Roundtable Sessions: 7, 9, 11, 18, 20, 22

TBD

While issues related to diversity and social justice have long been defined as core elements of the social work profession and, correspondingly, social work education (Jani, Pierce, Ortiz, & Sowbel, 2011; Marsh, 2005; National Association of Social Workers, 2008; Reisch, 2002), the current political moment—namely the convergence of the COVID-19 pandemic, social/political protest and reckoning around structural anti-Black racism, climate crisis, and the recent 2020 election—mark a critical time for deeper reflection and revision of many taken-for-granted assumptions about and within our field. This includes the need for intentional interrogation of all aspects of social work, including: curriculum and pedagogy and our roles as social work scholars and educators. Given the professional and curricular mandate for this content, it is crucial that we maintain a comprehensive and in-depth understanding of how social justice, racial equity, and gender and sexual liberation are taught within our discipline. In this roundtable, we explore some of these questions and considerations from the perspective of BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and people of color) and LGBTQ+ educators. Specifically, we are interested in exploring how we teach about social, racial, economic, and gender justice from our diverse positionalities and within varied contexts. Social work educators’ experiences in the classroom are shaped by power dynamics, positionalities, lived experiences, and context. This roundtable discussion will center the experiences of LGBTQ-identified instructors as we collectively explore the integration of issues of sexuality, gender, and race into social work courses. We are particularly interested in the salience of race/racism, class, gender, and sexuality and the ways geographic, social/political and institutional contexts and shape our approaches to social work education. The overall purpose of this roundtable is to center how intersectionality informs curriculum and pedagogy and to explore what social justice education means for instructors from various social locations and relationships to academia. In this discussion, we will engage participants in dialogue centered around the following questions: • What are the experiences of minoritized social work instructors, particularly around gender, sexuality, and race/ethnicity-related content and courses? • How is content around gender, sexuality, and race/ethnicity taught in social work classrooms around the country (and beyond)? What does this look like? • How do (a) instructors’ social identities and institutional positionalities, (b) student demographics, and (c) geographic, institutional, and political contexts impact approaches to and experiences of teaching this content? • What are the specific power dynamics that emerge for minoritized instructors, including classroom dynamics with students, interactions with fellow instructors, and engagement with administrators/school leadership? • How do participants make meaning of teaching intersectional queer content within gender/sexual-normative contexts? • What are key strategies, as articulated by participants, for making social justice education more equitable and transformative in social work classrooms? • In what ways should we as social work scholars and educators lend attention to these dynamic experiences in our scholarship and curriculur/pedagogical development?

For millennia, scholars from many disciplines have attempted to answer the question, “Who am I?” Responses to this question comprise identity theory. A common position in identity theory is that identity is inextricably personal and social in nature. In other words, identity influences—and is influenced by—prevalent events, ideas, and movements that operate in the world. Feminist and queer theories, both keen on deconstructing hegemonies, provide unique lenses through which to engage, and be engaged by, identity. For example, Feminist theories undo normative, status-quo ideas related to gender, sex, race, and power. Queer identity theories push the undoing slightly farther by calling into question the binaries of masculinity, femininity, and the constraints that the binaries have had on sex and sexuality. The issue is that feminist and queer theories tend to operate within their own spheres of influence. Although scholars have attempted to place the two in conversation, often the result is one of compromise. Some scholars have downplayed feminist theory’s emphasis on gender in favor of creating a platform that advocates for those who exist on society’s margins. Similarly, other scholars have downplayed queer theory’s emphasis on fluidity in favor of creating a platform that exists in the status quo. This does not bode well for identity studies as a new binary of inclusion vs. exclusion is created when feminist and queer theories compromise. Additionally, this compromise is not a good fit for those persons whose identities extend beyond the confines of feminist or queer theories, e.g., transgender, genderqueer, etc. What is needed is the creation of a new theory of identity that ‘moves the needle’ beyond meeting at the intersection of feminist and queer theory to completely embracing the strengths, limitations, and opportunities of each theory. Transidentity will be the name of the new identity theory. This roundtable discussion will begin a much-needed dialogue on how to celebrate the shared deconstructive tendencies of feminist and queer theories while contending with, illuminating and cherishing key differences between them. Transidentity theory will help us understand and embrace the complexities of identity beyond what is possible by feminist and queer theories alone. In the end, transidentity theory will create spaces for healing; identities will be able to stand in their own truths and tell their own stories. Keywords: feminist theory, identity, intersectionality, queer theory, transidentity theory

Background: It is well known that discrimination against LGBTQ+ persons is associated with increased levels of emotional distress, mental illness, and suicide (Bostwick et al., 2014). Additionally, according to the National Association of Social Workers, (2017) “Social workers should not practice, condone, facilitate, or collaborate with any form of discrimination on the basis of… sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression…” Despite this language, and an understanding of the effects of discrimination, many private, religious universities that house schools of social work maintain policies that openly discriminate against LGBTQ+ staff and students. These policies commonly include lifestyle statements that state marriage and sexual intimacy should only be between one married man and one married woman; those in violation of these policies may be fired or expelled. The Council on Social Work Education’s (CSWE) Educational Policy Accreditation Standards (2015) require that accredited schools of social work adhere to the NASW Code of Ethics. However, many schools with these exclusionary policies maintain CSWE accreditation. It appears as though these schools would have previously been protected under a religious exemption clause (Thompson, 2015). However, these exemptions may be weakened due to recent changes in the law due to the landmark ruling Bostock v. Clayton (2019) that expanded civil rights protections to LGBTQ+ identified persons (Mallory et al., 2020). Currently, little is known about which schools have filed for this exemption, and whether or not this exemption still protects institutional discrimination against LGBTQ+ identified persons. Method: Participants will engage in a roundtable discussion to develop an understanding of ongoing institutional homophobia at universities that house accredited schools of social work and to develop policy recommendations to attempt to ameliorate this issue. This will include a discussion of the developing legal landscape under which these exemptions may be challenged. This will include a discussion of examples of contrasting social work programs at private, religious schools that openly discriminate, as well as those that have LGBTQ+ inclusive policies. This will also include a discussion of previous advocacy work done to challenge social work education’s acceptance of policies that discriminate against LGBTQ+ staff and students. Outcomes/Conclusions: Participants will develop an understanding of ongoing LGBTQ+ discriminatory policies at universities that house CSWE accredited schools of social work. Participants will be able to identify which universities that house private, religious schools of social work currently have discriminatory policies that may be damaging to their students or clients. Participants will also help to craft policy recommendations to help social workers challenge the continuation of institutional homophobia in social work education. These recommendations will be used to inform action research in this area.