This paper examines a case study involving a psychology trainee named Leo whose racially biased behavior, deceptive conduct toward supervisors, and hostile treatment of minority peers create multiple ethical violations. Drawing on the APA Ethical Principles and specific enforceable standards — including Standards 1.08, 3.04, 3.05, 3.09, 7.04, and 7.05 — the paper identifies the nature of each dilemma, analyzes the relevance of APA Hot Topics on supervision and multicultural competence, and recommends concrete steps for the course instructor to resolve the situation. The paper concludes by outlining a monitoring strategy to ensure lasting behavioral change.
The ethical dilemmas in this case are primarily centered on Leo and his behavior toward other students and supervisors. His conduct also raises ethical concerns regarding race relations and racial and psychological biases toward minorities. The most apparent dilemma involves Leo's intentional deception of externship supervisors. Throughout the case, Leo consistently and deliberately misled supervisors regarding the merits of other students. As the case notes, Leo "described these clients in glowing terms just to satisfy his supervisors' 'stupid liberal do-good' attitudes." This misrepresentation is deeply problematic: supervisors are left with incomplete information and are therefore unable to make sound assessments and evaluations. For a fuller understanding of how professional ethics codes address such deception, the APA Ethics Code provides the authoritative framework.
A second dilemma concerns how Leo treats and interacts with minority candidates in the program. He demonstrates an inaccurate and negative perspective of minorities through the way he portrays them during the role-playing exercise — slumping in his chair and using negative rhetoric that implies minority students misbehave and have poor manners. While certain behaviors may appear across individuals from many cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds, Leo applies them selectively and pejoratively to minorities. He further demeans the intellectual capacity of minority students by asserting that they are unable to grasp complex course material. This creates a hostile environment in which minority candidates must overcome negative stereotypes that could directly affect their grades and evaluations.
These problems are compounded by Leo's conduct outside the classroom. He was observed harassing African American waitresses at local bars using racial slurs — behavior that is particularly alarming given that the course relates to therapy. A therapist who harbors such views can cause serious harm to clients. Leo's strong political intolerance also constitutes an ethical concern: he reacts negatively to anyone who disagrees with his political beliefs, further limiting his capacity for professional objectivity.
Leo's pattern of misleading behavior and outright falsehoods may signal a personality disorder and a severe lack of integrity. That lack of integrity is especially harmful to minority candidates if Leo nonetheless receives favorable evaluations. The students in the course collectively expressed their concerns about Leo's behavior directly to the instructor. If Leo were to receive passing or favorable scores despite his documented transgressions, it would present an ethical problem for the other students who maintained integrity and high moral standards throughout the program. Finally, as a prospective therapist, Leo's conduct is unbecoming of the position of power he could eventually hold over the lives of clients. His lack of integrity has the potential to harm not only himself but the profession as a whole if left unaddressed. [See Ethics in Psychology for broader context on professional conduct standards.]
Standard 1.08 pertains to unfair discrimination against complainants and respondents. It is directly applicable to the students who raised concerns to the instructor about Leo's racist and unethical behavior. Those students may have a legitimate claim of discrimination based on their treatment in connection with their reports about Leo.
Standard 3.04 pertains to avoiding undue harm. All psychologists must take reasonable steps to avoid or mitigate harm to clients, peers, students, and other participants. This standard is relevant because Leo's actions could cause harm to the institution, to students, and to clients. In today's social-media environment, Leo's public use of racial slurs toward African American waitresses could have caused irreparable damage to the school's psychology program and reputation. Moreover, minority students are directly harmed by Leo's racist behaviors, and clients are at risk because Leo allows his political and racial views to influence his professional decision-making.
Standard 3.05 pertains to multiple relationships involving power and influence. This standard is relevant to the instructor's dual role as both supervisor and course instructor. Because the instructor both supervises and teaches Leo, an argument can be made that he faces difficulty rendering fair and unbiased assessments of Leo's conduct. The standard is applicable here because the instructor may struggle to maintain the degree of objectivity required of a psychologist in a supervisory role.
Standard 3.09 pertains to cooperation with other professionals, peers, and coworkers. It requires professionals to act cooperatively and in a manner that reflects well on them and on the field. The standard is designed to ensure that clients are served adequately and effectively. It is particularly relevant to Leo, who intentionally misled supervisors he regarded as politically "liberal" and who consistently disparaged and denigrated minority classmates. This behavior reflects poorly on Leo, the course, and the institution, and constitutes a clear violation of this standard.
Standard 7.04 pertains to student disclosure and proper handling of personal information. Psychologists may not require students to disclose certain personal, private, or confidential information. Although mandatory disclosure is not required under this standard, it is noteworthy that Leo was able to harass students in settings outside the school — raising questions about appropriate boundaries and the handling of student information.
Standard 7.05 pertains to mandatory individual and group therapy. When individual or group therapy is a program requirement, psychologists responsible for that program must allow students the option of selecting a therapist unaffiliated with the program. This standard is relevant because Leo may have intentionally deceived supervisors in ways that could harm his therapy clients. His behavior may indicate the presence of a personality disorder, and a separate, unaffiliated psychologist should potentially address his therapeutic needs. The APA's guidance on psychology training and internships elaborates on these supervisory obligations.
As it relates to the Hot Topics — Ethical Supervision of Trainees in Professional Psychology Programs (Chapter 10) and Multicultural Ethical Competence (Chapter 5) — both are directly relevant to this case. Each outlines principles for the equitable treatment of trainees and minorities, reflecting the profession's effort to adapt to an increasingly diverse and culturally sensitive training environment. The standards seek to limit discrimination against minorities in positions of influence based on race, creed, color, or socioeconomic status. With respect to the ethical supervision of trainees specifically, the topic describes provisions for properly and ethically instructing trainees — provisions that Leo has repeatedly violated and that the instructor is obligated to enforce. Broader discussions of multicultural competencies in psychology further illuminate why these standards matter in clinical training contexts.
The first ethical alternative the instructor should undertake is to resolve all outstanding issues related to Leo. This begins with removing Leo from participation in the role-playing exercise alongside minority candidates. It is clear from the case that minority students have been thoroughly offended by Leo's behavior over the course of the semester. His racial slurs and mannerisms reveal a deep and entrenched disdain for minority students. Leo has also demonstrated a severe lack of integrity throughout the role-playing exercise, disregarding basic principles of professional conduct in ways that may indicate a psychological issue of his own. His use of derogatory ethnic labels to describe externship clients and his boasting about "putting one over" on the site supervisor reflect an alarming lack of judgment. These behaviors undermine the exercise itself and cause other students to question its validity. In order to preserve an environment conducive to learning, the instructor should remove Leo from all role-playing activities immediately.
In addition to removing Leo from the exercise, the instructor must have a thorough and direct conversation with Leo about his behavior. The instructor must make clear that racist conduct will not be tolerated within the program and that any continuation of such behavior will result in serious consequences. The instructor should also require Leo to apologize to all minority students he has offended with his derogatory remarks. Finally, the instructor must review the program's ethical standards with Leo and make explicit that his current conduct falls far below what is expected and required.
"Recommended instructor actions to address Leo"
"Steps to enforce and track behavioral change"
"APA and psychology ethics sources cited"
You’re 82% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.