Field notes and reflections: Why isn’t social work addressing antisemitism?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article critically reflects on the social work profession’s inadequate response to rising antisemitism, particularly following the events of October 7, 2023. Drawing on scholarly research, media reports, and personal and professional experiences, the authors highlight the systemic exclusion of Jewish perspectives in social work discourse, education, and DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) frameworks. Key issues include the misapplication of “white privilege” to Jewish individuals, the omission of antisemitism from DEI agendas, the uncritical use of biased educational materials, and the marginalization of Jewish narratives in discussions surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The authors also explore the impact of the BDS movement and rising radicalization on campuses, which has created an increasingly hostile environment for Jewish students and practitioners. They call for a re-examination of social work’s ethical commitments, advocating for the inclusion of Jewish voices, recognition of contemporary antisemitism, and the cultivation of cultural humility. The piece serves as a call to action for the social work community to align its practices with its professed values of justice, equity, and inclusion for all marginalized groups, including Jews.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".