1) The Code of Conduct has this sentence: “Beyond this, teachers should take positive measures both to overcome their own implicit biases and to protect students from the effects of negative stereotypes”. But the replication crisis in psychology has not been kind to either theory: in both cases there have been some large-scale meta-analyses that have found little or no effect. So I’m rather surprised to see the APA adopting this into policy when at the least it’s highly contested science.
2) The Code of Conduct notes that the APA “rejects as unethical all forms of discrimination based on race, color, religion, political convictions, national origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation, gender identification, or age, whether in graduate admissions, appointments, retention, promotion and tenure, manuscript evaluation, salary determination, or other professional activities in which APA members characteristically participate.” From which follows in particular that the APA rejects as unethical discrimination based on religion in graduate admissions or appointments. But then the Code goes on to say that “it is not inconsistent with the APA’s position against discrimination to adopt religious affiliation as a criterion in graduate admissions or employment policies when this is directly related to the school’s religious affiliation or purpose, so long as these policies are made known to members of the philosophical community and so long as the criteria for such religious affiliation do not discriminate against persons according to the other attributes listed in this statement.” That looks straightforwardly false: an inconsistent pair of statements can’t be made consistent merely by declaring them to be. I assume this is poor drafting: what they mean to say is that they regard discrimination as unethical *except* in this particular circumstance.
Blanton et al, Journal of Applied Philosophy (2009): http://www.law.virginia.edu/pdf/faculty/reassessingpredictivevalidityoftheiat.pdf
Oswald et al, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (2013):
Carlsson and Agerstrom, Journal of Scandinavian Psychology (2016): http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/sjop.12288/abstract
(In each case h/t to slatestarcodex.com)
To reiterate: I’m not saying that implicit bias (or stereotype threat) isn’t a thing, just that the evidence for it is much more highly contested than I’d like for something that ends up in the APA statement as if it were accepted truth.
Obviously a responsible professional organization would not prescribe that "good professional conduct in philosophy requires taking one particular view on some open scientific questions" (to quote Wallace), but a professional organization captured by various special interest constituencies would. It is this kind of thing that probably accounts for the fact that only one in three philosophers have a favorable view of the APA, compared to the 2 in 5 who have an "unfavorable" view of the organization.