5 Mar 96 14:32:03 -5
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 96 14:31:35 EST
From: coatesrd@casmail.muohio.edu (Rodney Coates)
Reply-To: coatesrd@casmail.muohio.edu (Rodney Coates)
To: AFROAM-L@HARVARDA.HARVARD.EDU, psn@csf.colorado.edu,
        AFAM-L@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu, ABSLST-L@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU,
        revs@csf.colorado.edu
Subject: Academic Racism: Info that should concern you

As many of you are aware there is a renewed assalt on  African
Americans
through "scholarship" and research as seen in the Violence Initiative,
the
publication of THE BELL CURVE, etc.  
	What you are receiving is an article that is appearing in the March
1996
issue of PSYCH DISCOURSE--the monthly newsjournal of The Association
of
Black Psychologists.  Please note that this article ends with a call
for
interdisciplinary communication and action to address the issues
presented
in the article.				Thank you,
						Jackie Jackson





		IS UNETHICAL RESEARCH A WEAPON STILL IN USE 
	 	AGAINST AFRICAN AMERICAN CHILDREN AND YOUTH?
			Jacquelyne F. Jackson, Ph.D.
		    University of California, Berkeley
			  Pamela Y. George, M.S.
		     St. Mary's College of California
	We're afraid the answer is, yes!  We want to alert ABPsi members to
more
information that leads to this conclusion, and propose that we
redouble our
efforts to deal with the situation effectively.  We are especially
concerned
that the welfare of African American children and youth is being
undermined
to stop the development of future generations capable of grappling
with the
racism that has always plagued people of African descent in this
country.  
	The crux of the problem is large scale but low profile research with
a
hidden agenda of proving  that we are "genetically defective"  and/or
"incurably pathological" ; this is research  that sets the stage for
so
called "preventive interventions" that will be the "ultimate solution"
to
the problem that we pose for those who benefit from our oppression.  
Most
of  us see sensational headlines on  racist "scholarship" such as the
widely
reported publication of Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray's The
Bell
Curve:  Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life (Hilliard,
1995).
While we may have heard about secret research programs that got
exposed such
as the Violence Initiative  (Bennett,  1993),  we don't get enough
specific
information to know the extent to which such projects have been
stopped if
they have been stopped at all.    We need to review our efforts to
stop
these kinds of attacks before they become fully developed because they
are
growing in number and variety.   These unethical attacks are prime
examples
of what is addressed in the concept of Maafa.
	Maafa means a great disaster and misfortune of death and destruction
beyond
human convention and comprehension perpetrated against people of
African
descent.  The slave trade is the classical example of Maafa.  The
critical
feature of the Maafa is denial of the validity of African people's
humanity
accompanied by a collective and ever-present total disregard and
disrespect
for people of African descent and their right to exist.  The Maafa
gives
license to the continual, systematic and organized process of
spiritual and
physical destruction of African people both individually and
collectively
(Nobles, 1994; Richards, 1980).   The perpetual, comprehensive and
systematic process of destruction can be seen in what is being done to
our
children and youth who are much more vulnerable to research abuse than
most
people in our communities realize.
	The long ugly history of IQ testing has kept many ABPSI members on
guard so
some of us weren't really surprised when the emphasis shifted from
testing
to establish intellectual inferiority to "diagnosing" to establish
other
kinds of disorders such as Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder
(ADD and
ADHD).  But the need to be on guard isn't confined to the issue of
testing.
ADHD has been linked to the Violence Initiative and the line of
invisible
warfare against young children that the combination represents has
grown
since ABPSI members first learned about it and our leadership
protested it.
What has not yet received our general membership's attention is that
African American  adolescents and young adults are in the line of fire
from
some new angles too.   There is unethical research being implemented
outside
of the issue of violence proneness.   Almost no one seems to be aware
of
recent "research"  initiatives to exacerbate vulnerabilities of
African
American youth  and stigmatize them as hopelessly damaged; sexually
abused
pregnant adolescents have become a target for such research.   What
follows
are profiles on two separate large, multi-site studies, including
brief
histories and updates of them.   They are concrete examples of what is
being
done to African American children and youth these days in the name of
research. 
The Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Study and the Violence
Initiative
	ABPSI has long monitored emerging educational and mental health
diagnostic
classifications with the prospect of disproportionate assignment of
African
Americans to devalued categories.  Attention Deficit/ Hyperactivity
Disorder
is one such category that became more widely used in the 1970s and
1980s.
Based on concern of prospective mislabeling of African American
children
Suzanne Randolph, as a past President of the Association of Black
Psychologist, presented testimony to the 1991 Joint Senate and House
Committee on Labor and Education on behalf of the Committee on
Psychological
Testing of the ABPSI  (Randolph, 1991).   The central position stated
was
that Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD)--sometimes called Attention
Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)--as delineated in the American
Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders (DSM) is a vague classification that encompasses many
behaviors of
normally active children.  Consequently, the DSM definition of ADD as
a
combination  of "inappropriate" behaviors predisposed professional
child
evaluators to  use many personally biased criteria for deriving a
diagnosis.
ABPSI strongly recommended against approval of ADD as a new
classification
in the education codes pertaining to the handicapped.  
	Shortly after this testimony, a widely publicized controversy
developed
involving federal governmental responses to the sharp escalation in
violence
among urban African American youth in the 1980s.  The federal response
became known as the Violence Initiative.   In a meeting of the
National
Mental Health Advisory Council in February 1992  Dr. Frederick
Goodwin, the
director of the National Institute of Mental Health at the time, was
quoted
as suggesting that  inner-city ghetto males were like jungle monkeys
with
regard to violent behavior.  Shortly afterwards, the National
Institutes of
Health announced plans for a conference with the proposed title
"Genetic
Factors in Crime:  Findings, Uses and Implications" that caused a
storm of
protest from African Americans including the Congressional Black
Caucus that
ultimately lead to the cancellation of the conference (Babington,
1992).
Many African Americans felt that the Violence Initiative raised the
specter
of research with genocidal intent similar to that of the infamous
unethical
Tuskeegee study sponsored by the Public Health Service of untreated
syphilis
in African American men (i.e. the 1932-1972 study of  low-income
African
American men in Alabama with syphilis who were observed for forty
years and
mislead to believe they were receiving treatment the whole time.)  The
controversy ensuing from the Violence Initiative was in fact so great
that
the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
appointed
a blue ribbon panel of African Americans to review the entire
departmental
portfolio pertaining to violence prevention to determine the validity
of
allegations of inappropriate research spawned by the Violence
Initiative.
Key allegations were that the Department of Health and Human Services
was
sponsoring research attempting to establish a genetic factor
accounting for
a correlation of race and violent behavior and planning to target
African
American males between 5 and 9 years old to administer medications to
control their behavior (Wheeler, 1992).   The Secretary of Health and
Human
Services' Blue Ribbon Panel in Violence Prevention convened for three
days
in November and December 1992 .  Dr. Maisha Bennett, the President of
ABPSI
at the time, was a member of this blue ribbon panel and the work group
that
reviewed the portfolio of the National Institute of Mental Health as
represented by the DHHS staff.  
	The DHHS staff did not inform the panel members about a large, five
site
study of ADHD in children that had begun in October 1992 that came to
the
attention of members of ABPSI and Maisha Bennett near the end of the
meeting
of the panel.  The study entailed pharmacological and behavioral
treatments
of ADHD, and was especially concerned with co- morbid conditions and
the
role of SES in ADHD (Regier & Leshner, 1992;  Richters, Arnold,
Jensen,
Abikoff, Conners, Greenhill, Hechtman, Hinshaw, Pelham, Swanson,
1995).
Aware that conduct disorder is frequently considered a co-morbid
disorder
with ADHD, particularly in low income children, Maisha Bennett and
some
other panel members sought a more thorough review of the multi-site
study
and other studies involving invasive drug treatments of children 
(Bennett,
1993).  They felt the three day meeting of the panel was inadequate to
make
a clear determination about the scope and purposes of the ADHD study. 
This
request for an extension, however, was not granted.   Rather, the DHHS
staff
maintained that federally supported research on ADHD involving
medication
was completely distinct from research on aggression, antisocial
behavior,
and violence (Jenifer, 1993).   The Report of the Secretary's Blue
Ribbon
Panel on Violence Prevention (Jenifer, 1993), stated that no support
for
allegations of inappropriate research with children was found, but
Maisha
Bennett wrote a dissenting objection to this conclusion based in large
part
on her information on the multi-site study undertaken in 1992 on  ADHD
involving drug treatments (Bennett, 1993).   Ultimately, the Report of
the
Secretary's Blue Ribbon Panel was suppressed, and few people who were
not
members of the panel ever saw it.
	Some member of the Association of Black Psychologists who are also
members
of the American Psychological Association (J.F. Jackson,  M.H.
Bennett,  H.
Dent, H. Fairchild, R. Jones, & P. Rhymer-Todman,  personal
communication,
January 21, 1993) wrote an extended letter on the ethical infractions
they
believed were exhibited in the implementation of the ADHD study to an
APA
committee that was reviewing APA's guidelines on ethical conduct of
research
with human subjects.  The letter focused on the need to extend the
concept
of informed consent to cover harm and potential harm to participants
based
on social group membership and means of assuring prospective minority
research participants of protection from such  harm.   Specifically,
the
risk of group stigmatization  as well as harm to the individual, as
exemplified in the multi-site ADHD study, was the central issue.   The
letter authors maintained that researchers seeking to study minority
community members, including researchers who are themselves members of
the
ethnic group(s) to be studied, should routinely seek proposal review
and the
advice of psychologists who are respected members of the community to
be
studied.   One focus of such proposal review would be the  study's
potential
for stigmatization of and detriment to the ethnic group as a whole as
well
as harm to individuals.  They made additional proposals for cases of
large
studies involving samples presumed to be representative of ethnic
minority
communities.  They proposed that civil rights and professional
organizations
representing the interests of racial and ethnic minority communities,
with
leadership and professions beyond psychology represented, review
prospective
studies for  potential ethical conflicts , and that such review become
a
standard element of research prerequisites.   They felt that
government and
institutional human subjects review boards had demonstrated
incapability of
providing assurance to minority subjects of protection from group
stigmatization and personal harm,  because of the history of
government
sponsorship of detrimental research.  Their views were incorporated
with
additional recommendations of the Board of Directors of ABPsi soon
after
their letter was written (Bennett, 1993).   ABPsi's position contrasts
markedly with that of one Euro-American psychologist and human
behavioral
geneticist who advocates against attention to membership in an ethnic
or
other interest group as a basis for consideration of harmful or
unfavorable
consequences to research participants (Scarr, 1988).    Although three
years
have lapsed since it was written, the ABPSI members' letter has not
yet been
substantively addressed by the APA committee charged with revising the
guides and standards for ethical research on human subjects.  Thus,
the
ethical issue  embedded in the question of whether or not harm to a
group
should be considered in determining risks to participants in a
research
project has not  been acknowledged by mainstream psychologists but it
remains a pressing issue for African American interests.
	In spite of protests that stopped the conference that had been
planned in
1993, a conference entitled "The Meaning and Significance of Research
on
Genetics and Criminal Behavior"  took place on September  22 through
24,
1995 (Maass, 1995; Williams, 1995).  Critics of the cancelled
conference and
a few African Americans were invited to participate, and the planning
took
place while the Congressional Black Caucus was preoccupied with the
newly
elected majority Republican Congress.  Moreover, the genetics and
crime
conference was held at a remote Maryland location the same weekend as
the
annual political summit sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus. 
Even
though a small group vigorously protested (Roush, 1995), the fact that
the
event was held added legitimacy to the presumption of a critical role
of
genetics in criminal behavior.  Meanwhile, the scope of research on
treatments for ADHD including pharmacological approaches has quietly
expanded to include Department of Education funding.   The multi-site
cooperative study that was the focus of  refusal to accept the
portfolio
presented to DHHS Secretary Sullivan's Blue Ribbon Panel has been
expand to
include Department of Education Funding, and the NIMH-DOE
collaboration not
only sets a precedent for joint ventures of those two agencies but
adds an
agency that had not previously been associated with Violence
Initiative
research.  The African American community appears to be completely
oblivious
to these developments, and neither efforts to protect African American
interests nor effective efforts to check or roll back such research
have
occurred.  
	African American psychologists who are members of ABPSI continue to
present
concerns about research on ADHD and its relation to mislabeling and
stigmatization  of African American children, along with concerns
about the
lack of  assurance that drug treatments for ADHD in children will not
foster
drug dependency in adolescence or adulthood (e.g. Dent, 1994).  Their
concerns are shared by those outside the African American community
who are
alarmed by the general tendency to use more than probably harmful
medications and intrusive treatments to do no more than subdue
emotionally
distressed children  (Breggin & Breggin 1994; Breggin & Breggin,
1993).
These concerns also reflect longstanding questions about medication of
African American children with behavior deemed unacceptable in school
settings, and the role of less than fully informed consent in
treatment and
research in fostering maladaptive, stereotypical behavior in the
African
American community (Valentine,  1971; Banks, 1974).  Many more African
Americans, not only members of ABPsi,  need to become informed on
these
issues and work collaboratively to protect African American children
and
youth.  If this does not happen soon we might see problems in
generations of
youth in the near future that will dwarf the problems of violence,
Black-on-Black homicide and drug dealing that we are witnessing today.
Misrepresentation of Study Purposes and the Issue of Informed Consent:
 The
Adolescent Sexual Abuse Study
	Although the general American public has been bombarded with  the
stereotype of African Americans as abusive and neglectful of their
children,
hard core empirical research has shown the opposite.  When adjustments
for
social class were made, African Americans had a lower rate of child
maltreatment than whites up to the 1980s (Garbarino and Ebata, 1983). 
Even
national surveys of child maltreatment during the drug ravaged 1980s
found
no association whatsoever between race and child maltreatment for any 
type
of child abuse or neglect (National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect,
1988).  Even so, there has been an increase in research using clients
in
public schools and clinics seeking to establish a causal connection
between
abuse and race in low-income groups.   A recently undertaken study in
California is one such study.
	Like many states, California sponsors service programs for adolescent
mothers through community agencies that serve primarily low-income
African
American and Hispanic clients under the sponsorship of local and state
public health agencies.   There are 37 local agencies serving 5000
adolescent mothers in one network of service delivery sites referred
to as
the Adolescent Family Life Programs.  In 1993, local agencies were
directed
by an office within the state Maternal and Child Health branch to
administer
an assessment to determine the extent of childhood and adolescents
sexual
abuse of the adolescent mothers served in the AFLP programs.  Agencies
were
initially told that the assessment was to determine the need for
specialized
services for their clients and that it would be paired with staff
training
on how to provide more effective mental health  services to clients
with a
history of abuse.   When the assessment instrument was shown to one
local
agency and directives on its use were delivered,  the agency
psychologist--an ABPsi member --protested on the grounds that the
assessment
constituted a plan for  egregious, unethical violation of clients'
mental
health and welfare.   The professionals in the protesting agency
asserted a
longstanding desire for more attention to and therapeutic services for
clients with a personal history of sexual abuse, but felt that the
proposed
assessment would traumatize rather than help abused clients ( P.
George,
personal communication, January 4, 1994).  The crux of the complaint
was an
issue of informed consent.  Minor aged clients would be induced to
disclose
personal experiences of sexual abuse that would lead to two highly
probable
negative consequences--psychological reliving of the abuse experiences
without adequate therapeutic support  and mandatory staff reporting to
Child
Protective Services resulting in unmanaged disruption of clients'
relations
with  their families.   Clients would not be alerted to these
possibilities
in advance and local agencies were not provided with additional
resources
that would enable them to avert expectable negative consequences of
study
participation for their clients.
	The assessment battery that was to be completed consisted of 11 pages
including a standardized and copyrighted inventory (Fine & Boyer,
1993).  It
asked deeply probing questions about a wide range of things including
diverse sexual practices that an adolescent client might have
experienced
along with specific questions about sexual experiences with particular
family members and male partners, as well as questions about personal
and
abuser use of illegal substances.  Developers of the instrument
presented it
to local agency staff as a needs assessment, not research, and
acknowledged
that research would require review of a human subjects panel.  
Rather,
according to developers, the non-anonymous survey responses would
become a
part of responding clients' files at the agency and information from
it
would be entered into a statewide database of the Maternal and Child
Health
branch presumably available on an unrestricted basis for any  uses the
state
offices might determine.   The developers did, however, anticipate
that
disclosure of abuse might require staff reporting to Child Protective
Services authorities, but deferred to local agency discretion on
reporting
requirements.  The one page consent form attached to individual
assessment
forms informed prospective respondents that the survey would ask
personal
information about unwanted sexual experiences and stated that
information on
abuse would be reported, but it did not state to whom the information
would
be reported or what the consequences of reporting might be.    Even
though
participation was to be presented as voluntary, local agency staff
were
urged to get every client to respond to the survey, including
reluctant and
hard-to-reach clients, and were encouraged to present the assessment
battery
during service delivery if such timing would facilitate client
compliance
with the request to complete the instrument.  
	The state Maternal and Child Health branch sought to quash the
protesting
agency's refusal to participate in the assessment program as first
presented
and dissent from other AFLP agencies (R. Shah, personal communication,
no
exact date, 1994).  Consequently,  the dissenting psychologist brought
the
matter to the attention of  ABPsi, her professional organization.  
After
reviewing  all materials connected with the case,  the ABPsi Executive
Board
voted to oppose the assessment program as first presented to local
agencies
on grounds that it threatened the psychological well-being of 
vulnerable
adolescent clients, it violated rights of informed consent, it failed
to
demonstrate plans for protection of human subjects, and it exhibited
clinical and research incompetence on the part of the investigators
(A.
Jackson, personal communication, May 4, 1994).  The board also offered
to
refer the investigators to African American psychologists in the
membership
of the organization for expertise and consultation to bolster the
cultural,
clinical, and research competence of the study designers.   An inquiry
was
also filed with the Federal Office for the Protection from Research
Risks,
which solicited information from the California  Health and Welfare
Agency's
Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects.  
	After an extensive review including consultation with the Committee
for the
Protection of Human Subjects' attorney, the Committee determined
several
things (J.D. White, memorandum, August 5, 1994).  First,  the
assessment was
research not simply a needs assessment tool, because regulatory
exemptions
from Committee review for surveys did not apply for minors, who must
have
parental consent for participation, and because the assessment project
involved more than minimal risk to targeted participants.   Second,
the
assessment project was not and should not have been exempt from
Committee
review, but this presented problems because much of the data had
already
been collected by the time of the Committee's consideration and risks
to
subjects through assessment battery administration had already
occurred.  In
this connection the Committee noted that the consent form was
inadequate,
but efforts to collect consent with an improved form would run the
risk of
inducing additional psychological stress in subjects.  Moreover, the
Committee noted that a statement in the original consent form assuring
subjects that responses would be kept private was misleading because
instances of abuse would be reported to Child Protective Services. 
Third,
the Committee ruled that the project was suspended, that no new
subjects
could be enrolled, and that the data that had already been collected
could
not be used for publication in scientific journals.   The
administrative
leadership of the state Maternal and Child Health branch was informed
of
these findings in writing (J.D. White, personal communication, August
15, 1994).
	Inexplicably, subsequent to the Committees findings and after the
Maternal
and Child Health administration had been informed of the Committee's
findings,  the local agency that lodged the original complaint about
the
assessment battery was directed to administer the survey to its
clients by
the Chief administrator of the Child and Adolescent Health section of
the
Maternal and Child Health branch because the assessment was a high
priority
of the branch (Melia, personal communication, no exact date, 1994). 
The
chief administrator commented that the original assessment battery
developers had collected data from 34 of the 37 AFLP agencies, that
most had
surveyed all of their clients, and that the assessment developers were
engaged in analyzing the data for release.  He noted that the findings
would
be used to develop projects for Violence Prevention Programs within
the MCH
branch.  The protesting psychologist emphatically declined to
participate
and, among other comments, noted that the assessment had been formally
suspended and that the MCH administrator appeared to be threatening
the
local agency's state financing to coerce compliance (P. George,
personal
communication,  September 27, 1994).  Ultimately, the protesting
agency did
prevail in that data were not collected.
	There are many ethical issues associated with this incident, the
violation
of principles of informed consent is but one of them.   In light of
the
sequence of events, there are sociopolitical issues of deception in
presenting the purposes of a study and of efforts to coerce
involvement in a
prohibited study that overshadow the initial issue of informed consent
of
individuals.  What may have originally been an ill conceived,
expedient
attempt to execute an applied research project that would generate
publishable results under the guise of an internal needs assessment
evolved
to become much more.  The AFLP sexual abuse study stands out as a
documented
case of willful harm to African Americans through large scale research
that
sought publishable results that would both stigmatize African
Americans and
become a basis for interventions with questionable prospects for
benefitting
African American adolescents.  
A Three Step Action Plan to Counter Unethical Research
	1)	ABPSI could convene a symposium at the 1996 ABPSI convention in
Chicago
with not only Black Psychologists but other African American
professionals
and academics interested in the threat of  unethical research with
grave
implications for our community.  Nineteen ninety-six is a year for an
African American super convention, where a number of African American
professional organizations will be meeting simultaneously in the same
city
to facilitate communication between the groups.  This presents an
opportunity to address the issues in a broader arena, establish
working
relationships, and lay the groundwork for more effective follow-up. 
There
are many facets of the general problem that could be addressed, the
most
obvious one is an interdisciplinary updating and information exchange
on
types of unethical research currently underway or on the drawing
boards to
begin to chart the scope of the problem.   Other symposium topics
could be
the ABPsi Position Paper on the Violence Initiative (Association of
Black
Psychologists, 1995) and the recommendations of the ABPsi Board of
Directors
for dealing with it (Bennett, 1993).   A panel of  invited presenters
could
address these issues and highlight a range of issues including those
that
are most pressing to African-descent constituencies outside of ABPsi. 
 They
could also suggest avenues for more fully exploring issues after the
presentation as well as developing follow-up actions.  
	2)	The Journal of Black Psychology could plan a special issue on the
topic,
and issue a call for papers with encouragement of multidisciplinary
submissions.  Presenters at the symposium could be invited to submit
articles that would supplement those selected through the review
process
from the general pool of submissions responding to the call.  
Overall, the
purpose would be to expand the range of communication on the problem
and
create a well documented forum for discussion of issues and
prospective
lines of action.
	3)	Finally, an effort to devise a multidisciplinary action network
could
follow.  If a coherent body of opinion emerged from the discussion
forums
described above, the foundation for establishing both defensive and
proactive actions could be laid.    Again, the ABPsi position paper
and the
recommendations of the ABPsi Board of Directors on the Violence
Initiative
could serve as models for developing a more comprehensive African
American
community- based action network to deal with the full range of large
scale
unethical research projects that are being perpetrated against African
Americans.   
		Overall, the time for ferreting out and investigating insidious
research
is overdue.  The time for action to stop it is now if we want to
protect
ourselves and upcoming generations from research induced
psychological,
physical and political injuries that could decimate us.

				NOTES
1)	Jacquelyne F. Jackson is a developmental psychologist and research
associate who may be contacted by e-mail at
JACKJO@UCLINK4.BERKELEY.EDU or
by mail at:  Institute of Human Development, University of
California-Berkeley, 1203 Tolman Hall #1690, Berkeley, CA 94720. 
Pamela
George is the Chairperson of the Bay Area Association of Black
Psychologists, Director of Black Student Programs at St. Mary's
College, and
a part-time faculty person at San Francisco State University's Dept.
of
Black Studies.  Her address is:  Bay Area Association of Black
Psychologists, P.O. BOX 21290, Oakland, CA 94620.
2)	Newsletter articles, personal communications, and most unpublished
materials cited in the case examples sections are available from
Halford
Fairchild, Ph.D., Editor of Psych Discourse Pitzer College 1050 N.
Mills
Avenue, Claremont CA 91711 for the at-cost charge of $5.00  for
copying and
mailing.  Make check payable to The Association of Black
Psychologists.

				REFERENCES
	Association of Black Psychologist (1995).  A holistic view of
American
Violence:  A position paper on the Federal Violence Initiative.  
Psych
Discourse: ABPsi Newsjournal, 26(3), 8-13.
	Banks, W.M. (1974).  Drugs, hyperactivity, and Black schoolchildren.
Journal of Negro Education, 45(2), 150-160.
	Babington, C. (1992, September 5).  U-md. cancels conference on
genetic
link to crime: NIH pulled funds over proposed conference.  The
Washington
Post, pp. A1, A14.
	Bennett, M.H. (1993).  President's message.  Actions on the "Federal
Violence Initiative".   Psych Discourse: ABPsi Newsjournal, 24(2),
4-8.
	Breggin, P.R., & Breggin, G.R. (1994).   The war against children. 
New
York:  St. Martin's Press.
	Breggin, P.R., & Breggin, G.R. (1993).  The Center for the Study of
Psychiatry update report.  The Federal Violence Initiative:  Threats
to
Black Children (and Others).   Psych Discourse: ABPsi Newsjournal,
24(4), 8-11.
	Dent, H.E. (1994, October).  Minority concerns:  Information
Dissemination/Research.  Paper presented at the sixth annual meeting
of
Children with Attention Deficit Disorders (CH. A.D.D.), New York, NY.
	Fine, D., & Boyer, D. (1993).  Orientation and procedures manual for
AFLP
prevention program   Seattle WA:  Center for Health Training.
	Garbarino, J., & Ebata, A. (1983).  The significance of ethnic and
cultural
differences in child maltreatment.  Journal of Marriage and the
Family,
45(4), 773-783.
	Hilliard, A.G. (1995).   Either a paradigm shift or no mental
measurement.
Psych Discourse: ABPsi Newsjournal, 26(10), 6-20.
	Jenifer, F.G. (1993, January 15).  Report of the Secretary's blue
ribbon
panel on violence prevention,  Washington DC: Department of Health and
Human
Services.
	Maass, P. (1995, September 22).  Conference on genetics and crime
gets
second chance.  Washington Post, p. B01.
	Nobles, W.W. (1994).  President's Message.  Healing the rupture and
extending the splendor.   Psych Discourse: ABPsi Newsjournal, 25(9),
8-13.
	Randolph, S. (1991, March/April).  Testimony presented to the Joint
Senate
and House Committee on Labor and Education:  Notes on the mislabeling
of
African American children.  Psych Discourse:  ABPsi  Newsletter,
22(4), 6-8.
	Regier, D.A., & Leshner, A.I. (February, 1992).  Request for
Applications.
Cooperative agreement for a multi-site multimodal treatment study of
attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)/attention-deficit
disorder
(ADD).  (National Institute of Mental Health, MH-92-03).  Washington
DC:
National Institute of Mental Health.
	Richards, D.M. (1980).  Let the circle be unbroken:  The implications
of
African spirituality in the Diaspora.  Trenton NJ:  The Red Sea Press.
	Roush, W.  (1995).  Conflic marks crime conference.  Science,
269(5232),
1808.  
	Scarr, S. (1988).  Race and gender as psychological variables: 
Social and
ethical issues.  American Psychologist, 43(1), 56-59.
	Valentine, C.A. (1971).  Deficit, difference, and bicultural models
of
Afro-American behavior.  Harvard Educational Review, 41(2), 137-157.
	Wheeler, D.L. (1992, November 4).  Ambitious federal plan for
violence
research runs up against fears of its misuse.  The Chronicle of Higher
Education, pp. A7, A9.
	Williams, J. (1995, January 29).  Searching for bad seed.  Will
racists
exploit the science of genetics and violence?  Washington Post, p.
C01.


=========END FORWARDED MESSAGE=========

"Only when lions have Historians will hunters cease being heroes." 
African Proverb

UMOJA, 
Still in the struggle

Rodney D. Coates
Director of Black World Studies
Associate Professor of Sociology
Miami University 
Oxford, Ohio - 45056

PH: 513-5291235