Organizational Processes of Interest Convergence: Social Work's Response to Brown v. Board of Education

Background: Social work has a legacy of policy and criminal legal scholarship. At the intersection of these interests is examining the profession’s response to Supreme Court rulings. Supreme Court rulings are a distinct form of policy-making that occurs outside of the legislative process, one that drastically alters the institutional environment, is intended to shift organizational practice, and is often written in ways that emphasize the formative role of street-level discretion. I use social work’s response to the Supreme Court ruling Brown vs. Board of Education, which struck down “separate but equal” doctrine, as a case study. My methodological process and findings have implications for contemporary social work scholarship.

Method: I addressed the following questions- What was the institutionalized logic and practice in social work regarding racial segregation prior to Brown v. Board? As a shift in the institutional environment, how did social work engage with Brown v. Board and the overturning of “separate but equal” doctrine. How did this engagement impact subsequent logics and practices in the latter 20th century? The analysis required bringing together disparate social work archives. I separately hand searched Social Service Review, the National Association of Visiting Teachers, the National Association of Black Social Workers, and the National Association of Social Workers. After pulling relevant archives, I began critical discourse analysis (CDA) within each archival source working chronologically across archives from the early 20th century onward. I then analyzed across archival sources to trace when organizational processes differed or appeared identical within the same historical period and how organizations responded to each other over time.

Findings: I will present three analyses of social work’s discourse on school segregation 1) prior to Brown v. Board of Education I and II; 2) during the Brown v. Board proceedings; and 3) after the court rulings. I argue that social work’s discourse on school segregation before, during, and after the court rulings reveal that social work organizations’ institutionalized logics and practices of racial segregation prior to Brown v Board and, thus, were unresponsive to the process of desegregation following Brown v. Board. I trace this choice to the entrenchment of early 20th century school social work professionalization efforts, a time in which white-run organizations gained legitimacy by reproducing racial stratification in public schools and committing to casework as a form of individual-oriented, scientific social reform.

Conclusion: Social work’s shifting engagement with school segregation across the 20th century shows the profession’s history of recognizing and acting on injustices when, and only when, such action benefits national interests and therefore legitimize social work. This pushes forward fundamental questions about interest convergence, how does social work’s interest in legitimacy converge with the interests of white wealth and political power? How have social work organizations facilitated interest convergence? My hope is that reframing social work’s grab for legitimacy as a potential ongoing series of interest convergences affirms longstanding efforts within the profession to build different networks of professional accountability and explore alternative modes of practice.