December 14, 2008

Former Social-Work Student Sues Rhode Island School, Alleging Political Indoctrination

A former student has sued the Rhode Island College School of Social Work, alleging that he was penalized because he did not advocate “progressive politics,” The Providence Journal reported.

The student, William Felkner, describes himself as a “conservative libertarian” who generally opposes the expansion of government welfare programs, but he says it became clear to him after enrolling in the master’s-degree program, in 2004, that he would have to transform himself into a left-wing ideologue in order to graduate. His grievances include clashes with a professor over assignments and the choice of where he could work as an intern.

The college, however, denies its curriculum has a political bias. The values its courses teach, it says, are drawn from the code of ethics of the National Association of Social Workers, and incorporating those standards into the curriculum “can no more be considered political indoctrination than can a medical school’s adherence to the Hippocratic Oath.”

Mr. Felkner left the Rhode Island school last year, after running out of time to submit a final paper that was acceptable to the college. His case is not the first time a student has sued a school of social work on claims of political indoctrination. In 2006, Missouri State University settled a lawsuit with a former social-work student who contended that the institution had retaliated against her for not participating in a class project supporting homosexuals’ adoption of children. —Charles Huckabee

Comments

1. The code of ethics for social workers IS pretty progressive, thank goodness. If you can’t handle it, you should find another field. It’s not a punitive thing; the fact is that if the code is too much for you, the work will be, too.
   It rather boggles the mind that a “conservative libertarian” could find an interest in the field of social work, to begin with.

   — Ginger    Dec 15, 08:42 AM    #

2. I agree with Ginger and posit that the only reason for a self-professed “conservative libertarian” to apply for a Master’s degree program in Social Work would be to sue the school for political indoctrination.

   — steve bollinger    Dec 15, 10:04 AM    #

3. Ginger, Steve, get a clue. People choose professions based on things other than rammed-down-your-throat brotherhood progrssive ideology. Neither of you deny the obvious political indoctrination going on, you defend it.

   Surprise! The fact that you agree with the indoctrination doesn’t mean it’s legal. I hope students sue the pants off these Liberal-Looney schools every time they are coerced into this nonsense that
   jeopardizes all their hard work.

   Political considerations have no place in academia. We have to root out the pernicious disease in our schools or risk losing the best and the brightest people.

   — Muap Conners    Dec 15, 11:48 AM    #

4. And therein lies the problem: Ginger and Steve are examples of all that is bad (and I mean bad as insidious) in fields such as social work, public education, etc. Their opinions are that if you disagree with our pedagogy/theories/methodologies/world view, then you have no place in our field. We’ll spend your conservative-libertarian tax dollars to implement our aforementioned methods and social remedies… but don’t even think that you might have an innovative idea or something which might improve our social work systems.

   You don’t understand our philosophy: “We are liberal, therefore we are correct.” Or read another way, “You are conservative, therefore you are wrong.”

   — Rodney    Dec 15, 12:28 PM    #

5. RIC is heading for trouble if this matter proceeds much further in court (a judge has already found that the plaintiff has established a prima facie case). According to the usually-reliable Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, one of the courses in which Mr Felkner was enrolled required him to lobby the Rhode Island state legislature for one of a prescribed list of approved causes; he received a failing grade when he turned in a paper that argued against the political position he was required to adopt. The instructor concerned then proceeded to bury RIC legally with a series of extremely injudicious e-mails justifying what he frankly acknowledged to be the undisguised “biases” in his pedagogical approach. If the College’s best defence is that viewpoint discrimination by the government passes First Amendment scrutiny because it happens to be shared by a non-governmental organisation—the National Association of Social Workers—a decision in this case shouldn’t take very long. As the Supreme Court ruled in Barnette (1942), “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.”

   — Gustave    Dec 15, 12:33 PM    #

6. I don’t find very much to agree with in “conservative-libertarian” politics, exceept to the extent that libertarians sometimes drop their obsession with free-market absolutism and talk about authentic civil liberties issues. But it’s clear that Rhode Island College has descended into the slough where indoctrination replaces education and has abandoned all tolerance for the expression of contrarian views. So much for diversity of opinion, which seems to count for little in an inbred culture where “diversity” means little more than having a high percentage of black faces and a system of implied and actual censorship that values “sensitivity” far more than liberty of opinion.

   I can’t. of course, evaluate Mr. Felkner’s academic and professional abilities, but Ginger and Steve Bollinger (#1 & 2 above) exemplify the kind of rigid, doctrinaire, self-righteous attitude that, in a saner world, would exclude them from academic careers. If they want to preach the values that seem to be so tied up with their self-ascribed virtue, let them get a soapbox; a classroom is a very inappropriate venue, especially one that posits the right of instructors to punish debate, dissent, and criticism that challenges their assumptions.

   — Fossil    Dec 15, 01:01 PM    #

7. So, I’m curious. What if a Christian Scientist went to medical school and refused to administer medications to patients? What if a Marxist entered an MBA program and wrote anti-capitalist essays for classes? What if a pacifist went to West Point and demanded academic credit for protesting military action? Of course none of these cases is precisely equivalent, but what are the logical and legal limits of the Barnett ruling cited above?

   — John    Dec 15, 01:21 PM    #

8. John,

   You are correct in saying that none of your cases are precisely equivalent…and most actually not even somewhat equivalent.

   The med school one is silly on its face, as is the West Point example. The MBA is the only example which might be analagous in some way.

   But the point is, each of your examples uses an antagonist, whose stated goals are antithesis to those of the school/organization. A person going to medical school but refusing to medicate; a person going to a military academy and protesting the military.

   In the RIC case here, the student went to a school of social work: working with society. The student was not against working with society. He just had certain opinions as to what was the best way to do that. Those views were not matched by RIC. No problem if RIC were a for-profit business. But it is not; it is a place of higher learning. Read Fossil’s point. He/she is right on.

   — Rodney    Dec 15, 01:37 PM    #

9. Thank you, John; my thoughts exactly.

   A better example would be a medical student who claims “indoctrination” because he/she disagrees with traditional western medical models of care. Certainly “eastern” medicines are now creeping into mainstream medicine in the USA, but medical schools still largely follow western practice.

   Of course social work leans to the left! Just like some schools’ poli sci programs lean heavily to the right. If one, as a student, wishes to apply and attend a program, especially for graduate level work, one should research and investigate programs for the best match possible for program and student. If one, as a student, decides to attend a program simply to be an idealogical thorn in that program’s side, that seems like a monumental waste of effort.

   — Annieonymous    Dec 15, 01:38 PM    #

10. All these analogies fail. If West Point demanded that a student lobby Congress to endow the School of the Americas; a medical school required him or her to do likewise in favour of a national health service (or legislation to outlaw acupuncture); or an MBA programme in favour of the universal adoption of the economic policies of Milton Friedman and the renunciation of those of J.M. Keynes—and made the granting of a degree conditional on such compliance—all these institutions would expose themselves to precisely the same legal challenge as has RIC.

    — Gustave    Dec 15, 01:51 PM    #

11. At least there was a faculty member willing to advise a student they may not be meant for their chosen field. I had the same experience as an undergrad trying to major in computer science. FINALLY, one of the math faculty pulled me aside and told me I was not going to make it as I was struggling too much with the Cal 1 and Cal 2 classes to be successful at the higher required math courses. Looking back, she was right on the money and allowed me to shift career goals to the behvariol sciences, bless her for her candor.

    — Kyle David    Dec 15, 02:43 PM    #

12. So the student believes that delivering public services such as social work can be an entirely a-political act? Many have made that mistake in their analysis. By denying the political aspect of almost everything someone does in society, you are just missing the point.

    — peter    Dec 15, 03:36 PM    #

13. As a conservative libertarian who earned a Masters in Social Work in 2000, I COMPLETELY sympathize with this student. Liberal ideology is rampant and it was shoved down my throat too.

    Have Ginger or Steve considered the viewpoint that maybe the best way to help people is not by giving them gov’t programs to the point where they become dependent on the gov’t?

    Who is really the narrow minded thinker here?

    — disgusted    Dec 15, 04:13 PM    #

14. Being a graduate of RI College I am not surprised by this at all. I applaude Mr. Felkner for standing behind his beliefs. A school should not penalize your for your political views. I abandoned the Education program because of professors who did not approve of my views and teaching styles. I instead chose to pursue an English degree. I enjoyed that much more.

    — Cristina    Dec 16, 11:40 AM    #

15. And you call yourself a place of education…I hope Felkner takes you to your knees. Social programs have a place in this Country as long as the programs in and of themselves don’t become a mechanism for enabling a large population of entitlement mindset.

    — joe    Dec 16, 12:14 PM    #

16. The best comments are those of Ginger and Steve who exposed what many in that school are privately thinking.

    — eric    Dec 16, 12:35 PM    #

17. I have been suprised by the comments of those saying this man should not have pursued social work because his views were not strickly liberal. I am a social worker that is far more conservative than liberal. I for one feel that I am a good social worker and do a good job meeting the needs of my patients. There are cases that I do encourage patient responsibility and self-reliance so to restrict the dependency on the government for support. I applaud his work and final project because he is also advocating for self-reliance. Anyone that works in social work long enough will find that it is disheartening that as a profession we often focus on fostering the dependency on a system. Many social workers forget that we owe it to our communities and government to protect our resources because if we continue to abuse the welfare system and community resources they will be gone and social workers will have no resources to provide those in need in the future.

    — Jamie    Dec 16, 02:59 PM    #

18. This guy obviously had an agenda other than real social work. He KNEW going in what the school was about and it was a liberal social work school. The analogies made by an earlier poster are indeed correct. Why can’t a person opposed to the curricula of a school go in and fight the powers that control that schools curricula because he disagrees with how it is carried out. It’s mission statement as it were. He went in looking for a fight and then sued looking for money.

    IF he was so upset why didn’t he leave? Instead he stuck around for years. THEN sued crying about how they beat up on him. Boo Hoo. He’s a whiner pure and simple which is pretty typical of his sort.

    IN fact don’t conservatives regularly make fun of lawsuits like this telling people to grow a pair and take responsibility for their actions?

    Oh yeah, until THEY want some money out of it.

    Hypocrite is what Felkner is.

    — Buzz    Dec 17, 02:52 AM    #

19. In regards to the above comment:

    “Hypocrite is what Felkner is.”

    Why?

    Because he stands up for himself?

    Because he represents the dissenting opinion?

    If that’s the definition of a hypocrite, count me in!

    — Jason    Dec 18, 05:01 PM    #

20. It amuses me to no end when certain sentiments and activities are ignorantly considered to be the providence of the Left.

    I’m slightly to the right of Rush Limbaugh and I spend 200-300 hours a year volunteering. If you find that to be, in any way, a contradiction, the well of your mind has already been poisoned.

    I resent my tax dollars being used to subsidize the cyclical failure that has become the so-called Great Society. I have given a cold and needy person the gloves straight off my hands, when I thought it the right thing to do. Again…no contradiction.

    Sounds to me this here student was looking to gain entry into a profession – if only to be the token person present aiming to teach folks how to fish instead of SuperGluing their maws to the gov’ment teet.

    Last fun point for some of you to put in your respective pipes and smoketh: Robin Hood was decidedly conservative. So there.

    — Solomon Impugn    Dec 19, 04:42 PM    #

21. Felkner is a no good troublemaker just like that James Meredith was at the University of Mississippi a few years back. If those in power say you ain’t welcome at the table you should just get to know your place and be thankful for it. You ain’t got no call to get uppity and start agitatin’

    — Diogenes    Dec 20, 07:18 PM    #

Previous: Research Universities Ask President-Elect for Money for Students and Science
Next: Politics Remains Off-Limits for Students in Malaysia