APA Cozies up to the DOD, Again

In my August 2018 post-convention blog, I spoke too soon. Indeed, APA’s Council of Representatives, heeding the advice of several national and international human rights organizations, did its best to save APA from itself, but APA refused to be saved. Instead, APA leadership, in defiance of APA’s published governance structure, wrote to a representative of the Department of Defense, saying that the Council vote prohibiting military psychologists from treating detainees at GITMO--a vote that upheld earlier Council decisions and also upheld the results of a referendum passed by members--was merely “aspirational.” Really? Here is a quote from the letter, reaffirming a statement attributed to a former APA president: “…APA Council resolutions are aspirational statements, and are not enforceable…” (If you want to see the entire letter, it is now on APA's website at https://www.apa.org/news/press/statements/interrogations.aspx.)

Some APA members may be stunned by this. Perhaps you thought that, when you voted for a Council representative, your vote actually affected policy. That if Council voted on a resolution, the vote mattered. You might also have thought of APA as an organization with fundamentally humanitarian values. If so, you may want to take a deeper dive into understanding the ways in which APA has collaborated with and enabled the US defense and security agencies over decades. This represents a kind of quid pro quo, where the military and security agencies give lots of jobs and money to psychologists, and APA winks, nods, and ignores its ethical duty to fulfill its mission “to benefit society and improve peoples’ lives.” Instead, it benefits the war machine and those who profit from it.

In its most recent bow to the Department of Defense, APA’s letter implies that nothing much would happen if military psychologists were to return to Guantanamo and provide treatment to detainees. It appears to be telling the DOD not to let the governing body of the organization stand in its way. If the DOD wants active duty military psychologists in Guantanamo treating detainees, the letter implies, don’t worry about a Council vote. APA won’t enforce it.

This idea that psychotherapy can be effectively provided to torture survivors by employees of the torturer defies common sense. Add to that, those employees are bound to obey, face staggering difficulties in any effort to keep their work confidential, and, when in uniform, wear the same uniforms as the torturers. The letter sent on behalf of APA does not even require the DOD to be sure that those providing so-called therapy are not the very same people who consulted with the torturers.

In a related matter, APA has recently decided to pretty much go out of the ethics enforcement business altogether. (Perhaps this contributes to making Council decisions unenforceable.) As a recent pronouncement indicates, in most cases, APA no longer enforces its own ethical principles or standards. That is left to others.

I have written to the APA president, asking about this letter. So far, no response. That might be surprising to some readers since I am president of one of the divisions of APA. I think of myself as part of the loyal opposition. I am still a member. Today.

Addendum October 17, 2018. I received an email from the APA president yesterday, including an apology for the delay of 13 days in responding to my initial email. The email explains what seems to me to be an idiosyncratic use of the word "aspirational" in the September 21 letter--a use that I believe could easily be misunderstood by an APA member or a DOD official, and explain the letter further. After I have time to fully understand this email, I will add more to this blog.