July 2010 Update: A federal judge has ruled in EMU’s favor, upholding Julea Ward’s expulsion.
I posted a few weeks ago about Julea Ward, who was expelled from Eastern Michigan University’s counseling graduate program because she insisted that as a Christian she had a moral obligation to steer gay counseling clients to “cultivate sexual desires for persons of the opposite sex.”
When Ward discussed this issue with her professors, they made it clear to her that if she offered such a suggestion in a therapeutic relationship, she would violate the code of ethics of the American Counseling Association. And so, when Ward was assigned to a gay client in the course of her counseling training, she suggested that this client be given a referral to another counselor. (It was that request that set disciplinary proceedings in motion.)
Many of Ward’s defenders have, as she did, suggested that referral would have been an appropriate compromise between Ward’s beliefs and the ACA ethical rules. As someone said in a Reddit discussion of the case yesterday,
One could argue that if she is unable/unwilling to acknowledge homosexuality as an acceptable behavior, then she is ethically obligated to refer the patient to another counselor in order to keep from allowing her personal values from intruding her professional work.
In other words, while it would certainly be wrong for her to make judgements to her patient about their sexuality in a counselling session, perhaps it’s a valid compromise to find her patient a more qualified counselor.
I’ve come across this argument a lot recently, often in online discussions in which Ward’s critics cite my previous article on the subject, and so I’d like to respond to it directly.
One problem with this approach is that it doesn’t seem to be one that the ACA recognizes as legitimate. Though the Association does accept referral on a case-by-case basis when a counselor and a client have an unbridgeable conflict in values, I haven’t found anything in ACA rules that supports a counselor making a policy decision that she’ll reject an entire class of clients because of her values.
But there’s a more fundamental problem than that.
The counseling relationship is a relationship of trust, and trust is built up gradually. A client may not come out to his or her counselor in the first session — he or she may not see it as relevant, or may be closeted in his or her daily life. A client may be bisexual, or consider himself straight, at the time that the counseling process begins, and only enter into a same-sex relationship subsequently.
Ward’s offer to refer all gay clients to another therapist doesn’t anticipate any of these scenarios, and it can’t accommodate them.
If a counselor and a client have been building a relationship over the course of months or even years, and then the client comes out to the counselor, and then the counselor breaks off the counseling relationship, that rejection is a betrayal of the client. If the client is in a fragile emotional state, it could be profound betrayal.
That this isn’t obvious to Ward or her defenders says a lot, I think, about how they see (and don’t see) gay people.
5 comments
Comments feed for this article
May 15, 2009 at 2:16 am
Taj
The opening statement in this article is erroneous. Ward was expelled for refusing to submit to a “remediation” program. Not “because she insisted that as a Christian she had a moral obligation to steer gay counseling clients to “cultivate sexual desires for persons of the opposite sex.”.
Ms. Ward does state “that people should strive to cultivate sexual desires for persons of the opposite sex.” You can find her full statement on page 101 of the documents posted by her lawyers. If you read her statement in full context, you will find that she never implies, and especially does not “insist” that as a Christian she had a moral obligation to steer gay counseling clients to “cultivate sexual desires for persons of the opposite sex.”, as the author states as a thesis for this article. Once again this author goes in and out of quotations to present a statement that was never really made.
Also the documents never states that Ward refered the client because he/she was gay. Or that she had any plan to refer all gay clients that came to her for counseling. In this individual case the client was seeking counseling for a homosexual relationship. Ward asked her professor for permission to refer this client to a different couselor that had no moral conflict with homosexuality. That does not mean that the other counselor was more qualified. It implies that Ward felt the other counselor was a more appropriate choice.
To further shed some light on this case. Ward never refuse to cousel the client, she only asked permission to refer.
May 16, 2009 at 12:27 am
William
This article is extremely bias. We have not reached the point of discriminating against people of faith for not being politically correct. I think it is unlikely that she would have had any clients “come out of the closet” during the short time she was required to perform counseling services, and there are several ways to deal with that. 1st, if she doesn’t have the rainbow “safe place” logo on her door, then people know she isn’t a supporter of that lifestyle.
The university’s demand for her to take a remediation class to “see the error of her ways” was completely inappropriate it, because it clearly states that the university sees fundamental religious belief as an “error” and therefore is open evidence of bias & animus.
May 16, 2009 at 8:59 am
Eastern Michigan University expels student for religious beliefs « Designated Conservative
[…] alternative view of Julea Ward’s case can be found here and here, where the author attempts to show why blatant religious discrimination and such a draconian […]
May 16, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Angus Johnston
The issue wasn’t just whether she would have to deal with gay clients as a student, William — it was also how she would handle gay clients as a counselor.
As for your comment about rainbow logos on doors, that sums up the distinction between Ward’s position and EMU’s perfectly — you and she think that the default is that a counseling relationship isn’t a “safe space” for gays and lesbians. EMU and ACA think that it must be.
If Ward wasn’t prepared to treat gay counseling clients with the respect and dignity that they deserve, she wasn’t prepared to be an ACA-certified counselor. Period.
May 17, 2009 at 8:20 am
Nancy Lee
I think that Julea acted in a professional and thoughtful manner for the CLIENT – which is in fact the first priority. In a world of choices, she chose what she believed to be the best action for a client. Would it had been better for her to not say anything and simply go thru the motions to satisfy her task? If I were the client, I would have been grateful that my situation was handled in my best interest. If she had asked for a redirection of a client who was seeking counseling on say, a rape or sexual aggression issue because she or a relative was brutally raped – would that have been acceptable? Regardless of the issue itself (which seems to be the real heart of the topic), I think she displayed excellent judgment for her client. This should actually be a non-issue – and likely would not have been if it weren’t for the fact that the words “homosexual” and “Christian values” were involved. Pity.