As professional social workers, we are charged by our professional Code of Ethics to provide cultural competent, respectful service that is free of personal prejudices and biases to our clients. It is our duty and responsibility to understand culture and its function in human behavior and society. In order to achieve these goals, we must first take a reflective look in the mirror at ourselves, to first understand ourselves; this will allow us to identify the hidden prejudices and biases we harbor that may inadvertently affect our services. Write a reaction/analysis paper that answers the overall question: Who am I and where do my ideas come from? According to Bobbie Harro as outlined in the Cycle of Socialization, we are socialized by powerful sources in our worlds to play the roles prescribed by an inequitable social system (Adams et al., 2013). The paper should include a description and analysis of the following: Through a critical analysis, identify and assess how your personal biases, prejudices, and stereotypical attitudes and behaviors towards oppressed groups and members of dominate groups has shifted, changed, or stayed the same since prior to taking this course; How “who you are” (i.e. your values, beliefs, experiences) may impact your social work role and responsibilities; A couple of ways you will manage your personal values in order to practice guided by the profession’s values; Discuss a skill you developed as a result of completing the Social Justice Action Project and how you will apply it in your professional social work practice; and  ( I did a Social Justice Action Project on advocating for  DACA) Discuss specific ways your understanding of the forms and mechanisms of oppression and discrimination has changed and how you would apply strategies of advocacy and social change for a more just outcome, and ways you would conduct your social work practice without discrimination. Provide specific examples to support your response.

This paper needs to focus on your individual experiences and an intellectual assessment of yourself. Use your course readings and any other outside resources as sources to support and explain who you are in a broader social or political context. Papers will be evaluated on various elements of critical thought and the intellectual traits as outlined in the Paul-Elder Critical Thinking Framework. Please refer to the assignment rubric. Additionally, the paper will be evaluated for use of correct grammar, sentence structure, and following the current edition of the APA guidelines for writing/formatting papers. The paper should be between 7-10 pages. References do not count towards the page limit. This paper is due by 9 PM (EST) on Sunday, December 3rd in Blackboard. 

                                                                                Rubric

 Critical Reflection: Diversity, Oppression, and Social Justice Practice Paper Outstanding 10 pnts Average 7-9 pnts Needs Improvement 0-6 pnts Criteria 1: Intellectual Trait: Courage • Consciousness of the limits of one’s knowledge, including a sensitivity to circumstances in which one’s negative egocentrism is likely to function self-deceptively; sensitivity to bias, prejudice and limitations of one’s viewpoint. (Paul & Elder, 2009, p. 14). The paper was written with intellectual courage as outline in the Paul-Elder Critical Thinking Model consistently throughout. There were minimal sections of this paper that lacked intellectual courage as outlined in the Paul-Elder Critical Thinking Model. The paper was written without consistent intellectual courage as outlined in the Paul-Elder Critical Thinking Model. Criteria 2: Intellectual Trait: Empathy • Consciousness of our egocentric tendency to identify truth with our immediate perceptions of long-standing thought or belief. • Reconstruct accurately the viewpoints and reasoning of others and to reason from premises, assumptions, and ideas other than our own. • Willingness to remember occasions when we were wrong in the past despite an intense conviction that we were right. (Paul & Elder, 2009, p. 14). The paper was written with intellectual empathy as outline in the Paul-Elder Critical Thinking Model consistently throughout. There were minimal sections of this paper that lacked intellectual empathy as outlined in the Paul-Elder Critical Thinking Model. The paper was written without consistent intellectual empathy as outlined in the Paul-Elder Critical Thinking Model. Criteria 3: Intellectual Standard: Fairness • Are we considering all relevant viewpoints in good faith? • Are we distorting some information to maintain our biased perspective? • Are we more concerned about our vested interests than the common good? (Paul & Elder, 2009, p. 9). The paper was written with intellectual fairness as outline in the Paul-Elder Critical Thinking Model consistently throughout. There were minimal sections of this paper that lacked intellectual fairness as outlined in the Paul-Elder Critical Thinking Model. The paper was written without consistent intellectual fairness as outlined in the Paul-Elder Critical Thinking Model. Criteria 4: Intellectual Standard: Depth The paper was written with intellectual depth as outline in the PaulThere were minimal sections of this paper that lacked The paper was written without consistent  • How does your answer address the complexities in the question? • How are you taking into account the problems in the question? • Are you dealing with the most significant factors? (Paul & Elder, 2009, p. 9). Elder Critical Thinking Model consistently throughout. intellectual depth as outlined in the Paul-Elder Critical Thinking Model. intellectual depth as outlined in the Paul-Elder Critical Thinking Model. Criteria 5: Intellectual Standards: Clarity and Logic, Grammar, APA • Could you elaborate? • Could you illustrate what you mean? • Could you give me an example? • Does all of this make sense together? • Does your first paragraph fit in with your last one? • Does what you say follow from the evidence? (Paul & Elder, 2009, pp. 8- 9). The paper is logically written with intellectual clarity as outlined in the Paul-Elder Critical Thinking Model and is free of grammatical, spelling and punctuation errors. No errors in APA style. All references and citations are correctly written and present. Paper is written in a scholarly style and tone. There were minimal sections of this paper that lacked logic and intellectual clarity as outlined in the Paul-Elder Critical Thinking Model. Grammatical, spelling and punctuation errors are minimal and do not detract from the paper. Minimal errors in APA style that do not detract from the paper. Writing has minimal awkward or unclear passages. Paper is written in a scholarly style and tone. One reference or citations missing or incorrectly written. The paper was written without consistent intellectual clarity and logic as outlined in the Paul-Elder Critical Thinking Model. Grammatical, spelling and punctuation errors substantially detract from the paper. Errors in APA style detracted substantially from the paper. Word choice is informal in tone. Writing is choppy, with many awkward or unclear passages.