Why I wrote an article questioning the prevalence of white supremacy in psychology

The American Psychological Association (APA) is the oldest and largest psychological society in the world. Established in 1892 at Clark University in Massachusetts, its membership exceeds 157,000 and its annual budget approximates $125 million. The Association comprises experimental psychologists whose research spans cognition, emotion, biology, and behavior, and clinical psychologists devoted to the alleviation of suffering associated with psychological disorders. The APA has long espoused beneficent aims based on the belief that the science of psychology can advance human well-being. It has been accrediting doctoral programs in clinical psychology since shortly after the end of the Second World War.

Yet during the racial reckoning following the murder of George Floyd, the APA issued a remarkable apology to People of Color for its “role in promoting, perpetuating, and failing to challenge racism, racial discrimination, and human hierarchy” in the United States. Given its tone, one would have thought its focus was the Ku Klux Klan, not the APA. It was most convincing when pointing to sins of omission, such as the APA’s silence regarding racism in the first half of the 20^th century. Yet some readers may have wondered whether it is anachronistic to apply today’s ethical sensibilities to condemn psychologists who lived 75-100 years ago. The document was not merely an apology. It was also an agenda specifying the direction that the science and practice of psychology must now follow. The field must move beyond “an oppressive psychological science” that functioned “to protect Whiteness, White people, and White epistemologies.”

In the summer of 2024, a far more detailed, scholarly critique appeared, also issuing from an anti-racist perspective. But this time the target was science-based clinical psychology, not psychology overall. Written by Craig Rodriguez-Seijas and 16 co-authors, it accused the Psychological Clinical Science Accreditation System (PCAS) of fostering a racist, White supremacist approach to our field and the Ph.D. programs that it accredits. The article appeared in Clinical Psychological Science, a justly prestigious journal. The authors were not “anti-science.” Rather, they argued that to redeem itself, scientific clinical psychology must embrace anti-racism.

When I asked the executive director of PCSAS whether its board of directors planned to publish a rebuttal to the Rodriguez-Seijas et al. critique, he said “no.” And so I told him that I would do so.

My brief commentary received four peer reviews at Clinical Psychological Science. One reviewer was extremely positive, writing that “For the first time in many decades of reviewing, I would not suggest changing a word of the text.” Alas, the other three reviewers, including, surprisingly, Rodriguez-Seijas who signed his review, were not. Accordingly, I expanded the manuscript, addressing the concerns and critiques of the three negative reviewers. Realizing that any editor who accepted my critique of anti-racism in clinical science would be exposing herself or himself to accusations of supporting racism, I was in a quandary. And so inspired by the masterful article, “In Defense of Meritocracy in Science,” I submitted my manuscript entitled “Is Clinical Psychological Science Infected by Racism and White Supremacy?” to the Journal of Controversial Ideas where it appeared in 2024 after two rounds of peer review.

Richard J. McNally, Ph.D.
Professor and Director of Clinical Training
Department of Psychology
Harvard University
1230 William James Hall
33 Kirkland Street
Cambridge, MA 02138
e-mail: rjm@wjh.harvard.edu