HOPES FOR INTERGROUP DIALOGUE: AFFIRMATION AND ALLIES

Adrienne Dessei Christine Shepardson

University of Michigan University of Tennessee

Rebecca Boien
University of Tennessee

This article is an invited response to "Toward a Learning Environment That

Supports Diversity and Difference: A Response to Dessei, Bolen, and Shep-
ardson," by David R. Hodge {Journal of Social Work Education, 47{2), pp.
235-251).

IN RESPONSE TO DR. HODGE (2011), w e WOuld like
to move toward engaging in dialogue across
differences, and thus would like to provide
our response points as follows.
Equipping Students and Facuity
to Work With Diverse Groups and
the Use of Intergroup Diaiogue
We agree with a number of Hodge's recom-
mendations. Eirst, we support Hodge's recom-
mendation to use common self-descriptors,
avoid ideological modifiers, and promote
strengths of various populations, as these are
often part of the intergroup dialogue process
that we recommend (Hodge, 2011, p. 245;
Zfga, Nagda, Chesler, & Cytron-Walker,
2007). In particular, we agree with the promo-
tion of empathy. We also strongly concur with
Hodge's suggestion to examine power differ-
entials among different social identity groups.
Intergroup dialogue seeks to engage partici-
pants in a critical examination of personal
experiences, institutional and structural sys-
tems of power, relationship building, and the
development of collective capacity for social
justice (Ziga et al., 2007). Heterosexism cur-
riculum materials are but one content contribu-
tion, and readings fiom various perspectives
are used in intergroup dialogue pedagogy.
Intergroup dialogue pedagogy involves a
balanced representation of participant identi-
ties, such that a dialogue on sexual orientation
and religion (similar to one on religion,
race/ethnicity, gender, etc.) would, for exam-
ple, involve half of the group identifying as
lesbian, gay, or bisexual (LGB) and half the

Journal of Social Work Education, Vol. 48, No. 2 (Spring/Summer 2012).

2012, Council on Social Work Education, Inc. All rights reserved. DOI: 10.5175/JSWE.2012.201100091 361
362 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION
group identifying as heterosexual cor^erva-
five Chrisfian (Dessel, 2010; Sorensen, Nagda,
Gurin, & Maxwe, 2009). Intergroup dialogue
supports many of the other above-menfioned
goals Hodge recommends, and evidence is
mounting that au groups, regardless of their
idenfifies, exhibit increased intergroup under-
standing and relationships, reduction in
stereotypes, improved communicafion skuls,
establishment of common ground, and com-
mitment to coaborafion after intergroup dia-
logue parficipafion (Dessel & Rogge, 2008;
Nagda, Gurin, Sorensen, & Zuiga, 2009). The
highly polificized issues of religion and sexu-
al orientafion are in need of personal, engaged
interacfions, and social work faculty, students,
and pracfifioners are in need of these as we.
We also agree with Hodge's suggesfion
(2011, p. 245) about taking the perspecfive of
another group. So, for example, just as it is
important for social workers to consider how
conservafive Chrisfians might feel when they
are in the numerical minority, it is important
for conservafive Chrisfians, or for that mafter,
any other social idenfity group, to consider
how it might be for them were they prohibited
from marrying, prohibited from employment,
or encouraged to engage in intervenfions
designed to change their social idenfifies.
Personai Beiiefs
We would like to correct the mispercepfion
that by the use of "his own Chrisfianity"
(Dessel, Bolen, & Shepardson, 2011, p. 218) we
were inferring that Hodge's statements
regarding Chrisfian beliefs were his own per-
sonal beliefs. We confirm that we have no
knowledge of Hodge's personal beliefs. The
use of this phrase was a way of referring to
Hodge's representafion of Chrisfian views, as
many others have done in previous papers
(Canda, 2003; Fell, 2004; Harrison, 2005;
Shemoff, 2005; Thacker, 2006; Tower, 2003).
Furthermore, we want to reiterate the sigrfi-
cant conftibufion Hodge has made to the liter-
ature on religion, spirituaUty, and culturay
sensifive social work pracfice.
Reiigious Freedom of Speech and
Social Work Ethics
Social workers' use of religious beliefs to deny
full affirmafion and fu celebrafion of lesbian,
gay, and bisexual people is not acceptable, as
we view it as a violafion of the NASW Code of
Ethics (Reamer, 2003). The scaffolding effect
indicates that falling short of fu affirmafion
in the form of bias and prejudice can lead to
aggression and violence (Masser & Moffat,
2006; Parroft, Zeichner, & Hoover, 2006; Wag-
ner, Christ, & Petfigrew, 2008). Social work's
time has come to reevaluate our code of ethics
with regard to "cultural competence" when its
conservafive religious beUevers make state-
ments of oppression toward lesbian, gay, and
bisexual people. A recent debate in the Journal
of Social Work Values and Ethics addressed
these concerns (Adams, 2008; Spano & Koe-
nig, 2007). We advocate against social work
condoning the oppression of LGB people
based on reUgious beliefs. The field does not
condone such oppression when it comes to
any other social idenfity group.
There is no doubt that Chrisfianity influ-
enced the formafion of the profession, and
there is no doubt that many Chrisfians fight
for social jusfice every day. We are simply say-

ing that this fight must include lesbian, gay,
and bisexual people. One group of people
carmot be excluded, abused, and dered their
human rights based on their sexual orienta-
tion, just as fuU acceptance of LGB people can-
not be construed as oppressing people of any
reUgious tradition (Stulberg, 2006). Todd
(2010), a Christian mirster, offers an impor-
tant perspective. Just as Caucasians and males
hold positions of unearned power, and there-
fore supremacy in today's American society,
so do Christians. She chaUenges beUefs about
reUgious persecution of Christians, the privi-
leging of Christian reUgious views, and mis-
taking individual discrimination for oppres-
sion. Her humble suggestion to "take (the)
cues from those who are on the receiving end
of Christian supremacy" is weU worth consid-
ering (Todd, 2010, p. 143). Therefore, although
Christian groups, as other groups, have reU-
gious freedom of speech, it is helpful to
remember that this majority perspective has
the weight of its privileged space in society
behind its words.
Social workers have the freedom to say
whatever they want, but should they? Making
it legal does not make it right (Cohen, 2009).
Social workers are beholden to the values of
social work in their professional work. There-
fore, if they use deprecatory language regard-
ing LGB people, they are not acting in a man-
ner of a social worker (Canda & Furman, 1999;
Todd & Coholic, 2007). That is exactly the op-
posite of cultural sensitivity and competence.
We are not saying freedom of speech
should be restricted or censored in social work
discourse (Hodge, 2011, p. 241). We are saying
that speech that is oppressive should be
INTERGROUP DIALOGUE 363
thoughtfuUy reconsideredand that dialogue
is needed and should be promoted; it is in the
context of dialogic interaction that perhaps
the questions of "who gets to decide what is
offensive and what is not" (Hodge, 2011, p.
241) and whether oppressive speech is dan-
gerous (Masser & Moffat, 2006; Parrott et al.,
2006) can be addressed. Ultimately, the free
speech argument may melt away when peo-
ple sit down in dialogue one-on-one or in
smaU groups, and speak from their heart
about what they feel, beUeve, assume, and
have experienced (Ziga et al., 2007).
Portrayai of Leshians and Gay Men
Hodge's (2011) continued pairing of lesbians
and gay men with sexual offenders is prob-
lematic in that it perpetuates false and harm-
ful stereotypes. In fact, heterosexual males are
vastly overrepresented as sexual offenders of
both chdren and adults (Bolen, 2001; Fink-
eUior, Hotaling, Lewis, & Smith 1990; Koss,
Gidycz, & Wisniewski, 1987; RusseU, 1983).
Further, chdren appear to be better adjusted
(Garti'eU & Bos, 2010) and less Ukely to be sex-
uaUy abused by their caregivers (GartreU, Bos,
& Goldberg, 2010) when brought up in lesbian
homes than in two-parent heterosexual
famiUes.
New Ciass Theory
Theories should be falsifiable (Chalmers,
1999). That is the science of research. That cer-
tain theories are not falsifiable does not negate
the fact that theories should be falsifiable.
Otherwise, science cannot determine with cer-
tainty whether a theoretical proposition is
supported. Theories such as new class theory
364 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION
that are not falsifiable allow for statements
such as Hodge's, that our crifique of new class
theory is somehow evidence of support for it
(Hodge, 2011, p. 240). If a crifique of new class
theory can be perceived as support for it, then
the theory not only is unfalsifiable but is also
likely false to some extent.
Christian Teachings on Homosexuaiity
In his response, Hodge writes, "the authors
[Dessel, Bolen, Shepardson] suggest I 'misrep-
resent' Chrisfian teaching on the subject of
homosexuaUty" (Hodge 2011, p. 237). Quite
the contrary; in fact, our arficle confirms
that Hodge accurately describes a historical-
ly and scripturaUy defensible Chrisfian posi-
fion on the subject of homosexuaUty, though it
reminds readers that this posifion is simply
one modem Chrisfian response among many.
Moral Vaiues
When Hodge writes that we "seem to suggest
that the presentafion of orthodox values fos-
ters violence against lesbians and gay men ...
in other words, the disseminafion of moral
values fosters violence against those who hold
opposing values" (Hodge, 2011, p. 242), he
aUows the dangerous and false percepfion
that "orthodox values" are "moral" in ways
that "opposing values" are not (Hodge, 2011,
p. 242). Other groups may consider the con-
servafive values of some Chrisfians, such as
the subjugafion of women, immoral. No one
group has a claim on moraUty (Henrickson,
2009). Furthermore, conservative religious
beUevers are not the only ones to make judg-
ments of morality, or right and wrong behav-
ior. In fact, our brain chemistry and strivings
for self-preservafion and caretaking of others
may be more related to moral behaviors
(Churchland, 2011) than whether or not we
are reUgiously conservafive. Social work is at
a poUfical crossroads regarding conservafive
ideologies, religious beUefs, and human rights
(Hancock, 2007), and social work educators
must provide producfive dialogic opportuni-
fies for students to examine these issues.
Conclusion
We would Uke to share a vision for thefieldof
social work: One day aU lesbian, gay, and
bisexual people inclusive of their relafional/
sexual orientation will be fully affirmed
(Dessel, 2011). When this occurs, there wUl be
no further need to argue who is the more
oppressed group. If conservafive Chrisfian
social workers such as the ones Hodge writes
about, and aU other social workers, can fuUy
support a world where lesbian, gay, and
bisexual youth can grow up without buUying
and violence (Harris Interacfive & GLSEN,
2005), be accepted by their famiUes (LaSala,
2010), not be overrepresented in the homeless
youth populafion (SuUivan, Sommer, & Moft,
2001), and not be subjected to sexual reorien-
tafion therapy that forces them to be someone
they are not (Bright, 2004); where lesbians and
gay men who are in love can be legaUy
married and afforded the 1,138 federal bene-
fits, rights, and protecfions provided to mar-
ried heterosexual couples (Human Rights
Campaign, 2011); where lesbians and gay men
can hold pubUc office without fear of re-
prisal for their personal love Ufe, can be
free of worry about losing their jobs due to
knowledge about their sexual orientation
(ACLU, 2009), and can worship freely in their
chosen reUgion, then we can put our energy
 INTERGROUP DIALOGUE 365

toward other social areas in critical need of warthere is no end to the social service
attentionpoverty, racism, violence against needs of the world. We hope for the possibi-
other groups, environmental destruction, ties of dialogue, affirmation, and alUes.

References
Adams, P. (2008). The code of ethics and the clash of orthodoxies: A response to Spano
and Koerg. Journal of Social Work Values and Ethics, 5(2). Retrieved from
http://www.socialworker.com/jswve/content/view/94/65/
American Civu Liberties Union (ACLU). (2009). Employment
Non-Discrimination Act. Retrieved from
http://wwv^.aclu.org/hiv-aids_lgbt-rights/emplo3mient-non-discrimination-act
Bolen, R. M. (2001). Child sexual abuse: Its scope and our failure. New York, NY: Kluwer
Academic/Plenum PubUshers.
Bright, C. (2004). Deconstructing reparative therapy: An examination of the processes involved
when attempting to change sexual orientation. Clinical Social Work Journal, 32(4), 471-481.
Canda, E. (2003). Social work and evangeUcal Christians [Letter to the editor]. Social Work, 48,
278-281.
Canda, E., & Furman, L. (1999). Spiritual diversity in social work practice: The heart of helping.
New York, NY: The Free Press.
Chakners, A. F (1999). What is this thing called science (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Open University
Press.
Churchland, P. (2011). Braintrust: What neuroscience tells us about morality. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Cohen, H. (2009). Freedom of speech and press: Exceptions to the First Amendment. Retrieved from
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/95-815.pdf
Dessel, A. (2010). Effects of intergroup dialogue: PubUc school teachers and sexual orientation
prejudice. Small Group Research, 41(5), 556-592.
Dessel, A. (2011). Moving beyond a systematic review of sexual reorientation therapy. Social
Work, 56,178-180.
Dessel, A., Bolen, R., & Shepardson, T. (2011). Can religion expression and sexual orientation
affirmation coexist in social work? A critique of Hodge's theoretical, theological and
conceptual frameworks. Journal of Social Work Education, 47, 213-234.
Dessel, A., & Rogge, M. (2008). Evaluation of intergroup dialogue: A review of the empirical
Uterature. Confiict Resolution Quarterly, 26(2), 199-238.
FeU, D. (2004). Do social workers suppress evangeUcal Christians? [Letter to the editor]. Social
Work, 49,520.
Finkelhor, D., HotaUng, G., Lewis, I. A., & Smith, C. (1990). Sexual abuse in a national survey
of adult men and women: Prevalence, characteristics, and risk factors. Child Abuse &
Neglect, 14(9), 19-28.
366 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION

Garfiell, N., & Bos, H. (2010). U.S. National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study:
Psychological adjustment in 17-year-old adolescents. Pediatrics, 226(1), 28-36.
GartireU, N., Bos, H. M. W, & Goldberg, N. G. (2010). Adolescents of the U.S. National
Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study: Sexual orientation, sexual behavior, and sexual
exposure. Archives of Sexual Behavior Retrieved fiom
. http://www.springerlink.com.proxy.lib.utk.edu:90/content/d967883qp3255733/fulltext.pdf
Hancock, T. (2007). Come the revolution: Human rights, the far right, and new directions for
social work education. The Journal of Baccalaureate Social Work, 12(2), 1-12.
Harris Interactive & GLSEN. (2005). From teasing to torment: School climate in America,
a survey of students and teachers. New York, NY: GLSEN. Retrieved fiom
http://www.glsen.org/cgi-bin/iowa/aU/research/index.htinl
Harrison, D. (2005). Epistemological fiameworks, homosexuality, and religion [Letter to the
editor]. Social Work, 50, 373-374.
Heru'ickson, M. (2009). Sexuality, religion, and authority: Toward reframing estrangement.
Journal of Religion & Spirituality in Social Work: Social Thought, 28,48-62.
Hodge, D. (2011). Toward a learning environment that supports diversity and difference:
A response to Dessei, Bolen, and Shepardson. Journal of Social Work Education, 47,235-251.
Human Rights Campaign. (2011). An overview offederal rights and protections granted to married
couples. Refiieved fiom http://www.hrc.org/issues/5585.htm
Koss, M. P., Gidycz, C. A., & Wisrewski, N. (1987). The scope of rape: Incidence and
prevalence of sexual aggression and victimization in a national sample of higher
education students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55(2), 162-170.
LaSala, M. (2010). Coming out, coming home: Helping families adjust to a gay or lesbian child.
New York, NY: Columbia Urversity Press.
Masser, B., & Moffat, K. (2006). With fiiends like these . . . The role of prejudice and situational
norms on discrinrdnatory helping behavior. Journal of Homosexuality, 51,121-138.
Nagda, B. A., Gurin, P., Sorensen, N., & Zuiga, X. (2009). Evaluating intergroup dialogue:
Engaging diversity for personal and social responsibility. Diversity & Democracy, 12(1), 4-6.
Parrott, D., Zeichner, A., & Hoover, R. (2006). Sexual prejudice and anger network activation:
Mediating role of negative affect. Aggressive Behavior, 32(1), 7-16.
Reamer, F. (2003). Social work, evangelical Christians, and values. Social Work, 48,428-430.
Russell, D. E. H. (1983). The incidence and prevalence of intrafamilial and extrafamial sexual
abuse. Child Abuse and Neglect, 7,133-146.
Shemoff, M. (2005). Epistemological fiameworks, homosexuality, and religion [Letter to
the editor]. Social Work, 50, 373.
Sorensen, N., Nagda, B., Gurin, P., & Maxwell, K. (2009). Taking a "hands on" approach to
diversity in higher education: A critical-dialogic model for effective intergroup interaction.
Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 9(1), 3-35.
 INTERGROUP DIALOGUE 367

Spano, R., & Koerg, T. (2007). What is sacred when personal and professional
values couide? Journal of Social Work Values and Ethics, 4(3). Reftieved ftom
http ://wwTv.socialworker com/j swve / content / view / 69 / 54 /
Stulberg, I. (2006). Epistemological ftameworks, homosexuality, and rehgion [Lefter to
the editor]. Social Work, 51,189.
Sullivan, C , Sommer, S., & Moft, J. (2001). Youth in the margins: A report on the unmet needs
of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender adolescents in foster care. New York, NY: Lambda
Legal.
Thacker, D. (2006). Epistemological ftameworks, homosexuality, and religion [Lefter to
the editor]. Social Work, 51,189-190.
Todd, J. (2010). Confessions of a Chrisfian supremacist. Refiections, 16(1), 140-146.
Todd, S., & CohoHc, D. (2007). Chrisfian fundamentalism and anfi-oppressive social
work pedagogy. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 27(3/4), 5-25.
Tower, K. (2003). Render unto Caesar, that which is Caesar's [Lefter to the editor]. Social Work,
48, 277-278.
Wagner, U., Christ, O., & Petfigrew, T. (2008). Prejudice and group related behavior in
Germany. Journal of Social Issues, 64(2), 403-416.
Ziga, X., Nagda, B. A., Chesler, M., & Cyfton-Wa<er, A. (2007). Intergroup dialogue
in higher educafion: Mearungful learning about social jusfice. ASHE Higher Education
Report, 32(4), 1-128.

Accepted: 0 6 / 1 1

Adrienne Dessei is associate co-director at the University of Michigan. Rebecca Boien is associ-
ate professor and Christine Shepardson is associate professor at the University of Tennessee.
Address correspondence to Adrienne Dessel, University of Michigan, The Program on Intergroup
Relations, 1214 South University Ave, 2nd Floor, Suite B, Ann Arbor, Ml 48104-2592; e-mail:
adessel@umich.edu.
Copyright of Journal of Social Work Education is the property of Council on Social Work Education and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.