At the May 1982 Boston meeting, Homer C. Curtis, M.D., assumed the office of Chairman of the Board on Professional Standards for a three-year term. This important position is the latest among many in which Dr. Curtis has served with unusual distinction since joining the Association in 1957. He has been an Executive Councilor, Councilor-at-Large, and Chairman of the Committee on New Training Facilities, the Committee on Prerequisites for Training, and the Committee on Ethics, as well as a member of other important committees. He became a Fellow of the Board in 1978.
Dr. Curtis has been a Training and Supervising Analyst at the Institute of the Philadelphia Association for Psychoanalysis since 1962 and the Chairman of that Institute's Education Committee since 1976. He has served in the past as both President and Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Philadelphia Association for Psychoanalysis. He is also Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at Hahnemann Medical College and a member of the Editorial Board of the Psychoanalytic Quarterly.
His numerous publications include major papers on transference, dreams, the therapeutic alliance, and prerequisites for training. In addition, he has been a prominent figure at many national and international meetings, where he has chaired many significant panels.
Dr. Curtis had a few brief months at his new post by the time we caught up to him, just before his August vacation, for the following interview.
Newsletter: As you know, this has been a time of increasing controversy. Could you tell us where you yourself stand in relation to the question of changing membership requirements, such as the limited voting rights proposal or other proposals regarding new categories of permanent membership, and also what you believe your personal role should be in relation to these issues?
Dr. Curtis: My position on the various proposals for permanent noncertified membership is clear. I believe that such changes would at the very least impair our efforts to upgrade psychoanalytic education and its highly desirable consequence, clinical competence. To know that this clinical competence is shared with all other members, as demonstrated by an evaluation of our work by our peers, acts to assure our members of the value of their membership and the associated respect of the profession and the public. In concert with other activities of the Board, such as site visits, workshops, and education studies, the linkage between certification and membership demonstrates our dedication to high standards.
To cut the linkage would compromise our claim of excellence and competence, down-grade the centrality of education, and make for an undesirably wide variation in the quality of membership. There is little doubt that the possibility of permanent noncertified membership will remove some incentive to become certified, which in turn will weaken the commitment to and identification with psychoanalysis for a significant number. Such members are less likely to share the interest in the educational and standard-setting functions of the American; yet, under the current proposal, they would vote for our officers, who as members of the Coordinating Committee of the Board have a crucial voice in vital educational decisions. It would be regrettable if political, financial, and other secondary considerations were allowed to encroach on the primary objectives of maintenance of standards and excellence of education.
The personal role I intend to play in this controversy is based not only on my view as a member who wants to maintain the value and meaning of his membership, but also on my position as Chairman of the Board. This obligates me to oppose anything which adversely affects psychoanalytic education, standards, and clinical competence.
Newsletter: What about another controversial question, that of opening our institutes to the training of nonphysicians, such as qualified psychologists?
Dr. Curtis: As Chairman of the Committee on Prerequisites for Training, I was involved in a study of what kinds of educational background provided an optimal foundation for analytic training. We concluded that the medical-psychiatric track was likely to produce the best applicants.
However, we also found strong similarities between that track and clinical psychology in the basic prerequisites of training in science, the humanities, human caretaking, and socialization into a profession. This led us to recommend consideration of this potential pool of applicants, who, if carefully
screened according to the highest educational standards and selected for personal qualities the same way we select psychiatric applicants, would add a valuable dimension to our training programs.
The Comittee on Feasibility of Non-Medical Training has proposed a plan based on such careful selection, to be closely monitored by local and national committees to ensure high quality and small numbers in order to maintain the essential medical nature of the American. I believe that taking the cream of this crop and training them according to our high standards will produce excellent psychoanalysts who will, like many other analysts without medical training, contribute much to psychoanalysis.
Newsletter: The outgoing Chairman of the Board, Laurence Hall, has described the position of the Board within the Association as “somewhat analagous to the situation of an institute which exists as part of a psychoanalytic society.” He meant to refer, we think, to the complex interconnections, overlaps in lines of authority and communication, and the paradoxical relative autonomy of the Board within the Association. Some members, however, feel the Board has too much autonomy, that it can maintain an independence from or lack of responsiveness to the majority of members, due to an appointment system which has allowed domination of the Board by a relatively small number of institutes. Do you have an answer to these critics?
Dr. Curtis: There certainly is a parallel between the position of the Board within the Association and that of an institute that is part of a psychoanalytic society. The most important common element in this comparison is not so much the complex interconnections as it is the recognition that excellence in education depends on the excellence of the teachers. Therefore, there must be a careful selection process in the choice of faculty and training analysts at the local level, and similarly, of Fellows and committee members of the Board. To do otherwise would be detrimental to our candidates and psychoanalysis.
Regrettably, this sometimes leads to oversights and, inevitably, hurt feelings. Efforts to avoid such unhappy consequences have often taken the form of “democratization” of selection processes. On the larger education scene, we have seen the results of such efforts in a number of universities as an outgowth of the social ferment of the late sixties—open admissions, participation of students and teachers on administrative and educational levels for which they were not prepared, setting up of courses, programs, and even departments which were hastily conceived and poorly administered.
These and other educational innovations, begun under pressure in the name of social justice and egalitarianism, led in most instances to confusion and wasted opportunities for the students. Similar regrettable results have occurred in analytic institutes which have eased the standards of selection, graduation, and appointments—usually in the name of democracy.
The point here is that maintenance of high standards, locally and nationally, depends on selection of the most dedicated, experienced, and excellent educators. The Board is composed of Fellows, who are training analysts elected by their institutes, and committee members, almost all of whom are training analysts, who are appointed by the Chairman of the Board. It is in the appointment of committee members where dissatisfaction is most likely to arise. I know that the past Board Chairmen have concerned themselves with this problem, endeavoring to get the widest geographical representation consistent with individual qualifications of experience, commitment, and ability.
Since assuming office, I have been contacting the leadership of our institutes for recommendations of their most qualified educators. I am especially interested in the younger training analysts who, with appropriate experience on Board Committees, will be our future educational leaders. Because of the limited number of openings each year, there is the unfortunate possibility that some worthy people will be passed over.
On the other hand, it is also unfortunate that in some institutes, for a variety of reasons, it has sometimes been difficult to find able and experienced analysts who are interested and willing to attend the meetings and make the sacrifices involved in organizational work. Notwithstanding these problems, it is my intention to have every institute represented by the best people available.
Regarding the impression of some that the Board has too much autonomy and is too removed from the members, I am very pleased that the Newsletter is giving me and the various Board Committee Chairmen the opportunity to inform the members of the position and functions of the Board in the American. In carrying out its educational and standard-setting functions as mandated by its bylaws, the Board does need some freedom from political and personal pressures. Yet in so doing, it is serving the best interests of the members, all of whom are the beneficiaries of the high quality of education and the prestige of membership, both of which have been significantly promoted by the Board.
Other more immediate efforts to decrease the distance felt by some members might include presentations and panels on subjects derived from the workings of the Board Committees; making selected material gathered by the Board available to local institutes and societies for their training and extension school programs; and, of course, encouraging the Fellows from the institutes to be the communicators between the
members and the Board. The members might also attend the Board meetings to get a first-hand picture of the way the Board functions, and to participate in the discussions, if they so desire.
Newsletter: Is there a single goal you would most like to accomplish during your term of office?
Dr. Curtis: My most important aim, of course, is to continue this process of upgrading the quality of psychoanalytic education, which is now higher than before. There is clearly much to do to maintain what we have accomplished and to improve what still falls short of our goals. Some of these problem areas I have already described, with some of the possible solutions.
This leads me to a more specific goal, which, if reached, would provide the basis for dealing with almost every problem. That goal is to increase the awareness and support of our members for the work of the Board. As I mentioned before, I appreciate the opportunity of reaching the members through the Newsletter and making them more aware of the Board's place and function in the American. I believe if the members share with the Board the conviction that the high quality of analytic education in our institutes is our best assurance of the continued viability of psychoanalysis, they will interest themselves in the Board and support its efforts.
They are the ultimate benefactors of the respect and prestige that accompanies membership in the American and can, by their support of the Board's efforts to maintain high standards of education, clinical competence, and membership, play an important part in ensuring a vigorous future of psychoanalysis.