Introduction
I write this open letter as a concerned member and advocate for the music therapy profession. I remain deeply committed to AMTA’s stated mission of advancing ethical practice, promoting access to quality services, and supporting the professional development of music therapists. I also share the grief and concern over the tragic loss of life in Minnesota and the broader psychological harm that violence, fear, and instability cause to individuals, families, and communities.
At the same time, I feel a professional obligation to raise serious concerns about AMTA’s recent public endorsement of the Stand With Minnesota platform. While I understand the humanitarian intent behind this response, the form, framing, and language of this endorsement risk undermining the association’s ethical neutrality, professional credibility, and commitment to impartial, trauma-informed care.
Professional organizations must not only express compassion. They must model intellectual rigor, ethical consistency, and cognitive responsibility. When public advocacy becomes emotionally driven rather than ethically grounded, it risks transforming a professional body into a political actor rather than a stabilizing institution of care.
On Language, Framing, and De-Escalation
One of the most concerning aspects of the endorsement is its alignment with highly charged language and framing. Platforms that describe federal enforcement as an “occupation” adopt rhetoric that escalates fear and polarization rather than promoting de-escalation, psychological safety, and social stability.
A profession grounded in trauma-informed practice should be particularly cautious about endorsing language that intensifies emotional arousal, identity polarization, and moral absolutism. Healing work depends on reducing threat perception, not amplifying it. Ethical care requires careful attention to how narratives shape fear, cognition, and behavioral responses in vulnerable communities.
AMTA’s public voice carries moral authority. When that voice aligns with emotionally charged advocacy frameworks, it risks eroding trust among members and clients who rely on the profession to remain neutral, stabilizing, and non-partisan.
.png)

