Sometimes good people make tragically bad decisions. Such is the case with the leadership of the American Psychological Association (APA). Starting after 9/11, and continuing to the present day, APA leadership has made a series of bad decisions, ones with appalling and destructive consequence. Significant numbers of people have been harmed. Opportunities to apply psychological knowledge to benefit society and improve people’s lives have been lost. The public trust in the profession of psychology has been undermined. Things are so bad that the only way forward now is for the involved leadership to resign.

Here’s what’s going on.

On November 12, 2014, in response to public pressure following the publication of James Risen’s book Pay Any Price: Greed, Power and Endless War, after first dismissing it as mere sloppy reporting, the APA reluctantly initiated an independent investigation of allegations that the organization supported the torture of national security detainees. Since then the scandal has escalated.

The April 30, 2015 front page of the NY Times reported evidence from recently discovered emails documenting how the APA enabled the CIA torture program. It shows the organization modifying its ethics policy so as to allow psychologists to assess how badly detainees were being traumatized while being tortured, thereby fulfilling a legal requirement set by the Justice Department for a health professional to be present during these so-called “enhanced interrogations.”

What happened was that in 2005 and 2006 APA officials changed the traditional ethic of “do no harm” into “assess the harm being done.”  Then, when a public outcry ensued, the APA tried to cover-up what they did by repeatedly insisting that the APA does not in any way condone or allow torture.

This is an all too brief summary of a scandal 10 years in the making. There are two significant leadership failures for which resignation is now the appropriate response. First, they did the deed. Leadership actively allowed the APA to be the only professional organization whose members would provide the needed legal support for the CIA’s torture program. In order for that program to be considered legal, according to the Justice Department “torture memos,” “enhanced interrogations” had to have medical personal on site to make sure serious permanent damage was not being done. The APA leadership offered up psychologists for that role.

Second, the APA engineered a years-long cover-up of what might have been seen at the time as situationally understandable, though terrible, errors in judgement. Those errors in judgement were allowed to metastasize into a pervasive organizational failure to take responsibility.

Currently, the APA leadership has refused any substantive comment. They now cite a need to wait for the results of the independent investigation initiated in November. But that ignores taking responsibility for what is already known. APA CEO Norman B. Anderson’s May 1, 2015 letter to the NY Times is an excellent example of avoiding responsibility for what is currently known pending a future investigation. He simply refused to comment on what is currently known.

The strategy of not taking responsibility has been planted throughout the APA. I’m on several APA listservs. I’ve repeatedly read strong statements to do nothing about what we already know because eventually there will be a report that will let us know more. I have been told by multiple sources that this  dynamic is also present in discussions among the APA Council of Representatives, the APA policy making body. The message being sent by the leadership both publicly and throughout the organization is clear: shame on anyone who says anything before the final report is finally finalized!

Meanwhile, psychology’s reputation is further deteriorating. Doonesbury has been taking aim.  Senate Intelligence Committee Vice Chairman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) acknowledged there will be a further report from which more will be learned. But, based on her unique knowledge and recent evidence documenting the APA’s support for the CIA detention and interrogation program, she also said “This is a stark reminder that torture can corrode every institution it touches, including medical and psychological professions.”

The corrosion must be stopped. Every day without decisive action to redress the breach of the public trust further undermines the APA’s ability to fulfill its mission to “advance the creation, communication and application of psychological knowledge to benefit society and improve people’s lives.”

At this point I believe the only action that can begin restoring psychology’s reputation is for the leadership of the APA to resign. Regardless of the conclusions that will be contained in the APA-initiated report, the ongoing virulence of the scandal has already done significant damage to both psychology and those psychology serves. Those responsible should resign immediately. While there are others also involved, at the very least the following three people should immediately resign or be removed for both the deed and the cover-up: Norman B. Anderson, PhD  (Chief Executive Officer Executive Vice President), Rhea K. Farberman, APR (Executive Director Public and Member Communications), and Stephen Behnke, JD, PhD, (Director, APA Ethics Office).

Why Norman B. Anderson should resign

Of course, the CEO of an organization bears ultimate responsibility for it’s failings. And the APA has failed to fulfill it’s mission fully under the leadership of Norman B. Anderson because of the organization’s support for the CIA torture program. The mission being to “advance the creation, communication and application of psychological knowledge to benefit society and improve people’s lives.” Under his leadership that effort has retreated not advanced, despite all the good work done by many, many psychologists. There are two possibilities for us to consider. Either Anderson is a fully informed CEO who already knows what happened, i.e., he already knows the results of the independent investigation. If so, then why no action to date? Or, he is a CEO out of touch with the significant activities of the organization he is supposed to be leading. In either case,  Norman B. Anderson should resign immediately for the good of psychology and the APA.

Why Rhea K. Farberman should resign 

The APA’s communication strategy in response to the “torture story” has been shameful. The strategy employed has relied on denying and ignoring documented facts, stonewalling media inquiries, “attacking the messenger” when facts run counter to APA assertions, cherry picking facts, and organized efforts at misdirection. The APA’s public communications have further broken the public trust. Therefore, Rhea K. Farberman, Executive Director of Public and Member Communications, should also resign immediately.

Why Stephen Behnke should resign

The Ethics Office is ground zero for the APA’s willingness to measure rather than not do harm. Plus, this office was intimately involved in efforts to make it seem as though the APA was not using an ethical standard different than other professional organizations. The APA’s evolving, situational approach to the ethics of participation in “enhanced interrogations” displays a profound failure to do what professional ethics are supposed to do: protect individuals, protect the public in general, protect the profession, and protect practitioners. Regardless of subsequent revelations, the APA Ethics Office has already failed in its mission. It has allowed harm to individuals, the public, to the profession, and to individual practitioners. Therefore. Stephen Behnke, Director of the APA Ethics Office, should resign immediately.

These resignations are merely the first step towards repairing the harm this organization has done. I, of course, am mindful of the independent investigation currently ongoing. And I expect additional actions to be taken based on its findings. But for now, the resignation of these three paid employees of the APA whose actions and inactions have caused significant harm to the once proud profession of psychology is an important first step.

After all, if Nixon was able to bring himself to resign for the good of the country before all Watergate investigations were completed, so too should these three for the good of psychology and all those we serve.

For updates on “Managing Mental Wealth” and related news and links follow me on Twitter. To contact me click the mail icon above.