Manipulation and Indoctrination in Counseling Education

Racism Disguised as Counseling Education

The Illusion of Inclusivity in Multicultural Counseling

Multicultural counseling sells itself as an inclusive space where all are welcomed, but the reality is quite different. Today’s counseling students are being stripped of their personal beliefs and indoctrinated into a specific ideological worldview—one that they’re taught to bring into the counseling room, whether it aligns with their values or not.

The Ideological Gauntlet: What Counseling Students Face

Students interested in becoming clinical mental health counselors, social workers, and other psychology professionals today face a gauntlet of ideological curriculum. We can see it clearly in textbooks like Counseling the Culturally Diverse Theory and Practice, where students are encouraged to explore the concept of 'Whiteness' and its supposed negative impact on clients of color. 

While challenging worldviews can foster growth, the text leans heavily into racial generalizations, implying that every White counselor has inherent biases that must be corrected—without providing solid evidence or a clear definition of ‘Whiteness’.

Gaslighting in the Classroom: A Case Study

 Take this quote for example: 

Is the material in the book, biased and political rhetoric, or is the White student having his view of the world challenged? We will delve more deeply into these emotive reactions shortly, but it appears that the student feels unjustly accused of being bigoted. To feel less guilty, the student emphasizes that minorities are equally prejudiced against White Americans.

This quote comes from a section titled “Reactions To The Course”. If it isn’t self evident that there is something wrong, let’s take a moment to look more closely at what’s going on just in this passage.

According to Steven Hassan, author of Combating Cult Mind Control, undue influence is any act of persuasion that overcomes the free will and judgment of another person. 

A few things are happening here that fit that bill. First of all, is the context. People reading this textbook, outside of a handful of otherwise interested parties, would all be graduate students in a graduate program for counseling or psychology. This book would be required and a professor would assign it as required reading.

As with any graduate program, the students would be paying for this instruction through loans or possibly some other type of assistance, and they would be under the dominion of professors. Stanley Milgram’s experiment on the power the guise of authority has over ordinary people gives us a baseline for this force. Imagine the influence of someone who holds the power to leave you in debt for thousands of dollars in loans and no degree.

Manipulation Tactics: Gaslighting and Mindreading

So not only is the environment already one of undue influence but the language of the text itself leans toward manipulation. The section “Reactions to the Course” comes at the start of the book, and is an attempt to pre-address problems that have obviously come up in the past, why else have a section with the goal of mollifying concerns students may have with the material? How many other textbooks have similar content warnings?

How these warnings are delivered matters as well. The first line of the passage, “Is the material in the book, biased and political rhetoric, or is the White student having his view of the world challenged?” Here the text primes students to doubt their perceptions, a form of gaslighting. 

By asking, 'Is the White student having his view of the world challenged?' It implies that resistance to these ideas comes from ignorance or defensiveness, rather than legitimate critique. This tactic creates doubt and confusion, making students more malleable to the ideological shift being pushed.

“it appears that the student feels unjustly accused of being bigoted. To feel less guilty, the student emphasizes that minorities are equally prejudiced against White Americans.” 

Here the passage goes on to make assumptions about what students might be thinking even to the extent of mindreading. By using the phrasing “To feel less guilty,” the authors implant the idea that the student feels guilty, something they couldn’t possibly know. This is a great way to deflect attention away from real problems with the content of the text.

This also casts the white students in a bad light, implying that they are trying to avoid responsibility. Given the subject is issues of racism, probably the biggest taboo behavior of modern society, the student is further backed into a corner.

The Chilling Assumptions Behind 'Whiteness'

The objectives of Chapter 7 lay out a clear plan for indoctrination:

1. Acquire an understanding of what it means to be White. Be able to discern differences between how Whites and People of Color experience “Whiteness.”

2. Understand how Whiteness advantages White European American individuals and disadvantages People of Color.

3. Describe and discuss the various conceptualizations of White racial identity development.

4. Learn how levels of White racial consciousness may affect the counseling process.

5. Learn what a White person can do in order to develop a nonracist and antiracist White identity.

6. Learn what White helping professionals can do in order to prevent their Whiteness from negatively impacting clients of color.

The italics and capitalizations are straight from the text. Just from this list of objectives we can see the authors are making some chilling assumptions like:

• There is a specific meaning attached to being white.

• There is something called “whiteness,” that has an impact on people of color.

• Whites oppress people of color.

• White people should develop a new identity.

• If Whites don’t take action their “whiteness” can harm clients of color.

We already know from the section on “Reactions to The Course,” that white students who object will be labeled defensive.

Where’s the Evidence? Lack of Empirical Support

You’d think to make assertions as sweeping and controversial as these, they’d provide rock-solid empirical evidence to support these claims, but they don’t. There is not even a glossary entry that provides a clear definition of “whiteness.” The preceding six chapters instead cover reports of the lived experiences of some people of color, statements that their problems were caused by ‘ethnocentric monoculture’ or some other aspect of society, citations for studies in social justice, and pronouncements that those people of color are powerless to improve their situation because the problem lies in society. This quote from a case study in chapter six is a good example.

It is clear that Alejandro is influenced by ethnocentric monoculturalism. As we mentioned previously, the problem he is experiencing does not reside in him but in our society: a society that portrays REC (racial, ethnic, cultural) characteristics, particularly Blackness, as inferior, primitive, deviant, pathological, or undesirable.

Disempowering Clients of Color: Externalizing Agency

While this is bad for white students. This is also bad for students and clients with any shade of brown skin. Having a sense of agency over one’s problems is widely known to be an important psychological factor in maintaining good mental health, it’s even mentioned in the preamble to the American Counseling Association (ACA) Code of Ethics. Yet in chapter five the authors specifically disabuse people of color from the notion they could do anything to help themselves. The author’s state

A social justice counseling approach emphasizes that problems do not necessarily reside in individuals alone but may be externally located in organizations and the social system.

They go on to say that one of the goals of social justice counseling is “to broaden the role of the helping professional to include not only counselor/therapist but also advocate, consultant, psychoeducator, change agent, community worker, and so on.”

The Overreach of Social Justice Counseling

At the close of this chapter, the authors make clear the ultimate goal:

The welfare of a democratic society depends on equal access and opportunity, fair distribution of power and resources, and the empowerment of individuals and groups to determine their own lives. To accomplish the goal, therapists must be prepared to treat social and systemic problems and play alternative helping roles that have not traditionally been considered therapy, including organizational and advocacy roles.

The text does not provide solid guidelines for policy to achieve these goals, nor evidence that supports these goals as the best possible use of resources in problem-solving. Counselor training does not provide the appropriate expertise even to begin to suss out the wheat from the chaff on altering the systemic functioning of an entire country.

Some may argue that these frameworks are necessary to encourage reflection on power dynamics and privilege. What is not being taken into account is that things like privilege can’t be measured, and power dynamics are assumed because they can’t be verified. By framing White students as inherently problematic without room for individual experiences or intentions, this approach creates more tension making race a characteristic by which all other thoughts, feelings, and motivations are assumed.

Responsibility is placed firmly on white students to make up any differences, lest their “whiteness” cause problems.

While there are good counselors still focused on treating mental health problems of individual clients, the field itself is corrupt, and it is clear that it’s not going to get better on its own.

What Can Be Done? Reforming Counselor Education

Concerned citizens can start by exploring whether your state requires CACREP accreditation for counseling licensure. If the answer is yes, ask your state representatives to remove that restriction in favor of broader standards that could open the door to more balanced, individualized approaches in mental health education. 
If you need mental health help right now, reach out to those making a stand against this unethical practice. In future posts, I will cover more steps we can take to restore balance in mental health education.

Further Reading

Combating Cult Mind Control: The Guide to Protection, Rescue and Recovery from Destructive Cults - Steven Hassan

About

Diogenes in Exile began after I returned to grad school to pursue a degree in Clinical Mental Health Counseling at the University of Tennessee. What I encountered, however, was a program deeply entrenched in Critical Theories ideology. During my time there, I experienced significant resistance, particularly for my Buddhist practice, which was labeled as invalidating to other identities. After careful reflection, I chose to leave the program, believing the curriculum being taught would ultimately harm clients and lead to unethical practices in the field.

Since then, I’ve dedicated myself to investigating, writing, and speaking out about the troubling direction of psychology, higher education, and other institutions that seem to have lost their way. When I’m not working on these issues, you’ll find me in the garden, creating art, walking my dog, or guiding my kids toward adulthood.

You can also find my work at Minding the Campus

Diogenes in Exile is reader-supported. If you find value in this work, please consider becoming a paid subscriber or buying Thought Criminal merch to keep this mission alive.