Social work academics seem to agree on the NASW's main tenets, but where they differ is their approaches on how to uphold these tenets. The conceptualization of empowering an individual versus empowering a collective group seems like nitpicking, but the nuances of these arguments (and further, the one that prevails) will shape our policies in the future.

Pelton represents the theory where "justice is impersonal and nonjudgemental" (Pelton, 433). The approach is that if one meets a client on their level no matter what race, ethnicity, etc. there would be less discrimination collectively. He believes that by taking into account a person's race, ethnicity, or gender when working with that person, we have already set limits on where they will end up and what they will achieve. His evidence is in the United States' welfare policies where he says "differential benefits to individuals in need have based upon what constructed group one presumably belongs to" (433). In a utilitarian sense, our "color-blindness" enables us to reach more people in need by understanding them as individuals first and seeing them as part of a collective second.

Critical Race theorists though, would say that Pelton's "color-blindness" is part of the problem that perpetuates the cycle of poverty and prevents social workers from empowering the most people as possible. The key of this philosophy is the idea that race, ethnicity, and gender are vital to the formula of helping people. Accepting racism as "abnormal and individualistic"(Abrams, Moio, 251) would be shortchanging a person's experiences in life and would also help to perpetuate institutional racism. The macro-to-micro outlook values advocacy for the change of policies for a collective group of people, while also keeping in mind the uniqueness of the individual. If we create change through public policy, then the micro level problems would easier for the social worker to deal with.

I tend to agree with the latter theory in practice, but in the United States today, it seems harder to reach people that way (The irony of that statement is that I might be committing the white-and-privileged-kid-does-not-know-shit-about-the-real-world fallacy the Critical Race paper talks about). The gap between the have and the have-nots is getting wider and by just focusing on certain groups, we are excluding people. Further, I believe that our institutions are changing by not only being discriminatory to certain races, but also to just poor people in general. That might be unfair to the African-American community or the Mexican-American community, or any other minority community who have valiantly struggled (and are still struggling) to get their share of social justice throughout United States' history, but the way our institutions are run now, money and profits trump race, ethnicity, and gender. Hopefully if and when I practice social work, Critical Race theory plays a large part in how I go about my job, but ultimately it seems like our institutions are so entrenched in a racist and for-profit mindset that a macro-to-micro focus will take a lot more energy away from me when I could be directing that energy to help empower another person or client.