In correspondence published in January 2005 by Teach The Facts, the professional American Counseling Association said it found merit in six specific ethical-misconduct charges against ex-gay activist Richard Cohen. ACA said it approved the charges, which were sufficient for membership expulsion for life. Cohen ‘s expulsion was made final in May 2002. (Previous XGW coverage.)
From The Washington Blade, March 4, 2005:
Wayne Besen tells the Blade that Cohen has, for three years and counting, failed to disclose his expulsion to the public through the religious-right media that he uses to promote reparative-therapy activism.
"This speaks to the very base of [Cohen’s] credibility, honesty and respect in the field," Besen said. "He’s wronged the profession and community by not disclosing how he had a professional failure of this magnitude."
"As president of PFOX, he had an obligation to inform people that he was discredited. It should have been news a few years ago, but it wasn’t because he hid it."
In response, Cohen — president of PFOX and head of his own reparative-therapy marketing outfit — downplays his ouster.
Cohen tells the Blade that the expulsion from a voluntary organization is no big deal. He denies that he has concealed the expulsion — though he has not taken action to disclose it, either: Neither Cohen’s web site nor PFOX’s web site disclose the expulsion.
PFOX executive director Regina Griggs defends Cohen. Instead of addressing the ACA ethics charges, Griggs says that Besen "bends the truth," but she does not explain how.
Without addressing Cohen’s case specifically, Larry Freeman — ACA manager for ethics and professional standards — says expulsion is a very serious matter, one of malpractice against a patient.
Freeman says prospective patients should always investigate the backgrounds of their caregivers.
(Hat tip: Wayne Besen)
In the article, Regina Griggs says, “”The homosexual community and ex-gay community need to be better friends,” she said. “If anybody wants to overcome unwanted same-sex attractions, they have the right to seek help. If you’re happy [being gay], no one has the right to make a suggestion.””
I completely agree. Maybe organizations like hers could do more by bridging the gap by not fighting against gay rights or by ceasing to stereotype gays in a defamatory manner. This strikes me as the worst type of insincere.
“I completely agree. Maybe organizations like hers could do more by bridging the gap by not fighting against gay rights or by ceasing to stereotype gays in a defamatory manner. This strikes me as the worst type of insincere.”
Yep Yep. Everybody has the right to do what they feel is best for their life. However, no one has the right to demonize anybody else who does not agree with the path they have chosen, which is what the Religious Right has done.
I’m starting to learn that it is not so much the notion that “change is possible” that gays abhor, rather it is the implications of such a notion, and the possible subsequent denial of human rights.
In fact, I don’t think gays would have a problem with the notion that “gays can change,” as well as those who have changed, if the religious right stayed out of the business of those who are perfectly happy, comfortable being gay.
Nave
Hey Nave. Good post, I completely agree.
From The Washington Blade, May 4, 2005
Did you mean March?
Regardless, it appears that the Washington Blade published a response by the discredited Mr. Cohen.
I am wondering. Why are publications that are supposedly directed to gays publishing crap like this from known prevaricators? If memory serves, the Blade publications (NY, Washington, Southern Voice) also published the ex-gay ads from Exodus a number of years ago.
One might seriously wonder whether they believe it would be desired by their advertisers Most of these publications are advertiser-driven, after all. Or is this silliness desired by the corporations that run the publications?