Democrat's bill would let students like Julea Ward decline to counsel clients over beliefs
A Michigan state senator's bill would give students like Julea Ward the freedom to refuse to counsel a client based on religious beliefs or moral conviction, the Detroit Free Press reports.
Ward, a graduate student, was kicked out of a counseling program at Eastern Michigan University when she declined to counsel a gay student, saying homosexuality was against her religious beliefs. Ward had referred the client to another counselor.
Julea Ward was dismissed from Eastern Michigan University's counseling program after she refused to counsel a gay client.
Photo courtesy of ADF
Ward, who sued EMU in 2009, lost in the lower courts, but Ward and her attorneys, the Alliance Defense Fund, a legal organization that works to uphold the rights of religious college students and faculty, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth District.
EMU has said Ward was dismissed for violating the code of ethics of the American Counseling Association.
Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette earlier this year released a statement supporting Ward.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan has weighed in on the side of EMU.
Comments
Mike
Wed, Jul 13, 2011 : 4:04 p.m.
You are welcome to your opinion and beliefs as long as the pop culture deems it to be politically correct. Religious freedom should not allow those with conflicting beliefs to be forced into assisting, promoting, or counseling those who have their own set of beliefs. Forcing them makes you intolerant and bigoted. That's a double edged sword for all the verbal bomb throwers who immediately use the words racist or bigoted to apply to those who don't agree with them. Per websters dictionary : big·ot·ed/?big?tid/Adjective1. Obstinately convinced of the superiority or correctness of one's own opinions and prejudiced against those who hold different opinions. 2. Expressing or characterized by prejudice and intolerance
Maxwell
Wed, Jul 13, 2011 : 3:35 p.m.
If your beliefs interfere with your profession's code of ethics you're in the wrong profession.
demistify
Wed, Jul 13, 2011 : 2:35 p.m.
I disagree with Ward's prejudice against homosexuals, but I defend her right to her beliefs. This is supposed to be the point of view of the ACLU, too, but it obviously no longer is. Ward was honest in admitting that she was unsuited to counseling someone in dealing with his homosexuality, and referred him to another counselor that was more comfortable doing it. This is not a disqualification. Professional therapists do not automatically accept all prospective clients, but refer elsewhere ones they are uncomfortable with. This is perfectly fine as long as service is available. There is no analogy to the practice of outfits that advertize under false pretenses as "pregnancy counseling" but whose intent is to browbeat women into foregoing an abortion.
amlive
Wed, Jul 13, 2011 : 3:56 p.m.
Sorry demystify - I read too fast and thought you said "undergoing" rather than "foregoing". I guess that's kind of a key difference there. Sorry for the misinterpretation.
amlive
Wed, Jul 13, 2011 : 3:49 p.m.
This is not about Julea's right to her own beliefs - no one tried to infringe upon that here. This is about a public institution's right to deny a position or certification to an individual who chooses to discriminate against others based on their beliefs, a practice which clearly contradicts their established rules and code of ethics. No one can tell a bus driver that they can't personally hate Muslims. What they can tell the driver is that laws and their policies forbid them from refusing service to anyone based on that belief. They can't kick someone off the bus or send them to the back because they're wearing a Hijab. Maybe they can in France, but not here in America. And making analogy to a bizarre concept of pregnancy counseling, as though all those counselors want to do is talk every woman who comes through the door in to getting an abortion? Holy smokes. What twisted world are you living in where you get these ideas?
foobar417
Wed, Jul 13, 2011 : 2:34 p.m.
Godwin's Law proved true rather quick this time.
Roger Roth
Wed, Jul 13, 2011 : 2:30 p.m.
I'm with Chip. If your religion is telling you to deem homosexuals as being "unworthy of your counsel" then it's not you or the homosexual; it's the religion. "Love one another as I have loved you," however. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," by the way. Rather than change your job, consider changing your religion. Many religions, as I understand it, are becoming "enlightened" (but probably for economic/financial, rather than ideological, reasons, given the vast numbers of well-to-do non-hetero people religions are beginning to understand live amongst us. We wouldn't want to alienate them, would we, in these economically difficult times?) Think about it, for goodness sake! We judge, then ostracize other people because we don't like what they legally and consensually do with their private parts, in privacy, thinking that it somehow detracts from what we do with ours. They're not the least bit concerned with our legal, consensual heterosexual activity, except that there are fast becoming too many world citizens, non-hetero's answer to which is to adopt one. Zealots want to keep the government out of your bedroom, as long as they're allowed in?
Madhatter
Wed, Jul 13, 2011 : 2:29 p.m.
I hear liberal democrats attack republicans nearly every day calling them racists, bigots, homophobes, etc. I find it very ironic and hypocritical that a democrat is trying to pass this law. Now if a conservative republican introduced this law it would be all over the national news and liberals would be screaming in protest. There would be internet petitions circulating on facebook. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the masses burned effigies of republicans leaders in protest. However, a democrat is proposing this law so it's acceptable. There's no need to protest folks, a democrat proposed it--it's ok. In fact, you don't even need to read the bill. Nothing to see here. Just move on......
amlive
Wed, Jul 13, 2011 : 3:17 p.m.
What in the world makes you think that other Democrats broadly endorse or agree with this because it comes from "one of ours". To the contrary, I think it should be clear from the comments here that us liberals do not tent to pledge blind partisan allegiance, and remain ready to speak up against discriminatory proposals regardless of where they come from.
American Family
Wed, Jul 13, 2011 : 2:21 p.m.
To the Left Winged Liberals. You are so very wrong on this subject. Your views are so whacked in so many ways. Sen. Tupac Hunter is the first Democrat in so many years that I would vote for. This Senator understands that while no person should be discriminated against because of their likes and beliefs; no person should be forced to endorse likes and beliefs that are contrary to their likes and beliefs. And dont rattle on about get another job then. How about go to another school if a person can not find people that will submit to their beliefs. Not fair??? Bingo! It is a two way street Libs. Learn to live in the real world. The Land of Lolly Pops and Gum Drops is for child like minds. Move to San Francisco if you want Staunchly enforced "submit or else" rules. Liberals / Progressives today sounds so like a middle European government say around the 1930's to middle 1940's....................
amlive
Wed, Jul 13, 2011 : 3:37 p.m.
continued.... - absurdity of your "reasoning". I wonder if Julea would have refused to council someone who was divorced, or someone who had had an abortion years back. If she were a Catholic, would she refuse to council anyone who uses contraception? How about alcoholics or drug users - they might as well not come in. Does the client ever masturbate? Check that one off as well. Or if a faithful monogamous couple has ever shared intercourse during the wife's menstruation, well it's quite clearly written that they are to be "cut off from their people", so nope on that one too. To be honest, I'm just really not sure if there's a human on this earth that she would be able to counsel, including herself. Point is if the government mandates that a secular organization make allowances within their code of ethics to protect the right to refuse service (syn - discriminate against) to people they may disagree with, there is really no end to it. If you are biased against anything or anyone at all, the flood gates would be wide open here, as you can find scripture to designate just about anyone imaginable living in violation of your personal religious beliefs and morals.
amlive
Wed, Jul 13, 2011 : 3:13 p.m.
That is about the most twisted interpretation of this situation I could imagine. First off - "while no person should be discriminated against because of their likes and beliefs; no person should be forced to endorse likes and beliefs that are contrary to their likes and beliefs." Who is forcing anyone to endorse anything they don't like? As much as the idea that homosexuality is a choice goes against all credible evidence and even common sense, Julea is still allowed to believe that if she wants. I believe she also would have been allowed to counsel the patient according to those beliefs, as twisted and harmful as that type of counseling may have been. What she was NOT allowed to do, was refuse to accept a patient because their lifestyle went against their beliefs. She was not kicked out because she choose to abide by her beliefs in her approach to counseling, but because she discriminated by refusing to accept a client because they lived a life that contradicted her beliefs. BIG difference here. Second - "How about go to another school if a person can not find people that will submit to their beliefs." To start with, the gay student never asked or expected Julea to "submit to their beliefs". I don't think they demanded she become a lesbian. Second, this is a public, secular school and program, with established rules of non-discrimination applying to religion, gender, race, and sexuality. It is not the gay client who's expectations were out of place here. It is quite clearly, cut and dried, Julea who's expectations were entirely out of place. And third - "Liberals / Progressives today sounds so like a middle European government say around the 1930's to middle 1940's....." To compare an agenda which allows everyone to believe or live as they will, but prevent any discrimination based on the beliefs of others to Nazi Germany agendas of enforced discrimination, ethnic superiority, and global domination simply exposes the absurdity o
amlive
Wed, Jul 13, 2011 : 1:54 p.m.
Would this bill apply equally to refusing service based on race, gender, or religion? Come Tupac, this is more than just a slippery slope, it's already over the edge. Despite what some seem to inexplicably draw from this, no one ever told Julea that she couldn't believe what she wanted, and adhere to those beliefs in her personal life. If you want to enter a profession though, and that profession has standards and an official code of ethics, then while working in that profession or if you want to be certified in it, you have to abide by their accepted rules while you're on the clock. It's a job. If that job would force you to violate your own beliefs and ethics, then look for a different friggin' job. If you're a Scientologist who wants to work by their beliefs, you probably shouldn't expect to get a degree in psychology. If you're Amish, you probably shouldn't expect to be certified as an electrician. If you are Jehovah's witness, you might not want to enter a field requiring you to do blood transfusions. If you want to work in a fertility clinic, I don't think you should have the right to refuse Muslim patients because you're an Islamophobe and don't believe they should breed. And if you want to go in to immunology, you can believe in divine creation all you like, but if you answer a question about how a virus can mutate and evolve based on its environment, you shouldn't expect to pass the test when you answer "because God just made it that way". No one has ever said that you can't have whatever beliefs or bigotries you want. That's your right. This however, sounds like nothing less than a pass to act on personal bigotries, and legally exempt you from abiding by anti-discrimination rules established within a professional field. If Julea didn't want to abide by the rules of any national or state counselor certification requirements, she could have gone to a Christian school to be certified by their religious standards.
David
Wed, Jul 13, 2011 : 2:58 p.m.
Bravo amlive. I really enjoyed your comment. You are right on, I wish more people would look at religious/political issues like you and I do. Personally I consider myself a strong Christ follower, but I work in counseling and I see it as my God given ability to help people regardless of how my personal views may differ from them. "thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" NOT thou shalt love they neighbours who you agree with on important issues...
Charlie Brown's Ghost
Wed, Jul 13, 2011 : 1:12 p.m.
Wow. Have to give props to Senator Hunter for a rare Democrat step into reality. Good for him. I hope he's prepared to fend off the wrath of the haters that he will face now. Good Night and Good Grief
godsbreath64
Wed, Jul 13, 2011 : 1 p.m.
Well if Billy "should he" Schuette is in support one has every reason needed to abandon ship. She can study all she wants, but she was employed to do a job. If her beliefs conflict, she must choose her own course. This is hardly confusing.
sh1
Wed, Jul 13, 2011 : 12:48 p.m.
I could support this bill if it included a requirement that the counselors hang a plaque on their door and state on their business cards all the types of people they would be offended by and refuse to help.
David Briegel
Wed, Jul 13, 2011 : 1:29 p.m.
Or Discriminate against!
Ignatz
Wed, Jul 13, 2011 : 12:48 p.m.
Bad move, Dems. Politics should stay out of an organization's professional standards, especially those who do a better job than our governments are doing now. Is there an attachment to this bill that will restore prior funding levels if EMU and others buckle under?
Rork Kuick
Wed, Jul 13, 2011 : 12:43 p.m.
Sally, how about if Ward refused to council Jews, or German-Americans, or short people?
Think!
Wed, Jul 13, 2011 : 2:54 p.m.
Hatred and intolerance masked by religion is still hatred and intolerance.
Rork Kuick
Wed, Jul 13, 2011 : 2:52 p.m.
So discrimination is OK if it's Christian.
Terry
Wed, Jul 13, 2011 : 12:52 p.m.
Are you talking anti-semetic? I believe the argument was religious beliefs to which we as Americans are entitled. An individuals ethnicity is a completely different issue where in I would likely agree with you that there is no place for such descrimination. I am going to leave height out of my reply based on the lunacy of the idea you posed. An individuals sexual preference is just that, a preference.
Bogie
Wed, Jul 13, 2011 : 12:40 p.m.
Way to go Mr. Hunter. I see there is atleast a few people out there, with some common sense. To Chip, "Don't worry, in the end we'll all know if the earth is 6000 years old.
David Briegel
Wed, Jul 13, 2011 : 1:28 p.m.
We already know.
Silly Sally
Wed, Jul 13, 2011 : 12:20 p.m.
What is next? What if the AMerican Psyc org decided that the Man-Boy love group was legit and someone refused to counsel and advocate this position? Our state supported universities should not stop someone from earning a degree if they are not a proponent of the killing of unborn babies (abortion) or of advocating homosexuality. Julea Ward professionally referred this case to another who had no such reservations, but EMU wanted her to be an advocate, or no degree. This is wrong, and this proctice should and will be ended.
David Briegel
Wed, Jul 13, 2011 : 1:48 p.m.
Can't we have a conversation about the issue without "man-boy", abortions. Maybe we should discuss Oral Roberts U or Bachman's homosexual conversion success ratios. They are as relevant. Maybe silly applies.
Terry
Wed, Jul 13, 2011 : 12:15 p.m.
I would like to applaud Sen Hunter for taking what I am sure is an unpopular stance among many democrats. I am surprised and encouraged by this story.
Goofus
Wed, Jul 13, 2011 : 2:23 p.m.
Let's cut to the real reaosn he took this "unpopular stance". It's to get votes in his district. Votes in Tupac Hunter's district --- Detroit --- are heavily dependent on the endorsement of the Baptist preachers, who are usually all very much against homosexulity, just like Julea Ward, who hails from that same district.
Chip Reed
Wed, Jul 13, 2011 : 11:53 a.m.
The freedom to believe whatever one wants is not as great as it is cracked up to be. Perhaps Ms. Ward could find a fulfilling career where her beliefs and judgements of others do not interfere with the work. By the same token, those who believe our world is 6,000 years old probably shouldn't teach geology or history.