Ethics in the Psychology Profession

. Why is this an ethical dilemma? Which APA Ethical Principles help frame the nature of the dilemma?

The ethical dilemmas are primarily centered around Leo and his behavior towards other students and supervisors. Leo’s behavior also presents ethical dilemmas as it relates to race relations, racial and psychological biases towards minorities. To begin, the most apparent ethical dilemma relates Leo’s intentional deception of supervisors. Within the case, Leo consistently and intentionally misled the externship supervisors regarding the merits of other students. Here, the case notes that Leo, “…described these clients in glowing terms just to satisfy his supervisors’ ‘stupid liberal do-good’ attitudes.” This is very misleading and presents an ethical dilemma as it misrepresents the merits of certain clients. Supervisors therefore have incomplete information to make their own assessment and evaluations as Leo provided inaccurate information. The next ethical dilemma is how Leo treats and interacts with minority candidates within the program. He first appears to have an inaccurate and negative perspective of minorities by the way he portrays them during his role-playing exercise. The case notes the Leo is slumping in his charge and using negative rhetoric, implying that minority students misbehave and have poor manners. Although some minorities due exhibit this behavior, so do individuals in other cultures and social-economic classes. Leo further insults the mental aptitude of minorities through his belief that minorities are unable to grasp many of the more complex topics in class. This presents an ethical dilemma as an externship supervisee. His treatment of minority students and individuals relative to other counterparts presents an obstacle for minority candidates to overcome. Here, minority candidates within the classroom setting must combat negative stereotypes and behaviors that could ultimately impact their overall grade and evaluation within the course. These issues are compounded as Leo clearly sees minority individuals as inferior to other through his harassing of African-American waitresses at local bars using racial slurs. Even more alarming is the fact that the course is related to therapy. As a therapy course, Leo’s behavior is alarming as his beliefs towards minorities can be detrimental and harmful to clients. His political views also present an ethical problem as Leo often reacts negatively to individuals who disagree with political beliefs and values. Leo’s misleading behavior and outright lies may signal a personality disorder and a severe lack of integrity. This lack of integrity presents a challenge to minority candidates, particularly if Leo’s overall course evaluation is favorable despite all the information presented to the contrary. For example, the students presented their disdain for Leo personally and behavior to Dr. Vaji directly. The course, as unit, describe Leo’s inappropriate behavior toward minorities and those with differing political beliefs. If Leo, despite his transgressions, still received favorable scores in the class, it presents an ethical issue for the remaining students who exhibit integrity and high moral standards throughout the entire process. Finally, as a potential therapist, Leo’s behavior is unbecoming of the position of power he could potentially wield over the lives of others. His lack of integrity can potentially do harm not only to himself, but to the profession overall if left unpunished.

2. How are APA Ethical Standards 1.08, 3.04, 3.05, 3.09, 7.04, 7.05, and 7.06 and the Hot Topics “Ethical Supervision of Trainees in Professional Psychology Programs” (Chapter 10) and “Multicultural Ethical Competence” (Chapter 5) relevant to this case? Which other standards might apply?

Standard 1.08 – Pertains to unfair discrimination against complainants and respondent. This is directly applicable to the students who raised their overall concerns to Dr. Vaji about Leo’s racist and unethical behavior. The student can make a claim of discrimination based on their treatment related to their discussions related to Leo.

Standard 3.04 – Pertains to avoiding undue harm. This standard is relevant as all psychologists must take reasonable actions that avoid or mitigate harm to clients, peers, students, and other research participants. This is relevant as Leo through his actions could have caused harm to both the institution, students and clients. Leos behavior, particularly in today’s social media age, could have caused irreputable damage to the school’s reputation. His racial slurs were made in public to African American waitresses. Due primarily to the racial tensions prevalent in society today, if this act was caught on video, the school’s psychology program, and be extension the school itself could have been negatively impacted. Likewise, Leo’s actions could potentially harm both clients and students. Minority students are harmed through the racist behaviors of Leo. Clients are harmed through Leo’s persistence of allowing his political and racial mindset impact his decision-making ability.

Standard 3.05 – Pertain to multiple relationship of power and influence. This standard pertains to Dr. Vaji and his dual role as supervisor and instructor. For example, Dr. Vaji supervises Leo through his position as a faculty member, but also teaches Leo through his courses. This relationship requires judgement as an argument can be made that Dr. Vaji is compromised in regard to his ability to make fair and unbiased assessments of Leo’s behavior. The standard is relevant under this circumstance as Dr. Vaji may not be as objective and unbiased as necessary for a psychologist.

Standard 3.09 – Pertains to cooperation with other professionals, peers, and coworkers. Here, the standard outlines a requirement for professional to act in a cooperative and professional manner that reflect well on them and the profession as a whole. The standard is used to ensure that clients are serve adequately and effectively. The standard is particularly relevant to Leo and his inability to cooperate with other students, minorities and other supervisors. As indicated by the case, Leo intentionally misled other supervisors who were “liberal” in their political beliefs. He also constantly disparaged and denigrated other minority candidates within his class. This behavior does not reflect well on him, the class, or the school as a whole. As such, Leo has violated this standard.

Standard 7.04 – Pertains to student disclosure and proper handling of personal information. Here, psychologists do not require the disclosure of certain personal, private, or confidential information. Although it is not required, it does appear that students did violate the code as Leo was able to harass students outside of the school

Standard 7.05 – Pertains to the mandatory individual and group therapy. Here, the standard states that when an individual or group therapy is the requirement, then psychologists that are responsible for such a program allow students the option of selecting such therapy from practitioners unaffiliated with the program. It was evident that Leo might have intentionally deceived both supervisors and this may be harmful as a therapist to his current client. This might have been or shows a personality disorder and someone else or psychologist should address the therapy.

As it relates to the “Hot Topics,” each is directly relevant to the case. In both circumstances, both standards outline the principles to equitable treatment of trainees and minorities. In both cases, the profession is looking to properly adjust to a much more diverse and cultural sensitive working and training environment. The standards make an attempt to limit discrimination of minorities for positions of influence based solely on their race, creed, color, or social-economic status. As it relates to ethical supervisor of trainees, the topic describes provisions on how to properly and ethically instruct trainees.

3. What is Dr. Vaji’s ethical alternatives for resolving this dilemma? Which alternative best reflects the Ethics Code aspirational principles and enforceable standards, legal standards, and obligations to stakeholders? Can you identify the ethical theory (discussed in Chapter 3) guiding your decision?

The first ethical alternative that Dr. Vaji should undertake to resolve the dilemma is to resolve all outstanding issues related to Leo. Here, Dr. Vaji, must first eliminate Leo’s participation within the role-playing exercise along side minority candidates. It is obvious from the case, that the minority students have been thoroughly offended by Leo’s behavior over the course of the semester. Leo’s racial slurs and mannerisms show a natural and deep disdain for minority students. In addition, Leo has shown a severe lack of integrity throughout the role-playing exercise. He has disregarding the basis principles of integrity through his behavior which may indicate a mental issue of his own. His use of derogatory ethnic labels to describe his externship clients and his bragging about “putting one over” on the site supervisor shows a sever lack of judgement of Leo’s part. These behaviors not only undermine the activity but causes other students to question the validity of the exercise. In order to create an environment conducive to learning Dr. Vaji should remove Leo from all role-playing initiatives immediately.