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.

Cultic Studies Journal, Volume 17, 2000, Page 77
 On May 11th, 1987 BSERP (which had called the Task Force report ―good‖ at the end
of October) rejected it during the Meeting that had been scheduled to discuss
its final draft and to establish the criteria for completing it.
Any comment, at this point, would be truly unnecessary!
Legerdemain
In ―Liar! Liar!‖ Introvigne says:
When one reads the enclosures and considers the whole controversy, it
becomes clear that the issue not resolved by the 1987 Memorandum is the
much larger issue of unethical behavior and misrepresentations in persuasion
processes, a problem not exclusive to the field of new religious movements or
―cults.‖ Unethical behavior and false representation may occur quite
independently of any brainwashing, coercive persuasion, or mind control
practices, both in religion and in psychotherapy … It is on larger issues of this
kind, rather than on brainwashing as allegedly practiced by new religious
movements, that BSERP experts disagreed among themselves, and BSERP
was not in a position to reach a definitive conclusion.
Even after reading the enclosures and all the other documents several times over, we
cannot honestly share this interpretation of the expression of the Memo of May 11, 1987.
Recall that this document concluded: ―Finally, after much consideration, BSERP does not
believe that we have sufficient information available to guide us in taking a position on this
issue.‖
Today, this document seems to have achieved an extraordinary fame and some people have
interpreted it in quite creative ways. But if the Task Force, according to the Memorandum
attached to the letter of July 12th, 1983 (which is the document which set the Task Force up
and defined its mission), was supposed to investigate possible abuses of psychologically
coercive techniques among religious cults and training seminars, then it is quite clear what
the ―issue‖ to be examined was. When BSERP rejected the DIMPAC report because of its
methodological faults, its lack of scientific rigor, it added that it could not express any
opinion concerning the broader issue, which the Task Force was supposed to investigate,
since it did not have enough information.
Our interpretation of this matter, which had been ignored for ten years and is now the
subject of so much attention, seems to us to be much closer to the facts and to the
documents.
Although the scientific validity of the subject matter studied by DIMPAC has not changed,
i.e. techniques of ―coercive persuasion,‖ this does not necessarily mean that everything that
was ever written about it is free of defects. The rejection of one scientific report on a
phenomenon does not cancel the existence of such a phenomenon.
Prof. Zablocki has this to say about the matter:
In my opinion, the DIMPAC committee went too far in the other direction by
asking the APA to affirm that brainwashing in religious cults was a proven
psychological fact. It was for this that they were censured. It is not true that
the APA affirmed the contrary, that brainwashing was disproved. Instead, the
APA argued that it could not go along with EITHER SIDE in this matter. I
would say that neither side got what it wanted from the APA. As an
organization representing ALL psychologists in the USA, it took a proper
agnostic position that no final decision could be given at this time. (personal
e-mail communication)