An open letter and call to action regarding the 20/20 Initiative
Michael D'Andrea
October 30, 2009
An Open Letter and Call for Action
Aloha David;
While I respect your many years of work and contributions to the counseling profession, I am writing to you to express grave concerns about the continuing suggestions related to the development of a definition of counseling that can be universally accepted by the members of the American Counseling Association (ACA). In addition to expressing the concerns I and a growing number of multicultural-social justice advocates in ACA are having regarding the process and present outcomes of the 20/20 Initiative, this letter represents a “call to action” that is briefly described below. Given the numerous emails you have sent to different counseling groups and individuals, I believe you are acting as one of the central persons in the 20/20 Initiative and are therefore the appropriate person to express the following concerns and describe alternative proposed action strategies and to have this email disseminated to other members of the committee.
As the 2008-2009 president-elect of the Counselors for Social Justice association and the current president of this organization, I have gained insights into the process of the 20/20 Initiative and the ensuing proposals for the definition of counseling from our organizational representative to that Initiative, Dr. Rhonda Bryant. Based on an on-going assessment of the process and suggested definitions proposed by the 20/20 Initiative, many members of the CSJ Board of Directors and individuals in our general membership as well as allies in other associaions have expressed frustration, disappointment, and feelings of being disrespected regarding the work of the persons involved in the 20/20 Initiative. Because I share these feelings, I am compelled to detail some of these frustrations, disappointments, and feelings of being disrespected both as an individual and as the president of CSJ. Again I want to emphasize that similar feelings have been expressed by other persons in CSJ as well as allies in AMCD, ALGBITC, ASCA, and some members in ASGW and ACES to name a few.
These feelings are largely stimulated by various aspects of the 20/20 Initiative’s process and current outcomes of this project’s efforts to come up with a definition of counseling that is allegedly supported by the majority of members in ACA.
In terms of the process of the 20/20 Initiative, I note that representatives from the associations participating in this project have been told that if they and their respective associations do not support an initial definition that was developed several months ago, their organization would not be allowed to have a place at the table for future discussion and voting on ensuing suggestions for different definitions of counseling. Furthermore, it is my understanding that ASCA was and continues to be eliminated from participating and having voting privileges regarding the 20/20 Initiative. If this understanding accurately reflects the decision to have ASCA excluded from having rights to discuss and vote on all proposals regarding the 20/20 Initiative, such action is in opposition to the transparent and democratic principles which I and other social justice and multicultural advocates operate. Such undemocratic practices represent one of the factors the underlie my and other persons’ feelings of frustration, disappointment and concerns about the disrespectful manner in which the Initiative is proceeding.
A second factor related to the 20/20 Initiative involves a potential faulty assumption regarding the “democratic nature” that persons in volved with the 20/20 Initiative seem to be operating. More specifically, this assumption is reflected in the assumption that the representatives to the 20/20 Initiative who represent different associations/organizations in ACA are effectively disseminating information regarding the Initiative to their constituencies and effectively securing feedback that is presented to the main body that is overseeing the 20/20 Initiative. I want to clearly point out that my consultation efforts with numerous persons in different ACA associations and related organizations do not support this faulty assumption. In short, a number of representatives to the 20/20 Initiative have not conferred with their group’s constituencies regarding the 20/20 Initiative, members of these constituencies have not had opportunities to confer with these representatives and, consequently, many persons in different ACA associations/divisions/ organizational entities not had the opportunity to express their views on the task and recommendations made by this Initiative.
This second factor illuminates the problem of operating from a form of “representative democracy” that reflects serious flaws when compared to “participatory” forms of democracy that can more effectively engage ALL the members of ACA and their divisions in more open and transparent and democratic process related to the creation of a definition of counseling that can be embraced by a majority of persons in ACA. I would be glad to consult with you and the 20/20 Initiative committee regarding low cost ways to promote a greater level of participatory democracy in this endeavor if you think that would be helpful.
A third factor related to the concerns, disappointment, and feelings of disrespect that I and many other multicultural-social justice advocate have regarding the proposed definitions of counseling that have been presented by the 20/20 Initiative thus far in the process is grounded in the failure of the 20/20 Initiative to explicitly include terms and concepts related to contextual, multicultural, and social justice counseling as they relate to the essential role professional counselors are ethically responsible to fulfill in a 21st Century society.
As you know, David, advocates in the multicultural-social justice movement have worked diligently over the past four decades to increase the awareness of leaders and members of ACA and their divisions regarding the essential importance of embracing these concepts as fundamental points that define the role and function of professional counselors. As a result of the continuing efforts of these multicultural-social justice advocates and their courage to withstand many personal attacks for this advocacy over the years, the multicultural-social justice counseling and advocacy paradigm has moved center stage in the profession. No longer is it accurate to say that this movement is moving from the margins as an emerging theoretical force. Indeed, recognizing the transformational changes that reflect the acceptance of multiculturalism and social justice frameworks in counselor education training, clinical practices, research endeavors, and convention presentations and conferences, the evidence is clear that this movement is indeed a major force that has "arrived" within our profession as it has in other related mental health-care fields as well.
With this in mind, I want to strongly assert that the failure to explicitly include statements related to contextual, multicultural competence, and social justice in a definition of counseling not only reflects an inaccurate view of where the counseling profession currently operates, but also represents a slap in the face of the thousands of persons in the profession who have invested much time, energy, and commitment (and especially the new members and students in our profession) to move the counseling profession from cultural encapsulation to cultural inclusivity. Again, like many other persons, I want to assert that the failure to explicitly include terms and concepts related to contextual, multiculturalism, an social justice in a definition of counseling represents a major step back from cultural inclusivity and a resurgence of cultural encapsulation in the American Counseling Association and some of its divisions.
Given these concerns, I plan to proceed in consultation with the members of the CSJ Board of Directors as well as our general membership and with allies in other ACA divisions to encourage the development of separate definitions of counseling that more clearly reflect our values and perspectives of the essential role and function of professional counseling. It is my hope that these consultation efforts will not only result in separate definitions of counseling that more effectively include statements related to the unique perspectives that each association operates, but to see if a different definition than the ones being promoted by the 20/20 Initiative can be developed and endorsed by multiple organizations in ACA who share similar frustrations and disappoints in the process and ensuing outcomes that are described above.
These advocacy efforts do not in any way suggest that I oppose the continuing representation of CSJ in the on-going 20/20 Initiative meetings. The representative from CSJ, Dr. Rhonda Bryant, has spent countless hours attending past meetings, reporting the actions taken by the 20/20 Initiative Committee, and advocating for the explicit inclusion of multicultural, contextual, and social justice terms and concepts in the definition of counseling. I personally want to publicly acknowledge and thank Dr. Ronda Bryant for these efforts and state my support for her continuing role as the CSJ representative in the 20/20 Initiative.
In closing, I want to emphasize that the regressive actions taken by the 20/20 Initiative in terms of failing to explicitly include terms and concepts of contextualism, multiculturalism, and social justice in a definition of counseling is, from my perspective, unfortunate and again an action that represents disrespect for the many multicultural-social justice allies and advocates who have successfully moved ACA and its associations to a greater level of multiculturalism, inclusivity, democratice desision-making, and social justice principles. While I respect the right of individuals associated with the 20/20 Initiative to proceed with the process to develop a particular definition of counseling, I want to emphasize my right and responsibility as an individual member of ACA to express dissent regarding the process and outcomes of this Initiative and to develop and implement alternative action strategies that support the interests, values, and perspectives of the allies in the multicultural-social justice movement in our profession.
In the continuing struggle for justice and peace,
Michael D’Andrea, Professor at the University of Hawaii
2009-2010 CSJ President;
And
The Executive Director of the National Institute for Multicultural Competence
Michael D'Andrea
|
|
Michael,
I tried to send the following message on the listservs you used.
After trying 5 times, it still keeps bouncing back. Would you please
forward my message too. Thanks
================================================
Dear Dr. Kaplan, Greetings While attending your session at the COPARC meeting in July, I had
raised the same issues that Michael has articulated at length. Dr.
Francene Haymon, past president of AMCD, had informed me that she had
the similar concerns about 20/20 vision and she was promised that the
necessary changes will be made. I as AMCD President and the AMCD
Executive council fail to understand the reasons why 20/20 vision
leadership committee is unwilling to be inclusive?
When shall we learn that all counseling dyads are multicultural or
cross-cultural, and hence, therein lies the significance of including
multiculturalism and diversity in 20/20 vision and forthcoming
strategic planning of ACA.
On behalf of AMCD, I have asked our governing council
representative, Dr. Cirecie West-Olatunji to express our strongest
disappointment at the forthcoming meeting on November 6, 2010. I hope
you and your 20/20 vision committee consider our request carefully and
favorably.
If there are some reasons that prohibit inclusion of multicultural
and diversity goals in 20/20 vision, we are eager to hear about them.
With best regards. Daya Singh Sandhu, AMCD President. |