Dear Member:
I appreciate your writing to me in regard to your decision, as a matter of conscience, not to pay the special assessment for the expenses of the litigation. I have some understanding and sympathy for your opposition to the American's historic policy against non-medical training, since I have worked for 15 years to change that policy. This has obviously been a controversial issue with strong feelings on both sides, and those of us who have been working within the organizational structure to effect a change have considered our efforts to be educational and aiming for an evolutionary process. I believe this has been reasonably successful in view of the two-thirds majority vote in favor of the Gaskill proposal. A further confirmation that we are moving in that direction is the success of the new Committee on Non-Medical Clinical Training which has the increasing support of our institutes and members. Some of us may wish for a more rapid rate of evolution toward a policy of open admissions, but the democratic process must take into account the strong feelings of a significant minority in our membership who remain to be convinced that the interests of psychoanalysis and the American will be best served by such a change.
Perhaps more pertinent to the issue of the special assessment is that the purpose of the assessment is not to fight against non-medical training, but rather to fight for our right to evolve our own policies in a way and at a rate that does not disrupt our organization. On this basis many members who feel strongly as you and I do have paid the special assessment. Some of our members who are also members of Division 39 of the American Psychological Association have chosen to contribute to the Building Fund or the Fund for Psychoanalytic Research. I have noted your feeling that to contribute to these Funds would still be a contribution in support of the litigation. However, I would urge your reconsideration of this position in regard to the Fund for Psychoanalytic Research, since this semi-autonomous group uses its contributions solely in support of research for the benefit of psychoanalysis and not for any administrative, political or legal purposes of the American.
I do hope that further consideration of this issue may lead to a decision compatible with the significant interests of conscience, psychoanalysis and the American. Perhaps we can find an opportunity to talk about it further.
Cordially,
Homer C. Curtis, M.D.