This article is taken from the November 2022 issue of The Critic. To get the full magazine why not subscribe? Right now we’re offering five issues for just £10.

---

Mental illness is on the rise. Feelings of anxiety, vulnerability, mistrust, fear and powerlessness are all increasing. Many feel overwhelmed and paralysed in an unfair and unjust world as passive victims of events that just happen to them. Unfortunately, many of those exhibiting these symptoms are the ones being employed to tell you how to improve your own mental health. 

Aspiring clinical psychologists now routinely undergo training that builds upon the ideas of Critical Race Theory (CRT) to ensure they see themselves and their future patients through the prism of categorised binary societal divisions. These mandatory guidelines come with incentivised funding provided by such bodies as NHS Health Education England and the British Psychological Society (the BPS). 

Critical Theory’s tenets assert that characteristics such as sex, sexuality, race and body size determine whether an individual is an “oppressor” or “oppressed”. This in turn fixes their status within society and therefore how they are treated. 

This is, for example, the thinking that informs Exeter University’s doctorate in clinical psychology policy which is taking the “decolonisation opportunity” to “challenge other areas of privilege and dominance such as heterosexism”, Bangor University’s course is committed to the “deconstruction of whiteness” and the clinical psychology doctorate at Hertfordshire University requires its students to familiarise themselves on the “White Supremacy” and intersectionality materials sent them before commencing their studies. 

These are not just formulaic but vapid expressions designed to tick boxes

These are not just formulaic but vapid expressions designed to tick boxes. Critical Theory’s influence is driving the abandonment of evidence-based psychological treatment and care. The research group at Lancaster University now admits to not having “the experience to support quantitative research” — which was previously a required standard in psychology. 

Instead, non-experts and activists are involved in the creation of academic clinical training and university courses. Remarkably, reducing the reliance on experts is broadcast as a goal. Those applying for the clinical psychology doctorate at Teeside University find their course is now committed to take a “non-expert position” to “loosen the profession’s grip on the ‘expert’ position”. In place of the academic method, “experts by experience” (i.e. those who have experienced mental illness) and activist groups have been recruited to contribute to courses. Liverpool University uses consultants from Black Lives Matter. 

The British Psychological Society directly encourages recruitment of trainees and staff with “lived experience” of mental illness. This is also the clinical psychology doctorate policy at Glasgow University, which has announced the “expansion of our teaching offers provided by people with expertise acquired through lived experience”. Little thought has been given to safeguarding the patients these trainees will have to treat. 

While there are clearly problems with inappropriately-trained people being responsible for patients’ mental wellbeing, the adoption of CRT also actively encourages psychologically damaging behaviours. These include encouraging judgment of and discrimination against those from “majority” groups; unquestioning “affirmation” of the experience of “minority” groups; a focus on discovering perceived “microaggressions” in outwardly everyday personal interactions; and assuming negative intentions of others’ actions (a “cognitive distortion” known as “mind reading”). 

Not only are trainee therapists encouraged to adopt these distorted thinking styles, they are also protected from any presumed difficulties they may face. Salomons Institute for Applied Psychology at Canterbury Christ Church University states that “placement allocation takes account of a trainee’s racial background, so that we aim to send trainees to placements in areas where they feel safest (e.g. we do not send a Black trainee to a White rural area for placement”.

Teeside has removed its “trainee of the year” award because it is “not in alignment with the ethos of celebrating diversity and difference” and “does not acknowledge the privileges inherent in the award’s criterion”.), Sheffield and Surrey universities have provided “Safe/Support Spaces” for trainees from minority backgrounds.

The discrimination inherent in a number of these statements is striking. They presuppose that students from minority backgrounds are unable to cope with everyday situations, including in Canterbury’s case, meeting white people in the countryside — a sweepingly prejudicial diagnosis. In contrast, white students are expected to listen to race-based criticism, and to “sit with” their discomfort. 

Clinical psychology is a challenging job that is not for the faint-hearted

It is very important to note what the job of a clinical psychologist entails: qualified professionals are expected to deal with patients who may be struggling with significant psychological difficulties; they may be distressed, agitated, aggressive or abusive. Clinical psychology is a challenging job that is not for the faint-hearted. How will mental health professionals who have been prevented from experiencing even the most minor inconvenience in their training be able to cope with this situation? 

One of the tools effective psychologists used to rely on (before the incursion of ideology, which now considers it “victim blaming”) is resilience-building — the exact opposite of what would-be psychologists (from designated disadvantaged groups only) are experiencing during their training. 

The irony is that while these groups are being protected from difficulties, they are also the ones being disproportionately recruited. Indeed, the theory is that the more “protected” or vulnerable characteristics that someone has, the more likely they are to be recruited. King’s College London states that it draws upon candidates’ equal opportunities data “(in order of priority): racial or ethnic minority background; disability; male sex, and positive action taken”.

Surrey University has a similar hierarchy of preferences, and states that “presence of more than one protected characteristic will have a cumulative impact”. This puts us in the surreal position where recruitment for a job dealing with distressed and unpredictable people depends not on resilience and ability to cope with difficult situations, but instead on the perceived vulnerability of the applicant’s identity groups. He or she will then be sent out into the real world as an accredited professional meant to be able to help others deal with their difficulties. 

Until our governing bodies and healthcare providers acknowledge and face up to the consequences of allowing activism into healthcare, not only will patients fail to receive appropriate care, they risk being mistreated by the very people who are meant to be helping them.