Kirsty Miller is a psychologist who has come up against those within her discipline who are so hostile to criticism and debate that they will do as much as they ‘compassionately’ can to ensure that people with views that contradict their own don’t get a hearing.

I have been teaching psychology for over a decade, and during that time, I have seen a number of changes, both within the discipline and in how it is taught. I believe that many of these changes have come about as a result of the adoption of social justice ideology into psychology, academia, and society as a whole.

A few years back, I raised some of my concerns to the governing body of psychology in the UK, the British Psychological Society (BPS), in the form of an open letter which was published on their website. I wrote about the harms that increased politicisation – specifically the adoption of social justice ideology – has caused the discipline. I argued that social justice ideology undermines the scientific integrity of the discipline as well as psychologists’ ability to teach and practise appropriately.

Anyone remotely conversant with the principles of social justice ideology will understand my argument, as it is an ideology which privileges feelings over facts (in psychology, translating into the promotion of non-evidence–based ideas such as implicit bias, microaggressions, trigger warnings, ‘anti-racism’, ‘affirmation’ of gender dysphoric patients, etc.). This is clearly at odds with the fact that any science-based discipline has a duty to be based on evidence, and to draw on objective (shared) reality. A discipline’s failure to do this demonstrates a failure to be scientific.

Clearly, there are also implications for teaching and learning to the extent that social justice ideology prevents the discussion of ideas that it considers ‘dangerous’ or hurtful. It leads to censorship, and claims of bigotry, rather than rational, evidence-based discussion of the relative merits and flaws of different perspectives. Teaching and learning are also impossible in such a situation, with students being prevented from even viewing different perspectives of the world, let alone being given the opportunity to engage with and think about them. Indoctrination, censorship, and denial of truth have replaced evidence-based, open-minded, critical thinking.

To avoid causing potential and genuine harms to patients, again, care should be evidence-based, appropriate, and tailored to the individual. Instead, social justice ideology calls for a one-size-fits-all approach: one in which illness is understood and treated in terms of membership of groups (allegedly oppressed) and victimhood. Ultimately, the social justice approach to mental illness is the antithesis of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), the current gold standard of evidence-based treatment. Furthermore, it encourages illness, powerlessness, and harmful thinking, rather than the treatment of these issues.

To return to my experience, the responses to my letter to the BPS realised my concerns... I was called a racist, and a bigot, and was told that my views were ‘problematic’ and shouldn’t be published. The BPS removed them from the website, issuing a grovelling apology to those who had been ‘harmed’ by reading my letter. Readers were apparently highly distressed and angry, and many tried to claim that psychology had a ‘duty’ to promote social justice to serve our clients (clearly ignoring all the concerns I had raised in my letter). Unsurprisingly, none of my points were addressed, and the only responses I received revolved around name calling and misrepresentation. My worries about the impact of social justice on the field were demonstrated beautifully: advocates could, or would, not engage with the ideas – they refused to acknowledge them, in favour of misrepresentation and performative outrage.

How, I wondered, could such closed-minded, judgemental individuals cope with the complex relationships and interactions they would encounter when working with patients? How could they treat them appropriately if they refuse to even countenance the existence of approaches or beliefs that aren’t their own? How could they support distressed patients who may be relaying genuinely distressing stories if they can’t even cope with being exposed to different perspectives? Similar questions could be raised about how it would be possible for them to educate with this mindset. Will they ‘cancel’ a student who asks a question they don’t like? Will they teach only their own pet theories and beliefs? Will they punish students who question them?

In the intervening years, there have been answers to many of these questions. We have seen the increasing politicisation of trainee psychology courses, with programmes encouraging activism and the primacy of ‘lived experience’. At the same time, attempts have been made to undermine the importance of evidence-based ‘western’ approaches. Black trainees are not to be placed in ‘white rural’ areas for their work experience; instead, safe spaces and support groups are to be provided for them, and even recruitment to training courses is based on group membership.

In the real world, we hear reports from experienced psychologists who say that their young employees refuse to take certain jobs, meaning that other clinicians must cover their workload. Some patients are given inappropriate care, and others struggle to gain access to treatment because of their group characteristics (with reports of men experiencing barriers to, or unsympathetic, treatment). Indeed, trainees and newly qualified clinicians are prone to blaming an individual’s problems on their group membership, society or the government, rather than offering appropriate evidence-based, individualised treatment.

In education, teaching materials are censored and removed on students’ demands. Lecturers are steered away from discussing controversial topics and have even been told not to inform students of evidence that contradicts the current narrative. We have had reports of staff being made to apologise to students for making evidence-based statements, and soon students may be criminalised for saying anything that is perceived as hateful.

Recently, I sent information about a SUE conference to a group of Scottish psychology teachers and received similar responses (see SUE newsletter no. 58). It was made very clear to me that I shouldn’t even be allowed to share information about an event that questioned social justice ideas. As before, there was no engagement with any intellectual case or argument, no attempt to engage or respond to facts; there were just misrepresentations and attempts to shut down views that were not ‘approved’ of.

Later, information about me was even shared by a Scottish educator in the same mailing list after I had been removed from it. It read:

Hi all, for those of you unaware Kirsty Miller (removed from this thread) came into a lot of heat back in 2020 when she wrote an article that was initially published and then removed from the BPS ‘The Psychologist’ magazine. At the time, many of us University of Dundee psychology alumni where to the BPS (as well as the university of Dundee which she was initially associated to and where she achieved her PhD) highlighting concerns at her beliefs and noting that it went against the protection of students and staff wellbeing, as we felt that social justice was an important aspect of being a psychologist or working [in the] field, and that in fact, psychology and politics were in many ways associated – especially in an applied, clinical settling (but also, in research, in our understanding of theories, the voices that get amplified etc. It is both alarming and yet deeply upsetting that she is currently working at Dundee and Angus College, and in a position to use her voice to try to push some of these beliefs on other lecturers in the field. I will say that the responses in this email chain have been compelling and have certainly made me very proud to be part of a such a caring and compassionate group of critically thinking educators.

To me, the letter highlights the consequences of adopting social justice ideology; it is cowardly, it is stupid, it is self-righteous, and it is completely lacking in self-awareness (I don’t think anyone would say that speaking about others behind their backs is ‘compassionate’).

It is no surprise that the Scottish education system is the way it is when our ‘educators’ cannot cope with people who offer a different perspective. When we have individuals who ‘teach’ youngsters but cannot even read an argument, let alone respond to it, how can we expect our youth to engage with ideas? How can we expect youngsters to solve disputes with their peers, and how can we expect them to grow into well-functioning adults, when the adults around them consider ideas harmful, and the people who espouse them to be purged from public discourse?

The irony, of course, is that the individuals who espouse social justice beliefs genuinely consider themselves to be ‘compassionate’, ‘caring’ and professional individuals. However, the evidence demonstrates that they are anything but. Until we prioritise standards, evidence, reality and objectivity, rather than nebulous principles that laughably proclaim to centre around ‘kindness’, we are going to end up with a population of fragile, closed-minded, mentally ill individuals – and nothing about that is kind or compassionate.

Kirsty Miller

(First published in Scottish Union for Education – Newsletter No62)