Ms. Julea Ward
Julea Ward has become, sadly, a whipping girl for the American Counseling Association. And because it is so easy and intellectually unchallenging to do so, demeaning her publicly has become something of a cause célèbre for the faculty in many counselor education programs. I say “easy” and “intellectually unchallenging,” because I believe that few of those educators have taken the time to read the opinion of the Sixth District Court which ultimately remanded the case for further consideration. Had they done so – that is, had the faculty taken the time – I doubt that they would be so quick to demonize Ms. Ward.
Let me begin by explaining the case.
Julea Ward was a Master’s student in counseling at Eastern Michigan University (EMU) over a period three years in the 2006-2009-time frame. As with all accredited Master’s programs in counseling, EMU’s required Ward to enter what we call a practicum class, during which she would see real life clients as a counselor-in-training. I went through similar practicum training and I must tell you it was among the highlights of my program. The chance to help people while receiving real-time training and feedback is an honor unlike any other.
Of note are EMU’s policies and procedures for Master’s students to follow as they progress in their program. Fairly standard, boilerplate-type stuff, the policies are full of what you might expect; things like professionalism, attendance, good grades, graduate student decorum, etc. Mine was no different. However, EMU had an interesting requirement that I do not recall from my program, that of requiring its students to “affirm” a client’s values during counseling sessions.
Ms. Ward had repeatedly told her professors that she could not and would not “affirm” a client’s same-sex relationship. She had similar reservations about “affirming” conduct such as extra-marital relationships. She made it clear, repeatedly, that her faith (Christianity) prevented her from doing so. Moreover, she made it clear that she would never “affirm” problematic behaviors such as drug use, suicidal behavior, murder … etc.
Mr. Ward also said that she would be more than happy (indeed, honored) to help anyone with their struggles in life up to but not ever including affirming behavior that she felt violated her beliefs. This is critical. To my mind, it changes everything we have been “taught” (read: had rammed down our throats) about the essence of Ward v. Wilbanks.
Anyway, and as you might imagine, her stance and her overt allegiance to her faith did not sit well with her “educators.” Nevertheless, her stated convictions did not seem to matter to the faculty and she was permitted to continue to take classes toward a Master’s degree (at great cost to her and perhaps even as she ran up student loan debt). She entered the last stage of her program with a very good GPA and (apparently) the forward motion engendered by successful academic performance.
In short, Julea Ward proceeded while her professors waited in the weeds.
They knew that a trap would be sprung on this stupid, God-fearing Christian. I’d even bet that they even conspired among themselves to make sure that poor Julea was presented with precisely the kind of client that would get her dismissed from the program. No surprise, therefore, that when she suggested the client be referred, Julea was dismissed summarily. She then sued EMU, and we were given Ward v. Wilbanks, the latter a member of the faculty at EMU.
One can only imagine the sanctimonious group of faculty who gathered to pass judgment on Ms. Ward. They undoubtedly took the time to carefully and ever so intellectually weigh the needs of the profession and its code of ethic against Ms. Ward’s heartfelt conviction. They even went so far as to assert that the discipline being considered against Ms. Ward was in somehow in Ms. Ward’s best interests. Their heartfelt convictions, you see, took precedence over Ms. Ward’s. Mao would have been proud.
There was only one problem: She had not violated any code of ethic. She had reflected on her limitations as a counselor (something our code requires us to do) insofar as the required “affirmation” was concerned, and concluded that a referral to another counselor was in order (again, something our code of ethic requires us to do). Before that, she went above and beyond our code by offering to see the client until and unless referral became necessary. In other words, it was entirely possible that the “affirmation” would never have become necessary. It was the school (EMU) that jumped to conclusions and made the referral mandatory.
Is it me, or does this smack of a set-up?
The star chamber of “faculty” told Ms. Ward that her behavior had violated two provisions of the American Counseling Association’s code of ethics by (1) “imposing values that are inconsistent with counseling goals,” and (2), “engaging in discrimination based on sexual orientation.” Let us examine those in turn.
First, the ACA code of ethics does NOT prohibit values-based referrals like the one Ward suggested. Consider the entire text of the relevant section of the ACA code:
Counselors are aware of their own values, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors and avoid imposing values that are inconsistent with counseling goals. Counselors respect the diversity of clients, trainees, and research participants.
The district court asked, “What exactly did Ward do wrong in suggesting the referral?” If anything is clear, it is that Ward was acutely aware of her own values. She made those values clear in repeated discussions with classmates and professors. It could therefore be argued, as the court in fact did argue, that Ward’s referral suggestion was made to avoid imposing her values on homosexual clients. Her referral suggestion not only respected the diversity of practicum clients, but it also conveyed her willingness to counsel gay clients about other issues – everything except the required “affirmation.” It seems that that posture was confirmed by her equivalent concerns about “affirming” heterosexual clients about their extra-marital sex and adultery.
Second, the ACA code has this to say about discrimination:
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, SES, 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.
The district court again asked, “What exactly did Ward do wrong?” If anything, it was the “faculty” who were violating the code in their treatment of Ward. Beyond that, we must ask,” Would the faculty insist that a Muslim counselor tell a Jewish client that his religious beliefs are correct – that is, AFFIRM Jewish religious beliefs — if the therapy discussion took a turn in that direction?” Would the faculty require than an atheist counselor tell a person of faith that there is indeed a God? (if the treatment would suggest such a turn?).
The facts of the case also highlight that the referral did not have a “negative impact” on the client. Quite the opposite, as the client never knew about the referral! Indeed, the client may have received better counseling than Ward could have provided.
The ACA filed a brief in this matter. I see this as a waste of the dues I pay the ACA, but aside from that, they exposed their political agenda. The ACA, you see, has weighed in on assisted suicide in a profound way. They even went so far as to carve out an exception to the prohibition on values-based referrals by creating a code of ethic section which reads:
“If a counselor chooses to not work with terminally ill clients who wish to explore their end-of-life options,” then pursuant to this code section, the counselor may refer.
Many counselors, me included, are not comfortable with suicide, assisted or otherwise. If my state legislators were to debate an assisted suicide law (so-called “death with dignity” statutes), I would be writing letters asking that they defeat the measure. I am against what states such as Oregon have done in permitting physician-assisted death. But that is my political position. I would never ask that my professional association adopt my political position. At the same time, I am offended that they have adopted one that is totally counter to my political position. I would have preferred that they simply stayed out of it.
[Parenthetically, as I understand the law (and I have read the relevant statutes) in Oregon, the law was passed after considerable pressure applied by physicians who wanted immunity from legal action if they were to assist a suicide.]
EMU was its own worst enemy. It turns out that they repeatedly permitted referrals for ostensibly values-based reasons. In one instance, they permitted a counselor-in-training to refuse treating a client suffering with bereavement because that student was herself suffering from issues of grief. The university clearly avoided assigning clients into what would have been unsuitable match-ups. Why did they insist on treating Ward any differently?
Answer: Because her conflict arose from firmly held Christian beliefs.
An even worse answer?
Because her convictions conflicted with the “faculty’s convictions.”
One last point: EMU accused Ward of hypocrisy, saying that she had demonstrated a willingness to treat clients suffering from issues surrounding abortion, child abuse, and murder. But in all those cases, the University did not require that Ward “affirm” the values underlying the conduct.
The problem boils down to that simple word, “affirm.” Had EMU exorcised that word from their policies, perhaps things would have turned out differently. I would add that “affirmation,” in the counseling application of the word, is all about unconditional positive regard. It does not require that I agree with the problematic behavior. Not at all.
The timeless question is this: “Would you have a problem counseling Adolph Hitler?” My answer has always been, “No, no problem at all. I doubt he would present for treatment, but if he did, I would have no problem trying to help.”
Just don’t ask me to “affirm” his values-based behavior.
