Thanks for the links. Unfortunately, I don't share your enthusiasm. I am extremely skeptical that this is "fantastic stuff".

It's great that they want to issue an apology. Psychology has been abused as a tool of oppression, and psychologists have not distinguished themselves in avoiding it. Recognizing this is important.

I have two huge concerns with the apology as written, though.

Firstly, it is not in the least bit a centrist point of view even from within anti-racism. It takes very strong stands on a variety of issues (e.g. the degree to which "centered in whiteness" is either a correct or a useful description in various contexts), which leads me to conclude that this "apology" does not genuinely reflect the views of the APA's members. I expect that it reflects the views of (at least many of) those who drafted it, but may be no better than tolerated by an awful lot of APA members who fear reprisal if they even ask for more measured language in any area. Therefore, I am deeply skeptical that it signals what it is supposed to.

Secondly, the tone of the statements contain practically none of the wisdom that psychologists themselves have gathered about how to change outlooks and behaviors. Perhaps they will fix this with further statements, but if, for instance, you want to change habitual behavior (as systemic patterns of behavior are, including systemically racist but not intentional racist patterns), you might want to take advantage of what we know about habit formation: https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/changing-habits-for-the-long-haul

But you don't really find any deep psychological insight into how to make things better in their "dismantling" document, just that they're in with all hands. Instead, you find anti-scientific quasi-racist nonsense statements sprinkled in, like "the body of psychological science must be comprised of rigorous research conducted across the epistemological continuum, to include not only those positivist and postpositivist paradigms that most closely align with Whiteness".

This makes it sound like they're all-hands-in on blind ideology over actual effectiveness, which they are doing with the mindset of impassioned laypeople more than devoted experts. I don't think this is totally true, but only because I don't think the document likely actually reflects an honest reflection of the views of their members.

There are huge contributions that psychology could make to justice in society and helping us craft a society that better allows people to reach their potential and live fulfilling lives. And they absolutely should take stock of the ways in which they have done the exact opposite in the past. But I'm very wary of statements like these as indicating ideological capture of the leadership of an organization rather than a fundamental shift in outlook leading members to use the best methods available to gain understanding and then use that understanding to help people to better themselves and society.