College Orders Student to Alter Religious Views on Homosexuality, Or Be Dismissed

[Magic Man]

I never said it was fair. I'm sure she is a crazy ***** who was fishing for a lawsuit, but I'm not stating that. To assume anything else that is not in her brief would, at this point in time, be baseless conjecture.

No, it wouldn't. Based on the fact that this is such a rare occurrence, along with the ideas about her personality we gain from her comments and the comments in the story, it's not baseless conjecture to assume that the school has a different side to the story that contradicts hers.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

No, it wouldn't. Based on the fact that this is such a rare occurrence, along with the ideas about her personality we gain from her comments and the comments in the story, it's not baseless conjecture to assume that the school has a different side to the story that contradicts hers.

Methinks that "baseless conjecture" is one of brbubba's favorite phrases, but he has no idea what it means.

It would be more constructive to replace "baseless conjecture" with "Angellous is my daddy."

 

[brbubba]

No, it wouldn't. Based on the fact that this is such a rare occurrence, along with the ideas about her personality we gain from her comments and the comments in the story, it's not baseless conjecture to assume that the school has a different side to the story that contradicts hers.

That's not at all what I am referring to. Does the school have a different side to the story, I don't know. Does the school disagree with her, yes. Otherwise there wouldn't be a lawsuit. In this scenario though, it should be obvious that I am referring to making conjectures on specific aspects of the case, not generalities.

You can compare anything, but some things don't make for relevant comparisons in certain situations, like comparing sex offenders and homosexuals in this case. Yes, a counsellor should counsel anyone, even sex offenders, but they wouldn't have to treat the crimes of the sex offender the same way they would the sexual preference of the homosexuals.

Where are you coming up with this "feeling threatened" thing in reference to homosexuals? Why would a counsellor feel threatened by a homosexual anymore than they would a heterosexual? They might be uneasy, but the threatening aspect is just a ploy by you to make it sound acceptable.

You're not addressing my statement. Can a counselor refuse to treat a sex offender, do they have that right? And if they do why does that right no extend to other cases?

Threatened or not it shouldn't matter what the reason is!!! Answer my initial question.

Is it that you don't understand the standards set by the ACA or that you refuse to acknowledge them?

What standards set by the ACA? You haven't referenced them as far as I can tell. She is not claiming that she will behave in a manner inconsistent with the ACA.

Well, I'd say no matter what the causes, it is unalterable. You can't change someone's sexual preference, even if it was originally caused by social factors.

If it's a socially instilled attitude then it can be changed. That would be like saying racial hatred can't be changed.

Personally I think homosexuality is biological, whether genetic or hormonal, but saying it is socially affected is ambiguous at best.

 

[Alceste]

Bubba, the professional standards of the APA and ACA were referenced and quoted earlier in the thread. They're completely unambiguous vis a vis homosexuality.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You're not addressing my statement. Can a counselor refuse to treat a sex offender, do they have that right? And if they do why does that right no extend to other cases?

A counselor has the right to specialize in a particular sub-discipline, and there are many sub-disciplines where a counselor would be unlikely to encounter sex offenders as patients.

If a counselor discovers that a current patient is a sex offender, then it would be valid and ethical for that counselor to refer the patient to a specialist who is more qualified to deal with that specific type of patient, but (except for cases where there's a danger of violence to the counselor, though this is a bit of a side issue) I don't think it would be ethical for a counselor to simply drop a patient in need from treatment.

 

[brbubba]

Bubba, the professional standards of the APA and ACA were referenced and quoted earlier in the thread. They're completely unambiguous vis a vis homosexuality.

Found them and I'd have to say they are fairly vague. I don't see specifically how the plaintiff has shown herself to be in violation of the guidelines.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Found them and I'd have to say they are fairly vague. I don't see specifically how the plaintiff has shown herself to be in violation of the guidelines.

Yes, it's always fascinating how people are blind to what they don't want to see.

 

[Autodidact]

Alceste: Can I call 'em or what?

 

[brbubba]

However, if the standards set by a university that wants to keep its accreditation, the university would have to meet certain requirements.

In this case, it looks like they violated their own rule.

At least in the engineering world, the accreditation is set by observing classes and professors along with their assignments. A single student who thinks that the world is flat isn't going to affect the school accreditation.

 

[brbubba]

Yes, it's always fascinating how people are blind to what they don't want to see.

So cite the specific passage instead of attacking me.

According to her complaint I don't see her stating that she was going to practice counseling in a manner contrary to the ACA guidelines simply that she doesn't believe in the guidelines. So what is everyone contending here??? Is this conjecture from the professors that she will be practicing against ACA guidelines based upon her personal views or is it something else?

 

[Magic Man]

That's not at all what I am referring to. Does the school have a different side to the story, I don't know. Does the school disagree with her, yes. Otherwise there wouldn't be a lawsuit. In this scenario though, it should be obvious that I am referring to making conjectures on specific aspects of the case, not generalities.

I know what you're referring to, as I'm referring to the same thing. We know what the student says concerning the case, and we know how much of it is believable based on the situation.

You're not addressing my statement. Can a counselor refuse to treat a sex offender, do they have that right? And if they do why does that right no extend to other cases?

I did address that. I said a counsellor should counsel everyone that comes to them for counselling unless they feel physically threatened.

Threatened or not it shouldn't matter what the reason is!!! Answer my initial question.

Yes, it does matter what the reason is. If someone legitimately feels threatened by a client/patient, that's a justified reason for not counselling them and avoiding them. As far as I can see at the moment, there are no other reasons to reject a client.

And I already answered your initial question in a previous post, so you might want to calm down.

What standards set by the ACA? You haven't referenced them as far as I can tell. She is not claiming that she will behave in a manner inconsistent with the ACA.

She's already behaving in a manner inconsistent with their standards. It is referenced in the article in the OP, and several times afterwards:

"The Counselor Education Program is grounded in the core principles of the American Counseling Association and the American School Counselor Association, which defines the roles and responsibilities of professional counselors in its code of ethics," the statement read. "The code is included in the curriculum of the counseling education program, which states that counselors in training have the same responsibility as professional counselors to understand and follow the ACA Code of Ethics."

If it's a socially instilled attitude then it can be changed. That would be like saying racial hatred can't be changed.

It's not an attitude. It's nothing like saying racial hatred can't be changed. No matter how someone comes to their sexual preference, it cannot be changed.

Personally I think homosexuality is biological, whether genetic or hormonal, but saying it is socially affected is ambiguous at best.

The research also says it's biological and set at birth.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

So cite the specific passage instead of attacking me.

According to her complaint I don't see her stating that she was going to practice counseling in a manner contrary to the ACA guidelines simply that she doesn't believe in the guidelines. So what is everyone contending here??? Is this conjecture from the professors that she will be practicing against ACA guidelines based upon her personal views or is it something else?

Acknowledging that you can't make the horse drink after leading it to water isn't an attack on the horse.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

At least in the engineering world, the accreditation is set by observing classes and professors along with their assignments. A single student who thinks that the world is flat isn't going to affect the school accreditation.

If it's a civil or geological engineering class and the administration knows about the student's views but passes him anyway, it could very well affect the school's accreditation. Accreditation bodies tend to take a dim view of letting dangerously unqualified people loose into the working world.

 

[brbubba]

Yes, it does matter what the reason is. If someone legitimately feels threatened by a client/patient, that's a justified reason for not counselling them and avoiding them. As far as I can see at the moment, there are no other reasons to reject a client.

She's already behaving in a manner inconsistent with their standards. It is referenced in the article in the OP, and several times afterwards:

I think a counselor should have a right to refuse treatment for any reason, but similarly I think an employer should have a right to fire that counselor for not doing their job. Personal bias would be a good reason for rejecting a client or personal involvement would be another one.

She's expressing personal viewpoints in contradiction to the standards. But I didn't see anything about her violating the standards in practice. To me this seems to be more of an extrapolation of her potential behavior in the real world.

 

[Panda]

At least in the engineering world, the accreditation is set by observing classes and professors along with their assignments. A single student who thinks that the world is flat isn't going to affect the school accreditation.

Actually any decent Engineering course would be accredited by the professional body for that profession. To maintain that they need all their students to live up to the expectations of that professional body. This student has apparently failed to meet the professional requirements of her field and action was taken to try and fix this.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm on the student's side. It's ridiculous that she must convert to the school's rigid anti-religious doctrines. I sympathize because
I had a similar problem when I applied to a seminary school to become a priest. That actually had the temerity to insist that I believe
not only in the Bible, but also in God! You read that right....they demanded that I convert from atheism to Catholicism. The ACLU
was part of the plot to keep atheists from wearing the clerical collar, since they refused to take my civil rights case. Oh, the injustice!

 

[brbubba]

Acknowledging that you can't make the horse drink after leading it to water isn't an attack on the horse.

Yes but you never led the horse to the water.

If it's a civil or geological engineering class and the administration knows about the student's views but passes him anyway, it could very well affect the school's accreditation. Accreditation bodies tend to take a dim view of letting dangerously unqualified people loose into the working world.

Unlikely, the accreditation board would never even know about it unless it was an opinion expressed in a written assignment. And if the assignment was factually wrong then obviously the grade associated with that would be appropriate.

The girl is passing her classes, so I don't see how she could be expressing these opinions during assignments and passing.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Yes but you never led the horse to the water.

True, you were already standing at the edge of the creek. Still can't make you drink though.

 

[brbubba]

True, you were already standing at the edge of the creek. Still can't make you drink though.

Next time you can push me in, grab my head and hold me under water.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I'm on the student's side. It's ridiculous that she must convert to the school's rigid anti-religious doctrines. I sympathize because
I had a similar problem when I applied to a seminary school to become a priest. That actually had the temerity to insist that I believe
not only in the Bible, but also in God! You read that right....they demanded that I convert from atheism to Catholicism. The ACLU
was part of the plot to keep atheists from wearing the clerical collar, since they refused to take my civil rights case. Oh, the injustice!

I love the flavor of irony. :foryou: