“Political correctness continues to plague all of our mental health associations.  A 1999 American Psychiatric Association annual convention was scheduled to include a debate on whether sexual orientation could be changed through therapy.  But that debate was cancelled when two of the scheduled speakers withdrew, saying that the subject of homosexuality-as-changeable was too politically charged for a scientific meeting.  Psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover and I were originally proposed as members of that panel, but the gay-activist psychiatrists refused to participate if either Satinover or I took part in such a discussion.

So you are in graduate school and you think that heterosexuality is normative?  Good luck expressing your viewpoint, publishing your thesis, and getting along with your colleagues.  You had better keep that view to yourself, or you may find yourself squeezed out of the social club from which you are trying so hard to gain approval. 

Psychology is made up of a ‘herd of independent minds,’ as the saying goes, all loudly trumpeting their love of diversity while insisting that you think exactly like they do.  Is the profession aware that there is an irony there?  As president of NARTH (National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) I took heart recently when the president of the American Psychological Association (APA), Norine Johnson, published a prominent editorial that made a passionate plea for intellectual freedom.  She said: ‘I am strongly supportive of open debate in the APA, regardless of the volume or intensity of the debate.  Debate is healthy.  Disagreement is healthy…….A productive and healthy science requires freedom of inquiry and freedon of expression.’

What motivated Johnson’s impassioned statement? Not, unfortunately, concern for people seeking a change in their sexual orientation.  Dr. Johnson had actually been concerned about a public uproar that had embarrassed the association: APA had published an article that found that pedophile relationships are, surprisingly often, remembered by the molested boy as positive.  In response to a wave of public criticism, the association had expressed regrets about the article.  Dr. Johnson’s passionate plea for scientific freedom was, instead, in defense of the author’s right to discuss a pedophile-friendly viewpoint!

Nevertheless, encouraged by Johnson’s willingness to deal with controversy, NARTH wrote and asked for permission to announce our scientific meetings in APA publications, just as gay organizations do.  (NARTH’s requests have been denied in the past.)  The result?  We received a response, not from the APA president, but from Clinton Anderson, head of the Office of Gay, Lesbian, and  Bisexual Concerns.  Unfortunately, Anderson represents a politically different group of people – gay advocates.  He is adamantly opposed to NARTH’s perspective on homosexuality, and he strongly rejects the treatment of pre-homosexual children.  Sending NARTH’s letter to the desk of Anderson was like sending a complaint about law-enforcement abuse to City Hall, only to have it routed back to the police commissioner.  Of course, our request was denied.

If the APA truly wants scientific openness, then organizations like NARTH must be invited to participate.  Scientific freedom requires the inclusion of those with different understandings of the meaning and significance of human sexuality.  Yet parents struggling to find a like-minded therapist may be interested to know that, as of this writing, the door at APA remains essentially closed to alternative viewpoints.”