Steven Reisner

Steven Reisner is running for President of the American Psychological Association (APA). He is a leading activist calling for psychologists to be banned from participating in interrogations at U.S. military detention centers, like Guantanamo Bay, that violate human rights and function outside of the Geneva Conventions. The first Principle of the APA ethics code reads: “Psychologists strive to benefit those with whom they work and take care to do no harm.” Yet, since 2002, military and intelligence psychologists have helped design and implement new interrogation procedures, drawing from a military training program that teaches soldiers how to survive torture in POW camps.

Steven J. Reisner’s candidate statement

In the coming weeks, association members will vote on new leadership,
and one candidate for president wants psychologists banned from
participating in interrogations at US detention centers that violate
human rights and do not adhere to the Geneva Conventions? Psychologists
should leave no doubt they are opponents, and not enablers, of these
methods.
Boston Globe Editorial Board, August 30, 2008

Dear Fellow APA Member,
I am writing to ask for your support of my candidacy for President of the
American Psychological Association. Our goal is to regain the moral
standing of the Association in the United States and among international
psychologists.

Please put Steven J. Reisner first, when you receive your ballot for APA president in the coming days.

Let me tell you how I came to be running for President, and how I came to
receive the support of former APA President Phil Zimbardo, psychologist
Mary Pipher (author of Reviving Ophelia), and human rights advocate and
President of Physicians for Human Rights, Leonard Rubenstein.

In the two decades that I have been a part of APA, I rarely cared much for
APA politics. For the most part, I found APA governance to be of a
business-as-usual operation, the aims of which didn?t seem to affect me or
the clients and others I worked with. I paid my dues, kept my insurance
current, and remained involved with close colleagues and the occasional
Divisional or State project that drew my interest.

But this changed in 2004, when a Report from the International Committee of
the Red Cross was leaked to the New York Times, implicating health
professionals in widespread interrogation and detention abuses at
Guantánamo Bay. Since then, the Department of Defense and the Senate Armed
Services Committee revealed the fact that psychologists had played major
role in developing and overseeing abusive interrogation techniques and
detainee conditions. These psychologists were active not only at
Guantánamo, but at CIA black sites, and in Afghanistan and Iraq. And while
other health care organizations like the American Psychiatric Association
and the American Medical Association responded to these reports by
prohibiting their members from taking part, the APA supported
psychologists’ role in interrogations and detentions. Moreover, they gave
responsibility for determining APA policy in interrogations to military and
intelligence psychologists from the very commands implicated in the
abuse; some of whom, we have learned were themselves behavioral science
consultants to interrogations.

In spite of ever-growing member protest, the APA leadership refused for
years to change its policy to prohibit psychologists from working at
military or intelligence sites where human rights, international law, and
the Geneva conventions were systematically violated. Only when a small
group of APA members took matters into its own hands, and placed the issue
before the entire membership in the Association’s first-ever referendum,
was this policy changed. The result of the referendum was that the
membership voted overwhelmingly to prohibit psychologists from working in
national security settings where detainees are held in violation of the
Geneva Conventions or international law.

The effects of this referendum are profound. For the first time in the
‘global war on terror’, a professional organization has refused to
participate in our nation’s intelligence operations unless international
standards of human rights and due process are upheld. The American
Psychological Association now has the obligation to work with the
administration, the CIA, and Department of Defense to institutionalize the
new APA policy.

When the referendum passed, many of us -and I include myself- wanted to be
able to put this issue behind us so we can turn to other pressing issues.
From my point of view, the three most important issues facing psychologists
(and all Americans) are ethics, economics, and ecology. Problems in each of
these areas derive, in part, from the widespread, government supported, but
irresponsible belief in American exceptionalism. I am referring to (a) the
belief that ethical principles that apply to others do not apply to us, (b)
the belief that consumerism and debt provide the pathway to happiness, and
(c) the belief that we can take from the earth without being responsible
either to manage or replenish what we use. We psychologists have a unique
opportunity, perhaps an obligation, to help facilitate a psychological
paradigm shift in our nation, and restore the core value of responsible
stewardship of our ethics, our finances, and our planet.

But let’s not fool ourselves. The issues of abusive interrogations, illegal
detention conditions, and the shame both have brought to our profession are
not yet resolved. The APA leadership has only acted now because of the
extraordinary pressure and dedication of the membership. There is more to
be done, and it will only be done if the voice of the membership continues
to be heard. That is why I continue to ask for your support for my campaign
for President of the APA.

Together we can ensure that the APA takes the necessary steps to reform the
policies, practices, and organizational culture that made the referendum
necessary in the first place. Together, we can reform the ethics code to
reinstate the primacy of “do no harm”; we can join the other health
professions in prohibiting our members from involvement in individual
national security interrogations; we can call for full transparency in
APA?s relations with the military and the intelligence agencies.

Together, we can fulfill the mandate of the referendum and turn the APA
back to its proper role as advocate for human welfare and international
standards of human rights.

Please put ‘Steven J. Reisner’ first, when you receive your ballot for APA
President. If you are committed to another candidate, please give me your
#2 vote. If you would like to help my presidential campaign, please sign
onto my website at http://www.reisnerforpresident.org/ and register as a
volunteer. And please, pass this message on to other members, discussion
groups, and listservs where such communications are permitted.

Thanks for your support. Together we can restore consistent, progressive
values and transparency to the APA. And please feel free to contact me at
drreisner@gmail.com if you have any questions.

Thank you for taking the time to read this.

Best regards,
Steven J. Reisner, PhD

Here is what others are saying about my candidacy and about the campaign(see the endorsements page for more endorsement statements):

During the years I have known Steven Reisner, I have been impressed with
his commitment both to the profession of psychology and to the furtherance
of human rights. He is also smart and decent, so he has earned my
endorsement for APA President.
Phil Zimbardo, Professor Emeritus, Stanford University*

I have been concerned for several years about the inaction of the APA in
the face of the repeated reports of psychologist involvement in U.S.
torture. Steven Reisner, in contrast, has risen to confront the challenge
to the moral integrity of our profession. That?s why I support Steven for
President of the American Psychological Association.
Mary Pipher, author of Reviving Ophelia

I am convinced that with Dr. Reisner as President of APA, the Association
will no longer have to be defending inaction but will instead be at the
forefront of the struggle for professional independence, autonomy, and
integrity. I therefore urge you to vote for him.
Leonard S. Rubenstein, President, Physicians for Human Rights*

Please note, too, that for the first time in memory, a major newspaper has
weighed in on the APA?s election. You can find the complete Boston Globe
editorial at: http://tinyurl.com/63ltr8

* Affiliation for identification purposes only.

Address: 225 West 15th Street, Suite C, New York, NY 10011.
To not receive further messages, reply with ‘unsubscribe me’ in the
subject line.