Social Work in Divisive Times: Navigating Dual Roles Across Eras and Movements

Justin S. Harty, Ph.D., Arizona State University

 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2770-6869

November 6, 2024

Social work is often celebrated for its commitment to social justice, aiding vulnerable populations, and driving societal change. Yet, this narrative too frequently fails to grapple with the darker elements of the profession’s past—namely, the instances where it has caused harm to those it intended to help. Throughout its history, social work has not only offered support and advocacy but has also, at times, played a role in perpetuating injustices and societal harms. This paper delves into the historical roles—both harmful and helpful—of social work in the United States, revealing the profession’s multifaceted character and its impact during pivotal societal changes. From the Reconstruction Era to the current movements for antiracism and anticolonialism, the journey of social work is marked by continuous efforts to redefine and realign its practices with the ever-evolving demands of social justice. This narrative continues today as the profession confronts new challenges such as the end of affirmative action and the increasing threats to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), democracy, and academic freedom. These contemporary challenges require social workers to critically examine methodologies, educational frameworks, and advocacy roles to address historical injustices and foster a more inclusive and equitable future.

Reconstruction Era (1860s-1880s)

The Reconstruction Era (1865 to 1877) emerged as a pivotal period in American history following the Civil War. This era was marked by profound changes as the United States grappled with integrating formerly enslaved African Americans into the societal fabric under new legal frameworks that purportedly promised freedom and equality. The Reconstruction Amendments—namely the 13th, 14th, and 15th—were instrumental in abolishing slavery and establishing citizenship and voting rights for Black individuals. Despite these advancements, the period was fraught with significant resistance from white supremacists who sought to maintain racial hierarchies through discriminatory laws and violent repression (Farmer-Kaiser, 2010). The establishment of Black Codes and the onset of Jim Crow laws during and after Reconstruction institutionalized racial segregation, severely restricting the newly gained rights of African Americans and perpetuating a cycle of disadvantage and disenfranchisement.

The Complex Role of Social Welfare during Reconstruction

During the Reconstruction Era, the formal profession of social work had not yet been established; it would not emerge until the late 19th and early 20th centuries. However, the seeds of social work were present in various forms of social welfare activities aimed at aiding marginalized and segregated African American communities. Notably, Black communities themselves were pivotal in fostering resilience through self-help and mutual aid societies, which played essential roles in providing social support and advancing civil rights (Weaver, 1992). These grassroots efforts were crucial in contesting the oppressive social order upheld by white supremacist violence and terror, aiming to undermine the progress of Reconstruction. The pushback against these grassroots movements was a precursor to the broader struggles for civil and economic rights that would continue to shape African American efforts towards equality and justice. This period highlighted the complex interplay between advancing social welfare and the resistive currents that sought to maintain entrenched racial inequalities, setting a challenging backdrop for the nascent moves towards organized social work. Moreover, the Afrocentric paradigm in social work, which emerged later, can be seen as a response to the Eurocentric domination that started during this period, perpetuating the need for a culturally competent approach that acknowledges and integrates the unique sociocultural realities of African Americans (Schiele, 2017).

Progressive Era, Reformist Movement, and the Eugenics Movement (1880s-1920s)

The Progressive Era

The Progressive Era, spanning from the late 19th century to the early 20th century, marked a significant shift in American society from the laissez-faire policies and rugged individualism of the Gilded Age to a more reform-oriented approach with active government intervention. This era was characterized by a broad spectrum of social, political, and economic reforms aimed at rectifying the deep-seated issues of inequality and corruption perpetuated by industrial capitalism. Progressives pushed for a variety of changes, including labor rights, workplace safety, women’s suffrage, and civil rights, viewing these initiatives as essential for fostering a just and equitable society. Their efforts reflected a profound belief in the government’s role in promoting the public good and addressing the welfare of its citizens, setting the stage for the modern regulatory state (Leonard, 2017).

Social Work’s Complicated Beginnings in the Progressive Era

During the Progressive Era, the nascent field of professional social work emerged, intertwining its identity with the broader social reforms of the time. This period witnessed the foundation of social work as a profession, distinctly characterized by its commitment to reform social systems to alleviate the effects of poverty and inequality. Pioneering movements such as the settlement house movement, notably led by figures like Jane Addams with Hull House, aimed to support immigrant communities through services that promoted integration and Americanization, although often laced with cultural assimilationist undertones (Diner, 1970; Kirschner, 1975). Social workers and reformers engaged in a complex dance of advocating for social justice while grappling with the inherent social controls embedded within their methods, such as imposing dominant cultural values on marginalized communities. This era laid down the conflicting foundations of social work, showcasing its potential to drive significant social policy and reform, while also revealing the profession’s struggles with issues of cultural imperialism and paternalism (Kirschner, 1975; Diner, 1970). These dual aspects of early social work reflect a period of profound development and introspection, setting the precedent for ongoing debates within the field regarding the balance between support and control in social welfare practices.

The Reformist Movement

The Reformist Movement, spanning the late 19th and early 20th centuries, marked a pivotal shift in American social dynamics, driven by a collective desire for social change and moral reform. Reformers of this era, disenchanted with the prevailing laissez-faire economic policies and rampant individualism, championed the cause of temperance, suffrage, labor laws, and education. This movement was not merely a response to the inadequacies of the time; it was a deliberate push toward establishing a more equitable and just society. Figures such as Jane Addams, who founded the Hull House, Florence Kelley, known for her labor and consumer protection advocacy, and Mary Richmond, who developed comprehensive social work case recording systems, were at the forefront of this transformative period. These reformers, whose zeal and passion sometimes manifested as elitist and authoritarian, sought to impose their values on society, believing in the transformative power of structured governance and ethical conduct to rectify societal ills (MacGerr, 2005).

The Challenges and Criticisms of Social Work in the Reformist Movement

While the Reformist Movement catalyzed significant advancements in social work, positioning it as a field intent on reforming social systems to alleviate the impacts of poverty and inequality, it was not without its challenges and criticisms. The emergence of Charity Organization Societies (COS) during this time highlighted a drive toward efficient charity and the adoption of scientific charity methods, which were not without controversy. The establishment of settlement houses like Hull House under Jane Addams’ stewardship provided pivotal community support and services but also underscored the tensions between Americanization efforts and the need to respect cultural diversity. Critics of the period argued that social work, in its zeal to reform, often veered into the realm of imposing white values on marginalized communities, thereby undermining their autonomy. This critique is reflected in the broader discussions of cultural imperialism and the need for social work to engage more critically with the ethical implications of its practices. As the movement progressed, resistance from labor unions and political groups grew, illustrating the complex dynamics between social work’s reformist intentions and the realities of systemic oppression and the fight for social justice (Allen & Allen, 1983; Lasch-Quinn, 1993).

The Eugenics Movement

The eugenics movement, deeply entwined with the ideologies of the Progressive Era, represented a troubling chapter in the history of social reform. Rooted in the belief that social science and adherence to “American” values could engineer superior societal conditions, eugenics became synonymous with the improvement of the human race through selective breeding. Advocates of this movement saw eugenic policies—particularly sterilization—as akin to public health measures, essential for preventing what were considered inheritable social ills. The alignment of eugenics with public health initiatives provided a veneer of legitimacy that masked the deeply problematic nature of these practices, effectively blending the pursuit of environmental, occupational, and educational reforms with the draconian measures of eugenic interventions (Black, 2012).

The Impact of Eugenics on Social Work

The eugenics movement significantly influenced the emerging profession of social work, particularly in its approach to addressing the perceived issues of the “hereditarily unfit.” Early social work practices, including those at settlement houses, were often aligned with eugenic goals, aiming to uplift societal health through the regulation of reproduction among populations deemed undesirable. Notably, settlement houses during this period were viewed by their operators as “disinfecting agencies to the community,” with their success measured by the health outcomes of the children they served, integrating cleanliness, purity, and moral education into their programs (Kennedy, 2008). However, the application of eugenic principles in social work was not without its critics. Resistance emerged from various quarters, including African American and Indigenous social workers, who viewed these measures as extensions of racial oppression and cultural genocide. This period underscored the complex interplay between social work’s intention to aid and its participation in systems of control, laying bare the tensions between professional ethics and the coercive practices endorsed under the guise of public betterment (O’Brien, 2023). The legacy of eugenics in social work reveals a profession grappling with its complicity in a movement that sought to manipulate human breeding under the banner of social health. It prompts a critical reflection on the profession’s past roles and responsibilities, urging contemporary social workers to advocate for practices grounded in ethical integrity and social justice, recognizing the profession’s potential both to harm and to heal.

Red Scares (1910s-1950s)

The Red Scares in the United States, spanning from 1917 to 1957, were periods of intense anti-communist hysteria that fundamentally shaped American political and social life. The First Red Scare (1917-1929) erupted in the aftermath of the Bolshevik Revolution and was characterized by widespread fear of radicalism, leading to government crackdowns on perceived subversives. This phase was marked by the targeting of labor organizers, socialists, and anarchists, leveraging the Espionage and Sedition Acts to justify arrests and deportations (Woods, 2004). In the period between  1930 and 1945, known as the Red Scare Interregnum, the focus on anti-communist activities waned as the nation grappled with the Great Depression and the New Deal initiatives took center stage (Goldstein, 2016). However, the end of World War II reignited fears of communism leading to the Second Red Scare or “McCarthyism” (1945-1957), where the federal government, driven by Senator Joseph McCarthy’s fervent anti-communism, aggressively pursued alleged communists within the government, arts, and education sectors.

The Impact of Red Scares on Social Work

The repercussions of the Red Scares were profoundly felt in the field of social work and academia, where educators and social workers were frequently scrutinized for their political beliefs and associations. During these periods, notable social workers and educators such as Bertha Capen Reynolds and Eduard Lindeman faced significant professional and personal repercussions due to their political affiliations or perceived sympathies towards leftist ideologies. The case of Reynolds, compelled to resign from her position at the Smith College School of Social Work due to her Marxist leanings and union activities, exemplifies the intense scrutiny and pressure faced by social work professionals during the height of McCarthyism (Abramovitz et al., 2023). The House Un-American Activities Committee’s investigations into figures like Inabel Lindsay, a prominent advocate for racial justice, further underscored the widespread nature of this scrutiny. The pervasive fear of communism led to a stifling of academic freedom, with figures like Erik Erikson and other faculty members at the University of California Berkeley being dismissed for refusing to sign loyalty oaths (Abramovitz et al., 2023). These historical episodes illustrate the complex interplay between politics and social work, highlighting the challenges faced by professionals in maintaining ethical standards and advocating for social justice in an era of political paranoia and repression. The legacy of the Red Scares continues to inform the practice of social work, emphasizing the importance of vigilance in protecting academic freedom and advocating for inclusive and progressive social policies.

Japanese Internment Camps (1940s)

On February 19, 1942, in a sweeping act driven by wartime fear and racial prejudice, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066, leading to one of the most egregious violations of civil liberties in American history. This order authorized the forced relocation and internment of approximately 120,000 Japanese Americans, the majority of whom were U.S. citizens. These individuals were uprooted from their homes on the West Coast and sent to internment camps scattered across the country, where they were held without trial or evidence of wrongdoing. The justification for these actions was grounded in national security concerns following the attack on Pearl Harbor, yet it was deeply rooted in long-standing racial discrimination against Asian Americans. Families were given mere days to dispose of their possessions and businesses, suffering enormous economic losses and personal trauma. The repercussions of these actions echoed through generations, affecting the internees’ physical and mental health, as well as their sense of identity and belonging in the country they called home (Hinnershitz, 2001; Harth, 2003).

The Role of Social Work in Japanese Internment

The involvement of social workers in the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II presents a deeply problematic chapter in the history of the profession, characterized by complicity and moral ambiguity. While some social workers were involved through the National Japanese American Student Relocation Council in efforts to assist interned college students, the broader professional community largely failed to oppose the internment policies. This period highlights the profession’s struggle with its ethical standards, as many social workers facilitated the government’s internment efforts, working within the camps to manage the day-to-day administrative and welfare needs of the internees. Despite the good intentions of providing care and support, their work within this framework ultimately supported an unjust system. Critically reflecting on this period, it is evident that social work’s involvement in the internment was a manifestation of the profession’s failure to uphold its commitment to social justice and advocacy for vulnerable populations. This dark period serves as a stark reminder of the importance of ethical vigilance and the need for social workers to challenge unjust policies, rather than serve as instruments of discriminatory practices (Park, 2020).

Civil Rights Movement (1950s-1970s)

The Civil Rights Movement, emerging prominently in the 1950s, marked a significant transformation in the American socio-political landscape, addressing deep-seated institutionalized racial segregation and discrimination. This movement was characterized by a series of nonviolent protests, civil disobedience, and pivotal acts of defiance such as sit-ins, boycotts, and marches across the country. Prominent leaders like Martin Luther King, Jr. were central to this movement, their advocacy and moral leadership mobilizing vast numbers of individuals to demand justice and equality. The movement’s efforts culminated in monumental legislative victories, most notably the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which collectively sought to dismantle the legal foundations of racial discrimination and ensure a more equitable society. The impact of the Civil Rights Movement extended beyond these immediate achievements, inspiring subsequent movements for women’s rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and immigrant rights, profoundly influencing American society and reshaping public consciousness towards a greater awareness of civil liberties (Morris, 1986; Hamilton & Hamilton, 1997).

Social Work During the Civil Rights Movement

During the Civil Rights Movement, social workers played pivotal roles in advocating for desegregation and equal rights. Beyond pushing for legal changes, they actively engaged in community organizing and empowerment efforts, participating in boycotts, sit-ins, and protests to highlight and combat discriminatory practices. Their efforts were crucial in campaigns aimed at ending unjust hiring practices, securing fair housing, and promoting voter registration among African Americans, particularly in the South. Despite their significant contributions, social workers also faced criticism for sometimes perpetuating the systems of oppression they sought to dismantle, revealing the complexities of their involvement in the movement. The era underscored the need for social work to continually reflect on its role in advocacy and social change, emphasizing the importance of systemic change and challenging the status quo. Lessons from this period highlight the critical need to equip social workers with skills to advocate for social justice and to understand the intricacies of power dynamics within their profession, ensuring that their work genuinely supports the communities they serve (Bell, 2014).

The Anti-War Movement (1960s-1970s)

The Anti-War Movement, spanning the early 1960s through the mid-1970s, emerged as a significant social and political force in opposition to the United States’  involvement in the Vietnam War. As the war escalated, the movement grew, encompassing millions of Americans who participated in widespread protests, demonstrations, and even violent confrontations with police and military forces. This movement was united by a core belief that the war was morally and ethically unjust, prompting a wide spectrum of actions from peaceful protests to more radical measures. Despite facing criticism for being unpatriotic and accused of undermining the war effort, the Anti-War Movement played a crucial role in shaping public opinion and ultimately influencing U.S. policy towards the war, underscoring a broader backlash against the prevailing political and military strategies of the time (DeBenedetti, 1990; Kamali, 2015).

Social Work’s Role and Dilemma During the Anti-War Movement

During the Vietnam War, the social work profession found itself in a complex position. Many social workers opposed the war, recognizing its negative impact on social welfare programs and the disproportionate effects on minority communities. In 1967, reflecting these concerns, the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) passed a resolution calling for an end to the war and a reallocation of national priorities towards social welfare programs. This stance highlighted the perceived threat of the war to domestic welfare initiatives, as government spending was increasingly diverted towards military efforts rather than social programs. Additionally, the war’s impact was notably severe on minority communities, with a higher proportion of Black and Latinx soldiers serving in combat roles. Social workers engaged in various forms of activism and civil disobedience, participating in protests and providing support to war resisters and their families. This period of activism was part of a broader social and political movement of the 1960s, emphasizing the need for social justice and systemic change within both the nation and the profession of social work itself (Chandler, 2004; Reichert, 1970). These historical episodes highlight the profound challenges and ethical dilemmas faced by social workers during times of political and military conflict. The profession’s engagement with the Anti-War Movement underscores the ongoing need for social work to maintain its commitment to social justice, advocacy, and ethical practice, particularly in challenging societal and governmental structures that perpetuate inequality and injustice.

Disability Rights Movement (1960s–Today)

The Disability Rights Movement, which gained momentum in the 1960s, represents a pivotal shift in societal attitudes and policies regarding people with disabilities. This movement emerged as a response to the systemic exclusion and marginalization experienced by individuals with disabilities, advocating vigorously for inclusion, equal rights, and the elimination of barriers to full societal participation. Activists challenged the prevailing norms that favored institutionalization, promoting instead the ideals of community living, which offered greater autonomy and opportunities for self-determination. This shift not only allowed individuals with disabilities to live with dignity but also to participate more fully in their communities. Social workers played a critical role in this transformation, developing and implementing policies and programs that supported the movement’s goals, including significant advocacy for disability rights and the establishment of support networks designed to foster inclusion and empowerment (Kamali, 2015; Piepzna-Samarasinha, 2018).

Social Work’s Role in the Disability Rights Movement

The involvement of social workers in the disability rights movement is marked by a complex history of both supporting disability oppression and advocating for liberation. Initially, social work practices often aligned with institutionalization and segregation. However, as the movement progressed, many social workers shifted their focus towards advocating for disability rights and inclusion. This change was influenced by the increasing activism of disability rights groups, which pushed for legal recognition and support for community living arrangements that enhanced the autonomy and self-determination of people with disabilities. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and other legislation significantly impacted social work practices, emphasizing the need for social workers to adopt a more client-centered approach that prioritizes self-determination and empowerment. This era of change highlights the importance of social workers in advocating for policies that ensure full participation and inclusion of people with disabilities in all aspects of society (Beaulaurier & Taylor, 2001). It underscores the vital role that social work has played—and continues to play—in the ongoing struggle for disability rights. It illustrates the need for the profession to continually reflect on and adapt its practices to better support the rights and inclusion of people with disabilities, emphasizing a commitment to advocacy, client empowerment, and systemic change.

Antiracism and Anticolonialism Movements (2000s-Current)

The Antiracism and Anticolonialism Movements, particularly invigorated in the 2020s, have become pivotal global forces challenging the enduring legacies of colonialism and systemic racism. These movements emphasize the urgent need for decolonization and restitution, aiming to dismantle dominant narratives and power structures that perpetuate systemic oppression. They adopt an intersectional approach, recognizing how various forms of oppression—such as racism, sexism, and classism—interact and reinforce one another. The calls for systemic and transformative change are profound, urging individuals and institutions alike to actively engage in creating a more equitable and just society (Kendi, 2023).

Social Work’s Response to Antiracism and Anticolonialism

In the context of the current antiracism and anticolonialism movements, the social work profession has come under increased scrutiny for its historical roles in perpetuating racism and colonialism, particularly concerning the experiences of Black and Indigenous communities. Recent scholarly discussions and symposiums, such as those led by Abrams et al. (2020) and detailed in Yearwood et al. (2021), highlight the profession’s urgent need to confront and transform its practices. This transformation involves advocating for antiracism and anticolonialism training, reevaluating educational curricula to better integrate the voices and experiences of marginalized communities, and actively resisting the co-optation of grassroots activism. The push for such transformative changes is crucial for social work to not only address its complicity in historical injustices but also to lead efforts towards more inclusive and equitable practices. Harty (2023) further underscores the need for a profound reassessment of the profession’s roles and responsibilities, highlighting the necessity to confront its historical complicity with white supremacy, racism, and colonialism. This includes acknowledging past atrocities against BIPOC communities and addressing the intertwined nature of whiteness, racism, and colonialism. Harty argues for significant reforms or even the complete abolition of social work practices that oppress and marginalize communities of color, advocating for a re-engagement with historical methods to better understand and integrate lessons from past struggles. By doing so, social work can move towards a more antiracist and anticolonial future, actively contributing to dismantling the systemic barriers that have long affected marginalized communities. These perspectives underscore the urgent need for social work to deepen its commitment to antiracism and anticolonialism, ensuring that it not only addresses its internal challenges but also actively participates in broader societal transformations. The profession is encouraged to embrace a critical reflection on its connections to oppressive systems and to cultivate a commitment to genuine systemic change, aiming to align more closely with the principles of social justice and equity integral to its core values.

Additional Movements and Challenges for Social Workers

Throughout its history, the social work profession has navigated a complex landscape of social movements beyond the scope of this article, often reflecting broader societal tensions and struggles for justice. It is important to briefly acknowledge our profession’s issues during these eras, as these movements highlight the historical challenges and the profession’s complicity in systemic oppression during divisive times. For instance, during the Labor Movement from the 1920s to the 1950s, social work often focused on individual welfare rather than collective labor rights, sometimes aligning with employers and government policies that undermined union efforts. Similarly, the Rank and File Movement saw social workers conflicted between their professional roles and the need to advocate for labor reforms. During the Women’s Rights Movement from the 1960s to the 1980s, while some social workers supported feminist causes, the profession as a whole was slow to integrate feminist principles into practice and policy, often maintaining traditional roles that limited women’s autonomy. Regarding LGBT rights, from the 1960s to the present, social work’s involvement has evolved significantly, yet initially, many in the field were reticent to challenge prevailing homophobic and transphobic norms, contributing to the marginalization of LGBT individuals. The struggle for reproductive rights during the 1980s and 1990s also highlighted tensions in social work, with the profession grappling with diverse ethical views on abortion and contraceptive rights, often reflecting broader societal divisions rather than advocating unequivocally for women’s autonomy. The Environmental Justice Movement of the same period saw social work slowly recognizing the intersection of environmental issues with racial and economic justice, previously often overlooked in social work advocacy and practice. Finally, during the Racial Justice Movement of the 1990s and 2000s, social work faced criticism for perpetuating systemic racism through compliance with policies and practices that disproportionately affected people of color. Collectively, these movements underscore the need for social work to critically examine its past and reformulate its practices to genuinely align with the principles of social justice and equity.

Conclusion

This article delves into the intricate historical role of social work, highlighting its dual capacity as both a champion for marginalized populations and, at times, a collaborator in systemic injustices. Throughout various epochs—from the eugenics movement and the Red Scares to the Japanese Internment Camps—the profession has significantly influenced societal transformation while also confronting substantial critique for its roles during these critical junctures, which have deeply shaped its ethical and professional paradigms. Tracing the path from the Reconstruction Era to the current Antiracism and Anticolonialism Movements, social work’s history is marked by a persistent endeavor to evolve and to respond to the shifting landscapes of social justice. This historical journey is not merely a backdrop but actively informs the ongoing narrative, as the profession grapples with contemporary challenges such as the end of affirmative action and the rising threats to DEI, democracy, and academic freedom. These modern issues demand a profound, historically informed reassessment of social work’s methodologies, educational strategies, and advocacy roles, aiming not only to rectify past injustices but also to spearhead initiatives towards a more inclusive and equitable future. 

This exploration advocates for a continued transformation within social work, urging the profession to critically reflect on the historical legacies that shape current practices and to advocate for substantial changes. As the profession confronts contemporary challenges, including the rollback of affirmative action and the threats to DEI, democracy, and academic freedom, it must draw on its historical experiences to strengthen its commitment to systemic change, justice, equity, and the safeguarding of democratic values. These efforts are essential as social work moves forward, navigating through these turbulent times with historical awareness and a proactive stance towards fostering social justice.

Social work is a field enriched by diverse principles and practices, representing various paths toward achieving social justice and respecting individual conscience. As the profession undergoes a critical review of its history and current methodologies, there is an urgent need for greater uniformity in professional standards, ethics, and accountability. This introspective process should involve both collective reassessment and individual soul-searching, encouraging practitioners to engage in historical reflexivity. By aligning on fundamental values and ethical practices, social workers can more effectively confront systemic injustices while adhering to the profession’s enduring commitments to compassion and responsibility. This cohesive approach will ensure that the profession remains resilient and responsive, firmly grounded in a deep understanding of its past actions and future possibilities.

References

Allen, R. L., & Allen, P. P. (1983). Reluctant reformers: Racism and social reform movements in the United States (Rev. pbk. ed). Howard University Press.

Black, E. (2012). War against the weak: Eugenics and America’s campaign to create a master race (2nd ed.). Dialog Press.

Chandler, S. K. (2004). Curiously uninvolved: Social work and protest against the war in Vietnam. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 31(4), 3–20.

Currier & Ives. (1868). The freedman’s bureau [Graphic]. Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division. https://www.loc.gov/resource/pga.08721/ 

DeBenedetti, C. (1990). An American Ordeal: The Antiwar Movement of the Vietnam Era. Syracuse University Press.

Diner, S. J. (1970). Chicago social workers and Blacks in the progressive era. Social Service Review, 44(4), 393–410. http://www.jstor.org/stable/30021738

Farmer-Kaiser, M. (2010). Freedwomen and the Freedmen’s Bureau: Race, gender, and public policy in the age of emancipation (1st ed). Fordham University Press.

Glackens, L. M. (1913). Eugenics makes the world go ’round [Graphic]. Keppler & Schwarzmann, Puck Building. Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division. https://www.loc.gov/resource/ppmsca.27955/

Goldstein, R. J. (2016). Little “Red Scares”: Anti-Communism and Political Repression in the United States, 1921-1946. Routledge.

Hamilton, D. C., & Hamilton, C. V. (1997). The dual agenda: Race and social welfare policies of civil rights organizations. Columbia University Press.

Harth, E. (Ed.). (2003). Last witnesses: Reflections on the wartime internment of Japanese Americans. Palgrave Macmillan.

Harty, J. S. (2023). Epilogue: Looking back to move forward. In L. S. Abrams, S. E. Crewe, A. J. Dettlaff, & J. H. Williams (Eds.), Social work, white supremacy, and racial justice: Reckoning with our history, interrogating our present, and reimagining our future (pp. 781–790). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197641422.003.0042

Hinnershitz, S. (2021). Japanese American incarceration: The camps and coerced labor during World War II (1st edition). University of Pennsylvania Press.

Kamali, M. (2015). War, violence and social justice: Theories for social work. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.

Kennedy, A. C. (2008). Eugenics, “Degenerate Girls,” and Social Workers During the Progressive Era. Affilia, 23(1), 22–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886109907310473

Kirschner, D. S. (1975). The ambiguous legacy: Social justice and social control in the progressive era. Historical Reflections / Réflexions Historiques, 2(1), 69–88. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41298660

Lasch-Quinn, E. (1993). Black neighbors: Race and the limits of reform in the American settlement house movement, 1890-1945. UNC Press Books. 

Leonard, T. C. (2016). Illiberal Reformers: Race, Eugenics, and American Economics in the Progressive Era. Princeton University Press.

Library of Congress. (1942). Oakland, Calif., Feb. 1942 [Photo]. Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division. https://www.loc.gov/resource/cph.3a19319/ 

Library of Congress. (1962). Disability benefits [Poster]. In Yanker Poster Collection. Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division. https://www.loc.gov/resource/yan.1a38192/

MacGerr, M. E. (2005). A fierce discontent: The rise and fall of the progressive movement in America, 1870 – 1920. Oxford Univ. Press.

Morris, A. D. (1986). The origins of the civil rights movement: Black communities organizing for change (1st ed.). The Free Press.

O’Brien, G. (2023). Eugenics, genetics, and disability in historical and contemporary perspective: Implications for the social work profession (1st ed.). Oxford University Press.

Park, Y. (2020). Facilitating injustice: The complicity of social workers in the forced removal and incarceration of Japanese Americans, 1941-1946. Oxford University Press.

Piepzna-Samarasinha, L. L. (2018). Care Work: Dreaming Disability Justice. Arsenal Pulp Press.

Reichert, K. (1970). Current developments and trends in social work education in the United States. Journal of Education for Social Work, 6(2), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220612.1970.10671853

Schiele, J. H. (2017). The Afrocentric paradigm in social work: A historical perspective and future outlook. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 27(1/2), 15–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/10911359.2016.1252601

Shaffer, J. (2020). Black Lives Matter protest signs on the ground, Washington, DC [Photo]. Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division. https://www.loc.gov/resource/ppbd.01197/

Student Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam. (1970). National student antiwar conference called by the Student Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam … Bring all the troops home now! [Poster]. In Yanker Poster Collection, Library of Congress. https://loc.gov/pictures/resource/cph.3c04474/

Weaver, H. N. (1992). African-Americans and Social Work: An Overview of the Ante-Bellum Through Progressive Eras. Journal of Multicultural Social Work, 2(4), 91–102. https://doi.org/10.1300/J285v02n04_07

Yearwood, C., Barbera, R. A., Fisher, A. K., & Hostetter, C. (2021). Dismantling White Supremacy in Social Work Education: We Build the Road by Walking. Advances in Social Work, 21(2/3), i–vii. https://doi.org/10.18060/25652

For further reading:

Campbell, A. W. (2021). National Association of Black Social Workers. Social Welfare History Project. Retrieved from https://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/?p=24741

Council on Social Work Education. (2022). Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards (EPAS).

Peeples-Wilkins, W. (2006). Historical perspectives on social welfare in the Black community. Retrieved from https://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/eras/great-depression/historical-perspectives-on-social-welfare-in-the-black-community-1886-1939/

© Justin S. Harty, 2024.

Justin S. Harty is the recipient of a 2024 VCU Publishing Research Award.