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This document explains some of the reasons the brief was withdrawn: Fowler mentions a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

Cultic Studies Journal, Volume 17, 2000, Page 76
matter — quite properly, in my opinion. Big national professional
organizations like the ASA or the APA have no business taking political stands
of any sort as long as there is substantial disagreement within the
membership even if one side can get 51% of the votes and the other only
49%‖… The APA‘s action in denying cult apologists‘ request to support the
amicus was an implicit act of censure. (personal e-mail communication)
Spring Follies
Introvigne also says in ―Liar! Liar!‖:
In fact, although Singer later claimed that all drafts were still provisional and
that she needed more time, by the end of 1986 APA‘s BSERP had submitted
the latest draft of the DIMPAC report both to internal reviewers and to two
outside academics, namely Dr. Jeffrey D. Fisher and Dr. Benjamin Beit-
Hallahmi … It would also not do to state that BSERP unfairly evaluated a
provisional draft of the report. 1986-87 correspondence shows that the text
was the ―final draft of the report, minus the reference list‖ (letter from
Dorothy Thomas, executive assistant at BSERP, December 29, 1986).‖
This reconstruction seems to show that Dr Singer continued arbitrarily claiming that DIMPAC
was merely a draft, absurdly asking for more time to go on with the proceedings of the Task
Force. However, the documents we have show that this was not what happened.
The Memorandum of December 29th, 1986 from Dorothy Thomas and addressed to the Task
Force with the title ―Final draft of Task Force Report,‖ says that, in the meeting held from
October 31st to November 2nd 1986, the final draft of the report had been examined by the
members of BSERP. Ms. Thomas states:
For the most part, they felt it was a good report. However, because of the
magnitude of the issues involved, BSERP decided to send the report out for
independent review by a number of people who are knowledgeable in this
area. BSERP members were also asked to give the report a more careful
review (the final draft version was available to members at the meeting) and
to prepare comments for further discussion of the report at their May 1987
meeting. … BSERP will decide on a process for finalizing the report in the
spring.
In other words, this was no absurd claim by Dr. Singer, but a reality based on this
document, which she and other Task Force members had received. The phrase, ―final draft
version,‖ here clearly implies that this was not the finished report, which was to have been
prepared after the BSERP discussion in the spring.
So we are left to ask: ―What happened between December 29th, 1986 and May 11th, 1987?‖
What could have induced the BSERP to change its orientation and its work schedule
concerning the Task Force so drastically?
All we can do is list some facts, without claiming to be able to answer the question:
 The Memo of December 29th, 1986 advises of the ―change of the guard‖ at the
leadership of the SER (Office of Social and Ethical Responsibility) the new director
was to come into office on January 5th, 1987.
 Barely one month later, on February 5th, 1987, the APA directors presented an
amicus brief stating the nonexistence of ―coercive persuasion.‖
 On March 24th, 1987, APA withdrew from this very amicus brief and never signed on
again.