More news for the school whose controversies never end.

hxxp://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/index.ssf/2009/04/federal_lawsuit_claims_eastern.html


Federal lawsuit claims Eastern Michigan University dismissed grad student from counseling program for her views on homosexuality
by Amanda Hamon | The Ann Arbor News
Monday April 06, 2009, 9:49 AM

A national legal group has filed a lawsuit against Eastern Michigan University on behalf of a graduate student who allegedly was dismissed from a counseling program because of her beliefs about homosexuality.

The complaint was filed Thursday with the U.S. District Court in Detroit, according to a federal database of lawsuits.

The Alliance Defense Fund Center for Academic Freedom says student Julea Ward was dismissed from her graduate program in March after refusing to affirm a client's homosexual behavior prior to a counseling session, according to a press release from the group.

David French, ADF senior counsel, said the school initiated a disciplinary process against Ward despite the fact that she followed her supervising professor's advice and referred the client to a counselor who did not have a conscience issue with homosexuality.

Ward then allegedly was informed that the only way to stay in her program would be to undergo a remediation process to change her beliefs as they relate to counseling about homosexual relationships, the Defense Fund Center said. When she refused, she was given a formal review hearing, after which she was dismissed from the program. The dismissal was upheld March 26 by the dean of EMU's College of Education, the press release said.

EMU spokeswoman Pam Young released the following statement this morning: "Although Eastern Michigan University does not comment on pending litigation, we are a diverse campus with a strong commitment not to discriminate on the basis of gender, race, disability, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression."

EMU spokeswoman Pam Young released the following statement this morning: "Although Eastern Michigan University does not comment on pending litigation, we are a diverse campus with a strong commitment not to discriminate on the basis of gender, race, disability, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression."

We will, however, discriminate against beliefs and ideas different from our own.

I would think that not judging people might be an important quality to look for in a counselor.

Would you allow someone to get a medical degree if they refused to treat blonde haired people? How about a statistics degree to someone who refused to use the number 6?

I would think that not judging people might be an important quality to look for in a counselor.

I think even a more important quality might be a counselor who is willing to refer certain patients elsewhere if they feel their personal beliefs may prevent them from fully assisting the patient.

I mean, I'm sure there's counselors all over the country that have all kinds of personal opinions that interfere with their treatments. Recognizing those opinions and their possible impact is very mature and desirable trait.

Recognizing those opinions and their possible impact is very mature and desirable trait.

But desirable traits clearly aren't what this outfit wants. They want only things that fit their agenda.

Yeah god forbid a counselor in training program actually expect to create counselors with open and accepting minds.

The only issue I can really see is that she did what she was told to do by her program director. Its pretty murky what went on after that to get to this point. We're not seeing the entire story.

We will, however, discriminate against beliefs and ideas different from our own.



Yes, god forbid we discriminate against bigotry and prejudice when it comes to training people to be COUNSELORS.

Counselors are very intimate relationships for most people. You have to trust them, and how can someone trust a counselor who willingly discriminates against you because of a personal preference?

I'd say she's in the wrong graduate program.

I think even a more important quality might be a counselor who is willing to refer certain patients elsewhere if they feel their personal beliefs may prevent them from fully assisting the patient.

I mean, I'm sure there's counselors all over the country that have all kinds of personal opinions that interfere with their treatments. Recognizing those opinions and their possible impact is very mature and desirable trait.

I'm on board with this one.

how can someone trust a counselor who willingly discriminates against you because of a personal preference?

That's the thing, the counselor didn't ... they referred them to someone else who didn't have an issue with it. And if there wasn't another agenda afoot that would have been more than sufficient.

Instead, it's an obvious attempt at social engineering masquerading as "education".

That's the thing, the counselor didn't ... they referred them to someone else who didn't have an issue with it. And if there wasn't another agenda afoot that would have been more than sufficient.

Instead, it's an obvious attempt at social engineering masquerading as "education".

Let's say you have a medical student who believes the soul of a human being resides in the heart. That the heart is sacred and should never be treated as an organ or biological instrument. So in medical school, he refuses to answer test questions regarding the heart and any cases that comes up he refers off to another medical student.

Does that person deserve a medical degree?

I'm against discrimination based on beliefs and this issue is a bit tricky. But to me a person in counseling who doesn't believe in homosexuality is no different than a medical student who doesn't believe in a heart.

But to me a person in counseling who doesn't believe in homosexuality is no different than a medical student who doesn't believe in a heart.

You seem to be confusing "doesn't believe in" and "doesn't believe it's a lifestyle that should be encouraged/treated as thought it were acceptable" (or whatever the heck the objection was). That how I interpret "refusing to affirm", the student/counselor didn't deny it existed, they simply declined to say "whatever you do is okay". It's ludicrous to think that makes someone incapable of treating someone who has rejection issues because they're adopted (or whatever myriad of things unrelated to their sexual preference people see therapists for).

What if it were a Jewish counselor who referred an avowed anti-semite to another therapist? Or a black counselor who handed off an avowed racist? Or a counselor who was a rape victim that wasn't comfortable treating men with issues of violence toward women? Think any of those people would have been kicked from the program? If you do, you're kidding yourself.

And really asinine thing about this is that, in theory at least, the schools should be preparing people for their professional careers ... where they could have passed on taking the patient in most scenarios & would have found a workaround asap in the others. Not every counselor/therapist/etc is a good fit for every patient, anybody who has been on either side of the couch knows that. The really good ones know that, and do what they can to assist the patient in finding help elsewhere that's a better fit. Been there, done that, it works far better for everybody involved. Instead it appears EMU would rather play let's pretend and try to fit every peg into the same hole, which leaves me wondering whether anybody associated with this fiasco is competent in the field they're trying to teach.

In this case I'd say the prospective student is far better off shaking the dust of that place off their feet & completing their degree in a better environment but if I were a taxpayer in the state I'd be hounding every legislator I could find to strip every dime from them I could get my hands on.

You seem to be confusing "doesn't believe in" and "doesn't believe it's a lifestyle that should be encouraged/treated as thought it were acceptable" (or whatever the heck the objection was). That how I interpret "refusing to affirm", the student/counselor didn't deny it existed, they simply declined to say "whatever you do is okay". It's ludicrous to think that makes someone incapable of treating someone who has rejection issues because they're adopted (or whatever myriad of things unrelated to their sexual preference people see therapists for).
I think clarification on the situation would be needed. I saw affirm as refusing to "maintain to be true" as the definition of the word says. It also means to uphold or support the validity of something. A horrible word for the author to use as it can probably go both ways.

What if it were a Jewish counselor who referred an avowed anti-semite to another therapist? Or a black counselor who handed off an avowed racist? Or a counselor who was a rape victim that wasn't comfortable treating men with issues of violence toward women? Think any of those people would have been kicked from the program? If you do, you're kidding yourself.

The difference in your scenarios is that the patient is the bigot/threat and not the counseler.

A better example would be if a counseler passed on every patient that wasn't a hot blonde. Or one that refused to treat individuals who were over 6 feet tall. Would you have a problem with throwing those people out of your program?

And really asinine thing about this is that, in theory at least, the schools should be preparing people for their professional careers ... where they could have passed on taking the patient in most scenarios & would have found a workaround asap in the others. Not every counselor/therapist/etc is a good fit for every patient, anybody who has been on either side of the couch knows that. The really good ones know that, and do what they can to assist the patient in finding help elsewhere that's a better fit. Been there, done that, it works far better for everybody involved. Instead it appears EMU would rather play let's pretend and try to fit every peg into the same hole, which leaves me wondering whether anybody associated with this fiasco is competent in the field they're trying to teach.

In this case I'd say the prospective student is far better off shaking the dust of that place off their feet & completing their degree in a better environment but if I were a taxpayer in the state I'd be hounding every legislator I could find to strip every dime from them I could get my hands on.

The school also has a curriculim they need to abide to. Psychology is treated as a science. A doctor would not graduate if he refused to acknowledge a vital organ. A biologist wouldn't graduate if they believed the Earth was 6,000 years old. I don't see why you are making exceptions for this girl in this field. As someone who studied statistics in college, I would not have graduated if I refused to accept 6 as a number (and subsequently passed those problems with it in it to other students) based on some belief system.

Religious beliefs should be protected by schools. At the same time they have no business in the medical/science field. If she doesn't agree with how psychology is taught and prefers to take a religious approach, she should be studying theology. We certainly wouldn't be protecting a creationist who cried about failing a biology class.

If I was in the program and refused to treat redheads, I would be thrown out of the program too. This is the real world where you don't get a free pass through life because you believe in fairy tales and pixie dust.

If they have a policy against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, then I'm not sure what they were supposed to. Just like she should have known that beforehand (and had the chance to select a different school), the person who is gay may have selected such a school for that very reason and has every reason to expect they will not be discriminated against.

I think clarification on the situation would be needed. I saw affirm as refusing to "maintain to be true" as the definition of the word says. It also means to uphold or support the validity of something. A horrible word for the author to use as it can probably go both ways.

Yeah, we're definitely getting different visions of what went down from that word. I read it in the psycho jargon sense of "positive affirmation", basically reassuring someone that their behavior/feeling/whatever is "okay". Almost straight out of Stuart Smalley, except directed at the patient.


The difference in your scenarios is that the patient is the bigot/threat and not the counseler.

In each case (with the exception of the abuser, who was presumably in treatment & attempting recovery although I didn't spell that out) the behavior is socially unacceptable but otherwise legal. I know this just rankles the hell out of the left but there's a sizable portion of the population that is equally offended by claims that homosexual activity should be socially acceptable.

At the same time they have no business in the medical/science field. If she doesn't agree with how psychology is taught and prefers to take a religious approach, she should be studying theology.

So, what, only atheists or adherents to highly permissive religions should be therapists? Damn, we'd lose a number of good ones that way. Including the best one I ever knew.

We certainly wouldn't be protecting a creationist who cried about failing a biology class.

Wrong there, for sure. Reciting back the text is one thing, being forced to pass along various theory as fact is another. And that's why there's still efforts to put, just to pick on something in that area, creationism in the same curriculum as Big Bang.

But that brings us back to the actual scenario that occurred, which neither of us was clear about. From the description, I gathered this was likely a student/community clinic type of setting, where a patient came in with some issue relating to their homosexual activity, the student/therapist-in-training knew they could not in good conscience give them a "it's okay to be gay" speech and referred them to another therapist for treatment as they were advised by a superior to do. I get the feeling you're picturing more of a classroom/academic environment where they wouldn't regurgitate the information in the text/lecture on cue. Ethically that's two very different scenarios.

I can study the Koran or text on The Great Spaghetti Monster and if there's a test on the material I should be able to spit it back out as presented, doesn't mean I have to subscribe to it & there's no ethical conflict I see there. But when you're in the therapist role, looking the patient in the eye & lying to them is an entirely different set of ethics and I would think the profession would applaud this student for taking appropriate measures to avoid doing so. I mean, damn, if you can't trust your therapist then what's the point, y'know?

In my experience therapists tend to try to specialize down a few areas where they're particularly talented or comfortable (or both). Some are good with marriages, others are better with ego issues, others with various abuse issues, etc. There's zero reason this student couldn't become a useful therapist in a variety of areas of expertise without being presented with an ethical conflict over the nature of or the acceptability of homosexual activity.

To draw another parallel, abortion is generally legal and over the past few decades increasingly acceptable in this country but if you think there's a shortage of doctors now, just imagine what it would be like if you eliminated every doctor who wouldn't perform one outside of a life threatening emergency (okay, I'm giving the benefit of the doubt based on the Oath there). Medically they know how (same as I imagine this therapist could have recited the text on the subject) but ethically/morally they couldn't do it and would pass the case elsewhere.

If they have a policy against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, then I'm not sure what they were supposed to. Just like she should have known that beforehand (and had the chance to select a different school), the person who is gay may have selected such a school for that very reason and has every reason to expect they will not be discriminated against.

That is a standard policy at every university. From the limited information I know, I think this counselor handled the situation perfectly. Therapists are taught to identify their countertransference (biases) and work on improving them, but if they have a patient that they cannot treat because the countertransference is too strong, they are taught to refer to a colleague who can provide appropriate therapy.

Personally, when I was in my adult psychiatry residency I told my director that I couldn't effectively treat parents that abused their kids. He had no problem with it and I still got an effective education. I still had to see them in emergent situations, but I didn't engage in long term (or short term) therapy sessions with such parents. In medical school, there were people in my class who refused to participate in abortions for religious/moral reasons and they were excused from those procedures. Seems odd how EMU handled this, unless there is more to the story that we don't know.

That is a standard policy at every university. From the limited information I know, I think this counselor handled the situation perfectly. Therapists are taught to identify their countertransference (biases) and work on improving them, but if they have a patient that they cannot treat because the countertransference is too strong, they are taught to refer to a colleague who can provide appropriate therapy.

Personally, when I was in my adult psychiatry residency I told my director that I couldn't effectively treat parents that abused their kids. He had no problem with it and I still got an effective education. In medical school, there were people in my class who refused to participate in abortions for religious/moral reasons and they were excused from those procedures. Seems odd how EMU handled this, unless there is more to the story that we don't know.

Since you're in the thread, I'll ask what I think is a safe question (I know there's limitations about where you can comfortably go on anything in the field).

Do you feel my interpretation of what transpired, based almost entirely on the phrase "refusing to affirm" is at least plausible/reasonable? Or from the professional standpoint am I applying some layman's bias of my own there and making too broad a leap, at least based on the information in the posted info? I know that I know just enough terminology to be a danger to myself & those around me, so I'm kind of curious if I'm taking an unreasonable jump to get there.

That is a standard policy at every university. From the limited information I know, I think this counselor handled the situation perfectly. Therapists are taught to identify their countertransference (biases) and work on improving them, but if they have a patient that they cannot treat because the countertransference is too strong, they are taught to refer to a colleague who can provide appropriate therapy.

Personally, when I was in my adult psychiatry residency I told my director that I couldn't effectively treat parents that abused their kids. He had no problem with it and I still got an effective education. I still had to see them in emergent situations, but I didn't engage in long term (or short term) therapy sessions with such parents. In medical school, there were people in my class who refused to participate in abortions for religious/moral reasons and they were excused from those procedures. Seems odd how EMU handled this, unless there is more to the story that we don't know.

Parents that abuse their children are not a protected class in any kind of discrimination statute. My point is that if she wants a degree from that university, then she has to abide by the codes and regulations that have been set forth. And I doubt that it is standard policy at every university, at leats not the "sexual orientation" part.

Let's look at it from another angle. Let's say EMU only wants graduate counseling students who do not discriminate against homosexuals. Do they not have the right to develop their program in that way?

Or how about another perspective? What if the student is an anti-semite and they refuse to counsel a Jewish student, but refer them to another counselor? What should EMU do in that situation?

From the patient's perspective, why would they want to be treated by that counselor?

Shouldn't they rather have a counselor that would be more effective? Unless they are looking for one of those counselors that "cure" their gayness.

From the patient's perspective, why would they want to be treated by that counselor?

Shouldn't they rather have a counselor that would be more effective? Unless they are looking for one of those counselors that "cure" their gayness.

But it's not patient vs. counselor. It is school vs. counselor. For all we know, the patient never even knew about this until now.

But you're right, the patient would rightly not want to be treated by such a counselor, which is exactly why you put such a anti-discrimination policy in place, so counselors will be available for everyone.

Let's look at it from another angle. Let's say EMU only wants graduate counseling students who do not discriminate against homosexuals. Do they not have the right to develop their program in that way?

Discrimination my ass. There's no right for that student to see that particular therapist, only to be treated by someone (leaping to the assumption that this was a clinic environment).

As for the right to develop their program in that way? Not with my tax dollars they shouldn't (presumably I'm a Michigan taxpayer in that hypothetical).

Or how about another perspective? What if the student is an anti-semite and they refuse to counsel a Jewish student, but refer them to another counselor? What should EMU do in that situation?

Same thing they'd likely do if it were an atheist who had an issue counseling a Christian - keep their nose out of people's religion when it isn't relevant to the issue at hand. Don't want to treat someone for, say, compulsive handwashing because they're a Christian? Seems like a reach. Don't want to treat someone struggling with, say, issues of anger with God (and search for meaning in life, et al) because of the death of a loved one? Seems very appropriate if the atheist decides to pass that one along to someone else.

There needs to be some bond formed between a patient & a therapist eventually, some grounds for trust that leads to communication. If you're coming at the same subject from two perspectives that cannot ultimately co-exist, there's going to be conflict that isn't helpful & need not exist and reduces the effectiveness of the therapy. Otherwise why not just give the patient a prepared text to read & send them on their way?

That is a standard policy at every university. From the limited information I know, I think this counselor handled the situation perfectly. Therapists are taught to identify their countertransference (biases) and work on improving them, but if they have a patient that they cannot treat because the countertransference is too strong, they are taught to refer to a colleague who can provide appropriate therapy.

Personally, when I was in my adult psychiatry residency I told my director that I couldn't effectively treat parents that abused their kids. He had no problem with it and I still got an effective education. I still had to see them in emergent situations, but I didn't engage in long term (or short term) therapy sessions with such parents. In medical school, there were people in my class who refused to participate in abortions for religious/moral reasons and they were excused from those procedures. Seems odd how EMU handled this, unless there is more to the story that we don't know.

For the record, this is the exact angle I was going for with my initial response. Nothing more inflammatory than what EF27 just said.

Since you're in the thread, I'll ask what I think is a safe question (I know there's limitations about where you can comfortably go on anything in the field).

Do you feel my interpretation of what transpired, based almost entirely on the phrase "refusing to affirm" is at least plausible/reasonable? Or from the professional standpoint am I applying some layman's bias of my own there and making too broad a leap, at least based on the information in the posted info? I know that I know just enough terminology to be a danger to myself & those around me, so I'm kind of curious if I'm taking an unreasonable jump to get there.

I think you are right on point in your interpertation. That was my view of the matter as well. However, I'll restate that I have very limited info here, but that was my educated guess on the matter.

Parents that abuse their children are not a protected class in any kind of discrimination statute. My point is that if she wants a degree from that university, then she has to abide by the codes and regulations that have been set forth. And I doubt that it is standard policy at every university, at leats not the "sexual orientation" part.

Ok, I know that it is policy at every public university in the nation. Perhaps, there are some private universities that don't have that clause, but I doubt that even. Anyway, I stand by that a therapist isn't necessarily discriminating if they refuse to treat a client due to their own countertransference and if that countertransference contaminates the therapy, they should transfer the patient to a colleague who doesn't have that issue.

Dola -

This is a very hot political issue in training programs because about 30-40 years ago the earlier versions of the DSM (the major manual for psychiatry and also used by therapists) had classified homosexuality as a disease and most professionals in the field want to forget that time/distance themselves from it as far as possible. I think that is a large part of the reason for the university's reaction.

In each case (with the exception of the abuser, who was presumably in treatment & attempting recovery although I didn't spell that out) the behavior is socially unacceptable but otherwise legal. I know this just rankles the hell out of the left but there's a sizable portion of the population that is equally offended by claims that homosexual activity should be socially acceptable.

I never considered homosexuality a left/right issue. Just as I don't consider someone born with blonde hair a political issue. I have no doubt there are people who don't believe that homosexual activity is acceptable. There are also people who believe allowing women the right to vote and giving blacks equal rights is unacceptable. I don't see how that is relevant to the topic. I'm not saying she isn't allowed to have ignorant beliefs.

So, what, only atheists or adherents to highly permissive religions should be therapists? Damn, we'd lose a number of good ones that way. Including the best one I ever knew.
Not at all. But in our society, we ask that people in the medical profession put their religious beliefs aside to help the patient. If you are being rushed into the hospital suffering from a heart attack, I'm guessing you don't want to be treated by a Christian Scientist who believes praying real hard will fix your heart instead of real medical procedures.

If you are going to a therapist, I'm sure you don't want a Scientologist who is going to tell you that your issues are caused by thetans and you'll need to be hooked up to an e-meter to determine your mental mass.

Wrong there, for sure. Reciting back the text is one thing, being forced to pass along various theory as fact is another. And that's why there's still efforts to put, just to pick on something in that area, creationism in the same curriculum as Big Bang.
Despite your belief, you will have a tough time getting a biology degree from an accredited university by stating the Earth is 6,000 years old and that Dinosaur bones were buried by Satan to test our faith. You are not expected to pass along theory as fact, but you are expected to understand which scientific theories have the most evidence pointing in their favor.

There are people pushing for creationism in schools, but that has nothing to do with science. That is religious people who are watching their fairy tale crumble under what we call reality. The Big Bang is taught in school because there is a lot of scientific evidence pointing to it. Creationism isn't because there is none pointing to it.

But that brings us back to the actual scenario that occurred, which neither of us was clear about. From the description, I gathered this was likely a student/community clinic type of setting, where a patient came in with some issue relating to their homosexual activity, the student/therapist-in-training knew they could not in good conscience give them a "it's okay to be gay" speech and referred them to another therapist for treatment as they were advised by a superior to do. I get the feeling you're picturing more of a classroom/academic environment where they wouldn't regurgitate the information in the text/lecture on cue. Ethically that's two very different scenarios.
Clarification on the setup is probably necessary here. I was assuming this is counseling programs setup for psychology students who receive credit for it. I know that's fairly common in that field.

I can study the Koran or text on The Great Spaghetti Monster and if there's a test on the material I should be able to spit it back out as presented, doesn't mean I have to subscribe to it & there's no ethical conflict I see there. But when you're in the therapist role, looking the patient in the eye & lying to them is an entirely different set of ethics and I would think the profession would applaud this student for taking appropriate measures to avoid doing so. I mean, damn, if you can't trust your therapist then what's the point, y'know?

In my experience therapists tend to try to specialize down a few areas where they're particularly talented or comfortable (or both). Some are good with marriages, others are better with ego issues, others with various abuse issues, etc. There's zero reason this student couldn't become a useful therapist in a variety of areas of expertise without being presented with an ethical conflict over the nature of or the acceptability of homosexual activity.

To draw another parallel, abortion is generally legal and over the past few decades increasingly acceptable in this country but if you think there's a shortage of doctors now, just imagine what it would be like if you eliminated every doctor who wouldn't perform one outside of a life threatening emergency (okay, I'm giving the benefit of the doubt based on the Oath there). Medically they know how (same as I imagine this therapist could have recited the text on the subject) but ethically/morally they couldn't do it and would pass the case elsewhere.

I don't want to generalize all therapists in here. There is a big difference in a private therapist works for themselves and one who is working for someone else and being asked to provide a service to all.

I see it more as a job. Her job is to provide counseling toward students. She was unable to counsel certain students and thus unable to fulfill her job duties. In the real world, you get fired when you can't perform your duties.

This is the real world and there are no free passes. I can't work as a resident in a hospital and say my religious beliefs don't allow me to work near blood and demand they keep me there. When you work in the service/medical field for other people, you don't always get to cherry pick who you get to treat. That is what this girl was doing. It doesn't matter to me if her religious beliefs were against homosexuals or brunettes, she was unable to fulfill her duties in the job and thus was fired. She has learned a valuable lesson in life.

So someone tell me what happens when every counselor int he program has a problem with the patient. Or it doesn't have to be every. What if there are only a handful of counselors that don't have a problem, but their hoursare when the student is working or in class. So now the student is significantly inconvenienced only because of their sexual orientation.

So someone tell me what happens when every counselor int he program has a problem with the patient. Or it doesn't have to be every. What if there are only a handful of counselors that don't have a problem, but their hoursare when the student is working or in class. So now the student is significantly inconvenienced only because of their sexual orientation.

You'd be surprised at how few therapists some big schools have on staff. Usually, if there is a conflict for one reason or another that is genuinely the school's fault, they pick up the tab to send the person to the most affordable private therapist that can work with the patient.

A couple of thoughts here:

1. In my experience, in order to maximize success in one's graduate program, it is preferable to select a program based on best fit in the first place. The reality is that grad students more or less have to bend to the will of the program, and iconoclasm is typically a losing proposition. This student should have chosen her program more wisely--I am sure there are other well-regarded programs that would have met her needs better.

2. I agree with Molson in that I can respect any medical/behavioral/counseling professional, regardless of their political/moral belief system, who knows enough to simply transfer a case they can not work with on moral grounds to another professional who will be a better fit for that case.

So someone tell me what happens when every counselor int he program has a problem with the patient. Or it doesn't have to be every. What if there are only a handful of counselors that don't have a problem, but their hoursare when the student is working or in class. So now the student is significantly inconvenienced only because of their sexual orientation.

EMU probably only had 8-12 student counselors working on their hours that I ever met at one time. I worked very closely with them in the residence halls, we had a Counselor in Residence program where we had a counselor doing office hours in my halls and focusing on my halls in programming and such. I became very close to one of my CIRs Scott, and the program in general.


I think there are some strong points in EMU's favor in terms of national standards. They can point to published documents that support their position and can point to standards at many other institutions to show they are not alone. Fair enough, and good points for EMU.

However, I have to ask two questions. What is best for the student counselor, and what is best for the student who needs counseling?

The student counselor is uncomfortable with the situation, and when the university demands remediation classes to change her point of view, she feels that is essentially forcing her to change her views on right and wrong, she refuses, and is let go.

However, let's look at it from the view of the student who needs counseling. Which scenario is better?

You want to talk about your homosexual relationship. Would you prefer:

A). Being sent to another counselor comfortable counseling you instead of the initial one you talk to, or...

B). Having the counselor you go to not tell you they are uncomfortable, meet with you, and do only a halfway job.

I think it's gotta be A. It is better for the student who needs counseling to pass them off to someone who will give them the best counseling possible, than it is doing it themselves but not being that good ir that comfortable.


I find it funny that in this thread, those who disagree with Julea have used analogies to this case to silly or extreme cases like not liking brunettes or being a anti-semite or a Christian Science doctor. Those who support her right to do this use an analogy to something we should all agree with like an abuser with a subject of abuse as counselor.


I think it's silly to compare someone who believes homosexual behavior is wrong with someone who discriminates against blondes. One is rational, the other is not. Like it or not, agree with it or not, there are many people who find homosexual activity wrong for very rational reasons (and there are many who find it wrong for irrational reasons too).

I think a better analogy is to find something in the middle of silly and extreme on one side or the other.


Let's use a sexual example.


What if the counselor chose not to see those who practices infidelity about their infidelity, because she thought it was wrong and could not get past that bias??

There are a lot of people who think infidelity is not wrong, or at least not always wrong. Now, of course, if someone not being faithful was needing to be seen about alcohol abuse, then of course they would be seen. And similarly, one of the articles about this quoted Julea's attorney as saying that she saw homosexual students who needed help and counseling in areas outside of sexuality, such as academics and stress.

Would changing the sexual behavior from homosexuality to infidelity change the script? What about changing it to incest? Would that change the script? What about simply rampant promiscuity? Would that change the script? What is she thought having sex all of time with tons of different partners was wrong, and someone wanted to come in and talk about it, and she handed that student off. Would that be okay?

I think that this subject is deeper on both sides than a mere three paragraph story gives credit to.

I think EMU's entire agenda is to get people to fight on the internet.

The reason I used my anti-semite analogy was to get to the heart of the discussion. Is it really about a counselor being able to avoid seeing someone because they have ANY kind of problem, or does the specific problem matter?

If it's the specific problem, then I think this debate comes down to the differences in what people think about homosexuality or think about those who think homosexuality is wrong.

So let's examine this: either this is discrimination or not. If it's discrimination, then EMU is certainly in the right without question. If it is not discrimination, then it wouldn't be discrimination if they refused to see someone because of gender, race, disability, religion (all of which are also in the school's policy).

1. Get people to fight on the internet.

2. ?????

3. Profit!

I wonder how the people judging this student would feel if they had to counsel a Catholic, or a police officer, or a Republican.

Every has prejudices. Acknowledging them, and the effect they may have on your opinion is incredibly important in this field, and really in life.

I think EMU's entire agenda is to get people to fight on the internet.

I wouldn;t doubt that at all!

I think it's silly to compare someone who believes homosexual behavior is wrong with someone who discriminates against blondes. One is rational, the other is not. Like it or not, agree with it or not, there are many people who find homosexual activity wrong for very rational reasons (and there are many who find it wrong for irrational reasons too).

I don't see the big difference between the two. Both are individuals born with a genetic predisposition. One toward being attracted toward the same sex and one toward having a certain hair color. Neither can control the genes they received. If you want to go toward something less "extreme", use blacks as an example.

These "rational" reasons for thinking it wrong typically come from a book written thousands of years ago about talking snakes, virgin births, and walking on water.

What if the counselor chose not to see those who practices infidelity about their infidelity, because she thought it was wrong and could not get past that bias??

There are a lot of people who think infidelity is not wrong, or at least not always wrong. Now, of course, if someone not being faithful was needing to be seen about alcohol abuse, then of course they would be seen. And similarly, one of the articles about this quoted Julea's attorney as saying that she saw homosexual students who needed help and counseling in areas outside of sexuality, such as academics and stress.

Would changing the sexual behavior from homosexuality to infidelity change the script? What about changing it to incest? Would that change the script? What about simply rampant promiscuity? Would that change the script? What is she thought having sex all of time with tons of different partners was wrong, and someone wanted to come in and talk about it, and she handed that student off. Would that be okay?

I think that this subject is deeper on both sides than a mere three paragraph story gives credit to.

Not at all. As a counseler, you're going to be opposed to the actions of your patient a lot. People seeking therapy often times have issues with themselves and their lives that would probably be offensive to just about anyone. Therapy isn't about the therapist though, it's about helping the patient. That is the underlying issue with this whole thing.

There is nothing wrong with her having beliefs. The issue is that those beliefs prevented her from doing her job. If she is unable to do her job, what is wrong with kicking her out?

Yeah.

We all know there are idiots who claim my faith as their own, who try to justify homosexuality as a Super Special Sin. It's not. You want to think homosexuality is a sin, fine, no problem, many verses to back up your claim including Romans chapter one. But what it is not, is a Super Special Sin. It is the same as gossip, premaritial sex, lying, drunkeness, divorce (in most circumstances), fighting, etc.

Would you allow a gossip into your church? yes? Then you should allow gays. Would you tolerate someone who gets drunk once in a while? Yes? Then the same with gays. Would you counsel someone who has premarital sex? yes? Same with gays. Would you marry two people if one was divorced for a reason not in the Bible? (Adultery by other partner, abuse, etc). Yes? Then marry gays too. Would you accept an ordination of a gossip or some one who gets drunk regularly? Yes? Then ordain gays.

It's not a Super Special Sin entitling the person to different sets of rules than other sins.

So, for example, my father chooses not to marry those who have been divorced except in exception Biblical situations, such as abuse. So, when he says not to a homosexual couple wanting to have him do the ceremony, he says no. I find that very consistent.

You have to be consistent with your treatment, so I take umbrage with any person who claims to be Christian, and then uses my faith as a shield for their discrimination of gays. My Bible puts all sins on the same playing field except for suicide and refusing Christ as your Savior. Everything else is on the same level.

I don't see the big difference between the two. Both are individuals born with a genetic predisposition. One toward being attracted toward the same sex and one toward having a certain hair color. Neither can control the genes they received. If you want to go toward something less "extreme", use blacks as an example.



And what about child molesters, or racists, or violent murderers? Genetic predispositions there too. What if someone wasn't thrilled with counseling a child molester?

These "rational" reasons for thinking it wrong typically come from a book written thousands of years ago about talking snakes, virgin births, and walking on water.






I already said that some have the view rationally and some irrationally, not need to take potshots at those for irrational reasons, because I already covered them parenthetically.

I know in life people may not like the idea of those who disagree with them for having rational reasons for doing so, but that's the breaks. ;)

I wonder how the people judging this student would feel if they had to counsel a Catholic, or a police officer, or a Republican.

I would have no trouble counseling any of these people, because I have no such prejudices against them. I disagree with the Pope in many cases, I don't like what some police officers do, I disagree politically with Republicans, but I don't disapprove of any of those lifestyles.

Every has prejudices. Acknowledging them, and the effect they may have on your opinion is incredibly important in this field, and really in life.

Acknowledging them and realizing that it might prevent you from getting a graduate degree is an important lesson in life.

I wonder how the people judging this student would feel if they had to counsel a Catholic, or a police officer, or a Republican.

Every has prejudices. Acknowledging them, and the effect they may have on your opinion is incredibly important in this field, and really in life.

There are a lot of counselers in the world has probably counseled someone at some time that they are prejudiced against. A counseler isn't supposed to impose their beliefs on to you, they are supposed to help treat people with the issues they have.

Counselers also don't have to be the exact same as their patient. A child molester seeking counseling surely doesn't need to be treated by a fellow child molester. A rape victim doesn't need to be treated by a fellow rape victim.

She was incapable of doing her job. She was fired because of it. It's a lesson learned in the real world.

I already said that some have the view rationally and some irrationally, not need to take potshots at those for irrational reasons, because I already covered them parenthetically.

I know in life people may not like the idea of those who disagree with them for having rational reasons for doing so, but that's the breaks. ;)

What are these rational reasons? I'm sorry, I've just never understood why people are so unaccepting of a completely natural occurence.

Comparing homosexuality to molestation is the new Godwin's Law.

And everyone that does that can kindly fuck off.

And what about child molesters, or racists, or violent murderers? Genetic predispositions there too. What if someone wasn't thrilled with counseling a child molester?

I wouldn't necessarily put racists into that category as that is more of a sociological issue.

I'm sure there are people who are not thrilled with treating child molesters and they don't have to. The problem is, if you take a job that may require you to do so, and then you don't, you aren't fulfilling your employment requirements. Her job was to counsel all students of all types. She was incapable of doing so. She was thus fired as anyone who isn't capable of doing their job is.

I wouldn't necessarily put racists into that category as that is more of a sociological issue.

I'm sure there are people who are not thrilled with treating child molesters and they don't have to. The problem is, if you take a job that may require you to do so, and then you don't, you aren't fulfilling your employment requirements. Her job was to counsel all students of all types. She was incapable of doing so. She was thus fired as anyone who isn't capable of doing their job is.
I think this entire discussion is pretty much useless until everyone agrees with the bolded part here.

What are these rational reasons? I'm sorry, I've just never understood why people are so unaccepting of a completely natural occurence.

There are a lot of people who beleive the ethics of sexuality in teh Bible revolves around the rearing of children. The overall principle is "Don't have sex unless you will have kids, and they will be raised in your home."

Cheats on your wife with your handmaiden? Sure, because you take the child in your room. Sleep with your dead brother's wife? Sure, because you take the kid into your home. On teh other hand, don;t sleep with animals, kids, incest, same gender, women menstruating, etc. Because no kids. Similarly, no adultry with random people because, you don;t raise the kids in your home, but it's okay if you will (like with concubines and handmaidens).

So, the basic principle, very rational is, sex should only be done when children are the result, and only when you intend to raise them yourself.

Perfectly rational view on sex. You or I may disagree with it, but perfectly rational.

Comparing homosexuality to molestation is the new Godwin's Law.

And everyone that does that can kindly fuck off.

I was going to clarify that I wasn't doing that, but I didn't think anybody would completely miss my point by that much, but since you apparently need me to spell it out.

No, I wasn't comparing homosexuality for any purpose except noting that both involving genetic disposition. That's it.

-I want child molesters locked up, but not homosexuals.
-I'm glad that child molestation is a crime, and that homosexuality is not
-I believe that homosexualities should not be prejudiced against under any circumstances, but that prejudice against child molestations is apporpriate and necessary (such as in the case of when children are involved).
-I have no "moral" problem with homosexuality. I do have a "moral" problem with child molesters who can't control themselves - they should castrate themselves rather than commit their crimes.

So, read my posts, or kindly fuck off.

I do have a problem with hypocrites that believe everyone else has prejudices except them, who can't see that their view towards people who disagree with them is as close-minded as the close-mindedness they pretend to abhor.

There are a lot of people who beleive the ethics of sexuality in teh Bible revolves around the rearing of children. The overall principle is "Don't have sex unless you will have kids, and they will be raised in your home."

Cheats on your wife with your handmaiden? Sure, because you take the child in your room. Sleep with your dead brother's wife? Sure, because you take the kid into your home. On teh other hand, don;t sleep with animals, kids, incest, same gender, women menstruating, etc. Because no kids. Similarly, no adultry with random people because, you don;t raise the kids in your home, but it's okay if you will (like with concubines and handmaidens).

So, the basic principle, very rational is, sex should only be done when children are the result, and only when you intend to raise them yourself.

Perfectly rational view on sex. You or I may disagree with it, but perfectly rational.

But still, it's coming from a book written thousands of years ago about talking snakes, virgin births, and defying the laws of physics. To me, getting your rules from something like that is rather irrational.

And if this was truly about what you stated above, they would be protesting elderly people who can't procreate from having sex. Same for those who are unable to conceive. Not to mention vasectomies and tube tying. I just don't see the outrage over those things, so it seems to me that it's more of a bigotry thing and less of a procreation issue.

I think even a more important quality might be a counselor who is willing to refer certain patients elsewhere if they feel their personal beliefs may prevent them from fully assisting the patient.

Fair point. I don't disagree with the points you and Jon have made in the thread.

EDIT: Actually, I see both sides here. This has been an interesting read.

Didn't Family Ties address this issue like 20 years ago? Psych student Lauren didn't want to treat Alex because he was a Republican and whatnot? Turns out the problem was solved by hooking up!

I think this entire discussion is pretty much useless until everyone agrees with the bolded part here.

Without seeing the specific letter of the job requirements, we'd probably be just taking another leap there too really. I mean, me & Rainmaker both agreed that we were working from entirely different visions of the situation and were both pretty much working from interpretation of the info we had.

But that bolded part does seem pretty questionable to me, as I genuinely have a hard time believing that they would (theoretically) force a rape victim turned therapist to counsel someone working on their issues of abusing women. I find it virtually impossible to imagine frankly, it'd be too incredibly politically incorrect. And once you open that exception, the "job was to counsel all students of all types" goes right out the window.

I think even a more important quality might be a counselor who is willing to refer certain patients elsewhere if they feel their personal beliefs may prevent them from fully assisting the patient.

I agree with this and think it is honorable of her to step aside on a case she felt she wasn't qualified to handle.

Unfortunately, the job required her to be able to handle that case. Her employer has a right to remove her from the position since she was proven to be unqualified. It's certainly sad that her own beliefs got in the way of her job performance, but it's a lesson learned and probably a sign she is in the wrong profession.

Didn't Family Ties address this issue like 20 years ago? Psych student Lauren didn't want to treat Alex because he was a Republican and whatnot? Turns out the problem was solved by hooking up!

Holy shit that was funny. Not just for the relevance, but that I actually remember it too. Wasn't Courtney Cox the girl who played her?

EMU seems to have put itself in a bind with its own policy here. It gets back to Drake's very first response. Does EMU have the right to discriminate against someone for their position on homosexuality? Their policy would suggest they don't, but it seem that this is precisely what they are doing. If they are committed to not discriminating, then they should not be discriminating. If they want to discriminate against those who disagree with their policy, perhaps they should be honest enough to own up to that fact.

As an aside, it's always great to see the 'scientific epistemology rulez!' card being played whenever any inkling of religious perspective might possibly be apparent (ironically of which there was none in the initial story).

Unfortunately, the job required her to be able to handle that case.

See above post: do we really know that? Or are we just jumping to another conclusion?

If a decent attorney can find any exception that's been made at some point I'd say there's a nasty legal battle ahead if the student decides to pursue it. On the grand scale I'd love to see that happen. On the scale of what's best for the aspiring therapist I'd advise her to put the whole incident behind her & finish up her work elsewhere.

For that matter, re: "aspiring", do we even know her professional status? The article refers to her as a graduate student, right? Mileage may vary from one place to the next but I know there are counselors positions (which could be a layman's or reporters synonym for "therapist") both private & public that don't require any graduate work to be perfectly legal & legit.

I was going to clarify that I wasn't doing that, but I didn't think anybody would completely miss my point by that much, but since you apparently need me to spell it out.

No, I wasn't comparing homosexuality for any purpose except noting that both involving genetic disposition. That's it.

Except that's the reason EVERYONE makes that comparison. And it's an offensive cliche by this point.

I do have a problem with hypocrites that believe everyone else has prejudices except them

I don't know who you're talking about, because I don't think this. I have prejudices (not against police officers, Catholics, or Republicans as your bizaare post above insinuated) as does everyone.

who can't see that their view towards people who disagree with them is as close-minded as the close-mindedness they pretend to abhor.

It's not about disagreement. See my sig quote. I have great tolerance for people I disagree with. When IS and I switched sides in the election thread and I argued for McCain, that was some of the most fun I've ever had on this board. There's a difference between a disagreement and bigotry. I have no tolerance for bigotry. Now I don't think you're a bigot, but I thought your example was an offensive one and would sincerely suggest you come up with a different one next time.

See above post: do we really know that? Or are we just jumping to another conclusion?

If a decent attorney can find any exception that's been made at some point I'd say there's a nasty legal battle ahead if the student decides to pursue it. On the grand scale I'd love to see that happen. On the scale of what's best for the aspiring therapist I'd advise her to put the whole incident behind her & finish up her work elsewhere.

For that matter, re: "aspiring", do we even know her professional status? The article refers to her as a graduate student, right? Mileage may vary from one place to the next but I know there are counselors positions (which could be a layman's or reporters synonym for "therapist") both private & public that don't require any graduate work to be perfectly legal & legit.

If in her agreement it stated that she had a right to refuse to work with whoever based on religious beliefs (or something along those lines) and they still fired her, I'd agree she has a case.

From the articles I've read though, the EMU handbook clearly states that she is not allowed to discriminate against students based on factors that include sexual orientation. Those are based on the guidelines of the American Counseling Association.

I just don't see what case she can make here. She broke the rules in the official handbook. She knew ahead of time what those rules were.

Update: Eastern Michigan University sued after grad student allegedly dismissed over religious beliefs on homosexuality - Ann Arbor News - The Latest News, Blogs, Photos & Videos – MLive.com
(http://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/index.ssf/2009/04/update_eastern_michigan_univer.html)

http://bp0.blogger.com/_HvnrtGqYrfY/RsKD0JAQi1I/AAAAAAAAAhc/UWDozcafYio/s400/Jump+Mat.jpg

Without seeing the specific letter of the job requirements, we'd probably be just taking another leap there too really. I mean, me & Rainmaker both agreed that we were working from entirely different visions of the situation and were both pretty much working from interpretation of the info we had.

But that bolded part does seem pretty questionable to me, as I genuinely have a hard time believing that they would (theoretically) force a rape victim turned therapist to counsel someone working on their issues of abusing women. I find it virtually impossible to imagine frankly, it'd be too incredibly politically incorrect. And once you open that exception, the "job was to counsel all students of all types" goes right out the window.
That's exactly it. If everyone in this debate doesn't agree with the sentence I bolded, then you have one person arguing that the sky is blue, another arguing that the grass is green, and another arguing that the Florida Panthers are going to make the playoffs this year. Productive debate? Questionable. Great comedy? Absolutely!

That's exactly it. If everyone in this debate doesn't agree with the sentence I bolded, then you have one person arguing that the sky is blue, another arguing that the grass is green, and another arguing that the Florida Panthers are going to make the playoffs this year. Productive debate? Questionable. Great comedy? Absolutely!

Here is what they are going off of. It clearly states that they can't discriminate based on sexual orientation.

Ethics (http://www.counseling.org/Resources/CodeOfEthics/TP/Home/CT2.aspx)

EMU seems to have put itself in a bind with its own policy here. It gets back to Drake's very first response. Does EMU have the right to discriminate against someone for their position on homosexuality? Their policy would suggest they don't, but it seem that this is precisely what they are doing. If they are committed to not discriminating, then they should not be discriminating. If they want to discriminate against those who disagree with their policy, perhaps they should be honest enough to own up to that fact.


I think that's kind of silly, though. By that interpretation, you could never enforce an anti-discrimination policy, because if you punish anyone for violating it then you'd be discriminating against their beliefs.

I'm sure there are people who are not thrilled with treating child molesters and they don't have to. The problem is, if you take a job that may require you to do so, and then you don't, you aren't fulfilling your employment requirements. Her job was to counsel all students of all types. She was incapable of doing so. She was thus fired as anyone who isn't capable of doing their job is.

Maybe things have changed, but when I worked in mental health in college, this wasn't the way the "real world" operated.

If one of the counselors or therapists was uncomfortable working with a known sex offender because of a personal abuse history, it was SOP to just pass that case on to another therapist. In fact, it happened all the time. I never heard an admin tell a psychiatrist, therapist or counselor that they weren't doing their job because of it.

In fact, since the folks at our facility (I worked in addictions) treated everything from a teamwork aspect, how they divvied up the case files revolved around personal experience/gripes/prejudices (and, yes, that did frequently mean that highly religious clients got shuffled to one particular counselor who was more traditionally religious than the rest of the staff). Of course, it also meant that the counselors traded off the highly recidivist clients based on the sole criteria of "who was the least sick of dealing with this idiot".

Here is what they are going off of. It clearly states that they can't discriminate based on sexual orientation.

Ethics (http://www.counseling.org/Resources/CodeOfEthics/TP/Home/CT2.aspx)
OK, maybe I'm being too flexible when I read that document, but here's what I get from it:

1. Discrimination would be refusing services to the potential client and just saying "Sorry, we're not going to help you. Get out." Or perhaps it would be knowingly giving poor counseling in an attempt to damage the client.

2. The document also gives specific latitude to the counselor to refer the client to another counselor, particularly if the counselor has an inability to assist the client. I just don't see refusing and then offering a referral as discrimination.

Again, perhaps I'm just being too flexible, or I'm just talking about the Florida Panthers. I'm no expert here.

Maybe things have changed, but when I worked in mental health in college, this wasn't the way the "real world" operated.

If one of the counselors or therapists was uncomfortable working with a known sex offender because of a personal abuse history, it was SOP to just pass that case on to another therapist. In fact, it happened all the time. I never heard an admin tell a psychiatrist, therapist or counselor that they weren't doing their job because of it.

In fact, since the folks at our facility (I worked in addictions) treated everything from a teamwork aspect, how they divvied up the case files revolved around personal experience/gripes/prejudices (and, yes, that did frequently mean that highly religious clients got shuffled to one particular counselor who was more traditionally religious than the rest of the staff). Of course, it also meant that the counselors traded off the highly recidivist clients based on the sole criteria of "who was the least sick of dealing with this idiot".

Apparently EMU works differently and they have their guidelines that state it. She probably would have been better off going to your school than EMU.

Apparently EMU works differently and they have their guidelines that state it. She probably would have been better off going to your school than EMU.

So we're on the same page: I just worked at a community mental health center in the residential addictions unit. It was a non-profit community agency...not affiliated with the university at all.

Mentioning I worked there while I was in college muddied the waters. :lol:

I do want to add, however, that if I'd been in this girl's shoes, I would have just kept my mouth shut and done the work that was handed to me. You can be serious about your professional ethics once you've got your diploma in hand and you're actually getting paid for your work.

Then again, despite the fact that I had serious ethical issues with the Patriot Act and how it handled/monitored foreign students, I still went ahead and coded the system for reporting profiles of foreign students with "potentially fraudulent enrollment records" to the federal government for my university because it was assigned to me. So I might not have made waves even in this girl's position.

dola...

After reading that update article, this may be the best thing that ever happened to this student.

I can practically guarantee you that she's just gone from being a graduate student in counseling at a public university with a student loan debt upwards of $80k to being on the verge of receiving invitations to join the counseling program of her choice at any number of religious universities with full tuition and enough in donations to her legal fund to completely erase her student loans. That doesn't even count the coin she'll make on the conservative and/or religious speaking circuit.

Regardless of how the court case comes out, she clearly is poised to be the big winner here.

I think that's kind of silly, though. By that interpretation, you could never enforce an anti-discrimination policy, because if you punish anyone for violating it then you'd be discriminating against their beliefs.

It only works if someone decides which beleifs are valid and which aren't. Then you can disciminate against the beliefs that aren't valid.

It only works if someone decides which beleifs are valid and which aren't. Then you can disciminate against the beliefs that aren't valid.

If I took a job at a slaughterhouse and told the people working there that it is against my religious beliefs to kill another living thing, do you believe I should be able to sit and do nothing and they have no right to fire me?

Technically, according to your stance, they would be infringing on my beliefs.

So have we all agreed that her job required her to counsel everybody, or is this still going to go in circles?

Edit: For reference, I have not agreed with that yet, so I guess the answer to that part is no.

If I took a job at a slaughterhouse and told the people working there that it is against my religious beliefs to kill another living thing, do you believe I should be able to sit and do nothing and they have no right to fire me?

Technically, according to your stance, they would be infringing on my beliefs.

I wasn't being sarcastic. A slaughterhouse, or a university, can decide which beliefs are valid, and which beliefs they can discriminate against. I'm all for that. I'm just stating it bluntly.

When it's a State University, obviously things get a little trickier, as though there's legitimate complications, people can also use that entanglement to prejudice against viewpoints they don't like. ("We can't have religion here because it's a state school, we can't support X viewpoint because it's too tied in with religion, or it goes against American cultural values")

If I took a job at a slaughterhouse and told the people working there that it is against my religious beliefs to kill another living thing, do you believe I should be able to sit and do nothing and they have no right to fire me?

Technically, according to your stance, they would be infringing on my beliefs.

Thing is, to go with your analogy, she wasn't just sitting around. She was essentially letting the company know that she would prefer to be doing paperwork in the back office instead of running the bone saw because of her objections. She wanted someone else to do the more, to her, objectionable job of running the bone saw. The job was still going to get done and she was still going to be helping the company. So she wouldn't be able to be fired if she was still doing work on the company's behalf.

As others have mentioned, she probably should not have been in the program in the first place given her beliefs just as, in this example, you should not have applied to work at the slaughterhouse given yours.

I wasn't being sarcastic. A slaughterhouse, or a university, can decide which beliefs are valid, and which beliefs they can discriminate against. I'm all for that. I'm just stating it bluntly.

When it's a State University, obviously things get a little trickier, as though there's legitimate complications, people can also use that entanglement to prejudice against viewpoints they don't like. ("We can't have religion here because it's a state school, we can't support X viewpoint because it's too tied in with religion, or it goes against American cultural values")

I never really saw the issue as one tied to religion. I didn't mention the separation between Church and State because I didn't think it factored in here. Sure her beliefs were religious, but I don't think they fired her because she was a Christian.

My point thoughout the thread is that religion can be used as a cop-out by anyone if this goes through. Wouldn't a medical student have a right to sit out just about every medical procedure if he said his religion forbids him from touching another's skin? I think there is a dangerous line when you give students exemptions to a pre-prescribed program simply because they have stated they have different religious beliefs.

I personally would not have kicked her out of the program. I would have made her deal with other cases, perhaps some less than desirable ones to make it up. It is in the end just a small counseling program at a state university. But I do believe EMU had a right to do it. I also believe that allowing students to avoid parts of the requirements simply because they say they have conflicted views gives them an unfair advantage and is prone to massive abuse.

So have we all agreed that her job required her to counsel everybody, or is this still going to go in circles?

Edit: For reference, I have not agreed with that yet, so I guess the answer to that part is no.

I don't think her job required her to counsel everyone, but I think it did require her to abide by school policy. So the question then becomes what we determine is discrimination.

As I suggested earlier, if we determine this isn't discrimination, then we'd also have to be saying that it is okay for her to refuse to see someone based on skin color or religion.

I do want to add, however, that if I'd been in this girl's shoes, I would have just kept my mouth shut and done the work that was handed to me. You can be serious about your professional ethics once you've got your diploma in hand and you're actually getting paid for your work.


I think that is what bothers me most about the whole issue. Ultimately I don't care what happens. None of it affects me in any way.

College was tough for me. I took a tough courseload and double majored. I worked nights and weekends at some of the shittiest jobs imagineable so I could pay my rent and actually eat. I kissed ass to douchebag professors so I could get recommendations and worked an unpaid internship in a windowless office with no air circulation with a guy who sweat a lot. I imagine there are a lot of college graduates here who have some nightmare stories they could tell about getting their degree.

With that said, this bitch is throwing a fit because she was supposed to talk to a gay person. That sitting and talking to a gay kid for 30 minutes somehow would have altered her life in a horrible fashion. She just comes across like a pretentious cunt. Life sucks sometimes and we have to do things we don't want to do to get where we want to go. Suck it up and get over yourself.

welp guess i'm done here

Here's an interesting spin:

Would a feminist counselor be required to counsel a Muslim woman in a way that condoned fundamentalist Islamic views about relations between the sexes?

With that said, this bitch is throwing a fit because she was supposed to talk to a gay person. That sitting and talking to a gay kid for 30 minutes somehow would have altered her life in a horrible fashion. She just comes across like a pretentious cunt. Life sucks sometimes and we have to do things we don't want to do to get where we want to go. Suck it up and get over yourself.

The funny thing is that if she had counseled him that he was going to hell because he was gay, there'd have been a ton of controversy, but she'd likely still be in the program.

By opting not to force her beliefs on him (the closest she could get to "help" from her theological position), she ended up getting screwed.

(And for the record, since I work for a major U.S. university, I've signed the whole tolerance statement thing both as a student and an employee. And I can tell you that I've heard more gay slurs from staff and students with no repercussions than you can possibly imagine. The whole "tolerance and diversity" thing gets largely ignored in the "real world" of university administration as long as you're not lobbing gallons of pig blood at the GLBT office and not talking to the press. My university talks about how tolerant and diverse we are, too...but most of the folks who work there know it's a game everyone plays because it's good for PR. The difference between this girl and everybody else is that most of us learn to spew our prejudices behind closed doors or only to audiences we've pre-screened as receptive.)