Unprofessional, Dishonorable, and Disgraceful: Sanism and the Ontario Social Work Regulator
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2018, the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers (OCSWSSW) implemented an additional screening question for prospective social workers registering with the College, requiring applicants to indicate if there is any sign they have a physical or mental condition or disorder that “could affect [their] ability to practice social work in a safe manner.” This Health Declaration policy was created within a broader context of increasing surveillance and punishment of social workers conducted by the College, on the grounds that fitness to practice social work is a bio-moral-medical quintessence that some possess and others lack, and which social work elites must identify in order to “protect the public.” This thesis undertakes a critical discourse analysis of publicly available documents provided by the College. I draw from critical disability studies, anti-colonial scholarship, and postmodern work to establish the College as an organ of the Canadian settler colonial project. I use the term “safe-ability” – distilling the Health Declaration’s language and that of their other rules, communications, and decisions – calling attention to ideological fiction operating within ableist/sanist and colonial logics, the basis of its authority to punish social workers and “protect” the public. The College uses terms like unfit, incapacity, and incompetence to conjure threat of risk throughout their documentation, showing significant investment in broadcasting lies about disabled people. College disciplinary documents show that social workers have been found to be unfit on the basis of statements about their health, inherent abilities, mental/physical examinations, and even charges of unfit conduct outside the scope of their duties as social workers. Legal and medical discourse is invoked to give the appearance of objectivity and to authorize power. I show that the OCSWSSW perpetrates abuses under cover of the fictitious entity “safe-ability” – a colonist ableist/sanist fabrication used to justify and valorize such professionalizing institutions that ought to be abolished.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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) | 0.013 | 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".