The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Sally Satel on "Recent Efforts to Silence 'Zionist'" Therapists
From Dr. Satel, a noted author (and occasional guest-blogger):
A week before her mother called, Zoe had seen a therapist for her first session. She told the new therapist that she'd just been in Israel and was now eager to focus on her personal problems. "Wow. It's good you were assigned to me," the therapist said. "No one else in this practice will treat a Zionist." …
After October 7, 2023, the Jewish Therapist Collective received a sharp increase in calls from Jewish therapists saying, as shared by the collective's director Halina Brooke, that they were "sidelined or fired from their mental health workplaces due to being Jewish." Jewish therapy trainees, according to Brooke, were "told that their presence is triggering to non-Jewish therapists."
Likewise, Chicago-based psychologist Allison Resnick wrote in Kesher, the journal of the Association of Jewish Psychologists, that she routinely reads about "therapists being told to conceal their Jewishness for fear of offending colleagues and clients."
Last March, in Resnick's backyard, a therapist with the Chicago Anti-Racist Therapists Facebook group organized a "blacklist" of local Zionist therapists. "I've put together a list of therapists/practices with Zionist affiliations that we should avoid referring clients to," wrote Heba Ibrahim-Joudeh to her colleagues. "I'm certain there are more out there." (The Illinois Department of Financial & Professional Regulation is currently investigating Ibrahim-Joudeh for engaging in "dishonorable, unethical, or unprofessional conduct.")
Last, consider the incident involving the director of Villanova University's Counseling Center, a frequent leader of "mindful anti-racism and trauma trainings." In a keynote address at a professional meeting of psychologists in November 2024, Nathalie Edmond showed a slide presentation in which "Zionism and fascism" were grouped together at the far end of a spectrum labeled "window of acceptable discourse." She also depicted Zionism as one of several elements of "The Colonized Mind," alongside "rape culture," "homophobia," and "internalized racism." …
Such anti-Zionist advocacy, or for that matter anti-Semitic advocacy, racist advocacy, and the like, is protected by the First Amendment. (When restrictions on psychotherapist-patient speech are permitted under the rubric of malpractice law and the like is a more complicated story, given the uncertain First Amendment status of professional-client speech more generally.) I also think that, while psychotherapists should try as much as they can to put their own ideological beliefs to the side with their patients, if they really think they can't form an adequate bond with a patient because of the patient's ideology (Zionist, Communist, pro-abortion, anti-abortion, or what have you), they should refer the patient to another therapist. Nonetheless, I think it's important to be aware that the views that Dr. Satel describes are being held and spread, and for patients and others to know what therapists they would be wise to avoid.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Triggering non-Jewish therapists?
Proof that most people in the mental health field are in need of professional mental health care.
I have said that people become psychiatrists because they're interested in what's wrong with other people, and become psychologists because they're interested in what's wrong with themselves.
And people who can't run their own lives become social workers so they can run everyone else's.
Only good social worker is a ....
Most people? Over-generalize much?
Some people, sure, but to justify "most" you need more than this, a ton more.
40 years of experience dealing with front-line mentally ill people, and calling for psych evals
My personal favorite was at an IEP for a SPED student who switched between reality and fantasy. The school psychiatrist wanted to gave a goal of teaching him how to drive trucks that could legally weigh 110,000 lbs and often weighed more. That's 55 tons...
I asked her if she had any idea how easy it was for a driver firmly grasped in reality to snag a car with the rear axles of the trailer if the driver simply wasn't paying attention. She changed her mind after I elaborated.
But she was serious about doing this....
I can imagine the following conversation
Me: my tribe is related to Kurds and Palestinians. A great-aunt and great uncle were murdered by white racists, and my family had to flee persecution by whites. My tribe's homeland is under constant attack by racists who want to wipe us and our homeland out.
Them: That's terrible. What can we do to help you and express our solidarity? Oh, what tribe did you say you were from?
Me: The Jewish tribe
Them: Fuck off.
SRG2 -- by your logic, expressed below, Jews SHOULD BE banned.
I disagree...
I don't think you have the faintest idea about what's logical.
And people here wonder why I despise the mental health "professions."
This is what the Jennifer Keeton case was all about, snd she lost.
https://adflegal.org/case/keeton-v-anderson-wiley/
and she lost.
As she should have done. From the appellate court's decision:
Just as a medical school would be permitted to bar a student who refused to administer blood transfusions for religious reasons from participating in clinical rotations, so ASU may prohibit Keeton from participating in its clinical practicum if she refuses to administer the treatment it has deemed appropriate. Every profession has its own ethical codes and dictates. When someone voluntarily chooses to enter a profession, he or she must comply with its rules and ethical requirements. Lawyers must present legal arguments on behalf of their clients, notwithstanding their personal views. Judges must apply the law, even when they disagree with it. So too counselors must refrain from imposing their moral and religious values on their clients.
I suggest that if a Muslim applied to a butcher's shop but indicated his refusal to handle pork, or applied to be a taxi driver but indicated his refusal to carry single female passengers, you would not agree with their subsequent discrimination lawsuit.
Would you require the Muslim to EAT pork?
That was the issue here...
And isn't Leviticus also part of the Jewish Torah (or something)?
We got the Old Testament from you folk...
It was not the issue. The issue was that this mentally ill woman refused to do her job on grounds of religion.
And people here wonder why I despise the mental health "professions."
Nobody here wonders about that. To the extent they are even aware of your hatred (are you ready to shoot them all?) they probably would ascribe it to ignorance and stupidity.
Separate from the vitriol, I do disagree with the 11th Circuit. Its blanket statements just don’t seem to be so. Health care professionals are given exemptions all the time. Doctors can for example generally get exemptions from having to participate in elective abortions or “death with dignity” euthanasia in states that have legalized the practice.
In this particular case, she might have to agree to adhere to a protocol, including treating a potential gay client respectfully, declining respectfully on neutral grounds, e.g. that she lacks the necessary expertise, and agreeing to refer the person to a therapist who would likely be a better fit.
With that agreed to, I don’t see the case as nearly as clear cut as the 11th Circuit did. Therapists are entitled to have specialties. A child psychologist is not generally seen as discriminating against adults when declining to treat an adult. Psychologists and clients often select each other for cultural affinity reasons. It’s not uncommon for psychologists to specialize in problems specific to a particular group like immigrants or a particular culture community like Orthodox Jews. There are psychologists who advertise they are specialists in problems peculiar to gay people. What makes this any different? If they can specialize in problems peculiar to gay people without being drummed out of the profession, I don’t see why she can’t specialize in problems peculiar to male-female couples and be treated similarly.
That said, I think dealing with out-of-scope clients in a courteous and professional manner, and ensuring that such clients are referred to more appropriate care in a way that doesn’t leave them abandoned, is absolutely critical. If she isn’t willing or able to do that, for example if she insists on preaching sermons to prospective clients because it’s her religious right to evangelize, then I think the analysis would be very different.
" that she lacks the necessary expertise, and agreeing to refer the person to a therapist who would likely be a better fit."
That is EXACTLY what she said she would do, except she used the term "more likely to be able to better help the person."
That wasn't acceptable to the APA.
I do not think anyone here wonders about that, actually.
If anti-Zionism is rightly proscribed as unprofessional conduct in a therapist, why is that same standard not equally applicable to a pro-Zionist therapist? Is there such a thing as anti-Zionist counseling, or its pro-Zionist opposite? Seems like you might have some therapists who are also Zionists. And other therapists who are also anti-Zionists. So what?
Like Jews are trying to "keep it in the family"?
Those dirty guys!
Isn't it illegal to fire someone solely on ethnicity, or race?
sidelined or fired from their mental health workplaces due to being Jewish
How is that not employment discrimination?
I don't have a problem with the speech (protected by 1A), but I don't see how the action (firing an employment solely b/c they are Jewish) is protected by 1A.
People would talk about a ( for a time, covert) nazi therapist in a small town I used to practice in. He was commonly court-ordered to evaluate criminal defendants for competency. Of course, a defendant reporting on their therapist's love of Hitler was seen as just further showing evidence of their mental illness, so it wasn't uncovered for a few years. Not sure if his client base dried up or he faced professional discipline, he was gone by the time I moved there.
Much of the psychotherapy professions have historically been dominated by Jews and by Jewish thinking. Maybe that is changing. I would like to see more evidence.
"Jewish" thinking?!?
Perhaps the APA (and the AMA too, for that matter) should create a form that both provider and client must complete before therapy could begin. The form would require each party to divulge their political, social, and professional associations, which somebody's AI could evaluate for matching and divergent views and recommend: "Good match. Bad match. On-some-spectrum match." I'm not sure how this would work in an ER context. Perhaps on-call providers should be required to wear a yellow star or a red crescent or a jewel-encrusted cross...
The problem here is, of course, that anyone or any group can play this game. Jewish patients and groups can identify and blacklist providers thought or known to be supporters of Hamas. Evangelicals can put together lists of providers thought or known to be gay or lesbian, transgender, unmarried, childless, or pro-choice, etc.
This is about Freedom of Association, yes? I don't have to bake a cake for you if I think you're a tool of Satan, yes? What about providers and institutions that receive state or federal funding? If I'm on Medicare, the only providers near me might not accept Medicare patients. In that case, shouldn't I get a Voucher that allows me to see a fee-for-service therapist?
Saddest of all, I feel, is that things like this demonstrate the persistence and virulence of racism, antisemitism, 'ideologism' in the US. Just as the woke-ists you despise have been trying to say all this time. So you hate me, I'll hate you, and we can both go fuck ourselves.
Yes, the key lesson here is that the woke types are right.