My name is Elisia Harvey, and I am an OTA student at Central Community College in Grand Island, NE. I just left feedback on some of the proposed motions for the RA Spring meeting and thought one motion in particular deserved some discussion on the forums.
Motion 2 (http://www.aota.org/MeetingsLibrary/SpringRA/Motion2_1.aspx) proposes to remove the concept of Social Justice from our Code of Ethics. The authors assert that Social Justice is indicative of "a single political ideology" and that to align ourselves with it is out of step with our Centennial Vision.
I disagree. The concept of Social Justice has a long history in our country of bringing justice to the oppressed, giving a voice to the voiceless, and honoring the inherent worth and dignity of every human being. It is not a term owned by any political party. It would be short-sighted for AOTA to remove this concept from our COE just because certain politicians try to make social justice a buzz word to drive their political agenda. Rather than let ever-changing political ideology dictate the meaning of the term, we should let history define it for us. When we look at history, social justice by and large is concept that is very compatible with AOTA and our Centennial Vision. As such, I believe it should remain in our COE.
I'd love to hear others' thoughts on the matter. And be sure to leave feedback on this motion and others here: http://www.aota.org/Governance/RA/SpringRA.aspx
I could not agree more. The concept of social justice is not reflective of a singular political ideology and should not be reframed as such......the concept is completely congruent with the other values of the Association and the profession and should remain in the Code of Ethics.
Brent Braveman, PhD, OTR/L, FAOTA
Brent Braveman, PhD., OTR/L, FAOTA
My name is Elisia Harvey, and I am an OTA student at Central Community College in Grand Island, NE. I just left feedback on some of the proposed motions for the RA Spring meeting and thought one motion in particular deserved some discussion on the forums. Motion 2 (http://www.aota.org/MeetingsLibrary/SpringRA/Motion2_1.aspx) proposes to remove the concept of Social Justice from our Code of Ethics. The authors assert that Social Justice is indicative of "a single political ideology" and that to align ourselves with it is out of step with our Centennial Vision. I disagree. The concept of Social Justice has a long history in our country of bringing justice to the oppressed, giving a voice to the voiceless, and honoring the inherent worth and dignity of every human being. It is not a term owned by any political party. It would be short-sighted for AOTA to remove this concept from our COE just because certain politicians try to make social justice a buzz word to drive their political agenda. Rather than let ever-changing political ideology dictate the meaning of the term, we should let history define it for us. When we look at history, social justice by and large is concept that is very compatible with AOTA and our Centennial Vision. As such, I believe it should remain in our COE. I'd love to hear others' thoughts on the matter. And be sure to leave feedback on this motion and others here: http://www.aota.org/Governance/RA/SpringRA.aspx
Ron Carson MHS, OT
From: Elisia Harvey <bounce-elisiaharvey@aota.org>Sent: 2/20/2011 10:24:20 PM
Ron, I agree that it can be difficult to define social justice and that when people hear the term, they will understand it within their own political framework, for good or for ill.
My argument, though, is that we shouldn't let politicians commandeer the term from society and our history. The term Social Justice is important to our profession in that it complements the field of Occupational Justice. Just as Occupational Justice is concerned with removing barriers to participation in occupation, so Social Justice is concerned with removing barriers to participation in society at large. It is in our profession's interest to not lose this term to petty political debates.
(And yes, I'll call him out by name-- Glenn Beck doesn't get to decide what social justice means.)
Thanks for participating in the discussion. I think it is important for us to talk about these things in a public forum before the RA votes.
~Elisia Harvey, OTA student
Ron, I agree that it can be difficult to define social justice and that when people hear the term, they will understand it within their own political framework, for good or for ill. My argument, though, is that we shouldn't let politicians commandeer the term from society and our history. The term Social Justice is important to our profession in that it complements the field of Occupational Justice. Just as Occupational Justice is concerned with removing barriers to participation in occupation, so Social Justice is concerned with removing barriers to participation in society at large. It is in our profession's interest to not lose this term to petty political debates. (And yes, I'll call him out by name-- Glenn Beck doesn't get to decide what social justice means.) Thanks for participating in the discussion. I think it is important for us to talk about these things in a public forum before the RA votes. ~Elisia Harvey, OTA student From: Ron Carson MHS, OT <bounce-roncarson@aota.org> Sent: 2/21/2011 9:52:35 AM A big problem is just defining social justice. The term has different meanings based on one's political and social viewpoints. I think today's meaning of social justice aligns with concepts of Government mandated redistribution of wealth, which I do not support. Thus, I agree with Motion 2. Thanks, Ron Carson On 02/20/2011 10:30 PM, Elisia Harvey wrote: My name is Elisia Harvey, and I am an OTA student at Central Community College in Grand Island, NE. I just left feedback on some of the proposed motions for the RA Spring meeting and thought one motion in particular deserved some discussion on the forums. Motion 2 (http://www.aota.org/MeetingsLibrary/SpringRA/Motion2_1.aspx) proposes to remove the concept of Social Justice from our Code of Ethics. The authors assert that Social Justice is indicative of "a single political ideology" and that to align ourselves with it is out of step with our Centennial Vision. I disagree. The concept of Social Justice has a long history in our country of bringing justice to the oppressed, giving a voice to the voiceless, and honoring the inherent worth and dignity of every human being. It is not a term owned by any political party. It would be short-sighted for AOTA to remove this concept from our COE just because certain politicians try to make social justice a buzz word to drive their political agenda. Rather than let ever-changing political ideology dictate the meaning of the term, we should let history define it for us. When we look at history, social justice by and large is concept that is very compatible with AOTA and our Centennial Vision. As such, I believe it should remain in our COE. I'd love to hear others' thoughts on the matter. And be sure to leave feedback on this motion and others here: http://www.aota.org/Governance/RA/SpringRA.aspx FLAGS (\Seen \Recent)
From: Ron Carson MHS, OT <bounce-roncarson@aota.org> Sent: 2/21/2011 9:52:35 AM
From: Ron Carson MHS, OT <bounce-roncarson@aota.org>Sent: 2/21/2011 9:52:35 AM
Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
Here is how I define and understand social justice and why I see it as distinct from the concept of "distributive" justice and therefore congruent with modern concepts of empowerment. It does not demand "equal" distribution, but "fair" distribution which should be in alignment with American values regardless of political leanings:
"Braveman and Suarez-Balcazar (2009, p. 13 ) noted that “social justice is a broad term that encompasses several interrelated concepts, such as equality, empowerment, fairness in the relationship between people and the government, equal opportunity, and equal access to resources and goods.” The British Commission on Social Justice (1994) suggested in its report Social Justice: Strategies for National Renewal that social justice is defined by four main ideas, including (1) the belief that the foundation of a free society is the equal worth of all citizens, expressed most basically in political and civil liberties, equal rights before the law, and so on; (2) the argument that everyone is entitled, as a right of citizenship, to be able to meet their basic needs for income, shelter, and other necessities; (3) the belief that self-respect and equal citizenship demand more than a meeting of basic needs—they demand opportunities and life chances; and (4) the ability to achieve the first three conditions of social justice by recognizing that, although not all inequalities are unjust, unjust inequalities should be reduced and eliminated where possible.
Braveman, B., & Bass-Haugen, J. D. (2009). From the Desks of the Guest Editors—Social justice and health disparities:An evolving discourse in occupational therapy research and intervention. American Journal of Occupational Therapy,63, 7–12.
Ron,
Can you tell us where you draw your conclusion that, "Social justice, REQUIRES that money be taken from one individual and be handed to another individual, usually without any expectation of repayment or work."? (e.g. what model, author, scholar, organization or movement are you citing?)
Through the process of editing a special issue of AJOT on social justice I did pretty extensive reading. Sometimes the concepts of social justice and distributive justice are grouped together as being the same, and/or the later is used to define the former.
If we are making definitive statements about what a concept requires, I think we need to cite a specific model or source to substantiate that claim.
thanks
Brent Braveman
Ron, Can you tell us where you draw your conclusion that, "Social justice, REQUIRES that money be taken from one individual and be handed to another individual, usually without any expectation of repayment or work."? (e.g. what model, author, scholar, organization or movement are you citing?) Through the process of editing a special issue of AJOT on social justice I did pretty extensive reading. Sometimes the concepts of social justice and distributive justice are grouped together as being the same, and/or the later is used to define the former. If we are making definitive statements about what a concept requires, I think we need to cite a specific model or source to substantiate that claim. thanks Brent Braveman From: Ron Carson MHS, OT <bounce-roncarson@aota.org> Sent: 2/21/2011 11:17:36 AM Someone must decide what social justice means or doesn't. If not Glenn Beck, who? And there in lies the problem. We live and work in a political system. Like it or not, social justice is a political term and one that invokes great passion. There are as many definitions of social justice as there are people willing to offer an opinion. If AOTA advocates for social justice, they are making a political statement. And, who decides when and where a person needs barriers removed? I assume the AOTA president makes more money then me, so should I expect her to cough up hard earned money so I can have better access to high speed internet? Same with you, should you expect me to give you some extra funding, simply because I have access that you don't? Social justice is NOT a nameless or faceless handout. Social justice, REQUIRES that money be taken from one individual and be handed to another individual, usually without any expectation of repayment or work. OT should be concerned about making people less dependent on Government entitlements. We should be empowering people to overcome barriers and un-level playing fields in all aspects of their lives, be it physical rehab or social competence. Empowerment is a great gift to pass to someone. In my opinion, social justice does just the opposite. Good for you for advocating for your beliefs. We need more like you!! Ron Click to show quoted textOn 02/21/2011 10:22 AM, Elisia Harvey wrote: Ron, I agree that it can be difficult to define social justice and that when people hear the term, they will understand it within their own political framework, for good or for ill. My argument, though, is that we shouldn't let politicians commandeer the term from society and our history. The term Social Justice is important to our profession in that it complements the field of Occupational Justice. Just as Occupational Justice is concerned with removing barriers to participation in occupation, so Social Justice is concerned with removing barriers to participation in society at large. It is in our profession's interest to not lose this term to petty political debates. (And yes, I'll call him out by name-- Glenn Beck doesn't get to decide what social justice means.) Thanks for participating in the discussion. I think it is important for us to talk about these things in a public forum before the RA votes. ~Elisia Harvey, OTA student From: Ron Carson MHS, OT <bounce-roncarson@aota.org> Sent: 2/21/2011 9:52:35 AM A big problem is just defining social justice. The term has different meanings based on one's political and social viewpoints. I think today's meaning of social justice aligns with concepts of Government mandated redistribution of wealth, which I do not support. Thus, I agree with Motion 2. Thanks, Ron Carson On 02/20/2011 10:30 PM, Elisia Harvey wrote: My name is Elisia Harvey, and I am an OTA student at Central Community College in Grand Island, NE. I just left feedback on some of the proposed motions for the RA Spring meeting and thought one motion in particular deserved some discussion on the forums. Motion 2 (http://www.aota.org/MeetingsLibrary/SpringRA/Motion2_1.aspx) proposes to remove the concept of Social Justice from our Code of Ethics. The authors assert that Social Justice is indicative of "a single political ideology" and that to align ourselves with it is out of step with our Centennial Vision. I disagree. The concept of Social Justice has a long history in our country of bringing justice to the oppressed, giving a voice to the voiceless, and honoring the inherent worth and dignity of every human being. It is not a term owned by any political party. It would be short-sighted for AOTA to remove this concept from our COE just because certain politicians try to make social justice a buzz word to drive their political agenda. Rather than let ever-changing political ideology dictate the meaning of the term, we should let history define it for us. When we look at history, social justice by and large is concept that is very compatible with AOTA and our Centennial Vision. As such, I believe it should remain in our COE. I'd love to hear others' thoughts on the matter. And be sure to leave feedback on this motion and others here: http://www.aota.org/Governance/RA/SpringRA.aspx FLAGS (\Seen \Recent) FLAGS (\Seen \Recent) FLAGS (\Seen \Recent) Ron Carson MHS, OT | Post Points: 20
From: Ron Carson MHS, OT <bounce-roncarson@aota.org> Sent: 2/21/2011 11:17:36 AM
Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 Here is how I define and understand social justice and why I see it as distinct from the concept of "distributive" justice and therefore congruent with modern concepts of empowerment. It does not demand "equal" distribution, but "fair" distribution which should be in alignment with American values regardless of political leanings: "Braveman and Suarez-Balcazar (2009, p. 13 ) noted that “social justice is a broad term that encompasses several interrelated concepts, such as equality, empowerment, fairness in the relationship between people and the government, equal opportunity, and equal access to resources and goods.” The British Commission on Social Justice (1994) suggested in its report Social Justice: Strategies for National Renewal that social justice is defined by four main ideas, including (1) the belief that the foundation of a free society is the equal worth of all citizens, expressed most basically in political and civil liberties, equal rights before the law, and so on; (2) the argument that everyone is entitled, as a right of citizenship, to be able to meet their basic needs for income, shelter, and other necessities; (3) the belief that self-respect and equal citizenship demand more than a meeting of basic needs—they demand opportunities and life chances; and (4) the ability to achieve the first three conditions of social justice by recognizing that, although not all inequalities are unjust, unjust inequalities should be reduced and eliminated where possible. Braveman, B., & Bass-Haugen, J. D. (2009). From the Desks of the Guest Editors—Social justice and health disparities: An evolving discourse in occupational therapy research and intervention. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 63, 7–12. From: donahue <bounce-donahue@aota.org> Sent: 2/21/2011 11:47:36 AM AUGH!!!!!!!!!!!! Again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! From: Elisia Harvey Sent: Monday, February 21, 2011 10:22 AM To: aadonahue@chartermi.net Subject: Re: [general] Motion 2 Ethics Revision- Social Justice Ron, I agree that it can be difficult to define social justice and that when people hear the term, they will understand it within their own political framework, for good or for ill. My argument, though, is that we shouldn't let politicians commandeer the term from society and our history. The term Social Justice is important to our profession in that it complements the field of Occupational Justice. Just as Occupational Justice is concerned with removing barriers to participation in occupation, so Social Justice is concerned with removing barriers to participation in society at large. It is in our profession's interest to not lose this term to petty political debates. (And yes, I'll call him out by name-- Glenn Beck doesn't get to decide what social justice means.) Thanks for participating in the discussion. I think it is important for us to talk about these things in a public forum before the RA votes. ~Elisia Harvey, OTA student From: Ron Carson MHS, OT <bounce-roncarson@aota.org> Sent: 2/21/2011 9:52:35 AM A big problem is just defining social justice. The term has different meanings based on one's political and social viewpoints. I think today's meaning of social justice aligns with concepts of Government mandated redistribution of wealth, which I do not support. Thus, I agree with Motion 2. Thanks, Ron Carson Click to show quoted textOn 02/20/2011 10:30 PM, Elisia Harvey wrote: My name is Elisia Harvey, and I am an OTA student at Central Community College in Grand Island, NE. I just left feedback on some of the proposed motions for the RA Spring meeting and thought one motion in particular deserved some discussion on the forums. Motion 2 (http://www.aota.org/MeetingsLibrary/SpringRA/Motion2_1.aspx) proposes to remove the concept of Social Justice from our Code of Ethics. The authors assert that Social Justice is indicative of "a single political ideology" and that to align ourselves with it is out of step with our Centennial Vision. I disagree. The concept of Social Justice has a long history in our country of bringing justice to the oppressed, giving a voice to the voiceless, and honoring the inherent worth and dignity of every human being. It is not a term owned by any political party. It would be short-sighted for AOTA to remove this concept from our COE just because certain politicians try to make social justice a buzz word to drive their political agenda. Rather than let ever-changing political ideology dictate the meaning of the term, we should let history define it for us. When we look at history, social justice by and large is concept that is very compatible with AOTA and our Centennial Vision. As such, I believe it should remain in our COE. I'd love to hear others' thoughts on the matter. And be sure to leave feedback on this motion and others here: http://www.aota.org/Governance/RA/SpringRA.aspx FLAGS (\Seen \Recent) FLAGS (\Seen \Recent) Ron Carson MHS, OT | Post Points: 20
Braveman, B., & Bass-Haugen, J. D. (2009). From the Desks of the Guest Editors—Social justice and health disparities: An evolving discourse in occupational therapy research and intervention. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 63, 7–12.
From: donahue <bounce-donahue@aota.org> Sent: 2/21/2011 11:47:36 AM
Okay, thanks.
I would counter the idea that redistribution of wealth or resources is a requirement of social justice. Rather if you do a comprehensive review of the literature on social justice and the related term occupational justice by scholars and researchers the concept focuses on concepts consistent with the World Health Organizations ICF and focus on equal and just access to opportunity and in no way requires that "money be taken from one individual and be handed to another individual, usually without any expectation of repayment or work."
Not that there are not persons who argue that resources should be redistributed, but that is not reflected in the mainstream contemporary use of the term social justice as used in health policy related to reducing health disparities.
Here is an abbreviated reading list on social justice and occupational justice. The articles in the special issue of AJOT on social justice are not all included here but can be found in the 2009 issue of AJOT cited in the 2 articles where I am lead author, available on line for AOTA members.
Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE
Braveman, B., & Suarez-Balcazar, Y. (2009). Social justice and resource utilization in a community-based organization: Acase illustration of the role of the occupational therapist. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 63, 13–23.
Christiansen, C. H. & Townsend, E. A. (2003). Introduction to Occupation: The Art and Science of Living. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Commission for Social Justice (1994). Social justice strategies for national renewal: The report on the Commission on Social Justice. London: Vintage Books.
Gamble, V.N. & Stone, D. (2006). U.S. policy on health inequities: The interplay of politics and research. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 31, 93-126
Giddings, L. S. (2005). A theoretical model of social consciousness. Advances in Nursing Science, 28, 224-239.
Jerez, D. C. & Relf, M. (2002). The social injustice of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Journal of the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care, 13, 13-16.
Kronenberg, F., Algado, S. S., & Pollard, N. (2005). Occupational Therapy Without Borders: Learning from the Spirit of Survivors. Edinburgh: Elsevier.
Kronenberg, F. & Pollard, N. (2006). Political dimensions of occupation and the roles of occupational therapy. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 60, 617-625.
Longres J.F. & Scanlon, E. (2001). Social justice and the research community. Journal of Social Work Education, 37, 447-463.
Smith, D.L. (2008). Disparities in health care access for women with disabilities in the United States from the 2006 National Health Interview Survey. Disability and Health Journal, 1 (2), 79-88.
Townsend, E. (1993). Occupational therapy's social vision: 1993 Muriel Driver lecture. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 60, 174-184.
Townsend, E. (2003). Reflections on power and justice in enabling occupation. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 70, 74-87.
Townsend, E. & Wilcock, A. A. (2004). Occupational justice and client-centered practice: A dialogue in progress. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 71, 75-87.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2000a, October 6). National Institutes of Health strategic research plan to reduce and ultimately eliminate health disparities. Fiscal Years 2002-2006. Retrieved May 1, 2007, from http://www.nih.gov/about/hd/strategicplan.pdf
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2000b, November) Healthy People 2010: Understanding and Improving Health. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved May 1, 2007 from http://www.healthypeople.gov/Document/tableofcontents.htm#Volume2
Vera, E. M. & Speight, S. L. (2003). Multicultural competence, social justice, and counseling psychology: Expanding our roles. The Counseling Psychologist, 31, 253-272.
Whiteford, G. (2000). Occupational deprivation: Global challenge in the new Millennium. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 63, 200-204.
Whitehead, M. & Dahlgren, G. (2006). Concepts and Principles for Tackling Social Inequities in Health: Levelling up Part 1. Copenhagen: World Health Organization.
Wilcock, A. A. & Townsend, E. (2000). Occupational terminology interactive dialogue. Journal of Occupational Science, 7, 84-86.
Wilcock, A. A. & Townsend, E. (2009). Occupational Justice. In E.B.Crepeau, E. S. Cohn, & B. A. Boyt Schell (Eds.), Willard & Spackman's Occupational Therapy (Eleventh ed., pp. 192-199). Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Wilkinson, R. & Marmot, M. (2003). Social Determinants of Health. The Solid Facts (2nd ed.). Copenhagen: World Health Organization.
Williams, D.R. & Braboy Jackson, P. (2005). Social sources of racial disparities in health. Health Affairs, 24, 325-334.
Wood, W. (1997). An open letter to new (and not so new) practitioners: What's Robert Frost got to do with it? Flow, passion, and social justice in occupational therapy. O.T.Practice, October, 42-45.
World Health Organization (2008). International Classification of Fuctioning, Disability and Health Home Page. World Health Organization ICF Website [On-line]. Available: http://www.who.int/classifications/icf/site/icftemplate.cfm
Zeldenryk, L. & Yalmambirra (2006). Occupational deprivation: A consequence of Australia's policy of assimilation. Australian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 53, 43-46.
Social Justice or Unfair Government mandate?
Protection from discrimination and just access to occupational participation is NOT about taking from anyone, it is about protecting those who have an unequal voice and giving them a reasonable chance at having a little more including a better quality of life. Protection of persons with developmental disabilities and services provided in our schools under IDEA could be classified as social justice.
Do we have a responsibility to protect persons with mental illness and assure them of humane treatment (the roots of occupational therapy) or do we just warehouse them as "have nots" and chalk it up to their set of "unfair advantages?"
Social justice is NOT redistribution of wealth, it lies at the very core of the long history of our profession.