[skr]

As far as I can tell, she’s an academic, not a practicing psychologist. She teaches so may not need a license.

[BeadCounter]

And the article says the California college changed her faculty page away from stating she was an “associate psychologist” to some other term.

So, on the surface, it does look questionable from what I see.

[blueplum]

Iguess it depends on the state, but the article posted says that in Calif it’s against the law to for academics to identify as psychologists unless they are licensed (and I would imagine especially against the law for state employees to claim falsely). But everything about her is fake so it’s probably not surprising to many.

[2CAVTrooper]

“As far as I can tell, she’s an academic, not a practicing psychologist. She teaches so may not need a license.”

But under California law for her to even use the professional title of “psychologist” she HAS to have a license.

In the link posted above it shows her using the title on her faculty page (before someone changed it).

During her sworn testimony, she introduced herself as a research psychologist which there again is a NO NO under CA law.

The link I’m posting below shows her using the title on campaign contribution listings as well as a letter that was submitted to the DOJ condemning the family separations at the border.

https://heavy.com/news/2018/09/christine-blasey-ford-trump/#comments

[Right Wing Assault]

She teaches so may not need a license.

But she can't be called a Psychologist. That's why Stanford changed her faculty listing.