About Academic Bias Against Evangelicals
I saw this in this morning's Post, and had an immediate reaction to it.
First ... this was a course in Social Work; as far as I can tell the letters were not going to be mailed to legislators; and the professor rescinded the assignment after several students complained. This woman, Emily Brooker, got a mediocre grade in the class and was called to an academic hearing on matters including tardiness and academic problems, and sued, claiming she was being punished for not cooperating on the letter assignment. The university quickly settled. Oh, also, the professor's career was not endangered; a subsequent review of the department found problems, but not with him.
But, besides that...
The National Association of Social Workers' Code of Ethics states:
You may or may not agree that that's a reasonable policy, but it is their policy, and if you're going into that field you will live by it. The professor had argued that her beliefs made her unsuited for a career in social work.
Anyway, The Post skips over the details, instead drawing on its talking-point potential.
You can read the rest of the article for the surveys and discussion. Yes, professors don't like evangelicals. Or Mormons.
I read this with interest, imagining what it would be like to be teaching students in psychology or the social sciences, and have an evangelical student in a class or seminar, say a CRC member. I could just picture it, and I can see what the problem is.
The problem is a simple one: they already know what they believe. What's the use of telling somebody something when they already know the answers?
The question gets raised as if there is simply a bias against evangelicals, but there's more to it than that, and I think it is important for the universities to figure this out before higher education goes down the toilet. A professor has a responsibility to maintain some standards. The standards for social work, in the salient example, are clearly spelled out in the ethical code. This student was majoring in social work, heading toward a career in the field, and it was pretty clear to faculty (not just this one guy) she would not be able to follow the ethical standard required by the profession.
This isn't grade school, or high school, it isn't MCPS. This is a university, granting degrees that certify people as being qualified to go into a professional field or continue into graduate study. A person who strongly adheres to a belief that some people in the community do not deserve equal treatment will not be qualified to be a social worker. You don't have to agree with it, that's just how the people in the field have defined the profession.
They try to make it sound like garden-variety discrimination, but it's not. Can you imagine having somebody like this in your Biology class, trying to teach them about evolution? They already know what they believe, they're not going to get it from some professor, and the really rude ones feel it's their job to save those around them, by stating the truth as they believe it to be. I'd object to that in my class. If you can't accept the premises of evolution, then just don't take Biology. That's easy. It wouldn't mean the professor was prejudiced against the religion, it just means somebody like that will not succeed in learning the required materials. And if the university is forced to pass them through the system anyway, a college degree will be meaningless.
Frank G. Kauffman was teaching a course in social work at Missouri State University in 2005 when he gave an assignment that sparked a lawsuit and nearly destroyed his academic career.
He asked his students to write letters urging state legislators to support adoptions by same-sex couples. Emily Brooker, then a junior majoring in social work, objected that the assignment violated her Christian beliefs. When she refused to sign her letter, she was hauled before a faculty panel on a charge of discriminating against gays.
The case has fueled accusations by conservative groups that secular university faculties are dominated by liberals who treat conservative students, particularly evangelical Christians, with intellectual condescension or worse. Is There Disdain For Evangelicals In the Classroom?
First ... this was a course in Social Work; as far as I can tell the letters were not going to be mailed to legislators; and the professor rescinded the assignment after several students complained. This woman, Emily Brooker, got a mediocre grade in the class and was called to an academic hearing on matters including tardiness and academic problems, and sued, claiming she was being punished for not cooperating on the letter assignment. The university quickly settled. Oh, also, the professor's career was not endangered; a subsequent review of the department found problems, but not with him.
But, besides that...
The National Association of Social Workers' Code of Ethics states:
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, age, marital status, political belief, religion, or mental or physical disability.
Social workers should act to prevent and eliminate domination of, exploitation of, and discrimination against any person, group, or class on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, color, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, political belief, religion, or mental or physical disability.
You may or may not agree that that's a reasonable policy, but it is their policy, and if you're going into that field you will live by it. The professor had argued that her beliefs made her unsuited for a career in social work.
Anyway, The Post skips over the details, instead drawing on its talking-point potential.
"On many campuses, if you're an evangelical Christian, you're going to have to go through classes in which you're told that much of what you believe religiously is not just wrong, but worthy of mockery," said David French, a lawyer with the Alliance Defense Fund, which sued Missouri State on Brooker's behalf.
Such accusations have been leveled for years at the Ivy League and other elite private universities. But they are gaining new attention from politicians and educators because of the Brooker case, which took place at a public school in the Bible Belt, and because of two recent, nationwide surveys of professors' views on religion.
You can read the rest of the article for the surveys and discussion. Yes, professors don't like evangelicals. Or Mormons.
I read this with interest, imagining what it would be like to be teaching students in psychology or the social sciences, and have an evangelical student in a class or seminar, say a CRC member. I could just picture it, and I can see what the problem is.
The problem is a simple one: they already know what they believe. What's the use of telling somebody something when they already know the answers?
The question gets raised as if there is simply a bias against evangelicals, but there's more to it than that, and I think it is important for the universities to figure this out before higher education goes down the toilet. A professor has a responsibility to maintain some standards. The standards for social work, in the salient example, are clearly spelled out in the ethical code. This student was majoring in social work, heading toward a career in the field, and it was pretty clear to faculty (not just this one guy) she would not be able to follow the ethical standard required by the profession.
This isn't grade school, or high school, it isn't MCPS. This is a university, granting degrees that certify people as being qualified to go into a professional field or continue into graduate study. A person who strongly adheres to a belief that some people in the community do not deserve equal treatment will not be qualified to be a social worker. You don't have to agree with it, that's just how the people in the field have defined the profession.
They try to make it sound like garden-variety discrimination, but it's not. Can you imagine having somebody like this in your Biology class, trying to teach them about evolution? They already know what they believe, they're not going to get it from some professor, and the really rude ones feel it's their job to save those around them, by stating the truth as they believe it to be. I'd object to that in my class. If you can't accept the premises of evolution, then just don't take Biology. That's easy. It wouldn't mean the professor was prejudiced against the religion, it just means somebody like that will not succeed in learning the required materials. And if the university is forced to pass them through the system anyway, a college degree will be meaningless.
23 Comments:
This is a very critical issue, Jim, and one I believe we need to take a stand on very soon.
A student is free to hold whatever beliefs she may have about evolution, but if she takes biology she needs to learn the material on evolution and understand it well enough to pass the course. She needn't believe it, but she better know it.
Scientists do this all the time, without too much cognitive dissonance. Jews, with the exception of radical extremists such as David Klinghoffer, can fully accept evolution while believing in the Jewish God. You just can't be a fundamentalist literalist and be a scientistunless you're good at compartmentalization.
As for social work, you have to abide by the profession's ethics. I suppose Christianist social workers could start their own organization with their own code of ethics which would include discrimination, something like the American College of Pediatrics (Christianist) mimicking the American Academy of Pediatrics (regular physicians. But there had better be full disclosure.
Dana, I agree it's a critical issue, but I don't think TTF can take a stand on evangelicals, exactly. If someone goes to an fundamentalist church, that's fine with me, I never thought to make a distinction, you have friends and neighbors and they have a religion and so what? But the idea that their religion should be the center of gravity for everybody else is not right.
There are two things here. One, is evangelical Christianity the one correct religion? I don't know, maybe it is. I don't think so, but you have to be God to know the answer to that one. A lot of comedians have made a buck off some variation on the joke about knockin' on heaven's door and seeing who answers it -- no mortal knows for sure who that will be. (I think it will be the Mystery Tramp, and that will be two Dylan allusions in one paragraph.) The second question is, should everybody in America modify the way they live to accommodate the fetishes that fascinate and frighten the evangelicals? That's an easy one. The answer is: No.
If evangelicals, Christianists as you call them, believe what they believe, hold their services, observe their traditions and prohibitions, then fine, I can't imagine that anybody is opposed to that. We can't take a stand on that, and I wouldn't bother to; it doesn't matter to me if they're right or wrong, and I trust them not to judge whether my guiding light is a good one or not, I'll struggle with that. But the freedom that America offers, to be what you can, to try things, to follow your heart, to see if you can do better -- everybody needs to protect that, every day. It's nothing against evangelicals.
JimK
I'm sorry if I impolied with "we" that TTF will need to take action. I meant the science community and its allies.
As for evangelicals, I don't mean them either when I use the term "Christianist." As I pointed out herre months ago, that term is used to describe radical Christians who are trying to impose their literalist beliefs politically. Most evangelicals do no such thing, and a large plurality of evangelicals happen to be moderate-liberal.
And, as we know, Christianists in MoCo appear to be primarily Mormon, and most other Christians don't even consider the Mormons Christian. Which is a battle for them, not for me.
Well said, Jim. People like this would have a valid complaint if someone was trying to prevent them from living their lives as they choose in a substantive way, but that isn't the case. It makes me furious that anyone thinks respect is due to the idea that people who aren't hurting anyone should be treated as less than equals.
As Timothy Kincaid said, people who are in the "not accepting" business can't complain about people not accepting their not accepting. Is the essence of any religion the rejection of gays? Is their religion so devoid of meaning and substance that it can't survive without the hatred of gays? Given the gay obsession of religionists one gets the unavoidable impression that the answer to those questions is "yes". How small and pathetic these people's religion has become.
Andrea-not anon
There is always Grove City, Liberty U and Regents U. I guess you get a degree and practice only among your own. Of course, there probably aren't that many positions open for people who want to teach biology but won't teach evolution or social workers who want to preach a specific path.
Andrea
A few years ago I took a class at the University of Maryland on the history of the Old Testament. The class took the books Joshua through 2 Kings and looked at that time period using the tools historians now have to examine the possibility of "literal truth" in these books. It was a really interesting class.
The professor was a devout conservative Jew and a noted Assyriologist (a specialist in Akkadian languages and the cultures that used them). He was a thorough academician and I admired him a great deal.
The fact is that the bible is a problematic historical document. It is very hard to test material presented in the Bible because often there are no other records (archeological or otherwise). Sometimes there are records that contradict the Bible. The books of the old testament are known by Bible scholars to have been re-combined and re-written numerous times over centuries. So this class that asked us to read these books (the version didn't matter so I read King James and the Revised Standard Version) and then come to class to review evidence as historians required some thoughfulness on our parts.
On the first day of class the professor told us that he had been teaching this class for several years. In every class he had some students who were not able to accept any questioning of the literal accuracy of the Bible. He always had some Orthodox or Fundamentalist students who tried to defend texts as written. "Don't try this," he told us. "It isn't going to do anything but disrupt the class and interfere with your classmates' learning. If you are looking for a class that proves the literal accuracy of the Bible you might want to transfer out of this one."
Sure enough it happened. One young woman just couldn't stand it when the professor pointed out that the notation that has been used to attribute many Psalms to David can be correctly translated to mean "by David" or "for David," as in his honor or on his behalf. She was adamant - she had her bible right there and was going to show him what it said. He calmly and quietly persisted and I don't think that she ever came back to class. Personally, being a history chick, I found that the books of the Old Testament that we studied have more meaning and power for me because of the scrutiny we gave them. Do I believe that they are literally true? Didn't and don't. But I think there is real truth there about how and why those people chose to band together and form a national identity.
I had a sociology class with a student who was at the top of the class until we began to look at religion as a human creation and social structure - he seemed to be falling apart trying to convince us that the authors of our text simply didn't understand what religion really is.
Someone is exercising bias against these young men and women, but it isn't the academic standards of the departments or the research and analytical standards of the fields. It is the indoctrination that requires them to deny that a given "fact" can be questioned, examined or reconsidered.
If you aren't willing to have your assumptions challenged, you really aren't ready for college or university, no matter how well you did in high school.
First ... this was a course in Social Work; as far as I can tell the letters were not going to be mailed to legislators; and the professor rescinded the assignment after several students complained. This woman, Emily Brooker, got a mediocre grade in the class and was called to an academic hearing on matters including tardiness and academic problems, and sued, claiming she was being punished for not cooperating on the letter assignment. The university quickly settled. Oh, also, the professor's career was not endangered; a subsequent review of the department found problems, but not with him.
What's your source for the facts in the above paragraph? I'm not doubting you, I just like being able to read the sources for claims like this.
Thanks!
Hope everyone sees in Jim's remarks, and his friends responses, where the gay agenda is now leading.
First, pressure professional organizations into issuing some statement agreeing to not discriminate against homosexuals.
Once this is accomplished, use these statements as justfication to force people to either assent to the homosexual world view or be excluded from any profession.
Either have a politically correct view or you can't be employed.
Does anyone see the beginning of a fascist movement?
What's your source for the facts in the above paragraph?
I read numerous articles about this situation, including in the local papers etc. Nothing has suggested that the professor intended to mail the letters to the legislature, and several writers suggested that he was not going to -- you notice I hedged my wording with "as far as I can tell," because I am not absolutely certain of that, but again nobody has said he was going to mail them. I don't think any of the other facts in the paragraph have been questioned -- all accounts agree.
These are interesting reactions to this one. I wouldn't want to be a professor and have someone in my class who thought they didn't have to listen because they knew everything already, and I wouldn't think it was right to encourage a student in a field they are bound to fail in because they are unable to accept the premises of the discipline -- it is really kind of unbelievable to see that anyone would confuse that academic position with ... fascism.
JimK
"These are interesting reactions to this one. I wouldn't want to be a professor and have someone in my class who thought they didn't have to listen because they knew everything already,"
Jim, you managed to shove so much malarkey into a few lines here that its hard to know where to start.
I don't see any indication from the story that the professor was listened to. He gave an assignment where he tried to force students to advocate a cause he personally supports. A student believed she shouldn't have to support his political views to pass the class. Any reasonable person would agree.
Also, the remark that she thought she knew everything is completely absurd and without basis.
Your insinuation that anyone who disagrees with the Professor about some political cause didn't listen and thinks they know everything is an attitude not worthy of academia.
"and I wouldn't think it was right to encourage a student in a field they are bound to fail in because they are unable to accept the premises of the discipline --"
Opposition to same sex couples adopting children makes it impossible to succeed in social work? Preposterous. There are myriad religious charities doing social work which also oppose same sex couple adoption.
"it is really kind of unbelievable to see that anyone would confuse that academic position with ... fascism."
Think a little harder.
Anonymous said "He gave an assignment where he tried to force students to advocate a cause he personally supports. A student believed she shouldn't have to support his political views to pass the class. Any reasonable person would agree.".
They are not his political views, they are the reasoned views of The National Association of Social Workers as well as every other major mental and physical health organization. Any reasonable person acknowledges the overwhelming research of the last 30 years which indisputably shows children of same sex parents do just as well as parents of heterosexual parents.
Anonymous said "Opposition to same sex couples adopting children makes it impossible to succeed in social work? Preposterous. There are myriad religious charities doing social work which also oppose same sex couple adoption.".
No, its perfectly reasonable. Such opposition makes it impossible to do social work in a manner that results in the best possible outcomes for the majority of people. Religious charities doing social work fall markedly short in doing this because they unreasonably discriminate against gays and deprive children of loving families leaving them to be raised by the state.
Randi
You don't have to be a member of The National Association of Social Workers to be a social worker. Like most associations, it's not an academic primary source but a group whose mission is the welfare of its members.
The fringe lunatics are over the top here. Hopefully, this approach will spread and the backlash will set back the gay advocacy movement for years.
You might want to look into which types of social workers get the best results.
Anonymous, by the same token you don't have to be a member of the National Academy of Sciences or have a post secondary education to call yourself a scientist, but it certainly helps the ability and credibility if so.
As to which type of social workers get the best results, its obvious in this case in particular. Children of same sex couples do just as well as children of opposite sex couples, children need adoptive parents, and religiously biased social workers deny some of those children much needed parents - a bad outcome, unless you're going to try to argue that children are better off being raised by the state in orphanages and/or multiple foster homes. I didn't think so.
Sounds like you're making progress, Randi. When Jim says:
"I wouldn't think it was right to encourage a student in a field they are bound to fail in because they are unable to accept the premises of the discipline" ,
he is completely wrong. Adoption by same sex couples is not a "premise" of sociology and not believing this type of adoption is appropriate doesn't preclude one from succeeding as a social worker. Indeed, it made indicate a social worker who actually cares about their client more than some fringe social movement.
Anonymous, it is a premise of Social work that you not discriminate against people including gays. If you can't accept that premise you don't belong in the field.
Any social worker who leaves a child in an institution instead of sending that child to loving parents is doing a grave disservice to their client and that's whay they don't belong in the field.
I may not be able to respond further to you as my computer is screwing up and I have barely been able to get this response posted.
"Anonymous, it is a premise of Social work that you not discriminate against people including gays."
Know it isn't. Social work was around long before some gay advocacy group got this garbage inserted into the policies of some superfluous association.
"If you can't accept that premise you don't belong in the field."
In your opinion. Not a very well-informed opinion, I might add.
"Any social worker who leaves a child in an institution instead of sending that child to loving parents is doing a grave disservice to their client and that's whay they don't belong in the field."
Adoption is not the only area of social work and social workers who believe gay households are not appropriate places to raise children are entitled to their well-informed opinions just like you are entitled to your ill-informed opinion.
"I may not be able to respond further to you as my computer is screwing up and I have barely been able to get this response posted."
You're probably better off not having the opportunity to further embarass yourself.
Anonymous said "social workers who believe gay households are not appropriate places to raise children are entitled to their well-informed opinions just like you are entitled to your ill-informed opinion.".
Anonymous, a huge volume of research shows that children of same sex parents do just as well as children of opposite sex parents. There is no research contradicting this. Its you who is ill-informed. Your religious social workers most certainly don't have well-infomed opinions either. Just a few of the studies showing this:
"The Lesbian Mother," by Bernice Goodman [American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,
Vol. 43 (1983), pp. 283-284]
Kirkpatrick, Martha et al; "Lesbian Mothers and Their Children: A Comparative
Study," 51 American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 545 (1983) "Homosexual Parents,"
by Brenda Maddox [Psychology Today, February, 1982, pp.66-69]
Riddle, Dorothy I.; "Relating to Children: Gays as Role Models," 34 Journal of
Social Issues, 38-58 (1978)
"The Avowed Lesbian Mother and Her Right to Child Custody," by Marilyn Riley,
San Diego Law Review, Vol. 12 (1975), p. 799]
Susoeff, Steve; "Assessing Children's Best Interests When a Parent is Gay or
Lesbian: Toward a Rational Custody Standard," 32 UCLA Law Review 852, 896 (1985)
Gibbs, Elizabeth D.; "Psychosocial Development of Children Raised by Lesbian
Mothers: A Review of Research," 8 Women & Therapy 65 (1988)
Green, Richard; "The Best Interests of the Child With a Lesbian Mother," 10
Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry & Law 7 (1982)
Turner, Pauline et al; "Parenting in Gay and Lesbian Families," 1 Journal of Gay
& Lesbian Psychotherapy 55, 57 (1990)
Golombok, Susan; "Children in Lesbian and Single-Parent Households: Psychosexual
and Psychiatric Appraisal," 24 Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry 551
(1983)
Hoeffer, Beverly; "Children's Acquisition of Sex-Role Behavior in Lesbian-Mother
Families," 51 American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 536 (1981)
Green, Richard; "Sexual Identity of 37 Children Raised by Homosexual or
Transsexual Parents," 135 American Journal of Psychiatry 692 (1978)
Green, Richard; "Lesbian Mothers and Their Children: A Comparison with Solo
Parent Heterosexual Mothers and their Children," 15 Archives of Sexual Behavior
167 (1986)
Gottman, Julie Schwartz; "Children of Gay and Lesbian Parents," 14 Marriage and
Family Review 177 (1989)
Rees, Richard; "A Comparison of Children of Lesbian and Single Heterosexual
Mothers on Three Measures of Socialization," 40 Dissertation Abstracts
International 3418-B, 3419-B (1979)
Sterkel, Alisa; "Psychosocial Develpment of Children of Lesbian Mothers," Gay &
Lesbian Parents 75, 81 (Frederick W. Bozett, ed., 1987)
Mucklow, Bonnie M., & Phelan, Gladys K.; "Lesbian and Traditional Mothers'
Responses to Adult Response to Child Behavior and Self-Concept," 44
Psychological Report 880 (1979)
Whittlin, William A.; "Homosexuality and Child Custody: A Psychiatric
Viewpoint," 21 Concilation Courts Review 77 (1983)
Herek, Gregory M.; "Myths About Sexual Orientation: A Lawyer's Guide to Social
Science Research," 1 Law & Sexuality: A Review of Lesbian & Gay Legal Issues 133
(1991)
Cramer, David; "Gay Parents and Their Children: A Review of the Research and
Practical Implications," 64 Journal of Counseling & Development 504 (1986)
Wismont, Judith M., & Reame, Nancy E.; "The Lesbian Childbearing Experience:
Assessing Developmental Tasks, 21 Journal of Nursing Scholarship 137 (1989)
Meyer, Cheryl L.; "Legal, Psychological, and Medical Considerations in Lesbian
Parenting," 2 Law & Sexuality: A Review of Lesbian & Gay Legal Issues 237 (1992)
"In the 'Best Interests of the Child' and the Lesbian Mother: A Proposal for
Legislative Change in New York," 48 Albany Law Review 1021 (1984) Harris &
Turner, "Gay & Lesbian Parents," 12 Journal of Homosexuality 101 (1985-1986)
Kleber, Howell & Tibbits-Kleber, "The Impact of Parental Homosexuality in Child
Custody Cases: A Review of the Literature," 14 Bulletin of the American Academy
of Psychiatry & Law 81 (1986)
"The Avowed Lesbian Mother and Her Right to Child Custody: A Constitutional
Challenge That Can No Longer Be Denied," 12 San Diego Law Review 799 (1975)
"Sexual Orientation and the Law" by the Editors of the Harvard Law Review
(Harvard University Press, 1989)
Green, G. Dorsey, & Bozett, Frederick W., "Lesbian Mothers and Gay Fathers," in
Homosexuality: Research Implications for Public Policy, ed. by Gonsiorek &
Weinrich (Sage Publications, 1991)
Lewin, E., "Lesbianism and Motherhood: Implications for Child Custody," 40 Human
Organization 6-14 (1981)
Ricketts, Wendell; "Lesbians and Gay Men as Foster Parents" (University of
Southern Maine, 1992)
The APA further lists, if I remember correctly 63 studies also showing that children of same sex parents do just as well as children of opposite sex parents. Your religious social workers are ignoring what's best for children and leaving many of them to rot in the unfortunate circumstances of institutional orphanages and bounced from foster parent to foster parent. You and yours are truly heartless, you'll happily sacrifice the lives of young children to push your insane hatred.
Randi
How about some statistics on how many kids are unadopted? Why is it, in America at least, so many people go overseas to adopt?
"Your religious social workers are ignoring what's best for children and leaving many of them to rot in the unfortunate circumstances of institutional orphanages and bounced from foster parent to foster parent."
Traditionally, adoption agencies try to look for the best situations to place orphans. They do psychological testing and financial checks. Are "the unfortunate circumstances of institutional orphanages and bouncing from foster parent to foster parent." so bad that we should loosen these standards? Wouldn't it better to be in a family with an OCD parent or a history of bankruptcy than the alternative? Where do we draw the line?
In order to be parents, LGBT people need to go through a thorough set of assessments to determine whether they are psychologicaly, socially and financially stable. Straight people just need to know how to have sex. Which is the better evaluative process?
A middle school counselor friend of mine always wished there were a test for parenthood.
rrjr
"Straight people just need to know how to have sex."
Don't think this is true, Robert.
Anonymous said "Are "the unfortunate circumstances of institutional orphanages and bouncing from foster parent to foster parent." so bad that we should loosen these standards?".
I never said we should. What I said was that its unethical and counterproductive to have religious social workers who blindly exclude gay couples who meet the criteria. Many adoption agencies are happy to place children with gay couples that pass the screening. Relgious social workers like the one discussed would exclude qualified gay couples from adoption on the basis of irrational hate alone.
Anonymous said ""Straight people just need to know how to have sex[to have children]."
Don't think this is true, Robert.".
LOL, of course its true anonymous. There's no licensing requirement to have children, no laws against a straight couple of age having sex and baring a child. Any two idiots that want to (or even don't want to) can have children and do. Stop embarrassing yourself.
Read the lawsuit. Yes, the letter was going to be sent. No one ever denied that it was not going to be sent. Even if it was not, should someone sign their name to something they do not beleve? However, it is more important that several of the professors filed a grievance against her because of this view. Also, the professor who wanted the letter signed did not think that this was a good idea. (This thought was told to me by the head of an editorial department and reportedly will be in the paper soon.) Also, an official of the National Social Work Asociation indicated that what the professors did was not appropriate. The offical indicates that there are many conservative Christian Social Workers. The association indicates that you may not discriminate, but that is not the same as advocate. You can care about all people and not condone all behavior. A voice from Chronicles of Higher Education indicates that tolerance of all views is important by stating: WOW, You mock this student (Emily Brooker) for her lack of open mindedness what about yours? To be a social worker you do not have to have one set of views and values, that’s what makes the profession so great is we all come from different walks of life and have different beliefs. There are many of us out there that are social workers and Christians... a lot of us who may not support homosexual adoptions. This does not mean that we can not be helpful it just means were not going to help with that battle but there are several other areas we are out there fighting for. I hope you open your mind and understand that just because someone may have a different belief in one area then you does not make that person a BAD social worker.
Post a Comment
<< Home