Media Examples of Social Work

Social Work Issues

Part 1: Social Work Issue (News Topic)

As society has become increasingly polarized ideologically, between mask wearers and non-mask wearers, between red and blue, between liberal and conservative, social workers and social work have been drawn into this polarized debate. Social work has always been politicized, to some degree, given that social workers often deal with marginalized populations and members of historically discriminated-against minority groups. One such population is that of the LGBT+ community. Now, according to a Newsweek article, “Texas Social Workers Can Refuse LGBT and Disabled Clients Under New Rule” (Slisco, 2020). As the title suggests, social workers in Texas can effectively and legally refuse services to clients based solely on the client’s sexual orientation or disability status, on the basis of the social worker’s conscience, conviction, or judgement.

The idea of being able to refuse services based on conscience has been debated before within many of the helping professions, such as healthcare providers who have demanded the right to refuse abortion or contraceptive services to women based upon religious convictions, or bakers who have attempted to refuse to bake cakes for LGBT+ couples who are getting married. But the idea of social workers standing in judgement against their clients cuts even more to the core of the ethics of the profession.

Yet the Texas State Board of Social Work Examiners, under the recommendation of the current governor, “unanimously voted to eliminate protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity or disability” (Slisco, 2020, par1.). Previous rules did not protect such groups or prohibit discrimination, and the Republican governor said this merely clarified which what was already existing policy in Texas, and, according to the governor’s spokesperson, aligned with current Texas anti-discrimination law.

Currently, it is illegal for workers in Texas to refuse to perform occupational services within the scope of their license because of the recipient’s age, sex, race, religion, national origin, color, and the recipient’s known political affiliation (Slisco, 2020). But neither LGBTQ+ status nor disability is specified. The National Association of Social Workers (NASW)’s Texas chapter vocally opposed this decision, however, as contrary to the true spirit of social work to help all in need, regardless of the individual’s characteristics, and also challenged the governor’s rationale, pointing out that rules can cover greater scope than those currently specified within legal guidelines (Slisco, 2020).

The law does not state that additional standards can be imposed above and beyond what exists under the law, within an organization or an institution (Slisco, 2020). In short, many institutions historically have imposed additional requirements beyond which are specifically covered in anti-discrimination law, just as many states have instituted protections for employees above and beyond that which exists at the federal level, including protections for LGBT+ people.

It is unclear what the provision regarding disability might mean, in terms of potential violations of the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) which requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for the disabled. It is also unclear how and why this provision was combined with removing restrictions on LGBT+-discrimination. Historically, being able to refuse services to LGBT+ clients was grounded in so-called religious liberty exemptions or legislation. Regardless, the NASW Texas board had added additional protections prohibiting discrimination regarding gender identity and sexual orientation, and this effectively was a forcible removal of these vulnerable groups’ rights, not simply a clarification of existing law and policy, as suggested by the governor. With the addition of removing protections for disabled people, the executive director of Texas’s NASW called this change in the officially stated rules incredibly disheartening.

The claim that this merely ensures the rule matches current legislation is also vigorously contested by a formal statement made by the Texas chapter of NASW, which expressed its outrage as well as its denial of the governor’s claim that the move was purely procedural (Slisco, 2020). NASW explicitly stated that state rules cannot prohibit the ethical delivery of social worker. In fact, the ethics of social work specifically urge social workers not to make moral judgements about their client’s lives based upon the social worker’s personal convictions and lifestyles.

This move seems regressive, in light of the increased acceptance of LGBT people and a wider acknowledgement of the various array of disabilities, including learning disabilities and mental and physical health issues, which can make life difficult for many people and which can make calling in a social worker for assistance so useful. LGBT+ and disabled persons—particularly persons from certain categories such as trans youth, gay persons of color, and disabled persons with intersectional identities that can result in additional discrimination—desperately need the help of social workers, and should not fear seeking assistance because of concerns that they might be judged harshly due to their innate characteristics. Aspects of the client’s sense of self such as sexual identification should not be invalidated by one of the most useful of the helping professions.

Finally, because of the economic marginalization many groups face because of these intersectional identities (such as poor, LGBT+ persons of color who may lack family resources due to rejection from such members because of their status), is all the more reason to urge social workers to take a more inclusive approach. The NASW affirmed that rather than protecting the social worker’s right to discriminate, the law must protect clients.

Part 2: NASW Ethical Standard

One of the most important and relevant NASW ethical standards is that of cultural competence (Code of Ethics, 1.05). Social workers are attending to the needs of increasingly diverse populations of clients. Additionally, they must navigate their own biases, regarding what constitutes a good life, with how their clients perceive their own needs. Social workers must be self-conscious of their own national and cultural biases, including socio-economic and ableist biases, to enable clients to lead fully actualized existences, and not just simply impose their own standards upon clients.

The social worker does not need to be fluent in every cultural nuance of every client, but should be open-minded and willing to listen and learn. Some base of knowledge is useful, and at minimum the social worker should be aware that his or her own biases (such as the assumption, for example, that the individual is the center of the client’s existence, versus the collective) are not universally shared. The standard demands that services are culturally informed. This may be as simple as acknowledging the transportation difficulties lower-income clients may suffer in navigating work in a city, the digital divide which may make it difficult for clients to access information about health services (such as vaccines) because of lack of access to technology. Or it may be as complex as understanding the fact that certain immigrant groups may have concerns about soliciting aid at all from social service agencies, due to the client’s a lack of a belief in the fact that mental health concerns are valid illnesses (which are not interpreted in the same way in every culture), or the client’s fears of apprehension for immigrant-related reasons.

Social workers can offer their expertise in their own areas of knowledge, but part of that expertise is meeting the client where the client is, culturally, and acknowledging the particular struggles of marginalized groups which may have made life more difficult for them than members of other groups (including, perhaps, the social worker’s own). If the social worker is from a marginalized group him or herself, however, the social worker must also keep in mind that identities are intersectional. In other words, that simply because the social worker may have knowledge of what it is like to live as someone who is gay does not necessarily mean the social worker fully understands the experience of someone from a discriminated-against racial or religious minority. Social workers may have expertise in specific fields of inquiry—for example, noting the symptoms of addiction or helping parents navigate getting assistance of a special needs child—but must still acknowledge clients’ expertise in their own culture and as experts upon themselves and children (1.05c).