Overview: Julea Ward, a graduate student in the Counseling Graduate Program at Eastern Michigan University (EMU) was dismissed from her graduate program because she did not want to counsel a client on his homosexual relationship due to her religious beliefs.
Feel free to answer any of the questions below.
1. In what instance(s), if any, do you think there might be a reasonable exemption(s) in academic endeavors for moral or religious beliefs? Please explain your answer.
2. The court found that EMU’s defendants were not “entitled to dismissal of summary judgment of Ward’s claims of A) First Amendment retaliation B) damages under the Establishment Clause C) Free Exercise Clause or D) Equal Protection claims based on the premise of qualified immunity. Do you agree with this ruling? Why or why not? (Feel free to address any number of the claims.)
Qualified Immunity- Qualified immunity protects public officials from being sued for damages unless they violated “clearly established” law of which a reasonable official in his position would have known. (http://definitions.uslegal.com/q/qualified-immunity/)
3. The defendants in this case were at risk of personal liability rather than the institution being solely named in the suit. (The court document listed individual names of institutional officials and stated “…all in their individual and official capacities.” http://www.nlf.net/Activities/briefs/AACC%20Brief%20Amicus%20Curiae%20(Ward_v_EMU).pdf) For the novices like me, can you help us to understand why this is so?
1. I do not believe that under any circumstances someone should have an exemption for counseling about academic endeavors if the advisor/counselor happens to have some sort of moral disagreement with someone's lifestyle. The fact is, someone's academic endeavors should not be hampered at all by someone's inability to look past a particular aspect of their life. I equate this to someone not giving service to another because of race. Nowadays, most of society would be outraged if they saw this happening. It should not be any different for having a differing opinion regarding religion or lifestyle. I do believe a reasonable exemption would perhaps deal with servicing a family member (to make sure that an unfair advantage is not being given to that family member). Even then, though, I don't believe there would be an unreasonable advantage unless it resulted in a quantifiable advantage such as having higher grades or more credit hours for doing the same work as others.
While I don’t believe academic or mental health counselors should discriminate against individuals and refuse to provide service based upon moral beliefs, I do realize that people have biases, prejudices and filters through which others may be unfairly judged. Clearly the cultural landscape of universities has changed and is much more diverse. Thus, it is vital that the mental health and academic counselors practice self-awareness and ascertain whether they can look beyond their own belief system to assist student’s academic, professional, psychological and social needs. When students receive help for their psychological problems, counseling can have a positive impact on personal well-being, academic success, and retention. In the event of transference issues (i.e., the counselor projects negative feelings), it is in the best interest of the student that the counselor be removed from the case. While we may not like the reason behind the removal, what’s in the best interest of the student should always prevail.
I had some real concerns with this case. As a counselor who has trained other counselors, I was disturbed with the professor’s handling of this situation (sounds like the professor had his own issues…). Whether this was an issue of first amendment rights or not, I believe the professor not only mis-handled this situation overall; he missed an excellent “teaching moment” to help his student become more open to others. We all have biases (whether we think we do, or not…) and, as Dionne indicates, it is critical for counselors to be self-aware. Counselors also have a more special requirement to be open to, and respectful of, others. Simply possessing self-awareness, without also openly and honestly questioning and continually examining one’s reactions, beliefs, thoughts, and biases or “filters”, doesn’t serve to build solid counseling skills.
Dionne, I agree with you that the student’s (client’s) best interests should prevail. Clearly, assigning the student client to another counselor was the appropriate response for the immediate term since the client needed counseling; however, the professor also should have worked with his student counselor to discuss how she could appropriately handle these types of counseling requests in the future. If she is closed to counseling someone regarding a homosexual relationship due to her religious beliefs, would she also have other areas of prejudice or “beliefs” that would preclude her from counseling single mothers, unmarried couples who were sexually active, someone who had stolen money, a parent who feared that he would lose his temper and strike his child, etc.? If her only concern and bias was with homosexuality, could she still become a good counselor? Probably, since she could most likely refer clients wishing to discuss issues related to homosexuality to other counselors. But, counseling by its very nature requires discussion of uncomfortable topics and counselors cannot be certain, in advance, that their clients won’t open a previously unknown “door” and introduce a disturbing topic that the counselor has a bias or prejudice against.
I reflected quite a while on whether this was, in fact, an issue of first amendment rights. Ultimately, I had to agree that it became an issue of first amendment rights due to the professor’s response to the statement of his student. I believe that, had the professor handled this situation as a “teaching/learning opportunity” rather than one of “punitive action/punishment,” the outcome might have been very different. It is still possible that the student counselor would not have become a successful professional counselor; it is possible that she might have become a counselor working within her own church where she counseled clients whose belief systems were much like her own; it also is possible that she might have learned to seek connections with her clients that she could relate to and be able to be open to clients whose lifestyles or personal beliefs were vastly different from her own.
I thank each of you for your responses. You highlighted some key points, particularly about the need for counselors to first be self-aware; the needs of students to prevail; and the likelihood of a variety of uncomfortable topics being introduced during counseling sessions that the counselor may or may not agree with.
With regard to the latter, it seems that Ms. Ward was unprepared to address any topics that may have been contrary to her values (not just homosexuality). Perhaps her program shares some responsibility for her level of readiness as it relates to addressing uncomfortable topics? How could she not have known that she would eventually “cross paths” with an uncomfortable topic at some point? After all, as Donna pointed out, is that not what counselors are trained to do?
Pavela V15#19
ReplyDeleteOverview: Julea Ward, a graduate student in the Counseling Graduate Program at Eastern Michigan University (EMU) was dismissed from her graduate program because she did not want to counsel a client on his homosexual relationship due to her religious beliefs.
Feel free to answer any of the questions below.
1. In what instance(s), if any, do you think there might be a reasonable exemption(s) in academic endeavors for moral or religious beliefs? Please explain your answer.
2. The court found that EMU’s defendants were not “entitled to dismissal of summary judgment of Ward’s claims of A) First Amendment retaliation B) damages under the Establishment Clause C) Free Exercise Clause or D) Equal Protection claims based on the premise of qualified immunity. Do you agree with this ruling? Why or why not? (Feel free to address any number of the claims.)
Qualified Immunity- Qualified immunity protects public officials from being sued for damages unless they violated “clearly established” law of which a reasonable official in his position would have known. (http://definitions.uslegal.com/q/qualified-immunity/)
3. The defendants in this case were at risk of personal liability rather than the institution being solely named in the suit. (The court document listed individual names of institutional officials and stated “…all in their individual and official capacities.” http://www.nlf.net/Activities/briefs/AACC%20Brief%20Amicus%20Curiae%20(Ward_v_EMU).pdf) For the novices like me, can you help us to understand why this is so?
1. I do not believe that under any circumstances someone should have an exemption for counseling about academic endeavors if the advisor/counselor happens to have some sort of moral disagreement with someone's lifestyle. The fact is, someone's academic endeavors should not be hampered at all by someone's inability to look past a particular aspect of their life. I equate this to someone not giving service to another because of race. Nowadays, most of society would be outraged if they saw this happening. It should not be any different for having a differing opinion regarding religion or lifestyle. I do believe a reasonable exemption would perhaps deal with servicing a family member (to make sure that an unfair advantage is not being given to that family member). Even then, though, I don't believe there would be an unreasonable advantage unless it resulted in a quantifiable advantage such as having higher grades or more credit hours for doing the same work as others.
ReplyDeleteWhile I don’t believe academic or mental health counselors should discriminate against individuals and refuse to provide service based upon moral beliefs, I do realize that people have biases, prejudices and filters through which others may be unfairly judged. Clearly the cultural landscape of universities has changed and is much more diverse. Thus, it is vital that the mental health and academic counselors practice self-awareness and ascertain whether they can look beyond their own belief system to assist student’s academic, professional, psychological and social needs. When students receive help for their psychological problems, counseling can have a positive impact on personal well-being, academic success, and retention. In the event of transference issues (i.e., the counselor projects negative feelings), it is in the best interest of the student that the counselor be removed from the case. While we may not like the reason behind the removal, what’s in the best interest of the student should always prevail.
ReplyDeleteI had some real concerns with this case. As a counselor who has trained other counselors, I was disturbed with the professor’s handling of this situation (sounds like the professor had his own issues…). Whether this was an issue of first amendment rights or not, I believe the professor not only mis-handled this situation overall; he missed an excellent “teaching moment” to help his student become more open to others. We all have biases (whether we think we do, or not…) and, as Dionne indicates, it is critical for counselors to be self-aware. Counselors also have a more special requirement to be open to, and respectful of, others. Simply possessing self-awareness, without also openly and honestly questioning and continually examining one’s reactions, beliefs, thoughts, and biases or “filters”, doesn’t serve to build solid counseling skills.
ReplyDeleteDionne, I agree with you that the student’s (client’s) best interests should prevail. Clearly, assigning the student client to another counselor was the appropriate response for the immediate term since the client needed counseling; however, the professor also should have worked with his student counselor to discuss how she could appropriately handle these types of counseling requests in the future. If she is closed to counseling someone regarding a homosexual relationship due to her religious beliefs, would she also have other areas of prejudice or “beliefs” that would preclude her from counseling single mothers, unmarried couples who were sexually active, someone who had stolen money, a parent who feared that he would lose his temper and strike his child, etc.? If her only concern and bias was with homosexuality, could she still become a good counselor? Probably, since she could most likely refer clients wishing to discuss issues related to homosexuality to other counselors. But, counseling by its very nature requires discussion of uncomfortable topics and counselors cannot be certain, in advance, that their clients won’t open a previously unknown “door” and introduce a disturbing topic that the counselor has a bias or prejudice against.
I reflected quite a while on whether this was, in fact, an issue of first amendment rights. Ultimately, I had to agree that it became an issue of first amendment rights due to the professor’s response to the statement of his student. I believe that, had the professor handled this situation as a “teaching/learning opportunity” rather than one of “punitive action/punishment,” the outcome might have been very different. It is still possible that the student counselor would not have become a successful professional counselor; it is possible that she might have become a counselor working within her own church where she counseled clients whose belief systems were much like her own; it also is possible that she might have learned to seek connections with her clients that she could relate to and be able to be open to clients whose lifestyles or personal beliefs were vastly different from her own.
I thank each of you for your responses. You highlighted some key points, particularly about the need for counselors to first be self-aware; the needs of students to prevail; and the likelihood of a variety of uncomfortable topics being introduced during counseling sessions that the counselor may or may not agree with.
ReplyDeleteWith regard to the latter, it seems that Ms. Ward was unprepared to address any topics that may have been contrary to her values (not just homosexuality). Perhaps her program shares some responsibility for her level of readiness as it relates to addressing uncomfortable topics? How could she not have known that she would eventually “cross paths” with an uncomfortable topic at some point? After all, as Donna pointed out, is that not what counselors are trained to do?