Counseling student refuses gay clients, gets expelled, sues

[Todeswind]

Let me begin by stating my biggest prejudice in this situation is an intolerable hatred of people who can't be bothered to note the difference between a Councillor, and a Counselor..

Actually counsellor, councilor, and counselor can be used interchangeably depending on what dialect of English you speak, though admittedly the most commonly accepted one for academic use in this context is the Counselor with one L.

Edit: ironically enough a spelling error.

[AniThyng]

Let me begin by stating my biggest prejudice in this situation is an intolerable hatred of people who can't be bothered to note the difference between a Councillor, and a Counselor..

Actually counsellor, councilor, and counselor can be used interchangeably depending on what dialect of English you speak, though admittedly the most commonly accepted one for academic use in this context is the Counselor with one L.

Edit: ironically enough a spelling error.

In what dialect of english is Councilor synonymous with Counselor?

[Baffalo]

I don't know much about psychology or anything else so I'm only going to relate what I know about, namely engineering.

Engineering is something that must be approached as a professional just like a counselor. When I worked with CREST, a local group that helps rehabilitate people with disabilities using engineering, we had to take a course on HIPPA and learn how to approach someone with a disability. Our work required us to create a device for the visually impaired for use in an office setting. During the course of our work, another engineer and I got into an argument about human intelligence regarding the design. His theory was that people fall either above or below a magical line that splits the population cleanly in two, and anyone below the line was too stupid to carry out basic motor functions like push a button or plug in a phone line. We never got along that great, but we still worked together. Why? Because we were both professionals with a job to do. We got the job done, shook hands, and walked away.

This is important because when you're given a job that must be accomplished despite your distaste for someone, a true professional goes about the job anyway and sets personal feelings aside until they're in a position to properly address the situation. If I'd walked away because I didn't like the associate, the job wouldn't have been finished and I would have betrayed the confidence placed in me by the CREST group. If I was a strict pacifist, I wouldn't want to do any work for a company that produces weapons or military equipment, yet taken to the logical extreme, almost any work could feed into the military. Intel chips are mostly used for computers around the world, including those found in military gear. At some point, attempting to maintain your ethics winds up becoming a hindrance rather than a benefit for you.

The point I'm trying to make is that while certain people or actions may be distasteful, a true professional understands that by accepting the role you have chosen, there are times where your work puts you in a position that is uncomfortable for you and there isn't a way to step back and wash your hands of the affair. If this comes up, you must put your feelings aside, do your work, and then later, when it's appropriate, you can fix the issue. However, I'm not condemning her choice to have the homosexual individual referred to another counselor, as this was a preemptive move on her part to avoid having a professional conflict of interests. She did the right thing in this case, even if her reason for doing so was what many consider to be wrong.

[Metatwaddle]

My biggest question is whether this was a first offense for her. If this was the first gay client she encountered and refused, immediate expulsion seems a bit extreme, since it gives her little to no warning that what she's doing is not considered acceptable. But it seems a lot less extreme if this is the second, or third, or fourth, and she's been flunking courses or assignments because she refuses to work with homosexuals. The story seems to imply that this is a first offense, but doesn't really say one way or the other.

Both are true, sort of. It was a first offense, but she did have warnings. She had said earlier that her religion conflicted with the school's requirement to affirm clients' values, and they were like, "tough shit, you have to do it," but this was the first time it came up in a clinical or professional setting. (I think this was her first practicum.) She had an excellent GPA.

Early on in the university’s counseling program, Ward sparred with professors over faith-based issues, particularly her belief that Christianity prohibited her from “affirm[ing]” or “validat[ing]” the “homosexual behavior” of counseling clients. R. 9-5 at 5. When Ward expressed these views, professors disagreed, sometimes kindly, sometimes less so, but consistently making the point that, as a counselor, she must support her clients’ sexual orientation, whatever that may be.
Despite these occasional conflicts, Ward did well academically. She had a 3.91 grade point average going into the winter 2009 quarter, with just four classes (13 credit hours) left to complete the degree.

I do think that "affirmation" of values is a lot to ask of counseling students. As far as I can tell, the actual ACA code of ethics doesn't use such strong language, though it does require counselors to work effectively and compassionately with clients whose moral codes differ from theirs. It sounds like she wouldn't have done that.

[Magis]

In that case the person should fail the ethics portion of their professional licensing examination, which is entirely separate from passing their university degree requirements. Should she be licensed as a professional counsellor? I don't think so. Should that prevent her from earning a degree in it? No.

You are a moron. A written examination is not sufficient vetting for determining if someone is a competent counselor. A person can know and be able to regurgitate the ethics policy of the NCA, that does not mean the person will follow it. That is why the university has a god damn practicum. In order to ensure a basic level of competence and professionalism before they permit a student to take the exam, and then be inflicted on patients for two years of internship before they may apply for a license from the state.

If you think that professional licensing examinations are insufficient, then go ahead and complain about them; I was not addressing that issue. I was stating that it is not the responsibility nor the mandate of an academic institution to enforce standards of conduct for members of a profession. On the other hand, if the would-be-counselor in the article is resides in a state that has no professional licensing authority for counseling, then she couldn't be a professional in the first place and referring to professional standards of conduct is irrelevant.

Also, on the topic of ethics, she may have done the proper thing in referring the client to another counselor. There's no doubt that her views on homosexuality are objectively wrong (I think we can all agree on that), however if the reality is that her views would compromise her ability to offer quality counseling, then the referral was the more ethical thing to do, opposed to say, accepting the client and offering lousy advice. Keep in mind that she could have probably sucked it up and offered counseling to the client in whatever way she had to in order to pass her academic requirements. She could have faked it. Instead, by referring the client to another counselor, that is probably illustrative of how she would behave in a professional environment. We know that there are anti-homosexual counselors out there who accept homosexual clients and do them harm (e.g. Bachmann et al). By referring the client to someone else she was not doing harm. She was probably doing the "right" thing given her pre-existing screwed up mentally regarding homosexuals.

[Magis]

This is important because when you're given a job that must be accomplished despite your distaste for someone, a true professional goes about the job anyway and sets personal feelings aside until they're in a position to properly address the situation.

(bolding mine)
Actually, a true professional is required to identify and disclose any potential conflicts of interest and determine if the job is within their realm of competency before accepting the work.

The article in the OP makes it clear that treating a homosexual was probably not in the student's realm of competency and there also some kind of conflict there, even though the conflict was personal rather than legal in nature.

[RedImperator]

In that case the person should fail the ethics portion of their professional licensing examination, which is entirely separate from passing their university degree requirements. Should she be licensed as a professional counsellor? I don't think so. Should that prevent her from earning a degree in it? No.

You are a moron. A written examination is not sufficient vetting for determining if someone is a competent counselor. A person can know and be able to regurgitate the ethics policy of the NCA, that does not mean the person will follow it. That is why the university has a god damn practicum. In order to ensure a basic level of competence and professionalism before they permit a student to take the exam, and then be inflicted on patients for two years of internship before they may apply for a license from the state.

If you think that professional licensing examinations are insufficient, then go ahead and complain about them; I was not addressing that issue. I was stating that it is not the responsibility nor the mandate of an academic institution to enforce standards of conduct for members of a profession. On the other hand, if the would-be-counselor in the article is resides in a state that has no professional licensing authority for counseling, then she couldn't be a professional in the first place and referring to professional standards of conduct is irrelevant.

Wait, what? Since when do professional training programs (in or out of a university setting) not have a mandate to teach professional ethics? And I kinda asked this is my last reply to you, but now I'm going to ask it directly: why is the school wrong for flunking a student who was incapable of completing a requirement for graduation?

[ChaserGrey]

Professional schools can and do expel students that they have good reason to believe won't be able to pass the examination for that profession. The reasons have to do with limited capacity and wanting to use that to train students who are actually going to, you know, practice. When I was in med school we were quite openly told that if we had something happen that would render us ineligible or unable to complete the Boards (drug busts were the big one, but it could also cover things like being blinded or paralyzed) we would have to leave.

No professional school, so far as I know, has a policy of letting students graduate when they know they're not going to be able to get a license or adhere to the canon of ethics for that profession.

[TheHammer]

There's no doubt that her views on homosexuality are objectively wrong (I think we can all agree on that).

I'm going to go ahead and disagree. First of all, its not entirely clear what her views are. Regardless of what they are, while it would be wrong for her to impose her views on others, that doesn't mean her own personal views are "wrong" and that your views or the views of others are "right", particularly when it comes to sexual behavior. In this particular case, it seems she took steps to prevent her views from interferring with proper counseling for these individuals. That should not be frowned upon, rather it should be commended as recognizing ones own limits and taking steps for the best possible outcome for the patient.

Now, I agree her feelings would probably prevent her from beign a good candidate for a school counselor, who would be a jack of all trades dealing with a wide variety of issues. However that doesn't mean she couldn't be a very good counselr in a particular speciality, say Christian Marriage counseling for example. It might limit her client base, but better that then her "faking" her way through it and giving sub standard care to people whose lifestyle she may not agree with. In my opinion, saying "tough shit you have to do it anyway" does a dis-service to the patient who deserves the best care possible.

[Terralthra]

There's no doubt that her views on homosexuality are objectively wrong (I think we can all agree on that).

Now, I agree her feelings would probably prevent her from beign a good candidate for a school counselor, who would be a jack of all trades dealing with a wide variety of issues. However that doesn't mean she couldn't be a very good counselr in a particular speciality, say Christian Marriage counseling for example. It might limit her client base, but better that then her "faking" her way through it and giving sub standard care to people whose lifestyle she may not agree with. In my opinion, saying "tough shit you have to do it anyway" does a dis-service to the patient who deserves the best care possible.

This is not the first time this argument has come up, and for not the first time, it still doesn't work. Christians can be gay, and married people can be gay, and it puts a huge psychological strain on someone. A Christian husband and wife could come in, the relationship counseling could lead to the conclusion that the man is gay. What does she do then? Tell him to pray the gay away?

[TheHammer]

There's no doubt that her views on homosexuality are objectively wrong (I think we can all agree on that).

Now, I agree her feelings would probably prevent her from beign a good candidate for a school counselor, who would be a jack of all trades dealing with a wide variety of issues. However that doesn't mean she couldn't be a very good counselr in a particular speciality, say Christian Marriage counseling for example. It might limit her client base, but better that then her "faking" her way through it and giving sub standard care to people whose lifestyle she may not agree with. In my opinion, saying "tough shit you have to do it anyway" does a dis-service to the patient who deserves the best care possible.

This is not the first time this argument has come up, and for not the first time, it still doesn't work. Christians can be gay, and married people can be gay, and it puts a huge psychological strain on someone. A Christian husband and wife could come in, the relationship counseling could lead to the conclusion that the man is gay. What does she do then? Tell him to pray the gay away?

You are making an assumption that she is of the belief that you could "pray the gay away" and there is no evidence to support that stance based on what is in this thread. She didn't try to "de-gayify" anyone in this instance, she referred them to someone who could help them better. She might be of the sound opinion that some people are born with a same-sex attraction and yet disapprove of homosexual life style. She might also disapprove of a fundamentalist mormon life style with multiple wives, and not want to be a counselor for that type of situation either. Again, it would limit her client base but as long as she doesn't try to impose her beliefs on others, she isn't "wrong" to feel however she wants to feel.

An easy hypothetical solution to your hypothetical scenario would be for her to say "Well it seems you've got some issues to resolve with regards your sexual orientation, however that is not my field of expertise. I mainly specialize in helping heterosexual couples work through marital problems. But I can certainly refer you to another therapist who does have more experience in this field...". That is basically what she did in the aforementioned case.

[Terralthra]

This is not the first time this argument has come up, and for not the first time, it still doesn't work. Christians can be gay, and married people can be gay, and it puts a huge psychological strain on someone. A Christian husband and wife could come in, the relationship counseling could lead to the conclusion that the man is gay. What does she do then? Tell him to pray the gay away?

You are making an assumption that she is of the belief that you could "pray the gay away" and there is no evidence to support that stance based on what is in this thread. She didn't try to "de-gayify" anyone in this instance, she referred them to someone who could help them better. She might be of the sound opinion that some people are born with a same-sex attraction and yet disapprove of homosexual life style. She might also disapprove of a fundamentalist mormon life style with multiple wives, and not want to be a counselor for that type of situation either. Again, it would limit her client base but as long as she doesn't try to impose her beliefs on others, she isn't "wrong" to feel however she wants to feel.

An easy hypothetical solution to your hypothetical scenario would be for her to say "Well it seems you've got some issues to resolve with regards your sexual orientation, however that is not my field of expertise. I mainly specialize in helping heterosexual couples work through marital problems. But I can certainly refer you to another therapist who does have more experience in this field...". That is basically what she did in the aforementioned case.

Marvelous! She'll only have wasted weeks to months of that couple's time and several hundred, if not several thousand, of their dollars. Completely ethical!

[TheHammer]

This is not the first time this argument has come up, and for not the first time, it still doesn't work. Christians can be gay, and married people can be gay, and it puts a huge psychological strain on someone. A Christian husband and wife could come in, the relationship counseling could lead to the conclusion that the man is gay. What does she do then? Tell him to pray the gay away?

You are making an assumption that she is of the belief that you could "pray the gay away" and there is no evidence to support that stance based on what is in this thread. She didn't try to "de-gayify" anyone in this instance, she referred them to someone who could help them better. She might be of the sound opinion that some people are born with a same-sex attraction and yet disapprove of homosexual life style. She might also disapprove of a fundamentalist mormon life style with multiple wives, and not want to be a counselor for that type of situation either. Again, it would limit her client base but as long as she doesn't try to impose her beliefs on others, she isn't "wrong" to feel however she wants to feel.

An easy hypothetical solution to your hypothetical scenario would be for her to say "Well it seems you've got some issues to resolve with regards your sexual orientation, however that is not my field of expertise. I mainly specialize in helping heterosexual couples work through marital problems. But I can certainly refer you to another therapist who does have more experience in this field...". That is basically what she did in the aforementioned case.

Marvelous! She'll only have wasted weeks to months of that couple's time and several hundred, if not several thousand, of their dollars. Completely ethical!

That depends entirely on the goals of the couple when they show up for counseling. Counseling only works if the person being counseled is honest and wants the help. If they have other issues and they both want to make the marriage work despite "being gay" then its not wasted. If the only issue they have is his sexual attraction to men then its likely that this would become apparent early in the process and then they could be reffered to another counselor with more experience for their situation. That would be the ethical thing to do. This of course is also over looking the fact that your scenario would be a rare exception for the type of clientele she would generally treat which would be heterosexual couples seeking guidance on making their troubled marriages work.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I was stating that it is not the responsibility nor the mandate of an academic institution to enforce standards of conduct for members of a profession.

Yes it is. Medical schools do the EXACT same thing. If you violate the medical canons of ethics in medical school, you get booted. If something happens that prevents you from functioning as a physician, you get booted. Same thing here.

Different professional programs and organizations do things differently from engineering.

On the other hand, if the would-be-counselor in the article is resides in a state that has no professional licensing authority for counseling, then she couldn't be a professional in the first place and referring to professional standards of conduct is irrelevant.

It has it. The University just administers a lot of the requirements.

She might be of the sound opinion that some people are born with a same-sex attraction and yet disapprove of homosexual life style.

Patients do not fill out massive intake forms that list detailed personal information when they walk in the door. If she takes a client and things turn to homosexuality, she will cause harm. Why? Because the patient has built a relationship of trust and respect with this counselor, revealed deeply deeply personal things. And then, said counselor declares that this person is not good enough to be in her presence and refers them to someone else who they must build a relationship with--made all the more difficult because of this counselor's violation.

That is why she wont make an effective counselor.

Also, what is this homosexual lifestyle you speak of?

[Academia Nut]

Different professional programs and organizations do things differently from engineering.

True in general, but in this case not, at least not up in Canada. I know at my university it explicitly says as part of the general rules of the organization that "all students in a profession program such as medicine, law, engineering [etc.] are also governed by the rules of that professional organization and all offences against the organization's code of ethics will also be treated as an academic offence". In fact, at least for engineers where I'm from enrolling in a university engineering program automatically makes you a member of the professional society and thus legally places you under their code of ethics.

Which, actually now that I think about it, may have been why this woman was expelled, since depending on the exact wording and rulings of the jurisdiction, she may have actually technically broken the law with her behaviour. That said, I get the feeling there is a lot of behind the scenes information that we are not privvy too that makes calling judgement one way or another basically impossible, other than the fact that the woman is a bigot.

[Darth Wong]

Certain professions have canons of ethics. Duty of care, confidentality, that sort of thing. Should a person who refuses to follow those professional canons of ethics be certified to engage in that profession? I dont care what the hell it is, the answer is no.

In that case the person should fail the ethics portion of their professional licensing examination, which is entirely separate from passing their university degree requirements. Should she be licensed as a professional counsellor? I don't think so. Should that prevent her from earning a degree in it? No.

Why should ethics be considered entirely separate from university degree requirements?

A university degree is a product; its perceived value is based in large part upon the field performance of past graduates and the perception of the university's high standards. If a university faculty discovers that a student wholeheartedly rejects the ethical code of the profession he or she is studying for, they can and should have very serious concerns about conferring a degree upon this individual: concerns serious enough to warrant rejection. This is true regardless of whether there is any legal mandate forcing these kinds of rules.

[Metatwaddle]

Different professional programs and organizations do things differently from engineering.

True in general, but in this case not, at least not up in Canada. I know at my university it explicitly says as part of the general rules of the organization that "all students in a profession program such as medicine, law, engineering [etc.] are also governed by the rules of that professional organization and all offences against the organization's code of ethics will also be treated as an academic offence". In fact, at least for engineers where I'm from enrolling in a university engineering program automatically makes you a member of the professional society and thus legally places you under their code of ethics.

Which, actually now that I think about it, may have been why this woman was expelled, since depending on the exact wording and rulings of the jurisdiction, she may have actually technically broken the law with her behaviour. That said, I get the feeling there is a lot of behind the scenes information that we are not privvy too that makes calling judgement one way or another basically impossible, other than the fact that the woman is a bigot.

I don't think anyone, including the university, is saying Ward broke the law. However, she was definitely subject to the American Counseling Association's code of ethics as a student. The ACA filed an amicus brief saying that Ward violated their code of ethics, and that that is grounds for her expulsion.

Eastern Michigan University (“EMU”) requires all students in its graduate counseling program to follow and to demonstrate an ability to follow the ACA Code of Ethics ... When she... insisted that she would not counsel anyone on homosexual issues, Ms. Ward failed to fulfill a legitimate academic requirement—demonstrating an ability to adhere to the ethical standards of the counseling profession, as embodied in the ACA Code of Ethics. Defendants properly dismissed her.

Magis, I have to say I don't understand your insistence that there's a degree program and then there's your licensing requirements, and only licensed professionals have to follow the ethics code, and never the twain shall meet. Of course students have to follow the fucking ethics code, and of course it's of interest to the school if a student violates it and doesn't even acknowledge that she was wrong.

Consider this: the organization that drafted the professional ethics code probably knows a little bit about how to apply it, and they filed an amicus brief saying the university was right to have Ward expelled, because students have to follow the professional ethics code and she didn't. I linked it earlier in the thread, and anyway you could have found it with about five seconds of googling.

[Magis]

If you think that professional licensing examinations are insufficient, then go ahead and complain about them; I was not addressing that issue. I was stating that it is not the responsibility nor the mandate of an academic institution to enforce standards of conduct for members of a profession. On the other hand, if the would-be-counselor in the article is resides in a state that has no professional licensing authority for counseling, then she couldn't be a professional in the first place and referring to professional standards of conduct is irrelevant.

Wait, what? Since when do professional training programs (in or out of a university setting) not have a mandate to teach professional ethics? And I kinda asked this is my last reply to you, but now I'm going to ask it directly: why is the school wrong for flunking a student who was incapable of completing a requirement for graduation?

Professional training programs do have a mandate to teach professional ethics and standards of conduct. I never said otherwise. What I said is that they do not have a mandate to enforce those standards. However, my knowledge in these matters is essentially concentrated in the field of engineering, so I am perfectly happy to defer to the opinions of others who have more insight into the counseling profession specifically (or any other profession for that matter).

Magis, I have to say I don't understand your insistence that there's a degree program and then there's your licensing requirements, and only licensed professionals have to follow the ethics code, and never the twain shall meet.

Aside from the fact that this is precisely how several professional training programs operate (though it naturally varies by jurisdiction and degree program), I think that they aren't necessarily a perfect fit. In my view, educational institutions should teach whereas licensing authorities should regulate. This is because the student may not ultimately want to practice professionally, or at least practice in the same jurisdiction as where the educational institution is located, and instead simply want to learn something (which is never a bad thing). However, if the OP article student's particular institution requires its students to conform to professional requirements as though they are actually professionals, then that's a different story and I concede that. If she knew she couldn't meet the institution's stated requirements, she should have studied somewhere else.

[TheHammer]

Patients do not fill out massive intake forms that list detailed personal information when they walk in the door. If she takes a client and things turn to homosexuality, she will cause harm. Why? Because the patient has built a relationship of trust and respect with this counselor, revealed deeply deeply personal things. And then, said counselor declares that this person is not good enough to be in her presence and refers them to someone else who they must build a relationship with--made all the more difficult because of this counselor's violation.

That is why she wont make an effective counselor.

As I previously noted, she wouldn't make a good general conselor who sees a variety of patients. However if she specialized her field of expertise, and made that clear ahead of time to anyone seeking her services as to what she does, she could be quite effective. Should after therapy an issue arise with homosexuality it doesn't have to be about "not good enough" to be in her presence, rather its about finding someone better qualified to help the patient. Such a situation could be handled very diplomatically. In much the same way that if you were being treated by a brain surgeon and wanted to discuss chest pains he'd refer you to a cardiologist.

Also, what is this homosexual lifestyle you speak of?

Various sexual acts with a person of the same sex.

[RedImperator]

If you think that professional licensing examinations are insufficient, then go ahead and complain about them; I was not addressing that issue. I was stating that it is not the responsibility nor the mandate of an academic institution to enforce standards of conduct for members of a profession. On the other hand, if the would-be-counselor in the article is resides in a state that has no professional licensing authority for counseling, then she couldn't be a professional in the first place and referring to professional standards of conduct is irrelevant.

Wait, what? Since when do professional training programs (in or out of a university setting) not have a mandate to teach professional ethics? And I kinda asked this is my last reply to you, but now I'm going to ask it directly: why is the school wrong for flunking a student who was incapable of completing a requirement for graduation?

Professional training programs do have a mandate to teach professional ethics and standards of conduct. I never said otherwise. What I said is that they do not have a mandate to enforce those standards. However, my knowledge in these matters is essentially concentrated in the field of engineering, so I am perfectly happy to defer to the opinions of others who have more insight into the counseling profession specifically (or any other profession for that matter).

On what principle are you basing your opinion here? Ethics aren't like, say, the tensile strength of steel or the anatomy of the cranial nerves or the case law regarding child negligence. You can test knowledge of it, but not whether the student is willing to practice it. The school is in a unique position to see the difference, if any, between a student's actual behavior and her knowledge of the professional code of ethics.

At any rate, how does ethical conduct fall outside the bounds of what a practicum is testing? Part of the idea of a practicum is to give the school a chance to see you in action and make sure you have the ability to go with the knowledge of the theory. Ethical behavior doesn't require technical knowledge, but it is expected of all professionals.

Aside from the fact that this is precisely how several professional training programs operate (though it naturally varies by jurisdiction and degree program), I think that they aren't necessarily a perfect fit. In my view, educational institutions should teach whereas licensing authorities should regulate. This is because the student may not ultimately want to practice professionally, or at least practice in the same jurisdiction as where the educational institution is located, and instead simply want to learn something (which is never a bad thing).

Then enroll in a degree program without a practicum requirement. If you're just interested in theory, the practicum (at least half the total program hours under Michigan law) is a waste of your time anyhow.

As I previously noted, she wouldn't make a good general conselor who sees a variety of patients. However if she specialized her field of expertise, and made that clear ahead of time to anyone seeking her services as to what she does, she could be quite effective. Should after therapy an issue arise with homosexuality it doesn't have to be about "not good enough" to be in her presence, rather its about finding someone better qualified to help the patient. Such a situation could be handled very diplomatically. In much the same way that if you were being treated by a brain surgeon and wanted to discuss chest pains he'd refer you to a cardiologist.

This is not a practical solution, as the person in question was in training to be a high school guidance counselor.

[Metatwaddle]

Magis, I have to say I don't understand your insistence that there's a degree program and then there's your licensing requirements, and only licensed professionals have to follow the ethics code, and never the twain shall meet.

Aside from the fact that this is precisely how several professional training programs operate (though it naturally varies by jurisdiction and degree program), I think that they aren't necessarily a perfect fit. In my view, educational institutions should teach whereas licensing authorities should regulate. This is because the student may not ultimately want to practice professionally, or at least practice in the same jurisdiction as where the educational institution is located, and instead simply want to learn something (which is never a bad thing).

This is a professional degree. If she wants to study a profession but not follow that profession's standards of conduct, she should find one that doesn't require her to practice in that profession while she is a student. Counseling has an ethics code which is designed to maximize benefit and minimize harm to clients. It's not like the harm magically disappears if your counselor is a student in a practicum.

Also, what Red said. The school is in a unique position to know if she has no intention of following the code of ethics of a profession. That won't come out on an ethics portion of an exam. Here I actually can speak with some authority, because I've spent a lot of time doing philosophical ethics: just because someone has a deep understanding of ethics does not mean they are especially moral themselves.

However, if the OP article student's particular institution requires its students to conform to professional requirements as though they are actually professionals, then that's a different story and I concede that. If she knew she couldn't meet the institution's stated requirements, she should have studied somewhere else.

It's not just her university, it's all Masters in Counseling programs that are accredited by the board that accredited her department. If she wanted to be exempt from the code of ethics, she'd have had to go to an unaccredited school. Seriously, everyone who sets standards for the counseling profession seems to disagree with you.

[TheHammer]

As I previously noted, she wouldn't make a good general conselor who sees a variety of patients. However if she specialized her field of expertise, and made that clear ahead of time to anyone seeking her services as to what she does, she could be quite effective. Should after therapy an issue arise with homosexuality it doesn't have to be about "not good enough" to be in her presence, rather its about finding someone better qualified to help the patient. Such a situation could be handled very diplomatically. In much the same way that if you were being treated by a brain surgeon and wanted to discuss chest pains he'd refer you to a cardiologist.

This is not a practical solution, as the person in question was in training to be a high school guidance counselor.

Where was it affirmed that "high school guidance counselor" was her only option? Was this degree specific to that profession? Based on the OP it was just a masters degree in counseling, but maybe I missed additional details somewhere. If we're making this statement based on the notion that high school counseling is what she thought she wanted to be when she started taking courses, then this event might have served as a wakeup call that an occupation in the field of general counseling might not be best for her.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Various sexual acts with a person of the same sex.

Riiiight. The use of the term homosexual lifestyle is bigot dog-whistle. When ever someone says that, they usually mean this:

Warning: Music video may not be safe for work, you may want to not hit play if management is around.


In fact, when a fundamentalist person says "gay lifestyle" they almost always mean that. If a counselor who refuses to deal with gay clients says it, you can increase the probability to 100%

Dont insult my intelligence.

Where was it affirmed that "high school guidance counselor" was her only option? Was this degree specific to that profession? Based on the OP it was just a masters degree in counseling, but maybe I missed additional details somewhere. If we're making this statement based on the notion that high school counseling is what she thought she wanted to be when she started taking courses, then this event might have served as a wakeup call that an occupation in the field of general counseling might not be best for her.

I am going to spell it out for you:

There is no counseling context where she will be free from gay clients.

Drug counseling? Gay people are more likely to use drugs because they are subjected to intense psychological trauma imposed by persecution. It will come up, and may come out after many counseling sessions.

Marriage Counseling? Marital problems--->many counseling sessions later, it turns out that hubby married her because he was in denial. Trying to make such a marriage work not being a waste of time? Yeah, you just said she should try to ex-gay them, something which she knows from her academic work is not effective and causes psychological harm to patients. Try again.

Suicide Counseling? See drug counseling

General social work? Yeah... gay kids in abusive households, households headed by gay parents, and she cannot pick her clients in that context.

The list goes on. She simply cannot be an effective and ethically operating counselor with her attitudes. The reason "ex-gay" therapy is permitted to continue is because those individuals lie during their practicum, operate in states with no ethics requirements (not sure how prevalent that is), or are simply not licensed to operate as counselors, but instead operate as "life coaches", "ministers" and other such less regulated titles or classifications.

[TheHammer]

Various sexual acts with a person of the same sex.

Riiiight. The use of the term homosexual lifestyle is bigot dog-whistle. When ever someone says that, they usually mean this:

In fact, when a fundamentalist person says "gay lifestyle" they almost always mean that. If a counselor who refuses to deal with gay clients says it, you can increase the probability to 100%

Dont insult my intelligence.

Ah yes more assumptions about this woman's thoughts and feelings that already permeate this thread. If you'd read the op you would have noted that it wasn't that she didn't want to "work with gays", rather she didn't want to affirm certain sexual behavior, including gay, adulterous, or promiscuous lifestyles. So it would seem she's pretty conservative in her views on sex. Nothing wrong with that, she's free to hold her own views so long as she doesn't force them on others.

She didn't "refuse to deal with" gay clients, rather she dealt with them in the manner that would get best results for the client - referring them to someone who could help them properly in a way she knew that she couldn't. It would have been unethical to take on those clients knowing she would only be able to half-ass counsel them because of her personal beliefs.

By the way, I suspect she'd have a problem with a similar video called "straight pimp" with similar behavior from heterosexuals.

Where was it affirmed that "high school guidance counselor" was her only option? Was this degree specific to that profession? Based on the OP it was just a masters degree in counseling, but maybe I missed additional details somewhere. If we're making this statement based on the notion that high school counseling is what she thought she wanted to be when she started taking courses, then this event might have served as a wakeup call that an occupation in the field of general counseling might not be best for her.

I am going to spell it out for you:

There is no counseling context where she will be free from gay clients.

We've already established that. However, she could choose a field where the likliehood of encountering gay clients is lower than others, and as long as she has a plan for referral for rare cases where she has a conflict of interest be it with gays, adulterers etc then there is no reason why she wouldn't have an effective career.

Drug counseling? Gay people are more likely to use drugs because they are subjected to intense psychological trauma imposed by persecution. It will come up, and may come out after many counseling sessions.

Drug counseling would not be a field she would want to be in. One more career choice eliminated by her religion. So what?

Marriage Counseling? Marital problems--->many counseling sessions later, it turns out that hubby married her because he was in denial. Trying to make such a marriage work not being a waste of time? Yeah, you just said she should try to ex-gay them, something which she knows from her academic work is not effective and causes psychological harm to patients. Try again.

It would be up to the person counseled whether or not they'd wish to make the marriage work. That's the only way marriage counseling ever works is if both parties want to make it work. Perhaps you can't envision a scenario where a gay man and straight woman would still wish to find a way to make a marriage work, but its entirely possible that they aren't basing their whole relationship around sexual attraction and want to find a way to make it work despite the difficulty and without having to go to any lenghts "ex-gay" anyone. In much the same manner that if a heterosexual man's wife were no longer attractive to him (for whatever reason), yet other women were. Does he HAVE to get divorced then? Or can they realize that the relationship is built on more than where he wants to stick his penis and thus try to make it work anyway.

If they came to the conclusion, after many sessions, that the man simply would never be able to accept his marriage to a woman then she would refer them to someone better suited to dealing with situations like this with the very reasonable excuse that her speciality is in counseling couples who wish to stay together. Its true, sometimes the only thing a counseling does is show them both that it's not going to work. And at that point the "marriage counselor's" role is over.

Suicide Counseling? See drug counseling

Another job she wouldn't want to take. So what?

General social work? Yeah... gay kids in abusive households, households headed by gay parents, and she cannot pick her clients in that context.

Of course general social work would result in encounters with homosexuals. Probably why she wouldn't work as a social worker.

The list goes on. She simply cannot be an effective and ethically operating counselor with her attitudes. The reason "ex-gay" therapy is permitted to continue is because those individuals lie during their practicum, operate in states with no ethics requirements (not sure how prevalent that is), or are simply not licensed to operate as counselors, but instead operate as "life coaches", "ministers" and other such less regulated titles or classifications.

That is your opinion, one to which I disagree. No doubt she's limited her own career options, but that is her choice. That doesn't mean that she couldn't be a wonderful counselor in a specific field. The only time it would be unethical would be for her to try and force her views on the client, "ex-gay them" as you put it, or whatever else happens to arise but she specifically seems to be taking the opposite approach.

[Terralthra]

Please, by all means, name this field where she won't ever have to work with gay clients. Keep in mind, you filed "gay" right up there with "adultery." This means she doesn't just not want to work with gay clients, she actively feels that a gay person is immoral by their very existence.