I've also heard from one source that claimed she was a sociology professor. But that's a good point, how could she teach psychology and not be licensed to practice in that field? Seems a bit odd.
How could she? Easy... she’s a Dem so it’s all about doing whatever you want and just apologize ‘after the fact’ if caught. Besides in her case they’ve picked someone who is just enough unstable they can easily manipulate her to be and do whatever they want....for the ‘team’ and she’ll fully believe whatever.
I bet most engineering faculty don’t hold PE licenses. A PE is like a contractor’s license for engineering. You don’t need one to teach.
From the earliest stages, it was written that Ford was a “Research Professor”. Being a “licensed psychologist” is necessary for someone who counsels or treats human patients for psychological issues, or who testifies as a psychology expert in court. Someone doing research with, say RATS, but not treating humans, is not. California regulates every profession from nail filer up, in part to protect the public from quacks, but to a great extent because the legislators are paid by “professional associations” and the Continuing Education industry to establish medieval guild systems to jack up prices. They play semantic games with who can use the words as a way to stifle competition (e.g., world famous architects can’t even say they are architects in California unless they are “California licensed architects.”). Chances of Ford being charged with perjury over this are nil.