NARTH President Julie Hamilton has responded to this week’s report that NARTH Executive Secretary and JONAH co-founder and co-director Arthur Abba Goldberg is a convicted felon.
On the NARTH website, Hamilton makes a number of assumptions and seems blind to the actual issues raised. She says that activists, “unable to silence NARTH’s message, resort to attacking NARTH’s members.”
I can only speak for Ex-Gay Watch, but when the story broke, it never occurred to me that Goldberg’s exposure was ipso facto a way to discredit NARTH as a whole. It discredited Goldberg, certainly, and by extension JONAH. It is primarily NARTH’s own response that will reflect on the organization – though admittedly, the omens in Hamilton’s article are not good.
Goldberg exposé part of coordinated strategy against NARTH?
Hamilton ties in the Goldberg story with a protest staged against NARTH in Florida last November:
[A] journalism student leading the November protest shouted into a megaphone that they had been unsuccessful in stopping the work of NARTH through counter conventions, so they would instead begin to target the individual members of NARTH. Following these threats, there have indeed been attempts to discredit both NARTH members as well as non-members who do similar work.
Again, I speak only for XGW in saying that we know nothing of the group shown in the video, or the identity of the media student speaking through the megaphone. TWO organized speaking and protesting events at the same conference, but XGW is not aware of a connection to the group in the video.
NARTH members being targeted?
Hamilton continues:
In one recent report from England, a journalist posed as a client seeking help for unwanted homosexual attractions. He set up two unsuspecting therapists, claiming to want help from them, secretly recorded their conversations, and then contacted their professional organizations to seek action against them. That same journalist is reportedly assisting others to disrupt and discredit an event in Ireland this week.
She is referring to Patrick Strudwick’s report in The Independent earlier this month. During his investigation, Strudwick encountered prominent reparative therapist and NARTH representative (as well as disciple of Richard Cohen) Paul Miller, who encouraged sexual arousal as part of therapy sessions, and made inappropriate self-disclosures about his own sexual habits and homosexual attractions. The NARTH President’s response is to blame Strudwick for his tactics, while saying nothing of the behavior of its own members.
Hamilton then turns to the Goldberg story:
In another report, activist groups investigated the background of a NARTH board member in order to publicize his past wrongdoing in an attempt to discredit the organization.
XGW repeats: The report discredits Arthur Abba Goldberg in the first instance, not NARTH. It is this weak, defensive and myopic response that reflects badly on NARTH itself.
“It doesn’t discredit the science”: NARTH misses the point
NARTH does not rise or fall based on the actions of individuals. NARTH is a scientific organization upholding the research behind the issue of homosexuality and defending the rights of clients to seek therapy for unwanted homosexual attractions. NARTH is not responsible for the actions of its members, nor do the actions of NARTH members change the scientific data. The research stands regardless of the attacks launched by activists who are avoiding the data by focusing on individuals. Emotionally based campaigns and character assassinations do not change the research, nor do they diminish the right of clients to pursue their personal goals. NARTH will continue its mission as a scientific organization despite the propaganda, and the research will continue to speak for itself.
Who said this was about the scientific research? XGW and others have worked tirelessly to present plenty of evidence against the supposedly scientific claims of NARTH and reparative therapy over the years. This is about the trustworthiness and character of an important leader in the ex-gay movement. It is about the integrity of a man whom struggling gays and lesbians have trusted with deepest aspects of their lives and sexuality. Call it a “character assassination,” a “personal attack,” or what you will, but does NARTH really believe that character, integrity and trustworthiness is not vital to leaders who set themselves up as moral, religious and scientific authorities?
It should be noted that Hamilton cleverly hedges her bets. In the first paragraph, she dismisses the claims against Goldberg, implicitly defending him. In the second she ensures that NARTH’s back is covered if it all blows up for Goldberg: Nothing to do with us. We’re not responsible for him, and we don’t stand or fall on the behavior of a handful of our members.
Well, no one to my knowledge claimed NARTH stood or fell on Goldberg alone. This response does say a lot about the organization.
She ends (not in the web version, but in a separate email version) by giving some PR ideas to NARTH members. She tells them:
Try using case studies, success stories, testimonials or examples of how others used your product or service successfully. Solicit material from clients and vendors, or ask your readers to write. It’s a win-win! You get relevant content, and they get exposure.
Insert a “read on” link at the bottom of your article to drive traffic to your website. Links are tracked, allowing you to see which articles create the most interest for your readers.
This slick advice for damage-limitation is a rather cynical addition to the published version of the article.
So, what would the proper response be from NARTH? There are questions to be answered:
- Prior to this week, was NARTH aware of Arthur Abba Goldberg’s status as a convicted felon and a disbarred attorney?
- If so, what bearing did Goldberg’s conviction for fraud and disbarment (on grounds of character) have on his position as Executive Secretary of NARTH?
- If not, does NARTH’s policy not require such disclosures from its senior officers?
- If Goldberg did not disclose his criminal past, what action is it taking now, in light of the reports?
- Since Patrick Strudwick’s investigative report involving a NARTH representative in the UK was also mentioned, is NARTH taking any action to address the allegations made? Does it believe Paul Miller’s alleged behavior is ethical?
Instead of blaming the LGBT community, as Goldberg has tried to do, the appropriate response is for NARTH to ask some serious questions of Arthur Abba Goldberg – and itself.
See every comment by Naggie Gallagher, Debbie Thrman, and Karen booth… to name a few.
We’re victims. Victims, I tell you. Won’t someone think of the children and all the other victims…
just don’t think of the actual victims.
NARTH basically promotes fraud. They have never produced any convincing evidence that anything they do or promote will lead to a change in sexual orientation. They aren’t even trying to produce the evidence, because they know that nothing works to achieve their stated goal.
So, perhaps they aren’t so concerned with little multi-million dollar fraud committed a few years ago by one of their Board Members. Since nobody else in the room has clean hands after handling so much snake oil, perhaps they see themselves as fellow grifters.
However, their lack of backround checks on Goldberg (which would have turned up his felony fraud backround and might have had some bearing on his responsibilites as Executive Secretary, particularly on the issue of handling organizational money) raises the worry that they are not detecting any previous convictions by other members of NARTH for rape, child abuse, stalking, domestic violence or other serious crimes. Many ex-gay practitioners either avoid state licensing requirements by acting as religious counselors or “life coaches” or have been kicked out of their professional associations like Richard Cohen.
Since NARTH peddles a false product, I doubt they are terribly concerned with the welfare of the clients who come to their members. I would think though, that for their own survival, they would make at least some effort to weed out the most egregious predators through backround checks. So far, it seems that they could not be bothered.
I would add “should they exist” to that sentence as we have no idea if any of their other members were convicted of anything. Unfortunately, apparently neither does NARTH. That is even worse when it comes to organization officers.
David Roberts,
I fully agree. “should they exist” should have been the last three words of that sentence. Thank you for catching that.
“It doesn’t discredit the science”: NARTH misses the point
Apparently the Goldberg exposé touched a nerve.
My last post is in the spam box (too many links). Could one of the Dave’s yank that out for me please?
You know NARTH is in trouble when it hides behind “the science. What science?
Is it the embarrassing sham study in conducted to preempt the APA report last year? This “study” included aversion therapy to show that “Change is Possible”. They tried to pass off this joke as “peer review”.
Which brings me to the basic point — NARTH does not do real research. It essentially repackages old studies and presents their anachronistic findings as new evidence. So, we can’t debate NARTH on the peer review research, as they suggest, because they don’t have any. Should we also engage them on the symphonies they have not yet created, the movies they have filmed or the ballets they have produced? With NARTH, there is no there, there.
When discussing the “research” and the “science”, maybe it is talking about the time the group blatantly distorted the findings of Lisa Diamond?
Let’s face it, NARTH is a shady group of snake oil salesmen. NARTH defending itself on the basis of science is like Ben & Jerry defending its ice cream on the merits of how it will help you lose weight. Please….
Whem Julie Hamilton says that “NARTH does not rise or fall based on the actions of individuals”, who is she kidding. It is nothing, if not a collection of irresponsible or avaricious individuals who peddle junk science and mindless myths for personal gain. Arthur Abba Goldberg is indicative (on a much larger scale) of the moral turpitude of NARTH therapists, who are all running a scheme. They are all offering therapeutic promises they cannot deliver and making money on a faulty product.
Finally, just for the record, Truth Wins Out did not plan the West Palm Beach rally. I was not personally there, however one of our board members was on-hand. The protest was, indeed, planned and put together by eager college students. Thus, hardly an evil plot by seasoned gay advocates. Shame on NARTH for trying to portray these teenagers and young twenty-somethings a some sort of scheming cabal.
NARTH is truly a pathetic quack organization whose initial response to the Goldberg scandal shows its true colors.
“its about the science” they say? Hahahahahahahhaahaha
Sorry for the typos – I’m in a hurry to get out of the house!
In one recent report from England, a journalist posed as a client seeking help for unwanted homosexual attractions. He set up two unsuspecting therapists, claiming to want help from them, secretly recorded their conversations, and then contacted their professional organizations to seek action against them.
Yes, because heaven forbid someone actually investigate the activities of professionals and report their unethical behavior to the appropriate professional organizations. I mean, the very idea of holding therapists accountable for their actions is preposterous, no?
Quite so Jarred!
I was just thinking about American Idol, AND where I used to work, which was Universal Studios as a character performer.
And where I work now.
American Idol expects their potential performers to have clean backgrounds. Several of them have gotten notice for being under warrants for anything from parking/traffic tickets to petty theft and assault…or, posing for racy pictures.
Universal has similar expectations of THEIR performers. We are in sensitive situations with children and the handicapped. And because it’s a diverse and open place that encourages ALL to apply to work there, those who harbor prejudice or hostility against the LGBT, women or the handicapped need not apply or are carefully weeded out during probation.
Which leads me to this issue of NARTH and EXODUS and so on.
A gay person, dealing with the fear of rejection, exposure, insecurity, prejudice and self doubt, is EXTREMELY vulnerable.
The lightweight dictum of NARTH that they ‘help those dealing with unwanted same sex attraction’ aren’t even ADDRESSING the reasons in the proper context in the first place.
So if you’re not, then you’ll inevitably apply the WRONG methods, focus and information towards that individual.
And WE all know that on it’s face, such therapy is exploiting all that I listed above, rather than looking to alleviate it properly.
A person who doesn’t have cancer doesn’t need chemo therapy and there is no doctor in the world that should insist a person has cancer when they don’t, and insist they should have chemo therapy when they don’t need it, and doing all this because the person seeking their help is AFRAID OF CANCER.
See what I mean?
A therapist like that would be committing something especially unethical and that NARTH or any similar entity gets away with is shows just how sturdy and pernicious the prejudice and assumptions about homosexuality are, regardless how detrimental it all is.
They deserve scrutiny and to be shut down, just as a fake oncologist would who exploits fears of cancer would be.
And if we lived in a society that was eager to take away the civil and human rights of people with cancer, or those THOUGHT to have it or who were at risk of getting it, then the fake oncologist would be considered exceptionally CRUEL, not compassionate.
There are laws against fake doctors, fake diagnosis and fake approaches to issues that don’t require their services, whether fake OR not.
So, why IS it so hard for these people to be held accountable? Because exploiting the especially vulnerable is tactically something NO professional would or should do in the first place.
Your point is a good one, Regan. The problem as I see it is that tou could make exactly the same statements about religion. Which should not be too surprising given the religious influence on NARTH.
A paeaphrase from Pat condell I’ve used many times illustrates this:
When someone tells you that you are dirty, sick, unclean, and especially, sinful and in need to salvation (which they offer, of course, at a price) it is the biggest mistake in the world to assume that 1) it’s true, and 2) that they are telling you for your benefit, and not for their own. The concept of sin, especially YOUR sin, becomes the expression of their will and their way of seeing the world, and if it is making you unhappy, or interfering with your life, then that is probably a good test of its truth and its value. You pay the price with happiness in your life, while they reap the benefits– or, validation– and the “glory”.
@ Ben in Oakland: Or to paraphrase Scott Adams, creator of Dilbert, “The quickest way to sell someone deodorant is to tell them they stink.”