An alert EMUTalk reader sent me this notice from something called the WorldNetDaily: University to student: Endorse being ‘gay’ or leave: Lawsuit says educators stepped ‘over the legal line.’
A lawsuit has been filed against Eastern Michigan University, accusing the school of tossing a student out of a graduate counseling program because she refused to endorse homosexuality as morally good.
Julea Ward filed suit after she was dismissed from the school’s counseling training for not affirming homosexuality and then refusing to recant her beliefs in “disciplinary proceedings,” according to the Alliance Defense Fund Center for Academic Freedom.
WND called president Susan W. Martin’s office for comment and was referred to a media relations office, where officials did not respond.
First off, the WorldNetDaily seems to be kind of a crazy right-wing organization. Some of the related stories to this one were “‘Hetero’ gal benched ‘for not being lesbian’;” “Universities trash 1st Amendment;” “Prof put on leave for using student in political agenda;” and “Student’s ‘Star Chamber’ inquisition prompts lawsuit.” So, put in that context, this might not actually be particularly true.
Second, my guess is that what is really going on here is that the student is being taught what is pretty much the standard line in counseling and psychology nowadays, which is that homosexuality is not deviant. This is probably at odds with the students’ beliefs, and thus the conflict. But that’s just a guess.
By the way, congrats to my Iowa homeland for striking down a law against gay marriage. Let’s see what happens there next.
What a bunch of junk. In the complete article there is a line, “The student was targeted by the school’s disciplinary process as a result of her decision”. Really? I’ve read the Student Conduct Code. I can’t find anything remotely close to removing someone from an academic program due to their personal beliefs.
Here is a link so you too can read:
http://www.emich.edu/sjs/conductcode.html
This should be an interesting case to follow.
Yes, I’m sure she’s allowed to have her own beliefs, however I highly doubt discrimination is in any professional code of ethics. Which is probably what she was falling into.
Do they teach human anatomy and physiology at EMU?
Here is a link to the complaint at the end on the article.
http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/story.aspx?cid=4899
The counseling code of ethics prevents personal beliefs from entering into the counseling relationship. Counselors are not to be lecturing how someone should live their lives based on the counselors standards/morals/beliefs but rather honor that the client has different beliefs/morals/etc. and to support the client in living by their own moral code and beliefs. How would you feel if you went into counseling, let’s say for marriage problems, and your counselor told you that the reason why you are having problems is because you have not included God in your relationship? What if you are not Christian? That would be imposing your beliefs on the client and that is not what counselors are for. I commend EMU for making this decision because they would essentially be sending a student out into the profession that they know would be violating the very code that we are taught to abide by as professionals. What kind of program would it be if they allowed blatant disregard for the professional code of ethics?
If her beliefs were so strongly against homosexuality, she should have taken classes at a PRIVATE Faith based institution vs. here at EMU.. knowing we are a public institution who practices diversity and who’s program states ‘non discrimination’ policy screams that this person was looking for a fight (and lawsuit as well) to increase public outcry..
She’s going to win this, EMU should settle immediately.
As much as it pains me to have to side with someone who is morally against homosexuality, I don’t believe she has really done anything against the profession’s code of ethics, and that EMU was indeed trying to force her into acting against her beliefs.
Referring out a student to another counselor for a clash in values is a completely common and acceptable behavior in the profession. There was not a time where the student told her client that he/she should refrain from the homosexual behavior, which would have been a violation of the code of ethics. The counseling student acted in a way that is appropriate to the profession (and with the code of ethics), bottom line. Had she actually gone and told her client not to engage in those activities (or in any behavior, to that matter), then she would have violated the code of ethics.
The important thing is to focus on the LEGAL aspect here, not the MORAL parts. Even though some of us are unhappy that she morally opposes homosexuality, it still does not change the fact that she appears to have done no wrong to her client or violated the counseling profession code of ethics. EMU had no right to require a certain set of beliefs or base her status on a student for completing a training that was not included in her program of study and not an official disciplinary code action.
The student is completely allowed to have whatever set of moral beliefs she wants and can still be a counselor and an EMU student, PROVIDED THAT:
1) She doesn’t violate the professional (ACA) code of ethics by pushing her beliefs onto her client
2) She doesn’t violate a campus policy that would warrant expulsion
The closest thing to a violation of a campus policy was with the policy that counseling students have to (from the complaint facts section) “tolerate different points of view”. The student did in fact tolerate the differing value set by trying to find another counselor for the client rather than attempt to change his/her beliefs on the behavior. EMU is confusing the word “tolerate” with “accept” or “promote”. Tolerate simply means to act in a neutral manner (rather than a negative), which the student did by doing what any reasonable person in the counseling profession would do when facing a conflict of interest or values.
Having violated neither the ACA code of ethics or a campus policy, the student was expelled unjustly, and I think (barring any new facts coming into play that would cause one or both of the above violations to occur) she will win this case easily, and thus EMU should settle as soon as possible.
To offer an opinion on another comment- No discrimination actually took place her between the student and her client. She knew there was a conflict, and instead of pushing her beliefs on her client, she did the right thing and asked for another counselor to see the client instead.
She probably came to EMU because we have a good counseling program, not because of the beliefs we tend to hold. Are you saying you’d rather only have liberal, progressive students? That doesn’t seem very diverse. On the flip side, there are liberal and progressive students that go to the faith based private schools because of the quality of their programs.
I’m suggesting that if you go to a public institution that doesn’t discriminate, and you have strong moral objections to a topic you will probably encounter, you should consider going somewhere more ‘in line’ with your ‘strong beliefs’.. it’s the exact reason I couldn’t work at a private institution; I’d have cognitive dissonance and not be able to do it.
I do agree that the individual in question did the right thing by going to their adviser and recommending a different counselor. It also sounds like the department tried to work with her prior to expulsion from the program..
“Trying to work with her” required a training (“remediation program”) and an assertion by the student that she was in the wrong to be morally opposed to homosexual behavior.
Like I said, I think it’s sad that she feels this way, but from the legal perspective, that requirement violates her first amendment rights to free speech and freedom of/from religion, since the public university is requiring her to have a specific opinion and set of beliefs (which can also be termed as a religion for the purpose of application).
For once, EMU is well within the law.
There’s more to this story than Julea and her lawyer are sharing with the press. I agree wholeheartedly with EMU’s policy that “students in its program … affirm or validate homosexual behavior within the context of a counseling relationship and prohibits students from advising clients that they can change their homosexual behavior.” Whether or not Julea has ever, yet, addressed homosexual behavior in any counseling sessions, is irrelevant. She could any day. And graduate students should be expected to uphold such parameters as a “standard of care.” If they can’t, they don’t belong in counseling. If people want to impose their religious beliefs this strongly in our secular society, they should find a new profession. Paraphrasing the words of Shakespeare, I suggest Julea get herself to a nunnery. Academic freedom is a wonderful thing in the classroom. But it doesn’t belong in the clinic.
The Alliance Defense Fund whose aims are to allow Christians like Julea to “freely live out their faith” are “Dominionists,” as in the “Dominion of God.” They get their “degrees” from Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University and insist on forcing their religious beliefs onto secular institutions like EMU. EMU is going to win this case easily. The ADF’s success at winning cases is bleak; but they continue on because of the headlines they get and they’re in love with their martyr status.
Without knowing what the ‘remediation’ program entailed, it’s difficult to know if she ever had a chance I suppose.. I’d be amazed if the University/Counseling program was forcing her to “affirm that she was morally opposed to anything”.. That would definitely be a violation IMO. I’d also have to expect that counselors/psychologist hear any number of things which they find offensive, but know it’s not their job to judge the behavior nor condone it.. rather to have the ability to listen objectively.. Sounds like this individual wasn’t able to meet that basic principle..
“Sounds like this individual wasn’t able to meet that basic principle..”
I agree, but I suppose that’s why the profession supports referrals and transfers. She never actually saw the client in question. And maybe you’re right, perhaps she did pick a program that might not have been the best for her belief system. However, that still does not provide the right to require any specific belief system.
I agree! I’d be very surprised to see some proof that EMU ‘required’ someone to believe something specific like “homosexuality is OK/NOT OK”. I suppose it’s possible, but if the review panel was able to view the case (and she was able to communicate why/how she did not violate anything) I’d think a reasonable group of individuals would agree with her in being discriminated/violation of her rights .. EMU Legal may end up ‘paying her off’ but will be quick to point out “we are not admitting responsibility”.. it’s the cheaper way to go unfortunately..
The Eastern Echo has an article about this today. To be honest, I don’t think it clears much up about the situation.
I don’t know the details here. But hypothetically, if this student was suing because she didn’t want to counsel an interracial couple because she thought it was wrong for people of different races to marry, would that lawsuit have any weight or value? Probably not. So what’s the difference here?
Oh, and the soon defunct AANews has an article here about this. The last paragraph is as close to a statement from EMU as we’ve seen so far:
I read the whole claim and looked at the evidence filed by the plaintiff, which has been published online by the Eastern Echo (Thanks guys!). I’m definitely intrigued by this case and expect to follow it as closely as I can (since it’s so hard to follow legal incidences these days with all the settling that happens outside the public arena).
The claim only gives one side, but there doesn’t seem like there’s a whole lot of room for the other side to fit anything different in here, since all the evidence is in the form of policy books and official letters from EMU.
Based on what I know to be the normal professional standards of the “helping professions,” and the professionalism of the EMU faculty in the program in question, I’d say EMU has a strong probability of winning. Someone who has deep bias against a certain class of people is, on the face of it, unsuited to entering a profession devoted to helping all clients. It’d be unethical to allow such a person to graduate from a program that trains people to enter the helping professions. Therapists, counselors, doctors, teachers — they are not at liberty to pick and choose who they are willing to help.
But never underestimate the ability of the EMU counsel’s office to lose a sure-win case, or to settle a case that ought to be fought. Our university counsel Ken McKanders is the person who decided, years ago, that EMU should argue, in federal court, that the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which applies to educational institutions, did not apply to programs run by American universities overseas; his argument was that since the law did not explicitly state that it applied to US programs for US students run overseas, persons who believed they’d been harassed on an overseas EMU study trip had no right to sue or file a complaint. This stupid argument was roundly rejected by the federal courts, but only after costing EMU a small fortune. It did, however, settle an issue of civil rights law that had not previously been settled, or even much addressed, by the courts. Of course, the reason that tiny area of civil rights law had not been settled is because, basically, no other university had ever made such an absurd argument. The logic here was the same as when McKanders decided that EMU would appeal the fine imposed on EMU for violating the Cleary Act: This appeal did in the end reduce the fine by about $5000, but it probably cost that much in lawyers’ fees and it needlessly ensured that the story of the EMU cover up of the Laura Dickinson murder was again a news story.
And the university counsel is scared to death of the right-wing lawyers group handling this case. He’ll likely want to settle. He has no clue as to what the real interests of the university are.
Drew, be careful about the distinction between what has been presented as fact (i.e. evidence) and opinion. What you talked about it 99% your opinion (of who should be allowed in the profession, who these people are, what SHOULD be done in the profession, etc.) And the personality/religious affiliation and certain groups’ common institutions is quite irrelevant in this situation, since the facts are pretty much all laid out in paper.
Had EMU had other intentions or other reasons for the expulsion, they should have inserted them in the letter. They don’t have much ground to stand on with those three claims they gave her.
The scientific evidence is clear. Human anatomy and physiology leave no room for the possibility that human beings are built for anything other than heterosexual activity. Homosexual activity is outside the norm established by clearly understood science.
The university has acted to punish a woman for her religious conviction. But more than engaging in religious bigotry, they have punished her for holding a conviction that needs no religious understanding and is clearly confirmed by clinical science.
The university is practicing bigotry based on flat earth ignorance. They’re puninshing her for knowing the earth is round because it is offensive to those who cling to a flat earth ignorance of clinical science.
Um, Joe, I don’t know which scientists you are referencing here, but homosexuality is not a choice, has been scientifically established, etc., etc. But that’s the reason why this is even close to a debatable issue. If we we substituted homosexuality here with almost anything else– an issue of race, for example– everyone would be outraged at this lawsuit.
I don’t know the particulars of the lawsuit, and somehow I think that the institution and the people being sued here have more of a “side” to this story than they are revealing. I do think it’s important though to note that from a scientific point of view, the psychological/counseling community has said that homosexuality is “natural” and “normal” for a long time, and it is not something that ought to be corrected through some kind of therapy. And quite frankly, if you are going through training as a counselor or a therapist and you get squeamish around a topic like sexuality, you’re in the wrong training program. Kinda like the surgeon who doesn’t like the sight of blood, no?
It said in the lawsuit that she wanted a trial by jury. Does anyone know where this might take place and when? I’d love to watch this spectacle first hand.
This issue makes me glad I haven’t yet made the move to invest thousands of dollars into any kind of academic donation to EMU. Also a great excuse to use to no longer support EMU or its President.
The idea that it is “Standard” to adhere to some belief is never right. Only in Academia are students asked to adhere to the Liberalized belief system as if its gospel.
The truth is that the standard is to simply refer the person you are counseling for issues involving a conflict with your religious beliefs. Julia Ward did just that and she’s not only told she can’t counsel anyone, but EMU went so far as to BAN her for LIFE for ever finishing her Graduate Degree.
Fine… I’ll just BAN EMU for LIFE for getting any penny out of me by way of donation. This University has always made me sick to my stomache anyhow.
EMU MOTTO: “We HATE Christians!”
MathGeek – the BoR has 20 days to respond to the summons before any trial date can be set, and even then it’s possible that they could settle before anything ever gets to that point. Essentially we just have to wait it out for the behind-the-scenes formalities to take place. I’m sure this will be covered more by the Echo and the AA News when and if a court date is set.
Just a little housekeeping issue here: to post a comment to EMUTalk.org, you need to include a real email address, which is not posted on the site. So hurronanon who posted from anon@mail.com, if you want to post, try again. And that goes for anyone else, too.
Jeff MacMillan – your comments are so overwhelmingly refreshing!
Obviously, you missed the communication sent out several months ago by President Martin, standing by the Universities commitment to Diversity. We had a christian group visit on campus, handing out fliers, spewing all sorts of rude comments to students on how they were dressed, on sexual orientation and other views. Many people were offended by what this group said. President Martin reaffirmed (please check websters.com for the definition if you do not know the word) that the university was committed to individual rights and preferences. I’m not quoting it. I didn’t save the email, I’m paraphrasing. She and the University are fully committed that people have different beliefs.
Just as Julea has the right to her religious beliefs, this client has the right to his/her belief.
If Julea was incapable of setting aside her personal beliefs to aid this client, then Julea should step aside from counseling. The university is not squashing Julea’s first amendment. They affirm that she can believe what she wants.
In the context of a counselor working with a client, the counselor MUST put aside any personal views to remain objective. She did not seem to be able to do that.
EMU certainly has a side that is not represented in the documents yet. First and foremost, Julea did and will continue violating the ACA code of ethics. Any educational program that must abide by a certain code of ethics will weed out people who are unwilling to comply. In no way does EMU ever say you can’t be Christian, or for Homosexuals etc. EMU and the ACA Code of ethics outline standards of care that do not allow counselor beliefs and values to enter into the relationship and influence how you counsel someone. A counselor is to always help the client work throught their issues from their point of view. You cannot simply refer everyone that you don’t want to work with because you never know when issues will come up about a person that you don’t agree with. In this case, the client was lucky and was referred prior to the first appointment.
I have to say, after reading what I’ve read that first, Word Net Daily seems to have completely butchered the story. That column was horribly written. Second, I have to agree with Mike (Eagle’s Talon) and ask what harm is done to a patient who is gay if a counselor refuses to counsel them (sorry, that sentence sucks, I know)? If the individual in need of help is getting that assistance, then does it matter from where the help is coming?
And I can’t agree with sitedad’s analogy about the surgeon who can’t stand the sight of blood. Certainly, there are doctors who are opposed to abortion, no? Embryonic stem cell research?
I could just be an idiot, but I think the door is wide open on this one.
I think that Counseling Student is probably most correct in that there is almost certainly more to this story, and that “more” part is what EMU is not yet officially saying.
And sure, there are doctors against abortion. But those doctors usually do not become OB-GYN doctors. Besides, abortion isn’t really the analogy here: abortion is a decision, while homosexuality isn’t, and the only groups who think that homosexuality is a choice are religious ones.
Here’s an analogy that I brought up before: substitute “interracial couple” for “homosexuality” here and this student’s argument collapses. In other words, if the suing student had refused to counsel someone because she thought mixing of the races was against her religion, then I think it is fair to say she would not have a case. So the real fear/problem here is homosexuality, and I would argue that the real split in the discussion is among people who think there’s really nothing wrong with being gay and people who think there is something wrong with it.
The other thing here is let’s remember that the student was a student: she was (by definition) not a licensed therapist herself and she was supposed to be learning new things. She wasn’t really in a position at this point in her career to say what sort of therapy she would and wouldn’t do because she was learning the field. She wasn’t in a position to make these judgments yet.
Part of what it means to be a student in any field is confronting ideas that might not line up completely with previously held believes. From my point of view as a professor, confronting new ideas is essential to learning. Students can choose not to confront ideas (and thus choose not to learn), but I don’t think they should be allowed to sue because they don’t like the ideas their professors introduce.
However, sitedad, the counseling profession allows for such a thing to occur, and promotes that in a way to ensure better consultations for clients.
It’s important to also consider that in the counseling experience, the student would not just be confronting new ideas, but that she would have needed to support her client in engaging in activity she felt was morally wrong. Confronting occurred in the classroom when she and her professor discussed working with people of nonheterosexual orientation. However, when she was asked to counsel on this issue, she refused because there was no moral way for her to support this activity.
The bigger problem I see here is that this is a religious belief that is commonly held in society that clashes with a perspective that is especially commonly held in this geographical area. It seems easy for all of us to just say, ‘well she should just be more open minded and not believe this way’, since we don’t agree with her, but we have to look at the facts and not what ‘should’ happen. I’ve only been able to see one side, but that side does include the transcript of the formal hearing, and the letters sent to the student from the university. Those alone seem enough to keep EMU in quicksand, assuming that something hadn’t happen prior to this which involved a client and actual proof of discrimination. EMU expelled her for three specific reasons, none of which they did a decent job of proving in the hearing, in my opinion, at least enough to have a solid case.
There’s also more on the line here for EMU. If they lose this case, it will just be another drug-out media blemish for the university. It will also potentially harm the reputation we have for being a tolerant, diverse campus – it would show that we discriminate against conservative and religious people, and we need people with those perspectives just as much as we need the more progressive folks. By settling right away, reinstating her, giving her a bit of money, and just apologizing for the removal (they don’t have to admit wrong, just apologize for the damage), EMU can save some face and avoid what could be a horrible court loss.
I don’t know about that last paragraph, ET. I don’t know in part because I literally do not know: as I’ve said before here and as others have said in this discussion, I have a feeling there is a lot about this case that has yet to be made public.
I also don’t know in the sense that I don’t agree. What you are saying here is that if EMU calls someone on being intolerant of another group– that is, a conservative/religious student who has something against gay people– then EMU is demonstrating its lack of tolerance for intolerant people. Wha? That doesn’t make a lot of sense, does it?
“If we substituted homosexuality here with almost anything else– an issue of race, for example– everyone would be outraged at this lawsuit.” Sitedad
Sitedad – Substituting “an issue of race” is a strong argument. But can you list some other substitutions that would prove your point?
Race is the most obvious, but I can imagine a lot of groups that someone with particularly narrow/orthodox/strict/ideological views might have a problem counseling. “I am devote Christian, so I can’t counsel someone about their Atheism/Islamic faith/Judaism/etc.” Or “I believe a woman’s place is in the home, so I can’t counsel a couple where the conflict seems to be that the woman wants to pursue her own career.” Or “my religious beliefs hold that sex before marriage is an abomination in the face of God, so I cannot counsel this young man about his experiences.” Or “I think abortion is murder, so I cannot counsel this woman who is having emotional issues about her abortion because I believe she committed a murder and deserves whatever emotional pain she gets.” And so on. It’s pretty easy to come up with other examples if you allow yourself to imagine some of the extreme beliefs that play themselves out in the media nearly every day.
Are these examples ridiculous? Maybe. Almost as ridiculous, IMO, as someone suing because they weren’t allowed to discriminate against gay people.
To me, the actions of being dismissed are due directly to her inability to follow the ACA guidelines, thus she was removed from the program. If she did discriminate it’s ironic that she’s suing the university for the same thing.. oh the taste of IRONY, eh?
Sitedad, your examples aren’t ridiculous, since those are examples of real issues counselors punt their clients for all the time, a completely accepted practice by the ACA.
“Then EMU is demonstrating its lack of tolerance for intolerant people”
No, EMU would be demonstrating its lack of tolerance for people with a religion that does not accept what they do. Tolerate and accept mean 2 different things. As long as you don’t act in a way to reduce or cause hard to someone, you are still tolerating them. EMU wants this student to accept and promote, not just tolerate.
Well, like I said ET, I think there’s a lot we don’t know about this case. And I think “Counseling Student” has some good points here about the institution’s obligations to maintain ACA guidelines as part of teaching. Remember: this was a student, not someone out in the field as a practicing counselor, an important distinction.
But I don’t see how EMU is “promoting” in this case.
Maybe I should use a different word than promoting. I guess affirming, the word used in the claim, is better.
But as for the distinction, there really doesn’t need to be one in this case. She was expelled for violating the campus policies (which were simply that she needed to follow those guidelines as if she was in the profession), and there is nothing about refusal to do an assignment, insubordination with a supervisor, or other similar charge that would create a reason to apply the distinction in this case. Bottom line: the three reasons are laid on in the letter from EMU, the hearing was not sufficient to prove the reasons for discharge did in fact occur in creating a violation, and the student was not granted an appeal for such a hearing that was not successful in doing what it was supposed to do (prove that she violated those rules/codes).
“Um, Joe, I don’t know which scientists you are referencing here, but homosexuality is not a choice, has been scientifically established, etc., etc. But that’s the reason why this is even close to a debatable issue. If we we substituted homosexuality here with almost anything else– an issue of race, for example– everyone would be outraged at this lawsuit.”
I suggest you pick up an anatomy and physiology textbook. Our cells, tissue, organs and organ systems, our entire physical structure and function leaves no room for homosexuality.
If homosexuality was inborn, it wouldn’t so many men have to be put in prison before they take up homosexual activity. And then they wouldn’t quit when they got out.
Blacks are not like homosexuals.
To be honest, the only reason I allowed that post Joe was because it is really not very smart.
My son is in a Ph.D. program for clinical Psych in Chicago. Last year one of his classmates was dismissed for writing about her sexual preferences in her clinical writings. She was a lesbian, although that had nothing to do with her dismissal. The school was of the opinion that sexual preference or approval or disapproval had no place in the area of counseling. In other words what they were saying is to leave your feelings, beliefs, faith, opinions, whatever about sex or sexual orientation out of your professional life. You must learn to take care of everyone regardless of whether they are a homosexual or not. In addition, the counselor is not to involve the person they are counseling in their own sexual preferences. There is a code of ethics that the APA puts out, the student in my son’s program violated the ethics and was dismissed. End of story. I’m betting that if the EMU faculty played by the code of ethics they will win, or the suit will be dismissed.
Zombie Reagan want TAX CUTS! Zombie Reagan HUNGRY! Zombie Reagan want BRAINS! Zombie Reagan not like JOE or JEFF! JOE and JEFF keep Zombie Reagan HUNGRY!
Many here have BRAINS to feed Zombie Reagan. Zombie Reagan compassionate conservative. Maybe JOE and JEFF need BRAINS more than Zombie Reagan.
This is exactly the type of thing I predicted would happen back in the fall when Pres. Sue Martin brought her “Beyond Tolerance” tent to the campus – back when sitedad and Prof. Higabee both disagreed with me. EMU is going to lose this lawsuit. Religious rights are a federally protected class while the Supreme Court of our nation has already ruled that homosexuality is not. Sexual attraction is not a choice, but sexual behavior of humans is always a choice – except in cases of rape. Many Pro-life physicians do choose to be Obstetricians and cannot be compelled to perform abortions. EMU cannot discriminate against persons with sincerely held religious beliefs that are consistent with the last 2000 years of history and deny persons of certain faiths the right to study in particular fields. Race is not comparable to sexuality. The Federal government will be forced to withhold all funding if EMU persists in their discrimination against religious beliefs.
JOE, JEFF, and PROUD AMERICAN make Zombie Reagen feel hunger that dare not speak its name. Zombie Reagen party with LOG CABIN REPUBLICANS to satisfy THAT hunger.
Maybe JOE, JEFF, and PROUD AMERICAN come out of closet and have Teabag Party with Zombie Reagen soon.
Zombie Reagen love to teabag JOE, JEFF, and PROUD AMERICAN.
Sitedad – What are the distinctions between students and practicing counselors?
Mosh, I have no exact knowledge, and maybe someone who does know more about the program could post something. But I would speculate it is analogous to being a graduate assistant.
In the department I’m in (English), we have graduate assistants teaching classes like English 121 (aka first year writing). On the one hand, these GAs are teaching their own classes and are just like “regular” instructors or professors. They are responsible for planning their classes, doing their own grading, getting evaluations, dealing with the classroom logistics, etc., etc. I think we give them a lot of leeway to do what they want.
On the other hand, they are also taking courses in writing pedagogy and they are being supervised by writing program administrators, who are faculty charged with the job. I did this for a year a couple years ago. This supervision is designed to give support to the GA, who generally doesn’t have a lot of previous teaching experience, and it is also set up to make sure that the GA does teaching that is fitting with program goals. In other words, without getting into the nitty-gritty of teaching writing, GA instructors can’t just do anything they want. So hypothetically, if I was the writing program administrator and I had a graduate assistant who “refused” for some reason to do some part of the job based on moral/ethical/religious/political/whatever reasons, then I’d probably have a problem and I might not want to continue that GA relationship.
What I’m saying is the graduate assistant teaching first year writing is both a teacher AND a student, meaning they aren’t quite as empowered to do whatever they want. And I would guess that the student in the counseling program is also both a counselor AND a student and can thus not refuse to do or not do whatever they want.
But like I said, this is mostly an educated guess; maybe someone from that program who knows better can set me straight. So to speak.
You’re so arrogant sitedad. An individual always has the right to do or not do whatever they want. You teach English at a second rate University for God’s sake. You put your pants on one leg at a time, just like everyone else. Get off your power trip. GA’s are not your personal slaves.
No, actually, individuals don’t always have a right to do whatever they want, and there are lots of evidence of this. Anyone who has ever had something that smacks of “a boss” is very familiar with this situation. Or maybe a better way of putting it: people have a right of doing whatever they want, but they have to be willing to face the consequences.
You can call it what you want, but all professors/teachers, from kindergarten on, have power over students. The teacher sets up the assignments, the rules, assigns the grades, etc. And while I don’t think EMU is “second rate,” the quality of the school doesn’t have much influence over this inherent power relationship one way or the other.
I don’t think this relationship doesn’t enslave my students, but it does have consequences. For example, my students can choose not to complete an assignment or a reading or something in the name of doing what they want. But the consequence will probably be reflected in their grade in the course.
Oh, and I don’t have any GAs nor any personal slaves, the “power trips” of an English professor are modest at best, and I enjoy the two-legged jump into the pants approach to dressing.
So do you believe the consequences of having Christian beliefs are deserving of being expelled from a public University? Even as a professor with power over students, you can’t practice viewpoint discrimination without repercussion.
@ proud American: I would say “YES” if those beliefs forced the student to violate a code of conduct, federal law, or put other students in harms way..
I don’t mean to sound like a broken record BUT: if the students beliefs were SO STRONG, they should have checked out what the program offered and what they would be doing as part of that program prior to applying to it. A private school who’s belief system is more in line with the student in question would have been a better choice..
Some accountability must rest in the student in this case…
If a public university uses taxpayer money to fund their programs, they can’t design them to exclude the beliefs of 80% of the population. It can’t enforce a student code of conduct that violates Federal law either.
I’m going to close the comments on this post since I think it’s time to move on. I do think it is kind of weird though how fired-up people get about supposed discrimination against Christians and about the whole “gay thing.” If this had been a Muslim student objecting to counseling a gay couple, I have a feeling Proud American et al wouldn’t be posting about this. And I’ve never understood why the fact that some people are gay makes people so angry and mad. As long as I don’t have to become gay, what difference does it make to me?