LETTERS TO THE EDITOR REGARDING NASW PRESS CENSORSHIP   Marcia B. Cohen, Co-editor, Journal of Progressive Human Services Richard Hoefer, Editor, Journal of Policy Practice Tony Tripodi, Former Editor of Social Work Research Former Co-editor of Journal of Social Work Research and Evaluation Stanley L. Witkin, Former Editor-in-Chief, Social Work Elizabeth J. Clark, Executive Director, National Association of Social Workers (NASW

Clark, Elizabeth J.

Cohen, Marcia B.

Hoefer, Richard

Tripodi, Tony

Witkin, Stanley L.

English

ScholarWorks at WMU

The Journal of Sociology & Social WelfareVolume 33Issue 4 December Article 42006Letters to the Editor Regarding NASW PressCensorship IssueMarcia B. CohenJournal of Progressive Human ServicesRichard HoeferJournal of Policy PracticeTony TripodiSocial Work ResearchStanley L. WitkinSocial WorkElizabeth J. ClarkNational Association of Social Workers (NASW)Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/jsswPart of the Social Work CommonsThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Social Work atScholarWorks at WMU. For more information, please contactmaira.bundza@wmich.edu.Recommended CitationCohen, Marcia B.; Hoefer, Richard; Tripodi, Tony; Witkin, Stanley L.; and Clark, Elizabeth J. (2006) "Letters to the Editor RegardingNASW Press Censorship Issue," The Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare: Vol. 33 : Iss. 4 , Article 4.Available at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/jssw/vol33/iss4/4Letters to the Editor RegardingNASW Press Censorship IssueDear Dr. Leighninger,As the co-editor of a human services journal, a social workacademic and a social worker of many years, I was shockedwhen I learned about Dr. James Midgley's disturbing experi-ences after submitting an invited guest editorial on interna-tional social work to the journal Social Work. The specifics ofwhat ensued are recounted in your discussion, so I will notrepeat them here. I do, however, want to raise my voice inprotest of how Dr. Midgley's editorial was treated by theNational Association of Social Work (NASW), the publisher ofSocial Work.There are several aspects to these events which are par-ticularly disturbing. One is that a thoughtful and well rea-soned critique of foreign policy associated with neoconserva-tive members of the Bush administration would be seen as sothreatening by NASW that the names of many of these in-dividuals would have been deleted following their adminis-trative review. Another is that this administrative review andalteration took place without consultation with Social Work'seditor or with the author. Moreover, while editorial and peerreview of scholarly professional journals is standard proce-dure, administrative review by professional associations suchas ours should not be. The fears behind NASW's political cen-sorship can only be imagined. NASW has engaged in politicaladvocacy and critique in the past, so this decision is both con-fusing and extremely unsettling.As noted, Dr. Midgley withdrew his editorial from SocialJournal of Sociology & Social Welfare, December 2006, Volume XXXIII, Number 420 Journal of Sociology & Social WelfareWork after NASW refused to reinstate the deleted names. It isimportant that Dr. Midgley's original editorial is being printedin full by Sociology and Social Welfare, along with protests aboutits treatment by NASW. A forthcoming issue of the Journal ofProgressive Human Services (JPHS) will also include a narrativeby Dr. Midgley, detailing this experience and calling to the pro-fession to scrutinize and debate just what it means by advo-cacy and the promotion of social justice.Sincerely,Marcia B. CohenJournal of Progressive Human ServicesLetters to the Editor 21Dear Dr. Leighninger,I have been asked, as the editor of a journal and a memberof the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) tocomment on the situation relating to Dr. Jim Midgley's manu-script. I approach this state of affairs from a belief in the NASWCode of Ethics, particularly the role of advocacy that is statedthere (NASW, 1999).Advocacy for social justice is one of the key aspects of theprofession of social work and one that sets it apart from otherhelping professions. The NASW Code of Ethics mentions theneed for social workers to conduct advocacy to promote socialjustice many times and in different ways (NASW, 1999). Partof the goal of NASW is stated on its web site as "to advancesound social policies" (NASW, n.d.) which, at its core, must beconsidered a form of advocacy.Advocacy, while it means many things, certainly meansbeing able to observe what is going on and to report to an au-dience what one has observed, as well as making one or morerecommendations for what the audience should do. This canbe as complex as developing a plan to improve social services,testifying at a legislative hearing and announcing the conclu-sions at a press conference. Or it may be as simple as talking tocolleagues, trying to sway their votes on Election Day.For academics, advocacy may involve more finely devel-oped research reports, closely reasoned arguments based on aknowledge of history and current events, or even using classesto teach others how to conduct advocacy. Many times, aca-demics, such as myself and Dr. Midgley, write with the hopethat our work will be published in the best journals in the socialwork field, such as Social Work, the largest circulation socialwork journal in the world. Social Work has a low acceptancerate, and this, combined with the large circulation, means thatany article seeing the light of day in this journal has a goodchance of being read and thus being influential.What one says in a Social Work article has a better chanceof being used in an effective advocacy effort-that is, thatarticle can be used to share observations and to makerecommendations for what social workers across the country22 Journal of Sociology & Social Welfareshould do. Therefore, it seems incumbent upon the NASWPress, as part of the larger NASW enterprise, to support effortsto report accurately what is being done that is seen as counterto the social justice aims of the profession. Accurately report-ing what is going on must necessarily mean that the namesof the architects and perpetrators of a social policy disastershould be mentioned.As long as there are empirical grounds to support such anargument, I believe Dr. Midgley should be able to name thenames and try to get their game to end.But wait, one might say, organizations such as NASW mustbe careful to stay clear of the Internal Revenue Service, whichenforces the rules and law regarding advocacy by nonprofits.If the main journal of the organization tries to take a standagainst a certain leader or political party, won't this potential-ly bring forth the enforcement division of the IRS, which canrevoke any nonprofit status the organization may have?If this is a valid concern, then the NASW Press may havean obligation to protect the overall organization and removeoffending comments from a manuscript. But there is littlereason for the press staff to believe such a concern is valid.First, NASW is not a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, so the need to becareful about advocacy is extremely limited. Second, among thefine print of Social Work's page of information about the NASWPress, a disclaimer is clearly stated: "Opinions expressed in thejournal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflectthe official position of NASW" NASW Press, 2005, p. 194).Finally, the NASW Press promotes itself as delivering "profes-sional information to more than 250,000 readers through itsscholarly journals, books, and reference works" (NASW Press,2006). What could be more "professional" information thanthe names of people who helped develop policies with docu-mented negative impacts on vulnerable populations?In conclusion, if NASW considers itself an organizationthat demands advocacy from its members, NASW and itsrelated organization, NASW Press, should support the advoca-cy that emerges, so long as it is well-grounded in facts and fallswithin other professional parameters. It appears that what hashappened to Dr. Midgley's manuscript is an example wherediffusion of professional research and advocacy has beenLetters to the Editor 23lessened for invalid reasons. As a result, NASW members havebeen needlessly deprived of information that would help themin fulfilling their professional responsibilities.Let us hope that this is an isolated case and one that is notrepeated. It certainly is an issue that social workers should beaware of and provided an opportunity to voice their opinionregarding. The Chair of the NASW Publications Committee isDr. Barbara White, Dean, School of Social Work, 1 UniversityStation D3500, University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712-0358. Iencourage readers to engage in some advocacy of their own.Sincerely,Richard Hoefer, Ph.D.NASW Member andEditor, Journal of Policy PracticeReferencesNASW Press (2006). NASW Press. Retrieved from http://www.naswpress.org/ on September 6, 2006.NASW Press (2005). Frontspiece. Social Work, 50(3), 194.National Association of Social Workers (1999). Code of ethics.Washington, DC: NASW Press.National Association of Social Workers (n.d.). About NASW.Retrieved from http://www.naswdc.org/nasw/default.aspon September 6, 2006.Journal of Sociology & Social WelfareDear Dr. Leighninger,I do not understand why Professor James Midgley's guesteditorial was not allowed to be published in the journal SocialWork. First, it was a guest editorial, and NASW could haveprinted in the journal that it dissassociated itself from ProfessorMidgley's views.Second it was not clear to me as to who actually made thedecision not to publish the editorial? More importantly, wasthe leadership of NASW involved, e.g., the publications com-mittee in consultation with the editor of Social Work and theauthor? What was the process in making the decision? If therewas no such process, was there censorship by the NASW man-agement rather than by the social work leadership?Third, Professor Midgley provides an important messagefor international social workers regarding the issue of unipo-larism versus international cooperation and reciprocityFourth, if the editorial was not published due to the fearof offending the government, I have these questions: Is thecurrent management of NASW consistent with the ethical andhuman rights notions of social workers around the world whoare advised to speak out about challenges to human rights?Is NASW maintaining a leadership role pertaining to humanrights, or is it reactive to whatever the current views of thegovernment might be?Tony TripodiMoses Visiting ProfessorHunter College School of Social WorkDean and Professor Emeritus, Ohio State UniversityFormer Editor of Social Work ResearchFormer Co-editor of Journal of Social Work Research andEvaluation: An International PublicationEditor of Pocket Guides to Social Work Research Methods,Oxford University PressLetters to the EditorDear Dr. Leighninger,Among the greatest anxieties of those concerned with theerosion of civil liberties under the present administration hasbeen censorship. Under the guise of protecting the populacefrom terrorists, this administration has used its influence topass new legislation and rules, reconstitute regulatory com-missions and engage in various forms of retribution (such astax audits) against those who would criticize their actions andpositions. Mass media outlets under the ownership of mega-corporations have tended to toe the party line to the point thatsome so-called "news" programs seem more like spokesper-sons for the administration than neutral reporters.Although less well known, this administration's poli-cies have also had a restrictive impact on academic practices.In the education field, several scholars have expressed theirconcern over the conservative, narrow view of scientific legiti-macy promulgated in regulations and laws such as the "NoChild Left Behind" legislation. This climate of "methodologi-cal fundamentalism" is viewed by some as a reaction to recentapproaches (e.g., queer studies, feminist research) whoseinquiry practices are openly value-based and critical of currentpolicies.Together, these developments have produced an environ-ment in which the free expression of ideas has become risky.Yet, if academic journals do not resist such tendencies, theycan have a chilling impact on the integrity and legitimacyof such publications. Perhaps most chilling is when, even inthe absence of specific regulations, journals begin to exercisecensorship of information they believe might be offensive tothe administration. The exercise of such forms of censorshipis reminiscent of Foucault's "disciplinary power" in whichpeople become their own overseers. If our professional jour-nals, and in particular social work journals, begin to operate inthis fashion, true academic discourse eventually may cease toexist. Yes, it takes courage to print information that may not sitwell with those in power and to possibly incur their attempts26 Journal of Sociology & Social Welfareat "discipline." But alternatively, if we become domesticated inthis fashion can we still call this the social work profession?Stanley L. WitkinFormer Editor-in-Chief, Social WorkLetters to the EditorDear Dr. Leighninger,The National Association of Social Workers is uniqueamong professional social work associations. As a 501(c)(6)tax exempt organization, in which are housed a Political ActionCommittee (PAC) and a government relations program withregistered lobbyists, NASW has some restrictions and regula-tions regarding our combined activities, including our publi-cations, that other groups don't have. While we do encour-age a free exchange of ideas, we do so with certain obligations.This has very rarely posed a problem for NASW. Additionally,like any corporation, we always reserve the right to reviewthe content of publications, reports, or correspondence and torequest modification if we feel it could have an adverse legaleffect.In the instance of Dr. Midgley's editorial, the issue cen-tered around requirements regarding reporting of the associa-tion's government relations and PAC activities. After delibera-tion, we asked Dr. Midgley to make very slight modificationsto his editorial, primarily removing the names of governmentofficials. We felt that request was modest and that doing sowould not diminish his editorial, but would allow us to staywithin the standards and regulations we follow.Dr. Midgley strenuously objected to the request, and in-dicated that he would publish his editorial elsewhere if we re-quired any changes. He also contacted several members of ourBoard of Directors and asked them to intercede on his behalf.We held up publication of the journal until our national Boardof Directors met. As requested, the board discussed the situ-ation and concurred with the decision to ask Dr. Midgley tomake the necessary modifications. Dr. Midgley withdrew hiseditorial.I do feel compelled to say that I believe this issue has beenmisconstrued. The notion that NASW is reluctant "to take onthe administration" or "to stand up to the right" is simply un-informed. We do it every day through our advocacy, throughour lobbying, and through our PAC work and grassroots or-ganizing -- but we do it in appropriate ways and within legaland regulatory requirements. With minor changes, we were28 Journal of Sociology & Social Welfareready to publish Dr. Midgley's guest editorial. We're sorry thatcouldn't happen.Elizabeth J. ClarkExecutive Director, National Association of Social Workers

Letters to the Editor Regarding NASW Press Censorship Issue

https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3201&amp;context=jssw

Letters to the Editor Regarding NASW Press Censorship Issue

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

ScholarWorks at WMU