Recently, ABAI released a statement in response to the avalanche of criticism they’ve received for constantly increasing the Judge Rotenberg Center’s presence at the annual conference. Specifically, about their lack of action in response to the serious concerns about the JRC, and overall sketchy practices. The response itself can be found here (thank you NeuroClastic for this source).
Unsurprisingly, the response echoed those we’ve been seeing from the Old Guard™ for a while now. It’s got all the buzzwords and defensive claims, including something-something science and the terrible attacks being made on them by the big mean autistics. This response came not long before the 2022 conference in which the JRC was provided with multiple panels with which to defend their practices.
Thanks to the internet, those of us who have removed our financial support from ABAI were able to get a sneak peak from those smarter than us who were able to attend and livestream. My most sincerest thanks to those brave souls!
So, let’s dig into it.
Buzzwords
Let’s just start by pointing out that “task forces” are just tactics to delay actually addressing an issue. Politicians have been using it to get people off the phone and out of their offices for years. According to the letter, their process of doing things is extremely important to them, and they must follow the established motions. This begins with establishing a task force “to study the relevant factors and make recommendations.” Only after reading these recommendations and reports could ABAI possibly make a statement about Contingent Electric Skin Shock (CESS).
This task force was created in November 2021.
I feel like it’s important to point out here that people have been expressing concerns about the JRC and its presence and status at the annual convention for literal decades.
While they lament that this process is quite lengthy, they stand by the importance of following bureaucratic protocols for any and all decisions.
Let’s move on to the next set of buzzwords I like to call The Mis’es.
Misunderstanding, misinformation, misleading.
These words have been parroted in nearly every rebuttal I ever see against criticism of ABA. These autistic advocates are misunderstanding ABA and spreading misinformation to mislead parents away from crucial services.
I couldn’t have rolled my eyes harder when I saw literally every single one of these words in this letter, sometimes more than once!
Here’s the thing: While it’s true people outside of the field don’t have the in-depth understanding of the science of behavior that BCBAs might have, to call it all a “misunderstanding” is petty, invalidating of victims’ experiences, and dare I say misleading. Not to mention denying someone’s reality and inserting your own is the definition of narcissism.
When someone says they experienced negative effects of a particular treatment, there is nothing to misunderstand. That is their lived experience. I doubt any of the authors of this letter would disagree that many of these negative effects are private events. What is a private event again, kids? Something that can only be measured by the person experiencing it. Thus, testimony is the only measurement we have.
As I’ve said again and again, that’s the literal Radical in Radical Behaviorism. We cannot dismiss private events just because we can’t measure them. When you do that to traumatize people, you are an asshole.
Misinformation is the favorite one used when someone doesn’t like the information provided. This is usually used for descriptions of ABA that someone finds to be too simplified for their taste, or simply a fact that makes them feel icky. Without further research, the sensitive ones in our field like to simply scream that it’s misinformation and go about their day with their rose-colored glasses on about how great and flawless ABA is. The thing is, the term misinformation doesn’t hold up very well when there is literal evidence to support it. Are we not a science? Should we not change views in the face of new evidence?
The word misleading is used to essentially call Jonathon Tarbox and Amy Odum liars. Drs. Tarbox and Odum recently resigned from their positions on the ABAI board as Program Board Coordinator and Program Committee Chair respectively in protest of the board’s behavior. Their letter can be found here (thank you again NeuroClastic!). All ABAI had to say about their statements was that they were misleading, though the only “evidence” presented was that they had been thinking about this topic since November, therefore the claim that there had been no action taken on it was unsubstantiated.
Looking at both letters, it’s hard to see what could possibly have been misleading about Dr. Tarbox and Dr. Odum’s letter of resignation. Of course, I have not been skulking around the board rooms during meetings, so there’s no real way for me to know what was said and what wasn’t. The problem with the claim that the resignation letter was misleading is that both accounts say essentially the same thing. Dr. Tarbox and Dr. Odum state several issues and concerns that had been brought to light within the community for several months, including the fact that their peer review process had gotten extremely sketchy ,and that the task force was to be making decisions without any outside input or transparency.
Nothing in ABAI’s response disproves that. All they say is how important their process was.
It also states that all submissions on CESS were approved regardless of whether this Task Force had anything to say about it or not. ABAI’s response also confirmed that, but with a lot more words and vague language.
Suddenly Social Validity is Vital
One of my favorite parts of ABAI’s response was its reasons for not making an immediate decision on where they stand on CESS. This is because there is “no consensus” in the field about it. They mentioned 3 types of “very important” groups of members: The ones who feel CESS is never appropriate, the ones who feel it is sometimes appropriate, and the ones who feel like they need more information before they form an opinion.
I’m guessing that third group is where the board itself sits, as it’s the most convenient and allows them to delay taking any action.
There’s a number of frustrations here. The idea that there needs to be a consensus in the field is a stalling tactic if I ever heard one. As for needing more information: The information is out there, it’s just been labeled as “misinformation” and dismissed. Whenever someone tries to defend JRC and ABAI’s actions, inevitably scores of people present evidence to the contrary, and inevitably those comments are deleted and the participants banned from the conversation.
That is not a lack of evidence, that is burying evidence.
Thankfully, it’s damn near impossible to bury anything on the internet.
The use of the phrase “recent controversies” is also pretty astounding. This has been a controversy for literal decades, preceding the existence and prevalence of social media. I know for a fact there is no one on the ABAI board so young that they can’t fathom a world before the internet and social media. Therefore this wording can only imply one of 2 things: That ABAI was either hoping no one would notice/remember that this has been going on for so long and that they’ve been putting the community on planned ignoring, or that they have such a hard time considering the autistic community people that they truly didn’t notice anyone was speaking out until other BCBAs joined in thanks to social media.
Either way, respecting varying opinions on a topic doesn’t mean diddly-squat when evidence arises that an intervention is harmful. And yes, victim accounts, especially when there are so many, count as evidence. Only measuring opinions that agree with yours isn’t social validity, it’s confirmation bias. When you are looking at a group of people who have never experienced the intervention on trial and who have something to lose by not being right, their opinions become irrelevant. The people who have experienced and witnessed it are saying there is a problem.
Not to mention, scores of people who are not residents at JRC have all but been begging to experience the CESS, and for some reason JRC will not comply with this request. See #ShockMeToo to follow that train wreck.
Furthermore, unbiased observers, such as medical doctors and engineers, have looked at the data, such as the strength of the electric shocks being administered, and balked. Without even knowing the full story, they have refused to help activists to build a GED device of their own based on JRC’s own plans in order to experience the shocks for themselves because of the risks to health and safety. This has been going on for over a year now– and that is a consensus in 2 fields.
The Task Force Members
ABAI was kind enough to provide the prestigious names who have agreed to be on the task force for evaluating CESS. As I did with my previous post on their last task force (link), I will list them here as well as some brief facts about who they are.
Dr. Mike Perone: Currently the chairperson of the task force, Dr. Perone has been a professor in behavior analysis for about 40 years and has previously served as the president of ABAI. He has published multiple studies on various topics including comparisons between animal and human behaviors, effects of psychoactive medications on behavior and performance, and comparing effects of interventions across varied conditions such as response effort and contingent food delivery.
Dr. Dorothea Lerman: It’s unlikely you went through grad school without seeing this name. She is a multi-published scholar on a variety of behavior analytic topics including functional analyses, treatment for dangerous and disruptive behaviors, language development in disabled children, just to name a tiny fraction. She is currently a professor at the University of Houston.
Dr. Stephanie Peterson: Current professor of psychology and Department Chair at Western Michigan University, her primary focus has been in severe behaviors in children with disabilities. While her publication record isn’t as prolific as her colleagues, she has served on multiple editorial boards over the decades. She has also been on several boards of directors, including president of the Michigan Licensing Board.
Dr. Dean Williams: Currently a professor and researcher at University of Kansas, Dr. Williams’ published works show a variety of interests including the effects of drugs on human behavior, stimulus control across reinforcement and punishment, and choice. He is also one of the few researchers to reach across scientific fields when conducting research, something not often seen in ABA.
So, what observations can be made here? Let’s just start with the obvious: No one on this board is autistic and all of them are white. I can’t speak for sure if anyone is neurodivergent, as that is less likely to be shared. Also given their ages, it’s unlikely that if some of them were neurodivergent even they might not know, especially the females.
Regardless, the identities aren’t there, which means their access to the communities and understanding of autistic culture is also not there.
This is par for the course though with ABAI, so let’s move on.
All of the members of this task force are prolific researchers who have likely worked together often throughout the years based on their overlapping backgrounds. There’s pros and cons to that. Pros include a likely synergy within the group that’s pre-existing. That is, there’s no need to get to know each other and figure out how to work as a group, which can sometimes delay productivity as members of a group figure out each others’ strengths, weaknesses, and just general work styles. They are likely also familiar with each other’s research, especially those whose names are familiar to pretty much the entire field of ABA, like Dr. Lerman.
There are a couple of cons though. In looking at these backgrounds, things start to seem a little incestuous. Everyone knows each other, has heard the other’s views and findings through written works, spoken works, and previous interactions. There’s already a history of reinforcement for certain points of view because that’s how culture works and yes, this area of ABA is a culture.
I say “this area” because the professor emeritus who has been doing research for 30 years is not the same as the practitioner who has been a case manager for 20. Neither of those are the same as the autistic person who has had to experience the world through autistic eyes from inside or outside of the field.
And none of them are the same as the autistic person who has experienced the world through autistic eyes and then been sent to the Judge Rotenberg Center.
They do exist though, and they are talking. They are being silenced– but I’ll get to that later.
There’s one more important point I’d like to make about the members of this task force.
All of them have done research on “problem behavior” and punishment. Now that’s not necessarily a bad thing. After all, that is the core of the problem here. Judge Rotenberg Center insists that its methods are necessary and effective for reducing dangerous behaviors. It’s also important to point out that not all of this research has necessarily been to tout the inarguable benefits of punishment either. Dr. Lerman and Dr. Perone have both examined the need for more research and better understandings of punishment, as well as the potential negative outcomes of both reinforcement and punishment-based techniques.
Here’s my issue: No one has made waves on this topic. While none of them have direct connections to the Judge Rotenberg Center, they also seem to be very benign choices in terms of criticism. It seems to me that if you’ve got a fight on your hands – dare I say a “fray”– would you not want to invite your “enemies” to the table? Neutrality is important, absolutely, but you also need the extremes to state their pieces as well. If you want to make a task force that is truly representative and intersectional, it should be absolutely impossible for them to come to an agreement about it on day one, and that does not seem to be the case with this group.
This is not to insult their intelligence, critical thinking, or their integrity as members of this task force. This is to point out a very real and human issue in all of research and science and that is bias. The research backgrounds all suggest similar views and slowness to progress, including reducing non-harmful stereotypy including with punishment, and compliance training. I say slow to progress, because the specific studies I’m referring to were from the early 2000s. Yes, I understand that was 20 years ago, but that’s still too recent to claim that the issues critics point out about ABA are “old ABA.” That’s a problem.
There was also nothing mentioned about including or examining the numerous testimonies, videos, and literal death reports from Judge Rotenberg Center. In fact, the actions of professionals connected to the JRC have shown an active attempt to avoid including these in any decision-making process at all costs.
Here’s the final nail in the coffin: A panel discussion defending the use of CESS at the Judge Rotenberg Center and their presence at the conference just happened, and it consisted of almost every member of the task force.
That is inexcusable. Clearly, the decision has already been made, and it has nothing to do with science or data, and everything to do with finances and ego.
Decisions and Input are Still Behind Closed Doors
Now to be fair, they did say ABAI wanted to hear from the community. This was their rebuttal to the accusation, including from Dr. Tarbox and Dr. Odum, that decisions are being made behind closed doors and without input from the field. ABAI invited members to “submit their opinions” to help with the process of determining whether or not they will continue to invite JRC to promote their methods at their convention.
Yes, ABAI members. Which means you have to be a paying member to express your opinion in a way that they deem acceptable. I have a few questions now: 1. Are you really having trouble finding out the opinions on this matter from within the field? Seems like that’s kind of what started all of this. 2. Over the multiple decades that this has been discussed, many activists have canceled their ABAI membership in protest of their continued support of the JRC.
Man, that’s awfully convenient isn’t it? So now you can say you opened the door to input from a “randomized” group and look, it just so happens the majority of them reflect your previous view.
And yes, that is ABAI’s view. They can say all they want that a submission’s inclusion does not imply endorsement, but here’s the thing: When there were open nominations for board members, all nominations for autistic advocates were mysteriously denied. When social media began encouraging dissension at all of the very numerous panels they had for JRC at the Boston 2022 conference, suddenly all of the times and locations were pulled, changed, and released electronically to attendees.
The point is ABAI seems to be totally unaware of the opinions in the field, despite them being impossible to ignore on social media, yet they are clearly seeing what’s going on because their behavior shows a direct reaction to it. Yet they have openly admitted that the only opinions they will consider are those from paying members of their organization, and even then, they have made it clear that the only opinions they will consider are the ones that they like.
You can’t say something is baseless when the information is freely available…
This is my absolute favorite line in the entire letter: “…the claims of conflict of interest in the review that have been suggested by some on social media are without basis.”
I don’t know if they really don’t understand how the internet works or what, but, um… here’s the basis:
Current board of directors at Judge Rotenberg Center:
- Henry Slucki
- Thomas Brady
- Jessica E. Van Stratten
- Richard Mallott
- Josh Pritchard
- Jeffery Sanchez
- Ronald Van Houten
- W. Joseph Wyatt
Donors to ABAI:
- Josh Pritchard
- Ronald Van Houten
- And…
Financial support, especially on a GOLD level, from the very people under fire is the definition of a conflict of interest.
Not to mention ABAI’s very own president, Dr. Carol Pilgrim, let out everything anyone needed to know about what they stand on this issue during a panel discussion at the 2022 conference.
Yes, that’s the president of ABAI calling criticism of the JRC “histrionics” and referring to it as “alternative facts.”
I really can’t get over the fact that she actually said it. Everything about ABAI’s behavior has mirrored that of a typical right-winger, and yes, that is a problem. The term alternative facts demonstrates an inherent lack of understanding for how science works, not to mention a basic grasp of words and their meanings. This is who is supposedly taking action and addressing these issues.
Let’s cut the bullshit.
In describing their long-winded process for decision-making, ABAI insists that they are taking action appropriately in response to the “recent” controversy surrounding JRC. It is literally impossible to believe that anyone at ABAI thinks this is recent. There have been protests at ABAI pretty much every single year for their affiliation and continued support of JRC for well in excess of a decade. The fact that they put together a task force in late 2021 has nothing to do with their concern for this issue and everything to do with the mounting pressure from activists.
Social media is a double-edged sword. It is definitely responsible for some of the world’s worst problems. At the same time, it has amplified the right voices to the point that their attempt at planned ignoring has now been dubbed ineffective. Thus, ABAI determined it was time to adjust the treatment plan, hence their now infamous letter.
Social media has allowed BCBAs such as myself to gather information and change our practice in a way that never would have been possible. This is not to excuse the part we played in promoting harmful practices, but rather to point out the fact that this information is literally in everyone’s faces. If you are in the ABA field, there is no way to not see these points without actively ignoring and dismissing them.
And that’s exactly what’s going on.
In conversations about this topic, advocates are regularly banned from groups, and their comments deleted. In a recent thread on facebook in which criticism was once again referred to as “misinformation” and critics were referred to as “random BCBAs on the internet,” not worthy of time, Jennifer Msumba offered her input. The OP, a member of the board at JRC, deleted her comments and refused to elaborate as to why. He merely stated he couldn’t have her comments on his page.
JRC continuously falls back on their own data, referring to the research that punishment works, and claims that anything to the contrary is a lie. Ironically, they have been caught in lies on multiple occasions, and continue to do so up to and including their most recent panels at the 2022 conference.
They claim there is no data connecting electric shock to anxiety, PTSD, or depression. Perhaps not in JABA, but there are multitudes of it in clinical psychology – you know, the field that deals with these things. They stated that the majority of their students were not POC, but their own statistics that they have to release say otherwise. They claim they are not the only ones using contingent electric shock, but that is untrue. They are literally the only ones left.
Apparently the idea that electric shocks cause pain is also just a misunderstanding of how electricity works.
I could give my thoughts on that, but Jennifer Msumba said it best.
While ceasing to support the JRC at the conference is indeed taking a stand, ABAI has an ethical to do so. They have an obligation to cut off panels supporting electric shock until research shows that it’s appropriate, not until research shows that it’s inappropriate.
That research would need to be done by third parties not in any way affiliated with JRC.
Our ethical guidelines literally require us to stop a treatment as soon as there is evidence that it could be harmful. Denying the existence of evidence does not make it disappear. Testimony from people receiving our services is data. Data showing a behavior decreasing is not justification for its continued use. We need to understand what we are measuring and what we aren’t (link). If we are going to scream about being scientists, then we need to be scientists.
Not to mention, their data is shit. They readily admit they have clients who, in their opinion, can never be completely faded from the GED. That is not an effective treatment. Treatments that can never be faded are not effective.
None of their behavior reflects science, it reflects cult behavior.
The bottom line is that ABAI has made its stance on JRC and CESS already. At the 2022 conference, the task force stood up for the JRC, its lies, its practices, and dismissed criticism as “misinformation” or outright lies. Staff at the JRC openly spoke over victims and autistics advocates. Carol Pilgrim’s comments were probably the highlight of it all. Her dismissing everything she had just heard from concerned practitioners, including autistic ones, with the tone one would take when speaking to a petulant 5 year-old was all I needed to hear.
The letter, the task force, the claims of wanting to hear all perspectives, it’s all performative. Support for JRC is support for their egos and support for their wallets. There are serious competing reinforcers here. The contingencies in place do not leave any room for ethical decision-making or appropriate action.
There’s a reason a number of SIGs have pulled out of ABAI and the UK Society for Behavior Analysis wrote an open letter condemning ABAI’s actions. In addition, major ABA organizations, even some with questionable practices of their own, have found the proverbial balls to make a direct statement against the use of contingent electric shock, brilliantly choosing to call it A Consensus Statement.
They can yell all they want about science and data, but their actions speak louder than their words.
The entire board and its task forces need to be dismantled and a new election held in its place. That election should be open to all practitioners, regardless of their paid membership status, and any and all BCBA nominations should be accepted and given an equal place on the ballot.
As far as ABAI’s support for the JRC? Fuck the task forces. Follow our own ethics code. Cut them off now, then examine the data. Only this time, examine all of it.