Jenkins et al. (2018) argues that the definition of social justice is rooted in the historical context of racism and oppression directed on children and families which were marginalized. This definition of social justice places the marginalizes population

Jenkins et al. (2018) presents a critical perspective on the definition of social justice, particularly in the context of marginalized populations and the historical context of racism and oppression. Engaging with their key arguments, several points resonate while others can be challenged. ### Agreement and Support I agree with Jenkins et al. that many traditional definitions of social justice can inadvertently perpetuate victim-blaming or reinforce cultural deficit narratives. When discussing social justice, it's essential to contextualize it within the broader systemic issues that contribute to inequality. Simply pointing to the behaviors or circumstances of marginalized communities without addressing underlying social structures, such as economic imbalance, discriminatory practices, or political disenfranchisement, can be reductive and counterproductive. Additionally, the call to acquire social justice requisite skills and knowledge is both timely and necessary. As social justice is a multifaceted issue that intersects with various domains such as education, healthcare, and community development, equipping professionals—especially in fields like school psychology—with the tools and understanding to address these complexities is vital for sustainable outcomes. ### Evidence Consideration Evidence supporting Jenkins et al.’s perspective can be drawn from various academic and sociological studies that document how systemic racism and structural inequalities perpetuate cycles of poverty and disadvantage. For instance, scholars like Alexander (2010) in "The New Jim Crow" demonstrate how historical policies have led to a contemporary society grappling with racism and social injustice. Similarly, works on intersectionality highlight how overlapping identities (race, class, gender) complicate experiences of injustice, thus reinforcing the argument that a broader frame of reference is necessary. ### Controversy of the Views The views expressed by Jenkins et al. could be considered controversial, especially in contexts where traditional definitions of social justice still dominate discourse. Those who adhere to more conventional interpretations may view this work as challenging the status quo or advocating for a radical rethinking of social frameworks. This challenge may provoke resistance from individuals or institutions that prefer existing paradigms or those who feel targeted by the critiques. ### Awareness and Constructiveness Jenkins et al. appear well-informed about the nuances of social justice issues. Their call for a re-examination of definitions suggests a holistic understanding and recognition of the evolving nature of societal challenges. Rather than being divisive, their arguments seem constructive, as they advocate for critical engagement with complex social realities and offer pathways for actionable change. ### Conclusion In conclusion, Jenkins et al. make compelling arguments regarding the need to redefine social justice away from simplistic victim narratives and towards a nuanced understanding of the structural inequities at play. Their emphasis on the necessity for change in social justice practice within school psychology and beyond is a foundational aspect that supports sustainable social justice efforts. While their views may spark necessary debate, they ultimately contribute positively to the discourse surrounding social justice, pushing for an informed and critical approach in tackling systemic issues.