Kasandra

“RASSW published its first public position paper in February 1976 on the issue of licensure. Placing the issue in the broader context of the economic crisis, the paper addressed three questions: (1) the role of NASW; (2) whether licensing of social workers was racist; and (3) the relationship of licensure to service quality and accountability.”
― Michael Reisch, The Road Not Taken: A History of Radical Social Work in the United States

“Reflecting a long-standing schism within the profession, which persists into the twenty-first century, RASSW argued that “a dichotomy exists within NASW between” social activists and clinical practitioners, which is exacerbated by the promotion of licensing. When all social services are threatened by the conservative political and ideological climate, a focus on licensing undermines the profession’s efforts to fight for “the survival and well-being of millions” (RASSW, February 1,1976, p. 3). Citing the opposition to licensing by such groups as the National Association of Black Social Workers (NABSW), RASSW asserted that efforts by NASW to promote licensing contradict its stated intent to fight racism within the social service field and were destructive of professional unity. Promoting licensing, in lieu of uniting around this struggle “is to fiddle while Rome burns” (p. 3). The paper also disputed the linkage between licensing and service quality. It added an interesting twist to the growing debate over professionalization by arguing that “under current political conditions licensure may actually decrease the accountability of social workers to their clients” (RASSW, February 1,1976, p. 5). The paper concluded that licensure neither protected nor improved service quality; rather, it divided workers and undermined their job security, as the recent attack on public education in New York City had demonstrated. Instead of fighting for licensure, RASSW proposed an alternative strategy that focused on building worker-client-labor-community coalitions and combating racism in social service agencies and other institutions.”
― Michael Reisch, The Road Not Taken: A History of Radical Social Work in the United States

“The name of the JPHS exemplified how the more politically acceptable term, “progressive,” came to replace the label radical. Whereas in the 1940s and 1950s the term progressive was used to connote someone associated with the Communist Party or its support organizations, by the 1980s it came to mean anyone with views to the left of center. Within this parlance, by 1992 a centrist politician like Bill Clinton could refer to himself as a progressive.”
― Michael Reisch, The Road Not Taken: A History of Radical Social Work in the United States

“As they debated the ethics and efficacy of activism, social workers were under attack from both conservative politicians and organized client groups. At the 1970 National Conference on Social Welfare conference, Johnnie Tillmon, the leader of the NWRO, blamed social workers (rather than the socio-economic system) for the problems welfare recipients faced. At the other end of the political spectrum the Nixon administration frequently trumpeted the view that social workers promoted community programs out of self-interest. Given this climate, it was no surprise that a popular book of the time referred to social work as “The Unloved Profession” (Richan & Mendelsohn, 1973). Social workers, in Tom Wolfes (1970) memorable phrase, had become one of the “flak catchers” of a turbulent society—bombarded with criticisms from ideological opponents of the left and the right. Despite the presence of radical”
― Michael Reisch, The Road Not Taken: A History of Radical Social Work in the United States