Should Psychologists be Used to Assist the Thought Police?
Last night, I watched Evan Coyne Maloney's new documentary, Indoctrinate U, about political correctness on college campuses. The film shows various cases of conservatives, libertarians or even liberals who do not toe the leftist line 100% being shut down, shut out or shut up on "liberal" college campuses around the US. One thing that struck me about the cases is that several of those who had conservative or pro-American leanings were told by administrators that in order to stay at the university, they would need to see a psychologist who, I suppose, could vouch for their mental condition.
Lest you think that perhaps there was more to these cases than a few conservative thoughts or actions, the examples used were such innocuous actions as a conservative student who posted flyers for Mason Weaver's book, It's OK to Leave the Plantation: The New Underground Railroad,
and another student from Kuwait who wrote a pro-American essay. The only psychological dysfunction that I can see present in these examples is going on in the mindset of administrators who seek to use psychologists as disciplinarians for thought "crimes" rather than mental health experts.
Should psychological treatment or evaluation be seen as a punishment? Should students be sent to psychologists to evaluate their political positions? Of course not. It's telling that if someone is truly a threat like the VT killer, no treatment is forthcoming. Yet, utter something politically incorrect and off you go to the Gulag -- I mean, psychologist's office -- to be evaluated for mental disturbance. Perhaps it's time to send administrators off to psychologists to evaluate their authoritarian personality characteristics to determine if they are suitable for their jobs. As soon as that happens, you can bet that psychologists will be seen as the pursuers of evil, an example of Nazism at its worst. Until then, if only conservatives, libertarians and other dissidents to leftist dogma are the ones being affected, no one will utter a word....
Lest you think that perhaps there was more to these cases than a few conservative thoughts or actions, the examples used were such innocuous actions as a conservative student who posted flyers for Mason Weaver's book, It's OK to Leave the Plantation: The New Underground Railroad,
and another student from Kuwait who wrote a pro-American essay. The only psychological dysfunction that I can see present in these examples is going on in the mindset of administrators who seek to use psychologists as disciplinarians for thought "crimes" rather than mental health experts. Should psychological treatment or evaluation be seen as a punishment? Should students be sent to psychologists to evaluate their political positions? Of course not. It's telling that if someone is truly a threat like the VT killer, no treatment is forthcoming. Yet, utter something politically incorrect and off you go to the Gulag -- I mean, psychologist's office -- to be evaluated for mental disturbance. Perhaps it's time to send administrators off to psychologists to evaluate their authoritarian personality characteristics to determine if they are suitable for their jobs. As soon as that happens, you can bet that psychologists will be seen as the pursuers of evil, an example of Nazism at its worst. Until then, if only conservatives, libertarians and other dissidents to leftist dogma are the ones being affected, no one will utter a word....
Labels: political correctness
posted by Helen at 8:56 AM
50 Comments:
I havent see Evan's movie yet. However, you r description of college/univ administrators ordering students who dont toe the party line to be examined by psychiatrists/psychologists is scary. In facy, eeriely scary, like how the Soviet Union used mental health professionals to label dissenters as 'mentally ill" or "mentally defective", and thus use that as an excuse to kick dissidents out of academia.
Or for that matter, critics. Dont you think that, say, the Group of 88 from Duke Univ and the Duke President might have tried to such tactics to try to rin th e lives of al lthe Duke men's LAX players and those students and faculty and staff who supported their claims of innocence?
Danny,
I agree it is a concern--but the more of us who speak out against the use of such tactics, the less likely it will be that such uses of psychologists will fly.
Oh please God let them send one of these poor souls to me! The closest referral I ever received was a young old boy who had touched his sister. In the interview part of a psychosexual eval, he related having had frequent intercourse with his older step-sister. Turns out the step-sister had also had repeated, intense sexual contact with the younger sister.
The young girl's statements regarding the older girl took 5 paragraphs of the report filled with graphic detail. She mentioned her brother touching her in one sentence.
He disclosed more than she reported, showed embarassment, and tested pretty well. The older, female perpetrator was not referred for an eval, not referred for treatment, not charged in any way despite repeated, intense sexual perpetration of at least two children. I asked DCS why in the world she had not been referred as she was the locus of the perpetration. "She did not admit to anything" was the response I got.
I asked if they would have referred her for testing if she had been a male who had been brought to their attention but denied any perpetration with that much data. "Oh definitely" was the answer.
I expect liberal academics to be, well liberal, sloppy thinkers. But DCS is supposed to understand something about sexual abuse and perpetration.
So dear Lord, please give me one of the "sicko conservative" evals to complete.
Trey
I seem to recall that it was the Soviets who perfected the use of psychology as a punitive system.
Considering that today's academia is essentially Stalinist, why should we be surprised when they replicate the practice in their own little sphere of influence?
Found an interesting article that maybe you could comment on. Seems related to me.
'The Angry Left: Angry At What, and Why?'
http://www.americandaily.com/article/19041
Best wishes.
It would be a misuse of the profession in my opinion.
I am a liberal, and I have seen this happen first hand, although admittedly it isn't as widespread as the right would make it out to be.
I make a point of reading authors, columnists, and other writings across the political spectrum. First, because its important to know all sides to be able to effectively argue your position. And second, my opinion might be wrong.
As for use of the profession, that is so wrong on so many levels. I hope it's fought.
Ever since Freud walked the earth, people have misappropriated the language of psychotherapy and used it in arguments to make them seem intelligent and their opponents seem crazy. As a rather blunt rhetorical weapon, this practice is fairly harmless. When it breaks out of the realm of polemics and starts to infect policy, however, it becomes a threat to our civil liberties. Do any of the professional associations in the mental health field have anything to say about issues like this?
On a side-note, I would speculate that the administrators who have no problem referring these "threatening" people to a shrink probably believe it's wrong to "stigmatize" the mentally ill.
I was going to suggest that a psychologist asked to do such evaluation or counseling should decline on ethical grounds. But I'm guessing that would only shift the referrals to psychologists who have no ethics. I'm sure some can be found.
Bugs and Kent,
I do wonder if the American Psychological Assocation should get involved at some point. Are these referrals to psychologists unusual or just the tip of the iceberg? At this point, we do not know, but it is important to follow. However, one telling piece of evidence is that "racism" was being considered at one point as a DSM diagnosis, but was shot down, I believe. And I have heard of psychologists who do not want to treat "Republicans" but I have never actually met any myself but it could just be that I am in Tennessee.
1idvet linked to an article on the Angry Left.
Coincidentally, Peggy Noonan wrote today using family emotions to explain rifts on the right.
Excerpts:
"For almost three years, arguably longer, conservative Bush supporters have felt like sufferers of battered wife syndrome."
She then explains recent Bush Administration actions as an emotional defense mechanism.
In the concluding section, She writes on her perspective: "The beginning of my own sense of separation [see date and example in the article]." I am increasingly seeing 'separation' comments on political websites, from both sides. The sides may be lumped as partisan (D,R) or as ideological (lib, cons).
Negative attack ads during campaigns work because stoking strong emotions produces turnout. Coming into 2008, we won't need negative ads to stoke emotions; they're about as stoked as you can get, and it'll grow as we approach the primaries.
I grew up with a parent who believed in Psychology as a religion, so I have long thought that "go see a therapist" to be merely the modern day equivalent of "go see a priest."
Have you read Mason Weaver's book? The student's essay? Just curious.
If being a conservative is the equivalent of being pro-American is being a liberal the equivalent of being anti-American?
Anonymous 12:44:
I doubt the students and staff who called the student posting the flyer a racist had ever read Mason Weaver's book, so what's your point? And since when is it a thought crime to advertise a campus speaker's book by flyer on a university campus? Is that against policy at most universities? If so, why?
And the student who wrote the essay? A flyer was approved by Foothills College to distibute on campus calling the student a racist and a Nazi--is that what a college should support?
Several years ago, anonymous charges were filed against me, alleging hostile-environment sexual harrassment. This was in a university setting (I am a faculty member). After a month-long investigation, no credible evidence was uncovered to support the charges against me. The powers that be made no finding against me on the charge of sexual harrassment, but they said that some of my behavior was "inappropriate." To keep my job I was required to obtain psychological counseling for my "problem" at my own expense. After about a year of weekly sessions, the psychologist wrote a letter to the dean and that was that. It was one of the more humiliating episodes of my 25-year career. Sometimes, with benefit of hindsight, I wish that I had refused to comply with my consignment ot the "thought police." But at the time I could not really see that I had any meaningful choice in the matter.
Considering that a craptacular misuse of psychology/psychoanalysis can be described as "a rather blunt rhetorical weapon," does that mean the misusers can be accused of assaulting people with a blunt excrement?
Just wondering.
You betcha!
"Lest you think that perhaps there was more to these cases than a few conservative thoughts or actions, the examples used were such innocuous actions as..."
My point, helen, was that unless you've read these items, you don't really know whether they're innocuous or not.
You want to make assumptions, that's fine. But you should at least be willing to acknowledge that they are just that. I'm not saying I agree with the actions of the colleges in these cases. I think your assumptions are probably safe. But I don't think it's appropriate to try to nip argument in the bud by making some pre-emptive strike unless you really have the information to back it up.
anon 12:44
AC 12:44
So, fliers suggesting books aren't innocuous?
Even Mein Kampf and Mao's Red are just books. I suggest you read them.
You then assume my suggestion might not be innocuous? Explain how with some detail please.
I do wonder if the American Psychological Assocation should get involved at some point.....However, one telling piece of evidence is that "racism" was being considered at one point as a DSM diagnosis, but was shot down, I believe. And I have heard of psychologists who do not want to treat "Republicans" but I have never actually met any myself but it could just be that I am in Tennessee.
Throughout history, the definition of mental illness has never strayed far from "behavior or belief that is inconvenient to those in power." The entire field is ripe for it. Consider, why study any phenomena in the natural world? Except for a few with pure curiosity, no investigative endeavor gains a following in humanity without a practical use for it. The only practical reason to study psychology is if one intends to use the knowledge to intervene in the thinking of others to achieve some end. Whether the motive is altruistic, to help the patient, or nefarious, as in the issue raised here, the impulse is nonetheless to intervene in how another thinks, and this is an inherently fascist impulse. After all, once you begin to question the functioning of any human mind, you raise the question of how you can trust your own mind enough to intervene - where do you get the certainty to presume to supplant a way of thinking you hold as valid with one the patient holds as valid - where do you get off making that heirarchical ranking? This is the arrogance that drives the fascist as well - the will to change the thinking of others to one's liking, in an authoritative way. The entire field of psychology is thus anti-libertarian in nature.
Consider the mission creep of the census bureau. No true libertarian wants them doing any more than enumerating people for apportionment of representation. There's no reason for the government to collect the demographic data, because there's no use for it within the libertarian definition of the proper role of government. Well, psychology attempts to discover information that has no use within the proper libertarian understanding of how one person or group of people may rightfully affect another.
anonymous 12:44:
My "information" is the first amendment. If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe that conservative students have the right to put up fliers about their upcoming speaker and his book, even those books and ideas that the administration and other students may not like.
Have to agree with Helen there. Like it or not, the First Amendment doesn't say anything about speech having to be "innocuous." Left-wing bias, right-wing bias, pandering to special interest groups, or plain bureaucratic cowardice - none of these should interfere with freedom of speech.
Dweeb wrote: "The entire field of psychology is thus anti-libertarian in nature."
Dweeb, I agree with most of your post and the points you made. I do take exception to the work entire though.
I think there are two basic types of models in the field. One is that I am smart and trained and healthy and my patients are not. So I know what is good for them and will malke that happen. I think this is the model that you are referring to as anti-libertarian.
The other broad model is that the patients know what they need, and it is the therapists job to facilitate their wishes. I am well trained in how people change, and work for the patient on their goals. Scott Miller has written a lot on this approach, and the modern psychoanalytic theories of Intersubjectivity are in the neighborhood.
While I generally take the second approach, I honestly do sip into the first when the behavior or brain illness is an easy call. Something like oppressive Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, a delusional disorder, or an obvious mood disorder. In those cases I share my opinion and we either work on it together or they fire me!
But when I approach the work from the first model, like the light bulb joke, the patient has to want to change.
Trey
More proof that all universities are evil liberal, anti-American bastions that brainwash students.
Oh wait. I went to probably the second most notoriously liberal U in the nation next to Berkeley, and never saw anything remotely like that. In fact, we had a very strong College Republicans group that was allowed to chalk up the sidewalks, hold meetings on school property, and I'm pretty sure they even received funding from our tuition fees like many student orgs.
The only thing that could even be mistaken as suppression of conservatives was that our student gov voted to stop funding a Catholic organization (after over a decade of receiving student funds), but only because non-Catholics were banned from participating in any of their events. Banning any students from membership was against the fee policy, so it was a no-brainer--but conservatives still made a fuss.
Anyway, on the rare campus that this may actually be happening, shame on them. That's disgusting. I would call them fascists, not liberals, because believe it or not, most of us liberals love our freedom of speech/thought/belief.
tmink: Yes, you state my own experience & knowledge with child welfare officials in regard to female sex offenders and male victims of such. There is a lot of evil in the system and it is there to cause harm to males and to allow female-offenders free reign.
To the Psychologists: I would think that if students and staff are being referred to psychologists as punishment than the APA would have power --and a duty-- to do something about it. Do they not have power? Or do they not recognize their duty? Any ideas?
*yawn* - Playing devil's advocate again, I'd have to ask whether the policy your school applied to the Catholic organization would have been similarly applied to, say, an African American student group if it excluded non-African-Americans. Hypothetical, of course, but something to think about.
On the other hand, I think you're probably right about the frequency and severity of the incidents we read about in the news and on blogs. Bloggers and journalists have political bones to pick, so naturally they report incidents and policies that seem to confirm the worst about their opponents. I think we can trust that the incidents occur. We just need to ask ourselves whether they are common, part of a trend, extreme examples, or stupid mistakes.
I attend - part time - a local college with a very diverse student body. It looks like the UN, in fact. There are plenty of hyphenated-American student groups, and the administration does its proper obeisance to multiculturalism. It appears, however, that most of the students go about their business with a minimum of conflict. They don't sit around singing Kumbaya, but they also don't get in each others' faces. Also, none of my teachers has ever injected his or her political agenda into my lessons. (Of course, I'm an IT major and generally avoid contact with the liberal arts faculty...) I've never seen, heard, nor read about any of the outrages that are reported at other institutions. So if I were to base my opinion entirely on personal experience, I'd have to say campus political bias is no big deal.
That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, however.
Being the son of a liberal, clinical psychology professor, when I entered college in 1969 I hung out in the lounge of the clinical psychology graduate program a lot while waiting for rides home, etc. The overwhelming majority to the students and faculty, including my father, were liberals who considered people of conservative bent to be psychologically deficient.
Conservatives, people in technical field, religious conservatives, sales people, essentially everyone who didn't think like the psychologists and students were said to be too rigid, judgemental, repressed, uncreative, up-tight, etc. Sales people were considered sociopathic.
During those times university administrators were generally more conservative so turning to psychologists for support was rare. Looks like the liberal psychological bias has taken over and being used as a weapon, now.
bugs wrote: "I'd have to ask whether the policy your school applied to the Catholic organization would have been similarly applied to, say, an African American student group if it excluded non-African-Americans. Hypothetical, of course, but something to think about."
You mean like the Congressman from Tennessee whose district is primarily black who was refused admittance to the Black Congressional Caucus because he was white? He is a liberal Democrat who said that he thought it was in the best interest of his constituents for him to join.
Or what about the high school that elected a recent immigrant from Africa as their African-American student of the year, only to have the faculty and administration refuse to give him the award? He was white, but a real African-American.
Stuff like this happens, I like to think it is rare, but I am not yet convinced.
Trey
Well, whether it's rare or common, at least these days there are blogs and websites to expose it to public scrutiny. People have a right to know how their kids are being treated and what they're being taught. Citizens have a right to know how their taxes are being spent. Universities have responsibilities, not just 'academic freedom.'
Helen:
I don't know why you put the word "information" in quotations. I didn't use that word. And your response was, well, unresponsive. You were trying in your post to make some point that these were "innocuous" materials. You haven't read the materials. So you don't know whether they are innocuous or not. It's a very simple point really.
And bugs, I certainly never claimed material had to be innocuous to be protected by the First Amendment. As somebody else here has already said, really that's usually the conservative point of view. THEY are the ones that want to censor the obscene and objectionable, not liberals.
I think I was pretty clear in saying that I thought the colleges were most likely in error. I just thought it was interesting that Helen would try to bolster her case by saying the material was innocuous when I had a pretty good suspicion that she didn't really know one way or another.
Anon - point taken.
I think the objection people raise about college speech codes is that in practice, while conservatives try to use them to censor the obscene and objectionable, liberals try to use them to censor conservatives.
Of course, it all depends on how you define "obscene" and "objectionable."
Well, that's an easy one. If it contradicts leftist theology - um, philosophy, it's obscene. If it indicates that a differing point of view might not be that of a demented minority, it's objectionable.
Pretty much every example bears this out.
That's right. It's those leftists as want to censor porno and them damn satanic bands like Black Sabbath.
Not Porno and Sabbath, but Prayer and Christianity.
Trey
...and military recruiters and successful Black people...
...and self-defense advocates and cautious scientists and pro-Israel speakers and talk radio and political speech and former Islamists and...
I'll briefly break my policy of not responding to or acknowledging anonymous posters to say this:
Who wants to censor porn?
http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2007/06/04/indoctrinate_university/#comment-173236#comment-173236
Seems some of the University folks are circling the wagons to deny there are no Free Speech violations.
#9
Peregrine John,
That site of the "porn detective" is outrageous. I wonder how the site owner would feel if a man started a site and took pictures of women entering abortion clinics. I am sure it would be illegal in about five minutes.
Good point.
Not to mention porn detecting is more fun inside the porn shop....
Well, this site seems to have been deployed in January and it hasn't been updated since February. That was a very short crusade.
Geez, I hope you're right.
Our universities are, by and large, islands of repression and brutally enforced comformity in a sea of freedom.
Imagine if the jack booted thugs who run most of these places were more interested in using psychologists to weed out future VT killers instead of using them as a weapon to harass political opponents...
My point, helen, was that unless you've read these items, you don't really know whether they're innocuous or not.
It doesn't matter if they are innocuous and if only innocuous ideas are to be discussed or allowed at colleges, there is no point in having them.
Not jack-booted thugs. Well-intentioned bureaucrats. Far more dangerous.
Bugs and PJ, outstanding additions. Thanks.
Trey
Trey said:
I think there are two basic types of models in the field. One is that I am smart and trained and healthy and my patients are not. So I know what is good for them and will malke that happen. I think this is the model that you are referring to as anti-libertarian.
The other broad model is that the patients know what they need, and it is the therapists job to facilitate their wishes. I am well trained in how people change, and work for the patient on their goals. Scott Miller has written a lot on this approach, and the modern psychoanalytic theories of Intersubjectivity are in the neighborhood.
However, the first approach dominates the industry. Even when you think you're operating under the second model, strong social pressure, as well as coercion by schools (as we're discussing here,) employers, courts, etc. effectively turns the second approach into the first. Many clients engage the services of a psychologist in order to stay in school, keep a job, get their spouse or children back, or avoid incarceration - there's already a coercive carrot and a stick when they walk in your door. Most of the rest are responding to strong social pressure, from peers, the media, etc., or are there because they are not as happy as society and the media tell them they have a right/duty to be, and thuse aren't in much of a position to effectively "call the shots." I would estimate that fewer than 10% of all clients are really in as much control of the process as you portray.
Even with the "easy calls" there is a fascist, Procrustean bed aspect. Who is to say that they are the exceptions and we are the rule? Ritualized suicide and other practices you and I both probably view as implicitly disordered have been common components of some highly functional societies. The mere defining of disorders assumes a template for the healthy mind, which leads to attempts at conformity..
Dweeb, excellent points. We disagree about percentages, but I agree with the gist of your post.
At times, strong social pressure is a good thing. Examples that jump to mind include chemical dependency, domestic violence, child abuse, that sort of thing.
And frankly, any post which utilized the Procrustean bed analogy is all right with me.
Thanks for the ideas, I will think about them.
Trey
Great post, but as we all know (hopefully)this can go both ways. The 'thought police' may just as often be conservative as liberal and considering the arsenal of drugs and information that psychologists are armed with, it would be relatively easy for an unethical psychiatrist to misdiagnose or overmedicate someone on the basis of unpopluar political persuasions, weird religious beliefs or sexual orientation.
視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................
Post a Comment
<< Home