Sexual orientation and religion from the perspective of the code of ethics.

Pollack, Daniel

In the work setting, how do we address our employees about sexual orientation and religion from the perspective of the NASW Code of Ethics? Perhaps surprising to some, sexual orientation and religion receive equal attention in the Code (NASW, 2000). Each is mentioned four times in exactly the same places--in sections 1.05(c) under Cultural Competence and Social Diversity; 2.01(b) under Respect; 4.02 Discrimination; and, 6.04(d) under Social and Political Action.

Sexual orientation and religion can coexist in the work environment and be fairly dealt with when orientating, training, and supervising employees. I make no attempt to support any one position, other than to affirm the inherent worth of each person regardless of his or her sexual orientation or religious beliefs.

ATTITUDES OF THE PUBLIC AND SOCIAL WORKERS TOWARD HOMOSEXUALITY

A 2003 study by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life found that "roughly half of the public expresses an unfavorable opinion of gay men (50% unfavorable) and lesbians (48% unfavorable). Nearly one in three (29%) had a very unfavorable opinion of gay men, and 26% had a very unfavorable opinion of lesbians" (p. 4). The same study, which polled 1,515 adults through random-digit dialing telephone interviews, found that 55 percent of Americans believed that "it is a sin to engage in homosexual behavior, and that view is much more prevalent among those who have a high level of religious commitment (76%)" (Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, p. 2). Many similar studies that focus specifically on social work students or social workers have been conducted (Council on Social Work Education, 2005; Kohli & Faul, 2005; Sung Lim & Johnson, 2001; Tirosh Ben-Ari, 1998; Yuen & Pardeck, 1998). These show a population group considerably more accepting of homosexual behavior than the general public.

AN APPARENT DILEMMA

Employers are in an apparent minefield. If they advocate homosexuality, they appear to be intolerant of those with more traditional religious beliefs. On the other hand, if more traditional beliefs are espoused, they appear to be intolerant of those with more liberal beliefs. In truth, employers should not be advocating or espousing. In the Code, discrimination based on sexual orientation and discrimination based on religious beliefs are equally condemned, and respect is equally endorsed. Neither one is the "first among equals."

Certain value positions are incompatible. Our job is not to choose between values; it is to provide a safe environment where individual employees, whatever their sexual orientation or religious beliefs, can engage in a meaningful dialogue. Bullying or harassing from either viewpoint should not be condoned. Neither should imperil the other.

The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This clause certainly embodies one of the most pronounced tensions in the American experience. How can we identify what the government, an employer, or a school of social work can "establish" as an expression of our unique culture while simultaneously acknowledging its duty to protect the plural expressions of our diverse religions? As employers or supervisors, the struggle between secularism and religious values should not rattle us.

THE CHALLENGE

Nevertheless, we are faced with a formidable challenge. How can we get our employees to listen to each other and inform them about this important complex debate? Everything is not a matter of private conscience any more than everything is a matter of public concern. Discussions about homosexuality are not endorsement of homosexuality any more than discussions about religion are the equivalent of promoting religion. There is no need for us to encourage the secularization of society or to encourage religion in society. As social workers we should be comfortable in acknowledging that no final conclusion needs to be drawn, no reconciliation needs to be reached.

Social workers charged with guiding employees during their orientation, training, and employment have a responsibility to ensure that they do not impose their own worldview. It is critical that employees be able to openly express their viewpoints without fear of sanction, ridicule, or retribution by those in authority or their fellow employees. Intellectual diversity and the Code of Ethics demand nothing less.

Original manuscript received May 1, 2006

Accepted June 15, 2006

REFERENCES

Council on Social Work Education. (2005). Curriculum policy statement for master's degree programs in social work education. Available online at http://www.cswe.org/accreditation/currentstandards-policy-htm

Kohli, H. K., & Faul, A. C. (2005). Cross-cultural differences towards diversity issues in attitudes of graduating social work students in India and the United States. International Social Work, 48, 809-822.

National Association of Social Workers. (2000). Code of ethics of the National Association of Social Workers. Washington, DC: Author.

Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. (2003). Republicans unified, democrats split on gay marriage: Religious beliefs underpin opposition to homosexuality. Washington, DC: Author.

Sung Lim, H., & Johnson, M. M. (2001). Korean social work students' attitudes toward homosexuals. Journal of Social Work Education, 37, 545-564.

Tirosh Ben-Ari, A. (1998). An experiential attitude change: Social work students and homosexuality. Journal of Homosexuality, 36(2), 59-71.

Yuen, F. K., & Pardeck, J. T. (1998). Impact of human diversity education on social work students. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 7, 249-261.

Daniel Pollack, JD, MSW, is professor, Wurzwiler School of Social Work, Yeshiva University, 2495 Amsterdam Avenue, New York, NY 10033; e-mail: dpollack@yu.edu.