CSWE: A one way street.

On November 2, 2005, the National Association of Scholars (NAS) wrote a letter to the Department of Education requesting an investigation into the accreditation criteria of two well known academic organizations: the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) and the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE). As the press release states, “The two Washington, DC-based organizations between them certify the academic standards of many university and college programs in teacher training and social work.... [and] the two agencies in recent years have been applying highly politicized accreditation standards."

This, of course, is not surprising to me as a PhD student in the School of Social Work – who happens to be a Republican. I have criticized Social Work and its major organizations for being ideological bullies for years. Social Work as a profession and an academic body is largely and openly biased towards liberal philosophy. The largest national organization of social workers (the National Association of Social Workers- NASW) has traditionally aligned itself with the far liberal side of the Democratic Party – as evident in their latest attempt to block the nomination of now, Chief Justice John G. Roberts – who was considered a great choice by many moderate Democrats.

At this point, you might be thinking: A social worker and a Republican isn’t that a paradox? I don’t think so, but I am routinely challenged on my motivation to be a social worker with such philosophical persuasions as 'personal responsibility,' 'private ownership,' 'less taxes,' etc…But I don’t see this as a paradoxical stance at all. Let me give you some background: When I decided to be a social worker, I was working overseas in a country that was trying to weave its way out from under a communist system of government. Although, I was an English teacher, I also worked with volunteers from Peace Corps: digging gardens, helping set up daycare centers, and helping entrepreneurs tap into the world of capitalism so they could better the lives of their families (often through the acquisition of the English language).

When I came back to the United States, I wanted to continue helping people and I picked a profession that stated its sole purpose as doing just that. What I didn’t realize at the time, however, is that Social Work as a profession had decided in the 1960s on a liberal pathway to “helping” people – which means, only government can help people because private industry is too corrupt and Churches… well, they proselytize. I quickly learned that this profession of “inclusion” didn’t mean me: A White, Christian, Republican was not going to be helpful to anyone – especially poor minorities. I was seen as the dominate paradigm that they were battling against. It didn’t matter that my goals were and still are the same as theirs: I want to find ways to alleviate poverty, stamp out discrimination, make life better for fragile populations (children, mentally challenged, the underserved, the elderly), but because my world view provides for a different path to those ends, I am considered ignorant and stubborn.

One professor once told me that Protestant Christians have no business being in Social Work, because they can’t seem to put their “Christian values” aside and rely solely on the profession’s “Code of Ethics.” I’ve later come to realize that she does not stand alone in this belief, even though, it was mainly “Christians” that created Social Work.

I quickly learned to keep my mouth shut and just get my degree.

I hope the Department of Education decides to look into the charges made by the NAS. I think they will find that this ideological pushiness runs deep in the Social Work profession (I can’t testify to the actions of the NCATE). However, deep down I don’t really believe that this investigation will change anything, but I am hopeful that it will ignite a change at the grassroots level and give me some identifiable partners in my crusade to bring balance to the profession (okay, bad word choice, but you get the picture).

The social problems of our society can be solved and deserve the best of our society’s attention. Social Work’s stated purpose is to promote “human well-being by strengthening opportunities, resources, and capacities of people in their environments and by creating policies and services to correct conditions that limit human rights and the quality of life.”

My hope is that Social Work can become a more balance profession so that we can accomplish the said purposes above using all options available in the ideological spectrum. Currently, only liberal ideology is an acceptable means to the end. If Social Work can change its ideological bias, then maybe new ideas can flush through the tired old delivery systems and revitalize research and practice methods – and then we would have a profession that can truly find ways to promote human well-being without the restraints of a one way street.