APA Ethics, DEI, Political Ideology, and the Need for Moral Courage

Do not obey.

1.29.2025

What happens when professional ethics collide with political ideology? As the federal government moves to dismantle Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives, psychologists find themselves at a crossroads. The APA Ethics Code lays out clear principles for justice and fairness—but what happens when those principles clash with new federal mandates?

The American Psychological Association's (APA) Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (the Ethics Code, or the code) includes a set of aspirational Principles and enforceable Standards to guide the behavior of psychologists. The enforceable aspects of the code apply to APA members, licensed clinical psychologists, and clinical psychology faculty members in a doctoral program accredited by the APA's Commission on Accreditation. In addition, the Psychological Clinical Science Accreditation System (PCSAS) requires that doctoral programs in clinical science provide training in ethics and demonstrate "a commitment to the integration of diversity, equity, inclusion, and social justice into all aspects of the program."

When does an ethical dilemma arise? Most ethical dilemmas arise when two Standards of the code or a Standard and a Principle are in competition. For example, the code has prohibitions against multiple relationships, but you're one of the only licensed clinical psychologists in your rural community and someone from your softball team needs mental health treatment. The focus of this essay is not about these types of immediate clinical ethics, but instead focuses on situations in which federal mandates or institutional requirements are at odds with the Ethics Code Principles or Standards, and the ways in which psychologists can and should respond in these situations.

At issue here are the Trump administration's multiple Executive Orders that focus on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI). (DEI initiatives might also be referred to as DEIA, with the 'A' focused on accessibility, or as JEDI, with 'J' for justice and a reordering of DEI.) As a set, the Trump administration’s multiple Executive Orders seek to minimize DEI initiatives across federal agencies. As far as I can tell, the Executive Orders are based on the ideas of ending discrimination (that stems advantaging people from under-represented groups), promoting meritocracy and color blindedness, and recentering equality over equity. The argument that promoting equity is a form of discrimination is easily dismissed, perhaps as a racist trope, or at least some form of weird racist signaling. If you don't know the difference between equality, equity, and reality, take a look at this visualization. What part of this is hard to understand?

The Executive Orders emerge from a cultural context obsessed with identity politics, and although I find the orders morally repugnant, I can certainly agree that there are a variety of ways in which DEI efforts go too far and seem too excessive. (Exhibit #1, for example.) The problem, as I see it, is holding the center with cultural forces pushing us to the extremes; more accurately, perhaps, it’s finding the center in the first place.

In the summer of 2020, at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, the murder of George Floyd by police officers in Minneapolis sparked nationwide protests and a global movement against systemic racism and police brutality. The widespread DEI consciousness-raising that followed Mr. Floyd's murder was a watershed, course-correcting moment and accelerated longstanding federal and private efforts to center under-represented persons and voices in the national discourse. Unfortunately, efforts to solve problems have, at times, unwitting negative consequences, and I think it's reasonable to argue that at least some efforts to solve inequalities have resulted in a series of unanticipated problems stemming from the promotion of identity politics. (For the record, I feel that most DEI efforts are well-placed and justifiable.) On the ideological right, people refer to these problems as wokeism (and the term “DEI” and “woke ideology” alone are as triggering as “Critical Race Theory”—most have heard about it and it’s upsetting, few understand it), but the political left also has a well-developed ideology of the same concepts and view many of the alleged problems as part of the solution.

We might differ about how we got to this moment, and I am sure to have missed the most relevant history (especially for your affinity group), but none of this is of much concern for psychologists who are obligated to work under the Ethics Code. This isn’t just a political debate—it’s an ethical one. For psychologists, professional obligations don’t shift with the political winds. The APA Ethics Code provides a moral compass, one that demands a commitment to justice and equity, regardless of governmental overreach. Why? Because there's a difference between personal values/morality and professional ethics. For psychologists, the ethical ceiling rests in promoting justice and in having the moral courage to hold the center when the political winds shift and the sky goes dark.

To begin, then, two major considerations for psychologists. First, let's look at features of the code that compel a focus on justice:

1. Principle D: Justice. This one is obvious... Justice highlights that psychologists must strive to ensure fairness and access to the benefits of psychology for all individuals. It explicitly states that psychologists must guard against biases or limitations in their practice that could result in unjust outcomes or the exclusion of marginalized populations.

2. Principle E: Respect for People’s Rights and Dignity. This principle emphasizes psychologists’ respect for the inherent dignity, rights, and autonomy of all individuals. It requires psychologists to acknowledge the importance of cultural, individual, and role differences, such as those based on age, gender, race, ethnicity, culture, religion, disability, language, and socioeconomic status, while striving to eliminate the effects of biases.

3. Standard 3.01: Unfair Discrimination. Psychologists are prohibited from engaging in unfair discrimination based on factors such as age, gender, gender identity, race, ethnicity, culture, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, or socioeconomic status. This standard supports equity and non-discrimination in all professional activities.

4. Standard 2.01(b): Boundaries of Competence. Psychologists must understand factors associated with diversity and intersectionality when providing services to individuals, groups, or populations they are not yet competent to serve. This includes acquiring education or training to work effectively with diverse groups, promoting equitable and informed care.

5. Standard 9.06: Interpreting Assessment Results. Psychologists are required to consider the impact of factors such as language, culture, and socioeconomic differences when interpreting assessment results. This ensures that interpretations are fair and do not disadvantage individuals from marginalized or underrepresented groups.

6. Standard 8.04: Client/Patient, Student, and Subordinate Research Participants. Research participants must be treated with respect and fairness, ensuring their voluntary participation and protecting their rights. The inclusion of diverse participants helps promote equity in psychological research.

7. Standard 4.02: Discussing the Limits of Confidentiality. This standard ensures that psychologists clearly explain confidentiality and its limits in a culturally appropriate manner. Doing so respects individuals’ diverse backgrounds and ensures equitable understanding of professional obligations.

I could go on, but this covers the basics. I do wish to note that APA has opened a public comment period for a revised set of Ethical Principles (many years in the making), and this document includes new and revised principles on Human and Civil Rights, Justice and Social Justice, and Respect for Persons and Peoples. (There's also a new principle in Scientific Mindedness, which we could really use right now, as well as one on Recognition of Social Systems and the Natural Environment.) The main point about the revised code: It will feature a greater focus on social justice and human rights, and the new code will compel psychologists to "counteract the underlying causes and conditions of social injustices" among other behaviors.

The second consideration for psychologists is how to respond when laws or organizational requirements are at odds with the Ethics Code, including either the Principles or Standards. When laws or organizational requirements conflict with the Ethics Code, several aspects of the code shape psychologists' behavior:

1. Standard 1.02: Conflicts Between Ethics and Law, Regulations, or Other Governing Legal Authority

   • Psychologists must clarify the nature of the conflict between ethical responsibilities and the law.

   • They should make known their commitment to the Ethics Code.

2. Standard 1.03: Conflicts Between Ethics and Organizational Demands

   • When ethical responsibilities conflict with organizational policies, psychologists must clarify the nature of the conflict.

   • They must make known their commitment to the Ethics Code and attempt to resolve the conflict in a way that adheres to ethical principles.

3. Principle A: Beneficence and Nonmaleficence

   • Psychologists should prioritize actions that benefit individuals and avoid harm, even when external pressures (e.g., laws or organizational rules) may encourage unethical behavior.

4. Principle C: Integrity

   • Psychologists are expected to promote honesty and accuracy in their work, which may include advocating for ethical standards when external policies are misleading or harmful.

5. Principle D: Justice

   • Ensuring fairness and access to psychological services means that psychologists should challenge laws or policies that create unjust barriers or inequities.

6. Principle E: Respect for People’s Rights and Dignity

   • Psychologists must respect the dignity and rights of all individuals, which may require resisting laws or policies that promote discrimination or oppression.

So many words. Let's put these ingredients together

First, we have Executive Orders that undermine justice and fairness under the guise of non-discrimination, equality, and meritocracy. Second, we have Ethics Code Principles and Standards that require the consideration of justice and respect in all our actions, and we have a code revision on the horizon that will require we work on behalf of human rights. Finally, we have clear Standards on making the conflicts known and in requiring that we stand with the Ethics Code— "Psychologists make known their commitment to the Ethics Code and work to resolve the conflict in a way that adheres to the ethical principles" (Standard 1.03).

Under the immense threat of the federal government, and the viciousness and amorality of the Current Administration, how should a psychologist make this commitment known, and one what grounds? Moral courage, emerging from the study of ethics, moral philosophy, and the ethics of care—particularly within nursing—represents the willingness to take principled action despite personal or professional risks, such as criticism, isolation, or retaliation. Historically, the concept gained prominence in fields like nursing, where professionals often face situations requiring advocacy for patient rights and care standards in the face of systemic or organizational pressures. Its connection to the ethics of care highlights the relational and empathetic dimensions of moral action, particularly in protecting vulnerable populations. In ethics and bioethics, moral courage involves standing firm in one’s principles to address injustices, advocate for vulnerable populations, or challenge unethical practices, even when such actions are difficult or unpopular. By embodying moral courage, psychologists—and the institutions in which they work—uphold their commitment to integrity and the greater good, ensuring ethical standards prevail in challenging and desperate times.

As I come to a conclusion

I note that my analysis so far is largely hypothetical and could read as me screaming into the void. Maybe so, but let's consider some concrete examples:

• Should we (continue to) consider applicants' background experiences and life circumstances as relevant to their candidacy for our graduate program? Yes.

• Should we (continue to) advance research health disparities, including but not limited to consideration of gender identity, race and ethnicity, and socioeconomic disadvantage? Yes.

• Do we (continue to) value faculty diversity as a core component of our department and seek to promote and foster this diversity? Yes.

• Should we (continue to) teach about and openly discuss concepts of systemic racism and historical injustices? Yes.

• Should we (continue to) think about promoting equity and the many ways in which color blindedness is flawed? Yes.

Why and how can I so easily answer in the affirmative for all these questions?

As a licensed psychologist and faculty member in an APA/CoA- and PCSAS-accredited program, I am required to support these positions and to make conflicts with organizational requirements and the law known. (You might also support these positions based on personal morality and ethics, but here I am talking only about professional ethics.) In reference to the foregoing discussion of the Ethics Code and moral courage, I hereby register my conflict and believe that psychologists— and the organizations in which they work— cannot abide by the current Executive Orders, and doing so would be a clear violation of the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct.

Addendum #1, 2.1.2025

Given everything that has happened in the last few days, and the extent to which the political activities of the Current Administration seem to be acts of psychological warfare, my thoughts on this issue have evolved. What does it mean to “register a conflict” or “have the moral courage to stick with your values” when doing so only puts a target on your back? I am not concerned for myself because I have written this document; rather, I am speaking about how we— professors and students— live and work in a manner that is consistent with the values espoused above while also being strategic and not broadcasting the conflict. Is it perhaps better to work under the radar in order to stay close to our values, temporarily foregoing public signaling while gathering in solidarity to form a resistance movement? Where I work, people feel a resonance with our public signaling of the commitment to our values. A change in the public signaling does not undermine our commitment provided people feel supported, cared for, and safe. Whether it’s a professional ethical imperative or a personal/professional value, these are the clear endpoints while we continue our work on promoting justice and inclusivity. If you believe the goal of the Executive Orders is to sow division and fracture opposing viewpoints, then an effective means of protest relies on the opposite: solidarity, support, and care.

Addendum #2, 2.11.2025

I read this opinion piece on anticipatory obedience. The TL;DR: Don't obey in advance. I have seen many of the arguments for obeyance unfolding right before my eyes. Do not obey. Keep websites up; keep initiatives going; keep working on behalf of people who deserve a seat at the table. Are there ways to do DEI better and to improve the culture of crazed identity politics? Of course, but what we have here in the Executive Orders is not an affirmative vision for all. It's a sinister view designed not only to silence but also to annihilate under-represented voices.