Abstract

There has been a significant change in the cultural zeitgeist as of late. It has been especially noticeable in the academy over the past several years with the discipline of social work being no exception. In this essay, I will situate myself in a vulnerable position and will write about my disillusionment in the discipline I was proud to join a decade ago. I will invoke personal experiences and observations in my time having returned to graduate school as a doctoral student. As the subtitle of a well-known book suggests, I will argue that good intentions coupled with bad ideas are setting up future generations of social work scholars and practitioners for failure, arguably against the field’s Code of Ethics original aims. Lastly, I will list final thoughts and suggestions for the field and future generations of social workers who may be noticing and feeling how things may be “off” in the classroom but may not have the gumption to disagree or push back.

Introduction

“Professor A:” Our school is firmly committed to anti-oppressive practice, policy, and research. Therefore, we expect our team, including students to adhere to these values. That means recognizing our own biases, privileges, and experiences with oppression and how these may influence our work as scholars and educators, in the case of PhD students. While we support and recognize your academic freedom, we expect that your work aligns with the values of social justice and anti-oppression. I expressed concern during our meeting that I worry you do not see value or legitimacy in these values.

This is a snippet of a longer e-mail I received from one of my social work professors in early 2023. You may be wondering what spurred this response. Am I an insensitive and polemic student who regularly spews out hurtful diatribes? Do I regularly convey the message that people just need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and everything will fine? Am I the archetypal straight nominal white male who is oblivious to the amount of privilege I purportedly have and deny having any biases?

No.

My name is Arnoldo (if you can roll your R’s – if not, “Arnold” is just fine) Cantú. I was born in Mexico, raised in the Rio Grande Valley (RGV) located in south Texas (a predominantly Hispanic region) by loving and supportive immigrant parents, and have recently found myself in beautiful northern Colorado attending a social work doctoral program amidst a predominantly nominally white student population at my university that is Colorado State University (CSU). I am also a licensed clinical social worker (LCSW) having worked in the field for nearly a decade with the bulk of my experience being serving and supporting the impoverished, underserved, and most vulnerable in the various communities I have found myself in over the years.

For a few years after graduating with my master’s degree in social work, I worked as the sole mental health professional at a charter school in which nearly 90% of the students qualified for free or reduced lunch. As the mental health professional with a social worker’s hat permanently affixed, I balanced multiple roles serving as the students’ individual and group counselor, families’ caseworker, the school’s organizer for partnering with outside nonprofits to help bring in additional resources, and on-site crisis clinician. After relocating to New Mexico, I worked for a handful of years in community mental health as a psychotherapist in an outpatient clinic serving children, adolescents, and their families. Most of the youth and families I saw had experienced substantial trauma, instability, and poverty – a theme that makes sense when New Mexico regularly ranks as one of the worst states in the country for child well-being (Glass, 2023; see also a gripping ethnographic account by Jenkins & Csordas, 2020 entitled Troubled in the Land of Enchantment).

Those two stints helped illuminate the intractable cognitive dissonance I would feel as a therapist when getting to know children and their families’ painful stories and suffering while, concurrently, dictating their stories (and identity, for some) for them through the application of controversial psychiatric labels. It was only a matter of time until I decided that the best way I could “push back” on the mental health system I was operating in was to actually do something about it – that decision being to enroll in a doctoral program (the first in my family to do so) with the end goal of contributing to the literature about alternative non-medicalizing, non-pathologizing, and non-oppressive ways our most vulnerable can have their pain and suffering named, validated, and supported (e.g., see Cantú, 2023a, 2023b, 2023c).

However, after years in the field, it wasn’t until I was back in school that I noticed how radically different and dystopian the training of future practitioners of my profession had become. It is with that I begin my telling (to adapt the subheading of Lukianoff and Haidt’s 2019 book) of how I, too, believe that good intentions coupled with bad ideas are setting up future generations of social work scholars and practitioners for failure. Consider this my brief (critical)

autoethnography in which I will juxtapose this paper’s argument with messages I received from multiple professors during my time as a doctoral student.

Truth vs. social justice

My experiences, concerns, and views about academia thus far have converged around a core issue of tensions compellingly illustrated by the social psychologist Jonathan Haidt in one of his more well-known posts published by the Heterodox Academy entitled “Why Universities Must Choose One Telos: Truth or Social Justice” (Haidt, 2016). In his piece, Haidt makes the argument that a university’s telos (i.e., its ultimate aim, end goal, or purpose) should be the pursuit of truth. He expounds:

Each profession or field has a telos. Fields interact constructively when members of one field use their skills to help members of another field achieve their telos. Example: Amazon, Google, and Apple are businesses that I love because they help me achieve my telos (finding truth) as a scholar. But fields can also interact destructively when they inject their telos into other fields. Example: Business infects medicine when doctors become businesspeople who view patients as opportunities for profit. (para. 11)

His blog post spurred much-needed nuanced debate on the topic (e.g., Casey, 2020; Khalid & Snyder, 2022a, 2022b; Veber, 2022). It also sparked a fascinating discussion among my university’s Heterodox Academy Campus Community[1] that I can proudly say I helped co-found. Here, I do not plan to resolve the tension between truth and social justice or proclaim which one should take precedence across the board.[2] However, what I have found to be true (no pun intended) – contrary to what Haidt and other likeminded individuals have argued for – is that both can be the telos. More specifically, both can be a program’s telos. At first glance, that is what the aforementioned e-mail snippet attempted to convey – even more so when Professor A, in the same e-mail, stated that:

While we are not prescriptive in how you describe/understand social justice in your work, it is expected that you thoughtfully articulate these implications. In other words, while it is certainly ok to see the more universal or broader implications of your work, we will expect that you can articulate social justice implications in your research, from how you describe the social justice implications of the problem to what methods you use in your research.

Professor A adds within the same e-mail:

[A] core competency that we will assess in your preliminary exam is your ability to (1) describe the social justice implications of your problem and the ways in which your approach to addressing this problem advances anti-oppressive research; (2) critique how the current literature base and theoretical approaches do or do not consider and/or advance the field in terms of equity, inclusion, and social justice; and (3) describe the social justice implications for the methods you propose to address your stated research questions.

This is fair enough (kind of). After all, social justice has been a core component of social work’s Code of Ethics for several years, appearing as early as in the 1979 version with similar language in the original 1960 version and 1967 revision (NASW, n.d..). I’ve even attempted to embody this value in my professional work for close to a decade in the field – and from the outset, it was a value I was drawn to that influenced my decision to apply to a master’s in social work program over a decade ago. Therefore, case closed? That e-mail from my professor – a person with power in the academy – to me, a student – a person with much less power in the university – was absolutely warranted, right?[3]

Not so. Here is where I return to my proclamation (I recant my earlier equivocation at declaring something) that truth and social justice can co-exist as the telos. However, perhaps a couple of more snippets from the same e-mail by Professor A can help contextualize my newfound position:

When we met my comments related to macro level considerations related to, that we cannot disentangle systemic oppression from the problems under study in social work. In other words, the mental health system along with all other systems in the US are predicated on an oppressive history of slavery, colonization, and genocide. Therefore the fabric/structure of all US systems was built on this legacy; inequity is therefore “baked into” these systems if you will. As a result, even when focused on micro level issues like mental health experiences at the individual level, you cannot disentangle the system in which mental health care is provided. That is, young people of color experience inequities and injustices at the systems level. For example, it is important to acknowledge how the experiences of youth of color are largely shaped by structural conditions present in many communities of color (often that are also lower income) that are in part the result of racist systems predicated on our country’s abhorrent history of oppression. In a time of uprising and rebellion supporting Black Lives Matter and calling for justice in response to state-sanctioned violence against Black communities, scholars must be conscientious of how our science can either reinforce or deconstruct deficit narratives about communities of color (and other marginalized groups). To do so, we must fully consider the role of race and ethnicity (in addition to gender identity and class) in structuring youths’ lived experiences. As a result, we can disentangle and thus appropriately attribute risk to environmental conditions (e.g., racist and oppressive systems that create community conditions that lead to community violence . . . or mental distress4) rather than individual failures. Ultimately, as scholars, we are in a powerful position to redress systemic oppression in the academy as well as in the larger society. At a minimum, we must question how our interpretations and conclusions drawn from our research findings account for, or acknowledge, the role of structural inequality. (i.e., racism, racial discrimination, and classism)

With the help of Haidt’s tension put forth and seeing firsthand where the rubber meets the road, I have been able to ascertain that when I say how truth and social justice can co-exist, what I mean is that a certain flavor of “truth” can result in—and co-exist alongside – the zealous pursuit of a certain flavor of “social justice.” However, what I believe will continue to happen (to borrow, again, the aforementioned subheading) is that good intentions coupled with bad ideas are setting up future generations of social work scholars and practitioners for failure when certain flavors of truth carry more weight than others in order to justify particular ways or flavors of achieving social justice aims, thus leaving minimal room for disagreement, pushback, or alternative perspectives within self-sustaining echo chambers.

My observations

In 1915, the field of social work heard the scathing answer by assistant secretary of the General Education Board of New York City, Abraham Flexner, of social work not being considered a profession:

Is social work a profession in the . . . strict sense of the term?. . .I have made the point that all the established and recognized professions have definite and specific ends . . . This is not true of social work. It appears not so much a definite field as an aspect of work in many fields. (Flexner, 1915, as cited in Leighninger, 2000, pp. 37–39, 43–46)

Nearly a century later, Specht and Courtney (1995) controversially argued how, in an attempt to attain status as a profession, social work, paradoxically, lost sight of its core mission of supporting the disenfranchised. In 2012, Longhofer and Floersch (2012) gave a nod to the ongoing debate in the profession about whether “social work has lost its way” (p. 500). Around the same time, Gomory and colleagues (2011) relegated social work to be a “handmaiden” to other professions. A few years later, Gehlert (2015) added to the debate about whether social work is a science or just a profession. Not too long ago, Gambrill (2021) argued how social work programs “have become ever more politicized and intolerant of free speech” (p. 433) at the cost of no longer encouraging critical thinking, but instead elevating propaganda. And recently, Farber (2023) wrote a blistering critique entitled “The Dystopian World of Social Work Education” in which the field’s main professional organizations (i.e., Council on Social Work Education [CSWE], Group for Advancement of Doctoral Education [GADE], Society for Social Work Research [SSWR], and National Association of Social Workers [NASW]) are taken to task for how they encourage and promote ideological conformity.[5]

I worry about my profession and discipline – about its standing, image, trustworthiness, and ways it goes about teaching the next generation and supporting people in the field. (To be sure, social work is not homogenous, and there will be exceptions within the profession and discipline of people doing good work as scholars, educators, and practitioners.) The CSWE (2023) proclaims to support academic freedom, making sure to also mention that the profession “is committed to anti-racist and anti-oppressive practices in serving diverse groups of people” (para. 1) and how “[g]raduates from social work education programs are positioned to advocate for justice, equity, inclusion, and diversity” (para. 2). However, given my experiences and the academic zeitgeist we find ourselves in right now, is it fair to assume that they, too, are advocates of certain flavors of truth and social justice – and certain ways of teaching anti-racist and anti-oppressive practices? Is there room in their 2022 Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards (EPAS) (see “Educational Policy 2.0: Anti-Racism, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion [ADEI]” and “Educational Policy 3.0: Explicit Curriculum” in CSWE, 2022) for disagreement, or alternative ways to conceptualize infinitely complex and intractable socio-cultural problems and how to go about addressing them?

The EPAS also states that “Faculty and administrators model anti-racist and anti-oppressive practice and respect for diversity and difference. Faculty and administrators also foster an equitable and inclusive learning environment by facilitating important ADEI discourse” (CSWE, 2022, p. 16). However, what can one assume – following the uncomfortable and demoralizing interaction (and subsequent e-mail) with Professor A – when I drop a link[6] into a start-of-the-semester course survey, proactively requesting a respect of academic freedom given my aforementioned experiences with Professor A, and I receive this response from another social work professor (“Professor B”)?

Hi Arnold! I hope the beginning of the semester is treating you well! I am writing to check in about the survey that you filled out for the beginning of class. Thanks for doing that. In it, you mentioned that supporting academic freedom is important for you to feel welcome in class. I was thinking it was important to have a conversation about what this means to you, because I can see it going many different ways. [Professor A] and I checked in about the start of class and mentioned that the two of you have had an ongoing conversation about social justice and academic freedom so I am cc’ing [Professor A] here so we’re all on the same page. Could we set up a time to check in sometime soon? See you tomorrow!

Fortunately, the meeting never happened thanks to Graduate School intervention. However, given the prior meeting and e-mail exchange with Professor A, I believe one can safely assume that this hypothetical meeting would not have been one in which a “respect for diversity and difference” would have been modeled or that an “an equitable and inclusive learning environment by facilitating important ADEI discourse” would have been fostered. It is no wonder that some have deemed contemporary ideologies and worldviews found in universities to be a kind of religion (McWhorter, 2021; Sage, 2022), puritanism (Doyle, 2023; Rothman, 2022), or fundamentalism (Kaufmann, 2020; Pluckrose & Lindsay, 2020) – and, frankly, I think it is justified.

I return to my hypothesis: good intentions coupled with bad ideas are setting up future generations of social work scholars and practitioners for failure when certain flavors of truth carry more weight than others resulting in the justification of pursuing certain flavors of social justice aims, leaving minimal room for disagreement, pushback, or other perspectives. I do not believe the consideration of alternative views is being modeled, much less so the toleration of critiques or outright rejection of contemporary popular ideas that are “[m]ischaracterized by devotees as actual theories rather than political opinions” (Farber, 2023, p. 19). What is being modeled, however, is the requirement that “antiracist [and/or anti-oppressive] faculty and students ‘do the work’ of becoming self-loathing, and ashamed of their profession as a form of white supremacist oppression of the very people served” (p. 19), the promotion of propaganda (Gambrill, 2021), and the injection of “neoracism” (Hughes, 2024) throughout the field’s ethos. Here, I borrow Coleman Hughes’ conceptualization of neoracism that is worth expanding on given the field’s fervent package deal commitment to being both anti-racist and anti-oppressive in their current flavors:

Neoracism insists that sharp racial classifications are a necessary party of society. But they don’t use these categories as mere descriptors. They use terms like “blackness” and “whiteness” to encompass far more than descriptions of skin color and ancestry. They use those terms to encompass all kinds of stereotypes—stereotypes about thoughts, attitudes, beliefs, habits, and character. (Hughes, 2024, p. 22)

He adds that despite how some (e.g., Delgado & Stefancic, 2011) acknowledge that, for example, race is a social construct:

. . . they don’t act in accordance with that belief. The hallmark of believing something is a social construct is taking that social construct less seriously—relaxing the rules and norms surrounding it. Neoracists do just the opposite. They create and enforce strict rules and norms that govern how people of different races are supposed to interact . . . Out of everyone in Western society, neoracists (along with old-school racists) are the most fixated on enforcing the rules and norms surrounding the concept of race (Hughes, 2024, p. 24).[7]

Some additional examples of disturbing and disheartening experiences: I can recall sitting in on a curriculum meeting observing an ardent discussion between faculty about how certain core classes should, instead, be taught in-house (as opposed to students taking them in other departments across the university) because other disciplines would not be able to “de-center whiteness” as effectively. I am not sure what came of that discussion, but I felt a pause for concern of what seemed like wanting to keep social work students within the ideological echo chamber to, arguably, indoctrinate them on certain flavors of truth and social justice.

Relatedly, I remember an instance during which, in an attempt to ensure there was “representation” in a writing assignment and that (racialized) white people were not “centered,” a classmate looked up authors during a class discussion to see what “race” they were and if they were a “person of

color” – and informed my peers and professor of the findings. I can only assume the student’s criteria was the default crude racialization (i.e., racist; see Mason, 2022) act largely predicated on phenotypical features (and no, this behavior by the student was not interrupted by the professor). Lastly, I also remember someone (I can’t recall if this was from a student or the professor) making a comment out loud of “Ew, white people” in a social work class. I do remember, however, that the comment was not addressed – the professor having gleefully gone along with it with a grin. Imagine if a student had, instead, said “Ew, black people?” or “Ew, Mexicans?” And yet, this is “inclusivity,” “tolerance,” and “diversity.”

What spurred the emails

So, what was the impetus for receiving these kinds of e-mails from faculty? What did I do that resulted in having my values and beliefs questioned? It is at this point that I have to atone for my sins – that is only fair in order to receive a fair judgment. As far as I know, the named counts against me were three that Professor A informed me of during that lengthy meeting, and I will do my best to accurately delineate my actions and assume responsibility for my behavior. The reader can determine if my actions warranted the treatment they received. I will chronologize the sequence of events beginning with what preceded the uncomfortable sit-down with Professor A:

• Count 1: I had initially reached out to Professor A in 2022 asking for a letter of recommendation for a fellowship I was applying for. This was Professor A’s initial response to my request (that led to a sit-down in early 2023 and subsequent lengthy e-mail): “Arnold, I’d like to hear a bit more about your research interests before writing a letter. I very much appreciate that you see your critical work on the DSM as having implications for all racial and ethnic groups. At the same time, the mental health system, like all in the US, has been built on a legacy of racism and oppression. So I invite you to tell me more about how your work does intersect with equity and justice. Could we have coffee after the first of the year?”

• Count 1, continued: I wrote an essay as part of the fellowship application in which I was asked to explain how my research interests would contribute to the behavioral health outcomes of racial/ethnic minorities – and I sent this essay over to Professor A in advance of the coffee sit-down after the New Year. However, according to Professor A, in the essay I did not sufficiently attend to how we “cannot disentangle systemic oppression from the problems under study in social work. In other words, the mental health system along with all other systems in the US are predicated on an oppressive history of slavery, colonization, and genocide” (reread the larger snippet of the e-mail found earlier in this essay). I had, instead, opted to make a case for how my real-world practice experiences combined with my research interests could improve behavioral health outcomes for certain racial/ethnic minorities as well as, again, opted for the OED definition of “anti-oppressive” (see Count 2 that occurred prior in this timeline). The reader can determine which approach would have been more effective (see Appendix A).

• Count 1, continued: It should also be noted that in this meeting with Professor A that lasted for over 2 hours during which my values and beliefs were questioned, I was also explicitly asked if I did or didn’t believe in systemic racism, structural oppression, if I was taking seriously the idea of anti-oppressive research, et cetera – and my defense was to say that I was grappling with these ideas, as all students should be able to in a university setting.

• Count 1, continued: I also attempted to vulnerably explain – as a way to defend myself in the interrogation – that the pandemic and my own family strife forced me to subscribe to a more “middle-of-the-road” political position as a way to repair ruptured relationships and try to understand other family members’ viewpoints. Professor A, in response, openly acknowledged being “far left” (shocker!).

• Count 2: Professor A was informed that in a prior social work class taught by “Professor C,” I called the term “anti-oppressive” a buzzword during a presentation of mine. What I had done instead was select the relevant definition for “oppressive” found in the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) and used its antonyms as a way to conceptualize “anti-oppressive” for the purpose of my assignment. Professor A, during the lengthy coffee sit-down, expressed concern about my disingenuity for not taking seriously the idea of “anti-oppressive research.” I responded that blindly going along with any du jour definition of anti-oppressive would have been disingenuous of me as I was still, again, grappling and attempting to learn these ideas – but I was not simply going to endorse them all lock, stock, and barrel.

• Count 3: For another social work assignment in another prior class taught by “Professor D,” we were asked to create a “mock syllabus” of an ideal course. My apparent mistake that Professor A was informed about (Is this behavior striking anyone else yet as a form of tattle-tale?) was that I chose to not include in my assignment the “pronoun commitment”8 statement typically found in social work class syllabi throughout the program[9] (I informed Professor A, in my defense, that I had also elected to not include the “land grant acknowledgment”[10] also regularly found in syllabi). My rationale was because I wanted my syllabus to focus purely on content. But were those statements required per the assignment instructions? Not necessarily. Part of the assignment asked for the student to prepare “classrooms expectations, ground rules, or community guidelines that name the important elements for how you will hold classroom space.” What did I do instead? I included a statement about how the intent in my ideal course will be for students to come together, discuss and wrestle with challenging and complex life questions together, listen and seek to understand one another, and have a richer understanding of views held by others even when we disagree (and yes, I still received a minor point deduction for this).[11]

• Count 3, continued: Professor A expressed concern about this in the coffee sit-down as well as in the lengthy follow-up e-mail: “Another non-negotiable for me is how our PhD students show up in our classrooms as instructors at the BSW and MSW level. Again, as a school we are committed to social justice and anti-oppressive values, which means we must seek to create an inclusive and equitable classroom environment. I cannot and will not in good faith recommend our students to teach at these levels without knowing they are fully committed to creating an inclusive classroom space. That means understanding the ways in which we can do so as instructors, like for example, using preferred pronouns, recognizing when we or others commit microaggressions and seeking to make amends in response, thinking flexibly about students’ participation, considering alternative assignments when possible, etc. If you have not done so, I highly recommend reviewing the TILT website[12] on inclusive pedagogy.”

I can anticipate at least one point of pushback: I did not engage with the anti-oppressive scholarship sufficiently – that I took the lazy route of defining a term using the dictionary. That point, in some ways, is well-taken and valid. For that critique, I have two counterpoints:

1) Isn’t the university the setting for wrestling with ideas – to entertain, consider, hold provisionally, revise, discard, or outright reject ideas? Unless a professor is teaching about the laws of gravity, should students wholeheartedly endorse all that is being taught at first glance – or does academic freedom and cognitive liberty also extend to students in their development as a scholar?

2) Secondly, taking together all three counts, did that warrant the kind of response from faculty I received? Or might there have been some inappropriate, to put it lightly, overreach not reflective of the intellectual stewardship of a professor? I surmise some may believe the faculty to have conducted themselves appropriately, which is only suggestive of the intellectual rot that has infested certain aspects of the academy to varying degrees.

Now, potentially, here is the even more concerning part the reader may not have noticed. Across the three counts (with the minor exception, perhaps, of calling anti-oppressive a buzzword), there were no instances of my outright challenging of contemporary ideologies. In fact, others would echo that I am a fairly quiet and easy-going individual (I try to embody a quote by Cato who once said, “I begin to speak only when I’m certain what I’ll say isn’t better left unsaid.”). Therein lies the exceedingly insidious aspect, in my view: it was my lack of outright endorsement of certain views and dogma that resulted in those kinds of responses from professors toward me, not the explicit questioning or challenging of what is being taught in my social work program.

This is demoralizing. There is an obvious power imbalance in the academy, and it is especially dispiriting for a student’s values and beliefs to be questioned by faculty because they don’t align with the current ideological, divisive, and intellectually weak dogma that has infested academia – so weak that any semblance of someone questioning it, not taking these ideas seriously, or does not see them as “truth” or as the values of the profession (my actions, allegedly) is met with ad hominem-like criticism (or, as suggested in the larger societal discourse, is seen “on the wrong side of history”). However, herein lies a textbook example of hypocrisy: an ethnically “minoritized” student from an immigrant family with nearly a decade of practice experience in the real world – not occluded in the ivory tower – working with marginalized, disenfranchised, oppressed, et cetera individuals is the one questioned for not taking the profession’s values seriously. You would also think that someone with my “lived experience”[13] (although a lack of it shouldn’t preclude anyone from entering the profession) would carry some sort of currency as far as being able to live out the profession’s values. It’s almost comical.

But wait, there’s more

Since I hopefully still have your attention, I figure it’s worth mentioning more of my observations that I believe are products of the contemporary ideological takeover of universities:

• During one of the first weeks of a semester (it might have actually been day one of the course), a social work professor cheekily told us how “We are so woke, y’all.”

• A social work professor told us on day one of the semester – during introductions, and obviously unsolicited – about identifying as bisexual. How that was relevant to the subject matter at hand or the course itself, I still do not know. And no, it was not a class about gender and sexuality.

• When I informed a “trusted” social work professor about the ordeal I experienced in 2023 and Graduate School involvement in the hopes of garnering support, this professor responded by concurring with understanding where faculty were likely coming from and did not bother to point out the inappropriateness of their actions – and didn’t even try to obtain clarity from the Graduate School about what happened. This professor

• also acknowledged the fact that I had relocated to Fort Collins for this program but suggested that it might be worth reconsidering it.

• After the nightmarish events of 2023 and my asking of Graduate School involvement, I was at a point in the program in which I needed to form my dissertation committee. Wouldn’t you know it: with an already small faculty, several professors I asked to be on my committee reported being “too busy,” resulting in my scrambling to fill it out (I resorted to asking a professor I knew from another state to be on it to help fill it out). This was, according to my advisor, very uncharacteristic and uncommon of faculty (and per a classmate, likely an attempt to “cancel” me).

• There was a noticeable change in interpersonal interactions, such as a minimal and lukewarm response from faculty when I announced that I had a second paper published in an academic journal in 2023 as a sole author (see Cantú, 2023b) and that I was the lead editor of two books published in the same year – all as a graduate student. There was a lack of acknowledgment or announcement of this accomplishment throughout the broader school and program – and it was only until a non-social work professor advocated for me that a story was written up.[14] As I wanted to maintain decorum and at least a cordial relationship, I informed Professor A of my accomplishment. Professor A’s response? “Congrats!” Seriously – that was it.

• There was a lack of support from faculty for helping me obtain funding to support myself after finding out at the last minute that it wouldn’t be renewed for the next academic year. Granted, this seemed more of a symptom of my school’s presumably “foot-in-door technique,” mentioning the opportunity of funding at the outset coupled with ambiguous certainty thereafter. However, after this fiasco, it certainly felt as if I was on my own to “figure it out.” The result was me hurriedly sending many e-mails near the end of the summer before the Fall semester began – to several departments and faculty across the university, scrambling asking for any possible last-minute funding and research opportunities. In the end, I had to take out student loans.

A puzzling and disappointing DEI interaction

It is also worth noting the confusion I experienced throughout the events of 2023 when I attempted to capitalize on the availability of my university’s Bias Reporting System.[15] Although I was well aware of the criticisms similar reporting systems have had (e.g., see Speech First, 2022), I was hoping to find an ally and additional support given the system’s definition of what incidents of bias can be:

A bias incident is any conduct, speech, or expression, motivated in whole or in part by bias or prejudice that is meant to intimidate, demean, mock, degrade, marginalize, or threaten individuals or groups based on that individual or group’s actual or perceived identities. To say the least, I certainly felt intimidated, demeaned, and marginalized for my lack of full-throated endorsement of what was being taught in my classes. I was only minding my own business, not aware that professors were seemingly clandestinely speaking about me, presumably expressing concerns about my values and beliefs. And so, in early 2023, I submitted a report outlining all of the events and my concern that there was an infringement on student academic freedom in the service of a particular ideological/political viewpoint – and a compelling of students to perpetuate it.

As my university’s Office of Inclusive Excellence (i.e., the DEI department) is part of the Bias Assessment Team,[16] I naturally assumed I would hear back from them. However, nearly 2 months went by with no response until I nudged them. After what read like an initial boilerplate response, “DEI Staff Member A” advised me to seek resolution with my department as this appeared to be academic disagreement. This is true, to be sure, though I think my circumstance would have been ideal—low hanging fruit—for a department such as this one to intervene in as well given their guiding principles.[17] Saddeningly, the response DEI Staff Member A had to my feedback provided about the tool and their lack of response was also quite disappointing (see Appendix C).

Final thoughts for the field and future generations

A sizable portion of 2023 was one of the lowest moments in my life, and that’s because I think I was able to navigate it decently given the support and allies I found along the way. However, my experience has made me think: what impression does the current flavor of truth and its concomitant flavor of social justice have on suggestible freshmen or younger undergraduates? What about international students who are walking into this socio-political-cultural climate? What about those students who know in their gut that something feels off, but can’t push back due to the chilling effect (Kaufmann, 2021), spiral of silence (Noelle-Neumann, 1993), or for fear of having any sort of “–ism” thrown at them?

Should students just play along to go along? Or continue to feel deflated about how people are simultaneously being atomized yet homogenized in confusing anti-humanist ways that lack internal coherence, all in the name of working toward the goal of being “anti-racist” and “anti-oppressive”? Or do students, at some point, end up believing everything they are taught to reconcile their intractable cognitive dissonance, thus effectively gaslighting their own selves? No, that should not be the experience for any student in the university. I encourage current students and the future generation of social

workers to chew on the ideas of moral courage (e.g., Kidder, 2005), cognitive liberty (e.g., Burstow, 2019), and parrhesia (i.e., speaking freely) (e.g., Hämäläinen, 2023) – and use them as a helpful guiding triad of values amidst the current academic milieu in order to develop their own honor code (Elliott, 2024).

If my experience is in any way generalizable (and I really hope it’s not), there is a desperate need of a rebalancing act in the academy and in my profession – and an increased tolerance of debating and disagreeing, a valuing of viewpoint diversity, and a philosophical appreciation of pluralism. I am not advocating for not teaching certain theories, worldviews, or philosophies. However, considering the general political makeup and leaning of the academy (Abrams & Khalid, 2020) and decreasing confidence in higher education (Brenan, 2023), it is all the more crucial now to present an array of views and perspectives about infinitely complex and obstinate socio-cultural problems in more balanced and nuanced ways while holding space for debate, disagreement, uncertainty, or even Socratic aporia (i.e., an impasse accompanied by immense puzzlement; see Chapter 12 “Aporia” in Farnsworth, 2021) between student and faculty interlocuters. Some examples:

• critical race theory (CRT) (Delgado & Stefancic, 2011) contrasted with the theory of racelessness (ToR) (Mason, 2022)

• Kendi’s (2019) views on addressing racial disparities compared to Sowell’s (2013) thoughts about race and society

• DiAngelo’s (2018) ideas of “white fragility” compared with Sokal’s (2023) critiques

• an argument in favor of student activism (Khalid & Snyder, 2024) compared to an argument against (McCaughey, 2024)

Social work is not monolithic or homogenous, and there should be no theoretical, conceptual, or philosophical “sacred cow” for the profession. The field is past due for a hefty dose of intellectual humility and counterbalanced pedagogy.

I did not expound on this earlier when referring to the certain flavors of truth and social justice I have been observing, but I will do so now in a roundabout way. In my view, it is difficult to distill abstract and theoretical ideologies and philosophies into their main tenets. In fact, Doyle (2023, p. 48) says it well that is worth quoting at length:

Unlike the racist reactionaries in our midst, the new puritans have attained credibility and clout through a generalised misapprehension of their aims and core beliefs. The tenets of their religion are not engraved on any stone tablets and are open to endless reinterpretation. The success of the movement, then, lies in this wispish quality. It cannot be pinned down with ease and is therefore able to dance around the salvos of its critics.

Such linguistic chicanery enables misguided ideas to spread without the kind of scrutiny that would see them fail. The blatant denial of reality, when combined with the subversion of the terms we use to describe it, has meant that good people have been duped into aligning themselves with causes that they would otherwise oppose. This is the key to comprehending how the Critical Social Justice ideology has so rapidly captured our major institutions.

Regardless, to aid in any sort of pedagogical and epistemological rebalancing act, the reader is encouraged to read and engage with the amalgamation of recommendations found in Appendix B as a robust “starter pack.” This can be considered a comprehensive list of books[18] that make up various strands weaved throughout the contemporary academic fabric as well as alternatives to today’s dogma as it pertains to race and social justice. After all, to quote John Stuart Mill (1859; see also Eduardo, 2024):

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion.

I was drawn to this profession over a decade ago, primarily due to its longstanding and impressive Code of Ethics. Coming from a resource-strapped immigrant family with an interest in supporting and working with the underserved, I was especially drawn to a couple of values found in the Code of Ethics – that of respecting the dignity and worth of the person and recognizing the central importance of human relationships (in addition to challenging social injustice). I’ve also appreciated the following segments:

• “The primary mission of the social work profession is to enhance human well-being and help meet the basic human needs of all [emphasis added] people” (NASW, 2021, para. 1).

• “Ethical responsibilities flow from all [emphasis added] human relationships, from the personal and familial to the social and professional” (NASW, 2021, para. 7).

• “Social workers strive to ensure access to needed information, services, and resources; equality of opportunity; and meaningful participation in decision making for all [emphasis added] people” (NASW, 2021, para. 17).

This was the ethos of social work I remember being taught to me just a decade ago. To be sure, there are exceptions – such as the Code of Ethics suggesting how social workers “pursue social change, particularly with and on behalf of vulnerable and oppressed individuals and groups of people.” My professional practice experience, as an example, has centered on supporting and working with the predominantly Hispanic and immigrant population. However, the “all” in the three aforementioned snippets from the Code of Ethics seems deprioritized lately, if not downright missing in contemporary social work education. Social work has been a purposeful profession to me for a decade, education is a meaningful antidote to my existential worries, and I don’t want either to be further rotted. Our profession needs a return to its humanistic roots of cosmopolitanism—that is, a reminder that we are all part of a single community and have a duty to one another, irrespective of tribe or political leaning (Kleingeld & Brown, 2019). We are all weary travelers roaming this planet trying to make sense of it all.

I want to close by coming full circle to the tension alluded to earlier in this essay: truth or social justice as the telos of a university. I hope the description of my experience has rendered the question posed by Haidt to be a bit less germane – both are and have been the telos for some time. As such, the more accurate question should be: which flavor of truth can appropriately and adequately complement the other telos of a university if it is to be social justice? Spoiler alert: it’s neither of the current flavors.

Coda

After initially submitting this manuscript in early 2024 and it going through the usual peer review process, quite a bit has changed. I am now adding this section in the Fall of 2024 after which I made the decision to withdraw from the doctoral program. Multiple factors influenced my decision – the main one being an innocuous comment made by my loved one about my having seemed much happier compared to the last couple of years after reentering the psychotherapy workforce full-time this year.

I had also found myself earlier this year asking if continuing through the program was worth it. As with most jobs, there are games one has to play – politics to consider, roles to enact, et cetera. However, a while back I had already decided that being in academia post-grad school was “not the game I want to play.” I’m not a fan of the “publish or perish” currency of academia, questionable peer review process (Mastroianni, 2022), “idea laundering” (Boghossian, 2019), the predominant political leaning of the academy (Abrams & Khalid, 2020) that certainly can’t be helping stave away the current ideological capture and decreasing levels of trust in higher education (Brenan, 2023), and uncertainty of the global image of the scientific project (Ioannidis, 2005; Ritchie, 2020; Sokal, 2024), at least within the social sciences. Of course, the whole ordeal of 2023 also played a role as I felt quite disconnected from my program and school.

Academia and the professoriate were things I used to look up to with awe and respect. Now, after having been “on the inside” and seeing “how the sausage gets made,” several facets seem almost (to use an overly-used term) “cringy:” for example, seeing the blatant disconnect between what some people in academia pontificate about with grandiloquence and banal platitudes versus the stories I hear from my clients sitting in front of me made me question what the point of this was. It makes sense why the trope of the “ivory tower” became a thing.

As such, consider this coda my formal departure from academia – at least for now. I hope you appreciated the telling of my story.

Notes

[1] https://source.colostate.edu/csu-joins-heterodox-academy-a-nonprofit-dedicated-to-diverse-viewpoints-open-inquiry/

[2] Although, I am biased toward the truth over social justice given my experiences. Also, how can one pursue social justice without knowing what is true?

[3] It should be noted that this particular e-mail had followed an in-person meeting with this same professor weeks prior, one that lasted at least a couple of hours and during which additional concerns about my values and beliefs were put forth – more on that later in this paper.

[4] The potentially awkward phrasing and ellipses here within the parentheses are purposeful for omitting any possible identifying information about Professor A.

[5] I co-wrote a chapter in which I make a similar argument about how social work professional organizations speak ad infinitum about being an anti-oppressive discipline, yet there are, in my view, very real oppressive systems ripe for the taking that they completely ignore. In other words, to highlight the hypocrisy and performative nature of our field’s professional organizations. See “The speciousness of social work professional organizations” in (Bylotas & Cantú, 2024), pp. 389–391.

[6]“Students’ Guide to Academic Freedom in the Classroom:” https://www.libarts.colostate. edu/classroom-climate/academic-freedom-in-the-classroom-students/

[7]Hughes adds on page 25 that “Even though they say that race is a social construct, their actions treat the concept of race the same way old-school racists do: as if race were a perfectly natural concept.” My uncomfortable experience in the university setting echoes Hughes’ claim, though I attempt to make a different philosophical case as to why in this chapter: Cantú, A. (2024). Moving Past Racial Categories: An Epistemological Comparison with Mental Disorder. In A. Cantú, E. Maisel, & C. Ruby (Eds.), Institutionalized Madness: The Interplay of Psychiatry and Society’s Institutions. Ethics International Press.

[8]They are usually written out as follows: “The School of Social Work at Colorado State University is committed to creating a culture and climate that respects and honors people of all identities. Like our names, pronouns (i.e., zir, they, per, she, he) reflect how we want to be respected in our identities. This is especially important for those who are Transgender, non-binary, and gender non-conforming. We often ascribe pronouns to individuals they may or may not use. Assuming identities based on observation or stereotype can result in unintended harm by using the wrong pronouns, misgendering, or potentially outing someone. Referring to someone by pronouns they use is one way to demonstrate respect for them as a person. Respect is included in our Principles of Community. As such, we support and encourage those who choose to share their pronouns in professional and academic spaces, including wherever names are provided, such as meeting and classroom introductions, name badges, email signatures, and course syllabi. By creating space for people who choose to share their pronouns, we foster an inclusive culture that is welcoming for all.” This is about half of the statement typically included in social work syllabi.

[9] Notably, this practice trickled down to students being compelled – or, at least, not regularly presented with the option—to share or not share their pronouns, typically during introductions. Compelling aside (see Doyle, 2022), this always puzzled me: what impact does this have on students who are actually questioning their gender identity and may not feel ready to disclose how they identify yet? Others have argued these go- arounds to be performative, harmful, and “makes you feel good while doing little to actually advance the cause of transgender rights” (Manion, 2018; para. 15; see also Brown, 2020; Haimson, 2018; Haimson & Airton, 2019).

[10] CSU’s is typically as follows: “Colorado State University acknowledges, with respect, that the land we are on today is the traditional and ancestral homelands of the Arapaho, Cheyenne, and Ute Nations and peoples. This was also a site of trade, gathering, and healing for numerous other Native tribes. We recognize the Indigenous peoples as original stewards of this land and all the relatives within it. As these words of acknowledgment are spoken and heard, the ties Nations have to their traditional homelands are renewed and reaffirmed. CSU is founded as a land- grant institution, and we accept that our mission must encompass access to education and inclusion. And, significantly, that our founding came at a dire cost to Native Nations and peoples whose land this University was built upon. This acknowledgment is the education and inclusion we must practice in recognizing our institutional history, responsibility, and commitment.”

[11] The actual verbiage I included in my assignment was as follows: “With our individual and unique life experiences, we will operate in the classroom with the mutual commonality of wanting to understand the content in order to incorporate it into the fabric of our lives. Our primary intent will be to come and think together, to discuss and wrestle with challenging and complex life questions together—to listen and seek to understand one another, develop more of an insight into our own principles and values, and have a richer understanding of those held by others even when we disagree. We will be able to dictate the level of risk and courage we are willing to embody in speaking our minds – tentatively or with conviction – and be willing to not only persuade others but be persuaded themselves. Students will be encouraged to actively participate as we tend to get as many dividends out of our educational experience as the time and energy we are willing to invest.”

[12] This was the website linked here: https://tilt.colostate.edu/prodev/teaching-effectiveness /tef/inclusive-pedagogy/

[13] I had to invoke the term, though I’m also comfortable with alternative views and critiques of the idea, as we all should be. For example, see Casey, 2023 and Casey 2024.

[14] See https://chhs.source.colostate.edu/critical-perspectives-or-the-future-of-mental- health-care-social-work-ph-d-student-serves-as-editor-on-new-books/

[15] https://biasreporting.colostate.edu/

[16] https://biasreporting.colostate.edu/bias-reporting-flow-chart/

[17] https://inclusiveexcellence.colostate.edu/about/guiding-principles

[18] For those that know me, I am known for being overly generous (perhaps to a fault) in the provision of book recommendations (sometimes, unsolicited). This list is an example – deal with it.

[19] www.oed.com/view/Entry/132009

[20] https://www.routledge.com/Abolishing-the-Concept-of-Mental-Illness-Rethinking-the- Nature-of-Our-Woes/Hallam/p/book/9781138063136

[21] Its respective documentary by the same name released in 2023 is also highly recommended; see https://www.imdb.com/title/tt15130080/

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

References

Abrams, S., & Khalid, A. (2020). Are colleges and universities too liberal? What the research says about the political composition of campuses and campus climate. Heterodox Academy. https://heterodoxacademy.org/blog/are-colleges-and-universities-too-liberal-what-the-research-says-about-the-political-composition-of-campuses-and-campus-climate/

Boghossian, P. (2019, November 24). ‘Idea laundering’ in academia. Wall street journal. https:// www.wsj.com/articles/idea-laundering-in-academia-11574634492

Brenan, M. (2023, July 11). Americans’ confidence in higher education down sharply. Gallup. https://news.gallup.com/poll/508352/americans-confidence-higher-education-down-sharply.aspx

Brown, M. (2020, October 29). 2 reasons not to share your pronouns. Medium. https://aninjus ticemag.com/2-reasons-not-to-share-your-pronouns-2a892915fdf4

Burstow, B. (2019). On cognitive liberty: A principle to rally behind. Mad in America. https:// www.madinamerica.com/2019/07/cognitive-liberty-principle-rally-behind/

Bylotas, J., & Cantú, A. (2024). Expanding suicidological training and practice: A critical place for clinical social work. In A. Cantú, E. Maisel, & C. Ruby (Eds.), Theoretical alternatives to the psychiatric model of mental disorder labeling: contemporary frameworks, taxonomies, and models (pp. 381–405). Ethics Press.

Cantú, A. (2023a). It is time to replace the DSM: A critical review of social work and the biomedical model of practice. Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry, 25(1), 38–56. https://doi.org/10.1891/ehpp-2022-0002

Cantú, A. (2023b). Toward a descriptive problem-based taxonomy for mental health: A nonmedicalized way out of the biomedical model. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/00221678231167612 Cantú, A. (2023c, November). The DSM and clinical social work: Widespread diagnosing of “mental illness” is not working. Social work advocates magazine. https://www.socialworkers. org/News/Social-Work-Advocates/2023-October-November-Issue/The-DSM-and-Clinical- Social-Work

Casey, P. J. (2020). Truth and social justice: How universities can embrace both of these values. Heterodox Academy. https://heterodoxacademy.org/blog/truth-and-social-justice-how-universities-can-embrace-both-of-these-values/

Casey, P. J. (2023). Lived experience: defined and critiqued. Critical Horizons, 24(3), 282–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/14409917.2023.2241058

Casey, P. J. (2024, April 18). What is ‘lived experience’?. Aeon. https://aeon.co/essays/on-lived-experience-from-the-romantics-to-identity-politics

CSWE. (2022). Educational policy and accreditation standards. https://www.cswe.org/accred itation/policies-process/2022epas/

CSWE. (2023, March 30). CSWE calls for academic freedom in higher education. https://www. cswe.org/news/newsroom/cswe-calls-for-academic-freedom-in-higher-education/

Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2011). Critical race theory: An introduction (2nd ed.). NYU Press.

DiAngelo, R. (2018). White fragility: Why it’s so hard for white people to talk about racism. Beacon Press.

Doyle, A. (2022, March 2). The liberal case against pronouns: There’s nothing progressive about compelled speech. UnHerd. https://unherd.com/2022/03/the-liberal-case-against-pronouns/

Doyle, A. (2023). The new puritans: how the religion of social justice captured the western world. Constable.

Eduardo, A. (2024). John stuart mill’s enduring arguments for free speech. Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/john- stuart-mills-enduring-arguments-free-speech

Elliott, C. (2024). The occasional human sacrifice: medical experimentation and the price of saying no. W. W. Norton & Company.

Farber, N. (2023). The dystopian world of social work education. National Association of Scholars. https://doi.org/10.51845/36.4.5

Farnsworth, W. (2021). The socratic method: a practitioner’s handbook. Godine.

Flexner, A. (1915). Is social work a profession? Proceedings of the national conference of charities and correction. In L. Leighninger (Ed. Creating a new profession (pp. 37–46). Council on Social Work Education, Alexandria, VA.

Gambrill, E. (2021). Twiddeling and twaddeling in the weeptime of clients: avoidable injustice. Research on Social Work Practice, 31(5), 431–437. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 10497315211001454

Gehlert, S. (2015). Social work and science. Research on Social Work Practice, 26(2), 219–224. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731515570138

Glass, G. (2023, June 14). New mexico ranks as the worst state for child well-being. KOAT7News. https://www.koat.com/article/new-mexico-child-well-being-survey-2023/ 44200445

Gomory, T., Wong, S. E., Cohen, D., & Lacasse, J. R. (2011). Clinical social work and the biomedical industrial complex. Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, 38(4), 135–165. https://doi.org/10.15453/0191-5096.3635

Haidt, J. (2016, October 21). Why universities must choose one telos: truth or social justice. Heterodox Academy. https://heterodoxacademy.org/blog/one-telos-truth-or-social-justice -2

Haimson, O. (2018, October 16). Why “standing in your identity corner” doesn’t work: Against forced disclosure of marginalized identities as casual icebreakers. Medium. https://medium. com/national-center-for-institutional-diversity/why-standing-in-your-identity-corner- doesnt-work-against-forced-disclosure-of-marginalized-fbd71406569f

Haimson, O., & Airton, L. (2019, June 4). Making space for them, her, him, and ‘prefer not to disclose’ in group settings: Why pronoun-sharing is important but must remain optional. Medium. https://medium.com/national-center-for-institutional-diversity/making-space-for -them-her-him-and-prefer-not-to-disclose-in-group-settings-why-1deb8c3d6b86

Hämäläinen, N. (2023). The making of the good person: Self-help, ethics and philosophy. Routledge.

Hughes, C. (2024). The end of race politics: Arguments for a colorblind America. Penguin.

Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLOS Medicine, 2(8), e124. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

Jenkins, J. H., & Csordas, T. J. (2020). Troubled in the land of enchantment: Adolescent experience of psychiatric treatment. University of California Press.

Kaufmann, E. (2020). Liberal fundamentalism: A sociology of wokeness. American Affairs Journal, 4(4), 188–208. https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2020/11/liberal-fundamentalism -a-sociology-of-wokeness/

Kaufmann, E. (2021, February 28). Academic freedom is withering. Wall street journal. https:// www.wsj.com/articles/academic-freedom-is-withering-11614531962

Kendi, I. X. (2019). How to be an antiracist. One World.

Khalid, A., & Snyder, J. A. (2022a, February 10). The purpose of a university isn’t truth. it’s inquiry. The chronicle of higher education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-purpose- of-a-university-isnt-truth-its-inquiry

Khalid, A., & Snyder, J. A. (2022b, February 25). The truth, and nothing but the truth?. The chronicle of higher education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-truth-and-nothing-but -the-truth Khalid, A., & Snyder, J. A. (2024, April 2). Student activism is integral to the mission of academe. the chronicle of higher education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/student-activism-is- integral-to-the-mission-of-academe

Kidder, R. M. (2005). Moral courage. William Morrow.

Kleingeld, P., & Brown, E. (2019). Cosmopolitanism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmopolitanism/

Leighninger, L. (2000). Creating a new profession: The beginnings of social work education in the United States. Council on Social Work Education.

Longhofer, J., & Floersch, J. (2012). The coming crisis in social work. Research on Social Work Practice, 22(5), 499–519. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731512445509

Lukianoff, G., & Haidt, J. (2019). The coddling of the american mind: How good intentions and bad ideas are setting up a generation for failure. Penguin Books.

Manion, J. (2018, November 27). The performance of transgender inclusion: The pronoun go-round and the new gender binary. Public seminar. https://publicseminar.org/essays/the- performance-of-transgender-inclusion/

Mason, S. M. (2022). Theory of racelessness: A case for antirace(ism). Springer.

Mastroianni, A. (2022, December 13). The rise and fall of peer review. Experimental history. https://www.experimental-history.com/p/the-rise-and-fall-of-peer-review

McCaughey, M. (2024, February 16). Against scholar-activism. The James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal. https://www.jamesgmartin.center/2024/02/against-scholar-activism/

McWhorter, J. (2021). Woke racism: How a new religion has betrayed black america. Portfolio.

Mill, J. S. (1859). On liberty. John W. Parker and Son.

NASW. (2021). Code of ethics. National Association of Social Workers. https://www.socialwor kers.org/About/Ethics/Code-of-Ethics/Code-of-Ethics-English

NASW. (n.d.). History of the NASW code of ethics. https://www.socialworkers.org/About/ Ethics/Code-of-Ethics/History

Noelle-Neumann, E. (1993). The spiral of silence: Public opinion-our social skin (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press.

Pluckrose, H., & Lindsay, J. (2020). Cynical theories: How activist scholarship made everything about race, gender, and identity-and why this harms everybody. Pitchstone Publishing.

Ritchie, S. (2020). Science fictions: How fraud, bias, negligence, and hype undermine the search for truth. Metropolitan Books.

Rothman, N. (2022). The rise of the new puritans: Fighting back against progressives’ war on fun. Broadside Books.

Sage, R. (2022). A new woke religion: Are universities to blame? Journal of Higher Education Policy and Leadership Studies, 3(2), 29–51. https://doi.org/10.52547/johepal.3.2.29

Sokal, A. (2023). The implicit epistemology of white fragility. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 57(2), 517–552. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopedu/qhad025 Sokal, A. (2024, May 22). How ideology threatens to corrupt science: Ideological censorship in science is antithetical to its purpose and its methods. The critic magazine. https://thecritic.co. uk/how-ideology-threatens-to-corrupt-science/

Sowell, T. (2013). Intellectuals and race. Basic Books.

Specht, H., & Courtney, M. E. (1995). Unfaithful angels: How social work has abandoned its mission. Free Press.

Speech First. (2022). Free speech in the crosshairs: Bias reporting on college campuses. In Speech First. https://speechfirst.org/bias-reporting-systems/

Veber, M. (2022, February 14). Giving up on truth is giving up on free speech. The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/giving-up-on-truth-is-giving-up-on- free-speech

Appendix

Appendix A

Fellowship Application Essay

The Interdisciplinary Minority Fellowship Program (IMFP) intends to support the training of ethnic minority graduate students who plan to help address the mental health needs of ethnic minority populations. To wit, the program aims to improve the quality of mental health care while decreasing health disparities experienced by ethnic minorities. One can draw parallels between my own professional goals with that of the IMFP’s: not only do I plan on continuing to work with the Hispanic and undocumented population in a clinical capacity throughout my career, but I also intend to influence the mental and behavioral health landscape and its continued use of the controversial “mental disorder paradigm” that is arguably putting up needless barriers for this vulnerable population. These barriers can be said to be the product of behavioral health’s link with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).

I identify as Hispanic and Latino, having been born in Mexico and growing up with immigrant parents in a US border town until uprooting for graduate school. After obtaining my master’s in social work, my entire career thus far has comprised of working with the Hispanic and undocumented population—partially as a way of giving back to the community that raised me, and partially to help address a gap by providing culturally relevant and relatable mental health support. I, first, spent a few years working as a school social worker in a district that served the Hispanic neighborhoods in Austin, TX. Over ninety percent of our student body qualified for free-or-reduced meals and many of our students’ parents and caretakers were undocumented—a reality that had a noticeable impact in our hallways on A Day Without Immigrants in 2017. This experience was followed by working as a psychotherapist in a community-based mental health clinic in Albuquerque, NM—a state that ranked 50th in the country for child well-being in 2022. Throughout my handful of years there as one of the few Hispanic and bilingual clinicians, nearly all my clients were children on Medicaid and their families identified as Hispanic—several, additionally, were also undocumented (if they had felt comfortable enough who disclose).

Collectively, my professional practice experience has resulted in my decision to enroll in a social work doctoral program, thus returning to my academic roots in a discipline that maintains an invaluable person-in-environment lens at the forefront while seeking to promote social justice and social change with and on behalf of clients, as formally endorsed in our discipline’s Code of Ethics. Valuing my work experience, I have seen firsthand the damage, limitations, and barriers the controversial and scientifically questionable mental disorder paradigm inflicts onto vulnerable individuals in need of or seeking services. Therefore, in addition to continuing to work as a clinician serving the Hispanic population, I plan to investigate non-medicalized alternative and humanistic ways – separate from the mental disorder paradigm – in which people can have their difficulties named and, subsequently, be granted access to mental health services.

To be sure, conducting research of this kind – that is, developing alternatives to the DSM – can have broad applications that cut across all ethnic groups as mental distress and human suffering do not discriminate. Additionally, humanistic and paradigmatic reforms to the field of behavioral health should be experienced and enjoyed by individuals from all walks of life – irrespective of ethnicity or race – as we are all weary travelers roaming this planet trying to make sense of it all. Regardless, employing alternatives to the DSM can address certain barriers and problems more prevalent among the Hispanic and undocumented population. Influenced by my professional practice experience, I believe the potential impacts of my research interests rest on three particular points that I will expand on: implementing alternatives to the DSM is anti-oppressive; it can increase access to services; and it can eliminate the deception of an already vulnerable population that is the Hispanic and undocumented.

The DSM and its associated fields of study (e.g., psychopathology, abnormal psychology, etc.) are charged with the study, prevention, and treatment of “mental illnesses.” The crux is an implicit notion to delineate what is or is not a typical way a human can respond to life circumstances and stressors. One result is the subtle judgment of those experiencing life in atypical (or abnormal) ways – contributing to individual dysfunction – thus necessitating the scientifically questionable label of a mental disorder so the individual can access services. These are labels that can become sticky and internalized by the individual, influencing their sense of identity and perceived abilities among other adverse effects. The impact, to some, of being labeled bears a striking resemblance to the experience of oppression. “Oppressive” is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary19 as “weighing heavily on the mind, spirits, or senses”; “constrictive”; and “depressing.” The Hispanic and undocumented population, by default, can experience higher levels of oppression compared to other ethnic groups by virtue of feeling increased stress due to tenuous living circumstances; remaining watchful and fearful of law enforcement for fear of deportation; receiving messages of not being wanted in this country; and literally being considered an “illegal alien” in the eyes of the law. This is a group that does not need to experience additional forms of oppression through messages indicating they are “abnormal” suffering individuals. Therefore, implementing non-medicalized and humanistic alternatives to the DSM is anti-oppressive as doing so would seek uplift their minds, spirits, and senses; liberate; strengthen; and imbue them with more sense of control over their lives.

Secondly, non-medicalized alternatives to the DSM can influence access to services. There remains a stigma around “mental illness” with some arguing the term should, in fact, be abolished.20 Stigma aside, the label of a mental disorder can carry significant weight—so much so that they can grant individuals access to services on one end and terminate the parental rights of an individual on another end. For Hispanic and undocumented individuals – especially those in court proceedings seeking citizenship – there is a real fear for any kind of stigmatized medical label to be etched into their records. If becoming a US citizen is to be implicated in any way, some would rather not seek any kind of mental health services and, instead, “keep it in the family.” Therefore, if humanistic alternatives are implemented resulting in lessened medical overtones and stigma upon seeking help, it is possible Hispanic and undocumented individuals would be more inclined to seek mental health services without fear.

Lastly, the foundation of the mental disorder paradigm has been critiqued for decades with several arguing it and its proponents are, perhaps unintentionally, deceiving those seeking help. For Hispanic and undocumented individuals, this can happen with more ease. Due to language barriers and amplified power imbalances, there can be an increased propensity for one to appeal to authority from an already vulnerable position. It is a healthcare professional providing a medical diagnosis, after all—and someone from a disadvantaged status is less likely to question their opinion or a complicated medical-sounding judgment. With a humanistic and non-medicalized alternative in place, one could, instead, surmise there would be more of a rebalance. An individual from this group may feel more confident to question the professional or seek clarification. They may experience lessened fear and worry about something other than a diagnosis documented in their medical record. This wouldn’t necessarily even be a medical encounter, after all—it would simply be one individual seeking help from another.

Appendix B

Rebalancing List of Recommended Books (In Alphabetical Order by Author)

• Adams’ Culture War: Art, Identity Politics and Cultural Entryism (2019)

• al-Gharbi’s We Have Never Been Woke: The Cultural Contradictions of a New Elite (2024)

• Archie’s The Virtue of Color-Blindness (2024)

• Ben-Porath’s Cancel Wars: How Universities Can Foster Free Speech, Promote Inclusion, and Renew Democracy (2023)

• Bowles’ Morning After the Revolution: Dispatches from the Wrong Side of History (2024)

• Bloom’s The Closing of the American Mind: How Higher Education Has Failed Democracy and Impoverished the Souls of Today’s Students (1987)

• Brace’s “Race” Is a Four-Letter Word: The Genesis of the Concept (2005)

• Brennan and Magness’ Cracks in the Ivory Tower: The Moral Mess of Higher Education (2019)

• Caldwell’s The Age of Entitlement: America Since the Sixties (2020)

• Carl’s The Unprotected Class: How Anti-White Racism Is Tearing America Apart (2024)

• Campbell’s How to Think Better About Social Justice: Why Good Sociology Matters (2024)

• Campbell and Manning’s The Rise of Victimhood Culture: Microaggressions, Safe Spaces, and the New Culture Wars (2018)

• Cobley’s The Tribe: The Liberal-Left and the System of Diversity (2018)

• Downs’ Free Speech and Liberal Education: A Plea for Intellectual Diversity and Tolerance (2020)

• D.E. Bernstein’s Classified: The Untold Story of Racial Classification in America (2023)

• Doyle’s The New Puritans: How the Religion of Social Justice Captured the Western World (2022)

• Ellis’ The Breakdown of Higher Education: How It Happened, the Damage It Does, and What Can Be Done (2020)

• Fields and Fields’ Racecraft: The Soul of Inequality in American Life (2012)

• Frisby and Maranto’s Social Justice versus Social Science: White Fragility, Implicit Bias, and Diversity Training (2024)

• Frisby, Redding, O’Donohue, and Lilienfeld’s Ideological and Political Bias in Psychology: Nature, Scope, and Solutions (2023)

• Gilroy’s Against Race: Imagining Political Culture beyond the Color Line (2000)

• Glasgow, Haslanger, Jeffers, and Spencer’s What Is Race? Four Philosophical Views (2019)

• Goldblatt’s I Feel, Therefore I Am: The Triumph of Woke Subjectivism (2022)

• Gross and Levitt’s Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science (1994)

• Haidt’s The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion (2023)

• Hanania’s The Origins of Woke: Civil Rights Law, Corporate America, and the Triumph of Identity Politics (2023)

• Hobfoll’s Tribalism: The Evolutionary Origins of Fear Politics (2018)

• Hoyt’s The Arc of a Bad Idea: Understanding and Transcending Race (2016) and Hoyt and Ham’s Diversity Without Divisiveness (2024)

• Hughes’ The End of Race Politics: Arguments for a Colorblind America (2024)

• Huemer’s Progressive Myths (2024)

• Jones’ Universities Under Fire: Hostile Discourses and Integrity Deficits in Higher Education (2022)

• Joshi’s Why It’s OK to Speak Your Mind (2021)

• Kaufmann’s Taboo: How Making Race Sacred Produced a Cultural Revolution (2024) and The Third Awokening: A 12-Point Plan for Rolling Back Progressive Extremism (2024)

• Kors and Silverglate’s The Shadow University: The Betrayal Of Liberty On America’s Campuses (1998)

• Lindsay’s The Marxification of Education: Paulo Freire’s Critical Marxism and the Theft of Education (2022) and Race Marxism: The Truth About Critical Race Theory and Praxis (2022)

• Lindsay’s Against the New Politics of Identity: How the Left’s Dogmas on Race and Equity Harm Liberal Democracy―and Invigorate Christian Nationalism (2023)

• López-Corredoira, Todd, and Olsson’s Diversity, Inclusion, Equity and the Threat to Academic Freedom (2022)

• Love’s Race Crazy: BLM, 1619, and the Progressive Racism Movement (2021)

• Lukianoff and Haidt’s The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure (2018)21

• Lukianoff and Schlott’s The Canceling of the American Mind: Cancel Culture Undermines Trust, Destroys Institutions, and Threatens Us All – but There Is a Solution (2023)

• Malik’s Not So Black and White: A History of Race from White Supremacy to Identity Politics (2023)

• Manji’s Don’t Label Me: An Incredible Conversation for Divided Times (2019)

• Mason’s Theory of Racelessness: A Case for Antirace(ism) (2022) and The Raceless Antiracist: Why Ending Race Is the Future of Antiracism (2024)

• McWhorter’s Woke Racism: How a New Religion Has Betrayed Black America (2021), Losing the Race: Self-Sabotage in Black America (2000) and Winning the Race: Beyond the Crisis in Black America (2005)

• Michaels’ The Trouble with Diversity: How We Learned to Love Identity and Ignore Inequality (2016)

• Montagu’s Man’s Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Race (1942)

• Morson and Schapiro’s Minds Wide Shut: How the New Fundamentalisms Divide Us (2021)

• Mounk’s The Identity Trap: A Story of Ideas and Power in Our Time (2023)

• Murray’s The Madness of Crowds: Gender, Race and Identity (2019) and The War on the West (2022)

• Neiman’s Left Is Not Woke (2023)

• Pluckrose’s The Counterweight Handbook: Principled Strategies for Surviving and Defeating Critical Social Justice (2024)

• Pluckrose and Lindsay’s Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything About Race, Gender, and Identity – and Why This Harms Everybody (2020) and Social (In)justice: Why Many Popular Answers to Important Questions of Race, Gender, and Identity Are Wrong (2022)

• Rectenwald’s Springtime for Snowflakes: Social Justice and Its Postmodern Parentage (2018) and Beyond Woke (2020)

• Reichman’s The Future of Academic Freedom (2019)

• Reilly’s Taboo: 10 Facts You Can’t Talk About (2020) and Lies My Liberal Teacher Told Me: Debunking the False Narratives Defining America’s School Curricula (2024)

• Ridgley’s Brutal Minds: The Dark World of Left-Wing Brainwashing in Our Universities (2023)

• Rothman’s Unjust: Social Justice and the Unmaking of America (2019) and The Rise of the New Puritans: Fighting Back Against Progressives’ War on Fun (2022)

• Rufo’s America’s Cultural Revolution: How the Radical Left Conquered Everything (2023)

• Saad’s The Parasitic Mind: How Infectious Ideas Are Killing Common Sense (2020)

• Shields and Dunn’s Passing on the Right: Conservative Professors in the Progressive

• Sokal and Bricmont’s Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals’ Abuse of Science (1997)

• Sotirakopoulos’ Identity Politics and Tribalism: The New Culture Wars (2021)

• Sowell’s Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality? (1984), Social Justice Fallacies (2023) as well as his trio consisting of A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles (1987), The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy (1995), and The Quest for Cosmic Justice (1996)

• Sussman’s The Myth of Race: The Troubling Persistence of an Unscientific Idea (2014)

• Thomas’ Cynical Therapies: Perspectives on the Antitherapeutic Nature of Critical Social Justice (2023)

• Tosi and Warmke’s Grandstanding: The Use and Abuse of Moral Talk (2020)

• Williams’ Academic Freedom in an Age of Conformity: Confronting the Fear of Knowledge (2016)

• Williams’ How Woke Won: The Elitist Movement that Threatens Democracy, Tolerance and Reason (2022)

• Woodson’s Red, White, and Black: Rescuing American History from Revisionists and Race Hustlers (2021) and A Pathway to American Renewal: Red, White, and Black Volume II (2024)

• Xu’s School of Woke: How Critical Race Theory Infiltrated American Schools and Why We Must Reclaim Them (2023)

• Zúquete’s The Palgrave Handbook of Left-Wing Extremism (Volumes 1 and 2) (2023)

  Appendix C

  Feedback Given to and Response by “DEI Staff Member A”

  My feedback

  Sure. Here are my thoughts if they will be considered:

  For starters, I am unsure of the utility or point of the bias assessment team and reporting tool. I think it’s a neat resource. However, given my experience of “radio silence” from your department while I had to navigate tricky waters within my program – coupled with challenging power dynamics and anticipated social ostracization – I felt woefully unsupported by your department.

  I respectfully disagree and believe that “a measure of academic disagreement” is an understatement. When expectations of research are bent to serve a particular viewpoint that is aligned with a particular political and ideological leaning – and when my values and beliefs are questioned because I am not regurgitating the particular rhetoric or conveying those particular values – that is a blatant form of bias.

  The emotional and psychological wringer I was put through since winter break and the start of this semester resulted from my own beliefs and worldviews not aligning with my program’s faculty. Normally, that shouldn’t be an issue in higher education and university campuses – places in which we are seeking truth and generating knowledge through the clashing of ideas. Regardless, that would have been an ideal time to have been able to hear from the Office of Inclusive Excellence for support. However, the lack of response or contact has been disappointing. This experience made me question remaining a student at CSU and what the university stands for.

• All that to be said: my experience has felt as if I had never submitted a report. And I am even more disappointed that the initiative has been on me to follow up with you all about it instead of the other way around. Since your department also has “inclusiveness” in its name, it should also be stated that I consider myself somewhat of a double minority in my field and program: I am a male Mexican-American first-generation student in a predominantly female and white profession. Unfortunately, the boilerplate responses are disconcerting and do not convey “inclusiveness.” They reflect poorly on the department and essentially give the feel of “take it up with your department.”

  It’s possible I may be misinterpreting things – and I will acknowledge if I am. However, I am just going off of what my experience and communication have been with you all – which has been virtually nonexistent. Arnold

  DEI Staff Member A’s response

  Good afternoon, Arnold.

  Thank you for sharing your feedback about the Bias Reporting System.

  Gratefully,

  [DEI Staff Member A]