|
The Dominion
August 5, 2000
Academics in sex abuse row
by David McLoughlin
A row
over academic freedom has erupted after attempts by a group of child sexual
abuse campaigners to have a leading American academic stopped from giving a
keynote speech to the New Zealand Psychological Society's annual conference
this month.
The dispute is so bitter that an executive member of the society, John Read
of Auckland University, has resigned in
protest at the society's refusal to revoke its invitation to Elizabeth Loftus
of the University of Washington in Seattle.
Professor Loftus is a world authority on the memory capabilities of children
and was one of the first academics to question the belief of child-abuse
therapists that adults could "recover' memories of sexual abuse
supposedly inflicted on them at a very young age.
Opponents of her speaking at the conference, to be held at Waikato University from August 27, say
her research is flawed and has enabled child-abusers to walk free from courts
because defence lawyers have used her work to discredit prosecution evidence.
Dr Read, a senior lecturer in Auckland University's psychology
department, is a prominent campaigner on issues concerning child sexual
abuse. Until his resignation over the invitation he was the director of
scientific affairs on the society's executive.
Approached yesterday, he said he did not wish to comment on his resignation
or about Professor Loftus. "Things may happen when she arrives," he
said. One of Dr Read's supporters, Wellington clinical psychologist and
Victoria University lecturer Judith McDougall, said it was not appropriate
that Professor Loftus be given the prominence of a keynote speaker.
"Elizabeth Loftus has shown that memory is fallible, which is useful,
but it's gone beyond that. She argues long-term memory is fallible. That's
not true. Adult memories of childhood are quite robust. The problem is that
her work is being used by defence counsel to discredit sex abuse cases in
American courts.
" The society's conference convenor, Michael
O'Driscoll of Waikato University, said the issue was
one of academic freedom.. "Academic freedom is paramount at our
conferences. Dr Read strongly opposes Professor Loftus's views and said by
inviting her we were endorsing her. That is not so. We are not endorsing her views, we are giving her the opportunity to state them.
"Professor O'Driscoll said Dr Read had rejected an offer of a full hour
after Professor Loftus's speech for a forum to comment.
"Her talk will deal with childhood memory. Recovered memory is not the
focus of it. Dr Read was making an assumption that she will say something
controversial. That may well be the case but there is nothing wrong with a
bit of controversy," Professor O'Driscoll said.
Victoria University psychology lecturer
Maryanne Garry, who worked with Professor Loftus in Seattle, said her opponents
thought it was wrong for someone to do the scientific equivalent of raising a
hand from the back of the room and asking, "Are we sure about
this?"
Research in the United States and in Britain showed that "the
leading cause of convicting the innocent is a memory error", Dr Garry
said.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Press
August 9, 2000
Memory debate rekindled
by Victoria Clausen
Inviting a Washington University professor to speak against recovered memory
syndrome at this year's Psychological Society annual conference has rekindled
debate on the issue.
Auckland University's head of psychology,
Dr John Read, had resigned as the society's director of scientific affairs in
protest at Professor Elizabeth Loftus being a keynote speaker at the Waikato conference.
He said it was the prominence given to her speaking role in New Zealand's current climate of
child abuse cases that he was protesting against, not her right to speak.
Prof Loftus has spent several years researching and writing about the
reliability of using recovered or repressed memory syndrome without
collaborative evidence. She uses the term false memory syndrome. Several
American therapists have been successfully sued for implanting memories in
clients about things that never happened.
The Psychological Society said it did not realise Prof Loftus' research was
so controversial when it invited her to speak and it would not be withdrawing
the invitation.
Canterbury University's psychology
department was not aware of anyone from its department going to the annual
conference.
There are no keynote speakers from Christchurch addressing the
conference.
Head of department Rob Hughes said he was going to be in Hamilton for another meeting at
the same time, but would not attend the conference. Senior psychology
lecturer Neville Blampied said there was nothing to suggest there was any
animosity towards Prof Loftus, and she was widely respected in academic
circles.
Mr Blampied said there was a lot of interest in the recovered memory debate
about five to seven years ago, but it was "all a bit passe".
Dr Karen Zelas, a Christchurch child psychiatrist,
said if there was debate about Prof Loftus and her talking about her research
it was better to keep it in the Psychological Society.
She said it was an internal issue and she did not belong to the society.
"But generally one wants to foster debate and look at all sides in a
scientific manner," she said.
|
Letter to the Dominion
August 12, 2000
by Elizabeth Loftus
Seattle, Washington
I
write in response to David McLoughlin's August 5
piece about my invitation to speak to the New Zealand Psychological Society.
I live in a country where freedom of speech is one of the most cherished
possessions that citizens have. Who would choose to live without it? I would
hope that people would stand up against those who try to take it away.
When I was elected president of the American Psychological Society, two
people resigned from the organisation. It hurt my feelings.
I created a presidential symposium on science and pseudo-science for the
annual meeting. Thousands either attended or read about it in our monthly
newspaper. Thank goodness the two were not able to stop an important message
from reaching thousands. I can only hope that the outcome will be similar in New Zealand. The issues
surrounding the repressed memory controversy are literally a matter of life
and death. Patients who have had false memories and beliefs planted have
gotten worse, and some have ended up killing themselves.
Innocent parents and others have been wrongly accused, families have been
destroyed, and more than a few innocents have gone to jail.
The uncritical acceptance of any dredged-up memory, no matter how dubious,
has trivialised the experiences of the genuinely abused and increased their
suffering. For all these reasons I feel compelled to speak out about this
problem as forcefully as I can.
I hope I have the chance to do this in New Zealand and perhaps some of
the years of suffering experienced in America can be minimised in
your country.
.
|