When the Mission Becomes the Movement: The Risk of Politicizing Occupational Therapy
One recent example came from a group calling itself Diverse-OT National, which published a statement rejecting neutrality and explicitly accusing professional institutions of “collusion” in state violence.
I have no objection to anyone advocating for a cause they believe in. I respect passion, and I understand the appeal of movements. But I believe we need to ask a critical question - is the profession of occupational therapy the right vehicle for this kind of activism?
In my view, it is not. And here’s why.
1. Occupational Therapy Is a Health Profession, Not a Political Movement
Occupational therapy is built on the foundation of helping people live lives of meaning and participation. We serve patients across the political, cultural, and economic spectrum and those people have needs that transcend partisan lines. Our work is patient-centered, evidence-based, and ethically grounded in promoting autonomy, dignity, and well-being.
Well, it used to be, anyway.
When we reframe the profession as a political apparatus that is aligned with a specific ideological worldview we risk distorting our purpose. Political engagement is the right of every practitioner, but it is not the mission of the profession.
We do not serve movements. We serve people.
2. The Problem with Ideological Capture
Ideological capture occurs when an institution, profession, or organization becomes dominated by a particular belief system or political ideology to the point where alternative viewpoints are marginalized, discouraged, or outright excluded. It happens when loyalty to the ideology becomes more important than the original mission of the institution.
In the context of occupational therapy, ideological capture would mean that professional identity and ethical obligations are no longer defined by patient-centered care, scientific evidence, or broad-based ethical reasoning but instead by adherence to a specific political framework. Those who dissent, ask questions, or offer alternate perspectives risk being labeled as morally deficient or professionally out of step. This label would be applied not because of their practice, but because of their beliefs.
Movements like Diverse-OT demand both action and ideological alignment. Silence, disagreement, or even calls for nuance are labeled as complicity. There is no space for principled dissent or pluralism. There is only the movement and those outside it are painted as obstacles to justice.
This sort of framing isn’t liberatory. It’s exclusionary, and I oppose it. We have seen too much of this coming from our OT leadership/institutions and it is alienating many practitioners.
What happens to practitioners who hold different convictions, or who are uncomfortable politicizing their clinical roles? What happens to patients who look to us for care and who are not interested in a litmus test of beliefs?
When we treat political alignment as a professional obligation, we risk becoming an ideological guild rather than a health profession. I am disappointed that no one has called this out yet, but as the voices become louder I feel strongly obligated to pump the brakes on this thinking. Many people believe there is too much professional risk in opposing this politicization.
We have to stop being afraid to monitor and correct our own professional thinking when it is necessary.
3. Yes, Ethics Matter. But So Does Scope.
Some will argue that “neutrality” is itself a political choice and that silence in the face of injustice is unacceptable. I understand that position, but that doesn't mean that it always needs to spill over into professional care. I agree that there are moments when the profession must speak - when laws directly threaten access to care, when ethical violations occur, or when practice itself is endangered.
However, I believe that we have to draw the line between advocacy within our scope and politicization beyond it. For example, it’s fine to advocate for inclusive healthcare access. But I think it is problematic to demand that occupational therapy as a profession endorse specific positions on foreign policy, abolitionist ideology, or electoral politics. That moves us out of health care and into activism by proxy.
4. The Danger of Losing Public Trust
People trust occupational therapists to provide care that is competent, ethical, and nonpartisan. That trust is fragile. When we frame the profession as an agent of political resistance, we risk alienating our own practitioners and the communities we are trying to serve.
We cannot be all things to all movements. We shouldn't even try to be.
5. There Is Room for Activism—Just Not Through Co-opted Professional Identity
Those who feel called to political action should be free to organize, advocate, protest, and educate. Use your voice, your platforms (carefully and judiciously), and your freedom. But let’s not mistake our personal moral calling for a collective professional mandate for all occupational therapy practitioners.
So if you think your occupational therapy platform is the place to organize, advocate, protest, and educate, maybe you need to take a step back and consider your advocacy position and what you are demanding of your colleagues.
I remain committed to a profession that welcomes ideological diversity, upholds ethical practice, and resists the pressure to become a proxy for any one worldview. Occupational therapy must remain capacious enough to include many perspectives. We need an expansive vision of occupational therapy that resists narrowing to one ideology. A pluralistic profession honors differences without demanding uniformity of belief.
If we abandon our professional foundation then we do not evolve. Rather, we devolve into a movement, or worse, a political cult. And no matter how loudly such movements claim the moral high ground, they are exclusionary by design.
They do not serve everyone. They serve themselves.
Comments