News
An effort to increase the number of psychiatrists of color
After 35 years in law and advocacy, Rawle Andrews Jr. returns to his roots
Rawle Andrews Jr. took an indirect path to become executive director of the American Psychiatric Association Foundation (APAF).
From a psychology major in college to becoming a lawyer, the passion for equity and inclusion that fueled him during his years at AARP and as a professor at Howard and Georgetown universities serves as the foundation for his career in mental health.
Andrews has made it his mission at APAF to prioritize youth mental health — including in schools in D.C. and across the country — and to reduce stigma around mental illness and increase the number of psychiatrists of color practicing in the U.S.
Andrews, who began his educational career studying psychology, said he felt out of place in college when his classmates were pursuing medical careers and he was more interested in law.
“I was the only person in my cohort who was going to law school,” he said. “Everybody else wanted to be a doctor and go to medical school.”
Everything changed for Andrews during the COVID-19 pandemic and after George Floyd was killed by police in Missouri: Those pivotal moments reshaped national conversations about health, race, and inequality, and pushed Andrews to rethink his career.
“I saw people deathly afraid of some disease, but also mortified by the fact that they witnessed somebody die on TV,” he said.
After nearly 16 years working as a lawyer in private practice and 15 years at AARP, Andrews found himself pulled back to mental and “whole body” health.
“My goal in law school was to be a courtroom lawyer all the time. If you had told me in 1990 that I would be a practicing lawyer going to court every day, I would have laughed you out of this room. If you had told me in 2010 that I wouldn’t be an in-house lawyer every day … I would have laughed you out of this room,” he said. “Everybody thinks you’re going to go straight from A to B. Life doesn’t work A to B.”
Now, Andrews says, he has the “ability to serve the whole house.” He can help “the eight-year-old who’s struggling in middle school … the parent who’s trying to get that child through, but also caring for an older loved one … who might have some cognitive decline or mobility challenges.”
Building a pipeline of Black mental health professionals
In his role at APAF, Andrews has his sights set on increasing the number of psychiatrists nationwide by reducing barriers to study and success, particularly for practitioners of color, who are vastly underrepresented.
Only about 5% of physicians are Black, and the number for Black psychiatrists is even lower at just 2%, according to the American Psychiatric Association. Widespread stigma around mental illness in communities of color, combined with “systemic barriers that keep persons of color from getting into medical school and matching for residency with teaching hospitals after graduating,” have contributed to the low numbers, Andrews says.
Financial pressures, limited residency slots, and a lack of exposure to psychiatry as a viable career all play important roles in limiting Black representation in the field. At the same time, stigma surrounding mental health — especially in Black communities — can discourage both patients and future physicians, according to Andrews.
He explains that this stigma is rooted in underlying fear, shame, and historic discrimination, and the only way to deal with those issues is directly. If you break those down, Andrews said, you can actually address them.
There are signs of change, though. “In the digital world, more and more people are seeing and talking about mental health all the time,” Andrews said. “And I believe more and more young doctors of all colors are deciding, ‘we need more psychiatrists, and I want to be a part of that solution.’”
Not having enough psychiatrists of color has far-reaching consequences. If you are a “non-diverse” physician or a physician practicing without humility or cultural competency, you may over-diagnose or misdiagnose a patient, said Andrews. You might assume a patient has symptoms due to your own cognitive biases.
A 2024 study in the Journal of General Internal Medicine revealed that mistrust and suspicion were high among dozens of Black patients with serious mental illness, who said they felt doctors did not take their concerns seriously or took a condescending tone with them during appointments.
This type of treatment does not promote trust or disclosure, Andrews said. “What is my advantage to be vulnerable with people who don’t think much of me, because you already thought I was broken?”
To combat medical racism and bias, APAF runs one of the largest psychiatry pipeline programs in the world. It provides more than 1,000 medical students from underrepresented and marginalized communities with training and professional development. Programs like the Diversity Leadership Fellowship emphasize cultural competency and evidence-based practices to better serve diverse groups and at-risk populations.
These programs have had tangible success in producing leadership in the field of psychiatry: APA’s CEO Dr. Marketa Wills, the first CEO of color and first female CEO in the APA organization’s 180-year history, was a trainee with the APAF nearly three decades ago.
Despite efforts to make healthcare more equitable for patients of color and members of the LGBTQ+ community, many experts believe that racism and biases are more deeply ingrained in the system than many realize. For example, a 2019 study found that Black patients suffering from depression are often misdiagnosed with schizophrenia, and a 2016 study revealed that many doctors wrongly believe that Black patients have higher thresholds for pain tolerance.
“If you don’t have cultural humility or cultural competency, you could over-diagnose somebody because you’re looking for them to be ADHD, you’re looking for them to be bipolar, you’re looking for them to be schizophrenic,” said Andrews. “And then, because of the fears, the stigmas, the shame, people don’t want to go and get tested either.”
Youth mental health focus
Andrews says many fear that telling someone else about their struggles will cause that person to look down on them. That unwillingness to share about mental health challenges can start at a young age.
That’s why the APAF has partnered with local organizations in the Washington, D.C., area to help young people address mental health concerns. One of the programs, Our Minds Matter, operates in D.C.-area schools and other states to educate students on signs of emotional distress and how to address it. APAF also runs the Notice.Talk.Act. at School program, which helps train school staff to recognize and address student mental health issues and connect them to resources. The program was recently adopted at Jefferson Middle School Academy.
The program is “the ‘stop, drop and roll’ of mental health,” Andrews said. “How do I notice signs and symptoms of distress in a student? How do I create an open space to talk and be a better active listener with a student who wants to share their mental health concerns and then act?”
APAF’s program, funded by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) and free to schools, trained about 890 school staff members across the country in 2024, and boasts a 70% reduction in truancy and 89% reduction in disciplinary referrals, according to the foundation.
Notice.Talk.Act. is not just in schools — there are versions for home, for college, for the workplace.
Andrews hopes that this work with the APAF will reduce the stigma surrounding mental health struggles and improve access to culturally competent care. But he acknowledges there’s still a long way to go.
“We are planting and sowing seeds now and fertilizing the soil and tilling the soil,” he said. “We know that the next generation of doctors is going to look closer to the way the population looks. But ultimately, we still haven’t done enough.”
(This work is part of a partnership between the Washington Blade Foundation and Youthcast Media Group, funded through the FY26 Community Development Grant from the Office of D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser. Jebeh Pajibo is a senior at Bard High School Early College DC, one of Youthcast Media Group’s journalism class partners. Sarah Gandluri, a UNC-Chapel Hill sophomore, is an intern and former high school participant with YMG. YMG founder, former USA Today health policy reporter Jayne O’Donnell, contributed to this report.)
Asia
LGBTQ rights gains in Asia come through courts, not legislatures
Marriage equality lawsuits filed in Japan
In recent years, some of Asia’s most significant legal developments involving LGBTQ rights have unfolded not in parliamentary chambers but in courtrooms. From marriage equality lawsuits in Japan to litigation over same-sex spousal benefits in South Korea and constitutional challenges in countries including India and Nepal, courts across the region have increasingly been asked to decide questions that lawmakers have yet to resolve. The trend raises a broader question: Why has constitutional litigation become a recurring pathway for LGBTQ people seeking legal recognition in parts of Asia?
The pattern has unfolded over nearly two decades.
In 2007, Nepal’s Supreme Court issued one of Asia’s earliest landmark rulings recognizing the rights of sexual and gender minorities, directing the government to end discriminatory laws and examine legal recognition for same-sex couples. A decade later, Taiwan’s Constitutional Court ruled that denying same-sex couples the right to marry violated the constitution, paving the way for the region’s first marriage equality law. In India, the Supreme Court recognized transgender people as a third gender in 2014 before striking down a colonial-era ban on consensual same-sex relations four years later.
The pattern continued across Asia.
Japan’s courts repeatedly questioned the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage. The rulings intensified pressure for legal reform. Parliament, however, has yet to act.
South Korea’s judiciary expanded legal protections for same-sex couples. It recognized spousal health insurance benefits. A recent district court also awarded damages after a same-sex relationship ended. The ruling added momentum to the country’s marriage equality movement.
China’s courts took a different path.
Landmark constitutional rulings never emerged. Still, litigation prompted the Supreme People’s Court to acknowledge anti-LGBTQ discrimination. The developments reflected courts’ growing role in LGBTQ rights disputes.
The Philippines added another dimension.
Marriage equality remains unresolved, yet the Supreme Court recently recognized property rights for some same-sex couples. The ruling stopped short of recognizing marriage. Still, it acknowledged legal protections for LGBTQ relationships. The decision reflected another way courts have shaped LGBTQ rights across Asia.
Constitutional courts occupy a distinct place in democratic systems. Legislatures enact laws. They also respond to political priorities and public opinion. Constitutional courts serve a different function. They decide whether laws or government actions comply with constitutional guarantees. They resolve legal disputes brought before them. Their role is not to measure a policy’s popularity. It is to determine whether it is constitutionally valid. That distinction has placed constitutional courts at the center of many of Asia’s most consequential LGBTQ rights disputes.
Nepal offers an early example.
In 2007, LGBTQ activists turned to the Supreme Court through a public interest petition. They argued that discriminatory laws and government practices violated constitutional guarantees of equality. They also sought legal recognition for gender and sexual minorities. The government urged the court to dismiss the petition. It argued existing laws already protected all citizens. It also said the claims relied on assumptions rather than specific instances of discrimination. The court disagreed. It held that sexual orientation and gender identity are natural variations of human identity. It directed the government to eliminate discriminatory laws and policies. The ruling also ordered a study on legal recognition for same-sex couples, laying the foundation for future reforms.
“Since it is the absolute jurisdiction of the legislature to decide as to what type of law should be made and amended on a particular issue, and as this matter does not fall under the jurisdiction of this office, therefore, there does not seem any pertinent reason and valid ground to make this Office a respondent,” said Office of Prime Minister and Council of Ministers in its 2007 affidavit. “Let the writ petition be dismissed on the ground that the unconcerned office is being made as an opposite party in the case.”
In India, a prominent leader of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, Subramanian Swamy, described homosexuality as a “genetic disorder” in 2015. He also wrote on social media that it was a “genetic handicap,” reflecting the political discourse surrounding LGBTQ rights before the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in 2018.
The Supreme Court’s landmark 2018 ruling decriminalized consensual same-sex relations. The decision did not end the debate. Soon afterward, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, a right wing, Hindu nationalist volunteer and paramilitary organization, an ideological parent of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, said it did not consider same-sex relationships a crime. It added, however, that it did not support such relationships.
After the Supreme Court’s landmark 2018 ruling, Arun Kumar, a senior Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh leader, told the media that same-sex relationships and marriage were neither “natural” nor “desirable.”
During the 2023 marriage equality hearings, the Indian government repeatedly argued that the issue belonged before Parliament, not the judiciary. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the Constitution Bench that the case involved a “very complex subject” with “profound social impact” and that “all the questions in this case must be left to the Parliament.” He argued that recognizing same-sex marriage through judicial interpretation would require rewriting the Special Marriage Act and could have unintended consequences across multiple laws. During the hearings, Mehta also questioned how existing marriage laws would operate for same-sex couples, asking, “Who will be the wife in a lesbian relationship?”
The Washington Blade covered these arguments as the hearings unfolded.
Three years have passed since the Supreme Court declined to recognize same-sex marriage, holding that creating such a legal framework was a matter for Parliament. Marriage equality, however, remains unrecognized in India. Parliament has not enacted legislation extending civil marriage to same-sex couples. The legal position has remained unchanged since the court’s 2023 ruling.
Similar tensions have surfaced elsewhere in Asia.
In Japan, a growing number of courts have questioned the constitutionality of denying marriage to same-sex couples, even as Parliament has yet to amend the law. In South Korea, courts have steadily expanded legal protections for same-sex couples, while the government has argued that recognizing same-sex marriage is up to lawmakers. In the Philippines, marriage equality and civil partnership bills have repeatedly failed to secure congressional approval amid religious and political opposition. The legislative stalemate has prompted advocates to pursue constitutional litigation before the Supreme Court.
Indonesia presents a different picture.
Rather than debating legal recognition, much of the political discourse has focused on restricting LGBTQ rights. In a landmark 2017 case, however, rights groups successfully opposed a petition that sought to criminalize all consensual same-sex relations nationwide. The Constitutional Court rejected the petition, ruling that creating new criminal offences was a matter for Parliament, not the judiciary.
Hungary
Tens of thousands participate in post-Orbán Budapest Pride march
New government allowed event to take place without restrictions
Tens of thousands of people on Saturday took part in the annual Budapest Pride march in the Hungarian capital.
The march took place less than two months after new Prime Minister Péter Maygar took office.
Hungarian lawmakers in 2025 passed a bill that banned Pride events and allowed authorities to use facial recognition technology to identify participants. MPs later amended the Hungarian constitution to ban public LGBTQ events.
More than 100,000 people defied the ban and participated in last year’s Budapest Pride parade. The event became one of the largest protests against then-Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and his government since he took office in 2010.
Magyar’s center-right Tisza party ousted Orbán’s Fidesz-KDNP coalition in elections that took place on April 12. The European Union’s top court, the EU Court of Justice, days after Orbán’s ouster struck down Hungary’s anti-LGBTQ propaganda law that MPs approved in 2021.
Hungarian police last month announced they would allow the Budapest Pride march to take place without restrictions.
Authorities subsequently dropped charges against Budapest Mayor Gergely Karácsony over his role in organizing the city’s 2025 Pride march. Officials in Pécs, a city near Hungary’s border with Croatia, have also dropped charges against Géza Buzás-Hábel, who organized a 2025 Pride event.
California
Gay Calif. lawmaker confronted during San Francisco Trans Pride over Gaza stance
State Sen. Scott Wiener running for Nancy Pelosi’s seat
A video posted on X by user Dimitry Yakoushkin of the incident went viral, showing gay California state Sen. Wiener (D-San Francisco) being chased out of Dolores Park, while the group screamed at him. Multiple people in the protest group were wearing black ski masks that concealed their identities.
Wiener is contending to take over Nancy Pelosi’s seat in Congress in the upcoming November general election.
The video started off with Yakoushkin, a local activist, highlighting how great Wiener’s LGBTQ policies and lawmaking work are. As Yakoushkin started to criticize Wiener about his housing policies, others started to gather around the politician.
Yakoushkin and the group quickly transitioned to yelling at him about his stance on the genocide in Gaza.
“You’ve been wonderful for trans people, and … you’ve been terrible on Gaza,” Yakoushkin is heard saying in the video. “You do not belong here (at Trans Pride) anymore, Scott.”
“I want to support someone who’s so positive on trans rights, but you’re a piece of sh*t on Gaza,” he says later in the video. “How could you do that?”
Other protestors shouted obscenities that were hard to distinguish from, but some that jumped out included cries of “f*ck you” and “You’re a piece of sh*t.”
When it was clear this would not be a one-and-done criticism, Wiener is seen on video pivoting to exit Dolores Park, with the group following behind until Wiener was out of the park.
The video garnered over 12 million views as of Monday.
Scott Wiener showed up to the trans march and for the first time we kicked his ass out. It's sad because while he's written some good legislation for queers, hes ultimately a genocidal-supporting center right shill. Trigger warning: broken man walking away defeated. Vote Connie! pic.twitter.com/TXIB7omxde
— Dimitry Yakoushkin (@decadimitry) June 27, 2026
In early January of this year, Wiener declined to call Israel’s actions in Gaza a genocide during a congressional debate forum, as many other politicians have.
A week later, on Jan. 11, Wiener reversed that decision.
“For years, I’ve condemned (Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin) Netanyahu and his extremist government and the devastation they’ve inflicted on Gaza,” Wiener posted on X. “It’s why I’ve been clear I won’t support U.S. funding for the destruction of Palestinian communities. I’ve stopped short of calling it genocide, but I can’t anymore.”
This was after two years of Israeli bombing that led to thousands of Palestinian deaths in the Gaza Strip, following the Oct. 7 attack by Hamas.
After Friday’s incident, Wiener posted a statement, calling it “physical intimidation and harassment” by “people who had previously targeted” him with “aggressive behavior in the past.”
“Last night I attended the Trans March, as I’ve done each year for the past 22 years since the first march in 2004,” the statement said. “I attend each year in solidarity with our trans siblings, who are facing existential threats from right-wing extremists, including the President.”
“I have no objection whatsoever to anyone disagreeing with me, opposing me, or protesting me.
“All of that is core to democracy,” the statement continued. “I also have no issue when people talk to me on the street and ask questions or express opposition. That’s democracy, even when the people engaging in this conduct misrepresent my views. But when opposition and disagreement transition to harassment, including cornering me, touching me, or trying to physically bully me out of a public event, that crosses a line.”
Wiener’s congressional opponent, Supervisor Connie Chan, appeared to march without any incident.
Many critics of Wiener took to social media to point out that Wiener posted this statement and used it as a fundraising opportunity, while not posting about the heavy police presence and arrests during San Francisco’s Pride weekend.
Independent journalist Jersey Noah made an Instagram post to Wiener saying, “What do you have to say about (San Francisco Police Department) assaulting and arresting trans people on the public streets of San Francisco for two consecutive nights? Because you haven’t said a… word.”
This is not the first time a politician has been ousted from San Francisco’s Trans Pride festivities, according to San Francisco-based outlet Mission Local.
Past politicians forced to leave over the last decade include Mayor Daniel Lurie, then-Mayor Ed Lee, City Attorney David Chiu, and then-state Sen Mark Leno, according to Mission Local.
Yakoushkin said the protest was spontaneous, saying, “It was not planned, I was walking home, and I saw him from a distance and I got my camera out to start filming,” according to Mission Local.
The California Senate Democratic Caucus and California LGBTQ+ Caucus made a joint statement of support for Wiener, denouncing the verbal harassment toward Wiener as “unacceptable.”
“Senator Wiener has spent the last 16 years in service to San Francisco,” their statement said. “In that time, he has been a fearless champion for the LGBTQ+ community even when it was not politically popular, leading on landmark legislation advancing the rights and protections for transgender, gender Expansive, and intersex people. He is a steadfast advocate for his communities.
“In California, we believe everyone deserves dignity and respect, regardless of political differences,” the statement continued.
LGBTQ rights gains in Asia come through courts, not legislatures
Tens of thousands participate in post-Orbán Budapest Pride march
Gay Calif. lawmaker confronted during San Francisco Trans Pride over Gaza stance
Court to weigh class action status in trans military ban challenge
PHOTOS: Fredericksburg Pride March and Festival
Washington Blade names new publisher
Administration must stop targeting LGBTQ kids
Is Pride over at the end of June?
Nearly 6,000 turn out for Pride Night Out at the Nationals
