Back to the Philosophical Counseling Homepage
The documents under this heading were all posted on the phil-counsel listserver, which is part of the Free Lance Academy and owned by Lance Fletcher. For all other documents in these archives please contact: http://www.freelance.com The following letters were the results of two newspaper articles which announced that in New York State a Dr.Marinoff was pushing a bill to make an end to the freedom philosophers have there to practice philosophy. The letters contain the contents and sections of the bill, an account of Lance contacts with New York Assembly men, and concerns expressed over this legislation and the deceptive manner in which Dr. Marinoff aimed to achieve his goal. For the final "realization" of this "fascist" legislation see the very end of this page. -------------CONTENTS OF THE BILL AND ADDRESSES OF THE ASSEMBLY MEN
----------------------------- Date: Mon, 09 Mar 1998 14:50:32 -0500 Subject: bill to license philosophical practitioners Joe Sharkey's article in Sunday's New York Times contained the following: > The most notable success so far is a bill making its way > through the New York State Assembly that would establish a > board to license philosopher practitioners, and thus propel > their campaign to qualify for insurance reimbursement. [...] > In New York, State > Assemblyman Ruben Diaz Jr., a Bronx Democrat who has an > interest in philosophy, is sponsoring the bill pushed by > the philosophers to authorize state certification. I contacted the office of Assemblyman Diaz in Albany (518-455-5514) and they faxed me a copy of the bill. Below I have copied the cover sheet and the first two sections of the bill and have summarized the remainder. Since the copy of the bill that was faxed to me did not bear a bill number, my guess is that this is a draft which has not yet cleared the bill drafting office (in other words, the bill has probably not yet been formally introduced). If and when the bill is introduced, it will be referred to the Committee on Higher Education, whose chairman is Edward C. Sullivan. Comments on legislation before his committee should be addressed to: Assemblyman Edward C. Sullivan Room 717 Legislative Office Building Albany, NY 12248 Telephone: 518-455-5603 Assemblyman Diaz's address is: Assemblyman Reuben Diaz, Jr. Room 432 Legislative Office Building Albany, NY 12248 ===================================================================== An act to amend the education Law, in relation to providing for the licensing of philosophical practitioners. Purpose of Bill: This bill will provide individuals who wish to become philosophical practitioners with a state certification attesting that such person has acquired a certain level of education, training and expertise. Summary of specific provisions: The bill would amend the Education Law by adding a new article 153-A Section 7650, Introduction. Section 7651, use of title "philosophical practitioner." Section 7652, state board for philosophical practice. Section 7653, requirements for a professional license. Section 7654, limited permits. Section 7655, exempt persons. Justification: Philosophical practice is a unique approach to solving human problems. This practice denotes a cluster of interventions, including individual client counseling, group facilitation, and organizational consulting which applies rich varieties of philosophical insights, systems and methods toward the resolution of human problems and the amelioration of human estates. The growing demand for philosophical practice is fueled by a confluence of forces. This is dissatisfaction with social, psychological and psychiatric modes of counseling. People need help resolving moral dilemmas, in weathering existential crisis, and in fulfilling personal quests for meaning and purpose. Most philosophic practitioners hold Doctorates in Philosophy, and are often trained in one or more styles of therapy. 7650. Introduction. This article applies to the use of the title "philosophical practitioner. The general provisions for all professions contained in article 130 of this title apply to this article. 7651. Use of title "philosophical practitioner". Only a person licensed under this article shall be authorized to use the title "philosophical practitioner" or to describe his services by use of the words "philosophical practitioner", "philosophical services", "practice of philosophy", "philosophical counseling", "philosophical assistance" or "philosophical explorations" in connection with his practice. The next two paragraphs contain a close paraphrase of the bill text: Section 7652 Provides that a State board for philosophical practice shall be appointed by the board of regents on recommendation of the commissioner for the purpose of assisting the board of regents and the department on matters of professional licensing and professional conduct; that this board shall be composed of not less than 11 philosophical practitioners licensed in New York State, together with an executive secretary to the board who shall also be a philosophical practitioner licensed in the state. Section 7653 The requirements for a license include filing an application, having received a doctoral degree in philosophy granted on the basis of completion of a program of philosophical practice registered with the department or the substantial equivalent thereof; two years of supervised employment or engagement in appropriate philosophical practice activities satisfactory to the board and in accordance with the commissioner's regulations; passing an examination satisfactory to the board and in accordance with the commissioner's regulations; and payment of a variety of fees ($170 for initial examination and license, $85 for re-examination, $155 for each tri-ennial registration.) The final section of the bill contains language designed to exempt exempt from the licensing requirement anybody who is a salaried employee of a governmental agency or an educational institution or who is an intern or apprentice in an accredited course of study leading to a certificate in philosophical practice. Lance Fletcher -----------------------------------------------------------------------------CONTINUED:
------------------ In my earlier message that quoted the relevant text of the bill to license philosophical practitioners that is being offered in the New York State Assembly, I mentioned that the chairman of the Higher Education Committee, to which the bill will be referred upon being introduced, is Assemblyman Edward Sullivan. As it happens I used to live in Ed Sullivan's district, and I have known him for about twenty years. We haven't always agreed. In fact I ran against him in the Democratic Primary in 1986, so I wasn't quite sure what sort of reception I would get when I called his office. But I'm glad to say that time heals old wounds, and he called me back quite promptly and we spoke for a few minutes yesterday about this bill. The bottom line is, he said to me, "Even if you were a young man, you would not live long enough to see this bill become law." He went on to say that he is generally opposed to any effort to license what he referred to as "the talking therapies." He said, "You have to understand that whenever we license something we are saying that only certain people will be allowed to do it and, therefore, the people who don't have the license will not be allowed to do it, and I don't think the government has any business telling people who is, and who is not, allowed to call themselves a psychoanalyst, a psychotherapist or a philosophical practitioner." Assemblyman Sullivan and his legislative staff person, with whom I also spoke, indicated that they understood quite clearly that the only real purpose behind this legislative proposal was the desire on the part of some philosophical practitioners to receive third-party insurance payments and that such a purpose was irrelevant to the intent of the government's licensing power. We don't create license requirements, they indicated, just so that certain groups of people can collect third-party payments, although many groups request us to do that. There has to be some strong showing of potential harm to the public from unqualified practitioners. I mentioned to Ed that, in the case of the present proposal, I have never heard any of the advocates express serious concern about the possibility that somebody might be harmed by consulting with an "unqualified" philosopher. In addition, I said, the nature of philosophy is that it often challenges established beliefs and assumptions. For this reason there is a very long history of philosophers being accused of causing harm, the best example being that of Socrates. The problem is that in those cases the people accused of causing harm were excellently qualified philosophers authentically practicing philosophy, so to invite the government to suppress the harm caused by philosophers will ultimately be taken by some governmental agents somewhere as a license to persecute philosophers. It has to be something of an embarrassment to find that Ed Sullivan, an old "working class" leftist, is more sensitive to considerations of freedom of thought and speech than many academic philosophers who, if they have not actually advocated this terrible legislation, have been passive and silent in the face of its advocacy by others. Lance ----------------------------------------------------RESPONSE TO A LETTER BY ME IN WHICH LANCE URGES THOSE MENTIONED AS SUPPORTING THIS LEGISLATION TO SAY IF THEY KNEW ANYTHING ABOUT THIS LEGISLATION OR NOT:
----------------------------- Shlomit writes: > Congratulations with what seems a landslide victory for the freedom of > thought > and speech for philosophers (and the philosopher-practitioners) in New York. Lance replies: I strongly agree with what Shlomit says below about the need for continued vigilance and active opposition to additional efforts to enact licensing legislation. But I think it is inaccurate to call what has occurred in New York "a landslide victory" for those of us who oppose such legislation. We didn't do anything to defeat this legislation. All I did was to obtain an explicit confirmation that the Assembly leadership continues its long-standing opposition to licensing proposals of this kind. Fortunately, in this case it doesn't depend only on Ed Sullivan. It was Mark Alan Siegel, Ed Sullivan's predecessor as chairman of the Higher Ed. Committee, who, more than a dozen years ago, when requested by a group of psychoanalysts to endorse a bill to license psychoanalysts, told them that in his opinion, "Basically what you are asking is for us to make the State Government serve as _your_ Gestapo." (Those of you who were present at the conference in New York last July may remember that I caused some irritation on the dais when I quoted Assemblyman Siegel's words on that occasion.) But, as Shlomit correctly points out, New York is only one state, and it is likely that there are other states in which state legislators may be less reluctant to license philosophical practitioners. In my opinion, the most important piece of information I obtained as a result of my several telephone calls on this issue was not from Assemblyman Sullivan, but from Assemblyman Diaz's legislative aide, Paul, who is the one who actually drafted the bill, after communicating with Louis Marinoff: Assemblyman Diaz's aide told me that "the only reason" the Assemblyman had agreed to sponsor this legislation was that they had been told that this licensing proposal was "strongly supported by an international movement." When I asked what evidence he had of this support, Paul read to me from what he said was a document setting forth the mission of Louis Marinoff's so-called American Philosophical Practitioners Association, which stated that it was the organization's intention to seek the enactment of legislation to license philosophical practitioners. Included in this document, or attached to it, was a list of the members of the APPA's "executive advisory board" from which Paul read me the following names that I recognized (there may have been others): Gerd Achenbach Dries Boele Ida Jongsma Jess Fleming David Jopling Anders Lindseth Ora Gruengaard After reading these names to me, Assemblyman Diaz's aide said that he assumed that all of these people were in support of this legislative program, since it is clearly mentioned in the mission statement of the organization on whose advisory board they had agreed to serve. This is a very serious matter. Gerd Achenbach is generally regarded as the father of the philosophical practice movement. Anders Lindseth has served as president of the German association for philosophical practice. Dries Boele and Ida Jongsma are leaders of the Dutch association for philosophical practice. Ora is active in philosophical practice in Israel, and David Jopling has lectured and published on this subject. If it is true that all of these people have endorsed the program of licensing philosophical practitioners, then the claim that this program enjoys strong international support would appear fairly plausible. Therefore, it seems to me that the first priority, even before writing letters to legislators, is to nail down the truth about this. I think three members of that list are also members of the phil-counsel list (David, Jess and Ora) -- so we can address you directly: Please tell us if you have indeed endorsed this legislative program. With regard to the remaining four, I request anyone here who is in communication with them to contact them immediately and find out where they stand. The lesson of this experience is that we need to start by getting our own house in order. There is not much danger that licensing legislation will be enacted if the community of philosophers interested in philosophical practice opposes it. But if some of the most prominent names in this community have already signed on in support of licensing, then we have some difficult talking to do amongst ourselves. Lance > > Nevertheless, I think it is good to give Lance all the backup possible. > If you find limiting practicing philosophy to a particular Ph.D. elite, > also a > threat to everybody's right to think about and discuss whatever matters > (isn't > that what PP is all about), than write to these assembly men involved. > > Now what about the other states? Who knows what bills are being in progress > all around the USA. According to the article it was a matter to be taken > from state to state. > > Under these conditions it might a good idea to form an action front (it > might be > best if Lance could coordinate this), for example by the name "Philosophers > International concerned with the Freedom of Thought and Speech" (PIFTS). > An organized action as such would cost the executors time and money and > we would like to contribute to these noble efforts. > > Instead of waiting for a next newspaper article telling us about > the upcoming bill on the practice of philosophy in Ohio, for example, we > just can > inform all the educational assembly men around the USA about what seem to us > the un-American ethics of such a bill. > > Looking forward to hear what you all think about this. > > Shlomit Schuster. > -----------------------------------------------------THE ONLY FORMAL RESPONSE ON THIS REQUEST CAME IN FROM JESS FLEMING, BUT THROUGH CONTACT WITH OTHERS LISTED ABOVE BECAME CLEAR THAT IT WAS THE FIRST TIME THEY HAD HEARD ABOUT SUPPORTING LEGISLATION IN NEW YORK.
� ----------------------------- Date: Wed, 01 Apr 1998 20:29:20 -0500 Subject: certification and/or licensing of "philosophical counseling" Dear Fellow List Members: I'm sorry that it has taken me over a month to get around to answering Lance's request for information regarding whether or not I (as an "Advisor" to the "American Philosophical Practitioners Association") endorse certification and/or licensing of "philosophical counseling" ("philosophical practice," "philosophical consulting"). A bout with the flu, various academic commitments, as well as a desire to think carefully about this important issue, are the reasons for my delay. In trying to decide if certification and/or licensing is a good thing, I have tried to put myself in the position of a person in trouble who might consider consulting a philosopher, rather than a psychotherapist, priest, etc. It seems to me that the average person facing a life problem (or, simply seeking life-enrichment) would be reassured to know that someone calling himself/herself a "philosophical counselor" has some kind of credentials or certification by a professional organization which will vouch for their competence. As Susan Robbins wrote in a letter published in an ASPCP Newsletter, it helps with "philosophical credibility." Indeed, it is very difficult to decide what kind of training or knowledge would qualify someone to call himself/herself a "philosophical counselor," and it is certainly a touchy question as to who, or which organization(s), should be entrusted with the right and responsibility to oversee such certification and/or licensing. No doubt there are many individuals who are wise and could act as helpful "philosophical counselors," just as there are many Ph.D.s in philosophy who are foolish and unwise, despite their academic credentials. However, do we really want to allow anyone who wishes to do so, to advertise himself/herself as a "philosophical counselor" without any kind of professional watchdog organization (whether it be the ASPCP, the APPA, or whatever) guarding the reputation of this "new" profession, not to mention the well-being of prospective clients? Upon invitation by Louis Marinoff on behalf of the newly formed APPA to join their "International Advisory Board," I immediately offered my first advice -- namely, that while I still think that in the long run certification and/or licensing might be a good thing for the profession of "philosophical counseling," I think more discussion on all the problems/issues surrounding the topic needs to be conducted before going ahead with the certification/licensing process. And, in fact, I was not consulted or informed about the proposed legislation in the New York legislature before it was initiated. If such certification/licensing would help us gain recognition/trust/respect from the public, and protect prospective clients in any way, then I am for it. If (as I sincerely doubt), such certification/licensing would limit our freedom of thought/speech, then of course I would oppose it. There are many legal questions which I would like clarified before definitely supporting or opposing it -- for example, the apparent problem that some states prohibit the use of the term "counselor" unless one is somehow certified by a professional organization. Finally, let me add that one of the concerns I have been pondering since the Vancouver meeting four years ago is whether or not a "philosophical counselor" should have some kind of training in (or knowledge of) psychopathology -- obviously, it would be unfortunate if a "philosophical counselor" counseled someone without recognizing the signs of suicidal depression or border-line personality disorder, and continued to philosophize with the client, instead of referring the client to a psychotherapist/psychiatrist competent to deal with such problems. Not all problems are philosophical, nor are all problems psychological; some are one, some are both, some are neither. Of course, someone could also argue that psychotherapists might ought to have a certain amount of training in philosophy, in order to be able to spot philosophical confusion and refer the client in question to a "philosophical counselor." But, I think the truth is that "philosophical confusion" is much less likely to end in tragedy, than various forms of mental illness that a philosophical counselor might encounter and not recognize. I'm sure there are many angles to this whole issue which I have overlooked, and in some respects I am misinformed or ill-informed. I look forward to further discussion on this list, at conferences, and so forth, with all who share the belief that philosophy can serve the common man in many ways. Sincerely, Jess Fleming, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof. Tamkang University Tamsui, Taipei County TAIWAN, R.O.C. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------FOLLOWING MY RESPONSE ON PROF. FLEMING'S LETTER
------------------------- Hello Jess, I appreciate your frank answer and hope that others will now follow your example. It is still a question to me who the hundreds of members of the APPA and its advisory board can be. And how does the APPA relate to the ASPCP (from Kenneth Cust's note I still assume that there is no relationship between the two). I will not repeat again here my arguments concerning the psychopathologization madness of our society, I only want to state that not recognizing these so-called mental illnesses would probably be of much greater help to the afflicted ones than treating them as having "xwz." But led each counsel according to his/her conscience and personal ethics. What I find worrying are your next statements: > However, do we really want to allow anyone who wishes to do so, to > advertise himself/herself as a "philosophical counselor" without any > kind of professional watchdog organization (whether it be the ASPCP, the > APPA, or whatever) guarding the reputation of this "new" profession, not > to mention the well-being of prospective clients? There are other, better ways of watching over your property (if it is yours at all--why should to counsel wisdom, or talking philosophy be the sole property of Ph.D's, M.A.'s or any other degree--does philosophy belong to any particular person more than an other--are philosophers kings back in rule? ) than having a dog doing the job. In the arts people can buy kitsch if they like and that also seems to fill a certain need for some, it can be fashionable as well. I am proud that the reputation of philosophers is not much better than that of artists and I think we better leave it like that. Just as in the arts philosophical organizations could give there approval of certain kind of practices more than of others, but without forbidding or discouraging other practices. Often watch dog organizations are more concerned with the wrong standards of those that might take "their" property than with anything else. The liberal arts have also been accused, and still are so now and than, of doing harm to society and individuals, but artists have been wise enough to understand that by "not doing their kind of harm" they can put their creations in the garbage bin. Likewise thinking as a creative process cannot be stifled by the teachers, supervisors, and guardians of philosophy. Dialogical creative thinking processes as happening in pc are as dangerous for a persons well-being as reading any good or bad book available from your next door book shop or library. If (as I > sincerely doubt), such certification/licensing would limit our freedom > of thought/speech, then of course I would oppose it. Here I would like to ask you who do you mean when you say our? If our does mean your own (and own colleagues and the APPA club etc.) than of course "our" freedom will be extended while the freedom of some others will be destroyed. That is the meaning of being a watch dog, you get a good hold of the thief in his legs, arms or face and in some case you might kill as well. What a relieve: no more kitsch philosophical counseling, no more harming wisdom talks, no more dangerous philosophical practice cafes on UFOs, and what else weird practices of philosophy. It is just a small offer taken from the freedom of ALL, but at least the reputation of philosophical practitioners seems to be saved. UNLIKE WHAT MARINOFF SAID AT THE 3th CONFERENCE THE BILL CLEARLY STATES THAT ONLY THOSE WITH A LICENSE CAN PRACTICE PHILOSOPHY. WHICH MEANS OTHERS DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO PRACTICE AND ARE FORBIDDEN TO ADVERTISE THEMSELVES AS PRACTICING PHILOSOPHERS ETC. You may like to check any legal dictionary on the meaning of a license. It limits the freedom of some people for sure. Shlomit Schuster ----------------------------------------------------------------A FINAL WORD BY THOMAS JEFFERSON ON THE MIND REMAINING FREE:
(From the Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom in Virginia)
------------------ "Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free, and manifested his supreme will that free it shall remain by making it altogether insusceptible of restrains; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments, or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the holy author of religion, who being lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercion on either, as was in his Almighty power to do, but to extend it by its influence on reason alone." =================================== The final realization of the bill on philosophical counseling as reported by a reliable source: Diaz Bill Redrafted from Licensure to Certification (Albany, NY) Assemblyman Ruben Diaz Jr., whose 1998 Bill A-9841 to license philosophical practitioners fomented major media coverage and much professional discussion, has redrafted the Bill from a Licensure to a Certification Statute. The Assemblyman initially proposed legislative recognition of philosophical counselors in a form (i.e. licensure of title) that would put them on an equal footing with psychological counselors in New York State. Under current title law, only licensed psychologists can call themselves "psychological counselors" or "counseling psychologists." At the same time, the terms "psychotherapist" and "psychoanalyst" are completely unprotected, as is the term "philosophical counselor." Given the growing popularity and viability of philosophical counseling, the Assemblyman and his supporters want to recognize the profession legislatively and, by so doing, make its service more accessible to the public. The original Diaz Bill served a very worthwhile purpose, in bringing deserved attention to the reputability and professionalism of philosophical counselors, particularly those who are APPA-Certified. News of the Diaz Bill broke first in The New York Times, in the Week in Review section (March 1998), in a strong advocacy piece by Joe Sharkey, entitled "I Bill Therefore I Am." That piece, among others, is archived on our website. (For you conspiracy theorists: Joe Sharkey is not related to the APPA�s Paul Sharkey.) The Times piece spurred public awareness across America, and shortly thereafter in international circles as well. It was also the first piece to announce the formation of the APPA. There followed a protracted debate among philosophical counselors themselves, which questioned the desirability of licensure. Some philosophers argued that psychologists should never have been licensed in the first place, and that philosophers should not seek to emulate that error. Other philosophers argued that legislative recognition is desirable, but that licensure is too strong a measure, and is possibly qualify for a license-hurled charges of "fascism," "tyrrany," and the like at those responsible for this most democratic of initiatives, reported in full public view and carried forward by the epitome of due political process. The original Diaz Bill also served a very useful purpose in introducing leading practitioners in New York State to key legislators such as Ed Sullivan, who Chairs the Higher Education Committee, through which the Bill must pass on its way to debate in the Assembly. Assemblyman Sullivan was forthright in his very first meeting with philosophical practitioners: he said that while a Licensure Bill would never get past the Higher Education Committee as long as he chaired it, a Certification Bill might stand a fair chance. In sponsoring Licensure, Assemblyman Diaz set the legislative bar to maximum height at the outset. One must admire his panache - or chutzpa. His political team, as well as leading practitioners with whom they consulted, were also aware that Licensure was an aggressive opening gambit, which if declined in Albany could always lead to a fallback position on Certification. This, in effect, is what has just transpired. The Certification Bill is also a piece of legislation with which most philosophers opposed to Licensure can happily live. The Diaz Certification Bill puts philosophical practitioners on a parallel footing with Certified Public Accountants. In New York, and in many if not most other states, anyone may call himself a "Public Accountant" (PA). But only one who possesses adequate professional expertise and passes State Board examinations may call himself a "Certified Public Accountant" (CPA). If your PA claims to be as knowledgable and experienced as a CPA, then he begs the question: "Why not become Certified?" Certification of philosophical practitioners is a quintessentially American, economically laissez-faire statute, because anyone remains free to call herself a "Philosophical Counselor" (PC) practice as such. At the same time, by stipulating that only a demonstrably qualified and reputable person may call herself a "Certified Philosophical Counselor" (CPC), it provides an explicit remedy for excesses of laissez-faire economics. While caveat emptor applies to every good sold and every service rendered in America, it applies more to some than to others. Paul Del Duca, Assemblyman Diaz�s political Chief-of-Staff, recently said of the Certification Bill: "We are sure that we�re doing the right thing." Lou Marinoff replied "One can do no better thing than the right thing." As a 501(c)(3) educational corporation, the APPA must remain apolitical. It may neither support nor oppose any legislation, and it may neither endorse nor denounce any political candidate. However, as private citizens or recognized professionals, anyone may support the Diaz Bill to certify philosophical practitioners. You will soon be contacted privately in this regard.
Back to the Philosophical Counseling Homepage