It's good for organizations to face up to their past misdeeds, and the APA isn't remotely the worst offender.

But there are two aspects about the APA message that makes me a little less happy. Firstly, the language they use is so heavily aligned with the most popular anti-racist ideas, including the most controversial ones, that I rather doubt that the statement reflects a majority of members of the APA, but rather the team in charge of crafting the statement. The entire membership of an organization having a mild reckoning seems more useful and hopeful to me than a small team expressing a major one on behalf of the (unconsulted) others.

Secondly, although they apologize repeatedly for the field (again, mostly on behalf of others) coming to incorrect conclusions on the basis of racist assumptions and perpetuating systemic racism, they almost entirely fail to hold themselves to task for the underlying problem: the studies were poorly constructed and the science was bad. Done correctly, you should be able to have the most avowed racist follow standard protocols and get their work peer reviewed, and the results should be roughly as reliable as those of a completely indifferent scientist or the most fervent anti-racist. That's the whole point: to remove, to the extent possible, individual biases. If you can't remove the vast majority of the bias, you shouldn't call what you do science.

So without that reckoning, my confidence is low that they're not going to just blunder around ignoring confounds, setting up experiments to confirm whatever new preconceived notions people have, and just doing the same thing all over again, lending legitimacy where none should be, and causing more harm. In another thirty years will they be apologizing again for all the harm done by finding ways to justify some popular but actually counterproductive ideas for how to implement anti-racism? The saving grace here is the same as the condemnation of the first: I don't think the message likely reflects that many of the actual members and researchers in the APA, so maybe they will redouble their resolve to do the best science possible.

Getting the right answers from psychology about "hey, we have this idea to reduce implicit bias" or whatnot would likely be far more valuable in the long run than an apology. It could actually do substantive good to erase some of paths by which harms from history continue plaguing us today.