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.

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?

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.

Also, EMU should not tie graduation from the program to one association’s code (imho).

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.

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.