Which Candidate Should Social Workers Vote For?

Can I be an ethical social worker and not care about who wins the 2026 Ohio gubernatorial election?

I’ll preface this week’s newsletter by letting you know that I’m kind of an ethics nerd. Sorry in advance, if you aren’t (or if you’d rather not hear me talk about social work ethics). You may learn some stuff if you stick around, though!

Social work is an inherently political profession. While we can (and do) practice with all kinds of people regardless of their own values, we cannot separate the appropriate practice of social work from our need to uphold social work values and ethical standards. Period.

Social workers have an obligation to practice according to our code of ethics. What exact code we're talking about depends upon our jurisdiction, but for social workers in the United States we're talking about the National Association of Social Workers' (NASW) Code of Ethics, which you can find here. For those of you who aren't social workers, or aren't in a profession that has a specific code of ethics, what we mean by that term is a codified list of ethical values and standards which speak to how we should live out those values in real-world practice settings. And I would go beyond “practice settings” and suggest that social workers should be acting consistently with the Code of Ethics in our non-professional lives as well, whenever possible.

Lest you think that I’m talking about a very small number of people, data from the Ohio Counselor, Social Worker, and Marriage and Family Therapist Board's 2024 Annual Report (link) shows that there were a total of 29,756 social workers registered in the state of Ohio at that time. We social workers represent an incredibly important element within the Ohio workforce. As of mid-2024, there were fully twice as many social workers as licensed counselors in the state (14,254) and almost 35 times as many social workers in the state as licensed marriage and family therapists (855). So the majority of professionals providing mental health and addiction treatment, doing work in hospitals and hospice care, assisting in law enforcement agencies and courts, making a difference in the child welfare system, helping within our school districts, and creating policy at the local, state and federal levels are social workers.

This is one of the central messages I try to get across to social work students who are just starting out: social work is about a great many things, across a huge number of roles. The two components that define who we are as social workers (as opposed to all other helping professionals) is our Code of Ethics and the provision of a social work education. So the Code is pretty foundational to who we are and what we do.

What I'd like to do this week is to talk with you about my stance in support of Dr. Amy Acton as she runs for the office of Governor in next year's election. I would argue that my support of Dr. Acton isn't just based on vibes or based upon me having liberal perspectives, but rather based upon my adherence to my professional code of ethics. I hope to demonstrate to you, the reader, why I believe that social workers have an ethical obligation to vote for Dr. Acton rather than her primary rival for that office. In addition, I hope to offer you a view inside the principles which are prioritized by social workers across the country (and internationally, though Codes of Ethics vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction). I would also argue that if you share common values with me, then you should support Dr. Acton's candidacy as well, whether you're a social worker or not.

Let me also say, right at the start, that this endorsement is not something I plan to share with my students or my counseling clients. I'm a public figure, and you and I both know that in the age of the Internet it takes a great deal of work to stay anonymous (if it's even possible). I recognize that it's naive to assume that none of my students or clients might ever find this piece. So I'm not hiding my thoughts about this race, or about politics and my perspectives on any number of things, behind a veil of quasi-anonymity.

I'm also not "practicing unethically" by being a social worker who also has political opinions. As I've seen any number of people say for many years "I may be a therapist, but I'm not YOUR therapist". The question lies in whether any of us who has expertise in an area has the latitude to have personal opinions that are based and grounded in our professional lives and professional experience. I would argue that has to be the case, since I think it would be a pretty messed-up world if all the experts had to keep their mouths shut for fear of upsetting someone. I'm not writing this as some mythical representative of all social workers, everywhere. But I am letting you know that my (experienced, educated) belief is that one of these candidates (Dr. Amy Acton) exemplifies our Code of Ethics. And that Vivek Murthy has represented pretty much the opposite of our Code throughout his career. And that any social worker who believes this disparity doesn't matter should probably spend some time contemplating their perspectives on ethics and ethical practice.

But at the same time, I don't see my role as convincing either my students or my clients to vote in a specific way based upon my own preferences, even if those preferences are based upon sound ethical principles (in my opinion, anyway). My clients are dealing with their own stuff, and don't need me convincing them about anything. And my duty with my students, as I see it, is to provide them with the skills, tools and experience to make their own ethical decisions. I'm not going to be in their agencies looking over their shoulders while they work with clients, so they need to be able to come to conclusions on their own, even life-and-death decisions. If anyone tries to argue that I'm indoctrinating students, they have absolutely not spent any time in one of my classes actually listening to the way that I teach. If I'm asked, I don't have an issue with providing my opinions, but I'm going to make clear that they're opinions.

So let's look at the NASW Code of Ethics and how it applies to this election.

First up, what are those foundational values of the social work profession that I mentioned earlier? We're talking about a list of six core principles which represent the base of my profession: service, social justice, dignity and the worth of the person, importance of human relationships, integrity, and competence. I'm going to highlight two of these in particular in this piece.

The value of Service, we're told, is encapsulated in this statement within the Code's Preamble: "Social workers' primary goal is to help people in need and to address social problems". NASW writes,

"Social workers elevate service to others above self-interest. Social workers draw on their knowledge, values, and skills to help people in need and to address social problems. Social workers are encouraged to volunteer some portion of their professional skills with no expectation of significant financial return (pro bono service)."

So as social workers, we are instructed that our primary goal is helping others and addressing social problems. Is that primary goal consistent with supporting either of these candidates? I'm not saying that either Dr. Acton or Vivek Ramaswamy should be held to these exact standards themselves, as neither of them are social workers. Rather, I would say that social workers need to be adhering to the principles within the Code in their own decisions to advocate for a particular candidate or campaign. It is clear to me that Dr. Acton's career has been dedicated to impacting social problems. Whether that's on the level of public health, vaccination awareness, intimate partner violence, or preventative medicine, she has spent her entire professional life trying to positively impact this state in much the same ways that social workers do. So making the choice to support Dr. Acton's campaign seems to be consistent with this social work value.

I'd also note that I don't charge for this Substack, so in writing it, I'm arguably volunteering "some portion of (my) professional skills with no expectation of significant financial return". Just so we’re clear, that's consistent with the Code as well.

How about Vivek Ramaswamy's career? He has enriched himself, certainly (he's a billionaire, so good for him). But has he enriched other people as well? It appears that he has left several companies worse-off than when he became involved in them, but he's always gotten his (large) share before leaving. So in terms of service, I would argue that Vivek has not demonstrated that this is something he cares much about.

The second value I'd like to highlight here is Social Justice, which is described in the Preamble thusly: "Social workers challenge social injustice." As NASW writes,

"Social workers pursue social change, particularly with and on behalf of vulnerable and oppressed individuals and groups of people. Social workers’ social change efforts are focused primarily on issues of poverty, unemployment, discrimination, and other forms of social injustice. These activities seek to promote sensitivity to and knowledge about oppression and cultural and ethnic diversity. Social workers strive to ensure access to needed information, services, and resources; equality of opportunity; and meaningful participation in decision making for all people."

Dr. Amy Acton has spent a great deal of her professional life trying to benefit underserved and marginalized communities within the state of Ohio, including creating the first ever Ohio Department of Health deputy director whose role was dedicated to using available resources to pursue health equity for all Ohioans, not just some Ohioans.

How about Vivek? He has written books and spent many years arguing that we need to care less about underserved populations. He and his perspectives have offered white people the permission to be as racist as they want. He desperately rails against "wokeness", without ever being able to articulate what exactly he means by the term to any consistent degree. In this article, Vivek actually went so far as to say “I don’t think that racism today is a top 50 problem in the United States”. I disagree.

When we look at the value of social justice, I have a really hard time seeing how any social worker could read these words and support Vivek Ramaswamy in this election. For me, I have the clear obligation to advocate for Dr. Amy Acton on the basis of this core value.

Now that we've looked at those two core values, I'd like to take you through some of the specific ethical principles and cite some points that makes this an even clearer choice for social workers in Ohio next year.

Standard 1.05 (Cultural Competence) (b) and (c) states,

"Social workers should demonstrate knowledge that guides practice with clients of various cultures and be able to demonstrate skills in the provision of culturally informed services that empower marginalized individuals and groups.

Social workers should demonstrate awareness and cultural humility by engaging in critical self-reflection (understanding their own bias and engaging in self-correction), recognizing clients as experts of their own culture, committing to lifelong learning, and holding institutions accountable for advancing cultural humility."

Vivek Ramaswamy has argued again and again that we need to “put our identity aside” and ignore the very real impacts of gender, sex, race, and other intersectional elements of identity. He strikes me as the epitome of the opposite of cultural humility—he is determined to tell every white voter that he encounters that color-blindness is the way to go, and thus to make us stop feeling as though they have an obligation to care about anyone with less power and privilege than us. This is an incredibly flawed argument, and one that I cannot stand behind. I don’t see how a social worker who is doing the work described in this section of our Code can support ignoring identity and marginalization, as Vivek does.

Dr. Acton, on the other hand, has advocated for health equity across her career, and has made a real difference in a number of communities with her efforts. When I look at her accomplishments, I’m inspired to do a better job with my own clients and my own roles. That inspiration leads me to support her candidacy, not his.

Standard 4.04 (Dishonesty, Fraud, and Deception) states,

"Social workers should not participate in, condone, or be associated with dishonesty, fraud, or deception."

I’ve shared before, in this piece and others, that one of the things I dislike most about Vivek Ramaswamy is his dishonesty and tendency to enrich himself at the expense of others. This tendency has repeated time and time again across his career. I believe that voting for this man would lead me to “be associated with” his “dishonesty, fraud, or deception”. Enough said on this point, as I feel it’s pretty obvious.

Standard 5.01 (Integrity of the Profession) (c) and (d) states,

Social workers should contribute time and professional expertise to activities that promote respect for the value, integrity, and competence of the social work profession. These activities may include teaching, research, consultation, service, legislative testimony, presentations in the community, and participation in their professional organizations.

Social workers should contribute to the knowledge base of social work and share with colleagues their knowledge related to practice, research, and ethics."

I believe that we social workers have a requirement to have these conversations about our ethical duties and responsibilities like this one, here and now, and that this section of our Code makes that very clear. It’s not just something SOME of us should be doing, it’s something ALL of us should be doing.

Standard 6.01 (Social Welfare) states,

"Social workers should promote the general welfare of society, from local to global levels, and the development of people, their communities, and their environments. Social workers should advocate for living conditions conducive to the fulfillment of basic human needs and should promote social, economic, political, and cultural values and institutions that are compatible with the realization of social justice."

Vivek Ramaswamy says that social justice is a sham, and has written entire books about how companies should ignore social justice causes on the corporate level. Dr. Acton has done her part to advocate for and promote the causes listed in this section, as social workers are bound by our Code to prioritize.

Standard 6.02 (Public Participation) states,

"Social workers should facilitate informed participation by the public in shaping social policies and institutions."

We are required by our Code to have these kinds of conversations, in service of making this a better world to live in. For all of us, not just some of us.

And lastly, Standard 6.04 (Social and Political Action) (a), (b), (c), and (d) states,

“Social workers should engage in social and political action that seeks to ensure that all people have equal access to the resources, employment, services, and opportunities they require to meet their basic human needs and to develop fully. Social workers should be aware of the impact of the political arena on practice and should advocate for changes in policy and legislation to improve social conditions to meet basic human needs and promote social justice.

Social workers should act to expand choice and opportunity for all people, with special regard for vulnerable, disadvantaged, oppressed, and exploited people and groups.

Social workers should promote conditions that encourage respect for cultural and social diversity within the United States and globally. Social workers should promote policies and practices that demonstrate respect for difference, support the expansion of cultural knowledge and resources, advocate for programs and institutions that demonstrate cultural competence, and promote policies that safeguard the rights of and confirm equity and social justice for all people.

Social workers should act to prevent and eliminate domination of, exploitation of, and discrimination against any person, group, or class on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, marital status, political belief, religion, immigration status, or mental or physical ability.”

Once again, all of us need to be having these conversations. Loudly. In public. Without fear. We need to be caring for our clients and also caring for society as a whole.

I can’t talk to you about this election and look at my own understanding of the NASW Code of Ethics and feel that it’s okay to sit on the fence. I know that elections involve a huge number of variables, and I know that social work ethics isn’t something that everyone knows about (or cares about, frankly). But if you know any social workers in this state who aren’t sure of where they stand with this election, I sincerely believe that they need to consider these elements of our Code. This race has the potential to make a real difference in our state, and that can only happen if we don’t make the horrible, disastrous choice of Vivek Ramaswamy as our next governor.

On the other hand, Dr. Amy Acton is our best shot at finally turning Ohio in the right direction. If you’re on the same page as I am, go to her site here. Learn more about her history, what her positions are on the issues that matter to you, and donate your time and/or money to her campaign. Ohio needs her, and she needs us.

Thanks for reading, and I’ll see you next week.

Take care!