Cultural Competence Training in the Context of Civil Liberties, Academic Freedom, and Reverse Prejudice: At Least Do No Harm

  • William O’DonohueEmail author


Cultural competence training does not occur acontextually. Historically, little work has been done on the extent to which standard cultural competence training interferes with basic civil liberties such as free speech, freedom to practice one’s religion, or even academic freedom. This chapter notes how the cultural sensitivity movement often ignores the religious dimension of cultures about which it claims it care. This movement possibly also ignores certain value positions (associated with particular religious traditions) which are anathema to secular leftist political views. In recent years, the cultural sensitivity movement has become more aggressive and serious infractions of civil liberties have occurred.


Cultural competence Cultural sensitivity Problems Civil liberties Academic freedom Reverse prejudice 


  1. Bailey, J. M. (2003). The man who would be queen: The science of gender-bending and transsexualism. New York: Joseph Henry Press.Google Scholar
  2. Benuto, L., & O’Donohue, W. (2015). Is culturally sensitive cognitive behavioral therapy an empirically supported treatment?: The case for Hispanics. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 15(3), 405–421.Google Scholar
  3. Bowers, A., O’Donohue, W., & Carlson, G. (2015). Sexual harassment investigations. In: M. Paludi, J. Martin, J. Gruber, S. Fineran (Eds). Sexual harassment in educational and work settings. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  4. Cummings, N., O’Donohue, W., & Cummings, J. (2009). Psychology’s war on religion. Phoenix: Zeig, Tucker & Theisen.Google Scholar
  5. Dreger, A. (2015). Galileo’s middle finger: Heretics, activists and one scholar’s search for justice. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  6. Ellis, A. (1988). Is religiosity pathological. Free Inquiry, 8(2), 27–32.Google Scholar
  7. Frisby, C. (2013). Meeting the psychoeducational needs of minority students. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Houts, A. C. (2009). In N. Cummings, W. O’Donohue, & J. Cummings (Eds.), Psychology’s war on religion. Phoenix: Zeig, Tucker & Theisen.Google Scholar
  9. MacKinnon, C. (1987). Pleasure under patriarchy. In J. Geer & W. O’Donohue (Eds.), Theories of human sexuality. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  10. O’Donohue, W., & Benuto, L. (2010). The many problems of cultural sensitivity. Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice, 7(2), 34–42.Google Scholar
  11. Redding, R. E. (2015). Sociopolitical insularity is psychology’s Achilles heel. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 38, 36–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Taylor, S., & Johnson, K. C. (2010). Until proven innocent: Political correctness and the shameful injustices of the Duke Lacrosse Case. New York: Thomas Dunne Books.Google Scholar
  13. Worthington Jr., E. L., Kurusu, T. A., McCollough, M. E., & Sandage, S. J. (1996). Empirical research on religion and psychotherapeutic processes and outcomes: A 10-year review and research prospectus. Psychological Bulletin, 119(3), 448–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Nevada - RenoRenoUSA

Personalised recommendations