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

Brad Olson and Roy Eidelson

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

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

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

Spreading Hysteria about Swine Flu “Hysteria”: Public Health Preparedness in the Face of Uncertainty

Stephen Soldz

Public health is bedeviled by the public’s lack of understanding of uncertainty. Public health policy deals with potential future events. Decisions about policy have to be made with often inadequate data. If, as often happens, bad scenarios don’t unfold, policy-makers may well make decisions that turn out to be wrong in the sense that preventive efforts were taken that proved to be unneeded.

We see this in the case of the current H1N1 swine flu pandemic. Skeptics are using the initial concerns about worst case scenarios , which turned out to be wrong when more data were available, to encourage skepticism about current plans to cope with a looming pandemic. We see this reasoning in a recent Alternet article by Joshua Holland — H1N1 Just Isn’t That Scary: Why There’s No Reason to Go Overboard with Swine Flu Hysteria — which claims that swine flu fears are more dangerous than the swine flu itself. [Holland's article received a furious rebuttal -- More crappy flu journalism, this time Alternet -- from a blogger named "revere" at Effect Measure with which I strongly concur. My comments complement revere's.]

The Moment to Refute the Mindset to War in Afghanistan

Marc Pilisuk

The hopes riding upon the Obama presidency to enact bold changes in health care, education and a green economy may all be lost to a war in the mountains and deserts of Afghanistan.

Recent polls show public support for U.S. military action in Afghanistan to be dwindling and congressional opposition to be rising. There is of course continued support among suppliers of helicopters and military equipment, and for some military planners it is a key outpost in a global war against an organized network of terror.

Reasonable sounding military leaders are making the case for adding American and NATO forces until a democratic Afghan government with a well-trained Afghan military can maintain control. They brief the President each day on why the next escalation step is needed after the previous one had failed. In its general outline, this is a rerun of the Vietnam War. The guiding myth then was that losing the war in Vietnam would start the dominos falling in the direction of Soviet style communism through all of southeast Asia. The new myth is that some international terrorist group will be deterred by taking away its safe haven.

PsySR Archives Established in Akron

Anne Anderson

I am pleased to report that this past summer, I delivered the first set of archived materials for Psychologists for Social Responsibility to the Archives of the History of American Psychology (AHAP) at the University of Akron in Akron, Ohio. Martha Mednick, who served as PsySR’s newsletter editor for several years, and I have spent the last 2 ½ years reviewing and sorting most of the some 150 boxes of records that cover the years 1982-2006. There are still about 30 boxes left to sort, and our plans are to submit the rest of the materials by the end of this year.

This project was actually begun in 1984, when I became PsySR’s Coordinator. I saved everything that came through the PsySR office, so it has been a fascinating process to refine the materials down to only 16 boxes of significant materials that tell the story of what PsySR has been doing since its birth in 1982.

Psychological Insights for the Health Care Reform Debate

Marion Steininger

Quite apart from our personal views about what health-care reform should look like, psychologists can help to educate legislators, people we know, and groups we address about several factors with regard to human behavior that, if understood, will be less likely to continue standing in the way of progress on this issue.

Most basic, perhaps, is the very human tendency to want to eat our cake and have it too. In this case: “Lower my taxes, but don’t remove any services.” Sometimes just becoming aware of this tendency encourages us to think more carefully.

As psychologists, we are also very familiar with the power of labels, such as “death panels,” or “socialism”. Many commentators have pointed out that those on the political right make superb use of this power, while those on the left seem to be less adept. We could help encourage people to ask that speakers be very specific about what they have just labeled. Or perhaps, some would want to help their own “side” come up with better labels. My opinion is that the former is more ethical than the latter.

Gay Marriage, the Manchester Grand Hyatt, and the APA

Roy Eidelson

Late last month, American Psychological Association president-elect Carol Goodheart sent an email to APA’s Council of Representatives alerting them to a problem looming on the horizon. Several years ago, the APA entered a contract with the Manchester Grand Hyatt in San Diego to be a headquarters hotel for the 2010 annual convention next August. But last year, hotel owner Doug Manchester contributed $125,000 to support California’s Proposition 8 initiative, which ultimately succeeded in banning same-sex marriage in the state.

In her email on behalf of the Board of Directors, Dr. Goodheart requested that “APA Divisions and governance members not boycott the Manchester Hyatt.” She warned that the financial costs of canceling the hotel contract could exceed $1 million. And she proposed that APA instead turn the situation into a “positive educational opportunity regarding the issue of same-sex marriage.”

Dissatisfied with and troubled by Dr. Goodheart’s letter and its recommendations, I sent her the letter below in response to her request for “other actions that APA might take.”

No Place to Hide: Torture, Psychologists, and the APA

Roy Eidelson

The role that psychologists and the American Psychological Association (APA) have played in the context of detainee abuse and torture is a pressing concern for the profession of psychology and for everyone committed to human rights.

There are now many excellent resources available for those interested in learning more and taking action–including carefully researched articles and books, exceptional documentaries, and an increasing number of publicly available official documents.

My 10-minute video above–“No Place to Hide: Torture, Psychologists, and the APA”–provides a brief, timely overview of what has unfolded over the past several years and where things stand today. I extend my thanks to colleagues who have shared their insights and expertise with me.

The video is also available on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o84RE-9023U.

PsySR president-elect Roy Eidelson is a clinical psychologist and the president of Eidelson Consulting, where he studies, writes about, and consults on the role of psychological issues in political, organizational, and group conflict settings. Roy can be reached at roy@eidelsonconsulting.com and he welcomes your reactions.

Cognitive Dissonance and the Movement to Ban Physical Punishment

Mitch Hall

Cognitive dissonance theory may be relevant to understanding why it is so difficult for many people to recognize that the physical punishment of children is harmful, unnecessary, potentially traumatizing, and a violation of human rights. While reading an engaging book about cognitive dissonance theory and research (Tavris & Aronson, 2007), I began thinking about its implications for children’s advocates in the movement to eliminate physical punishment. To illustrate the findings of cognitive dissonance research, the authors, both social psychologists, cite striking examples from realms as diverse as politics, criminal justice, medicine, psychotherapy, marriage, and experimental research. Whereas this book did not address physical punishment, it led me to the following reflections, which I also relate to attachment theory and terror management theory.

How Americans Think About Torture–and Why

Roy Eidelson

In recent weeks, new revelations about the harsh interrogation and torture of detainees during the Bush administration years have made headlines and stirred controversy. The positions of prominent advocates and opponents on each side are clear. But what do we know about how the American people in general have come to view the use of torture by the U.S. government?

The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press has been polling Americans on this key question for almost five years. Since 2004, representative samples have been asked, “Do you think the use of torture against suspected terrorists in order to gain important information can often be justified, sometimes be justified, rarely be justified, or never be justified?” The results over this time period have shown only minor fluctuations. The most recent numbers, from last month, reveal that 15% of Americans believe torture is often justified, 34% think it is sometimes justified, 22% consider it rarely justified, and 25% believe torture is never justified. So not only do 49% consider torture justified at least some of the time, fully 71% refuse to rule it out entirely.

APA Ethics Policy-Maker Endorses Torture

Stephen Soldz

Last week NPR broadcast a story in which former military SERE psychologist Bryce Lefever openly endorsed US torture, saying it was a “natural” reaction of SERE psychologists to hearing their country was attacked by terrorists. In the piece, Lefever makes clear that, in his opinion, he is only stating publicly what virtually all military psychologists thought.

Lefever explicitly renounces the quaint psychologist ethics code with its “Do No Harm” standard. If causing pain will reduce the total harm in the world, then it is the only ethical way to go, Lefever told NPR listeners.

Lefever’s ethical attitudes are especially interesting as he was a member of the American Psychological Association’s task force on Psychological Ethics and National Security.