July 2010 Update: A federal judge has ruled in EMU’s favor, upholding Julea Ward’s expulsion.
The story of Julea Ward, a former counseling student who is suing Eastern Michigan University over her expulsion from their graduate program, is burning up the right-wing blogosphere.
Conservative commenters on the case generally argue that Ward, a Christian, was removed from the program because she refused to “advocate for homosexual behavior” — or, as National Review‘s David French puts it, “vocally support same-sex sexual conduct.”
But Ward’s attorneys have posted various documents relating to her dismissal up online, and those documents tell a different story.
In a letter she read during her disciplinary hearing, Ward said she believes that “God ordained relationships between men and women,” and that people should “strive to cultivate sexual desires for persons of the opposite sex.” She is, she said, “morally obligated … to express the biblical viewpoint regarding proper sexual relationships” in the course of her counseling work.
The disciplinary action that led to Ward’s expulsion was initiated after she asked to be reassigned off the case of a gay counseling client, and she was asked why she would feel comfortable counseling someone who was contemplating abortion, but not someone who was in a gay relationship. “With abortion,” she said, “you have options which you can offer. With a client that’s struggling with homosexuality … it’s just, ‘OK, this is who you are, so we’re only going to deal with helping you feel comfortable with who you are.’ You cannot discuss any other treatment plans that would bring them out of that particular lifestyle.”
Ward’s gloss on the her ethical obligations, as laid down by the American Counseling Association, is almost, but not quite, right.
ACA-certified counselors are not prohibited from referring clients for so-called “conversion” therapy — therapy designed to help someone who is gay become straight. They are discouraged from making such referrals, however, and they may not offer such therapy themselves, since the ACA has concluded that “research does not support [it] as an effective treatment modality.” In addition, they may not — and this is crucial — refer a client for such therapy in the absence of a client-initiated request for such a referral.
The ACA’s code of ethics states that counselors must “avoid imposing values that are inconsistent with counseling goals,” and the association’s statement on conversion therapy makes it clear that it does not consider “curing” homosexuality a legitimate counseling goal. “To refer a client to someone who engages in conversion therapy,” the ACA states, “communicates to the client that his/her same-sex attractions and behaviors are disordered and, therefore, need to be changed. This contradicts the dictates of the 2005 ACA Code of Ethics.”
It is not true, as Ward’s lawsuit alleges, that either EMU or the ACA prohibit counselors “from advising clients that they can refrain from homosexual conduct.” What the school and the association both say is that counselors may not offer such advice unless the client expresses a desire to make such a life change.
EMU and the ACA do not, as Ward claims, “affirm homosexual conduct.” They consider it morally and therapeutically neutral. It’s not worthy of praise, and it’s not a problem to be solved. It’s just a fact.
Ward was expelled because she repudiates this fundamental therapeutic premise, and in so doing rejects a basic ethical tenet of the profession she wishes to practice.
Update: Welcome Crunchy Con readers! Feel free to leave a comment — I’m interested in hearing your thoughts.
April 10 update: The Ypsilanti Citizen has interviewed EMU students about the case.
April 11 update: As this blogger notes, Ward’s attorneys have argued that one of her professors assigned a textbook that recommends that therapists refer clients elsewhere when “value conflicts regarding homosexual behavior” arise. That claim is not, however, supported by a reading of the text at issue.
The, Becoming a Helper by Marianne Schneider Corey and Gerald Corey, raises referral as a “last resort” option in a situation in which a therapist has been unable to resolve value conflicts with a specific client in other ways. It does not in any way endorse therapists’ declining to counsel entire classes of clients because of value conflicts.
On the contrary, it cautions therapists that “merely having a conflict does not imply the need for a referral,” and emphasizes that when a therapist feels the need to insist on a referral, “the problem is likely to reside more in you than in a particular client.”
In the specific case of therapists who have moral objections to homosexuality, the text does not suggest referral as an appropriate response. Indeed, it states flatly that therapists whose prospective clients include lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals “are ethically obligated not to allow their personal values to intrude into their professional work.”
(The relevant sections of Becoming a Helper are included as an appendix to Ward’s legal complaint, available in PDF form here.)
May 2 update: Why Ward’s offer to refer gay clients to another therapist isn’t a valid compromise.
14 comments
Comments feed for this article
April 9, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Student Kicked Out of Counseling Program Over Approach to Gay Patients Is Suing « studentactivism.net
[…] We analyze Ward’s suit and the conservative blogosphere’s response. Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Student Gives $50,000 to ‘Safe Rides’ […]
April 16, 2009 at 10:45 am
One Year! « studentactivism.net
[…] on this list, just a week after I wrote about her, is a testament not only to public interest in her lawsuit against Eastern Michigan University, but also to the effect of including an easily Googlable name in the title of a […]
April 18, 2009 at 9:57 pm
Tony
ADF is notoriously dishonest in the facts it alleges. Always good to look at the actual documents. Thank you for doing so.
If someone wants to offer some so-called Christian therapy, then that person should not strive to join a profession that has ethical requirements that contravene her beliefs. In other words, if you can not deal with gay people being gay people, then don’t become a counselor or a social worker. Become a minister, if proselytizing is your goal.
April 20, 2009 at 7:41 am
Angus Johnston
Exactly, Tony. And I’d go further and note that you can be a lay counselor without being a member of the American Counseling Association. Ward can work as a counselor without ACA certification, assuming she can find someone to hire her.
EMU isn’t telling her she can’t be a counselor. They’re just telling her that if she wants to be a part of the ACA, she has to abide by its ethical guidelines.
April 28, 2009 at 10:47 pm
OttO
What’s the correlation between acceptance in the ACA and finishing the course? If there is a direct correlation, then shouldn’t this have been resolved long before her final months? What I mean is, is the ACA a requirement for graduation?
April 29, 2009 at 7:54 am
Angus Johnston
I thought I’d mentioned this in the post, but it looks like I didn’t — EMU requires that its counseling students adhere to the ACA code of ethics. It’s in the student handbook for the program.
May 14, 2009 at 9:05 pm
Eastern Michigan University expels student for religious beliefs « Designated Conservative
[…] alternative view of Julea Ward’s case can be found here, where the author attempts to show why blatant religious discrimination and such a draconian […]
May 15, 2009 at 1:47 am
Taj
This article is full of misrepresentations. It is presented as being well researched and feigns at being objective. When in fact is it dangerously close to being libel. The documents posted by Wards attorney do not tell a story different from David French’s comment that states she was expelled for not wishing “vocally support same-sex sexual conduct.” For those that have not taken the time to read the 121 page document that is exactly what her lawyers argue. I would like to see the author of this article post any part of that document which is contradictory.
Secondly, in the letter that she read during her disciplinary hearing, Ward never stated that she was morally obligated to express the biblical viewpoint regarding proper sexual relationships in the course of her counseling work. In paragraph 4 the auther of this article convenient removed quotations marks to make Ms. Wards statement appear to read that way. Please refer to her statement in the actual docments. In paragraph 3 of her statement you find what she actually said.
In paragraph 7 of this article the author goes on to imply that when Ward refered this student to another couselor that she was referring the student for “conversion” counseling. That is a blatant lie she was referring the student to a couselor that had no moral conflict with homosexuality, not to someone seeking to “convert” the client. The referrel of a client to a counselor that shares the same values with that the client is in no way prohibited or “discouraged” by the ACA. I would challenge the author of this article to produce where in the document Ms. Ward stated that she was referring this student to any kind of “conversion” counseling.
In paragraph 8 of this article the author quotes the ACA’s code of ethics which states “avoid imposing values that are inconsistent with counseling goals,”. That is exactly what Ms. Ward did. She avoided imposing values that are inconsistent with counseling goals, by referring the student to a counselor that had no moral conflict with homosexuality.
Now the last paragraph states ”Ward was expelled because she repudiates this fundamental therapeutic premise, and in so doing rejects a basic ethical tenet of the profession she wishes to practice.” Now the natural assumption is that the author is stating that Ms. Ward is “repudiating” the authors last statement in paragraph 9 which reads “counselors may not offer such advice unless the client expresses a desire to make such a life change.” The posted documents in no way express that Ms. Ward feels that counselors should offer such advise unless the client expresses a desire to make such a life change. If you are going to speak out on this case, please read the document.
May 15, 2009 at 7:15 am
Angus Johnston
Thanks for writing, Taj. I’ll take your criticisms one at a time.
1. At no point did anyone at EMU say Ward was required to vocally support gay relationships. As I said in my post, they consider homosexuality morally and therapeutically neutral, and ask that she approach it from the same perspective.
2. Ward said that she was “morally obligated” to “express the biblical viewpoint regarding proper sexual relationships,” and that she believes the Bible calls on gays and lesbians to “strive to cultivate sexual desires for persons of the opposite sex.” Later she expressed frustration “that we cannot advise such a person that he or she should try to change their behavior” and that “I am prohibited from providing counsel that is consistent with my religious beliefs.”
3. Your inference about paragraph seven is incorrect. I was not referring to Ward’s attempt to refer the client she was assigned, but to her statement regarding the propriety of offering gay clients “treatment plans that would bring them out of that particular lifestyle.”
4. Again, I am referring here to Ward’s interest in promoting “treatment plans that would bring [gay clients] out of that particular lifestyle.” That would amount to the imposition of values inconsistent with counseling goals.
5. If you can find anything in the record that in any way contradicts my conclusion that Ward believes that counselors should be free to advise gay clients that their “lifestyle” is immoral, I’d be very much interested in reading it.
May 18, 2009 at 11:34 am
JM
One important point, though is that Ms. Ward did not try to initiate therapy to take someone out of a gay lifestyle. She referred the person to someone who could provide therapy for the person’s needs. Her personal views only come into play to the extent that they show why she wanted to refer the person out. It seems a reasonable idea, and maybe the bigger issue is why the ACA doesn’t allow referring if the therapist is not comfortable with the client’s values. I think it is a sly way for the ACA to impose values (but I am not arguing it here as it pertains to this case).
Also, EMU should not tie graduation from the program to one association’s code (imho).
June 6, 2009 at 5:14 pm
Twin XL
Wow, this is a really interesting story. I’ll certainly be following it!
August 9, 2009 at 6:52 pm
Jim
From my reading the document of the college hearing it appears this student said that, in class, she was taught that that she should affirm and validate homosexual behavior when counseling those individuals. She made it clear that requiring her to affirm and validate homosexual behavior forced her to violate her religious beliefs and conscience. She expressed a point of view regarding homosexual behavior that she disagreed with it based on her religious convictions. She did what she felt was best for the client — refer out to someone else. The professor said that her (the professor’s) highest responsibility was to protect the emotional safety of a client. Then this begs the question that if requiring this student to continue and not provide services would it be in the best interest of the client. The answer would be, no it would not be productive for the client. The burden of responsibility is on the institution for the notion of forcing this student to work with something she could not do in clear conscience with her religion, thus would be non-productive for the client. The institute should be looked at for positioning an incompatible counseling relationship, when in their knowledge this student said she would not be of service to the client. This was a reason to reassign the case, not terminate the student from the program. The latter an extreme measure.
As Ward said, the small percentage of persons seeking counseling regarding homosexual behavior could easily be assigned to another practicum student who is not prohibited by his or her religious beliefs from affirming homosexual behavior. Dr Callaway appears to be on a power trip rather than sympathetically caring for the client’s real need, and respecting the religious conviction of the student. This writing is definitely on the wall.
I hope Ward sues the paints of them.
August 10, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Robert
I agree 100% with Jim. I am a therapist and know that when a counselor experiences cognitive dissonance or countertransference regarding a client to such an extent that they can not be their true selves, they should refer the client to another therapist. While it is acceptable to ask a counselor to explore their own issues and biases, it is not acceptable to punish a student for being her true self.
I wonder what would have happened if the reverse had happened. I wonder what would have happened if a gay trainee had told his supervisor that he couldn’t counsel a Christian client because of their homophobic beliefs. Would they have dismissed him too?
August 27, 2009 at 6:49 pm
Andre
It will always be lunancy to make tolerance the core of an argument which uses intolerance to make its debate. It is the desire of most people to have other people agree with their lifestyle choices but when we begin penalizing people for disagreeing with us–at that moment coersion begins.
EMU wrongly penalized a student who handled a sensitive situation with professionalism. No school or teacher’s personal affirmation of homosexuality or how they think it should be handled, should ever allow them to discipline students who don’t agree with them–especially when, in this world of hate crimes and bigotry, the student seeks and follows the school’s own advice.
No one should ever be punished for refusing to be a hypocrite–which is someone who encourages something they believe to be immoral.