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 clients sexual orientation or disability status, on the basis of the social workers 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 governors 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 recipients age, sex, race,

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 individuals characteristics, and also challenged the governors 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 Texass 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 governors 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 clients lives based upon the social workers 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 personsparticularly persons from certain categories such as trans youth, gay persons of color, and disabled persons with intersectional identities that can result in additional discriminationdesperately need the help of social workers, and should not fear seeking assistance…