Minority Psychologists in the Community 489government land grant acts provided states throughout the
country with funds for colleges for their students. Many of
these admitted African Americans. But except for the histori-
cally black colleges which were located mostly in the south,
African Americans have always had to struggle to gain an
education in this country.
Even though psychology is a relatively recent scholarly
subject in academia, it has been a prominent contributor to
the country’s complex struggle with its attitudes about race.
An index of the difficulties is the fact that between 1920
and 1966, the APA reported, the 10 highest ranking gradu-
ate departments of psychology awarded just eight PhDs to
African Americans, while during the same period of time
these universities granted over 3,700 PhDs to others (Wispe
et al., 1969). During the first part of the twentieth century,
there were no welcome mats for African Americans at
the psychology department doors of the major universities
(Jay, 1971).
Further, “respected” psychological research and the best
trained psychologists used their studies, tests, and theories to
“prove,” in turn, that African American, Hispanic, Asian,
Mediterranean, and Irish peoples were socially undesirable,
mentally inferior, and corrupting of the nation’s potential
for advancement. This “science” included using African
Americans as guinea pigs in the Tuskegee study, sterilizing
“undesirable” young women, relegating members of some
racial/ethnic groups to an “uneducable” category, and similar
oppressions.
Considering this history, it is not a surprise that the influ-
ences of the racial/ethnic psychologists are directed toward
challenging traditional “rules” like those for research that
lead to invidious comparisons of African Americans to
Euroamerican. Ethnic-minority influence also includes prac-
tices that emphasize serving the unserved, understanding the
stereotyped, and expanding the scope of the theoretical in-
quiry. Following are two examples of contributions, led or
inspired, by these previously excluded people of color.
The first example is a primary prevention focus for a men-
tal health center. The center was developed in a poor, work-
ing class, mostly African American and Latino section of
New York City. The idea was to use professionals and trained
community residents to provide treatment and other services
according to community need and priority. Some examples:
dialogues between neighborhood supermarket managers and
householders; legal advice sessions with volunteer attorneys;
counseling older people at the sites of senior housing; tenant
organization to force landlords to provide needed services
like heat and sanitation; advocacy for children with the
schools, and liaisons with the police. The management of the
center was open to everyone who lived in the community
through their participation in monthly governance meetings,
termed the council. The council votes for the members of the
board of directors. They also advocate for program priorities.
For example, many members complained about the crowds
hanging out day and night in front of a neighborhood single-
room occupancy “hotel,” considered to be a menacing eye-
sore. It turned out that public agencies placed people in these
dwellings upon their release from jails, prisons, and mental
hospitals. It was housing of last resort for the troubled who
were down on their luck.
With the help of city hall, the mental health center assem-
bled the directors of the area’s city departments for the police,
fire, sanitation, health, and welfare, to improve the situation.
It was the first time they met as a group. Identifying viola-
tions on the property and sending summons to the landlord,
the building was made safer and cleaner, and an array of
services were brought into the building to engage and serve
the tenants. All of this functioned under the leadership of
the mental health center, which also assigned a multidisci-
pline team to the effort. There was an outpouring of pride at
the center and a sense of competence in the neighborhood
with the clearing of that notorious block!
The second example of the influence of African Ameri-
can leadership is one that occurred within the large child
guidance clinic of the New York City public school system.
During the 50 years since the service was established, it
functioned according to a traditional model of referring to
the school social worker or school psychologist difficult to
manage children and those who seemed to have learning
difficulties. More boys than girls were referred for behavior
problems, restlessness, rebellion, fighting, and the like, and
more minority children were referred both for behavior
and “mental retardation.” Nevertheless, the concentration of
staff was assigned to the “good” schools, meaning the
schools where the students were whiter and somewhat more
affluent. These students were more likely to receive psy-
chotherapy when needed, since the families were considered
to be more cooperative and less suspicious of a child guid-
ance referral, and to be more available and less likely to be
working or to have a job that would be jeopardized by ab-
sences for school visits. The result was a grossly inequitable
distribution of care.
When the author was awarded the directorship of the
agency, she set about changing these practices and attitudes.
She followed certain principles of continuing education: The
prospective students, adult professionals all, should have max-
imum influence over how and what should be taught, based on
clearly stated agency goals; the work should be based on the
strengths of the workers; and what is learned should be re-
warded with more successful practice. The underlying premise