Anti-gay EMU student receives support from Michigan AG

Status
Not open for further replies.

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
http://www.freep.com/article/201103...ainst-homosexuality-violated?odyssey=nav|head

Attorney General Bill Schuette has waded into a closely watched federal appeals case, siding with an Eastern Michigan University student who claims her dismissal from the university for refusing to counsel gay and lesbian patients violated her religious belief against homosexuality.

Schuette is the latest entrant in a case that has drawn conservative and religious groups, public universities and civil liberties organizations.

"This case really is at the intersection of a lot of values," said Christopher Lund, an assistant law professor at Wayne State University who specializes in religious liberty issues.

"There's gay rights versus religious liberty and the rights of individuals versus the rights of the universities to set curriculum. Whenever all those cross, you've got a lot of people and organizations that are interested."

The suit also shows Schuette's willingness to weigh in on social issues.

"This case signals he will act on questions of constitutionality, such as the case of President Obama's health care law," said AG spokesman John Sellek. "This case is also a constitutional issue, where no one should lose their religious freedoms as they work to get an education."

Eastern Michigan University discriminated against former student Julea Ward when it dismissed her from its counseling program after she said her Christian beliefs prohibited her from counseling a gay client, Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette said in a court filing.

That's not the case at all, EMU said. Ward was dismissed because her refusal to counsel the patient didn't follow the assigned curriculum and professional ethics guidelines set up the American Counseling Association, the school said.

EMU's position has been upheld by a federal judge. Now Ward, with briefs of support from Schuette and a number of religious rights organizations, has appealed that ruling. Oral arguments are expected to begin later this year.

It's a case that's being closely watched, not only by religious organizations, but by other universities. Nine Michigan public universities have filed a brief supporting EMU, saying the case is about who controls curriculum -- the university or the students.

It was written by Debra Kowich of U-M's general counsel office, who wrote that a ruling for Ward "could require universities to dilute their curricular requirements to the point that they would not possibly offend any student of any faith" or political view.

But that's not how Ward sees it. She and her attorneys at the Alliance Defense Fund say the case is about religious discrimination.

Ward sued the university after it dismissed her from its graduate counseling program in 2009 after she refused to work on a gay client's relationship issues in a clinical program. She said she believes homosexuality is immoral and being gay or lesbian is a choice and thus she could not in good conscience counsel the client.

EMU said it dismissed her because she didn't follow a code of ethics that requires counselors to set aside their own personal beliefs in order to work with clients.

Judge George Steeh of the U.S. District Court in Detroit ruled for EMU last July, saying the school was within its rights to dismiss Ward for failing to follow its curriculum. The judge wrote that Ward "has distorted the facts in this case to support her position that defendants dismissed her due to her religious beliefs."

Ward and her attorneys, a legal group that works to uphold the rights of religious college students and faculty, have asked the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals to step in. They did not return calls seeking comment on Monday.

But in their legal brief for Ward, the lawyers wrote that "EMU violated Ms. Ward's right to the free exercise of religion by acting as arbiters of her religious beliefs."

Schuette agrees with them.

"There is a striking difference between EMU's written standards and EMU's application of those rules to Julea Ward," the brief by Schuette's office said. "Indeed, the evidence suggests that Ward was punished and ultimately dismissed from the program solely for her attempt to exercise disfavored religious beliefs, not for a violation of the code.

The attorney general's brief, filed Friday, also suggests political correctness was at work, suggesting "that EMU 'weeded out' Ward solely because of her religious views to ensure that only candidates with the 'right' beliefs are admitted to the counseling profession."

A number of gay rights groups have weighed in as well, including a brief filed jointly by the Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays; Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, Affirmations and the Ruth Ellis Center in support of EMU, which says counselors, especially school counselors (which Ward wanted to be), must be supportive of students, whatever their own views.

"A school counselor who is unwilling to assist such students, or worse, a counselor who expresses disapproval of a student's status as LGBT -- is both incapable of doing her job and likely to cause significant harm," the groups' brief said.

EMU says the case is about its curriculum, and nothing else. "This case has never been about religion or religious discrimination," EMU spokesman Walter Kraft said in a statement last week. "It is not about homosexuality or sexual orientation. This case is about what is in the best interest of a client who is in need of counseling, and following the curricular requirements of our highly respected and nationally accredited counseling program."

Seems like a pretty clear case of a problem with the student refusing to accept the university's curriculum/ethics requirements. The student obviously has a right to object to it, but the university is under no particular obligation to change its curriculum or keep someone in the program simply because a student has a problem following it.

Counselors are supposed to be objective. If she can't be objective, she can't be a good counselor... especially for a public school which, according to the article, is likely her desired profession.
 

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,270
103
106
I agree with EMU's stance on this. If the student has an issue with the requirements for that course, then the student can always get an education at an institution that is more agreeable to that students needs.

However, there's one part of this that does bother me:
"There is a striking difference between EMU's written standards and EMU's application of those rules to Julea Ward," the brief by Schuette's office said. "Indeed, the evidence suggests that Ward was punished and ultimately dismissed from the program solely for her attempt to exercise disfavored religious beliefs, not for a violation of the code.

The attorney general's brief, filed Friday, also suggests political correctness was at work, suggesting "that EMU 'weeded out' Ward solely because of her religious views to ensure that only candidates with the 'right' beliefs are admitted to the counseling profession."
I don't know what evidence they have of this supposed weeding out, but if it turns out that the department or the school singled her out or treated her differently because of the religion (rather than a simple violation of the code etc), there should be hell to pay.

Having spent a LOT of time at universities getting my degrees, I've seen plenty of this political correctness gone crazy things. If you are in the 'disfavored' categories at most liberal universities, you're in for a rough ride.

Also, the title "anti-gay student" is bull, and I have no problem with the AG's stance, provided he continues to enforce the law of the state as is.
 
Last edited:

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
11,112
1,587
126
So does she also refuse to council students who've had premarital sex or atheist students? What about people who work on the sabbath? Is she unwilling to work on the sabbath? What about someone who has tattoos, shaves their head, or wears a shirt that is 50% cotton 50% polyester as all three of those are forbidden by Leviticus.

This girl is full of shit. This isn't about religious beliefs even. It's about her narrowminded views that she wants to claim are because of her religion and her unwillingness to do the curriculum expected of her.
 

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,270
103
106
So does she also refuse to council students who've had premarital sex or atheist students? What about people who work on the sabbath? Is she unwilling to work on the sabbath? What about someone who has tattoos, shaves their head, or wears a shirt that is 50% cotton 50% polyester as all three of those are forbidden by Leviticus.

What do you know about her religion and what it's teachings are? How do you know leviticus is a part of her religion, and how its interpreted?

This girl is full of shit. This isn't about religious beliefs even. It's about her narrowminded views that she wants to claim are because of her religion and her unwillingness to do the curriculum expected of her.

She could very well be full of crap, but your assumptions paint you as the narrow minded one.
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,839
2,625
136
Doubletrouble: The part you quoted in post #2 doesn't worry me at all because it is completely devoid of any factual evidence to back it up. It's just a bunch of platitudes and generealities alleged AFTER the case has already been tried. If there was something to back up those arguments the facts should have been cited in the brief.

Neat trick by the state attorney general opposing a state institution in court. I guess loyalty to his political future is more important than loyalty to the people who pay his current paycheck.
 

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,270
103
106
Doubletrouble: The part you quoted in post #2 doesn't worry me at all because it is completely devoid of any factual evidence to back it up. It's just a bunch of platitudes and generealities alleged AFTER the case has already been tried. If there was something to back up those arguments the facts should have been cited in the brief.

Good point, that makes sense. Something like that would bother me if it happened, but I haven't seen any evidence that it has, and apparently none (or not sufficient evidence) was presented at trial.

Neat trick by the state attorney general opposing a state institution in court. I guess loyalty to his political future is more important than loyalty to the people who pay his current paycheck.

The AG doesn't have to defend a state institution. He doesn't have any particular loyalty to a state institution, his job is to uphold the laws of the state, regardless of what "side" that puts him on in a case.
 

wuliheron

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2011
3,536
0
0
Surprise! The mental health profession tends to attract a lot of nuts. I prefer cashews myself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.