The BACB dropped this today in its newsletter.
In case you don’t read the BACB newsletter (you really should), the context for this month’s newsletter is in reference their March 2022 release, stating:
“The committee also discussed whether DEI content should be incorporated into the continuing education requirements and, if so, whether it should have its own category or be incorporated into a broader ethics category. The committee’s consensus was that there should be a new DEI category and that 2 CEUs would be an appropriate requirement.”
Honestly, their announcement today was no surprise. I had pretty much been waiting for this, though admittedly, I had assumed it would take a little more pressure from on high before they did it. Historically, the governing and large representative bodies in our field have leaned in the conservative direction, especially on issues arising most recently.
That doesn’t mean this can’t be disappointing or even infuriating, especially as marginalized communities are more threatened than ever. While the internal logic is consistent to a point, I maintain that the decision is still, quite frankly, utter bullshit.
The BACB’s purpose
What exactly does the BACB do, you might ask? According to their website: “BACB’s primary role is to operate certification programs, which involves responsibilities similar to regulatory boards. In this role, the BACB establishes practice standards, administers examinations, and provides ethics requirements and a disciplinary system for each of its certification programs.”
On its mission, they state “[t]he BACB is a nonprofit corporation that was established in 1998 to meet professional certification needs identified by behavior analysts, governments, and consumers of behavior-analytic services. The BACB’s mission is to protect consumers of behavior-analytic services by systematically establishing, promoting, and disseminating professional standards.”
In a blog post from 2020, however, the BACB goes into far more detail about their purpose, their credentialing process, and most importantly, what they can and can’t do.
“Due to the BACB’s 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status, regulatory-like function, and NCCA accreditation, certain activities are limited, such as engaging in political activity.”
This statement is repeated in various ways throughout the post, including expounding on it and stating that organizations like ABA International (ABAI) and the Association of Professional Behavior Analysts (APBA) were specifically created to have more mobility on things like social justice and political activity – which we have seen with varying levels of “success.”
Unfortunately, the line between political activity and, well, everything else has gotten fuzzy. It seems arguments can be made for virtually anything to be political, especially over the last 9 years. Not saying all of those arguments are good, but they are arguments that are made. The point is, in this newsletter, the BACB, whether they wanted to or not, made a political action, and in so doing, violated their own mission.
The BACB Has Failed at Protecting Consumers… Repeatedly.
Concern for social validity has been discussed increasingly especially in reform-focused circles in the field and in those that oppose those circles. Historically, social validity has been discussed in the context of stakeholders, and how important their approval is when making clinical decisions. Yet when the clients themselves have expressed their feedback on the practices being implemented on them, suddenly the room goes silent. When problematic practices are brought into light (like the JRC’s continued use of shock), social validity is touted as a justification for its continued use because some families have been happy with the changes they see in their loved ones. But when the victims clients themselves speak out about their horrific experiences and the trauma they endured from these practices, suddenly it’s all about the data and the empirical support that these practices are effective (even though that’s not even true).
The BACB has been silent on many such topics, presumably in the interest of avoiding “advocacy” or political activity. Despite the plethora of scientific and ethical flaws in Judge Rotenberg Center’s continued existence, the BACB has never even mentioned them in any publicly available record. From a practical and ethical standpoint, insurance companies have had increasingly more power in how BCBAs practice. Over the past decades, as insurance coverage for ABA for autism has grown, so has the demand on our time justifying our decisions, first to people with 0 training or understanding of ABA, then to other BCBAs whose decisions about clients they have never directly observed can supersede those of the practitioner who has. This is a direct violation of the code of ethics, and yet all the BACB has to say on that subject is what will happen to you if you don’t do what the insurance companies say.
The thing is, you can’t hide behind “not getting involved in politics” anymore. Perhaps 10+ years ago when the world made some semblance of sense and the line between what was political and what wasn’t was clearer, they could get away with this. But we are now under a regime that considers things like a person’s existence or the hard sciences to be political topics. The BACB already has a history of blurring the line of what is “objective” and remaining silent where it is convenient for them to do so. Once again, we are seeing large, influential – in this case regulatory– organizations and figures in our field acting directly out of the Alt-Right playbook.
It’s notable as well to point out that one of the changes from the 5th Edition Task List to the 6th Edition, which went into effect January 2025 was under section H – Selecting and Implementing Interventions.
H-3 (5th Edition): Recommend intervention goals and strategies based on such factors as client preferences, supporting environments, risks, constraints, and social validity.
H-3 (6th Edition): Select socially valid alternative behavior to be established or increased when a target behavior is to be decreased.
Do I need to lay out the issue there?
I probably do.
OK, let’s lay it out: The 5th edition considers social validity a general aspect to be considered in all decision-making, and the 6th edition narrows social validity to simply choosing appropriate replacement behaviors when targeting other behaviors for reduction. It removes the need for further consideration on next steps, such as implementation or assent. This is neither arbitrary nor worth taking at face value without further consideration of its meaning, but that’s beyond the scope of this article.
How the BACB is Full of Shit This Time
“Although we sometimes wish we could engage in a broader array of advocacy activities, we have a very limited role in ABA—again, due to restrictions imposed upon us by certain legal statutes and IRS rules.”
Here’s the thing, directly from the National Council of Nonprofits and the IRS, literally the only political activity 501(c)3s are prohibited from is campaign activity.
Which means by making the political action they did today – and it was a political action whether they like it or not – they’re still in compliance as a nonprofit. The political action taken was to cave to anti-DEI sentiments promoted by people who don’t even know the meaning of the term. The term DEI fell victim to the same tactic as the term “woke” – originally used in African-American communities to describe someone who is aware of social issues, the Right began loudly using it to mean anything they simply didn’t like, breaking down its actual meaning in their own community, and allowing this misuse to permeate language until it lost its meaning in common vernacular.
Even people who would have been accurately described as “woke” and who understand the original meaning will use the term as a joke poking fun at conservative bigotry. DEI is in the first stage. Any non-preferred person, group, or decision that in any way supports the non-preferred person or group is labeled as “DEI” by the Right, going so far as to call Kamala Harris, an elected official by overwhelming popular vote, a “DEI hire.”
Consider as well that from the literal moment Trump took office, he and his regime have committed discriminatory action after discriminatory action aimed at marginalized communities, including transgender people, people of color, and yes, autistic people. Federally and state (in some states) funded organizations have already been affected, but so far, only federal and select state organizations have been targeted. Therefore, to cave and remove DEI from CEU requirements before they even come after the private and non-profit sector, can only be seen as a statement of agreement.
In the March 2025 newsletter, the BACB states that it “has invested years of effort to ensure that its certification programs are widely recognized by funders and state licensure programs. However, incorporating DEI content in our upcoming requirements may jeopardize this widespread recognition.”
Basically, they’re concerned that if BCBAs are required to obtain continuing education in DEI, that funders or state licensure programs may not like it. Question for the BACB then: When a client says to us that we better not so much as mention anything that could even be misconstrued as “homework” to them or they will beat us up– help me understand– is it best practice to avoid discussion of homework at all costs and just demand that the teacher give them an A?
Asking for a friend.
I suspect most would agree that nothing about that decision would be considered socially valid, in that client’s best interest, or an ethical practice. We would probably also expect to get beat up a little bit along the way, but in the end, that client would be earning their A.
But it’s just Rebranding
As a way of “balancing the original SME intent with the evolving regulatory and legal landscape,” the BACB made the official change as follows: “The originally planned CEU category requirement on DEI has been removed. Instead, the Ethics CEU category has been expanded to explicitly include content on cultural and contextual responsiveness. This expansion was a natural evolution for this content category given the existing ethics requirements to adapt procedures to contextual circumstances. Ethics CEUs may be awarded for content on cultural/contextual responsiveness, even if ethics is not the primary focus.”
How gracious of them to allow practitioners to discuss cultural responsiveness. So long as we don’t say the words diversity, equity, or inclusivity. Yet, back in March 2022, the SMEs determined that DEI was important enough to be a requirement for continuing education. Now, because of literally indirect pressure from a political party whose actions and stances stand in direct conflict to ethical practice, it has become not even a suggestion, but barely an allowance.
By their own description, the BACB’s job is “to operate certification programs, which involves responsibilities similar to regulatory boards. In this role, the BACB establishes practice standards, administers examinations, and provides ethics requirements and a disciplinary system for each of its certification programs” and their “mission is to protect consumers of behavior-analytic services by systematically establishing, promoting, and disseminating professional standards.”
Then do it, BACB. Actually do it. Instead of lowering your standards and putting the primary consumers of our services at greater risk, stand up against discriminatory practices from funders or state licensing boards. There are better ways to fight this than conceding.
The overwhelming majority of practitioners in ABA (over 80%) work with the autistic population – a population with membership in the LGBTQ+ community over twice as high compared to the non-autistic population. The same anti-DEI regime has actively threatened social security and other government assistance programs that directly benefit the disabled population including autistics, and has targeted autism as a “health burden.”
By conceding, the BACB has taken a political stance in agreement with these statements and in support of the action taken as a result of them.
Yet they justify it by claiming “…incorporating DEI content in our upcoming requirements may jeopardize this widespread recognition.”
There is a word for this: Appeasement.
And quite frankly, I refuse to provide the middle-school level history lesson on why this is a bad and ineffective move. The BACB is a credentialing organization for a scientific field. I shouldn’t have to explain this. I’ll offer this hint though, when you start typing “how appeasement…” into Google, the first suggestion is “… led to WW2.”
In the expanded blog post on the BACB’s purpose, they had this to say:
“In the ABA profession, practitioners who obtain certification by the BACB have a great deal of mobility because their certification will meet licensure requirements in almost any state with licensure for the practice of behavior analysis.”
While we’re so concerned with what state licensure boards may have to say about DEI requirements, practitioners still have to pass the BACB’s exam in order to practice. So is it not safe to assume that the BACB’s word outweighs that of the state licensure boards?
If a state required its licensed practitioners to attend at least 1 personal event per year for each of their clients, such as a birthday party, or gods-forbid required licensees to accept gifts from clients, would the BACB not step in? Presumably not, due to their existing history of failing to comment on other objective violations of their ethics code. They’ve certainly made their voice known when it comes to making sure no one puts their logo on a t-shirt without their permission though, so they’re clearly capable of taking action when it matters to them.
So, why does this matter? Why so quickly cave to right-wing fear mongering? It’s clear social validity matters very little in any direction, and there’s no explanation as to why or how state licensure boards being unhappy would negatively affect them. So, what’s left?
Ah yes, funders.
Such is the golden rule: Whoever has the gold makes the rules.
The BACB is worried funders might drop ABA coverage if we require our practitioners to be trained in DEI. What is DEI? As discussed, it’s become operationally defined as “anyone the Right doesn’t like and any policies that even marginally benefit those communities or individuals.” Well, let’s see, who doesn’t the Right like?
- Transgender people
- Brown people
- Immigrants, regardless of legal status
- Disabled people, including autistic people
Oh shit, autistic people are DEIs.
Which means services supporting autistic people are DEI.
It’s only a matter of time before the federal government makes this connection. What then do you think will happen to our consumers or our ability to practice? It’s already happened in other areas. A professional administrator of a non-profit who provides home and community based services to adults with intellectual/developmental disabilities was recently awarded a $10,000 grant to provide staff training to better help disabled adults find competitive integrated employment. That grant got pulled, and they lost about half of that money because it was “DEI.”
This is the fate of ABA if organizations like the BACB choose appeasement.
But the part that probably gets me the most though is this:
“The requirements no longer include the integration of DEI into any of the course-content areas. These revisions align with best practices in behavior-analytic assessment and treatment, comparable to other major helping professions, and provide clearer guidance for university faculty designing and implementing required coursework.”
What a slap in the face to the entire field.
The BACB has consistently shrugged in the face of actual threats to the safety of the clients we serve, and yet they have the audacity to call their actions “aligned with best practices.” The absolute gall of this organization to imply that their decision was objective or well-intended is truly mesmerizing.
This was a political action, and their cost-benefit analysis determined that the safety of the overwhelming majority of ABA’s consumers was less motivating than access to financial reinforcement and avoidance of higher response effort. This had nothing to do with consumer protection or behavior analytic assessment.
This was Nazi-sympathesizing cowardice.
Answer the Calls to Action
They don’t care what any individual practitioner says or thinks. They literally control our ability to call ourselves BCBAs — and make sure to collect that fee for it. The only way to be heard and to matter is to amplify it with others.
I have a voice
Started out as a whisper, turned into a scream
Made a beautiful noise
Shoulder to shoulder, marching in the street. - from "A Beautiful Noise" by Alicia Keys
Before this even gets posted, there will already be petitions, maybe letter-writing campaigns, and groups of activists forming responses and plans of action. The Black Applied Behavior Analysts released this statement. If you care about the people you serve, do what the BACB wouldn’t and stand up.
Resources
The Behavior Analyst Certification Board. www.bacb.com
The Behavior Analyst Certification Board. (2020, July 9). The BACB: What it is, what it does, and why. https://www.bacb.com/the-bacb-what-it-is-what-it-does-and-why/
Black Applied Behavior Analysts. (2025, March 24). Black applied behavior analysts (BABA) response to the behavior analyst certification board (BACB) removal of DEI requirements. https://babainfo.org/newsletter/black-applied-behavior-analysts-baba-response-to-the-behavior-analyst-certification-board-bacb-removal-of-dei-requirements/
Sarris, M. (2024, June 12). Autistic people more likely to identify as lgbtq. Spark. https://sparkforautism.org/discover_article/autism-lgbtq-identity/