“A Fussy and Difficult Student”
There’s a familiar face on the front page of the Providence Journal today:
From the beginning, the relationship between William Felkner and the Rhode Island College School of Social Work has sounded like the screech of chalk on a blackboard. …
Felkner has filed a lawsuit against Rhode Island College that revives arguments from conservatives who have assailed the NASW code of ethics, the profession of social work and the structure of academic programs in schools of social work across the country.
The article reminds readers of a quotation from one social work professor in Felkner’s past who succinctly illustrated the attitude that can fester when a group is ideologically cloistered, standing as timely evidence of the need for intellectual diversity and of the opportunity for citizen media, such as blogs, to have an effect by shedding light even in small dark pits:
[Felkner’s] complaint about the film prompted an e-mail from his professor, former adjunct faculty member James Ryczek. “Social work is a value-based profession that clearly articulates a socio-political ideology about how the world works and how the world should be,” Ryczek wrote.
While Ryczek said he wanted to promote an open debate in class, he acknowledged his own liberal leanings.
“I revel in my biases,” Ryczek wrote. “So I think anyone who consistently holds antithetical views to those that are espoused by the profession might ask themselves whether social work is the profession for them.”
One problem that arises from this particular mentality is that it creates a system whereby public funds are used toward the education of people subsequently tasked with pressuring the public for further funding by a caste of secular sacerdotalists who dictate the methods and means for which acolytes must advocate. Along those lines, note this paragraph, as well:
The School of Social Work and its advocacy arm, the Poverty Institute, favored an “education first” approach to welfare, arguing that training helps recipients land higher-paying jobs in the long run.
A peculiar and tricky business this balancing of “arms,” as one can begin to see (for example) in one California union’s stewardship of a charitable appendage:
A nonprofit organization founded by California’s largest union local reported spending nothing on its charitable purpose — to develop housing for low-income workers — during at least two of the four years it has been operating, federal records show. …
The primary mission of the charity — the Long Term Care Housing Corp. — is to provide affordable homes for the local’s members, most of whom earn about $9 an hour caring for the elderly and infirm. But SEIU officials declined to discuss the charity, saying it is a separate legal entity from the union, even though its board is dominated by officials from the local. The charity is located at the local’s headquarters.
In some respects, it’s surprising that Bill was able to infiltrate our local cell of poverty advocates as deeply as he did.