There has been a lot in the news recently about whether California will ban the practice of reorientation therapy with teens and have specific wording as part of informed consent for adults who seek such services. The California senate committee has passed Bill 1172 to the full senate for a vote. I was interviewed about this today for a story that may run over the weekend, and let me share a few thoughts.
In terms of practicing cognitive complexity, let’s take a look at this from the perspective of those who are advancing Bill 1172. It appears to be out of a genuine regard to protect young people who are believed to be at risk for a type of therapy that proponents of the Bill believe is ineffective and inherently harmful.
On the other side are those who disagree with the Bill for several reasons. The main concerns that come to my mind are these:
1. Venue. I tend to agree with the various CA mental health organizations that have either opposed the Bill or expressed concern that legislating around the complexities of clinical practice in this area is not a good idea. Although it isn’t the first case of making a technique or practice illegal, it is not a common practice at all. Opponents also point out that mental health professionals have regulating bodies that oversee clinical practice, license practitioners, and follow up on ethical complaints. Further, several mental health professions also convene working groups and task forces to review the extant literature and provide updates on research in this area, trying to make that information available to practitioners and the public alike.
2. Science around SOCE for teens. There is not much by way of well-designed research on adolescents who pursue sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE). I don’t think the 2009 APA task force report on appropriate therapeutic responses to sexual orientation was able to identify one such study (if memory serves); instead, the task force cited published articles with case examples of clinicians who worked with adolescents navigating sexual and religious identity conflicts. The science that seems to be cited is that of adults who participated in SOCE and then extrapolated to the adolescent.
3. Science around SOCE for adults. This brings up the research on SOCE for adults that has been reviewed by a number of professionals and organizations. The Bill references a number of mental health organizations. One concern is that the Bill uses stronger language than the organizations, in at least a few cases. For example, the Bill indicates that SOCE are ineffectual, while the APA task force tends to talk about not have sufficient evidence to support claims of change, that change is “uncommon”, and that newer studies are not sufficient in quality to answer whether or not SOCE does or does not change orientation. I would note that there are those who disagree with these conclusions, but even if you agreed with these conclusions, this language and these nuances are simply not seen in the Bill.
4. Beyond attractions/desires. The other issue that has been brought up by some of the CA mental health organizations that oppose the Bill in its present form has to do with how broad it is. I believe their concern had to do with a possible unintended consequence if clinicians were not to work with teens to explore a range of sexual and gender identity issues for fear of legal ramifications associated with Bill 1172. I would also note that the Bill covers therapies to change attractions, desires, and behavior. That is rather remarkable and extends far beyond therapies that purport to change orientation. Is anyone really wanting to get behind a legal measure that restricts a clinician from helping someone change their behavior?
5. Issues with informed consent. I wrote an article published in 1998 that argued that those who provide reorientation therapy should obtain advanced informed consent for their services. Informed consent refers to the kind of information the average person would need in order to make a meaningful, informed decision about services. Advanced or expanded informed consent provides even more details about services, potential benefits, risk of harm, and so on. What I did not like about the Bill is that the language overreaches in it’s claim of SOCE being ineffective and the extent of potential harms associated with it. These seem to me to be important considerations that need to be tied to well-designed research studies. The existing research (with the use of convenience samples and seeking out those who were not pleased with services) is fraught with too many methodological problems to be the last word on risks associated with this type of therapy. I am not saying that there are not risks. But I am saying that important questions about the interventions, expectations, and competence of the clinician should also be better understood.
I would also like to see an advanced inform consent form co-authored by people who represent the different stakeholders in these discussions. Is the research far enough along that we could see an informed consent form where people who might otherwise disagree on a number of issues can at least agree on what the public needs to know to make truly informed decisions about services?
6. Trends in providing services to minors. One last thought is that Bill 1172 appears to run contrary to current trends in terms of access to services by minors. I do not want to make too much of this because there are legitimate concerns here about potential harm to minors through misinformation about unrealistic expectations, stigma, and so on. But the trend is toward putting mental health and related health care decisions into the hands of adolescents rather than restricting access (think reproductive health, parental notification laws, issues with consent, etc.). This discussion moves in the other direction – toward restricting access even if an adolescent where to assent to treatment.
I want to reiterate that I recognize the concern that minors may be at greater risk in some ways. Of course a competent clinician knows that he or she has to obtain assent from any minor who seeks any kind of mental health services, even in cases where the parent have provided consent. If the minor does not assent to services, the services should not be provided. I also recognize that some minors may give assent because of pressure they feel from their parents – and this is a genuine concern.
Although I do not provide reorientation therapy, I would say that in my experience not that many teens request reorientation therapy. The interest in it tends to come more from the parents, so the idea that there could be pressure from parents is definitely something that should be addressed with all involved. I think the best way to handle the potential for undue pressure is to do a good and thorough assessment of goals, expectations, motivations, and so on. I am really open to ideas on this one, but it is worth more reflection.
I am sure that there are other arguments both for and against the Bill. These are just a few thoughts. And I don’t intend to come across as a defender of reorientation therapy for minors. I have mixed feelings about reorientation therapy. It is not something I provide. My preference is to explore sexual identity questions and to navigate conflicts between religious and sexual identity concerns (following the SIT Framework). But I have defended the rights of clients to pursue such therapy if they are given sufficient advanced informed consent. I hadn’t thought about it that much for teens in part because I have not seen that many teens asking for it.
In any case, I hope these reflections show that this is at least a complicated issue. My main concern is that legal answers such as the one proposed rarely reflect the complexity inherent in providing clinical services.
UPDATE: CBN News ran a story on the CA Bill.
There is another story making the rounds on the internet. Baptist minister Sean Harris offered a ”special dispensation” to parents of gender nonconforming children. Here is a portion of the transcript from Good As You:
So your little son starts to act a little girlish when he is four years old and instead of squashing that like a cockroach and saying, “Man up, son, get that dress off you and get outside and dig a ditch, because that is what boys do,” you get out the camera and you start taking pictures of Johnny acting like a female and then you upload it to YouTube and everybody laughs about it and the next thing you know, this dude, this kid is acting out childhood fantasies that should have been squashed. Can I make it any clearer? Dads, the second you see your son dropping the limp wrist, you walk over there and crack that wrist. Man up. Give him a good punch. Ok? You are not going to act like that. You were made by God to be a male and you are going to be a male.
He has since that time offered a clarification that he misspoke and overstated what he was trying to convey. Thankfully, many Christians have rejected these suggestions and challenged his statements.
Harris raises a controversial topic that is actually difficult for many parents: How should Christian parents respond when their child demonstrates gender nonconforming (or what is sometimes referred to as gender “atypical”) behaviors?
This is an area that I was asked to cover when I wrote Homosexuality and the Christian: A Guide for Parents, Pastors and Friends. I won’t be able to do the topic justice here, but you can take a look at Chapter 5 of that resource. As I mention there, gender nonconformity in childhood is often reported by adults who identify as transgender and by adults who identify as gay or lesbian. It is not uncommon for Christian parents to express concern about homosexuality (parents are not typically aware of Gender Identity Disorder) if their child is demonstrating gender atypical behaviors.
As you can imagine, this is very controversial in the field of psychology. I am not aware of any research suggesting that a parent can intervene to prevent homosexuality. It might be argued that since we do not know the causes of homosexuality (we tend to discuss Nature vs. Nurture but it is likely some combination that is weighted differently for different people), the environment could be addressed in some way, but it is unclear the extent to which that would be preventative as such.
There is some data that supports the view that parents can intervene to help reduce symptoms of Gender Identity Disorder (GID) in childhood (see the work of Dr. Ken Zucker on this). At the same time, the field has been trending toward a different strategy altogether when there has been a diagnosis of GID (i.e., use of hormone blockers to delay puberty until the child – then a teen – around 16 or so can make a decision about gender identity). This approach is also controversial. There are still those who intervene through therapy and coaching parents in how to redirect their child away from gender atypical behaviors (again, Dr. Ken Zucker being perhaps the most well-known example). But that approach looks nothing like what Harris was suggesting in his sermon.
If any good can come out of the statements by Harris, perhaps it is that parents will reject his suggestion (as they should) and look for helpful resources on whether or how they might respond to gender typical behaviors in childhood. There is still much that we do not know about gender atypical behavior, sexual identity, and gender identity, so there is a need for humility as we consider what is best for a child in these circumstances.
There has been a lot of discussion of Dan Savage’s recent diatribe on the Bible and on Christians at a national journalism conference, including discussions about insulting the estimated 100 or so teenagers who didn’t care to listen to him trash their faith in such a vulgar manner.
Predictably, people are reacting to his extremism. Before I get to that, let me say this: It is always interesting to hear someone who does not understand hermeneutics discuss the Bible. Not only does he make the mistake of claiming that Scripture is pro-slavery, but he proceeds to demonstrate his lack of understanding of the Holiness Code. It is obviously intuitively appealing to some of the students, as there is a fair amount of applause at different points. But throughout his rant there is a steady stream of teens leaving the session.
The timing is interesting; I actually just finished reading the biography of William Wilberforce (by Eric Metaxas), Amazing Grace: William Wilberforce and the Heroic Campaign to End Slavery. I’ll likely blog about the book because it is a helpful reminder of the role Christians played in creating a social conscience around those who were suffering and dying through slavery, which was clearly seen as an institutionalized evil by many evangelical Christians of that day. The book Amazing Grace is a good place to start for anyone who thinks Savage got any of this right about slavery. Also helpful might be Slaves, Women and Homosexuals by William Webb. I realize that neither of these resources is as colorful as Savage; but there is something to be said for historical accuracy.
What I want to focus on is not the claims themselves but the process that comes from any extremist rant or diatribe. It creates further division and emotional polarization. By not entering into a thoughtful, informed exchange of ideas around biblical scholarship, theological ethics, or care and protection of others, these kinds of outbursts only create more polarization. They can reflect the speaker’s lack of cognitive complexity around values and will drive others (in the audience – live or via the web) toward less cognitive complexity and tolerance of differing values. (In fact, the web is a prime setting for fostering value polarization.)
I do think that if I put myself in the speaker’s shoes and try to give him the benefit of doubt, which is difficult, I suspect that his primary value has been around protecting vulnerable youth – sexual minorities who he sees as at great risk of hurting themselves – which he associates with religious doctrine. But I do not think that the enemy here is Christianity, even when we are talking about a doctrine that teaches an orthodox sexual ethic. Many Christians would stand in solidarity against violence toward anyone by virtue of that person bearing the image of God. This would obviously include young people who are sorting out sexual identity questions or who have embraced a gay identity. By attacking Christianity, the speaker fuels emotional polarization which leads to further entrenchment because it limits cognitive complexity. It moves people toward black and white thinking that does not lend itself to living in a diverse society.
The enemy, then, is not Christianity; nor is it the gay community. Nor is the answer necessarily to foster a gay Christian community as such. Rather, I would say that all of these can coexist, but it means identifying the real problem, which I think is found (from a psychological standpoint) in the cognitive elements found in extremism, in how both “sides” in a debate can make certain values trump when they reflect their extreme views.
People who want to move forward in a world that reflects substantive diversity will be able to think in more complex ways, particularly around values and social issues. (Substantive diversity refers to really respecting genuine differences in values, hence the adjective “substantive”.) That does not mean finding ways to have other people agree with you. That does not mean winning the public debate. That does not mean passing laws that enforce your preferred values. No, it is recognizing the diverse world in which we find ourselves and creating space for that diversity of thought and values. The capacity to see that, to demonstrate perspective-taking and to find pro-social ways of relating to one another, reflects this kind of cognitive complexity.
Examples of extremism and lack of cognitive complexity are ubiquitous and can be found around many emotionally-charged social and values issues. This is just one recent example. And it is tempting to point a finger at the “enemy” who is opposed to your preferred values. Again, there is a resource in the field of psychology that can assist. The way forward is found in increasing cognitive complexity.
Reflections on England 1
Today is our last day in England. We’ve enjoyed being here for nearly a month now. As we make preparations to depart, I find myself reflecting on the experience. I hope to offer a few reflections over the next few weeks, but readers of this blog know that I am a sporadic blogger at best.
I would have to say that one aspect of our time in England that we really enjoyed was the opportunity to worship and fellowship with other Christians. We attended Holy Trinity (HT) Anglican Church in the center of Cambridge. It is an evangelical church in the best sense of the word. 
The worship was “lower” church, with a drum set and band placed right in front of the altar. In some ways worship was no different from what you would find in an evangelical church in the states (or the “colonies” as my one friend was fond of saying). Having been in the episcopal church previously (and for over 10 years), I tend to prefer a “higher” church worship. The Book of Common Prayer is such a well-written theology of prayer and worship that it is sometimes unfortunate when it isn’t used. However, a lower church taps into the vibrancy of worship that can sometimes be lost in higher church worship, and HT is also right in the heart of University of Cambridge and has adapted services to the interests of students, I imagine.
I could also add that, unfortunately, many – not all – higher churches are also much more theologically liberal, and there is nothing as disconcerting as going to a high church where the people running the service do not actually believe what they recite. (I sometimes wonder about the intellectual integrity of making a career in
the church if you no longer believe fundamental tenets of Christianity.) So we avoided that scene. No, the folks at HT believe what they teach and preach and sing and so on. We were warmly welcomed into the community during out time there. We had the opportunity to hear the Bishop of Ely one week and the Bishop of Sabah in Malaysia another week.
When we did go to some of the larger, more formal churches, we typically went to evensong (or as another friend from Britain refers to as “the Anglican gift to the world”). We sat in on evensong services at both the Westminster Abbey in London and at the King’s College Chapel in Cambridge. A sung evensong service is beautiful and can be deeply moving, particularly if you are not used to worshiping in large cathedrals that were often built to draw people into a greater sense of awe and reverence for the sacred.
The ideal for me draws on the best of both worlds: a higher church worship experience (even “smells and bells” as it were) with genuine faith reflected in those in the congregation and those leading the worship. And it is not just a service but the ebb and flow of the entire church calendar, something that I know I often lose sight of in more informal settings.
In any case, my first reflection is on our experience of worship in England. The shared sense of identity and community in the Body of Christ is recognizable across the globe, and it was one of the highlights of our time here.
UPDATE: When I first wrote this, we had been to evensong service at Westminster Abbey, and we were planning to go to evensong at King’s College Chapel this afternoon. Well, we just got back from that service, and I have to say that it was very satisfying to participate in the service in that setting. A chapel of that design is not just for visitors to enjoy the architecture; it was designed to facilitate worship and prayer. A car enthusiast does not just want to look at a Porsche 918 Spyder, he or she wants to take it for a ride, to use it as it was originally intended.
Integration Capstone 2012
We begin the summer session in a couple of weeks. I teach a 5-week intensive called Integration Capstone. I am going to have the students read two books, the first of which is Coming to Peace with Psychology by Everett Worthington, Jr. This is how the publisher describes the book:
Worthington demonstrates how the tools of experimental psychology shed light on human nature and the nature of God. Because people bear the image of God, the findings of psychological science help us understand both people and God more clearly. Psychological science provides new perspectives on theology and can help us address theological controversies and hot topics. Worthington gives recent examples of illuminating psychological findings, examines the distortions of the image of God through the effects of sin and points to ways that psychology assists Christians in living more virtuously.
Here is an endorsement by David Myers:
Everett Worthington–accomplished psychological scientist, biblically rooted person of faith and professional writer–is the perfect person to assist Christians in coming to peace with today’s psychology. With his conversational voice and dry wit, he introduces us to startling findings, differing perspectives, and evidence-based insights on faith and faithful living. Highly recommended!
Here is a blurb from Warren Brown:
Everett Worthington is a significant scholar and researcher in the field of psychology who presents in this book a thoughtful and personal view of the relationship between psychology and Christian faith. In a winsome and irenic style, he argues for a relational partnership between theology and psychology that neither simplistically pits the fields in a struggle for authority, nor inappropriately intermingles their concepts and ideas. Most importantly, Worthington argues for the value of psychological research in this very important conversation about theological and psychological views of the nature of persons.
The second book we will read is Integrating Faith and Psychology: Twelve Psychologists Tell Their Stories, edited by Glen Moriarty. Here is what the publisher has to say about the book:
In this book we hear about the developmental issues, the sense of calling and the early career insights that shaped their paths. They recount the importance that significant relationships had on their understanding of Christian integration, especially noting the influence of mentors. Struggles and doubts are common human experiences, and the contributors openly share the stresses they encountered to encourage others with similar issues. On a day-to-day basis, we see how spiritual disciplines and the Christian community assist them in their work and in their understanding. Finally, each writer offers a personal note with lessons learned and hard-won wisdom gained.
This second book is helpful because it can foster the students’ sense of their training as part of a larger narrative that is being written about their work in the field. By reading about the lives and careers of other Christians in the field, they can learn about what these other folks have found to be most meaningful in their work and lives. Should lend itself to some good discussions.
Two Developments, As It Were
The gay activist blog Truth Wins Out (TWO) has apparently been working closely with Robert Spitzer and claims to have a letter he wrote to Dr. Kenneth Zucker, editor of the Archives of Sexual Behavior. It is being reported that Spitzer, in addition to regretting how he previously interpreted his findings on whether sexual orientation can change, is now offering an apology to the gay community:
I believe I owe the gay community an apology for my study making unproven claims of the efficacy of reparative therapy. I also apologize to any gay person who wasted time and energy undergoing some form of reparative therapy because they believed that I had proven that reparative therapy works with some “highly motivated” individuals.
This seems to be a natural extension of Spitzer’s recent expressed regret about how he interpreted his findings and particularly about how others have used his study.
The TWO web site is interesting though. There is a press release informing folks about the apology and then a notice that various groups should remove any reference to Spitzer’s study from their web sites.
Organizations that continue to cite Spitzer’s repudiated study, such as PFOX, Focus on the Family, and NARTH, are being dishonest and blatantly misleading their followers,” said Wayne Besen, Executive Director of Truth Wins Out. “By failing to expeditiously remove references to the Spitzer study, these groups are showing themselves to be completely devoid of character and integrity.
I am not going to defend how any one group is using Spitzer’s research, but this is such an odd declaration to make. Spitzer may regret how he has interpreted his findings or how others have used his findings, but he does not own the sole interpretation of his research. If that were the case, wouldn’t that be an interesting development? If the only legitimate interpretation of a scientific study was the interpretation held by the primary researcher? The reality is that others may also read his research and come to different conclusions, just as they did when many critics disagreed with Spitzer’s initial interpretation of his work. It may be informative to someone visiting an organization’s web site to know Spitzer’s current feelings of regret, but organizations do not have to agree with him.
There are still many people trying to make sense of Spitzer’s change of heart. The most frequently cited rationale people have brought to my attention is the pressure he must feel from various activist groups. That pressure is real. I remember him saying when his study was first presented that several people called for his job at Columbia, and his coauthor did not want to be listed on the presentation or publication of the study. But the “activist pressure” theory may or may not be a contributing factor.
The second most frequently cited rationale I’ve heard is that of legacy – not wanting to end a distinguished career on this study. That is another consideration. The study was certainly a departure for him. Again, it may or may not be a contributing factor.
When I spoke with him at the time of his initial presentation of the data and during the filming of the DVD I Do Exist, he often referenced the believability of the people he interviewed, as well as confirmation in some cases from spouses and the way in which people did not provide accounts of dramatic or categorical change, which is what he thought he would hear if people were trying to make a political point about change. That may be part of what he is saying today: they were believable accounts, but he did not have an objective way to assess those claims, and he only had a rating scale that (if I recall directly) he created (a scale from 1 to 100). Today he seems to be saying that that is not sufficient reason to believe others can expect to change sexual orientation if they enter reorientation therapy. Further, he feels regret if others thought it was sufficient reason and attempted change because of it.
At the end of the day, only Spitzer knows his reasons. Some will applaud him and obviously agree with him. Others will not; others will see these other explanations as plausible.
In any case, those who continue to offer reorientation therapy are going to need to collaborate with researchers to conduct well-designed studies to support the claim that it is effective and not harmful. That was the case when Spitzer held his initial interpretation of his study, and it is still the case today.
On Spitzer’s “Change”
Although I am currently traveling, several people have contacted me about the developments surrounding Dr. Robert Spitzer. People are asking me about Robert Spitzer’s reported desire to retract his study of 200 people who claimed to have experience change of their sexual orientation. It is unclear what people want me to say. When I first read his reported exchange with Gabriel Arana, I reflected on what I know about retracting studies. Research is typically retracted for gross errors or deception, as when data has been fabricated, for example. I had not seen anyone addressing this, however. All of the blogs and reports were on Spitzer’s desire to make a retraction (or whether he was feeling pressure to do so or whether he was protecting his legacy, etc.) but not on what constitutes or warrants a retraction. I’ll get back to this in a moment.
This line in his reported interview with Arana was puzzling to me: “The findings can be considered evidence for what those who have undergone ex-gay therapy say about it, but nothing more.” This is shared as though it were new information. But that is actually how I tend to think of Spitzer’s study, and it is how I think he wanted others to interpret his data. Nothing more, nothing less.
There is an interesting report from Alice Dreger’s blog of her exchange with Dr. Ken Zucker, editor of Archives of Sexual Behavior, the journal that published Spitzer’s study back in 2003. Dreger actually knows Zucker and contacted him about a few points in the Arana article that did not make much sense to her. This exchange (as recalled by Zucker and told to Dreger) is interesting:
A few months ago, Zucker told me, Spitzer had called Zucker wanting to talk about the latest DSM revision. During that call, according to Zucker, Spitzer “made some reference to regretting having done or publishing the study, and he said he wanted to retract it. My recollection of the conversation was something like this: I said, ‘I’m not sure what you want to retract, Bob. You didn’t falsify the data. You didn’t commit egregious statistical errors in analyzing the data. You didn’t make up the data. There were various commentaries on your paper, some positive, some negative, some in between. So the only thing that you seem to want to retract is your interpretation of the data, and lots of people have already criticized you for interpretation, methodological issues, etc.’”
The other part of this story brings us back full circle to the issue of a retraction. Does Spitzer’s regret or change of heart or desire to no longer see his study as fueling the so-called ex-gay industry constitute grounds for a retraction? Back to Dreger:
Well, the problem with that is that Spitzer’s change of heart about the interpretation of his data is not normally the kind of thing that causes an editor to expunge the scientific record. Said Zucker to me, “You can retract data incorrectly analyzed; to do that, you publish an erratum. You can retract an article if the data were falsified—or the journal retracts it if the editor knows of it. As I understand it, he’s just saying ten years later that he wants to retract his interpretation of the data. Well, we’d probably have to retract hundreds of scientific papers with regard to re-interpretation, and we don’t do that.”
So we may or may not see a retraction in the formal sense of the word. I don’t know how much it matters. In the blogosphere, where folks on both sides of this particular debate take shots at one another, what constitutes grounds for a retraction will likely be lost on those who want to use Spitzer’s “change” to support their position. It was the case when Spitzer interpreted his data one way; it appears that way with Spitzer interpreting his data another way. (Although, as I suggested from the outset, Spitzer may be interpreting his data in much the same way he did originally–as when he first presented his findings at the American Psychiatric Association’s annual meeting in 2001: as evidence that the people he interviewed believed they had experienced change of orientation.)
England
We arrived Easter morning in London and made our way to Cambridge. It has been cloudy with occasional light rain. To stay awake, we walked to a local co-op for groceries and then through the city of Cambridge. Here’s a photo of King’s College Chapel. Unfortunately, we missed the morning services, which I’m sure would have been memorable. We heard church bells ringing in the early afternoon and toured several of the local sites. I did go back later that night for evening prayer – not to King’s College Chapel but to St. Mark’s, a church quite close to where we are staying.
Here’s a quote from A. E. Housman: “I find Cambridge an asylum, in every sense of the word.” I’m not sure what to say about that, but I am going to work on a chapter this morning. My co-author sent me her comments on the opening chapter on theological perspectives, so that’s what I’ll work on today.
Writing
I am at the end of a respite in Sandbridge, Virginia. Tomorrow I fly out to Cambridge for a few weeks to finish writing a book I’ve been working on this spring. The focus of the book is Sexuality and Sex Therapy, in fact, that is likely going to be the title. Something like, Sexuality and Sex Therapy: A Comprehensive Christian Appraisal. That’s the working title anyway.
In any case, I will be away for a time, not that I post all that often anyway. But unless I find something inspiriting to blog about, I will likely just hunker down and work on the book.
In a couple of weeks I’ll be in New Orleans to speak to Chief Student Development Officers at CCCU institutions. The CCCU is the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities, and they are hosting a conference in New Orleans focused primarily on student development issues and concerns. Where do I fit in? Several years ago I was named senior fellow to conduct a study of sexual minorities at Christian colleges. That study was a collaborative project with Steve Stratton and Janet Dean (Asbury). It was published in 2009 in the Journal of Psychology and Theology.
Our research group got together again and joined with Mike Lastoria (Houghton) to conduct a similar study at more institutions. That study is currently under review, but I will present some of the findings from it at the CCCU event in a couple of weeks.
As a frequent consultant at CCCU-affiliated institutions, I will also provide addresses on concepts that have seemed relevant to those consultations – concepts like stewardship of sexuality and relating to others with “convicted civility.” it should be enjoyable and much better than the last trip to New Orleans (a symposium at the American Psychiatric Association that dealt with the sexual orientation change debates).
I was told by a friend to look for a New Orleans staple: alligator on a stick. (Frankly, I think I’d rather face the psychiatrists again…)
