uawisok

Fri, Jul 30, 2010 : 11:27 a.m.

Thank God for seperation of church and State...hmmm...is that statement an oxymoron?? Thank goodness might be more appropriate..LOL...bottom line religiuos beliefs and intollerance have killed and mamed more of humanity than any other issue we can conjure!!

bedrog

Fri, Jul 30, 2010 : 10:56 a.m.

smart...not all in ann arbor give a pass to islamic extremism while dumping on judaeo /christian extremists... i for one am an equal opportunity dumper as my posts frequently indicate.. indeed my main gripe about the religious right here is that they are a less homicidal version of the taliban and the ayatollahs...but same basic mindset.

CountyKate

Wed, Jul 28, 2010 : 11:44 a.m.

In Ms. Ward's testimony at her dismissal hearing, she said she could not counsel someone whose lifestyle she could not "affirm," or agree with. She also said she could not counsel without "sharing" her personal views - which could be seen as proselytizing, or trying to recruit the person to her beliefs. If this is true, it strikes me that perhaps Ms. Ward should be working in a religious capacity. Many churches and synagogues provide training for those who want to become lay counselors within the religion. This would be a more appropriate area for her, given her strong personal beliefs. Instead, though, she attempted to foist her wishes and beliefs on the public at large by filing this lawsuit. Because of that act, I have to agree with others in this thread who have said she seems ill-suited for the profession she attempted to enter. I agree with the judge and applaud EMU for having the foresight not to inflict Ms. Ward in the guise of counselor upon an unsuspecting public.

indigonation

Tue, Jul 27, 2010 : 7:09 p.m.

Good Job EMU the whole thing is this is not about political correctness (a lot of comments on this and other websites blame this decision on that) I am liberal and hate it more than even some conservatives do cause I believe in freedom of speech, its about not being allowed to force your beliefs on everyone else. Think about it these same groups that seek out religious freedom would not stand behind a homosexual or someone of a different religion like a pagan or hindu. These people don't have love in their hearts towards people who are different. Hail to diversity and tolerance this is the 21st century.

lumberg48108

Tue, Jul 27, 2010 : 3:21 p.m.

Conflicts are a part of of code of conduct. Lawyers have them, doctors have them - and they do not constitute someone being discriminated against... if I sue my neighbor and the judge is related to either of us - he passes it along to the next person I thought that is what she did - she had a conflict and passed it on - and never once did she try to espouse her beliefs on anyone... its amazing how people will run with incorrect info to further their agenda

Jay Allen

Tue, Jul 27, 2010 : 1:23 p.m.

snapshot. The "two way street" cliche` I used was at yourself when you said the following: "Thank God I live in a free country that has a system to protect me from people who would persecute and deny services to others based upon opposing legal lifestyles." I am reading this [paraphrasing] as the person in question did not wish to perform her duties with homosexuals you agree with the court and their actions. Now if I am wrong, I can/will admit it. My rebuttal is "free country" means whether it goes with the grain or against the grain, we ALL are free to express ourselves. Not just one view point or another. In general I support your statement. I just added to it, I guess....... Also, I do support EMU in the release of this lady. She was given specific duties and she did not perform those duties. That is insubordination (IMHO) and that warrants termination of employment.

Martin Church

Tue, Jul 27, 2010 : 1:01 p.m.

Let's see don't tell anyone what to believe unless you are secular. Don't function from a moral code. Everything is permissible. Let's look at the facts. One every counselor works from a world view. That world view will determine the origin of the problem. In this case a Christian counselor believes Orientation is a personal choice. It is from this choice we can choose to live a celebrate lifestyle in honor of God or act upon the nature. Acting on the nature is a sin and dishonors God. Our counseling is based upon this premise. However the secular world says no you can not pass any judgement on the person and must teach the person to embrace their problem and continue to act on it. To say you are free to live your lifestyle how you see fit only increases the problems in the community. This creates a community that is imbalanced with no morale direction. This then gives us increase in mistreatment of others. Did EMU Social Works program respect the world view that mental health comes from GOD or say there is not God and refuse to allow this subject to be studied using correct Scientific Method. I contend the school continues to use a bias method study and will not examine the true origin of Sexual Orientation because the politics will not allow it.

snapshot

Tue, Jul 27, 2010 : 12:04 p.m.

Hey Jay, it's not a two way street in this case. No one was persecuting the student who refused to do her job as you say. I'm not sure what point you were trying to make in your comment but if this student prevailed in her suit then a doctor could refuse to treat you because your hair is to long, too short, or your color is the wrong shade and anything else they deemed to be outside their own value system. That was my point.

Speechless

Tue, Jul 27, 2010 : 11:51 a.m.

The failed lawsuit attempted to reintroduce sanctioned social discrimination to public life by going through a back door in the legal system. Had this suit succeeded, it would likely have opened a Pandora's Box of nasty possibilities that would undercut equal treatment under the law. We, as a state at least, would then go down a road leading to an endless expansion of exceptions to fair treatment and anti-discrimination rules. By choosing to accommodate personal bigotry against gays within a public university, we would establish a procedure that could begin to apply at all other state-sponsored institutions and offices. It could also hold significant consequences for legally accepted behavior in the private sphere as well. Those who initiated this suit were no doubt hopeful that homophobia still remained sufficiently strong within our culture so as to help them carry the day in the court system. One can easily imagine a parallel, hypothetical case at the end of the Jim Crow-era South some 40 years ago, in which Dixiecrat lawyers defend the actions of an Alabama state employee who objects "conscientiously" to enforcing the Civil Rights and Voting Acts on the job. Lawsuit proponents wanted to tap into the same energy and mindset that has pushed forward anti-gay marriage initiatives. Had the EMU student in question instead shown an adverse reaction to counseling Muslims, Jews, or couples in interracial marriages, a legal effort to champion discrimination would then have blown up in their faces as a huge public relations disaster.

Blue Daisy

Tue, Jul 27, 2010 : 11:43 a.m.

Well said, Announcer man, Corey, and snapshot. People see the word religion in this story and automatically assume she is being persecuted because of her religion. This is not the case. In the transcripts of her dismissal hearing (which was published online when the lawsuit first began), she said she would not counsel a person whose lifestyle she could not "affirm." During this conversation, Ms. Ward said she would not provide services without sharing her personal views to clients on a variety of issues. This clearly violates the ACA code of ethics. If a student admits that they cannot comply with the code of the ethics, the university cannot in good conscience award this person a diploma and condone her incompetence. Some comments here bring up the question that she could pick and choose her clients eventually, so why not let her pick and choose now? Because most likely, Ms. Ward was going to be a public school counselor. (She is currently a public school teacher.) Public school employees cannot pick and choose the students who receive their services. Most counselors are assigned a grade level and/or part of the alphabet, and the counselor is hired to provide services to those students. If one can't provide appropriate to to ALL students, then don't be a counselor. I'm not sure why this woman continued with the program knowing the code of ethics from the beginning. Apparently this woman made her comments known to professors and classmates throughout her program, but respecting freedom of speech, the professors in the program let her speak about her inability to "affirm" homosexuality. At some point, professional ethics have to take over and ensure that the program is only allowing competent professionals to enter the counseling field.

Laurie

Tue, Jul 27, 2010 : 11:42 a.m.

The judge said Ward's "refusal to attempt learning to counsel all clients within their own value systems is a failure to complete an academic requirement of the program." From The Detroit News: http://www.detnews.com/article/20100726/METRO/7260406/1361/EMU-student-s-lawsuit-dismissed#ixzz0utwM1Ym9 I graduated from this program and I think this statement explains it nicely. We aren't asked to change our views or beliefs, but we need to make sure that we are able and WILLING to work with clients within THEIR belief systems. If not, then maybe this isn't the profession for her.

bedrog

Tue, Jul 27, 2010 : 11:37 a.m.

carl...with overpopulation, competition for resources and crackpot religious extremism spurring all this on they ought to give tax credits to those who don't reproduce...including gays. you want 'natural order'? extinction is part of it,when the things i mentioned above are practiced in any species ( although others have the good sence not to factor religion in, (unless there was a dinosaur bible/koran somewhere). yet again...good for EMU/judge etc ( all that said, i adore my kids, grandchildren...but not the idea of unwanted, unloved,impoverished, desperate ones getting born in endless profusion because of some extremists fantasies about 'natural orders'.

mike villwock sr

Tue, Jul 27, 2010 : 11:32 a.m.

for you devil's advocates out there who support this daft student, it seems that you miss the central point: members of the health care community shouldn't discriminate against anyone. or, perhaps, you would like the old, deep south's health care system, when doctors could refuse care for black people, letting them die in the streets because they weren't "real people". if you differentiate a mental health professional's code of ethics from a surgeon's code, you're just showing your own limited understanding.

Jay Allen

Tue, Jul 27, 2010 : 10:44 a.m.

@snapshot......."Thank God I live in a free country that has a system to protect me from people who would persecute and deny services to others based upon opposing legal lifestyles." This is a two way street. If you want a "free" society, then you must embrace the opposing view. Whether you agree or disagree does not matter. If "WE" are "FREE", then that applies to everyone. Not just to those who agree with you. Again the focus is on employment and breech of the duties this lady had.

Jay Allen

Tue, Jul 27, 2010 : 10:40 a.m.

As much as it pains me to say it, I have to "mostly" agree with Edward R Murrow's Ghost on this one. Most of you are focusing on Religious beliefs and Homosexuality. That is NOT the focus here. This lady had a job to do. She did not do her job and that is reason to be dismissed. Whether she is pro or anti, whether any of you typing are pro or anti is 100% irrelevant. She applied for a job and was granted employment. She knew on the FRONT side what her duties would be. You cannot cry foul after the fact. However, I do applaud her for standing up for what she thought was right. I can somewhat see this side of it. I think as a hole society has become FAR too "PC". You must always say and do what folks want to hear to be accepted. Sorry, I am not part of that Buddy Club and I do not drink the Kool-Aid. She knew what she was getting into.

Tom Teague

Tue, Jul 27, 2010 : 10:37 a.m.

@Barb made an excellent suggestion: Click the Detroit News link in the first paragraph and read the story. Adherence to the ACA Code of Ethics is critical to maintaining the accreditation of EMU's program.

snapshot

Tue, Jul 27, 2010 : 10:32 a.m.

Good for EMU, good for the judge, and good for the counceling profession. This person was trying to tell EMU and the whole counseling profession how to operate according to her personal value system. Now she knows the world doesn't revolve around her uncompromising belief system. Thank God I live in a free country that has a system to protect me from people who would persecute and deny services to others based upon opposing legal lifestyles.

bedrog

Tue, Jul 27, 2010 : 10:08 a.m.

rhonda...and therein lies the rub..SHOULD there be equal deference to intolerant religions as to more tolerant ones or secularity? that needs to be seriously discussed and not just 'platituded' or punted away in an age of religiously sanctioned demonizing on the basis of sexuality, science/fact denying, jihadism etc etc. again 'good', on the dismissal of the case

Rhondasma

Tue, Jul 27, 2010 : 9:45 a.m.

@Hmm: What difference does the student's religion make? Religious freedom is for ALL religions.

Hmm

Tue, Jul 27, 2010 : 9:34 a.m.

Exactly what religon does this woman belong to? Why has the media been reporting her having "strong religious beliefs" but don't identify exactly what religion is teaching this extreme intolerance towards homosexuals? Enquiring minds really DO want to know. Is she a Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu?

Rhondasma

Tue, Jul 27, 2010 : 9:28 a.m.

Hooray for the student who decided to stand on her moral convictions rather than political correctness. Just as a lawyer is allowed to determine the areas of law in which to pursue his or her practice, a doctor can determine what his or her specialty in the field of medicine will be, teachers decide their own niche in education and, in fact, counselors in the real world decide where to focus their endeavors in the field of counselling, so should a student be able to determine the field in which they would be most effective and productive. Conversely, who among us would choose a brain surgeon whose preferred specialty is podiatry? In this student's phase of education, it seems ludicrous to waste time (and money!) being required to "hone their skills" in an area in which the student has no intention of practicing. This student would be required to sacrifice credibility in favor of "political correctness". Bad trade-off by any reasonable person's estimation. Textbook and classroom study: YES. Forced and insincere counselling of others: Emphatically NO! I, for one among many, I'm sure, would quickly reject a counselor if and when it became apparent the counselor's personal convictions would preclude objective evaluation and counselling on an individual basis.

Corey

Tue, Jul 27, 2010 : 9:22 a.m.

I think the key here is that EMU and the courts are upholding the policy of all public university activities in that they cannot discriminate against race, religion, sexual orientation, and so on. By allowing her to discriminate against sexual orientation is in fact saying the program will discriminate. Even if she passes the client along to another student, it is still discrimination. Also, I have to agree with @seldon. If she is able to pass along someone because of their sexuality where would it stop for who she could pass along? I know her beliefs don't support co-habitation amongst straight people so would she pass them along too? Would she pass along someone who had premarital sex? It appears to me that she was dismissed because she is incapable of being a counselor. If you aren't able to follow the code of ethics in any profession you cannot do that job.

seldon

Tue, Jul 27, 2010 : 9:06 a.m.

She wasn't removed from the program for her beliefs, she was removed for her actions: specifically, she refused to do her job. This isn't the same as passing an individual you personally know on to another counselor. That's required by the profession's code of ethics. This is the same as saying "I refuse to wait on black people" or "I'm Muslim, so I won't carry you in my taxi if you've got a a bottle of wine in your shopping bag". In both cases, you're clearly unwilling to do your job, and you need to go find a different one that doesn't present the same issues.

A2K

Tue, Jul 27, 2010 : 9:03 a.m.

Don't like secular reality? Go to school at one of the hundreds of religious/christian colleges...There are many in Michigan. Perfect for those who don't want to deal with anyone different. Personally, I applaud EMU.

Barb

Tue, Jul 27, 2010 : 9:03 a.m.

Read the DetNews story - it answers many of the questions people are posing here.

actionjackson

Tue, Jul 27, 2010 : 8:24 a.m.

Ok I'm a plumber but I won't work with toilets. Should I sue the training program because I won't work with a plunger!

Heidi Hess Saxton

Tue, Jul 27, 2010 : 8:14 a.m.

I don't see how the student was telling others what to believe. Had she agreed to counsel the homosexual students, tried to persuade them to change their lifestyle, and been dismissed for it, that line of reasoning could have been applied. Religious freedom is what enables us to live out consistently -- in public as well as private -- the basic tenets of our faith. When the beliefs of one group conflict with those of another group, a bit of space is sometimes necessary in order to prevent ongoing conflict. Ms. Ward's most serious mistake, in my book, was to choose a program with a secular rather than faith-based orientation. In this case EMU -- and the court system -- failed miserably to protect the rights of its constituents. Instead, they took the side of a politically correct, vocal minority over another (not nearly so "PC" but no less worthy of protection). When a code of "ethics" forces a practitioner to deceive a client -- to tell that client things she strongly believes to be untrue -- there is something wrong with the code of ethics. The student tried to resolve the situation by removing herself from situations in which she would be forced to lie. Make no mistake, her religious freedom was compromised. This is comparable to a pro-life doctor being forced to perform an abortion. Had Ms. Ward been a homosexual student who refused to treat those with strong convictions against homosexuality, I wonder if this would have turned out differently.

David Briegel

Tue, Jul 27, 2010 : 8:03 a.m.

In this ruling, justice prevailed!

frankweir

Tue, Jul 27, 2010 : 7:55 a.m.

I totally disagree with the proposition that homosexuality is somehow "wrong" but if she was a private counselor, she would have the freedom to choose her clients as she wished no matter what the profession's code of ethics said, right? I don't know if she should have been dismissed from the training she needed to work in the profession of her choosing. But the state initiative sounds like a right-wing witch hunt to tamper with EMU and what are ITS choices, not some wing-nut legislator.

lumberg48108

Tue, Jul 27, 2010 : 7:52 a.m.

If memory serves, per policy, she passed the patient on to someone else as they do when there is a conflict (like if they know the person etc) -- that is what bothered me about the story the most. She made her decision and passed on the patient and then she was fired --- that is what drove her to the lawsuit! It is amazing in this town how afraid people are of religion - and the same people who dont want to be "told what to do" have no issues telling me how to live my life otherwise...

BigMike

Tue, Jul 27, 2010 : 7:43 a.m.

@lorie: "She was not told what to believe. In fact, she was trying to tell others what to believe." Actually, the story says she refused to counsel homosexual students, not that she wanted to tell them what to believe. "As part of her course work, Ward had refused to counsel homosexual clients..."

pseudo

Tue, Jul 27, 2010 : 6:58 a.m.

@katmando: you do have religious freedom and nobody is telling you what to believe. However, in this secular nation, you do NOT have the right to foist your beliefs on others particularly in a situation where there is a patient/professional relationship. This student acted improperly based on a reasonable code of ethics and as a result was dismissed from the program. She was not told what to believe. In fact, she was trying to tell others what to believe. She was held to a reasonable ethical standard for the profession she chose at a program in a public university with public funding.

bedrog

Tue, Jul 27, 2010 : 6:23 a.m.

good...

Paul Taylor

Tue, Jul 27, 2010 : 6:15 a.m.

I don't think one has to be a 'thumper' as an elected representative in order to request that religious freedom is protected--just an attentive public servant. That said, religious freedom cuts both ways, and can mean freedom FROM other peoples' religion as much as freedom to have and exercise one's own.

SMAIVE

Tue, Jul 27, 2010 : 6:04 a.m.

And one wonders why the State is totally screwed. What elected 'thumper' made this issue a Senate priority? Great job, wasting time and resources instead of dealing with, like, I don't know, the economy, jobs, or almost any practical legislative matter...

katmando

Tue, Jul 27, 2010 : 5:28 a.m.

"I want religous freedom! To tell people what they should believe." That is not freedom!

Paul Taylor

Mon, Jul 26, 2010 : 11:59 p.m.

Glad to see this situation was resolved properly.

Hypnotique

Mon, Jul 26, 2010 : 11:49 p.m.

"haha"