The Black Association of Behavior Analysts Release Statement In Response to the Supreme Court’s Ruling in Chiles v. Salazar
Public Statement
For Immediate Release
Monday April 6, 2026
Contact: [email protected]
The recent ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in Chiles v. Salazar, which subjects state-level bans on conversion therapy to “strict scrutiny” under the First Amendment, requires a clear and unified response from the behavioral science community. By framing life-altering clinical interventions as protected speech, the Court signals a dangerous shift that prioritizes the expression of practitioners over the safety and psychological well-being of vulnerable youth. The Black Association of Behavior Analysts (BABA) firmly opposes any legal framework that allows the shield of “free speech” to be used in ways that undermine the dignity and humanity of LGBTQIA+ individuals, particularly those at the intersection of Black and queer identities.
The Misalignment of “Speech” and Science
The majority opinion of the Court suggests that restricting harmful, non-empirical “talk therapy” constitutes viewpoint discrimination. From a behavior analytic perspective, therapy is not a viewpoint. It is a set of environmental conditions, contingencies, and interventions designed to produce meaningful and socially significant change. When those interventions seek to suppress or erase identity, they are no longer therapeutic; they function as sources of clinical harm.
By categorizing these interventions as “speech,” the Court ignores the power imbalance inherent in the practitioner-client relationship and the functional impact of verbal conditioning. As an organization, we maintain that professional licensure is a mandate for competent care, not a license for ideological enforcement.
Accountability and the Shadows of Our History
We cannot address the current legal climate without acknowledging the dark history of our own discipline. For decades, behavioral science was weaponized against the LGBTQIA+ community. We point specifically to the “Feminine Boy Project” in the 1970s and the work of Rekers and Lovaas (1974), which utilized behavioral contingencies to pathologize and “correct” gender-nonconforming behavior in children. This era of our science operated in tandem with a medical establishment that classified homosexuality as a mental disorder in the DSM until 1973.
While our field has evolved, the Supreme Court’s ruling risks a regression into these punitive roots. We recognize that Black LGBTQIA+ individuals already navigate systems shaped by bias, inequity, and limited access to affirming care. When legal protections are reframed to allow harmful practices to persist, it reinforces a broader pattern in which marginalized communities are left unprotected from ideologically driven harm.
Violations of Ethical and Professional Standards
The endorsement of conversion-based approaches is a direct contradiction of the BACB Ethics Code for Behavior Analysts. Specifically, these practices violate:
- Core Principle: Benefit Others. Analysts must protect the rights and welfare of clients. Conversion therapy does the opposite, inflicting documented psychological trauma.
- Standard 1.01 (Being Truthful). Practitioners must be honest about the efficacy of their work. To suggest that sexual orientation or gender identity can be “cured” is a fundamental clinical falsehood.
- Standard 1.05 (Cultural Responsiveness and Diversity). Analysts have an ethical duty to acquire the knowledge and skills necessary to work with diverse populations. Pathologizing a client’s identity reflects a profound failure of cultural humility.
The Clinical Cost of Identity Suppression
The fallout of these practices is not theoretical; it is measured in human life. Research consistently links conversion efforts to devastating outcomes, including identity fragmentation and cognitive dissonance—the psychological distress that occurs when an individual’s identity is in conflict with external pressure (American Psychological Association [APA], 2025). Emerging research further associates these practices with Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (C-PTSD) and long-term psychological harm (Stanford Medicine, 2024).
Most alarmingly, these practices are closely associated with increased suicidal ideation and attempts. For Black youth, who already face higher rates of systemic stressors, the introduction of identity-erasing “therapy” becomes a matter of life and death.
Ethical Responsibility Beyond Legal Permission
Legal permissibility does not determine ethical care. The existence of legal protection does not equate to clinical appropriateness. As practitioners, our responsibility extends beyond what is allowed to what is right, evidence-based, and affirming. When legal standards and client well-being diverge, we remain accountable to the protection, dignity, and humanity of those we serve.
Our Commitment
As behavior analysts, we understand that practices are shaped by environmental histories and reinforcement systems. Conversion-based approaches do not emerge in isolation; they are sustained by longstanding patterns of heteronormativity and power. Labeling these practices as “speech” obscures their impact and weakens accountability.
The science of behavior does not support any intervention that pathologizes identity. We call on practitioners, educators, and regional leaders to uphold standards of care that affirm the full humanity of those we serve.
Silence maintains harmful systems. Accountability disrupts them.
We remain committed to advocacy, ethical integrity, and a standard of care that honors the whole person, regardless of shifting legal interpretations.
If you are committed to advancing ethical practice and protecting the rights of marginalized communities, we encourage you to join BABA’s Advocacy Committee and take action alongside us.
To get involved, please contact Dr. Christiana Skinner-Walker, Advocacy Chair, at [email protected]
The BABA Executive Board