny Bruce clip- do you really think that's an apt comparison- even tangentially- to this guy (or even remotely logically follows what I said in the post you were responding to)? As an aside, I would offer that social conventions and rules change over time and Lenny Bruce's approach might not be as effective, accepted, or even welcome if he was just coming on the scene today. I could post a clip of a Bill Burr routine that is specifically about the use of the n-word (and guilt by association) in which he never says the word. Depending on taste for such things, it's not made any less funny by his not using the word. I couldn't, on the other hand, post anything from last decade or two by Michael Richards!

As to making mistakes- sure, we are all allowed to make mistakes. We are not typically allowed to due so without consequence. This guy made a mistake. Assuming it was not an intentional use of the word for reasons other than supporting the topic at hand, his having to apologize to the membership, feel a bit of shame (or at least discomfort/embarrassment/uncertainty), and perhaps not being invited to be on such panels in the future is hopefully aversive enough to reduce the future probability of such behavior by him and others. I went to my first professional national professional conference in probably 1995-1996, and have probably average one or two (including regionals) a year since then. I never heard anyway say that word in the context of a presentation, including those specifically related to topics of racism. I am an almost 55 year old, white, cisgendered male who grew up in a rural area, and I knew from a very young age not to use that word in a public forum and- a little bit later- learned not to use that word in a private (or at least learned that doing so- in public or private- would likely be seen as evidence of underlying racist belief (validly or not!) but enough other people to cause me some problems. I would expect the same of a speaker at a professional event.

 

[WisNeuro]

I'm afraid to ask. What is a struggle session? Should I know what this is? Is this a common term?

Fairly common, especially if you're into modern history.

Struggle session - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Sanman]

Context is important always, but this just sounds like you’re bringing up a lot of excuses for why a presumed white male would use the n-word with a hard ER in front of a group of professionals. Jet lag and tired does not cause such an intentionally harmful and possibly racist act. I can excuse a lot of people for a lot of things, but I cannot excuse an adult in America for not knowing the consequences of using the word, no matter how jetlagged they are.

I'm not making any excuses. Someone asked why these things happen in 2024 and I pointed out that psychologists are people and not always at their best. You disagree with that point? I hope you never make a mistake or act in an unpopular way then.

 

[Sanman]

But the psychologist relaying the story WASN’T black. You can’t change that detail because it changes everything else. Are we arguing over whether it is more acceptable for Black people to use the N-word than white people to use the N-word? Is that really the issue here? Taking away the n-word from Black people is what’s going to solve the issue that occurred?

Also, the hard ER is simply a detail of the story, it’s not the main issue. There’s no iteration of the full word that would’ve been acceptable.

I have no idea what color the psychologist is. No one has actually explicitly mentioned it in this thread. I inferred it from the general response. The point being that if the response is different if the same story is told by a White, Black, Latin, and Asian individual, then the line may not be as clear to everyone. Again, not the choice I would have made in the situation but we were discussing how this happens.

 

[WisNeuro]

I have no idea what color the psychologist is. No one has actually explicitly mentioned it in this thread. I inferred it from the general response. The point being that if the response is different if the same story is told by a White, Black, Latin, and Asian individual, then the line may not be as clear to everyone. Again, not the choice I would have made in the situation but we were discussing how this happens.

There can be no nuance here, obviously. Especially when we have a language system with arbitrary rules about usage!

 

[eeor1006]

I'm not making any excuses. Someone asked why these things happen in 2024 and I pointed out that psychologists are people and not always at their best. You disagree with that point? I hope you never make a mistake or act in an unpopular way then.

Psychologists are fallible sure. Assuming there is no other issue at play here that caused that person to lose control over things coming out of their mouth, an N-word didn't spawn out of fatigue, jetlag, intoxication, or momentary lapse of judgement. It is a racism word that comes from having racist beliefs.