Replies

Expose her to it. Not force her to accept it, from what I read.

As I suspected, you did not read well.

According to state officials, the principal “problem” was Keeton’s assertion that free will plays a role in homosexual conduct. Because she is a counseling major the state was concerned that, upon graduation, she might incorporate those views into her private professional practice. The “solution” mandated by the government was forced abandonment of her belief in free will. This was stated as a condition of remaining in the state-funded university program.

My other suspicion is that you know you are wrong but refuse to admit it.

As I suspected, you did not read well.

Actually, I read well. You cited Dr. Adams' article, not the actual documents from the school, Miss Keeton, or Judge Hall.

Dr. Adams bears false witness...the school did not mandate a change in her beliefs. This was something pointed out by the judge.

It's only the second part of the Remediation Plan that's in question. Let's look at some of the words from Judge Hall...

"[...] Plaintiff has not provided evidence that the ASU faculty imposed the May 27, 2010 [sic] Remediation Plan because the faculty personally disagree with Plaintiff's expressed personal views, or that the goal of the Plan itself was to alter any of the Plaintiff's personally held views, sufficient to establish that she is substantially likely to succeed on the merits of her claim. To the contrary, the record suggests, and the testimony at the hearing bolsters, that the Plan was imposed because Plaintiff exhibited an inability to counsel in a professionally ethical manner--that is, an inability to resist imposing her moral viewpoint on counselees--in violation of the ACA Code of Ethics, which is part of the ASU counseling program curriculum.
Furthermore, Plaintiff's refusal to participate in the Plan, which requires her to read counseling literature geared toward counseling GLBTQ persons and attend workshops geared toward that same end, demonstrates Plaintiff's unwillingness to complete curricular requirements. The faculty made clear in various meetings with Plaintiff and through correspondence that it was not Plaintiff's personal beliefs that were their concern, but rather only her inability to separate her personal beliefs in the judgment-free zone of a professional counseling situation, as mandated by the ethical standards incorporated into ASU's curriculum.

Over and over, the judge points out that the program was simply requiring her to adhere to the ethical standards set for the program.

Remember that her complaint even quotes the professors as stating she doesn't have to change her beliefs, but just has to act in accordance with the ACA Code of Ethics.

The question is, should the ASU program follow the ACA ethical standards?

Before answering no, consider what other possibilities exist if we suggest that professionals should allow their personal beliefs to overrule their professional setting with vulnerable clients. I personally don't want to go to a massage therapist and find that he believes in "sexual healing"...I expect him to maintain professional standards. I don't expect a medical school to admit and graduate students who care only about conducting Mengelean experiments, and therefore don't want to follow the professional standards (I recognize that a version of the Hippocratic Oath is not mandatory, but there are still standards required to complete the curriculum).