invalidated by teachers, and feeling “removed” from the content of his classes. They also noted that all of the “fights” were generally instigated through “baiting” and “name‐calling” by his White classmates, that the school climate was hostile toward their son, that the curriculum was entirely Eurocentric, and that school
personnel and teachers seemed naive about racial or multicultural issues. They hinted strongly that racism was at work in the school district and attempted to enlist the aid of the only Black counselor in the school, Ms. Jones. Although Ms. Jones appeared to be
understanding and empathic toward Daryl's plight, she seemed reluctant to intercede on behalf of the parents. Being a recent graduate from the local college, Ms. Jones seemed to fear being ostracized by other school personnel.
The concerns of Daryl's parents were quickly dismissed by school officials as having little validity. In fact, the principal was incensed by these “accusatory statements of possible racism.” He indicated to the parents that their Los Angeles community did not have a history of academic pursuit and that discipline in the home was usually the culprit. School officials contended that Daryl needed to be more accommodating, to reach out and make friends rather than isolating himself, to take a more active interest in his
schoolwork, and to become a good citizen. Further, they asserted that the school climate was not hostile and that Daryl needed to
“learn to fit in.” “We treat everyone the same, regardless of race.
This school doesn't discriminate,” stated the principal. He went on to say, “It may have been a mistake to move to Santa Barbara. For the sake of your son, perhaps you should consider returning to L.A. so he can better fit in with his people.” These statements greatly angered Daryl's parents.
Adapted from D. W. Sue & Constantine (2003, pp. 214–215).
Video 4.4: Systems of Oppression
Our conscious and unconscious beliefs influence the counseling session as well as the client/therapist relationship.
Video 4.5: Levels of Care
Introduction to counseling session by Dr. Joel Filmore.
If you were a counselor, how would you address this case? Where would you focus your energies? Traditional clinical approaches would direct attention to what they perceive as the locus of the problem:
Daryl and his aggressive behavior with classmates, his inattentiveness in class, and his disrespect of authority figures. This approach,
however, makes several assumptions: (a) that the locus of the
problem resides in the person, (b) that behaviors that violate socially accepted norms are considered maladaptive or disordered, (c) that remediation or elimination of problem behaviors is the goal, (d) that the social context or status quo guides the determination of normal versus abnormal and healthy versus unhealthy behaviors, and (e) that the appropriate role for the counselor is to help the client “fit in” and become “a good citizen.”
As we have just seen, mental health assumptions and practices are strongly influenced by sociopolitical factors. An enlightened approach that acknowledges potential oppression in the manifestation,
diagnosis, etiology, and treatment is best accomplished by taking a social justice approach (Flores et al., 2014; McAuliffe & Associates, 2013). In the American Counseling Association (ACA)'s Multicultural and Social Justice Counseling Competencies (MSJCC) (Ratts, Singh, Nassar‐McMillan, Butler, & McCullough, 2016), a strong case is made that multiculturalism is intimately related to social justice and that counselors must engage in actions that require both individual‐ and systems‐level work. Such an approach might mean challenging the traditional assumptions of therapy, and even reversing them as follows.
1. The locus of the problem may reside in the social system (other students, hostile campus environment, alienating curriculum, lack of minority teachers/staff/students, etc.) rather than in the individual.
2. Behaviors that violate social norms may not be disordered or unhealthy.
3. The social norms, prevailing beliefs, and institutional policies and practices that maintain the status quo may need to be challenged and changed.
4. Although remediation is important, the more effective long‐term solution is prevention.
5. Organizational change requires a macrosystems approach involving other roles and skills beyond the traditional clinical ones.
Along with these five assumptions, implementing social justice counseling means recognizing that interventions can occur at four different foci, as Figure 4.1 depicts. These are: (a) individual, or the traditional focus on personal insight and change; (b) professional, or the modification and evolution of professional codes of practice; (c) organizational, or the need to address monocultural institutional procedures; and (d) societal, or social policies that undermine the emotional well‐being of marginalized racial‐cultural groups. A basic premise of social justice counseling is that culturally competent helping professionals must not confine their perspectives to just individual treatment but must be able to intervene effectively at the professional, organizational, and societal levels as well.
FIGURE 4.1 Levels of Counseling Interventions Select this link to open an interactive version of Figure 4.1.
Often, psychologists treat individuals who are the victims of failed systemic processes. Nevertheless, psychology concentrates primarily on the individual and has been deficient in developing more systemic and large‐scale change strategies. Using the case of Daryl, let us
illustrate some social justice principles as they apply to multicultural counseling.
Principle 1: A Failure to Develop a Balanced Perspective Between Person and System Focus Can Result in False Attribution of the Problem
It is apparent that school officials have attributed the locus of the problem—that he is impulsive, angry, inattentive, unmotivated,
disrespectful, and a poor student—to reside in Daryl. He is labeled as having a conduct disorder with potential antisocial personality traits.
Diagnosis of the problem is internal; that is, it resides in Daryl. When the focus of therapy is primarily on the individual, there is a strong tendency to see the locus of the problem as residing solely in the person (Cosgrove, 2006; Ratts & Pedersen, 2014) rather than in the school system, curriculum, or wider campus community. As a result, well‐intentioned counselors may mistakenly blame the victim (e.g., by seeing the problem as a deficiency of the person) when, in actuality, the problem may reside in the environment (prejudice,
discrimination, racial/cultural invalidation, etc.) (Metzl & Hansen, 2014).
We would submit that it is highly probable that Daryl is the victim of (a) a monocultural educational environment that alienates and
denigrates him (Davidson, Waldo, & Adams, 2006); (b) a curriculum that does not deal with the contributions of African Americans or portrays them in a demeaning fashion; (c) teaching styles that may be culturally biased (Cokley, 2006); (d) a campus climate that is hostile to minority students (perceives them as less qualified) (Sue et al., 2011); (e) support services (counseling, study skills, etc.) that fail to understand the minority student experience; and (f) a lack of role models (presence of only one Black counselor in the school)
(Alexander & Moore, 2008). For example, would it change your analysis and focus of intervention if Daryl got into fights because he was bullied by fellow students? In other words, suppose there is good reason that this 12‐year‐old feels isolated, rejected, devalued, and misunderstood.
Principle 2 : A Failure to Develop a Balanced Perspective Between Person and System Focus Can Result in an Ineffective and Inaccurate Treatment Plan Potentially Harmful to the Client
Failure to understand how systemic factors contribute to individual behavior can result in an ineffective and inaccurate treatment plan;
the treatment itself may be potentially harmful (Ali & Sichel, 2014). A basic premise of a broad ecological approach is the assumption that person–environment interactions are crucial to diagnosing and treating problems (Goodman, 2009; Goodman et al., 2004). Clients, for example, are not viewed as isolated units but as embedded in their families, social groups, communities, institutions, cultures, and major systems of our society (Vera & Speight, 2003). If Daryl's problems are interpreted as solely internal and intrapsychic, then it makes sense that therapy be directed toward changing the individual—Daryl. The fighting behavior is perceived as dysfunctional and should be
eliminated through therapy or medication that may correct his internal biological dysfunction.
But what if the problem is external? Will having Daryl stop his fighting behavior result in the elimination of teasing from White classmates? Will it make him more connected to the campus? Will it make him feel more valued and accepted? Treating the symptoms and eliminating self‐defensive behavior may actually make Daryl more vulnerable to racism.