- action | issues
- Academic Freedom
- Books
- Classrooms
- Copyright
- Film
- Government Secrecy
- Hate Speech
- Internet
- LGBT
- Libraries
- Music
- Nudity & Pornography
- Political Correctness
- Political Dissent
- Public Spaces
- Race Ethnicity Gender
- Radio & Television
- Religion
- Science
- Sex Education
- Theater & Performance
- Video Games
- Violence
- Visual Art
- Youth
- advocacy | projects
- education | resources
in support of free expression
The information presented here by the National
Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC) may be freely redistributed in its entirety,
provided that readers are informed that the information was obtained from
NCAC's World Wide Web site and that credit is given to the appropriate source
of whatever information is used. Permission is expressly granted for the information
obtained to be made available for file transfer from installations offering
unrestricted anonymous file transfer on the Internet. Information found here
may not be sold for profit or incorporated in commercial documents without
the written permission from the National Coalition Against Censorship.
LAST UPDATED APRIL 2005
©Copyright 2005 NCAC
WEB DESIGN
Jeanne Criscola Criscola Design
NCAC Censorship News Issue #74:
Kill the Messenger
The American Psychological Association stepped into a hornets' nest when a scientific paper published in one of its most respected journals was attacked in Congress. The article compiled and evaluated the results of many studies on the psychological effects of child sexual abuse ("CSA"). Responding to complaints from conservative constituents, a Congressional resolution condemned the study as "severely flawed."
The paper notes that research on CSA defines it as encompassing "virtually all sexual interactions between children and adolescents and significantly older persons," and does not necessarily require physical contact. Because CSA covers such a wide range, including "repeated rape of a 5-year-old girl by her father and the willing sexual involvement of a mature 15-year-old adolescent boy with an unrelated adult," it's not surprising that the study found that the psychological effects vary, and may be less harmful or non-existent for some victims, while severe for others. The researchers note that "the lack of harmfulness does not imply lack of wrongfulness."
Sound pretty reasonable? Not to Congress, which apparently wants to suppress any study which even suggests that young people might not be harmed by sexuality, even if careful research supports that conclusion.
The APA, to its discredit, responded not by defending the integrity of the scientific process by which research is peer-reviewed, published, debated, and critiqued, but by "resolving to evaluate the scientific articles it publishes in light of their potential social, legal, and political implications." The APA says this isn't censorship—but what else can it be called?
For a critique from concerned scientists, click here. For an op-ed by Carol Tavris, click here.