The Final Years of Dr. Albert Ellis
And The Lessons for All of Us
Michael S. Broder, Ph.D.
Dr. Albert Ellis famously and often boasted that he would die in
the saddle at age 110--right in the middle of a normal
workday—preferably while teaching his beloved REBT theory and
techniques to yet another fresh group of eager students. Doing
the hard work necessary to reach one difficult goal after
another was his specialty; but this was one that would elude
him. He died peacefully at home at age 93 on July 24, 2007 of
natural causes, after a serious and prolonged illness that made
it necessary for him to spend his last 4 years more often than
not bedridden, with most of the last year in the hospital or a
nursing home. Most people would see that as a rather ordinary
end to an extraordinary, long and profoundly distinguished life.
But, there was nothing ordinary about Al (as he preferred
everyone to call him). Furthermore, I believe he would have been
the first person to tell you that his medical issues were not
even close to being what bothered him the most at the end of his
life. What haunted him more, was that for his last two years he
was not permitted to continue doing much of the work he loved at
the Institute he founded.
As CEO (executive director) of the Albert Ellis Institute (AEI) at
the time, the buck stopped with me. Thus, I was the one who had
to sign off on his work restrictions. However, I did not make
the decision lightly or alone. It was made and agreed to by our
entire senior clinical staff (some of whom had continuously
worked next to Al at the Institute for as long as 30 years) and
a majority of AEI’s Board (with members whose involvement with
Al and the Institute went back as far as 50 years). Al
ferociously opposed the decision, and from that point on, he
considered all of us involved in that decision to be his
“enemies”.
The best metaphor I can give for the actions we had to take is the
one of being in the painful role of having to take the car keys
away from an aging parent that still believes he or she can
drive as safely as always. This is analogous to what my AEI
colleagues and I had to do in order to protect the public and
the long-standing reputation of Al and his beloved namesake
Institute. The last thing that I would ever have wanted was to
be among those ultimately responsible for taking Albert Ellis
away from many of the aspects of the work he remained passionate
about until his death and which by his own admission, defined
him. He died denouncing the Institute he spent his life building
into an internationally acclaimed training center for mental
health professionals, along with many of those who Al had
selected to serve it. That is the saddest part of this story.
Dr. Albert Ellis was a man I greatly admired for most of my career.
(And I wasn’t alone. Al consistently comes up in the top 10 on
surveys by mental health professionals of the most influential
members of the field ever. For example, in APA’s survey, he
ranked number 2---just under Carl Rogers and ahead of Sigmund
Freud.) He was also one of my earliest mentors. When I was a
masters’ student, I once sent him a short letter with some
questions about a paper I was writing for a personality theory
class. Within a few days, he sent me back a six page single
spaced letter he typed himself that not only answered my
questions and critiqued my entire paper, but also began for me
the cognitive behavioral framework that I have since used in the
treatment and training I do, the books I write and even my
career as a radio psychologist. Those of us who knew him well
were aware that one of the secrets of Al’s success-- aside from
16+ hour workdays and his sheer genius---was that nobody was too
unimportant to get his immediate and undivided attention. This
was an extremely admirable quality of his. Like many thousands
of others, I went on to train at the Institute for Rational
Emotive Therapy (as AEI was called in the 1970s.)
In the 1980s, at Al's request I started an affiliated training
program in Philadelphia for professionals to obtain Primary and
Advanced Certificates in REBT. Over 1000 psychologists,
psychiatrists, social workers and other mental health
professionals in the tri-state Philadelphia area participated by
attending anything from a workshop or two to the entire
certificate program—and this was before CE credits were even
required in Pennsylvania for license renewal. In addition, Al
and I did numerous workshops, panels and many other types of
collaborations together over a 25-year period.
We strongly endorsed each other’s books and audio programs;
and certainly considered each other good friends as well as
major resources. He was also a frequent guest on my radio
program.
However, aside from being one of AEI’s long standing trainers and
authors, I did not become involved in the affairs of
the Institute until 2001. AEI was then experiencing some
difficult transitional issues; and Al along with another board
member asked me to join its Board.
was not at all eager (perhaps I had a premonition of what was to
come), but agreed.
The AEI Board consisted of a number of people---mostly
professionals---from around the country who had all been
handpicked at one time or another by Albert Ellis. We were
reliable supporters of Al, the Institute and the work he/it did
for as long as five decades. Understandably, Al had always been
the dominant figure on the Board and in most aspects of
Institute policy. This included its sizable and extremely
dedicated professional and administrative staff (who had serious
long-term careers there), as well as its fellows in training who
see clients at AEI’s moderate cost clinic (many of whom relocate
for a year or two to New York from all over the world to train
at the Institute).
In September 2003, the Board decided to make a management change;
and Al asked me to become AEI’s executive director. Initially, I
was not interested for many reasons. I was quite busy with my
own practice and business interests in Philadelphia.
In addition, through my books and audio programs, I had
developed my own niche and the last thing I wanted was to give
up my two-block “dream commute” for anything that would take me
to NYC on a regular basis. However, at Al’s insistence and since
there was no one else that the Board felt could step right in at
the time and do the job in a pinch, I eventually agreed with the
best of intentions to assume the role on a temporary and part
time basis. Having been self-employed for practically my entire
career and being keenly aware of the dynamics at AEI (from
having been on the Board for 2 years at this point), I had one
major condition: that I report directly to the Board, not
to Al. Once this was established, I made a commitment to spend a
limited amount of time each week in New York, in addition to
being available by phone and email as needed.
As executive
director, I focused
initially on a wide variety of new initiatives designed to
transition AEI to that inevitable next era when it would have to
thrive without Albert Ellis. (Al was still the major draw as
well as board president---the same as he had always been---
though his health was quickly deteriorating.) Al was not at this
point involved in day-to-day operations. He spent most of his
time in bed, cared for by private nurses 24 hours a day.
We would have a brief and very cordial meeting once a week
in his apartment at the Institute
where I kept him fully in the loop about AEI affairs. At our
August 2004 board meeting, I reminded the Board that we needed
to get moving on the search to pursue a permanent
executive director.
Had the extraordinary events that follow not occurred, we
probably would have filled that position within a few months and
my part of the story would end here.
Up until this point, Al and I never had a
single disagreement regarding the operation or philosophy of the
Institute. Then,
a serious problem occurred when a recent trainee who was now
working as both a staff therapist at the Institute and Al’s
personal assistant had to be dismissed for professional reasons
that have been publicly documented elsewhere. For any
responsible, reputable and ethical mental health organization,
this action would have been a routine matter that would have
been handled at the supervisory level. However, in this case,
our entire senior staff and a majority of the Board including
all of its clinical members at the time as well as AEI’s
corporate counsel were involved in each of the decisions
regarding this delicate matter. We agreed at the time and
unambiguously since then, that there was no other alternative
but to terminate this person immediately, in spite of
Al’s vehement
opposition.
This was the first time in AEI’s 50-year history that AEI’s
leadership made and firmly stood by a decision that was deeply
contrary to Al’s position on a matter that Al considered very
important to him. It was then that we all fully understood that
Al actually considered the Institute to be under his
proprietorship as opposed to the not-for-profit organization he
set up as a charity in the 1950s that had to be governed by very
strict New York State not-for-profit laws as well as clear
standards for clinical practice. This was also the point at
which Al became and remained permanently estranged from most of
us whom
had then considered his inner circle.
After Al’s assistant was no longer in its employ, AEI, by law had
to withdraw its support for her work visa. Shortly thereafter,
she and Al were married (although she had her own place and they
didn’t live together).
Al then lawyered up and formed a new inner circle of
supporters, who often behaved in a fanatic and cult-like manner.
To those of us who had to run AEI, it quickly became clear that
we were up against a highly adversarial, almost bunker-like
mentality. Many of them saw Al as a “victim” trying to “get his
institute back”. Al, who throughout his entire career preached
against “victimhood” in all of its forms (a word he even
coined), now embraced it.
One of the established roles of AEI’s management was to handle
many of Al’s personal affairs such as his financial and legal
matters.
(For example, up until this time, I had also been one of the
trustees of his trust fund and a co-executor of his will.) Continuing
that practice during this new adversarial climate was becoming
impractical for all parties. Moreover, we were aware of a series
of unwise decisions that the 92-year-old Albert Ellis had made,
but were powerless to intervene. Al had little family, but we
tried to enlist the help of the one family member we knew, to
get involved by taking charge of those personal matters that did
not involve AEI. When he declined, AEI Board members realized
that since Al had his own legal counsel, all we could do was
whatever was necessary to run the Institute and to safeguard the
interests of its clients, staff and trainees. Al lived in the
building. Therefore, he could still do a very limited amount of
training and therapy, and was always accompanied by or within
earshot of a nurse. At this point, we very much supported the
work he did. Through our attorneys, however, we negotiated Al’s
stepping down as board president and named him President
Emeritus of the Institute.
In the months ahead, we started receiving well-documented
complaints about the way Al was conducting his group supervision
sessions, the trainings he was still participating in and his
Friday Night workshops (a well-known and popular New York City
staple for over 45 years that often packed the house with as
many as 200 attendees). Our director of training, clinical
director, senior clinical staff, several clinical board members
and I tried to do everything in our power to address and remedy
the complaints directly with Al.
Most people who are familiar with Albert Ellis' approach know that
he had a unique style that was truly his own. He was
confrontational, and his language was colorful. A few people
were turned off by it. However, to the vast majority of those
who observed his countless demonstrations of REBT over the years
for just about every major audience of psychotherapy
professionals that existed, this was an endearing and certainly
harmless trademark and considered it part of his charm. Most
correctly saw these confrontations in the context of genuine
caring and concern for his patients/clients and/or those with
which he demonstrated his approach.
However, by the time he was almost 92 that feistiness was morphing
over the line to what was described by many who observed it as blatant abuse. In
other words, he was becoming a caricature of his former self. He
had always had his legendary temper, but this had a much more
“out of control” quality to it. In addition, we were receiving
reports of Al hitting people with his cane as well as other
inappropriate behavior. Furthermore, he could not hear very well
and refused to accept any kind of additional hearing
accommodations except for assistance from his new wife (who
acted as his hearing assistant at workshops and presentations).
We explored every other viable option to protect the people who
came to the Friday Night Workshops for help (sometimes to work
on serious personal or relationship problems) as well as our
trainees from the disturbingly intemperate and often abusive
outbursts, etc. After much deliberation, our senior clinical
staff and I painfully agreed that the time had come for us to
suspend the Friday Night Workshops and completely curtail Al’s
training duties and other clinical activities in order to
protect the public, Al’s and AEI’s reputations. Because of the
gravity of the situation, I again consulted a majority of the
Board, our legal counsel and several other mental health
professionals who were long-term staples of the Institute. All
of those who were in the loop regarding this delicate matter
unanimously supported the decision based on both observation and
feedback.
AEI’s board (with all but two of its
members who sided with Al) issued a resolution affirming this
decision.
Al's suspension was with full pay. He still occupied his
apartment on the entire top floor of the Institute and he had
the same office as he always had (though he rarely went down to
use it). In addition, he still received his same medical
coverage and all the benefits that every other full time
employee of the Institute enjoyed. The support staff handled his
work as it always had.
In other words, nothing really changed for Al other than being
relieved of certain duties at the Institute that those Al had
selected to oversee AEI---including its quality of professional
services-- determined that he was no longer able to perform to
the minimum standards that that Al himself had championed for
AEI professionals.o use our attorney’s metaphor, we had the same
obligations a hospital would have if it had on its staff a
“surgeon with shaky hands”.
As always and to his everlasting credit,
Al continued to spend a great deal of his time in bed writing,
when he was up to it. He even managed to complete a book and
several articles.
An unrelated, but pivotal event took place around the same time.
Our attorney, the former head of the Charity Bureau of the NY
State Attorney General's Office was advising us very
specifically on every step we took. He along with our
independent auditors, Eisner and Co. informed us that we could
no longer pay for Al’s round the clock nursing bills (which
began before my tenure as executive director and were costing
the Institute several hundreds of thousands a year at this
point). The problem was that they constituted “excess benefits”
as defined by law, which could potentially threaten the
Institute’s not-for-profit status and even put AEI’s substantial
assets in jeopardy. (This included the building owned by the
Institute where Al had also lived for over four decades. AEI had
always provided a spacious rent-free apartment to Al, which had
a rental value of over $100,000 per year in this very exclusive
Upper East Side neighborhood in Manhattan. Similar buildings on
that same block were selling for $20,000,000 and more. The
Institute as a charity had secured this building in the 1960s
under that era’s Board—including Al who was then board
president---and several early Institute supporters who
collectively made it happen). Our lawyer then advised us to vote
Al off the Board and negotiate a settlement between him and the
AEI for reimbursement of those “excess benefits” that AEI had
paid him, in order to remedy the problem. Although nobody wanted
to take this action, we believed we had no choice but to follow
that advice immediately. The motion carried unanimously except
for one abstention.
I can attest that most of
us on the Board acted with a great deal of thought and
deliberation, countless emails, meetings and teleconferences as
well as the legal advice from the person we believed was New
York State’s top not-for-profit attorney.
Next, Al and his new handlers filed three very high profile
lawsuits. The whole matter received a massive amount of media
attention in New York (major stories in the NY Times, Post and
Daily News, NY Magazine and many others) in addition to several
professional publications. Some of the reporting was more
objective than others, but much of it painted Al as a victim. As
a result, there were demonstrations and pickets outside the
Institute, death threats against me and others (making
extraordinary security measures necessary including an armed
plainclothes bodyguard), scores of hate mail and also an
outpouring of support for us (in addition to the vitriol) from
all around the world. Of course, most of the facts of this
bizarre and complex situation were omitted from the articles. At
the beginning, nobody from the Institute (other than our
lawyer), nor anyone else who was objective about the matter was
interviewed for many of the stories. This was because we were
initially advised by our attorney not to speak to reporters due
to the lawsuits.
However, Al and his minions would speak to anyone who would listen,
regardless of whether or not they “bought ink by the barrel”.
For example, in the same NY Magazine article entitled
“Behaviorists Behaving Badly--Why Albert Ellis Isn’t Allowed To
Work At The Albert Ellis Institute” where Al admitted to having
sex with ex-patients, he was quoted as saying
“… Michael Broder—the director of this institute is a power
freak! And it would be better if he were dead, dead, dead!” A
few days later, he repeated that same sentiment: this time
screaming it over the phone to a NY Post reporter who also
included it in his story.
Soon, it became apparent that we had to respond. As the media
wave got larger and more out of control, we began to get our
story out; and that was another difficult and delicate balancing
act. So we hired a well-known national PR firm to help us
quickly and effectively defend all of our reputations along with
AEI’s and even protect a rapidly declining Al from himself. When
I asked one of the NY Times reporters why he and “the paper of
record” were so fascinated with this story, he said, “Albert
Ellis against the Albert Ellis Institute? You couldn’t make this
up”.
That said it all and ultimately gave me a new appreciation for
the cliché, “truth is stranger than fiction” (!). I also better
understood Joseph Pulitzer’s famous media truism, “When dog
bites man, it’s not news; but when man bites dog, that’s news”.
To me, it is still astounding that
so many professionals and others who involved themselves in this
crisis either did not realize or didn’t care that they were
creating a circus by exploiting and helping to negatively impact
the legacy of a once great man who had simply lost his ability
for self-regulation.
Meanwhile at AEI, (thankfully) I had the loyalty and full support
of our entire staff (with the exception of one or two
part-timers who had bought into that notion of AEI belonging
exclusively to Al) as well as all of our fellows (who we also
kept very much in the loop). AEI clients—many of whom had seen
Dr. Ellis in therapy, a workshop or a group at one time or
another----were reading about AEI and this crisis almost daily
in NY newspapers and magazines as well as on the Internet. At
times, clients were even talking about it in their sessions and
in groups. This was a nightmare! Yet, we had an Institute to run
and we were all committed to making things as transparent as
possible for the many that were affected by this crisis.
Then, there was the vicious and international Internet PR and
“dirty tricks” campaign launched against us, by a handful of
Al’s fiercest---yet clueless---supporters from all around the world, one or two
Friday Night Workshop regulars and some ex-patients, consisting
of many half-truths,
distortions, bad fiction story lines and outright lies. Some
examples that I’ll respond to include: The Board and I betrayed
Al and launched a hostile takeover/coup d’état to wrest the
Institute from Al, for power and/or money (Had any of this been
the case, the intense scrutiny
we were getting from both the media and Al’s supporters would
have quickly flushed this out and exposed it many times over).
Some alleged we were spreading lies about Al and his wife
(The well crafted talking points and spin from Al’s
entourage aside,
nobody has ever produced a shred
of evidence of any deception on our part
toward anyone.);
that I (not Al) was the one getting excess benefits (Some of the
amounts of money I read about that I reportedly was getting paid
were actually amusing.), that I was practicing psychology in NYC
without a NY license (I never saw a single client there, I only
ran the place. The only state where I ever practiced psychology
is Pennsylvania where I have been licensed since 1979); and we
were not allowing him to write (Quite the opposite was true. We
had gotten him a new literary agent, encouraged it, and made
sure he had whatever support staff he needed to do his work, as
writing was the one professional activity he could do without
triggering the issues for which his activities had to be
curtailed.).
Some that made the rounds which are even too ridiculous to
respond to include; we were religious fanatics persecuting Al
for his atheism, we were funneling money to Romania, we threw or
were trying to throw Al out on the street, we were controlling
his visitors (as well as his phone calls, mail and medicine), we
were forcing him to live in squalor, we were changing/watering
down REBT and undermining Al’s lifelong work, that he was the
victim of “elder abuse” as well as the victim of ageism (at 92!)
and/or a band of psychopaths and/or corporate thugs and still
other screeds that were even more absurd!
These tales ultimately accomplished
little except to further aggravate, confuse and enrage an
increasingly isolated Al each time he heard a new story about
how he was being “wronged”. Had there been an iota of
truth to any of the above allegations, the collective loyalty of
AEI’s long-time staff who worked in the building every day and
were keenly aware of what was going on, would have certainly
been with Al---not with me or a board that wanted to be unfair
to Al or do any harm to him at the end of his life.
Most simply, I can summarize the perspective and philosophy of
that faction of Albert Ellis supporters who were acting most
like zealots:” Albert Ellis is the Albert Ellis
Institute, period”; (and it was more than a disagreement as to
where to put an apostrophe), “The rules don’t apply to him and
he should be judged by a different standard than all of the rest
of us simply because he is Albert Ellis and we want it that
way”. They were to learn that no matter how much they “whined”
(to use another famous Albert Ellis vernacular) or circulated
online “petitions” with bogus signatures, this simply could not
be an option. Add to that the attitude that no spin or lie is
too outrageous to tell if it will help Al get back control of ”
his Institute” and destroy those they/he perceived as “his
enemies”.
Some of those new “friends of Al” were people who may have
merely attended a presentation or read one of Al’s books. There
were also a few who had been asked to leave the Institute as
long as several decades earlier---and even some who at one time
or another wanted to train at the Institute, but were rejected
when they applied---used this as an opportunity to finally be
able to kiss up to Al, now that he needed “friends”. Still
others who felt they had been treated poorly during another era
of AEI and had always seen Al as a “bully” and/or as someone who
was not above creating new “facts” when the truth didn’t suit
him, offered us praise for finally standing up to him after all
these years. The only type of person I did not hear from
during that period was somebody without an opinion. Many of Al’s
well-meaning old colleagues thought he was in some type of real
peril. I can only speak about the ones that contacted us. Most
of these people understood the situation once it was explained
to them or after they heard Al speak at that time and became
starkly aware of his state of mind.
When this was at a fever pitch, a number of nameless, faceless
bloggers as well as a few self-righteous and out of the loop
professionals, ex-patients and virtually everything in
between---who thought they had the answers---weighed in often
with shrill, nasty and highly defamatory statements. A few of
these situations even necessitated legal action on our part
against some individuals who repeated and embellished upon one
lie after another. Bad Shakespearian and psychoanalytic clichés
also appeared in major print from a few self-promoting
individuals who should have known a lot better. It is
unfortunate how misinformation can spread unchecked via the
Internet and our tabloid news culture, which often sets up the
climate for some people to respond
with knee jerk hostility regardless of whether or not they know
(or care about) the facts.
It is certainly true that Al helped many people throughout his
long and distinguished career: patients/clients, workshop
attendees, those he mentored, readers of his books and articles,
friends, etc. Thus, it’s understandable
how some perceived that a man who meant a lot to them was being
treated unjustly and they wanted to come to his assistance.
However, their allegations were untrue and often grossly
distorted or downright wrongheaded. The campaign in which they
were participating only made it harder for us to focus on our
primary goal, which was to safeguard the legacy of Al and AEI.
Meanwhile, those of us at AEI never for a minute stopped
honoring him and carrying on with his work. Many of those who
acted poorly toward us came to understand this later.
In the final analysis, one of the things that Al taught us all
explains it best: we believe what we choose to believe.
Thus, those who believed that AEI belonged to Al, also tended to
believe he got a raw deal. However, those who believed AEI was a
genuine not-for profit institution (as Al set it up to be and
maintained it as for fifty years), believed we were doing the
right thing---painful and difficult as it was. On a theoretical
level, I could probably argue either side of the AE vs. AEI
conflict; but when I was the executive director and a board
member, my responsibility was clearly to the Institute and not
to any one individual---even if his name was Albert Ellis. This
was the way a majority of the other board members and virtually
all of the staff viewed this crisis as well.
On a personal note, I am happy to say that nothing but support
came from colleagues who know me personally, most
AEI affiliates around the world and the vast majority of the
larger professional community with whom I had any communication.
In short, like the AEI staff, they realized that our
actions were done out of necessity, never malevolence.
Still, since my job as executive
director required me both to manage the day-to-day operation of
the Institute and to carry out board directives, my name was
usually the one that appeared in print. Thus to many, I
became the face of AEI during the controversy and therefore to
some, the brand name “villain”.
We were in a classical double bind: if we followed the law and
our professional obligations as psychologists, we would receive
the threats and defamation. If not, I do not believe we deserve
to be members of this great profession. Of course, we did not
have the luxury of putting our fingers into the air to decide
which way the wind was blowing, nor should we have. There was
only one option, and that was to carry out our fiduciary
responsibilities as best we could. And even though not one
objective person who knows the facts and the timing of them has
taken issue with our actions, I acknowledge that had I only
heard the spin from the other side and not been right there as
the crisis unfolded, I might have believed it myself.
Originally, I had agreed to stay only a short time until we found a
permanent executive director. By now, partly due to this
situation, I had been there two years and the crisis was
fortunately coming to a plateau. Policies and procedures were
now firmly in place and endorsed by a solidly reliable board
majority to insure that AEI would go on to operate properly and
with transparency. Its clients, trainees and staff would have
the protection they deserved and certainly relied on us to
provide. For the first time since the crisis had started one
year before, I felt that I had a window of opportunity to leave
my job as executive director. Thus, with a great sense of relief
and no ambivalence whatsoever, I took that opportunity.
After I left as executive director,
I completed my term on the Board in February 2008 as an inactive
backbencher. Although asked to stay on by my board colleagues, I
declined another term. As of now, I am by choice no longer
involved in any capacity with The Albert Ellis Institute and
have no plans to be in the future.
None of the legal issues were resolved at the time of Al’s death,
with the exception of him being reinstated to the Board due to a
highly publicized technicality that was ruled on after I had
resigned as executive director: We had voted him off during a
regular board meeting rather than holding a special meeting for
the purpose of “removing a member”, as AEI’s bylaws had
stipulated. Our then attorney---despite studying our bylaws and
having even authored a textbook on the subject--- had given us
the emphatic advice to do just what we did, and the judge called
him on it. The Board quickly opted for new representation once
it became clear that we had been operating on bad legal advice.
Then under the guidance of our new counsel, the Board wisely
chose not to inflame the situation any more. Thus, we neither
appealed the decision nor simply held that special meeting our
bylaws called for in order to vote Al off, as even the judge had
suggested we do. Therefore, Al remained a board member as well
as president emeritus until he died.
The rest of the legal issues
were amicably resolved almost two years after Al's death.
On an organizational level, this was a crisis not-for-profit
experts refer to as "founder’s syndrome”. I am told many
not-for-profits go through this type of crisis at the point when
an organization or foundation outgrows its founder who has an
illusion of immortality and/ or believes the organization
belongs to him or her alone.
So why did I choose to write about this now? First, to simply
set the record straight and answer
some of the questions I am still frequently asked. In that
spirit, here are few additional facts and thoughts:
-
As I look back, the only thing I would have done differently
is to have gotten
more diverse legal advice and formal opinions, rather than
relying solely on the guidance of AEI’s one corporate
attorney. Thus, I would urge anyone in a similar situation
to get at least one additional independent opinion
regardless of how much gravitas your attorney has in his/her
specialty.
-
Most of the specifics I have included in this article have
previously been made public at one time or another. Out of
deep respect for Albert Ellis’ legacy and my three-decade
long association with him before this crisis began, I have
no plans to say much more publicly than I have in this
article, as it would serve little purpose. Many of the other
well-documented facts that both precipitated and coincided
with this crisis are very personal to the late Dr. Ellis,
his legacy and the long and distinguished history of AEI.
Some are already in the public domain and not relevant to
this article. However, most are not; and l hope that for the
sake of Al’s legacy they remain private. But let the record
show that it was only the change in Al’s state of
mind---
obvious and well known to those of us who were around him,
that necessitated most of the actions we had to take.
-
If I made any decisions, created any policy, or took any
actions as
executive director
that were ill advised, the Board and new management have had
over 4 years to reverse them. That they have not done so is
an indication that all has stood the test of time. We did
our jobs as the law, our standards for professional ethics
as well as our consciences required us to do and under very
difficult circumstances. For that, I will always be proud of
the team with whom I served.
-
After becoming executive director, I came to know that in
reality, many people left AEI during Al’s heyday under much
less than ideal circumstances. Were it not for Al’s decline,
which affected so many people at the Institute he built, I
certainly would have resigned long before things escalated.
I believe that many, if not most of those who had to deal
with this crisis would have simply walked away as well.
The other reason for writing this article is that I believe that
the issues raised by this situation speak to all of us. One of
the great things about our field is that we each have a front
row seat in the arena of life that few other professions offer.
Hopefully, our challenges give us at the very least a learning
experience that we will have the opportunity in some way to pass
along to others. Such is my hope with what was my most difficult
career challenge so far.
It has prompted me to do something I urge each of you to do in
your own way. I have given detailed instructions to the two
colleagues I am most proud of: my wife, Dr. Arlene Goldman and
my daughter, Dr. Joanne Broder Sumerson, as to what to do,
should they ever find themselves in a similar situation with me
as I was with Al. By that, I mean in a phase of my life when I
am unable to make rational choices and/or I am past the point
where I can practice competently; but am unwilling or incapable
of acknowledging it. What I asked them to do in that
hypothetical situation is to take charge and proceed in a manner
that is remarkably similar to those measures we took with Al.
Moreover, the “me of today” would be extremely proud, if their
intentions and actions were similar to ours and either or both
of them handled it in as thoughtful and compassionate a manner
as our staff and Board actually did, while I was
executive director. And in case
I forget what I told them, they have this article to remind me.
Even more importantly, I as well as others who knew him best,
strongly believe
(though we certainly can’t prove it now) that the Albert Ellis
we knew for so many years before his decline--- who
wanted to see AEI go on for another 100 years---would also have
supported the decisions we made and the actions we took. Had we
run the actual situation that occurred by him as a hypothetical
as little as 3 years earlier, we believe he would have been on
our side. I wish we had been given clear instructions through a
living will from a lucid Al regarding what to do with many of
the matters we were left to deal with. To the extent that they
were consistent with NY State law as well as the professional
standards of practice that regulate our field, they would most
likely have been carried out to the letter.
A larger than ever number of mental health professionals are
coming to that stage of life where they could potentially face
retirement dilemmas and other issues similar to those of Albert
Ellis in his final years. Absent a well thought out plan for
phasing out that includes succession and the appointment of
someone to make difficult decisions regarding such extremely
delicate matters as their competence and which professional
activities they are qualified to perform, etc. many colleagues
will also find themselves in positions similar to mine and the
other AEI board members. Therefore, this is something for
everyone in our field to think about for our colleagues and
ourselves as we age. The irony was that until almost the end,
Al---at times---could perform nearly as well as always; but at
other times, he simply could not and refused to hear
feedback—even from those he had worked with and trusted for
decades. We could not find a mutually agreeable way to have him
independently evaluated. This is another problem begging for a
remedy! Perhaps a living will can also clearly put that in place
so that it could be triggered if needed.
I do not believe it’s enough to be okay to practice competently
a mere 30, 40 or 50% of the time (or even 90%). Remember, that
theoretical “surgeon with shaky hands” cannot be left in a
position to do harm no matter how much he loves to perform
operations or his patients love him. Obviously, regardless of a
professional’s specialty, nobody deserves to be the recipient of
services during that inevitable episode when he or she is not up
to the minimum standards of practice. Colleagues who try to help
impaired professionals of all stripes to recognize their blind
spots often find the feedback they offer to be unwelcome; and in
many cases, they are powerless to address the situation
adequately. APA, our state psychological associations and other
organizations that both serve and regulate mental health
professionals need to recognize this problem and develop better
protocols to address it. It would be heartening if such
procedures could become yet another dimension of Al’s vast
legacy.
Many friends and colleagues have asked me about my feelings
regarding my one time mentor, Albert Ellis. They are complex. I
want to remember him as the man he was before his decline. He
was brilliant, profoundly dedicated to his work, eager to be of
help to anyone who needed it, quite controversial and all too
human. Whether in fact he will ultimately be compared next to
Freud, Skinner and Rogers is a matter to be determined by
historians, probability not yet born.
Al's obituaries were just as glowing as they should have been.
Yes, he was an icon and a legendarily innovative psychologist,
who for well over a half a century was right on the cutting
edge. Along with giants such as Drs. Aaron T. Beck, Arnold
Lazarus and others, he paved the way for cognitive behavioral
therapy to become the most effective and mainstream form of
treatment today.
He was generous almost to a fault with his time and candor to
students, patients, colleagues, and anyone else who sought him
out, as well as perhaps the most prolific writer our field has
ever known—70 some books and almost 1000 articles. Hundreds of
mental health professionals considered him an important mentor.
And the sheer number of clients he saw throughout his 60 plus
year career is astounding! That along with his countless other
contributions to psychology, self-help and the New York culture
earned him a NY Times front-page obituary.
Albert Ellis had a wonderful life. He lived it according to his
passions to an extent that very few people ever allow themselves
to do. He showed us by example, that the way to fulfill ones
purpose is to remain staunchly dedicated to it. In Al’s case,
that purpose touched millions of lives and created ripple
effects that will reverberate forever.
However, as that great luminary of our field, Dr. Arnold Lazarus
said in a quote giving his take on Al, which also appeared in
that infamous NY Magazine article,
“I call this the Muhammad Ali syndrome. Had Ali quit three years
sooner and not taken such a pounding, he might not have severe
Parkinson’s. Ellis is a heavyweight, but he didn’t know when to
quit.”
I strongly agree!
Those of us who were in the trenches during this affair know it was
not personal and that any responsible individual or group who
found themselves in the position of having to bring an
organization through a crisis such as this would see little
alternative but to carry out the actions that need to be
taken---however difficult they may be at the time. The AEI and
Dr. Albert Ellis' work will go
on. Yet, I find it sad not to have been able to make peace
with Al before he died. However, there is something most of us
help those we treat at times to understand: it’s not always
possible to make peace with that “other person”, only yourself.
That I can say I have done.
Michael S. Broder,
Ph.D.
is a psychologist and author who lives and practices in
Philadelphia. He is president of Media Psychology Associates and
a past president of APA Division 46. For more information, visit
www.DrMichaelBroder.com
Est. 1987