What a pleasure and honor it is to be able to write a rejoinder to the scholarly and insightful comments of Reynolds (2001 [this issue]); Ridley, Baker, and Hill (2001 [this issue]); and Suzuki, McRae, and Short (2001 [this issue]). One always hopes for a fruitful and stimulating dialogue in professional circles, and it is always a delight when it becomes a reality. Before I comment on their critiques, however, I would like to make some general statements that should help frame my own response to their articles. I had originally thought of titling my response “Confessions of a Multicultural Psychologist” because I have inadequate answers to many of the complex problems raised by the respondents. They have all made excellent and legitimate points in their reactions to my proposed model. Furthermore, the page limitation allowed for my response makes it impossible to comment fully on all the important issues they raise. As a result, I hope the respondents will forgive me for addressing only a select few of them at this time. First, I am humbled by the respondents’ kind remarks concerning my past contributions to the field of multicultural counseling competencies and feel quite uncomfortable about accepting credit for those achievements. One only has to look at the multiple authorships of these documents (Sue, Arredondo, & McDavis, 1992; Sue, Bernier, Durran, Feinberg, Pedersen, Smith, & Vazquez-Nutall, 1982; Sue, Bingham, Porche-Burke, & Vasquez, 1999; Sue, Carter, Casas, Fouad, Ivey, Jensen, LaFromboise, Manese, Ponterotto, & Vazquez-Nutall,1998; Sue, Ivey, & Pedersen, 1996) to note that the development of multicultural counseling competencies has always been and remains a collective endeavor. This acknowledgment does not even do justice to those in leadership positions of the Division of Counseling Psychology (17), the Society for the Psychological Study of Ethnic Minority Issues (45), and the Association for Multicultural Counseling and Development who made organizational decisions to support these projects and their eventual publications. Nor does it adequately acknowledge the many other scholars who contrib-