Blind to Betrayal: Why We Fool Ourselves We Aren't Being Fooled (24 page)

Notes

1.
Settlegoode v. Portland Public Schools
, 362 F. 3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2004).

2.
Truth and Reconciliation Commission Final Report, 2003,
www.info.gov.za/otherdocs/2003/trc/2_7.pdf
.

3.
J. D. Wolfensohn, “Voices for the Poor,” speech given at the World Press Freedom Committee in Washington, 1999.

4.
S. Munroe, “Government Apologizes to Veteran Sean Bruyea,”
Canada Online
, October 26, 2010,
http://canadaonline.about.com
.

5.
J. O'Neill, “Betrayed Veteran Receives Gov't Apology,”
Edmonton Journal
, October 26, 2010,
http://www2.canada.com
.

13

Speaking Our Truth

In chapter 10, we began the telling of our story together, as friends and colleagues, and about the betrayal that happened when we were just getting to know each other. It was a confusing and disorienting time for both of us, much as betrayal and knowing betrayal were upsetting for Rebecca, Beth, Cathy, and others whose stories we have told.

Here is the rest of our story, first as told by Jennifer Freyd: “The situation became more and more difficult until finally in August 1993, eight months pregnant with my third child and by then a tenured full professor, I gave the one and only speech I have ever delivered that discussed my personal situation related to delayed memories. The context was another professional conference (in Ann Arbor, Michigan), where I gave an invited presentation: ‘Personal and Theoretical Perspectives on the Delayed Memory Debate.' After presenting betrayal trauma theory, I turned to a very different presentation. My personal speech began this way:

I will now break with tradition—at least, my tradition until today—and speak about my personal experience with some of the issues that are the focus of discussion at this conference. As many of you know, the False Memory Syndrome Foundation (FMSF) was founded, and is now directed, by my mother, Pamela Freyd. It is widely known that my parents claim to be “falsely accused” of sexual abuse by their daughter.

Numerous newspaper stories about the FMSF have presented my parents' status as falsely accused. Just last month, on the NPR evening radio news show
All Things Considered
, the reporter, Wendy Schmelzer, said, “For the last year, Dr. [Pamela] Freyd has criss-crossed the country attending similar meetings; each time with the same message for her audience—‘You are not alone. My husband and I were also falsely accused.'”

Not only is it widely known that my parents were accused of sexual abuse, and not only is it widely assumed that the accusation was “false,” but the details of their story are also—most strangely—widely known. My mother published her version of being falsely accused under the name “Jane Doe,” and this published story has been circulated widely. Many people learn of the Jane Doe story in such a way that they know it is about the Freyd family; others learn the story without knowing the identity of the characters but believing the details to be accurate. I find the latter situation unnerving; I find the former situation—where people get exposed to Jane Doe, thinking it is about me—horribly invasive and violating. As one clinician said at a national meeting recently about the FMSF: “There is persuasive evidence that this organization grew out of one family's feud that's overgrown its boundaries and come into the popular culture.”

In speaking about personal matters today, I would like to offer my truth in the hope that it will inform you of aspects of the context out of which FMSF grew. I would never have chosen to be here today speaking about my personal life, were circumstances not what they are. I make this decision partly because I have already lost so much of my privacy, and in such an unclear and distorted way, that I have come to desire clarity and public truth as the lesser of two undesirable situations. I also speak about these matters today because I hope what I have to share will help, directly or indirectly, other abused children and adult survivors of abuse. I hope that speaking my truth is, in the end, healing for myself and for others.

The truth I wish to speak about today pertains to
patterns
of behavior. I will speak about a pattern of behavior my parents have exhibited toward me in my childhood and are continuing into the present: a pattern of boundary violation, a pattern of invasion and control, a pattern of inappropriate and unwanted sexualization, a pattern of family and relationship dysfunction, and a pattern of intimidation and manipulation.

Despite these unfortunate things that I will be talking about today, I would also like you to know that I consider myself privileged in many ways. Most fundamentally, I am privileged to be a part of the family my partner and I have created—a family that happens to include particularly lovable children.

Later on in the speech, I went on to say:

My parents have severely violated my privacy. They use the foundation in a personal way. Earlier this year, for instance, my mother wrote a personal letter to my mother-in-law on FMSF letterhead, signing the letter with her title as executive director. The letter, which is dated February 17, 1993, was hostile to my husband and me, included the name of my therapist, and implied that my mother-in-law might be “cut off from the grandchildren.” This entirely unsolicited letter was deeply upsetting to my mother-in-law, a woman in her late seventies, living alone and with no desire to have contact with my parents (she had experienced my father as verbally abusive and had avoided contact with him long before my husband raised the topic of my childhood sexual abuse with her). With her letter, my mother included the FMSF brochure. This is embarrassing and painful to me. It is as if the weight of a whole foundation stands behind my mother's frenzied denial of my reality [of childhood sexual abuse].

Until now, . . . only one side of our family story has been made public, and my silence has been taken as complicity. And the very nature of the publicity has been such that there is no accountability. Jane Doe wrote an anonymous article—it could be about anyone. And yet an enormous number of people received that article with a cover letter from Pamela Freyd. Indeed, I get calls from investigative journalists, and some of them contact me fully aware that “Jane Doe” is my mother. As one reporter pointed out to me, the February 1992 FMSF newsletter in fact indicates that the executive director is “Jane Doe” and then in subsequent letters that the executive director is Pamela Freyd. Colleagues have told me that they have received the Jane Doe article from my mother herself, in which she makes clear her identity as author. In other cases, I have been given copies of letters from my mother, or letters in response to my mother, making reference to Pamela Freyd as Jane Doe. I find this invasion of my privacy horrifying.

It would be bad enough if the Jane Doe story were accurate. But not only is my privacy invaded in this way, the article is defaming. In a recent electronic message from my father, he finally makes explicit acknowledgment of the untruths in the Jane Doe article. My father explains that a reporter he knows thinks “he can put together stuff from the Jane Doe article and the Darryl Sifford columns, but in both cases fictional elements were deliberately inserted, and—unless we go on record—the reporter has no way of determining what those are.”

“Fictional” is rather an astounding choice of words. The Jane Doe article incorrectly states, for instance, that I was denied tenure at a previous university due to lack of major publications, and that as of 1990–91 I was not sufficiently productive. In fact, I moved to the University of Oregon in 1987, just four years after receiving my PhD, to accept a tenured position as associate professor in the Psychology Department, one of the world's best psychology departments, especially in the area of cognitive psychology. My previous university, also a fine university, was unwilling to match a tenure offer that was two years early but otherwise made an attempt to keep me from leaving for Oregon. The article also includes extensive discussion of my supposed sex life—a largely inaccurate discussion. My mother sent the Jane Doe article to my colleagues during my promotion year—that is the year my case for promotion to full professor was being considered. I was absolutely mortified to learn of this violation of my privacy and this violation of the truth.
^1.

As a child, I experienced significant betrayals in my family of origin. I remained blind to that betrayal until my early thirties. When I did remember the betrayal, the consequences were profound. Some of those consequences were difficult to manage, largely because of the social response to my story being told. Although I did disclose my memories to a few people close to me, my story was broadcast widely beyond my wishes or control. On the one hand, close friends and some family members provided great support and allowed me to heal in a way I never would have without awareness, disclosure, and social support. On the other hand, my parents, some colleagues, and ultimately a national organization caused me significant suffering by their reaction to my private history.

Betrayal of this magnitude demands response. We were lucky. It was a betrayal that we could not be blind to and one that we were motivated to confront. Both of us were faculty members in a psychology department and had the power to name the betrayal and claim our voices, much as Cathy, Rebecca, and Beth have done.

Pamela Birrell's response was in the form of an open letter dated September 1, 1993, to the advisory board members of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation:

As a close friend of Jennifer Freyd, I have watched the development of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation (FMSF) from the beginning. Recently, Dr. Freyd eloquently and effectively documented the unwelcome intrusion of this organization, founded by her parents, into her professional life. . . . In addition, as a clinical psychologist, I have seen the damage done by this organization to survivors of
documented
sexual abuse as they struggle to establish their own reality and to deal with the overwhelming pain of their trauma. I can remain silent no longer.

I am writing this letter to ask all of you to examine your motives and to look at the consequences of your membership on the advisory board of this particular foundation. There are several reasons for membership on this particular board and therefore association with an organization of this type. They are as follows: