Man, this is a story that just won’t go away– I get tons of links to discussion of the case of Julea Ward being dismissed from a counseling degree program at EMU either because of her religious views or because she discriminated against gay people, depending on how you look at it.
The latest story comes from AnnArbor.com: “Suit against EMU prompts lawmakers to push for reports on protecting students’ religious beliefs.” Here are the opening paragraphs:
Lawmakers in the Michigan Senate are demanding the state’s public universities report on how they’re protecting the religious beliefs of students in counseling degree programs, nearly a year after an advocacy group sued Eastern Michigan University on behalf of student Julea Ward.
The Senate’s demand, contained in its higher education appropriations budget that was passed in late March, would have to survive the budget process still under way in Lansing to land on the desks of university presidents.
“The lawsuit is working its way through the court,” said Leigh Greden, EMU’s executive director of government and community relations. “And we hope the legislature will let the judicial process play out.”
From my point of view, I think the real cause/crux of the issue is described much later in the article:
Ward, while pursuing a master’s degree in the K-12 counseling program, had objected to counseling a client in a faculty-supervised practicum. The client had wished to discuss a homosexual relationship. Ward referred the client to another counselor, following instructions on how to handle ethical dilemmas, her attorneys claimed.
Ward is a “Christian who derives her beliefs and moral values from the Bible,” according to the lawsuit. She was asked to undergo a remediation process and change her beliefs relating to counseling about homosexuality, which she refused.
EMU has stated the student was not discriminated against. EMU’s handbook for students in the counseling program sets out that they must adhere to American Counseling Association standards, which require counselors not to discriminate based on, among other things, sexual orientation. Ward was eventually dismissed from the program.
What I think is interesting here is the shifting definition of homosexuality. There was a great episode of the fantastic radio show “This American Life” called “81 Words” which was about how, in 1973, the American Psychological Association decided that homosexuality was not a mental illness after all. After this decision, the professionally approved “rules” for counseling clients about homosexuality changes so that it was now unprofessional to do things like say that homosexuality was an illness, was something to be cured, and/or was otherwise “wrong.” (I’m not a Psychologist, so perhaps someone in counseling and/or psychology can lend some clarity to what I’m suggesting here; or listen to the TAL story and you will learn a lot).
So basically, from my point of view, Ward’s problem is that she holds a belief that is in fundamental ways at odds with the accepted professional practices of the field. It’s sort of like someone training to be a biologist but who doesn’t accept the validity of evolution, or someone training to be a climatologist but who doesn’t buy into this whole global warming thing. I suppose people are entitled to not believe in evolution or global warming, though I also think those people are also entitling themselves to be wrong. But what exactly is the counseling program supposed to do here? Why should they honor Ward’s unprofessional (albeit personal) feelings about gay people? Suppose she held those same views about interracial couples, as many religiously conservative people once did/still do; would we be having this discussion?
Incidentally, the blog Student Activism has a couple of good posts on all this here and here.
Although at the same time, the APA is perfectly fine and well with letting practitioners hand off clients with whom they have fundamental belief conflicts to another counselor. Outside the realm of the education setting, had this occurred in the ‘real world’ with only APA standards guiding instead of EMU policies, what Ward did would be a completely accepted action.
6th Circuit Appeals Court has overturned lower court. Julea Ward does not need to renounce her Christian morals in order to obtain a degree at a Public University! EMU needs to stop discriminating against persons of faith.
@Proudamerican- in all the news about this, at no time did I ever see any indication that Ms. Ward was asked to “renounce her Christians morals.”
The university listed criteria in the handbook. If she was at odds with this requirement, then why not attend another university? I’m sure there are plenty of private/religious schools that are more in line with her views. Or “practice” without an actual degree…is Marcus Bachmann hiring?
I do not know the ins and outs of the APA as Eagle Talon points out (with some very good points I might add) but a student is different that a working professional…so shouldn’t a student in counseling learn all they can, even if they go into a more specialized practice later in their career?
I don’t know the particulars of the specific patient. Do people of Ms. Ward’s “moral” persuasion think gay people shouldn’t get any counseling, even in matters not directly related to homosexuality? Let’s say a gay person dealing with the death of a family member & severe depression. And where does that end…does someone citing “Christians morals”not have to treat patients who are of non Christian beliefs like atheist, Jewish, Wiccan, etc.?
How would you, Proud American, feel if a Christian was denied counseling by someone of a different belief system? I’m betting if this was say a Muslim student not treating a Christian…I’m betting many voices on the right would go ballistic.
Andrew,
Maybe you should look into the facts of the case before you post. No one was denied counseling. The client was looking for someone to affirm and encourage her homosexual relationship and Ms. Ward rightly asked that someone else be assigned the case. It was a matter directly related to homosexual behavior. I would hope, and the 6th circuit confirms, that professionals should not be required to endorse harmful behaviors. I don’t know of any Christian who would go ballistic if a counselor of another faith declined to participate in affirming the Christian faith. Imagine the opposite – requiring a Muslim counselor to encourage the practice of Christian faith and expelling that counselor if they objected.