Judge Allows Expulsion For Religious Beliefs

[Night Strike]

the school tried to force her to change her religious views to match theirs

Quote the part of the article where it states that the school attempted to change her religious views to match those of the institution.


Another classic piece of 'creative reading' by an angry conservative looking for an axe to grind.

You don't read what I post do you?

Ward’s attorneys claim the university told her she would only be allowed to remain in the program if she went through a “remediation” program so that she could “see the error of her ways” and change her belief system about homosexuality.

They were trying to help her overcome her fear/hate of homosexuals, not change her religious beliefs.

When did she claim the feared or hated homosexuals? Christian beliefs state that homosexuality is a personal choice, and if she doesn't want to counsel homosexuals because of those beliefs, that's her constitutional right. Just like how you can't force a pastor to perform a wedding ceremony for a homosexual couple or someone getting remarried after a no-fault divorce, it's a person's religious belief, and you can't fire them based on those beliefs. That's the foundation of the Freedom of Religion clause.

[PLAYER57832]

However, if she was simply reprimanded for private views... then it is wrong.

Plus the fact that the school tried to force her to change her religious views to match theirs through a remediation course. That's indoctrination, which is also not allowed.

Nightstrike, Medical Universities are not required to admit Christian Scientists into their programs if they are not willing to follow the curricula.

If she considered homosexuals to be "ill", then she plain and simply is not following the curricula of the public university and, yes, can be excluded.

Just as a Geography student who thinks the Earth is flat just doesn't belong.

[Snorri1234]

It would be awesome if I could get out of some exams by claiming my religious beliefs were against it.

[jonesthecurl]

Paleontology?
It's bollocks, the world is only 6000 years old.
You have to give me a pass, else you're discriminating against my religious beliefs.
Geology? Even more bollocky - the continents were all joined until the Tower of Babel.
You have to pass me or that's discriminating against my rligious beliefs.
Astronomy? Of course there's no stars more than 6000 light-years away...
etc
etc

[PLAYER57832]

Edit: I did a little research and came up with some other articles.

This went well beyond her simply not wanting to deal with homosexuals. She specifically felt that it was her duty to try to change homosexuals.

That practice is specifically against the American Psychiatric association standard practices. So, this is about like a Jehovah's Witness enrolling in a medical school to be a student and then refusing to participate in blood transfusions during surgary.

[PLAYER57832]

Here is more on this:
Court Upholds Julea Ward’s Dismissal from EMU
July 28, 2010 in Students

Last year I reported on the story of Julea Ward, a counseling student at Eastern Michigan University who was expelled from EMU’s counseling program after she declined to treat a gay client and refused to comply with the American Counseling Association’s ethical guidelines on how to address homosexuality within a therapeutic relationship. (See also my follow-up piece here, in which I addressed the two sides claims in greater detail.)

Ward sued, and her case became a huge cause celebre among Christian conservatives. But yesterday a federal judge ruled in EMU’s favor.

I’ve downloaded a copy of the decision, and I’ll be reading and commenting on it soon.
http://wzus1.ask.com/r?t=p&d=us&s=a&c=a ... rom-emu%2F


ALSO, this:

Julea Ward and Client Referral
May 2, 2009 in Administration, Civil Liberties, Gender, Religion, Sexual Orientation, Students

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.
link: http://studentactivism.net/2009/05/02/j ... -referral/

[Snorri1234]

[i]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.”

In that case it's obvious she's in the wrong here.

[PLAYER57832]

Exactly... this is not a case of a public university refusing to honor someone's religious beliefs, this is a case of someon enrolling in a program that they have to have known violated their religious beliefs, but expecting the university to back off becuase this person refuses to accept scientific evidence.

[King Doctor]

Christian beliefs state that homosexuality is a personal choice, and if she doesn't want to counsel homosexuals because of those beliefs, that's her constitutional right.

... and nobody forced her to do so. No problem with Constitutional rights here.


Unfortunately, it's not her Constitutional right to pass a course by doing only the bits she 'believes' in, nor is it her constitutional right to be free to offensively try to ram her beliefs down others' throats; hence her getting thrown off of her course for doing those two things.

Simple stuff really. You're free to live your life as you want to, but public institutions don't have to bend over backwards to change their curriculum so that you can pass any course you like by doing only half the work. After all, if you were trying to force them to do that, that'd be a breach of their Constitutional rights.


I note that your selective reading is still at full power though, still no answers from you on how you'd treat the Muslim, Holocaust Denier, Jedi, or Jehovah's Witness.

[Woodruff]

Here is more on this:
Court Upholds Julea Ward’s Dismissal from EMU
July 28, 2010 in Students

Last year I reported on the story of Julea Ward, a counseling student at Eastern Michigan University who was expelled from EMU’s counseling program after she declined to treat a gay client and refused to comply with the American Counseling Association’s ethical guidelines on how to address homosexuality within a therapeutic relationship. (See also my follow-up piece here, in which I addressed the two sides claims in greater detail.)

Ward sued, and her case became a huge cause celebre among Christian conservatives. But yesterday a federal judge ruled in EMU’s favor.

I’ve downloaded a copy of the decision, and I’ll be reading and commenting on it soon.
http://wzus1.ask.com/r?t=p&d=us&s=a&c=a ... rom-emu%2F


ALSO, this:

Julea Ward and Client Referral
May 2, 2009 in Administration, Civil Liberties, Gender, Religion, Sexual Orientation, Students

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.
link: http://studentactivism.net/2009/05/02/j ... -referral/

Great info, PLAYER...this definitely changes my view of the situation. Thanks. Night Strike?

[PLAYER57832]

NIGHT STRIKE, if she wanted to go into Christian counseling, there are plenty of religious institutions who would issue here a degree. However, the public university degree confers that she understands and agrees to comply by certain standards. If she does not agree with those standards, then she cannot get the degree.


Woodruff.. you are welcome.

[Frigidus]

Yeah, as was mentioned earlier, what if her religious beliefs required that she could only counsel, say, people with red hair? The university should not be expected to cater to you in these cases, and if she feels that strongly about the issue, clearly she is in the wrong field.

[Snorri1234]

Christian beliefs state that homosexuality is a personal choice, and if she doesn't want to counsel homosexuals because of those beliefs, that's her constitutional right.

... and nobody forced her to do so. No problem with Constitutional rights here.


Unfortunately, it's not her Constitutional right to pass a course by doing only the bits she 'believes' in, nor is it her constitutional right to be free to offensively try to ram her beliefs down others' throats; hence her getting thrown off of her course for doing those two things.

Simple stuff really. You're free to live your life as you want to, but public institutions don't have to bend over backwards to change their curriculum so that you can pass any course you like by doing only half the work. After all, if you were trying to force them to do that, that'd be a breach of their Constitutional rights.


I note that your selective reading is still at full power though, still no answers from you on how you'd treat the Muslim, Holocaust Denier, Jedi, or Jehovah's Witness.

I'm most interested in what he thinks if it was a Muslim. Because standard knee-jerk reaction is that they should just conform to our standards.

[Woodruff]

Christian beliefs state that homosexuality is a personal choice, and if she doesn't want to counsel homosexuals because of those beliefs, that's her constitutional right.

... and nobody forced her to do so. No problem with Constitutional rights here.

Unfortunately, it's not her Constitutional right to pass a course by doing only the bits she 'believes' in, nor is it her constitutional right to be free to offensively try to ram her beliefs down others' throats; hence her getting thrown off of her course for doing those two things.

Simple stuff really. You're free to live your life as you want to, but public institutions don't have to bend over backwards to change their curriculum so that you can pass any course you like by doing only half the work. After all, if you were trying to force them to do that, that'd be a breach of their Constitutional rights.

I note that your selective reading is still at full power though, still no answers from you on how you'd treat the Muslim, Holocaust Denier, Jedi, or Jehovah's Witness.

I'm most interested in what he thinks if it was a Muslim. Because standard knee-jerk reaction is that they should just conform to our standards.

It seems to me that if the Muslim individual wants a degree from a public United States university, they would have to conform to those standards that the public United States university places on that degree. Why wouldn't they?

[Snorri1234]

Christian beliefs state that homosexuality is a personal choice, and if she doesn't want to counsel homosexuals because of those beliefs, that's her constitutional right.

... and nobody forced her to do so. No problem with Constitutional rights here.

Unfortunately, it's not her Constitutional right to pass a course by doing only the bits she 'believes' in, nor is it her constitutional right to be free to offensively try to ram her beliefs down others' throats; hence her getting thrown off of her course for doing those two things.

Simple stuff really. You're free to live your life as you want to, but public institutions don't have to bend over backwards to change their curriculum so that you can pass any course you like by doing only half the work. After all, if you were trying to force them to do that, that'd be a breach of their Constitutional rights.

I note that your selective reading is still at full power though, still no answers from you on how you'd treat the Muslim, Holocaust Denier, Jedi, or Jehovah's Witness.

I'm most interested in what he thinks if it was a Muslim. Because standard knee-jerk reaction is that they should just conform to our standards.

It seems to me that if the Muslim individual wants a degree from a public United States university, they would have to conform to those standards that the public United States university places on that degree. Why wouldn't they?

Well yeah, but while NightStrike is filled with righteous fury about this case I can't imagine he would feel the same way if it was a similiar case if it involved a Muslim. Because there have been several cases of the same sort of thing but involving muslims all over the world. (I.e. their beliefs conflicting with the standards.)

[Woodruff]

It seems to me that if the Muslim individual wants a degree from a public United States university, they would have to conform to those standards that the public United States university places on that degree. Why wouldn't they?

Well yeah, but while NightStrike is filled with righteous fury about this case I can't imagine he would feel the same way if it was a similiar case if it involved a Muslim. Because there have been several cases of the same sort of thing but involving muslims all over the world. (I.e. their beliefs conflicting with the standards.)

Oh, I gotcha.

[jonesthecurl]

Why would a christian want psychiatric help anyway? Surely you just pray and let the Holy Spirit guide you? Or if that doesn't work, ask a priest?

That sounds more sarcastic than it is. I mean that to a committed Christian, the answer any psychological problems surely has to involve your relationship with God, no?

[PLAYER57832]

Why would a christian want psychiatric help anyway? Surely you just pray and let the Holy Spirit guide you? Or if that doesn't work, ask a priest?

That sounds more sarcastic than it is. I mean that to a committed Christian, the answer any psychological problems surely has to involve your relationship with God, no?

Seriously, some very conservative groups do say that... much like some believe in physical healing through prayer. However, I would say that Christians are as likely as any other group in the country to accept that psychiatric issues need medical treatment. Counseling is a tad more tricky. A lot of people will turn to pastors/priests first, but the truth is not every Pastor/Priest is trained or good at counseling. I think it is tricky for anyone to find a counselor they trust. Religion is just part of that mix.

[Night Strike]

When a counselor comes across a situation they can't/won't discuss/treat, then they should be allowed to refer that person to another counselor. A person getting a degree does not have to conform to the beliefs of the school giving the degree because that is their personal beliefs. I'm sure there are many other areas where this woman could be an effective counselor, but because the school disagrees with her religious beliefs on homosexuality, she is kicked out. That is persecution based on religion, which is unconstitutional. There's no other way around it.

[PLAYER57832]

When a counselor comes across a situation they can't/won't discuss/treat, then they should be allowed to refer that person to another counselor. A person getting a degree does not have to conform to the beliefs of the school giving the degree because that is their personal beliefs. I'm sure there are many other areas where this woman could be an effective counselor, but because the school disagrees with her religious beliefs on homosexuality, she is kicked out. That is persecution based on religion, which is unconstitutional. There's no other way around it.

Read that bit that I posted, because it addresses this specifically better than I could.

Let me reframe this for you, though. Let's say the person she was to counsel was Muslim and she felt it was her duty to convert that Muslim to Christianity?

The problem is that you just don't want to accept that homosexuality is "normal". You are convinced it is an illness, but that is not how modern psychiatry sees it. It is a different way of life, one many Christians consider wrong. However, Christians consider many things wrong that society accepts.

[Night Strike]

When a counselor comes across a situation they can't/won't discuss/treat, then they should be allowed to refer that person to another counselor. A person getting a degree does not have to conform to the beliefs of the school giving the degree because that is their personal beliefs. I'm sure there are many other areas where this woman could be an effective counselor, but because the school disagrees with her religious beliefs on homosexuality, she is kicked out. That is persecution based on religion, which is unconstitutional. There's no other way around it.

Read that bit that I posted, because it addresses this specifically better than I could.

Let me reframe this for you, though. Let's say the person she was to counsel was Muslim and she felt it was her duty to convert that Muslim to Christianity?

The problem is that you just don't want to accept that homosexuality is "normal". You are convinced it is an illness, but that is not how modern psychiatry sees it. It is a different way of life, one many Christians consider wrong. However, Christians consider many things wrong that society accepts.

Actually, I'm convinced it's a choice, not an illness. And yes, a counselor could tell anyone the benefits of their religion: that's how they can make themselves relational to others. If a person doesn't like what the counselor is saying, they leave that counselor. They don't have the right to demand the counselor is fired just because they disagree with them.

[2dimes]

Terrible ruling. If she's violated no laws in expressing her views, then they've got nothing on her. If she has violated some law, then prostitute her ass. I can't imagine this would stand up under the Supreme Court.

I want to see pictures before I can make a ruling on this.

[Snorri1234]

When a counselor comes across a situation they can't/won't discuss/treat, then they should be allowed to refer that person to another counselor. A person getting a degree does not have to conform to the beliefs of the school giving the degree because that is their personal beliefs. I'm sure there are many other areas where this woman could be an effective counselor, but because the school disagrees with her religious beliefs on homosexuality, she is kicked out. That is persecution based on religion, which is unconstitutional. There's no other way around it.

WOMEN SHOULD SUBJECT TO THEIR HUSBANDS WILL! I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THESE INFIDEL WOMEN ASK ME FOR MARRIAGE COUNSELING!!


A person trying to get a degree should in fact conform to the standards the school gives. A doctor who refuses to cut into another person (whether alive or dead) should get the f*ck out of that field, not demand that he get his degree regardless.

[Woodruff]

Why would a christian want psychiatric help anyway? Surely you just pray and let the Holy Spirit guide you? Or if that doesn't work, ask a priest?
That sounds more sarcastic than it is. I mean that to a committed Christian, the answer any psychological problems surely has to involve your relationship with God, no?

At the very least, certainly not those requiring medication. That aside, I would say that sure, while "involving your relationship with God" would probably be requisite, that doesn't mean that someone else (i.e., a counselor) can't help you with that relationship, perhaps helping you to see an aspect you hadn't previously, or perhaps a way to deal with something you hadn't considered.

[Woodruff]

When a counselor comes across a situation they can't/won't discuss/treat, then they should be allowed to refer that person to another counselor. A person getting a degree does not have to conform to the beliefs of the school giving the degree because that is their personal beliefs. I'm sure there are many other areas where this woman could be an effective counselor, but because the school disagrees with her religious beliefs on homosexuality, she is kicked out. That is persecution based on religion, which is unconstitutional. There's no other way around it.

I'm afraid that this simply isn't true. It ISN'T JUST her beliefs on homosexuality that are involved here...it is her ACTIONS BASED ON those beliefs that are the problem.