The bill may be coming due for unchecked antisemitism at the American Psychological Association (APA). All who oppose the politicization of scientific professional organizations should welcome that outcome.
Though the APA has long allowed political ideology to seep into its work as “the leading scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States,” its current trouble can be traced to a recent campaign objecting to an APA resolution on antisemitic and anti-Jewish prejudice, amended in 2007.
There, among other observations, the APA Council of Representatives noted (accurately) that “the link between extreme anti-Israel rhetoric and deeds directed against Jewish individuals and communities has become an observable global trend and has at times unleashed demonization and dehumanization of Jews.”
Put simply, criticism of the state of Israel too often provides cover for Jew-hatred of the basest kind.
This concession to reality did not sit well with Psychologists for Justice in Palestine (PJP), a “collective of psychologists, psychology students, and affiliated mental health professionals … who are in solidarity with the struggle for Palestinian Liberation.” In 2025, PJP delivered a petition to APA leadership calling for the organization to “reject the conflation of antisemitism with criticism of the nation-state of Israel and [to] recognize that this conflation is discriminatory.”
PJP’s petition made for uneasy reading. Arguing that the 2007 amended resolution had “been used to obstruct efforts to promote and protect human rights,” PJP complained of Israel’s “violence and racism toward Palestinians,” as well as the Jewish state’s “genocidal actions.”
Tellingly, the latter phrase was hyperlinked and took readers to a United Nations website featuring commentary by UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese, an “expert” with her own history of antisemitic commentary.
This unhappiness on the part of an APA faction might have mattered less had that faction’s views not come to be represented at the highest level of the organization. But they did.
Among the signers of PJP’s petition was Candice Hargons, who, earlier this month, was elected the 2028 APA president. (Hargons will spend 2027 as president-elect.)
Nor is Hargons’s relationship with PJP limited to her name on a single document. Instead, PJP formally endorsed Hargons’s candidacy, a move that Hargons publicly declared herself “honored and deeply grateful to share.”
Coming several months before this exchange was the APA Council of Representatives’ February adoption of a new 2026 resolution on antisemitism, a vote celebrated by PJP.
Unlike the 2007 amended resolution, the 2026 document invokes “the weaponization of antisemitism” — defined therein as “the manipulative or bad faith invocation of accusations [of antisemitism] to silence legitimate criticism, scholarship, or activism.”
Such weaponization, the document continues, “creates significant adverse consequences for Jews and non-Jews who oppose the state of Israel’s actions and support Palestinian rights.”
Notable as well in the 2026 resolution is a “Therefore Be It Resolved” clause stating “that the American Psychological Association will conduct regular impact assessments to ensure that our antisemitism policy addresses the harms of antisemitism along with intersecting forms of oppression” (emphasis added). One might reasonably ask why a concept from Critical Race Theory has intruded into a document guiding institutional policy toward antisemitism.
By late July, the situation had worsened. As Psychologists Against Antisemitism executive board member Daniel Balva recounted in the Times of Israel, a PJP email in advance of the August 2026 APA conference urged attendees to “show solidarity by wearing a keffiyeh or ‘Palestine colors,’ [to] read a prewritten ‘Land and Genocide Acknowledgement’ before professional presentations, [and to] attend programming focused on Palestinian liberation.”
One weeps to recall that many academic psychologists attending the annual gathering may have done so on the taxpayer’s dime.
Happily, the federal government is taking steps to oppose the politicization of the nation’s largest association of psychologists. In September, a Department of Education advisory committee on accreditation recommended suspending recognition of the APA’s Commission on Accreditation over the organization’s continued failures to address antisemitism.
Just yesterday, the House Committee on Education & Workforce released “Antisemitism at the American Psychological Association,” a scathing majority staff report concluding that “radical activist-academics have successfully co-opted the APA to politicize the association and promote ideology that demonizes Israel, minimizes Hamas terrorism, and portrays Jews as white oppressors.”
Thus do Hargons and other APA leaders find themselves in an increasingly difficult position. Whereas at one time the politicization of science could be quietly effected, reformers are now watching. So is Uncle Sam.
No longer will the APA and similar organizations be automatically treated as neutral expert bodies, especially where their role in academic accreditation is concerned. That trust will have to be re-earned.
The way out of this mess is simple enough, though admittedly not easy given the apparent beliefs of the association’s incoming regime. Depoliticize, stop giving cover to antisemites, and stay out of the “Palestine” business altogether.
Hargons et al. should take that advice seriously. The APA’s continuing relevance as a representative of American psychologists may depend on it.
