Neck on the line time again. Because it's important. A thread...

I wrote a couple of tweets yesterday in response to the letter from Dr Kirsty Miller ( @juscallmekirsty) that was published and tweeted about by @BPSOfficial.

1/?? https://twitter.com/psychmag/status/1298569972340457473

I'm still not exactly sure where I stand on the publishing of the letter, but as I did say yesterday if racists in our profession want to out themselves, then that's fine by me.

2/??

Make no mistake though, the views espoused in that letter were deeply problematic, objectively racist, as well as full of inaccuracies.

Understanding that these views are present within our profession has merit, yes, but we must be careful about what we do with those views
3/??

While I acknowledge that we can't determine how other people think, or indeed what they think, I do worry about the presentation of such a letter by the BPS (intentionally or not) as something that is 'up for debate'. There is no fence to sit on here.
4/??

There is no neutral stance to take when it comes to racism. While people are either racist or anti-racist, the BPS as an organisation must choose to either be racist, or anti-racist.
5/??

I don’t *think* I take issue with the publication of the letter in itself.

However, there are certainly questions that could be asked about giving a platform to racism, questions which a number of my colleagues have, indeed, rightfully raised.
6/??

If the BPS is going to publish such views, I believe that they must do so without trying to remain neutral.

Racist views cannot go unchallenged and it can't be left to the readership to challenge those views.

7/??

If the BPS wishes to remain neutral in the racism 'debate', then it is taking the side of racism.

Readers of colour, including myself, notice this.

8/??

I disagree with the idea that Dr Miller's ideas aren't given legitimacy by publication. It seems that she has, in fact been emboldened by it, and a number of other colleagues emboldened in adding their own racist views to hers.

9/??

I appreciate that's possibly my own perspective.

I also appreciate the dilemma involved in publishing, and that opinion was sought from the Society's Diversity and Inclusion Taskforce.

10/??

My thought on this is that while @BPSOfficial and @psychmag should absoluty be a 'forum for discussion, communication and controversy', I'm not sure that racism really falls into the category of "things that are up for debate."

11/??

My belief is that if the BPS is positioning itself as an anti-racist organisation, then it must be made crystal clear that the views contained within that letter, and others like it, do not reflect the values of the organisation.

12/??

The notion that 'publication doesn't mean endorsement' isn't necessarily strong enough here.

Otherwise, any positioning of the BPS as anti-racist is just more noise without any actual substance.

We cannot be afraid to upset those who seek to uphold racism.
13/??

Finally, it was disappointing to see that what should have been a discussion about racism in our profession, derailed and turned into a discussion about the relative value of qualitative and quantitative research methods, and whether psychology is a science or not.

14/??

While this is an important issue, the ramifications of that discussion do not reach into the very lives of those who, as psychologists, we are supposed to serve, in the same way that institutional racism in the field of psychology certainly does.

End
15/15.