Does the Board on Professional Standards (BOPS) represent the best of the American Psychoanalytic Association? Or does it represent the worst of our Association? Working with the BOPS throughout my psychoanalytic career has led me to feel each of these polar positions at times. In fact, the BOPS is a complex body that reflects the Association's principles, values, and commitment to accountability through self-examination and peer review. The BOPS sets educational standards, accredits institutes of our Association, and certifies the competency of our graduates. The nature of the work of the BOPS gives both welcome and unwelcome news to our institutes and to our graduate members. I have been on the receiving end of both kinds of news. As I take the reins as chair, I ask myself; how did I get here?
The BOPS does a difficult job in a difficult era, and it must be transparent and accountable. Accountability, collectively and individually, is not popular or easy, but is necessary for our profession to maintain its integrity. Our Association is a beacon for the profession because of our commitment to this and other educational values.
Like most members of our Association, I came of age as a psychoanalyst in an institute accredited by the BOPS. As I began my training, I had little knowledge of this body. What I did know was that I wanted to train in an institute affiliated with the American Psychoanalytic Association. I was finishing my residency in New York, and was aware of the three “American” institutes there; one was housed in the same building as the department of psychiatry in which I trained. I grew up in the Midwest, where I wanted to return after my residency. I considered all of my options and received an offer that was difficult to refuse in my hometown. The presence of an accredited institute of our Association in St. Louis made it possible for me to consider and accept the offer. After moving to St. Louis, the job did not work out, but my psychoanalytic education did. That experience proved invaluable.
Why was training in an “American” institute so important to me? Bias toward what were then “medical” institutes was certainly a factor. I started my premedical studies knowing that I wanted to become a psychoanalyst. Being the son of a physician, the medical route seemed natural for me. I grew up professionally in medical settings, although I thought that the policy of denying training opportunities to all but a few “non-medical” practitioners was wrong-headed and should change. Despite this, the institutes of the American Psychoanalytic Association seemed to have a commitment to quality and to careful, serious psychoanalytic education that was unparalleled. This was in the 1980's. My assessment of the high quality of the training seemed to be confirmed by the people suing to have access to the education offered in our institutes. The Association wisely settled the suit and opened its doors.
My contact with the BOPS deepened when I experienced my first institute site visit. Still a candidate in seminars, I was impressed with the thoroughness and thoughtfulness of the process. At the time the St. Louis Institute was criticized for being too involved in the community. By the time of the next site visit this judgment changed. In the seven years between visits, St. Louis had become a model for the country in terms of our engagement with our larger community. There was real value in these site visits; not only was my own institute influenced by the feedback (efforts were made to improve supervision and didactic teaching), but ideas from my home institute seemed to have been disseminated throughout the Association, partly as a result of what the site visitors observed and reported.
After graduation, it was natural for me to become certified. I prepared my cases, submitted them, and awaited the judgment of the Committee on Certification. I was deferred, asked for more case material and to meet with members of the committee. I was not pleased with this turn of events, but complied with the requests. I became certified at the next national meeting. Getting beyond the narcissistic wound was difficult, but my case write-ups had received a deep and thoughtful review. The interviewers had questions about aspects of my technique. I satisfied their concerns. Yet this challenge led me to reflect more deeply and productively about my clinical work, an active process that continues to this day.
I became a training and supervising psychoanalyst for St. Louis and later, chair of our Education Committee. Ex-officio, I became a fellow of the BOPS. I have served on the BOPS as a fellow, as a committee member, as a sponsoring team member for a new training facility, as a committee and a task force chair, as secretary, and as chair-elect. I have come to know and respect the BOPS, and the educational values that it represents. I am proud to have been elected the chair of the BOPS. I stand on the shoulders of giants in psychoanalytic education, and hope that I can do justice to the office.
My predecessor, mentor, and friend, Ronald Benson, began his tenure as BOPS chair with an emphasis on the importance of self-examination.
Eric J. Nuetzel, M.D., is chair of the Board on Professional Standards.
I wholeheartedly agree. The BOPS will continue to thoroughly evaluate all of its procedures and activities. The BOPS does a difficult job in a difficult era, and it must be transparent and accountable. Accountability, collectively and individually, is not popular or easy, but is necessary for our profession to maintain its integrity. Our Association is a beacon for the profession because of our commitment to this and other educational values. Progress without principles is not progress. Principles and progress must go together, hand in glove, for our Association to remain a world leader in organized psychoanalysis. I pledge to you that I will do my best to see that we remain true to ourselves and to our educational heritage.