You can't discriminate against my discrimination...

[fatbuckRTO]

Graduate Student Says She Was Dismissed From Program Due to Beliefs Toward Homosexuality

By Joshua Rhett Miller
Published October 05, 2011 | FoxNews.com


An attorney for a graduate student claiming she was wrongfully dismissed from her counseling job at a Michigan college because she refused to work with gay and bisexual clients argued in federal court Tuesday that his client was discriminated against because of her religious beliefs -- while the school insists her actions violated school policy.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati heard arguments in the case involving Julea Ward, a Detroit-area public school teacher. In July 2010, a federal judge dismissed Ward's lawsuit against Eastern Michigan University (EMU) after the school successfully contended she violated school policy and the American Counseling Association's code of ethics, which forbids counselors from discrimination in clinical practice.

Following Tuesday's hearing, Jeremy Tedesco, an attorney for the conservative Alliance Defense Fund, said he believes the Appeals Court will overturn the ruling because it violated Ward’s First Amendment rights.

"Ultimately, the university has a really tough battle here," Tedesco told FoxNews.com. "The bottom line to us is that this is very clear violation of her First Amendment rights in a couple of different contexts."

Tedesco argued that Ward's rights were violated when she was required to enter a remediation program to change her beliefs toward homosexuality. He said EMU officials violated the U.S. Constitution when they refused to accommodate Ward's sincerely held beliefs by not allowing her to refer her client to another qualified candidate.

"Rather than allow Julea to refer a potential client to another qualified counselor -- a common, professional practice to best serve clients -- EMU attacked and questioned Julea's religious beliefs and ultimately expelled her from the program because of them," Tedesco said in a statement. He said there is no timetable for the appellate court's decision.

According to ADF attorneys, Ward was assigned a potential client seeking assistance regarding a homosexual relationship shortly after she enrolled in the counseling program in January 2009. Realizing she could not affirm the client's relationship without violating her own religious beliefs, Ward then asked a supervisor for assistance. After being advised to reassign the potential client, EMU officials informed Ward she would need to undergo a "remediation" program in order to stay in the counseling program, the attorneys claim.

Ward was later dismissed from the program, and EMU officials denied her appeal.

"Julea followed accepted professional practice and the advice of her supervising professor when she referred the potential client to someone who had no conscience issue with the subject to be discussed," Tedesco's statement continued. "She would have gladly counseled the client herself had the topic focused on any other matter. Julea was punished for acting professionally and ethically in this situation."

In a statement to FoxNews.com, university officials said they are confident the July 2010 ruling will be upheld.

"This case has never been about religion or religious discrimination," read a statement issued by Walter Kraft, vice president for communications at EMU. "It is not about homosexuality or sexual orientation. This case is about what is in the best interest of a client who is in need of counseling, and following the curricular requirements of our highly-respected and nationally-accredited counseling program ... This case is important to Eastern Michigan, it also is important to universities across the country, as well as to the several universities in Michigan that have filed briefs in support of our position in this case."

In February, the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Michigan filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting EMU.

"Students seeking counseling must be able to trust that they will receive the help they need, free from discrimination," ACLU Deputy Legal Director Louise Melling said in a statement.

"Counselors are entitled to their own religious beliefs, but they do not have a right to discriminate as part of their professional training at a public university."

Michael Steinberg, legal director of the ACLU of Michigan, said public school counselors should not be "able to close the door" to homosexual students looking for guidance.

In a 48-page opinion, U.S. District Judge George Caram Steeh dismissed Ward's lawsuit in July, citing the university's rational basis for adopting the American Counseling Association's code of ethics.

"Furthermore, the university had a rational basis for requiring students to counsel clients without imposing their personal values," Steeh wrote. "In the case of Ms. Ward, the university determined that she would never change her behavior and would consistently refuse to counsel clients on matters with which she was personally opposed due to her religious beliefs -- including homosexual relationships."



http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/10/05...est=latestnews

[Homeslice]

Originally Posted by fatbuckRTO

According to ADF attorneys, Ward was assigned a potential client seeking assistance regarding a homosexual relationship

Only a small fraction of counselors would know how to counsel someone with that type of problem. Therefore, the university should have re-assigned the student to another counselor.

Any organization or business should plan in advance how they're going to match the right services to the right customer. This is common sense.

[fatbuckRTO]

Originally Posted by Homeslice

Only a small fraction of counselors would know how to counsel someone with that type of problem.

Why would it be any different than any other type of relationship, in terms of necessary counseling qualifications?

[Smittie61984]

Originally Posted by fatbuckRTO

Why would it be any different than any other type of relationship, in terms of necessary counseling qualifications?

I'm sure complications in a homosexual relationship is much harder than a heterosexual relationship.

For example, how would you consel a young white male who has a black boyfriend and wants to introduce their relationship to their WASP family?

Personally, the gay student should get the fuck over whatever bu that's just me.

Conseler is probably a douche, but the school handled it wrong.

[fatbuckRTO]

Originally Posted by Smittie61984

I'm sure complications in a homosexual relationship is much harder than a heterosexual relationship.

For example, how would you consel a young white male who has a black boyfriend and wants to introduce their relationship to their WASP family?

How would you counsel the same if it was a white female and black male, or vice versa? How would you counsel a young white woman whose white boyfriend is beating the ever-loving crap out of her everyday, but she "still loves him" and won't just leave him?

I'm betting heterosexual relationship counseling can get just as complicated or moreso than any other type of counseling.

Originally Posted by Homeslice

Well I wouldn't go to a gay person for advice about my girlfriend. And I doubt they would come to me for advice either.

You seem to be implying that a counselor is only qualified to counsel people on problems they have experienced or might experience. In which case, no women should ever counsel men, no white people should ever counsel black people, no Jew should ever counsel a Christian, etc. I think you'll run into a shortage of "qualified" counselors pretty quick in that case.

Starting your own practice and refusing to counsel certain individuals is one thing; that is your private business. But if you work for a company or organization that has made their policies clear to you when you start working there, I don't think you should be allowed to play the religion card in order to violate those policies.

I wonder how many of you would feel the same if she was a Muslim and filing the same suit.

[Homeslice]

Originally Posted by fatbuckRTO

Starting your own practice and refusing to counsel certain individuals is one thing; that is your private business. But if you work for a company or organization that has made their policies clear to you when you start working there, I don't think you should be allowed to play the religion card in order to violate those policies.

Fair enough. But meanwhile, this student is not getting the best counseling they could get, because the University insists on treating all counselors equal, with no difference in skills or knowledge.

Plus I think the "remedial training" bit is stupid. Either fire her or re-assign her.

[Homeslice]

Originally Posted by fatbuckRTO

Why would it be any different than any other type of relationship, in terms of necessary counseling qualifications?

Well I wouldn't go to a gay person for advice about my girlfriend. And I doubt they would come to me for advice either.

What if you owned a repair shop - Would all your mechanics be equally qualified to do certain repairs? Doubt it.

And what's with this "remedial training"? You can't force someone to change that strong of a belief. Either fire them, or do a better job assigning counselors to counselees.

[Trip]

This is fucking dumb. The person tried to find someone with no bias towards the topic where she held a bias. This should be encouraged, not punished. We all hold certain biases, I am sure someone atheist would not be a good counseler for a religious person or even an islamist treating a jewish person. Completely stupid to dismiss the person.

[pauldun170]

Dr. Callaway later informed plaintiff that she would not be assigned any more
clients, and that she, Callaway, would be requesting an informal review before herself
and plaintiff's advisor, Professor Dugger, as to whether she had violated University and
ACA policies prohibiting "unethical, threatening, or unprofessional conduct," an "inability
to tolerate different points of view," "imposing values that are inconsistent with
counseling goals," and "discrimination based on . . . sexual orientation." Defendants
stated that this informal review was scheduled due to plaintiff’s performance in Praticum
and in order to discuss her obligation to provide counseling based on the client’s values
and not those of the counselor. (Tr. of Formal Review, 4:19-5:17). Dr. Dugger insists
that during the review, she repeatedly assured plaintiff that she was “not incompetent.”
(Feb. 4 Email String Among Callaway, Dugger, & Tracy). A letter dated February 2,
2009 documents the informal review:
During the meeting, Dr. Callaway expressed a serious concern about
your performance in practicum. Specifically, she indicated that you
have communicated bias against clients who identify as lesbian, gay
Case 2:09-cv-11237-GCS-PJK Document 139 Filed 07/26/10 Page 3 of 48
4
or bisexual and that you have refused to accept a gay person as a
client in practicum with the explanation that counseling gay people
about relationship issues violates your religious beliefs. Dr. Callaway
explained that the EMU counseling program, in accordance with the
ethical standards of the counseling profession (American Counseling
Association, 2005), requires that students demonstrate in practicum
the ability to consistently set aside their personal values or beliefs
systems and work with the value system of the client. She stated that
your refusal to see a client presenting with concerns about his gay
relationship signified an unwillingness or inability on your part to meet
this expectation.
At the end of the informal review, plaintiff was given the choices of: (1) completing a
"remediation program" directed; (2) voluntarily leaving the Counseling Program; or (3)
requesting a formal hearing. The remediation program was contingent on “Ms. Ward’s
recognition that she needed to make some changes.” (Tr. of Formal Review, 8:4-7).
Plaintiff “communicated an attempt to maintain this belief system and those behaviors,”
refused to participate in the remediation program, and instead chose to have a formal
hearing. Id.
A formal hearing was held on March 10, 2009 and was attended by Professors
Callaway and Dugger. Others serving on the hearing panel were Professors Ametrano,
Francis, and Marx, and student representative Stanifer. During the review, plaintiff said
that while she objected to counseling homosexual clients on their same-sex
relationships, she would counsel them on any other issue; moreover, she refused to
affirm any behavior that “goes against what the Bible says.” In addition, plaintiff stated
that she disagreed with the ACA’s prohibition on reparative therapy (viz., therapy
targeted at changing a homosexual individual’s sexual orientation), but that she would
comply with such rules. Also during the review, Dr. Francis engaged plaintiff in the
following “theological bout”:

Academic disciplinary action may be initiated when a student exhibits
the following behavior in one discrete episode that is a violation of
law or of the ACA Code of Ethics and/or when a student exhibits a
documented pattern of recurring behavior which may include, but is
not limited to . . . [u]nethical, threatening, or unprofessional conduct; .
. . [c]onsistent inability or unwillingness to carry out academic or field
placement responsibilities; . . . inability to tolerate different points of
view, constructive feedback or supervision.

http://www.au.org/what-we-do/lawsuit...district-1.pdf

[pauldun170]

How is she supposed to work for an institution that by law cannot discriminate?
How is she supposed to honor a code of ethics that explicitly states "honor the clients value system...not yours"
Her religious beliefs prevent her from counseling those who who do not follow her religious beliefs. As one of the briefs filed on the case says "she could not counsel them because she could not affirm a non marital sexual relationship" (I'm guessing this was done to shake off the anti-gay stigma of the case)
Has she provided the biblical text that explicitly prevents her honoring the code of ethics?

Another take on the case
http://oldsite.alliancedefensefund.o...2565letter.pdf