So Jordan Peterson Is Being Disciplined?

Jordan Peterson is running about making a big fuss because his social media antics have garnered the attention of the College of Psychologists of Ontario (CPO).  "I won't comply!", he cries into the void; "I'm going to mount a Charter Challenge!", he declares to his followers.  

To be clear, I am not privy to the content of the specific allegations in the complaints the CPO is currently processing. So, what follows is equal parts speculation, inference, and my own thoughts on the matter.  

[Update:  January 6, 2023]  It seems that Dr. Peterson has made a copy of the complaints public on his Twitter feed, and Rachel Gilmore took the time to go through them.  It’s worse than what I discuss below - far far worse.  Link:  https://twitter.com/atrachelgilmore/status/1611405636931141632  

/Update] 

As a mental health practitioner myself, I have found plenty of Mr. Peterson's declarations to be deeply troubling from an ethical perspective.  The ethical concerns that come up for me are twofold.  First, he has a nasty tendency of posting what are arguably diagnostic statements about people, and backing that up with his experience as a psychologist.  The second area of concern has been his commentary on matters related to gender identity which have consistently drawn absolute positions that are at odds with the broader themes of the research literature in the area.  

I am not going to say something like "he's not entitled to his opinions" - that's not the issue here. It is more about making authoritative statements about matters where he is the "perceived expert" - which is deeply problematic with some of Peterson's commentary. 

Relevant Documents: 

For the purposes of this discussion, 2 documents are particularly relevant:  

The CPO document "Standards of Professional Conduct" (CPO, 2017).  I will refer to this as the SPC in this discussion.

 The Canadian Psychologists Association (CPA) "Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists (4th Edition)".  This will be referred to as "CPA Code of Ethics" in this discussion. 

Concern 1:  Diagnostic Statements 

I'm going to draw upon a very recent tweet that Dr. Peterson made about Justin Trudeau to explain how this is concerning, although the comments that are the subject of the complaints the CPO is processing should predate this tweet. 

There are several features about this that I want to bring to your attention.  First is the statement that "@JustinTrudeau appears to me to be perpetually 14 yrs old.".  This is an assessment statement that I would expect to find in a global assessment of a client as part of their treatment planning. The second feature is the use of his position and experience to buttress the opinion:  "I learned to watch for people's psychological age during my years doing intensive clinical work.".  

If he had just said "Trudeau acts like a teenager", that might be a reasonable statement of opinion.  By buttressing that opinion with his clinical experience, Dr. Peterson moves the opinion from the realm of political commentary to what could be perceived by the public as a clinical opinion with legitimacy - an assessment. 

Let's suppose for a moment that Dr. Peterson has at some point in the past had the opportunity to see Justin Trudeau professionally. Then Dr. Peterson is open to accusations that he has violated the privacy of his client not only by commenting on the client's status publicly, but by in fact directly identifying that client.  Further, if he did not have a release from Justin Trudeau authorizing such communication, that's an additional matter to consider. 

If, as I suspect is more likely, Dr. Peterson has never seen Justin Trudeau in a professional capacity, then he is open to accusations of inappropriately commenting on the mental status of someone he has never seen professionally. 

To be clear, most people make comments about the "mental status" of public figures.  "Oh, he's acting like a narcissist", or "The man is a psychopath", etc. - especially when referring to politicians.  That's fair enough in many realms, but a professional in the relevant disciplines - counsellors, psychologists, psychiatrists - should all know better than to make such a comment in the first place, but if they do choose to make such a comment it needs to be abundantly clear that it is not being made from a position of professional knowledge. 

Ethical Analysis

SPC Relevant Sections

Section 6.6 of the SPC is particularly relevant here - especially points a and b shown below:  

 

CPA Code of Ethics Relevant Sections

 Principle I "Respect for the Dignity of Persons and Peoples" applies here, and in particular section I.2 and I.3: 

 

 Principle II:  Principle of Responsible Caring, section II.5:

Principle III: Integrity in Relationships, sections III.9 - III.11

 

 Analysis

It's not terribly hard to see here that Peterson's public statement is professionally inappropriate on several levels.  First, since he has likely never seen Justin Trudeau in a professional capacity, he would neither have consent from Justin Trudeau for that examination, nor can he demonstrate that his opinion as expressed is in fact based on any kind of validated assessment beyond his own beliefs. 

The CPA Code of Ethics raises some very troubling matters from a professional conduct perspective.  First, one can argue that he has engaged in degrading comments that are intended to demonstrate disrespect for the target (CPA Code of Ethics Section I.2, I.3).  Given that much of Peterson's Twitter audience is hostile to Trudeau, it is also arguable that in fact he has put what could be deemed to be "psychological knowledge" in a place where he knows full well it would be misused. Third, he has not really acknowledged his biases in making this statement, and that is also problematic. 

Since the SPC makes operational reference to the CPA Code of Ethics, it is appropriate to note that Sections 6.6 an and 6.6 b have arguably been violated here.

Is a singular incident sufficient to warrant sanction? No, clearly not and to do so would suggest that the CPO is operating in a manner that is overly heavy-handed. (I'll come back to that).

 Concern 2:  Commenting On Topics Outside of Competence 

Peterson came to prominence in 2016 when the government was proceeding with Bill C-16 which enshrined recognition of Transgender Rights in the Canada Human Rights Act. He was a prominent objector to the legislation, claiming that it would create "compelled speech". 

The topic of competence in psychology is a bit vague. It tends to end up being a combination of individual clinical experience, supervisory training, papers and books read, and courses taken.  Not all subjects of interest are going to have material in all areas.  

When Peterson first popped up in 2016, one of the first things I did was wander over to both my university's library as well as the PubPsych and PubMed indexes to see what kinds of topics he was typically writing about. What I found was largely papers talking about the psychology of religion and spirituality. What I did not find was anything that even glancingly addressed issues of gender identity. 

To be clear, that doesn't make Dr. Peterson necessarily unaware of, or incompetent with respect to gender identity. He could have been working with a supervisor experienced in the subject, reading books, attending conferences and seminars, and so on - all of which would contribute to a degree of competence in the subject matter. I have no evidence that he was engaged in any such level of activity, and much of his comments regarding transgender people and issues since leads me to believe that he has no interest in the matter beyond it's usefulness to developing his public image. 

However, from a professional conduct perspective, it does raise questions about the appropriateness of some of Dr. Peterson's statements on the issues associated with transgender people, whether that is legal recognition in our laws, or their ability to access affirming care. 

A sampling of tweets from Dr. Peterson's account follows, it is by no means exhaustive: 

Additionally he has written columns for major newspapers on the subject of gender identity wherein he refers to a transgender child as "confused", or refuses to acknowledge another person's choice of pronouns. 

Uncritically referencing the Littman paper in 2020, two full years after it had been substantively debunked by both bloggers like myself, but also so roundly criticized that the author went back and revised the title (the paper should have been withdrawn, but that's my opinion) raises significant concerns with Dr. Peterson's conduct as well. The Littman paper should not be referenced as authoritative about anything - it's so flawed from methodology to conclusions that Dr. Peterson, with all his experience, should have seen through it and rejected using it in about 2 minutes.  

His tweets above suggest a concerning lack of regard for the well-being of a vulnerable minority, one that has been on the receiving end of a great deal of marginalization in society to begin with, and one that he seems all too willing to dogpile on for personal gain.  

Now, by this point in time, Dr. Peterson is a well known public figure, at least as recognizable as other characters like Dr. Phil, or Dr. Oz, when mentioned in conversation. 

Ethical Analysis

The concerns here that I have reside more in the realms of competence and ethical respect. 

SPC Relevant Sections

Section 5. Competence

 Section 6.6 Public Statements  

 

CPA Code of Ethics Relevant Sections

Principle I "Respect for the Dignity of Persons and Peoples" applies here, and in particular section I.2 and I.3: 

 

Principle III: Integrity in Relationships, sections III.9 - III.11

 

Analysis

One might look at the reference to CPS section 5, and say "well, he's not practicing in that area, so who cares?".  To an extent, I agree with that position, however, at no time has Dr. Peterson ever demonstrated any effort on his part to acknowledge the limits of his expertise, and while he may not practice in the domain of gender identity, as a professional commenting on the subject in public, he has at the very least a moral duty to acknowledge that it is not his area of specialization. 

With regards to the issues of respect and integrity, Dr. Peterson's commentary can be seen as derisive and disrespectful to the transgender community to such an extent that the OCP might well choose to interpret them under the rubric of the SPC section 6.6, and tangentially reference the issue of competence by pointing out that as a public figure, Dr. Peterson's comments are likely seen as carrying more weight than those of an "average member of the college".  

Dr. Peterson's comments have, at no time, ever been prefaced by any kind of statement that acknowledges his own perspective and biases. These are clear enough to an observer, but again, in matters of professional conduct, it's important to be explicit.

Caveats, Quid Pro Quos, and Mitigating Comments

This post is first and foremost intended to give readers who are not familiar with the codes of conduct and ethical codes that guide many self-regulating professions an introduction to how those codes might apply to a real world situation.  I am not by any means an authority on such matters, but I have enough knowledge to engage in at least an informed analysis. 

I will make no secret that I have little positive regard for Dr. Peterson. His actions have deliberately targeted a community that I belong to, and work with professionally. My interpretation of the relevant ethics and codes of conduct are certainly weighted by that.

This is not to say that the investigation and conclusions of the OCP have been conducted in a clear and even-handed manner. I am well aware that College bodies are populated by people, and those people have their own biases and perspectives. At best, the College investigation systems are quasi-legal procedures that are subject to interpretation.  Dr. Peterson certainly has every right to appeal to the courts for appropriate review of the process and any decisions made by the College.  Anything else would be a disservice to the principles of fundamental justice.  

*Note:  All screenshots shown in this post were taken on January 5, 2023, and are correct to the best of my knowledge.