Can religious social workers practice affirmatively with LGBTQ service recipients? An exploration within the regulatory context

Abstract

Tensions between religious freedoms and lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and queer (LGBTQ) rights have evolved from debates about sinful deviance to competing equality claims. There is a growing debate, originally in the US, but emerging in the UK, about whether religious social workers, particularly those holding fundamentalist Christian beliefs, can deliver affirmative, anti-oppressive services to LGBTQ people. This is important because over two-fifths of social workers identify as Christian and almost a quarter of UK charities, including those running community and residential care services for older people, are religious organisations. These concerns have been highlighted in a recent judicial review involving a social work student, Felix Ngole, who was expelled by the University of Sheffield for making homophobic comments on his Facebook page. The Court of Appeal ruled the University's decision was procedurally flawed and had conflated religious prejudice with discrimination. This paper considers 70 online responses to a Community Care article written by Ngole, which highlight divided opinions within the social work profession. It critically interrogates, within regulatory contexts, whether it is possible to be both deeply opposed to LGBTQ people's lives and yet work affirmatively and anti-oppressively with them. An urgent research agenda is proposed.

Older LGBTQ People and Religious Abuse: Implications for the UK Regulation of Care Provision in Later Life

“…Training cannot undo those religious beliefs which underpin religious microaggressions and abuse towards LGBTQ care recipients. Indeed, many religious staff who feel their religious beliefs are being persecuted by compulsory LGBTQ-inclusivity will feel it is their duty to defend those beliefs if they feel they are being attacked [148].…”

“…Little is known so far about how negative religious attitudes inform the provision of healthcare, social care, and social work [138]. Westwood [148] has identified disagreement between UK social work practitioners in terms of whether religious disapproval impacts practice with LGBTQ service users. Some practitioners believe it is possible to separate off personal views, including those based on religious beliefs, while others believe it is not possible and that, indeed, religious disapproval of LGBTQ people and their lives are contrary to social work values [149].…”

Religious‐based negative attitudes towards LGBTQ people among healthcare, social care and social work students and professionals: A review of the international literature

“…Practically, there is the crucial question of whether religious practitioners are able to do so, and to comply with relevant professional standards, particularly in relation to anti‐oppressive practice, as is mandated in UK and international social work standards (Cocker & Hafford‐Letchfield, 2014). To require high religious individuals whose religious beliefs cause them to consider LGBTQ people to be sinful and/or to be opposed to LGBTQ rights (Ngole, 2016), to authentically celebrate LGBTQ people, their lives and relationships, and to advocate for those same rights, would seem to be a very big ‘ask’ (Westwood, 2022). It would likely create considerable cognitive dissonance and associated workplace tensions for the practitioner (Crisp, 2017; Dessel et al, 2011; Héliot et al., 2020) while also falling short of proactive LGBTQ‐inclusive service delivery.…”

“…In 2019/20, the ‘top ten’ non‐UK nationalities of the UK care workforce were from Romania, Poland, Nigeria, the Philippines, India, Zimbabwe, Ghana, Portugal, Italy and Jamaica (Skills for Care, 2020). Migrant workers from these countries can experience a profound culture clash when working in more liberal UK health, care and social work contexts (Carr, 2008; Carr & Pezzella, 2017; Hafford‐Letchfield et al., 2018; Westwood, 2022; Willis et al., 2018), while at the same time also experiencing racialised prejudice and discrimination themselves (Allan, 2021; Allan & Westwood, 2016; Ranci et al., 2021; Stevens et al., 2012).…”