The Hidden Racism in Culturally Sensitive Therapy

The unintended consequences of modern therapy’s obsession with racial identity

Is culturally sensitive therapy tricking us all into becoming racist? I recently had the opportunity to be interviewed, and the subject of counselors promoting multiculturalism came up. Through the course of the conversation, it was noted that most therapists are white women. 

After reflecting for a few days, I started to wonder why the conversation had turned into a racialized discussion when I knew how quickly you can be misunderstood when you refer to people as groups rather than individuals.

A quick look over my recent research reminded me that the major psychology-based organizations are filled with racialized content that labels people according to groups. Even in the past, a preponderance of white female therapists is a demographic detail that has been a source of internal consternation for the profession. Since that is how it’s presented, that’s how I remember it.

Take this for example.

Going back as far as 1988 in Counseling Futures by Garry Walz, George Gazda, and Bruce Shertzer, the field was focused on racial groups, faulting themselves for not being more diverse. Even then, their idea of diversity was surface-level. You can see it in this quote where they discuss how to ‘fix’ the problem:

The recruitment strategy to attract new counseling trainees to counselor education programs needs a drastic new look to attract students who are: older, of color, dressed differently, speak with an accent, and are more evenly divided gender. The typical counselor education student today is white, young, and female. While this pattern continues to produce many fine counselors, a strong need exists for counselor “matches” with older, male clients from multicultural backgrounds.

Not only do we see counseling students segmented out as white, young, and female, but we can by implication gather that this is a problem. We can see admissions that this demographic bent produces fine therapists, side by side with a need for therapists to “match” with clients on traits as superficial as dressing differently.

At the time, focusing attention on race may have made a certain empathic sense. 1988 also saw KKK Grand Wizard David Duke run for president and he held a seat in the Louisiana House of Representatives from 1989 to 1992. 

It is hard not to think of those events without disgust and sadness that some people were still buying destructive beliefs.

Unfortunately, there were three problems with the strategy counseling adopted to remedy racism. First, empathizing or feeling bad for an individual or group is not a substitute for evidence that a proposed solution is effective. The only proof they cite that “matching” counselors help is anecdotes, and anecdotes are not evidence.

 The second problem is that if a decision is made based on anything other than evidence, that tends to put a moral valence on the solution. If a particular solution is considered ‘right’ on moral grounds (or would be embarrassing to someone important were it to be doubted), it becomes taboo to question it even if the evidence fails to support the premise.

Third, any course of action that isn’t focused on improving mental health above all will ultimately subvert that goal.

This plan set counseling up to enshrine a racist mindset rather than grow beyond it.

So while the rest of the world moved forward, and saw David Duke denounced and disenfranchised by political leaders, the hypothesis that therapists need to “match” clients on superficial race-based characteristics became an ideology.

That is what we see today when we look at race-based and other superficial cultural competencies in counseling and other therapy professions.

Today we can look at  Counseling the Culturally Diverse Theory and Practice ninth edition, the textbook for the vast majority of graduate clinical psychology and counseling programs. Something that you notice right away is that people are categorized by race.

Throughout the book, examples are given addressing, white students, and students of color. Here is an example from a section titled Reactions to the Course:

Reactions by the White student reveal immense anger at the content of Counseling the Culturally Diverse: Theory and Practice (CCD), and especially at the authors whom are labeled “hate-mongers” and “racists.” It is obvious that the student feels the book is biased and propagandistic. The language used by the student seems to indicate defensiveness and the material covered in the book is easily dismissed as political indoctrination.

Further down the page it continues:

It appears that the student feels unjustly accused of being bigoted. To feel less guilty, the student emphasizes that minorities are equally prejudiced against White Americans. Although it may be an accurate observation, it serves to make the student and other Whites less culpable by equating one form of bias with another. (Italics are added.)

It has been a long time since I thought it acceptable to speak in terms of “whites”, “blacks”,  or another other superficial characteristic that couldn’t be changed as a group moniker. Looking at the attached photo of the quoted page you can see the pattern of referring to people in race based ways not as individuals, along with the obvious gaslighting.

This is only the tip of the iceberg as far as this book is concerned.

Another thing is clear, one of the dangers in trying to show how racist and racialized the psychology fields have become is that even to explain what’s happening you have to focus your attention on race and use racial terms. Using that language, even to describe what’s happening, makes it easier to think that way.

The danger then is that the more normal that seems, the more vigilant you have to be in remembering to think of individuals.

Now that I’ve noticed this, going forward I’m going to be more careful to make note of individuals even if I have to discuss the racist group based language rampant in counseling and psychology.

That said, let’s not forget, this material is being pumped out in mass by psychology professions and DEI based programs everywhere. Others are facing this problem too.

The reality is you can’t fight racism with racism. That is a recipe for strife. What you can do is face any insult big or small with grace and forgiveness. If you take the time to have a conversation, you might even discover you’ve had a misunderstanding.

About

Diogenes in Exile began after I returned to grad school to pursue a degree in Clinical Mental Health Counseling at the University of Tennessee. What I encountered, however, was a program deeply entrenched in Critical Theories ideology. During my time there, I experienced significant resistance, particularly for my Buddhist practice, which was labeled as invalidating to other identities. After careful reflection, I chose to leave the program, believing the curriculum being taught would ultimately harm clients and lead to unethical practices in the field.

Since then, I’ve dedicated myself to investigating, writing, and speaking out about the troubling direction of psychology, higher education, and other institutions that seem to have lost their way. When I’m not working on these issues, you’ll find me in the garden, creating art, walking my dog, or guiding my kids toward adulthood.

You can also find my work at Minding the Campus

Diogenes in Exile is reader-supported. If you find value in this work, please consider becoming a paid subscriber or buying Thought Criminal merch to keep this mission alive.