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February 10th, 1987, and then soon withdrawn, this whole matter would appear to be much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.‖

Cultic Studies Journal, Volume 17, 2000, Page 75
This does not however seem to mean that APA officially approved the contents of the brief,
i.e., the notion that the theory of coercive persuasion applied to NRM‘s is not accepted by
the scientific community. If it never rejected it, neither did it ever approve it officially,
turning it into the final stand of the whole Association. The only indisputable fact is that APA
withdrew the brief and never presented it again.
There is only one way to prove the contrary: to bring out an official APA document  if it
exists  which states that that brief, as it was drawn up in 1987, has received the
imprimatur of the Association, decreeing the end of scientific debate on ―coercive
persuasion.‖
Even so, people would still have the right to think differently, since APA, however
prestigious it may be, does not in any case represent all the psychologists on earth, nor is
America necessarily and always the model to follow.
Let us take a further look into the about face of the APA, by examining the Memo of July
12th, 1989, sent by R.D. Fowler, Chief Executive Officer of the APA, to Dr. W. D‘Antonio.
This document explains some of the reasons the brief was withdrawn: Fowler mentions a
letter, dated May 17th, 1989, from Dr. Richard Ofshe to Dr. D‘Antonio. On page 2 of his
letter, Ofshe had said that the APA brief
improperly slipped through the APA‘s administrative structure … and [was]
filed by the former executive director of APA despite objections by APA‘s legal
counsel.‖
After having denied this statement by Ofshe, Fowler says that the Executive Director of APA
resigned after the episode, but that ―… the APA Executive Director did not resign because a
brief was filed in the case.‖ In light of all that had transpired, we cannot help but wonder
why the APA director resigned.
Fowler also mentions another letter by Dr. Ofshe, of June 14th, 1989 in which Ofshe says he
was invited, together with Dr. Singer, to attend a symposium organized by APA‘s Division 1.
The Symposium concerned coercive persuasion and its clinical, ethical, cultural, and legal
implications. Somebody of course might wonder, ―Why did APA invite to a symposium two
scholars who had supposedly been entirely discredited by their Association after the
rejection of the DIMPAC report and the submission of the amicus brief?‖ Perhaps pre-
empting such a possible question, Fowler contends that the attendance at the symposium
by the two scholars did not have the meaning Ofshe implies:
This statement is somewhat misleading in that this is not an APA sponsored
symposium. Drs. Singer and Dr. Ofshe were invited by Division 1 (one of forty
plus APA Divisions) to participate in a Division 1 sponsored Symposium.
If we take Fowler‘s statement into account, we can still ask: ―If a single Division of APA does
not represent the whole Association, then can‘t we also say that four experts (the number of
people reviewing the DIMPAC report), only two of whom were APA members, do not
represent the views of the whole Association?
From the same document, we also learn that APA‘s decision not to get back into the case
after the rejection of the DIMPAC report was due to ―… budget constraints and other
pressing business.‖ These rather surprising motives could lead us to think, as Prof.
Benjamin Zablocki puts it, that it was
...simply a matter of trying to put the best possible public face on what was
an embarrassing situation for the cult apologists. Neither the cult apologists
nor the cult bashers had enough votes in the APA to force through whichever
measure each side would have wanted. Instead there was a face-saving
compromise in which the APA essentially washed its hands of the entire