National Association of Social Workers

From the Director

Advocacy: Profession's Cornerstone

By Elizabeth J. Clark, Ph.D., ACSW, MPH

Over the past two years, the concept of social work advocacy for social justice has been under attack. In 2005, the Chronicle of Higher Education published an article regarding a request from the National Association of Scholars asking the U.S. Department of Education to investigate the Council on Social Work Education for "politicized standards" — encouraging universities to evaluate students based on "their commitment to social justice." Several social work groups responded to this challenge.

NASW responded by emphasizing that "professional education is the vehicle through which members of a discipline become acquainted with the theoretical foundation and the knowledge base of a profession. It is also the method for socializing new entrants about a profession's values and ethical standards. Consequently, the social work profession has not only the right, but the responsibility of assuring that new professionals understand the profession's ethical and philosophical underpinnings."

Our response concluded by stating, "NASW proudly embraces and supports the guiding value of social justice in social work education and practice."

Also in 2005, social work advocacy came under public scrutiny. Emily Brooker, a social work student at Missouri State University, with the help of the conservative Alliance Defense Fund, sued the university in federal court for religious persecution. The suit was based on an assignment related to advocacy that Ms. Brooker claimed violated her Christian beliefs. She alleged that she was given a poor grade because of her refusal to sign a letter supporting adoptions by gay couples.

Ms. Brooker was enrolled in a course being taught by social work professor Frank Kauffman. The syllabus for the course indicated that the course included the advocacy element of social work.

The university settled the lawsuit out of court, so Ms. Brooker's allegations were never proven or discounted. According to a recent article (March 2007) by Alan Cooperman in The Washington Post, both Kauffman and Brooker "insist they were misunderstood." Kauffman, a former assistant pastor in the Assemblies of God church, maintains that in the classroom, he has always given equal time to everyone's views.

Why is this issue still getting media attention in 2007? Partly this is due to the fact that in April 2007, the Missouri House of Representatives passed the Emily Brooker Intellectual Diversity Act with the goal of protecting students from "viewpoint discrimination."

Also related to this issue, in March, Stanley Fish wrote an editorial titled "Advocacy and Teaching" for The New York Times in which he stated that "advocacy is just not what should be going on in a university." NASW President Elvira Craig de Silva sent a letter to the editor of the Times in which she clarified that "social work requires its members to advocate for individual clients and for systemic reform that improves communities."

As social workers, we all must stand to differ with individuals and groups such as Stanley Fish, the Alliance Defense Fund, the National Association of Scholars and the Missouri House of Representatives. We cannot allow other groups or individuals to define or limit our profession.

Advocacy is the cornerstone on which social work is built. It is so important that it is framed in three sections of our Code of Ethics. Advocacy for individuals, communities and systems is not just a suggested activity for social workers. It's not a "do it if you have some extra time" or a "do it if the inequity and disparity are very great" activity. It is a requisite.

Most of us came to the profession of social work to make a difference, to bring about positive social change, to better society. We could have chosen other professions that focus mainly on the individual, on intrapsychic issues rather than on the person-in-the-environment. We could have chosen psychiatry, psychology, mental health counseling or psychiatric nursing. We didn't.

We became social workers and committed our careers to working not just with, but on behalf of, others. We work towards ensuring healthy individuals, functioning communities and a better society. That's where advocacy comes into the picture. The Social Work Dictionary defines "advocacy" as "the act of directly representing or defending others — of championing the rights of individuals or communities through direct interventions or through empowerment."

If being a social worker means standing up for others — all others — and trying to better society, then our critics are correct. We are guilty as charged — and we are unapologetic. Without advocacy, there would be no social work profession. And without social workers, this country would be a much less hospitable and caring place.

To comment to Elizabeth J. Clark: newscolumn@naswdc.org

From July 2007 NASW News. © 2007 National Association of Social Workers. All Rights Reserved. NASW News articles may be copied for personal use, but proper notice of copyright and credit to the NASW News must appear on all copies made. This permission does not apply to reproduction for advertising, promotion, resale, or other commercial purposes.