Social work education in the United States needs to go global, says Elisabeth Reichert. Not geographically, but philosophically.

A foundation of social work in the United States has been the principle of social justice. As a past practitioner who specialized in sexual abuse cases, Reichert has a veteran’s experience with such issues and their connection to social justice.

But although the concept is part of the National Association of Social Workers Code of Ethics, it is nebulous, argues the associate professor of social work. "Different people use the term in different ways," she says. And some emphasize social justice for the group, which may not necessarily constitute social justice for the individual.

While attending the 1995 United Nations Conference on Women’s Rights in Beijing, China, Reichert found herself wondering why social workers in the United States didn’t place more emphasis on human rights. After all, the International Federation of Social Workers references human rights rather than social justice in its code of ethics. Various international documents have codified these rights, which she felt offered broader and more-explicit guidance for social work practice than the concept of social justice does. 

Researching the subject, Reichert found that little had been published in the United States about human rights from a social work perspective. So she took the matter in hand by writing her own text, geared to students and practitioners. Social Work and Human Rights: A Foundation for Policy and Practice was published by Columbia University Press in March 2003.

"Within the United States, social workers have been reluctant to integrate human rights into the profession," Reichert says. She thinks that’s because in this country, human rights often are seen solely as political and civil rights. 

But the term also encompasses social and economic rights, which many nations stress more than the United States does. For example, access to health care is a human right that’s legally recognized by many countries but not by the United States.

In a culturally diverse world, the path to human rights has been a bumpy road. The modern cornerstone of human rights is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, issued in 1948 by the newly formed United Nations. Even in the aftermath of the Holocaust, however, the nations weren’t without disagreement in drafting a human rights statement.

For instance, Soviet bloc countries thought economic rights ought to be more highly ranked than political rights; some Islamic countries believed a declaration of worldwide human rights would endanger their cultural practice of arranged marriages; and South Africa, where apartheid reigned, wouldn’t agree to anything that promised equality for all.

In 1966, after 18 years of debate, the United Nations passed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights to put some enforcement muscle behind the Universal Declaration. The United States has ratified the former, but not the latter.

Aspects of human rights continue to be debated globally. "There are still arguments," says Reichert. "A poor or less economically developed country in Africa may say it is more important to have food than democracy. Human rights is always full of tensions."

Nonetheless, she says, understanding the full spectrum of human rights can help social workers be more effective advocates for change. "Part of our professional identity is working to bring about changes in policy," she says. "That’s why human rights is a natural for our field."

There is a growing movement in the United States to more closely tie social work practice and research to human rights principles, she adds: "I’m not the only one writing about this topic. Social work is moving into more of a rights-based than a needs-based profession."

A focus on human rights gives social workers "a strong basis for empowering their clients," she says, "but on a bigger scale, it gives people in different countries a common language for tackling major issues, such as child abuse."

As a framework for analyzing cases and aiding clients, human rights principles can help social workers make decisions when confronted with the gray areas and ethical dilemmas so common in this profession, Reichert believes. 

Take the thorny problem of cultural relativism: what happens when human rights principles clash with a client’s cultural or religious tradition? For example, should a couple be allowed to refuse vaccinations for their child due to their religious beliefs? Or should an immigrant woman be advised to leave a verbally abusive spouse—in violation of her culture’s taboos—even if she has no financial resources for herself and her children?

Social workers must be as sensitive as possible to their clients’ cultural background, Reichert says. Indeed, understanding how cultural norms differ is part of the profession’s code of ethics. But where there are clashes, social workers must keep human rights principles front and center, she asserts.

"Social workers have the responsibility to challenge individual and social relations that create and maintain oppression," she writes in her book.

After all, she adds, "Helping those in need, those who are vulnerable and oppressed, is what social work is all about."

Spring 2003 Contents | Perspectives Home | SIUC Home

Comments: Perspectives Webmaster
Copyright © 2003, Board of Trustees, Southern Illinois University | Privacy Policy