Detroit — A federal judge today dismissed a lawsuit brought against Eastern Michigan University by a master’s student who said she was removed from the school’s counseling program because of her strong religious views against homosexuality. As part of her course work, [Julea] Ward had refused to counsel homosexual clients, saying she believed homosexuality was morally wrong. The university removed Ward from the counseling program after determining her actions violated university policy and the American Counseling Association (ACA) code of ethics….
Furthermore, the university had a rational basis for requiring its students to counsel clients without imposing their personal values.
[From EMU student's lawsuit dismissed | detnews.com | The Detroit News]
In other words, Ward was expelled for her Christian convictions related to homosexuality, and the court affirmed her expulsion by refusing to hear her case. This decision was apparently based, at least in part, on the ACA code of ethics, the relevant portion of which reads as follows:
A.4. Avoiding Harm and Imposing Values
A.4.a. Avoiding Harm
Counselors act to avoid harming their clients, trainees, and research participants and to minimize or to remedy unavoidable or unanticipated harm.A.4.b. Personal Values
Counselors are aware of their own values, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors and avoid imposing values that are inconsistent with counseling goals. Counselors respect the diversity of clients, trainees, and research participants.
Sexuality and religion receive equal emphasis in the code:
C.5. Nondiscrimination
Counselors do not condone or engage in discrimination based on age, culture, disability, ethnicity, race, religion/ spirituality, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, marital status/ partnership, language preference, socioeconomic status, or any basis proscribed by law. Counselors do not discriminate against clients, students, employees, supervisees, or research participants in a manner that has a negative impact on these persons.
Note that the code contains no language pertaining to discrimination against peers or supervisors. As Mark Yarhouse at Limning the Psyche notes, values conflicts are inevitable in counseling:
A politically liberal counselor will meet with a client with strong conservative views; a gay counselor will meet with an Evangelical Christian client; a Catholic counselor will meet with a woman deciding on abortion; an atheist will meet with a devout Muslim.
Typically in the case of such a conflict, a counselor will refer the client to another practitioner. Julea Ward had done that, but it was insufficient:
The school dismissed Julea Ward from the program because she would not agree prior to a counseling session to affirm a client’s homosexual behavior and would not retract her stance in subsequent disciplinary proceedings.
So this is the way it appears, based on the reports to which I have access (all of them linked from this page).
- Julea Ward had a values conflict with a potential client.
- She referred the client to another counselor.
- She did not impose her values on the client.
- If her values affected anyone, apparently it was her peers and/or instructors.
- Yet she was expelled based on the ACA’s ethical requirement that counselors not impose their values on clients, trainees, and research participants.
Which raises questions:
- Did her professors impose their values on her as a trainee (A.4.a)? Is that ethical, according to ACA guidelines?
- Did they discriminate against her as a student on the basis of her religion (C.5)?
- Suppose a homosexual student counselor were to meet with an Evangelical Christian client. If that student were to refer the client rather than recant his moral beliefs regarding sexuality, would that not be equally a violation (or non-violation) of the code of ethics?
- How likely do you suppose it is that said homosexual student would be expelled on that basis?
- How did freedom of sexual behaviors come to be privileged above freedom of religion?
Related: Change Your Beliefs or Get Out!
July 28th, 2010 | 11:28 am | #1
A homosexual counselor should be expected to counsel an Evangelical Christian client in an affirmative and supportive way without the need to try to change the client’s beliefs. The goal should be to help to resolve the client’s conflicts in the manner that is best for that client’s mental health, not in a manner that is most consistent with the counselor’s personal beliefs. The focus should not be the contradiction between the counselor’s beliefs and those of the client, but rather what is best for the client as determined in the context of accepted psychological counseling practices. If the counselor cannot set aside personal beliefs and adhere to accepted professional practices, and feels compelled to disregard professional standards in favor of personal convictions, then the counseling process is compromised.
Similarly, it would be unacceptable for a counselor to indicate that he was compelled by personal convictions to dissuade a client from religious beliefs because those beliefs were contrary to the teachings of his own religion. An orthodox Muslim or Jewish counselor would be expected to refrain from dissuading clients to abstain from what she perceives to be immoral dietary practices.
In short, a counselor who cannot separate personal and judgmental religious beliefs about morality from professional counseling practices should provide counsel from a religious perspective, such as in the role of a clergy member, and not under the guise of meeting professional counseling standards.
July 28th, 2010 | 2:36 pm | #2
Homosexuality is morally wrong? And the scriptural proof is? Oh, of course, there is plenty of reason to believe that “the practice of homosexuality” is morally wrong. In the Bible the punishment for it is stoning, the same as for adultery. In the New Testament, our Lord says that “He who lusts after a woman has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” And so the punishment should be?
What these poor benighted people cannot get through their heads is that homosexuality is a condition of birth, a birth defect if you will, but not something one can decide to change. So Julea Ward has to join the long list of reality deniers, such as Holocaust deniers, Birthers, Moon Landing deniers, and ad infinitum.
But the poor homosexuals suffer doubly: from their condition and from the ignorance and hatred of the people around them. For this also our Lord died.
Peace and Joy!
George A. Marquart
July 28th, 2010 | 3:23 pm | #3
Well, that’s pretty silly, George.
Yes, it could be that it is a condition from birth, we are all born sinful. However, to deny the ability to change sinful behavior by grace through faith in Jesus is the worst possible counsel. People can change through Christ. Evidence abounds. You are the “reality denier” I think.
July 28th, 2010 | 5:40 pm | #4
George:
“What these poor benighted people cannot get through their heads is that homosexuality is a condition of birth…”
And the scientific proof is?
Most likely it’s a combination of genetics, interutero hormones, and one’s environment. My wife and I just went to a wedding reception for a lesbian couple, one of whom (my wife’s friend) very clearly and openly made a rational decision for lesbianism later in her adult life. She’s not the only gay person I know who has made such a decision. But of course, I’ve known plenty of gay men and women who feel this is an orientation that’s been with them since their early memories.
Of course, if it’s completely genetic and nothing else, one wonders why I should even try to fight my own genetic proclivities to “spread my seed” and bed as many women as I can. Lower male mammals do just this, yet society tells me that monogamy and fidelity to my wife matters far more than giving in to my baser–but purely natural–instincts.
But I certainly enjoy your combination of obvious condescension couched in Christian “kindness” in your post, George!
July 28th, 2010 | 11:30 pm | #5
Folks, George does not show signs of being open to rational discourse on this subject. In all likelihood he is highly invested in his existing view, and will not consider reason to the contrary.
I may be wrong about that; in which case he will return, indicate his openness to discussion, and prove me wrong, and I’ll apologize for misreading him.
But if not, the quote “cast not your pearls before swine” is apropos. That’s not intended as an insult to George; that is, I’m not calling him a pig. But it’s intended as an recommendation not to waste time and energy pouring out truth in front of someone who’s predisposed to reject it. “A man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest.”
As for the rest of us, we should remember five things:
1. Prior to the completion of our sanctification, we know that a predisposition to sin remains innate in all of us; but we are not thereby excused;
2. The three sources of the temptations against which we wrestle are traditionally “the world, the flesh, and the devil.” Since “the flesh” is one of those, we can rightly call a biological predisposition, however innate, a “temptation to sin” without absurdity;
3. One man is more tempted to one sin, and less to another; a second man is tempted less to the one sin, and more to the other; but sin remains sin. Without a doubt many persons who wrestle with same-sex attraction are pouring into heaven ahead of many persons who are less tempted in that area, but more tempted to heterosexual adultery, or masturbation, or for that matter, tax evasion or gossip. But if the same-sex attraction folks are going in where the others are failing, it is because they are more sorely tempted, yet are doing a better job at resisting the temptation. No one enters heaven by giving in to temptation, and making excuses to pretend that sin isn’t sin.
4. History is on our side. I do not mean that future “history” is on our side: It is always possible that we will lose in the fight to sanctify the culture around us.
But past history is on our side: The sinfulness of homosexual mutual masturbation (it is not, strictly speaking, “sex” or even “intercourse”) has been held by the overwhelming majority of all Christians in all times and all places for the last 2,000 years, dating back all the way to the apostles, who knew Jesus themselves and whose teachings were based on what Jesus had taught them. Anyone who suggests that homosexual activity was not thought sinful by Jesus and the apostles is simply ignorant or self-deceiving in this regard.
It follows inexorably from this that if the apostles got this wrong, it could only be because either Jesus Himself got it wrong — in which case He is not God — or because the apostles really weren’t particularly good at reliably understanding and conveying His teachings — in which case one can’t trust the New Testament to reliably convey the teachings of Christianity; and thus, no one alive today could possibly know whether they were being faithful to Jesus’ teachings or not.
You can accept orthodox traditional Christian teaching on sexual matters, or you can reject Christianity entirely. Those are the only two rational options. “Blessed is the man who does not fall away on account of Me.”
5. Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. The Truth is a person. Hold, therefore, to the Truth, in the face of all societal pressure, in the face of cultural pressure, in the face of white martyrdoms — loss of job, expulsion from schooling, compulsory diversity training, insults and abuse and vandalism and assault — in the face of all of that, Hold To The Truth. By so doing, you cling firmly to the side of Jesus Christ, who is the Truth. Persevere until the end. Keep in mind your desired “welcome home” message: “Well done, good and faithful servant.”
There may be many temporary drawbacks to being faithful to Christ. But however bad they are, they are temporary. “Well done, good and faithful servant” is forever. “For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all.” (2 Cor 4:17)
July 29th, 2010 | 8:35 am | #6
Yes, George the Old Testament has extreme punishments for many wrong things. (Actually, it’s the Mosaic law that does, but that’s another topic for the biblically illiterate to ponder). But it’s not clear what your point is. Are you suggesting that an extreme punishment means precisely what? In each case–whether it’s adultery or a rebellious child–none is a good. Why single out homosexuality as now all of a sudden good because the punishment was harsh way back then? All the punishments were harsh. So, does that mean that all the punished acts are now all good, including theft, murder, and adultery?
George, grow up and stop sounding like an ignoramus.
July 31st, 2010 | 6:35 pm | #7
What R.C. in #5 said.
This was binary:
“You can accept orthodox traditional Christian teaching on sexual matters, or you can reject Christianity entirely. Those are the only two rational options.”
Here’s the reality: lots of irrational people within Christian churches.
August 1st, 2010 | 12:45 pm | #8
“You can accept orthodox traditional Christian teaching on sexual matters, or you can reject Christianity entirely. Those are the only two rational options.”
Is polygamy a moral evil or not? That falls within the area of sexual ethics, does it not? Yet, I’ve heard conservative Christians suggest that polygamy is not always ideal, but it is in no way sinful as the Bible sometimes required it in the form of levirate marriage.
Should those who disagree just toss the baby out with the bath water and become Hindus?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact