Another Front in the Culture Wars: Federal Court Says Christian Grad Student Must Comply with Sexual Orientation Anti-Discrimination Policy

Responding on a new front in the anti-gay culture wars, a federal judge in Michigan ruled on July 26 that a public university’s graduate program in counseling did not violate the constitutional rights of a "Christian" student who was dropped from the program when she categorically refused to provide counseling to gay clients. The Alliance Defense Fund, which brought the case as part of its new anti-gay offensive seeking to create exceptions to sexual orientation discrimination policies for religious objectors, will appeal the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6^th Circuit.  Ward v. Wilbanks, No. 09-CV-11237 (E.D. Mich.).

Julea Ward was admitted to Eastern Michigan University’s graduate program in counseling in 2006, seeking a degree that would enable her to work as a high school counselor. The program includes class work and a Practicum course, in which faculty supervise graduate students in counseling actual clients. The curriculum requires that all students comply with the American Counseling Association’s Code of Ethics and the American School Counselor Assocation’s Ethical Standards for School Counselors. Both of these ethical codes forbid discrimination based on sexual orientation. The accreditation rules for graduate counseling programs require that these ethical codes be incorporated into the program.

During her class work, Ward submitted various written papers pointing out that she could not personally condone homosexuality and that standard texts suggest that counselors who have personal problems dealing with particular topics or clients might seek to refer clients to other counselors. She earned A’s in her courses, but when it came to the Practicum, she ran into the problem of being presented with a gay client, and immediately requested that the client be referred to somebody else, because her religious beliefs prevented her from "condoning" homosexuality in any way, and the gay individual was seeking counseling for depression due to problems in his gay relationship.

The faculty became concerned that Ward could not meet the program’s requirements of separating her personal views from the needs of her clients, and was seeking not to avoid a particular problem client but rather to exclude an entire class of clients covered by the ethical non-discrimination policy. When she proved adamant on the point, and refused referral to a "remediation program" to help her overcome her hesitancy to provide non-discriminatory service, she was dismissed from the program.

Ward brought her case to Alliance Defense Fund, which has brought or announced that it will bring similar cases around the country on behalf of individuals with religious objections to providing service to gay people. ADF’s complaint on Ward’s behalf charges the school with violating her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to religious freedom and equal protection of the laws. They claim that she is being singled out and persecuted for her religious beliefs, and that professional norms allow counselors to refer clients when the counselors are unable to provide appropriate service.

District Judge George Caram Steeh was not sympathetic to Ward, finding that the University has established curricular requirements needed to meet accreditation standards, and that courts have traditionally deferred to educational institutions on such curricular matters as long as the school’s rules are non-discriminatory in the sense that they apply to everyone and are not intended to discriminate on the basis of religion.

"Counseling, by its very nature, relies on a uniquely personal and intimate relationship between the counselor and client to assist in delivering the objectives sought by the client," he wrote. "Educating counselors to provide such services is clearly within the expertise of the universities that provide such programs. Plaintiff was taught the Code of Ethics in class, and cannot claim that she was unaware of its requirements. Her papers demonstrate she struggled with the issue of referral due to value conflicts, particularly when the value conflicts were due to her religious beliefs. She knew the University’s curricular goal of teaching students to counsel without imposing their personal values on their clients by setting up boundaries so as not to be judgmental."

In other words, in counseling, it’s all about the client, not the counselor, and the counselor is expected to set aside any personal agenda in helping the client deal with the client’s issues. Ward was unable to do that with an entire category of clients, defined by a characteristic specified in the ethical code - sexual orientation- and the court was unwilling to compel the University to allow her to complete the program without having acquired that essential skill of a professional counselor.

"The classroom is where it is appropriate for students to debate and challenge issues they find difficult," Judge Steeh continued. "Once in Practicum, students must learn, take direction, and demonstrate skills, which is impossible if they refuse to participate. The Policy in this case is part of the University’s curriculum; it is not a speech code and it does not violate the Due Process Clause of the Constitution."

Finding that the University had a rational basis for incorporating the professional ethical codes in its program and "requiring its students to counsel clients without imposing their personal values," Steeh observed, "In the case of Ms. Ward, the University determined that she would never change her behavior and would consistently refuse to counsel clients on matters with which she was personally opposed due to her religious beliefs - including homosexual relationships. The University offered Ms. Ward the opportunity for a remediation plan, which she rejected. Her refusal to attempt learning to counsel all clients within their own value systems is a failure to complete an academic requirement of the program."

As such, Steeh found no violation of Ward’s First Amendment speech or religious freedom rights. She was free to believe what she wanted, but if she wanted to complete a program to receive certification to be a high school counselor, she had to be able to deal with the wide range of students who would seek her services. The court found that this requirement was not aimed at any religion, was facially neutral, and was justified by the University’s legitimate pedagogical judgments.  Neither the free exercise clause nor the establishment clause was offended by this requirement.

This case is reminiscent of the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in the Christian Legal Society case, where the Alliance Defense Fund was arguing that its client was entitled to an exemption from the Law School’s non-discrimination policy as a matter of free exercise of religion. The majority of the Supreme Court rejected that claim, finding that the Law School could require that student groups seeking formal recognition and university benefits be open to "all comers" in their membership. In this case, Judge Steeh finds the equivalent – that the University can require that students attain the skills to provide counseling to "all comers" (although that term isn’t used in the opinion) and may not demand to be certified as counselors when they will insist on referring away all clients from a particular protected class under the profession’s ethical code as incorporated in the curriculum.

Comments

[John]

I understood the anti-discrimination policy was not leading in this case. I thought it the professional ethics code and the academic requirement for graduating not being followed were. In the light of this, isn't the title of this post a little of?

[Art Leonard]

No, the title is accurate. The ethical code and professional requirements of the curriculum incorporate a policy of non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. It is clear from the opinion that the student's expressed intent to decline to provide services to clients based on their sexual orientation is at the heart of the case. Her theory is that requiring her not to discriminate based on sexual orientation in providing services to clients violates her 1st and 14th Amendment rights. So it is all about the non-discrimination policy as it interrelates to her religious freedom claim.

[Marlene]

The religious reicht and their legal arm the ADF has been trying for years to get *special rights* for fundie "Christians"!

Thankfully, the judicial system (even the right-leaning Supreme court!) have vociferously rejected the bigot's claims!

The ADF, the masochists that they are, have taken up another religious bigot's cause of forcing her religious-based bigotry on a state school, this time at Augusta State University.

This student's in their graduate counseling program, and has said that homosexuals and transsexuals are "confused", and advocates using the fully discredited "reparative therapy" to "cure" LGBT people!

[Art Leonard]

Another federal district judge has ruled in a "copy-cat" case: Keeton v. Anderson-Wiley, CV 110-099 (S.D.Ga., Aug. 20, 2010). District Judge J. Randal Hall denied a motion for preliminary relief sought by a "Christian" grad student who is being required to complete a "remediation program" if she wants to continue in the graduate counseling degree program at Augusta State. This student allegedly told other students that she would try to steer LGBT clients into reparative therapy to cure their homosexuality, due to her religiously-based beliefs about the immorality of homosexuality. There's much more in the opinion along these lines. Judge Hall cites and relies upon Judge Steeh's reasoning in denying the injunction.

[Graduate Dissertation]

Thank you for sharing this information. The information was very helpful and saved a lot of my time.