Psyche, Science, and Society

Indiana U students and faculty confront APA President Brehm

December 3rd, 2007

Last Friday American Psychological Association President, and Indiana University professor, Sharon Brehm discussed the APA’s policies supporting psychologist participation in national security interrogations with faculty and students at her university. The Indiana Daily Student has an account [Another press account follows.]:

Psychologists question torture policy

Many express concern that not enough was done

by Brian Spegele

Beyond the differences of opinion surrounding a controversial anti-torture resolution passed by the American Psychological Association last summer, Friday’s meeting between Association President Sharon Brehm and concerned members of the University community demonstrated a disagreement about the “facts” on torture.

About 30 students, faculty members and concerned Bloomington residents turned up to question Brehm on an anti-torture resolution her organization approved last summer. That resolution has been criticized by activists as not having done enough to end the suspected torturing of non-citizen prisoners.

While the meeting’s discussion of the resolution was often heated, participants did not attack the IU psychology professor personally. Rather, many expressed a concern that a continued presence by psychologists at detention centers such as Guantanamo Bay in Cuba legitimizes questioned government operations there.

President Bush points to the continued psychologists’ presence at prisons as providing guidance to the interrogations, said IU Law professor Dawn Johnsen during the meeting.

Still, the actual role psychologists play in interrogations was debated itself. Brehm said psychologists only acted in an advisory role during questionings, working with interrogators to develop effective strategies that will elicit “accurate information.”

The controversy surrounding the Association’s resolution stems from a rejected moratorium of psychologists at interrogation sites. That amendment was turned down at the organization’s conference last August, but debate among some psychologists continues. Some former members of the Association have quit in protest, while hundreds of others are refusing to pay dues, according to an organization spokesman.

Similar professional organizations such as the American Psychiatric Association and the American Medical Association already passed resolutions similar to the psychologist’s rejected one.

When questioned about these other policies, Brehm responded those resolutions largely proved less effective than the regulations set forth by the American Psychological Association’s.

“All of our ethical policies are based on individual responsibility,” Brehm said. “If you violate the behaviors that are prescribed then, if it is a serious violation, we’ll kick you out of the association and you may not be able to make a living anymore. It is that basic.”

Brehm acknowledged, however, that it’s often tough to prove a psychologist’s wrongdoing.

Despite insistence by some attendees that psychologists played a more active role in conducting interrogations, Brehm said she thinks psychologists usually are not even present in interrogation cells. Instead, Brehm said she thinks psychologists observed interrogations from behind one-way mirrors. In that role, they can serve as government watchdogs, ensuring interrogators do not torture prisoners.

“We have great confidence that at least most of our members are really good people and that they would not do bad things,” Brehm said, adding her belief that psychologists had the ability to be heroes in fighting against torture.

Those expectations are exactly the problem, said New York University psychology professor Beth Shinn. The psychologist had been a member of the American Psychological Association since the 1980’s, but resigned following last August’s resolution.

Psychologists are ordinary people who are affected by the situations in which they find themselves, Shinn said. It’s unrealistic to believe that psychologists will always act as superheroes standing up to the government in order to stop torture, she said.

A student contingent, led mostly by the activist group Indiana Students Against War, along with faculty and community organizations, showed up to question the policy.

Parts of last summer’s resolution are too ambiguous, said graduate student Sandrine Catris. In addition, Brehm’s uncertainty on specifics regarding interrogation sites made it difficult for Catris to take a firm stance on the issue.

Throughout the meeting, Brehm was uncertain on specifics regarding the controversial interrogation sites. She said she has never been to detention centers like Guantanamo Bay’s and as a result could not specifically discuss conditions there.

Regardless, Brehm’s stance on the resolution was strong. It’s a resolution she believes proves effective in stopping torture.

“To be a psychologist who treats people, it is a deeply engrained sense of ethics,” Brehm said. “So that’s the way we do business as an association.”

The Bloomington Herald-Times also reports on the discussion [available online only by subscription]:

Brehm addresses torture controversy

Former IU Bloomington chancellor discusses APA resolution

By Mercedes Rodriguez

For the first time since August, when the American Psychological Association adopted a resolution on torture and enemy combatants, Indiana University psychology professor and APA president Sharon Brehm spoke about the association’s controversial measure. Brehm took part in a forum Friday afternoon at the IU Psychology Building that was sponsored by the Progressive Faculty Coalition.

Brehm began by reading the resolution aloud to the roughly 25 audience members. The resolution, which was adopted at the APA’s annual meeting, details the organization’s position on the role of psychologists in the detention and interrogation of those defined as enemy combatants by the U.S. government.

In the audience were Progressive Faculty Coalition members, IU students and faculty, members of Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom and members of the community.

Brehm explained the parliamentary process by which the association approved the resolution. She said that during the annual meeting, discussion of the issue was unfettered. “We did not cut debate at all until there was no one left at the mic,” she said.

The resolution, which builds upon a 2006 effort to formulate guidelines on torture, calls on the government to prohibit the use of unethical interrogation techniques and pointed out specific techniques as torture.

The techniques mentioned in the resolution include mock executions, waterboarding or any other form of simulated drowning or suffocation, sexual humiliation and cultural or religious humiliation. The resolution calls on psychologists to report any inhumane or unethical behavior.

Psychologists who break APA rules may face expulsion from the group and loss of their licenses.

However, the report did not specifically say that psychologists should not have anything to do with interrogations. Brehm pointed out that psychologists may still indirectly observe interrogations and may advise agents of the government on interrogations.

Audience members asked why during the annual meeting, the association did not adopt a proposed moratorium on all psychologist involvement in detention centers for foreign detainees. Brehm said that parliamentary procedure kept the moratorium from coming up for a vote. She added, “If you open the door to have the APA tell its members that they can work in one setting but not in another, that would be very difficult and it would raise some interesting comparisons.” She brought up the example of psychologists who work in prison systems where the death penalty is carried out. “Any kind of policy that the APA has that includes expulsion from the organization has to be person-based. The person has to be responsible for what they do.”

Audience reaction to Brehm was strong but civil. Many comments were made about the wording of the resolution.

The resolution defines torture as actions specified by the McCain Amendment, passed by the U.S. Congress in 2005. IU law professor and former acting assistant attorney general for the White House’s Office of Legal Council Dawn Johnsen was in attendance. She said, “The government is interpreting these prohibitions in a way that distorts their intent.”

Brehm emphasized that psychologists can do good in their capacity as observers and that they can prevent the use of inhumane techniques. “If you remove all the good people from a situation, then you are not going to be able to prevent the bad stuff,” she said.

An audience member countered, “If you remove the good people, it’ll be clear who the bad people are.”

After the talk came to an end, Brehm said she has great confidence that psychologists will ultimately do the right thing if working with detainees.

“I have great faith in my colleagues. No group of humans is going to be perfect. I know many psychologists. … They are, as a group very admirable, extremely humane and extremely committed to doing good,” she said.

I will post me comments on Dr. Brehm’s comments in a separate post.

Entry Filed under: APA, Psychological Torture, Psychology, Torture