Op-Ed: Failing to Bend the Arc of the Moral Universe? Dr. King, Newton, Piaget, and Social Work
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To achieve a more just universe, the momentum and historical forces of racism, sexism, heterosexism, privilege, etc. must be met with equal and opposite forces through policies, structures, and the courageous acts and voices of many. Dr. King’s claim that “the moral universe bends toward justice” is joined with Newton’s Laws of Motion where arcs only bend through external forces. Bending the arc necessitates a large membership, including social workers. Membership in a group confers advantages while simultaneously ushering in implicit biases against those outside of the group ultimately disadvantaging both groups. Educating tomorrow’s social workers necessarily involves ingroup and outgroup membership, instructors and students. We argue well-meaning social work educators often act against Social Work’s mission of producing a cadre of individuals who will pull the arc toward social and economic justice. Students in social work programs, eager to pull on the moral arc, are often criticized for being inexperienced and not further along in their “woke” development. Criticism may discourage students, thereby losing needed ingroup members. Students are canceled. Algebra, evolutionary theory, and cognitive development theories provide guidelines for unifying social work educators and students to promote Dr. King’s vision.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".