Diversity is Our Nature: Upholding Psychology’s Ethical Core Amid Political Storming
Vincent Malik Dehili, PhD, ABPP. CGP, AGPA-F
Education and Training Chair, American Psychological Association, Division 49
Introduction:
Reading The New York Times headline “Under Pressure, Psychology Accreditation Board Suspends Diversity Standards,” one could easily conclude that the field of psychology has conceded on its commitment to diversity. The article even suggests that accrediting bodies are “scrambling to purge diversity requirements” in response to political threats. In Buddhism, there is a teaching that a sturdy tree bends in strong winds to avoid snapping. In that same spirit, psychology’s accrediting body may be bending temporarily to the tempest of political pressure, but it can never break its fundamental principles. The nature of psychology is rooted in diversity.
A Narrow and Temporary Measure, not a Retreat
What the Times story omits is crucial context from the Commission on Accreditation’s (CoA) own March 21 memo. Far from a wholesale rollback of diversity, the CoA’s action is a targeted, interim pause on enforcing a few specific standards – those related explicitly to how programs recruit and retain diverse students and faculty. The suspension was voted on March 13, 2025, as an immediate and temporary step. Why? Recent executive orders and legal moves have put training programs in a bind. In January, the new administration issued an “Ending Illegal Discrimination” executive order – a directive cynically aimed at dismantling many Diversities, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) efforts. A federal court initially paused that order, but as of mid-March a higher court allowed it to take effect pending litigation. In other words, the accrediting body was caught between its accreditation standards and a sudden shift in federal law branding some of those standards as “illegal.”
Rather than risk the very existence of accreditation itself, the CoA chose to temporarily suspend enforcement of a subset of diversity-related requirements until the legal dust settles. This is not a permanent policy change, nor an abandonment of DEI ideals. It is a stopgap, made in a climate where refusing to adjust could mean jeopardizing the accreditation of all psychology programs (an outcome that would serve no one, least of all students from marginalized backgrounds). The Times piece failed to emphasize this narrow scope and temporary timeframe. The phrase “suspends diversity standards” paints with too broad a brush. What’s suspended is one facet of diversity accountability – not the concept of diversity itself, and not for the long term.
Crucially, the CoA explicitly reaffirmed that all other accreditation standards supporting diversity remain in full effect. Programs must still provide education and training that respects cultural and individual differences and prepares students to serve all segments of society. They must still uphold nondiscriminatory policies and avoid any actions that restrict access or success in training on irrelevant grounds. In the CoA’s own words, “the educational benefit of diversity is a core tenet” of psychology training that hasn’t changed. So, while one might imagine from the New York Times article that diversity values were tossed overboard to keep psychology afloat, in truth, these values remain like our sail and rudder—guiding psychology’s training programs through turbulent and temporary political storms. “Rather than passively anchoring without adapting to the current political context, an approach that could risk disaster for everyone within accredited training programs, our professional standards continue skillfully adjusting in the present to changing conditions and steering us actively toward the direction of inclusion, cultural humility, and ethical integrity.
Psychology Is Rooted in Diversity and Ethical Care
It’s essential to remember that psychology as a discipline is inherently grounded in diversity, cultural humility, and ethical care – no executive order can strip that away. Decades of research and ethical guidelines have taught us that effective psychological practice requires understanding people in their full cultural and contextual richness. Cultural humility is a cornerstone of therapist training: we learn to acknowledge our own biases, to respect clients’ diverse identities, and to adapt our approaches to each individual’s cultural needs. These commitments are enshrined in our ethics codes and accreditation benchmarks. Even now, amid political turmoil, every accredited program is still obliged to teach and model cultural competence and humility. Group therapists will continue leading difficult dialogues which honor the whole of a persons experience. Students will still be trained to consider their own positionality as well as how that intersects with their client’s socioeconomic, culture, trauma history, gender identity background. All the factors that make up the human experience because ignoring those factors would be negligent and ethical malpractice. In short, diversity is not a thread to be cut away, it is woven in the fabric of our understanding of mental health.
The commitment to ethical care for all clients remains non-negotiable. Accreditation standards or not, a training program that fosters exclusion or cultural blindness would fail to produce effective, ethical psychologists. Our science and ethics emphasize that mental health cannot be understood outside of cultural and social contexts. From the earliest psychology courses, we learn that what troubles the mind or spirit often cannot heal without deeply understanding the intergenerational influences of community, family, culture, and society. Just as we cannot understand or nurture a wilted flower without addressing the drought, we cannot fully support individuals without acknowledging and transforming the diverse systems influencing their growth. There is no self separate from others; to uplift individuals, we must attend compassionately to the diversity of the systems around them.”
Interdependence, Not Isolation – A Broader Lens
A Buddhist-informed perspective provides an essential insight at this moment: the wisdom of interdependence, or as Thich Nhat Hanh calls it, ‘interbeing.’ Interbeing is the understanding that nothing exists separately by itself; every person, event, and action arises in relation to countless other conditions and beings. Just as a flower is made up of non-flower parts: sun, soil, rain, and air, we too exist only because of the intricate intersection of the diversity of our web of relationships and environments around us.
From a trauma-informed perspective, we must carefully consider the harm that controversies like this can inflict. For many students and faculty from marginalized backgrounds, headlines about ‘suspending diversity’ can be deeply retraumatizing—a painful reminder of past eras when their inclusion was viewed as optional or expendable. The fear and distress within our community are real and deserve compassionate attention. A trauma-informed approach urges us not to dismiss or minimize these emotional responses but to validate them with care and understanding. Psychology teaches us that when people feel threatened, they may either become still (freeze) or mobilize (fight/flight) to protect what they cherish. Currently, we are witnessing both reactions: some individuals are discouraged, while others feel galvanized to double down on inclusive practices. As a community, our responsibility is to hold space for both experiences, walking a mindful middle path that converts fear into compassionate action. Rather than becoming overwhelmed by the forest fires around us in the news, we must nurture the gardens within our immediate reach—our personal relationships with loved ones, colleagues, and students—assuring them they are seen, heard, valued, and held. This goes beyond prescribing self-care, each of us has a vital role for community-care for the garden of humanity in this moment: addressing flames as they arise, while remaining focused on cultivating seeds of connection, love, play, and sympathetic joy.
“It’s also worth approaching the accreditation board’s dilemma with a measure of compassion. Why extend compassion toward a decision that feels like a concession? A Buddhist lens reminds us to consider the suffering and good intentions on all sides. Compassion doesn’t imply agreement; rather, it means choosing not to respond with hatred. In our current political climate, anger is frequently conflated with hatred, yet I believe anger can serve as an intimate expression that reveals underlying emotions and draws people closer together through understanding. In contrast, hatred seeks only to tear people apart. I imagine the individuals on the board made the best decision they could within their circumstances. Were I in their position, I likely would have acted similarly to temporarily safeguard psychology training.
Rooted with Vigilance and Compassion
Now we must be vigilant as a field of this temporary pause. The CoA’s memo did not give a timeline, but it did tie its action to awaiting “further court guidance.” We should all watch those legal cases closely. If the landscape changes (e.g., the executive order is struck down or narrowed) the accreditation authorities should be ready to immediately reinstate the full breadth of diversity standards. And if they hesitate, rest assured that psychologists, students, and professional organizations will raise their voices. In fact, many in the field are already mobilizing statements and task forces to ensure diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility remain central in our accreditation criteria. Our collective message must be that this core value is non-negotiable.
Second, even during this suspension, programs can—and should—continue their diversity efforts proactively. Words alone are insufficient; our true values are revealed through our actions. While diversity might be affirmed on paper, we all recognize the difference between symbols and substance. The menu is not the meal. Practicing diversity cannot merely be about fulfilling written standards; there is no guarantee that diversity consciousness is genuinely enacted just because it appears in official documentation. As educators, we must actively keep diversity and cultural humility alive in daily training. Faculty can voluntarily audit curricula to ensure diverse perspectives are integrated, invite guest speakers from varied backgrounds, or maintain mentorship programs for underrepresented students. In other words, we can adapt skillfully to the current storm without losing sight of who we truly are.
Finally, we must approach this situation with enduring compassion and unity. It is easy for outrage to take center stage – and indeed, righteous anger has its place in propelling change. However, let us not lose sight of our shared humanity and the values that underly the spirit of diversity, equity, and inclusion. We fight for inclusion because we care about reducing suffering and fostering wellbeing for everyone. That includes those who disagree or those who fear these practices. A compassionate approach means we strive to keep communication open, educate misunderstandings, and shine a light of curiosity in dialogue without demonizing those holding differences from us. In group therapy and in life, we must continue to create a holding environment for the difficult emotions we experience from the weather around us and channel them into growth.
Conclusion
In the grand tapestry of psychology’s history, this moment reminds us that progress is not linear; sometimes we encounter knots in the strings of our systems, which we must patiently untangle. What matters is that we do not lose the thread. The Buddha taught the wisdom of the Middle Way—avoiding extremes and binaries. Here, that middle path is neither panic nor complacency, but rather active, principled engagement. We acknowledge the reality of political pressures without naïvely ignoring them, yet we refuse to relinquish our unwavering commitment to equity. We adapt to these pressures, but we never compromise who we fundamentally are.
As I often remind my colleagues, we must not blame the flower for wilting in a drought; instead, our duty is to water the garden. Even if new policies limit how we formally tend to diversity, we must find other meaningful ways to nurture every budding psychologist and the countless clients they will serve. The roots of diversity, cultural humility, and ethical care run deep in psychology, holding strong even amid this storm. It’s up to each of us to ensure that when the storm passes, we replenish the soil and enable these ideals to bloom more vibrantly than ever before.
References
In this challenging time, I call for vigilance, compassion, and steadfast advocacy. Let us hold our leaders accountable, support our peers, and continue weaving a more just, inclusive, and compassionate future for psychological education. Our interdependence means each of us has a role in this collective effort. Through mindful action and courageous hearts, we will move through this period together—undeterred in our mission to nurture psychologists who embody the very best of humanity.
Let us place humanity over productivity, remain resolute yet kind, fierce yet tender, and may we never forget that the health of our discipline, just like nature and society itself, flourishes only with diversity.
April 25, 2025 NCSPP Position Statement CoA Changes. Pressure, Psychology Accreditation Board Suspends Diversity. (2025March 27). New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/27/health/psychology-dei-apa-trump.html
The Commission on Accreditation’s (CoA) (April 25, 2025}. President News. Retrieved from https://thencspp.org/ncspp-position-statement-coa-changes/