April 2002 • American Psychologist 295 Comment Copyright 2002 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 0003-066X/02/$5.00 Vol. 57, No. 4, 295–306 The Emperor’s New Clothes: Sociopolitical Diversity in Psychology Stephen R. Wester University of Wisconsin—Milwaukee David L. Vogel Iowa State University We were excited to read Richard E. Red- ding’s (March 2001) recent article on socio- political diversity. We strongly agree with his argument that for the profession of psycholo- gy to avoid hypocrisy and truly embrace its stated commitment to diversity and inclusive- ness, all views, whether they are congruent with one’s own or not, need to be explored. Indeed, we were impressed with his courage in writing such a challenging article as he is in effect coming out of the crowd and pointing out that the emperor “has nothing on” (Ander- sen, 1837/1959, p. 31). At the same time, however, we were surprised to note that Red- ding did not draw stronger connections be- tween his examples of biases, the graduate school training process, and the subsequent therapeutic services psychologists provide to their clients. From our perspective as coun- seling psychologists, it is in this arena that biases of any nature could potentially damage students, clients, scientific inquiry, and cer- tainly the profession. The process of learning to conduct psy- chotherapy is often characterized by emo- tional intensity, periods of self-reflection, and deep self-exploration (see, e.g., Watkins, 1997). Students are required to examine their value systems, as well as to explore the de- gree to which those values might affect their clients (see, e.g., Atkinson, Morton, & Sue, 1998). Even more importantly, those charged with guiding students during this process have a responsibility to ensure that they do not impose their own worldview on students’ growing sense of themselves as therapists or, because of that worldview, create an environ- ment that is hostile to appropriate learning and development. It is critical that students feel free to honestly express their feelings and concerns without fear of ridicule, sanc- tion, or retribution from those in power (see, e.g., Wester & Vogel, 2002). The absence of such freedom or the presence of an unspoken assumption that all must share the same cor- rect “liberal worldview” (Redding, 2001, p. 210) can make for an uncomfortable training environment. Our own work in gender is- sues, counseling, and training (Heesacker et al., 1999; Wester & Vogel, 2002), for exam- ple, suggests that such an uncomfortable or unsupportive training environment can inter- fere with the development of an appropriate sense of counseling self-efficacy. Counsel- ing self-efficacy serves as the “crucial link in . . . determining how and whether the counse- lor will produce efficacious actions with the client” (Larson & Daniels, 1998, p. 205). Low feelings of counseling self-efficacy may “lead to unwillingness to take risks [with a challenging client], avoidance of the learning process, or [a] lack of perseverance in the face of failure” (Larson & Daniels, 1998, p. 206). Fears about the interaction of an un- safe training environment and counseling self-efficacy within the current training process in professional psychology are uniquely applicable to those students who do not hold worldviews consistent with the “liberal sociopolitical majority in psy- chology” (Redding, 2001, p. 210). For ex- ample, although many in the area of multicul- tural supervision and training write about the need to “provide trainees with a highly sup- portive environment” (Kiselica, 1998, p. 6), trainees’ differing ideas about such sensitive issues as gay rights, abortion, gun control, and the role of government in everyday life could unfortunately lead those directly re- sponsible for their therapy training to label them as problematic or otherwise clinically “impaired” (Forrest, Elman, Gizara, & Vacha- Haase, 1999, p. 628) rather than worthy of tolerance, respect, and continuation in gradu- ate school. Thus, in effect, psychologists ex- plicitly value one worldview over another and, in so doing, suggest to some trainees that their “professional success is dependent on staying in the political closet” (Redding, 2001, p. 210). Accordingly, they may “play it safe and bypass multicultural training and counseling opportunities” (Kiselica, 1998, p. 8). This can only serve to impede the learning process, produce therapists unprepared for a diverse clientele, and damage the reputation of psychology in general and the practice of psychotherapy specifically. Sadly, although Redding implied such severe consequences, he did not specifically explore them. This omission makes his argument appear much less powerful and far less compelling than it would have been had a discussion of specific implications for the training and supervision of psychotherapists been included. Our goal in writing this comment is not to overly commend or condemn either Red- ding (2001) or his ideas. Instead, we hope to point out what we feel is a serious omission in his discussion, namely, the potential conse- quences of a “liberal hegemony” (Redding, 2001, p. 206) on psychotherapy training. The “serious introspection [and] painful self-dis- covery” (Kiselica, 1998, p. 6) inherent in such training magnify the potential impact of any biases to the extent that students and, by extension, their clients are seriously harmed. In addition, we hope to reinforce Redding’s idea that for psychology to be truly inclusive, “sociopolitical values should be included un- der the rubric of cultural diversity” (Redding, 2001, p. 212). We are not saying that psy- chology must become more conservative, that conservative (or liberal) ideas are more or less appropriate, or that people need to sacri- fice their ideals (whatever their political ori- entation). Rather, we feel that to best serve Contents Wester & Vogel on Redding ..................295 Sampson on Redding ............................ 296 Kendler on Redding .............................297 Campbell et al. on Redding ...................297 Rooney on Redding ..............................298 Brand on Redding ....................................299 Redding replies .......................................300 Bedeian on Redding and Sackett et al. ......301 Bocknek on Sackett et al. .........................302 Zuriff on Sackett et al. .............................303 Helms on Sackett et al. ............................303 Schmitt et al. reply ...............................305 DOI: 10.1037//0003-066X.57.4.295