critical race theory and the cultural competence dilemma...

CRITICAL RACE THEORY AND THE CULTURAL COMPETENCEDILEMMA IN SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION

Laura S. AbramsUniversity of California at Los Angeies

Jene A. MoioUniversity of California at Los Angeles

Cultural competence is a fundamental tenet of social work education. Althoughcultural competence with diverse populations historically referred to individu-als and groups from non-White racial origins, the term has evolved to encom-pass differences pertaining to sexuality, religion, ability, and others. Criticscharge that the cultural competence model is largely ineffective and that its ten-dency to equalize oppressions under a "multicultural umbrella" unintentional-ly promotes a color-blind mentality that eclipses the significance of institution-alized racism. In this article we argue that critical race theory (CRT) can be usedto address some of these noted problems with the cultural competence model.We define the major tenets of CRT and analyze its benefits and limitations forsocial work pedagogy around race, racism, and other oppressions.

CULTURAL COMPETENCE is a fundamental tenet

of professional social work practice. A cultur-al competence mandate is contained in boththe Council on Social Work Education (CSWE)Educational Policy and Accreditation Stand-ards and the National Association of SocialWork (NASW) Code of Ethics, and it is pro-moted in numerous practice textbooks. His-torically, cultural competence with diversepopulations referred to individuals andgroups from non-White racial, ethnic, or cul-tural origins. However, the term has evolved

to encompass group differences pertaining togender, sexuality, religion, age, ability, lan-guage, nationality, and others. Knowledgeabout the complexity of personal and socialidentity formation as well as the intersection-ality of multiple axes of oppression thatimderscore social work problems, practices,and interventions led to the broadening of cul-tural competence beyond racial and ethniccategories (Razack, 1999; Rothman, 2008).Scholars note several challenges associatedwith the dominant cultural competence

Joumal of Social Work Education, Vol. 45, No. 2 (Spring/Summer).Copyright © 2009, Council on Social Work Education, Inc. AM rigiits reserved. 245

246 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION

model, including the eclipsing of race as a cen-

tral mechanism of oppression, student resist-

ance, and the unintenfional reinforcement of a

color-blind lens (Razack & Jeffery, 2002;

Schiele, 2007; Yee, 2005).

In this arficle we argue that crifical race

theory (CRT) can be used to address some of

these noted problems associated with the cul-

tural competence model. We provide an in-

depth discussion of challenges associated

with cultural competence educafion, with an

emphasis on educating social workers to

respond effecfively to insfitufional racism. We

also introduce the basic tenets of CRT and

apply these central concepts to the challenges

involved in delivering effecfive diversity edu-

cafion in social work. In addifion, we pose the

benefits and limitations of infusing CRT into

the graduate social work curriculum.

Cultural Competence:History and Overview

The origins and development of the culturalcompetence (often called "cultural sensifivi-ty" or "mulficultural") model and its role insocial work ideology, pracfice, and pedagogyare documented in published articles andtexts (e.g., Potocky, 1997; Rothman, 2008;Schiele, 2007; Spencer, Lewis, & Gufiérrez,2000). We provide here a brief summarybefore presenfing empirical and philosophicalcrifiques.

Although aspects of traditional socialwork discourses have long espoused a mis-sion to examine and remedy issues of oppres-sion, including racism, the evolving emphasison diversity and cultural competence has itsroots in the civil rights movement of the 1960sand 1970s. Social workers of color, along with

White advocates, challenged some of the long-standing Eurocentric biases in social workteaching and pracfice, including a predomi-nantly deficit-oriented view of individualsand communifies of color. This acfivist pres-sure led to increased attenfion to race andracism in social work history, gave a voice tothe lived experiences of faculty and socialworkers of color, and eventually led toCSWE's adopfion of standards that mandatecontent on race, racism, and people of color(Spencer et al., 2000).

Working to meet the CSWE mandate, the1970s and early 1980s ushered in key educa-fional texts. Pivotal pubUcafions on race andethnicity included Barbara Solomon's (1976)Black Empowerment: Social Work in Oppressed

Communities, Wynetta Devore and ElfriedeSchlesinger's (1981) Ethnic-Sensitive SocialWork Practice, and Doman Lum's (1986) Social

Work Practice and People of Color: A Process-

Stage Approach. With variation, these textsgenerally rethink social work's Eurocentricpurview; challenge social workers to becomeaware of their personal value orientafions andworldviews; expose how racism creates struc-tural disadvantages that impact individualand community well-being; and offer sugges-fions for working with increased competencewith racial, ethruc, and cultural minorifies inthe United States. Race, ethnicity, and, to someextent, culture more broadly consfituted theprimary focus of this earlier literature.

Since the mid-1980s the tone and charac-ter of "ethnic-sensifive pracfice" has expand-ed beyond race and ethnicity to promoteawareness of mulfiple forms of oppressionsuch as sexism, heterosexism, ageism, andableism. This trend responds to the postmod-

CRITICAL RACE THEORY AND CULTURAL COMPETENCE 247

em emphasis on the intersecfionality of multi-ple categories of identity (Williams, 2006), andawareness of the existence of mulfiple formsof oppression that affect individual and com-munity fimcfioning (Schiele, 2007). CSWE's(2001) revised standards for cultural compe-tence refiect these discursive developments byidenfifying 14 axes of difference as potenfialsources of oppression and diversity. In keep-ing with these trends, contemporary "culturalcompetence" texts now include chapters onwomen; disabilifies; and gay, lesbian, bisexu-al, and transgender/transsexual issues (e.g.,Appleby, Colon, & Hamilton, 2001; Rothman,2008), and earlier works are now expanded ormodified to refiect this broadened view (e.g..Devore & Schlesinger, 1999; Lum, 2003).

Although the cultural competence modelhas diverse epistemological interpretationsand curricular applicafions (Williams, 2006),two major ideological underpinnings can bediscerned: self-awareness and skills develop-ment. The cultural sensifivity framework as itis used in social work and related fields (suchas education and counseling) understandsthat all people, including people of color, pos-sess values, beliefs, and assumpfions that theybring into the helping relafionship. Socialwork students are encouraged to undertake aprocess of becoming aware of the origins anddevelopment of their personal values andworldviews with regard to differences so thattheir deeply rooted and perhaps unconsciousbeliefs can be recognized and subsequentlyset aside, or "bracketed," in the helpingexchange. Yan and Wong (2005) crifique thisbracketing process as unrealisfic and argueinstead that the social work exchange is mutu-ally influential and intersubjective, rather

then morally neutral. Nevertheless, culturalcompetence frames self-awareness as a life-long endeavor, because issues of differenceand value orientafion are context specific andconstantly in flux. In addifion to this process-oriented work, cultural competence focuseson a skills-based component that includesbuilding knowledge about specific ethnic orcultural groups and developing pracfice tech-niques that accompany this knowledge (Roth-man, 2008). This populafion-specific pieceentails a set of pracfice skills that build on astandard helping relafionship yet are modi-fied according to the needs, styles, world-views, and customs of the focal group.

Critiques of Cuiturai Competence

Scholars adopting a crifical lens toward the cul-tural competence model often contend that theframework's focus on individual attitudesleaves social workers unequipped to deal withinsfitufional racism and oppression on all ofthe levels where it permeates— individually,structurally, and globally (Pollack, 2004;Razack, 1999; Razack & Jeffery, 2002; Yee,2005). In historically tracing social work's var-ious movements surrounding diversity,Potocky (1997) notes that the "cultural sensi-fivity" model targets change at the level ofsocial workers' personal beliefs and agencypracfices, whereas the "anfioppression model"works toward change across individual,agency, and systems levels. Hence, an overar-ching critique of the cultural competenceframework is that it does not reach far enoughin addressing systemic and insfitufionalizedoppressions. Addifional crifiques of culturalcompetence emerge from philosophicalangles as well as limited empirical evidence.


In the following sections we organize thesecritiques thematically, paying specific atten-fion to the preparation of students to grapplewith enduring and systemic race-basedoppression.

Pedagogical Pitfalls

Challenges raised regarding the delivery ofeffective cultural competence educationinclude student readiness, teacher prepara-tion, and possible resistance from bothgroups. Lee and Greene (2003) and Razack(1999) argue that the teaching of diversity con-tent in social work educafion is often hinderedby a lack of student readiness to deal with dif-ficult or contentious discussions about race orother oppressions in the classroom setting.Related to this lack of readiness, a commonreacfion to discussing racism, structural dis-advantages, or oppression is resistance to thematerial, particularly when the conversationturns to issues of privilege, and White privi-lege in parficular (Abrams & Gibson, 2007).Resistance in this context means that studentstend to deny their own role in occupying priv-ileged or more powerful social idenfity posi-fions, and it may even take the form of out-ward anger, resentment, or an overwhelmingsense of guilt (Julia, 2000). Although resist-ance to locating the self in the privilege-oppression spectrum can occur for any indi-vidual, most empirical research has specifical-ly examined White privilege. Garcia and VanSoest's (1997) study of 43 MSW studentsenrolled in a mandatory cultural diversityclass lends some support to these philosophi-cal charges. They found that 71% of White stu-dents reported that their own privilege actedas a barrier to learning about or accepting the

existence of oppression. In addifion, Le-Douxand Montalvo's (1999) nafional survey of 75deans and directors of accredited graduatesocial work programs and 45 social work fac-ulty teaching diversity content (and includinga review of 32 course syllabi) foimd thatinstructors experienced defensiveness, anger,and denial as common reacfions to the presen-tafion of diversity material. The issue is notthat these reactions arise, because the litera-ture on teaching about White privilege sug-gests that these responses are part of a norma-tive process (Abrams & Gibson, 2007). Rather,it is that the cultural competence model maynot move students from these more primarydefensive responses to a more refined critiqueof privilege and then to coUecfive social acfion(Helms, 1995).

Other scholars argue that the delivery ofcultural competence or diversity educafion insocial work can be hindered by instructors'lack of preparafion and training in this area(Petrovich & Lowe, 2005; Razack, 1999). Le-Doux and Montalvo's (1999) study found aheavy reliance among instructors on tradi-tional methods to deliver diversity educafion.They suggest that these traditional didacficmethods are not appropriate for this coursecontent, which requires skills in facilitatingdifficult discussions and contending withgroup dynamics. Moreover, based on theirpersonal or professional backgrounds, educa-tors may not be ready to deal with the type ofintense personal or interpersonal reactionsthat can arise when engaging in discussionsabout racism or other oppressions. Garcia andVan Soest's (2000) empirical study of 304graduate- and undergraduate-level socialwork faculty found that faculty of color and


junior faculty were more likely to respond

with sensitivity to "critical events" (such as

conflicts or arguments about diversity issues)

than were White or more senior faculty. They

argue that faculty must "develop comfort

with discussing issues related to diversity in

order to demonstrate how to place perspec-

tive on heated and strained interaction" (2000,

p. 35). Hence, they concur with Le-Doux and

Montalvo (1999) that training teachers how to

facilitate meaningful dialogues about race and

racism is needed to effectively implement a

diversity curriculum.

Learning Outcomes

A longstanding, overarching critique of thecultural competence framework is that it lacksthe specificity needed to attain any concretelearning or practice objectives (Fumess, 2005;Homer & Borrero, 1981; Julia, 2000; Williams,2006). There are few empirical outcome stud-ies, however, to support this claim, and thosethat do exist are typically pilot or exploratory(Garcia & Van Soest, 1997; Petrovich & Lowe,2005). Yet the findings derived from theseexploratory studies cast some doubt thatlearning outcomes are actually attained. Forexample, Bronstein, Berman-Rossi, and Win-field's (2002) study of 57 students in directpractice courses found that students were notlearning as much content on oppression asfaculty stated they were teaching. Moreover,in a recent focus group study of alumni andcurrent students of an MSW program, bothstudents and alumni expressed the need for agreater level of transferability of cultural com-petence principles to field and agency settings(Petrovich & Lowe, 2005). In a more removedoutcome measure. Green, Kieman-Stem, and

Baskind's (2005) survey of 257 White NASW

members found that social workers' cognitive

attitudes about race were more positive than

their affective attitudes, and that their beliefs

about the existence of racism did not differ

widely from those of the wider American

public. These empirical studies suggest that

the transfer of cultural competence learning to

practice situations may be an area of concern;

however, it is difficult to generalize from these

studies given their sample sizes and design

limitations.

Diffusion of Racism and CoiorBiindness

As highlighted earlier, the cultural compe-tence model has increasingly expanded itsfocus to include many categories of social dif-ference. Schiele (2007) argues that althoughthis broadening was a foreseeable response toemerging knowledge about the complexity ofmultiple identities and increasingly vocalactivism about multiple forms of oppression,this diffusion of information produces an"equality of oppressions" paradigm thattends to downplay racism's persistent legacyand leaves social workers unprepared to dealwith the realities of racism, both systemicallyand interpersonally Razack and Jeffery (2002)likewise contend that the fundamental prob-lem of approaching racism in the cultural sen-sitivity framework is the leveling of oppres-sions, which instructors and students mightfind more comfortable (and fair) because itavoids a hierarchy of oppressions, but itleaves unquestioned the racialized values andbeliefs that drive our fundamental social insti-tutions. Le-Doux and Montalvo's (1999)national survey empirically supports these


arguments about the diffusion of race in thecultural competence model. For example, thecourse syllabi they reviewed include a "verydiluted curricula" that spans many groupswith "a little something for everyone" (p. 49).

Further, by leveling race under the aus-pices of a "multicultural umbrella," criticscharge that social work's cultural competencecurriculum may unintentionally reinforce acolor-blind paradigm that teaches students toignore racial differences (Schiele, 2007; Yee,2005). Color blindness is associated with theliberal 1970s ideal of learning not to see raceor color in an attempt to eliminate personalprejudices and to promote a "level playingfield." According to Carniol (2005), colorblindness precludes analysis of contradictionsamong claims of neutrality, fairness, andequality, and the below-surface reality of dis-crimination in everyday practice and policy.Empirical support for these arguments aboutthe color-blind results of social work educa-tion is limited. However, Van Soest's (1996)quasi-experimental study of 222 MSW stu-dents, most of whom were White, found thatexposure to a cultural diversity class actuallyincreased respondents' belief in a "justworld," meaning a fimdamentally fair andequal society, despite the intent of the class toexpose students to the realities of structuraldisadvantages such as racism and sexism.Similarly, Julia's (2000) study of 75 students ata midwestem university foxind a great deal ofcomplacency among students about the exis-tence of racism in American society. Althoughmore rigorous research is needed, these datalend some empirical support to the argumentthat the cultural competence model's focus onindividual attitudes and its diffuse survey of

cultural and social groups may not effectivelyprepare students to grapple with the realitiesof racism.

CRT: An Overview

CRT emerged in the wake of the civil rightsmovement as a component of legal scholar-ship, meaning the study and analysis of thelaw. Although CRT has grown in its applica-tion in many disciplines, CRT scholarship as awhole challenges liberalist claims of objectivi-ty, neutrality, and color blindness of the lawand argues that these principles actually nor-malize and perpetuate racism by ignoring thestructural inequalities that permeate socialinstitutions. CRT draws from diverse disci-plines such as sociology, history, feminist andpostcolonial studies, economics, political sci-ence, and ethrüc and cultural studies. Its gen-eral mission seeks to analyze, deconstruct,and transform for the better the relationshipamong race, racism, and power (Delgado &Stefancic, 2001).

CRT unequivocally states that analysis ofthe law carmot be neutral and objective andstresses that recognition of and voices fromstandpoint and race consciousness are essen-tial to radical racial reform. Because race is thescaffolding that structures American society,there can be no "perch outside the socialdynamics of racial power from which to mere-ly observe and analyze" (Crenshaw, Gotanda,Peller, & Thomas, 1995, p. xiii). CRT refutestwo principal liberalist claims with regard tothe law: (1) that it is color-blind and (2) thatcolor blindness is superior to race conscious-ness. For example, Gotanda (2000) argues thatthe concept of color blindness is itself con-tradictory, because to exclude race from a

CRITICAL RACE THEORY AND CULTURAL COMPETENCE 2 5 1

decision-making process, the existence of race

must first be acknowledged. He concludes

that color blindness—that is, the choice to

exclude race—is actually racially premised

rather than neutral.

Although CRT theorists and pracfitioners

have diverse approaches and emphases, their

scholarship and advocacy share common

ground in the following six basic tenets:

1. Endemic racism. Rather than accepting

racism as abnormal or individualistic,

CRT asserts that racism is an ordinary,

everyday occurrence for people of color. It

is deeply embedded in the social fabric of

American society, permeafing our social

structures and practices. Because racism

is ordinary and embedded, its structural

funcfions and effect on our ways of think-

ing are often invisible, parficularly to peo-

ple holding racial privilege. In turn, this

"invisibility" maintains racism.

2. Race as a social construction. CRT maintains

that race is a contrived system of catego-

rizing people according to observable

physical attributes that have no corre-

spondence to genefic or biological reality.

Although CRT regards race as a social

construction, it fully acknowledges the

force of its meaning and implications.

3. Differential radalization. Dominant social

discourses and people in power can racial-

ize groups of people in different ways at

different fimes, depending on historic,

social, or economic need. For example, var-

ious Asian American groups were viewed

as benign, if not favorable, when a large,

inexpensive labor force was needed. Over

time, when the financial independence and

success of Asian American groups ap-

peared threatening to the nafional econo-

my, these groups were demonized in pop-

ular discourse and excluded from cifizen-

ship by law. Today, after a third reversal in

racializafion, Asian Americans are consid-

ered a "model minority."

4. Interest convergence/materialist determinism.

Racism brings material and psychic

advantage to the majority race, and pro-

gressive change regarding race occurs

only when the interests of the powerful

(i.e., the White majority) happen to con-

verge with those of the racially oppressed

(Bell, 1995).

5. Voices of color. The dominant group's

accounting of history routinely excludes

racial and other minority perspecfives to

justify and legitimize its power. This

silencing of altemafive experiences serves

to minimize and obscure the interplay of

power and oppression across fime and

place. CRT advocates a rewriting of his-

tory to include the lived reality of op-

pressed groups from their perspecfives

and in their own words. Bringing these

narrafives into account challenges liberal-

ist claims of neutrality, color blindness,

and imiversal truths (Delgado, 1989).

6. Antiessentialism/intersectionality. CRT

acknowledges the intersecfionality of var-

ious oppressions and suggests that a pri-

mary focus on race can eclipse other

forms of exclusion. For example, the mar-

ginalized race, sexuality, and class of a

poor, gay, African American person pres-

ents a far more complex social locafion

than any single aspect of his identity

alone. In fact, CRT theorists contend that


analysis without a multidimensional

framework can replicate the very patterns

of social exclusion it seeks to combat and

can lead to the essenfializing of oppres-

sions (Hutchinson, 2000). The essenfializ-

ing of oppression is a polifical choice and

problemafic from a strategic perspecfive.

Although it may be clear that all margin-

alized people share the experience of

oppression, it is less clear whether reform

efforts should target oppression from a

parficularized (anfiessenfial) or a commu-

nal (essenfialized) perspecfive. Coalifions

have greater power to effect social

change; however, addressing broad con-

cerns over individual experiences can

force people into choosing a singular

idenfity, leaving other aspects of their

oppression unaddressed (Delgado &

Stefancic, 2001). Ambivalence surround-

ing this dilemma drives much internal

debate in CRT scholarship.

CRT Appiications

Drawing on the six core principles describedin the previous secfion, the academy hasformed specific subdivisions of CRT, such asLatino Crifical Race Studies (Perea, 2000;Soloranzo & Yosso, 2001), Asian AmericanCrifical Race Studies (e.g., Gotanda, 1995;Matsuda, 1995), Queer Crit (Arrióla, 2000;Valdes, 2000), and Fem Crit (Carbado, 2000;Hemández-Tmyol, 1997). CRT has also beenapplied to professional disciplines such aspolicy studies (Limbert & Bullock, 2005) andeducafion (Dixson & Rousseau, 2006). In thefield of educafion, CRT has been of parficularvalue in exploring the challenges of integrat-ing cultural competency into professional

teacher-training programs. CRT highlights

the ways in which teachers are ill prepared for

the realifies of their increasingly diverse stu-

dent learners. Crifiques include the explicit

avoidance of race (Lopez, 2003), the ad hoc

nature of mulficultural modules (Zeichner,

1992, as cited in Ladson-Billings, 1999), and

the lack of integrafion of diversity issues into

all classroom and field experiences (Ladson-

Billings, 1999). Infusing CRT into teacher

training curricula has had some success in

challenging the Eurocentric "difference as

deficit" or "minority educafion" frameworks.

However, the lack of standardized requisites

for cultural competency, the numerous course

requirements to be met within rigid time

frames, and the persistence of a "race neutral"

ideology all hamper broader applicafion of

CRT in teacher training (Ladson-Billings,

1999; Lopez, 2003). Although CRT has been

incorporated into the scholarship and pracfice

of mulficultural teacher training, existing lit-

erature contair\s very limited applicafions of

CRT to social work theory or pedagogy.

CRT and Sociai Worit Pedagogy

Social work has its own tradifions of crificalscholarship that challenge some of the histori-cal pracfices of the profession and the largersociety that serve to perpetuate insfitufional-ized oppression, including racism. Radical,crifical, structural, Afrocentric, and femirüstsocial work frameworks have widened thesocial work knowledge base by introducingand centralizing parficular issues and offeringa more polifically radical (left-leaning) socialwork agenda (Evans, 2000; Gü, 1998; Piven &Cloward, 1993). Although varjdng in empha-sis and focus, these various forms of social


work scholarship offer some basis for crificalengagement with quesfions of power andexclusion; as such, they comprise componentsof antioppression practice. Antioppression is a

term loosely applied to models that idenfifyexclusion and oppression from within andoutside of the profession.

Social work scholarship contains someintegrated anfioppression features (i.e., struc-tural analysis of oppression; how it is created,sustained, and jusfified), offering methodsand classroom technology to challenge or addto the cultural competence paradigm (Po-tocky, 1997). Yet, although the various anfiop-pressive frameworks have advanced thinkingand curriculum in many ways, crifics withinthe discipline still maintain that they have notsufficiently addressed race, raciaUzafion, andracism as centralizing forces of oppression(Razack & Jeffery, 2002; Yee, 2005). For exam-ple, Yee (2005) suggests that althoughanfiracism and antioppression are similar,only antiracism posifions race as a centralmechanism of oppression. Furthermore,anfiracism explicitly defines White as a racialcategory, as the normafive idenfity, and as thegroup holding the greatest ideological power.From Yee's perspecfive, an antiracist peda-gogy would incorporate identifying exclu-sionary pracfices, locating the source of thesepractices within structures, idenfifying theracist nature of the structures, and exploringhow they are maintained and reproducedthrough the social construcfion of race andprivilege.

Canadian scholars Razack and Jeffery(2002) argue that CRT and social work arehighly compatible, and furthermore, thatdiversity or cultural competence training

without a rigorous race analysis provides stu-dents with less than adequate perspecfive andtools to locate and act on exclusionary andoppressive social pracfices. They also offer theonly published and explicit applicafion ofCRT to social work pedagogy to date.

Drawing on CRT, they design and pro-pose eight basic tenets for integrating criticalrace discourse into diversity educafion insocial work. The organizing feature of their 8-point model is race, and its prime direcfive isan interrogafion and deconstrucfion of racismand all associated contingencies. The first sixtenets are (1) whiteness as normafive and non-racial; (2) the silence of marginalized narra-fives; (3) liberal principles of neutrality, fair-ness, and meritocracy; (4) color blindness; (5)the inextricability of race, power, and privi-lege; and (6) the legifimizing of race scholar-ship within the social work field. This tenetspeaks to what Delgado (1995) calls the "stud-ied indifference to minority writing on issuesof race" (p. 51), which Razack and Jeffery sug-gest marginalizes anfioppression and anfi-racist scholarship and pedagogy as areas ofquesfionable value. The seventh tenet, legit-imizing the voice of minority scholarship onrace and oppression, invites altemafive per-specfives that are needed to "counter a cur-riculum that only engages the dominantgroup" (Razack & Jeffery 2002, p. 267). Thefinal tenet of their model speaks to the needfor social work to acknowledge and under-stand the implicafion of race on a global scale.What they call "globalized understandings ofrace" broaden the structural critique toencompass racism within and across sociefiesoutside the United States. Economic and polit-ical restructuring of countries persistently


trigger massive flows of displaced persons

across borders. A disproportionate number of

these immigrants, refugees, asylum seekers,

and migrant workers are people of color

(Martin, 2001). Many are poor and most are

denied access to resources necessary to fulfill

their daily needs. Whether social workers are

based nationally or internationally, Razack

and Jeffery (2002) argue that effective practice

includes a critical understanding of how

racism has impacted the lives of displaced

individuals at the personal, institutional, and

global levels.

CRT and the CuituraiCompetence Diiemma

Razack and Jeffery's CRT model of socialwork diversity education differs from the cul-tural competence paradigm in its explicit andaggressive critique of the larger structures andideologies around race that often remainimexamined and intact. In the following sec-tions we propose how CRT concepts and ped-agogy can be used to address some of theempirical and philosophical challenges associ-ated with the cultural competence curriculumframework.

Contending Witii Resistance

As noted in existing research, student resist-ance may be a normative part of the cross-cultural learning process. It is our contentionthat this resistance becomes problematic whenit results in a closed posture to the material ora denial of existing problems concerning race,and that CRT offers innovative ways to handlethis phenomenon. First, in its focus on sys-temic and historical forces, CRT can alleviatepersonal resistance stemming from self-blame

and guilt. For example, when students tend to

deny they are "racist," CRT provides the per-

spective that "passive racism," or participa-

tion in a racist system, is different from acting

consciously with racist intent. In this sense,

students can understand their own role in

institutional systems of racism without feeling

personally responsible for historical legacies

of violence, genocide, and oppression.

Second, by providing concrete direction about

social agency toward dismantling racism,

CRT can help to alleviate the guilt, fear, and

sense of paralysis that often follow the realiza-

tion of participating in a racist society.

Although CRT cannot prepare students in

advance to contend with difficult subject mat-

ter or intense classroom discussions, we argue

that CRT offers concrete ways to understand

and contend with resistance, denial, and guilt

as barriers to student learning about racism

and the significance of racial differences.

Reframing Outcomes

One of the primary noted problems with cul-tural competence pedagogy is the absence ofclear outcome goals and essentially nonexist-ent measurement tools. Moreover, the fewstudies that do exist generally show thatcourses are falUng short of reaching tlieirintentions. CRT scholars post an alternativeview of learning outcomes, suggesting thatthe social work "toolkit mentality" be sup-planted by critical thinking skills in regard toteaching about racism and related oppres-sions Qeffery, 2005; Razack, 1999). Jeffery(2005) suggests that the critical race project isincongruent with the social work "competen-cies" mentality that drives the traditional ped-agogy. She argues that if social work wants to


move toward an antiracist stance, then theprofession likewise needs to rethink or reex-amine its stated goals regarding cultural com-petence. Thus, rather than addressing the stat-ed problem aroimd clarity and measurement,CRT reformulates the problem by askingsocial workers to clarify what the results ofantiracist education might look like. We arguethat quantifiable skill outcomes suggest a setof fixed techniques that can be performed out-side real-life context with predictable out-comes. Yet racial awareness is a formativeprocess that involves cognitive, affective, andaction-oriented changes that may not resultsimply from exposure to one or two courses.Although not denying the need for betterempirical measures of cultural competenceteaching outcomes, we suggest that thesegoals and measurement tools be carefullyreconsidered in relation to the multipledimensions and processes involved inantiracist pedagogy.

Overcoming Equalization ofOppressions and Coior Biindness

Philosophically, the cultural competence para-digm has sustained allegations of diffusing afocus on race and thereby minimizing the sig-nificance of racism in social welfare and in thelarger society. Integrating CRT into courses ondiverse populations obviates the tendency inthese courses to conflate culture and ethnicitywith race, or to equalize sources of oppressionunder one multicultural umbrella (Park,2005). This occurs because CRT begins withthe premise that our society is far from raceneutral in our laws and basic social structures,and in turn these larger social entities influ-ence our everyday individual thoughts.

actions, and interactions. This macro-to-microview fits well with social work's systems per-spective and draws the focus away from cul-tural neutrality and toward race conscious-ness. From that purview, students can thenmove on to understand other forms of oppres-sion beyond racism. Yet race remains centraland does not get lost in a "level playing field."CRT also explicitly challenges color blindnessand accounts for its origins, meanings, andimplications. Thus, teaching CRT or infusingCRT into diversity curriculum does not runthe risk of unintentionally producing socialwork students who are trained not to "see"color or who are inclined to deny racism's per-sistent legacy.

Moving to Action andAntioppression Practice

Increasingly, students in the social work fieldare pressured to use clinical interventionsconforming to principles of evidence-basedpractice or managed care guidelines, whichtranslates into directing energy toward indi-vidual rather than systems change. Thesepressures exist in tension with social workconcepts of social justice and action-orientedmodels and highlight the challenge of bridg-ing social work theory and practice. Antiracistand antioppression workers in the policy andmanagement arenas are similarly constrainedby frameworks informed by liberal color-blind principles. CRT helps students movebeyond mere description and understandingof systematic racism and answers the call forconcrete action guidelines in everyday prac-tice in any arena (Callender et al., 2007).

These guidelines operate for the workerat both the personal and institutional levels.


At the insfitufional level, rather than accept-ing the task of encouraging or passively sup-porting client adjustment to systems ofoppression, CRT skills foster worker opposi-fion to insfitufional oppression through, forexample, idenfifying and analyzing the prob-lem from the client's perspective, providingemofional and/or polifical support, challeng-ing the individualism imderlying much policyand practice, reframing problems throughcrifical consciousness, and crifiquing insfitu-fional structures of oppression within agen-cies or policies and advocating for change(Camiol, 2005). At the personal level, CRTdemands an ongoing crifical reñecfion, as wellas vigilance for unearned privileges that flowto the self at the expense of others. It demandscritical attention to defensive denial andworker responsiveness to resist or disrupt thelinks between unearned privilege and itsharmful consequences (Carruol, 2005; Yee,2005).

Challenges to Implementation

Although we believe that an integrafion ofCRT across various facets of the social workcurriculum has the potenfial to move socialwork students toward critical thinking,informed pracfice, and acfion around racism,privilege, and oppression, we also recognizeits limitafions. The major limitation is makingspace or fime in an already crowded curricu-lum to include CRT readings and applica-fions. Ideally, CRT readings would be usedthroughout various courses, rather than segre-gated into one specific class (such as a "diver-sity" or "race" course). Yet the tendency forfaculty to be overwhelmed by expanding theiralready packed 2-year MSW curriculum will

pose some pracfical barriers to implementa-fion. Even if faculty create space to includeCRT content, issues of faculty preparafion andteaching methods remain. We acknowledgethat most faculty are not familiar with the lex-icon of CRT or its applicafions to social work,and that teaching and applying this materialrequires a specific set of knowledge and skills.We view this absence of faculty preparation asprobably the greatest barrier to including CRTin courses throughout the social work curricu-lum, as well as in specific courses promotingan appreciafion for diversity and culturalcompetence skills.

Moreover, student fieldwork is a criticalcomponent of the MSW student learningexperience. If awareness of and crifical per-specfives on racism are not applied to thefieldwork experience, students may lose sightof CRT's fies to social work problems, theo-ries, and interventions. Furthermore, theincreased demand for evidence-based pracficeand the growing influence of managed caremodels in agency environments can thwartstudent efforts toward advocacy and empow-erment of clients. The opportunity to applyCRT skills in the field can facilitate social jus-fice acfions within such constraints at bothindividual and systems levels. We recognizethis as a great challenge, because studentswho are taught from a CRT perspecfive maynot find a place to voice their perspecfives intheir fieldwork. This limitafion speaks to theongoing need for social work faculty and fieldinstructors to communicate about students'current curriculum so that their field experi-ences can complement their classroom workand the bridge between theory and pracficecan be fortified.


Finally, as Schiele (2007) states, there werelogical and historically persuasive reasons fordiversity educafion to expand its focus toinclude social and cultural groups other thanracial or ethnic categories. Clearly marginal-izafion and oppression are complex socialprocesses that are found along many axes ofsocial difference, not just race. CRT addressesthe central problem of eclipsing race imderthe "multicultural umbrella" and at the sametime fully acknowledges the potential risksand implications of focusing on one form ofoppression at the expense of others. By advo-cating a multidimensional analytic frame-work, CRT emphasizes the need to explorehow the intersecfionality of oppressed status-es manifests across individuals, communifies,and social settings. However, CRT does notnecessarily provide a clear road map forteaching about all forms of oppression simul-taneously. Educators with an interest in inte-grating CRT at this level will have to use theiringenuity to help students make sense of theconnections between racism and otheroppressions, as well as the impact of mulfipleand sometimes indiscenüble oppressions onclients' lives.

Conciusion

Nearly 50 years past the civil rights move-ment, evidence suggests that racism continuesto fracture American society. Statistics onwell-being and life expectancy from 1970 to2003 refiect substanfial and enduring differ-ences across racial and ethrüc groups, withpeople of color carrying a disproporfionateburden of mental and physical disease andpreventable death (Centers for DiseaseControl and Prevenfion, 2004). In 2006, among

the 47 million uninsured people in the UrutedStates, only 10,8% were White (DeNavas-Walt,Proctor, & Smith, 2007). Income and povertyrates for the same year ranked Whites as sec-ond highest in median income and lowest inpoverty, African Americans as lowest in medi-an income and highest in poverty, and peopleof Hispanic origin as second lowest in bothincome and poverty. Asians ranked secondlowest in poverty and earned the highestincome of all groups (DeNavas-Walt et al.,2007), A 2006 survey of 25 cities conducted bythe U.S. Conference of Mayors found that eth-nic minorities comprised 61% of the homelesspopulation; of that number, a striking 42%were African American (National Coalifionfor the Homeless, 2008), Finally, various dis-similarity indices used to calculate the extentof ethnic/racial segregation in 2000 (usingWhites as the reference group) confirm long-standing patterns of segregation. AfricanAmericans were the most segregated group,followed by people of Hispanic origin, AsianPacific Islanders, American Indians, andNafive Alaskans, respecfively (U.S. CensusBureau, 2002),

Although it may be comforting for manyto think that we can afford to be "race neutral"in our analysis of social welfare institutions,policies, and practices, the existence of thesedisparities indicates that a color-blind mental-ity will not solve some of our most enduringand systemic social divisions and inequities.Social work is ulfimately concerned with max-imizing the potenfial of all humans to leadhealthy, producfive, and fulfilling lives. Withthis charge, we must continually push our-selves, our training materials, and our teach-ing pracfices to address the systemic barriers


that impede the realizafion of these goals for aU

people, both locally and globally. CRT's philo-

sophical and analyfical strategies can advance

our efforts in antiracist pedagogy; through new

insights and techniques we can better under-

stand and concretely address the noted prob-

lems of our standard teaching tools.

Now the challenge of integrating new

ideas begins.

References

Abrams, L.S., & Gibson, P. (2007). Reframing

multicultural educafion: Teaching white

privilege in the social work curriculum.

Journal of Social Work Education, 43(1),

147-160.

Appleby, G. A., Colon, E., & Hamilton, J.

(2001). Diversity, oppression, and social func-

tioning: A person-in-environment assessment

and intervention. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Arrióla, E. R. (2000). Gendered inequality. In

R. Delgado & J. Stefancic (Eds.), Critical

race theory: The cutting edge (2nd ed.,

322-324). Philadelphia: Temple Univer-

sity Press.

Bell, D. (1995). Broxm v. Board of Education and

the interest-convergence dilemma. In K.

Crenshaw, N. Gotanda, G. Peller, & K.

Thomas (Eds.), Critical race theory: The key

writings that formed the movement (pp.

20-29). New York: New Press.

Bronstein, L. R., Berman-Rossi, T., & Winfield,

B. (2002). Beyond cultural specificity:

Teaching the impact of oppression on all

clients' lives. Journal of Progressive Human

Services, 13(2), 43-59.

Callender, S., Garcia, J., Oh, L., Sangalang, C ,

Solis, R., & Vasquez, N. (2007). Critical race

theory and social welfare. Unpublished

report. University of California, Los

Angeles.

Carbado, D. (2000). Men, feminism, and male

heterosexual privilege. In R. Delgado & J.

Stefancic (Eds.), Critical race theory: The

cutting edge (2nd ed., pp. 525-531).

Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Camiol, B. (2005). Analysis of social locafion

and change: Pracfice implicafions. In S.

Hick, J. Fook, & R. Pozzuto (Eds.), Social

work: A critical turn (pp. 153-165). Toronto,

Ontario, Canada: Thompson Educafional

Publishing.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevenfion.

(2004). Life expectancy at birth, by year—

United States, 1970-2003. MMWR. Re-

fi-ieved September 21, 2007, fi-om http:

//www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mm

wrhtml/mm5414a6.htm

Council on Social Work Educafion. (2001).

Educational and policy accreditation stan-

dards. Alexandria, VA: Author.

Crenshaw, K., Gotanda, N., Peller, G., &

Thomas, K. (Eds.). (1995). Introducfion. In

Critical race theory: The key writings that

formed the movement (pp. xii-xxxii). New

York: The New Press.

Delgado, R. (1989). Storytelling for opposi-

fionists and others: A plea for narrative.

Michigan Law Review, 87, 2411-2441.

Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2001). Critical race

theory: An introduction. New York: New

York Urüversity Press.

DeNavas-Walt, C , Proctor, B. D., & Smith, J.,

U.S. Census Bureau. (2007). Current popu-

lation reports, P60-233. Income, poverty, and

health insurance coverage in the United

States: 2006. Washington, DC: U.S. Gov-

errraient Printing Office.


Devore, W., & Schlesinger, E. G. (1981). Ethnic-

sensitive social work practice (1st ed.). St.

Louis, MO: C.V. Mosby

Devore, W., & Schlesinger, E. G. (1999). Ethnic-

sensitive social work practice (5th ed.).

Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Dixson, A. D., & Rousseau, C. K. (2006).

Critical race theory and education: All God's

children got a song. New York: Routledge.

Evans, M. J. (2000). Stealing away: Black

women, outlaw culture, and the rhetoric

of rights. In R. Delgado & J. Stefancic

(Eds.), Critical race theory: The cutting edge

(2nd ed., pp. 500-513). Philadelphia: Tem-

ple Urüversity Press.

Fumess, S. (2005). Shifting sands: Developing

cultural competence. Practice, 17,247-256.

Garcia, B., & Van Soest, D. (1997). Changing

perceptions of diversity and oppression:

MSW students discuss the effects of a re-

quired course. Journal of Social Work Educ-

ation, 33(1), 119-130.

Garcia, B., & Van Soest, D. (2000). Facilitating

learning on diversity: Challenges to the

professor. Journal of Ethnic and Cultural

Diversity in Social Work, 9, 21-39.

Gil, D. (1998). Confronting injustice and oppres-

sion: Concept and strategies for social workers.

New York: Columbia University Press.

Gotanda, N. (1995). Critical legal studies, criti-

cal race theory, and Asian American stud-

ies. Amerasia Journal, 21(1/2), 127-136.

Gotanda, N. (2000). A critique of "Our Con-

stitution Is Color-Blind." In R. Delgado & J.

Stefancic (Eds.), Critical race theory: The cut-

ting edge (2nd ed., pp. 35-38). Philadelphia:

Temple University Press.

Green, R. G., Kieman-Stem, M., & Baskind, F.

R. (2005). White social workers' attitudes

about people of color. Journal of Ethnic &

Cultural Diversity in Social Work, 14(1-2),

47- 68.

Helms, J. E. (1995). An update of Helms's

White and people of color racial identity

models. In J. G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L.

P. Suzuki, &c C. M. Alexander (Eds.),

Handbook of multicultural counseling (pp.

181-197). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hemández-Truyol, B. E. (1997). Sex, cultiare,

and rights: A re-conceptualization of vio-

lence for the 21st century. Albany Law

Review, 60, 607-634.

Homer, W., & Borrero, M. (1981). A plaruiing

matrix for Standard 124(A). Journal of

Education for Social Work, 17(1), 36-43.

Hutchinson, D. L. (2000). Out yet unseen: A

racial critique of gay and lesbian legal the-

ory and political discourse. In R. Delgado

& J. Stefancic (Eds.), Critical race theory: The

cutting edge (2nd ed., pp. 325-333). Phil-

adelphia: Temple University Press.

Jeffery, D. (2005). "What good is anti-racist

social work if you can't master it?" Ex-

ploring a paradox in anti-racist social

work education. Race, Ethnicity, and Edu-

cation, 8, 409^25.

Julia, M. (2000). Student perceptions of cul-

ture: An integral part of social work prac-

tice. International Journal of Intercultural

Relations, 24, 279-289.

Ladson-Billings, G. J. (1999). Preparing teach-

ers for diverse student populations: A

critical race theory perspective. Review of

Research in Education, 24, 211-247.

Le-Doux, C , & Montalvo, F. F (1999). Mul-

ticultural content in social work graduate

programs: A national survey. Journal of

Multicultural Social Work, 7,37-55.


Lee, M. Y, & Greene, G. J. (2003). A teaching

framework for transformative multicul-

tural social work education. Journal of

Ethnic & Cultural Diversity in Social Work,

22(3), 1-28.

Limbert, W. M., & Bullock, H. E. (2005).

"Playing the fool": US welfare policy

from a critical race perspective. Feminism

& Psychology, 15, 253-274.

Lopez, G. (2003). The (racially neutral) politics

of education: A critical race theory per-

spective. Educational Administration Quar-

terly, 39, 68-94.

Lum, D. (1986). Social work practice and people of

color: A process-stage approach. Monterey,

CA: Brooks/Cole.

Lum, D. (2003). Culturally competent practice: A

framework for growth and action. Pacific

Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Martin, S. F. (2001). Global migration trends and

asylum (No. 41). Washington, DC: UNHCR.

Matsuda, M. (1995). Looking to the bottom:

Critical legal studies and reparations. In

K. Crenshaw, N. Gotanda, G. Peller, & K.

Thomas (Ed.), Critical race theory: The key

writings that formed the movement (pp.

63-79). New York: The New Press.

National Coalition for the Homeless. (2008).

Who is homeless? NCH Fact Sheet #3.

Retrieved March 16, 2009, from http:

//www.nationalhomeless.org/publica

tions/facts/who.html

Park, Y (2005). Culture as deficit: A critical

discourse analysis of the concept of cul-

ture in contemporary social work dis-

course. Journal of Sociology and Social

Welfare, 32,11-33.

Perea, J. (2000). The black/white binary para-

digm of race. In R. Delgado & J. Stefancic

(Eds.), Critical race theory: The cutting edge

(2nd ed., pp. 344-353). Philadelphia:

Temple University Press.

Petrovich, A., & Lowe, M. (2005). Developing

cultural competence: Student and alumni

perspectives. Journal of Teaching in Social

Work, 25,157-176.

Piven, F. F., & Cloward, R. A. (1993). Reg-

ulating the poor: The functions of public wel-

fare (2nd ed.). New York: Broadway

Books.

Pollack, S. (2004). Anti-oppressive social work

practice with women in prison: Dis-

cursive reconstructions and alternative

practices. British Journal of Social Work, 34,

693-707.

Potocky, M. (1997). Multicultural social work

in the Urüted States. International Social

Work, 40, 315-326.

Razack, N. (1999). Anti-discriminatory prac-

tice: Pedagogical struggles and chal-

lenges. British Journal of Social Work, 29,

231-250.

Razack, N., & Jeffery, D. (2002). Critical race

discourse and tenets for social work. Ca-

nadian Social Work Review, 19(2), 257-271.

Rothman, J. C. (2008). Cultural competence in

process and practice: Building bridges.

Boston: AUyn & Bacon.

Schiele, J. H. (2007). Implications of the

equality-of-oppressions paradigm for

curriculim\ content on people of color.

Journal of Social Work Education, 43,

83-100.

Solomon, B. (1976). Black empowerment: Social

work in oppressed communities. New York:

Columbia University.

Soloranzo, D. G., & Yosso, T. J. (2001). Critical

race and LatCrit theory and method:

CRITICAL RACE THEORY AND CULTURAL COMPETENCE 2 6 1

Counter-storytelling. Qualitative Studies in

Education, 14(4), A71-495.

Spencer, M., Lewis, E., & Gufiérrez, L. (2000).

Mulficultural perspecfives on direct prac-

fice in social work. In R AUen-Meares &

C. Garvin (Eds.), The handbook of social

work direct practice (pp. 131-149). Thou-

sand Oaks, CA: Sage.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2002). Racial and ethnic

residential segregation in the United States:

1980-2000. Retrieved September 23, 2007,

from http://www.census.gov/hhes/www

/housing/housing_pattems/pdftoc.html

Valdes, F. (2000). Sex and race in queer legal

culture: Ruminafions on identifies and

interconnecfivifies. In R. Delgado & J.

Stefancic (Eds.), Critical race theory: The

cutting edge (2nd ed., pp. 334-341). Phil-

adelphia: Temple Uruversity Press.

Van Soest, D. (1996). Impact of social work

education on student attitudes and be-

havior concerning oppression. Journal of

Social Work Education, 32,191-202.

Williams, C. C. (2006). The epistemology of

cultural competence. Families in Society:

The Journal of Contemporary Social Services,

87, 209-220.

Yan, M. C , & Wong, Y.-L. R. (2005). Rethinking

self-awareness in cultural competence:

Toward a dialogic self in cross-cultural

social work. Families in Society: The Journal

of Contemporary Social Services, 86,181-188.

Yee, J. Y (2005). Critical anfi-racism praxis:

The concept of Whiteness implicated. In

S. Hick, J. Fook, & R. Pozzuto (Eds.), Social

work: A critical turn (pp. 87-103). Toronto,

Ontario, Canada: Thompson Educafional

Publishing.

Accepted: 07/08

Laura S. Abrams is associate professor and Jene Moio is iecturer at the University of California atLos Angeies.

A portion of this article was presented at the Council on Social Work Education's Annual ProgramMeeting in San Francisco, October 27-30,2007. The authors wish to thank Joy Crumpton, Gerry Laviña,and Sofya Bagdasaryan for their collaborative work in developing a Critical Race Theory curriculum.

Address correspondence to Laura S. Abrams, University of California at Los Angeles, Department ofSocial Welfare, 3250 Public Affairs Building, PO Box 951656, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1656; e-mail:[email protected].

critical race theory and the cultural competence dilemma...

Documents