Michael Reisch a & Karen M. Staller b a School of Social Work, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Available online: 29 Apr 2011

Transcription

1 This article was downloaded by: [University of Michigan] On: 25 February 2012, At: 13:06 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: Registered office: Mortimer House, Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Journal of Teaching in Social Work Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: Teaching Social Welfare History and Social Welfare Policy From a Conflict Perspective Michael Reisch a & Karen M. Staller b a School of Social Work, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, USA b School of Social Work, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA Available online: 29 Apr 2011 To cite this article: Michael Reisch & Karen M. Staller (2011): Teaching Social Welfare History and Social Welfare Policy From a Conflict Perspective, Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 31:2, To link to this article: PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

2 Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 31: , 2011 Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: print/ online DOI: / Teaching Social Welfare History and Social Welfare Policy From a Conflict Perspective MICHAEL REISCH School of Social Work, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, USA KAREN M. STALLER School of Social Work, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA In schools of social work, policy courses are frequently taught assuming debates occur along a liberal conservative ideological continuum in which liberals favor equitable distribution of societal benefits and burdens, whereas conservatives emphasize individual political and property rights and personal responsibility. This dichotomous approach often results in conflict being situated primarily outside the classroom and profession while ignoring contentious debates that have occurred within social work. The authors argue for reconceptualizing policy courses to provide an historical conflict-based approach and include specific suggestions for course design. This approach will better train students with critical skills and prepare them for future practice. KEYWORDS social welfare policy, social welfare history, conflict perspective, social justice INTRODUCTION The literature used in social work programs tends to assume that policy debates in the United States over social welfare issues occur primarily along a liberal conservative ideological continuum. In this formulation reflected in most history and social policy texts liberals attempt to distribute societal benefits and burdens more equitably while conservatives emphasize individual political and property rights and personal responsibility (Gilbert, 1995; Katz, 2001). This formulation assumes the existence of a consensus in the Address correspondence to Michael Reisch, School of Social Work, 525 West Redwood Street, Baltimore, MD mreisch@ssw.umaryland.edu 131

3 132 M. Reisch and K. M. Staller social welfare field and that policy conflicts emerge only between social workers and external opponents. It overlooks the complexity of historical and contemporary debates within the profession over diverse issues such as immigration, welfare, and racial/gender equality, debates that have often been fueled by demographic and ideological divisions. This assumption frequently shapes the construction and design of introductory policy courses. Instructors may focus on value-based issues that pit liberals against conservatives, but assume that such debates occur primarily between social workers and other groups. Given this approach to course content, assignments and class discussions are often geared toward identifying the narratives associated with these grand debates. Thus, students are exposed to broad-based conflicts that straddle major philosophical and political divides. There are at least three problems with this approach to teaching social welfare policy courses to social work students. First, it assumes that conflicts exist primarily in polar positions; differences are large and easily spotted. Second, it may oversimplify value differences underpinning philosophical positions that at their core present significant often irresolvable intellectual and practical challenges. Third, given the liberal perspective generally associated with social work, this approach assumes that conflict exists primarily outside the profession itself that is, between the profession and its external political or ideological adversaries. Consequently, scant attention has been paid to conflicts within the social work community. Yet, the history of social work is replete with disagreements over how to characterize and label various populations-at-risk; how to diagnose, treat, and solve social problems; what kinds of policies and strategies are most suitable to address these problems and under what circumstances; who has the authority and knowledge to speak and act for whom; and even more basically what the underlying mission and goals of social work practice and social welfare should be. Some of these debates are cross-sectional, occurring simultaneously in a particular historical moment. Others are longitudinal, emerging in various incarnations over time. We argue that both of these kinds of historically situated debates have defined the profession and its practices and are fundamental to a critical and nuanced understanding of social work and social welfare policy. This article challenges simplistic and monolithic approaches to conflict that are often embedded in social welfare courses. Instead, we argue for courses designed to shift the focus away from large, external debates and toward more nuanced contestations on issues of social welfare, social services, and social policy that have occurred within the profession itself. Specifically, we suggest that these ideas should be introduced to students in a foundation social welfare policy course taught from an historical perspective. By highlighting recurring internal conflicts, faculty might more adequately prepare students for practice in the real world.

4 Theoretical Justification Social Welfare History and Policy 133 We offer the following four primary justifications for this approach to social policy education: (a) avoiding the weaknesses of straw dog training, (b) enjoying the benefits of tough talk and unresolved conflict, (c) capitalizing on the advantages of historical perspective, and (d) strengthening critical thinking skills. Avoiding Straw Dog Training Social workers often deal with unpopular clients and unpopular issues, thus enjoying a shared sense of rhetorical community in promoting social justice on behalf of oppressed populations. In general, social work organizations, governing faculties of schools of social work, and the students drawn to them, tend to associate themselves with liberal agenda-setters when it comes to identifying and solving individual and social problems. When these two phenomena are conflated, the result can be an over-simplified belief that liberalism promotes social justice and that conservatism impedes it. There are several hazards associated with teaching social policy courses structured along this ideological divide. First, it tends to assume a uniformity of views within a classroom that probably does not exist. Second, it builds on this assumed consensus by encouraging students to embrace positions to which they are already leaning. Third, it tends to encourage students to identify opposition in the positions of those held outside the classroom and school environment. Thus, it provides the means and the justification for simplifying the world into easily identified and reproduced categories of thought. We argue that this set of conditions invites a form of straw dog intellectual training. The danger is twofold. First, it encourages a reiteration of commonly shared arguments and perspectives and discourages serious reflective critiques. Weaknesses in these arguments are glossed over because of the assumed shared consensus. Second, by situating differences outside the classroom environment and in the hands of a perceived opponent, it may tolerate minimal or superficial engagement with unpopular positions that can be summarily dismissed. Exercises designed to engage in these debates can become activities in constructing arguments with an imagined other without zealously embracing the positions associated with that perspective. This approach is less likely to promote sound analysis of the issues. Instead, it encourages setting up straw dog arguments under the guise of serious critical thinking. Encouraging Tough Talk and Unresolved Conflict In our experience, social work students tend to be uncomfortable with conflict of any sort. They are reluctant to put forward views that might be

5 134 M. Reisch and K. M. Staller controversial and more uncomfortable still when trying to defend them publicly. Conflict is seen as something to actively avoid. In this course, we turn this assumption on its head. We are proposing that conflicting viewpoints be the centerpiece of course design. Therefore, differing perspectives and opinions do not emerge accidentally as a byproduct of class discussion but rather are its central pedagogical focus. Perhaps even more important, these conflicting viewpoints are drawn from discussions between and among social workers themselves. Last, by identifying and unpacking the logic behind irresolvable positions positions that require making choices students are better equipped for the ambiguous and controversial nature of their future work. There are at least six benefits to this orientation. First, accepting and recognizing conflicting viewpoints broadens the scope of discussion. Second, creating an environment in which disagreement is the norm promotes participation in difficult discussions because the emphasis on correct answers (political or otherwise) is replaced by the idea that positions are either more or less persuasively supported by evidence and argument. In turn, this orientation shifts the emphasis in the classroom to the development of the skills needed to promote particular positions and away from an exclusive focus on the final outcome. Third, some students complain about the lack of a safe space in which to express their political or social views, particularly if they believe themselves to be in the minority. The proposed conflict orientation can help engage students who might otherwise be silenced. Fourth, this approach prepares students for real world practice by modeling an environment where their ideas are likely to be challenged and need to be defended. Fifth, it invites honest discussion between and among social workers about controversial or contentious issues, thereby acknowledging long-standing differences within the profession. Sixth, it prepares students for a world in which they must make tough choices among competing ideas and in which policy and practice options reflect philosophical and practical ambiguities. A conflict approach thus fosters students intellectual and professional development. Promoting Historical Perspectives It is possible for students to graduate from social work programs with limited understanding of the historical forces that have shaped current policies and programs and with no sensitivity about their own place and role in history (Reisch, 1988). Students who do not know history will not recognize the common arguments and recurring themes in characterizing targeted groups such as unwed mothers, low-income people, immigrants, children at risk, or elderly adults. In addition, similar to old wine in new bottles, debates about

6 Social Welfare History and Policy 135 how best to intervene with these populations are often based on recycled ideas. There are six benefits of teaching a social policy course through a historical perspective. First, students learn to appreciate and look for the evidence supporting different service, program, or policy approaches at different points in time. Second, students learn to appreciate that positing one kind of program or policy often leads to an equally compelling counterposition with its own set of evidence and arguments. Third, students are taught to look for the similarities and differences in characterizing various populations with which social workers routinely engage. Fourth, students come to understand that these debates or conflicts over services, policies, and populations recur frequently in different guises in different eras. Although the individual characteristics of these debates may be flavored by the epoch in which they arise, the debates reflect common features that transcend their historic moment. Fifth, recognizing the commonality in arguments for interventions, services, and policies can arm students for the future. Sixth, teaching from a historical perspective encourages students to consider their ownplaceandroleinhistory. Strengthening Critical Thinking Last, we argue that this course design would greatly benefit students education by focusing on the development of critical thinking skills. It does this in four ways. First, by taking conflict within the profession seriously, it encourages students to pay attention to values-based arguments and to understand that policy and program preferences may be the expression of social class, race, gender, ideology, political orientation, religious values, or other similar kinds of embedded influences. Second, this approach empowers students to be independent thinkers by arming them with the tools they need to identify, analyze, support, and promote their positions. Third, using primary source documents encourages students to buttress their arguments with empirical evidence. This approach helps ground students in logic and argument rather than promoting opinion-based conversations. Fourth, by identify recurring historical conflicts, the course provides students with an arsenal of intellectual arguments to draw from for their own work. COURSE DESCRIPTION What follows is a description of the proposed course. It includes the course s educational objectives, a course outline with class abstracts, guidelines for proposed readings, and suggested assignments.

7 136 M. Reisch and K. M. Staller Educational Objectives The proposed course would be based on the following educational objectives. Students would be taught to do the following: 1. Distinguish between different theoretical, philosophical, and practice assumptions throughout the history of U.S. social welfare. 2. Demonstrate an understanding of the major issues and conflicts over the goals and methods of social welfare policies that have existed within the U.S. social welfare field. 3. Demonstrate an understanding of how historical conflicts and tensions have shaped the development and contemporary landscape of social welfare policy and the profession of social work. 4. Demonstrate an ability to identify and analyze the sources of these conflicts for example, ideological positions, cultural norms and values, political tensions, and social goals and assess their impact on the evolving definitions of social problems and the range of alternative solutions proposed to address them. 5. Demonstrate an ability to recognize and explain the recurring nature of themes, conflicts, and debates in U.S. social welfare and interpret the ways in which they were shaped by their historical context. 6. Identify common and recurring tensions between fundamentally different philosophical positions on social welfare policies and services. 7. Demonstrate the ability to assess the influence of racial, gender, and class factors on the emergence and resolution of conflicts within the social welfare field and between the social welfare field and other forces in U.S. society. 8. Demonstrate the ability to locate primary and secondary source materials that illustrate these conflicts and to analyze them within their specific historical and cultural contexts. 9. Discriminate among the various contested and complex forms of social service delivery and policy development in the United States. 10. Develop a sense of their own place in the history and future development of social welfare and social work including creating a personal and professional framework to be used in the analysis of contemporary policy debates and service delivery systems. Course Outline The first session introduces students to the conflict perspective as described earlier, focusing on debates about critical issues that have occurred within the social work profession itself. For example, in current social work discourse, there is a presumed complementarity between social justice goals and those of multiculturalism, and that universal norms and group specific rights and aspirations are either identical or capable of reconciliation.

8 Social Welfare History and Policy 137 Yet, as historical documents reveal, social justice is not an inevitable consequence of multiculturalism (Reisch, 2007). Critical theorists provide guidance by challenging our understanding of the nature of social provision reflected in traditional interpretations of social welfare history. This initial unit of the course focuses on how recurring conflicts within the profession affected the efforts of social workers to create policy and program reforms. These conflicts include such issues as charity versus justice; assimilation versus cultural pluralism; individual versus societal responsibility; identity consciousness versus identity neutrality; centralization versus decentralization; sectarian versus nonsectarian service provision; and the relative roles of the public, nonprofit, and private sectors in social welfare. Students are introduced to the unique features of the course: its reliance on primary sources; the inclusion of diverse voices often excluded from mainstream texts; recognition that the definition of core concepts is not static; and the use of parallel debates to examine how issues have been contested during different eras (Chambers, 2005). The second session of the course provides a conceptual foundation for what follows through its discussion of conflicting theories of social welfare and social change. It does this by examining two core issues in the history of U.S. social welfare: (a) the conflict between charity and justice perspectives and (b) the contradiction between social workers role as agents of social change and their role as agents of social control. Secular ideas from a wide range of disciplines have provided the theoretical constructs for U.S. social welfare and, in many cases, the supporting data that guided the formation of modern social policies and social services. More recently, these modernist approaches to knowledge development, interpretation, and dissemination have been challenged by postmodern concepts, which place greater emphasis on the significance of class, race, gender, and sexuality. Political ideologies imported largely from Europe and Latin America have also strongly influenced the course of U.S. social welfare, including varieties of Marxism, Christian Socialism, concepts of mutual aid, and the Latin American conscientization movement. The readings that are used to illuminate these issues come from primary and secondary sources with diverse and conflicting perspectives. Sessions 3 and 4 examine the differences between fundamental ( natural ) human rights and socially constructed rights through the use of two long-standing issues. One is the conflict between the rights of children and the rights of families such as that seen in the tension between foster care placement (with child safety at the fore) and family preservation. The other is the conflict over the meaning of citizenship and the benefits that should be attached to this status. Most social workers largely subscribe to the notion that they support basic human rights. Nonetheless, the boundaries of human rights and those rights and responsibilities that are socially, legally, politically, or culturally constructed are often at odds with each other.

9 138 M. Reisch and K. M. Staller Questions about rights to basic social services (such as health care) and public entitlements (such as education) have long been contested relative to group membership and citizenship status and the definition of citizenship itself (Foner, 1999; Katz, 2001). Primary and secondary source readings focus on the implications of the maternalist tradition within U.S. social welfare, the evolution of policies towards single women, the motives behind child-saving, and the evolution of such institutions as the juvenile court. Documents regarding immigrants rights reflect widely disparate views on immigration and focus on the relations among immigration and community unrest, cultural disparities, racial tensions, and alternative approaches to services that often emerged during the same period. The next two sessions examine the differences between diverse religious perspectives on charity and benevolence, and between religious and secular views on the goals of social welfare. Throughout U.S. history, a broad range of ideas about the purposes and nature of charity emerged even within different Protestant denominations. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, in response to the imposition of these ideas on immigrants of different faiths under the guise of organized benevolence, religious minorities, particularly Catholics and Jews, created service systems based on concepts of charity emphasizing mutual aid and self-help. Over time, these forms of helping influenced the social welfare mainstream. The history of U.S. social welfare and social work also reveals different and often competing religious and racial conceptions of social justice and social change. These have been reflected in religious ideas about poverty and wealth, individual and social responsibility, fatalistic versus empowerment approaches to individual and community change, attitudes about the redistribution of goods, perspectives on the role of the state, and views on the concept of entitlement. In the 21st century, the reemergence of religious fundamentalism and its incorporation into social welfare policies at the federal and state levels have raised new issues about the role of religion in public life, the separation of church and state and, for practitioners, ethical dilemmas about conflicts between personal and professional values. The sources used in this unit include documents from major religious organizations, leading theologians or religious commentators, and papers at national conferences. They examine the relation between religion and social justice, religious attitudes about charity, and the influence of religious ideals on the development of social work practice. In Sessions 7 and 8, the course examines the relationship between the professionalization of social work and its social justice mission by focusing on three questions: 1. Are the goals of professionalism and social justice compatible? 2. Can one be a radical social work professional? 3. What is the relation between radicalism and social justice?

10 Social Welfare History and Policy 139 The history of the social work profession, particularly what social workers do, why, and for whom, is deeply conflicted. From its inception, the dual goals of charity and corrections were linked under an umbrella label of scientific philanthropy. This original unity, however, belied contested missions, objectives, desires, and methods including elements of social reform and social control. Today, these tensions are reflected in the diverse roles social workers play in a wide variety of host institutions. For more than a century, professional debates have also occurred over the benefits of specialization versus generalist (or generic) practice; over working in the public or private sector; and over working for nonprofit or for-profit organizations. Because of their different missions, each of these settings requires dramatically different sensibilities about the practice of social work and a different characterization of its identity. Core issues, such as whether social workers should be engaged in private practice, live in the communities they serve, be politically active or neutral, act on personal and/or professional values (particularly when these value sets diverge), are all implicated in persistent debates around such questions as: What are the boundaries of social work/social welfare? What do social workers do? By whom should they be employed and/or paid for their services? What are appropriate and effective social work methods? The assigned readings in this section reflect changing attitudes about the professionalization of social work, the social control dimensions of professionalism, the radical tradition within social work, the relation between the profession s dual foci of social justice and multiculturalism, and the future of the profession itself. The next unit of the course examines how conflicts emerge in the processes of policy development and implementation. It focuses on the conflict between a melting pot and a mosaic approach to the formulation of policies and services that is, what should be the role of racial, ethnic, gender, sexual, and religious identity in the construction and delivery of social services? Although there has been greater attention recently to the impact of multiculturalism on social welfare policies and social work practice, the debate between proponents of cultural assimilation and advocates of cultural separation has existed for over a century. This conflict is based on the existence of different racial, ethnic, religious, and gendered conceptions of the meaning of social justice and the overall goals of social welfare. It has been reflected in the diverse organizational forms developed by different communities which mirror their unique definitions of need and approaches to helping. This debate has become more complicated with inclusion of concerns about sexual orientation, age, and ability status. The sources used in this section demonstrate the expanding definition of race, ethnicity, and culture within the social work profession within the larger context of social work s commitment to social justice. This section of the course also covers persistent debates regarding the locus of service delivery, public versus private responsibility for social

11 140 M. Reisch and K. M. Staller welfare, sectarian versus nonsectarian service provision, the role of professional versus self-help or mutual aid organizations, and the extent to which services should be developed from a top down or grassroots approach. Throughout its history, the United States has developed a patchwork arrangement of social policies and services largely attributable to three factors: (a) the constitutional emphasis on the decentralization of political authority and power; (b) a suspicion of foreign ideologies, such as socialism, coupled with a reliance on market-oriented solutions to social problems; (c) a unique role for the private, nonprofit sector; and (d) a critical place for sectarian agencies in the social welfare nexus. Primary sources used in this section include agency and government documents, legislative testimony, and major professional papers. Because of the critical role that services to African Americans played in the development of U.S. social work, secondary sources focus primarily on controversies that emerged around services to this population during the late 19th and 20th centuries. The next unit examines the role of social welfare in addressing issues of economic inequality and poverty. It focuses on such questions as who should be targeted, what strategies should be employed, and who should pay for these policies and how. These issues reflect value debates (individual vs. collective responsibility); political conflicts (the meaning of maximum feasible participation ); and strategic dilemmas (e.g., asset-building or income support). Primary sources focus on two principle issues: the relations among poverty, welfare, and work; and the role of social insurance programs, particularly Social Security. Secondary sources focus on several issues: the effect of poverty policy on women and racial minorities, the intellectual roots of antipoverty policies in the United States, and the politics of policy, particularly welfare reform. The primary sources on the subject of Social Security trace the evolution of this central policy issue throughout the 20th century. Secondary sources emphasize the historical shifts in the U.S. approach to Social Security, the differences between social insurance and public assistance policies, and the role of gender in shaping Social Security policy. The final unit explores emerging social welfare issues and the forms that human well-being and social conflict might take in the 21st century. It discusses the future of the welfare state in a global economy, the nature of social work practice in an increasingly multicultural society, and the role of social welfare policy and social work practice in addressing new issues such as environmental justice. It also examines how during the past two decades many of the long-standing assumptions about social welfare policy and social work practice have been challenged by contemporary political-economic, cultural, demographic, and technological changes. Students analyze whether traditional approaches to social welfare and longstanding practice frameworks may no longer be valid as the U.S. population becomes older and more diverse.

12 Social Welfare History and Policy 141 In the decades ahead, new and unforeseen developments will have a dramatic effect on the nature of social welfare policies and services. These include: (a) the implications of new technologies for health and mental health provision, privacy rights, and the nature of knowledge itself; (b) the social, economic, and cultural effects of climate change; and (c) greater awareness of global interdependence, as a result of the mass migration of populations and the changing nature of the world economy. Course Assignments The first of three proposed assignments is a 6 8-page paper, which reflects the course objective of assisting students acquire greater familiarity and comfort with primary source materials, such as the Proceedings of the National Conference. Students are asked to use the Proceedings of any of these conferences (which existed under various names from 1874 to 1982) and locate two papers presented during different periods (separated by at least a decade) but on a similar social welfare issue (e.g., professionalism, juvenile justice, health care, immigration). They must identify and analyze the historical forces that influenced these presentations and examine the ways in which they shaped the presenters underlying assumptions and proposed solutions. Last, students are asked to compare and contrast the arguments within the two papers, the manner in which these arguments are constructed (including the rhetoric used), and the influence of the context on their construction. They are also asked to play particular attention to any conflicting values, ideologies, or arguments made as they relate to the general topic selected. The second assignment, another 6 8-page essay, asks students to examine the conflicts and tensions that arise from some important contemporary policy statements issued by the social work profession. Students may fulfill the requirements of this assignment through one of two options. Option 1 focuses on the National Association of Social Workers revised Code of Ethics (1996), which rests on six core values (i.e., service, social justice, dignity and worth of the person, importance of human relationships, integrity, and competence). Each ethical principle that follows in the Code is rooted in one or more of these values. Students are asked to choose one social welfare policy generally favored by social workers and identify two ethical principles that can potentially come into conflict when advocating for or implementing this policy. They are also asked to identify the sources of the conflict and whom it affects. Last, they must take a position on the issue and justify it. Option 2 examines the National Association of Social Workers s publication Social Work Speaks (2006), which provides a comprehensive collection of policy statements adopted by the NASW Delegate Assembly ( workers.org/resources/abstracts/default.asp). Within this option, students can select one of the following alternatives:

13 142 M. Reisch and K. M. Staller Option 2a: This option involves selecting one entry and writing a 6 8-page critical analysis of the conflicts and tensions that exist within the entry (e.g., shifting historical positions, target populations, conflicting goals, gaps between the goals of a policy and its implementation, gaps in the profession s knowledge about the issue). Students are then asked to identify the position they would take on the issue and explain their reasons. Option 2b: This option invites students to select two entries that could come into conflict with each other and write a critical analysis of the tensions (philosophical, political, epistemological, and practical) that these tensions produce. They are asked to identify their position on the issue and justify it. The third and final assignment asks students to select a contentious contemporary social welfare issue (e.g., transracial adoption, affirmative action, work requirements for the receipt of welfare benefits) and write a page paper, using primary and secondary documents, which critically examines the historical evolution of social work s position on this issue. The focus of the paper should answer these questions: What has stayed the same? What has changed? What are the reasons for this continuity and change? What are the implications for contemporary and future policy development and implementation? ISSUES IN TEACHING THE COURSE Teaching social welfare history and contemporary social welfare policy from a conflict perspective raises pedagogical issues that go beyond those typically encountered by professors of foundation history and policy classes. Some of them concern students educational backgrounds, while others reflect students attitudes about difference and conflict and their ability to handle disagreements with their peers. One anticipated problem is that many students not only have limited knowledge about U.S. history, in general, and social welfare history, in particular, they have been socialized into an ahistorical way of thinking about the world. This perspective accepts the environment as a given and, in effect, denies the agency of actors, individually or collectively. This compels professors to sell the significance of the material for contemporary social work practice, especially at the beginning of the course. A second problem is that because of their lack of historical perspective, many students have difficulty contextualizing the conflicts and debates that serve as the foci of the course. Not only are they often ignorant of historical chronology, but they also have a limited understanding of historical causation, particularly if there are multiple or disputed causes involved.

14 Social Welfare History and Policy 143 Sometimes, they want simple answers to complex historical questions when, in fact, the purpose of the course is to open up such questions to inquiry and analysis. This tendency frequently leads students to interpret historical events and actions solely through a 21st century lens. It produces a distorted interpretation of the meaning of concepts such as equality, feminism, and social justice that makes discussions of these concepts more challenging. A third problem stems from students discomfort with conflict itself, a characteristic that we believe is often encouraged by faculty in schools of social work who accede too readily to students desires to create a safe space in the classroom. This reflects a fundamental discomfort with disagreement and a misinterpretation of the meaning and purpose of conflict at the micro level of the classroom and the macro level of society. It makes it more difficult for students to understand the historical and contemporary sources of conflict and to differentiate between critical analyses of different perspectives from subjective judgments about them. A final problem stems from the entrenchment of students values and their unwillingness to examine ideas that challenge their basic beliefs. An increasing number of students have entered social work programs with firmly entrenched values, founded on religious beliefs, political ideologies, or life experiences. Although these values serve as powerful motivators for doing good, they also restrict students ability to respect the values of others, who may be equally well-motivated, and to learn how to disagree respectfully. We believe, therefore, that a major contribution of this course is to model vigorous but respectful debate over increasingly complex and contentious issues and in so doing better prepare social work students for the conflicts they will inevitably experience in their professional practice in increasingly diverse communities. CONCLUSIONS Social work education should not only prepare students for the world they will find awaiting them at graduation but to the one well beyond. This means providing students with the tools they need to face the future. In an increasing complicated, interconnected, and shrinking global community, our graduates will likely be confronted with cultural and geopolitical differences and with conflict in their daily work unlike those faced by earlier generations. As educators, we must prepare them to face those differences with intelligence, sensitivity, and insight. We believe that today s students are best served, not by venturing out in the world with no sense of history, but rather by being heavily imbued with the wisdom that comes from being immersed in it. They should understand the importance of the past to the present and to the future. They should have a healthy respect for the differences that reside between and among others who do not share the same

15 144 M. Reisch and K. M. Staller historical or cultural experiences. They should be sensitive to these differences, in order to address conflict and negotiate difference. A conflict-based approach to studying social welfare policies and services will prepare them as advocates, citizens, and peacekeepers. REFERENCES Chambers, C. (2005). Uphill all the way : Reflections on the course and study of welfare history. Social Service Review, 66, Foner, E. (1999). Who is an American? In E. Foner (Ed.), Who owns history? Rethinking the past in a changing world (pp ). New York, NY: Hill and Wang. Gilbert, N. (1995). Welfare justice: Restoring social equity. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Katz, M. B. (2001). The price of citizenship: Redefining the American welfare state. New York, NY: Henry Holt. National Association of Social Workers. (1996). Code of ethics (revised ed.). Washington, DC: Author. National Association of Social Workers. (2006). Social work speaks. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from default.asp Reisch, M. (1988). The uses of history in teaching social work. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 2, Reisch, M. (2007). Social justice and multiculturalism: Persistent tensions in the history of U.S. social welfare and social work. Studies in Social Justice, 1,