The Council on Social Work Education’s DEI-Infused Standards

If you thought the goal of social work education programs was to train the best possible social workers, think again. 

The field’s accrediting body, the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE), is infusing divisive identity politics into social work education programs and transforming them into vehicles for political and ideological activism.

The CSWE accredits baccalaureate, master’s, and doctoral programs in social work across the United States. Many of these programs specifically focus on social work in the healthcare context; social workers are important figures in the healthcare landscape, connecting patients with valuable medical resources and helping them better manage their medical conditions.

In theory, accreditation bodies should ensure that programs meet professional and ethical standards. But the CSWE is more interested in enforcing an ideology centered around “anti-racism,” “equity,” and “social justice.”

The CSWE’s 2022 Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards, the most recent iteration of the organization’s standards, include two competencies specifically geared toward DEI. Competency 2 requires programs to ensure students “Advance Human Rights and Social, Racial, Economic, and Environmental Justice,” while Competency 3 mandates that they “Engage Anti-Racism, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (ADEI) in Practice.”

Social workers should “demonstrate anti-racist and anti-oppressive social work practice at the individual, family, group, organizational, community, research, and policy levels,” the description for Competency 3 states.

The CSWE ensures social work programs achieve these goals by requiring them to meet certain DEI-centered standards.

For instance, Accreditation Policy 2.0 mandates programs to engage “in specific and continuous efforts within the explicit curriculum related to anti-racism, diversity, equity, and inclusion.”

“Social work education is grounded in the liberal arts and a commitment to anti-racism, diversity, equity, and inclusion, which together provide the intellectual basis for the professional curriculum and inform its design,” Educational Policy 3.0 reads. “The integration of anti-racism, diversity, equity, and inclusion principles across the explicit curriculum includes anti-oppression and global positionality, interdisciplinary perspectives, and comparative analysis regarding policy, practice, and research.”

Educational Policy 2.0, meanwhile, instructs programs to “provide the context through which students learn about their positionality, power, privilege, and difference and develop a commitment to dismantling systems of oppression, such as racism, that affect diverse populations.”

Additionally, programs must “recognize the pervasive impact of White supremacy and privilege and prepare students to have the knowledge, awareness, and skills necessary to engage in anti-racist practice.”

The influence of this ideology isn’t just limited to the curriculum; Educational Policy 4.3: Administrative and Governance Structure requires that programs develop “an administrative and leadership structure that reflects and affirms respect for anti-racism, diversity, equity, and inclusion.”

This embrace of DEI mirrors the larger trend in social work; earlier this year, the National Association of Social Workers published an article titled “Targeting Diversity, Equity and Inclusion: What It Means for Social Work Education,” that bemoaned the Trump administration’s efforts to remove DEI from higher education.

And sadly, the CSWE is far from the only accreditor that has pushed DEI on education programs. Do No Harm reported on healthcare education accreditors who were encouraging medical schools and universities to implement discriminatory admissions, hiring, and/or recruiting practices. And in April, President Trump issued an executive order targeting accreditors for injecting DEI into higher education. Thankfully, many of these accreditors have since walked back their programs following our investigation and the executive order.

Due to their unique position, accreditors have enormous power over the content of curricula and the policies and practices of higher education programs. This power simply cannot be abused to push radical identity politics and degrade the quality of education. This harms students, future social workers, and patients alike.