In which Brian tries to make MJ's head explode

[brian_igo]

If it hasn't already.

A study prepared by the National Association of Scholars, a group that combats political correctness on campuses, reviews social work education programs at 10 major public universities and comes to this conclusion: Such programs mandate an ideological orthodoxy to which students must subscribe concerning "social justice" and "oppression."

In 1997, the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) adopted a surreptitious political agenda in the form of a new code of ethics, enjoining social workers to advocate for social justice "from local to global levels." A widely used textbook -- "Direct Social Work Practice: Theory and Skill" -- declares that promoting "social and economic justice" is especially imperative as a response to "the conservative trends of the past three decades." Clearly, in the social work profession's catechism, whatever social and economic justice are, they are the opposite of conservatism.

The Council on Social Work Education (CSWE), the national accreditor of social work education programs, encourages -- not that encouragement is required -- the ideological permeation of the curricula, including mandatory student advocacy. The CSWE says students must demonstrate an ability to "understand the forms and mechanisms of oppression and discrimination."

At Arizona State University, social work students must "demonstrate compliance with the NASW Code of Ethics." Berkeley requires compliance as proof of "suitability for the profession." Students at the University of Central Florida "must comply" with the NASW code. At the University of Houston, students must sign a pledge of adherence. At the University of Michigan, failure to comply with the code may be deemed "academic misconduct."

Schools' mission statements, student manuals and course descriptions are clotted with the vocabulary of "progressive" cant -- "diversity," "inclusion," "classism," "ethnocentrism," "racism," "sexism," "heterosexism," "ageism," "white privilege," "ableism," "contextualizes subjects," "cultural imperialism," "social identities and positionalities," "biopsychosocial" problems, "a just share of society's resources," and on and on. What goes on under the cover of this miasma of jargon? Just what the American Association of University Professors warned against in its 1915 "Declaration of Principles" -- teachers "indoctrinating" students.

In 2005, Emily Brooker, a social-work student at Missouri State University, was enrolled in a class taught by a professor who advertised himself as a liberal and insisted that social work is a liberal profession. At first, a mandatory assignment for his class was to advocate homosexual foster homes and adoption, with all students required to sign an advocacy letter, on university stationery, to the state legislature.

When Brooker objected on religious grounds, the project was made optional. But shortly before the final exam she was charged with a "Level 3," the most serious, violation of professional standards. In a 2 1/2 -hour hearing -- which she was forbidden to record and which her parents were barred from attending -- the primary subject was her refusal to sign the letter. She was ordered to write a paper ("Written Response about My Awareness") explaining how she could "lessen the gap" between her ethics and those of the social-work profession. When she sued the university, it dropped the charges and made financial and other restitution.

The NAS study says that at Rhode Island College's School of Social Work, a conservative student, William Felkner, received a failing grade in a course requiring students to lobby the state legislature for a cause mandated by the department. The NAS study also reports that Sandra Fuiten abandoned her pursuit of a social-work degree at the University of Illinois at Springfield after the professor, in a course that required students to lobby the legislature on behalf of positions prescribed by the professor, told her that it is impossible to be both a social worker and an opponent of abortion.

In the month since the NAS released its study, none of the schools covered by it has contested its findings. Because there might as well be signs on the doors of many schools of social work proclaiming "conservatives need not apply," two questions arise: Why are such schools of indoctrination permitted in institutions of higher education? And why are people of all political persuasions taxed to finance this propaganda?

It seems to me that schools requiring social work students to comply with the NASW ethics is no different than med school students being held to the ethical standards of the AMA, or law students being held to the standards of the Bar, but maybe George Will knows something I don't.

[mjfrombuffalo[$]]

Social Work does not, by and large, attract a huge perponderance of conservatives in the first place (at least in my Buffalo/NYC experiences), but the basic tenets of social work (a client's right to self-determination, for example) are not necessarily antithical to the conservative ideas of individuals succeeding through their own hard work. Supporting "social and economic justice" can be interpreted and implemented in different ways - I am pretty sure that getting rid of a progressive income tax system is considered "economic justice" to supporters of that position.

And in my ultra-liberal enclave of NYC social work education, I had to write a paper disputing the theory that domestic violence = men abusing women and the mandatory arresting of men on DV calls = the best solution to stopping domestic violence.

[mjfrombuffalo[$]]

Code of Ethics

Note that while the CSWE expects social work schools who want to be certified to teach students about the Code of Ethics, schools do not have to (loss of certification does not mean they cannot still be a school of social work) and students/graduates do not have to follow the code (code adherence is expected of NASW members, and one does not have to pay the $$$ annual dues to NASW to find and keep social work employment).

[realtraveller]

The difference with the Bar is that lawyers don't have to advocate any particular political position in order to adhere to its ethical requirements. And to the extent that the Bar itself lobbies the state legislature, the fee tacked onto bar dues for that purpose is optional. (The Bar tried to get away with this fee a few years ago, but lawyers objected, fought and won. Lawyers are by nature an individualistic, combative bunch, I suppose).

[mjfrombuffalo[$]]

Kathy, we are not required to advocate any particular political position either. Did you read the Code of Ethics? Additionally, the Code of Ethics is only binding on people who actually become and remain members of NASW.

And again, we do not have to be members of NASW to practice our profession in our states. I personally have been a member of NASW for precisely one year, a few years ago. I have never had to be a member of NASW to be hired for any social work job (I've never even been asked about it), nor do I have to be a member of NASW to get a Social Work license in the states that license social workers. Don't lawyers have to be members of the state Bar to practice law in that state? That's how I always understood it, and if that's so, the Bar is not comparable with NASW membership.

[realtraveller]

I read both and I am taking the examples of how the code is applied in colleges, as stated in Will's article, as factual. He was not addressing the practice of social work so much as what creed a social work student needed to follow in order to get a degree and the professors who required lobbying for a particular political cause.

[jgibson2[$]]

The editorial objects to specific behaviors at specific schools and by specific professors.

"Promoting social and economic justice" is a concept widely supported within the Catholic Church - and not just by liberals, so I have to disagree with Will on that point.

I read the Code of Ethics. The ONLY thing in there that I can imagine anyone I know objecting to is the use of "sexual orientation" in the two parts of the code which specify that social workers must not discriminate and must work to eliminate discrimination -- and I only know a few people who would object. If that is interpreted as a requirement to lobby for a political position then more people would object, but not to the use of the Code of Ethics.

Will clearly has his own agenda, but he does it a disservice when he suggests that proper use of the Code of Ethics could lead to the sort of abuses to which he objects.

[mjfrombuffalo[$]]

jgibson2 said

...he does it a disservice when he suggests that proper use of the Code of Ethics could lead to the sort of abuses to which he objects.

That's my thinking.

As to the specific professors and schools he's talking about, if what he is saying is true, it's beyond the pale to me personally. But oftentimes the offending entities are kept from going into details of a student's situation because they have to protect the confidentiality of the student's business, and that's extra-true in social work schools, where confidentiality is always Issue #1, and so I would suspect we are not hearing the whole story. (And we've seen plenty of examples where settlement does not = guilt.)

This story cites seven of the hundreds of schools of social work from a study written by an organization founded by conservatives and funded by conservative foundations, so I wouldn't be surprised if there was a bit of bias in the assessments or some overemphasis of some incidents. It's been my personal experience that the social work professors in the two schools I attended bent over backwards to seek out the conservative students' viewpoints and did not mandate assignments requiring advocacy for any specific action or political viewpoint.

[hadassahchana[$]]

In the case of Brooker above, it seems he has weakened his own argument slightly since the university did have to pay restitution, although that must have been a terrible thing to go through. As for the other examples, I just hope that they are due to professors interpreting their own ideas instead of what actually needs to be taught. As long as social workers aren't pushing their own agendas (i.e. the woman opposed to abortion) while on the job, I don't see the problem- but I do see a problem with trying to prevent her from becoming a social worker. I can't think of a job as a social worker which would include having to promote abortion- I couldn't do it if it came to that, but I would feel free to work for a different agency. I would not like to be told that I couldn't become a social worker for my beliefs, though. Remember, not all conservatives are unempathetic or hate poor people.

[drmomentum[$]]

A study prepared by the National Association of Scholars, a group that combats political correctness on campuses, reviews social work education programs at 10 major public universities and comes to this conclusion: Such programs mandate an ideological orthodoxy to which students must subscribe concerning "social justice" and "oppression."

Next outrage, students in an economics program must spend nearly all of their time studying capitalism! Largely to the exclusion of other economic theories! Oh the horror of political correctness! The universities are overrun with conservatives!



[I'm still within my snark allowance, right?]