Counseling Ethics versus Religous Beliefs

[NiennaLadyOfTears]

Does a public university have a right to enforce its course requirements?

If I go to XYZ Public University and choose to major in Butchering and then argue that I am a vegetarian and I feel it is immoral to kill or butcher animals, then do I have a legitimate case?

That is basically what is at stake here. A requirement of being a counselor is that you can work professionally and competently with members of a diverse population. It requires that you suspend your personal beliefs so that you can provide a service to a client that they may need. It doesn't require that you give up your personal beliefs; only suspend them for the duration of the service you are performing.

If you can't perform that simple task because of your religous beliefs, then you are just like the above example of a vegetarian student majoring in Butchering. You do not possess what is needed to fulfill the course requirements or to become a competent professional in that field.

As a social worker, I may be required to work with Christians. In that role, am I entitled to judge them because they may hold different values than me? Am I entitled to deny them services that they may need? Am I entitled to argue that they should change their ways or try to use therapy to change them? No. As a social worker, I am ethically bound to provide the best service I can to my client, without passing judgment. Why should a Christian be entitled to become a social worker or counselor if they do not have the capacity to do the same for gays and lesbians?

Unless you work for a Christian counseling firm, and many exist.

 

[Satya]

Unless you work for a Christian counseling firm, and many exist.

True. While a counselor is ethically bound to work within a client's own value system, there are ways a counselor could entirely avoid clients who have opposing value systems.

Of course, the question in the OP is mainly whether the student has a legitimate right to deny the remediation program required by the University as necessary for her graduation from the program. In other words, the University has a course requirement that students are able to work with client's within their own value systems and the remediation program was meant to demonstrate that she could fulfill that course requirement, even if she chose after she graduated to never work with that client population again. She chose to sue rather than fulfill that course requirement on the grounds that she felt being required to suspend her own beliefs to provide services to clients was a violation of her religious expression.

So I ask again, does a public university have a right to enforce its course requirements?

 

[NiennaLadyOfTears]

They do within reason, but if something is clearly offensive to the values of a student I believe there should be some form of accommodation.

I can't tell you how many F's I got in classes at the local community college because the reading material that was assigned in some of the English classes was total smut and as such I wouldn't read it. And, of course, it was assigned AFTER the drop date. :/

I'm studying counseling myself, but at a Christian college. I do think that if a student wants to go one direction but knows that the secular colleges would make them do something that they are not comfortable with, they should choose a private college if they have any way to do so. However this isn't an option for all students, so I think that such a student should receive accommodations within reason. Obviously if they're really bashing the homosexuals instead of merely stating their opinion on the matter that is something different entirely, however if the person has intentions of using their degree in more of a Christian firm than anything else (and they state this) I think accommodations can and should be made.

 

[testing]

...I have read a book written by Dr. Nicolosi (head of NARTH) about how to keep your son from being gay, and most of the problem with the entire book's argument was that he acted like wanting to be a different sex/ being effeminate is the same thing as homosexuality. It's not. Some straight men are effeminate as boys. My grandad used to play with dolls, and he's straight. My friend was percieved as effeminate as a boy is a total stud and not gay.

Bit of a sidenote, and I don't want to derail this thread, sorry, I know this is about counseling...

But, this statement bolded above is very true. My 6-year-old son likes to play with Barbie dolls, with his older female friends, to whom he has already proposed marriage. (6 is a bit young to make the orientation call, but still...)

And my neice, who is an elite ballerina at 12, has some teenage male ballerina friends who are utterly graceful and effeminate, but straight -- and conveniently surrounded by gorgeous teenage dancers. So the whole situation works out pretty well for them ratio-wise, and I don't think they care for one millisecond that anyone thinks they are gay.

The lines are a bit more blurry than people would like to make them seem, and being too strict about gender roles can hurt a lot of people.

 

[Satya]

They do within reason, but if something is clearly offensive to the values of a student I believe there should be some form of accommodation.

I can't tell you how many F's I got in classes at the local community college because the reading material that was assigned in some of the English classes was total smut and as such I wouldn't read it. And, of course, it was assigned AFTER the drop date. :/

I'm studying counseling myself, but at a Christian college. I do think that if a student wants to go one direction but knows that the secular colleges would make them do something that they are not comfortable with, they should choose a private college if they have any way to do so. However this isn't an option for all students, so I think that such a student should receive accommodations within reason. Obviously if they're really bashing the homosexuals instead of merely stating their opinion on the matter that is something different entirely, however if the person has intentions of using their degree in more of a Christian firm than anything else (and they state this) I think accommodations can and should be made.

You are forgetting a major detail. A university counseling program needs to maintain its accreditation, which is largely why they incorporate the American Counseling Association's code of ethics as part of their curriculum. To make accommodations means to risk losing their accreditation. Furthermore, you are avoiding the meat of the discussion. Counseling, as a profession, requires an individual to be able to suspend their personal beliefs and to work within a client's value system for the duration of treatment. If a counselor cannot work in a nonjudgmental capacity with a client, then what are they doing being a counselor? Even assuming that they worked in a Christian firm, they would still probably encounter some clients with different value systems, and it is likely that they will not always be able to refer them to different counselors. For the purpose of maintaining accreditation and educating competent professionals, it is reasonable for a public university to expel a student from a counseling program when they can't satisfy one of the basic tenets of the profession.

 

[just me]

You are forgetting a major detail. A university counseling program needs to maintain its accreditation, which is largely why they incorporate the American Counseling Association's code of ethics as part of their curriculum. To make accommodations means to risk losing their accreditation. Furthermore, you are avoiding the meat of the discussion. Counseling, as a profession, requires an individual to be able to suspend their personal beliefs and to work within a client's value system for the duration of treatment. If a counselor cannot work in a nonjudgmental capacity with a client, then what are they doing being a counselor? Even assuming that they worked in a Christian firm, they would still probably encounter some clients with different value systems, and it is likely that they will not always be able to refer them to different counselors. For the purpose of maintaining accreditation and educating competent professionals, it is reasonable for a public university to expel a student from a counseling program when they can't satisfy one of the basic tenets of the profession.

You mean it is all about funding from the government that wishes to tell people how they must do things to receive their funds?

 

[Jack]

Should people, knowing that these professions have codes of ethics that may contradict their religious beliefs, choose schools which seek to enforce them?

Why not? They can follow the policy, but oppose it in the 'proper avenues' and try to create the change they want. I know plenty of teachers who do this already on a potpourri of issues not all as... loud as this one.

 

[just me]

Why not? They can follow the policy, but oppose it in the 'proper avenues' and try to create the change they want. I know plenty of teachers who do this already on a potpourri of issues not all as... loud as this one.

It is said to be easier to implement change from within.

 

[Satya]

You mean it is all about funding from the government that wishes to tell people how they must do things to receive their funds?

No. Do you not know what accreditation is?

Furthermore, our public university system is funded by individual states, not by the federal government.

 

[Satya]

Why not? They can follow the policy, but oppose it in the 'proper avenues' and try to create the change they want. I know plenty of teachers who do this already on a potpourri of issues not all as... loud as this one.

True. However, the change they need to make is in the scientific community, not with the professional ethics of Universities or the American Counseling Association. Universities and the ACA are simply trying to make their practice coincide with the scientific consensus, which is what they need to do in order to certify and license competent practitioners..The scientific community holds the consensus that homosexuality is not a character flaw or something that needs to be changed. Therefore, if religious individuals wish to argue that sexual orientation is some sort of disorder or identity confusion, then they are going to need to publish credible evidence which supports that view. If the evidence is credible, then the scientific community will be forced to concede the consensus that homosexuality is not a disorder/character flaw/etc, and the universities and American Counseling Association will follow by adjusting their policies.

In other words, the burden of proof lies on the religious individuals who wish to change the policies, and as of yet, they have failed to provide any sufficient, credible evidence to support their views.

 

[Satya]

@Jack: @justme: @Revenwyn:

I'm also curious, does requiring the following remediation plan actually force a Christian to give up their religious beliefs?

The plan calls on Ms. Keeton to attend workshops on serving diverse populations, read articles on counseling gay, lesbian, and bisexual and transgendered people, and write reports to an adviser summarizing what she has learned. It also instructs her to work to increase her exposure to, and interaction with, gay populations, and suggests that she attend the local gay-pride parade. Ms. Keeton has refused to comply.

As I see it, the college was requiring 4 things...

1. That she attend workshops on working with diverse populations.
2. That she read articles on counseling LGBT members.
3. That she write reports on her research of the LGBT community.
4. That she increase her exposure to the LGBT community.

Exactly which of those forces her to give up her religious beliefs?

 

[eidelweiss]

@Jack: @justme: @Revenwyn:

I'm also curious, does requiring the following remediation plan actually force a Christian to give up their religious beliefs?

As I see it, the college was requiring 4 things...

1. That she attend workshops on working with diverse populations.
2. That she read articles on counseling LGBT members.
3. That she write reports on her research of the LGBT community.
4. That she increase her exposure to the LGBT community.

Exactly which of those forces her to give up her religious beliefs?

Good point, Satya. No one was asking her to change her stance on the LGBT community; so it can't be a violation of her constitutional rights. She refused to comply with the university's remediation plan, and got suspended because of that.

So why should she sue for refusing to cooperate with the remediation plan? The university didn't just kick her out, they tried to work with her.

This kind of double-standard bigotry in many fundamentalist religions drives me nuts. Especially because I used to think the same way.

 

[Jack]

True. However, the change they need to make is in the scientific community, not with the professional ethics of Universities or the American Counseling Association. Universities and the ACA are simply trying to make their practice coincide with the scientific consensus, which is what they need to do in order to certify and license competent practitioners..The scientific community holds the consensus that homosexuality is not a character flaw or something that needs to be changed. Therefore, if religious individuals wish to argue that sexual orientation is some sort of disorder or identity confusion, then they are going to need to publish credible evidence which supports that view. If the evidence is credible, then the scientific community will be forced to concede the consensus that homosexuality is not a disorder/character flaw/etc, and the universities and American Counseling Association will follow by adjusting their policies.

In other words, the burden of proof lies on the religious individuals who wish to change the policies, and as of yet, they have failed to provide any sufficient, credible evidence to support their views.

The personal nature of this discussion, however, makes me think we are doing a disservice to the people in question by talking about them as mere sociological statistics.

That said, yes, and this would be one of the correct avenues. If they continue to fail to provide any evidence, then they should accept that the policy contradicts their beliefs, and that in their role they are speaking for the institution, and not for themselves. She can of course still believe as she does.

 

[Satya]

The personal nature of this discussion, however, makes me think we are doing a disservice to the people in question by talking about them as mere sociological statistics.

That said, yes, and this would be one of the correct avenues. If they continue to fail to provide any evidence, then they should accept that the policy contradicts their beliefs, and that in their role they are speaking for the institution, and not for themselves. She can of course still believe as she does.

Well dammit. Now what are we suppose to debate about?

Maybe justme will stir up some contention.

 

[just me]

I could quote a scripture or two, but that won't be necessary. After all, I like the waters to be calmed. I can reflect on life much better that way.

For you, Satya, give me time to relax and enjoy the calm tonight; tomorrow is a new day as the weekend nears. I hope you enjoy yours.

 

[just me]

The two prominent agencies in the United States in regards to licensing for therapy and counseling are the National Association of Social Workers and the American Counseling Association. When it comes to the issue of diversity these agencies have a clear code of ethics based upon the prevailing scientific evidence of the time.

However, an increasing number of cases of social work and counseling students who have religious beliefs which cause them to hold views of sexual orientation that oppose the scientific consensus are suing their universities on the grounds that their freedom of speech and religion are violated by being upheld to the codes of ethics of these professions.

Take for example the most recent case of a Georgia Graduate Student in a Counseling program, who argued that homosexuality is a result of "identity confusion" and a "personal choice" as opposed to the NASW's and ACA's view that it is innate. After allegedly attempting to persuade other students to her views and proclaiming interest in conversion therapies that are widely discredited by the scientific community, the University insisted that she take part in a remediation program. The program included sections to improve her writing skills, 3 workshops on diversity, a monthly meeting to discuss her research into LGBT groups, and increased exposure to members of the LGBT community including a suggestion that she attend Augusta's gay pride. She was informed that if she failed to complete the remediation then she would be dropped from the program. Through e-mails, the faculty encouraged her to accept other views as equally valid to her own and raised concerns that she would not be able to assist gay and lesbian clients as a counselor by choosing a view that was contrary to the ethical standards of the profession. She has chosen to sue the University on grounds that her freedom of speech and religion have been violated and that she is being forced to give up her Christian beliefs in order to stay in the program. She has yet to work with any clients, and as such, she argues there is no evidence that she cannot provide adequate care to members of the gay and lesbian community. At least 5 other cases such as hers have appeared in the last few years as a result of the clash between the code of ethics of counseling profession and religious beliefs held by those students.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/georgia-st...sensitivity-training/story?id=11261490&page=1

This of course leads to several interesting questions....

Should people, knowing that these professions have codes of ethics that may contradict their religious beliefs, choose schools which seek to enforce them?

Should these people be upheld to the professional standard that practice must follow evidence and as such, that the current evidence suggests that sexual orientation is not something that should be treated as a character flaw or disorder?

Should the standards of ethics be changed to incorporate competing religious views which are largely not based on peer reviewed evidence, but which are important to the individuals who hold them?

Does the Constitutional protections of individual speech and religion extend over that of organizational responsibility to provide competent and professional care in accordance with their own code of ethics?

Can an individual who holds the views that homosexuality is a sin, identity confusion, a personal choice/lifestyle, or something that needs to be changed; provide professional and competent care to members of the lesbian and gay community? Should such people be allowed to hold a counseling or social work license? Are such people obligated to refer clients of the lesbian and gay community to counselors who hold different views?

I have found you to do your homework. Turning the tables has been one of your favored tools in debating with others, which is in good taste many times over. There may be a few times when it may not be in the best interests, but people should at least be openminded enough to listen before they turn it off. Have to run. I will finish this as time permits. Sorry for copying all that, but wanted it in my face.

First of all, I do not agree with your first statement at all regarding "the prevailing scientific evidence of the time", as I see a "clear code of ethics" to be somewhat hazy at the very least based on such things. Ethics are based on science? When we deal with the human mente, are all things capable of being scientifically explained...properly? While they are somewhat diversified, they seem to me to be leaving out something and it is the clash of the titans. What exactly is the scientific consensus of sexual orientation that disproves the right of a person's own choice to believe otherwise? Why is that subject always related to religion when some feel the same way that are not religious? Mostly, when did this change and who changed it? How?

Years ago women did not vote. When they started smoking it was a big deal. How did that change? Did science prove it wrong for a woman to vote? Religion may have played a role in women's rights, as "there is no difference between the Greek and the Jew", etcetera.

What made it alright for blacks to use the same bathrooms and sit anywhere on the bus? Was it science? How did these things change?

I "clearly" see the mindset of the people changing over time, but moreso because people stood up against the way it was. That is not science. People stand up against things because of what they believe in. One person may be all it takes for others to join in. As change is ushered in, people have caused this change. Do not think this change is permanent, as death and taxes is what Joe Black said was unchangeable in his movie. I am openminded enough to realize it possible for that to even change one day.

Why is it so wrong for someone to take a stand for what they believe in? If the tables were turned and it was your lifestyle that was not allowed in the institutions, how would you approach it? I see no foul in what this person is doing. Just because something is accepted by an institution it does not make it right. Just because I do not believe the same way, it does not make me wrong, either. What is so difficult in understanding that? What would you do??

 

[just me]

More later. Sorry for the inconveniences.

 

[Satya]

Why is it so wrong for someone to take a stand for what they believe in?

Not wrong at all. She has a right to sue. She simply doesn't have a legitimate case because she chose the university and the program knowing the code of ethics, the course requirements, and the requirements of the profession.

As I said in my ealier example, a vegetarian who ardently believe in animal rights choosing to go to Butcher school makes about as much sense as her wanting to be a counselor.

If the tables were turned and it was your lifestyle that was not allowed in the institutions, how would you approach it?

I would approach it from the science. I wouldn't live the way I do if I wasn't certain that my behavior has no negative consequence on anyone else.

I see no foul in what this person is doing. Just because something is accepted by an institution it does not make it right.

Correct.

Just because I do not believe the same way, it does not make me wrong, either.

Wrong. No matter how much you believe the world is flat, it does not make it flat. No matter how right you believe it is to discriminate against black people, it does not make it right for you to discriminate against black people. And so forth.

What is so difficult in understanding that? What would you do??

I would do what I believed was right based on the best available evidence. That is all I ask of anyone else. That we discuss the evidence and base our beliefs on the evidence that is before us. If new evidence comes before us, then we discuss that and change our beliefs as necessary.

And for some strange reason, people like you don't like to do things that way.

 

[acd]

It seems backwards to me to expect special accomodations at a public university in regards to one's religious convictions or values..

Counselors are supposed to be counseling other people by being supportive and yet objective listeners. Guess what. You're not there to judge the patient.

If someone cannot competently counsel someone with differing values than their own, then they have no business being a counselor.. it's not the career for them....

 

[just me]

Satya, I agree with you mostly but my point missed its mark. I am usually quite a good shot, but words I miss with frequently.

You are wrong to say I am wrong if I see things differently than you. I do not discriminate against black people. I do not believe the world to be flat. I do believe ethics to be based on something more than just scientific data. I also believe you would be one to stand up against something readily if you believed yourself to be right. I know I would. You and I are not much different in that aspect. I simply cannot throw away my feelings and intuition that are part of me and have been with me throughout my life to help guide me through this world. The very type of person I am would not allow it. I simply do not base everything on scientific data. Some things I have learned to trust in this life more than other things; that is all. Those things have gained my trust in them.

I will try another way. People that have stood up for what they believe in are the ones responsible for the changes made regarding issues. Science does not implement change; people do. However, the fact people have implemented change should tell us they can still do so. It is the silent majority that sit back and watch this happen. People can change things that have been changed, too. However uncomfortable it was when the few stood up for change in the past and present, I expect it to be just as uncomfortable when new people stand up again.

The rules were changed and they can be changed again, as the rules are not so etched in stone. For example, the way people treated blacks was wrong. It took people to stand up against the way things were to implement change. It cost some people their lifes, but it was important enough to them to risk that. It was unfortunate but someone had to make a stand. The people of the day saw them as having no right to do so. The battle of the titans implemented change and better understanding, but was it based on science or was it based on people's beliefs?

acd, I see people counsel married couples that themselves have lived fantasy marriages and have never experienced the problems those needing counseling are facing all the time. Some counselors cannot understand how John and Mary could be having these problems and automatically think there is something wrong with them and they need fixing. How much better would someone that has gone through those same problems and worked them out be to help counsel them? They do not teach "Experience For Dummies" in class. Yet, those same people may be deemed unqualified to counsel because of their past. Counseling still has a lot to learn. Some counselors simply should not counsel certain problems, while they might be the best at others.

Enjoy your nights. I am off to the bed for some much-needed rest.