Can conservatives be social workers? Should they?

[thatcrazycajun]

This column by George Will cites a recent study of 10 university schools of social work which found conservative students being coerced to pledge allegiance to a liberal code of orthodoxy by the faculty. Given the usually publicized attitude of conservative politicians and pundits toward social programs in general (as witness the current Dem/GOP squabble over SCHIP funding), I have a hard time understanding why any right-winger would want to do work that seems to be based on an underlying assumption that society (i.e., government and the taxpayers) should provide assistance to people with personal and psychosocial problems. And yet many religious people in strongly conservative faiths do indeed perform such work for non-governmental agencies.

Is conservatism's basic philosophy necessarily antithetical to social work as it is currently understood? Why or why not?

Comments

[acelightning.livejournal.com]

[catalana.livejournal.com]

Actually, I would think that social work could be perfectly compatible with a tendency towards small government, because the better we do with individuals, the less we need to rely on huge institutions to pick up the pieces. If you can help individuals get the education and work opporunities they need, you may be able to break a family's cycle of dependency on welfare, for instance.

I certainly do not think that they should be forcing some of the moral stances on their students that Will says they were. Sorry, but I honestly do think you can do good social work even if you are anti-abortion. (And I say this as someone who is very very pro-choice.) There are a lot of different aspects of social work - I find it hard to believe that a pro-life person couldn't be good at any of them.

[cellio]

Actually, I would think that social work could be perfectly compatible with a tendency towards small government, because the better we do with individuals, the less we need to rely on huge institutions to pick up the pieces.

Exactly. As a libertarian I could totally see myself working for a non-government agency to help people get the help they need. Objecting to the government running it does not mean one is compassionless, cold-hearted, and uninterested in helping people.

Two things

[a-phoenix-afire.livejournal.com]

Last one first.
"And yet many religious people in strongly conservative faiths do indeed perform such work for non-governmental agencies."

I can't see how social work is not within the conservative venue. The whole gripe the right has against social programs is that they take money from one group and give it to another in an effort to do by government what is properly the venue of the local community AND the local churches.

Secondly - It is not that the right believes that those in need should not be helped. It is rather that the whole structure is being used as a political football, and being expanded beyond all reason. The SCHIP funding is a perfect example of this. The right doesn't oppose children being taken care of medically, The complaint in this case is that by including families who are OBVIOUSLY not poverty stricken, the effort amounts to a de facto step towards universal health care instead of an honest effort to help those being left behind.

While the left tries to shoehorn this past a veto that they knew was coming, and that they know they don't have the override votes for despite a big media campaign, the children who really do need it are twisting in the wind and waiting for a reasonable bill that both sides can sign off on.

And for what? So the backers of the bill can go back to their constituents and say "We tried, but that jerk Bush hates kids."
--------------------------------------

On a side note, the whole social worker structure has become an incestuous bureaucracy which is far more concerned with expanding its power and budget, and with protecting its own when it comes to rogue agents and administrators, than with running a smooth efficient organization which helps those that truly need help. That's why you get complaints of nazi-like home invasion from the middle class, and absolute neglect and abandonment from the poor.

Re: Two things

[shelleybear.livejournal.com]

The right doesn't oppose children being taken care of medically, The complaint in this case is that by including families who are OBVIOUSLY not poverty stricken, the effort amounts to a de facto step towards universal health care instead of an honest effort to help those being left behind.

Knowing something about medical costs, and the essential idea that many families can be a single major illness away from bankruptcy I see nothing wrong with expanding SCHIP.
I also see nothing wrong with universal health care.
For example, we have an auto industry that cites medical costs as their reason for being unable to compete.
And they are not the only ones.
Yes, Bush is quite right, SCHIP is the first step towards socialized medicine.
And it's about friggin' time.
Oh, and Bush "The Jerk" is pretty much out of touch with reality (the "emergency room" comment is an excellent example).

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

Conservatism is not antithetical to social work. (Neo-conservatism is, because it's got all the values of a five-year-old, including selfishness and lack of empathy, plus a strong ability to stick the fingers in the ears and say "I can't HEEAAAAR you!")

In fact, given the multiple injunctions in the Jewish and Christian traditions to support one's fellow man (I am inferring that most conservative folks in the US are from one of those traditions, and likely a believer), social work is a highly virtuous career.

In Mr. Will's column, though, he's throwing bullshit.

For one thing, what he's talking about in the general case is the ethical standards set by the professional organization (NASW) that governs and comprises the students' future professional peers. This organization is parallel to the AMA, APA, or ABA; that is, a group that practices and understands the profession and by that token has the expertise AND RESPONSIBILITY to set standards for its members (present and future). Will is railing particularly against the point that says "social justice is the opposite of conservatism." Given how hard neocons have worked to turn conservatism into neoconservatism, that seems to me to make sense.

I do agree that failing a student for failing to advocate a specific cause is a poor idea; rather, I'd have liked to see the students described here given the option of choosing another cause and advocating for it. But honestly, it's a storm in a bucket, and one that smells of smoke being blown, or more so, fertilizer.

[mshollie.livejournal.com]

I see a social worker as a counselor, and I don't find her to be conservative at all. i don't believe she's ever shared her political views with me, though she has not expressed any disagreement with mine.

A few thoughts . . . .

[osewalrus.livejournal.com]

1) While I usually find George Will interesting, I have come to tune out the constant whining, grumping, name calling, etc. about ideological orthodoxy on campus. And I am someone who got called a murderer by my Junior Paper advisor because I did not share his embrace of left-wing Israeli politics.

Ideological orthodoxy is everywhere in academia because of the tenure system, but the flavor varies from place to place. And not just on the imaginary conservative/liberal wing. Try doing social-based planning at a school that thinks urban planing is all about architecture, or vice versa. Good professors rise above it, bad professors don't. Good students learn to deal with it, bad students use it as an excuse for lazy thinking and a failure to do work. You either learn to defend your positions vigorously or you don't.

2) "Social work" is a very broad category. I have a friend who works as a public defender and is a conservative Republican. He is of the libertarian bread who believes that the process requires someone zealously defend the accused and they are innocent until proven guilty. He also does lots of volunteer work. But he bitterly resents the effort to tax him. I know social conservatives who have no qualms with government spending who see working in various poverty programs as part of their responsibility to do "Good works."

Bush's position on SCHIP is more about preventing the spread of "socialized medicine" (with heavy tones of economic protectionism for insurance and business buddies) than it is about conservative ideology.

[filkferengi]

Now I've got "The Paper Sea" on loop.

Response from NASW

[(Anonymous)]

Here is the Response from NASW's Executive Director that was sent to the Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/19/AR2007101902281.html

Code of Concern

Dear Washington Post Editors:

Conservative columnist George F. Will has taken public umbrage with the National Association of Social Workers’ (NASW) Code of Ethics and its mandate that adherents advocate for social justice. In his review of a National Association of Scholars report, Mr. Will ignores the context in which professional education and training occurs—for all professions. This criticism misrepresents social work education and is a disservice to our members and the clients they serve.

Social workers are committed to solving social problems while helping people improve their quality of life; fairness is a defining characteristic of the profession. Like all citizens of a participatory democracy, it is critical for social work students to develop the skills necessary to advocate within available legal and political structures.

Social work students learn to use advocacy for the benefit of individuals, families and populations who are most vulnerable to the unresolved social problems of the day. Services for veterans, children, chronically ill persons, the elderly, and struggling families are improved by social work advocacy.

Members of NASW hold a diverse array of opinions on many social issues, including abortion and homosexuality as mentioned in Will’s column. However, professional social workers are united in their commitment to respecting the rights of clients to access services and expand options available to them. Social workers do not apologize for caring about people who are marginalized by society, nor do we apologize for holding members of our profession to high standards.


Elizabeth J. Clark, PhD, MSW, MPH
Executive Director
National Association of Social Workers