What’s new in 2006?
* Who Are We?
- Vancouver Art Therapy Institute (VATI)
We will be explaining why we consider the following art therapists as either abusive and unprofessional or supportive of client abuse and student abuse:
Audrey Derksen, Aira Welwood, Lisa Bernstein, Lois Woolf, Monica Franz, Debora Broadhurst, Duanita Eleniak Crofton, Mehdi Naimi, Monica Carpendale, Colleen Gold, Joanne Hayward, Michelle Oucherek-Deo, Katherine Kortikow, Helene Burt, and Michael Haslam.
We believe that the rights of art therapy clients and students are more important than protecting abusive art therapists, that ethical guidelines for art therapists are meaningless unless enforced, and that professional art therapists have a duty to report client and student abuse.
While we recognize that not all British Columbia and Canadian art therapists are abusive, and that there exist ethical, competent art therapists within the BCATA and the CATA, we hold both associations as a whole responsible for a failure to enforce ethical standards. Furthermore, we suggest that the reputation of good art therapists would be best served by ending, not ignoring, client and student abuse.
Yet we maintain that the primary purpose of exposing and ending abuse is protecting the victim. To this end, we also advocate that BCATA and CATA publicly apologize to client and student abuse victims and make reparations.
We invite art therapy clients and students who have been abused to submit their testimonies to this website, and we extend this invitation most warmly to those art therapists ready to step forward with accounts of abuse they've witnessed.
Finally, we invite all concerned citizens to contact us via email if they wish to become members of our organization.
.
Client and Student Abuse: Definitions
Client abuse happens when a therapist abuses her
power; student abuse, when an instructor abuses his.
Within private art therapy schools, client and student
abuse may co-exist. If group art therapy is a required
part of the program, the art therapy student is also
the instructor/therapist's client.
Both client and student abuse, we believe, fall into
the category of "professional abuse." POPAN, The
Prevention of Professional Abuse Network, defines
professional abuse as:
- Betrayal of client's trust
Source: www.popan.org.uk
Client abuse includes but isn't limited to sexual
conduct between therapist and client, including
sexualized touching and sexual comments; breaches of
confidentiality; verbal abuse; and bullying, shaming,
and humiliating the client.
In the context of private art therapy schools, student
abuse resembles client abuse. Student abuse may also
include but isn't limited to fraudulent claims by a
school; discrimination based on physical appearance,
race, ethnicity, gender, physical handicaps, age,
economic status, and sexual orientation; an atmosphere
of fear and coercion; censorship of freedom of speech;
and unjust dismissals.
While we recognize that schools must have the right to
dismiss students for just cause, we abhor the practice
of expelling students for the school director's
political, personal, or financial motives. We
especially abhor schools actively recruiting students
they have no intention of graduating, with the sole
purpose of profiting from these students' tuition fees
until preferred students might be found.
We also suggest that in private art therapy schools
that require students to do group therapy together,
client and student abuses occur more often. We believe
that in such a setting, there already exists a
"failure to maintain professional boundaries," one of
the elements of professional abuse.
BC Art Therapy Cients and Students Beware!
Do you think that British Columbia's Private Post
Secondary Commission (PPSEC) protects you as an art
therapy student or guarantees you as an art therapy
client with a well-trained therapist? Not so. If you
go to the website of the Private Post Secondary
Education Commission of British Columbia, you'll see
that the PPSEC "Mission" is "to provide consumer
protection" and "to encourage integrity and high
standards of educational competence within the private
post-secondary sector." But wait! Please click on
"registration" and then on "What does registration
mean for the prospective student?" You'll read the
following statements:
"What is NOT Approved by Registration? Under
registration, the Commission does not assess or
approve standards of integrity or educational
competence. This means that we do not assess or
approve the curriculum or the potential employability
of graduates. With the exception of licensed trades
and professions , such as hairdressing, there are no
specific qualifications required for instructors and
the Commission does not approve or certify
instructors."
In other words, the BC public is not protected against
incompetent or abusive art therapists and art therapy
schools. It does not make sense that there are
required qualifications for hairdressing teachers but
not for art therapy teachers or schools - unlike
hairdressers, art therapists and art therapy schools
are dealing with clients who are emotionally at risk.
What do BC art therapy schools say about themselves?
The Vancouver Art Therapy Institute (VATI) website
advertises its Diploma Program, formerly two years
long, is now 15 months fulltime, with instruction two
days/week and seven weekends. "The program satisfies
the requirements for training of the Canadian and
American Art Therapy Associations." The Kutenai Art
Therapy (KATI) Institute website claims KATI "follows
the educational and ethical guidelines of the Canadian
Art Therapy Association and the British Columbia Art
Therapy Association." The admissions guideline for the
KATI Diploma Program reassures that "Prior learning
will be considered in lieu of a BA, BFA, BSW or
equivalent degree for entry into the program." In
other words, post-secondary education is not required.
The BC School of Art Therapy (BCSAT) website describes
its Diploma Program as "for persons with a Bachelor's
degree in a related area. A rigorous graduate level
training program."The definition of "rigorous" is
neither supplied by BCSAT nor monitored by any
governing body.
The American Art Therapy Association, which approved
art therapy programs in North America, has not
approved of any BC art therapy school.
The only art therapy program in Canada that is
recognized (since 1986) by the American Art Therapy
Association (AATA) is the Art Therapy Option of the
Creative Arts Therapies Program at Concordia
University in Montreal . And in 2000, the AATA
re-approved this program. Unlike private art therapy
schools, Concordia art therapy students are also
protected from abuse and corrupt politics.
Vancouver Art Therapy Institute (VATI) Loses Court Case
On June 3, 2004, Dr. A. Azad won her Small Claims
Court case against the Vancouver Art Therapy Institute
(VATI). Held in North Vancouver, the proceedings
lasted three hours.
See
Azad v. Vancouver Art Therapy Institute Assn.
The plaintiff, Dr. Azad, charged that VATI director
Lois Woolf wrongfully dismissed her in March 2003 for
maintaining a website that detailed abuses by
three Victoria art therapists. In her defense, Dr.
Azad presented documentary evidence detailing her
unjust dismissal, as well as letters from two former
VATI trainees who also claimed they were unjustly
dismissed from the institute. Both former VATI
trainees characterized Lois Woolf as "a liar." One of
these former VATI trainees had begun Small Claims
Court proceedings against VATI, but had accepted a
settlement before the case went to trial. Dr. Azad
also had another former VATI student as witness concerning
Lois Woolf's character. Claiming that Lois Woolf had also unjustly
dismissed her from VATI, this former student described how Lois
Woolf systematically lied. Lois Woolf declined to
cross-examine either this former student or Dr. Azad. The
question concerning Lois Woolf on the witness stand:
did she knowingly commit perjury, or did she believe
what she said? In any case, Lois Woolf had no
witnesses on her behalf.
In her summation speech, Judge Ellen Baird affirmed
that Dr. Azad did indeed have the right to operate a
website about art therapists in British Columbia. Judges Baird
commented that at the time Lois Woolf dismissed Dr.
Azad, the website contained no references to VATI,
and thus could not possibly provide any legitimate
grounds for dismissal. Judge Baird ruled that Lois
Woolf had unfairly dismissed Dr. Azad and must repay
Dr. Azad's educational expenses, including tuition and
book costs.
When Judge Baird recounted the facts leading to this
decision, she repeated what Dr. Azad had testified.
Judge Baird commented that "Lois Woolf would have a
different version," but did not finish that sentence.
If the judge was implying she didn't believe Lois Woolf, who
can blame her?
Dr. Fischer and His Harmful Legacy
The founder of the Canadian Art Therapy Association
(CATA) was Dr. Martin A. Fischer, a Freudian
psychiatrist who trained in Vienna before World War
II. After the war he practised in Toronto. In his work
for the Children's Aid Society, he developed art
therapy that nurtured child clients with food and
hugs.
Dr. Fischer published no books or articles, yet his
impact on art therapy in Canada has been profound. In
1967, Dr. Fischer founded the Toronto Art Therapy
Institute (TATI), where his daughter would later work
as an art therapist too. In 1982, with Dr. Fischer's
encouragement, TATI graduate Lois Woolf founded the
Vancouver Art Therapy Institute (VATI). Lois Woolf
refers to Dr. Fischer as her "mentor." On the Kutenai
Art Therapy Institute (KATI) web site, director Monica
Carpendale, a VATI grad, advertises that she trained
under Dr. Fischer. The CATA web site also pays Dr.
Fischer homage. Given the reverence shown to this
charismatic psychiatrist, it's useful to look at the
art therapy techniques he taught.
During his group sessions with art therapy students,
Dr. Fischer usually began talking to a woman with a
remark-warmly positive or politely negative-about her
physical appearance. Indeed, he made comments about
the students' looks throughout his workshops. Dr.
Fischer also invited the women students he considered
most attractive to sit on his lap.
Dr. Fischer applied a Freudian interpretation to
"stories" of sexual abuse and pretty much everything
else. He often recounted that Freud said too many of
his patients claimed they'd been sexually abused "for
them to have all been telling the truth." (Of course,
Freud's female patients comprised a tiny minority of
Viennese women!) Sexual abuse, Dr. Fischer believed,
was more often than not an Oedipal fantasy. He joked
about art therapy students who said they were sexually
abused as children or as adults. He also said that
homosexuals were cases of "arrested development,"
still "attached to their mothers." (Of course, some
gay men may feel close to their mothers because their
mothers don't reject them.) Weight lifters, Dr.
Fischer said, were cases of "castration complex"-the
need to compensate for a perceived or real lack of
testicles. (Of course, for some people, weight
lifting, with its results of increased muscle mass and
thus metabolic rate, is the best control against
obesity.)
Dr. Fischer adhered to this Freudian dogma and
expected students to do the same. Disagreement was
labeled "resistance"; critics were "people with
issues." Dr. Fischer went so far as to call a
prominent debunker of Freudian myth a "psychopath."
Yet Dr. Fischer didn't follow the protocol of
traditional psychotherapy, with its strict separation
of doctor, patient, and fellow patients outside of the
consulting room. TATI students took classes, worked at
practica, and did therapy together. Dr. Fischer, their
therapist, socialized with them at various functions.
VATI has continued this practice. Students spend
considerable time with their fellow students/ fellow
therapy clients and their instructors/therapists at
VATI functions and private social occasions. In a
letter dated June 20, 2003 to applicant A. Azad,
KATI director Monica Carpendale warns, "Due to the
size and nature of our school program in a small town,
prospective students need to be prepared to work with
dual relationships and to commit to working through
transference and counter-transference dynamics." In
other words, at KATI also your therapist is your instructor is
your... whatever.
Dr. Fischer's blurring and even erasure of
therapist/client boundaries exacerbated what was
described as "transference" among the students,
"acting out" less euphemistically known as bad
behavior. Following the Freudian theory of
"transference," Dr. Fischer encouraged students to
express strong feelings against each other and for
him, with the assumption that what lay beneath the
feeling was an early trauma or neglect. For example, a
number of students admitted that they saw Dr. Fischer
as an "ideal father," whom they wished they'd had
growing up.
Yet while he described a "transference" as "only 5%
based on present reality," Dr. Fischer didn't argue
"facts." Nor did he point out misperceptions or
irrational beliefs that often informed the strong
feelings he encouraged. Indeed, in 1986 at VATI,
"cognitive therapy" was ridiculed. Conflict resolution
and interpersonal skills weren't discussed.
Furthermore, Dr. Fischer empathized with the feelings
of the "acting-out" student without holding her
responsible for her behavior. Among art therapists,
Dr. Fischer was famous for his belief that someone who
commits a crime because of an "unconscious
transference" should not be held legally guilty.
Fischer-trained art therapists often cited this
belief.
What has been the result of Dr. Fischer's manipulation
of students' emotions, unchecked by critical thinking
and uncensored by the morality of personal
responsibility? Critics might well argue that by
granting the "diplomatic license plate" of
"unconscious transference," Dr. Fischer encouraged
some art therapists to become the therapeutic
equivalent of drunk hit-and-run drivers - abusers too
self-involved to consider the needs and rights of
their victims. Perhaps this was Dr. Fischer's most
tragic legacy.
The American Art Therapy Association (AATA) received
several complaints against Dr. Fischer and his
daughter, also an art therapist, but could do nothing.
The Fischers were beyond AATA jurisdiction.
Ms. A.'s Experience at the Vancouver Art Therapy Institute
Ms. A. trained at the Vancouver Art Therapy Institute (VATI) from January to September 1986. During this period, she witnessed gross ethical violations, breaches of confidentiality, emotional abuse, poor academic standards, inept supervision of practica, incompetent therapy, prejudice toward and ignorance about psychiatric patients, and a general atmosphere of fear and coercion. VATI director, Lois Woolf spent an undue amount of time discussing the wardrobes and physical attributes of trainees. She also favored trainees with money and connections. Dr. Martin Fischer visited VATI twice to conduct week-long workshops, during which he made fun of Ms. A.'s having been sexually abused and dangled several petite trainees on his lap. Monica Carpendale, now director of the Kutenai Art Therapy Instiute and Ethics Chair of the BC Art Therapy Association (BCATA), was a VATI trainee at the time. In front of witnesses, Monica Carpendale told Lois Woolf that she was "afraid" A. would tell people "what went on" at VATI before they "had a chance to change things." Lois Woolf agreed. Meanwhile, another trainee with what Lois Woolf called "a transference" against A., threatened to withdraw her husband's support of VATI if Lois Woolf did not kick A. out. This trainee was married to a child psychiatrist who referred most if not all of VATI's paying clients, a crucial source of revenue for the struggling institute. A week later, Lois Woolf kicked A. out on the false charge of "taking too much time" during group art therapy and supervision (A. had timed herself and the other trainees since February and noticed she took on average half or a third of the time they did.)
Ms. A. asked for a refund of her tuition money, which Lois Woolf refused. When A. said she'd take her to Small Claims court, Lois Woolf threatened to speak to the male relative who'd sexually abused A. The latter told Lois Woolf that was a gross violation of confidentiality. Lois Woolf changed tactics, saying that A. was really "on a leave of absence" and could come back if she continued art therapy. A. didn't want to lose her investment of tuition money and time. She took art therapy with Shirley Anderson at VATI, though they had to change locations when someone at VATI threw out her artwork. She also attended the CATA conference held in Toronto in November 1986, subscribed to the CATA journal, and saw Dr. Fisher for two hour-long sessions in January 1987. Dr. Fisher and Shirley Anderson both thought she should become an art therapist. At Dr. Fischer's invitation, she presented a slide show of her art at the CATA conference held in Vancouver in September 1987. Despite the rave reviews her presentation garnered, and despite Dr. Fischer's advocacy of her, Lois Woolf refused to make good her word and re-admit Ms. A. to VATI.
Another VATI trainee, who began in September 1986 and was then completing a third year, spent some time with her drug dealer boyfriend and one of Ms. A.'s relatives on the latter's boat in Mosquito Creek Marina, North Vancouver. This VATI trainee knew A.'s relative had a history of drug and alcohol addiction, violence, and sexual abuse. She told him what A. had said about him in the "confidentiality" of group art therapy. A.'s relative promptly threatened to kill her. A. complained to VATI. The trainee in question graduated anyway, and is now a practicing art therapist. A. also complained to the BC Art Therapy Association and the American Art Therapy Association. The former did nothing. The latter could do nothing, as VATI is not in the AATA's jurisdiction. A. didn't bother complaining to the Canadian Art Therapy Association, as Lois Woolf was its president.
--------
Ms. A. first met Lois Woolf at VATI in the autumn of 1985,
when the director agreed to be interviewed about art
therapy. A. wanted to write a freelance article on the
subject. Brushing aside her questions, Lois insisted
that A. would make a good art therapist. Had she considered
art therapy as a career?
Lois asked for A.'s phone number and called her several
times, leaving messages with her landlord. Finally A.
agreed to meet with her. Again Lois pressured A. to
become an art therapist. At the time, A. wanted to
teach English overseas and write freelance. She also
planned to take a graduate level course in a few
years, once she'd paid down her student loans, saved some
money, gained work experience, and had a few
adventures. However, she'd been interested in art
therapy for years and found Lois' arguments
persuasive. She considered combining art therapy
training with an education degree at some later point.
But she hesitated.
Lois kept pressuring her. A. voiced her concerns about
Lois' program, especially the requirement to do group
art therapy with the other students. She'd seen a
psychiatrist for what he called "reactive depression."
He said her ability to handle stress was "much higher
than average" but for years she'd dealt with an
"abnormal situation." Her parents divorced when she was a
child, and for complex reasons having nothing to do
with her, her mother and her family cut her off, leaving
her with my abusive father and older brother.
A. didn't want to discuss this abuse in a group of
strangers unless there were strict rules of
confidentiality. She also emphasized that she couldn't
emotionally handle re-living the sexual abuse in the
context of being mocked or disbelieved. Lois Woolf
insisted that, despite VATI's Freudian approach,
sexual abuse victims were believed and treated with
compassion. She said that Dr. Martin Fischer, the
Toronto psychiatrist who gave VATI workshops twice a
year, was "very gentle."
Feeling convinced (though later she felt conned!), A.
then asked Lois a number of questions. During the next
few months, she'd learn that she'd been deceived. Here are
a few of Lois Woolf's lies or misrepresentations:
- Lois claimed that students underwent a three-month
probation period, after which time, they couldn't be
dismissed from VATI unless they were mentally ill. In
fact, in the four years of VATI's existence, Lois
Woolf had dismissed a number of students well after
the three-month probation, for reasons others than
mental illness. A. met one of these ex-VATI students,
then studying art therapy Concordia University, at a
BC Art Therapy Association (BCATA) conference in the
spring of 1986.
- Lois claimed she'd trained under Dr. Martin Fischer
for three years. In fact, as part of her training at
the Toronto Art Therapy Institute (TATI), she'd
undergone group art therapy with him for three years.
(The TATI program was two years long, but Lois was
required to do a third year of therapy.) If being in
therapy makes one a therapist, then long-term therapy
clients could open their own consulting offices
without further accreditation.
- Lois claimed that VATI training was "complete" and
"everything you need to become a therapist." A. found
the educational standards to be extremely low. Her
impression was, she'd read more psychology books than
Lois had.
- Lois implied that as an ATR (Art Therapist,
Registered) with the American Art Therapy Association
(AATA), she was under AATA jurisdiction and VATI was
AATA-approved. In fact, the AATA could do nothing
about the complaint A. made about Lois because she
works in Canada, and the AATA never approved VATI.
- Lois lied that Canada Student Loans had "just
approved the VATI program for loans," implying that
the program had been inspected and found reputable. In
fact, the executive at Canada Student Loans with whom
A. later talked stated that VATI was never approved,
and that loans were granted to all qualifying students
accepted into any private educational institute.
- Lois lied that "several women" would start their
VATI training in January 1986. In fact, A. was the only
new trainee.
- Lois lied that Dr. Fischer "believed incest victims
and treated them with the utmost respect." In fact, in
his two workshops conducted at VATI while A. was a
trainee, Dr. Fischer made jokes about incest and
openly ridiculed what he described as A.'s "story,"
despite the fact that her two abusers have admitted
(though rationalized) their abuse.
- Lois lied that she intended to remain at VATI for
the next two years. In fact, prior to A.'s first meeting
her, she had already made plans to join her then
husband in Toronto by June 1986.
- Lois lied that VATI trainees were required to have a
university degree. In fact, several trainees had only
two years of university.
- Lois lied that confidentiality in the trainees'
group art therapy was "strictly enforced." In fact,
the trainees openly discussed each other (and their
clients) publicly-on the street, in coffee shops, and
so on. Lois did nothing. And when, in September 1986,
A. said she should take her to Small Claims Court for her
unjust dismissal of me, Lois threatened to phone the
relative who'd sexually abused A.
When Ms. A. began at VATI in January 1986, she felt shocked
by the academic standards, the way the practica were
run, and the behavior of Lois Woolf and a minority of
the students. In her opinion, Lois Woolf's behavior was
dishonest, manipulative, mercurial and unreliable.
Lois, in her opinion, played the students against each
other, whipping up their emotions one moment only to
force them to "play nice" the next. But Lois also
played favorites, preferring students
who had money, connections, a beautiful wardrobe of
clothes, or the physical size Lois preferred-petite. Ms. A. was 5'9," wore a size 14, had almost no money, and few
clothes. She tried to ignore the comments made by one or
two of the trainees, who were encouraged by the example of Lois's obsession with looks.
Nevertheless, A. made an effort to get along with
everyone, refusing to either play politics or to
participate in gossip based on other students' group
therapy. At various times during her nine months at
VATI, every student commented that she was "nice" and
"put up with a lot." Even a student A. calls "X"
admitted this, though her intractable so-called
transference against A. proved the latter's undoing.
X was married to the psychiatrist who referred VATI's
paying clients, a crucial source of revenue for the
struggling institute. For reasons Ms. A. cannot disclose, X
had an unhealthy control over her husband, and
sometimes he threatened to withdraw his support if she
didn't get her way. X came to class late or didn't
show up, handed in assignments late or not at all, and
admitted herself that she preferred clients who
"couldn't get better." X also loathed Ms. A. almost
constantly, with only a few breaks in which she saw A.
for what she was. This pattern of loathing and wanting
to destroy a woman wasn't new to X , A. hasten to add.
A. didn't occupy any "special status" in X's hate
pantheon. A. couldn't figure out why someone like X
wanted to be a therapist but X supplied the reason:
she needed the money.
Just as X was moving toward a lukewarm acceptance of
A., Dr. Martin A. Fischer arrived in February for an
intensive weeklong group therapy session with the VATI
trainees. He openly disbelieved A.'s story of sexual
abuse (despite the fact that her abusers admitted what
they did), thus setting an example for the students.
Worse, however, he went along with the complaints of
one or two students that A. "took too much time."
The charge that A. "took too much time" was always
false, and indicative only of the "sibling rivalry
transferences" Dr. Fischer and his protégé Lois Woolf
so adeptly stirred up only to sit back as the students
acted out. Of course, A. didn't want to take too much
time, so when she first heard this charge, she began
watching the clock conveniently located in the small
room where all the students did their therapy, coursework, and
supervision together. Fact was, A. took less than half
the time anyone else did, at the most. And what a
shocker! The two students who complained about A. were
the biggest time hogs themselves. Yet this false
charge of "taking too much time" would eventually
become Lois Woolf's official "reason" for kicking Ms. A.
out of VATI.
But the worst thing Dr. Fischer did to Ms. A. was what
appeared to be the best: he encouraged her writing.
Indeed, he praised A. extravagantly, saying he hoped
she'd write a book. Alas, X had two unpublished novels
stashed in a drawer-and Dr. Fischer never suggested
that she might have writing talent. Glowering, X
reverted to loathing A.
Also during Dr. Fischer's first 1986 visit to VATI,
Lois Woolf announced she was moving to Toronto in
June. This caused great distress among the students. A.
felt shocked because Lois had lied to her, as mentioned
above.
After Dr. Fischer's departure - and as a
direct result of his example - a new standard was set
regarding Ms. A.'s treatment during group art therapy. A. now
got about a third or even only a quarter of the time
the others did. It became accepted that one student in
particular, i.e. Monica Carpendale, would make
nasty comments about A. being sexually abused. When A.
mentioned the abuse, she observed that this student
showed what A. took as signs of sexual arousal: flushed
cheeks, dilated pupils, and erect nipples. A few
times, A. felt so upset by this perceived cruelty and
arousal that she went to the bathroom and cried.
Yet A. persevered, treating the other students with
friendly courtesy and respect, attending every class,
handing in all her coursework on time, doing well on her
projects, and establishing good relationships with her
practica clients. At the BC Art Therapy Association
conference that spring, A. attended every workshop
hosted by a VATI grad or student. She also participated
in fund-raising for the Canadian Art Therapy
Association (CATA) conference held in Toronto that
November. In addition, she wrote for the CATA
newsletter.
In August Dr. Fischer returned for his second art
therapy workshop that year. He now openly mocked Ms. A.'s
"story" of sexual abuse and made a point of spending
very little time on her. Monica Carpendale, the student
who demonstrated
sexual arousal to incest, talked about A. in front of
the three new VATI students and
anyone else who'd listen, without bothering to lower
her voice when she saw A. could hear her.
In September, Monica Carpendale questioned A. during
supervision class with
Lois Woolf, who'd returned from Toronto on a visit.
This student acted angry at the marked transformation
shown by A.'s two child clients at a certain VATI
practicum. Rather than praise A.'s skills, Monica Carpendale
said to Lois that A. "must be a psychopath" to reach
children whom she considered to be psychopaths.
(the psychopath designation is used
only for adults or perhaps teenagers, never for
eight-year old children. Furthermore, given
encouragement, attention, and strict limits, A.'s two
child clients showed considerable warmth, empathy, and
respect for others - scarcely psychopathic behavior.)
Lois Woolf neither explained what a psychopath really
was nor showed empathy for A. being called one.
In front of a roomful of witnesses, Monica
Carpendale also commented that she was afraid A. would
graduate and then "tell people what's going on here
before we have a chance to change." At this Lois
agreed, nodding her head and promising she'd "do
something about it."
At the same time, X threatened to withdraw her
husband's support from VATI if A. continued as a
student. The clients her husband referred to VATI
generated more income than A.'s tuition fees.
Furthermore, three new students had joined VATI in
August, thus supplying additional revenue. A.'s tuition
fees no longer counted for as much.
A week later, Lois Woolf led a "special" art therapy
session with the students, in which she encouraged
everyone to express anger toward A. Two students,
especially X, needed no such encouragement-only
permission to act out their socially unacceptable
behavior. A couple of others didn't know what they
were angry about. To their great credit, the rest
abstained. To the shame of VATI, however, while many
averted their eyes and were clearly upset by Lois
Woolf's behavior, not one dared speak out. To do so
was to risk A.'s fate. Repeating often that A. had "taken
too much time," Lois made sure A. had no time to defend
herself. Everyone had much more time than A. did.
And then Lois Woolf took A. aside and expelled her for
"taking too much time." A. argued that in fact she'd
taken less time than the others, that Lois had
promised once the "probation period" was over, she
couldn't be dismissed, and so on. Lois was adamant. A.
asked for a refund of her tuition money. Lois said she
"couldn't do that." A. replied, "In that case, I'll
have to go to Small Claims Court."
Lois reached for the phone and picked up the receiver,
saying she was calling A.'s father to discuss her with
him. Lois knew A.'s father had sexually abused her.
Furthermore, as Lois knew, A.'s father had bought her
older brother two hunting rifles and a supply of
bullets. A.'s emotionally disturbed, drug-addicted older
brother had often talked of killing her. Indeed, her father
had warned her that if she ever told anyone about "what
went on," her brother would "hunt [her] down and kill
[her]." A.'s father used her brother as a means of controlling her.
This abusive father was whom Lois Woolf, director of
the Vancouver Art Therapy Institute and president of
the Canadian Art Therapy Association, used to threaten
A. with to ensure her silence.
Ms. A. told Lois Woolf that phoning her abusive father would
be a gross violation of confidentiality.
Lois Woolf changed tactics. She now claimed she wasn't
expelling A., only giving her a "leave of absence." A.
could come back, Lois said, if only she'd leave, though she
wasn't allowed to stay. But A. could come back if she
continued her art therapy. Lois' words sounded like
deceptive double-talk to A.
The next week, A. met Lois for what was supposed to be
an hour interview. Instead, A. waited almost 50 minutes
while Lois continued to talk with a student (thus
giving this student a total of one hour, 50 minutes of
her time). However, part of the last twenty minutes
Lois and the other student spent together was discussing
how to deal with the University of British Columbia's decision to
forbid an art therapy practicum at its psychiatric
hospital. Lois believed someone had bad-mouthed VATI
to UBC, and the student was equally concerned about
VATI's reputation. (To this day, VATI doesn't have a
practicum at UBC.)
At last Lois told A., "All right, I have ten minutes."
A. told her that she'd traveled an hour by bus and waited
fifty minutes; ten minutes wasn't enough. "Okay," Lois
agreed, "I'll take you to coffee." Lois and A. walked quickly
to a coffee shop and quickly sat down. A. suggested
that she might move to Ontario. Lois told her, "Don't go
to Ontario. You're vulnerable, people will take
advantage of you." "You took advantage of me," A. said.
Lois nodded in agreement, and they quickly got up and
returned to VATI. Just outside VATI, in the parking
lot, A. tried once more to tell Lois that the charge of
her taking "too much time" simply wasn't true. Lois
began screaming at her. "This is it," she screamed.
"This is what you do. You need therapy." "No," A.
replied, "I need a lawyer." Lois nodded as she walked
away.
This episode convinced A. further that she was ill
advised to trust Lois Woolf, let alone believe that she was on
a "leave of absence" instead of expelled. Yet A. felt
even more certain that Lois was capable of making good
her threat to phone her abuser. So A. decided to go
along with her, and meanwhile, wrote to Dr. Fischer
asking him for help.
A. took art therapy once a week with VATI grad Shirley
Anderson. At first they met at VATI, but, after someone
cleared out A.'s shelf (given to each client as well as
each student), threw out her art, and stole her art
portfolio, they moved to another location. Shirley
supported A., suggesting she attend the BC School of Art
Therapy in Victoria. A. wondered why, if Shirley believed she
should become an art therapist, she didn't tell Lois
to take her back at VATI.
At Lois Woolf's suggestion, A. joined the Canadian Art
Therapy Association (CATA) as a non-professional
member. A. also attended the CATA conference in Toronto
that November. There several people commented on how
badly two of the VATI students treated her. One art
therapist, Muriel Vandrille Burt, told A. that she'd
observed Dr. Fischer's group art therapy sessions in
Toronto, and that a lot of scapegoating went on. She
suggested that A. become an art therapist without
finishing at VATI. The people with whom A. was
billeted, the Batemans, didn't understand that she
couldn't return to VATI whenever she wanted. Dr.
Bateman, a psychiatrist, and Mrs. Bateman, an art
therapist, saw no reason for A. to not become an art
therapist.
In January 1987, Ms. A. spent $200 on two one-hour private
sessions with Dr. Fischer at VATI. They were interrupted
several times by one of the students who'd complained
about A.'s "taking too much time." Despite these
interruptions, Dr. Fischer focused on what A. said and
changed his mind about her. He decided that indeed A.
had been sexually abused. His attitude changed, from
mocking to supportive. A. later wrote him a letter
asking him to suggest to Lois Woolf that she returns to
VATI.
In the spring, A. stopped art therapy with Shirley
Anderson because she couldn't afford it. She also saw no
need for it. Besides, as much as she liked Shirley, she
couldn't open up to somebody who disagreed with what
Lois Woolf did but publicly supported her.
At Dr. Fischer's invitation, A. prepared a slide show
of her art to present at the CATA conference in
Vancouver that September. In the summer, Lois Woolf
phoned A., announcing that she needn't write an article
for the CATA journal (the usual process for someone
presenting at any CATA conference). "It was a group
decision," Lois said. "Only professional art
therapists are now allowed to write for the CATA
journal." She repeated "It was a group decision" and
"only professional art therapists are allowed" several
times.
At the CATA conference in September 1987, Lois Woolf
talked to A. twice: once to tell her she wouldn't
attend her presentation, and once to ask her to renew her
CATA membership. A. told her that she'd paid for a year's
membership only nine months earlier, and besides,
hadn't received any of the journals or newsletters.
(The journals and newsletters were mailed from VATI.)
Lois told A. that the first year membership was "only
for nine months" but if she paid for a second year she'd
get the full year. A. declined, and instead took from
the CATA membership table the journals she'd paid for
but hadn't yet received.
A. overheard Dr. Fischer plead with Lois Woolf to
accept her back at VATI, but Lois remained adamant.
Perhaps it wasn't a coincidence that X, the student
with the psychiatrist husband, remained a student in
1987-88. She'd been required to do a third year-and
she still didn't want A. at VATI.
A.'s presentation received rave reviews. One attendee
suggested to A. that her art concerned "the present,"
i.e., her time at VATI,
rather than the past. Of course A. agreed with him but
remained silent, not wishing to alienate herself
further. Yet despite VATI receiving compliments about
her presentation, Lois Woolf didn't invite her back as
she'd promised a year earlier.
To add to her frustration, while a number of people
expressed their support of A., not one dared speak out
on her behalf - except Dr. Fischer.
A. accepted that Lois Woolf had simply expelled her,
without any intention that she goes "on a leave of
absence" and return to VATI. Certainly, A. had more
than fulfilled the supposed conditions of her promised
return. She wrote Dr. Fischer, thanking him for his
support and asking him to request that Lois Woolf
refund her tuition. A. received no money.
A. didn't bother reporting her ordeal to CATA: Lois
Woolf was still CATA president.
A year and a half later, in the spring of 1989, A. had
her last contact with VATI when she learned of a
life-threatening violation of confidentiality by a
VATI student. Cindy Tomachko and her drug-dealer
boyfriend, Lazlo, visited A.'s older brother in his boat
at Mosquito Creek Marina, North Vancouver. Probably drugs
were the connection between the three and the explanation for what
Cindy did. At VATI in September 1986, she'd written
notes when A. described her brother's drug and alcohol
addictions, his sexual abuse of her, his being fired
from a construction crew after he exposed himself to a
client, his episodes of violence, and so on. Now,
inside A.'s brother's boat, Cindy told A.'s brother what
A. had said. A.'s brother threatened to kill her.
A. wrote to VATI about Cindy Tomachko's dangerous
violation of confidentiality. Three months later,
Cindy graduated anyway. When A. discovered that Cindy
was now a qualified art therapist, she phoned the BC Art
Therapy Association (BCATA), asking to speak to the
Ethics Chair. The Ethics Chair dismissed her over the
phone, saying she wouldn't accept a complaint about
what an art therapist did as a student.
A. also complained about her ordeal at VATI to the
American Art Therapist Association (AATA). She learned
that the AATA had received complaints about Dr.
Fischer and his daughter, but could do nothing. The
The AATA had--and still has--no jurisdiction over Lois Woolf,
VATI, BCATA or CATA.
Ms. A. believes that, in her experiences with VATI and its
director Lois Woolf, she was deliberately defrauded and
grossly abused. She lost $3,400 in tuition money, plus
money for books and slides, for an aborted education she
couldn't use. She also lost hundreds of dollars in
travel expenses to Toronto for the CATA conference,
art therapy with Shirley Anderson, and two one-hour
sessions with Dr. Fischer-all paid for in an attempt
to be readmitted to VATI according to Lois Woolf's
promise. And she lost time and missed opportunities.
prior to enrolling at VATI, she'd given private English
lessons to a Vietnamese refugee, gaining experience to
teach English overseas. She also worked in a restaurant,
earning good money. She'd quit the English lessons and
restaurant work to attend VATI. If she'd known the truth
about VATI, she would have kept her jobs until she'd found
work overseas.
However, the greatest cost to her was emotional.
Ms. A. hasn't received any financial reparation for what
she suffered.
Testimony by Ms. Stefa Shaler
When I attended the Vancouver Art Therapy Institute
(VATI), I had serious difficulties with its director,
Lois Woolf. Many people I spoke to had similar
problems with Lois and a local art therapist told me
this had been going on for years and there were many
victims. Some of my fellow students at the time
complained vociferously about Lois Woolf' conduct but
nobody would say anything or register a complaint
although they thought something should be done. This
left me on my own to confront the problems as if they
were between Lois Woolf and myself. I couldn't use
anyone else's remarks in my case but people often
phoned me or talked to me to unload their feelings
against Lois Woolf, swearing me to secrecy. It was
frustrating because, if everyone who had a serious
complaint had spoken up, the problems would have been
dealt with by necessity. However, I was on my own. I
got expelled from the school and Lois Woolf denied any
responsibility, even going so far as to lie in
interviews. I have one of these lies on audiotape and
can show, through documentation, that it is a lie that
was very pertinent to my case. I was allowed to
audiotape only one of the meetings so my attempts to
have everything above board and out in the open were
blocked. I took my case to small claims court and got
some satisfaction in getting a financial settlement.
This was very easy for me because the way small claims
court is set up was perfect for my needs. Also, a
friend with a legal background helped me. My case was
cut and dried since my student evaluation and
termination letter, which were issued in around the
same time period, contradicted each other
dramatically. I settled for an amount that covered my
tuition fees and a little more.
The whole issue of abuse of power is essentially
cordoned off and unchallenged at the Vancouver Art
Therapy Institute because a group that protects its
members from accountability can always write off one
complaint or complainant. My experience has been a
toxic stint at Vancouver Art Therapy Institute. I was
bullied, lied about and expelled by Lois Woolf and
"hung out to dry" by her faculty and my art therapist
who all supported Lois Woolf's tyranny, either through
direct collusion or covering up for her by refusing to
speak publicly. My letters to the Board of Directors
of VATI and various art therapy associations were
treated as threats instead of opportunities for
improvement and healing. The VATI and art therapy
association can be incredibly nasty. The talking and
writing into a void, the long waiting periods, the
circling the wagons around members instead of having a
full and free analysis of issues involving all
parties... It is bafflingly harsh for a profession
that claims to be humanitarian. The law of "omerta", a
Mafia term for silence among gang members, is
impenetrable in the BC art therapy racket. Also, the
BC Private Post-Secondary Education Commission was
uninterested and useless in my case against VATI.
There is one aspect of the settlement that
demonstrates VATI's total oblivion to emotional health
and honesty. In the final negotiation, Lois Woolf
agreed to pay the money and wanted me to sign a
document declaring I would not talk about the case
after the settlement. I refused to agree to be muzzled
about my personal experience and was prepared to go to
court but Lois Woolf dropped that demand. Imagine
anyone thinking I would agree to withhold information
about the outcome of my case from my family and
friends for the sake of the comfort of Lois Woolf and
her gang! The "preposterous" is so apt in describing
much of what goes on at VATI.
I was very comfortable with the idea of having my day
in court but felt that it was an unnecessary expense
to taxpayers. Our small claims court judge highly
encouraged us to settle out of court and I did for
that reason. Unfortunately, in maintaining that
balance, I missed the opportunity for a full hearing
in the presence of rational witnesses outside VATI.
However, thanks to the affordable institution of small
claims court, I didn't have to walk away from VATI
with a kick in the gut AND empty handed.
I am worried about the ongoing societal effects of
VATI and it's supporters. As long as there are
students who are willing to turn a blind eye to
injustice and abuse just to get their ultimately
worthless and dangerous qualifications, there will be
professional associations that turn blind eyes to
complaints about corrupt institutions such as VATI. I
hope that art therapy students somehow get wind of the
fact that the value of honesty and integrity far
outweighs any "therapeutic techniques" they think
they're learning at places like VATI.
Note from CEAT:
The following testimony was written by a former client of a BC art therapist. This former client wishes to remain anonymous at present. We have her e-mails to Canadians
for Ethical Art Therapy (CEAT) on file, as proof to protect us legally.
I strongly believe that art therapists and other mental health workers must be registered and accountable for their actions in the same way that medical practitioners are.
After all, many clients are first exposed to art therapy in institutions, hospitals, shelters and so on, and are thus extraordinarily vulnerable--in states of crisis, physical or mental ill-health or impairment, having recently endured physical assaults, rapes, suicide attempts or serious self-injury, parental abuse, gross neglect....
Anyone seeking help for mental or emotional issues deserves at least the level of supervision, accountability, training, experience, and ethical standards one would expect from a medical person treating that same person for a sprained wrist or a deep cut. Injury to one's sense of trust in their own "gut instincts", to one's faith in "the helping professions", and to one's confidence in their ability to reasonably defend themselves from exploitation, "emotional rape", and betrayal by trusted others takes far, far longer to heal than a few botched stitches....
Again, thanks for having the courage to express your views and experiences in this website!
Testimony by Dr. A. Azad
I have been grossly abused both as an art therapy
client and as an art therapy student by a number of
British Columbia art therapists. In the process of
complaining against my abusers, I discovered that the
following art therapists and art therapy institutions
in Canada either systematically abuse their clients
and students or are supportive of client abuse and
student abuse:
Audrey Derksen, Aira Welwood, Lisa Bernstein, Lois
Woolf, Monica Franz, Debora Broadhurst, Duanita
Eleniak Crofton, Mehdi Naimi, Monica
Carpendale, Colleen Gold, Joanne Hayward, Michelle
Oucherek-Deo, Katherine Kortikow, Helene Burt, and Michael Haslam.
Also:
The British Columbia School of Art Therapy (Victoria,
BC)
One day in March 2000, Ms. Derksen entered the art
therapy room, visibly upset, and saw me speaking to
another participant. She aggressively asked me what
was going on. I replied, "Nothing much." Ms. Derksen
ordered me out of the room. I gently told her "It's
OK. There's no problem". Ms. Derksen shouted, "I'M
GOING TO COUNT UP TO FIVE. ONE, TWO, THREE!!!" I
quickly left the art therapy room, bursting into
tears. Ms. Derksen followed. I protested, "I'm a 52
year-old woman; you're treating me like a child." She
replied, "Well, it's because you are behaving like a
child." I left the art therapy program and fell into a
depression for several weeks.
Compare Ms. Derksen's behavior to the BC Art Therapy
Association (BCATA) Code of Ethics. Paragraph 3.19 of
"Responsibility to the client." This section reads,
"Art therapists shall acknowledge the inherent power
differential in therapy and shall model effective use
of personal power."
I needed Ms. Derksen's approval, however, to enter
another art therapy program, the Artist-in-Residence,
to which I'd applied a year earlier. Despite not being
the program's art therapist, Ms. Derksen vetted
applicants. When I inquired about this program in
August 2004, Ms. Derksen didn't return my phone calls.
I went to see her in person and asked to speak to the
art therapist running the program. Avoiding eye
contact, Ms. Derksen replied, "NO!" adding, "There's
no place for you. I said, "But I applied a year ago
and was told that I'd have a place." She scorned,
"That program is for those who can get along with
others." I replied that I'd stopped attending the Art
Therapy program was because of the way she treated me,
not because I did not get along with others. She at
once opened the door and with a rude and disdainful
gesture ordered me out. She commanded, "OUT! YOU GO!
OUT!"
Compare Ms. Derksen's behavior to The BCATA Code of
Ethics, Paragraph 3.20 of "Responsibility to the
client" This section reads: "If an art therapist is
unable to continue to provide professional help, the
art therapist shall assist the client by making
reasonable, alternative arrangements for continuation
of treatment"
Lisa Bernstein
On May 21, 2002, Aira Welwood returned my art portfolio
to me, accompanied by a letter where she informed me
that the Selection Committee could not process my
application because I lacked the pre-requisite
courses. I viewed this premature response as a
deceitful way of handling my application with the
intention of blocking my entry to the school. Aira
Welwood and the "Selection Committee" knew that I was
taking those pre-requisite courses at the University
of Victoria.
On May 25, 2002, I sent Aira Welwood and the Selection
Committee my spring session grades and informed them,
for a second time, about the rest of the pre-requisite
courses I'd be taking in summer. And from May to July
2002, I met the school's secretary on several
occasions, each time with a new piece of information
regarding my progress in registering for, and
participating in, different pre-requisite courses. On
July 16, 2002, I phoned the BCSAT and left a message to
the secretary for Aira Welwood, asking her to call me
back for a face-to-face meeting about my application.
Aira Welwood never returned my call.
An interesting aside: In June 2002, on one occasion
when I entered the front office of the BCSAT, I heard
the hysterical and out of control screams of a woman
from the adjacent room. She was shouting
uninterruptedly from a position of authority, to whom
I don't know. The secretary, Diane, acted embarrassed.
As the school is in small quarters, the hostile noise
coming from behind the door disturbed me. At last the
woman stopped her belligerent monologue for a second
and audibly took a breath. Diane shouted, "Someone is
here." The screaming didn't resume. The following
week, I again heard the same hysterical and
belligerent screaming as I came through the BCSAT's
glass front door, but this time the secretary knocked
at a nearby door and the screaming stopped. Who was
screaming, and what does this behavior suggest about
the emotional stability of BCSAT staff?
On June 18, 2002, my case manager Nigel Carter, from an
agency related to the Federal Government's Opportunity
Fund program, phoned Aira Welwood. He asked if she
could send us the school's letter of admission not
later than August 1, 2002, because such a letter was
needed in order to promptly process my application for
the funding of school's tuition. Nigel Carter was
startled by Aira Welwood's "secretive and evasive
attitude" on the phone and her "total lack of
interest" in my candidature. In Nigel Carter's
extensive experience, private schools were always very
interested in new students and in as many students as
possible. Besides, I had high grades in my
pre-requisite courses and was a veteran
psychotherapist doing volunteer counseling at a
private institute. Based on these facts, Aira
Welwood's negative attitude appeared very odd to Nigel
Carter. In fact, Ms. Welwood told my case manager that
I could can take all the pre-requisite courses I
wanted, still it was up to her to accept me or not. On
July 25, Aira Welwood sent me a letter that
acknowledged she received the information about my
pre-requisite courses but informed me that the
Selection Committee "had completed the processing of
applications for the fall of 2002."
I believe that my experience with the BCSAT shows that
Audrey Derksen has not just committed a few random
acts of abuse, but rather has a pattern of abuse
shared by her supervisor, BCSAT director Aira Welwood.
I believe that the BCSAT, by screening out applicants
who speak out against abuse, creates an environment
that allows abusive students to become art therapists
and instills fear in the other students so they will
ignore or even cover up abuse.
Maybe Lois Woolf believed in "feminine wiles"? She
used lies and deceptions in her dealings with the
students. For example, she warned the first year
students that the instructors were dissatisfied with
us, but when we checked it out, each instructor
expressed her satisfaction with our work and denied
complaining to Lois Woolf. Another example: In
February 2003, Lois Woolf told me that students and
instructors had complained that I spoke too much. When
I checked the story out with the students and
instructors, they all said they'd never complained
about me to Lois Woolf. Indeed, one of the students
thanked me for sharing my knowledge in class.
I also witnessed Lois Woolf expel a student directly
after she expressed a critical opinion. Noa, an
Israeli, said that instructor Duanita Crofton, was
incompetent-an opinion shared by the other students.
Lois Woolf kicked her out, explaining after Noa's exit
that "there have been other issues with Noa that you
don't know about." Yet most of the students declared
Noa was only a scapegoat, and nobody knew who'd be
next. The students' normal conversations turned into
whispers and helpless sighs. Nobody dared to raise
concerns with Lois Woolf, for fear of meeting Noa's
fate.
One concern for students was how Lois Woolf and
instructor Heather Dawson had divided the first year
students into two groups without sharing with us the
criteria for this division. My classmates and I did
not agree with this type of segregation that appeared
to be based on age, and found the director most
undemocratic. Lois Woolf and Heather Dawson also
proved to be completely unskilled in maintaining
cohesion within the group. In my experience, both
women were invasive, insensitive, and unable to effect
conflict resolution. Conflicts between students were
usually the result of the instructors not taking care
of students' emotional vulnerability. Sometimes Lois
Woolf and Heather Dawson threatened students with
expulsion in order to get them to smile at each other.
Other times they discussed the conflict with the class
without following up on students and making sure that
the conflict was resolved. I also found Lois Woolf's
behavior to be irrational. She often called me to her
office to tell me something. As soon as I'd ask her to
elaborate, she'd exclaim, "This is not going
anywhere!"
Perhaps the premises suited the academic standards. In
September 2002, students admitted to VATI didn't need
counseling skills, involvement in the creative arts,
or past individual or group psychotherapy. They needed
only a Bachelor's degree-subject of study and marks
unimportant. I thought this admission policy allowed
students unfit to become art therapists. For instance,
one neurotic student, a chain smoker, couldn't draw a
line, had no education or experience in psychology,
psychotherapy or counseling, and spoke English that
incomprehensible to others. But, she had money to pay
the school's high tuition. Another student chose VATI
because Art courses and Psychology courses weren't
required. The majority of the students hadn't been in
therapy and evidently hadn't dealt with their
psychological issues prior to admission.
I thought that the VATI program was mostly at the
secondary school level. Most instructors were
uninformed, disingenuous, and careless about doing a
good job.
Duanita Crofton was the worst among the instructors:
she had poor communication skills, was unable to
handle differing views, and was uninformed and
incompetent. Students had been asked to buy Violet
Oaklander's book "Window to Our Children" for her
first semester course "Child Art Therapy." The book
had cost me around $100.00 CDN. Yet, Duanita Crofton
never taught this book, never referred to this book,
and never gave an exam that included this book's
material. Moreover, she simply did not teach students
about art therapy with children.
In one session, Duanita took us to her own art therapy
studio, showing us its pretty walls and decoration.
She asked us to draw something we did with our family
as a child, and made us listen to "to get us in touch
with our inner child." This session was a disaster.
Two students broke down crying, but Duanita had no
time for them because she had to see a client. As a
result of this negligence, the students' vulnerability
led to a conflict that was never adequately resolved.
By the end of the "Child Art Therapy" class, many
students asked each other when the course would begin.
So, several students met with Lois Woolf about Duanita
Crofton and her lack of course content. Lois Woolf
communicated our concerns to Duanita. We also
expressed our dissatisfaction by filling an evaluation
form. Duanita didn't like what she heard.
During the second semester, as the instructor for
"Adolescent Art Therapy," Duanita created a toxic
atmosphere from the first day of class. Behaving more
like an aggressive defense attorney than a teacher,
she created the a courtroom atmosphere. In one class,
she hinted we were stupid. On January the 30th, she
began the class by speaking about the Internet and
those "adolescents" who wrote slander against people.
She commented how terrible it must be for people to
see their names on the Internet-a reference to my
website.
Eventually, in February 2003, our outspoken classmate,
Noa, and Duanita argued over Duanita's teaching. As
mentioned above, Lois Woolf expelled Noa. She also
dismissed Duanita from the course-a tactic to placate
the students. Lois Woolf protected Duanita, who, as of
July 2004, remains a VATI instructor.
Most of the other instructors were VATI grads and not
much better than Duanita Crofton. In my view, Heather
Dawson was so phony that creating therapist-client
relationship bubble with her was impossible. Carola
Ackery's supervision skills and knowledge of art
therapy was so limited that her usual answer to our
questions was "I don't know." Heather Miller's reading
classes were often superficial or useless. One of her
classes, a slide show of her trip to Russia, was
devoid of art therapy information. Lois Woolf herself,
in my opinion, was more ignorant than the other staff.
When I presented my case study on a client with
schizophrenia, Lois Woolf appeared to know nothing
about schizophrenia and the "eclectic approach" I'd
chosen.
On January 16, 2003, Lois Woolf called me to her office
and told me that she had read my website about client
abuse and liked it very much. She expressed admiration
for my sense of justice and my perseverance in
fighting client abuse by the art therapists from the
BC School of Art Therapy. Through her body language,
the director showed great satisfaction about my
exposing the unethical conduct of her rival peers.
Lois Woolf also asked whom I'd sent e-mails to about
my website. I replied, to the VATI students and the
list of art therapists she'd provided me with. (Lois
had allowed me access to the Directory of British
Columbia Art Therapists and Canadian Art Therapists.)
Either through words or gestures, she didn't express
dissatisfaction with my sending the other VATI
students my website address.
On January 23, 2003, I met with Lois Woolf in her
office and told her that the lawyer for the BC School
of Art Therapy (BCSAT) threatened to sue me for
"defamation" unless I removed my Petition website. Ms.
Woolf replied that the threats by this school were
only threats-the school didn't have money for legal
action. I then asked Lois Woolf if I could write my
final paper on Art Therapy Ethics. She agreed with
enthusiasm, setting up an appointment for me to
interview her about BCATA history.
On January 24, 2003, Lois Woolf phoned me, saying an
Iranian art therapist, Mehdi Naimi, was in her office.
Lois suggested that I contact him because I needed
support. Eventually Mehdi Naimi contacted me, and we
met.
"There are two types of art therapists," Mehdi Naimi
said, "the scared and the scum." He added, "The scum
always rises to the top." But he declined to join my
campaign, saying that we'd seem like "two Iranian
warlords" in the eyes of the art therapy community.
This comment spoke volumes about the prevalence of
racism within the Canadian art therapy community to
which Mehdi Naimi chose to surrender.
On January 30, 2003, when I showed up at her office for
an interview about BCATA history, Lois Woolf told me
that she'd changed her mind and wouldn't talk. She
wouldn't explain the reason behind her sudden change
of mind. I asked her if she'd speak to the
investigators from the Ministry of Health about the
client abuse by BCSAT therapists she'd witnessed or
heard about. She said, "Certainly, I'll openly and
publicly talk about what I know." She then told me
that BCATA members were all a bunch of unethical and
unprofessional individuals who spent their time
chatting about ethics and paying little attention to
therapeutic issues.
"I can only tell you one thing: Art therapists adhere
to the British Columbia Art Therapy Association and
then leave it in disgust because of its politics,"
Lois Woolf added. She repeated this sentence several
times, enunciating clearly. And when I began writing
her words down, she made sure I wrote them accurately,
word by word.
On the same day as my aborted interview with Lois,
Duanita Crofton, a BCSAT graduate, abused her position
as instructor by alluding to my website during her
class (as described above). I didn't react, remaining
faithful to my promise to Lois Woolf in September 2002
that I wouldn't discuss my website at the school.
In February 2003, Lois Woolf e-mailed me the e-mail
address of student supervisor, Carola Ackery, so I
could send Carola an e-mail about my website. Later,
when I met Carola in supervision class, she wondered
how I had got her e-mail address. I replied, "Lois
sent it." Carola said, "I didn't give Lois permission
to give you my e-mail address. I hope you'll throw it
away" - which I did.
On March 3, 2003, Lois Woolf told me she'd received
many phone calls and e-mails from art therapists,
pressuring to get my website removed. She then asked
me to remove my website. I replied that she shouldn't
do something she knew wasn't right, under pressure
from unethical art therapists threatened by the truth.
Acting defensive, Lois Woolf replied, "No one can put
pressure on me. Nobody can make me do what I don't
want." I said, "Good. Let's keep it that way." I
reminded her that whatever she did in relation to my
situation as an abused art therapy client would become
part of the history of art therapy in British
Columbia. She agreed, and our conversation ended, with
the mutual agreement that my website remain.
In mid-March 2003, I added more information to my
website and again sent the link to art therapists and
art therapy students. On March 24, 2003, Duanita
Crofton (instructor for the Ethics course) e-mailed
me, requesting her name be removed from my e-mail
list. She was the only VATI staff to do so. On the
same day, Lois Woolf called and asked me to come to
her office the following Thursday, to discuss the
website.
On Thursday March 27, 2003, I met Lois Woolf for our
appointment. A woman I hadn't met arrived. Lois
introduced her as Barbara McDougall, saying that
Barbara and she were "Board of Directors." Until that
moment, I'd never heard of this third VATI body (the
others being administrative staff (Lois and secretary
Jennifer Tulip) and faculty (three or four
instructors).
Lois Woolf handed me the following letter:
"It has been brought to our attention that since
Saturday, 22nd February, 2003, emails have been sent
from you to VATI faculty and students regarding your
ongoing complaint against the British Columbia Art
Therapy Association. Your dispute with the British
Columbia Art Therapy Association stems from a
situation that occurred years before you were accepted
as a student at the Vancouver Art Therapy Institute.
At the time of your admission to the program, I was
unaware of this outstanding matter. When I was
informed, I supported your right to seek resolution
with the Association.
"You were asked early in the program to keep this
matter out of the Institute and you agreed. You have
broken this agreement by sending your website, which
is related to this matter, to members of the
Institute. This action followed my request of March
3rd, 2003 to remove your website for the duration of
your time as student at the Institute, and your
refusal to do so.
"As stated in the Vancouver Art Therapy Institute
Policies and Procedures Manual (p.7), "It is expected
that students will conduct themselves in a manner that
does not discredit the Institute in any way.
"We regret to inform you that your conduct has led to
your dismissal from the Vancouver Art Therapy
Institute effective today."
The first paragraph is a lie. Lois Woolf was aware of
my emails to VATI faculty and students since January
14, 2003, because she was the first to receive my email
along with many other art therapists across Canada on
this date. And on January 16, 2003, I told Lois I'd my
website address to all VATI students.
In the second paragraph, Lois Woolf talks about my
dispute stemming from a situation that occurred
"years" before I was accepted as a student at VATI. In
fact, I was abused in 2000, two years before I entered
VATI. She says that she was unaware of this issue at
the time of my admission. Of what relevance is this?
In any case, she knew of my website in September 2002,
shortly after I began at VATI, and she strongly
encouraged me, as I've described earlier.
The third paragraph is convoluted. In September 2002,
Lois had asked me not to speak to individual students
about this issue. I kept my word and did not speak
about this issue with VATI students even after they
received my first email in January 2003.
The fourth paragraph is yet another lie. As I
mentioned before, on March 3, 2003, Lois and I agreed
that I not remove my website.
The fifth and sixth paragraphs give a quasi-legal
gloss to this unjust dismissal, quoting the VATI
policy that students "not discredit the institute in
any way" and concluding that my "conduct" had
discredited VATI. Yet, in this letter the "conduct"
Lois describes is the facts that I maintained a
website that at the time concerned only the BCSAT and
BCATA and contained no specific negative references to
VATI whatsoever, and that I sent e-mails concerning
this website to VATI students and instructors, an
activity Lois Woolf not only knew of but also
encouraged, when, for example, she gave me Carola
Ackery's e-mail address.
Lois Woolf had given me no warning or ultimatum, no chance
to remove my website. I argued with her, to no avail.
Barbara McDougall constantly interrupted me. Lois kept
repeating that "It's over, discussion won't change
anything." She said no appeal was possible. Barbara
McDougall repeatedly said I should read the letter to
understand what they were saying. I replied, "I've
read the letter. It's full of lies." Before leaving, I
tried to get information about the "Board of
Directors", the Appeal procedure, and my rights as a
student. Lois Woolf refused to respond to any of my
questions.
My dismissal cost me financially: $6,400 in tuition
fees plus other expenses such as textbooks and slides.
And of course there was an emotional cost.
My dismissal also harmed the eighteen clients I was
working with at the time. Five of these were men with
schizophrenia, at the Coast Foundation Society's
Highland Manor. Thirteen others were boys and girls
aged six to twelve with emotional issues, at Blundell
Therapeutic & Educational Services in Richmond and
Edith Cavell Elementary school in Vancouver. All of
these clients were in the middle of therapeutic
process with me and were expecting my return.
The Spring 2003 employment survey of VATI grads, found
on the VATI website, claims "179 grads to date." Given
that VATI opened in 1982 and its first year produced
no grads, simple arithmetic shows the institute
graduates an average of nine students a year. I
estimate that Lois Woolf dismisses an average of two
to three trainees a year - for what I suspect are
unethical reasons. That's a "mortality rate" between
18 and 25%, or, rounded off, one in five. Yes, I
estimate that one in five VATI students suffers unjust
dismissal. I wonder, do VATI students willing to
speak out against VATI get the chance to graduate?
Perhaps it's no surprise that Monica Carpendale
rejected my application because I maintained a website
alleging abuse by certain BC art therapists, including
Lois Woolf. A month later, in June 2003, Monica was
elected as the BCATA Ethics Chair in June 2003,
replacing the previous Chair, Monica Franz.
Monica Carpendale, however, didn't reject my
application immediately. In April 2003, she e-mailed
me about "strong reservations" regarding my
application because I was "over-qualified" and
because, in her judgement, my maintaining a website
against client abuse was not an "appropriate ethical
response to a conflict." She wrote:
"I don't think that our program is the right one for
you for a number of reasons. You clearly have a very
strong academic background and a variety of
psychotherapeutic training. In fact, in many ways you
are over qualified and are likely to feel out of place
in a small community based program. You have very good
reference letters and relevant experience. However,
considering your strong academic skills and interest
in research I think that a university based art
therapy training program in a city would better meet
your educational goals. Nelson is a small community of
10,000 people and we don't have the population base
for the kind of extensive and valuable research you
are speaking of. Our research is focused on a
qualitative case study approach.
"I also do have some serious concerns regarding your
responses to a number of situations. My concern is
about the nature and style of your responses to the
challenges of being an art therapy student and
trainee. Due to the size and nature of our school
program in a small town, prospective students need to
be prepared to work with dual relationships and to
commit to working through transference and
counter-transference dynamics. In our program we have
clear guidelines about appropriate ethical responses
to conflicts. It is very important to resolve
conflicts appropriately and I am quite concerned that
it seems that some of your conflicts and concerns have
been posted on the web and have gone out on emails.
This kind of response is likely to contribute to a
fear of blame that might not be resolved within the
program. I do not believe that this would contribute
to a good learning and therapeutic environment for
either my students or instructors.
"I have been in contact with the Vancouver Art Therapy
Institute regarding your dismissal and grades. I don't
understand your statement regarding this dismissal
being a badge of honor. Perhaps you could clarify your
position. I have also heard about the website you had
up but I have not seen it. From what I understand you
have some specific ethical concerns. I would like to
see it in order to understand your concerns.
"Therefore, I have some strong reservations regarding
your application as I am not sure that our program
would suit your needs. However, I would be quite happy
to discuss it further with you either on the phone or
in person."
In my e-mail response to her, I agreed I was probably
over-qualified, but emphasized that didn't mean I'd
feel out of place in a small community based program.
Then I added:
"Furthermore, I believe that I can contribute to the
quality of the learning and therapeutic environment
through my qualifications and experiences. I see
myself as an asset for any art therapy program that is
run in a democratic way.
"You mention that you are seriously concerned about
the nature and style of my responses to the challenges
of being an art therapy student and trainee. During my
stay at the Vancouver Art Therapy Institute and as art
therapy student, I did not have conflict with anyone.
My only conflict was, and continues to be, with a
Victoria art therapist who was abusive to me in the
year 2000 while I was a client of hers and with the BC
Art Therapy Association that considers the abusive
conduct of this art therapist as professional.
"I find Lois Woolf's response most unethical and
unworthy of her position.
"You express that you are quite concerned that "some
of my conflicts and concerns have been posted on the
web and have gone out on emails". Why are you so
concerned about that? Don't you think that the reason
why I have posted my "conflicts and concerns" on the
web is because there is no art therapy institution
that takes my concerns as art therapy client
seriously? Aren't you concerned that an art therapist
who teaches at the BC School of Art Therapy has
grossly abused me and has been encouraged by the BC
Art Therapy Association for her conduct? Don't you
think that all the students and instructors at your
school should know this issue and should be concerned
about it? Do you think the appropriate way of dealing
with ethical issues in the art therapy community is to
sweep them under the carpet? You speak about the "fear
of blame" within your program. But isn't it true that
only those who do have or plan to have unethical
conduct are fearful of blame? I am an ethical
psychotherapist who happens to have been abused and
harmed by an art therapist. What do you suggest that I
would do? I would like to ask you what in your program
constitute "clear guidelines about appropriate ethical
responses to conflicts"? And how do you "resolve
conflicts appropriately"? Do you wish that I remove my
website in order to be admitted at your school?
"I consider my struggle against client abuse a badge
of honor that I carry on me. Wouldn't you? I was
dismissed from the Vancouver Art Therapy Institute,
not because of any conflict I had with anyone in the
school, but because I am fighting for the rights of
art therapy clients in British Columbia and Canada,
and because some unethical art therapists from the
BCATA do not like that and wish to punish me for that.
If you, Ms. Monica Carpendale, believe that there is
another way for me, as a former art therapy client, to
make my voice heard and to instigate change in the
present sorry state of the art therapy community,
please do advise me."
Monica Carpendale never responded to the questions in
my letter, but she did give me an interview
appointment.
In May 2003, I went to Nelson for my KATI interview.
The interview committee comprised of Monica
Carpendale, her partner Blake Parker who teaches
students "how to write their thesis", a social worker,
and a young student, Heather. For over two hours, this
committee interrogated me about my website and my
ordeals with VATI and the BC School of Art Therapy
(BSCAT).
This KATI interview committee insisted that I "put
myself in the shoes" of the art therapists who'd
abused me. Heather, the young student, opened her
mouth twice. The first time was when I criticized VATI
for admitting students without either a visual art
background or some previous psychology knowledge or
practice. Heather said, "Well, *I* have no background
in any of these." The second and last time Heather
spoke was to ask me, "As a DISSIDENT, what would you
do if there is a conflict in the school?" I asked if
she was sure that I was a dissident simply because I
expected the BC Art Therapy Association to abide by
its own Code of Ethics and discipline its abusive
members. Heather appeared puzzled by my question.
Monica Carpendale jumped in, asking me NOT to pose
this question to a student. Did the KATI director find
her student too young to deal with such a discussion?
After two hours, Monica and her partner Blake rejected
my application, saying that my "ethical issues with
the BC Art Therapy Association [BCATA]is not yet
resolved." They warned that I didn't "know the effect
of [my] website on others."
Yet two details pointed to the fact that Monica
Carpendale considered me an excellent candidate for
any art therapy program. Monica told that Lois Woolf
should not have dismissed me, and she suggested that I
attend the art therapy program at Concordia
University.
At the end of the interview, however, Monica
Carpendale and Blake Parker indicated I'd be allowed
to attend their school in September 2003 once I let
the BCATA make its decision about my complaint at its
June 14 Annual General Meeting.
Therefore, I moved to Nelson and paid for eight KATI
summer workshops, so I'd get to know the KATI
"method," as Monica and Blake wanted.
On June 20, 2003, Monica Carpendale rejected my
application to KATI with a letter that contained the
following:
"We remain concerned about the unresolved ethical
issue surrounding your website and your feelings
toward the art therapy profession and its
organizations. We are concerned about the lack of
adequate insight into the effect of your
communications on others."
I refused to attend my upcoming KATI workshops and
received a refund for them.
The Politics of the British Columbia Art Therapy Association
(BCATA)
On October 1, 2001, I sent a registered letter to
Debora Broadhurst, requesting that my complaint be
resolved as quickly as possible. On October 9, my
registered letter was returned to me as "refused." I
e-mailed Debora Broadhurst asking her why she refused
my mail. She responded that she couldn't explain why,
and that if I had sent the mail to her personal
address she'd have accepted it. I e-mailed her the
content of my registered letter. Finally on October 25
2001, Debora Broadhurst informed me that the Ethics
Committee had reviewed my complaint and decided that
further consultations were needed before they could
respond.
By February 5, 2002, one year after I filed a complaint
against Audrey Derksen, I still had no response from
the BCATA Ethics Committee. On March 12, 2002, Debora
Broadhurst e-mailed me that the Ethics Committee was
in the process of drafting me a response. Months
passed, with no response. I continued to e-mail Ms.
Broadhurst every three months but received nothing but
excuses such as "I have injured my right wrist" or "I
have difficulty typing."
The BCATA took two years to respond to my complaint.
On January 6, 2003, I received a letter (dated December
30, 2002) where the Association's Ethics Committee
Co-Chaired by Monica Franz and Debora Broadhurst, and
composed of Colleen Gold, Joanne Hayward and Michelle
Oucherek-Deo, declared that Audrey Derksen had
"conducted herself in a manner that was professionally
and clinically competent."
Based on the following paragraphs of the BCATA Code of
Ethics, I strongly believe that the facts of my
complaint constitute both unethical conduct and
incompetence that are sufficiently serious to warrant
a formal disciplinary hearing by an ad hoc
disciplinary committee and a corrective action such as
"revocation of membership in the Association" against
Ms. Audrey Derksen.
Under the section "Competency, Complaints and
Disciplinary Procedures" of the BCATA Code of Ethics,
in paragraph 2.2, we read:
And in paragraph 2.3 of the same section, we read:
Furthermore, although I did not officially complained
against Aira Welwood and Lisa Bernstein, it is my
belief that the facts of their misconduct or
incompetence have been sufficiently known to the
Ethics Committee to justify a corrective action such
as "a remedial program of compulsory education and/or
compulsory supervision" against them as well.
In my opinion, the BCATA's "satisfaction" with what I
view as Ms. Derksen's gross misconduct and Ms.
Welwood's dishonesty and lack of supervision skills,
allows these art therapists to continue their
behaviors with public art therapy clients in Victoria.
Also in my opinion, the BCATA's "satisfaction" with
the above art therapists sends a message to BC art
therapists and art therapy students: that BCATA
members may unleash their demons at their clients and
get away with it.
On January 9, 2003, I appealed the above BCATA
decision. On January 14, I set up a petition website,
asking art therapists and other health professionals
to urge Katherine Kortikow, BCATA President, to call
for a disciplinary hearing regarding Audrey Derksen's
conduct.
On January 20, 2003, Katherine Kortikow e-mailed me,
stating she was appointing an external Chair to ensure
an unbiased review in the matter of my appeal. This
e-mail was sent to my "yahoo" address, which I didn't
often use and therefore hadn't provided her with in my
appeal letter. I'd used this address only when I
informed art therapists about my petition website.
Therefore, Ms. Kortikow was aware of the existence of
my website and was responding in the context of her
knowledge of it.
On January 24, 2003, Neil C. Carfra, lawyer for the BC
School of Art Therapy (BCSAT), sent me a letter
threatening to sue me for defamation if I didn't
remove my website. I refused. BCSAT didn't sue me.
On the same day of January 24, 2003, four days after
her first e-mail to me, Katherine Kortikow sent me a
registered letter urging me to remove my petition
website as a condition for my appeal to proceed. She
wrote that she didn't accept petitions.
On February 10, 2003, I replied to Ms. Kortikow that
she was being pressured by others to revise her
initial position of looking into my appeal, and that
this indicated her lack of objectivity. I told her
that the information provided on my petition website
was the truth and as such couldn't compromise the fair
and impartial review of my appeal by an appointed
Chairperson. I added that she had no right to ask me
to remove the information on my website, and that if the
pressure from her colleagues prevented her from
maintaining her integrity, she should step down as the
BCATA President. Katherine Kortikow didn't respond.
Around the same time, Lois Woolf, Director of the
Vancouver Art Therapy Institute (VATI) where I'd been
studying since September 2002, was receiving several
e-mails and phone calls pressuring her to make me
remove my website. I found BCSAT and BCATA's attempts
at stifling my voice to be disturbing, unethical, and
dangerous to the wellbeing of the mental health
clientele in BC.
On April 9, 2003, my website was shut down by the
efforts of Monica Franz, the BCATA Ethics Chair. The same
day, I re-built the present website with the same
information as previously.
In July 2003, Monica Franz sent me copies of two
reports that she and Katherine Kortikow had submitted
to a Special Meeting about my complaint on June
28, 2003. One of these, the former BCATA President's
March 2003 Report, demonstrates conflicts and
confusions within the BCATA Executive and Ethics
Committees.
In her letter, Katherine Kortikow maintains that she
concurs with the "findings", which consist of Aira
Welwood's report and statements. In other words,
without any independent investigation, the former
BCATA President agreed with the art therapist against
whom my complaint had been filed.
Katherine Kortikow's letter was accompanied by her
"March 15, 2003 Report" presented to a BCATA Executive
meeting. In this report, Kortikow writes:
"I have witnessed and experienced accusations,
innuendoes, and a general feeling of hostility and
this has greatly contributed to the enormous stress
and conflict I and no doubt many of you have felt over
the last few months. I have experienced confusion and
I now believe unnecessary conflict as a result of what
has felt like a very chaotic process while dealing
with this Ethics issue.
"I believe the Ethics file was poorly managed by the
former Ethics committee [chaired by Deborah
Broadhurst], which resulted in recommendations which I
refused to support by signing off on the file. The
fact that a recommendation from George Bryce last May
(while in the midst of this particular Ethics
complaint) that BCATA adopt a process for dealing with
Appeals and Disciplinary actions was ignored speaks to
negligence. George Bryce's current findings support
the fact that regardless of whether recommendations
were or weren't made ... they were, bottom line,
unenforceable. Full disclosure was not given by the
former Ethics Committee and at no time had there been
a request to A. Azad to submit corroborated evidence.
The manner in which the former Ethics Committee
managed the file represents a great disservice to the
complainant and the respondents as well as to the
Association itself. The cost of legal fees both past
and current are significant.
"As President, it is my job to preside. While I am not
comfortable in "pulling rank" I am profoundly more
uncomfortable and no longer willing to participate in
a conflicted and chaotic environment where individuals
are acting out of turn by not being mindful or
respectful of the collaborative process. (...) Over the
past few months we have seen our protocol blocked,
subverted and undermined and I would like to own my
role in that and again apologize for not being a more
effective leader. Although I have recognized the
request for a working through of personal issues
related to our executive functioning, I must be very
clear with all of you that the only statement I am
responding to on a personal level, is from Deborah
Broadhurst in our last face to face meeting where she
stated that she could not work with either myself or
with Monica.
"I would like to again acknowledge that I am amenable
to pursuing any type of mediated meeting with the
three of us, but that I will not participate in a
group "therapy" session as part of our executive
functioning. I see our roles here as strictly
professional and that any personal matters be dealt
with outside of our meetings. I sincerely believe that
we must review our various job descriptions and be
clear with and amongst ourselves as to what our
function within the executive is. I would like to have
an open discussion regarding boundaries,
accountability, and responsibility.
"In order for me to continue as President I would like
to clearly state my parameters for continued
functioning on the BCATA Executive: I respectfully ask
that Deborah stop acting on my behalf in my presence
and begins a process of ongoing consultation and
collaboration with me prior to taking any type of
executive action.
"I most respectfully urge us all to separate the
personal from the professional tasks at hand, address
any personal issues outside of this forum, review our
constitution, our job descriptions and our protocol
for effective executive functioning and to start
talking to one another."
The BCATA Executive for the year 2003-2004 comprised
Deborah Broadhurst, President, and Monica Carpendale,
Ethics Chair.
Monica Franz falsely states that I was abused "while
attending an art therapy open studio program ... at
Eric Martin Psychiatric Hospital." In reality, the art
therapy program that I attended was at the Victoria
Mental Health Centre, which is completely independent
of the Eric Martin Pavilion. Elsewhere in her report,
Monica Franz fallaciously calls this art therapy
program a "psychiatric art drop-in." Placing me
falsely at a psychiatric pavilion is an attempt to
harm my credibility that suggests much about the
prejudice against psychiatric patients held by the
writer of the report, Monica Franz, and her intended
audience: the BCATA Executive.
Monica Franz falsely states that my "initial complaint
was thoroughly investigated by both the Capital Health
Region and subsequently by Aira [Welwood] at the
BCSAT." In reality, I never complained to the Capital
Health Region and therefore they never investigated my
case. On September 6 2000, I wrote a letter of
complaint against Audrey Derksen to Dr. Janice
Martinez, director of the Victoria Mental Health
Services. Dr. Martinez forwarded my letter to Ms. Anne
Bowles, Manager of Consumers, Family and Psychosocial
Services. On October 2 2000, Ms. Bowles forwarded my
letter to Aira Welwood at the BC School of Art Therapy
(BCSAT) and informed me that the school would
investigate the problem and contact me directly. Aira
Welwood didn't contact me about this letter. Thus,
there was no investigation into Audrey Derksen's
conduct by the Capital Health Region nor any concern
or common courtesy towards an abused art therapy
client by Aira Welwood. So, on December 28 2000, I
sent another letter of complaint directly to Aira
Welwood herself. Aira Welwood wrote on January 9 2001
about her "satisfaction with Derksen's conduct." Who
would consider Aira Welwood's hasty response to be an
extensive investigation?
Monica Franz continues her misinformation by claiming
that "The investigation included several eyewitness
accounts from other group members, many of whom
expressed concern for their personal safety vis-à-vis
the complaint. The conclusion reached was that Audrey
"conducted herself professionally."
How could such a statement be true when I maintained
my good relationships with all the other group members
long after the end of the art therapy session? This
statement simply doesn't stick. In the art therapy
session of the year 1999-2000 at the Victoria Mental
Health, there was only one person vis-à-vis whom every
single participant felt unsafe and apprehensive:
Audrey Derksen, the art therapist whose uncontrolled
outbursts intimated the participants. Monica Franz,
the former Chair of the BCATA Ethics Committee should
be ashamed of herself for having reproduced the above
unfounded nonsense in her report.
Monica Franz then informs us, three years after my
experience of abuse by Audrey Derksen, that both
Audrey Derksen and her colleague/employer Aira Welwood
had expressed concerns for their personal safety
vis-à-vis myself. This too is preposterous. In
reality, I have never met Aira Welwood and have no
idea what she looks like. Also, I didn't have any
further contact with Audrey Derksen after my August
2000 encounter with her. Expressing "concerns for
their safety" while failing to say what I have done to
cause such "concerns" reveals a dishonest attempt to
dismiss my complaint by discrediting me. Since I
became aware, in July 2003, of the above-mentioned
lies, I believe these two women are not only a
disgrace to the art therapy community but also a
danger to the public.
Monica Franz claims that she'd "mistakenly" sent me an
earlier draft on December 30, 2002, which reads "Ms
Derksen conducted herself in a manner that was
professionally and clinically competent." She then
says that there was a "replacement letter" that was
drafted on January 17, 2003, but was never sent to me.
This "replacement letter" allegedly reads, "Ms.
Derksen conducted herself in a manner that does not
represent an ethical breach." As far as I am
concerned, both of these drafts are identical in their
absurdity and constitute proofs of the BCATA Ethics
Committee's incompetence and corruption. Monica Franz
and other members of the Ethics Committee, Deborah
Broadhurst, Colleen Gold, Joanne Hayward, and Michelle
Oucherek-Deo, should be ashamed of themselves for
making such offensive and unacceptable determinations.
Monica Franz never mentions any independent
investigation of my complaint commissioned by the
BCATA Ethics Committee. She only talks about a "review
of the file" and draft after draft of BCATA Ethics
Committee reports all based on Aira Welwood's bogus
report. So much for the Ethics Committee's "commitment
to justice and accountability!"
Monica Franz makes numerous malicious statements such
as "the nature of complaint was (and continues to be)
vexatious", "the previous ethics process (...) did not
account for the vexatious nature of the original
complaint nor account for the complaint's escalating
vexatiousness", or "the complaint was uncorroborated
and remains, therefore, only hearsay." What she calls
my "vexatiousness" was a reasonable response to the
lack of investigation into Audrey Derksen's behavior,
the years the BCATA took to reach a resolution
regarding my complaint, and the shutting down of my
website.
Monica Franz is also aware that I was never asked by
the BCATA Ethics Committee to present a proof or an
eyewitness to corroborate my claim. Even the former
BCATA President, Katherine Kortikow, in her March 15
2003 President's Report, objects to the fact that "at
no time had there been a request to A. Azad to
submit corroborated evidence."
Furthermore the use of the word "hearsay" in this
context is inappropriate, as my complaint is my
personal experience of what happened and not that of
someone else about me. Black's Law Dictionary defines
hearsay as "that species of testimony given by a
witness who relates, not what he knows personally, but
what others have told him, or what he has heard said
by others."
Monica Franz confesses that she'd contacted
web-servers and requested that my website be removed.
She adds, "The various servers have since complied."
She's wrong-as the existence of this website proves.
Finally, Monica Franz's explanation of her January
2003 withdrawal and April 2003 resignation reveals
lack of ability among art therapists who run the BC
Art Therapy Association to get along and work
together. In an e-mail of January 21 2003 that she
sent to Katherine Kortikow, Monica Franz wrote the
following:
"The recent emergence of apparent acrimony, coupled
with a marked deterioration in communication, among
the executive precludes my ability to actively
participate in what I had previously experienced as a
spirit of goodwill, trust, and respect. I am therefore
withdrawing my continued active participation (...) I
would like to emphasize that this is not a resignation
but a temporary withdrawal from the executive
discussions in order to preclude the possibility of
further discord and misunderstanding.
"By April, it was evident that resolution among the
executive would not be possible. (...) I therefore
submitted my resignation, which I shall read in part:
"Effective as of the end of this meeting, I am
resigning as Ethics Chair for the Association. As
stated in my Ethics report of March 2003, I have
experienced and observed ongoing acrimony and numerous
attempts to discredit. The divisiveness among the
current executive, the conflation of the personal with
the professional, the irregularities with respect to
following executive protocol, and the continued and
unfounded allegations made by certain members of this
executive appear to have seriously confounded the
possibility of resolution."
Monica Franz then goes on to affirm her "conviction"
that "unfounded allegations do not constitute a
legitimate ethics complaint," as if my complaint
becomes factually illegitimate based on her unilateral
determination. I believe that Ms. Franz's resignation
has been a positive occurrence for the whole Art
therapy community.
The attitude of this former BCATA Ethics Chair was
similar to that the new Chair, Monica Carpendale: both
women expect that a complainant should empathize with
them, while neither show sympathy for or
responsibility toward the complainant.
On March 30,2003, Helene Burt responded, praising Lois
Woolf's "judgment" in dismissing me from VATI. Ms.
Burt added, "Training programs can't always suit
everyone's needs. I do hope you find some resolution
for yourself around all of the struggles you are
having and wish you the best in all your future
endeavors."
Since my Small Claims Court victory over VATI director
Lois Woolf on June 3, 2004, the CATA website has
changed the format of its discussion board. The
discussion board moderator has purged-and continues to
purge-all mentions of this website and of the court
case VATI lost. Judge Ellen Baird ruled what Helene
Burt either couldn't or wouldn't admit: VATI director
Lois Woolf had no legal right to dismiss me from her
school for maintaining this website. Furthermore, the
judge recognized what Ms. Burt didn't even mention:
that the "education" for which I'd paid $6,400 in
tuition fees was "worthless" because Lois Woolf
prevented me from completing it. Of special interest
to Ms. Burt and her CATA cohorts: the judge also
acknowledged my right to maintain a consumer
website and referred to my attempts to end art
therapy abuses as a "campaign."
Mehdi Naimi, a BC art therapist and VATI grad, stated to me on February 2, 2003:
"The British Columbia Art Therapy Association (BCATA)
has strong ties with British Columbia School of Art
Therapy (BCSAT), for historical reasons. The founder
of BC School of Art Therapy was the president of BCATA
for a long time. The current Chair of Ethics, Monica
Franz, was "serving" for four years alongside her
before quitting, which lasted a year or so. She is
back at it again and continues the tradition of
guarding the petty turf and barking at anything or
anyone who moves. Expecting the BCATA to take an
impartial view of BCSAT leads to disappointment every
time. The people in charge at BCATA are not capable of
impartial and professional perspective."
Yet on November 4, 2003, this art therapist requested via e-mail that
I remove his name from this website, claiming
he didn't make the statements attributed to him.
When I responded that he should be ashamed of
lying and siding with colleagues he knew to be unethical,
he sent me, on November 6, 2003,
e-mails with the following titles:
- you are off your rocker
And following his threat, he caused this website to be shut down a month later. Of course, I reconstructed the website within a few hours.
But, here was an art therapist - a CATA member - who came
forward with an inside view of corruption, only to
recant nine months later, indeed, to write e-mails
unworthy of anyone in the helping professions.
Is it coincidence that Mehdi Naimi is himself a VATI grad?
Is it coincidence that this art therapist is one of only
seven VATI grads with websites listed on and linked to the
VATI website? Did this art therapist, so "brave" when criticizing
that long-time VATI rival, the BC School of Art Therapy, or his own rival colleague Monica Franz, balk when the source of his own accreditation was under fire?
Emails by Michael Haslam
In November 2004, Michael Haslam, a Canadian art therapist who teaches at the notorious Kutenai Art Therapy Institute, sent us an ABUSIVE and DISTURBING email in response to our website and asked us to also print his email. As representative of the Canadians for Ethical Art Therapy (CEAT), I am posting here the correspondence between this abusive art therapist and myself in order to inform the public of the extent of abusive behaviours among SOME art therapists in Canada.
From: "Michael Haslam"
Dear Ms.X (you don't identify yourself in your website do you ? or are you Dr. Azad ? ) I couldn't tell. I read about as much as I could of your diatribe against art therapy in Canada. Wow, that's some mighty big axe you've got to grind. Some of your issues date from 1986!? My suggestion is that you try to get some help, do some healing and MOVE ON. You've got an enormous investment in revenge. I am a registered art therapist( Masters degree (1985) trained at Concordia University). I believe strongly in my profession, and hold it to the highest standards. Your spiteful, broadside attack against all of the art therapists in Canada is quite viscious. I know many of the art therapists whom you malign in your overwrought website, and they are dedicated, hard-working people who try their best. Perhaps you don't realize how hysterical you sound. My suggestion is that you make a commitment to follow a program of psychotherapy with a therapist of whom you approve. Then work through to resolve your issues. Print this letter too, would you ? And please stop slandering my profession.
Michael J. Haslam,B.A.,M.A.,C.A.T.R.
*
From: "Dr. Azad"
Dear Mr. Haslam,
Thank you for your e-mail to the CEAT. We are a GROUP OF ETHICAL CITIZENS who are HELPING abused art therapy clients and students to make their voices public so that the administrators of the BC Art Therapy Association (BCATA) and the Canadian Art Therapy Association (CATA) as well as SOME of their members STOP TARNISHING the Art therapy profession through their unprofessional and unethical behaviours.
Our website is not intended to be an easy or quick read. For the sake of accuracy, I have personally given detailed descriptions of my experiences with a MINORITY of art therapists. For the sake of historical perspective, the website includes testimonies dating back to 1986 in order to demonstrate a long-term pattern of behavior, that, we believe, merits an investigation. However, the website would not exist were it not for CEAT's present-day concerns regarding the BCATA, the CATA, and the private art therapy schools in Canada. Hence, the bulk of the website is devoted to recent incidents and My JUNE 2004 COURT VICTORY AGAINST the VANCOUVER ART THERAPY INSTITUTE.
Concerning your misunderstanding about our "attack against all of the art therapists in Canada," the Mission of our website reads as follows: "While we recognize that not all British Columbia and Canadian art therapists are abusive, and that there exist ethical, competent art therapists within the BCATA and the CATA, we hold both associations as a whole responsible for a failure to enforce ethical standards. Furthermore, we suggest that the reputation of good art therapists would be best served by ending, not ignoring, client and student abuse."
You write about holding the art therapy profession to the "highest standards." I wonder, how is it, then, that the CATA has ignored the unacceptable behaviour of its member Lois Woolf, the VATI Director, even after a judge ruled in my favour and against her in June 2004?
As for your email subject "try to get help", your accusation of our sounding "hysterical", and your unsolicited suggestion that I "make a commitment to follow a program of psychotherapy" and "then work through to resolve [my] issues," I would like to point out that suggesting someone is "crazy" or "disturbed" as a way of dismissing her/his legitimate concerns is an old technique, one employed to full advantage by the former Soviet Union. Furthermore, what is implied when a therapist uses the suggestion "seek professional help" as a technique to demean or dismiss someone? Given that all art therapy clients need (or at least want) "professional help", how would an art therapist such as yourself treat any legitimate complaints made by art therapy clients about a few art therapists who abuse?
Mr. Haslam, we accept your request when you say, "Print this letter too, would you?" and make sure that the public is informed of your stance concerning the issues of client abuse and student abuse in Art therapy.
As a practicing art therapist who's been in the field of psychotherapy for over 30 years, the ethics of the art therapy community are of utmost importance to me. Therefore, I intend to continue my campaign for reform as the head of the Canadians for Ethical Art Therapy.
Sincerely,
A. Azad, BSc, MSc, Ph.D, AT-CEAT
For the CEAT
*
From: "Michael Haslam"
I feel sorry for you. Good luck.
*
No comment! Haslam's email speaks for itself!
- "My friends and I have decided that the field of art
therapy is simply too small and incestuous, and many
have been in the field too long, having seriously lost
touch with reality. I speak vaguely because for some
unknown reason, I fear this coming back at me."
(Calgary, Alberta, January 18, 2003)
- "I am an art therapist and was disturbed to hear of
your ordeal. ... Good luck to you and keep fighting so
that others may not be abused in the same way."
- "I can understand your outrage at unprofessional
treatment in dealing with the BC School of Art
Therapy. I was once a student there and experienced
first hand the unprofessionalism, the poor academic
standards and practice, the "old girls school" club,
and the threat of tarnishing my reputation as a
counselor in Victoria by my field practicum
supervisor. Overall I was paying an extremely large
amount of money for the unprofessional conduct, poor
training, and putting up with abuse by teachers and
supervisors. Your experience and voice has validated
my experience there as well. I am glad that you are
now at the Vancouver school. I do not recommend the BC
School of Art Therapy to anyone and only refer clients
and colleagues to Art Therapists who have training
elsewhere. There are also other teachers who have left
the school as well because of the school's
unprofessional conduct. I really hope your website
gets to the right people."
- "The appointment of another committee might be
helpful in a more extensive investigation to get to
the main issues. Professionals don't act this way!"
- "If the complaints made by Dr. Azad are true, then I
believe a serious investigation and appropriate action
based on the objective pursuit of the truth in this
matter be undertaken."
- "Art therapists adhere to the BC Art Therapy
Association and then leave it in disgust because of
its politics."
- "I am a psychology student carrying out a
dissertation in art therapy. I have had a vast amount
of contact with medical professionals from all fields
of mental health and believe the way you have been
treated is outrageous. Good luck in your appeal"
- "This is a very disturbing story. There are abusive
people in every field, but a system that knowingly
keeps them in place is in need of drastic reform."
- "I read the details of your complaint and feel very
sympathetic towards your plight. The art therapist in
question, if what you write is objective, has behaved
very badly! By the sound of you name I think you may
be my country (wo) man! I can also empathize with you
about prejudice based on race and nationality. In fact
my first reaction, in a similar situation such as the
one you describe, would have probably been the same.
When I was studying for my art therapy course I found
many amongst the students and faculty only paying lip
service to minority issues in art therapy and wanting
to white wash over such issues. I became involved in a
similar kind of grievance against a few people whom I
felt were very insensitive to cultural diversity. I
was, like you scapegoated and life for me became very
difficult on the course."
- "I know nothing about this case except for what I
have read on this website. The art therapists' conduct
certainly sounds abusive and this client deserves
better treatment, not only from the art therapist in
question, but from the Association as well."
Hello,
I have recently become aware of the petition problem
of an alleged abuse victim by members of your
organization. Please understand that I have no
interest in either side legally, and know no one
personally from either perspective. I am a completely
disinterested party. However, that being said, as
someone who has met and helped many victims of abuse
myself and as a professional artist, and leader of art
organizations as well, I am deeply disturbed. I read
the information sent to me, and then read much more on
both sides, and visited several websites to understand
this problem that was brought to my attention. I
personally can't believe that with the accusation of
abuse by this person, that you don't see to be as
concerned with what really happened, as you are with
your organizations' legal rights and possible
problems. If what this person says is true, it's
obviously illegal and should be dealt with the abusers
strongly. And if what this person says is not true,
you seem to be trying to cover all your basis legally,
rather than trying to help this person who joined this
school with counselors from your group in good faith.
It doesn't look like you've given them any real chance
of appeal or petition of your very questionable
decision to not try to find out what really happened.
And to ask the alleged victim to get rid of their
website where they are trying to obtain and exchange
knowledge is despicable. To try to "shut them up" and
cover what happened up so you don't have to admit any
fault with your members involved, I'm extremely
disappointed in you and any organization that would
allow this to be swept under the rug, rather than
debated in open dialogue, where the truth could come
out. I feel you and your organization and policies are
doing a great disservice to art counselors and abuse
victims around the world. I therefore will be taking
off any mention of how people can find out about your
organization and your websites and any contact
information from my websites that reach many abuse
victims and survivors. I thought you should know, I
will no longer mention them in any correspondence with
survivors, as a means to get help for
victims/survivors and I will privately recommend that
other survivors websites whom I frequent that provide
healing information to take your links off their
"useful links" pages. I believe you've handled this
entire situation very poorly. As I've said, I don't
know any party involved personally, am not involved in
any way, and don't even live in Canada, but I thought
you should know, how far-reaching your decisions will
be, and that survivors around the world will be
listening to what happens with this BCATA situation.
(a web host of abuse healing sites)
Between April 21 and 25, 2006, a discussion happened on the Discussion Board of the CATA website, between a poster and the President of this notorious Association, Helene Burt. On April 26, 2006, this discussion was surgically removed by the CATA Board and Helene Burt. We call it "surgical censorship" because it was the last three postings of a longer thread initiated by the poster, Faye Porter. The beginning of the thread still exists on the CATA Discussion Board and could be viewed by the interested reader.
http://www.catainfo.ca/board.php
This censorship as well as Helene Burt’s scandalous words against abused art therapy clients and students who are members or supporters of our consumer association confirm our views regarding the existence of absolute corruption and dangerous unprofessionalism within the CATA and that section of the Canadian art therapy community that adheres to it.
Here we reprint the discussion that was censored / removed on April 26, 2006.
Title: CATA’s Status
Faye Porter, 2006-04-21, 13:06
Hi everyone,
I have recently discovered a website built by the Canadians for Ethical Art Therapy where they describe the members of the CATA and other Canadian art therapy Associations as unprofessional and unethical art therapists. This is most alarming to me. What is the CATA's response to all the testimonies featured on this consumer website by abused Art therapy clients or students? Thank you.
Regards,
Faye Porter
-------------------------------
Helene Burt, 2006-04-24, 08:36
Hi Faye,
You will see a statement on our news and events page re; these slanderous and malicious websites. Basically we have been dealing with these people for the past two years by trying to ignore them because we have no other recourse and because they are so obviously unbalanced. They don't really bother us that much or affect us in any way. Not to worry.
Helene Burt
--------------------------------
Faye Porter, 2006-04-25, 18:29
Helene Burt,
I see that you are the director of CATA. Therefore your comments about the website of the Canadians for Ethical Art Therapy is most worrisome to me. You call this informative consumer website "slanderous and malicious" instead of taking responsibility for your actions and those of other art therapists members of your organization that have abused those clients and students. Ignoring the complaints made by abused clients and students is sweeping the dirt under the rug.
You call abused art therapy clients and students "these people" who are "so obviously unbalanced." I think only those art therapists who have been abusive and unprofessional towards their clients and students as well as yourself who have supported abusive art therapists are "so obviously unbalanced.
I believe in the testimony of abused clients and students because they have nothing to gain by speaking out. On the other hand, I find you extremely arrogant and condescending, and utterly irresponsible and unethical. You remind me of the Catholic Church and their dealings with the child molester priests. Shame on you, Helene Burt, shame on you.
With utter disgust,
Faye Porter
--------------
On April 27, 2006, we posted the above censored discussion on the Art Therapy Forum and asked the readers the following question:
"Don't you think it is time for the Canadian art therapists across the country to demand that Helene Burt step down as President, that she and her gang of unethical art therapist friends (whose names appear in our Consumer Website) apologize to the Canadian public and more specifically to the art therapy clients and students they have harmed?"
.
The Client Rights Project in Toronto
Mental Health Consumer Net Connections
Challenging Abuse by Health and Social Care Workers
What is Verbal or Emotional Abuse?
A critical analysis of the "Psychology Industry": Dr. Tana Dineen, Psychologist
Canadian Association for Free Expression
Disclaimer
- BC School of Art Therapy (BCSAT)
- Kutenai Art Therapy Institute (KATI)
- Toronto Art Therapy Institute (TATI)
Client and Student Abuse: Definitions
BC Art Therapy Cients and Students Beware!
Vancouver Art Therapy Institute Loses Court
Case!
Dr. Fischer and His Harmful Legacy
Ms. A.'s Experience
Testimony by Ms. Stefa Shaler
Testimony by Anonymous
Testimony by Dr. A. Azad
Audrey Derksen
Lisa Bernstein
Aira Welwood & The BC School of Art Therapy(BCSAT)
Lois Woolf & her Vancouver Art Therapy Institute (VATI)
- VATI Director Lois Woolf’s Questionable Methods
- VATI’s Low Academic and Professional Standards
- VATI's Politics of Corruption & my unjustifiable dismissal
Monica Carpendale & her Kutenai Art Therapy Institute (KATI)
The Politics of the British Columbia Art Therapy Association
Helene Burt & her Canadian Art Therapy Association (CATA)
Disturbing Emails by a few Art Therapists
Sample of Comments by Readers
Links
- Failure to maintain professional boundaries.
- Exploitation of client's vulnerability.
Sociologist / Art Therapist
The Vancouver Art Therapy Institute (West Vancouver,
BC)
The Kutenai Art Therapy Institute (Nelson, BC)
The British Columbia Art Therapy Association
(Vancouver, BC)
The Canadian Art Therapy Association (Toronto,
Ontario)
"Unacceptable behavior is defined as:
a) Misconduct: failure to meet the ethical standards
of the Association
b) Incompetence: a pattern of behavior that
demonstrates a lack of knowledge, ability, capacity or
fitness to practice in a particular setting."
"A professional practice problem for a registered
professional or professional member of the Association
is identified as:
a) behavior or attitude which is in conflict with the
standards set by the Association or the employer;
b) action or intent that is detrimental to the client.
- you are nuts
- stuff it where the sun don't shine
- revenge is coming
To: canadians_4_ethical_art_therapy@yahoo.ca
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 22:48:01 -0500 (EST)
Subject: try to get help
To: "Michael Haslam"
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2004 1:14 PM
Subject: Re: try to get help
To: "Dr. Azad"
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2004 2:18 PM
Subject: Re: try to get help
(January 19, 2003)
(Victoria, British Columbia, January 21, 2003)
(Robin Toler, Art Therapist, Baton Rouge, Louisiana,
USA, January 29, 2003)
(Rev. John Parks, Hospital Chaplain, Cornwall,
England, January 30, 2003)
(Lois Woolf, Director of the Vancouver Art Therapy
Institute, January 30, 2003)
(Laura Platt, Student, Manchester, UK, February 5,
2003)
(Rachel Bebber, Graphic designer, Fayetteville, NC,
USA, February 18, 2003)
(Hoda Mazloomian, art therapist, Chicago, USA,
February 20, 2003)
(Nancy Hunter, Art Psychotherapist/Hypnotherapist,
Toronto, Ontario, March 7, 2003)
- "Wow. I am appalled, but unfortunately not
astonished. I do not live in Canada (although I have
thought seriously about moving there). I have not
suffered like you, but I have come into contact with
enough art therapists (Ph.D.) to realize that I do not
want to be a doctor in art therapy any more. I can't
explain it, but it seems that something happens to
their sense of reality when they get that high of a
degree. It is just sad. Good luck to you. (btw: I
tried to sign your guestbook and could not) -- I am
not signing my name here for fear of repercussions.
(Posted on Art Therapy Forum, , July 21, 2003)
From: "Arthaven"/arthaven@yahoo.com
Subject: Ethical Standoff by the BCATA
To: kkortikow@telus.net
CC: Dr. Azad, Helene Burt
Search Engine Optimization and Free Submission
![[Blue Ribbon Campaign icon]](http://br.eff.org/brstrip.gif){kind=small}