With the tension over delinkage now receding into the past, the May meetings of Council and Board took on a tone very different from that of recent gatherings. There was an atmosphere of cooperative attention to issues that have long been simmering in the background, and that may now come center stage.
The Committee on New Training Facilities reported that Dallas is now a fully approved Institute, and that Miami and Milwaukee will begin seminars this fall with three candidates each. Members wishing to suggest locations for new training facilities and institutes should contact the committee chair.
The Committee on Certification is rethinking certifying procedures. Telephone contact between applicants and the committee member overseeing their application is being tried, as is arranging the greater use of personal interviews. These procedures could result in an increasingly direct relationship between committee and applicant, more and more bypassing the institutes, an outcome considered unfavorable by some. The possibility was discussed that applicants might be reviewed anonymously, in an effort to avoid any impression of prejudice in the certifying process. Personal interviews would of course blow the cover of anonymity, but some form of “blind” evaluation would be welcomed by many.
The Task Force on Certification, led by Dan Buie and Morris Peltz, informed the meeting that 20% of a poll thought the certification process was “great,” 20% thought it should be eliminated entirely, and 60% saw a need for modifications.
CORST reported on experiments in partial training, whereby academicians not wishing to practice could obtain training for academic and research purposes.
The new Committee on Membership of the Council, chaired by Mike Leavitt, is considering membership categories. The possibility was raised of a “student affiliate” category for medical students and some Ph.D. candidates, as those who intend to pursue careers in psychoanalysis might be interested in early affiliation. The student affiliate concept has surfaced in the deliberations of a number of committees and task forces.
Efforts to halt a bid by NAAP (National Association for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis) to be named sole certifying body for U.S. psychoanalysis have succeeded, as that organization's most recent application has been rejected. A number of interorganizational meetings involving, among others, The American Psychoanalytic Association, Division 39 of the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the Association of Clinical Social Workers, were held to coordinate the opposition, and were the first of their kind. With the opening of training in institutes of The American to nonmedical applicants, these meetings may well herald a new series of relationships among these organizations.
Two reports were met with controversy. In response to complaints from a number of members that the procedures for nominating candidates for national office were not working well, a committee chaired by Charles Brenner recommended a nominating committee composed of six “senior” officers (three past presidents, three past councillors-at-large) and four members elected by Council. Other suggested changes were election by majority rather than plurality, and allowing any member to serve as teller. The committee recommended continuation of the practice of keeping vote totals secret, announcing winners and losers only. The concept of a small nominating committee was generally unwelcome to the assembled Councillors, and keeping vote totals secret was also questioned, but the other items were generally agreed upon.
The second issue that evoked contention was a motion by Ralph Roughton to amend The American's policy of nondiscrimination regarding homosexuality adopted at New Orleans last year, to make it explicit that individuals may not, on grounds of sexual orientation alone, be denied training analyst status. [See Box for text of amended position approved by the Board.] Opposition to this motion, led by Charles Socarides, was expressed at meetings of Board and Council, and finally at the Meeting of Members on Friday.
Socarides urged a secret ballot of all members on the matter and the postponement of any official statement until its results were known.
Treasurer Stephen Firestein raised the question of accepting financial assistance from pharmaceutical houses for funding programs. Understandable concerns and reservations were expressed about the promotion of inappropriate drugs in treating a number of emotional conditions, and about the implications of seeming to endorse these pharmaceutical sponsors. Dr. Firestein and others argued that with proper control and by employing caution— for example, by refusing any specific advertisements and using only the names of sponsoring pharmaceutical firms—the sponsored events would not violate the spirit of the organization. They felt that the sponsored programs were beneficial to The American's work and would not otherwise be financially possible. A vote supported efforts to seek such financial assistance, but only for carefully chosen events to be closely monitored.
Homer Curtis reported on the activities of the Joint Committee on Soviet Educational Exchange, which maintains contact with groups in the former Soviet Union who are interested in psychoanalysis. In St. Petersburg and Moscow, 17 people have been screened for training in the U.S., ten of whom have been accepted by institutes of The American. Three people are in Texas under auspices of the Houston-Galveston Institute, and one is en route to Los Angeles. In all, seven institutes are involved. In addition, books and journals are being sent to Russia, where they are eagerly welcomed. [A full report follows in the next issue of TAP.]
A number of joint Council and Board task forces have been convened and are currently in operation. Richard Fox heads a task force with the broad mission of examining membership and organizational matters, including such long-standing practices of The American as the structure, locations, and timing of national meetings. Should scientific and administrative meetings continue to be combined? Why do so few Clinical Associates join the organization or attend the meetings? No answers have been provided as yet, but the committee will continue to explore these questions.
Mike Allison reported that the Committee on Psychoanalytic Practice is now the Joint Ad Hoc Committee on Issues of Psychoanalytic Practice. An active steering committee guides its program, with representatives from all institutes invited to become resource members. Workshops on issues of practice have been conducted in several cities, and more are either scheduled or being planned. Results of this committee's activities will be covered regularly in TAP.
In a farewell statement, Dr. Allison thanked the Central Office for its invaluable support throughout his presidency. As he concluded his term as president of the Executive Council, Dr. Allison was accorded a standing ovation by those present, in recognition of a remarkable two years of accomplishment.