The American Psychological Association (APA) is in the news again this week, and not in a good way. The Council of Representatives, which is the governing body that sets policy for the profession, once again deferred a vote on recognizing the Association of Jewish Psychologists as an ethnic psychological association. Details on that action can be found here.

The desire to quit the APA feels compelling in times like these. However, for professional psychologists, whether or not a member of APA, the organization impacts our lives. The APA's actions are important to the public, too. As a professional organization that sets policy for mental healthcare delivery, we consider this a big deal. Roughly 24% of the American public reported using mental health services in 2024, the last year for which data were available.

But a member quitting APA is a tiny drop in a giant bucket for the organization. The organization derives a significant chunk of its revenue from sources other than membership. For example, the organization is an accrediting body, and, for that alone, it generates millions of dollars in annual revenue. Your sole membership of $274 (for full members) is not even a rounding error. Now, when I’ve complained to people in APA leadership about the severe problems in the organization, the answer that I have always heard is “run for office!” I have no plans to do so, and most people don’t have the time to commit to being in elected professional leadership. However, short of seeking office, there are clear action steps to take.

• If you are a member of a division, be sure to vote in elections for offices. Elections in professional organizations are typically low-turnout affairs. Investigate the candidates and vote. Your participation will absolutely matter. To put this in real terms, I have been an elected officer of several different organizations. In each election, turnout never exceeded 30% of the membership. There are 54 divisions, and many of those divisions have specialized sections. If you are a member of any of these units, voting is essential, and easy since it is by email.

• Be sure to vote in the election for APA President and the other elected officers for the board of directors. To reiterate, these elections have low voter turnout: for an organization of over 150,000 members, only about 6,000 members voted last year. That’s just 4% of the membership deciding the leadership for an organization that has an enormous public health impact. Voting is now open, and the organization uses a ranked-choice approach. I’d strongly suggest ranking Kovera and Hollister; do not rank the other candidate.

• Complete your apportionment ballot every year. Ok, this one is a bit more in the weeds, but its importance is impossible to overstate. Each voting member may allocate 10 votes among divisions, states, and provincial psychology organizations. How members distribute those ballots determines how many seats on the Council a division or other affiliated organization receives. You can allocate your votes to different divisions, and importantly, you can spread your ten votes to any divisions you wish. Here is a deeper dive on how apportionment works. If you know that a division has kept a lid on antisemitism, you can grant that division all ten of your votes. If you know a lot of people, you can rally them to do the same.

• If you see the division as hopelessly beyond repair, quit the division. These are semi-autonomous units within APA that manage their own finances. Denying a division your money has a far greater impact than quitting the organization altogether, and it sends a much more powerful message. Urging others to follow suit could be disabling for divisions that foment hate.

• Hold the division to account in moderating the listserv for any discriminatory content. Recently, there were posts on listservs exhorting convention attendees to read absurd and ahistorical ‘land and genocide’ statements before their presentations, and to engage in other harmful acts that were in direct violation of the listserv codes of conduct. I recently learned that the organization is actually capable of enforcing the rules when they really want to.

  

• Report any division that might set up a listserv that is not under APA’s umbrella. This is a recent development, and several divisions have set up their own independent listservs specifically to evade oversight. At least one openly stated that as the intention on their APA listserve. This is a serious problem: the division carries APA’s imprimatur, and the aforementioned listserv rules are in place expressly because the organization has a measure of oversight over the conduct of its affiliated division members.

• Serve on a committee for any division or the organization as a whole. Innumerable committees in the APA handle all sorts of policy matters. And almost all have some connection to issues that are potentially relevant to antisemitism. Often, these committees are by application, but there are also more slots than applicants. And most of these committees' meetings are remote. The exceptions are very large-scale committees, but the description of work expectations is typically pretty clear to prospective committee members. And again, there are committees in all of the divisions. Your service can specifically help to stop antisemitism. Added perk - you’ll likely meet some great people who are interesting and have different areas of expertise. It will surely enhance your professional life.

  • The challenges in antisemitism in the organization come from a subset of divisions. If you are a member of one of these divisions, consider serving on one of their committees. If you have the stomach for the discord, it is actually a place where true change is possible. Again, you need not run for elected office, and committee service is a place where your voice could be heard.

  • Some divisions have additional member organizations called sections. Get involved in section committees. Antisemitism in the profession is a ground-up problem. You can be engaged in places where this discrimination has taken root, and do the work to make changes. The sections have committees, elected leadership, newsletters, and other programming. The time commitment to address antisemitism may not be much, but the impact could be tremendous. Oh, and if you are a member of a section, once again, vote in their elections.

  • Get involved in the divisions' newsletter publications, especially those with the most antisemitism. The newsletters for each division go to every member of that division. In the vast majority of divisions, these newsletters undergo fairly light editing. Be part of the gatekeeping to ensure antisemitism is not disseminated to members.

• Check in on your training programs - whether a university doctoral program, pre-doctoral internship, or post-doctoral training site - to see if they are fusing politics in treatment models. This is where the rubber really meets the road. For example, I heard recently from a colleague who is a faculty member at an APA-accredited internship site. One of the new interns stated that her site was the only one this intern applied to that didn’t have a ‘land and genocide’ statement. Not to digress, but what, precisely, does that have to do with providing quality client care? I’ll answer my own rhetorical question by stating it has absolutely nothing to do with it. But that answer demands a deeper understanding of the politicized therapy movements emerging in the profession. Here are two papers that offer some insight into the issue. If your training program(s) have become politicized, demand that they change. Keep an eye out for when they are up for reaccreditation, and alert site visitors that this is not evidence-based. The date for the site reaccreditation review is public information. You can find that information here. Site visitors are always interested in hearing from program graduates, and they are particularly interested if there are potentially discriminatory training modules. If the faculty are overtly antizionist, let them know that it is causing serious discrimination in the profession.

• If you observe continuing education programs that expressly involve politicized content, file a complaint. If so, contact your state licensure office to file a complaint. If the sponsoring CE organization is approved by the APA, contact them directly to file a complaint as well. Scroll to the bottom of this page to find information on how to file a grievance. Also, if the content is discriminatory, you can demand a refund. Nothing snaps a group into shape like issuing refund checks.

These are not intended to be exhaustive. Implementing these potential remedies will take considerable time and patience. It is essential to recognize that the problems in the organization and the profession in general are deep and systemic. Change on the necessary scale will require a lot of effort, will face significant setbacks (as noted in the article at the outset), and will require you to look for signs of progress amid all the serious challenges. You will certainly feel despair along the way to being part of any improvements. But that is certainly better than just allowing the antisemitism to fester and grow, because that is exactly what inaction will lead to. Whatever course of action you take, know that you are not alone in the efforts.

Share

Recently, a colleague shared a post from a student on the class message board with me. The student in question posted an incredibly long message about a specific mental health treatment approach and its connection to political movements. The email was filled with demands for political purity, including accusations that failure to adhere to even one of the points raised was tantamount to being unethical and unworthy of membership in the profession. Additionally, I learned from my colleague that the student in question then rallied a few other students to pressure any other classmates who were even slightly less to the left than the one who posted the note. Importantly, these are all graduate students pursuing a professional degree in mental health services.

This problem is not restricted to students in professional psychology and mental health programs. It is evident among established professionals. But what happens when colleagues refuse to give in to the political demands? Academic disagreement generally follows a set of rules. These include civility in engagement, good-faith arguments, and acknowledgment of errors when they occur. There is an ethical mandate here to balance advocating one’s own position with respecting the other person's. Resistance to these purity demands may result in criticisms that are the exact opposite of ordinary academic disagreement.

As readers of this Substack know, many of the entries have focused on raising awareness of antisemitism in professional psychology. By extension, I’ve attempted to call attention to the conceptual and philosophical roots of the antisemitism that is roiling the mental health professions broadly. It is fitting, then, to connect the rules of ethical academic disagreement with a tradition in Judaism, namely the ‘argument for the sake of heaven,’ or machloket l'shem shamayim. The origins of this comes from a controversy between Jewish scholars Hillel and Shim'i around 200 BCE. While these two scholars bitterly disagreed about a range of topics, they always maintained respect for one another. This mutual respect is the enduring legacy of their disagreements and is deemed essential for effective truth-seeking. This is contrasted with destructive argumentation, which is typically driven by self-aggrandizement and a raw desire to win at all costs. The latter was the argument style of Koreh, who rebelled against Moses, and is discussed in the book of Numbers.

Below, I critique content from several blog entries from a professional psychologist. The blogger-psychologist (hereinafter, BP) will not be identified by name. The BP in question, I believe, demonstrates a pattern of writing and criticism that fits a destructive argumentative style. If the aim of BP is, in fact, machloket l’shem shamayim, I have yet to see it in action. My colleague and collaborator, Miri Bar-Halpern, and I recently came to the attention of this BP regarding our publications and the planned professional program, for which the granting organization issued a press release that was shared here. Rather than devote this space to countering the BP’s comments about Miri and me, instead, the focus is on the material in several recent posts that were directed at other members of the profession. I have not named the blogger nor linked to his blog here because what is being described can be considered a case study of sorts, an analysis of the bias that comes from a learned member of the profession who is seemingly blinded by their own ideology. In effect, one could comb the blog and find snippets of the kind of bad-faith arguments that many of us have seen from numerous mental health professionals on listservs, in social media comments, and in professional meetings.

One more important note before continuing. BP lays out his ethical and moral concerns with a wide range of political movements, both in the US and abroad. It is clear from these numerous posts that he and I probably agree on many political positions. This may be the case for many other professionals who have been the targets of his ire. And, as you will see, the fact that there may be agreement on a lot of things would surely be insufficient, since there is a single obvious point of disagreement.

Serious and Obvious Mischaracterizations of Survey Data: BP frequently claims that the Association of Jewish Psychologists (AJP) and some Jewish scholars have mischaracterized how widely Zionism is endorsed by Jews. Repeatedly, BP cites polling data, but only culls the portion that supports his perspective; an honest reporting would show far wider support for either Zionism and/or the continued existence of Israel as a Jewish state. For instance, he regularly cites a 2020 Pew Research poll. That poll has numerous portions related to the views held by American Jews toward Israel. One question on the survey asks about caring for Israel, with 45% stating it was essential to them, and another 37% stating it was important but not essential, resulting in 82% caring about Israel. BP never mentions the responses to that question. Instead, BP focuses on a single question about being emotionally attached to Israel, where the proportions are far more ambiguous. In his blog posts, he has also cited a Washington Post survey from 2025, and as with the Pew Research Poll, BP conveniently skips past data that would be inconsistent with his ideological agenda. In that poll, a question asks respondents how vital they see Israel’s existence for the long-term future of the Jewish people, with 76% responding yes. But again, rather than focus on the totality of the polling data, BP centers its attention on a single statistic - emotional attachment to Israel - an ambiguous metric. An intellectually honest interpretation of both polls would show that the responses from American Jews about Israel are complicated, but that overall it tilts more favorably toward its continued existence as a Jewish state.

Now, to properly present the countervailing point regarding the polling data that BP selectively cites, I had to comb through it to get the full picture. Incidentally, BP has also cited another poll with a single data point that supports his worldview. In that poll, the data is presented so that if anyone clicks the link, the full picture appears immediately. That poll, conducted by the Jewish Federation of North America, stated that 37% of American Jews identify as Zionists. However, in the same poll and on the same page, it is shown that 88% of American Jews believe Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state. This suggests that American Jews may have a mixed understanding of Zionism, and not necessarily the interpretation BP imposes on the data. Further, in that poll, only 7% were expressly antizionist. In short, when BP presents polling data, know that it is a highly selective reading, and in every instance I reviewed, the full picture was almost exactly the opposite of BP's claims.

Before moving on to the next point, it is essential to remember that the curriculum for professional psychology includes required coursework in statistics. This is also content on the professional licensure exam. Accordingly, the mischaracterization of basic percentages I’ve laid out here cannot be attributed to a misunderstanding or failure to understand the survey data. The only credible explanation is that BP’s posts represent a willful decision to present the survey data in a misleading manner.

Mischaracterizing Well-Known Psychology Research Methodologies: The BP took strong exception to an article forthcoming in American Psychologist and wrote an entire entry condemning it. BP’s main complaints concerned the sampling methodology and the approach to survey construction. However, the criticism is completely disconnected from what are common and accepted research practices. In the study, snowball sampling was employed to gather participants. Specifically, snowball sampling is a method for recruiting participants in which individuals who respond to a research call are, in turn, asked to refer additional participants. Investigators relying on this approach do so in recognition of the risk that the final sample may be biased. The bias risk arises because people tend to affiliate with others like themselves, increasing the risk of participant pool homogeneity. However, that limitation is always weighed against the benefit of the research. Many phenomena under study in professional psychology have sufficient public health value that the limitations are worth it for the sake of the research. Reliance on snowball sampling is so routine, and for situations where the issue merits investigation so high, that in the eight times I’ve served as a study section reviewer for grants for the National Institutes of Mental Health (NIMH), there was at least one project funded each time that relied on snowball sampling as part of its methodology. If BP is reading this, those times I was reviewing for NIMH were during the Obama and Biden administrations. And this sampling method is what BP found objectionable and disqualifying, despite the urgency of the research topic.

Survey question construction very commonly relies on face validity. That is, the questions clearly look like the concept being measured. An examination of the vast majority of psychological measures shows that they are face valid. When surveys are designed, face validity depends on the underlying concept being evaluated. The issue here is whether the definition (in the case of the BP’s criticism, whether antizionism is tantamount to antisemitism) is a problem for those demanding leftist political purity. BP (and the developers of the recently passed resolution on antisemitism, discussed below) have consistently made the case that antisemitism is almost exclusively a right-wing problem. The claim is wholly inconsistent with publicly available crime data and the stated motivations of many individuals who have recently attacked or intimidated Jews.

Inaccurate Human Rights Issues and Definitions of Fact: The BP applauded the Council of Representatives of the American Psychological Association (APA) for its new resolution on antisemitism. A group of us previously critiqued this resolution here and identified the problems we predicted would arise immediately. The resolution was crafted by members of the profession who share the viewpoint of the BP - namely, that antisemitism is almost exclusively a right-wing problem.

An article that was recently accepted for publication in American Psychologist (linked in this blog) provides clear experimental explanations for the celebration of a resolution that casts antisemitism as solely right-wing. Turns out liberal opposition to antisemitism is conditioned on the position of Jewish individuals’ views of Israel’s policies toward Gaza. No other minority group faced this kind of conditional approval.

I’ll have a separate entry on how the just-approved antisemitism resolution is entirely in line with the politically conditioned nature of antisemitism from the political left in the profession.

Misrepresentation of an appointed group, and thinly veiled ‘sour grapes’: In the post that applauded the passage of the new antisemitism resolution, the BP also bitterly complained about the formation of the APA’s Collaborative of Jewish Psychologists (CJP). The BP made it clear that they had applied for membership in the group and had been denied. The post then goes on to bemoan that it is ‘not diverse.’ Where was this complaint when the aforementioned antisemitism resolution, crafted by people with complete ideological homogeneity, was passed? But more importantly, the BP has no insight into the CJP's inner workings. On what basis is the claim made that the group is not diverse, you may ask? The accusation is based on the fact that 6 members of the CJP (out of 20) openly condemned the new resolution. There are other complaints about members of the CJP, without any clarification whether those were the same six identified as critical of the resolution. So, that means there are 14 other members whose viewpoints the blogger knows little about, and there is no basis whatsoever for claims of viewpoint homogeneity in the CJP.

Blind Discrediting of Organizations and Individuals: In several posts, the BP attacks the AJP. In those posts, the organization's mission statement is consistently so badly mischaracterized that one might wonder about BP’s reading comprehension. Further, BP lumps diverse Jewish advocacy organizations together as right-wing solely for being supportive of the continued existence of Israel. The added mischaracterization of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism in the blog post is the cherry on top of this extremely biased sundae. The mischaracterization was that the IHRA definition calls criticism of the Israeli government antisemitic. This is manifestly false, but it is also a very common accusation from members of the profession who hold a narrow and politically lopsided view of antisemitism.

The BP has also, across many of his posts, made sweeping assumptions about colleagues, often by slyly inferring they were connected to far-right-wing movements. Never mind whether he actually knows their political proclivities - if they endorse anything that might be less than exactly in line with his perspective, they are accused of being right-wing. I’m a lifelong democrat, and my liberal credentials are extensive. I’ve been called right-wing (and other epithets usually hurled by members of ‘my side’ of the political aisle at right-wing individuals) for the sin of being supportive of the continued existence of Israel as a Jewish state. These accusations have often come from members of my own profession, and BP has done the same to many colleagues whom I know personally and whose views he has mischaracterized with no basis.

Inverted Claims Demanding Obedience: In the blog post immediately preceding the one BP wrote attacking my colleague and me, claims were made about how Israel ‘freezes’ history. Specifically, ‘freezing’ history is the idea that a single event determines all subsequent actions, with prior actions disregarded. BP also suggests that criticism of the state of Israel is impermissible by those who identify as Zionists or who are interested in the continued existence of the country. Meanwhile, one need only look all around - news media, public figures, actors, and many members of our profession - and the openness with which people engage in this criticism is anything but suppressed. It is a truly comical accusation. Now, were these criticisms either (a) balanced in being primarily against the current Israeli government, or (b) included atrocities committed by other governmental and quasi-governmental entities in the region, then perhaps the appearance of ‘argument for the sake of heaven’ could be seriously entertained. More on freezing history in a moment.

Share

Intense Moral Heat, Not a Single Photon of Helpful Light: Another theme coursing through the BP’s posts is strident moralizing. The clearest reflection of this moralizing stand comes from the ethical superior position that the BP takes in any post criticizing Jewish colleagues for their support of Israel. Now, it is worth pausing for a second to discuss the ethical guidelines for professional psychology. These are divided into standards and principles. Standards are mandated professional behavior. Violating these standards can result in professional sanctions. Principles are aspirational, essentially guidelines we consistently strive toward. The BP does not cite any specific standards he feels might be violated, nor are specific principles cited that he feels could be better aspired to in the voluminous criticisms he levies. No, instead, ethics is used as a catch-all for anyone he disagrees with. Sweeping comments such as ‘…no ethical psychologist could possibly…” appear when some ideological value the BP espouses is being raised, and for which he feels a person or organization has, in his personal view, grievously violated. It is in this way that BP’s writings are not unique; they are instead a written record of the kind of ideologically rigid colleagues I’ve encountered over the past two-plus years.

But one might ask, for all this intense moral heat, is anything illuminated? Has anyone even been helped by the preening and self-styled moral superiority? Let’s look at the record. Credit where it is due, the BP does cite Hamas in negative terms, but always in the same way - by noting simply that their attacks on October 7, 2023, were ‘horrific.’ If and when Hamas is mentioned again in any post, it is always with respect to how the response from Israel has been disproportionate to the attack that started the war. I’ve gone to the trouble of combing through the BP’s posts, and there is not a single mention of the atrocities that Hamas commits toward Palestinians, and nothing about the barbarism of this quasi-governmental entity. Talk about ‘freezing history!’ There is no recognition of the horrors of Hamas pre-Oct 7, 2023, nor any balance in identifying the barbarism of Hamas toward their own people, as well as continued assaults on Israel since that date. Not a single solitary photon of light for all the intense cosmic-level moral heat. And really, what a true waste of intellectual talent. If only that energy were used productively.

Tying it all Together

This entry was intended to set the record straight on a theme coursing through the blog posts by a member of the profession who has a proclivity for sharing them on psychology listservs. It was also to illustrate a case study in the increasingly common and destructive demand for political purity that is tearing professional psychology apart. If one were to read any blog posts by this member of the profession, my coverage of the errors and mischaracterizations present in the entries was not even close to exhaustive. If it were not for the wide distribution of this blog in professional spaces, I would not have written this Substack entry at all.

The routine presentation of the biases enumerated here was illustrated in a previous entry on this Substack regarding psychologists other than BP, where far-left ideology took priority over facts. And, I’ve documented these kinds of biases elsewhere with respect to conference presentations and in one major therapy movement.

There is one more important point worth raising here. A common thread in the blog posts I’ve referenced, and the professionals who were the focus of the entries I’ve linked above, is that all have assumed a mantle of absolute moral superiority, despite presenting very easily provable falsehoods, inaccuracies, or distortions of information. To be fair, it may be that, like the students who were cowed by their classmates into adopting absolute ideological purity that I described at the outset, colleagues who may see other sides to these arguments and question their moral standing also fear reprisals, as I documented here. We don’t hear their voices because the professional risks are too great. And that is part of the point for those seeking political purity in the profession - publicly demonstrate complete ideological purity, or keep it to yourself if you disagree. This has to change. The public health hazard and the reality of helping all groups facing hardship are at stake. The demands for ideological purity are disrupting professional engagement, harming collegiality, and seeping into patient-facing spaces.

I’ll end with a plea. First, to BP. We have never corresponded in any way. There is no expectation in professional discourse to directly contact someone with whom you disagree before you write your critiques. However, it is also useful to verify your political accusations. My detailed description of your political views is culled directly from your own words. If you would like to actually discuss the issues, I welcome your contact.

Second, to members of the mental health professions who may recognize the errors of fact and method so often stated by colleagues, but who also fear reprisals for publicly countering some of these obvious errors, I remind you of the classic research by Solomon Asch. It took only a few people to publicly counter stridently stated errors for more people to step forward. I hope you will consider bravely stepping forward. There are a lot more of you than you think.

Below is the press release issued by the Academic Engagement Network on July 6, 2026.

____________________________________________________________________________

SUBJ: Harvard, Fordham Psychologists Launch New Initiative to Combat Antisemitism in Mental Health and Psychology Training

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: July 7, 2026

Media Contact: aen@berlinrosen.com

As Antisemitism Threatens Patient Care and Professional Training, New Initiative Aims to Transform Psychology Education

Harvard Medical School and Fordham University Psychologists to Lead Multi-State Pilot Program to Address Antisemitism in Clinical Education and Practice

Washington, DC – As antisemitism increasingly affects health care, mental health services, and professional training environments, the Academic Engagement Network (AEN) is supporting a new initiative designed to strengthen the ability of future psychologists to provide competent, evidence-based care to Jewish patients and communities.

The initiative addresses a growing concern among psychologists, medical professionals, and Jewish advocacy organizations: that antisemitism is increasingly entering the institutions responsible for training mental health providers, creating risks not only for Jewish students and clinicians but also for the quality of care provided to patients. When bias becomes embedded in professional training, it can shape how future clinicians understand Jewish identity, recognize antisemitism, and respond to the experiences of Jewish patients seeking care.

The initiative comes amid growing alarm over antisemitism in the mental health profession, with Jewish clinicians, students, and patients raising urgent concerns about bias, discrimination, and the exclusion of Jewish identity from diversity and clinical training frameworks. Research shows that 75 percent of Jewish medical professionals have reported experiencing antisemitism in the workplace since October 7, 2023 – just last week, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services opened a federal civil rights investigation into the American Psychological Association (APA) over allegations of discrimination against Jewish and Israeli psychologists – while scholars and practitioners have increasingly warned that ideological frameworks entering psychology and counseling education can marginalize Jewish experiences and undermine culturally responsive care. Among the frameworks drawing growing scrutiny is “decolonization therapy,” an emerging approach that critics say labels Zionism as a source of mental illness, marginalizes Jewish experiences, and undermines culturally responsive care.

For Jewish communities, the stakes extend beyond education: psychology doctoral programs train the next generation of clinicians who will provide care to patients navigating trauma, discrimination, and anxiety at the individual and communal levels. These programs serve as the primary pipeline into the mental health profession, shaping how future psychologists understand culture, bias, trauma, and patient care long before they enter hospitals, clinics, counseling centers, and private practice.

In response, AEN is supporting, through a multi-year Antisemitism Education Initiative grant, a pioneering pilot program led by Dr. Miri Bar-Halpern of Harvard Medical School and Dr. Dean McKay of Fordham University. Through curriculum development, faculty workshops, and an ongoing community of practice, the initiative will teach participants to recognize contemporary manifestations of antisemitism, understand the mental health impact of traumatic invalidation, and incorporate these insights into both training and clinical supervision. Beginning with doctoral psychology programs across New York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts, the pilot will create a network of faculty leaders who can adapt the training for their own campuses and professional communities. The long-term goal is to establish a national model that helps reshape how psychology programs understand and address antisemitism while fostering greater inclusion of Jewish identity in professional training.

“When antisemitism begins shaping how future clinicians are trained, the consequences extend far beyond the classroom,” said Miriam Elman, Executive Director of AEN. “Future psychologists will care for patients from every background. Ensuring that they understand antisemitism and Jewish identity is essential to providing ethical, culturally responsive care and maintaining trust in the mental health professions.”

Bar-Halpern and McKay are among the leading voices addressing antisemitism in mental health and psychology education. A Lecturer in Psychology at Harvard Medical School and Director of Trauma Training and Services at Parents for Peace, Bar-Halpern has become a prominent advocate on the mental health impacts of antisemitism and traumatic invalidation. McKay, a Professor of Psychology at Fordham University and former President of the Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies, has emerged as a leading scholar examining antisemitism within mental health professions. Together, they are helping shape how psychology programs understand and respond to contemporary antisemitism.

“Real change begins in education,” said Dr. Miri Bar-Halpern, Lecturer in Psychology at Harvard Medical School and Director of Trauma Training and Services at Parents for Peace. “Training programs shape the next generation of psychologists, and if we want future clinicians who can effectively support Jewish clients, that change must begin in doctoral training.”

“Psychology faculty have an extraordinary influence on the future of the profession,” said Dr. Dean McKay, Professor of Psychology at Fordham University. “This initiative will help ensure that future clinicians are equipped to recognize antisemitism, understand its impact, and provide care that is both culturally responsive and evidence-based.”

AEN’s new initiative is part of its broader Antisemitism Education Initiative (AEI), which since 2022 has invested nearly $1 million in faculty-led projects that develop innovative, scalable responses to antisemitism and anti-Israel bias in American higher education. The grants, awarded through a rigorous application and review process, provide up to $25,000 annually for as many as three years to support the development and piloting of sustainable educational initiatives. AEI-supported programs have gone on to establish lasting educational infrastructure on campuses across the country, including the fellowship & summer institute on Antisemitism and Jewish Identity in Educational Settings at George Washington University, UC Berkeley’s Antisemitism Education Initiative, and pioneering efforts to strengthen Black-Jewish cooperation in combating antisemitism at Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Several of these projects have become self-sustaining programs that continue to educate faculty, administrators, and students long after the initial grant period. Through these initiatives, AEN is building a growing network of faculty leaders who are creating sustainable solutions to one of higher education’s most urgent challenges.

# # #

AEN is a national organization that mobilizes networks of university faculty and administrators to counter antisemitism, oppose the denigration of Jewish and Zionist identities, promote academic freedom, and advance education about Israel. More at

https://academicengagement.org/

and

https://www.facultyagainstantisemitism.org/

Recent survey data showed that just over 20% of adults aged 29 and younger endorse the statement that “Hitler had some good ideas.” Additionally, survey data showed that about a third of registered voters under age 35 endorsed at least one well-known antisemitic trope.

For comparison, in Germany in 1932, the year the Nazi Party reached its peak in voting, just before Hitler became Chancellor, approximately 37% of the population voted for the party, fueled primarily by younger and first-time voters. Reliable data are not available after that, since the German government became authoritarian and elections were outlawed until after WW2.

Most polling today shows that adults under age 29 are increasingly anti-Israel, and that these views are driven largely by social media. A significant proportion of American youth sees Hamas as a resistance movement, rather than the genocidal para-governmental entity it is. By similar measures, large proportions of American youth endorse the antisemitic boycott-divest-sanction (BDS) movement.

Allow me to shift now from the broad survey-level discussion to a conversation I recently had with a colleague. In that conversation, we discussed views of Zionism in professional psychology. This is a colleague whom I know well, but with whom I do not collaborate. This colleague is also supportive of Israel's continued existence. That alone is a strange and yet completely warranted statement when discussing discrimination in professional psychology. My colleague is also involved in professional leadership in psychology, and someone I respect immensely. In our conversation, the issue that came up was how intimidating the environment was in professional psychology for Jewish colleagues who were also Zionists. I quipped that I believed strongly that, in most instances antizionism is a hate movement and is morally wrong. I opined further that, from my personal experience, most of our colleagues who were antizionists were also dramatically ill-informed about what Zionism is, and that this was a cancer on our profession. As a further defense of this position, I noted a recently accepted article I co-authored that points out that even among well-known scholars in psychology, there is a fundamental discriminatory framework related to Zionism1. This colleague quickly pointed out, as though to suggest that antizionism was not a hate movement, that many elected members of our professional organizations were antizionists.

My remark in reply was simply that it didn’t matter whether it was a small minority or a large majority who endorsed antizionism, that it still constituted a hate movement, as I remained confident most of the people he referenced in elected professional positions were nonetheless unlikely to be knowledgeable about the issues. That reply, in retrospect, was wholly inadequate. What did not occur to me was that we do not democratize morality when it comes to the public’s view of an ethnicity or a well-established religious group. And we should especially avoid decisions based on public opinion of those groups when their views are demonstrably based on propaganda. The foundations of any democratic system rest on a set of objective moral standards, such as the well-known concept enshrined in the Declaration of Independence that ‘all men are created equal.’ While it is unquestionable that we, as a country, have not lived up to this moral standard, we also recognize it as a moral truth. Polling in favor of or against it does not change the ‘rightness’ of the principle.

Here is where professional psychology faces its deep and serious ethical problems. I’ve noted previously that the profession has embraced moral relativism. In a nutshell, this translates into granting clinicians unearned authority to issue judgments about the clients they treat and whether specific viewpoints or political attitudes disqualify them from treatment. We can now also flip that on its head and consider that moral relativism also permits clinicians to prioritize certain political viewpoints among those who are granted access to care. The purest expression of this comes from clinicians who openly state that they provide treatment through ‘an antizionist lens.’ Now, as a psychology professor who has taught in a doctoral clinical psychology program for over 30 years, and as someone who has provided consultation to dozens of clinicians, I could not begin to explain what it means for someone to provide treatment through a lens that elevates any geopolitical viewpoint or one that discriminates against any group. And these antizionist therapists are consistently guided by propaganda in their viewpoints. Seriously. They proudly spout their propaganda on social media therapy network pages.

Share

Allow me to pause for a moment to issue an important public service announcement: If you are seeking mental health care, I strongly recommend that you ask your clinician if they operate from an antizionist lens. Ask in a way that does not reveal if you see this as a positive or negative. A forewarning. These professionals have a beguiling ability to sound compassionate, so be sure to focus on the content of their words rather than the vocal tone. If that professional even hints that they operate as antizionist therapists, run as far from that person as possible. There is nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing at all, in the way of evidentiary support for that. It is merely an excuse to engage in discriminatory practices in the conduct of treatment. And it is also not in any way related to the ordinary reasons people seek treatment. The mental health professions are in a serious crisis. And as it worsens, the threat to the public deepens, since moral relativism allows clinicians to deny care to anyone solely because of objections to their viewpoints, whatever those may be.

Subscribe now

This brings me back to the discussion with my colleague. If only I had thought quickly enough to raise the issue of democratizing morality, and that history has shown that the loudest view is not necessarily the right view. In the case of professional psychology, set aside for a moment the profoundly inappropriate infusion of politics into our work. What we need is for leaders to state clearly that our profession is grounded in pluralism and the betterment of humanity. To do this justice, it demands that we have an absolute mandate to understand diversity and to recognize groups that have historically faced discrimination. Leadership would require calling attention to the problems of moral relativism. One additional manifestation of this unearned moral authority is to effectively pit historically discriminated groups against one another, where in the end, the group subjectively deemed the most harmed receives the most sympathy in return. The ‘losing’ minority group in this game of competitive suffering also faces additional discrimination without regard for the harm to members of that group.

Let’s return to the polling issue. Notice that in the polling data, the attitudes were not overwhelming majorities. This is essential to keep in mind. It may be inferred that a comparable minority view has gained dominance in professional psychology, thereby exacerbating the field's crisis. This is a sign of ideological capture and is highly probable given the minority's vocal, intimidating viewpoints. The majority understands that we do not democratize the moral viewpoints toward ethnic or religious groups. But at the same time, these professionals have a reasonable fear of speaking up since they do not know if others in the majority will join them in condemning the discriminatory attitudes. That uncertainty is the central driver of professional anxiety among leaders and throughout psychology. Although ad hoc, I have personal experience to support the aforementioned assertion. In early December 2023, outraged by the increasingly visible politicization of the profession, I attempted to organize colleagues to push back. I successfully recruited about forty colleagues. However, roughly 40 senior-level colleagues stated that they agreed with my concerns but declined to join out of fear of professional retribution. Let me re-emphasize this point - these were forty senior-level people, many in safe professional positions, who nonetheless expressed fear of participating due to risks of public scorn and retribution.

In a recent article I co-authored that was ultimately rejected, one of the reviewers who viewed the piece favorably said the following (with the name of the organization and movement in psychology that was the focus of the article omitted):

“The larger issue, to me, is why there are any critiques of Israel on the XXX platform? Or political polemics of ANY sort. Why would XXX or its listerv foster ANY type of political polemics, by anyone, on any issue? I am not aware of anything in the development of XXX that fosters engagement in political movements of any kind.”

Yes, these are essential questions, ones raised previously on this Substack. In our failed attempt to appeal the decision, we pointed out that psychologists are not simultaneously political scientists. Injecting geopolitical viewpoints into treatment models was an ethical violation of our mandate to practice in our area of competency. It is also profoundly inappropriate, considering the utter lack of any scientific support for doing so. I also want to call attention to the fact that I am more than willing to discuss my publication failures as well as my fortunate successes.

A professor at Fordham, not in psychology, regularly posts on social media that the youth have it right in being antizionist. This person relies on polling data of youth to support their assertion, and conveniently, it also comports with their worldview (more on this same-side bias in a future post). Their assertions about what constitutes Zionism are demonstrably and provably wrong. You are likely to encounter people like my non-psychology colleague. And when you do, remind them of how we do not democratize morality.

This Substack entry was inspired by my recent experience with the rejection of an article I co-authored that described abusive actions toward Jewish members of an organization. The content was culled from a variety of correspondences I had in the development of the article, and in the course of it ultimately being rejected. The discussion in efforts to appeal the rejection was an object lesson in professional ideological capture and blatant hypocrisy.

Readers of this Substack know that many of my posts are designed to work out some ideas that may translate to peer-reviewed journal articles. This post is a brief follow-up for one of those past Substack posts.

In August, I wrote about a new form of identitarianism from the political left. As a reminder, identitarianism is typically associated with far-right-wing political ideologies and focuses on racial and ethnic purity. The impetus for that post was a growing recognition of a hostile and exclusionary climate for professionals who might speak out against prevailing left-wing political orthodoxies.

There are numerous ways these political pressures are exerted, and collectively, scientific progress is being distorted and diminished in favor of ideology. One of the particularly virulent ways this has emerged is through inaccurate conceptualizations of Zionism as a white supremacist colonial project. This characterization in professional psychology has accelerated in the past two years, frequently appearing in professional journals1.

The silencing of medical professionals was addressed last week, as Dr. Eveline Shekhman, the CEO of the American Jewish Medical Association, testified directly before Congress about the professional climate in medical settings. In her testimony, she described hostility toward Jewish medical doctors for their support of Israel and a professional climate where other professionals who might defend their colleagues would likewise face workplace consequences. The insistence on absolute adherence to the prevailing political viewpoints represents the worst excesses of identitarianism. Specifically, failure to check every box on the political purity checklist carries risks of professional exclusion and career damage.

The seeds of the conceptualization in this Substack from last August led to a collaboration with my colleague, Miri Bar-Halpern. We published an op-ed on the issue, and Left-wing identitarianism will now be in the peer-reviewed literature2, with more work on the topic in development.

Share to spread the word

Ok, I’ll confess right up front that this piece is to share an article I authored with my wonderful colleagues, Miri Bar-Halpern and Josh Simmons, published by The Algemeiner. Please read the article here. The impetus for this article arose from a meeting we attended, where the challenges in professional psychology organizations’ posts about identity-based harm led to further harm when the comment sections became cauldrons of hate. In fairness, professional psychology has not paid much attention to harm until after it occurs. This is true for treatment delivery, as well as in theory development1. Even as evidence of harm begins to be documented, the profession is slow to identify the problem.

Professional organizations remain committed to social media engagement. What is unclear is whether posts that have high ‘engagement’ are harmful or helpful. This specific question will be the subject of an undergraduate honors thesis I’ll be mentoring over the next year.

Please consider sharing the linked article widely.

Subscribe for Free

In professional spaces, I greatly value viewpoint diversity. For background, as a cognitive-behaviorally oriented clinical psychologist, in my early career, my professional approach was very much in the minority in the geographic area where I live and work. To survive in my literal home environment, I needed an appreciation for other theoretical approaches and how they informed my own work. These differences in theoretical viewpoint often turned to moral differences. The application of one theory was grounded in recognition of individual mental structures that, according to the prevailing theory, were beyond empirical scrutiny. The view was that only through careful individual analysis could a skilled professional recognize the full range of factors that led the client to seek therapy. On the other side, the assertion has been that only through careful empirical analysis could the profession achieve a scientific approach to treating psychological conditions, and do so reliably for the greatest number of individuals. Both of these perspectives have merit, but as people move to adhere to each theory more tightly, the greater the impulse to regard the opposing position in negative moral terms. The negative moral stance involves differences in perspective on how best to render client care. However, there are facets of each perspective that merit consideration, and so categorical moral judgments are ultimately unhelpful.

It is essential to highlight this because the remainder of this article is devoted to calling out the ideologically extreme positions of a few members of the profession who recently put their extremism into the public square. The moral dimension is that as each side goes to greater extremes and views the other side with moral suspicion, the greater the justification for actions that undermine any chance of good-faith viewpoint diversity discussions.

My experience navigating diverse professional viewpoints has been personally beneficial. But don’t take my word for it. There have been recent calls for science itself to embrace viewpoint diversity, including calls for collaborations between individuals whose positions on empirical questions differ sharply. When it comes to professional engagement, civil disagreement is essential. Unfortunately, this also requires that all parties recognize the need for these differences and act in good faith toward one another. There must be a genuine recognition that other viewpoints add and enhance your own. What follows is an illustration of several colleagues who regarded their actions as pure and morally justified, stated good-faith intentions, but whose behavior belied those intentions.

The Public Space

A colleague alerted me to an episode of a radio show, which was available as a podcast after airing on March 13, 2026. The show has a Jewish-progressive theme, and the station itself has been a liberal outlet for decades. I knew at least one of the guests, and it was someone I also knew was a contributor to the extremely lopsided and harmful antisemitism resolution that was just passed by the American Psychological Association (APA). The entire purpose of the podcast was specifically to discuss the recent proposals that were either passed or defeated/deferred at the last meeting of the APA council. Dear readers, please also note that I am not naming any of the radio guests. This recent entry explains why.

I’ll refrain from a minute-by-minute analysis of the broadcast. To do that level of critique would require a separate Substack entry for every ten minutes of the one-hour broadcast. Instead, there are two key moments that illustrate how radicalism, hidden under the cloak of professionalism, results in serious damage and severely undermines collegiality. Further, some of the material is through language specific to that ideological lens. As a result, listeners who are not well-versed in far-left-wing concepts may feel like they need a decoder ring. This Substack provides at least a partial guide.

Core Critique #1: Misapplication of a Social Science Concept

Just before the 33-minute mark of the broadcast, the guests discussed a proposal from a professional group of Jewish psychologists to be granted a seat on the council as members of the ethnic psychology associations. This proposal and the reaction from some leaders made the news just ahead of the council meeting in February. One of the guests declared, authoritatively, that the proposal itself was a gesture of ‘white racial grievance.’ This statement was based on a widely held assertion that Jewish individuals in the United States are white. But the guest’s statement takes it one step further by suggesting that the entire premise for seeking a voting seat (one of over 180 seats on the Council) was based on a false claim of minority status. This same guest, only a few minutes earlier in the broadcast, made the wildly unsupported claim that 30% of psychologists were Jewish. Never mind that there are no reliable statistics on how many psychologists are Jewish; however, if the Council membership were any indication, there are presently fewer than 5% on that body right now.

Psychology has been struggling with the issue of white supremacy and how to address it for several years. And, white supremacy unquestionably demands our attention, with the social sciences the right place for it to happen. One arena in which reasoned debate on the challenges posed by white supremacy, among other social problems, recently took place was the annual meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology. The following two Substack posts nicely lay out both sides of the discussion: one argues that the concept has been too expansive and politically lopsided, and the other that it demands nuanced attention in scientific discourse. What the guest on the radio show assumed, and what he buttressed with his fantasy statistic, is that he could comfortably and immediately draw a direct line from Jews to whiteness and thus negate any minority status for Jewish professionals. This ideological imbalance went unchallenged on the show. This kind of rhetoric is enormously harmful. The willingness to make sweeping generalizations and abuse psychological concepts in the process sets the stage for dangerous discrimination and poses a serious risk to colleagues and the public.

Core Critique #2: The Triumph of Left-Wing Identitarianism over Identity Politics

Mary Douglas’ classic book, Purity and Danger, lays out the social parameters by which groups protect themselves from risky external entities. What began as an essential evolutionary response to a dangerous world where literal survival risks lurked around every corner has, over generations, evolved to the point that interpersonal and viewpoint differences can result in expulsion from one’s group. Douglas noted that we maintain social boundaries and possess an innate drive for purity in our social connections, including ones that pose no real survival risks.

Douglas’ conceptualizations have proven durable in the sixty years since her book was first published. However, social scientists, the very people who are supposed to fully recognize these boundaries as virtual rather than real, have also shown a remarkable readiness to fall into the very same need for social and ideological purity.

There is a small set of influential psychologists who have contributed to the identity-based discrimination that is currently at the center of a good deal of professional turmoil. My colleague, Miri Bar-Halpern, and I recently referred to this unique form of discrimination as left-wing identitarianism.

Returning to the broadcast, at 41:20 into the show, the discussion turned to Congressman Ritchie Torres (D-NY), who was the first elected official to publicly denounce the APA for its inability to address antisemitism among its members. Torres has recently come under fire from within his own party for accepting donations from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). He also has a clear public record of supporting Israel. On the show, the guests and hosts gratuitously booed Torres and compared him directly to Haman, the villain at the center of the Jewish holiday Purim. Yes, you read that correctly - for the left-wing sin of accepting money from AIPAC and supporting Israel, Torres was compared to the historical figure who attempted to wipe out the Jewish people. Imagine if the psychologists on this show had just occasionally taken seriously any critiques of their misguided policy ideas. Maybe someone would have stopped them from saying or proposing things that are so manifestly wrong.

Listeners to the show might be confused by this reaction if they are also well-versed in identity politics, where pursuing justice for marginalized individuals is considered best accomplished, at least in part, by members of those very same marginalized groups. Torres is the first openly gay Afro-Latino elected to Congress. The district he represents is one of the poorest in the country, consistently among the top 3 for poverty for well over a decade. He has an incredibly high approval rate in his district. And, notably, the two guests on the show do not live or work in his district.

Pause for a moment to reflect on the last two paragraphs. You might be wondering why Torres was booed on a progressive radio show, one that champions the liberal values Torres has represented in Congress. Well, Torres has committed a single ideological violation by accepting money from AIPAC, a political action committee that has been attacked by the far left for its ongoing support of Israel. Torres’ failure to check every single box on the progressive litmus test has been the sole reason for his vilification in far-left circles. And the full-throated reaction on the show by the guests and hosts is a perfect illustration of the left-wing identitarianism concept that Dr. Bar-Halpern and I have discussed. Identitarianism is historically a right-wing biological purity demand used to justify racism. When formulated from the left, once someone violates their exacting moral relativistic standards, there is no redemption. Right-wing identitarianism espouses the ‘one-drop’ model. This is a viewpoint whereby if someone has any ancestor, no matter how remote, from a minoritized background, it is equivalent to being a member of that minority group. The left-wing equivalent of the ‘one-drop’ perspective is that any deviation from their moral demands will make one morally irredeemable. It doesn’t matter what policies Torres has advanced or his personal background and identity; in their eyes, he has a ‘one drop’ violation, and that is enough to invalidate every other socially desirable act he has achieved for his constituents. His purity gone, as per Douglas’s framework, then he needs to be gone, too.

Subscribe now

The Big Picture and Where We Go Now

The podcast discussed here was probably not widely heard. The station is tiny, driven by membership rather than advertisement revenue. Publicly available estimates of membership hover in the very low five-digit range. However, the viewpoints expressed by psychologists on that particular show reflected a symptom of the movements in psychology that have contributed to the severe ideological bias, shorn of connection to the science the field is supposed to represent.

Former Democratic mayor of Chicago and longtime political operative Rahm Emanuel appeared on Real Time with Bill Maher on April 17, 2026. Emanuel quoted Ari Fleischer, who said in reference to antisemitism on the political right and left that “Republicans have a cold, and Democrats have a fever.” Fleischer was press secretary to former Republican President George W. Bush. I highlighted both Emanuel and Fleischer to show that this concern has been expressed from both sides of the political aisle.

The abject failure of colleagues who were directly involved in crafting a policy regarding antisemitism was due to their ideological biases. These same colleagues have since demanded viewpoint diversity in any additional policies the APA might take up, but, in pursuit of their own harmful policies, they adhered to viewpoint ideological homogeneity that would impress Mary Douglas by showing the durability of her concepts of social purity.

Contemporary moral psychology has made clear that people on each side of the political aisle are concerned with harm1. How they conceptualize harm is where the differences lie. Lost in this discussion are the differences in moral viewpoints among people who share the same identity, and may even differ in degree on the same side of the political aisle, while still showing sharp distinctions in what constitutes harm. What is depicted here, in examining two specific aspects of a podcast in which all participants were on the same side of the political aisle, is that they viewed their positions as morally justified. There is no faulting that, and those viewpoints deserve engagement. What is problematic is that there are clear fault lines where the moral actors are blinded to how the full range of positions on their own side of the political aisle characterize moral dimensions of what is or is not harm. Worse, because of the extremity of the positions they held, they found it morally defensible to pursue their policy proposals by any means possible. The APA resolution on antisemitism is a particularly clear distillation of this moral one-sidedness, borne of good intentions but harmful in practice precisely because it is one-sided.

If the profession has any hope of recovering from the immense harm inflicted by the recent APA Council meeting, urgent reforms are needed. Re-examine the ideological lopsided antisemitism resolution, and immediately amend it to reflect the hazards of antisemitism from both the political left and right. Remedies in the by-laws include mechanisms for the Council to act quickly2. Correct the record on the kinds of political adventurism in which the APA regularly engages. And recognize that demands for civility come not only from words, but from deeds. At the moment, the purveyors of radicalism coursing through the profession may say things in public settings that sound civil, but their deeds, such as pushing forward with the recent antisemitism resolution despite serious warnings about the harm, represent profound uncivil acts. It simply cannot persist this way if the profession is going to serve the public in any productive manner.

Credit to my colleague Dr. Brit Lippman, whose ideas provided the basis for a portion of this article. This piece is also informed by a large body of listserv emails forwarded to me by numerous experts in DBT.

When behavior therapists began to seriously investigate methods for treating obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), one intervention that emerged was called thought stopping. That treatment seemed elegant in its simplicity: when an unwanted thought turned up, the individual would first snap a rubber band on their wrist while saying ‘stop!’ This would proceed in successive steps until the OCD sufferer needed only to say ‘stop’ in their head whenever an unwanted thought appeared.

Thought stopping, it turns out, is actually quite harmful1. There are several reasons, but the most prominent is that, by giving that kind of thought the attention it deserves without considering the ways it is intended to signal a risk, symptoms consistently worsen. While that treatment was developed in the 1970s, it was not until well into the 2000s that OCD experts consistently stated that thought stopping was actually harmful.

That blindness to potential harms is, unfortunately, part of the professional structure of psychology. For virtually all theories and approaches developed, the basic assumption is that it is beneficial, or at worst, benign. If one were to read any research trial of psychotherapy treatments, one would be hard-pressed to find a portion dedicated to discussing their adverse effects.

And thus we find ourselves in a comparable situation with the 2026 American Psychological Association (APA) Resolution on Antisemitism.

A Radical Left-Wing Document

I’ve written about the radicalism in the original proposed antisemitism resolution on this Substack and included the detailed criticisms a group of us sent to the developers of the proposal, as well as to the APA board of directors and the leaders of the committees assigned to review it. Unlike the original submission, the final resolution that was approved by the APA’s governing council included the barest mention of left-wing antisemitism. However, to read it, one would come away thinking the political left is full of virtue and light, and that antisemitism from the right is overwhelming and responsible in full for any anti-Jewish sentiments. That is fundamentally untrue, of course, and most of the antisemitism in the public square right now comes from left-wing antizionists. Below is a vivid illustration of how right- and left-wing antisemitism meet, and ultimately share comparable offensive language.

Now, to be completely fair, the developers of the new antisemitism resolution are correct about the problems of right-wing antisemitism. In direct discussions, they point to how right-wing forces have misapplied antisemitism in harmful ways. The final resolution has a portion referencing ‘weaponization.’ There are examples, such as recent demands from the current Presidential administration for the names of Jewish faculty and staff members at major Universities. However, the developers of the resolution did not clearly define what they meant by ‘weaponization.’ Had a tradition in professional psychology existed that insisted on considering potential harms from any policy, it is possible that the developers might have seriously considered the damage their resolution could cause2.

Share

Here is the wording regarding weaponization from the resolution:

"WHEREAS the weaponization of antisemitism — the manipulative or bad faith invocation of accusations to silence legitimate criticism, scholarship, or activism — creates significant adverse consequences for Jews and non-Jews who oppose the state of Israel’s actions and support Palestinian rights."

There’s a lot to digest in this statement, but notice that it is slanted in a way that is exclusively regarding contemporary issues regarding the manifestation of antisemitism, and excludes the bad-faith actors on the left who blame all Jews, regardless of their views on the current Israeli government, for any discrimination toward Palestinians. This has been a stark problem in the mental health professions, where colleagues have harassed and intimidated Jewish professionals for expressing pro-Israel views, regardless of whether they are liberal or conservative. It also stands alone in anti-bias resolutions issued by the APA in that it specifically references another minority group.

The weaponization clause is also reckless, as it now creates conditions under which, for any claims of antisemitism, the accused can simply turn it around and accuse the accuser of weaponizing the accusation. It effectively makes all claims of antisemitism invalid. It also perpetuates tropes of Jews as possessing power that is wielded to gain advantage. And, most importantly, to remind readers again, the developers of the antisemitism resolution were warned about these potential abuses that could arise from their proposal. As will be shown below, the first signs of harm in a specific specialty area of mental health practice are hardly a surprise. Imagine how different the resolution would be if it were absolutely required as part of ordinary professional psychology to articulate potential harms from any proposal and identify ways to mitigate them.

Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT) and the Eagerness to Nullify Antisemitism Claims by Jewish Colleagues

There are a lot of professional mental health communities where hostility to Jewish clinicians and clients is profound. DBT is unique in that the approach to treatment is evidence-based for a wide range of conditions that are marked by severe emotional dysregulation. Indeed, it was developed initially for that sole reason, in the care of a frequently misunderstood diagnosis, borderline personality disorder. These clients are often the most vulnerable among us, whose personal histories are marked by trauma and invalidation, and who are at high suicide risk. Considering the strong empirically based tradition in DBT, we would expect considerable caution when making modifications to the treatment program. I think you know where this is going…

We should devote a moment to what evidence-based practice means in psychology. This approach involves the clinician applying their professional judgment to draw on the scientific literature, in conjunction with specific client characteristics, to develop the best treatment plan to meet the client's needs. This also means that clinicians are at liberty to select portions of interventions with varied levels of empirical support to develop treatment plans. This all sounds perfectly reasonable, right?

Well, what if the treatment community starts to regularly and enthusiastically incorporate untested and potentially harmful ideological frameworks into their treatment? What happens when the priorities to incorporate those unproven methods are added to an existing evidence-based treatment? Again, the utter and complete absence of any systematic means to assess potential harms would be instructive right about now.

This brings us back to the DBT community, which, in its zeal to insert political processes into treatment, has created a schism between the approach's science and its everyday practice. In controlled trials that exclude any politicized aspects of treatment, the approach is highly efficacious. However, we cannot say this about everyday practice that incorporates political processes. Indeed, the inclusion of politics in treatment should be vigorously questioned, given that psychology has virtually no research on how to incorporate political processes into therapeutic approaches. This divide was evident to many Jewish members in the DBT specialty area, but it burst into public view when the annual conference for the organization of that specialty, the International Society for the Improvement of the Teaching of DBT (ISITDBT), had a speaker deliver a floridly antisemitic workshop in 2024. Since that workshop, there have been calls for reform that have largely gone nowhere.

Returning to the weaponization portion of the resolution

A long-running fight has been going on in DBT professional spaces regarding Israel and Zionism. The discussions have provoked many fights online, in which the most zealous members of the specialty have no compunction about using therapy concepts against their colleagues. Statements like “I've taken some time to pause and reflect on how I might respond in a way that is most in alignment with my wise mind” or referencing their application of the ‘dialectic’ are nods to common terminology in the DBT approach. However, what typically follows is a range of justifications for holding biases against Jews who identify as Zionist or who express continued support for the state of Israel (which is roughly 90% of all US Jews). Using the material from the DBT specialist quoted in this paragraph, they go on with the following justification: “I remain committed to the deep inquiry of this work, to moving through my life in ways that are in opposition to oppressive harm in the wide variety of ways it presents, and to existing in the dialectic that I/one can hold marginalized identities and perpetuate oppression.”

This calls for some unpacking, particularly since this passage was a representative one of innumerable emails I’ve had forwarded to me from the DBT listserv, and most have a similar tone. And, importantly, membership on the DBT listserv requires extensive training in the treatment method. So, what is the basis for the anti-oppressive approach? The answer comes from the movement that is explicitly cited on the ISITDBT website here. The opening portion emphasizes opposition to white supremacy. Nothing to argue there, but it doesn’t take long to see that the zealous adherence to this stance among practitioners, such as the one quoted anonymously here have conflated white supremacy with Zionism and any Jews who may support Israel. This has been vigorously challenged by colleagues and me in several recent papers3.

We have also noted that the foundation of the antizionist movement in academia, in general, and in psychology in particular, is just plain wrong (in a forthcoming paper in American Psychology4). In short, the DBT community has been weaponizing its own concepts in the service of permitting its members to be explicitly antisemitic. And now, the new resolution on antisemitism just passed by the APA council gives those same members a permission slip to continue, and a tool to wield when they may be justly called out for their discrimination.

Here are two reactions from the DBT listserv in response to the weaponization portion of the APA antisemitism resolution:

"I am glad that the APA made a tepid statement about weaponizing antisemitism and included something about Palestinian rights. We are now in an unprovoked illegal war with Iran which could lead to the use of nuclear weapons (from Israel) and also a global economic collapse. I have been watching over the years: ethnic cleansing, occupation, dropping white phosphorous, "mowing the lawn", apartheid, and now genocide. But I am told I shouldn't believe my lying eyes. Or believe any of the human rights reports or 20 plus scholars I read or listen to daily. In 2025-2026, Israel has carried out military strikes on nine different countries."

“The genocide of Palestine has been explicitly and proudly denied in this space — what’s more, calling it a genocide has been met with accusation of antisemitism. The APA now calls this “the weaponization of antisemitism — the manipulative or bad faith invocation of accusations to silence legitimate criticism, scholarship, or activism — creates significant adverse consequences for Jews and non-Jews who oppose the state of Israel’s actions and support Palestinian rights”(https://www.apa.org/about/policy/resolution-antisemitism-2026.pdf). Not centering antiracism means doubling down on dismissively telling members to take what works for them and leave the rest. As others have pointed out, this functions as asking us to treat denial of the genocide of Palestine as an item that we pass over in a buffet. I feel particularly horrified at asking Palestinian, SWANA, and Muslim members to do this about the genocide of their siblings and cousins.”

These responses highlight numerous challenges in the DBT specialty and in the broader psychology profession. In these comments, we find: inaccuracies regarding the war between Israel and Hamas - comments about ethnic cleansing, genocide, apartheid; the arrogance of professionals that they can just read and incorporate material into treatment; and competitive suffering narratives. Important fact-based challenges to the libels expressed in these listserv emails can be found on the Movement Against Antizionism page. And, perhaps more importantly, shortly after the resolution was approved by the APA Council of Representatives, a lawsuit found a professor guilty of antisemitic harassment for her calling a colleague a ‘colonizer’ and for using other antizionist rhetoric typical of the sort observed in professional psychology spaces.

Problems in the Weaponization Portion of the Resolution

We should be really clear - misapplication or rampant accusations of antisemitism when unwarranted is harmful. When faced with bona fide antisemitism, prior false accusations diminish real ones. This is true of unwarranted accusations of bias toward any group. But the resolution defines weaponization so vaguely that any and all accusations can be labeled as such. In other words, following the resolution’s language to its natural conclusion, claims of antisemitism would be so rare that it would seem never to happen at all. And, the resolution leaves no room for antisemitism to come from the left, a convenient development since all the psychologists who developed the resolution are overtly far left-wing.

In short, the new resolution on antisemitism that was just approved by the Council of Representatives of APA is a deeply problematic document, suffused with flaws, biases, and outright falsehoods. If you encounter citations of it, unless it is followed by extensive criticism, there is absolutely no reason to take it seriously.

Proposals that are nakedly ideological in nature demand intense scrutiny. The radical ideologues in the profession who aggressively pushed the antisemitism resolution that was just passed by the APA Council did not engage in the kind of serious thought that would mitigate harm. The weaponization portion is not operationalized, a shock that further reflects the radicalism of the resolution, since operationalization of concepts is a fundamental part of basic education for psychologists. Psychology desperately needs clear guardrails to protect from the kind of radicalism that is currently destroying the profession.

A Coda Regarding Dialectical Behavior Therapy

As evidence-based treatments go, DBT truly stands at the front of the line, having helped countless people. When done properly, it is an approach that literally saves lives. And yet, the movement leaders, in their inaction to address the serious problem of antisemitism in the specialty, have paradoxically put countless people at serious risk of harm. The tacit approval for clinicians to issue moral judgments about their clients is not just a danger to Jewish clients and colleagues; it is a danger to everyone. If a DBT clinician feels comfortable and has professional permission to make moral judgments about clients, this can easily apply to anyone whose views differ from the clinician's. As a result, allow me to conclude with a public service note, one that I cannot possibly stress enough: If you are considering DBT or recommending the approach to someone, be sure to exercise extreme caution and interview the clinician carefully to ensure they are not going to make moral judgments about clients. Ask hard questions about objectivity, whether they infuse politics into treatment, and whether they feel it is appropriate to recommend activism to clients. Ask whether they will follow the science, and if they are beholden to ideology in the service of treatment. Make it perfectly clear that you expect treatment without political ideology.

Share

I was on this Substack podcast a couple of weeks ago. Readers of this Substack are aware that addressing issues in pseudoscience has been a central focus since the first entry, which discussed brainspotting, followed by an entry on accelerated resolution therapy, and how otherwise scientific treatments can become pseudoscience through overt politicization.

I hope you enjoy the discussion in this podcast. Feel free to share with others.

Whitney & Paige

Is this therapy...or pseudoscience?

The docs are stoked this week to have as our guest Dr. Dean McKay! Our second guest ever and another extremely accomplished psychologist. Dr. McKay is a board-certified clinical psychologist working in both research and clinical practice, and his work focuses on anxiety, OCD, disgust, and the treatments for these conditions. We discuss where newer treat…

Listen now

8 months ago · Whitney & Paige

Subscribe now

Share

Note: This entry is a compilation of concepts from three recent panels I participated in over the past month.

Thought-field therapy (TFT) is based on physical tapping on various pressure points in conjunction with a range of psychological interventions. The premise is that tapping these pressure points, which are conceptually drawn from acupuncture, is believed to realign one’s energy field. A psychologist developed the treatment.

TFT has been wildly popular and is part of the larger set of energy therapies (such as Reiki, emotional freedom techniques, and sound healing). While I could not find reliable data on the number of clinicians specifically trained in TFT, estimates suggest that globally, approximately a million practitioners have been trained in energy therapies.

Now, you may not be surprised to hear that there is no scientific or theoretical reason to suggest that human energy fields are central to emotional and behavioral health. However, I would like to draw your attention to the central role of tapping on pressure points. Practitioners of TFT readily acknowledge that the treatment has borrowed from acupuncture and offer it with no formal training in acupuncture (or acupressure). And this is a serious problem.

Acupuncture is a regulated profession that has licensure requirements that vary from state to state. And it is regulated to protect the public and ensure professional competence. Qualifications for licensure range from a master's to a doctoral level of education, depending on the state, and passing a minimum competency exam. There are professional organizations for acupuncturists, as well as continuing education requirements. Meanwhile, the creator of TFT had only informally studied acupuncture and had no formal training or credentials. Now, you might say, “But it relies on acupressure, not acupuncture. Surely this is no big deal.” Well, actually it is, since offering the treatment implies professional competency grounded in an Eastern medicine approach. It is false advertising of a procedure that an unsuspecting public is not equipped to appraise. And, this raises a question - what gave any psychologist (or any mental health professional, for that matter) the right to co-opt a facet of acupuncture (via acupressure) into our treatments?

The answer to that question is that there is nothing that grants mental health professionals the right to co-opt from a regulated profession like acupuncture. In mental health training, there are no required courses in Eastern medicine, nor are there any courses on methodology for identifying pressure points and associated nerve bundles, or mechanisms of pain reduction that result from systematic pressure (or puncture) of these key points. TFT is an illustration of professional arrogance, where someone incorporates an approach from another discipline without formal education in that approach, or assumes that the basic features can be easily and faithfully added to the treatment skills of other professionals. I gather established acupuncturists would, and should, be offended by this.

I chose TFT as an illustration of the apparent lack of scientific basis and the flagrant application of an approach unrelated to routine psychological treatments. This is by no means the only psychological treatment that borrows (steals?) from other professions. Additionally, there is a contemporary treatment trend that is gaining influence, incorporating a bona fide area of study not traditionally part of psychology. In this new trend, it also has a specific identity-based discriminatory foundation.

The Latest Arrogance

I’ve roughly described the organizational structure of the American Psychological Association (APA) in prior entries on this Substack. For this entry, there is one aspect worth recalling. Namely, the organization is comprised of divisions that represent different areas of expertise of general interest. As also noted previously on this Substack, the profession has adopted an ideological stance in which politics and activism are infused into the therapeutic process. This has led to previously evidence-based treatments being transformed into pseudoscience and professional presentations based on propaganda rather than actual science.

Considering the overt politicization of professional psychology, one might reasonably expect a robust field of political psychology to emerge. Well, I’ve reviewed and re-reviewed the list of APA divisions, and there is no political psychology division. Here, you can check for yourself. Dig a bit further, and one finds that some divisions are large enough to have additional subsections. And, once again, examination of those subsections does not reveal a single one that addresses how politics might be incorporated into any psychological interventions. Ok, maybe that is not a fair metric, since this shift is relatively recent. Considering the politicization of the profession, there must be a deep well of published scholarship on the fusion of politics into treatment, right? Once again, the answer is a resounding no.

Share

I conducted literature searches to find evidence-based descriptions of treatment that integrated politics or activism, and again found nothing. Now, these searches were a check against something I already knew. And the reason this was known is that in mental healthcare education, there are no courses that are required (or elective) that cover political processes in therapy. The APA is the largest professional organization that accredits clinical and counseling psychology programs. An examination of the requirements for any accredited program reveals no expected component of training in political theory or activism, whether as part of professional psychology or as a standalone knowledge base. Looking to the other major mental health profession, social work, one finds a similar absence of any required coursework covering politics, activism, or associated activities as integrated into treatment.

What I did find were a few journals that cover the interface of politics and therapy. Notably, the most prominent journal in this category, Psychotherapy & Politics International, is a lightly cited publication. The other journals concerned with this interface have low scientific rankings. There are also articles scattered throughout the professional literature that cover ways in which politics may intrude on therapy. I also searched the entire database of articles from one of the top therapy publications, the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (comprising 93 volumes dating back to 1937), for any articles that focused on either politics or activism. There were two articles, neither of which was related to their integration into treatment; both articles were over 30 years old. Additional searches were done for major political theories. There were no articles on Marxism, one on liberalism (published in 1974), none on conservatism, and none on realism. I am aware of a single book chapter on Marxism in behavior therapy, published in 1995. In short, there is a truly negligible level of scholarship on the interface of politics, political theory, and psychological therapy. There are no standard sourcebooks or key scholarly journals on integrating politics or activism into therapy. The same is true for another primary mental health profession, social work. In social work, some journals cover the interaction between politics and policy, as well as general administration; however, that field is also comparably silent on how politics can be effectively integrated into therapy.

Interestingly, there is a major professional organization with a division dedicated to the field of political psychology. That organization is the American Political Science Association. Additionally, there is a journal, Political Psychology, that covers a wide range of esoteric topics with no direct connection to the delivery of mental healthcare. A search of the entire 46 volumes of that journal turned up … 12 articles that mentioned therapy concepts, and these were not related to the actual conduct of treatment or the integration of politics into it.

Now, unlike the TFT example at the outset of this piece, the regulated professions that often involve political knowledge - lawyers, some government positions, policy analysts - are not human service, political, or activism professions. Social workers may disagree, as the job involves advocating for their clients; however, direct engagement in activism is not a specific part of therapy. The issue here is the assumption that one can simply merge politics in therapy, with no regard for client risk or hazards to interprofessional collegiality.

Putting a sharp point on this

The ethical standards for psychologists list competency as a specific standard for practice. This means that for a treatment program to incorporate politics and activism explicitly, there would need to be some actual education in this discipline. As I last checked, there were political science departments at colleges and universities across the country, offering bona fide coursework and education requirements for advanced degrees. They work in a variety of settings where their specific expertise in politics is required. Alternatively, given my three decades of involvement in doctoral education for psychologists, to my knowledge, there have never been any requirements that involve politics or ethical activism. In short, once again, professional psychology is showing an arrogant side that is shocking and an insult to another major profession.

The challenge in addressing the (in)competency of fusing politics and activism with treatment is that the APA has (a) gotten out of the business of enforcing its own ethics, and (b) the organization has fully embraced the politicization of the profession. Further complicating matters, the profession has shifted to permitting moral relativism, which, coupled with the politicization of therapy, creates a permission structure for clinicians to discriminate against clients.

It is worth pausing for a second here. There are plenty of well-educated clinicians who would object to the characterization of competency I’ve laid out here. And undoubtedly, there are clinicians who have read extensively about global conflicts to the point where they can engage in detailed conversations about the political forces at play in different geographic areas. But we shouldn’t confuse reading comprehension with professional expert knowledge. Reading the New York Times or the Washington Post will give one a view of specific global events. However, these sources, along with other online news outlets, do not consistently provide the historical perspective, political and economic theory, or unique clinically relevant material that would facilitate integration into the treatment room. In fact, given what was laid out earlier, the role of politics in treatment has received little scrutiny. The famous axiom that it requires approximately 10,000 hours of study to attain expert knowledge in a subject matter has been lost on professional psychology, particularly ironic since that magic number for expertise was determined by a psychologist, K. Anders Ericsson1. It also has not stopped the promoters of this integration from declaring it an absolute imperative. For instance, a recent President of APA, Thema Bryant, declared in a column in the APA Monitor that psychologists must embrace decolonial psychology, a particular form of therapy that has woven politics and activism into the model2.

The leading scholars advocating for the integration of politics and activism into therapy have also emphasized the importance of cultural humility. And that is not an unreasonable demand. It has also been rarely achieved, considering the florid antisemitism that has been coursing through the profession, despite intense efforts to educate leading policy makers on Judaism.

If mental health profession policy makers insist on infusing politics and activism into treatment, then it is absolutely essential that the necessary steps are taken to ensure that it is done ethically, competently, and with a sound scientific basis. At the moment, there is a theory and … well, that’s about it. And that is simply not sufficient to ensure the public is adequately served.

Followers of this Substack are aware that many of my posts have been assessments of significant challenges in the mental health professions. These posts have been critical, and in my view, deservedly so. But, there has to be something positive, right? As a result, I felt compelled to issue an update following some observations at the professional organization level, which should serve as tentative yet positive signs.

My professional ‘home’ since graduate school has been the Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies (ABCT). Attending the conference each year was typically a truly inspiring experience, and it would set my research agenda for the next year. However, over the past few years, emerging challenges with politicization within the organization have arisen, similar to those faced elsewhere in the profession. By the time of last year’s conference, I was openly questioning whether I would ever attend again. However, I did attend again, and from my perspective, this year’s conference was significantly better, with the political issues being addressed very well. In short, it felt a lot like it was again a scientific and intellectually honest organization. The current board of directors and ABCT central office staff deserve praise for putting the brakes on political excess that until now felt like a runaway train.

Another glimmer of optimism came from a session on which I was a panelist. The panel was titled “Nuances, not mechanisms of action: Culturally sensitive treatment of, and research about, an overlooked minority.” The panel consisted of a diverse group of Jewish psychologists, and our focus was on their lives within the profession and in treating Jewish clients, with an emphasis on resilience. The room was filled to capacity, with people standing along the back wall and seated on the floor. There were numerous non-Jewish members in attendance. And, it was clear that the session could have been longer.

There are two other glimmers of optimism I can report on directly. One was a panel that covered the dissemination of trauma treatment into countries with military conflict. The speakers were from Israel, Myanmar, Ukraine, and Syria. The panel was collegial among the speakers, and the audience's engagement centered on the scientific concepts presented. In the other glimmer of hope, I heard the details from colleagues who were in attendance for the last day of the conference (I left a day early). It was relayed that an invited address that covered trauma treatment in Israelis, followed immediately by an invited address covering trauma treatment for Palestinians, was met with science-informed questions and no antagonistic reactions. Admittedly, the organization engaged in far more preparation for this pair of talks, including questions submitted on index cards and read by a moderator, and additional security.

The positive tone of the conference is notable, and there should be cautious optimism. The currents of political excesses and serious antizionist identity-based discrimination remain a very strong and significant threat. However, given that it was possible for an organization of ABCT's size and diversity to manage it, it should serve as a potential model that can be drawn upon for other organizations.

What did they do differently? Well, for one, there was a new code of conduct that all attendees had to sign before registering. Furthermore, key aspects of the code were displayed on the pop-up screen of the convention app every time it was opened. The organization also reviewed the presenter's slides in advance and centralized the presentation material for all sessions. You might feel this is a bit too much oversight, but the reality is that with the mental health professions in crisis, where antisemitic gestures flow like water, the hazards of marring the professional experience seem far too great.

Beyond ABCT, the American Psychological Association (APA) notified prospective members of its Collaborative of Jewish Psychologists (CJP) two weeks ago (I was invited and agreed to serve; the group has not yet met). This group is charged with developing proposals that will serve to curb the blistering identity-based discrimination coursing through the organization. And, at long last, the organization put in writing, from their legal counsel, the timeline for training their 56 division listserv moderators on how to oversee content to prevent future discriminatory posts. Allow me to elaborate on how I became aware of this. Earlier this week, a doctoral student forwarded an extremely antisemitic listserv post to me. This was not a student at my academic institution, and it was posted in a division in which I have never been a member. I then forwarded the email to the current President of the APA, who replied in under 2 hours, informing me that the message had been passed along to members of the APA staff. One hour later, I heard from the organization’s general counsel, who provided the timeline of when the training would be held and that it would be recorded for any listserv moderator who might not be available at the scheduled time. This was then further confirmed by another APA staff member 45 minutes later. That responses were delivered so rapidly speaks, I believe, to how seriously APA is attempting to treat antisemitism in the profession.

The road ahead…

While this entry was intended to highlight some very preliminary positive developments, significant obstacles lie ahead. The APA remains a sclerotic organization with a Byzantine governing structure. It is that organizational structure we, the CJP, will have to navigate to make any real and lasting changes. There is also strong antipathy towards Jewish colleagues. Many members routinely express intellectually dishonest claims that antizionism is not antisemitism. Further, there is still an antisemitic proposal on the table for possible passage within the APA. And, from my own perspective, I continue to see the APA as morally and ethically adrift. It will take a tremendous, concerted, and sustained effort to bring about real change before I could possibly imagine seeing the organization in a better light.

In addition to the challenges with the APA, there remains serious identity-based discrimination in other major mental health organizations, most notably the National Association of Social Workers (NASW). My colleagues Andrea Yudell and Jennifer Kogan have written extensively about this on their Substack pages. Samples of Andrea’s work can be found here, Jennifer’s here, and together here.

We have a ton of work to do to really address the systemic antisemitism in the professions. But it felt like it was time to hit pause on the criticisms and acknowledge progress, however small it may be. And, hopefully, these positive progress reports can become more frequent.

Share

Subscribe now

The process to go from a policy idea to its implementation in the American Psychological Association (APA) is complex, and so for this entry, I’ll try to skip past the rules and get to the main point. But before I go on, it must be made clear that this post is not about a problem with the APA, but a problem within the APA. And for that, a tiny bit of explanation of the general structure is needed.

There is the overall APA organization. Under the organization's umbrella are numerous divisions representing different areas of specialization or interest. Most of these divisions focus on the stated areas implied in their titles. So, for example, the health psychology division remains primarily focused on that topic.

However, there are several divisions and members that are monomaniacally focused on relitigating the existence of Israel. The language is often couched in terms related to the decolonial movement in psychology. I discussed this at length in relation to the activism present at the APA convention in Denver last month.

Here’s where I skip a lot of internal APA bureaucracy and get right to the point. A change to how APA defined antisemitism was proposed. The proposal was put forward by leaders of Division 35 (Society for the Psychology of Women) and Division 39 (Society for Psychoanalysis and Psychoanalytic Psychology). This change prompted an ad hoc group of fourteen of us, all psychologists involved in research and activism regarding antisemitism in psychology (and beyond), to respond with a detailed letter describing all the ways that the proposed change was itself outright antisemitic, as well as subverting a process APA itself just put in motion to address antisemitism. As our criticisms are so detailed and includes enough information that a reader could readily understand the offending proposal without reading it directly, I am posting our full letter in this entry. Also, it is essential to keep in mind that the proposal has not been voted on or adopted by APA; it has only been presented to the body that will ultimately vote on it. Our alarm was that it was proposed at all, considering the serious discriminatory content of the proposal. When you read our letter, you will understand why we were so alarmed.

The underlying point to keep in mind while reading this is that, beyond the named individuals who put the proposal forward, there are many in the profession who have been complaining about being ‘silenced’ when they’ve faced pushback from Jewish colleagues regarding their extremely harmful rhetoric. I’ve written previously about the weaponization of mental health concepts against us as just one example of the kind of harm these colleagues have perpetrated. There are numerous others, and I’ve discussed some here, here, and here. In truth, free speech is not being curtailed. What the promoters of proposals like the one being decried here get wrong is that free speech is not speech without consequence. If they wish to engage in antisemitic rhetoric, they can, but they may also face well-earned criticism for being discriminatory and for being out of step with professional ethics.

There is one more important point. The two divisions named here that sponsored this proposal did so from their respective elected boards. Elections to board positions in professional organizations are often low-voter-turnout affairs. To illustrate, when I was elected President of another psychology organization, approximately 30% of the membership voted. This is a fairly typical turnout. In some recent board member elections for major psychological organizations, candidates have run unopposed. With this kind of low engagement with candidate positions and board activity, many members may not even know what their elected leaders are endorsing, and if they knew, they may find it appalling. If you are reading this and are a member of either Divisions 35 or 39, consider contacting their elected leadership to demand change.

Below is the full letter we sent to the key members of the organization and those responsible for developing the proposal. Again, this letter was carefully crafted by thirteen other truly amazing colleagues (ten of us signed, with the other 4 not officially signing on for reasons related to not being members of APA any longer, or due to restrictions from their professional institutions). Many of us gathered together for the first time, but this will represent only the start of our collective professional advocacy work.

Re: Aug 20 Legislative Council New Business Item titled "Updating 2007 Resolution on Anti-Semitic and Anti-Jewish Prejudice"

Summary: We are alarmed and dismayed at the New Business Item (NBI) that details recommendations for updating the 2007 Resolution on Antisemitism, and we urge the Council to reject the NBI as written. After careful reading, it is clear that this NBI would have the damaging effect of allowing and even promoting what would be considered hate speech against the Jewish Community. Rather than address the challenges of antisemitism, the phrasing and political emphasis expressly marginalize the largest proportion of the global Jewish community, for whom Zionism (a movement which advocates for “Jewish self-determination and statehood for the Jewish people in their ancestral homeland, the land of Israel” [Anti Defamation League, 2016]) represents a central component of their identity. We recognize that it has not been adopted, but the mere fact that it was proposed with the blessing of the representative divisions is an alarming development that deserves a fulsome and detailed response.

The resolution lacks the necessary introspection required for serious professional reform; cites old and outdated data on the incidence and prevalence of antisemitism; attempts to delegitimize the Jewish people's right to self-determination in part of their ancestral indigenous homeland; ignores efforts to integrate Jews into EDI initiatives that impact them; includes criticisms of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition that are not factual; removes accountability for anti-Jew hatred from any other groups aside from far right extremists; excludes anti-Zionism from the definition of antisemitism; and if the resolution stands, undermines the as-yet-unformed membership of the Collaborative of Jewish Psychologists (CJP). This resolution, if passed, would greatly worsen the problems the profession and organization face regarding antisemitism and is itself a document espousing antisemitic viewpoints.

Antisemitism is not a mere policy disagreement; clinically, it functions as chronic traumatic stress layered on top of intergenerational trauma. As documented in recent peer-reviewed work on traumatic invalidation (Bar-Halpern and Wolfman, 2025) of Jewish experiences, dismissing, minimizing, or politicizing Jewish harm reliably predicts hypervigilance, sleep disturbance, intrusive memories, anxiety/depression, and shame – over and above exposure to distressing news itself. In organizational contexts, these dynamics map onto institutional betrayal, where signals from leadership communicate that Jewish safety is contingent or negotiable. Language that narrows antisemitism or reframes Jewish self-definition as “political” predictably amplifies these risks.

Recent research by Silverstein and Block (2025) underscores that antisemitism is not confined to overt acts of hate. In a study of Jewish students, faculty, and staff on North American campuses, nearly all respondents (98.8 percent) reported antisemitic experiences, with subtle microaggressions such as gaslighting and exclusion from diversity initiatives most prevalent. Critically, these experiences were as strongly associated with depression, hypervigilance, and other stress symptoms as overt assaults. Importantly, the most frequently reported form of invalidation was collective delegitimization, defined as denying Jewish indigeneity or applying double standards to Israel, which demonstrates that anti-Zionist framings are among the most common and harmful ways Jewish identity is undermined today (Silverstein & Block, 2025).

The effects of antisemitism have intensified dramatically since October 7, with Jewish mental health organizations such as the Jewish Community Mental Health Initiative (JCMHI) facilitating over 1,600 support groups worldwide to address the ongoing trauma. The widespread demand for such interventions underscores that rising antisemitism is not an abstract debate but a profound mental-health crisis that APA, by its own mission, should be prioritizing. Put plainly, an NBI that legitimizes anti-Zionism invalidates critical aspects of Jewish identity, detrimentally impacting the mental health of Jewish members of APA and the profession.

We conclude this critique with specific recommendations for an alternative to this NBI that respects the nascent CJP and would accomplish true progress toward addressing antisemitism.

Detailed critique: We have identified the serious problems in the NBI and arranged them by category:

1) Politicization that creates permissibility of hate- Disparate Jewish psychologists (individually and in groups) have repeatedly pointed out to the leadership of the organization that antisemitism manifests across the political spectrum. The resolution, as currently written, presents the dangers of antisemitism as solely a politically right-wing phenomenon. Embedded in this issue is the demand for "evidence-based criticism of Israel's institutions, founding principles, practices, policies and actions," which is a thinly veiled attempt to connect a desire from the political left in our profession to relitigate the existence of the state of Israel. This is a demand that is not made of any other country, including many countries formed after 1948, which still face border disputes. This represents a specific double standard that is part of the Sharansky 3D model of antisemitism. It is also in keeping with the ongoing demonization of Israel, which constitutes one of the other "Ds" in the Sharansky model. In practice, it marginalizes the largest proportion of the global Jewish community for whom Zionism is an integral identity marker. Importantly, Jewish individuals are being targeted with antisemitism regardless of whether or how they personally identify with Zionism, and anti-Zionist rhetoric has been used to rationalize antisemitic hate crimes, including recent murders in Washington, D.C., and Boulder, Colorado, Therefore, this NBI is not just alienating Zionist-identified Jews but inadvertently fueling antisemitism against all Jews.

2) Outdated or selective data- The NBI cited nationally representative data to suggest that generally favorable views toward Jews were held in the U.S. That study was published two decades before October 7, 2023; since that time, the rate of anti-Jewish hate crimes has spiked, with an influx of anti-Israel and antisemitic rhetoric and action originating from the political left, including from within our profession. This is well known, as a sitting Democratic Congressman, Ritchie Torres (D-NY), has called it to your attention publicly, and there have been numerous public condemnations issued by national-level organizations. Weiss (2019) has written extensively about how recent antisemitism has emerged simultaneously from both the far right and far left, making reliance on two-decade-old national survey data inadequate for capturing the full scope of the contemporary threats being examined. Recent monitoring and analyses, including some of our own collaborative work with the Foundation to Combat Antisemitism (FCAS), a premier nonprofit research and hate-monitoring organization, demonstrate the dramatic acceleration of antisemitic discourse and associated hate in digital spaces following October 7th.

Research from numerous organizations has demonstrated massive spikes in antisemitic incidents, documented by the American Jewish Committee, Anti-Defamation League, BBYO, and Foundation to Combat Antisemitism. In 2024 alone, the Anti-Defamation League reported 9,354 antisemitic incidents in the U.S., which represented a 54% increase from 2023, a 344% increase over the past five years, and an 893% increase over the past 10 years. For the first time in the history of the Anti-Defamation League audit, most (58%) incidents contained elements related to Israel or Zionism. These data are supported by FBI data accumulated across both Democratic and Republican administrations. By claiming the rates of antisemitism are at the low levels suggested in this NBI, the delegitimization of claims of anti-Jewish bias fulfills the third "D" of the Sharansky model of antisemitism, making this NBI itself antisemitic.

3) Improper Conflation with Anti-Muslim bias- The opening parenthetically yokes antisemitism to anti-Muslim bias. Both forms of hate deserve serious attention, and APA should address each on its own terms. Pairing them inside a single antisemitism resolution dilutes specificity, encourages competitive suffering frameworks, and is misattuned to the Jewish experience this resolution is meant to address. Per FBI hate crime statistics (09/02/2025), after the past 10 years, antisemitic hate crimes are approximately six times as common as anti-Muslim crimes. Since September 2023, antisemitic attacks have risen to eight times as frequent as anti-Muslim crimes in the United States. The specificity, gravity, and extent of antisemitic attacks were highlighted by former FBI Director Wray in testimony before the Senate in November 2023. The authors of this statement condemn any and all hate crimes against any group targeted because of their identity or affiliation, but these should be treated as independent issues.

4) Excluding Jews from EDI- The persistent denial of the minority status of Jews contributes to the lack of awareness and understanding that Jews must be included in EDI efforts. This problem was documented in careful detail in Walker et al. (2025). In order to properly address this ongoing serious problem, the field requires a thorough understanding of Jewish culture and the religion, which is missing from this NBI.

Indeed, under the diversity impact statement, the document claims that the resolution "should have a positive effect in allowing psychologists to more effectively advocate against antisemitism." It will not. By narrowing the definition in the way this NBI does, it opens the doors to anti-Zionism, an express modern form of left-wing anti-Jewish animus, as recognized by Jewish groups across the political spectrum. It should be emphasized that the vast majority of world Jewry (over 90%) believes in the Jewish people's right to self-determination and governance in the present-day state of Israel. Anti-Zionism is not a political statement about the policies of the Israeli government, but rather seeks to destroy Israel's existence and revoke Jewish rights and heritage. Rather than create an atmosphere of inclusion, this NBI creates a yawning chasm between Jews and other minoritized groups by expressly ignoring the repeated concerns raised by Jewish members about the specific nature of antisemitism experienced within the profession and APA as an organization.

5) Mischaracterization of the IHRA definition- The IHRA definition of antisemitism is by far the most widely used and accepted definition of antisemitism, and the only consensus-driven one. It has been adopted by 1,266 global governmental entities, 45 countries, including the U.S., 37 U.S. states, 98 U.S. cities and county governments, the Canadian government, and the Global Imams Council (GIC, 2020; IHRA, 2025; U.S. State Department, 2016). As an objective standard, it is widely accepted by diverse groups and is an essential tool for the identification of contemporary anti-Jewish bigotry. It is also important to note that false accusations and mistruths have been leveled against the IHRA. These are refuted elsewhere (Goldfeder, 2023). The IHRA definition was carefully written to protect freedom of speech by distinguishing between criticism of Israel’s policies and conspiracy theories or antisemitic tropes that violate the civil rights of Jewish individuals. Regarding Israel, the IHRA definition specifically covers (1) denial of the Jewish people’s right to self-determination, (2) the use of Holocaust imagery to characterize Israel (Holocaust inversion) including drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis, (3) the use of double standards to demonize Israel or Israelis, (4) accusations of dual loyalty and/or (5) use of conventional antisemitic imagery (i.e. conspiracy theories stating that Jews have some sort of hidden power that they use to promote a self-serving agenda) to characterize Israel and/or Jews. The IHRA definition also explicitly states what is not antisemitism, namely, criticism of Israeli policies, and does not infringe on First Amendment Rights as the NBI alleges. Collectively, these important facets are the cornerstone of the IHRA definition, and the absence of any understanding of the underlying basis as expressed in this NBI makes clear that the developers were uninformed and possessed a political agenda in advancing this proposal.

The NBI further misleads the Council of Representatives when it states that Stern was the lead author of the IHRA. He was not. The remaining drafters of the statement all stand behind this extremely carefully crafted definition that was 16 years in the making. The tactic of specifically citing Stern in the fashion this NBI does is referenced in the IHRA handbook as follows:

“... the Definition had many drafters and contributors over a 16-year-long iterative process. Attributing the development of the Definition to a single individual undermines the contributions of countless others who continue to support and stand behind it. Furthermore, overstating the role of a specific contributor in the development of the IHRA Definition misinforms the public and tends to be used in efforts to undermine the definition. Importantly, the other contributors who played crucial roles in the 16-year-long development of the definition continue to support and stand behind the definition.”

Finally, the report appears to imply that adoption of the IHRA as a federal civil rights policy has led to worsening antisemitism. This is simply not accurate, and the spike in left-wing antisemitism has been documented in detail in Ginsberg (2024) and described in innumerable articles across the political spectrum. Additionally, while the developers of this proposed NBI attempt to delegitimize the use of the IHRA statement by noting that it was adopted under the Trump administration in 2019, they fail to recognize that it was also adopted during the Obama administration in 2016, shortly after it was finalized. Further, the Biden administration continued the policy of using the IHRA definition as a benchmark across the federal government. In short, the IHRA definition has enjoyed bipartisan support and directly contradicts the heavy-handed attempt to politically delegitimize the statement.

6) Process breach by pre-empting the Collaborative of Jewish Psychologists- It is unclear whether those advancing this NBI possess recognized expertise in antisemitism, Jewish identity, or Jewish mental health. The recent call by APA for the nomination of members of a Collaborative of Jewish Psychologists (CJP), appears to be aimed at assembling such a group. However, the CJP, which, among its charges, will be a specific revision of the 2007 Resolution on antisemitism, is rendered irrelevant should this NBI pass and get enacted. For a matter of such significance, subject-matter expertise does not seem optional but is rather essential.

7) Ethical Concerns Regarding the NBI and Antisemitism inherent in similar documents-

The NBI raises grave ethical concerns, including the following:

• Principle A: Beneficience and Nonmalificience: The NBI is demeaning, demonizing, and delegitimizing, and inflicts psychological harm on Jewish psychologists. By accepting/ratifying the NBI, APA would be condoning and supporting malificience toward Jewish psychologists

• Principle B: Fidelity and Responsibility: We are concerned that the NBI violates trust with Jewish psychologists, and presents a conflict of interest by putting politics over the science of psychology and practice of alleviating human suffering, singling out Jewish psychologists as unworthy of having legitimate concerns

• Principle C: Integrity: Disseminating outdated data as if it is current is a misrepresentation of facts. Ignoring the impact of the recent escalation since 10/2023 of violence against Jewish people and institutions, including our children’s schools and our community centers and synagogues, delegitimizes Jews’ suffering.

• Principle E: Respect for People's Rights and Dignity: This NBI undermines the autonomy and rights of Jewish individuals to define antisemitism for themselves based on the mainstream widely accepted definition of antisemitism. The NBI would compromise the safety of Jewish psychologists, trainees, and patients by allowing demeaning and harmful rhetoric and behavior in APA spaces.

• 3.01 Unfair Discrimination and 3.03 Other Harassment: As above, demonization, delegitimization, and double standards are demeaning toward Jews and constitute discriminatory harassment.

• 3.04 Avoiding Harm: Agreeing with the misleading claims therein inflicts the mental anguish of traumatic invalidation on APA’s colleagues, Jewish psychologists, as well as the public we serve. This is a specific harm inherent in this NBI.

In sum, were the APA to adopt and enact this NBI, it would be violating its own well-intentioned and well-crafted Ethical Code. If the APA truly values equity, the organization cannot, in good conscience, accept a document that is so profoundly out of step with our professional values.

In light of the criticisms of this NBI, we offer the following recommendations/action items:

• Table and reject the current NBI as written.

• Defer revisions of the 2007 Resolution to the CJP process and commit to genuine engagement with Jewish APA members with diverse viewpoints that are representative of the views held by the mainstream majority of the Jewish community, not fringe extreme ideology on either side of the political spectrum.

• Use current, credible antisemitism data (e.g., Anti-Defamation League, American Jewish Committee, Center for Combating Antisemitism/StandWithUs, Foundation for Combating Antisemitism) rather than selective or outdated citations.

• Work with national, representative Jewish organizations to address issues institutionally and within the field, such as Jewish Federations of North America, the American Jewish Committee, or the Anti-Defamation League.

• Affirm inclusion of Jews in EDI frameworks across APA divisions, units, training, and policy.

• Correct the record on IHRA: acknowledge its consensus status, clarify misstatements (including authorship and scope), and fully recognize its bipartisan adoption. Post this on the APA webpage and promote it widely.

• Name antisemitism from both left and right; remove language that collapses antisemitism into a single partisan frame.

• Clarify boundaries in APA spaces (conferences/listservs/meetings/courses): speech rights remain intact, but APA environments must be safe for Jews, consistent with APA ethics.

As Ambassador Deborah Lipstadt has observed, antisemitism comes from both left and right; those who only see one side are “blind in at least one eye.” We ask Council to restore full vision: reject this NBI, empower a balanced and apolitical CJP, adopt accurate definitions and current data, and ensure that APA spaces are safe for Jews, consistent with our ethical mandate to avoid harm and respect dignity.

My research focus has shifted to emphasize political issues in the medical and mental health professions, with particular focus on antisemitism. This shift started about two years ago and was formally solidified this past Spring. Since I made this shift, a social psychology concept related to group polarization has been at the top of my mind. It’s a very old concept, studied in psychology departments dating back to the early 1930s. Group polarization explains the increasingly extreme positions that a group can take under certain circumstances. And I believe this has been at work in the mental health professions for some time now.

The group polarization issue can be observed in two ways. The first may be observed in the behavior of policymakers, who may offer increasingly extreme suggestions to support the growing left-wing shift in how treatment is conceptualized. It led one policymaker to exclaim, unchallenged, on a listserv that clinical psychology practice must include activism.

The second way this may be observed is by silencing those who disagree. Silencing is reflected in the perception, often correctly, that to speak against the increasingly extreme positions will lead to punishment by the rest of the group. Once again, I have a specific example. In November 2023, I became acutely aware of the extreme politicization in my profession. As a means to address this, I contacted a large number of colleagues in an attempt to rally them around the issue and formulate solutions. At the end of this period, around 40 colleagues joined up. But, more telling was that around 40 more stated that they, too, viewed the extreme politicization of the profession as a problem, but were also fearful of speaking up. These were all senior-level people, secure in their positions, yet they feared reprisal. If you are wondering how my efforts turned out, well, I’m still writing about the extreme politicization in the professions. I can safely say my efforts created mostly heat, and very little light.

So, in summary, group polarization helps explain ‘who’ decides what counts as activism in the mental health professions. The ‘who’ in this case are the policy makers who were in the meetings and on the listservs, and felt compelled to one-up each other to move to increasingly extreme leftist positions.

So, with group-level polarization firmly in place, and evidently growing, the profession now finds itself radicalized. Professional organizations like the APA know they have a problem, but they seem helpless to actually stop it.

Another solution could be put in place, but it will require a substantial subset of professionals willing to speak up. Social psychology, again, holds the answer and is derived from group polarization research. Solomon Asch carried out landmark research in the 1950s on how small group conformity unfolds. However, the group will also break its conformity when one person stands firm against the radicalism. We are at a point now where it will take more than one person. I know of several people doing their part. We need a good deal more.

The American Psychological Association (APA) knows it has a serious problem with antisemitism in the organization and the profession. And, last I heard from a colleague on the board of directors, the CEO would like to announce at the convention this weekend that there is a plan to address this problem.

I’m not attending the convention, and I’m nowhere near Denver to find out first hand whether this announcement will be made or not. However, I was part of the process in developing their plan.

I was among a group of professionals that was invited as a 'stakeholder' in APA's effort to develop plans to combat antisemitism within the organization. When they sent out the invites, they stated right then and there that they planned a summit meeting on July 10. The organization invited other groups representing Jewish psychologists. However, also on the invite list were several groups that have been actively antagonistic to Jewish professionals. These different groups far outnumbered the Jewish groups, and included ones that sponsored presentations that were effectively Hamas propaganda (see my piece that dropped the other day). Pause for a moment to digest that. Professional groups that have been actively antagonistic to Jewish professionals, groups that include social media feeds filled with rhetoric endorsing Hamas and have listservs suffused with extremely harmful antisemitic discourse, were invited to participate in planning how to address antisemitism. Worse, the APA knew full well how serious this issue was, having been publicly called out by a sitting Democratic Congressman, Ritchie Torres (D-NY), after he was informed of the highly problematic discourse happening right under the organization’s nose. So, the die was cast before a single meeting with anyone was held.

As part of the planning for the July 10 meeting, a subset of members of the APA board started by requesting individual meetings with invited members. Some of the invited Jewish psychologists declined entirely, stating that the entire thing was offensive; others participated fully, but stated clearly that they found the invite list highly problematic. Two other colleagues and I met with them with trepidation but open minds, and we made clear that the whole thing was problematic and that they should postpone or cancel the meeting outright. We offered a range of suggestions for how to address the problem. We then learned they would be meeting on July 10 anyway, with no change to the list of invited participants. The three of us informed them a full ten days before the meeting that we would participate, but in protest. There was no reply from the leadership. So we attended, with our Zoom screens off and with all of us displaying the same name - avlah/injustice, and we sent protest notes to the entire invite list at the outset and conclusion of the meeting, and did not otherwise participate. There were testy responses to our email, covering the predictable areas. We then sent a follow-up note to the board one week later, detailing our concerns one more time. Nine days after that, we received a reply, simply thanking us for expressing our concerns. The people who attended the meeting were disproportionately antizionist, and while against antisemitism if, as they put it, “it's discrimination against Jews for being Jews,” they are not opposed to relitigating the existence of Israel and condemning anyone who feels Israel has a right to exist. Oh, and the organization recognized that the term 'stakeholder’ was a problem, considering that some representatives at the meeting were antagonistic, so they changed the phrase to ‘interest holders.’ And indeed, ‘interest holders’ is probably a better term. It turns out one just had to be ‘interested’ in the issue and not have an actual stake in the process. One of the responses to the protest email we sent was that an attendee at the July 10 meeting stated that they were unfamiliar with all the issues at hand. Another person invited was an antizionist historian, not even an actual psychologist!

In complete fairness, despite the truly offensive roll-out, the plans that they formulated following the meetings with ‘interest holders’ included initiatives that actually sound reasonable. These include: improved listserv monitoring and moderator training; review of continuing education offerings to ensure the safety of attendees; appointing a Jewish Collaborative for strategic input and consultation; and appointment of a separate task force on justice, human rights, fairness, and integrity. Again, these all sound good in principle.

The suggested solutions are at high risk of breaking down in practice, considering the radical thread coursing through the organization and profession. After all, during the meetings and preparation of the proposed changes, the leadership also knew of the litany of extremely problematic presentations being delivered at the convention this weekend. As far as I know, no effort has been made to address these severe ideological excesses. I hope that someone will inform me that I am wrong.

Another challenge the organization faces is who they appoint to these committees and task forces to craft new policies. Again, referencing the radicalization of the profession, if the organization stacks these committees with avowed antizionists (which seems entirely possible considering who was invited to the July 10 meeting), they will have achieved nothing except to deepen an already very serious problem.

There is one more serious structural problem. The organization is held in thrall to a specific ideological framework that informs a therapy movement based on social justice. By itself, social justice conceptualizations are reasonable and nobly serve the interests of historically marginalized groups. However, in the hands of the psychologists most aggressively promoting this framework, Jews are framed as contributors to social justice problems rather than a historically marginalized group. To show just how hard the promoters of the social justice model work to avoid identifying Jews as a historically marginalized group, consider the following: in an article in the May 2025 issue of the official journal of the organization, American Psychologist, authors of a social justice paper detailed historical aspects of colonialism cited Germany in WW2, and specifically the role German psychologists played in the Nazi regime. The closest the authors could come to condemnation of Nazi antisemitism comes in this sentence: “German psychologists were rationalizing the oppression and attempted genocide of Jews, employing one of the strategies of colonization.” (see entire article here). The May 2025 issue of the journal was a special issue on decolonial psychology (a specific approach within social justice) that the Psychologists Against Antisemitism, Anti-Defamation League and the Academic Engagement Network condemned in a joint statement. The organization, fully aware of the serious problem they had with antisemitism, said and did nothing about the special issue, which was officially published in May 2025, but for which all the articles were officially accepted in April 2024 (see end note in article I attached above for dates of submission and acceptance timeline). Incidentally, you might think that the editors and editorial board of the journal operate independently of the organization board. Editorial independence should be true and typically is, but the organization has also historically been willing to interfere when actual data is on the line. The special issue had no data, only conceptual frameworks for the topic.

Will the leadership of the organization be able to address its very serious and significant antisemitism problem? I desperately hope so. I’ve been present for the effort. And from what I’ve witnessed, hope is dimming fast.

This is a shorter post, but it feels necessary since the annual American Psychological Association convention is in Denver this weekend. As I noted yesterday, the convention is now a place for a form of radicalism that would make one question how much professional benefit one may get from attending. Many sessions seem designed to fuel a highly specific form of left-wing activism that is generally unrelated to professional psychology.

Before I go on, and to be perfectly fair, one could curate their experience at the APA convention to get in-depth knowledge in statistics and research methods, personality and developmental psychology, and bona fide practical clinical intervention skills. However, considering the number of politically slanted sessions scheduled, attendees could also curate their convention experience to be entirely based on political activism without any content directly related to professional psychology.

The politicization of the mental health professions has become extremely pronounced. As noted previously, mental health professionals generally tilt to the liberal side of the political spectrum. If one were to read the mission statement for the APA, one could be forgiven for fully expecting the organization to be liberal in the pluralistic sense. I’ve posted the mission statement previously, but it is worth re-posting here.

Our mission is to promote the advancement, communication, and application of psychological science and knowledge to benefit society and improve lives. We do this by:

• Utilizing psychology to make a positive impact on critical societal issues.

• Elevating the public’s understanding of, regard for, and use of psychology.

• Preparing the discipline and profession of psychology for the future.

• Strengthening APA’s standing as an authoritative voice for psychology.

The mission statement is clearly pluralistic. It suggests the organization is aimed at improving the lives of all people. You can read the mission statement and related information about the policy aims of APA here.

The concept of pluralism as a guiding philosophy runs counter to identitarianism, traditionally considered a far-right ideology that aims for cultural, ethnic, and/or racial purity. If you are tuned in to specific threads of far-right movements in the United States and Europe, you can appreciate very quickly how frightening the prospect of identitarianism would be. Embracing pluralism would seem a natural means to combat a racist ideology such as this. And pluralism would undoubtedly be an expression of broad acceptance that liberal-minded members of the mental health profession would have to embrace, right?

Right?!?

Well, not so fast. Back in one of the earliest posts on this page, I described the withering discrimination among mental health professionals should anyone endorse beliefs that were inconsistent with the prevailing far left stance of various professional social media groups. Based on a substantial subset of presentations at the APA convention (you can peruse convention offerings here), we see how activism, specifically politically far-left activism, has been fully integrated into professional psychology in the starkest terms possible. The type of acceptable activism in the profession is based on a set of imposed standards. These standards result from the profession embracing relativism, where professionals are granted an unearned moral authority to issue judgments should a colleague or client hold beliefs that the psychologist finds objectionable. I discussed this at length here. Since I wrote the piece about relativism, my colleague Dr. Elysa White and I have analyzed our extensive survey data of professionals. We are currently preparing our findings for publication, but here’s a little teaser of what we found:

• Large proportions of mental health professionals find the political climate intolerable, to the point that many are considering leaving the field.

• Similarly, large proportions of mental health professionals are fearful of openly expressing views that run counter to the assumed prevailing political ideology in the profession.

The intimidating atmosphere is real and palpable. This kind of silencing comes from a professional climate marked by a form of left-wing identitarianism. Unlike far-right identitarianism, which is concerned with ethno-racial purity, far-left identitarianism is characterized by the purification of the profession (or broader society) to achieve a form of moral and political homogeneity. In short, the exact opposite of pluralism. And the exact opposite of accepting diverse individuals. Woe to the far-left identitarians should the prevailing moral and political winds ever change. They may be driven out by the same forces they happily apply now.

One more note to my dear readers: There were a lot of responses to the piece yesterday, almost universally expressions of alarm at the state of affairs in psychology. I am not attending the APA convention, but I have also been alarmed at the state of affairs in the profession. Seeing the list of presentations and following the outpouring of responses to yesterday’s piece, I decided I would write one brief article each day during the convention. After that, you may not hear from me for a while as I have a lot of writing obligations and collaborators to consider.

Readers of Anxiously Waiting know that I usually open with something to gently lead you to a topic. I’m going to dispense with that in today’s post, and instead get right to the point. There is a growing radicalism in psychology, one that I’ve described previously in several posts. This radicalism will be on vivid display at the annual convention of the American Psychological Association (APA), which starts today (August 7, 2025) in Denver.

I have been a member of APA for almost thirty years. I resigned in 2011, when the full scope of the organization’s involvement in the ‘enhanced interrogation’ program in the George W. Bush administration was laid out (discussed here), but I rejoined a few years later when it appeared the organization was attempting to get back to their scientific roots. For now, I remain a member (at Fellow status). Frustratingly, whether a member or not, the organization impacts the professional life of every practicing psychologist in the country given the APA’s role in crafting policies for the profession, from education of future practitioners up through the ethics code that guides our work.

It is in this vein that this year’s convention is the most radical. There are numerous sessions that are overtly political rather than psychological. In a note to a division within APA boasting over 2000 members, convention attendees have been exhorted to wear keffiyahs to presenter sessions, and the abstracts for several proposals are literally identical to Hamas propaganda. To illustrate, the abstract for one presentation opens with the following: “In October 2023, Israel launched its war against The Gaza Strip in response to attacks against its military targets.” Interesting that to this professional, military targets included kibbutzes and a music festival. For the full abstract, check this link to see for yourself. This kind of imbalance cuts across the sessions devoted to these politically driven presentations. It should be noted that these abstracts undergo review by established professionals in the discipline. So, these presentations were approved by others who had no problem with the radicalism presented therein.

In this note distributed to members, presenters were encouraged to read a ‘land and genocide statement.’ It is marked by political excesses and inaccuracies, and is phrased in a way that suggests the conflict between Israel and Hamas (and the other Iranian proxies) is simplistic in nature. Here is the relevant portion that was distributed:

”We must also recognize - with sorrow and outrage - that this presentation takes place amid the ongoing violent dispossession of Indigenous peoples from their lands across the globe, particularly the genocide in Palestine that is actively supported by the United States government. As psychologists, we have a responsibility to speak out and actively resist systemic oppression and violence wherever they occur, both here and globally.”

There’s a fascinating aspect to this statement. The assumption is that (a) the land statement conveys accuracy about who is displaced and who is indigenous to the land. This instantly becomes contestable, as there are clear archaeological records demonstrating who is or is not indigenous. But, perhaps more important is (b) that there is accumulating research and scholarship, from people that support the concept of land statements, that these are often crafted without sufficient attention to who is or is not the rightful original displaced people in any disputed territory.

Here’s an illustrative example. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) attempted to develop a land statement. The effort originated independently in two different academic departments, and they arrived at conflicting statements as to whom was the rightful Native American tribe displaced from the land. Since that effort led to embarrassment, the university has turned to the state to resolve it, and that too has been a fraught effort with no resolution but plenty of angry people. MIT occupies 168 acres of land in the city of Boston. And for that tiny portion of land, very smart people with ostensibly good intentions who lived and worked on the property in question could not get it right about who was displaced from the land, in a country whose entire history is predicated on displacing native peoples. Now, consider the people who crafted the land statement that APA convention presenters are being urged to read before their talks. It was written by people who do not live in the Middle East and who have flattened out the conflict to a simplistic one-sided (and contestable) notion of who is the colonizer. All of this regarding a land area totalling approximately 200 square miles, or 128,000 acres. Dramatically more than MIT, and dramatically more complex. In short, the people responsible for crafting the land and genocide statement have expressed a breathtaking level of arrogance in pursuit of their rigid and simplistic ideological framework.

Land statements have the potential for beneficial outcomes. If conducted with care and research, they can clarify what groups have rights to land, and the potential to inform policies for redress. These statements can be used to foster education and growth among the parties. And the statements can, if done with the right intentions and proper research, raise awareness and education. In the case of the statement that convention presenters are being urged to read, it represents the absolute worst excesses and is validly subject to the criticisms levied against land statements - performative, virtue signaling, superficial, and devoid of proper context.

Now, one last item. The note sent to potential convention attendees urges people to wear keffiyahs. This exhortation is to all attendees, not just to those for whom this is a bona fide religious and cultural garment. Hmm, think back to how this may be viewed as problematic. At least two things come to mind. First, the progressive movement has often condemned people for cultural appropriation. It seems that it is ok if encouraged in the name of a protest movement approved by…well, don’t ask this question, it was approved by someone who won’t be offended by the cultural appropriation. Second, and far more offensive, is that the keffiyah, regardless of its established cultural value to Palestinians, when worn by anyone outside that culture it represents a threatening gesture to Jews. This is a complex matter, but the implications in the email sent to members was clear - the keffiyeh was intended as a solidarity garment and as an expression of antizionism.

I truly hope that these excesses will snap more members of the profession out of the stupor that has gripped them, and lead to more people speaking up about how harmful the politicization has become. Professional psychology has become ruthlessly unwelcoming. It has got to change, and soon, for the good of the public.

The former headquarters of the Nazi SS during their occupation of Poland in WW2, it is now the home of the Psychology Department at the University of Warsaw. Photo taken this month by the author.

Picture being a college student in today’s social media-saturated environment. You have a very senior professor who connects with you on social media. You then see this same professor regularly post about his ‘top’ students and his exhortations for them to protest against Israel. He even posts pictures of students wearing t-shirts he has given them with political slogans. His office door has been festooned with slogans and stickers exhorting students to protest Israel, including statements that many Zionists would find extremely threatening. To take this illustration one step further, the professor in question does not count Israel or the Middle East as his area of expertise; it is simply an area of their activism.

What I’ve described is not hypothetical. I’ll keep the professor’s name and department out of this post, as it is worth highlighting that indoctrination like this is not isolated, it is only one that I’ve been able to follow on social media. What I’ve described is not only a real faculty member but also an archetype of a specific kind of leftist ideologue that has been all the more prominent among academics in recent years. For all the jokes about how ineffective professors are at indoctrination, there is no doubt that when it comes to protest movements, professors can indeed have an impact. Further, it doesn’t require a large percentage of students protesting to create a stir.

Obviously, protesting in itself does not lead to antisemitism. And there is a clear place for protest in effectuating social change, including on college campuses. However, the nature of the contemporary exhortations to protest among many academics explicitly includes anti-Zionism. Here is where it gets problematic. Protesting the governing administration of any country is not itself discriminatory. The drift to criticizing the existence of Israel is a serious problem, since there are no other countries, regardless of their track record, that faces this kind of existential threat. As I’ve noted previously, college professors are socialized from early in their careers to speak with authority on topics where they lack expertise. Further, pretty much every professor I know has an opinion about the conflict between Israel, Hamas, and the other Iranian proxies. So all it requires is a few persuasive professors who have a high degree of self-assuredness in speaking about anti-Zionism to whip up the fervor witnessed on campuses and in academia broadly.

Calling attention to anti-Zionism for it’s antisemitic core is to invite an argument from those zealously criticizing Israel. The most frequent argument I’ve heard is that anti-Zionism is not antisemitism, it is “merely” a call for the country to abandon aspects of it’s core identity as a Jewish state. These arguments, in my personal experience, are typically one-sided and fail to address the complexities of the region, including the ways Hamas has harmed Palestinians, or the repeated attacks on Israel in the course of the current conflict. Add that many of these same academics have been vocally criticizing Israel long before the attacks on Oct 7, 2023, calling for their institutions to adopt BDS as policy, and repeatedly insisting that Zionism is a form of apartheid, and you have the express formula for academic antisemitism that is being fed to students. The students are the victims in this situation, since they arrived at college for an education in critical thinking and preparation for careers. What they did not sign up for was consequence-free indoctrination in one-sided ideology that oversimplifies a region that is maddeningly complex.

Free Speech and Indoctrination

There is a long tradition in academia of valuing freedom of expression. The ideal of Tenure is that it permits professors to pursue ideas that might be unpopular, engage in long-term projects that might have a high impact, and cultivate knowledge through critical engagement, among other rights and privileges. As a result, there is a fine line between encouraging critical thinking and indoctrination.

Consider the following example, once again culled from my experiences at Fordham University. A political science professor distributed a letter to each of his undergraduate classes urging them to join the nascent encampments in protesting Israel during the Spring 2024 semester. Once again, the expertise of this professor was not in matters related to the Middle East. When other professors were made aware of this letter, the reaction was outrage that the letter was distributed to the faculty, not that it was sent to the students.

Let that sink in a bit…the fury from faculty was that the indoctrinating letter was released, not that it was sent to undergraduate students in a course that had literally nothing to do with Middle East politics, from a professor who lacked actual expertise related to the region. Again, consider the real possibility that a student who is ostensibly forming their own critical views of a wide range of social and political matters views the conflict between Israel and Hamas differently from their professor, an all too real possibility considering the complexity of the region. How comfortable will that student feel in speaking to that professor, or disagreeing with his stance?

University administrators don’t like to discourage different forms of speech such as the kind described here. This is largely due to concerns over chilled discourse among faculty, most of whom do not engage in the kind of indoctrination described here. It is really important to stress this point. Indoctrination is not widespread, but it also does not require many professors to do it for it to become a problem. The form of indoctrination that has resulted in campus antisemitism, as noted here and here, include political social pressure on other professors, especially those early in their careers, to share the same political viewpoints. In some academic settings, these pressures on colleagues has contributed to low ratings for institutional academic freedom. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) has scored institutions for their campus culture of academic freedom, and many of the most elite universities have abysmal ratings. So, if indoctrination will continue without consequence, what is there to do?

A Humble Suggestion

Academic freedom in itself represents an area of academic specialty. As such, there are some useful guides for recapturing true academic freedom that could address the problem of leftist antisemitism rippling through universities. A starting point might be fostering a culture of true critical thought, one where a wider range of ideas are accepted as legitimate areas of discourse. Taking a cue from the ideas in The Coddling of the American Mind, this would include urging students to engage with concepts that are not ‘safe,’ and to increase tolerance for divergent concepts. This would not demand that students agree with ideas that are unpopular, only that these are accepted as legitimate topics of discussion. The reason this has implications for antisemitism is that, in the current climate, it is exceedingly difficult for a student to argue in favor of Zionism; the default assumption and indoctrinating demand is that students accept that Zionism, and by extension the mere existence of the state of Israel, is part and parcel of a settler-colonial project (and an extensive list of other serious social ills, such as those described here). This notion has so strongly gripped academia that it has extended to professional training, such as I’ve described extensively in the mental health professions. Making this shift means returning to pluralism; in short, urging liberal education that emphasizes facts and data over ideology.

For higher education to be taken seriously, there is an urgent need that institutions return to true academic freedom. This would include cultivating university climates that discourage indoctrination and foster bona fide critical thinking. By permitting open discourse that challenges leftist notions of anti-Zionism, antisemitism in academia can begin to recede.

Pick any research topic at random, and trace the history of that work. Undoubtedly, you will go back far enough that someone, somewhere, started that work and had to make a convincing case that it was worthy of study. Further, most early career scholars know that the review process for publishing can be absolutely punishing. For example, the reviews for what would become my first scholarly article included criticisms such as “I seriously doubt the authors have read most of the papers they cited,” and “This article would benefit from being proofread by a native English speaker.” The topic would provoke intense controversy among high single digits of colleagues in the area of statistical qualities of a measure of obsessive-compulsive symptoms. Fortunately, I was able to overcome these criticisms. Other colleagues have similar stories of extremely critical, and often discouraging, reviews of their work.

Antisemitism is not a new topic. And the news of late has had plenty of reports on the sharp spike in hate crimes directed at Jews, coming from both the political right and the left. In short, this topic should be of considerable interest in peer-reviewed journals and publications that may shape policy.

Readers of Anxiously Waiting know what’s coming next. It turns out that scholarly journals have not been finding this an urgent topic in demand of attention. One academic colleague reported that she had an article on antisemitism in an area of mental health treatment, which was desk rejected from eleven journals before one sent it for review, where it was ultimately published. For my non-academic publishing readers, ‘desk rejected’ means the editor chose to avoid sending the paper to reviewers for consideration. With an editorial piece I co-authored with three other scholars, it was sent to five journals, but all rejected it. The first four did not explain, but the fifth specifically stated it was ‘lower priority than other manuscripts currently under consideration…” An interesting assertion considering how antisemitic hate crimes have been rapidly rising, and that Jews are the victims of about 60% of all religiously motivated hate crimes, while Jews represent only about 2% of the general population.

Speaking with other colleagues, the story of scholarly writing and research being deemed of low importance is repeated often when it comes to academic publishing on antisemitism. This has been regardless of whether these are well-published scholars or academics early in their careers.

Numerous potential explanations are all worth investigating. I won’t list all the potential reasons, since they are all speculative. However, one broad way of understanding this is that academia at present is grappling with how to reconcile the ideological framework around social justice, and the cancerous radical position taken in academia that frames Jews as oppressors. My colleagues and I have written about this issue in the mental health professions and call attention to how framing any group as oppressors sparks an automatic desire to exact retribution. It is this retributive impulse that in part explains the recent antisemitic violence, including the murders of two Israeli embassy staffers in Washington, DC, and the fire bombing of peaceful protesters in Boulder, CO.

Even as I write this piece, my colleagues and I have a paper that is under review that raises important issues of how antiracism and social justice movements in the mental health professions have been extremely harmful to Jewish colleagues and the public. In each correspondence, that paper has been framed by the editor as ‘a sensitive topic.’ Why is it sensitive? The topic is straightforward, and about how the profession is actively harming a group, bolstered with clear evidence. What makes it sensitive is that others in the profession, that is, those who fervently believe Jews are, as a group, oppressor colonizers and may be freely discriminated against, will be sensitive to our criticisms of their discrimination. And that should actually make it a high priority, not a sensitivity.

In a prior piece, I noted that there has been considerable antisemitism in academia for some time, and it has consequences for early-career professors. It is so prevalent and widely accepted that many don’t question its veracity, or even know it exists. In this way, the challenges scholars are just beginning to raise seem to sit at the vanguard of academic work, at least in the social sciences. Let that thought marinate a bit: antisemitism killed six million Jews in World War 2, and yet it is still to this day a potentially novel area of academic study1. And since the gatekeepers of academic journals are all deeply embedded in the very same academic world that has antisemitic perspectives accepted as though it were fact, challenging these notions faces stiff resistance.

The mental health professions are presently the leading disciplines in defending these antisemitic concepts. It is cloaked as ‘anti-Zionism,’ and the most fervent ideological voices will exclaim loudly that it is not antisemitic. When opposition to that false dichotomy is raised, the contemptuous reaction is typically intense. As noted in several posts on this Substack, the defense is based on concepts of decolonialism, social justice, and the fusion of untested concepts into existing scientifically established treatment protocols.

The push-back against this prevalent bias in the mental health professions is earnestly underway. There is growing political pressure on professional organizations. The emergence of the Academic Engagement Network, founded in 2015, has been incredibly active in combating this issue in colleges and universities. And there are a growing group of scholars willing to press for changes in academic settings in order to challenge otherwise widely accepted antisemitic attitudes. There needs to be more voices opposing the distorted ideological framing of Jews as oppressors. I hope readers of this piece will share it with others who might speak up.

Now, a reader’s note. I started this Substack because I have a lot to say, and this is a great way to refine thoughts on different topics. Many of the pieces published here are to work out ideas that will inform work in my lab and lead to other scholarly writing. I also have a lot of ongoing writing responsibilities with colleagues, and several projects have looming deadlines. In order that I don’t shirk those responsibilities, this is my last piece for several weeks. Watch for another entry sometime in mid-July. I’ll have more to offer on disgust, pseudoscience, and antisemitism in academia and mental healthcare. Since a big part of this Substack is to also raise awareness of the issues being discussed, I hope you will share these widely in your networks.

Reader’s note: I was originally not planning to get this piece out today. However, after peaceful demonstrators calling for the return of hostages held in Gaza were viciously attacked and set on fire yesterday, I felt it essential to get this out right away.

In 1883, Francis Galton wrote Inquiries into Human Fertility and Its Development, and with that, gave birth to eugenics. The underlying premise has always been considered pseudoscientific, based on the assumption that deliberate efforts to engineer who may reproduce with whom would result in a higher quality gene pool. The framing of eugenics had all the earmarks of an intellectual movement, marked by the kinds of morally superior assumptions that would make its promoters appear to have some wise view of the world. That moral framing, of course, was a facade. A little over 50 years later, eugenics was the guiding ideological perspective the drove the Nazis to murder millions of Jews.

Having emerged from an intellectual tradition, the beating heart of eugenics was in universities. At the time of Galton’s writing, intelligence testing did not exist, but intelligence was considered a heritable trait. By the early 1900s, when intelligence testing emerged, many of the developers of these measures also fully endorsed the ideas of eugenics. They viewed the development of these measures as instruments to have a hand in evolutionary changes.

Imagine you were starting in academia in the early 1900s. The proponents of eugenics were all senior-level professors, and they believed in the dominion of man in his quest to directly influence human evolution. And you, just starting out in your career, perhaps harbored some doubts about this philosophical movement. Maybe you wondered whether mankind possessed the moral authority to deliberately engage in the kind of social engineering the leaders of the eugenics movement espoused. However, despite these doubts about eugenics, your scholarship may have been in a different academic discipline, so your arguments against eugenics were not very sharp. And, being around people who devoted countless hours honing their arguments in favor of eugenics, and as an early career professor interested in your professional longevity, you probably just went along with the premises of the approach. After a while without questioning the premises any longer, you likely grew to agree with it anyway, even if only mildly.

There is documented evidence that academia in the United States in the early 1900s actively espoused eugenics. There were grant programs, academic societies, and widespread public support. Add that all academic departments are ultimately social units, subject to all the kinds of pressure we might feel elsewhere in society, and the formula for early career professionals who might object to the premises of eugenics would fall in line becomes incredibly likely. In short, the pressure to accept eugenics in academia was fierce.

Modern Pressures in Global Political Movements

In the prior piece on the tolerance of antisemitism in academia, I emphasized that I believe most professors are not overtly antisemitic. Instead, it is my sense, based on human behavior and how we exist in social ecosystems, that the pressure on many professors to conform to those yelling the loudest leads to agreement with the prevailing zeitgeist that Israel is a settler-colonial project. The demand on these professors to look away from their doubts is tremendous.

Ultimately, academic departments are hierarchical entities. Moving through the ranks in academia from the lowest rung, adjunct instructor, to early career tenure-track Assistant Professor, to tenured Associate Professor, to the rank of Full Professor is a networking and game-based system. It requires good scholarship, (generally) effective teaching, service to the college (such as being on committees), and most of all, remaining inoffensive to anyone who holds the keys to your promotion. Suppose you perceive that someone is an aggressive anti-Zionist, and you believe instead that Israel has a right to exist. In that case, you might need to keep quiet about that lest you face career-ending consequences or, at the very least, a stall in your professional advancement.

Members of most academic departments are politically aware. Faculty live ‘lives of the mind.’ Add that professors are socialized to “teach what they don’t know,” and you have a group of people who are prepared to adopt positions on subjects as part of a social group viewpoint if they occupy vulnerable positions. The end result is a substantial share of professors, essentially tilting to the liberal side of the political spectrum, who may openly espouse leftist antisemitic viewpoints.

You might be thinking, “This all seems so unfair. You’re saying the professors are not free thinkers?” I’m sorry to report that I’m making this assertion based on the accumulated scientific evidence on human nature. Here, this popular meme tells the story:

An Illustration from the Halls of Academia

Fordham is an excellent microcosm of a variety of issues in academia. It’s a University located in a major metropolitan area. The prevailing culture is generally more moderate, so the stereotypes of other institutions that have been in the news are less prominent. And the faculty in the Arts and Sciences, home to much of the more intense left-wing antisemitism at other universities, is likewise present there, even if not as ‘in your face.’

And so, it is in this space that my example emerges. During the peak of the university encampments protesting Israel’s war with Hamas, in the Spring of 2024, Fordham had an encampment for around two days. At the start of these encampments, a professor with an endowed chair position (an extremely senior-level person who wields considerable influence) distributed a ‘petition of solidarity’ with the student protesters. It was shared on a faculty listserv, where professors from graduate student teaching assistants to adjuncts and up through Full Professors subscribed. And the discourse that emerged was dramatic and filled with vitriol, with lots of problematic discriminatory discourse.

As part of the unfolding of the discourse, I had made some comments to explain my declination to sign the petition. Afterward, I received several direct emails from early-career professors expressing appreciation for my comments. Later, in reviewing the list of signatories, a curious pattern emerged. Specifically, about half of those signing were early-career (thus, professionally vulnerable) professors. But, the more telling matter was that (a) the majority of these professors signed much later, (b) they were overwhelming from the departments where multiple senior level professors had already signed, and (c) several of them were the same people who directly emailed me to thank me for opposing the petition. A case might be made that some of the signers did so feeling secure. But, given that several directly contacted me due to opposition to the petition, and yet later signed it, suggests that their department community appeared to expect it. It is also a leap to suggest that they received direct pressure to sign, but we know from social psychological processes that implied pressure exists.

Now, what happens if someone adopts a position due to social pressure? Well, consider that most professors hold their junior-level rank for six years before earning tenure. So imagine having a view imposed by your colleagues in one way or another, and holding that for about six years. The chances of actually embracing that view increase. There are at least two compelling reasons. First, anxiety is a potent force in preventing one from entertaining threatening scenarios. Considering how fervent some of the anti-Zionist views are among some senior-level faculty, this idea would be generally ignored in vulnerable faculty. Second, holding and openly defending a viewpoint, even if performative, can cultivate an emotional challenge. How does someone overcome open expression of a view and then shift to the opposite when the threat of reprisal passes? The cognitive dissonance would be tremendous and might serve as a barrier to changing the position held during vulnerable times.

To be clear, it is also entirely reasonable and possible that early career faculty genuinely share the anti-Zionist views of other senior-level professors. It would be inaccurate and unfair to suggest that early career faculty are held entirely in thrall to the pressure, real or perceived, of senior-level faculty. And, again, I believe that these anti-Zionist views are held among a comparably small number of professors. But that small number is large enough to create a sufficient groundswell of this viewpoint in academic settings.

Possible Remedies

Remember, my view was that most professors are in the movable middle. Highlighting, calmly and preferably in person, that these views are potentially harmful and antithetical to ordinary criticism of a government. Calling attention to the harm and potential ways it lines up with the Sharansky 3D model of antisemitism may weaken the degree of endorsement. It should be highlighted that most senior-level faculty do not necessarily monitor for agreement with perspectives, but instead would take note only of open disagreement. In addition to these points, calling attention to the growing recognition that the discriminatory language coming from academic circles is contributing to the rising violence against Jews in public places could appeal to their sense of compassion for humanity. Finally, early career faculty may be interested in membership in the Academic Engagement Network, whose aim is to address antisemitism in academia, and who hold a pluralistic view of the Middle East.

As noted in the first piece in this series, addressing antisemitism arising from academia is challenging. If you attempt to do so, it will take time, and you must be prepared for setbacks. But there won’t be any changes if you don’t try.

A popular book among academics is “Teaching What You Don’t Know.” It strikes a chord for virtually every early career professor. I’ll use my own experience as an example. When I started as an Assistant Professor, I agreed to be one of our cadre of freshman advisors. The program's structure was as follows: all incoming freshmen received a classic book - my first year as an advisor, the book students received was Antigone, by Sophocles - and then the advising class met several times in the Fall semester. As part of those meetings, the advisor was required to lead a book discussion. I’m a clinical psychologist by training, and while my undergraduate education included fifteen credits of elective English literature coursework, I am not even remotely an expert in the classics, and until that point, I had not read Antigone. I didn’t even know how to pronounce the title! But here I was, along with many other early career professors, who were faced with teaching material well outside our expertise. There were professors in chemistry, physics, business, theology, history, you name it. The advisors all received training in how to handle this material when faced with meeting our students. But we were definitely not equipped to field in-depth questions, and certainly unprepared if any of our students had previously read the book in a formal course led by an expert and then asked us serious questions.

But teach it we did, and many of us received positive feedback (my feedback was extremely mediocre). I’m telling this story because most professional faculty face this kind of situation, even within their own discipline. Ask any psychology professor their opinion on teaching the introductory course to get a bit more insight into this issue. It doesn’t take long before more professors get comfortable to some degree with presenting themselves as learned in topics in which they have no formal training.

What does this have to do with antisemitism in academia? Well, in a small subset of faculty, the professional demands to present oneself as an expert for a wide range of topics can lead to an unearned sense of authority. As a result, this entry is to describe hypothesized ways that an especially small group of professors can foment antisemitism in the academy through that unearned authority. What I lay out below is based on three domains: easily provable points, psychological processes (where I have the necessary expertise), and personal experiences.

The Contributions of Narcissism and Arrogance

When teaching topics outside of one’s comfort zone, it fosters an interesting problem. Those in the academy who have the highest opinions of themselves - the narcissists - may also be at the most significant risk for exhibiting the kind of self-importance of knowledge, including outside their expertise, that would promote the types of antisemitism that have been witnessed on campuses. Additionally, professors overwhelmingly tilt to the left of the political spectrum, which poses its own interesting psychological issue. Research into how narcissism manifests itself in left and right-wing political orientations has been recently examined. Left-wing narcissism is more overt and demonstrative, which fits perfectly for academics who are accustomed to holding court with an audience of willing consumers of their lectures.

To be completely balanced, the overwhelming majority of professors are not actually outright narcissistic, nor are they overtly antisemitic. The problem is that the ones who might promote the attitudes that have been so damaging to the academy's reputation are shouting into a bullhorn at the top of their lungs, while everyone else is using their indoor voices, some might be just whispering or silently standing by. Thus, this discussion is only about antisemitism from the leaders of the movement within academia, represented in a specific subtype of professors. In later pieces, I’ll lay out additional testable hypotheses for how it has spread to other faculty and students.

Contemporary Academic Antisemitism - The Radicals Have Met The Moment, And Not In A Good Way

Ok, before I continue, I want to emphasize, as I have in the past, that my personal political views are liberal in a pluralistic sense. This is in contrast to the left-wing variety that might favor radical dismantling of systems, or that would support a form of authoritarianism that resembles communism.

It is into this space that the extremely few, but very loud, academic voices have met their moment in spurring antisemitism on campuses. The guiding framework that animates their actions comes from an intellectual movement of decolonialism, which I have discussed previously in the context of its infusion into mental healthcare. This concept has been part of disparate areas within higher education and has spread particularly through the arts and sciences. The intellectual foundations are unobjectionable - the long arc of colonialism has led to a vast array of harmful policies that have disenfranchised groups that had original cultural ties to the land. It’s in its application that antisemitism has bloomed. And, writing this only a few days after two Israeli embassy staff members were gunned down in Washington, DC by a radical pro-Palestinian activist, it has been suggested that the rhetoric contributed to their murder. These leaders of the antisemitism movement, via decolonialism and anti-Zionism, in higher education hold a measure of responsibility for their deaths, given their extensive rhetoric and very overt indoctrination of students. More on the indoctrination in the next part of my series on this topic.

Using the decolonialism framework, Israel is deemed a colonial project, and many faculty members who hold this view demand relitigation of the founding of the country, with the goal of its complete dismantling. For this argument to work, they often deny the archaeological record showing Jews occupied that land for millennia. A common argumentative problem also illustrates the prevailing narcissism I noted earlier. Discussing such matters with academics invites lengthy debate - remember, this is a community accustomed to lengthy discussions. If you don’t believe me, ask me about academic personnel committee meetings sometime.

So, let’s suppose the following situation unfolds. You encounter an academic with the profile I’ve described here, and they are raising points that are antisemitic. These points would likely be couched in terms related to anti-Zionism, and they would object strenuously to being characterized as antisemitic. Never mind that numerous credible sources equate anti-Zionism with antisemitism. As you listen (or read) the antisemitic discourse from this academic, you identify easily points that can be easily disputed and challenge them. Even if you dispute these points in a relatively gentle way, be prepared for fairly intense pushback, tinged with a measure of anger. What you have done, if you face a withering attack, is reveal a vulnerability in the argument that any narcissist would find unacceptable and provoke their ire, as discussed in recent research. Further, as these are left-wing (not pluralistic) activists in the academy, we might predict, based on recent research, that they intend to specifically stir up agitation and not necessarily to advance their stated social justice values. Indeed, the record suggests as much. Many academics who view Israel as a colonial project are strangely silent about the myriad ways Hamas and other Iranian proxy quasi-governmental groups directly harm the citizens they oversee. And worse, some openly cheer Hamas and the other Iranian quasi-governmental proxies that have been attacking Israel.

Illustrative Examples Tying This Together

To summarize, I’ve laid out factors that may plausibly result in antisemitism in a specific subset of faculty in higher education. First, professors are socialized to absorb material and present themselves as authorities in classroom settings, even if the material is not squarely in their area of expertise. Second, there are likely very few professors who are outright antisemitic, but those who are often command large audiences and are very loud about their views. Third, these antisemitic views are cloaked in a veneer of intellectual superiority (decolonialism and anti-Zionism). And fourth, their behaviors and reactions to being challenged fit with contemporary notions of narcissism.

Over the past year and a half, I’ve openly challenged many academic colleagues on their antisemitic points. To be frank, most of the time, the exchanges have no net benefits. Here are three illustrative exchanges, all with professors in disciplines outside of psychology, but none who are declared experts on the Middle East or any topics germane to that region:

Illustration 1: Preceived Original Sin Eclipses All Other Rejected Solutions

In an online listserv exchange, a professor repeatedly raised the idea that Israel needed to be dismantled for a unified Palestine to reign. The usual points were raised regarding oppression, while they also offered justifications for Hamas’ attack on Oct. 7. This professor went on to say that the original founding of Israel is an original sin from which it can never recover.

The counterpoint that led to intense anger and pushback was the fact that numerous two-state solutions have been offered that Israel would have accepted, but that were rejected by the governments controlling Gaza and the West Bank. One of these two-state solutions was being finalized in October of 2000, in the closing days of the Clinton administration. In that agreement, the Palestinian Authority (led by Arafat) would have received 96% of their demands. Arafat walked away from that deal with no justification offered. Further, depending on how different proposals have been defined, there have been at least seven proposed two-state solutions, all rejected by the Palestinian governing bodies.

The reaction from this point was that the dismissed agreement was so long ago, and it could not be a ‘forever sin.’ Hmm, interesting point since this same person demanded relitigation of the formation of Israel in 1948, a mere 52 years earlier than the rejected two-state solution I raised. The discussion came to an end when the contradiction was raised.

Illustration 2: Wait, Hamas are the Good Guys???

Ok, I’ve heard this one from multiple people. I noted in a prior post that some members of the mental health professions referred to the Oct 7 attack as ‘an armed rebellion.’ So, this concept is baked into many arguments from professors. It was famously noted that a Cornell professor was ‘exhilarated’ by the attacks. In my exchange, I asked a professor if they were so concerned with the rights and well-being of Palestinians, why weren’t they condemning Hamas? This exchange came about right after a brief cease-fire, whereupon there were numerous reports that Hamas was executing Gazans in the street if they were suspected of ‘collaborating’ with Israel. The discussion included additional points that Hamas regularly executes lots of people in minoritized groups that liberals typically support, such as members of the LGBTQ+ community. Remarkably, this person (a) responded that anyone challenging the idea that the Oct 7 attacks were not justified needed to get educated about the region, and (b) that Hamas was a righteous organization that did not discriminate based on any individual background. A stunning retort, despite the public statements that Hamas stated they would repeat their attacks on Israel as often as possible. This discussion ended without resolution.

Illustration 3: Zionism Was a Global Fringe Movement Prior to World War Two

In the decade prior to World War 2, Zionism was a rapidly growing movement among Jews worldwide. This is an easily provable point, and some trace their origins to Theodore Herzl's book “The Jewish State,” published in 1897. Into this space, a social media post by a professor stated that it was a ‘fringe movement in Global Judaism’ prior to the Holocaust. Rather than publicly point out this error, I directly contacted this person to correct the record, that Zionism was mainstream among Jews, at least in Eastern Europe. The response was intense, with the opening remark being that my comment was ‘arrogant.’ However, before I could even reply in the fusillade of reactions, this person also conceded that they ‘could not speak for Eastern Europe.’ Hmm, I thought the point was that it was a fringe movement globally? No matter, the reaction was intense and swift. It ended agreeably when it was pointed out that they conceded the point, no need to keep arguing.

It Cannot Possibly Be Only a Few Professors, Can It?

At this juncture, I feel compelled to raise a couple of points. First, I don’t believe the stated reasons that the current US administration is attacking institutions of higher education in the name of antisemitism are genuine, and I personally think it will be harmful. I realize this is not the point of this piece. Still, lest anyone mistake the points raised here, it appears clear, to me at least, that the current administration has malicious intent in their actions, and is using antisemitism as a cover for their autocratic ends (see, for example, the list of crypto currencies held by the ‘donors’ to the recent nakedly corrupt POTUS dinner). Second, I emphasized several times that I personally don’t believe that antisemitism is rampant among professors. That doesn’t mean that other academics are not easily persuaded to adopt their views, and are thus passively antisemitic; they just may not hold these bigoted views as firmly or spout these perspectives openly. This is not a justification for their attitudes, but it may hold a key to a remedy. These are the movable members of the academy, the ones who may find the presentation of balanced information compelling. Third, within academia, many faculty are in vulnerable positions, and they may be more likely to engage in performative outrage in the service of demonstrating to the more radical senior members of their departments that they are ‘on the same side.’ These three additional factors will be the subject of the next entry on this topic.

A Potential Remedy

The first and third illustrations I laid out here may be instructive, where the challenge was to a specific inaccuracy. A lot of these arguments take place on social media. This is simply a terrible place to have a constructive debate. Taking place in public, but where there are really no rules, it lends itself to rancor more than reconciliation. Further, targeting a vulnerability in public is more likely to lead someone to dig in rather than moderate. Taking it behind the scenes increases the odds for better outcomes, or at the very least, will not make matters worse. In the first example I provided, the discussion moved from a public listserv to a backchannel discussion. In the end, there was moderation in the discourse. Was that person’s opinion actually changed? I doubt it. But future public discussion is more likely to be comprised of accuracy rather than ideologically driven falsehoods, since there would be a risk of the vulnerability being revealed. The second one I would list as a failure; there was no resolution, just a termination of the conversation. In the third one, the discussion was never public. The point raised ultimately was that this person and I likely agreed on around 90% of all political matters, and that the aim in the correspondence was to address one specific inaccuracy. Expectations need to be managed here. Engaging in this kind of discourse is energy-demanding and emotionally draining. I will add that, in light of the ‘movable middle’ I mentioned earlier, keep in mind that you might be speaking to an audience that is reading but not participating. These may include early career professionals who are reluctant to speak up. Seeing cogent discourse that challenges ideologically driven discriminatory content may serve to embolden those who would otherwise remain silent. No matter how you engage, choose these engagements wisely, and be prepared with counterpoints.