This guest blog post is by John Darroch. John has just completed his BSW (Hons) in social work and is currently studying towards his Masters at Auckland University. He has a passion for issues of social justice and grass-roots organising.
When I started studying social work I was excited by the language used by the theorists I was reading and in the lectures I attended. After almost a decade of active political campaigning prior to my study concepts such as social justice and empowerment were very familiar to me. However, I was surprised to discover that practising social workers seemed to feel unable to take public action in support of a more just world, and that they felt limited to intra-organisational processes.
One of the perceived barriers to taking political action is the belief that social workers should be politically neutral. This belief has two components: firstly, that social workers are prevented from speaking out by employment law; and secondly, that as ‘professionals’ social workers should not take public positions on issues.
The legal dimension
While on placement with a social work agency I became aware that there was a fear of being seen to be involved in political activity. When given an opportunity to work within a different team I tested this belief by introducing myself as a politically active individual. At that point the room became silent and a manager who was present stated that I should be politically neutral and avoid doing anything publicly where I might be seen to be taking a political stance.
This idea that social workers must be politically neutral in their private lives is based on a misunderstanding of employment law and a misapprehension of the power employers have over the political activity of employees. My understanding is that employers can only restrict the personal activities of their employees if there is a very real chance that their actions will significantly impact on their paid employment. For example a teacher or police officer carrying out sex work may create a situation where their paid employment is significantly affected.
Speaking on the issue of employees taking political activity public law specialist Mai
Chen has this to say:
Attempts by employers to take action against employees for holding political views, even where the employees are in responsible or high-profile positions, are likely to breach the good faith provisions under the Employment Relations Act 2000, as well as breaching more fundamental non-discrimination provisions in the Human Rights Act 1993 and the Bill of Rights Act 1990.
Mai Chen gives the example of a news presenter for Maori Television who was instructed not to attend protests as she represented the ‘face’ of the TV station. The Employment Court found this was unreasonable and awarded the presenter damages because she had suffered discrimination under the Human Rights Act.
Where political activity is concerned the courts are likely to err in favour of the employee’s rights when looking at whether there is a conflict between political activity and employment. This is due to the protected status of political activity in New Zealand law and recognition that political involvement is vital to the democratic process. Despite the protected status of political activity there may be occasions where social workers should not carry out political action. In advice put out prior to the 2014 election the State Services Commission (p7) stated that:
‘State servants should ensure that it is clear to others that their contributions are made as private individuals, and not as representatives’. Further that ‘ State servants are required, by the Standards of Integrity and Conduct for the State Services, to avoid activities, work or non-work, that may harm the reputation of their agencies or of the State services, and must not disclose any government material that that is not already publicly available’.
These guidelines may be overly cautious in saying that state servants must avoid harming the reputation of their agencies in their private lives but I think they are a useful starting point for social workers. When considering taking a political action it would be wise for social workers to think firstly, about whether the action is likely to result in confusion about their role; and secondly, whether the action will be publicly perceived as a criticism of the agency they are working for. So, for example, I believe it would be highly unwise for a child protection social worker to publicly comment on the policies of the organisation for which they work, but there should be no legal concerns about taking a public stance on an issue like welfare reform. Private political activity, such as membership of a political party or advocacy organisation, is almost never going to result in any kind of employment issues.
Ethical dimensions
Even if you believe that political activity is legally protected there is the question of whether it is ethical for social workers to be seen to be taking a public stance on issues. I have heard it argued that social workers should not take a public stance on issues if this is likely to result in conflict with clients. For example a social worker publicly taking a pro-choice stance could result in difficulties working with a deeply religious client.
I believe that this concern is valid and one which social workers should be sensitive to in deciding the type of political work they do and how public a role they take. However I believe that the profession’s commitment to social justice mean that the profession, and individual social workers, should not be neutral on contentious issues if this means that we are complicit in perpetuating oppression. For example publicly taking an anti-racist position may alienate some clients but to not do so may be to allow structural racism to continue.
Finally I believe that there is a very strong ethical argument that social workers must be active on political and structural issues. As social workers we should aim to do more than help the individuals with whom we work, we should aim to change society so that people no longer require our assistance. As a profession we are in the unique position of witnessing oppression and injustice on a daily basis, and our understanding of social systems gives us unique insight into how this injustice is socially created. I strongly believe that to be faced with structural problems, such as poverty, and to not take action to create change is to fail in our ethical duties as social workers.
Conclusion
The reality is that one way or another it is impossible to be politically neutral. We work within a particular political context and are empowered (and often funded) by the state. To choose not to be politically active is to side with the status quo. I do not believe that there are legal or ethical barriers to political participation: the barriers which we face are organisational and political in nature. The ubiquitous fear of political activity is a deliberate creation of those in power. Defusing this climate of fear will require political organisation by social workers and more broadly within civil society. We can support individuals who stick their heads above the parapet, and we can create organisations which can speak out where individuals are unable to.
6 replies on “Political neutrality: How politically active can Social Workers be?”
Kia ora John. You’ve given some helpful specifics about speaking out as an employee. I think the challenge for many of us is getting politically engaged and less about a fear of backlash from our employer. We also have collective avenues available such as through our professional bodies, unions, religious and community groups. I like your comment on ethics as I think that is the key point for social workers. We are mandated by our profession to address injustice – which should be enough reason for us to speak up. RSW has sparked some energy for action which behoves social work colleagues to practice solidarity and support the cause.
The Code of Ethics virtually demands political activity:
2.2 From the private troubles they encounter with clients, members encourage the growth and disciplined use of all forms of knowledge that:
• identify and analyse private troubles and public issues
• inform society at large about social injustice, and
• inform and enable social workers to effectively carry out their role and function.
2.3 Members advocate social justice and principles of inclusion and choice for all
members of society, having particular regard for disadvantaged minorities. They
act to prevent and eliminate discrimination against any person or group based on age, beliefs, culture, gender, marital, legal or family status, intellectual, psychological
and physical abilities, race, religion, sexual orientation, and social or economic status.
2.4 To this end, members promote socially just policies, legislation, and improved social conditions, that encourage the development and just allocation of community resources. They also act to ensure that everyone has access to the existing resources, services and opportunities that they need.
2.5 Members encourage public participation in the development of and decision making about social policies and structures.
2.6 Members engage in constructive action to change the structures of society that create and perpetuate injustice. They respect the law, whilst working towards change in any laws that disadvantage clients or other members of the community.
According to the the Merriam -Webster dictionary politics is defined as :
activities that relate to influencing the actions and policies of a government or getting and keeping power in a government
: the work or job of people (such as elected officials) who are part of a government
: the opinions that someone has about what should be done by governments : a person’s political thoughts and opinions
I recall Prof Vishanti Sewpaul state social work is politics but done in a Noble way at the last social work conference in Melbourne 2014 .
Politics influences every facet of our lives including sport . Politics is about the people, about the social effects, about the economics. Its inseparable. It transforms into the work in the social sector .
During the apartheid era politics determined where we worked as social workers and with whom or where we lived or who we played with . As we became conscientized about our situation we advocated for change as part of political organizations and other professional groups .
In keeping with social work ethics we had a moral and ethical obligation to speak about unjust issues despite rendering services within government . We were able to do his through legitamate ways and social action and writing .
We are catalysts and advocates for change which contributes to a better society when we influence policy change in the interests of people .
We need to be more voiceferous as group in the interest of a better society .
Interesting that Unions are not mentioned as a method of not only engaging politically as a collective rather than an individual but also as a way of getting advice and protecting your right to be politically active in the first place. Nor is our Professional body ANZASW mentioned which can also provide a platform for collective political action where individual would be risky or ineffectual. I would think these two things are paramount in our ability to be active and vocal, something I see as a fundamental responsibility of social workers, not an option or a nice to have.
Would love to chat with you further on this topic if you have some time!
While I appreciate the issues raised in this blog post, I’m a little confused by the argument. There is recognition in the post of a distinction between political expression of an employee and private citizen, yet Darroch argues a need for a social work employees to express anti-racist views, even at the risk of alienating racist clients.
What anti-racist views would an employee need to express that isn’t already and extension of human rights law or the organizations stated values?
Furthermore, anti-racism is the only example that Darroch offers as an example of a political position while functioning as an employee. Are their other examples? How does Darroch feel about a social worker expressing pro-life views to clients and alienating pro-choice clients? Whose “social justice” is prioritized?