Texas Social Workers, LGBT Clients, and NASW Ethics
This paper examines a 2020 Texas State Board of Social Work Examiners decision that eliminated anti-discrimination protections for LGBT+ and disabled clients, allowing social workers to refuse services based on personal conscience or conviction. The paper analyzes the controversy surrounding the rule change, including opposition from the Texas chapter of the National Association of Social Workers (NASW), and explores the implications for vulnerable, intersectional populations. The second part applies the NASW Code of Ethics standard on cultural competence (1.05), arguing that social workers must actively resist personal bias, acknowledge privilege, and pursue ongoing education to serve all clients equitably and effectively.
- Texas Rule Allowing Refusal of LGBT+ and Disabled Clients: Texas board eliminates LGBT+ and disability anti-discrimination protections
- Opposition from the NASW Texas Chapter: NASW Texas rejects governor's procedural justification for rule change
- Impact on Vulnerable and Intersectional Populations: Rule harms trans youth, disabled, and intersectional client groups
- NASW Ethical Standard: Cultural Competence: NASW Code 1.05 requires bias awareness and inclusive service
- Applying Cultural Competence in Practice: Social workers must meet clients culturally and acknowledge privilege
- Conclusion: Client Protection Over Discrimination: Ongoing education ensures cultural competence reflects current standards
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper grounds its argument in a concrete, current news event before pivoting to the relevant professional ethics standard, giving the analysis real-world urgency and relevance.
- It demonstrates command of intersectionality, acknowledging that multiple marginalized identities compound vulnerability — a nuanced point that strengthens the ethical argument.
- The two-part structure is clean and purposeful: Part 1 establishes the problem through a policy lens; Part 2 provides the normative framework through which the profession should respond.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper effectively uses a policy case study as an entry point into applied ethics analysis. Rather than abstractly discussing discrimination, it anchors the argument in a specific regulatory decision, then evaluates it against a named professional code (NASW 1.05), demonstrating how academic frameworks can be applied to live policy debates. This technique — moving from descriptive analysis to normative evaluation — is a hallmark of graduate-level applied ethics writing.
Structure breakdown
The paper is divided into two clearly labeled parts. Part 1 surveys the Texas rule change, presents multiple stakeholder perspectives (the governor's office, the NASW Texas chapter, and affected client groups), and critiques the "procedural clarification" rationale. Part 2 shifts to the NASW Code of Ethics, unpacking cultural competence standard 1.05 across several dimensions including self-awareness, privilege, and continuing education. The conclusion of each part reinforces the central thesis: professional ethics must protect clients, not empower discrimination.
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).
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:
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.