The degree of marginalization and opposition you received is quite surprising to me as a complete outsider to the field.

Very naively, I would have thought that the APA statement on addressing racism (https://www.apa.org/about/apa/addressing-racism) would have indicated a great deal of support for and approval of the kinds of declarations and policy changes you were advocating for.

And this makes me wonder what the nature of the opposition was--even though you give quite a number of examples, there's still a key distinction that I at least didn't quite grasp.

I'm not always very naive. When I first read the statement I noted that it adopts a very large fraction of the lingo that is highly favored by left-leaning people and rejected by right-leaning people. Thus, I was tempted to conclude that the statement did not actually reflect the broad consensus of APA members (since otherwise I would have expected more diversity of language), but rather the strong feelings of those in charge of writing the statement, and enough others to allow it to pass. The experiences you've described seems consistent to me with this.

This makes me wonder to what extent you think each of the following three factors led to the difficulties you encountered (these cross-cut the obvious "white dominant culture" issues you point out):

(1) Support for the addressing racism document but not your proposals because people don't want to "eat their own dog food"--they agree with the addressing racism document principles but refuse to embrace their natural consequences (which your proposals seem to me to be).

(2) Lack of support for the addressing racism document that did not come to the fore sufficiently to shut down that document, but was enough to repeatedly thwart your efforts.

(3) A negative reaction to a perceived challenge to the in-group (i.e. the APA) or the hierarchy of authority in the group. (If this were the case, you would expect people to one-on-one be very agreeable when talking to you and you had good evidence and arguments for your statements--because in this case there is no group identity or hierarchy threat--but strident opposition when presenting the same material in a wider, more public context.)

All three can be true at the same time. But I don't see how none of these could be true while simultaneously you were receiving this kind of hostile response and the addressing racism document was adopted . (Maybe there are other options I haven't considered, however.)