GAY ORTHODOXY AND ACADEMIC HERESY

Regent University ^ | Ty Clevenger

[Clint N. Suhks]

GAY ORTHODOXY AND ACADEMIC HERESY
Ty Clevenger

This volume of the Regent University Law Review might well be known as the refugee edition of Volume 12 of the Stanford Law and Policy Review (SLPR). As co-editor of SLPR's symposium on gay rights, I solicited and tentatively accepted the articles by A. Dean Byrd and Stony Olson, George A. Rekers and Mark D. Kilgus, Ben Kaufman, and Judith Reisman, all of which question or criticize various tenets of gay rights orthodoxy. Unfortunately, all these articles were rejected at the last moment by the SLPR editorial board.

The history of this process is perhaps as informative as the articles themselves. In 1999, a left-leaning friend and colleague on SLPR proposed a print symposium on gay rights to the editorial board of SLPR, and he asked that I serve as co-editor. As one of the few visible non-leftists at Stanford, my task was to recruit authors with more traditional viewpoints on gay rights, while he was to recruit authors who support expanded gay rights. The editorial board accepted the proposal, and we were appointed co-editors of the symposium.

In the Fall of 2000, the editorial board, without warning or prior consultation, informed me that it would publish only the pro-gay articles. The stated reason for this decision was that the rejected articles did not meet the academic standards of the journal. I found that explanation suspect, to say the very least.

SLPR has historically published symposia that are a mix of traditional law review articles and commentary outside the traditional law review format.1 One of the articles rejected by the SLPR board was later published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy.2 As co- editor, I had personally declined another article on gay marriage because I wanted to cover other areas of the gay rights debate, and that article likewise appeared in the Harvard journal.3 Moreover, the editor-in-chief described one of the pro-gay articles as the "most poorly written,"4 yet that article was published.5 Finally, Professor Kathleen Sullivan, Dean of Stanford Law School, and Professor Barton H. "Buzz" Thompson, Jr., Vice Dean of Stanford Law School, subsequently reviewed the articles and stated that they were not particularly impressed with the substance of the articles on either side of the issue.6 The deans suggested, and I concurred, that the symposium be delayed until the quality of all the articles could be improved or until new authors could be recruited. The editorial board declined the suggestion and published only the pro-gay articles.

Those who discount the effect of systemic bias and political correctness in academia, such as Professor Mary Coombs of the University of Miami Law School,7 are willfully ignorant, if not dishonest. Coombs argues, somewhat like my former colleagues, that only pro-gay articles are published in academic journals because the other side is so bereft of substance.8 While that notion may suit her own intellectual vanity, it overlooks mounting evidence to the contrary. At a recent meeting of the American Psychological Association (APA), for example, former APA President Robert Perloff denounced the organization as "too politically correct" and beholden to special interests.9 He noted that the organization had tried to prevent research into "conversion therapy" (therapy to change one's sexual orientation) and had tried to label it "unethical" a priori, even when the patient wants conversion therapy.10 The APA blocked presentations from researchers on whether sexual orientation can be changed through counseling and therapy,11 yet it published controversial research suggesting that sex between children and adults may not be harmful and then styled itself a defender of academic freedom (prompting both houses of Congress to take the unusual step of passing a unanimous resolution of condemnation).12 Meanwhile, the American Psychiatric Association [not to be confused with APA, which is American Psychological Association] offered luridly titled presentations on counseling aspiring transsexuals.13 This creates a rather bizarre contrast. On the one hand, "mainstream" academic/professional organizations publish research suggesting adult- child sex may not be harmful, and they endorse supportive therapy for individuals who wish to surgically alter themselves (some would say physically mutilate themselves) from one sex to the other. Yet, they denounce as unethical any healthcare professionals who offer therapy to homosexuals who wish to become heterosexuals. In other words, it is ethical to counsel a man to have his penis removed so he can have sex as a heterosexual woman, but it's unethical to counsel a man to have sex as a heterosexual man even if he wants to have sex as a typical man.

The history of the Rekers and Kilgus article, Studies of Homosexual Parenting: A Critical Review, is a case study in the sort of academic bias that faces non-conforming researchers. Since the article included more social science data and analysis than is typically found in a law journal, I assembled an ad hoc peer review panel of two psychiatrists and one psychologist. I contacted various academics and professionals to find reviewers from different realms of the ideological spectrum who would nonetheless provide a fair review of the article.

Dr. Richard Williams, Professor of Psychology at Brigham Young University, and Dr. Robert Spitzer, Professor of Psychiatry at Columbia University, supported publishing the Rekers article.14 (Interestingly, Dr. Spitzer describes himself even now as a supporter of gay adoption.)15 A third reviewer opposed publication of the article, but not on the basis of flaws in the article itself. Dr. William Byne, a psychiatrist at Mt. Sinai Medical Center, instead criticized the author:

“You must realize that publishing anything by Rekers will give legitimacy to his voice which is prominent among the antigay religionists. One might argue that it is unethical to act in any way to promote the agenda of such a movement that is driven by fear and hatred and almost devoid of compassion.16”

In my correspondence, I asked Dr. Byne for his criticisms of the article, not the author. He referred me to a philosophy professor who ostensibly could guide me on the ethics of rejecting an article based on the alleged reprehensibility of its author rather than the scientific shortcomings of its content:

“[The philosophy professor] would also be a good person to consult regarding the possibility of an editorial decision to reject an article on the basis of authorship rather than content. For example, if Hitler were to submit an unbiased article on the topic of Jewish parenting would you publish it[?] That may be a crude analogy, but it's the end of a long week . . . .17”

Dr. Byne's criticism was, of course, a classic ad hominem argument, i.e., the research and arguments of Dr. Rekers and others whom he cites should be ignored or suppressed because they are "bad" people or have "bad" motives.”

Even Byne concedes that gay activists, specifically gay psychiatrists and psychologists, have likely produced biased research on gay parenting.18 However, that bias exists not only within the research produced by gay activists themselves; instead, the bias is exerted against publication of any research that does not conform to pro-gay orthodoxy. In fact, the most consistent theme among the articles in this volume is that a pervasive bias exists against those who stray from pro-gay orthodoxy. Many libertarians, myself included, debate the role of public morality versus individual liberty, but disputes about sexual mores are no longer the central issue in the gay rights debate. Instead, the greater threat to individual liberties comes from gay activists themselves, many of whom seem to view the slightest deviation from pro-gay orthodoxy as something akin to religious heresy.

The work of Dr. Robert Spitzer, one of the reviewers of the Rekers article, is an example of this phenomenon. Dr. Spitzer is perhaps best known for his role in removing homosexuality from classification as a mental disorder, and he was widely hailed as a hero by the gay rights community thereafter. But in the fall of 2000 he announced preliminary results from research on re-orientation therapy, i.e., therapy to change homosexuals to heterosexuals, wherein he found evidence that change was possible, at least in some cases.19

The reaction was swift and hyperbolic. The communications director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, whose scientific expertise consisted of having worked as a newspaper reporter, intoned that Spitzer's work was "snake oil" and "scientific bunk."20 The Human Rights Campaign accused Spitzer of "anti-gay views, close ties to right-wing political groups and [a] lack of objective data,"21 and a psychologist at the Lesbian and Gay Service Center said "she cannot believe Columbia would allow any of its professors to do anything like this."22 As a Wall Street Journal editorial noted, no one called Spitzer a quack back in 1973 when he spearheaded the effort to de-classify homosexuality as a mental disorder.23 Yet he quickly became a pariah among gay activists when he deviated ever-so-slightly from the party line.

Dr. Spitzer's treatment illustrates the rampant extremism and intolerance among gay rights activists toward those who dare question their orthodoxy. In an interview for this essay, Dr. Spitzer reported that a colleague at Columbia objected that merely conducting the research was "unethical," and that same colleague later formally complained to Columbia's Institutional Review Board that it should not have approved the research.24 Dr. Spitzer has since submitted the article for publication, and he reports that he expects the article to be rejected due to the biases of the journal.25 Fortunately, another journal has already expressed interest in publishing the research.26

As Dr. Spitzer explained, it is very easy for a gay-activist journal staff to torpedo a non-conforming article merely by assigning the article to hostile peer reviewers.27 Similarly, private and government funding agencies, which ostensibly fund research on scientific merit, can be subverted merely by assigning biased reviewers to the funding committees.28 Unlike the voir dire process for selecting jurors, establishment science has no process for vetting the fairness of peer reviewers. In fact, peer reviewers are often anonymous.

Yet, when non-conforming researchers are forced to turn to alternative venues for publication, that fact is held against them insofar as their work is not published in a "mainstream" peer-reviewed journal.29 Frankly, I realize that publication of this essay in the Regent University Law Review will be grounds for criticism because Regent is identified, rightly or wrongly, as part of the "religious right." Any sort of religious affiliation is deemed grounds for grave suspicion, as I can personally attest. During the process of recruiting and interviewing authors, I had to undergo somewhat of a vetting process wherein potential authors or interviewees asked me about my own religious background and beliefs before agreeing to talk with me. While I do not object to this practice altogether, I must note that it only seems to operate in one direction. The objectivity of researchers who are Christian, Mormon, Jewish Orthodox, etc., is open to question, while the fact that a researcher may himself or herself be a homosexual is not considered grounds for suspicion of bias. The "voir dire" process, if you will, targets only one side of the debate.

Dr. Byne, for example, never offered any evidence for lumping Dr. Rekers with "antigay religionists." I can only speculate that it is because Dr. Rekers holds a doctorate in theology in addition to his doctorate in psychology. But Rekers is also a tenured professor of neuropsychiatry at the University of South Carolina and an internationally recognized expert on Gender Identity Disorder. Is it really so much to ask that his paper be evaluated on its merits?

One might ask why, aside from general concerns about corruption of the academy, the legal community should be concerned about such bias in the fields of psychology and psychiatry. The answer can perhaps be found in Brown v. Board of Education, the first Supreme Court case to cite psychological research as a basis for overturning a prior holding of the court.30 Fortunately, courts often see through the veneer of individual experts, some of whom might try, for example, to conceal political and moral opposition to the death penalty in the guise of a professional opinion on the competence or culpability of a defendant.31 In the gay rights arena, however, the issue is not merely the bias of individual practitioners or researchers, but of entire professional organizations and their respective journals.

This phenomenon is not unknown to the legal profession, which has seen the American Bar Association adopt increasingly politicized stands on gun control, abortion, and gay rights, a sore spot for many conservatives and libertarians.32 The question is what additional weight, if any, should be afforded these political opinions merely because the holders of these opinions claim to have relevant expertise. (Not much, according to President George W. Bush, who has ended the ABA's role in vetting judicial nominees, in part because of the ABA's perceived political biases.33) Likewise, when the APA gives its opinion on the "normality" of homosexuality based on its members' notions of morality, what makes that opinion any more "expert" than an American Bar Association opinion on whether abortion should be legal? If opinions are founded purely on the alleged expert's personal morality or subjective beliefs, then a psychiatrist is no more an expert on homosexuality than an Orthodox rabbi or a Baptist preacher.

Nonetheless, the fact remains that courts regularly rely on published social science research, not just individual expert witnesses, and cases concerning gay rights are no exception.34 Accordingly, counsel would be well advised to delve into the biases of peer-reviewed journals and professional organizations rather than taking their claims at face value. The aura of scientific objectivity clearly is long overdue for a challenge, particularly in the fields of psychology and psychiatry. Indeed, the law may, in many respects, be better equipped to insure the accuracy and fairness of social science research than the alleged scientists themselves, particularly in academic fields where political bias has overtaken empirical results. The rules of evidence, for example, allow counsel to examine rigorously a witness­even an expert witness­for evidence of bias, and the adversarial system of justice provides an opportunity for robust debate between competing points of view. Unfortunately, those attributes are increasingly rare in academia or the professional journals, where viewpoint discrimination and "political correctness" are the norm. Perhaps that dearth of honest debate explains why so many leftist academics, like Mary Coombs, think the gay rights debate is already over.

Ty Clevenger graduated in 2001 from Stanford Law School and currently serves as a clerk to Judge Morris S. Arnold of the U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit. He received his B.S. from Texas A & M University in 1992. Prior to law school, Mr. Clevenger worked for various newspapers as a reporter and also as a deputy sheriff in Camp County, Texas. 1 See, e.g., David A. DeSchryver, Strong Charter School Laws: A Necessary Condition for the "Ripple Effect," 11 STAN. L. & POL'Y REV. 311 (2000).
2 See Lynn D. Wardle, "Multiply and Replenish": Considering Same Sex Marriage in Light of State Interests in Marital Procreation, 24 HARV. J.L. & PUB. POL'Y 771 (2001).
3 See David Orgon Coolidge & William C. Duncan, Reaffirming Marriage: A Presidential Priority, 24 HARV. J.L. & PUB. POL'Y 623 (2001).
4 Memorandum from Stanford Law and Policy Review Editor-in-Chief to the Stanford Law and Policy Review editorial board (undated) (on file with author). 5 See Michael Kirby, Law and Sexuality: The Contrasting Case of Australia, 12 STAN. L. & POL'Y REV. 103 (2001).
6 Meeting of Kathleen Sullivan, Barton H. Thompson, and author, Stanford Law and Policy Review, Office of Dean Sullivan at Stanford Law School.
7 See Mary Coombs, Sexual Dis-Orientation: Transgendered People and Same-Sex Marriage, 8 UCLA WOMEN'S L.J. 219, 228 (1998).
8 Id.
9 Bridget Murray, Same Office, Different Aspirations, MONITOR, Dec. 2001, available at http://www.apa.org/monitor/dec01/aspirations.html.
10 Id.
11 National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, APA Defends Scientific Freedom: NARTH Responds (Aug. 2001), at http://www.narth.com/docs/scifreedom.html.
12 Id; see also Stacey Burling, Group Drops Plans for Review of Child Sex-Abuse Study, MILWAUKEE J. SENTINEL, Nov. 21, 1999, at 1, available at 1999 WL 21552494.
13 See e.g., American Psychiatric Association, Transgender Perspectives: Women to Men...You Don't Know Dick, 1998 Annual Meeting Agenda, available at http://www.psych.org/pnews/98-02-20/0604.html (last visited Apr. 6, 2002).
14 Letter from Dr. Richard N. Williams, Professor of Psychology, Brigham Young University, to Ty Clevenger (Nov. 2, 2000) (on file with author); E-mail from Dr. Robert Spitzer, Professor of Psychiatry, Columbia University, to Ty Clevenger (Sept. 12, 2000) (on file with author).
15 Telephone interview with Dr. Robert Spitzer, Professor of Psychiatry, Columbia University (Feb. 1, 2002).
16 E-mail from William Byne, M.D., Psychiatrist, Mt. Sinai Medical Center, to Ty Clevenger (Sept. 29, 2000) (on file with author).
17 Id.
18 Id.
19 Malcolm Ritter, Study: Some Gays Can Go Straight, AP ONLINE, May 9, 2001, available at 2001 WL 21143216.
20 Erica Goode, Study Suggests Gays Can Change Sexual Orientation, TIMES UNION (Albany), May 9, 2001, at A7, available at 2001 WL 6305580.
21 Editorial, Review & Outlook: Straight Talk, WALL ST. J., May 11, 2001, at W17, available at 2001 WL-WSJ 2863223.
22 Kate Sheehy, Gays Bash Study That Says `Go Straight,' N.Y. POST, May 9, 2001, at 4, available at 2001 WL 19770238 (quoting Barbara Warren of the Lesbian and Gay Community Center in Manhattan).
23 Review & Outlook: Straight Talk, supra note 21. 24 Telephone interview with Dr. Robert Spitzer, Professor of Psychiatry, Columbia University (Feb. 1, 2002).
25 Id.
26 Id.
27 Id.
28 Id.
29 E-mail from Dr. William Byne, M.D., Psychiatrist, Mt. Sinai Medical Center, to Ty Clevenger (Sept. 29, 2000) (on file with author) (concerning the Rekers and Kilgus article, for example, Dr. Byne objected that some of the research it cited had been published in "Psychological Reports," which he did not deem to be credible).
30 347 U.S. 483, 494 n. 11 (1954).
31 See, e.g., United States v. Byers, 740 F.2d 1104, 1168 nn.177-79 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (acknowledging that mental health experts have their own biases).
32 See, e.g., Don Feder, Editorial, ABA gets payback for partisanship, BOSTON HERALD, Mar. 26, 2001, at 19, available at 2001 WL 3796640.
33 Amy Goldstein, Bush Curtails ABA Role In Selecting U.S. Judges, WASH. POST, Mar. 23, 2001 at A1, available at 2001 WL 2553157.
34 See e.g., Baker v. State, 744 A.2d 864, 868 n.1 (Vt. 1999). The Baker court did not cite social science research in its opinion, but noted that it was included in the record. Id.

[Clint N. Suhks]

This is powerful indictment on The American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association and modern academia surrounding a conspiracy to withhold any legitimate research involving homosexual reparative therapy. Both APA’s need to be investigated for the fraud they’ve committed in the name of political correctness.

Thanks to Ed Reform for bringing this fraud to light and scripter for formatting it so FreeRepublic can see the insidious Big Lie perpetrated by the APA’s.

[Clint N. Suhks]

ping

[scripter]

You reformatted a lot of it yourself! Excellent work, Clint. There are some additional PDF files that need to be converted, but first I need to put the final touches on my cloning machine!

[Mockingbird For Short]

Thanks to all of you for the work you put into not only this very enlightening article from The Regent Univ. Law Review, but ALL the articles and links you provide us with.

[Mockingbird For Short]

...yet it [APA] published controversial research suggesting that sex between children and adults may not be harmful and then styled itself a defender of academic freedom (prompting both houses of Congress to take the unusual step of passing a unanimous resolution of condemnation).

Boy I'd like to see this resolution!

[ovrtaxt]

Echoes of Ward Churchill and his vehicle for leftist proselytizing. Same fraud, different issue, different victim group.

[ViLaLuz]

"On the one hand, "mainstream" academic/professional organizations publish research suggesting adult- child sex may not be harmful, and they endorse supportive therapy for individuals who wish to surgically alter themselves (some would say physically mutilate themselves) from one sex to the other. Yet, they denounce as unethical any healthcare professionals who offer therapy to homosexuals who wish to become heterosexuals."

[lentulusgracchus]

This is huge. Thanks ever so much for posting it.

Kudos to all three of you.

Can anyone spell,

GAY IDEOLOGUE = MIND-NUMBED ROBOT?

[lentulusgracchus]

Accordingly, counsel would be well advised to delve into the biases of peer-reviewed journals and professional organizations rather than taking their claims at face value. The aura of scientific objectivity clearly is long overdue for a challenge, particularly in the fields of psychology and psychiatry. Indeed, the law may, in many respects, be better equipped to insure the accuracy and fairness of social science research than the alleged scientists themselves, particularly in academic fields where political bias has overtaken empirical results.

Why do I think this article was written before the Lawrence disaster?

Obviously, Associate Justice Kennedy and the other Justices who voted with him have been unable or unwilling to interrogate the gay psychological cabal's database for bias and tendentiousness.

What's the date of the article? I don't see it anywhere.

[nicmarlo]

thanks, Mockingbird....but the credit doesn't belong to me....just those other hard workers! Great article, is it not?

[nicmarlo]

Thanks for the ping, clint. Bykrbayb, you've just got to read this article. Excellent article and extremely enlightening, and extremely condemning of the American Psychological Association.

[EdReform]

BTTT!

See also:

School Board Member Asked to Resign After 'Ex-Gay' Reference

Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1)

What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda

Myth and Reality about Homosexuality--Sexual Orientation Section, Guide to Family Issues"

[Clint N. Suhks]

This is what I find so frightening.

Similarly, private and government funding agencies, which ostensibly fund research on scientific merit, can be subverted merely by assigning biased reviewers to the funding committees.28 Unlike the voir dire process for selecting jurors, establishment science has no process for vetting the fairness of peer reviewers. In fact, peer reviewers are often anonymous. Yet, when non-conforming researchers are forced to turn to alternative venues for publication, that fact is held against them insofar as their work is not published in a "mainstream" peer-reviewed journal.29

There's no voir dire process for peer review? That APA President Robert Perloff says any research on reparative therapy doesn't get the light of day? There needs to be a federal investigation...perhaps across all academia whose authority is absolute in government and the judiciary. The PC police have infiltrated science...if they infiltrated math it would be like if any answer ended with the number 22 it would be summarily dismissed.

[Clint N. Suhks]

Boy I'd like to see this resolution!

What he is talking about is the Rind, et al Study. From the summary and conclusion:

"Beliefs about child sex abuse [CSA] in American culture center on the viewpoint that CSA by nature is such a powerfully negative force ...Results of the present review do not support these assumed properties; CSA does not cause intense harm on a pervasive basis regardless of gender in the college population."

[scripter]

What's the date of the article? I don't see it anywhere.

I couldn't find a date when I put the article in the categorical index, but after looking in the preceeding directory, it would appear the file was created no later than May of 2002.

[EdReform]

This is powerful indictment on The American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association and modern academia surrounding a conspiracy to withhold any legitimate research involving homosexual reparative therapy. Both APA’s need to be investigated for the fraud they’ve committed in the name of political correctness.

The infiltration of the 'professional' medical and scientific associations by homosexual activists was ( and continues to be ) part of a well planned and well financed campaign to redefine homosexuality as normal. They started by infiltrating the American Psychiatric Association, with the goal removing homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).

Make no mistake, the homosexual activists knew exactly what they were doing in the days leading up to the removal of homosexuality from the DSM. Once they had control of the American Psychiatric Association, all the other 'professional' organizations ( such as the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Mental Health Association, the AMA , the American Counseling Association, etc.) fell in line and now accept, and march to, the APA's pro-homosexual party line. Click here (then scroll down the page to "The American Academy of Pediatrics") for a list of other pro-homosexual 'professional' associations that toe each others' homosexual agenda lines.

Forcing the removal of homosexuality from the DSM was the homosexual community's greatest achievement. It permitted them to claim that "homosexuality is normal" and set the stage to present this "normalcy" to the general public via a well planned media campaign ( outlined in 'The Overhauling of Straight America' ), and to kids in the public schools via Kevin Jennings' GLSEN. Kids as young as kindergarten age are now being indoctrinated with "homosexuality is normal" propaganda.

It wasn't science, but rather pro-homosexual activism that was, and continues to be, the primary force behind policy changes and the politically correct statments made by the APA and the majority of the other "professional" medical and scientific organizations.

For documentation of homosexual activism in both the APA's and the AAP, see the following replies in scripter's "Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Revision 1.1)" thread:

American Psychological Association: 121, 240, 242, 300, 329, 331, 336, and 357.

American Psychiatric Association: 46, 139, 213, 232, 237, 239, 241, 243, 246, 300, 363, 364, and 443.

American Academy of Pediatrics: 284

See also:

An excerpt from "When Activism Masquerades as Science: Potential Consequences of Recent APA Resolutions"

[Clint N. Suhks]

What's the date of the article? I don't see it anywhere.

I googled it and there's a National Review Online critique by Stanley Kurtz from 4/28/02.

[EdReform]

There's no voir dire process for peer review? That APA President Robert Perloff says any research on reparative therapy doesn't get the light of day? There needs to be a federal investigation...perhaps across all academia whose authority is absolute in government and the judiciary. The PC police have infiltrated science...

An excerpt from reply 121 in Scripter's Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Revision 1.1) thread:

Former APA President Condemns APA for Barring Research

"The APA is too goddamn politically correct...and too goddamn obeisant to special interests!" said Robert Perloff, 1985 President of the American Psychological Association.

Dr. Perloff delivered those uncensored remarks during a rousing speech to psychologists at the 2001 APA Annual Convention.

In an expression of public anger and frustration, Dr. Perloff condemned the APA's one-sided political activism. Of reorientation therapy with homosexuals, he said: "It is considered unethical...That's all wrong. First, the data are not fully in yet. Second, if the client wants a change, listen to the client. Third, you're barring research." (1)

Dr. Perloff is a recipient of the American Psychological Foundation's Gold Medal Award for Lifetime Achievement in Psychology in the Public Interest. In bestowing the award, the Psychological Foundation recognized Perloff for his noted "love of social justice" and his career-long struggle to champion "the rights and dignity of women, minorities, and homosexuals."

But, Perloff asked, "How can you do research on change if therapists involved in this work are threatened with being branded as unethical?"

Contacted by NARTH, Dr. Perloff added the following comment in an interview:

"I believe that APA is flat out wrong, undemocratic, and shamefully unprofessional in denying NARTH the opportunity to express its views and programs in the APA Monitor and otherwise under APA's purview." (2)

"Same Office, Different Aspirations," APA Monitor on Psychology, Volume 32, No. 11 December 2001, p. 20.

"APA past presidents sounded off about what they think the field, and APA, ought to value in psychology's second century at APA's 2001 Annual Convention.

They advocated wildly divergent--sometimes controversial--goals for psychology, from dismantling organized religion to lifting the stricture on conversion therapy...

Robert Perloff, PhD (APA's 1985 president), of the University of Pittsburgh, unabashedly charged that APA is "too politically correct, too bureaucratic, too obeisant to special interests." He called on APA to ease strictures against:

Conversion therapy. "It is considered unethical....That's all wrong. First, the data are not fully in yet. Second, if the client wants a change, listen to the client. Third, you're barring research."

APA Monitor Online - Letters, VOLUME 30 , NUMBER 8 September 1999:

"IN HIS JUNE 9 LETTER TO REP. Tom DeLay (R-Texas) discussing an article by Rind, Tromovitch and Bauserman (1998), Dr. Raymond Fowler, speaking for APA, asserts:

"We acknowledge our social responsibility...to take into account not only the scientific merit of articles but also their implication for public policy....Clearly the article included opinions of the authors that are inconsistent with APA's stated and deeply held position on child welfare...issues....Three inconsistencies between the conclusions the authors suggest and positions of the association should have caused us to evaluate the article based on its potential for misinforming the public policy process. This is something we failed to do, but will do in the future....We are strengthening procedures within the association to assure that journal editors will fully consider the social policy implications of articles on controversial topics."

This new editorial policy effectively transforms APA's "stated and deeply held positions" into religious dogma, immune from empirical or logical refutation. Any scientifically sound paper presenting empirical data or reasoned argument contrary to APA public policy positions will be rejected by the 37 journals published by APA on the grounds of its "potential for misinforming the public policy process." APA's public policies will reign unchallenged.

Fowler has it backwards. Scientific findings should help determine public policies, not the reverse. The flap over this article demonstrates yet again that the social policy stands of APA are dictated more by the ideology of its leadership than by science.

Gerald E. Zuriff, Ph.D
Cambridge, Mass.

See also:

Former APA President Supports NARTH's Mission Statement, Assails APA's Intolerance of Differing Views

An excerpt from "Pediatrics Group Endorses Homosexual Adoption... But New Policy Places Children at Risk"

"Perhaps the time has come for rational, reasonable people to insist that organizations like the American Academy of Pediatrics either base their policies on science, or else label themselves as political organizations and relinquish their tax-exempt statuses.

And maybe it's also time that federal, state and local governments discontinue reliance on professional organizations like the American Academy of Pediatrics when they need accurate, dispassionate, scientific information.

It's also time that the American people insist on truth, not politics, from all of our professional organizations..."

[EdReform]

Ping

[LTCJ]

Excellent article. BUMPmarking.

[EdReform]

Bump!

[EdReform]

Bump!

[DirtyHarryY2K]

Homosexual Agenda Ping.

If you want on/off the ping list see my profile page.

[Unam Sanctam]

Ping for later read.

[Mockingbird For Short]

ARE THERE NO SANE DOCTORS IN THE APA WHO ARE FIGHTING ALL THIS POLITICAL/HOMOSEXUAL PROPAGANDA FROM WITHIN? How can we support their fight? What can we do? I feel like the battle for truth and for America's kids (as regarding this issue) is practically lost.

: (

[gidget7]

"Beliefs about child sex abuse [CSA] in American culture center on the viewpoint that CSA by nature is such a powerfully negative force ...Results of the present review do not support these assumed properties; CSA does not cause intense harm on a pervasive basis regardless of gender in the college population."



THIS is crafted in order to, down the road, make man/boy love legal. Man/Boy Love already has it's own organization, along with the rest of the gay organizations.

[Clint N. Suhks]

Nice compilation Ed, including the secular cites quoting Perloff...those are the real ammunition.

[EdReform]

The actual APA documents are great for defusing anti-NARTH arguments.

[EdReform]

ARE THERE NO SANE DOCTORS IN THE APA WHO ARE FIGHTING ALL THIS POLITICAL/HOMOSEXUAL PROPAGANDA FROM WITHIN?

An excerpt from "30 years ago: APA says gay is okay - Psychiatrists look back at the landmark decision to declassify homosexuality"

"In 1971 the APA allowed a gay activist to address the APA meeting directly... Meanwhile, Hartmann and a group of psychiatrists worked successfully behind the scenes to install more liberal leadership in the APA...

But declassifying homosexuality as an illness was not immediately accepted by the entire membership of the APA. After the decision was announced, roughly 200 psychiatrists and psychoanalysts opposed to the move called for a member referendum on the issue. The membership voted to uphold the APA board of trustees decision to remove homosexuality from the DSM. "Whether they voted because they believed it is another question," says Drescher.

But is the position that homosexuality is not an illness accepted by the entire APA membership today? Drescher concedes that there could be members who disagree. He adds, however, "They're not in positions of leadership in the organization and the American Psychiatric Association, for example, in 2000 ... put out a position statement which was critical of reparative therapies, saying that they're not proving to be effective, some people may be harmed by them, there has not been much good research done in this area. And the APA is publicly against religious groups or other non-mental health groups calling homosexuality an illness when it's not..."

See also:

An excerpt from "Family.org -- Dr. Dobson's Newsletter - June 2002 : The Origins of Homosexuality" -- ( www.family.org/docstudy/newsletters/a0021043.cfm )

"Today, psychologists or psychiatrists who disagree with this politically correct interpretation, or even those who try to help homosexuals change, are subjected to continual harassment and accusations of malpractice..."

An excerpt from "Minnesota Psychologist Taken to Task for Saying Homosexuals Can Change"

An excerpt from "A.P.A.'s Society for the Study of Gay Issues Urges Psychologists To Become Political Activists"

[EdReform]

BTTT

[SweetCaroline]

BTTT

[EdReform]

BTTT

[EdReform]

Ping