Cultic Studies Journal, Volume 17, 2000, Page 73
However, the documents we have show that this was not what happened (Kahn, A. S.,
Letter with attached Memorandum dated July 12th 1983 signed by the then Administrative
Officer of the BSERP). In fact, the 6-page Memorandum attached to the letter (where the
establishment of the Task Force is proposed) specifies the purposes of the Task Force and,
hence, the job APA appointed it do:
 Investigate the techniques of psychological coercion.
 Decide whether one can or must, or cannot or must not, impose restrictions on the
use of techniques and principles of psychological coercion used by psychologists and
nonpsychologists in a manner abusive of individual or constitutional rights.
 Establish the conditions under which use of such techniques is more or less
appropriate. ―The charge to the Task Force will be to define the parameters and
limits to which coercive psychological techniques may be used before invoking the
principle of the ‗need to protect the individual.‘ ―
Further on, the document says that the APA is especially interested in these techniques
being used to promote individual well-being. What particularly interests the Association is
the fact that
techniques of indoctrination, ―brainwashing‖ and ―coercive persuasion‖ have
not been subject to the same scrutiny as other psychological techniques ...
Such techniques are currently being used by religious cults (e.g., the
Unification Church, the Church of Scientology, etc.) as well as nonreligious
organizations (e.g., est, Lifespring, etc.).
The Memo then remarks on the importance of undertaking this enquiry in the light of the
increasing involvement of psychologists in disputes associated with cults, for example in the
courts, where psychologists were often called in as witnesses (two cases are mentioned
involving the Unification Church and the Church of Scientology). The memo then mentions
so-called ―training seminars,‖ such as est and Lifespring. Further on, the Memorandum
says:
It is quite clear that many of the religious organizations have been involved in
recruitment techniques which are the equivalent of psychological assessment.
It would appear that these techniques need to be well defined and, if certain
people are a high risk, that these people need to be warned with regard to
potential harm. The fundamental issue facing psychology is a determination of
whether or not certain people need to be protected from coercive
psychological techniques. It may be impossible to discuss this aspect of the
abuse of coercive psychological techniques without discussing legalistic
implications. A thorough discussion of coercive techniques and the possible
need for recommendations in order to protect the public would be in the best
interest of psychology.
The part regarding the outcome of the study performed by the Task Force also expresses
the hope that something may be published in the future concerning this issue.
This document, then, shows that the Task Force was set up, not to put an end to the ―anti-
cult‖ activities of some psychologist, but for reasons of public interest, in order to safeguard
the psychological welfare of individuals who might be subject to coercive psychological
techniques, either in NRM‘s or in other organizations.
An Extraordinary “Slip”?
Mr. Introvigne also says in ―Liar! Liar!‖:

Cultic Studies Journal, Volume 17, 2000, Page 74
DIMPAC pursued its work for some years, whilst Dr. Singer and other
professionals continued to appear as expert witnesses in court cases using
their coercive persuasion and brainwashing theories. Dissatisfied with this
continuing state of affairs, ―on February 5, 1987, during its winter meeting,
the APA Board of Directors voted for APA to participate in the [Molko ]case as
an amicus‖ (American Psychological Association, Memorandum on APA‘s
activities regarding the Molko case, July 11, 1989, p. 1) […] The brief stated
that as applied to new religious movements, the theory of coercive persuasion
―is not accepted in the scientific community‖ and that the relevant
methodology ―has been repudiated by the scientific community.‖
This reconstruction would lead the reader to think that the submission of the amicus brief
(which denied the validity of coercive persuasion theories) was brought about by an
unbearable situation, in which the Task Force was still going on with its proceedings, while
psychologists and psychiatrists continued to make absurd statements in the courts,
presented as if they had a scientific foundation.
However, the documents we have show that this was not what happened:
Firstly, the Memorandum attached to the letter of July 12th, 1983, states that the Task Force
started its full proceedings in 1984, and that such proceedings would take two or three
years, depending on the time required to draw up the final report.
Secondly, concerning the amicus brief approved by some APA board members, submitted on
February 10th, 1987, and then soon withdrawn, this whole matter would appear to be much
less ―clear‖ if it were presented in other terms.
For example, one could say that while the APA was waiting to review the report of the Task
Force (which APA itself had set up and appointed Dr. Margaret Singer to run) some of its
directors decided to sign the famous amicus brief in the name of APA (some even claim that
this document was approved on the basis of a round of phone calls and with no in-depth
examination). All of this, of course, without consulting the Task Force that had been set up
for the very purpose of studying something that the APA board members now suddenly
decided did not exist! Considering the situation, one can hardly say that APA stood out for
transparency it looked rather as if its right hand knew not what the left did. With such an
embarrassing situation, APA quickly withdrew the amicus brief and then, after a few
months, rejected the report by the Task Force. When one sees the facts in this light, the
submission and then withdrawal of the amicus brief could well be seen as an attempt by
APA to free itself as quickly as possible of a ―hot potato.‖
Even though the APA withdrew from the battlefield, some people today still try to pass the
Molko amicus brief matter across as if it had represented a stand taken by the Association.
Such an attempt of course helps the NRM‘s, but not scientific accuracy.
Among those who protested against the presentation of the amicus brief was Dr. L. J. West
who wrote a letter (signed by about two dozen UCLA psychologists) to Dr. Bonnie
Strickland, then President of APA. She answered this and other letters by saying that the
whole issue of ―coercive persuasion‖ was still awaiting discussion by the members of the
Association, in order to achieve a more profound understanding of the use and abuse of
social influence.
Introvigne then says in ―Liar! Liar!‖:
APA subsequently withdrew from the case ―based on procedural as opposed to
substantive concerns‖ and ―never rejected the brief on the ground that it was
inaccurate in substance.‖