Texas Social Workers, LGBT Clients, and NASW Ethics

Texas Rule Allowing Refusal of LGBT+ and Disabled Clients

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 the LGBT+ community. According to a Newsweek article, "Texas Social Workers Can Refuse LGBT and Disabled Clients Under New Rule" (Slisco, 2020), 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 judgment.

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 on religious convictions, or business owners who have attempted to refuse service to LGBT+ couples. But the idea of social workers standing in judgment against their clients cuts even more to the core of the ethics of the profession.

The Texas State Board of Social Work Examiners, acting 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, para. 1). Previous rules did not protect such groups or prohibit discrimination, and the Republican governor stated that this merely clarified 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, or known political affiliation (Slisco, 2020). However, neither LGBTQ+ status nor disability is specified. The National Association of Social Workers (NASW) Texas chapter vocally opposed this decision as contrary to the true spirit of social work — to help all in need, regardless of the individual's characteristics. The chapter also challenged the governor's rationale, pointing out that institutional rules can cover a greater scope than those currently specified within legal guidelines (Slisco, 2020).

Opposition from the NASW Texas Chapter

The law does not state that additional standards cannot be imposed above and beyond what exists under existing law within an organization or institution (Slisco, 2020). In short, many institutions historically have imposed additional requirements beyond what is specifically covered in anti-discrimination law, just as many states have instituted protections for employees above and beyond those 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 Disabilities Act (ADA), which requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities. It is also unclear how and why this provision was combined with the removal of restrictions on LGBT+ discrimination. Historically, the ability to refuse services to LGBT+ clients has been grounded in so-called religious liberty exemptions or legislation. Regardless, the NASW Texas chapter had added additional protections prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation; the board's decision was therefore an effective and forcible removal of these vulnerable groups' rights, not simply a clarification of existing law and policy as the governor suggested. With the further removal of protections for disabled people, the executive director of NASW Texas called this change in the officially stated rules "incredibly disheartening."

The claim that this decision merely ensures the rule matches current legislation is also vigorously contested by a formal statement from the Texas chapter of NASW, which expressed outrage and denied the governor's assertion that the move was purely procedural (Slisco, 2020). NASW explicitly stated that state rules cannot prohibit the ethical delivery of social work services. In fact, the ethics of social work specifically urge social workers not to make moral judgments about their clients' lives based on the social worker's personal convictions and lifestyle.

NASW Ethical Standard: Cultural Competence

One of the most important and relevant NASW ethical standards is that of cultural competence (Code of Ethics, 1.05). Social workers attend to the needs of increasingly diverse populations of clients. Additionally, they must navigate their own biases regarding what constitutes a good life alongside how their clients perceive their own needs. Social workers must be self-conscious of their own national, cultural, socio-economic, and ableist biases in order to enable clients to lead fully actualized existences, rather than simply imposing 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; at minimum, the social worker should be aware that his or her own biases — such as the assumption that the individual, rather than the collective, is the center of the client's existence — 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 face when navigating work in a city, or the digital divide that may prevent clients from accessing information about health services because of a lack of access to technology. Or it may be as complex as understanding that certain immigrant groups may have concerns about soliciting aid from social service agencies at all — due to a lack of belief that mental health concerns are valid illnesses (which are not interpreted the same way in every culture) or due to fears of apprehension related to immigration status.

Conclusion: Client Protection Over Discrimination

Although the cultural competency standards are high, they serve as a reminder that cultural competency requires continual education through both formal means — such as taking courses online — and informal means, such as reading books and talking with members of the groups the social worker serves on a regular basis. The ways in which cultural competence was understood years ago are not necessarily the ways in which it is understood today, and ongoing education is the only way for current practice to reflect those changes. Ultimately, the NASW's position is clear: professional ethics must center the protection of clients, and rules that empower social workers to discriminate based on conscience undermine the foundational mission of the profession.

References

Code of ethics. (2021). NASW. Retrieved from: https://www.socialworkers.org/About/Ethics/Code-of-Ethics/Code-of-Ethics-English

Slisco, A. (2020). Texas social workers can refuse LGBT and disabled clients under new rule. Newsweek. Retrieved from: