Historical influences and modern descriptions
chamie
contentserver.asp_.pdf
COMMENTARIES
Ethnic Minority Psychology: Struggles and Triumphs
Stanley Sue University of California, Davis
This article focuses on my interpretation of the history of ethnic minority psychology, using as a base the presentations of the contributing authors to this special issue of Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology. Because each contributing author has focused on a particular ethnic group or a particular aspect of history, my goal is to focus on 3 common issues and problems. First, what are the themes and issues that confronted African Americans, American Indians and Alaska Natives, Asian Americans, and Latinos? Second, what were characteristics of the ethnic leaders on whose shoulders we now stand? Third, what kinds of relationships existed between members of different ethnic minority groups?
Keywords: ethnic minority psychology, interethnic relations, diversity issues
The evidence is clear that history of ethnic minority involve- ment in psychology was rich and monumental. Because history is sometimes never recorded, easily forgotten, or distorted with each passing generation, there is a need for documentation of this history. The articles by Comas-Diaz (2009); Holliday (2009); Jones (2009); Leong and Okazaki (2009); McCubbin and Marsella (2009); Padilla (2009); and Trimble, Clearing-Sky, and Sapa (2009) to this issue of Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology have provided valuable insights into the roots of the ethnic minority movement, and into its struggles to gain a rightful place in psychology, to contribute to knowledge, and to correct ethnocentric biases that existed in psychological practice and sci- ence.
I want to present a gestalt of some the important events and happenings that involved all of the groups. Because each contrib- uting author mentioned above has focused on a particular ethnic group or a particular aspect of history, my goal is to focus on three common issues and problems. First, what are the themes and issues that confronted African Americans, American Indians and Alaska Natives, Asian Americans, and Latinos? We shall see that all of the different ethnic minority groups had to confront very similar issues. Second, what were characteristics of the ethnic leaders on whose shoulders we now stand? From the outset, I argue that the leaders, whose brief biographies are presented by some of the contributors, were essentially ordinary people who came to do extraordinary things. Third, what kinds of relationships existed between members of different ethnic minority groups? Relation- ships between the groups had substantial underlying tensions and conflicts. In my opinion, it is instructive to review the conflicts because the movement to resolve tensions created a force that
promoted unprecedented unity between African Americans, Amer- ican Indians, and Alaska Natives, Asian Americans, and Latinos.
I had the honor of working closely with some of the pioneering giants who were cited by the contributing authors and whose passing away left a distinctive legacy, such as Carolyn Attneave, Martha Bernal, Robert Chin, Robert Guthrie, Lee C. Lee, K. Patrick Okura, Rene “Art” Ruiz, Dalmas Taylor, and Harry Yamaguchi. Their struggles, accomplishments, and insights, along with many others, laid the foundation for our development and progress. Using a “big picture” approach, I want to examine the foundation for our progress.
In my analysis, some clarification is needed on terminology. I purposely use the term ethnic minority, which for some has be- come a pejorative, to convey a historic status (i.e., oppressed group). Furthermore, the terms Latino, Hispanic, American Indi- ans and Alaska Natives, and so forth are not consistently used because the contributors cited often use different terms in their analysis and I have reflect their terminology. I also want to acknowledge the contributing authors, most of whom are pioneer- ing leaders. However, in giving examples of leadership, I discuss the leaders they have cited rather than the accomplishments of the contributing authors. Finally, I have heard some accounts of his- torical events that are simply untrue. To my best degree, I have tried to accurately portray events and have added my perspective to the historical events.
The Ties That Bind
We are aware of the diversity created by different cultures and ethnicities. Also apparent is the tremendous diversity within every ethnic group on factors such as level of acculturation, immigrant status, social class, English proficiency, history in the United States, and so on. Notwithstanding these within and between group differences, the histories of the four ethnic minority groups reveal striking similarities. That is, the descriptions of these histories and experiences are similar in at least four ways. First, underrepresen- tation existed in the number of psychologists from each ethnic minority group. This underrepresentation had significant effects in
Stanley Sue, Department of Psychology, University of California, Davis.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Stanley Sue, Department of Psychology, University of California, Davis, CA 95616. E-mail: [email protected]
Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology © 2009 American Psychological Association 2009, Vol. 15, No. 4, 409 – 415 1099-9809/09/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0017559
409
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
the field. Second, not much research, theory, and knowledge were available on African Americans, American Indians and Alaska Natives, Asian Americans, Latinos, and Native Hawaiians. Third, much of the available knowledge of ethnic minorities was based on biased, stereotypic, and racist assumptions. Fourth, many practices in psychology failed to promote the welfare of ethnic minority groups.
Underrepresentation and Lack of Clout
The underrepresentation of ethnic minority psychologists has been cited time and time again. When we look back in time, we find that the history of ethnic psychologists is short. For example, Trimble et al. (2009) note that in the mid-1960s, there were only about 10 or so American Indians with psychology doctoral de- grees. Among Hispanics, it was not until 1962 that first Latina (Martha Bernal) received a PhD in psychology (Padilla, 2009). The first Chinese American to receive a doctorate in psychology was Robert Chin in 1943. In 1975, Gail Wyatt was the first African American woman to be licensed as a psychologist in the state of California. In 1971, I was told that I was the only Chinese Amer- ican in the nation to have a regular faculty appointment in an American Psychological Association (APA)-accredited clinical psychology program.
The relative lack of ethnic psychologists and their short histories had consequences. As indicated by Holliday (2009), having few African American psychologists meant that there would be an inadequate representation of Blacks and other ethnic minorities in the APA’s governance structure and barriers to African American (and other ethnic group) participation in psychology. Comas-Diaz (2009) also indicated that the APA failed to address the needs of people of color both as psychologists and as consumers of psy- chology. Obviously, underrepresentation created a whole host of other problems such as the small numbers of ethnic minorities as researchers, practitioners, research reviewers, and graduate stu- dents (Trimble et al., 2009). It also meant that there would be inadequate clout to protect ethnic minority interests in employment opportunities and the upward mobility of ethnic minority psychol- ogists. In research, the voices or perspectives of “insiders” could not be adequately found because of the few ethnic minority psy- chologists (McCubbin & Marsella, 2009).
The inadequate pool of ethnic minority psychologists also made it difficult for ethnic students to find role models, culturally sen- sitive programs, and student peers who shared the same cultural background. Functioning within the educational system must have been frustrating, discouraging, and lonely. According to Trimble et al. (2009), American Indian psychologist Art McDonald noted that “the institutional and cultural racism at the University just didn’t make a good fit for me” (p. 348). Marigold Linton was the first California reservation Indian to attend a university. Encour- aged by a lone teacher who recognized her scholarship and by her mother, Linton left the Morongo Reservation for the University of California at Riverside, which she described as “30 miles away and a world apart” (Trimble et al., 2009, p. 336).
In his reflections on the APA’s Minority Fellowship Program, Jones (2009) notes the major importance of educating, training, and supporting ethnic minority psychology students. Without greater involvement of ethnic minorities in psychology, the field would remain unbalanced, unequal, and ethnocentric. Ethnic mi-
nority voices would have little impact on decision making and governance of professional organizations, National Institute of Mental Health and National Science Foundation, journal editor- ships, and so forth.
Inadequacies in Knowledge
One consistent problem throughout the history of ethnic psy- chology has been the lack of knowledge about ethnic minority groups. A relatively small amount of research has been devoted to the understanding of ethnic minority populations. For example, if one is interested in finding out which treatments for mental dis- orders have been found to be effective with ethnic minority pop- ulations, very few research studies can be found (U.S. Surgeon General, 2001). Graham (1992) examined the number of empirical research articles on African Americans in several psychology journals. These articles constituted only 3.6% of the total pub- lished between 1970 and 1989. Over time, there was actually a decline in the number of such articles. Few books have been written about Indian and Native psychology and curriculum and research themes in psychology are nearly devoid of content deal- ing with Indian and Native topics (Trimble et al., 2009).
Why has relatively little psychological research been expended on ethnic minority populations and cultural issues? It is beyond the scope of this article to deal with this question, except to mention that explanations have ranged from ethnocentrism and institutional racism to concentration of research on wealthier and more privi- leged populations, psychology’s dominant philosophy of science that downplays cultural phenomena and ethnic minority groups, and concern with internal rather than external validity in psycho- logical science (Arnett, 2008; Jones, 1997; S. Sue, 1999). For example, in his Presidential Address to the Association for Psy- chological Science, John Darley (2001) indicated,
psychology . . . has adopted the perspective that our task is to discover the basic mechanisms of human memory, emotion thought and action and to demonstrate by experiments that we have gotten it right. We demand that the generalizations that find their way into our Journals be empirically supported, preferably based on experimentation that allows for clear causal inference . . . . We believe that . . . we are discovering truths of human functioning that transcend culture and context. We are universalistic in our scientific aspirations . . . .
Unfortunately, a nasty thing happened on our way to our universal generalizations: culture and context turned out to have a much more fundamental effect on our generalizations than we expected. This has come home to social and cognitive psychologists in the discoveries of cultural psychologists. (p. 3)
Similarly, I argued (S. Sue, 1999) that in science, criteria used to judge the suitability of research for publication and for funding are selectively enforced so that internal validity is elevated over external validity. Because ethnic minority research is not as well developed as mainstream research and is more difficult to conduct, internal validity criteria suppress research progress. This in turn keeps ethnic minority research from becoming better developed. Thus the very tools used in psychological science—research meth- odologies and emphases—steer us away from culture. In practice, internal validity takes precedence over the generality or specificity of findings.
410 SUE
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
Bias in Available Knowledge
Kenneth Clark, past president of the APA and the only African American to serve in that position, noted that students, research workers, and professionals in the behavioral sciences, like mem- bers of the clergy and educators, are no more immune by virtue of their values and training to the disease and superstition of Amer- ican racism than is the average man (Thomas & Sillen, 1972). Consequently, some of the knowledge derived from psychological research has been criticized as being biased, ethnocentric, and racist.
Although criticisms of psychological research as being biased have a long history, one of the most notable events was opposition to research and stereotypes that portrayed African Americans and other ethnic minorities as being genetically inferior in intelligence and other characteristics (Holliday, 2009; McCubbin & Marsella, 2009). Over time, research and theory supplanted a genetic basis for inferiority to one of deficits and disadvantages. That is, the deficit or downward status of ethnic minorities was now attributed to socioeconomic-cultural disadvantages rather than heredity.
Ethnic minority groups have been trying to pick apart the deficit model, pointing to ethnocentric bias in much of the model, to the fact that differences have advantages, and to newer and more adequate research strategies and findings that support other mod- els. As a case in point, McCubbin and Marsella (2009) believe that it is essential to consider the cultural worldview of groups under study, an indigenous model. They argue that the perspective, of say, Native Hawaiians must be a starting point to see how the Western concept of psychology fits into this perspective. Leong and Okazaki (2009) also advocate for a modification of traditional approaches in psychology that incorporates the views of commu- nity people who work in collaboration with researchers.
In contrast to the deficit model, Holliday (2009) outlines four African American intellectual traditions in psychology that have differed in theoretical, research, and intervention frameworks. These frameworks are: The Afrocentric/African centered tradition derived from longstanding nationalist/Pan-African and culturally centered traditions within African American communities; the social contextual/multidisciplinary research tradition of the Uni- versity of Chicago School of Social Science; the empirical social science research tradition of the University of Michigan; and the Black scholar/activist tradition of Howard University. They illus- trate the strong efforts by ethnic minority groups to define research and theory from their own perspective rather than to use more traditional, mainstream research perspectives. How different are these perspectives from those of the mainstream? The general answer is “more or less.” The fact that a variety of different approaches exist even among “insiders” to an ethnic group and that mainstream models also vary complicate any answer. Perhaps the major difference in models is that insider or indigenous models tend to use ethnic group culture and experiences as a starting point; do not assume that ethnic group values and behaviors are inferior or deficient; and attempt to avoid methods, theories, and practices that have been biased and Anglocentric.
It is interesting that in the case of Asian Americans a largely “model minority” view has been dominant, justified by references to the higher family incomes, educational attainments, and family stability (i.e., low divorce rates). This view has been used to discredit and discourage the protests and demands for social justice
of African Americans, American Indians, and Latinos. It also invites invidious comparison between Asian Americans and other ethnic groups in terms of achievements and desirability. In reality, data indicate that the model minority characterization is largely a biased stereotype based on selective citation. As noted by Leong and Okazaki (2009), Asian Americans have also been found to a higher poverty rate than non-Hispanic Whites, to live in geo- graphic areas with a higher cost of living, and to have more family members contributing to the family income. The point they make is that the model minority image is more of a fiction that is used to deny the problems faced by ethnic minority groups.
One conceptual advance has been to view ethnic minority groups not solely in terms of cross-cultural research. In his defi- nition of Latino psychology, Padilla (2009) takes the position that Latino psychology is a branch of ethnic psychology. The target population of interest is people of Latin American heritage who reside within the continental United States and Puerto Rico. In his view, the study of Latinos occurs within the context of majority– minority group relations. Latinos are an ethnic minority who historically has been oppressed and who can point to individual and group experiences of prejudice and discrimination in educa- tion, employment, and residence. Therefore, Latino psychology examines the influence of culture, language, and minority– majority group status on people of Latin American origin who reside in the United States. To Padilla, the intracultural comparison is inherent because Latinos maintain aspects of their culture of origin, while also manifesting American cultural patterns of be- havior. The focus on the definition of Latino psychology is im- portant because it sets the stage for theoretical paradigms, research methodologies, and instruments used in the study of Latinos and in the interpretations that are given to research findings. The princi- ples underlying Padilla’s conceptualization is, of course, applica- ble to the other ethnic minority groups.
In summary, the history of ethnic psychology is one in which biased and ethnocentric research findings and theories have ex- isted. What is heartening is the growth of knowledge that is based on new paradigms, research strategies, and theories that more adequately reflect the experiences of ethnic minority populations.
Failures of Policies, Programs, and Practices
Ethnic psychology has necessarily been involved in institutional policies, programs, practices, and social issues. Segregation, edu- cational opportunities, funding for programs, poverty, immigra- tion, acculturation, human welfare, delivery of mental health ser- vices, and so forth have all been the focus of ethnic minority groups (Jones, 1997). In the case of African Americans, intelli- gence testing and placement policies have been of major concern (Comas-Diaz, 2009; Holliday, 2009). The concern was over the use of IQ tests that found that a higher percentage of African Americans perform in the retarded range and that required place- ment in special education classes for the retarded. In California, legal challenges were made to the validity of IQ tests for African Americans and the use of IQ tests for placement purposes. In the case of Larry P. v. Riles, the court prohibited placement of African American children in classes for the mentally retarded based on IQ tests.
Less known is the challenge of Latinos to the validity of IQ tests. Padilla (2009) reveals that in the 1930s George Sanchez
411SPECIAL ISSUE: ETHNIC MINORITY PSYCHOLOGY
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
presented a series of cogent arguments for why standard intelli- gence tests lacked validity when used to assess Mexican American children. Sanchez stated that the IQ testing of Chicano children was inappropriate when these children did not share the same life experiences or level of English-language proficiency that majority- group children had, and on whom the tests had been standardized.
The effects of racism were brought into bold relief by social scientists who analyzed institutional practices and who formulated theories of racism. Jones (2009) argues that racism was no longer limited to overt, intentional bigotry and racial prejudice, but was identified by persistent racial inequalities traceable to institutional policies and actions. Others devised theories to explain racism and noted its pervasive institutional aspect, such as in the theories advanced by David Sears, John McConahay, James Sidanius, John Dovidio, and Tom Pettigrew. Even stereotypes, which in the past were considered as irritating by victims, were found to have profound effects on behaviors, as proposed in the theory of ste- reotype threat by Claude Steele.
In the mental health field, findings indicated disparities in the quality of care provided by mental health services. Services were often found to be inaccessible, inappropriate, or poorly delivered (U.S. Surgeon General, 2001). A high priority among ethnic mi- nority groups is the development of cultural competency in ser- vices at the provider, agency, and organizational levels (Holliday, 2009; Leong & Okazaki, 2009; McCubbin & Marsella, 2009). One of the pioneering leaders in the cultural competency movement has been Derald Sue. He and his colleagues (D. W. Sue, Arredondo, & McDavis, 1992; D. W. Sue et al., 1982) classified cultural com- petency into three basic characteristics of counselors or therapists: cultural awareness and beliefs, cultural knowledge, and cultural skills. This model for cultural competency is the most widely recognized framework, and it formed the basis for much of the multicultural guidelines adopted by the APA (APA, 2003) as well as the multicultural counseling competencies established by APA Division 17.
In conclusion, the failures of policies and practices motivated psychologists to challenge institutional policies and practices, to explain how racism has direct and subtle effects, and to set new programs and policies that promote the welfare of diverse groups.
Extraordinary, Ordinary People
Who were the pioneering leaders discussed by the contributing authors? We know that they faced common issues such as the paucity of psychologists of the same ethnicity, lack of knowledge of ethnic and cultural phenomena, ethnic biases and stereotypes, and interactions with colleagues who may have been culturally insensitive. What distinguishes them?
It does not appear that the pioneering leaders were privileged and primed for leadership roles. Indeed, nothing remarkable emerges when one examines their educational backgrounds. Some went to high powered academic institutions such as Carolyn Att- neave (Stanford University), Marigold Linton (University of Cal- ifornia, Los Angeles), Robert Chin (Columbia University), and Alfredo Castaneda (Ohio State University), but others received their doctorates at less recognized universities, Dalmas Taylor (University of Delaware), Arthur McDonald (University of South Dakota), Diane Willis (University of Oklahoma), Rene Ruiz (Uni- versity of Nebraska), and Robert Guthrie (United States Interna-
tional University). Nor can it be said that they came from higher socioeconomic classes or from poverty-stricken families. No, the educational backgrounds of the pioneering leaders were largely run-of-the-mill for psychologists. Their ascendance to leadership roles and legacy status is all the more extraordinary, which is why I see them as extraordinary, ordinary people.
Each made contributions in his or her own way (research, service, organizational development, and advocacy), perhaps dem- onstrating that there are many ways to achieve and contribute to the history of ethnic psychology. However, four characteristics (courage, intolerance of injustice, finding ways to significantly contribute, and commitment to ethnic/cultural/racial concerns) ap- pear to be common among the leaders.
First, it must have taken quite a bit of courage for the early pioneers not just to become involved in ethnic issues but also to gain educational degrees. As mentioned previously, there were few role models and support systems available for ethnic minority students. Many gained their degrees before or during the civil rights era that predated the ethnic studies movement on campuses. Their involvement in ethnic issues must have difficult. In those days, psychologists would often discourage one from doing ethnic research or become active in the ethnic movement. Ethnic research was considered by some psychologists as being the study of a population rather than the study of a phenomenon. Because of ethnic and racial tensions in society, others thought that the re- search was not really “science” or “psychology” because ethnic investigators were often polemical or interdisciplinary in approach (S. Sue, 1994). Padilla (2009) notes that the Latino pioneers often had little support from non-Latino colleagues and in the absence of other Latino psychologists, they sought through various means to encourage the leadership of the APA and the National Institute of Mental Health to support efforts to increase training opportunities for Latino students in psychology. One pioneer Martha Bernal demonstrated courage and independent mindedness in confronting not only ethnic issues but gender issues within Mexican American culture.
Second, the pioneering leaders seemed to possess an intolerance of injustice. Some of the early African American and Latino psychologist challenged the validity of intellectual assessments that were standardized and normed for non-Hispanic populations (Holliday, 2009; Padilla, 2009), adequacy of mental health care given to diverse populations (Leong & Okazaki, 2009), quality of education provided to American Indians and other ethnics (Jones, 2009; Trimble et al., 2009), theories assumed to be universally applicable (McCubbin & Marsella, 2009), and institutional respon- siveness to ethnic concerns (Comas-Diaz, 2009). The pioneers saw something wrong and strove to change the situation.
Third, the pioneering leaders found different ways to contribute to the ethnic movement. Some became leaders in the governance of psychology (e.g., Diane Willis, Alfredo Castaneda, and Dalmas Taylor), in research and scholarly contributions (Alfredo Cas- taneda, Robert Guthrie, and Derald Sue), in service and practice (Carolyn Attneave), education and training (Dalmas Taylor and Carlos Miranda), and advocacy efforts. Most of the pioneering leaders made many different kinds of contributions. We have been fortunate in having some ethnic minority psychologists as presi- dents of the APA: Kenneth Clark, Logan Wright, and Richard Suinn, who supported the ethnic movement to create a more diverse profession and field.
412 SUE
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
Fourth, the leaders exhibited a commitment to ethnic/cultural/ racial concerns. Again, it would have been easy to “pass” and to avoid helping one’s ethnic community in a society that is based on Anglo conformity. In contrast, the leaders often used their own ethnic experiences and cultural insights to point to problems and issues. Some made contributions that primarily focused on their own ethnic groups (Robert Guthrie’s work on African Americans); others were to influence not only their own group but ethnic or diverse cultural groups in general (Derald Sue’s work on multicultural competencies); and still others developed contribu- tions that were pertinent to people in general (Manuel Ramirez’s formulation of field dependence/independence).
Graduate students in psychology often view the pioneering leaders not only as giants in the field but also as qualitatively different in background. In my analysis, the background of leaders was fairly ordinary, which makes it even more remarkable that they were able to make great accomplishments. What this also means is that although graduate students may not see themselves as future leaders, leadership will surely come from their ranks.
United We Stand
Because the authors’ contributions deal with the history of particular ethnic groups or with organizational developments (e.g., Division 45 or the Minority Fellowship Program), little is said about the relationships between the ethnic minority groups. De- spite the common goals and struggles encountered by the various groups, were there tensions and conflicts between the groups? Were these tensions resolved? If so, how were they resolved? We know that in the broader society, ethnic groups have often fought against each other. In Los Angeles, African American gangs and Latino gangs often clash. Tensions between African Americans and Koreans, who often moved into African American communi- ties, have existed and were clearly evident during the violence that occurred in the Rodney King affair. Asian Americans are often pitted against the “historic underrepresented” groups in terms of affirmative action.
In psychology, there were, indeed, interethnic conflicts. I would like to comment on the internal dynamics of these conflicts be- cause they reveal important lessons on how, despite conflicts, interethnic relationships among the various ethnic minority groups eventually came to unify and flourish.
More than any other single event, the 1978 Dulles Conference is central to the understanding of ethnic relations. Jones (1998) considered the Dulles Conference to be a “watershed . . . because that summit of ethnic minority psychologist created a road map for our development . . . . 1978 is the pedal point from which I look backward and forward, discerning trends and toeholds that presage this historical moment” (p. 204). The Dulles Conference was the foundation for the establishment of the APA Office of Ethnic Minority Affairs (1979), the Board of Ethnic Minority Affairs (1980), the Society for the Psychological Study of Ethnic Minority Issues (1986), and the National Multicultural Summit (1999).
The Dulles Conference was intended to expand the roles of ethnic minority groups in psychology and in the APA. It marked the first time that the four ethnic minority groups could convene and address these broad issues with the institutional support of the National Institute of Mental Health, APA Board of Directors, and the APA Board of Social and Ethical Responsibility in Psychol-
ogy. In addition to representatives of the sponsoring groups, over 30 ethnic psychologists representing African American, American Indian, Asian American, and Hispanic groups were invited to participate. Four ethnic caucuses were formed. Dalmas Taylor and James Jones were the conference conveners (Tomes, 2005).
From the very outset, two major issues arose—namely, (a) whether ethnic interests would be better served by advocating for the establishment of an APA division of ethnic minority issues versus a governance group such as an APA board, and (2) whether each ethnic group should share power and influence equally or according to certain criteria. The issues were sufficiently conten- tious that APA administrators were asked to leave the conference so that the ethnic caucuses could debate issues among themselves. The administrators objected because they felt that their participa- tion was essential for any APA organizational initiatives and that APA was the sponsor of the conference. The ethnic caucuses felt that they would feel freer to debate issues within and between the caucuses without the presence of APA. An unstated but obvious reason was that the caucuses did not want outsiders to see the conflicts and disagreements that might occur and that might un- dermine an image of ethnic unity. In the end, APA administrators agreed to leave and to return, once the ethnic caucuses had reached consensus on issues.
The first major issue—whether to establish a division or APA board—was not an ethnically polarizing one. Both could be achieved and the decision to advocate first for an APA board was based on the belief that a board would be easier to establish. The second issue clearly generated considerable tensions between eth- nic groups.
Because four major ethnic minority groups would be involved in any APA board or office, how would the groups be represented? Should each group have equal influence (i.e., same number of representatives) or should power be distributed unequally, accord- ing to some criteria? For example, on an ethnic board or commit- tee, should each group have the same number of representatives, which would give equal voice to each group? Initially, African Americans argued that because of the historic significance of the Black civil rights movement and struggles for equality, they should have one more representative than American Indians, Asian Amer- icans, and Hispanics. The argument was well taken because all of the ethnic minority groups recognized the sacrifices and achieve- ments made by African Americans for civil rights. Nevertheless, the other groups wanted equality in representation.
The discussion was quite heated over the model of representa- tion. One was the Senate model in which each group would have the same number of senators. The other model was similar to the House of Representatives in which representation would be based on some other criterion such as population numbers, involvement, history, force, and impact (Jones, 1998). American Indians, Asian Americans, and Hispanics objected to the House model. They pointed out that the civil rights movement was fought for equality and that allowing unequal representation would undermine this goal of civil rights. Furthermore, in the House model, one could endlessly debate over the criteria for determining representation. Representation could be based on a number of factors such as population size of the different ethnic groups, number of ethnic psychologists, amount of racism experienced, poverty or health status (with the most disadvantaged groups having the most rep- resentatives), immigrant status, history in the United States, and so
413SPECIAL ISSUE: ETHNIC MINORITY PSYCHOLOGY
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
forth. Each of these criteria is problematic. For example, popula- tion size changes over time (Hispanics are now the largest ethnic minority group whereas in the 1970s, African Americans were), and debating about which group is the most oppressed is argu- mentative and unproductive.
The debate over representation, which lasted for 2 days, threat- ened to throw the conference into shambles. African Americans did not want to pit themselves against all of the other ethnic groups. On the other hand, the other ethnic groups felt that they owed a great deal to African Americans but were concerned that without an equal voice, they would be a minority within a minor- ity. There seemed to be no way to resolve the dilemma, despite the fact that representatives from the four caucuses met until the wee hours of the morning prior to the plenary session.
Word then leaked that African Americans and Hispanics had reached a solution and would move for the adoption of this solution at the plenary session. The proposal was to give African Americans two more representatives and Latinos one more repre- sentative than the other two groups (an N � 2, N � 1, N, N formula, where N represented a base number of representatives). The American Indian and Asian American caucuses were furious that they were not consulted and that the principle of equality was going to be broken. They had advocated for an N, N, N, N formula. The problem for two caucuses was that they could be outvoted. Given the number of delegates in the African American and Hispanic caucuses, a unified vote by these delegates would ensure passage, even without the support of American Indians and Asian Americans. One American Indian leader was so incensed that she threatened to walk out of the conference. A few others also expressed an unwillingness to further cooperate at the conference.
For two primary reasons, the American Indian and Asian Amer- ican caucuses continued to participate at the conference. First, everyone wanted the conference to be successful in gaining stron- ger involvement and influence in psychology in general and APA in particular. A divided conference would weaken our ability to have an impact. It would be tantamount to “cutting off the nose to spite our face.” Second, having equal ethnic representation to see that one’s ethnic interests are protected assumes that each repre- sentative would place his or her own group at top priority. If representatives could move beyond one’s ethnic group and try to act in the interests of ethnic minority groups in general, equal representation would not be necessary.
Prior to the plenary session, leaders from the African American and Hispanic caucuses were told that without a genuine statement to promote equality and fairness to all ethnic minority groups, there would be a great deal of reluctance from members of the other caucuses to vote for the proposal. Although American Indi- ans and Asian Americans could be outvoted, their support of any proposal was needed for unity and political effectiveness. When the proposed N � 2, N � 1, N, N solution was introduced at the plenary session, Henry Tomes from the African American caucus and Rich Lopez from the Hispanic caucus made clear their caucus commitment to equality for all. The proposal was adopted with substantial number of American Indians and Asian Americans voting in favor.
What happened since the Dulles Conference is nothing short of remarkable. Institutional/organizational entities and frameworks have been established that enhance diversity (e.g., Board of Ethnic Minority Affairs, Society for the Psychological Study of Ethnic
Minority Issues, Minority Fellowship Program, and National Mul- ticultural Summit, guidelines for psychology, Division 45 journal, and guidelines for accreditation). However, I believe the most noteworthy accomplishment has been the adherence to the princi- ple of equality that came from the Dulles Conference. Although some interethnic conflicts arise, they have been the exception. What has emerged is a genuine spirit of cooperation, mutual support, respect, and genuine friendships among those of different ethnic groups. There have been structural elements to ensure equality and full participation of groups—for example, creation of ethnic slates in nominations for elected offices and rotation of positions so that members from each group can serve. These formal structural elements, however, mask the unity and sense of family felt by ethnic minority psychologists and students. The clearest evidence of the sense of family can be seen at Division 45 or APA Minority Fellowship Program Social Hours during APA conventions. In these gatherings, one can easily sense the fellow- ship, collegiality, and enthusiasm among different ethnic minority attendees. It should be noted that the history of Division 45 as well as the APA Minority Fellowship Program is not limited to ethnic minorities. A number of non-Hispanic Whites have been active and prominent in ethnic minority research, practice, advocacy, and training. The lesson we have learned is that each person can contribute in his or her own way.
Final Comments
We can all be proud of the achievements found in the history of ethnic psychology. These achievements coupled with the fact that the nation elected its first African American president does not signal an end to the need for vigilance and change in ethnic and racial affairs. Our nation has had to endure centuries of racism, ethnic conflicts, and violence. Progress has been heartening but the problems will not easily go away.
What kinds of problems remain and what projections can we make about the direction of future efforts? Although a great deal of progress has been made, some of the issues that were addressed by ethnic pioneers still remain. First, there continues to be disparities not only in the quality and quantity of knowledge and psycholog- ical research but also in indicators of health, education, and wel- fare between ethnic minority and mainstream Americans. We need to vigorously move to solve these disparities. Second, the field of psychology (and other social sciences) must increasingly appreci- ate the fact that its stated scientific principles have often been violated. Psychological science has often engaged in the selective enforcement of scientific principles. In practice, it pays much greater attention to internal validity than external validity in re- search (attention to causal relationships rather than to the ability to generalize research findings to different populations), when both are needed (S. Sue, 1999). Therefore, scientific theories and prin- ciples based on limited research samples (e.g., mainstream Amer- icans) often fail to be applicable to other cultural groups or societies. I suspect that in the future, research and theories based on studies of different ethnic groups, cultures, or societies will be examples of the state of the art and science of psychology.
Third, as noted earlier, ethnic and racial equality and justice in the United States have dramatically improved. However, one les- son we have learned is that racial and ethnic inequality and injustice change but persist, as it has done so for centuries. We
414 SUE
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
need to identify the changing nature of racism and the means to address it, to instill in others human values of justice and fairness, and to facilitate the development of future leaders and pioneers.
References
American Psychological Association. (2003). Guidelines on multicultural education, training, research, practice, and organizational change for psychologists. American Psychologist, 58, 377– 402.
Arnett, J. J. (2008). The neglected 95%: Why American psychology needs to become less American. American Psychologist, 63, 602– 614.
Comas-Diaz, L. (2009). Changing psychology: History and legacy of the society for the psychological study of ethnic minority issues. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 15, 400 – 408.
Darley, J. (2001). We fail to contribute to policy debates. APS Observer, 14, 3– 40.
Graham, S. (1992). “Most of the subjects were White and middle class”: Trends in published research on African Americans in selected APA journals, 1970 –1989. American Psychologist, 47, 629 – 639.
Holliday, B. (2009). The history and visions of African American psychol- ogy: Multiple pathways to place, space and authority. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 15, 317–337.
Jones, J. M. (1997). Prejudice and racism. San Francisco, CA: McGraw- Hill.
Jones, J. M. (1998). Ethnic minority psychology in the 20th century: Reflections and meditations on what has been and what is next. Cultural Diversity and Mental Health, 4, 203–211.
Jones, J. M. (2009). The minority fellowship program: A thirty year legacy of training psychologists of color. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 15, 388 –399.
Larry P. vs. Riles, 793 F. 2d 969 (9th Cir. 1984).
Leong, F. T., & Okazaki, S. (2009). History of Asian American psychol- ogy. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 15, 352–362.
McCubbin, L. D., & Marsella, A. (2009). Native Hawaiian psychology: The cultural, historical, and situational context of indigenous ways of knowing. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 15, 374 – 387.
Padilla, A. M. (2009). A history of Latino psychology. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 15, 363–373.
Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52, 613– 629.
Sue, D. W., Arredondo, P., & McDavis, R. (1992). Multicultural counsel- ing competencies and standards: A call to the profession. Journal of Counseling and Development, 70, 477– 486.
Sue, D. W., Bernier, J. B., Duran, M., Feinberg, L., Pedersen, P., Smith, E., & Vasquez-Nuttall, E. (1982). Position paper: Cross-cultural counseling competencies. The Counseling Psychologist, 10, 45–52.
Sue, S. (1994). Change, persistence, and enthusiasm for ethnic research. In P. Keller (Ed.), Academic paths: Career decisions and experiences of psychologists (pp. 149 –158). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Sue, S. (1999). Science, ethnicity, and bias: Where have we gone wrong? American Psychologist, 54, 1070 –1077.
Thomas, A., & Sillen, A. (1972). Racism and psychiatry. New York, NY: Brunner/Mazel.
Tomes, H. (2005, July). The first BEMA: Finding voice and space. In APA Office of Ethnic Minority Affairs. Communique, xv–xvi.
Trimble, J. E., Clearing-Sky, M., & Sapa, P. (2009). An historical profile of American Indians and Alaska Natives in psychology. Cultural Diver- sity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 15, 338 –351.
U.S. Surgeon General. (2001). Mental health: Culture, race, and eth- nicity. A supplement to mental health: A report of the Surgeon General. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
415SPECIAL ISSUE: ETHNIC MINORITY PSYCHOLOGY
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
