Examining Social Work’s Response to Systemic Racism and the Murder of George Floyd

Overview: Social justice is an orienting value in the field of social work. This session presents findings from a study examining public statements released by social work organizations in response to the murder of George Floyd. Implications for social work educators and practitioners related to social justice are discussed.Proposal text:

Background: Social justice is an orienting value in social work. The NASW Code of Ethics ethically obligates social workers to promote social justice and engage in political activism (Bulia, 2010); however, critiques that the field is racist and oppressive and that it functions as a mechanism of social control persist (Corley & Young, 2018; Plummer et al., 2021). Social work proudly proclaims to be an advocate of social justice, but at times, its words and actions do not reflect that value. Although the Code of Ethics (2021) suggests that individual social workers should engage in critical self-reflection and hold institutions accountable, the field must also do the same. It has a responsibility to hold itself accountable as an institution charged with enhancing well-being and attending to the needs of vulnerable populations. The purpose of this study is to examine social work’s response to systemic racism by analyzing public statements released by national social work organizations in response to the murder of George Floyd.

Methods: Forty-three statements issued by national social work organizations were analyzed. Statements were issued between May and July of 2020 and were obtained directly from the organizations’ websites or from the organizations via email. Qualitative content analysis was used to identify the themes and language used to construct the statements to understand the content and meaning of the text and its alignment with our core value of social justice.

Findings: Data analysis resulted in themes of dissonance, blame attribution, lack of historical context, and centering whiteness. Several statements explicitly referred to social justice; however, the content and language in the statements often conflicted with this value (e.g., asking social workers to take action if they felt comfortable). While statements more readily placed blame outside of social work, they failed to acknowledge how social work has and continues to contribute to the problem. Instead, social workers were depicted as tireless advocates of social and racial justice, which minimizes the harm caused to Black individuals and communities. This lack of historical context was also evident in how statements constructed George Floyd’s murder as a contemporary issue among other recent publicized murders of Black people without linking it to a historical legacy of violence. Finally, whiteness was centered in a variety of different ways. For example, several statements referred to people of color as non-white people, which served to construct whiteness as the norm.

Conclusions: Findings suggest a lack of understanding of what social justice means or a lack of understanding of how we undermine that value. Additionally, findings have implications for how we talk and think about social justice as social workers and suggest that an expanded definition of social justice in the Code of Ethics that conceptualizes it as a process as well as an outcome could be beneficial for students and practitioners. Identifying and acknowledging the ways in which social work fails to embrace its value of social justice is an important step so that the field can meaningfully engage in anti-racist and anti-oppressive practice.