For
several decades, social work education programs in American
universities have been dominated by ideologues who have crafted
curricula designed to indoctrinate their students in the
politics and values of the left. As a National Association of
Scholars (NAS) report puts it: “[T]hese programs see themselves as
training not just case workers, but advocates for a particular set of
policy-relevant perspectives in public debate.”
The
Council on Social Work Education (CSWE), the national accreditor of
social work education programs in the United States, considers
preparation for political advocacy an essential component of
professional training. In
its Educational Policy and
Accreditation Standards (EPAS),
CSWE candidly states that one of the primary purposes of social work
is “[t]o pursue policies, services, and resources through advocacy
and social or political actions that promote social and economic
justice” – terms that are essentially synonymous with "socialism" in the lexicon of the
left. The
EPAS stipulates further that graduates of social work education
programs should be able to “understand the forms and mechanisms of
oppression and discrimination and apply strategies of advocacy and
social change that advance social and economic justice”; that these
programs should “integrate social and economic justice content
grounded in an understanding of distributive justice, human and civil
rights, and the global interconnections of oppression”; and that the programs should
“prepare students to advocate for nondiscriminatory social and
economic systems” – i.e., socialism.
By
and large, social work programs permit students little or no room to
deviate from the foregoing positions; divergent opinions or worldviews are
not only frowned upon but are often forbidden entirely. In numerous cases, students who have failed to advocate the correct positions have had their grades lowered or have been warned that they might not receive their diplomas. Indeed,
not only must social work students publicly affirm CSWE's ideological and
political positions, but they must engage in overt advocacy in
pursuit of those positions. As the NAS observes:
“An instructor who
requires that students publicly endorse his pet wealth-distribution
scheme, or his favorite race-preference policies, can ... find
support in CSWE guidelines. Even more than that, he could actually
argue that his duty demands he require his students learn to 'apply
strategies of advocacy and social change that advance social and
economic justice,' because the accreditation of his program depends
upon it.”
Like
the CSWE’s accreditation guidelines, the National Association of Social Workers' (NASW) Code
of Ethics mandates that students conform to its ideological orthodoxy and
engage in political advocacy activities directed at policy and
legislative change. The Code states, for example, that:
- “Social
workers are sensitive to cultural and ethnic diversity and strive to
end discrimination, oppression, poverty, and other forms of social
injustice. These activities may be in the form of direct practice,
community organizing, supervision, consultation, administration,
advocacy, social and political action, policy development and
implementation, education, and research and evaluation.”
- “Social
workers pursue social change, particularly with and on behalf of
vulnerable and oppressed individuals and groups of people. Social
workers’ social change efforts are focused primarily on issues of
poverty, unemployment, discrimination, and other forms of social
injustice. These activities seek to promote sensitivity to a
knowledge about oppression and cultural, economic and ethnic
diversity.”
- “Social
workers should engage in social and political action that seeks to
ensure that all people have equal access to the resources,
employment, services, and opportunities they require to meet their
basic human needs and to develop fully. Social workers should be
aware of the impact of the political arena on practice and should
advocate for changes in policy and legislation to improve social
conditions in order to meet basic human needs and promote social
justice.”
- “Social
workers should promote conditions that encourage respect for cultural
and social diversity within the United States and globally. Social
workers should promote policies and practices that demonstrate
respect for difference, support the expansion of cultural knowledge
and resources, advocate for programs and institutions that
demonstrate cultural competence, and promote policies that safeguard
the rights of and confirm equity and social justice for all people.”
The
vast majority of social work programs nationwide will not permit students to graduate unless
they explicitly endorse the NASW Code of
Ethics.
Reinforcing the goals of the CSWE's
Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards and the NASW's Code of Ethics
are the mission statements
of virtually all social work schools in the U.S., which are replete with terms that the NAS has
described as "shibboleths of progressive ideology." These
include such terms as “social justice,” “oppression,”
“diversity,” “multiculturalism,” “social change,”
and “advocacy.”
Course descriptions, too, are filled with this type of terminology. For
example, an Arizona State University (ASU) course titled Diversity
and Oppression in a Social Work Context explores “oppression based
on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation and disability
status.” Another ASU course, Social Policy and Services, encourages
students to “identify the impact of institutionalized forms of
oppression,” and to “analyze how racism, sexism, classism,
homophobia, and other forms of societal oppression impact the policy
arena.”
At
UCLA, a Cross-Cultural Awareness class features lectures on “White
Privilege” and “the experience of oppression and discrimination
and the implications for one's professional role with regard to
advocacy, social policy, and social change.” A University of
Central Florida course titled Generalist Practice in Social Work
seeks “to advance social justice and economic justice, to combat
inequities (such as poverty, racism, sexism, ageism, and homophobia),
and to minimize the negative effects of oppression on clients in
given case situations.”
At the University of Michigan (UM), Introduction
to Social Welfare Policy and Services teaches students to “identify
strengths and weaknesses in the current social welfare system with
respect to multiculturalism and diversity, social justice and social
change, [and] behavioral and social science theory.” Another UM course,
Organizing for Social and Political Action, analyzes “different
approaches to bringing people together for collective action,
building organizational capacity, and generating power in the
community.” Particular emphasis is placed on “challenging
oppressive structures,” “conducting community campaigns,” and
“organizing people for social and political action” – especially “oppressed and disadvantaged ... communities of color,
women, LGBT populations, and other under-represented groups in U.S.
society.”
The radicalism of social-work education programs was reflected with particular clarity in 2013, when former Weather Underground radical Kathy Boudin — who spent 22 years in prison for the role she played in a 1981 armored-car robbery that killed two police officers and a Brinks guard — was given a prestigious adjunct professorship at Columbia University’s School of Social Work.
Major resource: "The
Scandal of Social Work Education," by the National Association of Scholars (September 11, 2007).
|
|
