Psyche, Science, and Society

Olson & Eidelson: American Psychological Association, don’t violate GLBT boycott!

In addition to the American Psychological Association’s involvement with protecting psychologists’ participation in potentially abusive interrogations, the APA is now under attack for its plans to center much of next summer’s annual convention in a hotel in violation of a boycott. Brad Olson and Roy Eidelson have just posted on the Psychologists for Social Responsibility blog a Call for Change in APA’s position on this issue:

A Call for Change in APA’s Position on the Boycott at the Manchester Grand Hyatt

By Brad Olson and Roy Eidelson

This open letter calls for the immediate reconsideration of the American Psychological Association’s (APA’s) current plan to use the Manchester Grand Hyatt as a headquarters hotel for the 2010 Annual Convention in San Diego. In particular, we respond here to what we view as a highly troubling September 26, 2009 letter sent by APA president-elect Carol Goodheart to APA Council members.

In November 2008, California’s Proposition 8 abolished same-sex marriage in the state, setting back our nation’s progress toward equality for all. Prior to the vote, Doug Manchester, owner of the Manchester Grand Hyatt in San Diego, contributed $125,000 to help fund the campaign – a campaign that relied on deceptive ads, appeals to prejudice, and fear-mongering to ultimately overturn equal rights for same-sex couples in California.

Following Manchester’s contribution, local GLBT and labor rights supporters united as a coalition and called for a boycott of Manchester’s Hyatt. This boycott has now entered its second year, and it continues to grow. In September of 2009, the Courage Campaign and Equality California signed on to the boycott effort, joining Californians Against Hate and Unite Here (see Say No to Doug Manchester).

Supporting the boycott, organizations have moved their events to other locations. According to the Lesbian and Gay Lawyers Association of Los Angeles, this list includes the American Association of Law Schools; the San Diego County Pension Fund; the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation; the San Diego Association of Realtors; the California Nurses Association; the Conference of Delegates of California Bar Associations; and the International Foundation of Employee Benefits.

The APA’s response stands in sharp contrast, despite the Association’s resolution stating that it “shall take a leadership role in opposing all discrimination in legal benefits, rights, and privileges against same-sex couples.” President-elect Goodheart’s recent letter re-affirms the APA’s plans to keep the Manchester Hyatt as its lead convention headquarters hotel and to hold its Board and Council meetings there. In contradiction to its professed commitment to same-sex rights, the letter evades and misrepresents the crucial social justice issues at stake.

We therefore call upon the APA Board to reconsider its decision. Doug Manchester and the Hyatt management should be notified of APA’s desire to renegotiate or cancel the contract. The legality of the current contract should be thoroughly investigated, and a broader analysis of all potential financial ramifications should be conducted. At the very least, the APA should move its Board and Council meetings and associated events to a different hotel. Divisions, other entities, and all convention attendees should be encouraged to make independent decisions based on their own values.

The right of same-sex couples to marry is a civil rights issue of no less consequence – nor of more ethical complexity – than any other in our nation’s history. The American Psychological Association’s current position regarding the Manchester Hyatt is unacceptable. We encourage those who share our views to communicate their concerns to Dr. Goodheart, APA’s Board of Directors, the Council of Representatives, and other division leaders.

Below we respond in detail to the claims made and issues raised by Dr. Goodheart in her most recent letter (a response to her earlier late-August letter is available here). Thank you for your time, attention, and consideration. We welcome any and all dissemination of our letter.

Sincerely,

Roy Eidelson and Brad Olson

12 Concerns about APA President-Elect Carol Goodheart’s Recent Letter

1. Dr. Goodheart asks APA divisions not to join the hotel boycott and to reconsider any decisions to do so. It is wrong for APA’s leadership to actively encourage or pressure divisions to use the Manchester Hyatt for convention business meetings and hospitality suites – and to therefore ignore their concerns of conscience. This is particularly problematic for divisions that have re-established themselves as “societies” for the express purpose of maintaining their independence. In her letter Dr. Goodheart also expresses the fear that too many divisions may make autonomous decisions to boycott the Manchester Hyatt. Perhaps this worry is recognition that the APA Board’s position runs counter to the moral commitments of a good portion of its members.

2. Dr. Goodheart reveals that in February 2009 the APA Board decided it “would have to honor” the original Manchester contract. There is no indication that any effort was made to renegotiate or dissolve this contract, even in light of recent events. This is disappointing and hard to explain, especially since there may be legitimate and persuasive legal grounds for taking such action. For example, the National Lawyers Guild of San Francisco has noted that the hotel may be violating its contractual commitments to provide “a quiet and non-controversial venue” for association meetings.

3. Dr. Goodheart’s two reasons why the APA must honor the contract are unconvincing. First, she notes that “Board policy is to not cancel hotel contracts unless there is imminent danger to attendees or staff.” Second, she writes that, “in a time of serious financial crisis, cancellation of the contract would deplete the APA’s limited resources by over a million dollars.” Of course, by offering this second reason (the national financial crisis), Dr. Goodheart communicates that “Board policy” alone is insufficient grounds for honoring the contract. As for the stated financial repercussions, any meaningful assessment would seemingly require a thorough strategic and legal analysis of the likely outcomes of contesting the contract or pursuing a reasonable compromise – and there is no indication the APA ever conducted such an analysis.

4. Dr. Goodheart’s letter misrepresents the most important and enduring consequences of a boycott for Doug Manchester and his hotel. In a short-sighted argument, Dr. Goodheart states that “a boycott, although a strong symbolic gesture, would not achieve the desired results; the Manchester Grand Hyatt Hotel would receive the same revenue…because of major contractual penalties of up to $500,000.” But the power of a successful boycott is not measured solely by its effect on immediate revenues. More important are the ever-widening ripple effects produced as more and more groups and individuals take notice and join the boycott effort. A well-publicized decision to stay away from the Manchester Hyatt by an organization with APA’s membership size and clout would be no small matter and far more than a mere “gesture.”

5. Dr. Goodheart wrongly compares the current situation to APA honoring past convention contracts in Toronto during the SARS outbreak and in post-Katrina New Orleans. Toronto and New Orleans were two host cities confronting economic fallout from tragic and fear-inducing natural events. Some organizations altered, canceled, or relocated their conventions; the APA did not. But to argue similar circumstances now apply in San Diego – in regard to a particular hotel – is to strain credibility. If there is a principled stand based on the greater good that explains the current position of APA’s leadership, it has not yet been made clear. Indeed, the letter leaves the reader doubting that the APA Board, all else being equal, would actually prefer to find an alternative to the Manchester Hyatt.

6. Dr. Goodheart’s letter presents misleading and seemingly biased information about the labor issues involved. That the APA sides so fully with hotel management over workers in the letter is rather transparent and appears to suggest that the APA leadership is far too comfortable serving those in power. Indeed in the emailed letter to APA Council, a letter from Doug Manchester himself was attached, while no opposing voice was given the opportunity to present an alternative view. Why the APA would adopt such a trusting attitude toward an ultra-wealthy hotelier while taking such a questioning stance toward advocates for labor rights calls for further clarification.

7. Dr. Goodheart endorses management representations of favorable working conditions at the hotel, emphasizing that the Manchester is managed like all other Hyatts. But only last month the Boston Globe reported that 100 long-time workers at three Boston-area Hyatts were abruptly fired after they had finished training lower-paid workers. Management had initially claimed the temps would only be filling in during vacations. More generally, in vouching for the Manchester’s labor policies, Dr. Goodheart’s letter displays no awareness that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) process for resolving disputes between labor and management is deeply flawed. These inequities are well-documented in the Unfair Advantage report from Human Rights Watch; in numerous reports from the Economic Policy Institute, including No Holds Barred: The Intensification of Employer Opposition to Organizing; and in efforts by President Obama and a bipartisan Congressional coalition to pass the Employee Free Choice Act.

8. Dr. Goodheart’s anecdotal observations from her recent visit to the Manchester Hyatt are misleading. She reports “We saw firsthand that there was no picket line because it is not a union hotel and there were no demonstrators.” But one need only conduct a quick internet search to find news articles and photos documenting that picketing has indeed taken place over the past year. For example, the San Diego News Network reported last month: “Most nights there is a noisy picket line in front of the hotel.” If the hotel’s non-union workers are not joining these lines, it is likely because workers without union representation are routinely subjected to severe and often illegal repercussions when management suspects them of any interest in organizing. This includes being fired for union activity; required attendance at anti-union meetings with supervisors; and threats of worksite closure if a union is formed. Compared to union workers, non-union employees receive lower wages and are less likely to have employer-provided health insurance and pension plans – and they face growing, health-impairing workload demands (see Creating Luxury, Enduring Pain). In short, the APA leadership’s quick embrace of the status quo calls for reconsideration.

9. Dr. Goodheart’s letter blurs the LGBT community’s key complaint against the Manchester Grand Hyatt. The basis for the boycott could not be clearer: owner Doug Manchester contributed $125,000 to abolish the right of same-sex couples to marry, and he continues to support this form of discrimination. Dr. Goodheart’s observation that the Global Hyatt Corporation, headquartered in Chicago, received a “Best Places to Work” designation from the LGBT-rights focused Human Rights Campaign is irrelevant. In fact, after Manchester’s Prop 8 contribution, the Human Rights Campaign demanded that its “Best Companies” logo be removed from Hyatt material referencing Manchester’s San Diego hotel. Any suggestion by the APA leadership that LGBT rights advocates are divided on this boycott is entirely unsubstantiated.

10. The APA Board’s anti-boycott argument in the letter presents inconsistent financial figures, while failing to provide meaningful context. From the letter, APA’s actual financial exposure is exceedingly difficult to assess. Within the space of consecutive paragraphs, Dr. Goodheart first warns “cancellation of the contract would deplete APA’s limited resources by over a million dollars”, and then alludes to “major contractual penalties of up to $500,000.” Both are large numbers; but one more than twice the other, and “up to $500,000″ is impossibly vague. The letter also fails to note that the APA is an organization of close to 100,000 members and has assets – based on the APA’s most recent Annual Report – that conservatively exceed $200,000,000, even after the severe economic downturn. The apparent worst-case scenario of a $500,000 penalty therefore averages out to $5 per member (with basic annual membership dues of $287 per person). There are other ways the APA can lose $500,000. Losses of that magnitude will quickly accrue if, for instance, roughly 1,800 psychologists decide to avoid the 2010 convention or decline to renew their annual membership (or decide not to join the APA).

11. Dr. Goodheart’s letter promotes an unjustified “either-or” view of how to address the Manchester Hyatt situation. Rather than endorsing the boycott, proposing direct actions, and demonstrating an unequivocal commitment to equal rights, the letter recommends alternatives deemed “positive” and “affirmative,” such as a press conference and information packets. These activities should be offered regardless – but in no way can they be considered sufficient. And the APA leadership’s proposal that “visible support” for same-sex marriage can be demonstrated by wearing a “button” is simply inadequate. One can hardly imagine where other hard-earned civil rights would stand today if their supporters had done little more than wear buttons in such circumstances.

12. Finally, Dr. Goodheart’s letter withholds answers to a broad range of important questions. Why did Dr. Goodheart and other APA staff recently travel to San Diego and visit the Manchester Grand Hyatt? After all, according to the letter, the APA leadership had already decided to honor the contract back in early 2009. With whom did they visit while there? Did they meet with any boycott representatives to gain their perspective? Did they meet with any members of the hotel’s housekeeping staff (or only with the hotel’s management)? Who are the anonymous “key stakeholders,” “knowledgeable members of the LGBT community,” “constituents,” “community informants,” and “key players” alluded to in the letter? How were members of the “work group” selected, and what charge were they given? Lastly, what has transpired over the past month that should reasonably alter the view of those APA divisions and members who support a boycott of the Manchester Grand Hyatt?

Given the pressing civil and human rights issues involved, we reiterate the need for the APA to attempt to renegotiate or cancel the Manchester hotel contract, investigate the legal and financial ramifications more thoroughly, move its Board and Council meetings to other locations, and encourage divisions/societies, other entities, and convention attendees to make their own independent decisions.

For more information or to join on to this effort, please contact Roy Eidelson (reidelson@eidelsonconsulting.com) and/or Brad Olson (bradley.d.olson@gmail.com).

**********

PsySR member Brad Olson is a community and social/personality psychologist, activist, consultant, and research faculty at Northwestern University. He is a co-founder of the Coalition for an Ethical Psychology, and former chair of Divisions for Social Justice (DSJ), a collection of 12 divisions of the APA. .

PsySR president Roy Eidelson is a clinical psychologist and the president of Eidelson Consulting, where he studies, writes about, and consults on the role of psychological issues in political, organizational, and group conflict settings.

2 comments October 7th, 2009

Calfornia Gays: Don’t Divorce Us

Ken Starr’s at it again:

“Fidelity”: Don’t Divorce… from Courage Campaign on Vimeo.
[H/t Daily Kos.]

February 8th, 2009

Could Obama’s election help African-American achievement?

A new study described in the New York Times suggests that Obama’s election may have some effects on African-American achievement. at least temporarily it wiped out the negative effects of racial stereotyping on performance. Of courser, as with all social science studies, we need replications to determine if this effect is more than a fluke. But we can hope:

Study Sees an Obama Effect as Lifting Black Test-Takers
By Sam Dillon

Educators and policy makers, including Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, have said in recent days that they hope President Obama’s example as a model student could inspire millions of American students, especially blacks, to higher academic performance.

Now researchers have documented what they call an Obama effect, showing that a performance gap between African-Americans and whites on a 20-question test administered before Mr. Obama’s nomination all but disappeared when the exam was administered after his acceptance speech and again after the presidential election.

The inspiring role model that Mr. Obama projected helped blacks overcome anxieties about racial stereotypes that had been shown, in earlier research, to lower the test-taking proficiency of African-Americans, the researchers conclude in a report summarizing their results.

“Obama is obviously inspirational, but we wondered whether he would contribute to an improvement in something as important as black test-taking,” said Ray Friedman, a management professor at Vanderbilt University, one of the study’s three authors. “We were skeptical that we would find any effect, but our results surprised us.”

The study has not yet undergone peer review, and two academics who read it on Thursday said they would be interested to see if other researchers would be able to replicate its results.

Dr. Friedman and his fellow researchers, David M. Marx, a professor of social psychology at San Diego State University, and Sei Jin Ko, a visiting professor in management and organizations at Northwestern, have submitted their study for review to The Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Dr. Friedman said.

“It’s a very small sample, but certainly a provocative study,” said Ronald F. Ferguson, a Harvard professor who studies the factors that have affected the achievement gap between white and nonwhite students, which shows up on nearly every standardized test. “There is a certainly a theoretical foundation and some empirical support for the proposition that Obama’s election could increase the sense of competence among African-Americans, and it could reduce the anxiety associated with taking difficult test questions.”

Researchers in the last decade assembled university students with identical SAT scores and administered tests to them, discovering that blacks performed significantly poorer when asked at the start to fill out a form identifying themselves by race. The researchers attributed those results to anxiety that caused them to tighten up during exams in which they risked confirming a racial stereotype.

In the study made public on Thursday, Dr. Friedman and his colleagues compiled a brief test, drawing 20 questions from the verbal sections of the Graduate Record Exam, and administering it four times to about 120 white and black test-takers during last year’s presidential campaign.

In total, 472 Americans — 84 blacks and 388 whites — took the exam. Both white and black test-takers ranged in age from 18 to 63, and their educational attainment ranged from high school dropout to Ph.D.

On the initial test last summer, whites on average correctly answered about 12 of 20 questions, compared with about 8.5 correct answers for blacks, Dr. Friedman said. But on the tests administered immediately after Mr. Obama’s nomination acceptance speech, and just after his election victory, black performance improved, rendering the white-black gap “statistically nonsignificant,” he said.

“It’s a nice piece of work,” said G. Gage Kingsbury, a testing expert who is a director at the Northwest Evaluation Association, who read the study on Thursday.

But Dr. Kingsbury wondered whether the Obama effect would extend beyond the election, or prove transitory. “I’d want to see another study replicating their results before I get too excited about it,” he said.

January 25th, 2009

Dan Schaefer: In My Liftetime

These feelings transcend any policy issues.

Words & music by Dan Schaefer.

January 19th, 2009

AirTran: The Bigot’s airline (TM)

Scott Horton reminds us of the horrifying  incident whereby a Muslim family was kicked off an AirTran flight for the crime of traveling while Muslim. Here is Scott’s article. Below it is a message I just sent to AirTran. remember, that is  AirTran: The Bigot’s airline (TM):

None Dare Call it Stupidity

By Scott Horton

CNN reports that a Muslim family is hustled off a plane after some morons misunderstand their conversation. (For the film version of this incident, check out Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay,–as usual, the most effective comedy carefully apes reality.) Note that the FBI behaves correctly and the airlines officials make asses out of themselves. This fits the recurrent pattern.

A Muslim family removed from an airliner Thursday after passengers became concerned about their conversation say AirTran officials refused to rebook them, even after FBI investigators cleared them of wrongdoing. Atif Irfan said federal authorities removed eight members of his extended family and a friend after passengers heard them discussing the safest place to sit and misconstrued the nature of the conversation.

Irfan, a U.S. citizen and tax attorney, said he was “impressed with the professionalism” of the FBI agents who questioned him, but said he felt mistreated when the airline refused to book the family for a later flight.

An incident to keep in mind next time you’re booking a flight. Remember the name of that airline: AirTran.

My message to AirTran: The Bigot’s airline (TM):

Sirs, As an American citizen, university professor, and frequent flyer, I am distressed and outraged at your airline’s bigoted actions in kicking off a Muslim family from a flight for no good reason. Even more inexcusable is your refusal to rebook them after they were cleared by the FBI.

I will remember this action when I choose an airline in the future. I will remind my traveling colleagues of your airline’s intolerant and inexcusable policies. And I will do what I can to alert the public.

I hope you will now do the right thing and publicly apologize and compensate this family. But such actions would be meaningless unless you also adopt clear nondiscriminatory policies to make sure such abuses never happen again.

Sincerely,

Let AirTran: The Bigot’s airline (TM) know what you think.

UPDATE: the media are reportiong that AirTran: the Bigot’;s Airline “apologized“:

“We regret that the issue escalated to the heightened security level it did,” AirTran said in a statement Friday afternoon. “But we trust everyone understands that the security and the safety of our passengers is paramount.” Read the full statement

They certainly made no acknowledgement that they did anything wrong. The did not discuss their refuisal to rebook the family after they were cleared by the FBI. And they have not a word about policies to prevent a recurrence. I still suggest that you let AirTran: The Bigot’s airline (TM) know what you think.

January 3rd, 2009

Jim Webb wants to reform US prison system, but Washington Post won’t tell us how

I have a friend who really wanted Senator Jim Webb to be Obama’s VP pick. An article in today’s Washington Post give an idea why: It announces that Webb is going to introduce legislation to deal with the crisis of millions of poor minority men in prison with long sentences for relatively minor offenses. Unfortunately, in 28 paragraphs (if I counted correctly), the author couldn’t deign to actually tell us what Webb wants to do. The article spends much more time quoting people as to why it is politically unwise to tackle this enormous problem:

Webb Sets His Sights On Prison Reform
Senator Proposes National Panel

By Sandhya Somashekhar

Somewhere along the meandering career path that led James Webb to the U.S. Senate, he found himself in the frigid interior of a Japanese prison.

A journalist at the time, he was working on an article about Ed Arnett, an American who had spent two years in Fuchu Prison for possession of marijuana. In a January 1984 Parade magazine piece, Webb described the harsh conditions imposed on Arnett, who had frostbite and sometimes labored in solitary confinement making paper bags.

“But, surprisingly, Arnett, home in Omaha, Neb., says he prefers Japan’s legal system to ours,” Webb wrote. “Why? ‘Because it’s fair,’ he said.”

This spring, Webb (D-Va.) plans to introduce legislation on a long-standing passion of his: reforming the U.S. prison system. Jails teem with young black men who later struggle to rejoin society, he says. Drug addicts and the mentally ill take up cells that would be better used for violent criminals. And politicians have failed to address this costly problem for fear of being labeled “soft on crime.”

It is a gamble for Webb, a fiery and cerebral Democrat from a staunchly law-and-order state. Virginia abolished parole in 1995, and it trails only Texas in the number of people it has executed. Moreover, as the country struggles with two wars overseas and an ailing economy, overflowing prisons are the last thing on many lawmakers’ minds.

But Webb has never been one to rely on polls or political indicators to guide his way. He seems instead to charge ahead on projects that he has decided are worthy of his time, regardless of how they play — or even whether they represent the priorities of the state he represents.

State Sen. Ken Cuccinelli II (R-Fairfax), who is running for attorney general, said the initiative sounds “out of line” with the desires of people in Virginia but not necessarily surprising for Webb. The senator, he said, “is more emotion than brain in terms of what leads his agenda.”

Some say Webb’s go-it-alone approach could come back to haunt him.

“He clearly has limited interest in the political art, you might say, of reelection,” said Robert D. Holsworth, a political science professor at Virginia Commonwealth University.

Webb’s supporters say his independent streak will be rewarded. They note that his early opposition to the Iraq war helped carry him to victory over incumbent Republican George Allen in 2006. Two years after taking office, they point out, he took the unusual step as a freshman senator of authoring major legislation: a new GI Bill to expand education benefits to veterans of recent wars.

They say there is no better messenger on the unlikely issue of criminal justice reform.

“It’s perceived as a great political sin to represent any position besides ‘lock ‘em up and throw the key away,’ ” said state Sen. J. Chapman Petersen (D-Fairfax). “With Jim’s personality, he’s never going to strike somebody as being soft on crime or any other issue. For that reason, he might be better able to lead this cause. He’s a pretty tough guy.”

Webb is a decorated Marine who served as Navy secretary under President Ronald Reagan. He has also been a journalist, a novelist and a Hollywood screenwriter. In an interview last week, he said his experience in the military, a culture that is “disciplined but fair,” led to his interest in the prison system.

However, he believes it is his experience as a writer that will allow him to articulate a new approach.

“I enjoy grabbing hold of really complex issues and boiling them down in a way that they can be understood by everyone,” he said. “I think you can be a law-and-order leader and still understand that the criminal justice system as we understand it today is broken, unfair, locking up the wrong people in many cases and not locking up the right person in many cases.”

In speeches and in a book that devotes a chapter to prison issues, Webb describes a U.S. prison system that is deeply flawed in how it targets, punishes and releases those identified as criminals.

With 2.3 million people behind bars, the United States has imprisoned a higher percentage of its population than any other nation, according to the Pew Center on the States and other groups. Although the United States has only 5 percent of the world’s population, it has 25 percent of its prison population, Webb says.

A disproportionate number of those who are incarcerated are black, Webb notes. African Americans make up 13 percent of the population, but they comprise more than half of all prison inmates, compared with one-third two decades ago. Today, Webb says, a black man without a high school diploma has a 60 percent chance of going to prison.

Webb aims much of his criticism at enforcement efforts that he says too often target low-level drug offenders and parole violators, rather than those who perpetrate violence, such as gang members. He also blames policies that strip felons of citizenship rights and can hinder their chances of finding a job after release. He says he believes society can be made safer while making the system more humane and cost-effective.

That point of view has gained steam with members of both parties. Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) recently proposed earlier release for some prisoners convicted of nonviolent crimes as a cost-cutting measure.

But the movement is alarming to drug enforcement advocates. Tom Riley, spokesman for the Office of National Drug Policy Initiatives, said it has become an “urban myth” that the nation imprisons vast numbers of low-level drug offenders.

People are often surprised to learn that less than one-half of 1 percent of all inmates are in for marijuana possession, he said. And those offenders were caught holding, on average, 100 pounds.

“That’s a pretty different picture than I think most people have,” Riley said. “It’s true, we have way too many people in prison. But it’s not because the laws are unjust, but because there are too many people who are causing havoc and misery in the community.”

J. Scott Leake, a GOP strategist in Virginia, said there is a reason Virginians enjoy low crime rates. “[It's] because of the policies we’ve already put in place,” he said. “If Senator Webb were to try to roll some of that back, I think he would have a fight on his hands.”

Webb isn’t known to shy from a fight. He said this spring that he’ll introduce legislation that creates a national panel to recommend ways to overhaul the criminal justice system.

In his article about the Japanese prisons, Webb described inmates living in unheated cells and being prohibited from possessing writing materials. Arnett’s head was shaved every two weeks, and he was forbidden to look out the window.

Still, Webb said, the United States could learn from the Japanese system. In his book, “A Time to Fight,” he wrote that the Japanese focused less on retribution. Sentences were short, and inmates often left prison with marketable job skills. Ironically, he said, the system was modeled on philosophies pioneered by Americans, who he says have since lost their way on the matter.

Webb believes he can guide the nation back. “Contrary to so much of today’s political rhetoric,” he wrote, “to do so would be an act not of weakness but of strength.”

December 29th, 2008

American Psychoanalytic Association dnounces passage of anti-gay Proposition 8

The American Psychoanalytic Association has issued a press release denouncing California’s passage of Proposition 8, making gay marriages unconstitutional:

Psychoanalysts Censure California’s Vote to Ban Same-Sex Marriage

NEW YORK, Nov 06, 2008 / The American Psychoanalytic Association (APsaA) denounces the election results in California that supported Proposition 8, a ballot measure that bans same-sex marriage in the state. In keeping with its overall support of social justice, APsaA issued a position statement earlier this year supporting the legal recognition of same-sex civil marriage while opposing discrimination against same-sex couples. For the full text of the APsaA Marriage Resolution, please visit: http://www.apsa.org/ABOUTAPSAA/POSITIONSTATEMENTS/MARRIAGERESOLUTION/tabid/470/Default.aspx.

APsaA President-elect and Pasadena, CA resident Warren Procci, M.D. remarks: “These ballot propositions such as California’s Proposition 8, deny to gay individuals the rights to freedom of choice of partner in marriage as well as access to equal protection which is granted to all of us by our constitution. These denials are based solely on an individual’s sexual orientation.”

“We want people to think about the broad impact the denial of same-sex marriage has on Americans today,” says psychoanalyst Ethan Grumbach, Ph.D., a Los Angeles resident and chair of APsaA’s Committee on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Issues. “Families exist in many different ways and it is important for same-sex couples to have legal and societal recognition of their unions for themselves, their children, and their extended families. Research continues to demonstrate the stigmatization and discrimination to which same sex couples and families are subjected is traumatizing and damaging to their health.”

APsaA’s Committee on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Issues has reviewed extensive research on homosexual relationships and gay and lesbian parents and their children prior to issuing its Same-Sex Marriage Resolution. Some relevant statistics and research results are:

    --  The Kaiser Family Foundation Survey of 2001 found that 68 percent of lesbians and gays considered lesbian and gay marriage to be very important and 25 percent considered it to be somewhat important.
    --  According to the 2000 U.S. Census, 34 percent of cohabitating female couples and 22 percent of male couples were raising children under the age of 18.
    --  In a 2006 paper, Charlotte Patterson, Ph.D., renowned researcher and professor of psychology at the University of Virginia, concluded, "Results of the research (of various population samples of lesbian and gay families) suggest that qualities of family relationships are more tightly linked with child (development) outcomes than is parental sexual orientation."

In addition, APsaA’s Committee on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Issues is currently developing a proposed position statement on the United States’ military policy of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

The American Psychoanalytic Association is a professional organization of psychoanalysts throughout the United States and is comprised of approximately 3,300 members.

Visit www.apsa.org for more information.

Available Topic Expert(s): For information on the listed expert(s), click appropriate link.

Mark D. Smaller, Ph.D.

http://profnet.prnewswire.com/Subscriber/ExpertProfile.aspx?ei=58376

Prudence Gourguechon MD

http://profnet.prnewswire.com/Subscriber/ExpertProfile.aspx?ei=59358

SOURCE American Psychoanalytic Association

November 7th, 2008

My wife made me canvass for Obama; here’s what I learned

Here is an article from the Christian Science Monitor giving a sense of what is at stake today, beyond the inevitably disappointing  policy questions. We will be fighting Obama and the Congressional Democrats come January. But there is much to celebrate today, we hope:

My wife made me canvass for Obama; here’s what I learned
This election is not about major policies. It’s about hope.

By Jonathan Curley

Charlotte, N.C. – There has been a lot of speculation that Barack Obama might win the election due to his better “ground game” and superior campaign organization.

I had the chance to view that organization up close this month when I canvassed for him. I’m not sure I learned much about his chances, but I learned a lot about myself and about this election.

Let me make it clear: I’m pretty conservative. I grew up in the suburbs. I voted for George H.W. Bush twice, and his son once. I was disappointed when Bill Clinton won, and disappointed he couldn’t run again.

I encouraged my son to join the military. I was proud of him in Afghanistan, and happy when he came home, and angry when he was recalled because of the invasion of Iraq. I’m white, 55, I live in the South and I’m definitely going to get a bigger tax bill if Obama wins.

I am the dreaded swing voter.

So you can imagine my surprise when my wife suggested we spend a Saturday morning canvassing for Obama. I have never canvassed for any candidate. But I did, of course, what most middle-aged married men do: what I was told.

At the Obama headquarters, we stood in a group to receive our instructions. I wasn’t the oldest, but close, and the youngest was maybe in high school. I watched a campaign organizer match up a young black man who looked to be college age with a white guy about my age to canvas together. It should not have been a big thing, but the beauty of the image did not escape me.

Instead of walking the tree-lined streets near our home, my wife and I were instructed to canvass a housing project. A middle-aged white couple with clipboards could not look more out of place in this predominantly black neighborhood.

We knocked on doors and voices from behind carefully locked doors shouted, “Who is it?”

“We’re from the Obama campaign,” we’d answer. And just like that doors opened and folks with wide smiles came out on the porch to talk.

Grandmothers kept one hand on their grandchildren and made sure they had all the information they needed for their son or daughter to vote for the first time.

Young people came to the door rubbing sleep from their eyes to find out where they could vote early, to make sure their vote got counted.

We knocked on every door we could find and checked off every name on our list. We did our job, but Obama may not have been the one who got the most out of the day’s work.

I learned in just those three hours that this election is not about what we think of as the “big things.”

It’s not about taxes. I’m pretty sure mine are going to go up no matter who is elected.

It’s not about foreign policy. I think we’ll figure out a way to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan no matter which party controls the White House, mostly because the people who live there don’t want us there anymore.

I don’t see either of the candidates as having all the answers.

I’ve learned that this election is about the heart of America. It’s about the young people who are losing hope and the old people who have been forgotten. It’s about those who have worked all their lives and never fully realized the promise of America, but see that promise for their grandchildren in Barack Obama. The poor see a chance, when they often have few. I saw hope in the eyes and faces in those doorways.

My wife and I went out last weekend to knock on more doors. But this time, not because it was her idea. I don’t know what it’s going to do for the Obama campaign, but it’s doing a lot for me.

Jonathan Curley is a banker. He voted for George H.W. Bush twice and George W. Bush once.

November 4th, 2008

Gre Palast: Vote for him – because he’s Black

Greg Palast expresses what many are thinking — vote for Obama, despite his pro-corporate policies, because he’s black and his election will signal a profound cultural transformation in this country. [Then, of course, on Wednesday, start organizing those social movements that will force him to do the right thing at least some of the time.]:

Vote for him – because he’s Black

by Greg Palast

No question, Mr. Bruce was my favorite teacher in junior high.

I went to this Loser-ville school in the San Fernando Valley. It was all Chicano kids and working class white losers like me. Everyone had to take ‘metal shop’ so we could work the bottom-end jobs in the Chevy plant.

My brain was dying – until Mr. Bruce showed up, the new science teacher. DOCTOR Bruce, actually – the only Ph.d teacher in the place.

At lunch hour, instead of hanging out in the teachers’ lunchroom, Mr. Bruce would invite me and my friends into his classroom. Over coffee made on a Bunsen burner, he would talk about topics from Einstein to Buddha while munching on this strange stuff called “organic” food.

He was simply like no adult I’d ever met – an exceptional guy who could make us dull-brained students sizzle.

My parents had him over for Sunday brunch and he talked about his work as a ‘honey-dipper’ in the Deep South where he grew up. The honey-dipper was the guy who hunted for lost glasses and whatever else was dropped in outhouse cesspools. Dr. Bruce said he enjoyed the work because it taught him pleasures of quiet grace, of dignified acceptance.

The kids were crazy about him, but not all the parents. Some called to complain about the school hiring him.

So he left. Months later, Mr. Bruce mailed me a letter from Japan where he’d taken a university post.

It’s odd, but it was only this year that I put it all together: his exclusion by the other teachers, his job as a honey-dipper, his need to escape America.

Dr. Bruce, of course, is Black.

So, I’m going to do something that Dr. Bruce would think little of. I’m going to vote for the Black man. Because he’s Black.

The truth is, I’m wary of Barack Obama. His cozy relations with the sub-prime loan sharks who funded his early campaign; his vote, at the behest of his big donor ADM corporation, for the horrific Bush energy bill.

But there’s one thing that overshadows policy positions, one thing he cannot change once in office: the color of his skin. The same as Mr. Bruce’s.

I’m going to say something that I know the Obama campaign will just hate; but that many others are feeling but won’t say out loud. We must vote for Barack Obama because he’s Black.

For four centuries, our nation has poisoned itself with the corrosive venom of racism. From the slave trade, to our still-segregated schools, to the Bush family stealing the White House by cynically, and sinfully, calling Florida Black voters felons; to the exile of a brilliant science teacher four decades ago.

The time has come to cleanse the wound that will not heal.

November 3rd, 2008

Californians, Vote No on Proposition 8!

And San Diego Republican Mayor has a Profile In Courage moment, explaining why he changed his mind and now supports gay marriage:

November 2nd, 2008