The Dangerous Drift: Mental Health Professionals, Political Violence, and the Loss of Empathy
From Empathy to Extremism: How Political Bias Is Dividing Mental Health Professionals
Something is shifting in our field—and it is dangerous. As a therapist who identifies as liberal yet moderate, I have always believed that our profession stands as a refuge of compassion, neutrality, and ethical clarity. We are not here to judge but to listen, not to condemn but to witness. But in recent months, especially in the wake of the assassination of Charlie Kirk, I have witnessed something that chills me to the bone: colleagues celebrating violence, defending it, or minimizing its impact.
When mental health professionals abandon empathy in favor of ideology, when they publicly or privately cheer a murder, they betray not only their clients but the very essence of what it means to be a healer.
This article is my attempt to speak openly about the dangers we face as a profession if we continue down this road. It is also a plea—a call to action—for all of us to recommit to the timeless principles of curiosity, empathy, and respect, even when faced with people whose views clash with our own.
Because if we can’t model this, how can we expect society to?
A Therapist’s Fear for Our Field
I am writing not from anger, but from fear. Fear that our field is drifting toward something unrecognizable. Fear that therapists are beginning to confuse activism with therapy, righteousness with compassion, judgment with healing.
The role of a therapist is not to take sides in the political arena—it is to create a safe and nonjudgmental space where clients can grapple with their inner struggles. Yet in professional groups, in hushed conversations, and even in public posts, I’ve seen therapists celebrate the death of Charlie Kirk as “justice served.”
But if a therapist believes a political enemy “deserves to die,” how can that same therapist truly sit with a client whose family member supports that politician? How can they model unconditional positive regard when they secretly—or openly—harbor hatred for entire groups of people?
The danger here is not theoretical. It is immediate, it is real, and it risks unraveling the fragile trust clients place in us.
The Charlie Kirk Shooting: A National Tragedy and a Professional Test
On September 10, 2025, Charlie Kirk, the controversial conservative activist, was shot and killed while speaking at Utah Valley University. A sniper’s bullet ended his life before thousands of witnesses, and the nation reeled in shock.
Political leaders from across the spectrum condemned the act of violence. President Biden called it “an attack on democracy itself.” Prominent Democrats, Republicans, and even those who had been staunch critics of Kirk’s rhetoric recognized the gravity of the moment: violence cannot be the answer, no matter how vehemently we disagree.
Yet within mental health communities, the reactions were split. Some therapists expressed horror, grief, and empathy for Kirk’s family. Others responded with callous dismissal, saying things like “he had it coming” or “the world is better off.” Still others justified their reactions under the banner of “social justice,” implying that violence was acceptable if the victim had caused harm in life.
This divergence is telling. If we, as therapists, cannot uniformly condemn violence—if we choose sides in who “deserves” empathy—then we are no longer serving the public good.
Why Empathy Must Transcend Politics
At the heart of therapy is empathy. Not selective empathy, not empathy reserved for those who share our worldview, but empathy for all human beings in their complexity and contradiction. When we begin to ration our compassion based on ideology, we violate the most sacred tenet of our profession.
Charlie Kirk’s politics were controversial, polarizing, and often infuriating to many on the left—including myself. But his death is not a moment to tally political wins or losses. It is a tragedy. He was a son, a husband, a friend. To strip him of his humanity because of his beliefs is to strip ourselves of our capacity to truly see people beyond their positions.
As therapists, we must be capable of holding the paradox: we can strongly disagree with a person’s views, even find them harmful, while still acknowledging their dignity as a human being. Empathy is not endorsement. Empathy is the discipline of seeing the person beneath the rhetoric.
When empathy transcends politics, we remind society of its shared humanity. When it doesn’t, we contribute to the cycle of dehumanization that makes violence feel permissible.
The Immediate Reactions: Division Within Our Own Circles
In the hours after Kirk’s assassination, I scanned social media feeds, therapist group chats, and professional forums. What I saw unsettled me. Some colleagues openly celebrated the act. Others expressed relief that “a dangerous voice” had been silenced. Still others cloaked their approval in ambiguous statements that minimized the horror of what had occurred.
This reveals a deep fracture within our professional community. On one side are those who uphold the principle that violence is never acceptable, even against our fiercest opponents. On the other are those who, in their zeal for justice, have begun to justify cruelty if the victim is deemed by them harmful.
The problem is not disagreement—that’s natural in any field. The problem is that therapists are expected to hold space for others, rather than perpetuating division. When we cheer for violence, we fail not only our clients but also our colleagues who may think differently. We create a chilling environment in professional spaces where curiosity and dialogue give way to ideological conformity.
This is precisely the opposite of what our field is meant to represent.
When Therapists Celebrate Violence: Why This is a Betrayal of Ethics
Let’s be clear: celebrating violence is not just unprofessional—it is unethical. The American Psychological Association (APA) and the American Counseling Association (ACA) codes of ethics are explicit about the obligation to do no harm, to avoid imposing personal values, and to treat all clients with dignity and respect.
When a therapist condones or celebrates murder or violence against any group of people, they undermine the integrity of their therapeutic role in several ways:
They betray client trust. Clients who support conservative causes, or even clients whose family members do, may feel unsafe opening up if they fear judgment or disdain.
They model intolerance instead of empathy. Therapists are role models of relational behavior. If we cheer violence, we teach that anger and retribution are acceptable responses to conflict.
They reinforce polarization. By aligning therapy with political ideology, we risk turning our profession into yet another battleground, rather than a sanctuary.
To celebrate violence is to abandon the very essence of therapy: healing.
Neutrality vs. Advocacy: Walking the Fine Line
Some therapists argue that neutrality is impossible. They see therapy as an inherently political act and believe that to remain “neutral” in the face of injustice is to side with the oppressor. There is truth in this: silence can indeed be complicit. But we must distinguish between advocacy in society and our role in the therapy room.
In society, I can and should advocate for human rights, equality, and justice. In the therapy room, however, my role is different. I am not there to recruit, persuade, or indoctrinate. I am there to witness, to listen, and to help clients explore their inner worlds. My advocacy in the room is not for a cause—it is for the client’s humanity.
When we conflate activism with therapy, we risk losing sight of this distinction. The result is a therapeutic relationship that is less about the client and more about us—a misuse of power that can cause deep harm.
The Ethical Codes We Are Ignoring
If we are to preserve the trust society places in us, we must return to our ethical foundations. Consider just a few guiding principles from the ACA and APA codes:
Beneficence and Nonmaleficence: Strive to benefit those you serve and take care to do no harm.
Respect for People’s Rights and Dignity: Respect the dignity and worth of all people, and the rights of individuals to privacy, confidentiality, and self-determination.
Avoiding Harm and Exploitation: Do not use professional relationships to further personal, religious, political, or ideological agendas.
Celebrating the death of a political opponent violates every one of these principles. It does harm. It shows disrespect. It exploits the professional role to validate personal anger.
If we are serious about ethics, we cannot simply dismiss these violations as “venting.” We must hold ourselves accountable.
How Celebrating Violence Damages Clients
The effects of therapist bias are not abstract—they are lived in the therapy room. Imagine a conservative college student grieving after Kirk’s assassination. If they discover their therapist mocked or minimized their death, how safe will they feel expressing their pain?
Or consider a Jewish client who sees therapists in professional spaces dismiss violence against Zionists as “resistance.” What message does that send about their worth and safety in therapy?
When we fail to show empathy, we retraumatize clients who already live in a polarized, hostile society. We rob them of the one place they should be able to explore their feelings without fear of judgment.
This is not just a political issue. It is a clinical one.
How Celebrating Violence Damages Colleagues and Professional Relationships
The harm of celebrating political violence doesn’t stop with clients. It reverberates throughout our professional communities, straining the bonds between colleagues who must be able to trust one another in order to sustain this work. Therapy is not a solitary profession—we rely on consultation groups, supervision, continuing education forums, and peer support networks. When those spaces become hostile or ideologically rigid, the entire field suffers.
Erosion of Trust Between Colleagues
Therapists, like anyone else, need places to process the heaviness of their work. Peer consultation groups are intended to be safe spaces where we can share our doubts, vulnerabilities, and clinical challenges. But what happens when a colleague uses that space to celebrate the murder or justify violent acts towards someone they disagreed with politically?
The trust between peers is fractured. Those who disagree may feel unsafe voicing their concerns, fearing ostracism or professional repercussions. Those who silently oppose the celebration may withdraw from the group altogether. The very lifeline of support that therapists rely upon begins to wither under the weight of polarization.
Without trust, consultation becomes a performative rather than a restorative process. Colleagues stop speaking honestly. Instead of curiosity and collaboration, group dynamics shift toward conformity and silence.
The Silencing Effect
In some therapist groups, a chilling effect has set in. A professional expresses joy over the death of a political figure, and others remain silent—not because they agree, but because they fear the consequences of speaking up. Silence in these moments is corrosive. It signals to everyone in the room that dissent is a dangerous act.
Therapists who lean more moderate, conservative, or even just less radical often retreat from professional conversations altogether. They stop attending forums. They self-censor in supervision. They disengage from communities that should be nurturing growth.
The result? We create echo chambers where only one worldview is allowed to thrive. That is not a professional community. That is ideological groupthink.
Colleague-to-Colleague Dehumanization
It’s one thing to disagree with a politician. It’s another to dehumanize our fellow professionals who feel differently. Yet this is happening more often: therapists dismissing peers as “complicit,” “oppressive,” or “dangerous” simply because they don’t celebrate the same causes, express the same outrage, or hold different values.
This dehumanization doesn’t just poison relationships—it undermines collaboration in research, training, and clinical innovation. A field divided by suspicion cannot move forward with curiosity and discovery.
Undermining Professional Advocacy
Our profession is only as strong as our collective voice. When we advocate for mental health funding, ethical standards, or public awareness campaigns, we do so together. But if our professional reputation becomes associated with celebrating violence or pushing ideology above empathy, we lose credibility—not only with the public, but with policymakers.
Imagine a legislator considering whether to fund mental health initiatives. If they perceive our profession as politically radicalized, intolerant of diversity of thought, or dismissive of certain populations, will they view us as trustworthy advocates? Probably not. The fractures within our profession risk weakening our collective impact on society.
Action for Professional Relationships
We cannot afford to let bias and violence tear apart our relationships with one another. If we are to remain a profession rooted in empathy, we must recommit to:
Respectful Dialogue: Create professional spaces where differences can be voiced without fear of retaliation.
Curiosity Over Condemnation: When a colleague sees an issue differently, ask questions rather than rushing to judgment.
Shared Humanity: Remember that behind every professional identity is a human being with a unique history, family, and set of experiences.
Rebuilding Trust: If trust has been broken, name the rupture and seek repair—just as we ask clients to do in their own relationships.
If we want to guide clients in building healthier relational patterns, we must first demonstrate them with one another.
Radicalization in Mental Health: The Alarming Trend
Therapy has always been shaped by the cultural currents of its time. In the 1960s, it reflected questions of identity and liberation. In the 1980s and 1990s, it wrestled with the rise of cognitive-behavioral models and medicalized diagnoses. Today, we face a new challenge: the infiltration of radicalized, ideological perspectives that prioritize activism over empathy and neutrality.
The Rise of Ideological Extremes in Professional Groups
In therapist networks and professional spaces, more voices are speaking less about healing and more about ideology. Discussions that should center around treatment methods, ethical dilemmas, or trauma-informed care often drift toward political litmus tests. Those who fail to align with the dominant narrative risk being labeled oppressive, harmful, or even unfit to practice.
Instead of a culture of curiosity, many of our professional spaces are evolving into arenas of ideological conformity. This is not just unhelpful—it is dangerous. Therapy thrives on diversity of perspective. When we reduce our field to a single political ideology, we strip it of richness, nuance, and creativity.
Dehumanization of Jews, Zionists, and “The Other”
Perhaps the most alarming trend is the growing dehumanization of certain populations. In some circles, Jewish clients and Zionist identities are dismissed, mocked, or treated as inherently oppressive. Therapists who hold these identities sometimes report being excluded from professional spaces or silenced in conversations about justice.
This is a betrayal of our ethical commitment to treat every client with dignity and respect. If certain groups are treated as exceptions to empathy, we erode the very foundation of therapeutic practice.
When Social Justice Becomes a Shield for Harm
Many therapists enter the field because they care deeply about justice. This is admirable. But when the pursuit of justice is weaponized to justify violence, hatred, or exclusion, it ceases to be justice at all.
I’ve heard colleagues defend violent acts, claiming that they are “necessary resistance” or “the language of the unheard.” While it is vital to acknowledge systemic oppression and the pain it causes, it is equally vital to hold a line against endorsing harm. Violence may emerge from pain, but it does not alleviate or heal the pain. As therapists, we must hold that distinction firmly, even when it feels uncomfortable.
The Ripple Effects: From Therapist Bias to Societal Division
When therapists themselves become polarized, biased, or radicalized, the impact extends far beyond the therapy room. Our profession plays an outsized role in shaping public conversations about mental health, trauma, and human relationships. If we mirror the anger and divisiveness of society rather than offering an antidote, we risk deepening the wounds we are meant to heal.
How Clients Lose Trust in Us
Clients come to us at their most vulnerable. If they believe their political identity, religious identity, or cultural background makes them unsafe in therapy, they will disengage. They may avoid therapy altogether, depriving themselves of care they desperately need.
Imagine being a conservative teenager struggling with anxiety. If you see mental health professionals online cheering the death of Charlie Kirk, how likely are you to believe therapy is a safe place for you?
Or imagine being a Jewish mother grieving the rise of antisemitic violence, only to discover that your therapist dismisses your pain as a political inconvenience. That client may never return—not just to that therapist, but to therapy as a whole.
The Risk of Normalizing Division and Anger
Therapists are cultural role models. We teach through our presence, our tone, and our capacity to hold tension. When we normalize anger and division, clients take that into their own relationships. We reinforce the very cycle of polarization that society is already drowning in.
The risk is enormous: instead of being healers, we become amplifiers of conflict.
Ethical Slippage: From Healing to Harm
Every time we justify harm, minimize empathy, or let our biases spill unchecked into our practice, we engage in ethical slippage. At first, it may be subtle—an eye roll at a client’s political views, a dismissive comment in a consultation group. But over time, it escalates. The line between professional and personal blurs, and the client relationship becomes less about their growth and more about our agenda.
This harms not only clients but also the credibility of our entire profession.
Empathy, Curiosity, and Understanding
If there is one antidote to radicalization, division, and violence, it is empathy. However, empathy alone is not enough—it must be paired with curiosity and a willingness to understand those who are different from us.
The Willingness to Be Curious Instead of Certain
Curiosity is the foundation of therapy. Yet in our polarized era, certainty often replaces curiosity. We assume we know what motivates those who disagree with us. We flatten their identities into stereotypes.
But what would it look like if we approached even those we most disagree with with curiosity? What would it look like to ask—not with sarcasm, but with genuine openness—“What pain led you to this belief? What fear sits underneath your anger?”
Curiosity doesn’t mean agreement. It means remembering that every person has a story worth understanding.
Practicing Radical Empathy with People We Disagree With
Radical empathy is the willingness to extend compassion even when it feels undeserved. It is not about excusing harm, but about refusing to meet harm with dehumanization.
For therapists, this means being able to sit across from someone whose politics or worldview clash with our own and still see their humanity. It means holding space for their suffering, even when we don’t align with their solutions.
This is not weakness—it is strength. It is the strength to resist the easy path of judgment and instead model what it means to hold space for contradiction.
Learning to Witness, Not Preach
Clients do not need us to preach to them. They do not need us to insert our ideologies into their healing process. They need us to witness. To witness their pain, their fear, their contradictions. To hold that witnessing with care and without judgment.
When we stop witnessing and start preaching, we stop being therapists. We become activists with couches. That is not what clients come to us for, and it is not what society needs from us.
The Responsibility to Model Healthy Conflict and Dialogue
Conflict is inevitable. Every relationship—whether personal, professional, or societal—will face disagreements. The question is not whether conflict will arise, but how we handle it when it does.
As therapists, we have a unique responsibility: to model healthy conflict resolution in both our work with clients and in our interactions with one another. If we cannot disagree without dehumanizing, if we cannot argue without escalating, if we cannot face discomfort without shutting down, then how can we expect society to do the same?
Therapy as a Laboratory for Civil Discourse
One of the hidden gifts of therapy is that it acts as a laboratory for human relationships. Inside the room, clients rehearse the patterns of communication, trust, rupture, and repair that they will take into their everyday lives.
When we handle disagreement with curiosity instead of hostility, clients see that modeled. When we sit calmly with anger without meeting it with our own, clients learn to regulate themselves. When we repair ruptures openly, clients learn that relationships can survive conflict without collapse.
Building Bridges Instead of Walls
It’s easy to build walls—harder to build bridges. But our field is uniquely equipped to be bridge-builders. We are trained to hold complexity, to explore ambivalence, and to make space for both-and instead of either-or. If we lean into these skills, we can help society relearn how to have difficult conversations without violence.
But if we abandon these skills—if we replicate society’s polarization rather than healing it—we squander the very power of our profession.
How to Guide Clients Through Conflict Without Bias
Clients will always bring political and cultural tensions into therapy. Our role is not to erase these tensions or push them in one direction. It is to help clients explore their values, regulate their emotions, and make choices that align with their integrity.
To do this, we must keep our own biases in check. A therapist who rolls their eyes at a client’s political views is not guiding—they’re judging. A therapist who subtly nudges a client toward their own ideology is not healing—they’re proselytizing.
Healthy conflict means modeling what it looks like to disagree without disconnection. That is what clients need most, and that is what society desperately needs right now.
Call to Action for Mental Health Professionals
The time for hand-wringing is over. If we want to preserve the integrity of our profession and serve society well, we must recommit to our highest values. Here are concrete steps every therapist can take:
1. Recommit to Our Ethical Codes
Revisit the codes of ethics that govern our profession. They are not abstract—they are living guides that remind us what it means to “do no harm.” Let them ground us when we are tempted by anger, ideology, or self-righteousness.
2. Practice Self-Reflection and Bias Audits
Bias is inevitable. What matters is whether we acknowledge it and manage it. Regular self-reflection—journaling, supervision, or peer consultation—can help us notice when our biases are seeping into our work.
3. Create Professional Spaces That Value Empathy Over Extremism
We must rebuild professional communities where curiosity is encouraged, disagreement is welcomed, and empathy is the norm. This requires courage—speaking up when violent rhetoric emerges, even when it is unpopular.
4. Lead Society by Example
We are not just therapists. We are models of human interaction. When we show that it is possible to disagree without hatred, to debate without dehumanization, we give society a gift far greater than any one therapy session.
Choosing Empathy Over Division
The assassination of Charlie Kirk was a tragedy—not only because a life was lost, but because it revealed just how fragile our collective empathy has become. In the aftermath, too many therapists abandoned compassion and celebrated violence. This is a betrayal of our calling.
We stand at a crossroads. We can either allow radicalization, bias, and polarization to overtake our profession, or we can recommit to the timeless values that make therapy transformative: empathy, curiosity, dignity, and the will to witness without judgment.
Clients need us to be neutral witnesses. Colleagues need us to be respectful partners. Society needs us to be models of healthy conflict.
The choice is ours. Will we perpetuate division, or will we lead by example—showing that even in disagreement, empathy is possible?
The future of our field depends on the answer.