Extending the Ally Model of Social Justice to Social Work Pedagogy

Abstract

Social work students, regardless of their multiple social identities in oppressed and oppressor groups, are called upon to take action against social injustice. This conceptual article introduces the Ally Model of social justice and its alignment with social work values and goals and recommends it to social work educators as a pedagogical tool to use when teaching about oppression, differentness, and privilege. It presents the literature on the model and its characteristics through the social work lens of awareness/knowledge, attitudes/beliefs/feelings, and actions/skills. It also provides limitations of the model and observations of students’ responses, based on their identities, that may act as barriers when learning about oppression and privilege. Finally, recommendations for the implementation of the model across the curriculum are offered.

KEYWORDS:

• social justice
• Ally Model
• social identity
• teaching about oppression

In this article, I introduce the Ally Model of social justice (Anderson & Middleton, 2011; Bishop, 2002; Foster, 2011; Wijeyesinghe, Griffin, & Love, 1997; Reason, Millar, & Scales 2005; Spencer, 2008) to social work educators and argue for its inclusion as one of many pedagogical approaches to teaching social work students about differentness, oppression, and privilege across the curriculum. The Ally Model provides an approach to social justice built on social identity. It maintains that all have a role to play in promoting social justice, regardless of their social identities in oppressed and oppressor groups. Despite the fit of the Ally Model to social work values, especially those regarding diversity and difference, this model is under-represented in the social work profession with two exceptions. One is Spencer (2008), who documents his journey to become an ally on behalf of oppressed groups by sharing how his social identities as a male, heterosexual, “light skin” person of color, educated by the dominant culture, influenced his actions (p. 99). Another is Mullaly (2009), who lists a number of actions that social workers can take as allies. Beginning with an overview of the literature on the Ally Model, I describe its fit with social work education, values, and goals and then identify limitations of the model. I will further present observed barriers to student learning in relation to their social identity statuses from over 10 years of teaching a discrete course on oppression, privilege, and social justice. Finally, detailed recommendations for applying and integrating the Ally Model into social work education will be proposed.

THE ALLY MODEL AND SOCIAL WORK

A social justice ally “is a member of the agent group who rejects the dominant ideology and takes action against oppression out of a belief that eliminating oppression will benefit agents and targets” (Griffin, 1997, p. 76). Social group membership is used to categorize “agents” as members of oppressor groups and “targets” as members of oppressed groups. Originating from work on racial oppression (Bailey, 1998; Bishop, 2002; Broido, 2000; Clark & O’Donnell, 1999; Flowers & Pascarella, 1999; Giroux, 1997), the model has been applied to education (Griffin, 1997), domestic violence (Casey, 2010; Fabiano, Perkins, Berkowitz, Linkenback, & Stark, 2003), sexual minorities (Duhigg, 2007), student services (Reason et al., 2005), and general social justice issues (Anderson & Middleton, 2011; Edwards, 2006). Existing research has focused narrowly on race (Broido, 2000; Reason et al., 2005), and gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) issues (Duhigg, 2007). Historically, members of dominant groups have used their power to advocate for and work with members of oppressed groups (Bell, 1997; Foster, 2011; Garcia & Van Soest, 2006). In explaining social justice ally work, Reason and colleagues (2005) state, “Allies are members of dominant social groups (e.g., men, Whites, heterosexuals) working to end the system of oppression that gives them greater privilege and power based upon their social group membership” (p. 531). Of course, given that people have multiple identities, most have membership in both target and agent groups. (See Griffin’s chart (1997) on the roles in systems of oppression in Table 1.)

TABLE 1  Roles in System of Oppression

	Agents	Targets
Age	Middle/Adult	Young and Elders
Gender	Men	Women
Psychological/Developmental Disability	Able persons	Persons with Disabilities
Race	Whites	People of Color
Religion	Christians	Jews, Muslims, and other religious minorities
Sexual Orientation	Heterosexuals	Gay men, Lesbians, and Bisexuals Transgendered*

*Author’s addition to Griffin’s model.

Anderson and Middleton (2011) describe an ally as encompassing anti-oppression action and valuing difference. Becoming an ally involves working toward ending oppression through a provocative and transforming experience of self-examination and critical thinking about one’s social identities as they relate to multiple memberships in minority and majority groups (Bishop, 2002). Wijeyesinghe et al. (1997) describe ally characteristics that include an array of cognitive skills and action-oriented behaviors. Here we have integrated these characteristics under three domains that Meyer, Potts, Koob, Dorsey, and Rosales (2011) describe as competencies in multicultural practice: awareness/knowledge, attitude/beliefs/feelings, and action/skills. (See Table 2 for connections among cultural competence and Wijeyesinghe et al.’s characteristics of an ally.)

TABLE 2  Connections among Cultural Competences and Wijeyesinghe, Griffin, and Love’s Characteristics of an Ally

Domains of Cultural Competencies	NASW’s 10 Standards for Cultural Competence	Characteristics of an Ally
Awareness	Self-awareness	1. Recognizes that unlearning oppressive beliefs and actions is a life-long process, not a single event, and welcomes each learning opportunity
		2. Understands the connections among all forms of social injustice
		3. Is willing to be confronted about own behavior and attitudes and consider change
		4. Understands own growth and response patterns and when she or he is on a learning edge
Attitudes/Beliefs	Ethics Diverse workforce Professional education Language diversity Cross-cultural leadership	5. Feels good about own social group membership and is comfortable and proud of own identity
		6. Listens to and respects the perspectives and experiences of target group members
		7. Believes she or he can make a difference by acting and speaking out against social injustice
Action/Skills	Cross-cultural knowledge Cross-cultural skills Service delivery Empowerment and advocacy	8. Acknowledges unearned privileges received as a result of agent status and works to eliminate or change privileges into rights that target group members also enjoy
		9. Is willing to make mistakes, learn from them, and try again
		10. Is committed to taking action against social injustice in own sphere of influence
		11. Knows how to cultivate support from other allies
		12. Takes care of self to avoid burnout
		13. Takes responsibility for learning about one’s own and target groups’ heritage, culture, and experiences, and how oppression works in everyday life
		14. Is willing to take risks, try new behaviors; acts in spite of own fear and resistance from other agents
		15. Acts against social injustice out of a belief that it is in her or his own self-interest to do so

Awareness and Knowledge

This domain includes a conscious knowing. Guadalupe (2006) uses the phrase “the theory of me” to capture the importance of not only knowing, but also being aware of one’s multiple social identities. Bishop (2002) describes a similar process of having “a strong sense of self’ (p. 111). The domain also consists of self-reflection and self-knowledge (Anderson & Carter, 2003) and a realistic sense of one’s own power. In their research with European American college students, Reason et al. (2005) found that a high level of racial awareness—including awareness about one’s own racial identity and those of racial minority groups—was necessary to become an ally. In stressing self-awareness, Guadalupe (2003) reminds social workers of their “personal and professional responsibility to recognize and commit to addressing their own unfinished business—their inner and outer dragons” (p. 33), which unconsciously may be eschewed in favor of high self-esteem. However, the concept of self-awareness is necessary but not sufficient. Instead of using awareness, Cramer (1997) favors conscious decision making. Pointing to the importance of interactions and exchanges with others, Yan and Wong (2005) suggest the use of dialogic reflection.

Attitudes, Beliefs, and Feelings

This domain describes students’ beliefs and feelings about their own identities and interactions with those who are different, which connects with social work’s emphasis on practitioners’ responsibility to understand culture and its function in human behavior and society (National Association of Social Workers [NASW], 2001). In fact, the adoption of the very word ally has a positive connection to others because words are powerful influences in our lives and on our behaviors (Mile, O’Melia, & Dubois, 1998).

Action and Skills

Action is an inherent behavioral trait of an ally that builds on awareness/knowledge and attitudes/beliefs/feelings and moves one toward “doing.” Social work practice is inherently action-oriented. Prigoff (2003) describes the social justice framework as promoting social action and alliance with community groups in a manner that directs students to participate in meaningful cultural experiences that benefit the self, while also helping others through case and cause advocacy. Taking action on social justice issues has been conceptualized dichotomously. Foster (2011), in her conceptualization of social justice, expresses the view that one is either working for social justice or against it. It seems vital for social work students to understand that they have chosen a profession that values social action from a social justice perspective and is concerned about what is owed by (1) people to society, (2) people to one another, and (3) society to people (Van Soest, 1995). Using motivation as an underlying tenet, Edwards (2006) contributes a developmental conceptualization of a social justice ally being immersed in three interrelated phases that build progressively on one another. First is an aspiring ally for self-interest who is motivated by protecting loved ones from harm. Next is an ally for altruism who is motivated by guilt to act. Finally, an ally for social justice is propelled to address the systemic roots of oppression by a philosophy and commitment to social justice. Thus, becoming an ally is a process.

Educating students about the characteristics and developmental process of an ally is congruent with the policy mandates of social work education. The Council on Social Work Education (CSWE, 2010) requires content on diversity and oppression: Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards (EPAS) 2.1.4 and 2.1.5 mandate the preparation of students to not only be self-aware but also to be able to communicate their understanding of identity factors such as age, class, color, disability, ethnicity, gender, gender identity and expression, immigration status, political ideology, race, religion, sex, and sexual orientation (CSWE, 2010). In addition, the National Association of Social Workers (NASW, 2001) has 10 Standards of Cultural Competence that encourage students to be mindful of their personal values and social identities. Essentially, to work with diverse populations, students need self-awareness, cross-cultural knowledge, cross-cultural skills, cross-cultural leadership, language diversity, empowerment, and advocacy. Correspondingly, in efforts to teach such knowledge, skills, and values, educators use topics such as poverty (Krumer-Nevo, Weiss-Gal, & Monnickendam, 2009), sexual privilege and oppression (Walls et al., 2009), racial privilege and oppression (Abrams & Gibson, 2007; Abrams & Moio, 2009; Edwards, 2006; Phan et al., 2009), and self-awareness of social identities (Anderson & Middleton, 2011; Garcia & Van Soest, 2006; Kohli, Huber, & Faul, 2010; Pierce, Singleton, & Hudson, 2011; Spencer, 2008).

BARRIERS TO PREPARING STUDENTS FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE PRACTICE

Although the mandates provide clear guidance to social work educators on content and underlying values, little attention has been paid to pedagogical strategies. Many social work students struggle to learn the content on oppression (Dyche & Zayas, 2001; Foster, 2011; Van Soest & Garcia, 2008). One barrier to learning about diversity and difference is students’ awareness of their social identity. Although Kohli and colleagues (2010) state that “No one is born culture-less or identity-less,” (p. 4) students still vary greatly in their level of identity awareness.

Social identity is defined as social- or group-based membership that includes the twin processes of self-categorization and social comparison (Appleby, 2001). Self-categorization is a process of determining the behaviors, characteristics, and values associated with a group, while social comparison involves measuring aspects of the self in anticipation of a more favorable outcome when likened to others. Both are directly connected to self-esteem and social hierarchies resulting in an assumption that certain social identities are superior and others are inferior (Appleby, 2001). When asked to discuss their social identities—including multiple memberships in groups that are traditionally oppressed and those who are oppressors—students have been observed to report being in the dominant or minority group based on race, gender, or sexual orientation, but ignoring membership in other oppressed groups by virtue of age, religion, ability, social class, and nationality. Indeed, students’ racial identities are influential in courses on diversity and oppression (Phan et al., 2009; Van Soest & Garcia, 2008; Spears, 2004) and seem to influence their responses to the content. In addition, discussions of diversity and oppression often lead to questions about inadvertently making generalizations and stereotyping traditionally oppressed groups. Specifically, generalizations are seen as flexible descriptions about some, or many, and serve to begin a conversation, whereas stereotypes are defined as rigid conclusions about all, and that tend to end the conversation (Media Stereotypes, 2009). It must be noticed that generalizations can lead to stereotypes, especially when intra-group differences are excluded (Guadalupe, 2003), which points to the importance of words such as “some” and “a group of.”

An additional barrier to learning about oppression and social justice involves students’ emotional-affective feelings (Lee & Greene, 2003) about groups that are different from their own (Johnson, 2001). In fact, Johnson notes that “differentness” only becomes a problem when privilege and power are ignored and insiders maintain a higher status than outsiders. Learning content on oppression brings with it dynamics that are unique in many social work courses. The content is so very personal that it shifts into psychosocial spaces influenced by family, peers, and community (Comerfold, 2003; Foster, 2011). Thus, educators must be mindful of preparing students to address the emotional and intellectual challenges of conflicting values (Lee & Greene, 2003).

Limitations of the Ally Model

The Ally Model provides a multi-dimensional view of an individual’s social identities in both oppressed and oppressor groups rather than a unidimensional view of either/or categories (Guadalupe, 2003), which suggests one is either privileged or oppressed. Although it is inclusive in calling for awareness/knowledge, attitudes/beliefs/feelings, and action of students, regardless of their multiple social identities, there are some limitations. First, the model focuses on the actions of students without attention to some of their intrapsychic processes during learning, for example, feeling safe during difficult discussions about oppression and privilege. Even when the social identities of the instructor may influence students’ feelings of safety, it is not known whether similar identities between educator and student will increase feelings of safety.

Second, the Ally Model may change how students view themselves, their role as social change agents, and society (Van Soest & Garcia, 2008). Though the model encourages students to accept the concept of membership in privileged and oppressed groups (and the elimination of dichotomous thinking about being in either an oppressed or oppressor group), this shift in social identity may not be anxiety-free. In fact, the whole concept of multiple social identities may be difficult for students to grasp despite the strong influences on their daily living. An associated concern is whether students with certain identities feel patronized by those who want to become their allies.

A third limitation is the limited research evidence that exists addressing the effectiveness of the Ally Model when applied to all areas of diversity. More studies are needed to increase our knowledge regarding the implementation of characteristics and reactions of those in a variety of agent and target groups. Additionally, research on the effects of teaching the Ally Model in the classroom is needed given the impact this model may have on classroom dynamics due to differences in social identities. What are the influences on heterosexual students being taught by an instructor who identifies as GLBT, on White students being taught by an African American instructor, or on female students being taught by a male instructor? These situations are frequent in social work education but are not discussed, especially in terms of social identities and their influences. In addition, are there more effective ways to teach the Ally Model? What are the best methods to teach student about the ongoing process of becoming an ally?

Students’ awareness of opportunities to practice ally characteristics is the fourth limitation. Students need to transfer their ally behaviors from the classroom to the community. While students may act as allies only when completing an assignment or in field placements, they must be encouraged to find opportunities to be allies in the community (Edwards, 2006), especially in light of Spencer’s report (2008) that being an ally takes courage, which may give pause to some students as it requires a heightened sense of awareness.

Finally, there are numerous ally characteristics that appear in the literature with no set numbers, order, or sequence for participation. For students who learned better by taking incremental steps, they may not know where to begin. This may lead to confusion on the part of students and call for more clarity. In addition, the model refrains from commenting on feelings or the affective component of learning to value diversity and taking on social justice work. Hardy and Laszloffy (1995) distinguish between cultural awareness and cultural sensitivity. These authors explain that, although the former is a cognitive function and the latter is an affective function, they are interconnected. Providing students with this information may assist to raise awareness that they may experience strong feelings (affective) when learning (cognitive) about diversity, oppression, and social justice.

Examples of Students’ Responses when Learning about Social Justice

During the many years in which the author has taught a course on social work and diversity, she has observed many persistent barriers encountered by students who are struggling to become allies. While the illustrations presented may be seen as generalizations, my purpose is to provide examples of common challenges faced by students and faculty when teaching and learning content on oppression in social work education. I have observed five different student responses connected to social identity when they are learning about social justice. The first response, generally heard from Euro-American students, is a feeling that open discussions about diversity and oppression are unsafe because it may result in conflicts among students, and criticism of their views by teachers and peers. These students express a preference for an emphasis on the commonalities among all groups, regardless of privileged or oppressed status, in order to promote relationship building across students’ diverse social locations. In addition, these students not only question CSWE’s stances about teaching cultural diversity and NASW’s support of culturally sensitive practice, but also critique these values. It should be noted that such students are not alone in their concerns about ensuring a safe classroom environment. Some educators have expressed similar concerns (Nixon, 2005; Van Soest, 1995).

A second response involves students’ reports of feeling guilty and their struggle to move from guilt to social responsibility. This position is often shared by White students in discussions about White privilege (Van Soest & Garcia, 2008) and the oppression of African Americans and other racial minority groups by their ancestors. Students express wanting to act in a positive manner on behalf of racial minority groups but are unsure how to do so appropriately. In addition, they sometimes are concerned about the lack of diversity in their personal lives and social networks but think that with their many and varied responsibilities, they are powerless to remedy these circumstances. For Euro-American students, feeling guilty seems to be a common characteristic in the process of learning about social justice. The habit of selecting members of work groups based on familiarity and similarities is an example of Brookfield’s concern (1995) that students’ culturally learned habits may be repeated in class. Moreover, there may be additional factors at play. For example, Griffin (1997) found that students frequently are immobilized by multicultural content resulting in their (1) withdrawal from class participation, (2) feeling powerless, (3) being concerned about being seen as a bigot, (4) fear of disagreement and conflict, and (5) feeling guilty. Given that guilt is a common expression for some students, Edwards (2006) reframes guilt as an opportunity for a positive outcome by explaining that feeling guilty may shift from intellectualizing, to having emotional feelings, to acting against oppression.

A third response from students, particularly some students of color, is a fear that discussions of content on diversity and oppression will further oppress them. Racial minority students, particularly African Americans, may be uncomfortable discussing racial issues because they may feel re-victimized by the content on racism (Van Soest & Garcia, 2008). This legitimate concern also may be connected to what Jackson (1999) describes as being pushed into the role of spokesperson for their group. Such students may feel pressured to talk about their experiences with oppression in order to educate White students and White educators. Having to live every day with minority stress, these students communicate having little to no energy to advocate for other oppressed groups.

A fourth response, heard most typically from some White male students, emerges from the unique experience of being in the numerical minority in social work classes. These White men stop short of claiming that they also experience oppression, yet they seem to convey that there is a dynamic involved with their status that ought to be included in the literature on social justice. A similar concern was expressed by Kosberg (2002), who cautioned the social work profession that excluding content on the experience of White heterosexual males may not only result in bias but also may ill prepare students to effectively practice with this group.

Finally, a fifth response to the social work content on diversity and social justice in the curriculum is an absence of responses from members of certain oppressed groups. Rarely are there comments about the course content from some students who hold membership in devalued groups such as older adults, differently abled, low-income, religiously oppressed immigrants, and those who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, or questioning/queer-identified. This reticence may be due in part to the absence of physical traits that result in group cohesion or to society’s particularly strong emphasis on racial issues. Students who belong to these groups may lack a historical collectivity that hinders group identity. Exceptions included a Muslim student who shared experiences of always being singled out for additional searches at airports; a student who identified as gay questioned terms such as “sexual identity” and “sexual orientation,” and a student with a visible disability who revealed that some fellow students questioned whether her or his disabling condition warranted the accommodations received for an exam.

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ALLY MODEL

Introducing the Ally Model

It is essential to introduce the model in the very first class session with content on the definitions and conceptualizations of an ally. One in-class activity is to focus on the characteristics of an ally (see Table 2), which helps students to understand the many and varied tasks involved in becoming an ally. Students would be instructed to develop a chart with two columns, one labeled “tasks for me” and the other “tasks with/on behalf of others.” Then, each student lists characteristics deemed appropriate under each column. Immediately after, the class divides into pairs to discuss their respective lists. The underlying objectives of this initial session are to encourage students’ awareness of their own backgrounds and cultures, the connection among all forms of oppression, and the notion that no one will do this work perfectly. In policy courses, ally characteristics can be used to increase students’ awareness of the values undergirding a policy framework and critique whether those values are culturally relevant to the group intended for application. In courses on social justice issues, oppression, or cultural diversity, students can be required to read the literature on the Ally Model and write a paper (1) identifying the ally characteristics they possess, (2) list those they are actively developing, including barriers to achieving them, and (3) describe the one characteristic that is most important to their current social work practice while providing a rationale for its selection and an in-depth example of its application with clients. Doing so sets a foundation for students to learn and incorporate ally characteristics into subsequent assignments.

Strategies for Listening, Respecting, and Learning

To address students’ barriers to learning stemming from feelings that open discussions about diversity are unsafe, a suggested activity is for students to watch a video about the lived experience of oppression. A recommended video featuring eight different cultural groups (African American, Arab American, Asian American, Euro-American, Indigenous/Native American, Jewish American, Latina, and Multiracial) is “The Way Home” (Butler, Rifkin, & Rohr, 1998). In this video, participants discuss their respective history of internal and external oppression, and for some, of privilege. Students can be assigned membership in one of the groups that is culturally different from their own and instructed to watch the video online before the class session in which it will be discussed. Prior to a full class discussion, each student is assigned to a multicultural group where structured questions are used to explore the perspectives in one cultural group, with other members having to listen and discuss from only that perspective. After a debriefing, students are asked to discuss three things that they learned both about another’s and their own cultural group. These strategies work particularly well in history and policy courses.

Focus on Future Action and Comfort with Own Group Membership

Feelings of guilt expressed by White students are usually approached with attempts to help reduce or erase the feelings. A different strategy would be to discuss guilt in a manner that focuses on a future orientation. Students can explore their lack of control on their ancestors’ oppressive acts but the control they do have over their own current actions. Given that there also will be students of color in class, the didactic strategy here is specific to promoting a cross-racial alliance among all students. This three-part assignment was revised from one by Zúñiga and Shlasko (n.d.). Part one requires students to reflect by writing a brief paper on a plan to commit to one social action as an ally with a deadline within the semester. Part two is to actually take action outside of class. Part three involves an in-class presentation about the process and outcome. Social action in this assignment may take many forms—from researching a problem, to analyzing a policy and making recommendations, to volunteering with a group or agency. The important aspects are (1) reflection about action with an oppressed group different from one’s own cultural group, (2) a wish to act on behalf of a group as an ally, and (3) an honest presentation of the assignment. For Euro-American students, it is a planned assignment to shift from experiencing guilt to crafting an identity of a White Ally who stands up for social justice.

For racial minority students, learning about the historical experiences of other oppressed groups may result in opportunities to form a bond with them (Van Soest & Garcia, 2008). However, feelings of victimization may not be erased, and they are essential to acknowledge when teaching about diversity and historical facts on oppression. Doing so gives voice to students who have memberships in historically oppressed groups, and this act of being “heard” may result in increased empathy and positive feelings.

Increasing Knowledge about the Mechanism of Oppression and Privilege

For White males who express concerns that their experiences of being oppressed are being overlooked, two strategies may be deployed. One is to discuss the chart of the target and agent status using examples of privilege and oppression for each identity on it. Structuring the discussion to involve the entire class (with their responses being written on the board) will increase the transparency of the information. This assignment may also assist White males, who also have membership in oppressed groups, to give voice to their experiences. The second is an assignment to present the contextual influence and fluidity of being in a numerical minority group. Students are assigned to develop a poster displaying the two different contexts in which the same group was a numerical minority or numerical majority. In a policy course, students can be required to present how numerical minority and majority statuses have an impact on social policy development. In a research course, students could be required to explore recruitment or sampling strategies according to representation of diverse groups.

The Ally Model can be utilized to encourage the process of building culturally competent practice in a variety of subject matters across the curriculum. One is working with the concept of multiple memberships (Appleby, 2001) in both target and agent groups accompanied by ally characteristics (see Table 1). Having students identify their multiple memberships in both agent and target groups allows them to make a personal connection with the model. Having educators acknowledge their own memberships in oppressor and oppressed groups (and their influences on their teaching) also can be used in all courses. Displaying such transparency models openness to students and facilitates the learning process. Another strategy that can be used in the classroom is for educators to attend to the selection of students for group projects. Calling attention to the dynamics of gravitating toward those with common social identities and using the Ally Model may raise students’ awareness of repeating habits learned in their previous social environments.

Incorporating the Ally Characteristics on a Systems Level in an Academic Unit

On the administrative level, the Ally Model can be used in systemic ways to support faculty and students who have memberships in oppressed groups by developing a more welcoming environment in the building. Rarely discussed is the opportunity possessed by those in administration to model alliances across differentness and walk the talk about the school’s mission in supporting social justice. Having pictures in the building that depict many forms of diversity conveys openness and an invitation for all to join the community. Taking the lead in celebrating various groups throughout the year and developing policies and programs that are friendly to students as allies to one another would promote this model. For example, one could develop a system in which students could help other students in study groups hosted by the school with appropriate private spaces provided. Finally, sponsoring monthly presentations, where students can openly discuss their experiences of oppression and privilege (along with how social work education influences these experiences) would serve to normalize rather than stigmatize and also increase the knowledge base of students and faculty on becoming allies.

SUMMARY

This article has discussed the tenets of the Ally Model of social justice; presented observations gleaned from many years of teaching a discrete course on oppression and privilege; and provided detailed recommendations for activities and assignments to apply this model. Learning about and practicing from a social justice framework such as the Ally Model is a process. Despite the limitations inherent in the Ally Model, this article strongly recommends the incorporation of its use in social work education. No model of practice will completely eliminate oppression and social injustice, but in taking a stance for social justice, social work education will benefit from having a variety of approaches to guide pedagogy and sensitive practice. In fact, Van Soest and Garcia (2008) advise that a gap in social work education is the lack of a framework that combines both oppression and diversity. The Ally Model, with its emphasis on power and privilege and on valuing differentness, is offered as one that may assist in filling this gap. It has an impressive list of characteristics that students can incorporate into practice with or on behalf of others as well as in their personal lives as well. These characteristics are both self- and other-centered. Using social identity in oppressed and oppressor groups, the model recommends that students not only work toward dismantling the societal system of oppression but also learn about their own culture to appreciate differentness. The model is yet another strategy in social work education’s arsenal of approaches and models that can be used to increase the connection between teaching and practice to better prepare students for effective cross-cultural practice, something that is always a process rather than an achieved state.