This post is in response to the announcement shown below from ABA International’s Facebook page on 9/7/2021.
The announcement came as a bit of a surprise, to me at least, considering how long the autistic and ABA Reform communities have been reaching out to them to say or do– well, literally anything. Probably the most salient example was ABAI’s continued support for the Judge Rotenberg Center. They continued to condone their actions, and even give them a platform at the annual conference, and aggressively ignored criticism from both inside and outside of the field.
I suppose these things do take time to put together, but it seems like there would have been some kind of response, even along the lines of “we hear you, and we’re working on it.”
They did do a thing though, and as a responsible member of the community, I feel it’s all of our duties to go through this thing with a fine-toothed comb. When it comes to abuse, nothing less is acceptable, especially given how long the leaders in the field have been avoiding this issue. They’ve had plenty of time to come up with something, it should be damn near perfect.
That can be a lot to digest though, especially if you haven’t been keeping up with the conversations. So here are some points to consider.
Operational definitions
When the conversation has been one-sided for this long, it leaves plenty of information out there with which to finally join it in a meaningful way. Thus, it was pretty disappointing to see the amount of buzzwords and corporate-talk making up the statement. There was really very little in the whole thing that was actually actionable. Other than putting together a task force, what exactly are your goals?
Well, that’s not clear. All we know is that they are “committed to” and “value” some vague but good-sounding ideas.
Phrases like “we are committed to” and “we value,” personally make me immediately distrustful of the source. They’re phrases that have been paired with aversives in my learning history quite often. Usually, the actions that follow those words reflect the complete opposite of their meaning, but then the words can be brought up again as tools with which to gaslight anyone who calls them out on these actions.
and yet… they still managed to raise concerning points…
The most problematic part to me was this one:
“We have become engaged in deep reflection regarding the historical treatment of Autistic individuals receiving ABA-related services. We recognize that the inappropriate application of behavioral principles has caused great harm to some neurodivergent individuals in certain situations. We also recognize that Applied Behavior Analysis has been used effectively and respectfully to promote positive outcomes.”
Association for Behavior Analysis International, Sept. 7, 2021
Technically, historical treatment can include the present day– technically. But the context comes off as a lot more dismissive. Usually, when something is described as “historical,” the implication is that it is not continuing through to the present day, unless otherwise specified. The fact that it isn’t specified though, comes awfully close to the “that’s-just-old-ABA” argument. It implies that ABA’s harm was only “historical” and “in certain contexts.”
It comes off as an attempt to minimize the problem and doesn’t feel open to discussion. It’s entering a conversation with one’s arms folded, already on the defensive.
Similarly, there’s the insistence on pointing out that ABA has been effective in promoting positive outcomes. I’m not saying it’s not worthwhile to point out that ABA has had positive effects, but it’s the wording and the timing. It’s an off-putting conclusion to follow a statement that has just implied that ABA does not continue to cause harm. As a writer and someone who is promoting positive change in the field, I would have waited until later to point out ABA’s positive outcomes. There also should have been a lot more emphasis on the what and the how. What exactly are you going to be doing to create those positive outcomes and how are you going to ensure those positive outcomes also do no harm?
It feels actionable and sincere, and less like lip-service meant to get the opposition to shut up.
The task force
It’s early. All we have right now is this vague announcement. The measurable behaviors are TBA, with the spotlight on 10 people, some of whom have been in the field longer than some practitioners have been alive. We like to be able to predict behavior though, right? All of the good and best words in that announcement can be a ray of hope at the end of a dark tunnel or a potential threat of far worse things to come, depending on who is saying them. Thus, the most important question to come from that announcement was this: Who are these people? Who was just put in charge of making ABA better?
Well, here is a (very) brief summary:
Dr. Bourland has been publishing studies for decades. He’s also done some extensive work in the area of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), such as the conversation here.
Shawn T. Capell is the owner and director of a small ABA agency called Covenant 15:16. He also has a background in DEI, and provides resources on his company website.
Joseph H. Cihon and Justin Leaf are the Justin and Joe of the well-known podcast Rants with Justin and Joe through the Autism Partnership Foundation. Both have been active in conversations against ABA reform, including taking punitive and aggressive action against pro-reform practitioners, and mocking and invalidating autistic advocates. They are also passionate defenders of Ivar Lovaas. Some of their thoughts can be found here.
Amy Gravino is an autistic consultant, speaker, and educator, and is a wealth of insight on various topics in ABA, including sex education and women’s issues. Her website is chock full of helpful information about her.
Joy Johnson is another autistic BCBA with a wealth of work in advocacy and DEI. Again, she has a website that provides far more great information about herself than I could possibly include here.
Ruth Anne Rehfeldt is a BCBA-D and professor of ABA, as well as the current president-elect of ABAI. She’s worked in ABA leadership for years, and has received multiple awards for her achievements in academics.
Bob Ross, not to be confused with the beloved painter of Millennial childhood, is the chief clinical officer of Beacon ABA services. He is in charge of research there, as well as an active practitioner. Along with Ron Leaf, Justin Leaf, and Joe Cohen, he is a self-proclaimed “leader” in the field. Recently, he declared that ABA was “under attack” from critics, and refers to the idea that ABA has ever caused harm as “The Big Lie.” Here is one of his slides from that event.
Mary Jane Weiss is a BCBA-D and well-known educator and speaker. She has appeared on various podcasts and presentations, and currently holds a leadership position as a researcher and mentor for ABA students. She is also on the scientific council for the Organization for Autism Research, which focuses on examining various issues that affect autistics and those who support them.
Susan Wilczynski is a BCBA-D and professor of ABA at Ball State University. She has contributed educational resources and research, including exploring the issue of abuse among the disabled community. She is also the author of A Practical Guide to Finding Treatments that Work for People with Autism.
Obviously, these are just short blurbs that do very little justice to the careers of the people on this committee. It was just meant to be a general introduction to who will be participating in these discussions. By all means, do more research on your own, take the information, and form your own opinions.
Based on my own research, here are mine:
There are some objectively great choices on this task force, and we are all going to be interested in seeing what, if anything, comes of it in the future. As I said, there’s nothing in ABAI’s actual statement that makes this look like anything more than a PR move. Even if that is the case though, my hope is that the positive forces serving on that committee will fight the good fight to make something happen. At the very least, I would hope to hear updates from them about what their goals are, what efforts they are making to meet them, and what barriers they are finding along the way. Communication and open conversation is vital.
Some of the other choices though are extremely questionable. It’s definitely clear that there was effort put into diversifying the voices on this committee. However, only 2 of the members are actually autistic, and several have a far-less-than-favorable relationship with the autistic community. I personally fail to see the value in including people who have actively attacked and mocked autistic people and other advocates, and who consider any criticism whatsoever of ABA to be an unprovoked attack justifying this aggression.
Yes, there is such a thing as a harmful opinion and, in some cases, these voices should not be given a platform. Unless those individuals start showing an uncharacteristic change in their behavior, I struggle to see what they could possibly contribute to this task force, other than potentially blocking meaningful change.
I guess we’ll wait and see.