["replacing language"]

  

image (not from below item) from

From a Jan. 9 email to faculty, staff and students of the University of  Southern California’s Suzanne Dworak-Peck School of Social Work [jb see]: [ Published in the Wall Street Journal]; 1/16, 2023: see also

We would like to share a change we are making . . . to ensure our use of inclusive language and practice. Specifically, we have decided to remove the term “field” from our curriculum and practice and replace it with “practicum [jb see].” This change supports anti-racist social work practice by replacing language that could be considered anti-Black or anti-immigrant in favor of inclusive language. Language can be powerful, and phrases such as “going into the field” or “field work” may have connotations for descendants of slavery and immigrant workers that are not benign. . . . In solidarity with universities across the nation, our goal is not just to change language but to honor and acknowledge inclusion and reject white supremacy, anti-immigrant and anti-blackness ideologies. . . . We are committing to further align our actions, behaviors, and practices with anti-racism and anti-oppression, which requires taking a close and critical look at our profession—our history, our biases, and our complicity in past and current injustices.

Comments

  1. I agree with the aims and general ideas stated, but am puzzled by the particular words discussed, I don't see what the difference between 'field' and 'practicum' has to do with racism or anti-racism, etc. I guess it is the connotations that phrases including 'field' might have for people whose ancestors worked as slaves in the field. But do they really have these connotations? Can't research be done on this topic?

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ukraine turns the tables on Russia

Putin just called Trump’s bluff on Ukraine, with the Russian art of the ‘no’ deal