|
Post by Lauren on Jan 8, 2012 1:13:29 GMT
This thread was started with an article about Jennifer Keeton. The court has ruled unfavorably in her appeal. It seems the ruling court doesn't see diversity among counselors and their beliefs as corresponding to the 1st Admendment concept of free speech. Will this go to the Supreme Court? ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=10404&MediaType=1&Category=26 QUOTE:Jennifer Keeton Loses Fight To Counsel Her Anti-Gay Views December 20, 2011 Jennifer Keeton, the student fighting for her right to counsel her anti-gay views, has lost her legal challenge, The Chronicle of Higher Education reported. On Friday, a federal appeals court upheld a lower court's ruling in favor of Augusta State University's decision to expel Keeton from its counseling program. Keeton sued the university last year after they declared her anti-gay beliefs incompatible with the counseling profession. She argued that professors had violated her rights to free speech and the free exercise of her faith. In its ruling, the lower court said it was reasonable for a public university to enforce academic standards. The three-judge appeals panel unanimously ruled that Keeton was unlikely to prevail in her case. According to the lawsuit, Keeton was presented with a remediation plan in May 2010, in which faculty members said her views on gay and transgender persons are “professionally suspect.” The plan called for Keeton to attend a minimum of three diversity workshops with an emphasis on the gay community, increase her exposure and interaction with gay populations (attending gay pride was suggested), and increase her study and research on improving counseling effectiveness with LGBT people. The graduate student was advised that failure to complete the plan could result in dismissal from the program. Keeton described the plan as an attack on her religious beliefs. The plan would require her to “tell clients wanting to hear it that homosexual sex is moral,” she said in court papers. Hallelujah! But in all honesty, did she really expect to win?
|
|
|
Post by Lauren on Jan 8, 2012 1:23:10 GMT
Are counselors required to never make a moral judgment? What about domestic violence counselors, for instance? I am confused as to what you are asking because there is a difference between morals and something that is against the law. But I will try to answer. Hypothetically, from studying social work, if a woman came in and spoke about WANTING to leave her abusive spouse, I would be able to provide her with information such as women shelters and maybe helping her understand what would happen if she wanted to press charges. I cannot call the police (even if I wanted to). In court, it would be hearsay and inadmissible. He would be free to hit her again. The only time I would be able to take action is if she is a harm to herself or others. If she insisted on staying with her abusive husband, despite everything, my hands would be tied legally. I cannot force her into a shelter. I can only provide information. Now, if I thought, as a counsellor, it was morally right for husbands to abuse wives, then I would be a pretty sh!t counsellor, especially if a woman is coming in wanting help.
|
|
|
Post by Lauren on Jan 8, 2012 1:51:10 GMT
[quote author=anna board=ethics thread=1685 post=43912
Could we have an Orthodox Jewish counselor, who is only interested in conseling other orthodox Jews? Orthodox Jews oppose marriage outside of their religion and have disapproving views of homosexuality as well.[/quote]
When you obtain your counselling degree, you can choose to set up your own practice and counsel whomever the hell you like. The problem with this case is, Miss Keeton and Mrs. Ward applied to a school that doesn't share their views. What most people do in this case is shut-up and suck it up until they get their degree and go on to do what they want to do, and they do not have to worry about who they can potentially offend. Because lets face it: would a gay person seek out an Orthodox Jew for counselling knowing their views? Or a strict religious person? No. Because they won't offer any help.
Universities usually have safe places for the LGBT community. One of those safe places usually consist of crisis/counselling centres. The LGBT community shouldn't have to -- in these safe places -- wonder if they will be persecuted when seeking help/guidance.
See, this is where I think you are not understanding the role of an Education System and that of a professional career. If a program requires you to leave your biases at the door -- especially in counselling, because I know for a fact, Social Work was the same way, then you do it to complete your degree. If you do not make the basic requirements that is it. The University wasn't refusing to educate Miss Keeton/Ms. Ward. If they were, they would have kicked them out right then and there, but they didn't. They asked them to take a sensitivity course, which they refused. They blew their second chance, and thus failed to meet the requirements of the degree.
And Universities do not promote an ideology. They promote education. Education includes many things.
Again, when you go to a counsellor, you go there seeking help because YOU want help. Not affirmation. Not persecution. No approval. No disproval. They are neutral so they can provide the best help.
Miss Keeton and Mrs. Ward would have persecuted and disproved any homosexual who came to her. How is that helpful?
Most doctors do pick special fields. And they are free to accept and reject any client they wish to. The difference is, they do this when they have their degree, not before.
And what is wrong with that? If I was a counsellor and I knew that I wouldn't be able to help this patient as well as my colleague, who dealt with these situations more than I have, why wouldn't I refer them?
Again, Miss Keeton and Mrs. Ward could have done whatever they liked after they graduated. If one of the degree requirements was to counsel fellow students, they can't refer that person over to someone else. They don't get that luxury as students.
[/size][/quote]
Again, they were students, not counsellors. They do not get a pass on whom they wish to counsel as students.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2012 7:44:43 GMT
That is not the case in the UK, at least with NHS doctors. GP practices can strike a difficult patient off their list and I have heard of practices who refuse to take on new patients with complex problems, but this is frowned upon if not in breach of their contract.
Doctors can refuse to become involved in abortion or even contraception, but must refer the patient to someone else. Having done that, the doctor cannot refuse to treat the same patient for other medical conditions.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Jan 8, 2012 17:01:35 GMT
Are counselors required to never make a moral judgment? What about domestic violence counselors, for instance? I am confused as to what you are asking because there is a difference between morals and something that is against the law. But I will try to answer. Hypothetically, from studying social work, if a woman came in and spoke about WANTING to leave her abusive spouse, I would be able to provide her with information such as women shelters and maybe helping her understand what would happen if she wanted to press charges. I cannot call the police (even if I wanted to). In court, it would be hearsay and inadmissible. He would be free to hit her again. The only time I would be able to take action is if she is a harm to herself or others. If she insisted on staying with her abusive husband, despite everything, my hands would be tied legally. I cannot force her into a shelter. I can only provide information. Now, if I thought, as a counsellor, it was morally right for husbands to abuse wives, then I would be a pretty sh!t counsellor, especially if a woman is coming in wanting help. I don't think Synonymn was suggesting that counsellers should NOT take moral positions on domestic violence. The impression I got was that she thought it would be difficult for them NOT to. Maybe her point was something along the lines of "people have certain beliefs and maybe at times they might come into conflict with the demands of their job." For what it's worth, I think your latest post was superb, Lauren, and for me pretty well said it all.
|
|
|
Post by Lauren on Jan 8, 2012 21:45:57 GMT
I don't think Synonymn was suggesting that counsellers should NOT take moral positions on domestic violence. The impression I got was that she thought it would be difficult for them NOT to. I understand that it would be hard to separate feelings. However, hypothetically, if you were a counsellor that specializes in domestic issues, knowing that at any given time a woman may want to take your advice, or disregard it, would you deny listening to the woman who wanted to stay in the abusive relationship? It would personally bother me at night that this person is beating someone else, but I wouldn't refuse them, and I would leave my personal feelings at the door -- especially if that was my job. I don't know if you have ever seen the Prop 8 'A storm is coming' video by some Christian Organization (not the Funny or Die Parody) but some woman was like, "I'm a Californian Doctor who must constantly chose between my job, and my faith." Basically implying that if a gay person ended up in her care, she would have an ethical duty as a doctor to save them, but really her faith is telling her 'let the gay person die.' If someone strongly believed in their faith, I doubt a counsellor or an abortion clinic assistant would be the top career choices -- because they know what the job entails.
|
|
|
Post by lakshmi on Jan 8, 2012 22:08:57 GMT
Novak i agree 100% all u write here.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Jan 8, 2012 22:25:36 GMT
I'm not actually disagreeing with you, Lauren, just suggesting that sometimes people's beliefs are going to come into conflict with some aspects of their job.
I agree absolutely about what you've said in the abstract but what do you say about our friend Roger?
He was a battered husband who (at our advice, unfortunately) went to see a domestic violence counsellor.
She more or less accused him of lying and said that only women could possibly be DV victims.
He left his session with her feeling WORSE than he had before.
Fortunately it all worked out all right in the end but no thanks to her.
In that particular case I'd say the counsellor had a preconceived idea about what domestic violence was and that it could only be suffered by women.
Because of that IMO she was incapable of doing her job properly.
It's very hard; a friend of mine used to be an orderly in a geriatric ward but had to give it up because he got depressed at seeing patients he'd become friendly with dying on him.
|
|
|
Post by Lauren on Jan 9, 2012 17:29:19 GMT
I'm not actually disagreeing with you, Lauren, just suggesting that sometimes people's beliefs are going to come into conflict with some aspects of their job. I know you aren't disagreeing, I was just providing some hypothetical situations i had learnt in my time during social work. However, I do strongly believe that if your job entails dealing with people -- in any form, even as a cashier at a grocery store -- you should leave your personal beliefs/biases at home. Your case study (and example) of Roger is what I was trying to say, albeit unsuccessfully on my part. That is a perfect example of why biases/beliefs should have no influence in ones job. And yes, you are right, she is incapable of doing her job. To call him a liar, well, if I were Roger, I would have taken her to the ethics committee and have her practicing license revoked. In Social Work, we call that 'burning out.' However, even though he was sad, I don't think he denied care, or did not provide the best service he possibly could.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Jan 29, 2012 20:15:07 GMT
Julea Ward is making progress in her lawsuit against the university that expelled her for refusing to adopt the pro homosexuality position.www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/27/julea-ward-gay-lesbian-discrimination-court_n_1237147.html QUOTE: Julea Ward, Christian Counseling Student Expelled For Gay And Lesbian Views, To Argue Discrimination Case In Court
Julea Ward, an Eastern Michigan University (EMU) Student who was reportedly expelled from a counseling program because of her views on gay and lesbian lifestyles, has won a key legal victory. As the Detroit Free Press is reporting, Ward's defense team hailed the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals' decision to allow their client to argue her religious discrimination suit against EMU before a Detroit-based federal jury. "Public universities shouldn’t force students to violate their religious beliefs to get a degree," Jeremy Tedesco, the Alliance Defense Fund lawyer who argued the case, told the Free Press. "Rather than allow Julea to refer a potential client to another qualified counselor -- a common, professional practice to best serve clients -- EMU attacked and questioned Julea’s religious beliefs and ultimately expelled her from the program because of them."Ward had been enrolled in a masters' counseling program when she asked her superiors to refer a gay client to someone else, the Associated Press reported. She claims she told professors that her Christian faith prohibited her from affirming homosexual behavior, and was expelled shortly thereafter despite being just a few classes short of her degree. In a YouTube video for the Alliance Defense Fund describing her case, Ward said, "I had never refused to counsel homosexuals, I had simply refused to affirm their lifestyle." After requesting a formal review hearing, Ward noted, "I was met with more intolerance...unanimously, they decided to expel me from the program." Meanwhile, EMU Vice President for Communications Walter Kraft said the case "has never been about religion or religious discrimination. It is not about homosexuality or sexual orientation. This case is about what is in the best interest of a person who is in need of counseling, and following the curricular requirements of our highly respected and nationally accredited counseling program, which adheres to the Code of Ethics of the American Counseling Association and the Ethical Standards of the American School Counselor Association. Those Ethical Standards require that counselors are not to allow their personal values to intrude into their professional work."
|
|
|
Post by lakshmi on Jan 29, 2012 22:54:40 GMT
pro homosexuality position. It is spin
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Jan 29, 2012 23:17:05 GMT
pro homosexuality position. It is spin Affirming homosexuality means being positive about it.Julea Ward Quote: In a YouTube video for the Alliance Defense Fund describing her case, Ward said, "I had never refused to counsel homosexuals, I had simply refused to affirm their lifestyle."
|
|
|
Post by lakshmi on Jan 29, 2012 23:20:54 GMT
Its same video u post and they write 5 bigot words to describe it?
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Feb 2, 2012 3:04:10 GMT
Its same video u post and they write 5 bigot words to describe it? I'm not sure I follow what you're saying Tiki?
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Feb 2, 2012 3:08:24 GMT
Julea Ward, unlike Jennifer Keeton, was successful in her lawsuit against the university that refused to allow her to follow her religious convictions as a counselor!www.thenewamerican.com/culture/faith-and-morals/10712-court-rules-for-christian-counseling-student-in-religious-discrimination-case QUOTE: Court Rules for Christian Counseling Student in Religious Discrimination CaseThe U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th District has ruled that Eastern Michigan University (EMU) was out of line in expelling a graduate counseling student because of her unwillingness to validate homosexuality in her treatment of individuals struggling with same-sex attraction. Julea Ward (left), a student in the university’s graduate level counseling program, had only four courses remaining to earn her degree when she enrolled in a one-on-one counseling practicum in 2009. As part of the practicum Ward was assigned a potential client “seeking assistance regarding a sexual relationship that was contrary to her religious convictions,” explained the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), the legal advocacy group that represented Ward in the case. “Ward recognized the potential conscience issue with the client, and asked her supervisor how to handle the matter.” After directing her to turn the client over to another counselor, EMU officials informed Ward that in order to stay in the counseling program she would have to undergo a “remediation” program designed to deal with her unsatisfactory viewpoint regarding homosexual relationships. At a subsequent formal review, reported the ADF, “EMU faculty denigrated Ward’s Christian views and asked several intrusive questions about her religious beliefs. Among other things, one EMU faculty member asked Ward whether she viewed her 'brand' of Christianity as superior to that of other Christians, and another took Ward on what the faculty member called a 'theological bout' designed to show her the error of her religious thinking.” Following the meeting Ward was summarily dismissed from the counseling program. In a strongly worded opinion in the case, the 6th district appeals court reversed a lower court ruling in favor of the university and sent the case back for trial, noting that “a reasonable jury could conclude that Ward’s professors ejected her from the counseling program because of hostility toward her speech and faith….” Wrote the court in its opinion: “A university cannot compel a student to alter or violate her belief systems based on a phantom policy as the price for obtaining a degree…. Why treat Ward differently? That her conflict arose from religious convictions is not a good answer; that her conflict arose from religious convictions for which the department at times showed little tolerance is a worse answer.” The court noted that Ward “was willing to work with all clients and to respect the school’s affirmation directives in doing so. That is why she asked to refer gay and lesbian clients (and some heterosexual clients) if the conversation required her to affirm their sexual practices. What more could the rule require?” The court pointed out that EMU was unable to “point to any written policy that barred Ward from requesting this referral,” and, in fact, several textbooks used in her course work “say that sound counseling practices permit values-based referrals.” The judges challenged the school on whether its intolerance might impact other counseling students seeking to refer clients over conflicting beliefs. Wrote the court: “Surely, for example, the ban on discrimination against clients based on their religion (1) does not require a Muslim counselor to tell a Jewish client that his religious beliefs are correct if the conversation takes a turn in that direction and (2) does not require an atheist counselor to tell a person of faith that there is a God if the client is wrestling with faith-based issues. Tolerance is a two-way street. Otherwise, the rule mandates orthodoxy, not anti-discrimination.” Walter Kraft, a spokesman for EMU, insisted that the case “has never been about religion or religious discrimination. It is not about homosexuality or sexual orientation. This case is about what is in the best interest of a person who is in need of counseling.” According to the Christian Post, Kraft said that the school’s actions were based on the ethics codes of two counseling associations, which, he said, “require that counselors are not to allow their personal values to intrude into their professional work.” But Eric Rassbach of the Becket Fund, which submitted a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of Ward, noted that it is common for counselors to refer clients to other professionals for any number of reasons. “No individual should be forced out of their profession solely because of her religious beliefs,” he said. “Counselors refer clients elsewhere all the time for personal, financial, or ethical reasons, and referrals for religious reasons should be treated no differently.” ADF attorney Jeremy Tedesco, who argued the case before the court last October, agreed, emphasizing that public universities simply cannot “force students to violate their religious beliefs to get a degree. The court rightly understood this and ruled appropriately.”
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2012 8:04:39 GMT
Anna, thanks for posting that. I was beginning to wonder if the case had disappeared into a black hole!
I did spot an apparent difference between the appraoch to Keeton and Ward early on in this thread; Ward did appear to have far more of a responsible approach.
However, I do wonder where it will all stop. Traditional Christian values seem to rule out all kinds of behaviour that people will see counsellors about: sex outside marriage to name but one.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 2, 2012 19:42:17 GMT
Anna, thanks for posting that. I was beginning to wonder if the case had disappeared into a black hole! I did spot an apparent difference between the appraoch to Keeton and Ward early on in this thread; Ward did appear to have far more of a responsible approach. However, I do wonder where it will all stop. Traditional Christian values seem to rule out all kinds of behaviour that people will see counsellors about: sex outside marriage to name but one. but there is no problem with rational people. as was pointed out, this case had absolutely NOTHING to do with homosexuality, or religious convictions. it was SOLELY about the school trying to infringe on the counselor's rights. if there is a conflict, a counselor simply refers the individual to someone else who won't have a conflict, as was done in this case. that is what normal people do.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 2, 2012 19:59:12 GMT
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Feb 6, 2012 23:10:02 GMT
This commentator sums the case up!townhall.com/columnists/mikeadams/2012/02/06/eloquence_in_defense_of_liberty QUOTE: Eloquence in Defense of LibertyMike Adams On January 27, 2012, the 6th Circuit issued a landmark opinion in Ward v. Wilbanks. It is the biggest federal court victory for campus First Amendment rights since my own victory before the 4th Circuit last April. What is striking about the Ward opinion is the thread of common sense running through every aspect of its analysis. Even more striking is the eloquence of the 6th Circuit as it defends fundamental religious freedom against a full-frontal assault from the LGBT community. Julea Ward was one of many counseling students being coerced into affirming homosexuality by a state-run institution. She did not seek to force homosexuals to change their conduct through religious-based corrective therapy. She simply sought to refer homosexual clients to other counselors when those clients demanded affirmation of their conduct. Eastern Michigan University sought to force Julea into a cruel trilemma by accepting one of the following options: 1. Lie to clients by telling them she approved of their conduct, or 2. Abandon her religious beliefs regarding sexuality, or 3. Leave the counseling profession altogether. Julea’s preference was pretty simple: refer homosexual (and some heterosexual) clients to others more willing to affirm their conduct. For this she was expelled from the counseling program. Then the trial court granted summary judgment preventing Julea from having her day in court. Julea Ward appealed to the 6th Circuit and won a unanimous reversal. The judges concluded that a reasonable jury could have found that Ward’s professors ejected her from the counseling program because of their own personal hostility toward her speech and faith, rather than a policy against referrals. In other words, that was simply a pretext to punish her for her beliefs. The 6th Circuit judges wondered out loud just what Julea Ward did wrong. She was willing to work with all clients and to respect the school’s affirmation directives in the process. That is precisely why she asked to refer gay and lesbian clients (and some heterosexual clients) – but only if the conversation required her to affirm their sexual practices. After noting her compliance with the rule, the 6th Circuit raised interesting hypothetical questions. For example, would the ban on discrimination against clients based on their religion require a Muslim counselor to tell a Jewish client that his religious beliefs are correct? Would it require an atheist counselor to tell a person of faith that there is a God?After suggesting that the answer to both of those hypotheticals would be “no,” the 6th Circuit delivered a line certain to irreparably damage the self-esteem of the Eastern Michigan diversity crowd: “Tolerance is a two-way street. Otherwise, the rule mandates orthodoxy, not anti-discrimination.” In other words, the 6th Circuit accused the institution of promoting intolerance – the very thing it said it was committed to eradicating. Ouch.The 6th Circuit also noted that many of the faculty members’ statements to Ward raise a similar concern about religious discrimination. They noted that a reasonable jury could find that the university dismissed Ward from its counseling program because of her faith-based speech, not because of any legitimate professional or educational objective. They added, “A university cannot compel a student to alter or violate her belief systems based on a phantom policy as the price for obtaining a degree.” Government taxation and regulation of religious beliefs is a serious accusation. Now, the issue will go to a jury. One interesting aspect of the case is that the university did not even argue that its actions could withstand strict scrutiny. The 6th Circuit agreed adding “Whatever interest the university served by expelling Ward, it falls short of compelling. Allowing a referral would be in the best interest of Ward (who could counsel someone she is better able to assist) and the client (who would receive treatment from a counselor better suited to discuss his relationship issues).” This is all just plain common sense. Everyone was fine except for a handful of professors with too much time on their hands and too little tolerance for the idea that someone, somewhere, somehow did not share their claimed commitment to moral relativism. Or course, Julea Ward’s professors really do not believe in moral relativism. They believe they are morally superior to Julea and have the authority to levy taxes on her “inferior” belief system. For years, homosexuals have opposed the idea that they are sick, in need of change, and somehow capable of being cured by the counseling profession. Today, homosexuals promote the idea that Christians are sick, in need of change, and somehow capable of being cured by the counseling profession. Fortunately, the 6th Circuit is Warding off their sanctimonious hypocrisy and narrow-minded assault on intellectual diversity.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 7, 2012 15:13:19 GMT
that quite succinctly states the absolute reality of the entire situation
|
|