LETTERS

'Emotional miseducation'

THE ARTICLE BY BRIDGET Murray in the July / August Monitor, "Boys to men: emotional miseducation," was, overall, quite good. I am still incredulous, though, that not once does homophobia get mentioned in the discussion of why this society trains boys to be tough and not tender, and why at adolescence boys lose close same-gender friends. The mention of "being taught not to be 'sissies'" does not qualify as an analysis of how our culture's homophobia exacts a toll from all, not only from gays, lesbians and bisexuals. As long as we continue to fear that a boy might grow up to be gay and find false reassurance in his aggressive and/or unempathetic behavior, this society will reap what it sows with its prejudice.

Paul Cody, PhD
Pittsfield, N.H.

A CONSISTENT THEME IN the "Boys to men" article was the mixed message boys and men receive in our society. They are told to be both tough and yet sensitive, independent and yet intimate with others, strong and yet revealing of weaknesses.

As our profession seeks to find "answers" to the dilemmas that confront boys seeking to become men, it's time we realized new is not always better. Generations before us have see men who can combine strength and gentleness. Robert E. Lee, Patrick Henry, Winston Churchill and Theodore Roosevelt were all strong leaders and yet were also devoted, loving and gentle husbands and fathers. Each built his life on the Biblical instructions about being a man. Yet, when churches, individuals or movements such as Promise Keepers help men to pursue these characteristics, they are condemned with polemical, politically correct or feminist rhetoric.

If we want to find things that work, we need to be willing to put aside political correctness and consider what has worked in the past. For hundreds of years the Bible has been the moral foundation for Western society, but over the past several decades our profession has been seeking to move our society away from this foundation. As psychology has achieved greater influence, problems such has teen violence, teen pregnancy and drug abuse have grown. Maybe it is time for our profession to do a little soul-searching about the ease with which we advocate "answers" based on biases and opinions rather than science and fail to look at our own contributions to the problems of modern American society.

Anderson Rowan, PhD
Landstuhl, Germany

A systems look at Columbine

THANK YOU FOR THE VIEWPOINT "A developmental look at Columbine" (July/August) by Drs. Greenfield and Juvonen. The authors explain that many factors come into play when we look at violent acts committed by children such as Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, and correctly identify factors that may have influenced their tragic rampage; role models, violent media, availability of weapons and tools, Internet bomb-making sites, opportunities to practice with videogames, escalating tension between groups at school and lack of parental supervision.

But I also question whether or not neighbors, educators and other community members saw signs of concern as they interacted with these boys. It seems to me that gone are the days of my parents' childhood where the entire community raised their children. Each child's well-being was the responsibility of the entire neighborhood.

After thinking about this "community" factor, I began to ask myself what is happening to individuals and families that is related to the breakdown of communities. Here, too, many factors play a role: busier lives, fear of others, increasing cyber-relations, distant extended families and more stressful lives, to name but a few. One can go on and on analyzing why each level of these problems exist. It is, however, not useful to regard the two boys from Littleton, Colo., as the sole "identified patient." All of us must examine our own lives, our schools, our communities and our society as a whole, if we are to make sense of a truly senseless act.

Orson A. Morrison
Chicago

Positive psychology

AS A CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST whose "niche" practice has been positive psychology, I found Martin E.P. Seligman's article in the July/August issue illuminating. My practice of positive psychology evolved not in response to market needs, but as a preferred way of treating my clients. I find that this stance focuses on rigorously homing factors that increase coping, happiness or fulfillment. More often than not, this has required focusing on strengths, even in cases where initial presentation may be a very debilitating picture.

I continue to find new ways of balancing this focus with the other requirements of therapy, such as creating a safe place, helping clients to become increasingly aware of where they may be blocked, and functioning as a "good object." As I continue to learn more through my practice, I find that, more often than not, positive psychology is not irreconcilable with my mainly psychodynamic training. However, there is much work to be done, and I have so many questions. For starters, how do we define "positive psychology?" What about a theoretical base?

Despite the questions, I have come to believe that we psychologists may serve our clients even better if we can include this perspective into our training and work. After all, wasn't it Freud who defined the realm of human existence as work, love and play? Perhaps we can learn more about how to empower people to do all three of these to their full potential.

Kumkum Malik, PsyD
Norfolk, Mass.

Child sexual abuse article

CONCERNING THE RECENT controversy over the Psychological Bulletin meta-analysis on child sexual abuse by Rind, Tromovitch and Bauserman, it is absurd to the point of outrage to imply that APA condones such abuse. You were absolutely correct to publish the findings objectively. We cannot provide valid treatment to patients by blindfolding ourselves with political correctness; we need to know the facts about what experiences cause what types of harm. We also need to know the areas where humans are resilient and robust, i.e., able to go forward in a healthy fashion regardless of negative experiences. Your critics by analogy would condemn emergency room physicians for performing evaluations to determine who needed urgent care and who needed none.

Paul R. Lees-Haley, PhD
Woodlin Hills, Calif.

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

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

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

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

Gerald Zuriff, PhD
Cambridge, Mass.

WE ARE DEEPLY CONCERNED by the article in Psychological Bulletin (1998, Vol. 124, p. 22-53), which is at the center of the controversy on pedophilia. While Rind et al. seemed to demonstrate reasonable professionalism with meta-analysis, the conclusion and recommendations were very problematic: (1) referring to sexual abuse as a "value neutral term," (2) suggesting that adult-adolescent sex may fall within the normal range of human sexual behaviors and (3) indicating that sexual abuse may not be "as harmful."

Such statements point to a political agenda that we are seeing all too frequently in APA journals. Nowhere in the article could be found any evidence of whether these victims of child sexual abuse have been involved in psychotherapy that may have ameliorated the long-term impact of the sexual abuse. The authors' suggestions that child sexual abuse may not be harmful is tantamount to saying that an individual who has been raped or who has managed to struggle through the ensuing difficulties may not have been impacted by that rape.

Sexual abuse of children and adolescents is always harmful. It rips away a childhood innocence. It prematurely sexualizes a child. We who treat adults molested as children or adolescents know firsthand the damage done to their lives. APA must discontinue its rhetoric about the article and simply state, "We blew it by allowing the article to be published. While the meta-analysis appears accurate, the authors' Summary and Discussion section is abominable."

Your refusal to do so continues to hurt and offend practicing psychologists and the individuals and families they serve.

A. Dean Byrd, PhD
American Fork, Utah

S. Brent Scharman, PhD
Salt Lake City, Utah

Ed D. Lauritsen, PhD
Phoenix, Ariz.

THE LEADERSHIP OF APA demonstrated an appalling lack of understanding of the way science works in publicly distancing itself from the data and conclusions of the Rind et al. study of the effects of child sexual abuse.

Rather than taking the high ground and using the attack on the study as a opportunity to educate some of our more scientifically illiterate members of Congress about data analysis and interpretation, the APA shamelessly toadied up to those in power. To call for an "independent expert evaluation" of a study published in a respected, peer-reviewed journal is an extraordinary affront to the scientific integrity of the authors of the study and to the scientists who were involved in its review. The fact that the motivation to undertake such an evaluation was purely political is simply contemptible. Given their ideology and general ignorance of science, the reactions of Representative DeLay, Laura Schlessinger, and others who attacked the study did not surprise me. APA, however, is supposed to be committed to the advancement of psychology as a science. I was shocked and saddened to see it fail so miserably.

Randolph R. Cornelius
Poughkeepsie, N.Y.

Editor's Note: It is not APA's intention to publish journal articles based on their potential, or lack of potential, for creating controversy. All journal publishing decisions will continue to be made by journal editors and will be based on scientific merit as judged by the peer-review process.
APA now recognizes, however, the need to better inform the media and the general public about the science publishing process, which enables commentary on new research and allows psychologists to easily find research previous published on the subject area.

Violence against nonhuman animals

THE MONITOR WOULD BE improved if the writers did not presume that all psychologists share the same values as Richard McCarty and Beth Azar do. McCarty wrote in his columns last year about the "value" of nonhuman animal research, and now Azar is following in his footsteps with her article, "Destructive lab attack sends wake-up call" (July/August). Characterizing the actions of the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) as vandalism and terrorism instead of as unorthodox political protest is biased reporting. The article estimates the damage to the lab and to researchers who lost data; however, we should also consider the damage to the animals that are giving their lives like slaves and living their lives locked up like prisoners for human.

The real terrorists are the humans who exploit anything simply because they can. National Association of Biomedical Research representative Barbara Rich suggests that this incident signals the return to violent protest. From my perspective, the violence against nonhuman animals has never ceased in research labs, and this has not been given adequate attention. Destroying equipment and research data is not considerate in the least, but neither is exploiting nonhuman animals without their consent. Of course, McCarty has addressed this many times, pointing out the benefits of such exploits. Nevertheless, I have come to learn that humans will consent to anything for money, so why not use consenting human animals for such research?

Henry Rivera
Hartford, Conn.

More realistic training guidelines

I READ WITH INTEREST THE July/August article "No longer invisible, psychology students sound like advocates," in which psychology students and faculty call for increased training resources. Missing from the article was mention of the core reason why training for psychology students is sparse--the rigid APA guidelines governing internship requirements. Many state licensing boards have adopted APA's guidelines as their own, resulting in a limited and insufficient number of APA-approved internship sites for graduate students.

Even if different communities were to increase opportunities for student training/internship sites, most could not be APA-accredited. Hence, many students would not be able to pursue licensure in their state.

Instead of rallying for more funding and grants to help pay tuition and living expenses, graduate students need APA to endorse more realistic guidelines for the training of psychologists. APA cannot have it both ways--arguing for the importance of psychologists and the community need for psychologists, but at the same time continually tightening the requirements for the training of psychologists. It seems that APA has forgotten what the requirements and opportunities were when their staff was trained and licensed. Thoughts of "ivory tower" come to mind. Let's have some support, APA!

Rhonna Murray, PhD
Abilene, Texas

Applied cancer care

I READ WITH GREAT INTEREST the June special issue on psychology and cancer. Working with acutely and chronically ill people for years never prepared me for my own bout with cancer last year. I can relate to and wanted to hear more, not just from cancer survivors in general, but from cancer-surviving psychologists. The issues we deal with are the same as those of other cancer patients, but they are also different.

Having to decide whether to share my diagnosis with my own patients as I kept my 50-hour-a-week practice going through surgeries and chemotherapy was just one of the many issues that made being a cancer-toting psychologist part of a small select group. The PTSD designation used in one article is so apt for anyone traumatized by the various procedures connected to cancer treatments. Anticipating and understanding the emotional trauma does not insulate you from experiencing it. Evidently, we are good as a group at finding healthy, constructive ways of dealing with this dread disease. Good for us!

As for me, I used my best psychologist's strategies to help myself through my treatments. One was to fly to the Georgia Psychological Association's annual convention when I heard there would be five cancer-surviving psychologists discussing their experiences. Two, I saved every card plus pictures of the flowers I received and strung them around my house as reminders of the love and support I had as the treatment continued. Three was to proceed with the vacation we had planned. While I had to start the trip to Alaska in a wheelchair, I was able to end it paddling in a kayak surrounded by sea otters and dolphins. Finally, when I couldn't get to the support groups in town, I started a new group of my own.

Those four things did more for my mental and physical well-being than anything else could have. I celebrated my first year by writing down the hundreds of well wishes that surrounded me those many months, and writing a note of Thanksgiving, for closure, to each person who supported me through the rough times. My skills as a therapist served me well.

Thank you for putting this issue where it belongs, in the forefront of our minds as practitioners who can learn more to better help the ever-growing number of cancer patients that are outliving their treatments and need to mend their psyches.

Elizabeth L. Richeson, PhD
El Paso, Texas

THE JUNE ISSUE OF THE APA Monitor on cancer was not only timely for me personally, but very interesting. As a student of psychology, I find it nice to see that the field continues to make great progress in applied care, often hand-in-hand with specialists, oncologists and other physicians. It is also nice to see that, more and more, the medical world is acknowledging psychologists' roles in patient care. An excellent issue!

Heidi Adick
Pittsburgh

WE WOULD LIKE TO CONGRATULATE the Monitor's editorial staff for dedicating the June issue to psychology and cancer. In Canada since the early 1960s, the International Union of Cancer Control has recognized the importance of psychology and other supportive care to any comprehensive cancer center programming. Virtually every tertiary-care program includes a psychosocial component, often led by psychologists or social workers. At the Tom Baker Cancer Centre in Calgary, Alberta, we have had a formal psychosocial oncology program for 18 years, comprised of psychologists, social workers, and consulting psychiatrists. Five years ago, the University of Calgary Medical School established a Division of Psychosocial Oncology with accompanying formal teaching (a graduate-level course in psychosocial oncology). As well, we have a long tradition of funding clinical postdoctoral students and provide training to predoctoral interns.

From a research perspective, the National Cancer Institute of Canada (NCIC) has a behavioral awards panel that grants predoctoral, postdoctoral and career scientist awards for those studying cancer from a psychological perspective. And five years ago NCIC established a network comprised of nine centers dedicating their research energy to reducing the burden of cancer for patients from time of diagnosis to treatment and palliative care. At the Tom Baker Centre we house one NCIC- funded postdoctoral fellow, a University of Calgary-funded research fellow, and a NCIC-funded predoctoral research student.

We couldn't agree with you more that the field of oncology is ripe for psychologists, and it is indeed timely, given the opportunities for contributing to patient care, training, education and research. Thank you for this opportunity to share the developments in psychosocial oncology from north of the border.

Barry D. Bultz, PhD
Linda E. Carlson, PhD
Tom Baker Cancer Centre
The University of Calgary

Rethink the position?

I AM CONCERNED ABOUT APA's advocacy in two areas: prescription privileges and licensure. I believe that, as a society, we already rely far too greatly upon pharmacological interventions to deal with problems. Extending prescription privileges to psychologists will only increase this reliance. I realize that many psychologists disagree with me, but I wonder if the APA's position actually reflects the desires of the majority of our profession.

In regard to licensure, I believe that by insisting upon the doctorate as the appropriate degree for independent practice, APA is doing a great disservice not only to our profession, but to society as a whole. In an age in which more institutions are relying upon masters-level clinicians to supply mental health treatment, and in which the economics of managed-care support this reliance, by insisting upon the doctorate degree for licensure we are only ensuring that the field of psychology will experience an increasingly diminished presence in the practice of mental health.

Of course, limiting licensure to doctorate-holders does benefit those individuals, but it hurts our profession, and society. I urge APA to discontinue its position of maintaining the doctorate as the minimum level of education for a licensed psychologist. Instead, I urge you to work with organizations such as the North American Association of Masters in Psycho-logy to develop appropriate standards for the education of masters-level psychologists and to develop and lobby for appropriate legislation for their licensure.

Jean L. Hill, PhD
Las Vegas

Debating cultural competence

ABOUT 140 DIFFERENT racial, ethnic, religious and language groups populate the United States. It is, thus, distressing to find some psychologists demanding that practitioners attain "cultural competence," that is, in practical terms, consider themselves unprepared unless they are "competent" in several languages and foreign cultures.

As psychologists, we know, or should know that all humans of all backgrounds share common instinctual drives and needs. It is this area in which we need to have competence. Within these parameters we can then address the individual needs, keeping in mind cultural and other differences. Obviously, lack of English language facility constitutes a problem, but while to call for knowledge of foreign languages and cultures as a professional prerequisite may make one feel virtuous,t in practical terms it is clearly a no-brainer.

Good people may differ on social actions such as government promoting multiple official languages and encouraging, with statutes and public funds, diversity and racial/ethnic/language pride. But one thing is clear: social engineering, based on feel-good sentiments, is not one of the functions of the profession of psychology.

Leo Sperling, PhD
Frederick, Md.

Native American mascots

I WRITE THIS LETTER IN RESPONSE to your April article. I am an APA member on the staff at the Florida State University (FSU), which has a symbolic and a real relationship with the Florida Seminoles. (Note: The Seminole is not to be considered a mascot here; as readers may know, the Florida Seminoles were never conquered, which fact provides the basis for the metaphorical association: unconquered). Contrary to what one may assume, the Florida Seminoles, as well as the Oklahoma Seminoles, firmly welcome the association.

Chief James Billie has stated that it is up to the Seminoles to decide how they feel about the relationship, and that he and most Florida Seminole tribal members feel "honored by Florida State University's use of 'Seminoles.' If there is a territorial boundary, this is ours..." Chief Billie has further written, "...I am proud of all those who are by birth or by choosing a Seminole!" Likewise, Chief Haney of the Oklahoma Seminoles recently said, "...I think that the Seminole/Florida State relationship has been a big shot in the arm for us. I think just about everybody out here is supportive of the Florida State Seminoles."

I recognize that people's opinions and perceptions may not be changed by reading the above. Nevertheless, it is worth noting for the record that, without doubt, there is a respectful and mutually welcome relationship between the leaders at FSU and the Seminoles.

Donald J. Foss, PhD
Tallahassee, Fla.



Read our privacy statement and Terms of Use

Cover Page for this Issue

PsychNET®
© 1999 American Psychological Association

APA Home Page . Search . Site Map