Been a lot from her yearbook(s) on the web, but I have yet to see her personal bio - the one which usually details activities, friends, favorite sayings and that sort of thing - they had Kavanaugh’s - apparently not hers - probably reveal too much about what a wild and crazy person she was....
No kidding. I just got done outlining how “they” (who?) completely sanitized her past so there was no door to open which didn’t lead directly to her little story.
How convenient.
However, I did some research today: Christine Blasey Ford called herself a “Research Psychologist” to the Committee but there’s just one little problem: She is not licensed as a psychologist in California (or anywhere as far as I can tell).
https://www.psychologydegree411.com/licensure/california/
There’s more to it than mere semantics. Technically she is exempt from the licensing requirement because she works for Palo Alto University, an “educational institution”.
But the label is everything. To-wit, this passage is not without merit:
“You can’t call yourself a psychologist in California unless you hold a license and to ensure that those holding the license are qualified for the position, the state has put in place a strict set of requirements.”
https://careersinpsychology.org/how-to-become-a-psychologist-in-california/
I looked it up: https://www.psychology.ca.gov/laws_regs/2018lawsregs.pdf
§ 2903. Licensure requirement; Practice of psychology; Psychotherapy
(a) No person may engage in the practice of psychology, or represent himself or herself to be a psychologist, without a license granted under this chapter, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.
§ 2910. Applicability of chapter to practice of psychology by certain salaried employees of academic institutions, public schools, or governmental agencies (a) This chapter shall not be construed to restrict the practice of psychology on the part of persons who are salaried employees of accredited or approved academic institutions, public schools, or governmental agencies, if those employees are complying with the following:
(1) Performing those psychological activities as part of the duties for
which they were hired.
(2) Performing those activities solely within the jurisdiction or confines of
those organizations.
(3) Do not hold themselves out to the public by any title or description of
activities incorporating the words “psychology,” “psychological,” or “psychologist.”
She can teach and perform her other educational/research functions so long as she does not refer to herself as a “psychologist”.
It ought to be a big deal. SOMEONE thought it was and scrubbed her Stanford profile of the reference and inserted “Affiliate”.
Why?
I just looked and realized I had not seen the thread posted prior on the matter, so rather than posting again, I’m just leaving this comment here as-is.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3691793/posts