From January 2002 NASW NEWS
Copyright ©2002, National Association of Social Workers, Inc.

Letters to the Editor

Terrorism Stance

I was dismayed that the NASW official statement regarding the terrorist attacks [October 2001 NEWS] did not immediately speak against the United States embarking on warfare against Afghanistan and its people.

Certainly the profession which was founded by Jane Addams, the 1931 winner of the Nobel Peace Prize and a dedicated pacifist, should speak out against war and violence as an instrument of social redress. NASW should be opposing military retaliation and should be calling for justice not vengeance.

We should clearly state that the intentional murder of innocents must never be excused or justified. Yet it is also our professional imperative to motivate Americans to work for the eradication of the injustices that caused such hatred of Americans to flourish.

Julia B. Hammer, LCSW, ACSW
Polo, Ill.

Immediately following the Sept. 11 attack, NASW put a statement on its Web site which indicated that "our 153,000 members fully support the president and Congress in their efforts to find the perpetrators and bring them to justice." This clearly suggests that NASW supports whatever means the president and Congress use to go about finding the perpetrators and bringing them to justice.

We must put the safety of our nation and our loved ones before our desire for revenge. Military responses will only cause the same kind of deep suffering on foreign innocents as was inflicted on American innocents. This will result in further hatred of Americans, with subsequent violence towards Americans and symbols of America.

It seems that NASW is only advocating clinical responses. There is no clear message that social workers might also take active roles in expressing difference to the Bush administration's "war," with its air bombardments. Where are the community organizing, conflict resolution and advocacy roles of social workers?

Russell A. Dick, LCSW-C, ACSW
Westminster, Md.

I read NASW President Terry Mizrahi's column in the November 2001 NEWS with great sadness. Apparently, you do not support a military response to the Sept. 11 attack on our nation.

Given the unprecedented, unprovoked nature of the Sept. 11 attack (and the subsequent use of bioterrorism), I believe that NASW must take a stand on whether to support our nation's military effort to combat the al Qaeda organization and the Taliban government that harbors it. This organization does not maintain a public operation with which to negotiate and has exhibited no desire to resolve conflicts peacefully in any part of the globe. Effective social workers understand the limits of our power to "heal" certain relationships.

Similarly, the Taliban regime in Afghanistan has an appalling record of human rights abuses and resistance to international persuasion.

If such organizations and regimes are not worthy of a military response, I would assume that Dr. Mizrahi would also have advocated "peace" when our nation was confronted by aggressive facist dictatorships in Germany and Japan.

In World War II, social workers actively supported our nation's courageous military effort to defeat facism around the world. I would hope that NASW would consider taking a similar position at this time to support the defeat of evil forces in this world which openly and violently oppose the very values which social work supports.

Joel Kanter
Takoma Park, Md.

Thanks, NASW

In mid-October, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas notified all Kansas LSCSWs "that federal employers' member contracts do not allow mental health and substance abuse coverage provided by LSCSWs." They further stated that federal claims that are billed under the individual numbers of LSCSWs would be denied as patient responsibility. For a clinical social worker in private practice, the ramifications of this were significant.

After contacting my Blue Cross and Blue Shield provider-relations representative, I was told this was a federal decision, not a state decision, and that I needed to make a complaint to the federal government. Instead, I decided to contact NASW in Washington, D.C., and, thankfully, was directed to Mirean Coleman.

On Oct. 30, I received a call from Ms. Coleman stating that after Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas insisted they were interpreting federal regulations correctly, Ms. Coleman was able to convince them that they had misinterpreted the regulations.

Thank you, Mirean Coleman. Thank you, NASW. This is a clear example of how NASW can advocate and assist social workers not only in Kansas, but nationwide.

Colleen Ellis, LSCSW
Topeka, Kan.

Letters Policy

Letters are published as space permits and may be edited for clarity and length. Submissions may not necessarily be published or responded to; receipt is not acknowledged. Unsigned letters, form letters and ccs to third parties are not published. Mail to: Managing Editor, NASW News, 750 First St., N.E., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20002. E-mail — plain (ASCII) text only — to: naswnews@naswdc.org

Back to NASW NEWS Contents