From the Editor—Critical Race Theory Misinformation Campaign: Implications for Social Work Education

The recent media and social media headlines about Critical Race Theory (CRT) are mystifying and confusing with good reason. Critical Race Theory was originally developed as a legal framework to better understand and address the ways slavery, segregation and racial inequality have been embedded in our local, state and national laws over several centuries in the U.S. (West, Crenshaw et al., 1996). Recently, CRT has become a conservative political buzz phrase. It is often misidentified as having Marxist origins. Despite no evidence supporting these claims, CRT is described as a curriculum taught in schools that causes race-based guilt among young White children, and as a broader agenda to take over America as we know it. While many of us see this for what it is – the intentional misuse of CRT by conservative advocates to halt progress during this time of racial reckoning in the U.S. – it does not help that this theory is being misrepresented in nonstop broadcasts on conservative news shows, media and social media. The weaponizing of CRT is an attempt to maintain the status quo, systematic racism and White Supremacy. This campaign is designed to halt efforts to educate students, faculty and staff on racism, bias, and inclusion, with recent laws in some states fining teachers for discussing race and current events. This is a war against our professional values of racial and social justice, as well as the dignity and worth of all individuals. We must recognize this call to battle and ready ourselves. Their efforts can work – such efforts to appeal to fear and emotion of White individuals has stagnated progress for centuries. As social work faculty, students and practitioners, it is essential to prepare our students to think critically about these misinformation tactics, to better analyze and understand systematic racism and how it has been maintained historically, and to use our training, advocacy and collective wisdom to identify tactics to organize and fight these misinformation campaigns.

I am grateful to Dean Sandra Edmonds Crewe from Howard University for agreeing to write an invited editorial on Critical Race Theory and its utility in social work education with such short notice. I am hopeful this editorial will offer some important guidance for social work educators to engage social work students in critical and uncomfortable conversations that prepare them to join the battle to eliminate systematic racism.

In this issue

This issue of JSWE begins with an invited editorial by Crewe titled, “Critical Race Theory — Uncomfortable but Necessary Tool for Change Agents.” Crewe provides an overview of Critical Race Theory and discusses its value for social work education and offers guidance on the practical application of CRT to support critical analysis and carry out our social work values of the dignity and worth of all persons. In “‘I’ll Find a Way or Make One’: Atlanta University and the Emergence of Professional Social Work Education in the Deep South,” Hopps, Lowe, and Clayton discuss the innovative contributions to social work education of Atlanta University as the first professional School of Social Work in the deep South to address the needs of a regional Black professional social workforce.

The next four articles focus on the importance of and innovative ideas for educating social work students to engage in political advocacy. Bliss and Ginn report on their comprehensive search of national news and media sites to explore representation of social work perspectives in national advocacy efforts in “Expanding Presence of Social Work Advocacy on the National Stage.” They offer a media advocacy framework for social work educators and practitioners to increase the presence of national social work advocacy. In “Increasing Self-Efficacy With Legislative Advocacy Among Social Work Students,” Nowakowski-Sims and Kumar report on an evaluation of National Association of Social Workers’ Legislative Education and Advocacy Day activities, which suggested significant gains in self-efficacy with legislative advocacy and implications for future experiential training. Miller, Jennings, and Angelo discuss the importance of social work participation in elected office as a form of advocacy in “Social Workers as Elected Officials: Advocacy at the Doorstep.” The authors illustrate how core social work values are aligned with and can enhance the preparation of social workers to serve as an elected official, as well as suggest ways to further prepare social work students for political action and office. Schwartz-Tayri, Malka, Moshe-Grodofsky, and Gilbert share the results of an evaluation of their policy advocacy course using a pretest-posttest research design in “Integrating Micro and Macro Practice: An Evaluation of the Policy Advocacy Course.” Findings from this study supported an increase in motivation to engage in policy advocacy among students following the course and the potential promise of this approach for social work education. Following these advocacy focused articles, Iverson, Dentato, Green, and Busch report on a study of student and faculty perspectives of macro practice field internship experiences across social work programs in the United States and Canada in “The Continued Need for Macro Field Internships: Support, Visibility and Quality Matter.” The findings suggest that the majority of macro internships are offered in MSW programs, and the authors discuss the barriers and implications for increasing high quality macro field placements in social work education.

Next, this issue includes two articles that focus on issues of interpersonal violence exposure among social work students and gender equity with regard to curricular content on women in social work education. In “#Metoosocialworkeducation: Exposure to Interpersonal Violence Among Social Work Students,” Voth Schrag, Wood, Hoefer, and Busch-Armendariz report on a study of the rates of victimization and associated effects among a sample of BSW, MSW and PhD social work students. They indicate that social work students did not experience higher rates of IPV compared with nonsocial work students, but they did indicate greater fear of victimization. The authors discuss the implications of these findings for helping social work educators increase awareness about Title IX policies and the provision of trauma-informed classrooms. Greubel then provides a historical textual analysis of documents from the National Social Welfare History Archives at the University of Minnesota that detailed the work of the Task Force on Women in Social Work Education in 1972. In “Curricular Content on Women: Gender Equity in Social Work Education,” the author discusses the themes identified from this work as well as the implications for understanding the history of the profession and ensuring adequate coverage of gendered content in current curricula.

In “The Great Divide Between Social Work Educational Policy and Licensure Examinations: Differing Approaches to Identifying Competency That Are Challenging the Profession,” Apgar proposes that there is an existing divide between social work educational policy and licensure examinations, whereby educators indicate competency is demonstrated through behavioral observation while regulators are more focused on knowledge acquired that is driven by real market conditions. This article discusses this discrepancy, and suggests potential solutions and considerations for social work education.

The next five articles and the first of three teaching notes are focused on using or teaching technology use in social work instruction. In “Defining the Minimum Expectation of MSW Students: Implementation and Application of Technical Standards,” Zerden, Naylor, Thomas, Brigham, and Bailey describe the process and lessons learned at a graduate school of social work that developed and implemented technical standards for ethical and professional behavior. McInroy then offers a framework for training students to effectively use technology in practice based on existing literature as well as an outline of a master’s course developed and piloted in “Teaching Technology Competencies: A Social Work Practice With Technology Course.” Maynard describes and assesses MSW students’ perceptions of a standardized simulation exercise where students practiced the simulation with an actor and then watched the recorded simulation video in “Standardized Simulations in Social Work Supervision Courses: MSW Students’ Perceptions.” Implications from this study support student satisfaction and the author provides implications for incorporating simulations in social work curricula. In “Formative Assessment and Learning in a Parent–Bisexual Child Dyadic OSCE-SW,” Tyler and Franklin describe the use of formative objective structured clinical social work examination that assesses skills when working with a parent–bisexual child dyad and the evaluation of self-efficacy and performance learning outcomes among 18 undergraduate social work students. The results indicated that additional training was necessary to achieve skill and self-efficacy with this scenario and perhaps other types of marginalized dyadic relationships. Roberson employed a qualitative study to analyze 12 MSW students’ reflections after three practice simulations in “Simulation in Social Work Education: A Qualitative Study of MSW Student Development.” The results culminated in a conceptual model for the development of student metacognition from repeated simulations. Finally, in a teaching note, Putney, Collin, Halmo, Cadet, and O’Brien report on the evaluation of student outcomes from a Screening and Brief Intervention (SBI) online patient simulation in “Assessing Competence in Screening and Brief Intervention Using Online Patient Simulation and Critical Self-Reflection.” The results suggested improvement over time, and the implications of adopting this curricular model are discussed.

This issue concludes with two additional teaching notes. Birkenmaier, Barros Lane, Callahan, and Hageman provide a rationale for including Financial Capability and Asset Building (FCAB) within social work education and then describe four course modules of varied formats to support curricular integration in “Course Models for Increased Competency for Practice Integrated With Financial Capability and Asset Building.” The authors also map the FCAB content with the Council on Social Work Education Policy and Accreditation Standards. In “An Interprofessional Book Club: Bringing Together Social Work and Health Affaris Students,” Zerden, Zomorodi, Haley, McCall, Moreton, and Richardson describe the use of a specific book and book club designed to prompt students to reflect on their own mortality while also learning more about team-based care, coordination, and systems perspectives of a major health diagnosis. The authors provide the rationale for the book selected, social work competencies targeted and guidance for adopting this teaching approach.