School counselor says no to gay client
April 13, 2010 by Taylor HanniganPosted in: In this week's e-newsletter, Latest News & Views
A student is suing after being dismissed from a graduate program because she would not counsel a homosexual client.
Julea Ward was a graduate student in a counseling program at Eastern Michigan University. When she was assigned to a client who wanted help regarding a homosexual relationship, she balked.
Ward refused to “affirm any behavior that goes against what the Bible says.” But she also stressed that she was willing to counsel homosexuals on matters unrelated to homosexual behavior.
After she was dismissed from the program for sexual orientation discrimination and violating a student counseling handbook, Ward sued. She says the school violated her free speech rights.
A judge has refused to dismiss her case, saying a trial is needed to figure out whether the school unlawfully retaliated against her for expressing her religious beliefs.
Cite: Ward v. Members of Board of Control of Eastern Michigan University.
Did the court get it right? Tell us what you think in the comments section below.
HigherEdMorning delivers the latest HigherEd news once a week to the inboxes of over 200,000 HigherEd professionals.
Click here to sign up and start your FREE subscription to HigherEdMorning!
Tags: counseling, Eastern Michigan University, free speech rights
Loading ...
April 14th, 2010 at 11:03 am
Why is this all so toxic. Just because she disagrees with the situation. I’m sure if the roles were reversed there would have not been any releasing of the homosexual student because she didn’t want to counsel a heterosexual student on a relationship. We need to stop and breath here. If she wasn’t comfortable with the situation how much help was she going to be?
April 14th, 2010 at 11:15 am
The judge got it right.
April 14th, 2010 at 12:17 pm
This student is not safe to practice, period. Would, for example, she refuse to employ proper counseling techniques and protocols because they violated her view of the Bible. (I’m also curious as to her ability to read Aramaic.)
April 14th, 2010 at 12:28 pm
The issue is that she was admitted to the program based on their handbook and if that says counsel jelly beans, you must counsel jelly beans or go to another school where you will be allowed to only interact with people with whom you are comfortable.
A working counselor may choose their clients. A student may not choose school policy.
April 14th, 2010 at 12:34 pm
The code of ethics in any counseling profession mandates a commitment to equity and non-discrimination. Free speech is NOT the issue, professional requirements are. If any counselor is unable to unconditionally provide service, he/she needs to find a different profession. In this case, perhaps ministry counseling would be appropriate.
April 14th, 2010 at 12:41 pm
Tmp makes a very good point. The judge got it right.
April 14th, 2010 at 12:48 pm
Does anyone really believe that she would have refused to council a sexually-active non-married heterosexual student having relationship problems because that went “against what the bible says”? And yet it does…
She’s picking and choosing based on her own prejudices, and – as the school’s handbook would not allow such – I think the school was right.
April 14th, 2010 at 1:12 pm
I like the way gay people are all fresh and clean looking. Their dirty = my clean. I just don’t have the tolerance for all that tidying.
Anyways, I really don’t care about this case. It seems more a question of weather shrinks in training should be allowed to choose patients. I really don’t see a problem with that. To a lesser degree its like if I have a broken leg and demand to see an OBGYN, some people aren’t right for the job. The tricky point comes in when someone seriously needs help but everyone refuses to give help, that sucks, but it happens all the damn time, and the severity of this homosexual’s need is about a 0 on a 1 to 10 scale. So I still don’t care. Does anyone REALLY care about this. Seriously who is sitting around like hmm.. what tiny little problem can I blow out of proportion and get mad about. I’m surprised those EMU guys cared, their probably so bored they just wanted a little excitement and attention. Thats the only reason I’m going on and on about this, because I have the same wants as those EMU guys.
April 14th, 2010 at 1:18 pm
Counselors are encouraged to be honest with clients and tell them if they have an opinion or issue that would adversely influence their ability to counsel a client, and then to be sure that referrals are offered for the client to see someone else. She did the right thing to be honest, otherwise she might have been ineffective working with the gay student.
April 14th, 2010 at 1:40 pm
In Washington State, some pharmacists would not provide “morning after” over the counter abortion products to customers, citing conflicts of conscience. They were fired from their jobs, but the courts upheld their rights not to act in ways that conflicted with issues of personal conscience since the products were available at other times and at other locations.
April 14th, 2010 at 1:42 pm
The student was in error; as a counselor, one cannot cherry pick the problems with which you have to deal. I may not like drinking or smoking, since I do neither, but if a student came to talk about smoking or drinking, I would be a poor adviser or mentor to not listen and offer reasoned advice — particularly if that advice is trained. What if I said I wouldn’t counsel a student based on the fact they were a person of faith and they were having a crisis in faith?
While I am sure it will be heard in court, I doubt the student, particularly violating the ethical standards of psychology (which does not treat homosexuality as a disease or aberrant) and a student handbook, will have a leg to stand on.
This owuld be like going into a nursing program and saying you won’t take care of a Hispanic client because they are Latino.
April 14th, 2010 at 1:53 pm
Yes, the judge got it right. In the US, Christians have the same rights as anybody else. Imagine the outcry if the person dismissed had been an orthodox Jew or Muslim. There were, I suppose, other counselors available for this particular client. If the client wanted help with a same-sex relationship, the school should have sent the client to another counselor. Such a decision would have protected everybody’s rights: the client would get his counseling, and the grad student wouldn’t be required to violate her religious convictions.
April 14th, 2010 at 2:12 pm
Both TmP and Byron Curtis are aguing from unsupported assumptions. Most universities take standards of conduct seriously, especially those in a handbook that students are supposed to have read. What in the above article supports the conclusion that a Jewish or Muslim student in the same situation, or a homosexual student in a reverse situation would be treated differently than Miss Ward? Nothing that I can see.
I’m not a mental health professional, but jeez, paranoid much?
April 14th, 2010 at 2:22 pm
Christians see Homosexuallity as a perversion. There are few people who do not see one thing or another as a perversion of what is right and morally acceptable. The person who wanted counseling was asking for help in improving his success in an activity that was seen by the student as a “perversion”, so which of us would have reacted any differently?
Take your pick of anything you find perverted or disgusting and then put yourself in the place of the student. Where will you draw the line? If we begin to force people to do things they find morally reprehensible (or else pay a very dear price) can we still say we believe in freedom of religion? But maybe that’s the point. Maybe it’s a growing attitude that instead of freedom of religion we should have freedom from religion.
April 14th, 2010 at 2:41 pm
The student is justified. If the school says they are tolerant of religious expression, which most schools are these days, one should not be forced to counsel when their faith says that the relationship is not right. She could have counseled the person to lead them to what she believes is right, but she chose to just be honest and recommend the person to another couselour, which is the prfoessional course of action. She did the right thing, and if this type of behavior becomes a trend, we are saying that those who have Biblical values are not allowed to earn counseling degrees.
April 14th, 2010 at 3:32 pm
I totally support the college. This woman would make a very poor counselor. However, we attempted to exclude a student in the department of education because he stated that he didn’t believe in special needs programs for children– all children are the same, and that he supported corporal punishment of children in public schools. This was not our philosophy. He was dropped from the program and sued. The college won the first round in court, but lost on appeal and had to take him back into the program. His legal battle and tuition were paid for by a private conservative group.
April 14th, 2010 at 5:03 pm
In this age of tolerance what is wrong with allowing for the rights and values of all to be considered? I’m tired of seeing diversity and tolerance only go one way. If the student didn’t want to counsel a homosexual assign her a different client. I’m sure someone else would have been willing to switch clients.
We have reached a dangerous place when school administrators can discriminate against someone for their religious beliefs. It sounds like it is time for EMU to pull out the checkbook and settle. A course in diversity and a copy of the bill of rights would also be helpful gifts for EMU’s administrators.
April 15th, 2010 at 11:37 am
Wow, there are alot of apples vs. organges and personal belief statements posted.
The only subject that should be addressed here is whether or not she was wrong and I don’t believe she was.
It isn’t a nurse refusing to treat a Latino but a nurse refusing to treat a person receiving a sex change that would be the proper analogy here. She has every right as a professional, or as a human, to refer this patient to a qualified and compitent therapist who does not have prejudices for whatever reason. It is her right to refuse to counsel. Imagine if she did counsel this person who is obviously depressed or distraught to begin with and then eluded to her negativity towards their lifestyle in a demeaning and mentally harmful manner and they became suicidal instead. I say she did the responsible thing. We can’t all be excepting of everything that faces us but we can be civil, accept they have different views and refer them out. Life is about being different, what makes different wrong or immoral is our inability to accept and adapt differences.
April 15th, 2010 at 11:42 am
I feel like the language of this article may be leading. The article makes it sound like the religious graduate student flipped out and refused to console a student with relationship issues. I feel as though there may be some misrepresentation. As a student counselor, the student should have approached her advisor and sought the necessary supervision.
There have been some decent points, yes, if the student does not feel comfortable with the issue, they will more than likely be unable to assist the student, and a referral should be made; however, since this is a graduate school program she was probably assigned this particular student to challenge her development as a counselor. As someone noted, counselors rarely, if ever, get to pick the “issues” with which they assist people.
The thing that is most disheartening about this situation was that this particular student was unable to separate herself from her own values and views, and yet she is aspiring to be a counselor? I am not surprised that the program dismissed her, it’s clear that she is not capable of assisting people who are different from herself.
Up until this point I have avoided the notion of the student seeking help as being Homosexual, because the bottom line is that the student was seeking relationship help the same way as a heterosexual individual, and while I will not deny the Homosexual student of their experience because they do experience very different aspects of development, the counseling student failed to make the connection that this person was seeking help with regards to a relationship.
I would like to dispel the notion of “reasoned advice” that was mentioned. The problem with this point is that counselors do not and should not offer reasoned “advice”. They should be assisting the client by asking them questions that encourage and empower the client to explore the issues with which they deal. If a counselor is giving advice then they are performing the wrong duties, and are setting themselves up to fail with every client because they will ultimately be the scapegoat. Imagine what would happen when a counselor give a client advice, and the advice turns out to be faulty, then the client will say, “but you told me this, I did it, and it did not work”, the counselor would lose any credibility that they had with that particular client.
The bottom line is that the program had expectations of the counseling student that the student was unable to meet. The question is whether the program’s documents/expectations are in compliance with federal rights and laws. Ultimately, I think that this is worth looking at, but how is it that one person’s beliefs or values can be placed above that of another person’s? That to me is the million dollar question. If equality is what we seek, then this should the question being answered.
April 15th, 2010 at 6:29 pm
RM says, “She’s picking and choosing based on her own prejudices, and – as the school’s handbook would not allow such – I think the school was right.”
To which I reply–
But why should religious opinion be tagged as prejudice? Perhaps she arrived at these opinions after careful study and reflection. Or perhaps these opinions are the deeply treasured views of her church or faith community.
If you call religious opinion prejudice, why can’t I call anti-religious opinion also prejudice? (For some, religion does summon visceral feelings, whether pro and con.) A state institution such as EMU cannot lawfully discriminate either against gays or against Christians & other religious persons.
April 15th, 2010 at 7:59 pm
What’s really interesting about the comments reverberating around this issue is whether or not the people making the comments are devote Christians or not. Those comments supporting the student seem to be coming from people who seem to be strict Christians…and they support the student. Those who do not support the student, regardless of their personal religious background, seem to support the college and the idea that a counselor is there for the patient and not for their own religious or political agenda. The bottom line, as I see it, is that counselors who really deliver services to those in need do not attempt to force their personal beliefs onto the patient. That being a given, give this student a boot in the pants and hope that she finds a position as a clerk at Walmart. To think that she might be licensed to counsel patients with problems makes me really, really sad. She is not fit to help others with their problems. Let’s invert this situation — should a gay counselor reject all straight patients who come to him/her with a relationship issue? Get real. Show this student the door and advise her to seek opportunities with such noble causes as the NRA, the KKK, or maybe s/he could find a position at Fox News.
April 16th, 2010 at 10:20 am
Bill makes a good point about noting how a person’s bias will affect that person’s approach to professional performance.
Of course, since “non-discrimination” is really just another form of discrimination, is Bill’s non-discriminatory bias exposed in his comments?
Gee, why even consider professional ethics if the whole concept of ethics and discrimination of any form is questionable? Obviously, the concept of “discriminatingly good taste” is an oxymoron!
Let’s be totally post-modern and ridicule the whole scenerio for the foolishness of thinking those in counseling and any of us are in a position to comment on anyone or anything. In fact, I think I will go into the lotus position and contemplate my navel, which may or may not exist.
April 22nd, 2010 at 3:41 pm
Get rid of her! Period.
April 22nd, 2010 at 3:47 pm
As I understand it, the judge did not rule on whether the student is justified in suing or not. In refusing to dismiss the case, he ruled that her complaint had sufficient standing to deserve a hearing. In that decision, I think he was correct since the student is claiming a basic right of religious expression that requires hearing. If the story contains all the facts of the case, I would rule against the student as I do not think expression of religion extends to the right to a position that may necessitate an indifference to one’s religious beliefs. But even if my decision were the correct one, the judge would have been right to allow the case to go forward. Outcomes do not trump the necessity to deliberate over them.
April 22nd, 2010 at 3:49 pm
As a counselor I think this student should never be allowed into another program again. She violated a number of ethical rules of counseling. If she wishes to go into Biblical counseling then she needs to go to a Biblical counseling program at a Biblical University. Until then she either abides by the ethics of the ACA/APA or she becomes a greeter at WalMart.
April 22nd, 2010 at 3:54 pm
As a gay man would it be right to refuse her counseling because she is a christian right wing conservative? I think not.
If she can’t have an open, non-judgemental approach to all individuals she is in the wrong career path.
The school was correct in tossing her out!
April 22nd, 2010 at 3:58 pm
The school got it right. Maybe the student should locate a “christian” grad program where she can exercise and express her “beliefs”. Otherwise, she should find an another vocation. Church Counselor perhaps?
April 22nd, 2010 at 4:00 pm
Oh silly christians…. myths are for kids… Ahem…
Here we go again… and to think she has a graduate degree… from where?
We really need to make logic/critical thinking mandatory.
April 22nd, 2010 at 4:01 pm
Bill is a flaming liberal and his bias is absolutely exposed in his comments. Many counselors specialize in a particular area and the real question is why would a homosexual want to be counseled by someone who does not share a similar world view. Tolerance is quickly becoming a one way street.
April 22nd, 2010 at 4:03 pm
The school got it right. No one is asking the student to affirm any behavior. Simply, the client wanted to be counseled about something that was bothersome. Besides, just about any behavior someone needs advice on could fall into the category as going “against what the Bible says.” Isn’t that what counseling is all about?
April 22nd, 2010 at 4:05 pm
I think many of you are confused. Doctors (in any venue of practice) have the right to refuse treatment to patients based upon their beliefs as long as they give them a referral to someone who can and will help them w/o bias of those religious beliefs. 33 years ago, my best friend’s pediatrician refused to circumsize her son based on his religious beliefs. Were we all up in arms over it? Absolutely not. He was entitled to those beliefs under his Freedom of Religion rights as are counselors/doctors or anyone for that matter, in this era, allowed these same rights. The student was well within her rights. No one has the right to take away those religious freedoms… period. As a counselor she will have the same rights as the doctor from 33 years ago. It is time for the bleeding liberal hearts to get over their “politically correctness” and work on things that help humankind as a whole! Be tolerant .. yes… but remember: Children never learned anything from Life being ‘fair’. Life is NOT fair. Get over it, move forward, and live life to the fullest!
April 22nd, 2010 at 4:06 pm
If she wants to counsel persons based on her religious ideology then she can work in the church. There is no obligation on the part of the school to tolerate her heterosexism. Any person seeking the degree she seeks is ethically obligated to help anybody who needs help, even if that person is a Nazi. Her lawsuit has no basis. The judge, a state agent, by threatening to respect the establishment of religion, is setting the Bill of Rights on its head.
April 22nd, 2010 at 4:08 pm
This is a pretty simple issue. The college has an anti-discrimination policy. The student wishes to discriminate in her professional capacity based on her personal, religious beliefs. She cannot perform her job. Let’s not confuse personal liberties with professional ones.
If the counselor/student was being challenged in her personal beliefs in a personal context, this would be different. I believe that under the bona fide operational qualifications test, the school could easily prove that willingness to counsel others (regardless of their status within a protected class) is a BFOQ of being a counselor. If the student fails to meet that BFOQ, they should not be allowed to have that job.
By the way, for those of you on the Christian right about to whine about why this isn’t fair, BFOQ is why a church can discriminate in the hiring of, say, a married person to be a priest, but your local convenience store can’t discriminate in its hiring because you are married. So either you’re ok with that, or you’re ok with churches getting sued because priests feel they should be able to have a job and a spouse (straight or gay).
April 22nd, 2010 at 4:08 pm
Absolutely Byron Curtis!!
Byron Curtis said:
If you call religious opinion prejudice, why can’t I call anti-religious opinion also prejudice? (For some, religion does summon visceral feelings, whether pro and con.) A state institution such as EMU cannot lawfully discriminate either against gays or against Christians & other religious persons.
April 22nd, 2010 at 4:10 pm
So who else will she refuse to counsel based on her interpretation of the Bible?
No clients having pre-marital sex, I guess, since that is condemned in the Bible to the same degree. That will be a challenge on a college campus.
No divorced clients if she is Catholic since they need to get annulments. No Jewish or Muslim clients as they completely reject the primary tenets of her Christian Bible. Forget about any Hindu clients as they aren’t even monotheists.
Taken to a ridiculous extreme, she will also have to exclude shrimp eaters, clinets with tattoos and women who dare to leave their homes while menstruating as those are also abominations in the Bible.
Perhaps on her CV, she can inform future employers of exactly which King James Biblically-worthy clients she is willing to counsel.
April 22nd, 2010 at 4:12 pm
The Judge got it right on the money. How can you counsel someone when you’re biased? You can’t honestly, I give this girl credit for saying so up front instead of giving advise that wouldn’t serve the client well. Good job Judge.
April 22nd, 2010 at 4:14 pm
The judge got it right. The student was discriminated against based on her religious views.
She was *not* discriminating against the patient’s sexual orientation, as she stated that she was willing to counsel homosexual patients about topics other than their sexual conduct. Therefore, she was not in violation of the student handbook.
She was simply refusing to affirm behavior that she in good concience could not affirm. Nowhere did the article state that she personally thought that the behavior was “disgusting” as some have tried to claim. She simply stated that to counsel the patient *about that behavior* would violate her religion’s teachings.
Dismissing her on that basis violates her 1st Amendment rights.
April 22nd, 2010 at 4:15 pm
Shane’s comments are spot on! Well trained counselors do not give advice but provide the client tools to work through their issues based on the client’s own values, oreintations, etc. It is client centered therapy. Counselors are not there to fix the client or the problem but to facilitate their process.
April 22nd, 2010 at 4:20 pm
Not sure about whether the student or the school acted within the law or their rights, I just don’t think counseling is a very good fit for her. Maybe she should try the clergy, assuming she belongs to a church that ordains women.
April 22nd, 2010 at 4:21 pm
As I read this article I had to agree with the University and I applaude them for their non-discrimination policy when it comes to counceling students.
However, as I read all the comments I could see those that were Christians and those that weren’t by their replies. In some cases I think I could almost tell you their Christian denomination. To correct Robert not all Christians see Homosexuality as a “Perversion”. Matter of fact many homosexuals including my partner and I, are also Christians.
April 22nd, 2010 at 4:23 pm
My personal spiritual beliefs as a member of the newly just now formed Love Mother Earth and All Who Love Her religion are to dislike rednecks, homophobes, TV preachers, car salesman, and policticians. Can I refuse to serve them if they sought help where I was a highly educated and highly paid proferssional with a code of professional conduct/ethics that stated I needed to help all comers in need of my help? NO, actually let me quote Sarah Palin, “Hell NO”
And to those who suggest this is a diversity issue in reverse; diversity is not about accepting the judgments of some folks who have a passionate reason to hate other folks, hate is not a diversity issue. Is it a diversity issue to reject Nazi beliefs about gays, and jews, and disabled folks?
BTW, the Bible does not actually say to hate gay people, I (and more importantly some Bible scholars) believe several of the Apostles were gay…left their wives and children, traveled around with a bunch of guys in the desert, drank wine, sang, hung out, took baths together, etc…certainly many catholic prients are gay, look at those outfits!, which is way better than them being pedophiles, but of course you gay hating Misinformed Literal Interpreting Bible thumpers think gay and pedophile are the same, ignorant, really ignorant. Here’s the difference Bible Thumpers, if the student said she was uncomfortable treating a pedophile, she would have likely recieved support and counseling herself on how to grow as a counselor instead of the boot.
Never mind that the percentage of gay folks in human populations has been shown to be sooo consistent across time a place, a fact only explainable by it being genetic or inherent to the person in some fashion, if it were a function of social norms and context, i.e. “choice”…it would vary by place and time.
Finally, if I were deeply terrified I was gay and did not want to be, I would hate them dang gays too for making me think about that.
April 22nd, 2010 at 4:26 pm
You guys are missing the point entirely. If the handbook for the program says that she can’t refuse to counsel any of the patients assigned to her, they were within their rights to remove her. If it doesn’t say that, then that’s a different story. But that’s the only point of any consequence in this story.
April 22nd, 2010 at 4:29 pm
I’m curious about the details in this case.
Did the counselor-to-be advise actually shut down and refuse to help at all or did she refuse to say the politically correct things? In other words, did she give no advise or did she advise to stay out of same-sex relationships?
If the former, I would say she failed professionally. If the latter, I would say that she acted professionally. Not all professionals agree with the politically correct line of thinking.
Did she violate the school’s non-discrimition laws? I haven’t seen those laws and I am not familar with the details of the case. I am not going to play arm-chair-Dean-of-Students in this case.
April 22nd, 2010 at 4:30 pm
I believe the school is a State school. Private schools can have standards that they require students to accept. Public institutions can’t have standards that violate the Bill of Rights. Free exercise of religion is part of the BIll of Rights. There are obvious tradeoffs here. I think most people would believe that it is unethical to refuse to counsel a suicidal person because they are homosexual, or to demean a homosexual client. But historically we have been willing to make a certain degree of allowance for differences in religious belief, e.g. to make certain allowances for Amish buggies. It seems to me that the student is requesting a reasonable allowance. Once out of school, a counsellor could reasonably tell a prospective client “I’m an evangelical Christian. I’m really not the right one to help you with a problem with your gay boyfriend. I’d be happy to help you with any other problem, or to refer you to a well-qualified colleague.” If we don’t make some allowances for individual beliefs, I think we’ve gone too far in the direction of conformity. If the student can reasonably do that when they’re in practice, I think a public school should be willing to train them. This is actually different than a pharmacist dispensing morning after pills. The pharmacist just has to be competent in pill dispensing. They don’t necessarily have to be sympathetic with the person taking the pills. But to be effective, a counsellor has to have at least a certain degree of sympathy.
April 22nd, 2010 at 4:35 pm
I am saddened to learn of this student’s response. It does seem that Christian counseling is more up her alley. We don’t know all the details, but it seems like the school’s response was reactionary. Maybe there were other incidences though.
I would have turned it into a learning experience for the student – an opportunity to explore her professional choice, and perhaps allowed her to stay in the program for the time being. But who knows what she said to the client? I can understand why people would feel that she doesn’t belong in counseling, since we are an accepting, loving, open-minded group.
April 22nd, 2010 at 4:38 pm
I wonder if she’d refuse to counsel someone who had just eaten pork or shellfish. Which pick-and-choose morality of Leviticus is she referring to? She sets forth the slippery slope – not the College.
April 22nd, 2010 at 4:44 pm
The student is selfish and narrowminded when she puts her own bias above the needs of her client. She should NOT be in the mental health helping profession. I am in the profession and my good name is sullied because of her narcissistic personality. Counselors of her ilk is why the lay public has to kiss so many frogs to find a competent prince/princess.
April 22nd, 2010 at 4:54 pm
Bill says it ALL!! I am a clinical social worker and a christian and the first thing learned is (Esp. from the bible!) UNCONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE OF ALL!!!!
April 22nd, 2010 at 4:58 pm
Wow, it’s hard to believe, reading some of these comments, that you people actually might work in higher education.
The student is clearly not cut out for counseling. What if she refused to counsel someone in a mixed-race marriage because she’s a white supremacist? Would that be OK?
April 22nd, 2010 at 5:02 pm
Clemson chick
First, ACA would apply after she graduates and it is not the school’s role to enforce it. Second, what specific article in ACA code of ethics do you think the student violated. I’ve skimmed through it and not found anything on this context. Now, there was part A.C.e which prohibits the student, once a conselour, from using derogatory terms for gays; but it doesn’t specify specific advice to give or even that she has to give any advice as all.
April 22nd, 2010 at 5:06 pm
I agree with Shane Says in that we are missing part of the story. If the student is learning to be a counselor instead of firing her I think this is an opportunity to go back over hopefully what she should have been taught in her classes about bias and how to not let that interfere with her profession, or when you need to refer a case to some other counselor. Is there something more we don’t know about this situation in terms of more complaints about this type of behavior from this grad students? If this was a one time incident then I think the school should have given a reprimand and reinforced counselor’s duties.
April 22nd, 2010 at 5:07 pm
The judge got this wrong… Religious views are personal, not to be pushed upon others. People of all religions need to acknowledge that there is more than one belief system, including non-believers, and need to respect everyone’s right to choose their own belief system/religion.
April 22nd, 2010 at 5:13 pm
All of us, gay or straight, have biases. Better that the graduate student expose her biases than exploit her client. Too many times counselors with very entrenched biases toward homosexuals attempt with voyeuristic zeal the very critical work that should not be attempted without first plucking out the eye that offends….and given most counselors are not going to do that, and often place themselves in judgment over their clients, then the client is better off to be counseled by someone else. In my opinion, the graduate student was right for recusing herself from counseling this gay person since she has stated that she cannot reconcile her religion and her counseling ehtics. I was in the counseling profession for ten years, and know that you don’t have to agree with a person’s lifestyle choice to effectively address relationship issues as all counseling issues are based on relationship issues, but if your bias is so profound that you cannot show acceptance and compassion for the person you are counseling, then by all means don’t attempt to counsel them. Now, I doubt that our Savior and Counselor, Jesus Christ, would refuse to counsel any of us based on religion, and he died for all of us, so I find this whole argument about her rights to religious freedom being an issue reprehensible. It is so totally narcissistic and egocentric that any counselor would elevate themselves above the Ultimate Counselor that I find the whole religious freedom argument a distorted, convoluted defense for prejudice and discrimination. Much like I find those who kill others who run abortion clinics lacking in the ability to connect the dots of logic in their professed “pro-life” stance, I find hiding behind religious freedom in this instance the veil that so often attempts to conceal the insidious and pernicious hatred of others. Much harm has been done to others in the name of religion. All I can say is thank God that Jesus didn’t practice religion, or base his love for us on what someone wrote in the Bible. By all means allow counselors to refer those for whom they have no “religious” tolerance, gay or straight, to those with different biases.
April 22nd, 2010 at 5:15 pm
It strikes me as hypocritical when the champions of tolerance are intolerant of someone’s religious beliefs. It seems that the student had no choice but to back out based on her convictions. Aren’t people allowed to have convictions today?
April 22nd, 2010 at 5:15 pm
I think there is something being overlooked here. In a good clinical program, the student intern will be the subject of observation and reflection as well as their “practice” clients. The student is in a process of “becoming a professional”. The student I am sure had a clinical supervisor. That clinical supervisor would/should have been responsible for “processing” with the student the deeper clinical issues involved. With good supervision, the student could have clarified her issues, reflected on her reactions, targeted some reasonable goals and set sail again. From a clinical perspective there is the issue of “ego dystonic content”…that can cause certain abreactions. It does not appear that these were addressed with the student. Now, indeed, it is very toxic. What if the student herself had homosexual leanings but was unable to handle them? We get too defensive first without looking at the issue squarely. Sad indeed.
April 22nd, 2010 at 5:36 pm
By dismissing the student outright, the school missed a teaching opportuntity that could have helped the student come to grips with her narrow world view and how that will affect and/or limit her ability and role as a counselor. The student chose the worst alternative available to her by refusing outright to help the client and making it a Biblical issue. Remember that the Bible also supports slavery, regards women as second class people with no rights, and condones genocide, depending on which passages you choose make absolute truth. Too bad she didn’t use her education experience to open her mind or at least explore the assumptions behind her perspectives about people who are different from. I wonder if Jesus would have turned down the client? (By the way Robert, not all Christians believe homosexuality is a perversion.)
April 22nd, 2010 at 5:38 pm
The problem with this evangelical Christian is that the bias is so narrowly directed. I would think that using the same reasoning, she also would have to refuse any divorce counseling or counseling a married person having an affair. I would think that substance abuse would also be off the table. She appears to be using her religion as a justification for gay bashing. You would think that in the counseling profession especially “judge not…” would have had a bigger impact.
But as an administrator of a medical program, I am interested in the larger question: can a student refuse to see a patient? And if they can, under what circumstances can they make this refusal? Can a Jewish counselor refuse a Neo Nazi? Can some who just doesn’t like kids refuse to see kids? Can a Muslim woman refuse to treat men? Are there some professions where this kind of intern selectivity can be the basis of a reasonable accommodation but others where it is not?
And where does the admissions process factor in? Is there some kind of disclosure about refusal to treat that needs to be made to incoming students before acceptance so that they can choose not to be admitted to a program, or does this deepen the legal issue for schools?
I am very interested in the case. I think the administrators got it right, especially if the student made no attempt to ask for an accommodation until she was assigned a gay client. I also think the court was right to hear the case if it will answer the broader question. In the medical profession, you should leave your bias at the door.
April 22nd, 2010 at 5:55 pm
seems like a clinical supervision issue in the counselor education process more than anything else. this was a potentially teachable moment that seems to have gotten lost in unnecessary posturing.
April 22nd, 2010 at 6:01 pm
What did the employment contract say, specifically, in its non-discrimination section(s)? If the contract explicitly or by entailment stated nondiscrimination based on sexual orientation, then…
No one is denying Julea Ward her Christian rights. She voluntarily signed a contract with her employer (or, construing it in the terms of her religion, with CAESAR) which bound her to a set of duties and obligated her to the expressed policies of this employer. Therefore, even by biblical dicta, she should render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s (her signing the contract with Caesar implicitly acknolwedged and defined that which is Caesar’s — to counsel everyone regardless of their sexual orientation). She wants money from Caesar? But clamors for her right to violate her contract with “him”? So, you say, she’s got to eat, right? Well, let her be more Christ-like — if she is truly a pure, “not-part-of-this-world” Christian, she has the option (and christian admonition!) to rely on Christ and not enter into any Caesar contracts, and have her needs met from day to day by devine providence, walking around and preaching and professing her faith, or something like that. You can’t milk your Caesar contract and flagellate it too!
Also, I find the “cherry-picking” notion expressed by other posters here to be right on the dot. Had she also refused to help mend extramarital heterosexual relationships?
On the other hand, Ms. Ward could have claimed not being competent/knowledgeable enough to counsel a gay relationship. In ANY case, this should have been sorted out well in advance, at the outset.
One could also add: If Julea Ward could not foresee, from the getgo, the possibility of having to counsel about a homosexual relationship, she is too naive and out of touch for social work.
April 22nd, 2010 at 6:13 pm
We should be reminded that all of these issues are not as black and white as they seem; there may be more gray areas than we think. Before we rush to judgment (and ad hominem attacks on other bloggers) we need to wait for the facts to come out. Perhaps the basic principles of civility need to be acknowledged before we continue to post such inflammatory remarks from both ends of the spectrum. Besides, isn’t this a blog for higher education? Maybe our debating these difficult issues should stay on a higher level and not descend into the marsh of knee-jerk rhetoric that is so prevalent these days.
April 22nd, 2010 at 6:15 pm
As a gay, atheist liberal I say there’s not quite enough information to make a judgment. Billy says it best: most counselors will have biases and the good ones will make an honest referral. I was once referred to a different counselor because the one I originally went to thought a gay counselor would be more helpful and there happened to be a very good one in the department that regularly counseled gay students. Was the original counselor biased? I never knew or cared. The referral was done professionally and without judgment and really turned out to be the best decision for my case. Seriously, what gay student would WANT someone like that trying to fumble their way through a counseling session?
The root of the question is did her behavior violate the school’s non-discrimination policy, not her beliefs. I think that’s what we don’t really know. She stressed she was perfectly willing to counsel gay students – no discrimination there – she just didn’t feel she could advise them on anything having to do with specifically homosexual behavior. Truth Teller: your analogy is flawed. In your hypothetical case she would be perfectly willing to counsel pork and shellfish eaters in most all other areas, she would just be unwilling to give them recipes and advise them on the best restaurants, and if that’s what they needed specifically she’d refer them to somebody else.
It sounds a little like the staff maybe just didn’t want to have to work with a fundamentalist nutcase. Can’t say I blame them there but it sounds like she has a valid legal claim.
April 22nd, 2010 at 6:48 pm
i am sure there are christian universities that can give her a degree that allows her to counsel patients/clients according to god’s will as interpreted in her bible. americans are an unforgiving suspicious, bigoted lot.
April 22nd, 2010 at 8:15 pm
I think it is sad her religious beliefs prevent her from counseling someone on a homosexual relationship, but I think she is well within her rights to have those beliefs.
The judge got it right.
April 22nd, 2010 at 9:27 pm
Isn’t it better for this young woman to state her beliefs up front and say that she would have trouble counseling this particular situation? Or, would it be better for her to offer her advice that could be incorrect based on her own belief system? When seeking help and couseling isn’t it wiser to seek someone who thinks as you do.
Here’s a wierd little example of getting advice: If I’m baking a pie I would go to the person that KNOWS best how to bake the best apple pie instead of someone who knows how to bake but is better at making cakes than pies.
just a thought….
April 23rd, 2010 at 1:42 am
As a university counselor, I signed an oath not to discriminate or let my personal religious or political beliefs interfere in my ability to counsel students. I also resent the idea that a “devout” Christian would refuse counseling to a gay student. A devout Christian would not discriminate or judge. Those that do are nothing more than fundamentalist homophobes.
April 23rd, 2010 at 8:20 am
The graduate student is in the wrong field. More worrisome is the fact that the judge is taking her case seriously.
April 23rd, 2010 at 8:32 am
Yes, the judge got it right, indeed. Truly, if the client wanted help with a same-sex relationship, the school should have simply sent the client to another counselor. Such a simple decision would have protected everybody’s rights and the client would have obtained his proper counseling. In fact, religions apart, we must all realize that while some people can stoically hear hardcore details of gay sexual relationships without being fazed, others can hardly stand such details and might find them nauseous leading them to physically throw up uncontrollably. If the grad student said, please I do not have the training and experience to counsel you effectively, please go to another counselor who will help you very well, what is wrong with that? What is wrong with being frank and sincere? The grad student did not discriminate. Instead, the student was actually helping the client. Which is better – referring the client to another counselor or providing bad or misleading or ineffective counseling? In conclusion, I still believe that the school should have just sent the client to another counselor.
April 23rd, 2010 at 9:08 am
The judge didn’t rule in favor of the student. He also didn’t rule in favor of the university. He ruled that the student had standing to sue, in other words that the case had sufficient merit to be heard in court. Saying the judge got it right only says he was right that the case ought to be heard. Saying he got it wrong, means that the case shouldn’t be heard. The debate on this site is prima facie evidence that he got that narrow issue right. Can anybody focus on the question being asked?
April 23rd, 2010 at 9:11 am
I don’t know if “Americans are an unforgiving bigoted lot,” but you seem to be. I’d tell you to grow up but you’re an old man. I guess there is no hope for you.
April 23rd, 2010 at 9:14 am
The judge made the right ruling in that the situation seems complicated enough to warrant a careful laying out of the facts and deliberation.
I do have to wonder, though, at her ultimate success as a counselor. I agree with those above that there are plenty of Biblically-proscribed behaviors that are even more common than homosexuality, and that would present a challenge. A client who had trouble with lying? Adultery? Not honoring his/her father and mother? Those are all incredibly common in counseling situations, and these have specific commandments against them, not minor verses with cryptic contexts. (The aforementioned shrimp eating, anyone? I doubt someone would seek counseling for wearing blended fabrics, but, hey, you never know.) We’ve (mostly) gotten over our patriarchal freak-out about menstruating women–when will we get over our irrational fear of a “man laying with another man?”
In general, if a student handbook says you’re responsible for something, you’re responsible for it. Plenty of students at public institutions in TN can’t express their right to drink alcohol when they’re on campus. Campus policy.
Without knowing the specific details, I can’t say how honest her offer to counsel homosexual people on topics other than “being gay” is. But I suspect that she is being a little disingenuous. Thus, the need for a hearing, I think.
April 23rd, 2010 at 9:53 am
I think that the prudent thing for the school should have done was to refer the client to another counselor (I bet they actually did this, but I would be curious to know) and then to work with the grad student to explore how to handle the situation and refer future clients without adding her two cents about the clients’ lifestyles. It’s honest and probably best to refer people to others if you know you cannot help. But it’s just not professional to insert your value judgments about the person’s situation into the equation.
I’m not surprised that the judge took the case, and it’s a mistake to assume that it was taken because of some perceived conservative bias against gay rights. That could be the case, but let’s assume that the case has constitutional implications that need to be explored and clarified on both sides, and matters of professional ethics and standards that will result. I think it’s pretty clear there are some questions that need to be settled. Let’s hope that they are adequately explored and fairly adjudicated.
April 23rd, 2010 at 9:58 am
I find it interesting that those on the far left always start out demanding respect for “diversity” and talking about how everyone should value and respect everyone’s right to their beliefs and “life choices”. They then go on about how we need to do away with hate and disrespect and name calling and allow people to live in peace and without discrimination.
Invariably, however, in the next sentence they proceed to launch into a diatribe about those horrible, hate mongering, KKK loving, homophobic, redneck, right wing, Bible thumping, Christian conservative crazies and how they should all be shot or locked up.
So much for “valuing diversity” and “respecting everyone’s rights to their beliefs”……..
I guess “diversity” is only for those who agree with the agenda of the far left wing.
April 23rd, 2010 at 11:00 am
If anyone has been in a counseling or social work program than they will know that the professors will tell you that you need to be COMPETENT to counsel your clients. In other words if you don’t know or are uncomfortable with a particular topic than it is your obligation as a counselor to refer that client to someone who CAN counsel them. For example, I supervise social work interns and one of my interns lost a family member in the earthquake in Haiti. She then encountered a client in our agency who also lost family members in the earthquake. It was not appropriate for my student to counsel this client because of counter transference, it was too close to home for the student so she recused herself from the case with my BLESSING!! It is the same thing for belief systems, it is the counselors responsibility to be aware of their biases and not impose them on the client. If this counseling student was unable to counsel the client due to her religious biases then she was correct in declining the case because she would not have been able to adequately help the client.
April 23rd, 2010 at 11:15 am
Just because she wanted to refer the client to someone with more expertise in that area does not make her a bad counselor. She is aware of her limitations and has forward the client to someone that would be much more effective in her case. For as many counselors that are available in this troubled world, it is not a big deal…or at least it doesn’t have to be.
April 23rd, 2010 at 11:35 am
I must admit I am appalled that so many of my fellow “Christians’ seem to forget the very essence of Christ’s teachings — “Love thy neighbor as they self,” a verse that is not qualified by “but only if you agree with them, or if they believe what you believe, or if they measure up to your standards of goodness.”
I would throw in “Judge not lest ye be judged,” and “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” We are all sinners and it is God’s place not ours to decide which of us measures up or doesn’t.
Ultimately, we as Christians need to be very careful to avoid the sin of pride, our love of Christ does not make us invulnerable or always right, it simply promises us forgiveness for all of own sins and human frailties. What the student did was neither loving or humble and had she displayed those qualities, she might have had a much greater positive impact for all of us as Christians by setting a loving example.
April 23rd, 2010 at 11:55 am
I believe the school was correct in dismissing the student. As a counselor myself I see in excess of 40 students per week and a large portion of those students are gay. My gay students have very unique issues and needs that I cannot address so I refer those students to another counselor who is better qualified after conferring with my supervisor. The student in this case should really reconsider counseling as a profession and keep her religious beliefs to herself. In fact, it is a travesty that she was ever admitted to the program in the first place. she should have talked to an academic Advisor before enrolling in EMU.
April 23rd, 2010 at 12:43 pm
I think the university had every right to take appropriate action. The counselor was hired to do a job and was basically insubordinate. Why should I pick up the slack for a counselor who is not fulfilling the duties of their position and creating a hostile environment as well? Like someone else said, if she takes the Bible literally, she probably won’t have any clients at all given that her religious beliefs would prevent her from assisting anyone whom she deems a sinner.
April 23rd, 2010 at 1:05 pm
First, I’m 47 and gay. While in my 20′s I used the counseling services of a university and met with a graduate student to discuss gay related issues. At the time I was struggling with dealing with my orientation, coming out and dealing with a challenging committed relationship with another man.
Her counsel litterally provided me the comfort and courage to deal with one of the most emotionally/mentally stressful times in my life. God Bless her for her advice and compassion.
As for the “student” in quesiton in this article – I am glad they released her from the program and she has some nerve suing. Obviously, SHE NEEDS COUNSELING and another career path. I side with the school
April 23rd, 2010 at 1:08 pm
I have read the posts and find them to be very interesting. I am on the side that while I disagree with the student I absolutely agree with the judge’s ruling. By all means this should go to court and have all infomation brought to light. not just what was reported in the article.
That being said, the reason I am writing is to resond to Kaycee Says. I am a far left, elitist, hippee, liberal. And I have referred to those on the far right as “horrible, hate mongering, KKK loving, homophobic, redneck, right wing, Bible thumping, Christian conservative crazies.” However I have never suggested they should be shot or locked up because of their beliefs. The threat of violence or imprisonment usually comes from your side of the aisle.
April 23rd, 2010 at 1:19 pm
Ibelieve that the school violated her constitutional right of freedom of speech and religion. These two rights are violated many times, and people don’t stand up for themselves. I’m very happy that this woman took a stand for her beliefs.
April 23rd, 2010 at 1:22 pm
I believe that the school violated her constitutinal rights of freedom of speech and religion. These two rights are violated too many times, and people don’t stand up for themselves. I’m delighted that this womean took a stand for her beliefs.
April 23rd, 2010 at 1:27 pm
I believe that the school violated her constitutional rights of freedom of speech and religion. These two rights are violated too many times, and people don’t stand up for themselves. I’m delighted that this women took a stand for her beliefs.
April 23rd, 2010 at 1:37 pm
Bill says: “The bottom line, as I see it, is that counselors who really deliver services to those in need do not attempt to force their personal beliefs onto the patient. That being a given, give this student a boot in the pants and hope that she finds a position as a clerk at Walmart. To think that she might be licensed to counsel patients with problems makes me really, really sad. She is not fit to help others with their problems.”
I agree with everything except Bill’s assumption that all “strict” Christians will support the student. I am a devout Christian, have been one for over thirty years, and I strongly believe that this student would be a poor counselor for ANYone. The real Christians I know are compassionate: my Christian attorney sister would gladly advocate for a gay victim; my Christian pastor counsels gay members; I teach gay students.
For a Christian, Christ died for all of us, and we are responsible for each other, whatever the orientation. I believe any other stance is godless.
April 23rd, 2010 at 1:49 pm
Never a shortage of hate-filled, judgmental people in denial about their own issues who use opportunities like this to spew their internal slime. Especially love the ones who do so in the name of Christianity … “everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.” (Romans 2:1) Did any of you catch that Jesus taught love and acceptance? I didn’t say the church, I said Jesus.
So to the point of this story. A counselor/psychotherapist should refer to someone else a client whom the therapist does not feel qualified or fit to treat because of any professional or personal reasons. However, this person was a STUDENT, enrolled in a program of study whose handbook she was violating. She entered this program to learn how to be a Counselor, and if she is not willing to follow the program she should not be there. In this program her religious beliefs are personal and have no place; she must learn to meet each person where they are and learn how to apply what she is learning. As a Counselor you will never like or agree with every client’s personality, lifestyle, or choices–and you don’t have to. That’s not your job, thank goodness. Your job is to leave your personal agendas out of the room and be an unconditional professional self. Obviously that’s what she needs to learn! And if she was unwilling, the best choice was to expel her.
If she wants to be a conditional counselor, then she should go to a Christian Counseling program and become a “Christian Counselor.” Her clients will self-select to see her. However, that can be dangerous territory. Folks may go to such counselors and find people like this student are judgmental, and they may be guilt-ed. Where will she draw her line?
The beauty of a good therapist is the lack of agenda, the lack of judgment that precious few others in our lives can give us. Thus we are free to think and say and feel whatever we may, and to explore our life and life choices. An ethical therapist is respectful of people from all walks of life.
The bible is open to too much interpretation for her to take a stand on “what the bible says.” The judge got it wrong, and was probably afraid to take a stand. Hopefully the trial will get it right.
April 23rd, 2010 at 2:00 pm
I remain outraged that the rights of the individual to be counseled are ignored. The reactions in many of the comments above are disturbing–as if one chooses to be homosexual, rather than one IS gay and deserves equal services. The refusal on the part of the counselor resonates with a history of discrimination and persecution. The high rate of teen suicide in the LGBT community is a response to such heinous acts of discrimination.
It is a privilege to be a counselor; one chooses that profession in order to serve. It is not one’s right to pick and choose whom to serve. Personal opinion, beliefs and feelings are not the issue, service is. Anybody who does not feel able to serve without prejudice, without discriminating, cannot be a counselor. I don’t know any code of professional ethics would suggest that counselors can turn away those in need.
April 23rd, 2010 at 2:14 pm
“If you call religious opinion prejudice, why can’t I call anti-religious opinion also prejudice? ”
Wrong analogy. It’s not about opinions: she can hold any opinion she likes. She can hate homosexuals or Jews or blacks. But if she refuses a service to someone on those grounds, she’s discriminating, and that’s forbidden by the school and state policy.
She could not be refused service because she’s a Christian. The student cannot be refused counseling because he’s gay. If she refuses to do her job, SHE’s the one in the wrong.
What this reminds me of is justices of the peace who refuse to marry gay people in states like mine where we have marriage equality. It’s legal, it’s part of their job, if they don’t like doing it, they should get a new job. It’s no different than someone who would refuse to marry two people of different races.
April 23rd, 2010 at 2:57 pm
# Peggy Says:
April 22nd, 2010 at 5:07 pm
The judge got this wrong… Religious views are personal, not to be pushed upon others. People of all religions need to acknowledge that there is more than one belief system, including non-believers, and need to respect everyone’s right to choose their own belief system/religion.
So Peggy, you are saying religious people are not entitled to freedom of religion? Gays are the only ones with rights? I believe if the tables were turned and this was a Gay student who did not want to counsel a Christian student about her relationship, you all wouldn’t be up in arms over that.
I think you all need to go back and read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights again and get a better understanding of what they truly mean!
April 23rd, 2010 at 5:23 pm
Rolykesh misuses rhetoric. The hypothetical statement that “if the tables were turned and this was a Gay student who did not want to counsel a Christian student about her relationship, you all wouldn’t be up in arms over that” only reveal Rolykesh’s own, apparently, deep seated prejudices and contempty for those who do not agree with her/him.
Then there is the lecture (lacking substance) on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. This display of contempt and unsubstantiated self-assurance is inconsistent with scholarship.
April 23rd, 2010 at 6:51 pm
I work in a mental health day centre, and although I am not a counsellor, I work with and refer clients to counsellors.
The point I want to make is that a counsellor doesn’t have control of the journey that is travelled in the counselling process. Clients often reveal information they are troubled about after a few sessions when they feel they can trust the counsellor, particularly information about sexuality. Even in this relatively enlightened age, clients will often hold back the information that they are homosexual. Mind, the largest UK mental health charity, carried out a survey of lesbian and gay service users that showed that many mentally ill homosexuals do not tell their psychiatrists about their sexuality.
So how does this Christian lady propose to deal with a client who feels that a relationship of trust has been established after a number of sessions and discloses that he or she is gay? Will she turn round and tell the client that she can’t work with him or her because of her religious beliefs? What a slap in the face that would be.
Or would she lie, and breach professional ethics? This is not the same as suggesting another counsellor might have more experience and that alibi would also be a lie in this case.
This lady is right to suggest she should not counsel gay people. But that means she should not counsel anybody.
April 23rd, 2010 at 10:35 pm
When I was in graduate school in social work I was taught that I should not counsel people if it was not in my area of expertise nor if I was uncomfortable with the area the client wished counseling. I do not know what the student said to the client, but, in general, I think she did the client a favor by not counseling in an area where she was distinctly uncomfortable.
April 24th, 2010 at 12:21 am
The fact is it is not ethical for the student to see a person that she may not be able to help due to her own personal biases. The student was acting within the ethics code by not seeing the client as this is in the best interest of the clients. Everyone has biases, everyone, it would be impossible for any of us to practice if we had to counsel anyone who stepped through the doors. This would have been an excellent opportunity for a good supervisor to teach a student a tactful way to refer a client that they are aware they cannot counsel. This appears to be a counseling department trying to be too political for their own good.
April 25th, 2010 at 3:38 pm
The school was right to kick her out of the program, counseling, like social work, is about following ethics and guidelines of practice if you cant follow them as a student how can we as society trust that she can follow them as a professional. Stop blaming the school for your misplaced judgements and pick another profession.
April 26th, 2010 at 9:57 am
Without being able to read the school’s policy in it’s entirety, it’s ridiculous to attempt to render judgement on this issue. That is the crux of this entire situation. Not, did the student-counselor violate some “federal” non-discrimination issue(s) as many here would like to argue, but:
A) did she violate the school’s stated policy, and (I would think)
B) had she formally agreed to be bound by those policies (e.g. did she sign something?)
As to the question of her regard (or not) for “professional” ethics involved in counseling…have we forgotten that she is a “student”, therefore NOT a professional “yet”?
The original question posed to this forum was (para-phrasing here):
“Is the judge justified in believing that both sides have sufficient cause to want the law to intervene to make a decision about this issue”?
I, for one, am going with a “Yes” on this one.
April 21st, 2011 at 11:16 pm
Every time I see comments like the ones I see here denigrating a student that based on her Christian values, who did not discriminate against the homosexual person, but simply decided that she will not affirm a conduct that goes against her Christian values, I get convinced more and more that this is a nation in moral decadence. Counselors CAN refer a client if there is a clash of values, and that is not a violation of any ethics code. I see so many unfounded comments supporting the discriminatory actions of the University that I am surprised. Homosexual behavior is IMMORAL according to the Bible and is condemned in the Scriptures. It doesn’t make any sense to say that one believes in God and at the same time supports and affirms homosexuality. It is like saying that one believes in God and supports Satan at the same time. What got me really surprised is that the case ended against her claim. That is an additional proof of that moral decadence that has already escalated the highest levels of the society -to the courts of “justice”-. Homosexuals can change their behavior the same way an unfaithful husband can become a good husband. So it is possible to cure someone of its homosexuality. The problem is that humanity has always liked to rationalize their immoral conduct with stupid pseudoscience explanations that imply that homosexuality is ingrained biologically and people has to “accept” it. Based on that another person will have to “accept” his child molesting genes too, but no, that person enters treatment to convince him that what he is doing is wrong. But why not the homosexual too. Curiously, the biological/genetical problem that needs to be “accepted” occurs only on homosexuality. Think about this, even from an evolutionary perspective that behavior is non-adaptative. If everybody were homosexual at this moment, in not many years the whole human race will be extinguished. What a stupid idea that of “accepting your orientation” instead of helping the person understand that he/she has a problem and help the client through therapy to overcome it. It could have been a child rearing problem, a hormone problem, a childhood trauma, etc. No, the amoral psychology of our times does not explore any of that and simply “helps” the clients “accept” their homosexuality. What an idiotic approach. They assume that if someone has an identity conflict the role of the therapist is to help the person to “accept” the homosexual side… and if you can’t help them accept that for any reason then refer the case to a gay-friendly therapist that will complete the process of transforming the person completely into a homosexual. Brilliant. A nation heading in the same direction as Sodom and Gomorrah. I am pretty sure some smart-asses there will reply to this with the common accusations of “homophobic”, “fundamentalist”, etc. Every human being is a loved children of God, but that doesn’t mean Christians have to accept a conduct that is immoral and an abomination according to the Bible, on the same grounds many homosexuals don’t support abortion or unfaithfulness. What should a homosexual therapist do when a woman comes to his office saying that she wants to perform an abortion on her 8.5 months fetus? Should he affirm that thought? Should he say YES or on the contrary he would be discriminating for not agreeing with the woman’s ideas? And if the therapist thinks that abortion is not right? Should he go against his moral values and support her idea of aborting because that is the view of the institution he is working for?
April 27th, 2011 at 1:24 pm
If you are forced to counsel a member of the man-boy love association (or whatever its called) on his relationship problems with an eight year old boy, I should think you would refuse knowing you cannot effectively counsel this person, not because what they are doing is “wrong” but because it is an absolute perversion to you. That is the difference- although we may not all see homosexuality as the same as a man-boy relationship, that is the way SHE sees it. Therefore, there IS a difference between counseling someone who, say, smokes or drinks, or fornicates, which are all “against the Bible” as opposed to something that is seen as an absolute perversion by this counselor. She sees it as something as unnatural and perverted as you and I see a man-boy relationship, a pedophile wanting advice about his girlfriend. Also, consider this-
If someone wants counseling and smokes and drinks, you can encourage them not to smoke and drink.
If someone is fornicating and seeks counseling, guess what? You can encourgae them to “make things official” or maybe “end the unhealthy relationship” or “respect their body more.”
BUT- if someone is homosexual, and seeks help on their homosexual relationship, you can NOT counsel that person to be straight- without probably getting yourself into a huge mess.
So forcing her to counsel a lesbian in a lesbian relationship, regarding her lesbian relationship, is absolutely putting her up against a wall. Its a bad idea for both parties and the college is ignorant and arrogant to demand she do so.