Conscientious Refusal in Schools of Social Work: Rights, Remedies, and Responsibilities

Background and Purpose: Conscientious objection (CO) is a deeply held religious or moral conviction that precludes an individual from participating in an act that is perceived to be against their beliefs. One lesser-known example of CO concerns students who refuse to participate in educational activities which conflict with moral or religious or personal worldviews. The purpose of this presentation is two-fold. First, this presentation aims to examine the perceptions of social workers about social work students who opt out of attending class(es) or other school activities as a result of a conflict with a religious or moral worldview (e.g., should social work students who claim conscientious objection, be excused from classes when material being presented conflicts with his/her moral/religious beliefs). Second, this presentation seeks to provide timely implications for social work research with the objective of promoting equal opportunity, equity, and justice for students in schools of social work across the United States.

Methods: A web-based survey was used to reach a broad spectrum of social work practitioners and educators across the United States (N = 923). A comprehensive survey measured perceptions of social workers on: 1) the right to remove themselves from situations which conflict with personal, religious, or moral beliefs; 2) students who opt out of classes or activities; 3) their views on an array of contemporary ethical issues; and 4) their own personal religious practices, as well as their ideological and political views. A mixed method design was employed to examine both qualitative and quantitative data.

Results: Of the respondents, 75.7% were female, 23.6% were male, and .7% indicated other, with the vast majority of respondents self-identified as White (84%), 5% African-American, 3.5% Latino, and 7.5% as other. Of the respondents who answered the question about religion, 42.5% indicated that they were Christian; 24.7% indicated Jewish; 19% indicated Agnostic or ‘no religion’. About 18 percent of respondents who wrote comments expressed concern that students who opt out are at risk of not acquiring the knowledge, skills, and attitudes needed to become competent professionals. Approximately 29% of respondents felt that students who opt out ought to consider another profession. Finally, approximately 33% of respondents expressed that social work is a deeply value based profession, suggesting that opting out in schools of social work should be treated differently than opting out in other educational settings.

Conclusions and Implications: The large majority of this study’s respondents felt that social work students should not have the option of opting out of course content.  A significant proportion of respondents go further, expressing that students who wish to opt out ought to be counseled out of the profession. The respondents of this study also expressed that social work has a unique relationship to values, more than other professions; suggesting that opting out in medical school may be acceptable, but this option should not extend to social work students. Findings are presented within the context of promoting equal opportunity for all social work students and implications for future practice and research are discussed.