*Author’s Note
Earlier this year, I published an open letter reflecting on the American Music Therapy Association’s public advocacy role and the importance of representing a diverse membership. That post prompted a thoughtful written response and broader discussion among colleagues.
The essay below is not a point-by-point rebuttal. Rather, it is a clarification of my core concern: how professional organizations can communicate ethically, inclusively, and responsibly in politically polarized times.
A Clarification on Professional Standards, Public Statements, and Pluralism in AMTA
Dear Colleagues,
I appreciate the time and care that went into the detailed response to my original open letter. Engagement at this level reflects a shared investment in the integrity of our field, and I welcome the opportunity to clarify my position in a more focused and constructive way.
My purpose here is not to continue a prolonged debate or to revisit every point raised. Rather, I want to clarify what I am, and am not, arguing, and to propose a path forward that I believe better serves both our clients and the full diversity of our professional community. This response comes after a period of reflection and careful consideration following the original statement, with the aim of contributing a thoughtful and constructive perspective.
Clarifying the Core Concern
My original letter has been interpreted as advocating for an “apolitical” professional organization. That is not my position.
Professional organizations inevitably operate within social, cultural, and political realities. The question is not whether AMTA ever speaks on public issues. The question is how and when it does so, and whether those decisions are guided by clear, consistent, and professionally grounded standards.
My concern is that recent statements, including the “Stand With Minnesota” post, appear to move beyond those boundaries by:
Adopting a specific public narrative about a complex civic event
Directing members toward external advocacy actions
Doing so without clearly articulating how this aligns with AMTA’s core mission or represents the full diversity of its membership
This is not a concern about compassion or ethics. It is a concern about institutional scope, representational responsibility, and consistency.
What I Am Arguing For
If I had to summarize my position in one sentence, it would be this:
AMTA should adopt clear, publicly stated criteria for when it issues public statements, how those statements are framed, and when it directs members toward civic or legislative action.
One possible starting point for such criteria could include:
Mission Linkage
Public statements are strongest when they maintain a clear and direct connection to music therapy practice, client access to services, clinician well-being, or professional standards.Representational Integrity
As a membership organization, AMTA would benefit from taking particular care when speaking in ways that could reasonably be interpreted as endorsing a specific political framing of contested events.Viewpoint Pluralism
Inclusivity is best understood as including ideological diversity within the profession. Members should not feel that holding a minority viewpoint places them outside the bounds of professional legitimacy.Consistency
Similar types of events can be evaluated through consistent principles, not selectively based on alignment with a particular interpretive lens.
This is not a call for silence. It is a call for discipline in institutional voice.
On Compassion and Professional Ethics
I want to state this clearly, because it has been a point of misunderstanding:
Nothing in my original letter was intended to diminish the reality of harm, invalidate lived experiences, or oppose efforts to support vulnerable communities.
Compassion, dignity, and ethical care are foundational to our work.
The question, however, is whether a professional association can express those commitments without appearing to adopt a single, contested public narrative as the primary or exclusively ethical framing of complex events. In my view, it can and should strive to do so. A professional organization can affirm human dignity, support those affected by harm, and encourage ethical, trauma-informed care while also leaving room for members to hold differing political or interpretive perspectives on complex public events.
Why This Matters for the Profession
This issue is not abstract for me.
As an educator, clinician, and researcher, I have become increasingly aware that some professionals and students perceive certain viewpoints as difficult to express openly within our field because of potential social or professional repercussions.
That perception, whether fully accurate or not, has real consequences:
It affects willingness to participate in professional organizations
It impacts how educators advise students about engagement with AMTA
It shapes whether members feel represented or alienated
AMTA’s own materials emphasize dignity and respect across differences, including political differences. If that principle is to have meaning, it must extend not only to clients, but to members of the profession itself.
On Professional Discourse
I want to briefly address the tone of the broader discussion surrounding this exchange.
First, I want to be clear that the written response itself was substantive and professionally presented. While we clearly approached several issues from different assumptions and interpretive frameworks, and at times focused on different questions than those I intended to raise, the response did not read as a personal attack, and I appreciate the level of engagement reflected in it.
My concern arises more from the surrounding discussion in informal spaces, where some of the commentary became dismissive or personal in tone. I recognize that these spaces are not formally moderated, but they still shape the professional climate in which ideas are received and debated.
I raise this not to revisit specific comments, but to underscore a broader point: the way we engage with colleagues who hold differing perspectives matters. If we aim to model inclusivity and ethical practice, that commitment should extend to how we conduct professional disagreement, especially when those perspectives fall outside the prevailing consensus.
A Path Forward
Rather than continuing to debate individual statements, I believe a more productive step would be for AMTA to:
Develop and publish clear guidelines for public statements and advocacy
Define thresholds for when member-directed civic action is appropriate
Create space for good-faith disagreement without professional marginalization
These steps would not eliminate disagreement. But they would provide a shared framework that strengthens trust, transparency, and cohesion within the organization.
Final Thoughts
Reasonable professionals can and will disagree on these issues.
My aim is not to resolve those disagreements, but to ensure that the structure within which they occur remains fair, principled, and inclusive of diverse viewpoints.
If this response contributes in any way to a more thoughtful and balanced conversation about AMTA’s role and responsibilities, then it has served its purpose.
Respectfully,
Daniel Tague
For readers interested in the earlier exchange, links to prior posts are available below.
.png)
