LGBTQ+ Policies and Practices within Religiously-Affiliated CSWE-Accredited Programs: A Thematic Analysis

Overview: This study uses thematic analysis to evaluate publicly available university and department-level elements that impact LGBTQ+ students in a sample of private, religiously affiliated institutions with CSWE-accredited social work programs, with a focus on the values conflict between religious freedom, the NASW Code of Ethics, and human rights.Proposal text:

Background: Discrimination against LGBTQ+ persons at private faith-based institutions is a well-documented problem across the nation (REAP, 2021); a value conflict between religious freedom and the rights of the individual is at play. However, how this type discrimination manifests at Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) accredited schools of social work within these particular institutions is unclear. For decades there have been calls for CSWE to stop providing accreditation to schools that cite religious exemptions as a means justify discrimination towards LGBTQ+ students and staff (Jones, 1996). Despite these efforts, researchers continue to uncover how religious exemptions are widely used to discriminate against LGBTQ+ persons (Dentato et al., 2016), and how discrimination and microaggressions are associated with increased mental health symptoms in LGBTQ+ identified college students (Gnan et al., 2019; Woodford et al., 2018). In exploratory interviews, faculty have described social work programs as safe spaces for LGBTQ+ students; this study explores whether evidence supports this claim.This presentation will discuss the second phase of a project that aims to describe discrimination towards LGBTQ+ persons, as well as any protective factors present at these institutions or social work programs, through qualitative analysis of content gleaned from publicly available institution and social work program websites.

Methods: A qualitative thematic analysis was conducted to review publicly available content on LGBTQ+ discrimination and inclusion at religious institutions (n=47). Sample inclusion criteria included a CSWE accredited social work program, publicly available student and faculty handbooks, and evidence of discriminatory policies towards LGBTQ+ students in handbooks. The researchers created and utilized an evaluation form to collect content related to discriminatory policies, inclusive/protective content, curriculum content, faculty research focus, and LGBTQ+ campus resources. Thematic analysis was conducted to describe the content collected. To increase the trustworthiness of the data the researchers used investigator triangulation (3 investigators), researcher reflexivity, and negative case analysis.

Results: This sample includes institutions of varying student population (623 - 93,349; M=6,421), religious affiliation (Baptist=9, Catholic=6, Seventh Day Adventist=5, other/various=27), and type of social work program (BSW =34, MSW =2, both=11). Emerging qualitative themes include belief expression, belief expression with support, belief expression with punishment, absence of LGBTQ+ content, ambiguity towards the LGBTQ+ community, limited supportive elements at the social work program-level, grassroots supports outside of university systems, and support with condemnation.

Discussion/Implications: It is troubling to observe the amount of blatantly discriminatory policy aimed at LGBTQ+ persons within student and faculty handbooks at CSWE accredited schools. This content is in direct contrast with social justice mandates within the National Association of Social Workers’ Code of Ethics that professional social workers are bound to. Recommendations include the creation of LGBTQ+ inclusive spaces within these programs to offer a level of protection to community members who are vulnerable to overt discrimination, increased participatory action research from social work scholars that can amplify the voices of LGBTQ+ community members who are harmed by these policies, as well as policy advocacy from both the NASW and CSWE to end these religious exemptions that support ongoing discrimination.