This is the edited correspondence demonstrating that there was, at one time, an intention to retract a published article on the psychology-abetting-torture scandal. Push back from psychology dissidents has reduced the likelihood of this retraction going through, however.

::::::::

[Author's note: This article will make more sense if first you read at least one of the other articles in this series: Torture, Academic Freedom and a Teachable Moment, or An Old Guard Psychologist Inspires a Chill on Academic Freedom.]

Psychologists for Social Responsibility, an organization of psychologists committed to peace, social justice and human rights, has taken an outraged interest in the move by former American Psychological Association (APA) President Gerald Koocher to persuade decision-making parties to retract an academic article on the psychology-abetting-torture scandal. The article is "A Teachable Ethics Scandal" by Mitchell Handelsman. The SAGE journal Teaching of Psychology published it online in June, and it is currently still available. This journal is also the flagship journal of Division 2 of the APA (though it is not, to prevent any confusion, an APA-published journal, as SAGE and APA are independent and indeed competing publishers).

Though the journal's editor, Andrew Christopher, originally confirmed in July that the retraction would eventually go through, that decision later underwent review, and, according to SAGE Public Relations Associate Camille Gamboa, SAGE now "has no plans" to retract the article (see below). This is a welcome change and possible credit to SAGE's good intentions and responsiveness to the argument that this retraction threatens academic freedom.

However, to the extent the means of Koocher's originally effective persuasion to retract involved a threatened lawsuit or other punitive measure, it is not clear what SAGE or the APA will do to mitigate the effects of any such threatened punishments on the author and editor as individuals.

The scandal that Handelsman's article refers to is the collusion of the American Psychological Association (APA) with the forces of U.S. torture after 9/11. If you have never previously heard of this story, you might want to begin your review of it here.

In her Psychology Today blog, Alice LoCicero, President-Elect of Division 48 of the APA, introduced this concern widely to the public on August 15 with an excellent summary of the retraction controversy and the broader context framing it.

The current APA president Antonio Puente then very swiftly and publicly responded that her blog post was based on "false premises" and reached "false conclusions":

The first error is in asserting that the article "A Teachable Ethics Scandal," by Mitchell M. Handelsman, PhD, is being retracted as part of an organized effort to suppress the American Psychological Association's history regarding interrogation. This is not true. Sage Publishing, which publishes the journal Teaching of Psychology, informs us it has no plans to retract the article. And APA has not asked for such a retraction.

LoCicero did not state there was an organized effort to suppress Handelsman's article--just that the broader "attempt to suppress the story of APA and torture" is part of a context that has "led a journal for an APA division to decide to retract a peer reviewed and accepted paper that would have encouraged ethics teachers to teach about the multiple ethical dilemmas in this series of events."

Note that she said there was a "deci[sion] to retract" not that the article is "being retracted." And she certainly did not state that current APA leadership was part of any organized effort, nor that this leadership had asked for a retraction.

As for SAGE having "no plans" to retract the article, this was news to LoCicero and to all of us who had been watching the controversy closely.

Puente wrote his response August 18. It was not until August 19 that Camille Gamboa, Public Relations Associate at SAGE with whom I had been in obviously-very-concerned correspondence since August 9, informed me by email about this. And she informed me only after I sent her a copy of the APA response:

Sorry not to have alerted you to this notice ahead of time. Yes, I can confirm it is true that there are currently no plans to retract this paper. The only slightly misleading part of the statement is that this is ultimately the decision of the editor of the journal, whom we at SAGE support.

I of course accept her apology because everyone gets busy, but it would be nice if Puente apologized to LoCicero for implying that she was making false statements that were not based on the best knowledge she had available at the time. There was never a public statement from SAGE about having no plans to retract, nor any way she could have found this out prior to the APA president's response.

Also, what is most bizarre is that LoCicero's blog is criticizing a climate of denial that is, I would argue, less saliently associated with the current APA leadership--which has, to its credit, continued to affirm its strong stand against psychologists participating in interrogations.

The climate of denial is much more associated with those who have filed a lawsuit against the APA. These individuals appear unhappy with the more socially responsible direction APA has taken on the torture issue, or at least with the way they as individuals get portrayed in the documented history underlying this change in direction. So the APA president, as he has in other important ways shown his commitment to this new direction, should be welcoming any pressure LoCicero is bringing to bear in this regard.

And the content of LoCicero's pressure is worth repeating:

The use of [Handelsman's] approach [to teaching about the psychology profession's very dark recent history] might have changed the tendency of academic institutions to ignore the torture scandal, and perhaps that is why the paper was targeted. The decision to retract seems to me to be another violation--this time of academic freedom. The article has so far not been retracted, and is still available, but the plan to retract has been confirmed--perhaps the publishers, though, will reconsider, if enough pressure is brought to bear.

The strategy employed by those who would delete torture from APA's history, and thus block APA from healing, seems to be to ignore psychologists' participation in torture, but to complain bitterly about the process by which the story was uncovered. In order to support their approach, one strategy seems to be to search assiduously for things that can arguably be seen as errors in reporting on the story--no matter how minute--and focus on those things, rather than on torture. Another is to complain bitterly about the impact felt by those who had to answer for their violations of ethical codes and international law. The only pain that seems to matter to those who engage in these strategies is the disruption felt by those who have to answer for enabling torture to occur. The harm done to those who were tortured seems to be totally absent from their narrative.

In July, as already noted and as the correspondence below will clearly show, there was indeed a declared intention to retract Handelsman's article, a declared intention confirmed by both the editor of the journal and by Koocher. Neither LoCicero nor I knew that SAGE "had no plans" to retract until APA President Puente wrote that news in his blog comment.

And even now it is still not clear what SAGE or the APA will do to protect the author and editor from whatever fears prompted the original decision to retract. Until these protections are clear, the climate of fear will remain, and we will have to rely on articles like LoCicero's to inspire courage in those threatened with legal or professional punishment for accurately referencing historical facts.

PsySR is, in the meantime, sponsoring a competition to make online videos teaching the content of Handelsman's article ($1000 in prizes), so even if the retraction eventually goes through, the pedagogical insights and value of the article will not be lost to history.

Below is my correspondence--in my public capacity as PsySR President--with various parties, seeking more information about the retraction, which I heard about in mid-July.

This includes correspondence with the editor who originally accepted Handelsman's article, Andrew Christopher, and former APA president Gerald Koocher, who, as previously noted, wrote something to the author and editor that precipitated the original decision to retract.

My correspondence with two SAGE representatives, SAGE editor Danielle Bath and SAGE Public Relations Associate Camille Gamboa, is also included below.

Note 1: My reference to Handelsman's article being peer-reviewed in my own emails reflects a common understanding among psychology dissidents at the time that Handelsman's article underwent peer review. No one (including the editor Andrew Christopher) who has addressed concerned emails about violations of academic freedom has denied this. However, subsequent information from second-party accounts makes me less willing to assert this claim now. Handelsman's article did, at the very least, get reviewed by an acting editor and was not found wanting until other circumstances--presumably the implicit or explicit threat of suffering and impoverishment--were added to the context.

Note 2: The emails below have been edited for each writer's typos, and one short reference to a previous email's typos has been removed. When others have written back to me, I have attempted to summarize and only quote when relevant. I have deleted email addresses and sometimes the names of cc'd parties. I have reconsidered an implication I drew in one of my own emails and so have summarized that email with the implication removed. Otherwise the content of the correspondence is unchanged from the original emails.

Correspondence with acting editor for Handelsman's article Andrew Christopher

From: Ian Hansen

Sent: On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 12:53 PM,

To: Andrew Christopher

Subject: Question about "A Teachable Ethics Scandal"

Dear Andrew Christopher,

I am the current president of Psychologists for Social Responsibility and many of us at PsySR have been concerned about the proposed retraction of the article "A Teachable Ethics Scandal." I see that it is, for the moment, still available. Is there still an intention to retract it?

From another colleague at PsySR, I received the retraction notice below:

Retraction of "A Teachable Ethics Scandal"

The following article has been retracted by the editor and publishers of Teaching of Psychology:

Handelsman, M. M. (2017). A teachable ethics scandal. Teaching of Psychology, 44, 278-284. doi: 10.1177/0098628317712789

The retraction is based on the ongoing events surrounding the foundation of this article. We believe it is prudent to wait until the case is resolved before teachers use these events in their classrooms.

However, I cannot find this retraction notice online. I hope that is a sign that the journal may be reconsidering this decision in light of the likely chill on academic expression it could have.

Thanks much for any update you could offer.

Sincerely,

Ian

President, Psychologists for Social Responsibility

*******************************************

From: Andrew Christopher

Date: Saturday, July 22, 2017 6:13 PM

To: Ian Hansen

Cc: [snip]

Subject: Question about "A Teachable Ethics Scandal"

[Summary: The upshot of the letter was (quote below)]:

After consulting with Mitch Handelsman and scores of legal minds, the retraction is moving forward. However, as noted in the retraction, we have left the door wide open for Mitch to update and publish this piece once the matter is resolved.

[rest of the letter snipped]

*******************************************

From: Ian Hansen

Date: Sunday, July 23, 2017 2:15 PM

To: Andrew Christopher

Cc: [snip]

Subject: Question about "A Teachable Ethics Scandal"

Hi Drew,

Thanks for getting back to me. This is unfortunate news. I understand that SAGE is under legal pressure, and would understandably not like to be, say, bankrupted by a frivolous lawsuit. I'm not sure if that is the level of threat being laid, but that's the impression I'm getting.

Still, from an academic freedom and not whitewashing oppressive history perspective, there are other parties now invested in the outcome.

A lot may hinge on the phrase "once the matter is resolved." Is it a bit like "once the war on terror is over" (i.e. never) or "once climate scientists and fossil fuel industry leaders come to a consensus on whether or not climate change is real and human-influenced" (i.e. never) or is it more like "once the judge renders a decision at the end of the year"?

If we were to shift the critical attention from SAGE to another party, who would be the appropriate party to give critical attention to with the hope that this attention might persuade that party to respect academic freedom and drop the frivolous, history-repressing lawsuit?

Thanks,

Ian

[No further reply as of August 25, 2017]

Correspondence with former APA President Gerald Koocher

From: Ian Hansen

Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 11:57 AM

To: Koocher, Gerald

Subject: Proposed retraction of "A Teachable Ethics Scandal"

Dear Dean Koocher,

I am writing as the current president of Psychologists for Social Responsibility, and many in my organization are troubled that a SAGE journal, Teaching of Psychology, has expressed an intention to retract the peer-reviewed and published article "A Teachable Ethics Scandal" by Mitch Handelsman. As we consider the actions we will take to protect academic freedom in this regard, it would help us greatly if you could please indicate why you think the article should be retracted. It would also help for us to know what suggestions, if any, you have made to SAGE or the specific journal in question with regard to how its financial or reputational interests might be affected by not retracting the article.

Having read a pre-print of Handelsman's article myself, and with the understanding that it passed peer review, and that a number of other academic peer-reviewed articles have been published on the subject of the APA ethics scandal before and after the Hoffman Report; and given the likely chill on academic publishing, teaching and discussion that such a retraction could have, I do not see what legitimate argument can be made for its retraction. Why might a reasonable person encourage the journal to retract when it would be more consistent with the spirit of academic exchange to ask the journal to publish a dialogue between yourself and the author regarding the consequential matters on which you disagree? It seems especially odd that you would urge retraction when you have previously expressed being troubled at what you felt was an "attempt by the APA to silence" you, thus indicating a general disfavor towards the silencing of academic and other speech (click here).

Thanks much for any insight you can offer on this matter.

Sincerely,

Ian Hansen

President, Psychologists for Social Responsibility

*******************************************

From: "Koocher, Gerald"

Date: Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 6:17 PM

Subject: Re: Proposed retraction of "A Teachable Ethics Scandal"

To: Ian Hansen

Cc: [The editor and author]

[Summary: Koocher noted that his communications with the author and editor "resulted in their decision to retract the manuscript." He also encouraged me to reach out to the author and editor if I wanted more details on their private communications and whether they felt "academic freedom had been compromised".]

Koocher noted that:

I did point out to them that the Handelsman manuscript provided no discussion of significant relevant content subsequent to issuance of the Hoffman report such as:

http://www.hoffmanreportapa.com/resources/RESPONSETODAVIDHOFFMAN1026.pdf

http://www.hoffmanreportapa.com/resources/Complaint.pdf

I believe that still more data will emerge in the next few months as assorted litigation and pending ethics investigations and licensing board complaints move forward. I believe that a full discussion of the Hoffman report will not be possible until the full story, including affidavits filed in the litigation, and pending depositions, become public.

He expressed hope that PsySR would cover these emerging details "with the same alacrity your group gave to the initial report." [Rest of the letter snipped.]

*******************************************

From: Ian Hansen

Date: Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 6:17 PM

Subject: Re: Proposed retraction of "A Teachable Ethics Scandal"

To: "Koocher, Gerald"

Cc: [The editor and author]

Dear Dean Koocher,

Thank you for your prompt reply to my email earlier today.

I wonder whether the author and the editor would be inclined to be publicly or even privately forthright about whether they feel academic freedom has been compromised in this case, lest such a declaration result in them being subjected to a lawsuit charging them with "malice". Such lawsuits are expensive and cumbersome to fight off, even if the law eventually takes the side of the accused. When deep pockets are involved, even greater caution tends to be taken.

Speaking for myself, I am happy that more information will continue to come out, and gladly await the making public of affadavits and depositions as important additional historical information. Though I will of course keep my own counsel with regard to what positions I regard as being honest truth-seeking contributions to important bodies of knowledge and what positions I do not. I am not particularly inclined to respect claims, for instance, in other domains of controversy, that there was no moon landing, that Sandy Hook was staged, or that global warming is a myth. To the extent deep-pocketed litigants tried to force me to accept such claims as equally legitimate to claims with much more and better quality evidence behind them, I would have to prepare myself for victimization by litigation.

In general, though, it is not my understanding that discussion of history should be put on hold until all the information of history has come out. That would appear to be an impossible standard to uphold. A more possible but still unfair standard would be to demand that academic writers and publishers accept as valid various sources of historical knowledge statements and claims they have justified reason (and have been backed up by accepted peer review processes) not to regard as being authoritative, or whose potential eventual authority to regard as beyond the scope of their proposed academic enterprise. In such a judgment, they may be wrong, but there are excellent non-coercive traditions in free societies for allowing the truth to out under these conditions. Those who wish to convince others that their relatively under-regarded position is in fact authoritative need not move to litigation or threat thereof to make their case--indeed, such a move could potentially be seen as an advertisement of the epistemic weakness of their position.

Sincerely,

Ian Hansen

[No further reply as of August 25, 2017]

Letter sent to SAGE editor Danielle Bath

From: Ian Hansen

Date: Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 3:38 PM

Subject: SAGE retraction of APA scandal-related article threatens academic freedom

To: Danielle Bath

Cc: [PsySR listservs]

Dear Danielle Bath,

I am writing as president of Psychologists for Social Responsibility. I learned of your email address by calling SAGE's 1-800-number and talking with another representative, who said you were the person to contact. I understand that the subject matter on which I am about to write may come as a surprise to you, and I intend no blame or accusation, but do wish to inform you of some important matters at hand.

Our organization has taken distressed interest in a recent move to retract an article in a SAGE journal that had already passed the peer review process and been published, at least in its online form (click here).

The article in question is "A Teachable Ethics Scandal" by Mitchell M. Handelsman, in the SAGE journal _Teaching of Psychology_. As just noted, it is currently still available, but I have received personal communication to the effect that the editor and publishers, after consultation with legal experts, intend to retract it. The draft of the retraction statement is excerpted a couple of paragraphs below.

We at PsySR are distressed because we suspect that whoever is creating the pressures that led to the proposed retraction may be motivated by a desire to chill academic speech on the article's subject matter. That subject matter is the collusion of the leadership of the American Psychological Association with the Department of Defense with regard to ethics policies constraining psychologists employed by the DoD (see The Hoffman Report).

This collusion arguably played an enabling role the U.S. government's catastrophic use of torture in the War on Terror after 9/11 and up to the present. Handelsman's censorship-threatened article argues that the scandal has a number of teachable features illustrating important social and psychological processes. It would seem an uncontroversial idea that there are teachable moments in an ethics scandal that damaged the reputation of a whole profession, involved colluding with policies and institutions that caused irreparable harm--including death--to predominantly innocent individuals, and that fanned already substantial flames of catastrophic wars in several regions of the globe.

However, someone clearly found this idea controversial and perhaps gave the editor and publishers the impression that it might be too controversial for their own good:

Retraction of "A Teachable Ethics Scandal"

The following article has been retracted by the editor and publishers of Teaching of Psychology:

Handelsman, M. M. (2017). A teachable ethics scandal. Teaching of Psychology, 44, 278-284. doi: 10.1177/0098628317712789

The retraction is based on the ongoing events surrounding the foundation of this article. We believe it is prudent to wait until the case is resolved before teachers use these events in their classrooms.

Needless to say, "We believe it is prudent to wait until the case is resolved" is a funny kind of justification for retracting a peer-review-passing article on a matter of highly-relevant recent history in the profession of psychology.

Are climatologists obliged to "wait until the case is resolved" (until fossil fuel companies agree that climate change is real and human-caused) before teaching about climate change? Even to the extent controversies exist between equally respectable parties, equally committed to the truth, and with equally valid arguments and evidence backing up their differing sides, is there any legitimate reason not to teach about the subject matter of the controversy? In my experience, it is precisely these kinds of controversies that offer the best teaching opportunities.

I understand that SAGE may be facing threat of a frivolous Donald Trump-style lawsuit by one or some of those who are implicated by the Hoffman Report. If SAGE decides, at some risk to its financial security, to do the right thing in the face of this threat, we at PsySR will take steps to reach out to those who might compose a legal defense team for SAGE, and to generally raise hell. I imagine that this is a matter that would be of interest, for example, to the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights.

It is important, after all, that free speech not fall victim to the fact that old guard APA leaders might feel "triggered" by being reminded of the shameful role they played (and, it would appear, are still playing) in recent history. Political correctness (that is, cowering obedience to the most powerful and threatening bully) should not silence academic speech.

With the consideration that all who believe in academic freedom are stakeholders in this matter, I hope that SAGE will make a clear and unambiguous statement that the journal will not be retracting the peer-review-passing article in question, that SAGE fully supports the publication of other articles on this important subject, and that SAGE has no intention to chill academic freedom, or to whitewash one of the more disturbing historical examples of professional collusion with moral horror.

We live in a time when courageous decisions need to be made with much more frequency, so I hope that SAGE will choose courage over fear. If SAGE shows that courage, we at PsySR will strive to match it.

Thanks much.

Sincerely,

Ian Hansen, PhD

President, Psychologists for Social Responsibility

[No reply as of August 25, 2017]

Correspondence with SAGE Public Relations Associate Camille Gamboa

From: Ian Hansen

To: Camille Gamboa

Date: Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 5:01 PM

Subject: Concern about proposed retraction of article from Teaching of Psychology

Dear Camille Gamboa,

I spoke with representatives at SAGE's table at the American Psychological Association on Saturday. They recommended that I write to you concerning public relations matters.

Briefly, a former president of the American Psychological Association, Gerald Koocher, sent correspondence to Mitchell Handelsman (author) and Drew Christopher (reviewing editor) regarding the article "A Teachable Ethics Scandal." That article was published in the SAGE journal Teaching of Psychology in June.

This correspondence led to a decision (made by whom I am not sure) to slate Handelsman's article for retraction. It has not yet been retracted (it is still available here: click here), but the editor has assured me that it is in the process of retraction.

This is a matter of such urgent concern to my organization--Psychologists for Social Responsibility--that we have launched a competition to prepare a lecture video for online distribution incorporating the teaching suggestions that Handelsman makes in his article (see www.psysr.org).

As I noted in the attached rough draft article (being prepared for an online independent news and analysis site), I have reached out to SAGE editor Danielle Bath on this issue (correspondence with her is on the last page of the document with my correspondence with Koocher, attached) and received no reply.

Please let me know if you have any further details on this matter, including:

(1) What role SAGE had in the decision to retract the article

(2) Whether this is still the intended decision

(3) What "the case" is that is referred to in the draft retraction (see attached); it is the case that must be "resolved" supposedly before teaching on the matters addressed by Handelsman would become appropriate

(4) Whether SAGE is making some attempt to avoid retraction

(5) Why SAGE is not (or is?) confident that its indemnity insurance would protect it sufficiently against any attempts by those seeking retraction to sue SAGE (and what SAGE could possibly be sued for in this case)

(6) Whether SAGE believes that there was any serious author misconduct, copyright infringement, or defamation in Handelsman's article to warrant retraction

(7) How any proposed retraction of a politically sensitive but peer-reviewed article without any of the above typical reasons for retraction can be squared with the fact that SAGE publishes an anti-censorship journal--Index of Censorship--that received the Grand Award this year at the APEX awards

(8) Whether the founder of SAGE, Sara Miller McCune, is apprised of this retraction and the controversy over it.

Thanks much.

Sincerely,

Ian Hansen

President, Psychologists for Social Responsibility

*******************************************

From: Camille Gamboa

To: Ian Hansen

Date: Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 7:18 PM

Subject: RE: Concern about proposed retraction of article from Teaching of Psychology

[Summary: She expressed that "I believe the decision to retract is still under review, but I am asking about details." She asked whether the answer to the questions would help myself and PsySR because we planned to use the "guidance for teaching instruction" contained in Handelsman's article.]

[rest of letter snipped]

*******************************************

From: Ian Hansen

To: Camille Gamboa

Date: Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 8:06 PM

Subject: Re: Concern about proposed retraction of article from Teaching of Psychology

Hi Camille,

Thank you for your prompt response. That's good to hear the retraction has not yet been finalized.

The answers to my questions will help me and my organization because our bylaws call for us to identify and oppose war, human rights abuses and oppression, particularly to the extent the psychology profession is implicated in the above. We would consider the retraction of Handelsman's article--absent evidence of extraordinary author misconduct, copyright infringement, or a plausible case of defamation affecting a non-powerful, non-public figure--as a threat to academic freedom in psychology (oppression) and also a silencing of a published recommendation to teach to historical memory on the subject of the profession's complicity with government agencies exercising grave human rights abuses, torture in this case.

Thanks again for your prompt response and looking forward to your reply to the questions of my previous email.

Sincerely,

Ian

*******************************************

From: Ian Hansen

To: Camille Gamboa

Date: Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 4:01 PM

Subject: Re: Concern about proposed retraction of article from Teaching of Psychology

Hi Camille,

Just following up. Do you have any further details in response to my questions?

Thanks much.

Sincerely,

Ian

*******************************************

From: Camille Gamboa

To: Ian Hansen

Date: Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 4:54 PM

Subject: Re: Concern about proposed retraction of article from Teaching of Psychology

[Summary: She expressed that the "entire journal team are taking the decision very seriously" but that she didn't have an update and I could check in with her at the end of the week.]

[Rest of the letter snipped]

From: Ian Hansen

To: Camille Gamboa

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 9:34 PM

Subject: Re: Concern about proposed retraction of article from Teaching of Psychology

Hi Camille,

I saw something from the president of APA with regard to the Handelsman retraction:

I am posting this on behalf of APA President Antonio E. Puente, PhD

This post begins with several false premises and, therefore, leads to false conclusions.
The first error is in asserting that the article "A Teachable Ethics Scandal," by Mitchell M. Handelsman, PhD, is being retracted as part of an organized effort to suppress the American Psychological Association's history regarding interrogation. This is not true. Sage Publishing, which publishes the journal Teaching of Psychology, informs us it has no plans to retract the article. And APA has not asked for such a retraction
The second false premise is the central thesis, that APA is not healing after the release of the Hoffman report two years ago. Since the release of the independent review in July 2015, APA has acknowledged organizational failures and undertaken -- at the behest of our Board of Directors and Council of Representatives -- a series of 19 actions aimed at rebuilding members' and the public's trust in our association.
These include:
" Appointing a Commission on Ethics Processes to evaluate and make recommendations regarding the association's ethics policies and practices. The commission delivered its final report to the Council of Representatives earlier this month.
" Adopting a Council resolution in 2015 to amend the 2006 and 2013 Council resolutions by redefining "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment" to be consistent with the U.N. Convention Against Torture -- as is the association's longstanding definition of torture -- and to prohibit psychologist participation in national security interrogations, among other key provisions.
" Amending the APA Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct to underscore explicitly that psychologists are prohibited from being involved directly or indirectly in torture or in other cruel, inhuman or degrading behavior.
" Appointing a Conflict of Interest Work Group to propose processes to ensure that all members of APA governance, including boards and committees, understand what constitutes a conflict of interest (both financial and non-financial) and when and how to reveal any such conflicts and recuse themselves from APA activities.
" Appointing an Advisory Committee on Human Rights to provide strategic advice to the association in its promotion and protection of human rights.
" Establishing a work group to review APA's organizational policies and procedures and make recommendations aimed at implementing best practices. The work group's report was presented to the Council in August.
As the association marks its 125th anniversary this year with many achievements to celebrate, the independent review documents a painful time in our association's history but one from which we continue to learn. However, given that its findings continue to be the subject of debate by various individuals, it is critical that they be presented fully and accurately, and that the steps we have taken are presented in the same light. APA is committed to continuing to address the underlying issues and concerns raised by the independent review to ensure that this history will not be repeated.

I particularly noticed the claim that "Sage Publishing, which publishes the journal Teaching of Psychology, informs us it has no plans to retract the article." Can you confirm that?

Thanks much!

Ian

*******************************************

From: Camille Gamboa

To: Ian Hansen

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 8:02 AM

Subject: Re: Concern about proposed retraction of article from Teaching of Psychology

[The meat of the reply is quoted below. The rest of the letter is snipped]

Sorry not to have alerted you to this notice ahead of time. Yes, I can confirm it is true that there are currently no plans to retract this paper. The only slightly misleading part of the statement is that this is ultimately the decision of the editor of the journal, whom we at SAGE support.

*******************************************

From: Ian Hansen

To: Camille Gamboa

Date: Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 5:18 PM

Subject: Re: Concern about proposed retraction of article from Teaching of Psychology

Hi Camille,

Thanks for confirming. I am somewhat reassured. Of course I would much prefer "is committed not to" language over "has no plans to" language.

[Rest of letter snipped. Summary: I asked for clarification about what legal protection SAGE could offer the editor and author in the event that the editor did not retract and some punitive process was undertaken as a result]

Thanks much,

Ian

[No further reply as of August 25, 2017]

(Article changed on August 27, 2017 at 23:38)

Authors Bio:

Ian Hansen is an Associate Professor of psychology and the 2017 president of Psychologists for Social Responsibility.