« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Truly Disturbing Attack on Freedom of Religion

By: ehud (Diary)  |  April 24th, 2009 at 01:11 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

I head about this case on the radio today and couldn’t find any news stories on it in Google News. This story should be headline news, and among other things it demonstrates why the right needs to develop our own online news outlets (like Huffington Post) and not just opinion outlets.

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/story.aspx?cid=4899

excerpts:

 DETROIT — Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund Center for Academic Freedom filed a lawsuit against Eastern Michigan University Thursday after school officials dismissed a student from the school’s counseling program for not affirming homosexual behavior as morally acceptable.  The school dismissed Julea Ward from the program because she would not agree prior to a counseling session to affirm a client’s homosexual behavior and would not retract her stance in subsequent disciplinary proceedings

…”When a public university has a prerequisite of affirming homosexual behavior as morally good in order to obtain a degree, the school is stepping over the legal line.  Julea did the responsible thing and followed her supervising professor’s advice to have the client referred to a counselor who did not have a conscience issue with the very matter to be discussed in counseling.  She would have gladly counseled the client if the subject had been nearly any other matter.”

…EMU initiated its disciplinary process against Ward and informed her that the only way she could stay in the graduate school counseling program would be if she agreed to undergo a “remediation” program.  Its purpose would be to help Ward “see the error of her ways” and change her “belief system” as it relates to counseling about homosexual relationships, conforming her beliefs to be consistent with the university’s views.  When Ward did not agree with the conditions, she was given the options of either voluntarily leaving the program or asking for a formal review hearing.Ward chose the hearing, during which EMU faculty denigrated her Christian views and asked several inappropriate and intrusive questions about her religious beliefs.  The hearing committee dismissed her from the counseling program on March 12.  Ward appealed the decision to the dean of the College of Education, who upheld the dismissal on March 26.

Tags: , , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • AceInTX
  • http://www.redstate.com/evanweeks/ EvanWeeks

    …blatantly dismissed a student from a higher education program on the basis of her religious beliefs? Hello, ACLU? Oh, wait… they’re too busy pushing for the release of photos of so-called “prison abuse” by Military and CIA personnel in a smear campaign against the same.

  • Amy Miller

    I took a lot of flack in undergrad about my faith in Christianity (and general conservative viewpoints), but this goes beyond any sort of situation where respectful discourse could take place.

    I really hope she doesn’t just lay down and take this. If it were me, there would be an administrator shaped HOLE IN THE WALL of the dean’s office. I’d have the ACLU, campus groups, my congressman, and Glenn Beck allllll over it!

  • TNJim

    Let’s just call it what it is…

    Brainwashing.

  • dsmurf

    that one.
    There really are better choices, God bless her for her stand.

  • Robin

    Studentactivism.net has an article about this case:

    Conservative commenters on the case generally argue that Ward, a Christian, was removed from the program because she refused to ?advocate for homosexual behavior? ? or, as National Review?s David French puts it, ?vocally support same-sex sexual conduct.?

    But Ward?s attorneys have posted various documents relating to her dismissal up online, and those documents tell a different story.
    …

    The disciplinary action that led to Ward?s expulsion was initiated after she asked to be reassigned off the case of a gay counseling client, and she was asked why she would feel comfortable counseling someone who was contemplating abortion, but not someone who was in a gay relationship. ?With abortion,? she said, ?you have options which you can offer. With a client that?s struggling with homosexuality ? it?s just, ?OK, this is who you are, so we?re only going to deal with helping you feel comfortable with who you are.? You cannot discuss any other treatment plans that would bring them out of that particular lifestyle.?

    Ward?s gloss on the her ethical obligations, as laid down by the American Counseling Association, is almost, but not quite, right.

    ACA-certified counselors are not prohibited from referring clients for so-called ?conversion? therapy ? therapy designed to help someone who is gay become straight. They are discouraged from making such referrals, however, and they may not offer such therapy themselves, since the ACA has concluded that ?research does not support [it] as an effective treatment modality.? In addition, they may not ? and this is crucial ? refer a client for such therapy in the absence of a client-initiated request for such a referral.

    …

    It is not true, as Ward?s lawsuit alleges, that either EMU or the ACA prohibit counselors ?from advising clients that they can refrain from homosexual conduct.? What the school and the association both say is that counselors may not offer such advice unless the client expresses a desire to make such a life change.

    EMU and the ACA do not, as Ward claims, ?affirm homosexual conduct.? They consider it morally and therapeutically neutral. It?s not worthy of praise, and it?s not a problem to be solved. It?s just a fact.

    Ward was expelled because she repudiates this fundamental therapeutic premise, and in so doing rejects a basic ethical tenet of the profession she wishes to practice.

    • DGaines

      disingenuous

      The ACA is a professional organization. It has nothing to do with accrediting graduate degrees. In short it is a way for liberal, pro-GL professors to impose their viewpoints on students while avoiding responsibility for those same viewpoints. This is a trick is performed by allowing someone else (the ACA in this case) to do the dirty work of defining and enforcing so called ?ethical? guidelines on prospective counselors. Academics are adept at using this method to harass and eliminate religious students and those who don?t willingly conform to the usual group think.

      The central issue here is that a public university, paid for by citizens like you and I, has chosen to discriminate against a prospective degree candidate based on that student?s religious belief. This is no different than a medical school deciding to deny someone a medical degree because they refuse to do abortions or a pharmaceutical program refusing to credential a student because they express reservations about dispensing RU-486. Just because EMU has chosen to do it by hiding in the ACA?s skirts doesn?t change the result.

      Furthermore the article you cite states that ?Ward was expelled because she repudiates this fundamental therapeutic premise?; said premise being the asserted ?fact? of homosexuality. The obvious implication from the writer is that homosexuality is a genetic condition as opposed to a choice and Miss Ward?s failure to treat a factual and unchangeable condition as determined by the opinion of the policy makers at the ACA is somehow a breach of ethical conduct. This makes me want to laugh.

      Finally you cite a left wing, pro-GL blog writer as support for your assertion that ?conservative? commentators have it all wrong. Again, I find you intellect and posts funny and sad, but mostly funny.

      Cya.

      • mbecker908

        If we could recommend comments, I would recommend yours.

      • studentactivism

        This dispute has nothing to do with whether homosexuality is genetic. It has everything to do with whether homosexuality is a psychological disorder — and no psychiatric, psychological, or therapeutic body believes that it is.

        If Ward had been an atheist student who announced her intention to counsel all Christian clients to abandon their faith, she would have been just as clearly in violation of the ACA code of ethics.

        It’s simply not a counselor’s place to offer that kind of intrusive “advice” when a client hasn’t requested it. If a person is happy to be gay, it’s not a counselor’s job to try to talk them into being straight.

        • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

          1) You’re saying that she was insisting on offering gay clients “conversion” therapy. The article says that it was her refusal to affirm homosexuality that was the flashpoint, that referral to another therapist was not acceptible, and that she had to change her beliefs about homosexuality as possession of said beliefs was disqualifying.

          2) Regarding your “atheist” student hypothetical, you positing an atheist who has an affirmative agenda to challenge and change the faith of her clients, which I see no evidence that the EMU student was on such a campaign.

          3) The dishonesty of the atheist analogy is that faith is a choice, not a inherent condition or “orientation”. When you equate faith and homsexuality in your analogy, you are claiming that the latter is also a belief or choice, not a fixed condition. You thus saw off the branch you’re sitting on.

          After all, counseling is about change, not merely affirmation of existing behavior.

          • studentactivism

            Civil, you need to go back and read the transcripts, not just the ADF argument. The phrase “affirm homosexuality” is not one that anyone in EMU used in any document that’s on the record — Ward and her lawyers came up with it.

            Ward declined to counsel gay clients about their homosexuality, yes. But the reason she proposed doing so wasn’t that she wasn’t comfortable talking with gay people — it was that she believed that she had a moral obligation to “to express the biblical viewpoint regarding proper sexual relationships” in the course of her work, and to counsel gay clients to “cultivate sexual desires for persons of the opposite sex.” In other words, she was going to encourage them to seek of conversion therapy, whether they requested it or not. That was the fundamental sticking point between her and the school.

            Regarding your point 3, I don’t see why you think I’m committed to the idea that sexuality is fixed. I’m not. I think that for some people it’s pretty much immutable, and for others it’s fluid. I don’t see that as undermining my broader arguments in any way.

            If you’re interested in reading the documents in question, I link to them from my post.

          • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

            1) Complaint: the press release does appear to accuately identifies key arguments by the plaintiff

            2) Copy of handbook: the basic framework, usual boilerplate – it’s the interpretation that’s key

            3) Transcript of Formal review hearing

            from page 64:

            With
            15 regard to Section A.4.b., her client expressed a goal of receiving assistance with a same sex
            16 relationship. And Ms. Ward imposed values inconsistent with this goal by refusing to see him
            17 due to her religious objections to the nature of the client?s relationship. With regard to C.5., Ms.
            18 Ward has demonstrated discriminatory behavior toward gay clients. Although Ms. Ward seems
            19 to have conceptualized this issue as being one only of religious values, I do not concur. Rather, I
            20 conceptualize this as discrimination. My reason, is that Ms. Ward specifically stated that there
            21 were no other issues that would prompt her to be unable to see a client due to religious reasons.
            22 In the informal review meeting, I offered examples, such as abortion, child abuse, murder. Ms.
            23 Ward identified herself as adhering to Christianity. Clearly, the Bible offers commandments
            Compl. Ex. 3 – 26
            Case 2:09-cv-11237-GCS-PJK Document 1-5 Filed 04/02/2009 Page 6 of 41
            6
            1 and/or prohibitions against killing, lying, stealing and many other behaviors the clients may talk
            2 about in counseling. The fact that Ms. Ward asserted that she could set aside her religious values
            3 in all of these instances but expressed a belief that she could not set aside her religious values in
            4 order to effectively counsel non-heterosexual clients constitutes discrimination. In other words,
            5 it is my professional opinion, that Ms. Ward is selectively using her religious beliefs in order to
            6 rationalize her discrimination against one group of people. You?ll see in my recommendation
            7 that because Ms. Ward firmly indicated that she is unwillingly to reconsider her willingness to
            8 counsel gay clients about relationship issues and because such behavior violates ACA?s code of
            9 ethics, it?s my recommendation that Ms. Ward be dismissed from the counseling program.

            The first charge is Orwellian: Ms. Ward specifically asked for client referral so that she would not be in a position of being accused of “imposing her values on the client”. Instead, her supervisor uses that withdrawal as constituting “imposition”. 1) Only in an Orwellian world is withdrawal viewed as aggression; 2) Ms. Ward was thus being put into a no-win situation; to withdrawal was imposition, but to counsel and not affirm would have been viewed as imposition. Thus, as the complaint charges, the instructor was imposing her

            The second charge is imposition of the instructor’s interpretation of religious doctrine on the defendent; because the instructor disagreed with Ms. Ward’s boundaries, she concluded that the defendent was engaging in unlawful discrimination because she disagreed with the student’s explanation. But here, she has shifted the burden of proof to the student to prove non-discrimination to the instructor satisfaction.

            Reading the rest of the transcript, I see an effort by the faculty to trap her into a compromising statement, a challenge as to why she would seek a degree if she disagreed with the department about the acceptibility of homosexual behavior, thorough interrogation of her religious convictions – the entire tone and lack of control of the questioners demostrated the hearing was an inquisition and endeavor to impose a religious test on Ms. Ward.

            **The conversion therapy came at the tail-end of a lengthy hearing and by no stretch of the imagation was the fundamental sticking point during this creating of the record. And the faculty was very legalistic in its presentations to her – and were playing “gotcha” with a student on the status of the ACA regarding conversion therapy. Here understanding was A; the faculty claimed B and then used that to “prove” unethical behavior.

            This was not a fair hearing; this was the hearing officials acting as prosecutors without affording her defense counsel.**

            My reading is that the ADF is correct.

            Again, the student began by trying to prevent conflict with the client and the program and instead was punished because the department views itself as an advocate for approving gay lifestyles and used it’s power to proscribe a student hold a traditional Christian view. In other words, the department defined her beliefs as discrimination and then expelled her on the basis that she had violated the department standards – that is they begged the questions, rigged the game, twisted language.

          • studentactivism

            Read Ward’s own statements. It’s her letter I’m quoting above. She said she had a moral obligation to ?to express the biblical viewpoint regarding proper sexual relationships? in counseling, and that for her that meant urging gay clients to ?cultivate sexual desires for persons of the opposite sex.?

            The ACA guidelines are really clear — you can’t suggest conversion therapy unless a client requests it. Ward said in her letter to EMU that she believed she was morally obligated to propose such therapy to gay clients, and she confirmed that position in the hearing.

            Were some of the questions at the hearing out of line? Absolutely. I cringe at some of the stuff that was said there. But that’s beside the point. Ward, by her own admission, believes she has a moral obligation to violate the ACA code of ethics, which EMU’s counseling program requires students to adhere to. They had no other choice.

            Your question about due process is an interesting one. You may be right that she should have been granted representation. If I get the chance, I’ll look over the materials again. But on the substance of the issue at hand, Ward explicitly admitted what she was accused of, so the question was a clear one.

          • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

            Something that struck me after my previous comment.

            The hearing should have been postponed at the outset when Callahan stated that she had not received Ms. Ward’s letter to her that was read into the record.

            What this means is that Callahan was pursuing charges without reading Ward’s defense. I’m surprised the complaint didin’t address that (unless I missed that reference in the particulars)

          • studentactivism

            The ADF doesn’t seem to be pursuing a due-process argument, and so I didn’t look closely at those questions when I was researching the case. You may have a point there.

          • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

            1) The statement I think you’re referring to is this:

            As to my religious ideologies, I am a Christian and rely on the Bible as the source of my
            15 beliefs. The Bible teaches that God ordained sexual relationships between men and women and
            16 not between persons of the same sex. On several occasions, uh, in the Bible, homosexual
            17 conduct is described as immoral sexual behavior. The Bible also teaches that God created
            18 humans male and female, with a natural sexual desire for persons of the opposite sex. While
            19 people may struggle with homosexual inclinations and behavior, I believe (and the Bible teaches)
            20 that people should strive to cultivate sexual desires for persons of the opposite sex. I am morally
            21 obligated to adhere to these fundamental teachings of the Christian faith and to express the
            22 biblical viewpoint regarding proper sexual relationships. It would be a violation of my religious
            23 beliefs to be required to affirm or validate homosexual conduct.

            Yes she is skating close to the line but I don’t see a clear crossing.

            Yes, she said that she believes that that people should strive to cultivate sexual desires for persons of the opposite sex. And she would defend and explain the Biblical position. However, it is inference that she felt morally obligated to propose conversion therapy to her clients. I see a nuance and a reflection of the touchiness of the situation, which is why she sought to avoid being put into such a difficult position.

            Also, what the explicit exchange about conversion therapy at the end of the hearing made clear was that she was not aware that the ACA had promulgated guidelines on the issue (assuming the faculty is correct on the facts) – and the faculty jumped on her confusion as prima facie evidence of unethical behavior. That’s what I call legalistic “gotcha”. I don’t see her being given any space to reflect and reconsider her position on initiating discussion of conversion therapy.

            And again, she doesn’t affirm in her various letters a right to intiate discussion of conversion therapy in therapy sessions. So I see this as a red herring to justify after the fact a discriminatory action on the part of the instructor.

          • studentactivism

            I’d have to go back and look at everything again to quote chapter and verse (as it were).

            Even in the bit you quoted, though, I think her position is clear. She says she’s “morally obligated … to express the biblical viewpoint regarding proper sexual relationships,” which she describes as defining homosexuality as immoral and mandating “that people … strive to cultivate sexual desires for persons of the opposite sex.”

            I think that puts her explicitly at odds with the ACA. I don’t think there’s any room to dispute that.

        • monk

          Let’s state one thing clearly: It’s a logical fallacy to say that something is true because it’s popular.

          I’m sick of the left using ‘scientific consensus’ to push their agenda, whether it be homosexuality, global warrming, etc.

          We all know academia is dominates by liberals and athiests who have no qualms about using their power to push an agenda, and we all know that universities are some of the most PC places in America.

          Just because no society of academics no longer believes homosexuality is a disorder doesn’t mean that’s true and that differing opinions aren’t valid.

          • studentactivism

            That’s a legitimate argument.

            But the fact is that the ACA is a professional credentialling body, and they’ve made the decision that according to their best judgment, homosexuality isn’t a disorder. If you’re going to be a member of the ACA, you have to follow their code of ethics, just as you do if you’re a member of any professional organization, and their code of ethics is clear on this point.

            You can be a counselor without being ACA-certified. You can be a counselor without having a degree in counseling. Neither the ACA nor EMU is telling Julea Ward that she can’t be a counselor. They’re just telling her that if she’s not willing to abide by the ethical and professional guidelines of EMU’s counseling school and the ACA, those bodies aren’t going to certify her to go out in the world of counseling with their stamp of approval.

            How is that illegitimate?

          • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

            She called it a choice, and the faculty said disparagingly “Can you help them explore the option? I mean, again, I don?t ?
            9 homosexuality, I think it?s pretty well established is not a choice, but you see it as a choice.”

            Basically there was putting words in her mouth, that her refusal to affirm homosexual behavior by her clients represented her calling it a disorder.

            Are you saying that the ACA demands as part of its code of ethics that counselors view homosexual behavior as not representing a choice?

            No what was going on with Ms. Ward was a legalistic parsing of her beliefs into some fundamental violation of professional standards incompatible with being a counselor.

            This is called straining a gnat.

          • studentactivism

            As I said above, I though some of the questions asked in the hearing were wrong-headed. The hearing wasn’t conducted the way I would have conducted it, not by a long shot, and as a supporter of students’ rights, I think Ward has a legitimate grievance there.

            I do think, though, that they reached the right result. Ward said she couldn’t treat gay clients as the ACA code requires her to, and asked that she be excused from seeing any gay clients as a way of resolving that problem. I agree with the school that that’s not a legitimate response to the ACA code.

          • Aaron Gardner
          • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

            The complaint is that her refusal to see the client was based on the school policy and the case report that she would have to affirm the client’s homosexual behavior.

            She did not at that time state her intention to promote conversion therapy. Nor did I see a clear statement that she would violate the ACA guidelines, which refer to the need for the client to initiate discussion on the topic. There’s a lot of parsing going on about what she may have meant about discussing a range of choices or to what extent she would advise the client to cultivate sexual desire for the opposite sex – whether this is something she would feel compelled to initiate, or whether she defend the Biblical position in response to the client’s inquiry if it the topic came up in the session.

            In other words, I don’t see on the record where the faculty clearly stated the ACA standard for the records and then asked if she was willing to abide by it, listing this as their ground for disciplining her. Rather they inferred violation from a peripheral discussion. This suggests pretext rather than a substantive violation.

            I don’t see where “Ward said she couldn?t treat gay clients as the ACA code requires her to” as you phrased it.

            Rather she couldn’t abide by the department’s more stringent demands regarding her attitude towards homosexuality, more stringent than what the ACA requires, at least in terms of what I’ve read.

        • DGaines

          It is more than most would do.

          In regards to your specific comments: This dispute is not about whether or not homosexuality is a psychological disorder. It is accepted that the ACA, the APA and others believe it is not while Miss Ward believes it is. The central question revolves around the practice and criteria EMU has chosen to credential a counselor for state licensure. The belief of the ACA or anyone else about the normality of homosexuality is a secondary issue.

          As for the illustration you use with Atheists and Christians it is a irrelevant appeal as the legal documents from your site clearly demonstrate that she was not asking for permission to counsel gay clients to give up their homosexuality but rather to refer them to someone she thought might better serve their particular needs. It appears self evident from the legal documents that referral was and is a practice accepted by both EMU and the ACA in certain circumstances.

          Finally your comments on the job of the counselor are again based on a particular definition of “instrusive”. In many regards all advice that suggests you make life changes is “intrusive” It comes down to who defines what kind of “intrusive” counseling is acceptable and which is not.

          Thanks

          • studentactivism

            On your first point, EMU’s counseling program student handbook requires that students adhere to the ACA code of ethics. So for the purposes of this discussion, ACA’s policies are EMU’s.

            On the second, I’ve looked at all the documents presented, and I don’t see anything in them that endorses a blanket policy of pre-emptive referral for gay and lesbian clients, or for any other category of person. Such a policy seems to me to be powerfully at odds with the understanding of referral that these counselors operate from, as I noted in my post.

            On the third point, I agree. And it’s clear that in some circumstances, counselors may suggest certain life changes. But it’s also clear that the ACA considers it ethically improper for a counselor to urge a gay client to renounce homosexuality. And it seems pretty clear that that’s what Ward intended to do.

          • DGaines

            You are correct about EMU and ACA but it is irrelevant to the argument. Let me summarize this lawsuit.

            First Ms. Ward asserts that the ACA code of ethics is open to interpretation in a number of areas and the EMU Faculty Committee has arrived and an incorrect interpretation which has caused her irreparable harm and violated her first amendment rights to act and work based upon her religious values. It is her assertion that she is not in violation of the ACA code.

            By way of demonstration Ms. Ward asserts that the EMU Faculty interpretation of the ACA code of ethics conflicts with both the Code itself and with the EMU curriculum. The Faculty interpretation is essentially that there is no right to morally based referral. However the ACA Code specifies such a right with regard to End of Life issues and does not specifically restrict the use of the same reasoning in regards to other potential moral conflicts.

            Additionally the Faculty interpretation is that her desire to avoid counseling situations where her moral values conflict with the required outcome of the counseling session is in some way discriminatory or does harm to the client and by doing either is a violation of the ACA Code. Ms. Ward and her attorneys reject this interpretation of the Code. Furthermore Ms. Ward asserts that the EMU curriculum conflicts with the Faculty Committee?s interpretation of the ACA Code. (This is demonstrated on pg 22. see 124-129)

            Thus the suit asserts that the EMU Faculty Committee has used a private interpretation of the ACA Code of Ethics to take an overbroad action that has resulted in irreparable harm to Ms. Ward. Furthermore it asserts that the EMU Faculty Committee is using said private interpretation of the ACA Code of Ethics to restrict students with particular religious values from being granted degrees by the counseling program.

            As I say in both my posts this has nothing to do with the ACA?s statement that homosexuality is a neutral and everything to do with the EMU Faculty Committee?s choice to take action. The ACA Code is just a cover.

          • studentactivism

            My position is twofold, when it comes down to it. First, the EMU faculty handled this situation poorly. And second, Ward is in pretty clear violation of ACA ethics rules.

            Ward’s statements about how she would counsel someone about a gay relationship are in clear violation of ACA rules, so there’s really no way she could enter into such a counseling relationship. And given that, she’s got no choice but to refuse to counsel any gay or lesbian client in any situation in which their homosexuality might potentially become an issue in therapy, which is obvious (to me) discrimination.

          • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

            I found a PDF at the ACA website. I don’t see the word gay, lesbian, homosexual (and similar) – nor anything about conversion therapy.

            The only possibly applicable section was a general prohibition of discrimination:

            C.5. Nondiscrimination
            Counselors do not condone or engage
            in discrimination based on age, culture,
            disability, ethnicity, race, religion/
            spirituality, gender, gender identity,
            sexual orientation, marital status/
            partnership, language preference,
            socioeconomic status, or any basis proscribed
            by law. Counselors do not discriminate
            against clients, students, employees,
            supervisees, or research participants
            in a manner that has a negative
            impact on these persons.

          • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

            This is rather vague and the first sentence conforms to standard legal language of identifying protected groups. The second sentence appeals to discriminating “in a manner that has a negative impact on these persons”.

            Where is the “red-line” violation that left no choice but to expel her? I don’t see it in the Code of Ethics.

            Or is it that her instructor has an advocacy stand and using her position of power as a club.

            Look, if you’ve been following student-faculty cases, you know how intolerant these departments can be of dissent – be it conservative students, liberal students, untenured faculty. And you know that once the department acts, then all the resources of the department become devoted to hunkering down and proving the case – and that almost always the administration will back up the department (unless politically pushed otherwise). This circling the wagons is instinctual.

            And this case follows the pattern.

          • DGaines

            is not in the Ethics Code, it is in an published statement by the ACA in which they “apply” ‘the ethics code to the issue of conversion therapy for gay and lesbian clients.

            It is available on their website by searching for homosexual and was written in 2005.

          • DGaines

            poorly; although I would use probaly use a word like Incompetently instead.

            Second, it is only your opinion that Ward is in violation of ACA ethics rules. As I point out, the lawsuit disputes that perspective and a jury will be asked to decide.

            What seems obvious to you is not obvious to others, thus this discussion and the lawsuit as well. Fundamentally the EMU Faculty has required her to modify her behavior contrary to her religious beliefs in order to obtain a counseling credential at a public university. How does this not violate her 1st ammendment rights? As I mention, the ACA is just a cover and is in dispute regardless.

  • papalee

    In the late fifties the daughter of a friend of mine who engaged in such an argument with a professor at very famous female college was drugged against her will to a point where it almost killed her. After her parents got her home and she recovered, they sued and got a settlement from the college with a gag order against discussing it.

    But this is the reason that i believe that one party schools and even one party departments are about brainwashing and not education.

  • 6eorge Jetson

    As offensive as it may be, it’s necessary to remind ourselves of the mindset and motives of those on the far left.

  • JadedByPolitics

    ,,,

  • blueray

    If Gay Marriage is legal then the state/judiciary will go all out attacking anyone who disagrees with them and they’ll justify it by pointing to the law.

    If the left will go this far now, imagine what they would do with the law behind them. Parents and churches better watch out!!!