Codifying Bias: How Activist Politics Became Embedded in Social Work Standards and Practices

Article from "Frontiers in Mental Health" Issue 2

By Nafees Alam, PhD

The following article appears in the second issue of “Frontiers in Mental Health,” journal of the Open Therapy Institute. Read the full issue here.

Social work, a profession dedicated to helping vulnerable populations, has increasingly embraced a narrow ideological framework that threatens its core mission. The phrase “I’m a social worker; what’s your superpower?” reveals a troubling hero complex emerging within the field, in which practitioners position themselves as saviors rather than facilitators of client autonomy. What is even more concerning is the way the profession has shifted from client-centered care to the advocacy of predetermined political positions under the guise of social justice.

In this essay, I will consider how this shift has come about, what it means for professional practice, and how practitioners can offer helpful solutions to restore balance to the profession.

Background

Social work emerged in the late 19th century with dual roots: charity organization societies focused on individual assistance and settlement houses addressed community needs. While clinical interventions and community organization represent different approaches, both are traditionally centered on “meeting the individual where they are” and understanding each client’s unique circumstances and needs (Raine et al., 2023).

Since its inception, social work has been oriented toward progressive causes, with pioneers such as Jane Addams advocating for social reform. This progressive orientation, however, was historically balanced with rigorous clinical training and respect for client self-determination. Today, this balance has shifted dramatically toward enforced ideological conformity, and professional bureaucratic structures have facilitated this.

The following examples illustrate how professional organizations use ideologically loaded concepts to pressure practitioners into incorporating political ideologies into their work—often in ways that impinge on the equal treatment of clients, client autonomy, and respect for the diversity of clients’ values:

• The 2022 Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) accreditation standards require curricula to be focused on “dismantling systems of oppression” (p.16). For example, Standard 3.1 mandates that programs must “engage diversity in their practice” with explicit instruction on anti-racism and guidance on “how mechanisms of oppression and discrimination” impact well-being.

• Some social work journals now prioritize anti-oppressive perspectives over methodological rigor. For instance, the Journal of Progressive Human Services explicitly states in its aims and scope that it is “covers political, social, personal, and professional problems in human services from radical and anti-oppressive perspectives” and “assumes that the economic, political, social, and cultural structures privilege some and not others,” rather than emphasizing empirical standards first.

• The National Association of Social Workers (NASW) Code of Ethics mandates “social and political action” (p.1) as an ethical obligation. Section 6.04 specifically requires social workers to “engage in social and political action that seeks to ensure that all people have equal access to the resources, employment, services, and opportunities they require to meet their basic human needs and to develop fully” (p.8).

• Educational programs increasingly evaluate students on ideological conformity rather than clinical skills. For example, Holmström (2013) documented how social work programs “assess and develop moral character” (p. 451) in social work education.

How These Issues Play Out in Mental Health Treatment

The consequences of this ideological shift are particularly evident in mental health settings (Farber & Fram, 2024). Consider the following examples:

• Practitioners face professional pressure to view religious clients through an oppression lens rather than respecting their belief systems, as documented in Hodge’s (2020) study on religious discrimination in social work. In practice, this often manifests as encouraging clients to critically examine their religious beliefs as potential sources of internalized oppression rather than working within their faith framework when providing therapeutic services.

• Social workers who question aspects of gender-affirming care report professional ostracism, as revealed in Lindroth et al.’s 2025 study. Clinicians who raise concerns about the rapid increase in adolescents identifying as transgender or who suggest exploratory therapy before medical interventions often face accusations of transphobia and exclusion from professional networks.

• Clinicians report being unable to discuss certain therapeutic approaches that are deemed problematic, limiting evidence-based practice options, as shown in Duarte et al.’s 2015 research. For example, cognitive-behavioral approaches that focus on personal agency and responsibility are sometimes criticized as blaming the victim or ignoring systemic factors, despite their proven efficacy for many conditions.

• Faculty members expressing viewpoint diversity concerns face hostile work environments, as documented in multiple academic freedom cases. The case of Mark Regnerus at the University of Texas and similar instances show how scholars questioning orthodoxy face professional retaliation, including calls for termination.

This enforced orthodoxy prevents honest clinical discussion about complex cases and has a chilling effect on evidence-based practice. It undermines the profession’s ability to serve diverse clients and creates situations in which clients with traditional or conservative views may receive biased care or are made to feel that their perspectives are pathologized rather than understood.

What Can Be Done?

The social work profession is facing problems of immense scale, and the issues are all interrelated and multidimensional. The solutions are simple, but an important starting point would be to offer a clearer field-wide analysis to inform an effective corrective turn. To this end, there are at least four domains requiring immediate action.

Educational Reform

Educational reform must be central to this effort, focusing on restoring intellectual diversity to social work programs:

• Curriculum balance: Implement reading lists that include diverse ideological perspectives and challenge orthodoxy. The Heterodox Academy’s Teaching & Advocacy Resources offers practical approaches, such as viewpoint diversity audits of syllabi and frameworks for facilitating discussions on controversial topics.

• Protected classroom discourse: Create environments in which students can debate controversial issues without fear of academic penalties, following the University of Chicago’s Principles of Free Expression. This includes explicit protections for students expressing unpopular views during class discussions and in written assignments.

• Diverse faculty recruitment: Develop hiring practices that value intellectual diversity and different theoretical orientations, not just demographic representation. This might include adding “commitment to viewpoint diversity” as a criterion in faculty searches and ensuring that hiring committees themselves represent diverse perspectives.

Professional Organization Reform

Organizations such as the NASW and CSWE need significant reforms to restore professional neutrality:

• Revise ethical standards: Return the code of ethics to its client-centered focus rather than prescribing specific political activism. This would involve modifying Section 6.04 to emphasize that social workers should advocate for policies that benefit clients without mandating particular political positions.

• Outcome-based accreditation: Shift accreditation standards toward measuring clinical competencies and client outcomes rather than ideological compliance. This would prioritize demonstrating effectiveness in improving client well-being over adherence to particular theoretical frameworks.

• Member advocacy: Support the formation of interest groups within professional organizations that advocate viewpoint diversity and intellectual freedom. The recently formed ProSocial Workers represents one such effort to create space for professional dissent.

Research Standards Reform

The research ecosystem in social work requires structured interventions:

• Methodological focus: Journal editorial boards should prioritize research rigor over ideological alignment with transparent peer review processes. This includes encouraging pre-registration of studies and embracing methodological pluralism rather than privileging particular epistemological approaches.

• Diverse research questions: Funding bodies should support investigations across the ideological spectrum on controversial topics. This would include studies examining potential negative outcomes of interventions that are currently considered best practices based on ideological rather than empirical grounds.

• Replication emphasis: The field should prioritize replication studies to test whether ideologically aligned findings hold up to scrutiny. Organizations such as the Center for Open Science offer frameworks to improve reproducibility and transparency in social science research.

Professional Dissent Networks

Building supportive networks for practitioners with diverse viewpoints is essential:

• Practitioner communities: Support emerging groups such as Heterodox Social Work that provide safe spaces for professional discussion. These communities allow clinicians to share experiences, discuss complex cases, and develop practice approaches outside ideological constraints.

• Legal protection: Connect practitioners facing viewpoint discrimination with legal resources through organizations such as the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. This provides a safety net for clinicians who face professional retaliation for expressing heterodox views.

• Client advocacy: Develop resources for clients seeking ideologically diverse practitioners who will respect their values and beliefs. This might include directories of practitioners committed to client-centered rather than politically driven approaches to therapy.

Conclusion

Social work stands at a crossroads. The profession can continue down the path of ideological conformity, potentially alienating clients and practitioners with diverse viewpoints, or reclaim its rich tradition of client-centered care within ethical boundaries that respect intellectual diversity (Farber, 2023). It’s not an overstatement to suggest that ongoing politicization of the field could lead to broad cuts in government funding and other legislative changes that could gut the profession.

The general public deserves to understand what social work is and what it could be. Rather than a profession defined by political activism, social work at its best combines compassion with evidence-based interventions tailored to individual needs. It respects client autonomy while providing expert guidance and addresses systemic barriers without imposing predetermined political solutions.

As scholars and practitioners increasingly challenge ideological capture, there is hope that social work can evolve toward taking a more balanced approach that upholds the profession’s core values while embracing intellectual diversity (Alam & Rueda, 2025). The profession is beginning to challenge ideological capture. Recently, one social work journal (The Journal for Teaching in Social Work) published a special issue on critiquing ideological mandates in the profession, and it is currently calling for papers on academic freedom and critical thinking in social work. This evolution would benefit social workers and the diverse populations they serve, ensuring that all clients receive care that respects their unique circumstances, beliefs, and aspirations.

References

Alam, N., & Rueda, H. (2025). Heterodox social work: Advancing viewpoint diversity, constructive disagreement, and open inquiry. Research on Social Work Practice, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/10497315251351865

Council on Social Work Education. (2022). Educational policy and accreditation standards. CSWE. https://www.cswe.org/accreditation/policies-process/2022epas/

Duarte, J. L., Crawford, J. T., Stern, C., Haidt, J., Jussim, L., & Tetlock, P. E. (2015). Political diversity will improve social psychological science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 38, e130. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X14000430

Farber, N. (2023). The dystopian world of social work education. Academic Questions, 36(4), 17–25. https://doi.org/10.51845/36.4.5

Farber, N. B., & Fram, M. S. (2024). The danger of ideology: Social work, Israel, and anti-Semitism. Social Work, 69(2), 204–206. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/sw/swad052

Hodge, D. R. (2020). Spiritual microaggressions: Understanding the subtle messages that foster religious discrimination. Journal of Ethnic & Cultural Diversity in Social Work, 29(6), 473–489. https://doi.org/10.1080/15313204.2018.1555501

Holmström, C. (2013). Suitability for professional practice: Assessing and developing moral character in social work education. Social Work Education, 33(4), 451–468. https://doi.org/10.1080/02615479.2013.847914

Lindroth, M., Carlström, C., Andersson, C., & Husén, E. (2025). Social workers as allies? Gender confirming practices and institutional limitations in youth residential homes. Clinical Social Work Journal, 53(1), 108–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10615-024-00940-3

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

Raine, L. M., Vo, P., Wilson, S., Begay, P. L., & Drisko, J. (2023). What is clinical social work? Practitioners’ views. Clinical Social Work Journal, 51(4), 367–378. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10615-023-00890-2

---

---