  With a point of departure in the concept "uncomfortable knowledge," this
article presents a case study of how the American Planning Association (APA)
deals with such knowledge. APA was found to actively suppress publicity of
malpractice concerns and bad planning in order to sustain a boosterish image of
planning. In the process, APA appeared to disregard and violate APA's own Code
of Ethics. APA justified its actions with a need to protect APA members'
interests, seen as preventing planning and planners from being presented in
public in a bad light. The current article argues that it is in members'
interest to have malpractice critiqued and reduced, and that this best happens
by exposing malpractice, not by denying or diverting attention from it as APA
did in this case. Professions, organizations, and societies that stifle
critique tend to degenerate and become socially and politically irrelevant
"zombie institutions." The article asks whether such degeneration has set in
for APA and planning. Finally, it is concluded that more debate about APA's
ethics and actions is needed for improving planning practice. Nine key
questions are presented to constructively stimulate such debate.
