IDEOLOGICAL CENSORSHIP AND THE ACCELERATING DEMISE OF THE BRITISH PSYCHOLOGICAL SOCIETY

Pat Harvey posts…

Further to previous blog posts (see, for example here) the letter below was sent to the BPS. It is entirely self-explanatory. As yet there has been no acknowledgement. The X account @psychsocwatchuk, which recounts this rejection of the advertisement, posted the following  

BREAKING: CENSORSHIP SCANDAL at The Psychologist? International Conference on Youth Gender Medicine: speakers include notable clinical and academic psychologists. BPS cancel advert already placed by agents at last minute ‘without explanation’.

As of the time of writing it has had 13 500 impressions.

Credibility of the BPS is dying, alongside its sold off and not replaced Leicester HQ, its financial viability and its falling membership.

Dear Dr Cole, Baroness Hayter and Mr Bajwa,

Re Conference Rethinking Youth Gender Medicine https://www.tickettailor.com/events/clinicaladvisorynetworkforsexgender/2162461

I am writing to you on a matter of considerable gravity. This international conference is due to take place this weekend in London. The conference is highly topical and centrally relevant, in terms of policy and practice, to many UK psychologists. 

It will be opened by Baroness Dianne Haytor, who has served as Shadow Deputy Leader of the House of Lords and as Chair of the Labour Party. She has led several NGOs, including Alcohol Concern, sat on the board of the National Patient Safety Agency, and was Director of Corporate Affairs at the Wellcome Trust.

Amongst approximately 28 speakers there are 4 well known and respected clinical psychologists who are HCPC registered and chartered psychologists, and a prominent research / academic developmental psychologist. Their backgrounds and current relevant work are detailed on the conference schedule. 

You should particularly note that one of these psychologists, Professor Sallie Baxendale, is Professor of Clinical Neuropsychology at the UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology. She was awarded the International Neuropsychological Society Arthur Benton Prize in 2018 in recognition of her outstanding scientific contributions to the field of neuropsychology. You chose, in 2023, to bestow upon her the British Psychological Society’s Distinguished Contribution Award.

Your agents sent the following back to the conference organisers following an unexpected refusal by the BPS to proceed with an agreed advertisement.

I am coming to you with not great news I am afraid: unfortunately, we are not able to run your advert on the monthly email this week.  As discussed I must get the BPS to sign off the content, and they have come back with thef ollowing: Under The Psychologist’s published advertising code of practice, The Editor of The Psychologist reserves the right to refuse or cancel any advertisement or part of any advertisement without reason, or notice. I will speak to accounts and cancel your invoice — if you have already made payment I will ensure this is refunded asap. Apologies once again and sorry for the inconvenience.

It would seem highly likely that the reasons for the editor’s action is his declared personal affiliation with a particular ideological viewpoint in relation to transgender issues. He has made this bias clear in communications with numerous members, in his censorship or outright rejection of publishing views different from his own, and by his suppression of open debate on the matter. The blog to which I contribute BPSWatch.com has numerous articles on the failure of the BPS via The Psychologist to promote or even allow discussion of diversity of ideological, professional and clinical views of gender issues. Members including myself have made representations and complaints to the BPS and to the editorial board. To no avail. Some highly contentious articles from his viewpoint have been published, however. I have made formal representations at least two with serious safeguarding concerns. 

This latest occurrence constitutes an unacceptable slur on members of the BPS involved in this conference, a failure of duty to members and may bring the Society into further disrepute. In the light of dwindling advertising revenues, the rejection of a significant sum of money for a prestigious conference opened by a member of the House of Lords is simply perverse.

Yours sincerely,

Patricia Harvey,

CPsychol., AFBPS.