At what point does trying to stop racism CREATE racism?

[Nemmerle]

Edit: And reading all the rest, I support your endeavor to not become a social worker. I'd say that's the best course of action for everyone.

Why, exactly?

I get that I may have come across as frustrated and defensive, but the entire reason I am posting here is to listen to people who challenge what I say. I have a point to make, but I'm not stubbornly insisting that people should agree with me. As far as I can tell, the best way for me to come to terms with whatever problems I have as a potential social worker (I'm guess you think these are a propensity to get frustrated and defensive,) are to open myself to new perspectives and try to understand them.

So, do you say that because I'm taking the totally wrong approach to personal improvement, or do you really think I'd only ever make a negative impact in this field?

Interesting, I had a similar thought reading your stuff.

... Okay, let me putting my hiring manager head on, since I've worked in a similar role to the one you seem to desire before, hired for it, and according to the KPIs was pretty damned good at it:

My recommendation is we don't invite you to interview. (It probably won't even get to my desk for me to make that decision in all honesty, I'm pretty good at letting HR know what I want.) If we did invite you for interview, then I can say of a certainty that you would not get the job.

Okay, why?

My big concern is that you can't leave your politics at the door. You've said a number of things that could easily be taken as very offensive to anyone who believes contrary to you. I don't care that you believe them, however. I care about the fact that you said them and acted upon them. This test is not you messing around in high school, where it doesn't matter too much if you disagree with your teacher, this test is you trying to get a professional qualification that you are paying a not insignificant amount of money for.

Think of it this way: If you were training to be a carpenter and you knew that a particular joint was stronger in a particular instance, would you refuse to make the joint that the test wanted because it was a cruddy joint? I would think the person who did so was a fool who let their pride get the better of them.

If you can't act dispassionately to select a favourable answer when it's in your clear economic interests to do so, why would I think you could in any other arena of life? That you're insensitive is possibly a thing, I don't care - to my mind the far bigger issue is that you potentially behave in a way where that's going to be relevant.

You are not a kid any more. This stuff matters to your future standard of life, even if you disagree with it. It doesn't matter, for the purposes of me hiring you, whether you're ultimately right or not in that disagreement. Your job isn't to be right about a political issue.

I don't really care what the college wants either, mind you. Whether they want you to be some political activist or not. Heck, I checked[footnote]Honestly, it was a minor negative if I could find a social media account for you at all. If there were two candidates equal in all other respects, the one who I couldn't find an account for was the one getting hired.[/footnote] social media history when we were hiring. If I saw political comments on it, anything about work, anything like that... your application went in the bin - regardless of how good it was and regardless of what those politics were. If you were all 'Yay, rights for minorities' or if you were all 'We should build a wall'? Same dustbin.

-sighs-

Look: A lot of this sort of thing, (and people don't like talking about it this way because we're encouraged to see people as fluffy unique individuals - and we tend to gloss over the dark side of that -) comes down to whether you see a person in front of you that needs changing or a problem in front of you that needs addressing. The problem doesn't have race, gender, or even identity other than in terms of how those inform the facts of the situation (such as what support is available.) There's a set of things that need to happen, there are sets of behaviours surrounding that, and you're there to let people know what those are and to make certain judgements about whether that's happening. You are not there to judge them as a person.

You might have to talk in court, fine. You might have to give an opinion about likely reoffending, fine. You might have to make recommendations or decisions concerning things like custody. But your stock in trade there isn't how you feel about them or their politics. Your stock is in facts and behaviours, things you can point to that are non-controversial. A professional opinion, not your gut feeling.

If you see the person, and engage with them on that level of personality - trying to address the underlying beliefs? You're going to have problems. I'm not going to say you won't make it, but I've never seen anyone who behaves that way who has. IME, they either end up actually agreeing with the client, which is rarely a good thing to do, having an argument that pisses them off (you're going to say things that offends someone, if this stuff is relevant to you, even with all the good will in the world).... Or, perhaps the worst outcome: They stick around being worn out, perhaps with some bias creeping in themselves as they slow creep closer to getting moved away from that sort of work or fucking it up in some critical issue of competency and ruining someone's life.

When you're dealing with clients, this macro-social stuff's a million miles away. Like when a drug addict comes chasing after their abuse victim, you're either able to talk to that drug addict professionally or you're not. You're certainly not going to be talking macro-social theory with them and explaining to them the error of their ways. Stuff that for a game of soldiers. You're calling the police and locking the door, and you're getting disciplined if you try to have a discussion instead. There's no clever argument they're going to have that's going to change that outcome.

So take the tests. (I don't consider them appropriate because a classroom is no place for political rhetoric, but take them anyway.) Give the 'right' answers, because it at least demonstrates that you can disregard others opinions in pursuit of a larger goal, and then show with pride the sheep skin some asshole gave you that says you can do your damn job.

Or if the tests upset you that much? Well, chances are this is not the field for you.

 

[MeatMachine]

Personally, I'd argue that someone living in a society has a responsibility to try to better that society, especially in a democracy where power in entrusted to all voters.

If someone is expressly not expressing disapproval with a social problem, that means at least part of society doesn't see it as a problem. I don't see neutrality as something someone can hold to with social issues.

That's an agreeable statement, and falls in line with the belief that those who both benefit from an unfair system and are hesitant to work against it are indirectly supporting it and making it worse. From a philosophical position, I'd say that self-centeredness is not only not bad, but quite possibly the most rational thing someone can do. This is why I'm quick to make a distinction between common people and social workers: common citizens work out of self-interest because it's the best for them, and social workers take up the mantle of responsibility for helping those who are disadvantaged. Whether it is the social worker's responsibility for helping them by changing the system, or by helping their clients acclimate to it, vary greatly.

And a quick edit on basic self-centeredness: calling an unwillingness to confront a problem directly "part of the problem" puts people in unfair predicaments. Godwin's law is the last thing I ever want to fall back on, but would you say that Germans who lived under Nazi rule that hated their new government were "part of the problem"? In many aspects, of course they were; regardless of their beliefs, they had very little choice but to work in factories or conscript. Demanding that they all should have become spies, saboteurs, or opportunistic assassins in order to be "not part of the problem" is the logical conclusion to this line of thinking that I think is unfair to them, given that the punishment of being part of the Nazi's "part of the problem" wouldn't bode well for them and their families. Tying this concept to the question from my midterm, would this make every single one of them who don't partake in these stalling methods anti-semetics due to their active role in perpetuating an anti-semetic social system? Again, I don't think that's fair.

That seems fair enough.

I'm not here to debate - I'm here to listen. If I disagree with something, I might explain why, but otherwise, I'm not here to change anyone's mind but my own.

Certainly, yes, but I don't see why that presumption must always be wrong.

Because those kinds of presumptions are prejudices, and prejudices are usually (but not always) unfair. Starting off a conflict with justified unfair treatment is not a constructive way to reach a resolution. This is one of the reasons I don't particularly trust a lot of generalized models, be them identity development models or rigid codes of ethics.

It's not that you can't empathise, it's just that your understanding will be limited. Racism is bad, this we can all agree on. Exactly how bad, how it works for a given race is something we might not understand.

This is what empathy is - both an understanding AND a sharing of feelings. This is why I can sympathize for drug addicts and take a pragmatic approach to their treatment, but will never truly be able to empathize for their pain of withdrawal. Hence my example of addiction counselors.

What's wrong with being an ally? When confronted with a problem that needs solving, when you have little experience of it, but are together with someone who has significant experience, surely listening to what they say and following their advice is hardly an unusual thing to do.

Because a client-worker relationship is a partnership, not an alliegance; as an educated professional, the strengths I bring to the table for resolving a client's problems is a thorough understanding of systematic assistance, outreach abilities, program management, and a pragmatic understanding of many things going on outside of the client's sphere of influence. The client, then, brings the advantages of having an individual, personal concern WITHIN these broader influences, and shares with me what approaches to treatment they would approve of, and which ones they would not feel comfortable with. In this way, our relationship can even become strained, and requires mutual respect to negotiate an arrangement we can both agree on.

Insisting that one side is fundamentally incapable of comprehending what the other is going through, and should entirely submit to their perspective is not a partnership: it would be subordination, which would not be constructive for anyone.

Ah, but is that to say that no protest is due to a reluctance to sacrifice your privilege? I daresay everyone makes that mistake every so often, and for them to improve, to lessen the chance of it happening again, they need to be told to check their privilege.

This is not fun, by any means, but it's ultimately vital.

Not when the "check your privilege" line is used to enforce admonishment, which is often is. Yes, holding privilege can limit one's understanding of a topic, but referring to it as a trump card to invalidate anything they say which is inconvenient to another point of view mishandles the meaning of the words. Who decides when this happens? I would suggest when the person using them cannot conclusively state what point is being overlooked or belittled; there is a lot more to a disagreement than a simple difference in societal position, and suggesting that it is always the single biggest factor is incredibly dehumanizing.

Edit: Which is to say it is not always inappropriate to say "check your privilege", as it is a very easy way to overlook aspects of a problem; again though, it CAN also be misused as a deconstructive weapon to simply declare someone's point invalid, without having to address their points directly. This is perhaps the only aspect in life where privilege can be a crippling thing to have, and the apparent eagerness of some individuals to ply this weakness ironically reverses the relevant power dynamics of demographics.

I can't speak for manic_depressive13, but your OP gave a strong impression that you weren't interested in a discussion, you merely wanted to rant about the oppression of the straight white male. To the extent that I'm rather surprised by how reasonable your reply to me was. I'm sorry if I misjudged you, but then we do get an awful lot of people who want to rant about how the privileged group they are in is actually somehow oppressed, and give a pretence of a discussion to do it with.

My stance at the time was out of a mood of frustration. I don't like being frustrated - it makes me feel like an idiot. So I seek out wisdom to help me understand the reason for my frustration, so that I can take a calmer, more objective approach.

...a rarity on the internet, I know.

 

[mecegirl]

...That's a fairly harmless question. Mainly because it sounds like it's citing shit you've studied in the year (i.e. the Intergenerative Awareness Phase and the White racial identity development parts), and the idea of 'becoming a nonracist White Euro-American' feels less like a claim of 'all whites are racist' and more a claim of identifying as a nonracist white (because you can totally identify as racist or neither) which makes the answer being 'all of the above' not being a strange thing.

So, uhhhh, to the topic question... only in extreme situations that aren't this one?

When black women start yelling at white dudes for having dreadlocks because its cultural appropriation and violence.

Dear god, I remember that video. What are up with those sort of people

I honestly thought it was a prank. Like an April fools day joke from College Humor or maybe the Onion. Something to purposefully trigger anti-SJWs at how extreme she was.

But no. It was real. She - and I'm going to use this term because its a micro-aggression and I know it'd piss her off - manhandled him, even as he tried to walk away.

I just saw this yesterday, ya know I'm a pretty liberal person but there at limits and that is pretty much the exact reason I don't put much stuck in things like cultural appropriation. Cause at a certain point, one is taking issues with things like a persons hair. Who the hell can function like that?

Oh it did piss me off so much that he does the right thing and tries to leave peacefully and she puts her hands on him. Who the fuck she thinks she is, and then she has the nerve to say "don't touch me" fucking people.

Well, I imagine she thinks she's superior, when in reality she's probably an asshole. Assault is always a dick move.

Though, the thing with hair is that... it can be cultural appropriation? Mainly because some cultures do put a lot of stock into certain hair styles, so someone wearing that just because it looks 'cool' is, while not necessarily a 'bad' thing, is a little blunt and is best done when you have actual knowledge/respect the culture the style came from.

Certainly not something to assault someone over, but I can understand people getting frustrated over seeing someone wearing the style without understanding the culture it came from. It's like getting random chinese letters as a tattoo - sure, you might think it's cool, but show it to someone who knows the language and they'll find it pretty weird you got 'Spicy Chicken Noodles' inked across your chest.

Oh I totally completely rationally understand it, and there is a point to be made.

But... I gotta draw a line somewhere, and I really hate to sound like a right wing idiot, but I feel this kinda restrictive of freedom. It's this guys own body, who the fuck is she to have ANY say over what the hell he does with it? She's allowed not to like it, but I take issue with the fact she corners him and demands an explanation.

He's a virtual stranger to her! He owes her nothing!

Maybe I lack a full perspective here. There are valid things to complain about ya know, like white privilege. But this? This seems so fucking petty to me from my perspective. How deeply do you have to give a shit about what another person is wearing that you have to fucking stop them in the hallway and tell them your unsolicited opinion, ya know? Be annoyed at it sure, maybe write a vague tweet or a blog post, but go on with your fucking life.

I'm feeling pretty right of center politically saying that, and that's a pretty good indication that maybe I'm in the wrong... But ya know what I'm trying say. Homegirl is entitled to whatever shes feeling, but homeboy isn't entitled to have to listen to her bullshit. It's like the freaking Goth kids in high school calling a new kid wearing zipper jeans a poser because he never wore it before.

With this particular issue the problem is that in some professions dreadlocks are considered unprofessional, even if they are neat and uniformly styled. So its a situation where a hairstyle popular with Black people (because typically the hair textures common among Black people can actually hold the style. It tends to damage hair that isn't super curly) could hinder their ability to pursue certain careers. With men it is in part the long hair thing. But with women dreads are one way that makes longer hair easy to manage.

A few years back the Army had to correct an update to its hair guidelines because it ended up banning hairstyles popular with Back women.

http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/local/military/article29347819.html

http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswi...-face-on-hair-regulations-black-women-approve

But these styles aren't popular because they are cute(though they can be). If she is deployed overseas is she really going to have the time to always chemically straighten her hair? It has to be done once a month in order to look neat. Or what is a Black woman with "natural" hair supposed to do in that situation? She would have to keep a really short Afro, or keep re braiding/twisting her hair over and over again(and that takes a lot of time). Dreads would probably be one of the simplest solutions in that scenario. Larger cornrows(which is quick to do) would be a good solution too. It's as if the writer of the new standrds just talked about Black hairstyles that they didn't like without considering how thick and curly hair works. It can't just be pulled into a ponytail/bun. It doesn't neatly fit under hats.

Now none of that is cause for violence, but situation like that is part of why people care so much.

 

[MeatMachine]

Interesting, I had a similar thought reading your stuff.

... Okay, let me putting my hiring manager head on, since I've worked in a similar role to the one you seem to desire before, hired for it, and according to the KPIs was pretty damned good at it:

My recommendation is we don't invite you to interview. (It probably won't even get to my desk for me to make that decision in all honesty, I'm pretty good at letting HR know what I want.) If we did invite you for interview, then I can say of a certainty that you would not get the job.

Okay, why?

My big concern is that you can't leave your politics at the door. You've said a number of things that could easily be taken as very offensive to anyone who believes contrary to you. I don't care that you believe them, however. I care about the fact that you said them and acted upon them. This test is not you messing around in high school, where it doesn't matter too much if you disagree with your teacher, this test is you trying to get a professional qualification that you are paying a not insignificant amount of money for.

Think of it this way: If you were training to be a carpenter and you knew that a particular joint was stronger in a particular instance, would you refuse to make the joint that the test wanted because it was a cruddy joint? I would think the person who did so was a fool who let their pride get the better of them.

If you can't act dispassionately to select a favourable answer when it's in your clear economic interests to do so, why would I think you could in any other arena of life? That you're insensitive is possibly a thing, I don't care - to my mind the far bigger issue is that you potentially behave in a way where that's going to be relevant.

Having read that, I don't doubt for a second that you are/were a hiring manager. I totally understand your line of thinking, and it is one of the major reasons why I was so miserable in the U.S. Air Force. As with both college->working profession and basic training/tech school->duty station, the first thing everyone told me is "forget everything you learned, it's worthless".

I the Air Force, I was routinely told to violate the rules drilled into my head since being a depper. "Cover your ass" and "get it done before the deadline" were not mutually exclusive, and "get it done before the deadline" almost always took priority over doing things by the book. Shortcuts were made, tools were improvised, and steps were glossed over with little concern.

The first industrial accident that happened, the Airman First Class who simply acclimated to these demands was blamed.

I never accepted these things, and always followed the Technical Orders like religious scripture. Everyone hated working with me, and I didn't find out until later that the reason why wasn't only because I was slow and inefficient, but because I couldn't be shit-canned for agreeing to these practices along with everyone else if they were ever dragged into light.

Standing on principles is NEVER beneficial for the person doing them, regardless of whether those principles deviate from job demands or insist on them. I'm currently in the stage of figuring out just how this understanding fits into the social work profession.

You are not a kid any more. This stuff matters to your future standard of life, even if you disagree with it. It doesn't matter, for the purposes of me hiring you, whether you're ultimately right or not in that disagreement. Your job isn't to be right about a political issue.

I don't really care what the college wants either, mind you. Whether they want you to be some political activist or not. Heck, I checked social media history when we were hiring. If I saw political comments on it, anything about work, anything like that... your application went in the bin - regardless of how good it was and regardless of what those politics were. If you were all 'Yay, rights for minorities' or if you were all 'We should build a wall'? Same dustbin.

-sighs-

I somewhat take back what I said in the prior paragraph: yes, I was insistent about following procedures, but I did so because I took them absolutely seriously and absolutely literally. In this regard, I was wholly unconcerned about other issues, relevant or not. Based on some of what I've said in this thread, particularly my earlier posts which you quote, I can see why you think I'd be the kind of employee who'd obstinately stand on principles and "not leave [my] politics at the door"; in a kind of backwards way, I would be. For example, The NASW Code of Ethics's 4th set of ethical standards includes prohibiting the use of discrimination in a practice setting:

4.02 Discrimination

Social workers should not practice, condone, facilitate, or collaborate with any form of discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, marital status, political belief, religion, immigration status, or mental or physical disability.

In this regard, I am taught not to discriminate against my clients based on a number of individual factors, most of which are ascribed human traits.

If, then, I go back and look at the models of identity development mentioned earlier, how exactly am I supposed to refrain from practicing discrimination in a practice setting if I am being taught that my white clients are racist? Would it be discrimination to presume that they are somewhere within the earlier stages of those identity development models (e.g. racist), and tailor my approach around circumventing or supplanting negative beliefs I presume them to have?

I see how these things are supposed to piece together, and I see how they are supposed to reinforce each other; social worker professionals are encouraged to refer to these concepts when taking an approach and making decisions, but at what point does a contradiction in them inevitably lead me to perform some kind of violation of principle? Hell, even acknowledging that models of identity development include negative preconceptions about certain identities could technically fall under the violation of "condoning a form of discrimination on the basis of race" in a professional environment.

Everyone tells me that I frequently overthink these kinds of things. I think everyone who tells me this has never been in a situation where they needed a lawyer.

Look: A lot of this sort of thing, (and people don't like talking about it this way because we're encouraged to see people as fluffy unique individuals - and we tend to gloss over the dark side of that -) comes down to whether you see a person in front of you that needs changing or a problem in front of you that needs addressing. The problem doesn't have race, gender, or even identity other than in terms of how those inform the facts of the situation (such as what support is available.) There's a set of things that need to happen, there are sets of behaviours surrounding that, and you're there to let people know what those are and to make certain judgements about whether that's happening. You are not there to judge them as a person.

You might have to talk in court, fine. You might have to give an opinion about likely reoffending, fine. You might have to make recommendations or decisions concerning things like custody. But your stock in trade there isn't how you feel about them or their politics. Your stock is in facts and behaviours, things you can point to that are non-controversial. A professional opinion, not your gut feeling.

This is where I get confused about a social worker's priorities. As far as ethical quandaries go, social work is a goddamn minefield when these priorities overlap or conflict. On one hand, an empirical approach to solving a client's problem is easily backed up with research or policy; on the other hand, everything I'm being taught tells me to value and consider less-demonstrable factors stacked against my clients. The more I have to cover my ass, the less effectively I can do my job, and the better I do my job in this particular way, the worse I'll be at covering the already difficult task of retaining a humanist attitude as a public servant for those already mistreated by every other system.

Unless I really am overthinking it at this point. Like the military though, I'm being told that so long as I justify my behavior/approach to the NASW Code of Ethics, I'll be fine. Here's to hoping it's true, in this case.

If you see the person, and engage with them on that level of personality - trying to address the underlying beliefs? You're going to have problems. I'm not going to say you won't make it, but I've never seen anyone who behaves that way who has. IME, they either end up actually agreeing with the client, which is rarely a good thing to do, having an argument that pisses them off (you're going to say things that offends someone, if this stuff is relevant to you, even with all the good will in the world).... Or, perhaps the worst outcome: They stick around being worn out, perhaps with some bias creeping in themselves as they slow creep closer to getting moved away from that sort of work or fucking it up in some critical issue of competency and ruining someone's life.

Yeah, again, this sounds like an attempt at reassuring me I shouldn't take every aspect as seriously as I do. According to both you AND my time in the service, you're probably right - unless I change the way I think, I'm going to end up nearly suicidal after 3 years.

So take the tests. (I don't consider them appropriate because a classroom is no place for political rhetoric, but take them anyway.) Give the 'right' answers, because it at least demonstrates that you can disregard others opinions in pursuit of a larger goal, and then show with pride the sheep skin some asshole gave you that says you can do your damn job.

I agree that that is the reality of my situation, and the better I come to terms with it, the better off I'll be.

Or if the tests upset you that much? Well, chances are this is not the field for you.

Nah, the test question doesn't undermine my determination to be a social worker - now, I'm convinced the biggest threat to that is the proposed state of mind necessary for me to succeed.

 

[Kameburger]

I know I'm not a racist

How do you know this? Surely the vast majority of racist people think they aren't racist?

Now, I'm not saying that you are racist, it's just that assuming that you aren't seem to be a requirement to be so.

The funny thing is I know I'm not a racist because I know I'm capable of having a racist thought, and how to admit I'm wrong. The problem with labels is they stick. But imagine if you are being labeled because of things you've never consciously thought of, so when I say I'm not a racist, I say that because if you were to point out a part of my thinking was racist, and convinced me that you were correct, then that would be something I would look into changing about myself. So if you're looking for me to give you an answer like, I never used the N-word or something that's not what I mean. I don't imagine myself being the kind of parent who would tell their child not to date someone outside of my race, and in fact that would be pretty hypocritical of me considering how many inter-racial relationship exist in my extended family. In fact I find the notion of any sort of preference OR disdain for any sort of racially (or even ethnically) based relation, a bit strange.

 

[FalloutJack]

It only does it when people are idiots. It has nothing to do with the desire to stop it itself.

 

[Abomination]

If you wanted consistent and verifiable research backing your chosen profession you probably shouldn't have decided on becoming a social worker.

It's probably not the right field for you because you're willing to question the dogma. Since you're questioning the dogma that makes you a bigot - according to the dogma (see how they get you?).

If you want to keep to the assisting society aspect of your chosen profession have you considered law-enforcement?

 

[MeatMachine]

If you wanted consistent and verifiable research backing your chosen profession you probably shouldn't have decided on becoming a social worker.

It's probably not the right field for you because you're willing to question the dogma. Since you're questioning the dogma that makes you a bigot - according to the dogma (see how they get you?).

This is one reason why I actually DO want to be a social worker; I think it is a worthy profession and a genuine "soft"-science that has been slanted entirely to one ideological side, due to the nature of the study and controversy of the topic. Since the 1960's, liberal arts and social sciences have been taken over by the left*, and appear to be growing more and more extreme over the years. I think that the best way to remedy this is to directly inject a diversity of thought into the curriculum: so I've decided to be a part of that solution.

I don't have much of a problem with some of my educational content being mostly unverifiable and unfalsifiable; so long as any given position can be challenged, empirically or theoretically, I'm interested in participating. It's when a theoretical position is treated as supreme, and deflects criticism as immoral or unworthy, I have a problem with.

If you want to keep to the assisting society aspect of your chosen profession have you considered law-enforcement?

Yes. There are certain aspects to law enforcement and/or the justice system that I am very drawn to, but virtually all of the specialties that really interest me require years of basic police service. I'm a very mild-mannered, non-confrontational guy (of 5'6" stature) who isn't fond of dealing with irritable and irrational people, and would especially dread being the individual responsible for quelling violent outbreaks. I could learn to manage all that, but ending up in a situation where I'd have to wrestle with, taze, or even open fire upon someone who adamantly resists authority is one of the worst situations I could imagine myself being in. The current climate of distrust in the United States between a lot of its citizens and its police force only further turns me off from that profession.

As a social worker, I'm already going to get more than my fair share of adversity from all manners of characters; so long as my job doesn't require that I'm the one to restrain them when they or their company lose all self-control, I'm not turned off by the notion of having encounters with unstable people.

The way I see it, social workers are there to help people overcome their issues with time; law enforcement is there to keep people from immediately making things worse for themselves and others.

*EDIT: I have no ill feelings about the left or the right in particular, and my political preferences tend to be incredibly tangential. More than anything, I dislike intellectual laziness, and partisanship often impedes progress. This is why an ideological monopoly of any kind over an area of study concerns me.

It only does it when people are idiots. It has nothing to do with the desire to stop it itself.

There is no accepted quota for what defines an idiot. Additionally, there's more at work than a simple measure of intelligence or knowledge; one can be unwise, but not stupid. One can be uneducated, but not unwise. One can be unwise, but not uneducated. One can be any of these things, or all, or none.

This is why I try so hard to really understand what people are thinking when they say something that sounds bafflingly stupid to me; even if their statements sound completely rejectable, I'm at least interested in learning their thought processes, and how they reached their conclusions. If you invest them that amount of respect and curiosity upfront, you'd be surprised by how often they are then willing to consider your points. Just look at some of the responses I've gotten in this thread so far: a lot of snark regarding my shortcomings (and rightly so, with an exception or two), but then some capitulation to my good qualities when I demonstrate a willingness to at least acknowledge their concerns.

I love watching me a good debate, but sometimes, a simple lecture is all I need to feel fulfilled (regardless of the quality of the rhetoric). Maybe this would make me a better journalist than social worker.

 

[Thaluikhain]

And a quick edit on basic self-centeredness: calling an unwillingness to confront a problem directly "part of the problem" puts people in unfair predicaments. Godwin's law is the last thing I ever want to fall back on, but would you say that Germans who lived under Nazi rule that hated their new government were "part of the problem"? In many aspects, of course they were; regardless of their beliefs, they had very little choice but to work in factories or conscript. Demanding that they all should have become spies, saboteurs, or opportunistic assassins in order to be "not part of the problem" is the logical conclusion to this line of thinking that I think is unfair to them, given that the punishment of being part of the Nazi's "part of the problem" wouldn't bode well for them and their families. Tying this concept to the question from my midterm, would this make every single one of them who don't partake in these stalling methods anti-semetics due to their active role in perpetuating an anti-semetic social system? Again, I don't think that's fair.

Well, I might argue that the thing about being part of the problem if not part of the solution is still valid there, it's just that the ability to be part of the solution is next to nothing. Of course, people can be both at once.

In any case, that's certainly not the case for most people now.

And, somewhat flippantly, I'd also say that while it's unfair that the good Germans were lumped in with the bad, the system under Nazi Germany was inherently unfair. More seriously, it's not uncommon for people to decry being lumped in with an unfair system instead decrying the unfairness of the system, though that's getting a bit off-topic.

Because those kinds of presumptions are prejudices, and prejudices are usually (but not always) unfair. Starting off a conflict with justified unfair treatment is not a constructive way to reach a resolution. This is one of the reasons I don't particularly trust a lot of generalized models, be them identity development models or rigid codes of ethics.

That's all very well in theory, but in practice nobody has the right to be taken seriously. Someone can claim to have something deep and meaningful to say, unlike lots of identical other people who've claimed the same and most definitely did not, and I cannot fault people to giving up listening.

Also, as a rule, this isn't about a resolution, it's about avoiding having to deal with something tiresome and frustrating. An admission of ignorance isn't the best way to be listened to in any field, if I walk up to a bunch of neuroscientists, tell them I don't have any experience with neuroscience but I've got all these great ideas they should listen to, nobody is going to fault them for ignoring me.

Because a client-worker relationship is a partnership, not an alliegance; as an educated professional, the strengths I bring to the table for resolving a client's problems is a thorough understanding of systematic assistance, outreach abilities, program management, and a pragmatic understanding of many things going on outside of the client's sphere of influence. The client, then, brings the advantages of having an individual, personal concern WITHIN these broader influences, and shares with me what approaches to treatment they would approve of, and which ones they would not feel comfortable with. In this way, our relationship can even become strained, and requires mutual respect to negotiate an arrangement we can both agree on.

Insisting that one side is fundamentally incapable of comprehending what the other is going through, and should entirely submit to their perspective is not a partnership: it would be subordination, which would not be constructive for anyone.

Ah, ok, I can't speak for social work in particular, I meant more generally.

Not when the "check your privilege" line is used to enforce admonishment, which is often is. Yes, holding privilege can limit one's understanding of a topic, but referring to it as a trump card to invalidate anything they say which is inconvenient to another point of view mishandles the meaning of the words. Who decides when this happens? I would suggest when the person using them cannot conclusively state what point is being overlooked or belittled; there is a lot more to a disagreement than a simple difference in societal position, and suggesting that it is always the single biggest factor is incredibly dehumanizing.

Edit: Which is to say it is not always inappropriate to say "check your privilege", as it is a very easy way to overlook aspects of a problem; again though, it CAN also be misused as a deconstructive weapon to simply declare someone's point invalid, without having to address their points directly. This is perhaps the only aspect in life where privilege can be a crippling thing to have, and the apparent eagerness of some individuals to ply this weakness ironically reverses the relevant power dynamics of demographics.

Yes and no. Yes, it's often used to dismiss an opposing point of view, but people are under no obligation to address anyone's point. Again, in theory it'd be all well and good if everyone did that, but in practice, there are plenty of people who aren't worth talking to, especially for marginalised groups who've patiently gone through the song and dance many times before and been ignored.

In my experience, if people are actually invested in equality and other people's problems, they'll get over themselves and deal with being called out (though this is never fun). If they aren't, then there's really nothing that can be done to change this.

The funny thing is I know I'm not a racist because I know I'm capable of having a racist thought, and how to admit I'm wrong. The problem with labels is they stick. But imagine if you are being labeled because of things you've never consciously thought of, so when I say I'm not a racist, I say that because if you were to point out a part of my thinking was racist, and convinced me that you were correct, then that would be something I would look into changing about myself. So if you're looking for me to give you an answer like, I never used the N-word or something that's not what I mean. I don't imagine myself being the kind of parent who would tell their child not to date someone outside of my race, and in fact that would be pretty hypocritical of me considering how many inter-racial relationship exist in my extended family. In fact I find the notion of any sort of preference OR disdain for any sort of racially (or even ethnically) based relation, a bit strange.

That's fair enough, but the sticking point is "and convinced me". Convince anyone their views are wrong and they will change them. Whether or not they will be open to being convinced is another matter.

Saying "I'm not racist" is saying "In regards to this serious social issue which effects massive numbers of other people with much the same upbringing as me, I am totally perfect". That's a bold claim to make.

Again, this isn't to try and paint you as racist, it's an element of prejudice that gets overlooked and I think worth discussing.

 

[MeatMachine]

That's all very well in theory, but in practice nobody has the right to be taken seriously. Someone can claim to have something deep and meaningful to say, unlike lots of identical other people who've claimed the same and most definitely did not, and I cannot fault people to giving up listening.

We are all confident in our opinions - if we weren't, we wouldn't currently ascribe to them. I agree that no one has the right to be taken seriously, or even listened to in the first place; the first amendment protects our ability to speak without being persecuted for what we say, and does not grant anyone the right to have a platform... if it's legality we are discussing. For better or for worse, legality and ethical human behavior do not coincide; ideally, we'd all be content to give each other a fair shot in an exchange of ideas. In practice, we reinforce what we want to believe, and can get away with hedging our desired perspectives or crippling the undesired ones.

This can be a manifestation of social privilege: being on the side that prevalently succeeds in manipulating this over the others. This is why I groan at some people's motivation for dismantling privilege: they aren't against the practices or principles that put it in place - they just don't want to be on the shitty end of it. Choosing who you want to take seriously for utterly arbitrary reasons before you hear them speak is an attempt to cheat at the game of discourse until you cheat your way to victory, all while declaring that the game is unfairly stacked against you because the current winners are cheating and that that behavior needs to stop.

Also, as a rule, this isn't about a resolution, it's about avoiding having to deal with something tiresome and frustrating. An admission of ignorance isn't the best way to be listened to in any field, if I walk up to a bunch of neuroscientists, tell them I don't have any experience with neuroscience but I've got all these great ideas they should listen to, nobody is going to fault them for ignoring me.

I agree that education is important for detailing a plan of success for social issues, but those plans should be based upon fundamental concerns - fundamental concerns that are brought to attention through general complaint. You don't need to be a neurosurgeon to understand that grand-pappy is having a seizure, and something needs to be done about it; while it is usually very easy to spot someone who clearly overestimates their ability to make informed decisions on the matter, outright dismissal of reasonably appropriate levels or details of concerns as valueless, petulant whining is pretty negligent. They might be wrong about the causes or reasons of their concerns, but when the base issue gains popularity, it's worth reviewing.

At this point, I'm not sure you and I are imagining the same topic here anymore, or more specifically, what that topic applies to or looks like. I'm not confident I did a good job structuring your premise, which would further obfuscate my response.

Ah, ok, I can't speak for social work in particular, I meant more generally.

I haven't been clear or consistent about the context of my OP issues, and just threw it out there as "what do you think". I didn't want to structure that around a specific profession, as not everyone is familiar with social work - now that responses have gone into detail in different directions and contexts, it has regrettably caused some confusion in communication.

Yes and no. Yes, it's often used to dismiss an opposing point of view, but people are under no obligation to address anyone's point. Again, in theory it'd be all well and good if everyone did that, but in practice, there are plenty of people who aren't worth talking to, especially for marginalised groups who've patiently gone through the song and dance many times before and been ignored.

In my experience, if people are actually invested in equality and other people's problems, they'll get over themselves and deal with being called out (though this is never fun). If they aren't, then there's really nothing that can be done to change this.

If people are under no obligation to address anyone's point, does this apply to privileged people as much as it does to those who are disadvantaged? I thought the whole problem here is the number of people who are unwilling and/or unable to consider moving their stubborn position and perspective. If this applies to the privileged, then as far as I can tell, you are basically advertising for the way things are right now.

If this doesn't apply to the privileged members of society, than you are banking entirely on the goodwill of the few who are experimentally-minded. Otherwise, you are forcing an ultimatum upon them: follow our cause as we say, or continue to be an oppressive, bigoted asshole. In these situations, people will tend to favor self-interest, and will easily be able to identify the members of which of those two options are more concerned about their autonomy and livelihood.

If the privileged members of society are the ones who ultimately make the decisions about social change, then the only civil way to influence social change is to convince them to change it. This requires talking with them and working with them - not talking to them and working around them.

Their reasoning might be nothing more than stale, old rationales about how everything is fine... as you said, the same ol' song and dance about why 'the current system is objective', and 'the reason why it doesn't work for you is because of personal failings', yada yada yada. I get it, it's frustrating - but selling someone on a big, unpleasant idea is not easy, least of all if it doesn't make sense in their worldview. Changing civil practices takes one of two things: a lot of patience, or a lot of violence. So, who do you think has the preferable philosophy? Martin Luther King Jr., or Malcolm X? Charles Xavier, or Magneto? This isn't a loaded question; clearly I have my preference, but either choice has merit to it.

The funny thing is I know I'm not a racist because I know I'm capable of having a racist thought, and how to admit I'm wrong. The problem with labels is they stick. But imagine if you are being labeled because of things you've never consciously thought of, so when I say I'm not a racist, I say that because if you were to point out a part of my thinking was racist, and convinced me that you were correct, then that would be something I would look into changing about myself. So if you're looking for me to give you an answer like, I never used the N-word or something that's not what I mean. I don't imagine myself being the kind of parent who would tell their child not to date someone outside of my race, and in fact that would be pretty hypocritical of me considering how many inter-racial relationship exist in my extended family. In fact I find the notion of any sort of preference OR disdain for any sort of racially (or even ethnically) based relation, a bit strange.

That's fair enough, but the sticking point is "and convinced me". Convince anyone their views are wrong and they will change them. Whether or not they will be open to being convinced is another matter.

Saying "I'm not racist" is saying "In regards to this serious social issue which effects massive numbers of other people with much the same upbringing as me, I am totally perfect". That's a bold claim to make.

Again, this isn't to try and paint you as racist, it's an element of prejudice that gets overlooked and I think worth discussing.

This is why I absolutely despise the lax, carefree use of the word "racist" or "racism". Yes, treating someone differently, consciously or subconsciously, for better or for worse, with positive or negative motivation, as a standard or as an exception, as a default in-group member or questionable out-group member, based on some incredibly minute delineation of difference between races, regardless of intent or accuracy, is technically "racism". When racism gets to be this broad of an influence, it becomes virtually meaningless. Like how saying "I blame society" is basically saying "I blame anyone".

I can only speak for myself, but when I think of what a racist looks like, I imagine someone who harbors strong feelings of resentment against a demographic other than their own, who rejects the label of "racist" and embraces a slightly more euphemistic title; someone who justifies the act of overt, willing prejudice against a demographic by claiming that those prejudice statements are either universally applicable and truthful, or applicable and truthful enough that any harmful injustices they may cause are either worth the price of the inflicted pain, or that the people who suffer from that pain are not worthy of concern in the first place.

Someone who exhibits harmless racial prejudice (thinking the dark-skinned guy wearing a turban and non-Western clothes at the local supermarket is probably Muslim, for example), or someone with an uninformed tendency to see the world ethnocentrically, are far from what I would consider "racist". At worst, I'd just call them ignorant, inexperienced, or poorly-traveled.

That's a huge step above the deflated use of "racism", which ties unapologetic bigotry in with... hypothetically, the fleeting feeling of confusing, mild pangs of anxiety when suddenly finding yourself surrounded by other ethnicities when you are normally accustomed to being around groups that consist largely of your own, and not really being able to figure out why you are feeling a bit uncomfortable all of the sudden.

 

[Thaluikhain]

This is why I groan at some people's motivation for dismantling privilege: they aren't against the practices or principles that put it in place - they just don't want to be on the shitty end of it.

Most certainly, yes. Though, in my experience, it's not the motivation that's annoying, it's the way those people will cheerfully deny their own privileges to concentrate on the ones they don't have.

Choosing who you want to take seriously for utterly arbitrary reasons before you hear them speak is an attempt to cheat at the game of discourse until you cheat your way to victory, all while declaring that the game is unfairly stacked against you because the current winners are cheating and that that behavior needs to stop.

Game of discourse? People are being treated unfairly IRL, this doesn't equate to them not wanting to listen to others.

I agree that education is important for detailing a plan of success for social issues, but those plans should be based upon fundamental concerns - fundamental concerns that are brought to attention through general complaint. You don't need to be a neurosurgeon to understand that grand-pappy is having a seizure, and something needs to be done about it; while it is usually very easy to spot someone who clearly overestimates their ability to make informed decisions on the matter, outright dismissal of reasonably appropriate levels or details of concerns as valueless, petulant whining is pretty negligent.

Certainly, yes, but I generally don't see people having a problem with that. It's when they decide they get to decide what action should be taken, that their insightful is particular valuable, that people stop listening.

Also, "negligent"? Marginalised people don't owe privileged people their time, they are under no obligation to discuss with them.

If people are under no obligation to address anyone's point, does this apply to privileged people as much as it does to those who are disadvantaged? I thought the whole problem here is the number of people who are unwilling and/or unable to consider moving their stubborn position and perspective. If this applies to the privileged, then as far as I can tell, you are basically advertising for the way things are right now.

Good point, I'd not considered that. I would say that people who are causing, or benefitting from a problem are obliged to do something about it in a way that people suffering from it are not.

If this doesn't apply to the privileged members of society, than you are banking entirely on the goodwill of the few who are experimentally-minded. Otherwise, you are forcing an ultimatum upon them: follow our cause as we say, or continue to be an oppressive, bigoted asshole. In these situations, people will tend to favor self-interest, and will easily be able to identify the members of which of those two options are more concerned about their autonomy and livelihood.

If the privileged members of society are the ones who ultimately make the decisions about social change, then the only civil way to influence social change is to convince them to change it. This requires talking with them and working with them - not talking to them and working around them.

That looks like the Tone Argument there, which is wrong for quite a number of reasons, notably that it does not work. There is no way to nicely tell someone that they are oppressing you and should probably stop.

Their reasoning might be nothing more than stale, old rationales about how everything is fine... as you said, the same ol' song and dance about why 'the current system is objective', and 'the reason why it doesn't work for you is because of personal failings', yada yada yada. I get it, it's frustrating - but selling someone on a big, unpleasant idea is not easy, least of all if it doesn't make sense in their worldview. Changing civil practices takes one of two things: a lot of patience, or a lot of violence. So, who do you think has the preferable philosophy? Martin Luther King Jr., or Malcolm X? Charles Xavier, or Magneto? This isn't a loaded question; clearly I have my preference, but either choice has merit to it.

Something of a false dichotomy there (at least for the real people), both were necessary.

And while MLK is seen as a great figure of US society nowdays, he was much hated during his life. Things only changed once he was safely dead.

Also, he was to write: "I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection." in letter from Birmingham Jail, which seems relevant.

I can only speak for myself, but when I think of what a racist looks like, I imagine someone who harbors strong feelings of resentment against a demographic other than their own, who rejects the label of "racist" and embraces a slightly more euphemistic title; someone who justifies the act of overt, willing prejudice against a demographic by claiming that those prejudice statements are either universally applicable and truthful, or applicable and truthful enough that any harmful injustices they may cause are either worth the price of the inflicted pain, or that the people who suffer from that pain are not worthy of concern in the first place.

Someone who exhibits harmless racial prejudice, or someone with an uninformed tendency to see the world ethnocentrically, are far from what I would consider "racist". At worst, I'd just call them ignorant, inexperienced, or poorly-traveled.

That's a huge step above the deflated use of "racism", which ties that example in with the fleeting feeling of confusing, mild pangs of anxiety when suddenly finding yourself surrounded by other ethnicities when you are normally accustomed to being around groups that consist largely of your own.

Ah, but what is a harmless racial prejudice? Something that affects who you would vote for, buy from, hire, support in a criminal case? Those aren't overtly harmful, but when widespread across society, cause all sorts of problems.

Not the least, extremists are extreme forms of moderates. Would we have strong examples of racism if they didn't come from a society full of weak examples?

 

[Nemmerle]

Having read that, I don't doubt for a second that you are/were a hiring manager. I totally understand your line of thinking, and it is one of the major reasons why I was so miserable in the U.S. Air Force. As with both college->working profession and basic training/tech school->duty station, the first thing everyone told me is "forget everything you learned, it's worthless".

I the Air Force, I was routinely told to violate the rules drilled into my head since being a depper. "Cover your ass" and "get it done before the deadline" were not mutually exclusive, and "get it done before the deadline" almost always took priority over doing things by the book. Shortcuts were made, tools were improvised, and steps were glossed over with little concern.

The first industrial accident that happened, the Airman First Class who simply acclimated to these demands was blamed.

I never accepted these things, and always followed the Technical Orders like religious scripture. Everyone hated working with me, and I didn't find out until later that the reason why wasn't only because I was slow and inefficient, but because I couldn't be shit-canned for agreeing to these practices along with everyone else if they were ever dragged into light.

Standing on principles is NEVER beneficial for the person doing them, regardless of whether those principles deviate from job demands or insist on them. I'm currently in the stage of figuring out just how this understanding fits into the social work profession.

... Hmm, you're kinda right there. Taking a stand on principle is thought of poorly, and there are certain reasons for that. Lots of people will take a stand on principle only once everything's gone to crap. They'll get annoyed enough at the situation that they finally say something - and they're not too happy when they do so, and taking a stand on principle does involve certain costs anyway... and so, consequently, the result is less than might be hoped for.

But living a life of principle is, I think, what saves you. Not in some abstract moral sense but in a pragmatic sense. It can make life a heck of a lot easier.

For example, imagine if you had a principle that went, "I'm not going to have a discussion with anyone who shouts at me."

You don't need to be hostile about it, but just imagine, whenever someone starts shouting at you:

"Okay, I'm not going to have a discussion with you when you're shouting at me, I don't think that's going to let us come to a good agreement. We'll have to pick this up later. Bye."

And you turn away from them and walk away, if they try to call you back you just wave over your shoulder, as if you've seen someone in the distance.

Is that the only way to handle people who shout at you? No, there are ways to try to de-escalate it first. But if you've got something like that... it helps. IME they, usually, start to learn that the sort of behaviour they engage in does not get them what they want, you don't have all that bad-feeling of having a barney with them.

There are costs in the short-term. Yeah, you don't get to give them a piece of your mind, yeah they might get their feathers a bit ruffled. However, the trend is good, and if you practice it consistently it doesn't need to be some big shout-y confrontation where you take a stand. It can be some light, ?Hey, dude, this isn't working out right now. Catch you later and we can pick it up then.?

And that's a principle.

Making this specific to your question - which I'll try to summarise - I think was more or less:

-------------
How do I reconcile the social theory of my college and the rules of my professional organisation surrounding protected characteristics?
-------------

What does your professional organisation require you to do?

4.02 Discrimination

Social workers should not practice, condone, facilitate, or collaborate with any form of discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, marital status, political belief, religion, immigration status, or mental or physical disability.

Now the first thing to pick up there is that it's all negative. 'Should not.' Well, phrased in a principle that's fairly easy

'I will not'

What're you doing as a social worker? Well, most of it's going to be talking

'I will not discuss'

And there are a set of characteristics there that are protected

'I will not discuss protected characteristics'

You'll have to sometimes because those characteristics can reflect what options are open to someone and how likely they are to select them.

'I will not discuss protected characteristics other than as they are factually relevant to the case'

How might you implement that?

"These fucking polish people coming in and take all our warehouse jobs. Fuckers live fifteen to a flat, that's why no-one can make a fucking living. Cunts."

I might pause for a bit here and if they stop on the first offence, so to speak, just go on with my earlier point... but on the assumption they're about to launch into something at greater length:

"Okay sir, I'm not going to discuss that with you. This is a professional relationship and I'm interested in what you and I can do together to help with..."

And then you move on with the conversation so they can't start it up again. You don't have to be rude about it, you don't have to make a big song and dance out of it. Indeed, the more casual you can make the statement the better - it's almost an idle 'Hey, not gonna get into that.'

Does it have short-term costs? Sure, no doubt about it. (So, quite frankly, would trying to change their mind - and I don't much fancy your chances of that.)

But you haven't practised discrimination, you haven't condoned it, you haven't facilitated it, you haven't collaborated with it. You've just said, 'Hey, I'm not gonna talk about that. Let's get on with what we're here for.' (And in all honesty getting on with what you're there for will rapidly become your primary concern anyway - you simply won't have time to listen to racist rant #57 of the week.)

Does it conflict with what your college's social theory test suggests? No, not really. Not by the terms of the test at least (there might be a huge gotcha lurking somewhere in the rest of the dross - I've better things to do with my afternoon than read it.) To be a non-racist white America you need to:

Understand the self as a racial/cultural being

Be aware of socio-political influences regarding racism

Appreciate racial/cultural diversity

Become more committed to eradicating oppression

The only one of those that might be relevant in that situation is #4. And that's not an infinite duty. Being more committed to eradicating oppression does not require that you fight that particular fight in every instance in every context regardless of whether it can be won and regardless of the profit of doing so. - (And even then it only applies if you agree with the IAP system. Just because it's in a test doesn't mean you have to internalise it.)

Even under an interpretation that you are required to eradicate oppression in a practice setting, as an absolute and even with respect to clients, the principle would cover you there to a degree. If someone learns that their behaviour doesn't work, perhaps even works against them getting what they want... that's all to the good on that point.

I wouldn't phrase it this way usually, but if you shut someone down when they start their racist rants and don't drop them after a short span of time without your offering them a positive response, that meets point 4.

I somewhat take back what I said in the prior paragraph: yes, I was insistent about following procedures, but I did so because I took them absolutely seriously and absolutely literally. In this regard, I was wholly unconcerned about other issues, relevant or not. Based on some of what I've said in this thread, particularly my earlier posts which you quote, I can see why you think I'd be the kind of employee who'd obstinately stand on principles and "not leave [my] politics at the door"; in a kind of backwards way, I would be. For example, The NASW Code of Ethics's 4th set of ethical standards includes prohibiting the use of discrimination in a practice setting:

4.02 Discrimination

Social workers should not practice, condone, facilitate, or collaborate with any form of discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, marital status, political belief, religion, immigration status, or mental or physical disability.

In this regard, I am taught not to discriminate against my clients based on a number of individual factors, most of which are ascribed human traits.

If, then, I go back and look at the models of identity development mentioned earlier, how exactly am I supposed to refrain from practicing discrimination in a practice setting if I am being taught that my white clients are racist? Would it be discrimination to presume that they are somewhere within the earlier stages of those identity development models (e.g. racist), and tailor my approach around circumventing or supplanting negative beliefs I presume them to have?

There's a couple of things there, one of which is that you shouldn't swallow every bit of dross someone tries to teach you. It's a kinda no shit statement, but you're free not to believe something that's in a test.

The larger one is that if you treat people differently based on your perception of their mind-state, that's going to mess you up on a bunch of issues, not just this one. You can't see inside someone else's head. You can only see and address behaviours and the results thereof.

Now you might have a guess at what's going on inside someone's head. That's fine. Just recognise you don't know. If your guess predicts behaviours that you don't like, then you can pick them up on them when the behaviour occurs. In the given case by moving the conversation onto something else.

But you're not their priest, you're not their counsellor, you're not their conscience.

That's not the job, (thank god.)

I see how these things are supposed to piece together, and I see how they are supposed to reinforce each other; social worker professionals are encouraged to refer to these concepts when taking an approach and making decisions, but at what point does a contradiction in them inevitably lead me to perform some kind of violation of principle? Hell, even acknowledging that models of identity development include negative preconceptions about certain identities could technically fall under the violation of "condoning a form of discrimination on the basis of race" in a professional environment.

Everyone tells me that I frequently overthink these kinds of things. I think everyone who tells me this has never been in a situation where they needed a lawyer.

Nah, I don't think you're overthinking it. I think you might lack the basis of experience to draw accurate conclusions.

At the bare minimum you need not to break the law, you need to meet the professional rules to be reasonably sure of not getting fired, (though in all honesty it's not hard to fire someone if you really wanted to regardless of whether they follow the rules or not.) But how you work around that, what principles you create for yourself, and what you choose to believe, is to a large extent your business. If you're talking about behaviours in your cases when you're making a decision, if you've got the documentation to back yourself up, that's a very hard thing for anyone to disagree with.

Ironically, if you're talking about the sort of identity development stuff in IAP, that'd be easy to disagree with - at least in organisations I've worked with (other side of the pond and all.) I can imagine a review meeting where someone brought that sort of stuff up to justify their decisions.

'I did this to make him less racist.'

'Okay, how do you know he was racist and why is it relevant to the case?'

'Well, he was white and poorly educated. IAP implies that he's not high on the non-racist development.'

I might not pick you up on it there and then, because that sort of feedback's a bad thing to do in public. But at the other end:

"Hey, can I give you some feedback?" (In other news I love manager tools, so useful for so many years ^_^) "When you justify your decisions with something that you've assumed about their state of mind, rather than behaviours that we can point to, it exposes the entire organisation to legal risk and makes me doubt the basis of your decisions. Can you change that next time?"

This is where I get confused about a social worker's priorities. As far as ethical quandaries go, social work is a goddamn minefield when these priorities overlap or conflict. On one hand, an empirical approach to solving a client's problem is easily backed up with research or policy; on the other hand, everything I'm being taught tells me to value and consider less-demonstrable factors stacked against my clients. The more I have to cover my ass, the less effectively I can do my job, and the better I do my job in this particular way, the worse I'll be at covering the already difficult task of retaining a humanist attitude as a public servant for those already mistreated by every other system.

Unless I really am overthinking it at this point. Like the military though, I'm being told that so long as I justify my behavior/approach to the NASW Code of Ethics, I'll be fine. Here's to hoping it's true, in this case.

It's fine to consider those other things, but what's going to make a difference is whether you can apply those to your clients. I mean say it's true that group X gets poorer attainment at school because of a less stable home life - on average. How does that change how you're going to behave towards them vs someone who hasn't been so affected?

You've gotta listen to them, you've gotta take their expressed preferences into account - it doesn't really matter what the basis of that preference is once it's there, but you need to account for it. When they don't manifest a required behaviour you've got to have a conversation with them to make some attempt at finding out why and see whether there's any behaviour you can encourage to address that.

Will you phrase some things differently based on knowledge about someone's background? Sure, you might hedge differently. Might you offer a reassurance somewhere that you wouldn't otherwise? Yeah, maybe.

But unless you can tell me how it's going to make a difference to your clinical decisions 'value and consider' verges on being fluff.

Yeah, again, this sounds like an attempt at reassuring me I shouldn't take every aspect as seriously as I do. According to both you AND my time in the service, you're probably right - unless I change the way I think, I'm going to end up nearly suicidal after 3 years.

You should totally take those aspects seriously. Think seriously about it, decide whether you accept or reject it, decide how if at all it reflects your principles. And decide how you're going to accommodate that - if you have to do so at all.

Wandering into it blindly isn't going to do you any favours.

You can't take everything seriously all at the same time though. You'll just break. Once you have tools that allow you to deal with general situations, you can start applying those tools to address other problems - so it's usually a good idea to start there first.

I agree that that is the reality of my situation, and the better I come to terms with it, the better off I'll be.

Or if the tests upset you that much? Well, chances are this is not the field for you.

Nah, the test question doesn't undermine my determination to be a social worker - now, I'm convinced the biggest threat to that is the proposed state of mind necessary for me to succeed.

Heh. Will you do things from time to time you don't approve of or agree with? Probably. That's part of being part of any organisation. It doesn't have to cost you your soul though. Taking something seriously, perhaps making some functional adjustments to that, and just accepting it as gospel are two entirely different things.

I mean heck, one of my professional principles is just 'Boss's decision wins on any issue you're not at peace with being fired over.'

Not his or her opinion mind you, it's fine to disagree professionally. But once a decision has clearly been come to, the discussion is over. All the professionals are on board with it - whether they agree with it or not.

If my boss keeps on making bad calls it's demoralising - I'm not saying it isn't. That's probably a good sign to go find a more competent boss, or a different industry if it keeps on being demoralising across several. But at least for myself, it's when you can't stand there and say 'I followed a principle that made sense to me in terms of its overall effect on my life and the situations I want to be part of, in the same situation I'd do the same thing again because that's what the principle says makes sense.' That you're really in trouble.

 

[Mad World]

I'd say I'm open to the possibility of Affirmative Action in certain cases, just to test and figure things out.

For instance, if you have a primarily African-American community, I want to see if hiring primarily African-American police officers will reduce police brutality.

If it does, then the police brutality thing is strongly indicated to be a racial issue. If not, then the police brutality thing is strongly indicated to be an institutional issue, but not necessarily a racially based one.

(I'd lean towards the latter in my hypothesis, because I have a feeling that the police force either attracts psychopaths, creates them, or some mixture of the two).

I'd be a little bit reticent to hire those officers from within the same community they're policing, however; while that level of familiarity might also reduce brutality cases, it might also increase police corruption.

Yes - that may be the one exception I'd entertain; however, at least where I live, they don't really seem to utilize it in that way. In other words, they may as well not hire through an employment-equity mindset.