Photography by Matt Marcinkowski
In November 2004, The New York Times broke the news that the U.S. was using psychological and physical coercion “tantamount to torture” on detainees suspected of terrorism. That fall, Webster University psychology prof Linda Woolf was president-elect of the American Psychological Association’s division of peace psychology, and she swiftly drafted a resolution against torture. More revelations followed: Psychological research into “learned helplessness,” sensory deprivation, and humiliation was shaping torture methods; psychologists had been present during waterboardings; the CIA had paid two psychologists $81 million to develop “enhanced interrogation tactics.” Attorney David Hoffman conducted an independent review and found that some key leaders in the APA had colluded with the government in making torture possible. Woolf is working to make sure that never happens again.
At one point you resigned from a committee on principle—why?
We wanted a moratorium on psychologists working at interrogation sites. Not everyone in the APA agreed. There was a push to divide the resolution against torture from that moratorium, and I knew as soon as they separated the two, the moratorium was destined to fail. Which it did.
Why would anyone want to involve psychologists in torture—money?
No, I don’t think it was about money. The argument was that we are best able to help build relationships with prisoners, so the government can get information without torture. And that we were keeping these interrogations safe, effective, and legal. But in a closed system, when you have the president and CIA saying, “You need to be doing these things”…
For national security…
The interesting thing is that there is absolutely no evidence that torture works. Yes, people will break, but they may not always give you good information. Imagine being waterboarded: You will say anything to make it stop. And stress plays havoc with our memory. The best way to get good information is by building relationships.
Why isn’t that obvious?
Donald Trump would say, “They are doing these things, so we have to match them.” That’s not about information. That’s about vengeance. And I think for some it’s a reaction to our own powerlessness. When a presidential candidate says, “We will kill your family,” people are much more likely to strike back. Some of our responses in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo have turned out to be recruiting tools.
You fought for almost a decade. Was it stressful?
We were called pigs and useless idiots. A friend finally asked me, “Why don’t you just quit?” I said, “It’s important.”
And you won clear victories.
Psychologists can no longer work at Guantanamo Bay with prisoners. They can’t be involved in interrogations. The APA now follows the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Cruel or Inhumane or Degrading Punishment.
You now serve on an ethics commission. What’s your agenda?
To see more knowledge about human rights within psychology. I asked a group of 75 psychology teachers how many were familiar with the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Only two hands went up. Canada signed onto 15 or the 19 protocols in the declaration. The U.S. has signed onto five. This country has largely turned its back on the international human rights issue. And we have current presidential candidates arguing against recognition of international law. I think the APA needs to have an office for human rights. I plan to do some harping.
You started teaching courses about the Holocaust and more recent genocides years ago. Why?
Because I noticed that students’ only understanding was based on what they knew from television—and it’s very difficult to represent the Holocaust accurately on television, because it is too gruesome and difficult to watch. When I surveyed college students at Saint Louis and Webster universities, a significant number believed the Holocaust had been exaggerated.
How did 9/11 change people’s response to your courses?
People stopped asking me, “How does this relate to psychology?”
What have we learned about why humans torture and commit genocide—how do you find people who are willing to torture?
You train them. It’s called learning by doing. I’m sure soldiers who went to Guantanamo never thought, “I’ll go torture people.” You take small steps. The Holocaust didn't start with genocide, it started small. And the same applies to doing good. Holocaust rescuers might have started just by leaving a little loaf of bread on a step, and soon they were hiding a whole family. The question is, where do people make that initial choice to do something constructive or destructive?
