Liberal vs. Conserative MSW Programs

[CJMSW]

As I've been searching for the best MSW program fit for me I've made an observation that many MSW programs are heavily "liberal" in their focus. Literally all of the Grad schools in my state that offer the degree have an extreme emphasis on LGBT issues, disproportionately so. The school I attended for undergrad had many students drop out of the BSW program due to the fact that the overwhelming majority of the projects/research studies/presentations dealt with transgender/bisexual topics rather than topics of child welfare/addictions/ trauma/homelessness/relationships etc. Is this the way it is in the majority of MSW programs across the board?   I want to get a well balanced education that includes all issues not one with a heavy emphasis on sexuality geared issues, especially because the road of Social Work I'm wanting to go down will not be dealing with that population the majority of the time as compared to any other population.

Does anyone have a list of MSW programs from both ends? (The super liberal and super conservative)

[TheCrow]

I think it's unfair to equate extreme focus on LGBT issues with liberalism per se. I'm sure there are many liberal schools that provide a well-balanced education. I'm only a prospective applicant, but my anecdotal experience is that the higher ranked a school is, the more likely it is to be liberal. Conservative schools are more likely to be religiously affiliated (e.g., Asbury University).

[runaway]

All of the issues you just mentioned are completely intertwined, particularly LGBT youth and homelessness. If you've never encountered the term 'intersectionality,' I suggest you look it up. How much are you making assumptions based on the presence of a gender studies component in these programs?

[CJMSW]

I know that there is an extremely high rate of homelessness among members of the LGBT youth community sadly. I should have been more specific I suppose. The schools in my area put a heavy focus on the T part of the LGBT. The  majority of people out there are not transgender and I doubt that 40% of the cases I take on will be dealing with that specific demographic which is why I am put off by the fact that nearly 50% of the coursework involved in the 3 out of 4 MSW programs near me focus so heavily on that demographic. I want a well-rounded education that focuses on the demographics we will work with in proportion. Hope that makes sense.

[michiganmsw]

I am a current student at Michigan and I can tell you it is an incredibly politically liberal program. LGBTQ issues come up a lot, but are not a heavy emphasis (although course evaluations ask if they are addressed for every course, but not many other issues). 

 

But, it is very politically liberal. I am conservative, though I do not share that because conservatives are actively mocked in class. Seriously, professors will lead discussions which call conservatives "the enemy" and make fun of anyone with those beliefs. Students say no social worker could possibly be conservative. I am very sad that this program that is supposedly focused on equality and social justice spends so much energy opposing 1/2 the population. I am sad to feel this oppression every day in class where I cannot share my beliefs or opinions. It is hindering my education. 

 

 

One of my textbooks has the following quotes introducing their chapter on conservatives: 

• "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in philosophy, that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
• "Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives"

 

That second quote blows my mind that it is in a textbook. If any other group was substituted for "Conservative" such as - African Americas, Homosexuals, Jews, Mentally Retarded people, the poor -  it would be completely unacceptable. Why is it ok to be so blatantly biased and oppressive of one political party? And coming from the social work field which claims to help everyone, accept everyone, care for everyone. 

 

I am very, very sad about this. There are student organization in support of so many people groups, there are students who want to go help people stuck in sex trafficking, they want to help communities in Africa get clean water, they want to make sure children get a good education --- but they're going to insult their our classmates for political beliefs along the way. They won't insult my gender, my sexual orientation or my race --- that would be wrong. But insulting my political beliefs is not only acceptable --- it's ENCOURAGED as evidenced by one of my professors who came out and blamed all the problems in our country on "a certain party" as she phrased it. 

 

[ohgoodness]

Anyone can feel free to respond to this question, and especially michiganmsw:  What is it about political platforms of the two main parties that would believe people to think that one is a better fit for social work than the other?  What are the counterarguments?  

 

lols

Edited February 3, 2013 by ohgoodness

[michigan girl]

I think it is important to remember that the current Republican party is nothing like the party of Lincoln in the nineteenth century. The party of Lincoln would resemble the modern Democratic party.

 

The current Republican party is both neoliberal and neoconservative. Their agenda is twofold: make the big corporations richer and expand the American empire overseas through military force. Although I consider myself a moderate (I oppose abortion and gay marriage), I would never support the current Republican party because the top leaders are anti-poor, anti-middle class, anti-civil rights, and thus anti-American. No gubernatorial or presidential candidate is perfect on every issue. I believe historically marginalized groups, such as African-Americans (who can be conservative on some social issues), realized a long time ago that it is more important to vote for the candidate who supports an anti-discrimination and pro-social welfare platform. In the 2012 election, the Republican leaders revealed their true colors by doing everything they could to pass voter disenfranchisement laws. Their goal was to retake the White House with a new president who would represent corporate and military interests.  A president (and governor) should care for the welfare of its citizens, not the (greedy) interests of the top 1%. 

 

I think many "conservatives" who were disappointed with Obama's re-election need to wake up and realize that they need to vote with their economic needs in mind. The Great Recession, which was started by private financial institutions who deliberated engaged in risky lending, affected everyone regardless of race, geography, and so forth. I voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012 because he represents hope, change, and a bright future for America. I truly believe that this country can return to a liberal democratic model of social progress and equal opportunity.

Edited February 4, 2013 by michigan girl

[MSDubbs]

All of the issues you just mentioned are completely intertwined, particularly LGBT youth and homelessness. If you've never encountered the term 'intersectionality,' I suggest you look it up. How much are you making assumptions based on the presence of a gender studies component in these programs?

+1

 

Holy cow. It is completely inaccurate to say that LGBT issues are "disproportionately" taught in any MSW program, or any program without an explicitly queer theory foundation. The anecdotes I have heard, and through looking through academic materials, typically point to a struggle to have the issues of some of the most marginalized members of our society even addressed in these programs. That's how it works. I'm sorry to say this, but I believe that if you are not willing to work with LGBT people (who, by the way, also make up the populations you are interested in working with...homeless youth, domestic violence survivors...) you should rethink entering this profession at all. It is hateful and perpetuates the marginalization of populations, and I firmly believe social work is designed to counteract these exact structures.

 

If you feel 'singled out' as someone who is conservative, I challenge you to examine your privilege.

[citychild]

I'm too lazy to quote. This thread is almost completely disheartening. As someone who identifies as LGBTQ, and as someone who did her honors thesis on social service disparities in the LGBTQ community, I cannot believe some of the words I am reading.

Personally, if you are happy and getting the education you need and deserve, I am not one to judge if it is liberal or conservative. For me, I am currently at a large institution in a conservative state and feel unchallenged and not terribly optimistic about my job prospects after graduating. Which is why I chose to not apply locally for graduate school.

My decision was probably based more on the state-wide issues rather than the issues I have at my university.

I could say a lot more, but I'll close there.

Edited February 5, 2013 by citychild

[talkinlikeateen]

Anyone can feel free to respond to this question, and especially michiganmsw:  What is it about political platforms of the two main parties that would lead anyone to believe that one is a better fit for social work than the other?  What are the counterarguments?  

 

Hm.  Well, while I don't believe it's acceptable to mock or ridicule students for their politics by any means, I'm definitely in the mindset that you really can't be in this profession and be Republican in this day and age.  Social Work is a profession about justice and equality, especially when it comes to oppressed minorities, yet the current Republican party is all about who is "more deserving" of help and rights.  I'm sorry, I fail to see how any social worker who doesn't share the view that HUMAN BEINGS, regardless of race/gender/ethnicity/class, deserve equal rights and privileges can possibly advocate for a diverse population of clients.  I just don't feel you can pick and choose who you're going to do your job for and to what extent in this profession and succeed.

[AVRowan_MSW]

I seriously doubt opposition to gay marriage and abortion can ever be congruent with social work values. Sorry, I said it. 

 

In my undergrad there was a large emphasis on aboriginal issues. Where I live now has far less folks of aboriginal descent, but that doesn't make anything I've learned less useful. I think the fact that you believe 40% of the curriculum to be dedicated to LGBT issues just means you have a lot more to learn.  

[lola9900]

socialworkphd, don't know if you are still reading these boards, but you are awesome   I wish I knew where you teach because I would apply there in a heartbeat.  Thank you for calling this person out!

[lola9900]

Citychild, not sure if you are reading these posts any more, but I would be interested to hear where you ended up.  I lived in Phoenix for nearly 8 years (even more conservative than Tucson); I'm temporarily in MI. I found very little community there....awful.  I am applying to MSW programs in hopes of getting out of there and moving to a more progressive area of the country.  I hope you made it out of there; totally get why you didn't stay for your master's.

[TeacherJeff]

Good afternoon from the Land of Smiles aka Thailand.   

 

I briefly saw this thread right before the Christmas break and I was thinking about how to best respond to the question that socialworkphd asked and to ask for guidance, of sorts,  and if a MSW program would be suitable for me once I return.    My godmother, an associate professor at UPENN, was surprised about how conservative I have become while half way around the world and advised me that continuing my social work education and/or career was perhaps not in my best interest. 

 

To begin with I am....shhhhhh.....a Tea Party Conservative.   Run, run to the hills, or the mountainside!   There's a bigoted, racist, homophobe, and I want no part of his mad rambling. ahhhhhhhh!!!!!!   Oh, you are still here?   Whew!  I am relieved.   For a second I thought that you might have had a mental breakdown.    

 

For starters, I am 34 years old and I have taught in Thailand for the past six years.   I am happily married to a wonderful Filipino wife and we have decided that the time for us to move to America is now.    We are currently in the midst of applying for her IR-1 (Immediate relative) visa which will grant her a green card upon arrival to the states.   

.

I graduated from Walla Walla University with a BSW degree back in 2005.   The reason why I initially got into social work was my unique back ground.   The first six years of my life I lived with my mentally challenged mother and often we spent days at end homeless.   March of 1986 the state came and took me away.   For the next 12 years I was a ward of the court.   I grew up in 40-50 different placements ranging from mental hospitals, Juvenile detention centers, institutionalized group homes, to foster homes.    Every type of abuse you can put and adjective in front of I have endured many times over.  I could easily go on to the point where there would be scarcely a dry eye on these forums but I refuse the mantle of victim-hood.       I remember the promise that I made to myself as I left my last group home:  never again.   

 

When I aged out of the system I had less than 1 year of high school education.  I initially went to Job Corps to obtain my GED and then onward to college.   During my sophomore-junior year (roughly around 2002-2003) I made contact with one of the leading advocates of foster children on the national level at that time:  House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and we briefly worked together.  His senior policy advisor became the godmother that I mentioned above.  

In a nutshell,  I would like to work with youth who are currently in the system and to craft policy reforms which I think is sorely needed for our broken and dysfunctional foster care system though I am uncertain that my strong political leanings would make a hostile work environment for my collogues.   

 

 

What is it about political platforms of the two main parties that would lead anyone to believe that one is a better fit for social work than the other?  What are the counterarguments?

 

 

I would totally expect this to be a question that a professor to ask..   It’s simple yet it requires a lot of thought.   I could easily write a 3000 word essay about this issue starting from how the Republican Party broke away from the Whigs in the 1840s to 1850s until the present with the Tea Party breaking away from the Republican Party.  

 

Generally speaking there are two forces at work in our political landscape.   Empowerment and dependency / liberty and tyranny.   From a conservative point of view you empower people by allowing them to live life as they see fit free from the ever intrusive regulations set forth by the federal government.    Yet the Democrat Party would like to enslave as many as possible through welfare and through dependency.  

 

Under our Constition we are guaranteed life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.   This includes the right to own and carry guns (gasp!), and the free exercise of religion.  Sadly our government has compromised all of these.   Abortion (yes, I know I will get in trouble for saying this) takes away of life.    Planned parenthood, was started by  Margaret Sanger who believed in Malthusian Eugenics or more specifically, killing black babies.    She worked hand in hand with the KKK.   The ACA (ie Obamacare) takes away our liberty to choose. Many have lost their pursuit of happiness (ownership of property) through excessive taxation or through EPA regulations. 

 

Jeff

[TeacherJeff]

I suspect that those quotes are starts for discussion points- in context, these are both quotes from famous economists ( John Kenneth Galbraith and John Stewart Mill respectively) and they do provide frames to consider economic debates- I would imagine that some other framing, and perhaps dissenting opinions, were offered after these quotes.

 

 

While I was taking my BSW I received a healthy dosage of Galbraith and Mill.   Why are econmists, such as Hayak and Friedman and philosophers such as de Tocqueville and Burke are often ignored?   

 

Hm.  Well, while I don't believe it's acceptable to mock or ridicule students for their politics by any means, I'm definitely in the mindset that you really can't be in this profession and be Republican in this day and age.  Social Work is a profession about justice and equality, especially when it comes to oppressed minorities, yet the current Republican party is all about who is "more deserving" of help and rights.  I'm sorry, I fail to see how any social worker who doesn't share the view that HUMAN BEINGS, regardless of race/gender/ethnicity/class, deserve equal rights and privileges can possibly advocate for a diverse population of clients.  I just don't feel you can pick and choose who you're going to do your job for and to what extent in this profession and succeed.

 

While I was in University i was taught that I should constantly evaluate myself and know what my strengths and my weaknesses were.  Even then I knew that there were certain populations that I would not be able to work with due to my strong political leanings.  I could never in good conscious advocate for groups such as Planned Parenthood or the LGBT community.   I feel that I need to call you out for your total mischaracterization of the GOP and strongly encourage you to rethink what "justice" and "equality" is all about. 

 

According to the Gallap Poll, 40% of the public consider themelves as "conservative" wheras 20% consider themselves as "liberals".   Please, tell, how are you ever going to advocate for such a large group of people?  

[jarenolds]

What better first post for me to respond to than this. It sounds like you have some pretty complicated views, some of which like abortion are rather useless to debate. I hope you've realized in your six years living abroad that the world is a complicated place where people can do good things while having some questionable views. I'm sure that as a tea party guy you wouldn't suggest that the constitution should be null and void simply because 1/4 of the signers thought it was OK for them to have ownership of other humans. 

 

Your favorite economists have far from a clean slate, they were more than willing to look the other way on human rights abuses as long as economies were being liberalized. Since you provided a few definitions Ill give you the one that I found for social work: work carried out by trained personnel with the aim of alleviating the conditions of those in need of help or welfare. I wonder if that is why you find that conservative ideals aren't being represented in an MSW or your BSW program. Your idea is that the best way to provide someone with help is to not provide them with help, that through this they will learn a far great lesson. I wonder where that has worked and how close that really comes to the definition of social work above. This is what was continually preached by the likes of Hayak and Friedman and I have historically seen very few successes.

 

I think to suggest that there are only two competing interests at work in our political landscape is a large simplification of how the world works. I am of the opinion that there are a number of ways to empower people and I'm not sure that I believe that dependency is the opposite of that. There are ways that we can empower people through education, economic assistance during rough times, creating a more equal and just society, or just talking to someone when they are seeking help. If these things carry a negative connotation to you and are seen as encouraging dependency than I wonder if social work is really the field for you.

 

I'm not sure why you would need an MSW for what you want to do, you just believe that there shouldn't be services. I look forward to working in social work so that I can continue to learn how to better help those in need. I realize that our government has its bureaucratic flaws and that services currently offered are far from perfect but we can better serve people by working towards improving these as opposed to just not having them.

 

As my last political point, it seems that many of your comments are more tea party rhetoric mixed with some philosophical beliefs as opposed to actual political issues. The idea that people are actually not happy because the EPA is providing environmental regulation or that affordable healthcare takes away choice is pretty out there.

[VioletAyame]

Generally speaking there are two forces at work in our political landscape.   Empowerment and dependency / liberty and tyranny.   From a conservative point of view you empower people by allowing them to live life as they see fit free from the ever intrusive regulations set forth by the federal government.    Yet the Democrat Party would like to enslave as many as possible through welfare and through dependency.  

 

Under our Constition we are guaranteed life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.   This includes the right to own and carry guns (gasp!), and the free exercise of religion.  Sadly our government has compromised all of these.   Abortion (yes, I know I will get in trouble for saying this) takes away of life.    Planned parenthood, was started by  Margaret Sanger who believed in Malthusian Eugenics or more specifically, killing black babies.    She worked hand in hand with the KKK.   The ACA (ie Obamacare) takes away our liberty to choose. Many have lost their pursuit of happiness (ownership of property) through excessive taxation or through EPA regulations. 

 

Jeff

 

Your response lost most of its credibility for me when you used the word "enslave". From then on it started to sound like hyperbole rhetoric that pundits and politicians throw at each other without any regard to actual problems and policies. Do you seriously think that you paying more taxes or having to comply to a law you don't like can be equated to slavery? Do you know what he difference is? You have representation with taxation and most of all, nobody's owning you or anyone else. You're welcome to leave if you like. The ACA, and every other law that has been passed under this administration, the same as under the last administration, was passed with both democratically-elected Houses of Congress, signed by the president, and in the ACA case, affirmed by the Supreme Court. Every due process has been followed through. One side won and one side lost - that's just the way it works. You can say that it's a stupid law, that it's unfair, that it's destroying this country - they're all acceptable - but not that it's unconstitutional or it's tyrannical or enslaving anyone. "Hot" words like those are used to evoke emotions, to push buttons in people without meaning pretty much anything and some are very insensitive to the experience of a large part of a population. 

 

Like the poster above, I don't want to get into a debate about abortion, but I just want to point out that you fail to call for protection the liberty of the mother. It's a very nuanced subject and IMHO it's a balancing act between the right of liberty for the mother and that of life for the baby. That's what makes it an extremely tough issue and I think choosing to argue ideology instead of policy would not help solve it.

 

Other things are harder to make a case for, like gay marriage, which I don't see how it can infringe on anyone's right. One can absolutely be fiscally or economically conservative, but I get how being socially conservative can be incongruent with social work.

[MJL34]

I thought several times about joining this thread, because I didn't want to add fuel to a potentially devisive fire on a forum that I generally find quite supportive and informative. However, I feel the need to respond directly to the following quote:

 

While I was in University i was taught that I should constantly evaluate myself and know what my strengths and my weaknesses were.  Even then I knew that there were certain populations that I would not be able to work with due to my strong political leanings.  I could never in good conscious advocate for groups such as Planned Parenthood or the LGBT community.

 

I couldn't disagree more with that sentiment. An emergency room doctor doesn't get to choose the patients they treat; a public defender can't turn down a client based on ideology; and, likewise, I strongly believe that Social Workers have an obligation to assist ALL individuals in need -- not just those whose politics or personal beliefs we agree with. The foundations of every accredited MSW program include a comittment to diversity and social justice. Jeff, are you suggesting that it would be okay for an LCSW to say they "couldn't in good conscious advocate" for Latinos or African Americans or disabled individuals or any other underserved group based on the social worker's personal beliefs? Or do you consider the LGBT community a different "class"? I just don't understand how to reconcile those views with the core values of the work we do.

 

With regard to the broader discussion of this thread, I believe if "socially conservative" is viewed from the perspective of trying to make programs more efficient and less wasteful -- absoulutely, I'm all for it -- however, if one's social conservatism is based on denying services to those in need, then I agree with the previous poster -- that's not my understanding of what this profession is about.

Edited January 8, 2014 by MJL34

[TeacherJeff]

Your response lost most of its credibility for me when you used the word "enslave". From then on it started to sound like hyperbole rhetoric that pundits and politicians throw at each other without any regard to actual problems and policies. Do you seriously think that you paying more taxes or having to comply to a law you don't like can be equated to slavery? Do you know what he difference is? You have representation with taxation and most of all, nobody's owning you or anyone else. You're welcome to leave if you like. The ACA, and every other law that has been passed under this administration, the same as under the last administration, was passed with both democratically-elected Houses of Congress, signed by the president, and in the ACA case, affirmed by the Supreme Court. Every due process has been followed through. One side won and one side lost - that's just the way it works. You can say that it's a stupid law, that it's unfair, that it's destroying this country - they're all acceptable - but not that it's unconstitutional or it's tyrannical or enslaving anyone. "Hot" words like those are used to evoke emotions, to push buttons in people without meaning pretty much anything and some are very insensitive to the experience of a large part of a population. 

 

Like the poster above, I don't want to get into a debate about abortion, but I just want to point out that you fail to call for protection the liberty of the mother. It's a very nuanced subject and IMHO it's a balancing act between the right of liberty for the mother and that of life for the baby. That's what makes it an extremely tough issue and I think choosing to argue ideology instead of policy would not help solve it.

 

Other things are harder to make a case for, like gay marriage, which I don't see how it can infringe on anyone's right. One can absolutely be fiscally or economically conservative, but I get how being socially conservative can be incongruent with social work.

 

If we used your logic about the Supreme Court being the final arbitrator on social issues then slavery and racism would still be the law of the land (Scott vs Sanford / Plessy vs Ferguson / pace vs Alabama); internment of minorities because of their race (Korematso vs united states) would be considered ok in times of war; and gay sex would be illegal (Bowers vs Hardwick). Imagine, if you will, that congress passed a law completely forbidding abortion, even in the case of rape, and incest, and President Obama signs it into law.   The following month the Supreme Court upheld such a decision.   Would those who were fervent supports of the pro-choice movement pack up their bags and say amongst themselves that they lost the fight and it is now the law of the land? Hardly!   The choice of words that I used would probably pale in comparison to what they would employ in such a scenario.   Supreme Court Justices, as well as politicians, are imperfect beings, yet their decisions are hard, if not downright impossible, to undo.   Democracy is like two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch to paraphrase Benjamin Franklin.    Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting that vote

 

Politicians, as well as Social Workers,  often have good intentions.   Yet, these intentions often have devastating effects and unintended consequences.   Case in point:   my life story.   The state terminated the parental rights of my mother because she was deemed mentally incompetent to provide adequate care for me when I was six years old.  Yet, in one of the first group homes I went into, (from the ages of 7-9) I was repeatedly raped by older residents of the program.  Rhetorically speaking, was the state correct in the actions that they took?  

 

Now do not get me wrong.   In no way am I against CPS nor will I go into a self-righteous diatribe condemning social workers.    .    CPS social workers have one of the hardest jobs to do with little to no appreciation.   They are essentially in a no win situation:  damned if they and damned if they don’t.   (Please pardon my usage of profanity). Moreover, I well understand the situation foster children, especially those who are stuck in the system, face daily.   From my experience this knowledge is quite difficult to teach in a classroom sitting.  

 

Statistically speaking foster children who “age” out of the system are far more likely to enter prison than to attend university or end up among the homeless. . The one person who made a huge difference in my life was in fact one of my first cps worker.  27 years later we are still in contact and I consider her as a mother figure.    She fought her superiors over the placement in that one group home that I mentioned to the point that she nearly lost her job.   

 

BF (I will use her initials) taught me to always believe in myself and that no matter the circumstances, no matter the odds, I was the master of my own destiny.   I could be anything or anyone that I put my mind to be.   This was perhaps the greatest lesson that she ever taught me.   While I could list a huge laundry list of abuses that I endured while in the system the greatest challenge that I faced was after I turned 18 when I became my own man.  

 

As a white male I would not fit in any minority thus I was not entitled to any special privileges as an adult.   For this I am thankful.   I had to learn how to be a man on my own.   I view the world through the prism of self-reliance and self-responsibility.   Yes, I am thankful to the many people that I have met along the way and the encouragement and advice that they have rendered to me but ultimately (and this may sound sacrilegious to some) I am the master of my own destiny.

  

Everyone has his own cross to bear and I do not intend to imply that my struggle is greater than anyone else's. It is, only and completely, my struggle, one with which you probably are unable to identify with 100%.   Perhaps at the core of our humanness, we all share the same struggles or perhaps God has doled them out differently and purposefully. I am not nearly deep enough or curious enough to ask these kinds of questions. The best I can do is share my experiences and hope that somehow, some way, they provide a moment of comfort for someone who is struggling too.

[TeacherJeff]

Your favorite economists have far from a clean slate, they were more than willing to look the other way on human rights abuses as long as economies were being liberalized. Since you provided a few definitions Ill give you the one that I found for social work: work carried out by trained personnel with the aim of alleviating the conditions of those in need of help or welfare. I wonder if that is why you find that conservative ideals aren't being represented in an MSW or your BSW program. Your idea is that the best way to provide someone with help is to not provide them with help, that through this they will learn a far great lesson. I wonder where that has worked and how close that really comes to the definition of social work above. This is what was continually preached by the likes of Hayak and Friedman and I have historically seen very few successes.

 

 

A well-rounded education is one that explores all opinions and allows the student to make a decision for themselves instead of being molded in the image of their professor. Hayek and Friedman were economists in the 20th century who wrote extensively about capitalism and the free markets.   Don't get me wrong.  I am not advocating that BSW or MSW students have a thorough knowledge of concepts like Spontaneous Order but to have a general idea as to who these individuals are.  Burke and  de Tocqueville are not known as being economists but philosophers who had a strong influence upon our founding fathers.      How can we, as a people  and as a society plot, a course for our future if we do not fully comprehend our past? 

Edited January 8, 2014 by TeacherJeff

[TeacherJeff]

I thought several times about joining this thread, because I didn't want to add fuel to a potentially devisive fire on a forum that I generally find quite supportive and informative. However, I feel the need to respond directly to the following quote:

 

 

I couldn't disagree more with that sentiment. An emergency room doctor doesn't get to choose the patients they treat; a public defender can't turn down a client based on ideology; and, likewise, I strongly believe that Social Workers have an obligation to assist ALL individuals in need -- not just those whose politics or personal beliefs we agree with. The foundations of every accredited MSW program include a comittment to diversity and social justice. Jeff, are you suggesting that it would be okay for an LCSW to say they "couldn't in good conscious advocate" for Latinos or African Americans or disabled individuals or any other underserved group based on the social worker's personal beliefs? Or do you consider the LGBT community a different "class"? I just don't understand how to reconcile those views with the core values of the work we do.

 

With regard to the broader discussion of this thread, I believe if "socially conservative" is viewed from the perspective of trying to make programs more efficient and less wasteful -- absoulutely, I'm all for it -- however, if one's social conservatism is based on denying services to those in need, then I agree with the previous poster -- that's not my understanding of what this profession is about.

 

 

Without victims, there is no cause,

no wrongs to right.

Without a cause there is no struggle,

no battle in which to fight.

My fist I clench and raise on high,

all for what, I wonder why.

 

I don't know where I have heard this from so I am unable to give it proper attribution but this was what was ringing in my head as soon as I read  your reply.   Here is my answer.  

 

Going to the ER room usually means that you are visiting a generalist doctor.   If you are suffering from a specific alignment then you would go on to see a specialist. As I have maintained I would like to work with youth who are in the foster care system for the reasons I have stated prior to this post. Therefore, I would view myself more of a specialist who focuses on a group that I am passionate about.        Speaking as someone who has; African blood, Indian blood, middle eastern blood,, and European blood, I find it somewhat offensive that people desire to place each other into some sort of pre-defined subgroups.   Is that not the very meaning of racism or am I missing something?   Instead of "diversity" based on skin color why not diversity based on ideas?    As for the LBGT community I don't view them as a class or sub-group at all.  I view them as people with alternative life styles which I will never participate in.  Sexuality is a more open subject here in Thailand and I have had the privilege of making several gay friends.     In all honesty gays and lesbians are some of the most creative people that I have ever met.   I for one will not condemn them for the choices that they make as long as it does not affect my children or my family. 

 

edit:

 

I view myself more of a libertarian than a conservative.   Having said that I do not think that conservatives/libertarians pride themselves about denying service to those who most need it.   We do not sit around a table in the middle of the night plotting our next move to inflict as much pain as possible.  Rather, we see that our country on the edge of a societal collapse...hence the rise of the Tea Party.   We have 16 trillion dollars of national debt, 80-150 trillion dollars unfunded liabilities over the next 30 years to program like social security and Medicare, and 150-300 trillion unfunded liabilities at the state level.     Both mainstream parties are to blame.   The second biggest spender in history has been GWB.    The world's GDP for one year is around 60 trillion dollars.    How are we going to fix this problem?   Taxing the wealthy at 110% (those making 100,000 a year) would not make a dent into our debt.   We are currently caught up in the largest liquefy trap known to mankind.  The FED dares not tamper QE because they realize as soon as they do interest rates would sky rocket and the stock market would collapse.   Yet if they continue this insane money printing they would collapse the dollar.    Believe you me, the same type of austerity that countries like Greece, Portugal, and Ireland, have experienced is only the tip of the iceberg for what is in store for us.   Out of necessity we need to make deep and painful cuts at every level of government.   This includes, but not limited to, military benefits (sadly the military has largely became dependent upon the GOP), pensions, and to cut back on unneeded governmental programs.    We are staring at a financial abyss that is far bleaker than the Great Depression ever was. 

Edited January 8, 2014 by TeacherJeff

[jarenolds]

This is the last thing I will say in this topic. I have found this website to be incredibly helpful for answering grad school questions and this debate not so much. A small part of me wonders if you are just a tear partier with a bit too much time on your hands looking to debate people. My world view seems to be pretty different than yours. I find your view that the LGBTQ community is some form of "alternative lifestyle" as if it is something negative to be both disappointing and kind of disgusting. It's not the cold, you aren't going to catch it. I've usually found that when someone says something like "It's fine I have a gay friend or a black friend" in justification for their opinion it's probably not good. 

 

The supreme court is the final law of the land. They are generally more of a representation of popular opinion than they would like to admit and not the sole viewers of the pure intent of the constitution. Just because they rule doesn't mean we have to agree. If 75% of the population became pro-life my guess is they would decide that abortion is unconstitutional. 

 

I have plenty of friends that have similar political views to you and I generally find them to just be rather lazy. Most of what you say, once again, is just political philosophy and rhetoric. The idea that if everyone was just "free" everything would be OK gives you an excuse to not have to think about the complexities of individual issues and provides you with the ability to sum up a difficult world in a much simpler way.

 

To say that getting rid of the EPA, lowering taxes, or freeing people from the constraints of big government would attain some goal doesn't really mean anything. Recently I've been reading some things about affirmative action not being all it's cracked up to be. Those admitted to law schools above what their grades may have predicted are having more trouble in classes and dropping out at higher rates. They may have found more success had they attended a school that was a better match for them. (I'm not that informed on this, someone can shoot me down here) My views on this haven't potentially evolved because I think that if minorities were just more free everything would be OK, it was facts and research. If the goal is to create a more just and equal society where minority students have a better representation in higher education maybe there could be a better way of reaching such a goal.

 

If you think that the EPA should be shut down then I am open to that. You would have to explain to me how getting rid of such an organization would better meet the needs of the environment though. If you're going to start a career in social work with one liners about freedom and empowerment I don't really see what you're going to have to offer, that sounds a lot more like a career in politics. 

Edited January 8, 2014 by jarenolds

[TeacherJeff]

This is the last thing I will say in this topic. I have found this website to be incredibly helpful for answering grad school questions and this debate not so much. A small part of me wonders if you are just a tear  (hopefully this was an unintended typo on your part.    Jeff)  partier with a bit too much time on your hands looking to debate people. My world view seems to be pretty different than yours. I find your view that the LGBTQ community is some form of "alternative lifestyle" as if it is something negative to be both disappointing and kind of disgusting. It's not the cold, you aren't going to catch it. I've usually found that when someone says something like "It's fine I have a gay friend or a black friend" in justification for their opinion it's probably not good. 

 

 

You are correct on one thing:  I do indeed have alot of time on my hands.   This is my mini vacation before I relocate back to the states.   The very first vacation that I ever had in 6 years mind you.    As I have stated in my opening post I am exploring if continuing my social work education is in my best interest.   And to do that I decided to take on a challenge question that another user had posted.   You are free to reply to my post or to completely ignore me altogether.   That choice does belong to you.   I would strongly recommend that you develop some thicker skin and stop looking for insults when none were implied.    

 

*yawn*  good night

 

Jeff 

 

edit:

 

interesting that you decided to go off on several different tangents and not answer the one question that I specifically asked of you concerning economists.   I would like to know what you meant when you stated that Hayak and Friedman do not have a clean slate.   

Edited January 8, 2014 by TeacherJeff

[mswfrustration]

On 1/25/2013 at 11:13 AM, CJMSW said:

As I've been searching for the best MSW program fit for me I've made an observation that many MSW programs are heavily "liberal" in their focus. Literally all of the Grad schools in my state that offer the degree have an extreme emphasis on LGBT issues, disproportionately so. The school I attended for undergrad had many students drop out of the BSW program due to the fact that the overwhelming majority of the projects/research studies/presentations dealt with transgender/bisexual topics rather than topics of child welfare/addictions/ trauma/homelessness/relationships etc. Is this the way it is in the majority of MSW programs across the board?   I want to get a well balanced education that includes all issues not one with a heavy emphasis on sexuality geared issues, especially because the road of Social Work I'm wanting to go down will not be dealing with that population the majority of the time as compared to any other population.

Does anyone have a list of MSW programs from both ends? (The super liberal and super conservative)

I consider myself a paleo-conservative libertarian and I can totally empathize with your dilemma.  When you read replies that tell you that you are hateful and cliches like "check your privilege" I, like you, want to throw up.  You have to understand that cultural Marxism is the paradigm most MSW programs operate under and this tyranny is rampant in the SJW and is a completely unAmerican instrument of divide and conquer.  Most MSW students in their naivete and desire to be good little SJW stay on the reservation and challenge nothing they are taught.  This entire paradigm is EXACTLY the problem with the nation today.

My school is obsessed with racism and actually teaches the ridiculous idea that only white people can be racist and the white people are basically the problem with everything in the world.  It is disgusting and I routinely 'push back' against this at my own expense.  But f-it.  If I don't no one will and we will be sovietized in another generation.  At my school if you are not pro-gun control, a statist, believe in government coercion, that whites are inherently bad and that America is the worst country on earth then you are definitely in the minority.  They talk talk talk but they really don't do much more than that.  I had been going to Wayne State but when it came time for full time admission i was told that "one of the goals of social work is to help oppressed and vulnerable populations and since you are a member of the oppressor class I wouldn't get my hopes up if I were you."  So I bailed on that school.  I had a 4.0 after three grad classes and they said that.  Then I went to WMU, and helped to refound the MSWSO.  Our consititution for the organization calls for student officers to run the org.  I ran uncontested for the president position.  After the elections we had a secretary, treasurer and a vice president but was told that "it wouldnt look right to have a white male as the president of the organization."  Therefore the decision was made to operate the SO without a president in violation of our verbal and contractual agreements.  You see that's the problem with liberals the truth to them is their subjective truth.  They teach things even when the evidence says otherwise or leave out key pieces of evidence when it is unfavorable to their beliefs.

I am currently inquiring into my third School of Social Work because I am not going to spend big money to keep being taught over and over about fictions like white privilege and that white people are the only racists on the planet.  Not to mention the average student here has very poor scholarship and the academic standards are very low.

Wish me luck.  Oh, and to all the assholes who have something to say because they dont like what I am writing.  Check your heads, practice reflection and self correction and if you want to be communists go to China.  I intern at one place, volunteer at THREE other places.  I do street outreach and spend heavily of the resources that I personally have even thought it means being married and living in a 450 sq ft apartment.  The liberals are so sanctimonious it is laughable that just because they know the buzz words that they think they are doing anybody any good.   Go sit in anothe meeting and talk about it.  I will be out there actually practicing social work.

If you find a school of social work that actually is politically neutral, moderate and doesn't operate from the bully pulpit of Gramsci's cultural marxism please let me know.

 

[mswfrustration]

On 1/14/2014 at 11:11 PM, socialworkphd said:

Hi Jeff, I am glad my question was thought-provoking, and I wish you would have answered it. You have an interesting background which offers you a unique position in reflecting on policy and practice from personal experience. Sometimes personal experience helps us see the world more clearly and sometimes it blinds us.

 

I suspect that you will find that those invested in learning will do much less gasping than you imply and are willing to hear a reasoned debate. If you'd like to pursue graduate education of any sort, I'd encourage you to make less assumptions about the discrimination you will face in this environment (as a conservative white man) and work on better supporting your perspective, because I don't think the  information you offered was useful at persuading anyone to think more critically about the chasm between the political parties, and was thus ineffectual at supporting the idea that a "tea partier" could have views that align with social work values. If you feel strongly that nobody will listen to you because of what comes out of your mouth then perhaps that feeling will help you to consider the position people who are met with unkind personal assumptions because of the way that they were born.

 

I do wish you well in your studies, and I agree with you that it is important to assess for strengths and weaknesses, and to heed your godmother's counsel  (and other trusted folks, perhaps a social work faculty at a potential target school- someone who will ask you hard questions) about whether this is a good fit for you. I know you are interested in specializing in foster care advocacy, and there is a great need in that arena- LGBT youth (about 5-10% of the foster care population) are one of the most at-risk populations of foster children, of homelessness, abuse, and suicide.

 

I always have a conversation about fit  with students who express concern about their ability to work with a specific population based on their political/spiritual/personal beliefs, because it means something about their ability to separate professional from personal and assess whether they are meeting their own needs vs client's needs in their work. I suspect that those on this forum would work from a strengths-based perspective even with those who identify themselves as (gasp) a tea party conservative.   (Just trying to lighten the mood.)

 

You seem interested in politics, and maybe partisan political advocacy will be a better match for your goals?  

Best wishes.

 

 

 

bro they don't care about the facts - the facts are little inconveniences to be brushed over, laughed at or denied.  Go into social work we need more people grounded in the ideology of this country and not that of 1914 Russia.  Seriously.