Psychology’s Blind Spot: Jewish Mental Health
As antisemitism rises globally and many Jews report feeling increasingly isolated in schools, workplaces, and public life, one might expect psychology to pay greater attention to Jewish identity and mental health. Yet Jewish identity remains largely absent from the multicultural frameworks that shape professional training and clinical practice.
Last week, the American Psychological Association (APA) delayed, for the second time this year, a vote on whether to recognize the Association of Jewish Psychologists (AJP) as an Ethnic Psychological Association. The APA already includes associations representing Black, Asian, and Latino psychologists. These organizations promote research, training, mentorship, and professional development while ensuring their communities’ experiences are represented within the profession. Why should Jewish psychologists be excluded from the same opportunity?
For decades, mental health professionals have recognized a fundamental truth: effective care requires cultural understanding. Clinicians are trained to appreciate how race, ethnicity, culture, religion, and community experiences shape the lives of their clients. This recognition has led to specialized education on the mental health needs of Black Americans, Latino Americans, Asian Americans, and other minority populations. Yet Jewish identity and Jewish mental health remain largely overlooked.
Part of the challenge may stem from widespread misunderstanding about what it means to be Jewish. Jews are not solely members of a religious faith. They are also a people with shared ancestry, history, culture, and collective experiences of persecution and displacement. This complexity may help explain why Jewish identity often falls through the cracks of multicultural education.
Although psychology programs devote substantial attention to many minority communities, few provide meaningful training on Jewish identity, antisemitism, or the psychological impact of Jewish history. Since October 7 and the subsequent surge in antisemitic incidents, that shortcoming has become harder to ignore.
This educational gap has real consequences.
Consider one example from my professional experience. A young American living in Israel sought virtual therapy to cope with the stress of war and his impending military service. After disclosing his planned enlistment, his therapist abruptly ended treatment. Whatever one’s views on the Middle East conflict, denying care to a client in distress raises serious ethical concerns and illustrates how political assumptions can undermine the therapeutic relationship.
As a professor in a clinical psychology training program, I teach students that one of the core responsibilities of a therapist is to help clients navigate difficult experiences without imposing the therapist’s own political, religious, or ideological beliefs. We routinely discuss how to work effectively with clients whose views differ from our own, whether on politics, religion, immigration, or family values. Ethical clinical practice requires respect, curiosity, and humility.
Effective therapy should be grounded in evidence, ethics, and the needs of the client. Clinicians need not share a client’s worldview, but they must be able to provide competent care regardless of it. When politics interferes with treatment, clients lose access to the support they deserve.
The multicultural principles that support specialized education about Black, Latino, Asian American, and other minority communities should apply equally to Jewish communities. When Jewish clients report feeling misunderstood, dismissed, or isolated when discussing antisemitism, Jewish identity, or concerns about safety and belonging, training programs should respond. Clinicians should be prepared to recognize antisemitism, understand the diverse expressions of Jewish identity, appreciate the impact of collective and intergenerational trauma, and provide evidence-based care that responds to Jewish clients’ lived experiences.
At William James College, for example, we are working to address this gap through a new concentration in Jewish Mental Health. The program is founded on a simple idea: Jewish identity belongs within psychology’s multicultural framework. Just as the profession has developed expertise in serving communities shaped by distinct histories, cultures, and experiences of discrimination, it should cultivate comparable expertise in serving Jewish communities.
At its best, psychology is a healing profession. Its role is not to judge clients, sort them according to political identity, or determine who is worthy of care. Its role is to understand, support, and help people heal. Whether through formal recognition of Jewish psychologists within the APA or through the development of specialized educational programs, the profession must acknowledge that Jewish identity belongs within its multicultural framework.
Recognizing Jewish identity is not about special treatment. It is about ensuring that Jewish clients receive the same culturally informed care that psychology seeks to provide every other community. Inclusion cannot be selective. If psychology is serious about cultural competence, Jewish experiences must be part of the framework.
