Archive for September, 2007

School discipline, the “new” racist frontier

The world has become aware through the story of the Jena 6, that racism is alive and well in our nations schools. Yesterday I posted the horrific story of the racist attack in the school lunchroom on a schoolgirl who dropped a piece of cake in Palmdale, CA [see this post and this one]. Perhaps most horrifying was that, when the girl’s mother, a school system employee herself, went to talk to the school administration and demanded that the racist guard be arrested, the mother was arrested instead. [Also arrested were a student who filmed the guard's brutal attack on a cell phone, and that student's sister.] The entire school administration there seems to consider it their God-given right to attack and abuse black people.

Now the Chicago Tribune shines further light on the magnitude of racism in school discipline across the country. The Tribune analyzed carefully hidden US Department of Education data that show tha, in 49 out of 50 states, black students are far more likely to suffer sever discipline [suspensions or expulsion] than are white students committing similar offenses.

As a result, across the country blacks are 3.1 times as likely as whites to be suspended and 2.9 times as likely to be expelled. In my state of Massachusetts, the rations are 2.4 and 2.7 respectively [see state breakdowns here].

While socioeconomic factors play a role, the disparities remained when socioeconomic status was statistically controlled.

Every American citizen should be horrified by these statistics, as we should be by the Jena 6 and the Palmdale cases. These cases and statistics show clearly that our society is at war with young black people, criminalizing and declaring them deviant in multitudinous ways. First we suspend and expel them from school, then we arrest and imprison them in their millions. Racism still seems central to American culture. Its seems especially important, given the violence of our culture, for Americans to have a despised minority always at hand. It is hard to see how this will be changed, but changed it must be.

Here is the Chicago Tribune article [it can be downloaded as a pdf here]:

School Discipline Tougher on African Americans

by Howard Witt

AUSTIN – In the average New Jersey public school, African-American students are almost 60 times as likely as white students to be expelled for serious disciplinary infractions.

In Minnesota, black students are suspended 6 times as often as whites.

In Iowa, blacks make up just 5 percent of the statewide public school enrollment but account for 22 percent of the students who get suspended.

Fifty years after federal troops escorted nine black students through the doors of an all-white high school in Little Rock, Ark., in a landmark school integration struggle, America’s public schools remain as unequal as they have ever been when measured in terms of disciplinary sanctions such as suspensions and expulsions, according to little-noticed data collected by the U.S. Department of Education for the 2004-2005 school year.

In every state but Idaho, a Tribune analysis of the data shows, black students are being suspended in numbers greater than would be expected from their proportion of the student population. In 21 states-Illinois among them-that disproportionality is so pronounced that the percentage of black suspensions is more than double their percentage of the student body. And on average across the nation, black students are suspended and expelled at nearly three times the rate of white students.

No other ethnic group is disciplined at such a high rate, the federal data show. Hispanic students are suspended and expelled in almost direct proportion to their populations, while white and Asian students are disciplined far less.

Yet black students are no more likely to misbehave than other students from the same social and economic environments, research studies have found. Some impoverished black children grow up in troubled neighborhoods and come from broken families, leaving them less equipped to conform to behavioral expectations in school. While such socioeconomic factors contribute to the disproportionate discipline rates, researchers say that poverty alone cannot explain the disparities. “There simply isn’t any support for the notion that, given the same set of circumstances, African-American kids act out to a greater degree than other kids,” said Russell Skiba, a professor of educational psychology at Indiana University whose research focuses on race and discipline issues in public schools. “In fact, the data indicate that African-American students are punished more severely for the same offense, so clearly something else is going on. We can call it structural inequity or we can call it institutional racism.”

Academic researchers have been quietly collecting evidence of such race-based disciplinary disparities for more than 25 years. Yet the phenomenon remains largely obscured from public view by the popular emphasis on “zero tolerance” crackdowns, which are supposed to deliver equally harsh punishments based on a student’s infraction, not skin color.

That’s not what the data say is happening. Yet the federal Education Department’s Office of Civil Rights, which is charged with investigating allegations of discriminatory discipline policies in the nation’s public schools, has opened just one such probe in the past three years. Officials declined requests to explain why.

There’s more at stake than just a few bad marks in a student’s school record. Studies show that a history of school suspensions or expulsions is a strong predictor of future trouble with the law-and the first step on what civil rights leaders have described as a “school-to-prison pipeline” for black youths, who represent 16 percent of U.S. adolescents but 38 percent of those incarcerated in youth prisons.

Relatively few school districts scattered across the country have begun to acknowledge the issue of racial disparities in discipline and tried to do something about it.

In Austin, after administrators discovered that black youths accounted for 14 percent of the school district’s population but 37 percent of the students sent to punitive alternative schools, they introduced a program in some schools based on encouraging positive student behaviors rather than punishing negative ones.

At one school, Pickle Elementary, which serves mostly Hispanic and black students, the results were dramatic-disciplinary referrals dropped from 520 in 2001-2002 to just 20 last year.

“I am not going to give up on a child and suspend him or send him to an alternative school,” said Julie Pryor, who was the principal of the school when the behavioral program was implemented and is now a district administrator. “Washing our hands of a child will never change his behavior, it just makes it worse. These are children. It’s up to us to be creative to find ways to help them behave.”

But academic experts say many more school administrators, when confronted with data showing disparate rates of discipline for minority students, react like officials in the small east Texas town of Paris and strenuously deny accusations of racial discrimination.

Paris is the sole school district in the nation currently under investigation by the federal Education Department to determine whether higher discipline rates for black students there constitute institutionalized discrimination. The probe has been under way for more than a year.

“The school district has been a leader and very progressive when it comes to race relations,” Dennis Eichelbaum, the attorney for the Paris Independent School District, said in an interview earlier this year.

That perspective is not shared by the families of many of Paris’ black students, who make up 40 percent of the school district’s nearly 4,000 students.

“They say there’s no racism here, but if you go inside a school and look in the room where they send the kids for detention, almost all the faces are black,” said Brenda Cherry, a Paris civil rights activist who assembled some of the complaints that sparked the federal investigation. “Unless black people are just a bad race of people, something is wrong here.”

Exactly why black students across the nation are suspended and expelled more frequently than children of other races is a question that continues to perplex sociologists.

Socioeconomic factors are certainly at play, researchers believe.

“Studies of school suspension have consistently documented disproportionality by socioeconomic status. Students who receive free school lunch are at increased risk for school suspension,” according to “The Color of Discipline,” a 2000 study by Skiba and other researchers in Indiana and Nebraska. Another study concluded that “students whose fathers did not have a full-time job were significantly more likely to be suspended than students whose fathers were employed full time.”

But those studies and others have repeatedly found that racial factors are even more important.

“Poor home environment does carry over into the school environment,” said Skiba, who is widely regarded as the nation’s foremost authority on school discipline and race. “But middle-class and upper-class black students are also being disciplined more often than their white peers. Skin color in itself is a part of this function.”

Some experts point to cultural miscommunications between black students and white teachers, who fill 83 percent of the nation’s teaching ranks. In fact, the Tribune analysis found, some of the highest rates of racially disproportionate discipline are found in states with the lowest minority populations, where the disconnect between white teachers and black students is potentially the greatest.

“White teachers feel more threatened by boys of color,” said Isela Gutierrez, a juvenile justice expert at the Texas Criminal Justice Coalition, a watchdog and policy group. “They are viewed as disruptive. What might be their more assertive way of asking a question, for example, is viewed as popping off at the mouth.”

Nor has the decline of court-ordered integration across the nation and the gradual resegregation of urban schools in recent decades made much difference in disciplinary rates. Even in urban schools where most of the students are black, black youths are still disciplined out of proportion to their population, the data show. In Washington, D.C., for example, black students are 84 percent of the public school population but 97 percent of the students who are suspended. Other researchers believe that zero-tolerance policies, which encourage teachers and administrators to crack down on even minor, non-violent misbehavior, are exacerbating racial disparities. Some states, such as Texas, are so zealous that they have criminalized many school infractions, saddling tens of thousands of students with misdemeanor criminal records for offenses such as swearing or disrupting class.

The school security climate, in turn, can reinforce race-based expectations about which students are most likely to require discipline.

“Most suburban schools, where the students are more likely to be white, purchase security equipment that is meant to protect children-for example, hand scanners that make sure that the parent/guardian picking up the child is legitimate,” said Ronnie Casella, an expert on the criminalization of student behavior at Central Connecticut State University. “In contrast, urban schools choose equipment such as metal detectors and surveillance cameras that are meant to catch youths committing crimes.”

The new behavioral program being tried in Austin, and some 6,500 schools nationwide, seeks to turn zero tolerance on its head in a bid to slash the number of suspensions, expulsions and other punishments meted out by teachers.

Called “Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports,” the intensive regimen requires a commitment from an entire school, including training of students in the behaviors that are expected of them and re-education of teachers and administrators in the use of positive motivational techniques.

The interactions of individual teachers with their students are minutely scrutinized by a team of experts to pinpoint communication breakdowns, and specialized counseling teams are deployed to work with students who present the most serious discipline issues so that classroom teachers are not left to deal with the problems on their own.

“Most schools use a get-tough, punish-the-kids kind of perspective, which results in the kinds of racial disciplinary disparities we see across the country,” said George Sugai, a professor of education at the University of Connecticut who helped create the positive behavioral program. “We come at it from the other perspective: If you teach kids the behaviors that are expected, you have a greater likelihood of success. It’s really more about changing how adults interact with kids than it is about changing the kids.”

Schools like Pickle Elementary in Austin that are using the positive behavioral program often report sharp reductions in their disciplinary referrals. But Skiba, who is currently studying the effectiveness of the program, cautions that it does not always eliminate racial disparities.

“They’ve been very successful at reducing rates of suspension and expulsion while making schools function more effectively,” Skiba said of the schools using the program. “But if you look at the data by race, what you find is that some discrepancies still exist. It’s not enough to put this program in place and say, ‘We are happy to reduce our rates of suspension,’ because what we might have done is reduce our white suspensions and increase our African-American suspensions. There’s just no silver bullet for this problem.”

September 30th, 2007

Pledge for freedom, not God

When I wa i school, I sometimes got in trouble for refusing to say the Pledge of Allegiance. I couldn’t understand how we could have “one nation under God” when, I thought, there was no God. Further, a country that had gone through a civil war hardly sounded indivisible. And it didn’t seem to me that Sacco and Vanzetti had gotten “freedom and justice for all.”   As I had been taught not to lie, I refused to utter the false words. Some teachers were outraged, and others amused. In those days I was always alone in my “protest.”

Now I read in Effect Measure in the Sunday Freethinker Sermonette that 50 students at Boulder High School have walked out, and will continue walking out every Thursday to protest the pledge. They object to the forced religion, and to its ignoring of the need for respect for the diversity of our population and of the fundamental rights upon which our country claims to be founded. I salute them.

As Revere quotes from the Denver Post:

About 50 Boulder High School students walked out of class Thursday to protest the daily reading of the Pledge of Allegiance and recited their own version, omitting “one nation, under God.”

The students say the phrase violates the constitutional separation of church and state.

They also say the daily reading of the pledge over the school public address system at the start of the second class takes away from education time and is ignored or mocked by some students.

A state law passed in 2004 requires schools to offer the opportunity to recite the pledge each day but does not require students to participate.

The protesting students, members of the Student Worker Club, want administrators to hold the pledge reading in the auditorium during each of the school’s two lunch periods for any students who want to participate.

Otherwise, they said, they plan to walk out each Thursday when the pledge is read and recite their version, which omits the reference to God and adds allegiance to constitutional rights, diversity and freedom, among other things.

But go to Effect Measure and see Revere’s suggestion for a better alternative Pledge.

September 30th, 2007

More on Palmdale racist attack on student by school guard

Another local news station has more details on the brutal racist attack by a school guard on a student, and the arrest of her, her mother, a student who filmed the guard’s attack and the photographer’s sister:

Student Gets Broken Arm in Melee with School Security Guards

PALMDALE, CA — Parents and students at Knight High School in Palmdale, California are upset over an incident in which three teenagers and a mother were arrested last Thursday after a melee with security guards, prompting an investigation into the guards’ behavior.

The incident came on the heels of a birthday celebration during the school’s lunch hour, at some point the birthday cake was dropped, spurring a domino effect of mayhem.

A cell phone video taken by a student showed a 16-year-old student arrested by campus police.

According to the student, she had dropped the cake and subsequently cleaned it up.

When the security guard told her to clean up a part of the mess that was overlooked, a verbal altercation ensued — and quickly turned physical.Guard attacks student

The security guard then grabbed her by the arm as she was headed towards her next class, the student said.

The student said that the security guard was so overzealous in twisting her arms despite her pleas otherwise that he wound up breaking her wrist — which is cast-bound.

The security guard called her a “nappy-head,” the student said.

The student said that when the security guard realized the incident was being recorded, he tackled the student taking the video.

When that student’s sister tried to intervene, she too was injured and now has a brace on her arm.

And the plot thickens.

When the arrested student’s mother arrived at the school, she was subsequently arrested for allegedly battering the principal.

The mother has subsequently said that the incident has caused a disruption in her life, mainly as a result of explaining the issue of prejudice to her daughter.

Another parent, Serena Ochoa, said that she has complained about the guards before.

The student is currently expelled and will attend a hearing to determine her future status with the school.

4 comments September 29th, 2007

In the land of the free, school girl attacked by racist school guard for dropping piece of cake. Girl and mother arrested.

Racism permeates our county’s schools, as the Jena 6 case demonstrates. Now another case from Palmdale, CA illustrates the depth of the problem. A high school girl who dropped a piece of cake was assaulted by a school guard, had her wist broken, and was called “nappyhead” by the guard. She was then arrested and suspended from school. When her mother demanded the guard be arrested, the mother was arrested and then fired from her job by the school system. Also arrested was the student who took pictures on his cell phone of the the guard’s attack, as well as his sister, were also arrested.

Here is the local news report:

If we had a decent country, Palmdale would now be flooded with Federal Marshals who arrest the school officials for their hate crimes. A decent country just would not tolerate horrifying abuses like this.

3 comments September 29th, 2007

Student Initiative Petition: Ban ALL psychologist participation in military interrogations!

The psychology graduate student outreach initiative has created a new petition calling upon the American Psychological Association to ban all participation of psychologists in military interrogations. the Petition is very simple:

“If we lose psychologists from these facilities, people are going to die.”
-U.S. Army Col. Larry James, APA conference, August 2007

“Any interrogation system that teeters so close to atrocities needs more than a psychologist.”
-Scott Horton, “Psychologists and the Torture Question” Harpers, 8-28-07

Urge the American Psychological Association to join with the American Medical Association and the American Psychiatric Association in banning ALL participation of its health personnel in military interrogations. Ask the APA to amend its 2007 Resolution against torture with a COMPREHENSIVE, not just SELECTIVE, ban on psychologist participation!

As noted in an email:

Although it’s a student initiative, it has been worded so that anyone, not just psychologists even, can sign it. I think it is important that we inform other groups, community and professional groups and organizations, and engage in some cross-talk about these issues; so it is worded to draw the interest of the general public.

So hurry up and sign the Petition here.

September 29th, 2007

Troops mutinying in Burma?

I have no idea of the veracity, but there are reports now that troops are mutinying in Burma. That would be wonderful news:

Rangoon: ‘army mutiny’ reported

Troops refuse to fire on crowds

Reports from Rangoon suggest soldiers are mutinying. It is unclear the numbers involved. Reports cite heavy shooting in the former Burmese capital.

The organisation Helfen ohne Grenzen (Help without Frontiers) is reporting that “Soldiers from the 66th LID (Light Infantry Divison) have turned their weapons against other government troops and possibly police in North Okkalappa township in Rangoon and are defending the protesters. At present unsure how many soldiers involved.”

Soldiers in Mandalay, where unrest has spread to as we reported this morning, are also reported to have refused orders to act against protesters.

Some reports claim that many soldiers remained in their barracks. More recent reports now maintain that soldiers from the 99th LID now being sent there to confront them.

Growing numbers of protestors are gathering in Rangoon, with 10,000 reported at the Traders Hotel and 50,000 at the Thein Gyi market. The police are reported to have turned water cannons against crowds at Sule Pagoda.

Many phone lines into the Burmese state have now been cut, mobile networks have been disabled and the national internet service provider has been taken off-line.

[h/t MediaLens Message Board for this.]

Other sources are reporting that their are splits in the Burmese/Myanmar military, with some senior leaders opposing firing on the protesters:

Leading exile-run websites have claimed cracks have surfaced within the military junta in Myanmar with serious differences brewing between Senior General Than Shwe and his second-in-command, Vice-Senior General Maung Aye, over the brutal attacks on pro-democracy protestors.

‘Maung Aye and his loyalists are opposed to shooting into the crowd,’ the Mizzima, a leading news portal run by exiled pro-democracy journalists, said….

‘It is almost sure that there is some sort of a revolt within the army top brass and the ranks over firing on unarmed protestors,’ Min Maung, an exiled Burmese student leader and now a correspondent for the BBC (Burmese Service) in New Delhi, told IANS by telephone.

The Irrawaddy and Mizzima web sites have claimed that Than Shwe is in favour of opening fire on the demonstrators, while other commanders, including the Yangon regional commander and the northwest and northeastern regional commanders, favour restraint.

‘Very soon Myanmar could witness a mutiny of sorts with several senior commanders and soldiers not willing to attack monks,’ Kyaw Than, president of the All Burmese Students’ League, told IANS.

Further, the Guardian is reporting the existence of a letter in which a group of army officers declare support for the demonstrators:

Letter ‘reveals dissent in Burmese army’

[See the letter here.]

Some Burmese troops have declared their support for the Buddhist monks who have led mass protests in the first apparent sign of disaffection in the army, exiled Burmese sources said today.

Disgruntled officers have formed a group called the Public Patriot Army Association and expressed their backing for demonstrators in a letter drafted on Tuesday.

The document – the veracity of which cannot be independently verified – was obtained by Burmese exiles in Thailand and passed to Guardian Unlimited.

“On behalf of the armed forces, we declare our support for the non-violent action of the Buddhist monks and members of the public and their peaceful expression,” it said.

“We are all encountering crisis in the economy and in society, political difficulties of various kinds of oppression. Those realities not only affect the public and Buddhist monks. We in the military are also affected.”

Burmese exiles in Thailand, who translated the letter, said it was a source of encouragement to the anti-government movement.

They claimed Burma’s military rulers were so concerned by mutiny in the army that they had ordered the arrest of the colonel in charge of governing Rangoon.

Any sign of dissent within the ranks would be a cause for alarm for the three-man military junta. The junta is led by 74-year-old General Than Shwe, who has been acting as the head of state since 1992, and the military has ruled Burma since 1962.

When he became head of state, Gen Than Shwe appeared to be more liberal than his predecessor, General Saw Maung.

He freed some political prisoners and allowed human rights groups to visit Burma. However, he remains resolutely opposed to any role for Aung San Suu Kyi, the opposition leader who has been under arrest for more than a decade.

Gen Than Shwe’s career included a stint in the department of psychological warfare. Said to be superstitious, he reportedly consults astrologers. Generals Maung Aye and Soe Win, both hardliners, complete the triumvirate.

The junta reinforced its reputation for paranoia by moving the capital deep into the mountainous jungle at Naypyidaw, outside the town of Pyinmana and 230 miles north of Rangoon.

Activists said the move was designed to insulate the generals from decades of misrule.

1 comment September 29th, 2007

Sicko: Michael Moore on Oprah

Michael Moore was on Oprah yesterday. They, along with a healthcare economist and an insurance industry publicist, had the deepest discussion of the healthcare that crisis that I’ve ever seen in the corporate media. You can watch it here:

Parts 2-6 after the break.




September 28th, 2007

Earlham College Psychology Department calls for APA interrogations policy change

The Psychology Department at Earlham College (in Richmond, Indiana) has broken new ground by passing a resolution calling upon change in the American Psychological Association to change its policy regarding participation of psychologists in interrogations. Thanks to Michael Jackson, here is the resolution:

RESOLUTION CONCERNING PARTICIPATION OF PSYCHOLOGISTS IN MILITARY DETENTION CENTERS

WHEREAS psychologists in the United States, through their major professional organization, the American Psychological Association (APA), have adopted a set of ethical principles that includes the principle of Beneficence and Nonmaleficence (Principle A), which declares that psychologists should strive, in their work, “to do no harm” and should “seek to safeguard the welfare and rights of those with whom they interact” and the principle of Respect for People’s Rights and Dignity (Principle E), which declares that psychologists should “respect the dignity and worth of all people” and explicitly recognizes that “special safeguards may be necessary to protect the rights and welfare of persons or communities whose vulnerabilities impair autonomous decision making”; and

WHEREAS the United States military and Central Intelligence Agency are widely recognized and acknowledged to have incarcerated a number of persons in foreign detention centers without the due process of law ordinarily afforded by international human rights treaties and standards and to have subjected many of these detainees to forms of interrogation banned under international law, including some forms of torture; and

WHEREAS the American Psychological Association adopted a resolution on August 19, 2007 that, while condemning torture, continues to allow coercive interrogations so long as these interrogations do not cause “significant pain or suffering” or “lasting harm,” and that continues to allow psychologists to participate in interrogations in foreign detention centers in which internationally recognized due process of law is not afforded, and that in continuing to permit these violations of Principles A and E of the APA Ethical Principles and Code of Conduct, serves to legitimize the above mentioned violations of human rights and to undermine the moral authority and stature of psychology as a profession, and that, moreover, fails to recognize that decades of research in social psychology demonstrates that situational factors, especially in highly ideological and isolated settings, can be predicted, over time, to undermine the resolve of well-intentioned individuals, including psychologists, to resist institutional pressures to misuse authority;

The Department of Psychology of Earlham College therefore resolves

1. that the direct or indirect participation by psychologists in interrogations of prisoners incarcerated in foreign detention centers that do not afford prisoners internationally recognized due process of law is unethical; and

2. that the American Psychological Association should prohibit the participation of psychologists, directly or indirectly, in interrogations in these facilities.

The resolution is accompanied by a letter:

Dear Friends

The Psychology faculty of Earlham College is contacting some of our colleagues in other institutions with interests in human rights and issues of peace to invite your Psychology Department to join us in condemning the involvement of psychologists in illegal interrogations and to call on the American Psychological Association to take a clear and unambiguous stand on the issue.

As you may be aware, on August 19, 2007, the APA Council of Representatives passed a resolution condemning torture. However, that resolution, while well-intentioned and important in many ways, still permits psychologists to participant in coercive interrogations so long as these interrogations do not cause “significant” pain and suffering or “lasting” harm, and therefore constitutes a violation of Principle A of our code of ethics; it also continues to permit psychologists to be associated with agencies or facilities in which prisoners are deprived of due process of law, a violation of Principle E. Most troubling of all, by allowing psychologists to continue to participate in the interrogations of detainees in secret military and CIA facilities, it continues to aid in legitimizing these interrogations and facilities.

The main justification offered for APA’s position is that psychologists attending military or CIA interrogations can serve an oversight function and act as “whistleblowers” if these interrogations cross the line into abuse or torture. While such oversight is theoretically possible, and may actually occur in some instances, we psychologists, of all professionals, understand (or should understand) just how difficult and atypical such resistance to authority is and how unrealistic it is to base organizational policy on the expectation that individuals in these settings will routinely or reliably act as whistleblowers. We have only to look at the classic work of Milgram, Zimbardo, Asch, Loftus, Janis, and others to recognize how much more likely and predictable it is that these psychologists will gradually succumb to the relentless “power of the situation” and tend over time to align themselves, implicitly or explicitly, with the practices of their employing institutions.

We will be forwarding the attached resolution to the American Psychological Association. We hope that other psychology departments in other educational institutions will join us in passing similar resolutions and that, together, we can serve as a conscience for APA. If you have any comments or questions, please feel free to contact me at jacksmi@earlham.edu.

Sincerely,

Michael R. Jackson
Convener
Department of Psychology
Earlham College

7 comments September 28th, 2007

In DC: Psychology and Resisting the Drums of War

For readers in the Washington DC area, comin up this Monday:

MONDAY, OCTOBER 1st 6:00-8:00PM
BUSBOYS AND POETS
2021 14th Street, NW
Washington DC 20009
(202-387-POET)
http://www.busboysandpoets.com

 “Resisting the Drums of War: Iraq, Iran, and the Global War on Terror”

Two psychologists will share their expertise on how political leaders garner public support for a war agenda. In the first presentation, Roy Eidelson will use video clip examples to explain how warmongering messages are often designed to target the core concerns that govern our personal and collective lives, including concerns over vulnerability, injustice, distrust, superiority, and helplessness.

In the second presentation, Diane Perlman will describe the role that “psychological intelligence” can play in reversing cycles of violence and reducing terrorism. She will examine the framing, messaging, and techniques used to manipulate the public and to intimidate members of Congress, with a particular focus on current efforts designed to seduce us into war with Iran.

The presentations will be followed by remarks and expert insights from discussants Ray McGovern and Justin Frank.
 **************
Roy Eidelson, PhD, is a psychologist who studies, writes about, and consults on the role of psychological issues in interpersonal and group conflict settings. He is the president of Eidelson Consulting, the former executive director of the University of Pennsylvania’s Solomon Asch Center for Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict, and an Associate Member of Penn’s Program in Ethnic Conflict. He lives in suburban Philadelphia.

Diane Perlman, PhD, is a clinical and political psychologist with an interest in the image of the enemy, the psychological dynamics of nuclear proliferation, terrorism, and nonviolent conflict transformation. She is a member of Transcend, the Global Council of Abolition 2000, and co-chair of the committee on Global Violence and Security for Psychologists for Social Responsibility. She lives in Washington, DC.

Ray McGovern was a CIA analyst for 27 years from 1963 to 1990. He is a co-founder and steering group member of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).
 
Justin Frank, M.D. is a clinical professor in the Department of Psychiatry at George Washington University Medical Center and a teaching analyst at the Washington Psychoanalytic Institute. He is the author of Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President. 

September 27th, 2007

Robert Adler: Unwitting accomplices in interrogation abuse

The New Scientist has an article on the role of psychologists in interrogations that shows greater understanding than all the American Psychological Association’s resolutions put together:

Unwitting accomplices in interrogation abuse

by Robert Adler 

AT ITS annual meeting last month, the American Psychological Association APA) adopted a resolution reaffirming its position against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Among those whom psychologists must protect, the organisation included “enemy combatants” – the term the US administration uses for suspected terrorists. It said that neither war, political instability, public emergency nor any laws, regulations or orders can ever justify torture or abuse. It banned its members from taking part in any of a long list of interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, sexual or religious humiliation, the use of psychotropic drugs, hooding, aggressive dogs, physical assault and threats of harm or death.

Despite this, the association decided to allow psychologists to continue to be involved in interrogations at US detention centres, including those carried out “outside normal legal channels”, such as at Guantanamo Bay.

Interrogations carried out in secret and without legal oversight can lead to horrific treatment being inflicted on prisoners, as photographs taken inside Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq proved in 2004. The Red Cross, United Nations and Amnesty International say such practices continue at Guantanamo Bay and at US-run “black sites” in Thailand, Afghanistan and eastern Europe.

Those who support psychologists’ involvement argue that the APA resolution as passed ensures that none of the organisation’s 148,000 members would facilitate such abuses.

Some go further, arguing that there is an ethical imperative for psychologists to be involved in these interrogations because they can help to stop abuse – as whistle-blower Michael Gelles and military psychologist Larry James did at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib.  James has told Agence France-Presse: “If we remove psychologists from Guantanamo, innocent people are going to die.”

This is superficially persuasive, but it misses the bigger picture.  When psychologists work in situations as coercive and secretive as CIA- run black sites, the situation is far more likely to corrupt the psychologist – no matter how highly trained and ethically aware they are – than the psychologist is to correct the situation.  To make matters worse, the psychologists’ presence lends legitimacy to these settings and whatever takes place within them.

If any group should be aware of the corrupting power of such situations, it is psychologists.  Decades of their own research, starting with Stanley Milgram’s studies of obedience to authority in the 1960s and Philip Zimbardo’s infamous Stanford Prison Experiment, has shown time and again that when healthy, normal people are put into situations that legitimise and systematise abuse they consistently and readily come to act abusively themselves (New Scientist, 14 April 2007, p 42).

Most people are vulnerable to this effect, but some individuals fill their roles so fully that they demonstrate what Zimbardo calls “creative evil”.  Within a few days, for example, Zimbardo’s college-student “guards” invented some of the same forms of sexual abuse that surfaced decades later at Abu Ghraib.

Psychologists and other professionals are not immune from such corruption.  In his recent book, The Lucifer Effect: Understanding how good people turn evil, Zimbardo ruefully describes how he did not realise how far his experiment had spiralled into abuse until he was confronted by a colleague who was not part of the experiment and was sickened by what she saw.  “It was a slap in my face,” Zimbardo writes, “the wake-up call from the nightmare I had been living.”

More recently, psychologists have been intimately involved in the development and refinement of interrogation and “softening up” techniques used at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib.  “If we look at the history, psychologists are not noted for being protectors of the ethics of these situations,” says Steven Reisner, a psychologist at Columbia University’s International Trauma Studies Program in New York City.  “The strategies of abuse that have been carried out by the CIA and Department of Defense have been created, supervised and spread by psychologists, according to the department’s own reports, eye witnesses from the CIA, and the press.”

Given what their own research has shown, and the degree to which some psychologists have been implicated in ethically questionable forms of detention and interrogation, it seems remarkably naive – or arrogant – for psychologists to believe they are immune from situations far more nightmarish than the Stanford basement “prison” in 1971.

Both the American Medical Association and the American Psychiatric Association have recently prohibited involvement in any type of interrogation, stating that their members may only use their skills to care for patients or to train others.  The sooner the country’s psychologists join them, the better.

September 26th, 2007

Previous Posts


Pages

Calendar

September 2007
M T W T F S S
« Aug   Oct »
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930

Posts by Month

Posts by Category