Social Justice and Social Work.

Social Justice and Social Work. To the Editor: The response of Scanlon and Longres (JSWE JSWE Journal of Social Work Education , Fall 2001) toPelton's essay "Social Justice and Social Work" (JSWE,Fall 2001) wisely concludes with a call for "much more thought anddialogue ... if we are to move through this conceptual muddle" (p.444). It is in that spirit that I offer these critical comments abouttheir article. They argue that "[p]olicies and services should be availableto all people in need" and worry that promoting social justice onthe basis of group inequalities "necessarily causes injustice"(p. 442). I would argue that these statements, which I think fairlysummarize their perspective, seriously diminish the complexity of theproblem of social workers seeking social justice and in response I wouldlike to advance four points. First, Scanlon and Longres do admit to social inequalities but viewthem as "quantitative rather than qualitative" (p. 442) andtherefore not quite significant enough to justify strategies of socialjustice based on group identity. However a statement that quantitativedifferences are somehow less important is surely value-based and sorequires elaboration and clarification to avoid misunderstanding. As itstands, for social workers to tell any group that they are not"poor enough" or have not "suffered enough" to bethe object of social work's efforts to promote social justice ispatently absurd and hardly a good example of starting where the clientis. Though they acknowledge that "some groups are moredisadvantaged than others" (p. 443), their example of lesbians andgays being denied access to various domestic rights is not an example ofquantitative discrepancy. Lesbians and gays are denied the absolute (notrelative) right to marry or adopt because of their membership in agroup. This example illustrates a second problem with their analysis: thechallenge of social justice is to advance the cause of all individualseven as we acknowledge that individuals are treated differently becauseof their group membership. Scanlon and Longres never quite inquire intothe causes of, to use their example, "large differences in theeducational attainments of African-, Latino-, and Native Americans"(p. 443) yet are ready to consider that "special policies [such asaffirmative action affirmative action,in the United States, programs to overcome the effects of past societal discrimination by allocating jobs and resources to members of specific groups, such as minorities and women. ] may no longer be needed" (p. 443). The dangerof proposing an end to a social justice strategy before analyzing thecause of the societal problem is, ironically, illustrated by Scanlon andLongres. They approvingly repeat the question of Shrag (1995):"should the child of a middle-class person of color Noun 1. person of color - (formal) any non-European non-white personperson of colourindividual, mortal, person, somebody, someone, soul - a human being; "there was too much for one person to do" have priorityin college admission over, for example, the child of a white Appalachiancoal miner" (p. 444). This question is a rhetorical flourish not aserious indicator of the flaws of affirmative action. It assumes thereis absolutely no way the school can admit both candidates and that allpreviously admitted students are individually qualified. But if, forexample, we are talking about an elite private institution,couldn't the school's endowment fund Noun 1. endowment fund - the capital that provides income for an institutionendowmentpatrimony - a church endowmentchantry - an endowment for the singing of Masses be used to accept both?And if we really can't tap into that endowment or raise taxes insupport of a public institution, can't we instead reject one of themany students accepted for other, nonacademic reasons: a child of analumnus ALUMNUS, civil law. A child which one has nursed; a foster child. Dig. 40, 2, 14. or a linebacker? To reject either the applicant of color not of the white race; - commonly meaning, esp. in the United States, of negro blood, pure or mixed.See also: Color or thecoal miner's child and then blame affirmative action is toperpetuate inequality in society not to analyze and fight it. Third, Scanlon and Longres find it naive "to expect all whiteAmericans to consistently self-identify as `privileged' andforgo" benefits that would be obtained by non-white groups as aresult of a conception of social justice based on group identity (p.442). Of course, in the narrowest sense, they are correct: "allwhite Americans" won't self-identify that way any more than"all white Americans" self-identify themselves in any way. Theassertion, even properly understood, simply ignores the history of civilrights in the United States United States,officially United States of America, republic (2005 est. pop. 295,734,000), 3,539,227 sq mi (9,166,598 sq km), North America. The United States is the world's third largest country in population and the fourth largest country in area. . But much more significantly, they risksuggesting that the fight for social justice must be fought on the termsof the dominant class. For example, they argue that justice is pursued"for others" as if it were possible to describe a society asjust when significant numbers of people are denied access to freedom orresources. They declare that "only" certain movements withcertain goals based on the "shared human rights of allindividuals" will succeed (p. 442). This statement is ideologicaland obscures our need to examine the unshared history that results intoday's patterns of discrimination. In this context, it is usefulto recall Anthony Giddens's (1979) critique of ideology The critique of ideology is a concept in critical theory. It entails the submission of received understanding to critical reappropriation for the purpose of human emancipation.[1] References1. as a meansby which the dominant class needs "to sustain legitimacy ... uponimplicit or explicit appeal to universal interests" (p. 193). Finally, I think the authors' use of language requires furtherexploration. For example, just what is the purpose of putting"privileged" in quotation marks quotation marksNoun, plthe punctuation marks used to begin and end a quotation, either `` and '' or ` and 'quotation marksnpl → comillas fpl when discussing the advantagesinherent to being a white American The term white American (often used interchangeably with "Caucasian American"[2] and within the United States simply "white"[3]) is an umbrella term that refers to people of European, Middle Eastern, and North African descent residing in the United States. ? Since the word is not thenreferenced, are they questioning the existence of white privilege White privilege has the following meanings: White privilege (sociology) -- social privileges argued to be enjoyed by whites. White privilege (royalty) -- better known as "privil��ge du blanc", a clothing protocol in the Vatican. ? Ifso, perhaps they can be more explicit; as they criticize Pelton,concerns that are raised "obliquely" in an essay that"treads too carefully" are not helpful in this dialogue (p.442). Further, when they state that "social workers should be waryof becoming singularly preoccupied with the elimination of groupdifferences" (p. 442), well, who are they talking about? If theymean social work as a profession, or social workers in general, I hardlythink they need worry, what with the continued increasing numbers ofMSWs inclined toward clinical work. But perhaps they are uncomfortablewith any social workers fighting a fight that challenges theirassumptions.Richard HolodyDepartment of Sociology and Social WorkLehman College /City University of New York References Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory. Berkeley andLos Angeles, CA: University of California Press "UC Press" redirects here, but this is also an abbreviation for University of Chicago PressUniversity of California Press, also known as UC Press, is a publishing house associated with the University of California that engages in academic publishing. . Shrag, P. (1995). So you want to be color blind? Alternativeprinciples for affirmative action. American Prospect, 22, 38-43. Edward Scanlon and John Longres reply: Dr. Richard Holody's critique of our recent essay "SocialWork and Social Justice: A Reply to Leroy Pelton" (JSWE, Fall 2001)presents several important points which deserve a thoughtful response.This kind of dialogue about contentious political issues has beenavoided by social workers, and we welcome the opportunity to clarify ourideas in the following response. We begin by reminding Dr. Holody that we were invited to respond toLeroy Pelton's article "Social Justice and Social Work"(JSWE, Fall 2001). In it, Pelton argued for a view of social justicebased on individual, rather than group rights. Although we agreed withPelton that under ideal circumstances justice should be individuallybased, we identified two reasons for supporting group-based justice atthis historical moment: to level the playing field and to assureculturally appropriate service delivery. Holody contributes an insightful observation--that the situation ofgays and lesbians is precisely the kind of qualitative differencebetween groups that requires a group-based policy response. Indeed, heis correct, and our comment that "... differences between groupsare quantitative rather than qualitative ..." was an overstatement o��ver��state?tr.v. o��ver��stat��ed, o��ver��stat��ing, o��ver��statesTo state in exaggerated terms. See Synonyms at exaggerate.o .It might be more accurate to state that many of the differences thoughtto be qualitative (such as educational attainment) are actuallyquantitative and would benefit from universal approaches to insuringsocial justice. However, when populations are denied rights or benefitsto which others are entitled (such as marriage for gays and lesbians,welfare benefits for legal immigrants, or freedom from racial profiling The consideration of race, ethnicity, or national origin by an officer of the law in deciding when and how to intervene in an enforcement capacity.Police officers often profile certain types of individuals who are more likely to perpetrate crimes. for people of color Noun 1. people of color - a race with skin pigmentation different from the white race (especially Blacks)people of colour, colour, colorrace - people who are believed to belong to the same genetic stock; "some biologists doubt that there are important ), we must seek policy solutions which include themspecifically as recipients of said social benefits. Yet even here, usinguniversalist frameworks might be the most effective way to effectchange. For example, marriage rights, access to basic income levels, andfreedom from unreasonable police searches can be framed as universalhuman rights that should be extended to all citizens. Holody has misinterpreted us in his assertion that we have calledfor an end to affirmative action. We raised the issue because we thoughtit was the type of group-based policy to which Pelton is referring. Wesuggest that affirmative action at times can promote injustice when itfails to acknowledge that some whites (or men) are more educationallydisadvantaged than some people of color (or women). Moreover, we agreewith commentators such as Shrag (1995) that it may be time to rethinkthe principles of affirmative action as it appears to be losingpolitical support and is in danger of outright elimination. Recentcitizen initiatives, federal court decisions, and gubernatorialexecutive orders have begun what appears to be a state-by-stateunraveling of the policy. Social workers ignored the widespreaddissatisfaction with the Aid to Families with Dependent Children Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) was the name of a federal assistance program in effect from 1935 to 1997,[1] which was administered by the United States Department of Health and Human Services. (AFDC AFDCabbr.Aid to Families with Dependent ChildrenAFDCn abbr (US) (= Aid to Families with Dependent Children) → ayuda a familias con hijos menoresAFDCn abbr )program and now live with the draconian alternative called Temporary Aidto Needy Families (TANF TANF Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (previously known as AFDC)). If progressives don't acknowledge thepolitical climate that faces affirmative action, it is likely to meet asimilar fate. We are troubled, however, that Dr. Holody seems to believe that ourconcerns with group-based approaches to social justice suggest that wedon't favor political activity by social workers. Why would voicinga scholarly disagreement about the nature of social justice constitutean effort to squash the political activity of others who see thesituation differently? Surely, lively debate about these points isneeded to encourage effective political activity. We concur with theanalyses of scholars like Ruy Teixeira and Joel Rogers (2001) andWilliam Julius Wilson William Julius Wilson (born December 20, 1935) is an American sociologist. He worked at the University of Chicago 1972-1996 before moving to Harvard.William Julius Wilson is Lewis P. and Linda L. Geyser University Professor at Harvard University. (1999) that building a progressive consensus willrequire identifying more universally salient issues that can linkmultiple groups. Like Holody, we hope for a future with greater socialjustice for all citizens. Unlike him, however, we are skeptical that avibrant future will exist for a U.S. left if we rely on identitypolitics and group-targeted policies to build progressive majorities. Itis ironic that Holody views our call for universalism UniversalismBelief in the salvation of all souls. Arising as early as the time of Origen and at various points in Christian history, the concept became an organized movement in North America in the mid-18th century. as conservative,since historically those who advocated for universalist social policywere demonized by the right as "collectivists." Holody'ssuspicion that universalism is a form of domination demonstratesperfectly why Dr. Pelton is concerned about our current emphasis ongroup-based forms of justice. Fruitful debates about social justice require thoughtful exchangesthat assume that our colleagues are people of good will, even when wedisagree with them. We hope our response moves this dialogue in such adirection, and thank Dr. Holody for his careful reading of our work. References Shrag, P. (1995). So you want to be color blind? Alternativeprinciples for affirmative action. American Prospect, 22, 38-43. Teixeira, R. & Rogers, J. (2001). America's forgottenmajority: Why the white working class still matters. New York New York, state, United StatesNew York,Middle Atlantic state of the United States. It is bordered by Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and the Atlantic Ocean (E), New Jersey and Pennsylvania (S), Lakes Erie and Ontario and the Canadian province of : BasicBooks. Wilson, W. J. (1999). The bridge over the racial divide: Risinginequality and coalition politics. Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress. Leroy H. Pelton replies: When individuals are treated differently based on their groupmembership rather than their individual qualifications or need, we havediscrimination. Government should not engage in it for any reason.Government engages in discrimination when, on the basis of maritalstatus marital status,n the legal standing of a person in regard to his or her marriage state. , it provides benefits, or allows them to be provided, to someindividuals but not others equally in need of them. Marriage is not theissue; the benefits are. In order to address injustice to gays andlesbians, we must unravel or identify the various benefits provided onthe basis of marital status. For example, married people are oftencovered by the health care insurance of their spouses. But if we had atruly universal health care insurance system, every individual would becovered, and discrimination against gays and lesbians in this regard, oragainst any unmarried individuals, would become a nonissue non��is��sue?n.A matter of so little import that it ought not to become a focus of controversy and comment: She felt that the matter of her attire should have been a nonissue.. There is no question of group rights for gays and lesbians here. Onthe contrary, justice is promoted by reexamining policies to ensure thatthey do not respect group membership, such as membership in the ranks ofmarried people. Benefits should be tied to individuals, not groups. Theexample of two children being treated differently on the basis of raceis no mere rhetorical flourish; it is discrimination. Free public highereducation would ensure that no academically qualified individuals aredenied a college education due to financial need. Again, the questionpertains to individuals and not to groups. The replacement of one formof discrimination with another merely perpetuates discrimination. Weshould not use discrimination of the past and present, such as collegeadmission policies that favor the child of an alumnus, as an excuse tocontinue discrimination or create new forms of it. Rather, we shouldwork to end all forms of discrimination. The dichotomous di��chot��o��mous?adj.1. Divided or dividing into two parts or classifications.2. Characterized by dichotomy.di��chot classification of American society into two tidycompartments, the white dominant class and people of color, is hardly aharbinger of complex problem analysis. Ironically, however, whengovernment seeks to respond to groups--even a complex array ofgroups--in the name of fairness, it produces a patchwork quilt of socialpolicies that addresses current individual need differently (andtherefore in a discriminatory manner) based on the presumed causes ofthat need, group generalizations, and mere group membership. And thus itis that we have come to have separate social policies for variousgroupings of people based on age, gender, and even race and ethnicity.Group-blind policies that address all individuals without discriminationare simpler and fairer. Complexity in policy leads to unfairness inpolicy. For instance, so-called social dividend proposals would elegantlyaddress financial need by replacing the current alphabet soup of socialwelfare policies, as well as all tax breaks, with allocation of a commondividend to everyone (adjusted only for household size). Large segmentsof the population already receive similar social dividends: they arecalled, for example, social security benefits for the elderly, and taxbreaks. However, many policies currently governing the distribution ofcash benefits are based on highly contestable claims concerning whymembers of certain groups of needy or even non-needy people aresupposedly more deserving of such benefits than other individuals. Atruly universal social dividend system would take the same monies thatare currently being redistributed through a plethora of programs, butwould simply allocate them to everyone. The question of which groups aredeserving would not be raised, because the proposed policy would regardeveryone as deserving of benefit at least at a level to ensure that noone would ever go hungry or homeless. This benefit would be appliedagainst one's income tax, so that those with no income will receiveall of it, while those with some income will receive part of it up to acertain break-even point break-even point - In the process of implementing a new computer language, the point at which the language is sufficiently effective that one can implement the language in itself. of income, above which the full benefit willmerely be deducted from the larger amount of income tax one owes. Yet such minimal cash benefits will not by themselves promote equalopportunity and moreover, individual needs vary. To benefit all of itsmembers in a nondiscriminatory manner and even to promotenondiscrimination, a community, through its government, must launchin-kind benefit programs that address particular barriers that obstructindividual opportunity and life itself, even if such programs arerelevant to only a few people, so long as they do not include or excludeon the basis of arbitrary criteria. For example, government-fundedprograms to combat sickle-cell anemia sickle-cell anemiaBlood disorder (see hemoglobinopathy) seen mainly in persons of Sub-Saharan African ancestry and their descendants and in those from the Middle East, the Mediterranean area, and India. and breast cancer will benefitonly some--and would disproportionately benefit black people and women,respectively. Yet they are not discriminatory so long as white peopleand men are not arbitrarily excluded from benefit if needed.Furthermore, purely as a practical matter, it would be reasonable togeographically locate certain types of service centers in areas wherethere are concentrations of people to whose needs the particularservices to be offered are relevant, so long as steps are taken toensure that people with similar need for the services living in otherareas have access to them without inconvenience. Likewise, outreachapproaches that utilize other languages in addition to English, and thatare sensitive to the cultural differences of individuals, promote theinclusion of individuals who might otherwise be excluded, and thuspromote nondiscrimination. But once again, this is a question ofaccommodating individuals, not groups. In the former Yugoslavia, we have seen many extreme examples of theinjustices that a society propagates when it chooses to focus upon"unshared" group histories rather than common human rights ofall individuals. Government and policies, to be just, must acknowledgeand respect individuals, not groups. The Constitutional principle that"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment ofreligion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" should, in ourpolicies, be extended to all manner of groups, and not be limited toonly those of a religious nature. We should recognize and respect groupdiversity and experiences as a pervasive fact of life, but as a poor andunjust basis for the formation of public policy. It is the far greaterdiversity of individuals that should be recognized and respected bypolicies that address individual need and promote individual opportunitywithout discrimination.