On Friday, members of the IU community and concerned Bloomington residents were given the opportunity to talk with Sharon Brehm, IU professor of psychology and president of the American Psychological Association. \nRecently, the American Psychological Association passed internal legislation concerning the involvement of psychologists in government interrogation. While the resolution condemned all types of torture, it did not include a proposed section about eliminating the presence of psychologists in government interrogation as a form of protest against interrogation techniques. According to some in human rights circles, Brehm herself was an opponent against this section. \nHowever, we at the IDS Editorial Board support Brehm’s decision. The matter at hand is a conflicting one – how to define torture in a scenario where suspects might hold the key to protecting our citizens. However, were the American Psychological Association to stop aiding interrogators, the government would lose a helping hand, and society would lose a watchdog. Withdrawing all support might be an effective way to back up what the American Psychological Association might deem unethical, but to refuse to participate might also make matters worse. \nEvery group in this matter has a tendency to take its stance too far. Many argue that the government has overstepped its bounds in its zealousness to extract information, but the same might be said for opposition groups, whose lofty idealism has no place in a situation where the lives of the innocent are at stake. Moreover, the groups who set up the debate, such as the Progressive Faculty Coalition, Amnesty International and the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, all seem to have their prerogatives, and Friday’s discussion might have only served to put Brehm in the lion’s den. Brehm’s opposition to the rejection of all psychologists’ participation in interrogation represents a wise choice for checks and balances, whereas her opponents don’t seem to realize that their inflexible stand on principle might make a strong statement, but it will only make matters worse. Murky issues require cooperation and dialogue – those are the only ways to make sense of them.
DISSENT\nIf Sharon Brehm wishes to condone and endorse the interrogation and torture policies of the Bush administration, then her actions make sense. If, however, she wishes to paint her position as an attempt to straddle the fence and monitor detainees from psychological harm, she is strongly mistaken. Making any stance, even one that takes on the veneer of neutrality, is a political statement, and that statement implicitly supports the illegal actions of this administration’s torture policies.\nWe live in times when academia has become more politically charged than ever, and any attempt to make an apolitical decision is, in and of itself, a political one. By attempting to attain some sort of neutrality, Brehm has instead given the Bush administration a free pass. Her unwillingness to act has changed her organization into another cheerleader for the administration’s policies.\nAcademics can’t afford to sit on the sidelines any longer.\n-Peter Chen
