Article archive / July 1, 2011
Originally published: . Volume 2, No. 11. Source pages: 2, 3.
I recently asked the psychology board to explain their reversal of Opinion #012 (see story pg 1) where they, once again, sided with the medical psychologists and medicine, to dilute the independent regulation of our profession.
When I asked them questions about this reversal, the board wrote back saying “…please submit your press credentials for Board review.” They said I’m to demonstrate that I am “…connected with a legitimate news organization.” And that they’ll look at my “credentials” and decide if they are willing to answer my questions at their meeting July 22.
This is weird in so many ways.
It smacks of what happened last year at the board’s presentation in April, when I asked Joe Comaty to explain why the board had done nothing to sound the alarm on Act 251. He explained near to nothing but then turned around and emailed me, copying all board members, saying he had “ethical concerns” about the content and method of how I questioned him at the presentation. (See story Vol 1, No 10, Board Member Notes Concerns with Times Report, Publisher.)
This led to several things, one of which was the board asking me to submit my questions in writing. I did, and in response they sent me a mumbo-jumbo reply that basically said too bad, so sad, you weren’t at the meeting that day. Go read the minutes and that’s all you get. I’d already read the cryptic minutes and they were lacking. A mystery still is what they asked their attorney for, which for some unknown reason is protected under attorney/client privilege. (See, Psych Bd Responds to Times’ Questions, PT Vol 1, No 12.)
The one thing Joe Comaty did say about 251 was that it was a majority decision of the board that the Act did not pose a threat to public safety.
Oh really?
When it came recently to SB 226 it seems that our board and Dr. Comaty very much disagreed with combining psychology with another profession. Comaty wrote the Senate Committee saying “I have a responsibility to bring to your attention fundamental flaws in the proposed legislation…” and noted the serious problem that comes from trying to combine two “…markedly different disciplines, with markedly different educational and training standards, differing scopes of practice, and differing ethical principles.” And he wrote, “Sound public policy, though, requires individuals who have specialized professional knowledge, training, and experience be the ones who make the profession’s regulatory decisions, not those who lack the pertinent professional knowledge and expertise.” (PT Vol 2, No 9, LSBEP Chair Speaks Out on 226.)
So now I need “credentials” in order to have my questions answered (or not answered). It is lucky for us all that the board is so innately talented that they can judge “credentials” for journalists and what might constitute a “legitimate news organization.”
But the fact is they have forgotten their sixth-grade civics.
A journalist needs no credentials whatsoever, because he or she is simply a common man acting as a reporter for the convenience of other common men. No person has to be affiliated with a “legitimate news organization” to ask for a full and complete answer to a question from our board. Public officials are compelled by duty and ethics to fully and honestly answer the questions about their actions. Freedom of the press is only an extension of individual rights to have information in a democracy. A journalist acts on behalf of others who cannot go to the trouble or who must not take the risk.
The board has missed a basic principle in the ideals of American life– any citizen’s right to know what the board is doing and why.
In their 1940 text, The Law of Newspapers, Arthur and Crosman wrote, “The principle of the freedom of the press as it exists today in this country, and in other democracies, is the result of a long and bitter struggle between those who believed in civil rights and constituted authority which feared the exercise of those rights.” The battle was not only over the individual’s right to speak, write, and publish his thoughts, “but primarily to provide for the people as a whole a means of protecting themselves from the tyranny of arbitrary and oppressive government. In this––the freedom to express dissatisfaction with the acts of government, and to expose improper, illegal, or corrupt acts of governmental officers––lie one of the great purposes of this principle and its tremendous value to all people who live in a democracy.”
This is no passing or trivial principle for real psychologists, because our first duty is to the truth, a human value that is permanent and enduring.
This duty is a hallmark of our APA ethics: “…respect and protect civil and human rights and the central importance of freedom of inquiry and expression…strive to help the public in developing informed judgments and choices…seek to promote accuracy, honesty, and truthfulness…”
For psychologists truth entails not only scientific and historical truth, but personal truth in a way that many others may not fully understand. We understand the limitations of the human personality and how self- interest automatically creates self- deception. We understand that 80 percent of people will cheat others if they have the need, the opportunity, and the ability to rationalize their behavior. We understand not only that power corrupts, but why.
Truth is our duty and we know that a lie by omission is still a lie. Our founders knew this, and set up as many checks and balances as they could envision for that time.
The board has it backwards.
It’s not me that must prove my competence by submitting credentials. Judgment of my competence is mainly up to my readers.
It is the board that must prove that it is open and that its decisions on behalf of the public are fair and just.
My credential is that I live in a country where the public has the right to know the truth, and our board either embraces that, or it doesn’t.
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.