January 25, 2012

Southern Poverty Law Center Demands Brookwood High School (Tuscaloosa) End Policy Banning Same-Sex Couples From the School Prom.... Letter Demands BHS Respect Students’ Right to Express Acceptance of LGBT People....

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) sent a letter today to Brookwood High School (BHS), the Tuscaloosa County School System superintendent and the county’s school board demanding that school officials respect its students’ constitutional rights or face a federal lawsuit.

The SPLC sent the letter on behalf of BHS student Elizabeth Garrett who was forced to remove her sweatshirt that includes an expression of acceptance of gay people. Additionally, the letter seeks to overturn a policy prohibiting same-sex dates at the school prom.

“At Brookwood, like in too many Alabama schools, gay students and those perceived as gay face unfair treatment," said Sam Wolfe, an SPLC attorney. "Too often, gay students also face serious harassment at school. No student should be singled out for unfair treatment or be denied their basic rights at school.”

In the letter, the SPLC gives the school district until Feb. 1, 2012 to stop its censorship of speech supportive of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people and its prohibition against same-sex couples at the prom. If the school district does not comply with those demands, the SPLC will file a federal lawsuit seeking an injunction, damages and attorneys’ fees.

LINKS:

Birmingham News: Brookwood High School Facing Scrutiny from SPLC
Birmingham Free Press: SPLC Demands End to Policy Banning Same Sex Couples at HS Prom
Southern Poverty Law Center: Threatens to File Federal Civil Rights Law Suit

On Jan. 5, 2012, Elizabeth, a 10th grader, wore a hoodie-style sweatshirt with the playful slogan, “Warning, This Individual Infected With ‘The Gay,’ Proceed With Caution.” She wore the sweatshirt to express her support for gay rights and to communicate, in a humorous way, that there is nothing wrong with gay people.

“A gay person is just as normal as anyone else,” she said. Elizabeth is often on the honor roll, attends mostly advanced placement courses, and is a member of the school French club.

Although it was a cold morning and she had no other outer layer, a BHS school official demanded Elizabeth remove the hoodie, claiming that the sweatshirt was “distracting.” The administrator released Elizabeth to class only after she removed her sweatshirt and placed it in her backpack.

On another occasion this school year, the same administrator informed Elizabeth that same-sex couples are not permitted to attend the school prom together. The prom is set for May. Elizabeth has plans to attend the prom with another female BHS student.

Elizabeth says she is taking this action not only for herself “but for others like me who feel trampled over by the school and don’t always have an opportunity to stand up for themselves.”

“Brave students like Elizabeth who are willing to stand up for who they are – even when faced with school authorities who tell her she can’t – help raise awareness and improve school climate for the entire school community,” Wolfe said.

LINKS:

The SPLC’s letter to BHS explains that statements supportive of LGBT people as well as attending prom with a same-sex date are protected under the First and 14th amendments to the United States Constitution. The letter cites federal precedents such as Gillman v. School Board for Holmes County, in which a federal court ruled that a school board’s ban on clothing expressing support for LGBT people was unconstitutional. In that case, the school had to pay $325,000 for the students’ legal fees.

The letter also cites McMillen v. Itawamba County School District, a case in which a female high school student asked to bring a same-sex date to prom and wear a tuxedo. After the school district received a letter informing it that denying the student’s request was unlawful, it chose to cancel the prom.

A federal court later ruled that a lesbian student bringing a same-sex date to prom and wearing a tuxedo are “the type of speech that falls squarely within the purview of the First Amendment.” In a similar case, Fricke v. Lynch, a school district had to pay over $116,000 in damages and attorneys’ fees for denying a student’s right to bring a same-sex date to a school dance.

The letter further explains that if there are students who will act disruptively in reaction to Elizabeth’s hoodie or her attending the prom with a girl, BHS has a duty to counter the disruptive students, not prohibit Elizabeth’s speech.

The SPLC was alerted to Elizabeth’s situation by the Alabama Safe Schools Coalition (ASSC). The SPLC is a part of the coalition, which provides training and seeks to improve state and district school policies relating to LGBT students in Alabama.

LINKS:

May 2011

Counseling Today Magazine Features Cover Story on LGBT Issues

The May 2011 Issue (Vol 53, No. 11) of the American Counseling Association publication, Counseling Today, featured a cover story on working with LGBT clients.

Senior writer Lynne Shallcross's article (pages 24-32), entitled, "Come and be who you are," asserts that counselors in all arenas can provide a safe, accepting place for LGBT clients to work through diverse issues.

Among others, Shallcross interviews ALGBTIC President Michael Chaney. He says that it is important to gain understanding of working with LGBT clients, not only because counselors have an ethical responsibility to learn about diverse cultures, but also because at some point in their careers, counselors will almost assuredly come across clients who identify as LGBT, and they need to be prepared to work with this population.

Also, in the April 2011 edition of Counseling Today, Michael Chaney (along with co-authors Filmore and Goodrich) wrote an article entitled, "No More Sitting on the Sidelines," in which he confronts the growing discussion within our profession about the need for competent counselors to work with LGBTQQI clients in an affirming manner. He says, "Largely, the discussion has focused on the inadequate training many counselors receive related to counseling these populations." In the article he offers practical strategies for working with LGBTQQI clients on issues of heterosexism and transphobia, coming out and bullying.

And the American School Counselors Association has also put out a special issue of their magazine that is focused on LGBTQ issues in the schools. ASCA is offering ALGBTIC members a free hardcopy of this special issue of the magazine. If you are interested in receiving this free issue send an email to asca@schoolcounselor.org. In the subject line of the email, type “May/June Magazine”. Make sure you request the special issue and include your postal mailing address in your email. Requests must be received by May 15, 2011.

LINKS:

Counseling Today Article: No More Sitting on the Sidelines

July 22, 2010

A graduate student in the Counselor Education program at Augusta State University in Georgia says that gays have 'identity confusion' and denies allegations that she supports conversion therapy. Jennifer Keeton has filed a lawsuit against the university that names assistant professors Paulette Schenck and Mary Jane Anderson-Wiley.

Jennifer Keeton, a 24-year-old graduate student, and a devout Christian, said hat she had told Paulette Schenck, an ASU assistant professor named as a defendant in the suit, that homosexuality is a behavioral choice. Keeton claims that ASU professors demanded Keeton suppress her views on homosexuals to remain in the counseling program.

A spokesperson for ASU said the faculty do not discriminate with regards to religious or moral beliefs. The counselor education program is accredited by the Council for the Accreditation of Counseling and Related Education Programs, and more than 250 students have graduated from the program. The counseling program follows the American School Counselor Association's ethical standards, which specify that counselors in training must "recognize and accept" individual differences, cultural diversity and alternative points of view.

In her suit, Keeton, who wants to become a school counselor, claims Mary Jane Anderson-Wiley, an ASU associate professor, requested that Keeton take part in a remediation plan because of her beliefs about gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender issues.

Keeton was required to take part in diversity training and write reflection papers monthly on how "her study has influenced her beliefs," according to court documents. The lawsuit claims that Keeton will be removed from the ASU counseling program if she does not comply with the plan.

Elizabeth Evans, of Louisville, said she had a similar experience when she began the counselor education program at ASU in 1995. After taking three courses, Evans said she was interviewed by a panel of professors who questioned her religious beliefs. "I told them I think homosexuality is wrong. The Bible speaks against it," she said. "I was not admitted to the program, because of my beliefs. When I read the article, my heart hurt for Jennifer... I hope she sues the pants off of them."

GRAD STUDENT SUES UNIVERSITY
University Responds: Denies Claims Made by Student

August 10, 2010

Augusta State University officials said it's not a graduate student's religious beliefs, but her refusal to work toward being able to counsel homosexual clients that is threatening her standing in the school's counseling program, according to court documents filed Monday.

Jennifer Keeton: Student was not told she must change her beliefs, Augusta State University said in a court filing.

LINKS:

The filing states that Jennifer Keeton must demonstrate her ability to counsel all clients, including the homosexual and transgender population, in order to graduate.

The response is the school's first legal answer since Keeton filed a lawsuit July 21 alleging that she was facing expulsion from the counseling program based on her religious beliefs and her refusal to complete "a thought-reform remediation plan."

In an e-mail cited in the suit, ASU assistant professor Dr. Paulette Schenck told Keeton "the faculty did not expect (her) to change (her) personal beliefs and values."

"(T)he unethical part (was) applying your own personal beliefs and values on other people and not truly accepting that others can have different beliefs and values that are equally valid as your own."

Keeton is a graduate student in ASU's K-12 school counseling program, which requires students to adhere to a neutral code of ethics.

The university's response explains that ASU professors asked Keeton to complete a remediation plan after she wrote in a term paper regarding the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender, or GLBT, community that "it would be hard (for her) to work with this population."

Keeton also told fellow student Justin C. Earnest that she would tell gay clients "their behavior is morally wrong and then help the client change that behavior," according to an affidavit by Earnest included in the school's filing.

The remediation plan required Keeton to attend counseling workshops, read counseling journals regarding the GLBT community, increase her exposure to the gay population and write reflections on what she was learning.

The university's legal filings did not directly address Keeton's contention that she was told to attend a gay pride parade as part of the remediation plan.

Members of ASU's faculty also were concerned with Keeton's support of conversion therapy for homosexuals, which the American Counseling Association's ethics committee has concluded "may harm clients."

In her lawsuit, Keeton said the remediation plan "subjects her to aggressive ideological instruction" and asks that she "change her beliefs."

Keeton said she would like to continue her education in the counseling program without fear that the school "will punish her for her religious views" and her "unwillingness to change or abandon those views."

But university officials said if they exempted Keeton from counseling homosexual clients, they would also have to exempt those opposed to war from counseling soldiers.

"The same curriculum would require an atheist student counselor to competently counsel a deeply religious client," the filing said. "A staunch feminist student counselor is required to competently counsel clients from male dominated cultures ... the common thread being that all counselors are required to keep separate their own belief system from the counseling relationship."

The suit also points to a U.S. District Court judge's recent opinion in a similar case, Ward v. Wilbanks.

In the July 2010 ruling, a judge upheld Eastern Michigan University's decision to dismiss a student who refused to counsel a homosexual student or participate in a remediation plan.

University officials said that if the court moves forward with Keeton's case it could affect the school's accreditation and other students' degrees.

Jennifer Keeton has asked the federal court to force the college to drop its requirement that she complete the remediation plan. The U.S. District Court in Augusta scheduled a hearing on her request for a preliminary injunction at 9 a.m. Wednesday.

In response to recent events pertaining to counselor training at Augusta State University, the Association of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Issues in Counseling (ALGBTIC), a division of the American Counseling Association (ACA), issues the following statement.

David Kaplan at ACA was very helpful on this matter and discussed it at the ACA-SR conference in Washington DC just as the case had made the news. Counselors may be acquainted with the Eastern Michigan University, Nebraska, and Mississippi cases. Of interest is the fact that the same religious group that is supporting the legal action in Michigan is also providing funding to the Georgia case.

Kaplan & other ACA leaders are representing the counseling profession well on this issue and have already issued briefs in the East Michigan University case. Interestingly several counseling scholars arrived at the same conclusion regarding the case. The Augusta case has just broken and so the details are still questionable although it bears strong similarity to the ongoing EMU case (including the fact that The Alliance Defense fund, a conservative Christian group is funding both the CMU and the Augusta student's lawsuits) .

The EMU case boiled down to these points: Julea Ward, a practicum student referred rather than counsel a gay client. After due process, the student was dismissed from the counseling program. The student has now sued university faculty and officials alleging violation of her 1st & 14th amendment rights, including to practice her religious beliefs.

The pertinent questions in the case are (1) Is it permissible to deny counseling services to a homosexual on the basis of the counselor’s values? (2) Can referral be made at any time a professional counselor wishes to do so? (3) When is a client a client?

(1) Is it permissible to deny counseling services to a homosexual on the basis of the counselor’s values? No, to do so is in violation of the anti-discrimination clause of the ACA code of ethics. Under the ACA code C.5 gender identity and sexual orientation are protected classes along with age, culture, disability, religion/spirituality, gender, etc. Counselors may not refused to see broad classes of persons upon the basis of their own values. I must note that, to refusal of clients upon the basis of my personal values also has the effect of value imposition (A.4.b).

(2) Can referral be made at any time a professional counselor wishes to do so? No - referral should be a last resort of the therapist in the event that the counselor lacks the competence to help the client. Many of us have been told that we should refer if we are "uncomfortable" with the client. However, the focus of the code of ethics is on the client not the counselor's comfort.

Other options should be exhausted first (1) supervision for issues that the counselor has limited exposure or training, (2) continuing education, etc. In both the Augusta and EMU cases, the student was simply asked to become more informed on the subject not to alter their beliefs.

(3) When is a client a client? In the EMU case the student claimed that since they had been assigned the client but had not yet seen them therefore there was no therapeutic relationship. ACA holds that the client is due ethical consideration as a client from the first contact. For example, the client who calls for an appointment but who is not seen is due confidentiality. In the EMU case, ACA holds that the potential for harm for the client exists since the client was referred to Julia and he/she could question why the original counselor was not going to see them and could discover the prejudice and be harmed as a result.

Okay, here is the response from the ACA President that has been requested. Let me say that I have been very hesitant to respond after having been an observer of this listserv for several years. There will be no right answer for some. As this year’s president of ACA, I wanted you to hear from me directly in regard to what has recently been posted to CESNET about an issue that referenced the ACA Code of Ethics. Please note that I intentionally use the word “referenced” rather than highlight, showcase, or focus on the ACA Code of Ethics. We all know that the ACA Code of Ethics provides professional counselors with a framework in which to provide service to clients and students. In essence, it provides assurances to the public as to what they can expect from a professional counselor.

First, please know that your ACA Staff and leadership have not been silent. We have been answering emails and participating in radio broadcasts across the country. Recent postings to CESNET imply that ACA has not responded to what is being posted. As you know, if ACA chimed in on every CESNET posting that referenced ACA, the staff and I would be accused of trying to limit conversations and opinions. Frankly, we don’t think that is right. CESNET is independent of ACA and everyone on this list serve deserves the chance to say whatever they want, regardless of whether it supports or raises concerns about ACA.

Secondly, let me say thanks to Mark Pope and others who have attempted to get us on the right track of what the relevant issues are in this situation. We have not been privy to all the specifics of what is happening at Augusta State University, but as an Association our stance on this issue should be clear: we do not condone discrimination of any kind. Frankly, I am concerned that as counselor educators we are questioning this stance.

This is not just an issue of homosexuality and Christianity. This is an issue that reaches to the core of who we are as counseling professionals. It touches every aspect of discrimination and we need to be clear about this as professionals and not get side tracked by the emotionalism of this very important issue exposed recently at Augusta State University.

However, given that there have been some fairly vocal comments about ACA and the Code of Ethics, let me try and clarify a few things. The Code itself is not something that prevents people from stating an opinion, a viewpoint, a value, or a belief. Rather, the Code protects those who seek the help of a professional counselor. The Code lets consumers, as well as public policymakers, know that the profession of counseling will ensure that a counselor places the client or student ahead of the counselor’s values, beliefs, political leanings, etc. As we have said over and over again, this is very similar to seeking out the best possible medical help; we don’t want a physician to discriminate because their values may differ from that of a patient. The physician commits to helping those in need, regardless of personal beliefs and values.

The issue is not about ACA and the Code of Ethics. The Code is a set of guiding principles that our members have agreed to adhere to in order to protect clients and demonstrate that professional counseling is a legitimate profession (in addition to our refereed journal, standards, and a base of members). When the Code was revised a few years ago, there was ample time available for public comment. The input we received was very good in terms of making the Code better, because committed, interested, and engaged counselors and counselor educators were able to provide their two cents worth.

To me, the dialogue now permeating CESNET is clouding and confusing the issue. The ACA Code of Ethics is not telling someone how to think; rather it is providing guidance and a framework in terms of how to practice as a professional counselor. Some of our colleagues and friends on CESNET would have others believe that the Code is restricting counselors from being able to express an opinion. Some have gone so far as to accuse ACA’s Code as being part of the “thought police.” This type of hyperbole simply adds fuel to a complex situation that is designed to ignite controversy.

ACA is obviously very interested in the thoughts and comments of those on CESNET, as well as our members who may not be on the list serve. The Code of Ethics, was built, designed, implemented, and evaluated by ACA members for ACA members. The Code provides guidance to the profession and protection for consumers of our services. The Code should not be the focal point of an issue that is much larger and more pervasive in today’s ever-changing society.

Finally, I welcome all points-of-view on this matter and I respect all who choose to post their thoughts.

ACA President

Marcheta Evans, Ph.D., LPC-S, NCC, DCC
Associate Dean, Downtown Campus, Univ of Texas San Antonio
College of Education & Human Development, San Antonio, Texas

MICHIGAN CASE
Court Notes

Here are some excerpts from the actual court's opinion in the Eastern Michigan case (Ward v. Wilbanks et al., 2010):

"The formal charges brought against plaintiff stem from the “violation and your stated intention to continue violating the ACA Code of Ethics.” Plaintiff’s “stated unwillingness to intentionally and competently provide counseling services to individual clients who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered is not only of grave concern, but also a violation of ethical code A.1.” Also referenced were statements and
responses to feedback in class, supervisory meetings and during the informal review. Clearly, it was not one referral, but rather plaintiff’s refusal to counsel an entire class of people that resulted in her discipline" (pp. 14-15).

"Courts have traditionally given public colleges and graduate schools wide latitude "to create curricula that fit schools' understandings of their educational missions." Kissinger v. Board of Trustees of Ohio State University, 5 F.3d 177, 181 (6th Cir. 1993)
(citing Doherty v. Southern College of Optometry, 862 F.2d 570, 576-66 (6th Cir. 1988)).

"This judicial deference to educators in their curriculum decisions is no less applicable in a clinical setting because evaluation in a clinical course 'is no less an 'academic' judgment because it involves observation of . . . skills and techniques in actual conditions of practice, rather than assigning a grade to . . . written answers on an essay question.'" Doherty, 862 F.2d at 576-77 (quoting Board of Curators of Univ. of Missouri v. Horowitz, 435 U.S. 78, 95 (1978) (Powell, J., concurring)). A federal court should not override a "'genuinely academic decision' . . . unless it is such a substantial departure from accepted academic norms as to demonstrate that the person or committee responsible did not actually exercise professional judgment." Regents of the University
of Michigan v. Ewing, 474 U.S. 214, 225 (1985)" (p. 19).

"Furthermore, plaintiff’s statement that she would counsel homosexuals on non-relationship issues demonstrates her lack of understanding of the
nature of counseling. Counseling is unpredictable, especially in a school setting where problems are not always apparent on their face. A counselor’s job is to facilitate answers that are right for the client. Choosing particular issues that a counselor will agree to discuss with a client is not practical in the real world.

The evidence in this case supports the University’s claim that the Policy is part of the curriculum. Students have notice of the Policy, both in the Handbook and as taught in most counseling classes. It is the University’s prerogative to define its own curriculum, and it has given sufficient rational reasons for including the ACA Code of Ethics in its curriculum.

During the process that followed the referral in this case, plaintiff’s position hardened and she expressed her unwillingness to bend. The decision to dismiss plaintiff was made after multiple attempts at testing her ability to build a barrier in values between the client and counselor. The dismissal was entirely due to plaintiff’s refusal to change her behavior, not her beliefs" (p. 21).

"The University had a rational basis for adopting the ACA Code of Ethics into its counseling program, not the least of which was the desire to offer an accredited program. Furthermore, the University had a rational basis for requiring its students to counsel clients without imposing their personal values. 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.

Ms. Ward was enrolled in the school counseling program. In a high school
setting, a counselor can expect to be presented with all sorts of issues, including homosexuality. Counseling is not an exact science; rather it is unpredictable and personal at its core. A client may seek counseling for depression, or issues with their parents, and end up discussing a homosexual relationship. A counselor who cannot keep their personal values out of the interaction has great potential to harm her client.
Referrals are taught to be a last resort because the nature of issues and topics confronting individual clients are often unforeseen. A counselor may hold himself out to specialize in a particular issue, like eating disorders, but that disorder may be due to underlying issues including, perhaps, coming to terms with their homosexuality" (pp. 26-27).

"All of this supports defendant’s position that a counselor needs clinical
educational experiences to draw upon in order to deal with situations in a non-harmful, ethically appropriate manner. Providing such skills to its graduates is the legitimate pedagogical concern of the University. EMU could not confer a counseling degree on a student who said she would categorically refer all clients who sought counseling on topics with which she had contrary moral convictions. Having demonstrated that its Policy is reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns, the University did not violate plaintiff’s First Amendment free speech rights" (p. 27).

"Plaintiff has distorted the facts in this case to support her position that defendants dismissed her due to her religious beliefs. While defendants may have been indelicate in their inquiry into Ms. Ward’s beliefs, they never demonstrated a purpose to change her religious beliefs. Defendants were at all times concerned with plaintiff’s refusal to counsel an entire class of people whose values she did not share. Defendants
acknowledged that plaintiff’s beliefs motivated her behaviors, but always made the distinction between the two, and in no way attacked her beliefs. Even plaintiff is forced to agree that Drs. Callaway and Dugger never told her she needed to change her religious beliefs" (p. 28).

"As in Kissinger, the Program=s requirement that counseling students adhere to the ACA Code of Ethics is generally applicable because it applies equally to all students enrolled in the Program, and because it is a core component of the Practicum course. The Program’s requirements apply to everyone equally, regardless of religion, and are “not aimed at particular religious practices.” There is no system of “particularized
exemptions” by which students enrolled in the Program would be allowed to deviate from the ACA Code of Ethics in order to refer all clients whose behavior or sexual orientation they found objectionable. No students were allowed to refer clients based on their protected class, nor would they graduate without successfully completing Practicum" (pp. 29-30).