What Really Matters is School Counselor Empowerment: A Response to Hipolito-Delgado and Lee

t is challenging to respond to, and in particular critique, a stance that proclaims school counselors should become more proactive as advocates for students who have experienced oppression and are members of marginalized communities. This is especially true because the school counseling profession has long prided itself on the promise of advocating for all students regardless of background (Baker & Gerler, 2004; Schmidt, 2003). However, school counselors have not always translated this philosophy into daily practice. Too frequently, counselors have contributed to the legacies of marginalization and oppression, by conforming to school traditions and policies that either overtly or covertly discriminate, degrade, and dehumanize the educational process (Purkey & Novak, 1996). I commend authors Hipolito-Delgado and Lee for their attempt at using empowerment theory as a springboard to determining “what really matters” in professional school counseling. As with any groundbreaking idea, their article may be fairly viewed as an initial step for examining empowerment theory as a basis for encouraging a significant role change for school counselors. The article has the potential to stimulate discussion among practicing counselors, counselor educators, and students in school counseling preparation programs. After reading their “manifesto,” however, I am left with more questions than answers in order to respond cogently and appropriately. First, I was struck by the dissonance between the content of the opening paragraphs and the title the authors chose. It appears that the notion of empowerment is secondary to a counselor’s understanding of oppression and marginalization, and I am not sure that is what the authors intended. Much of the information they provide addresses the nature of oppression and perpetuation of oppression in schools. Although this information may be useful in making the case for using empowerment theory, it also may detract from a broader objective that everyone might benefit from the use of a theory or model of practice that encourages students to self-reflect, increase their awareness of development, fight social injustice, reach out to others in caring ways, and practice other attributes we could assign to personal empowerment. If empowerment theory is a viable vehicle for professional counselors to adopt in serving school populations, then it must be worth using for all school populations, not only members who have a history of oppression. By applying the theory more broadly, school counselors might help members of dominant cultures be freed from illusions of superiority and unearned privilege, and if so, the entire community benefits. Another issue about Hipolito-Delgado and Lee’s presentation of oppression and marginalization is their apparent grouping of many people who have had oppressive life experiences and assigning causal relationships to a lack of school or life success. For example, the statement that “many of the mental ailments that communities of color face are a direct result of living through oppression” oversimplifies the human experience and, more importantly, negates the power of the human spirit to overcome against all odds. The authors end their article with a similar claim by stating that oppression “causes negative psychological and sociopolitical effects [that] permeate the school system and serve as barriers to the advancement of marginalized communities. ” This statement is bothersome because it diminishes human potential by placing extraordinary value on external events and discounts the limitless number of oppressed people who have elevated themselves through empowerment processes. I understand the magnitude that oppressive events have on people’s lives, but I am concerned that assigning too much causal weight diminishes the likelihood of anyone becoming empowered through counseling relationships, encouraging activities, or other educational endeavors. Related to this notion of causal factors is my confusion about the authors’ language in describing empowerment theory and empowered people. Because I agree with their intent, I wonder if my dissension is with their choice of terminology or simply