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

[Alceste]

I would say the kid was an idiot, but if he can regurgitate the material I would still pass him. The degree simply says that I've taught the kid the material and he has been able to acceptably understand it and put it into practice. How he chooses to put that into real world practice is up to him. If he screws up then he's liable, not the university.

See above. A degree is not an endorsement.

OK, so if during an aspiring grade school teacher's practicum, it emerges that he is a card-carrying NAMBLA member who does not accept society's norms with respect to sexual relationships between grown men and little boys, if he can "regurgitate course material" he should receive a teaching degree that would allow him lifelong access to children?

 

[Alceste]

That's really the whole point isn't it? Are we judging her on an actual violation or the potential for violation?

We are deeming her incompetent to practice therapy based on her stated - IN WRITING! - intention to psychologically abuse homosexuals and trans-gendered individuals who approach her for therapeutic help.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

We are deeming her incompetent to practice therapy based on her stated - IN WRITING! - intention to psychologically abuse homosexuals and trans-gendered individuals who approach her for therapeutic help.

Wait, so she's shown that she doesn't have the intention to adhere to the ACA's Code of Ethics - something clearly indicated as necessary to fulfill the requirements of her program? So, she's unambiguously communicated that she is knowingly and willfully not meeting her program requirements?

What's the confusion?

 

[McBell]

What's the confusion?

She feels that because her refusal is based upon her interpretation of the Bible that she should be given special treatment based on said interpretation of the Bible.

I mean, come on!!!
It's the BIBLE for gods sake!!!!

 

[brbubba]

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2107047-post85.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2107061-post86.html

"The assessment and treatment of lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients can be adversely affected by therapists’ explicit or implicit negative attitudes."

"According to the Ethics Code, psychologists "are aware of culture, individual, and role differences, including those due to … sexual orientation … and try to eliminate the effect on their work of biases based on [such] factors". Hence, psychologists are encouraged to use appropriate methods of self-exploration and self-education (e.g., consultation, study, and formal continuing education) to identify and ameliorate preconceived biases about homosexuality and bisexuality. "

Can you please clarify which bit of this you find "ambiguous"? She was instructed to undertake a method of self-exploration and self-education to become a competent therapist and refused to do so, therefore she violated the Ethics Code and failed the course as a result.

Worth noting that she wasn't instructed to "change her beliefs", but to undertake additional training with respect to her explicit heterosexist bias, which can adversely effect the treatment of homosexuals.

If you read the brief it states very explicitly that change of belief is required! If it was just a exploration of the subject material I don't think there would be a problem.

She feels that because her refusal is based upon her interpretation of the Bible that she should be given special treatment based on said interpretation of the Bible.

I mean, come on!!!
It's the BIBLE for gods sake!!!!

I'm starting to wonder if anyone actually read the brief.

 

[McBell]

I'm starting to wonder if anyone actually read the brief.

I did read the breif.
Though I have to seriously wonder if you did.

Now to be up front and honest with you, if you claim you have read the brief, I have to wonder how much of it you actually understand.

 

[brbubba]

No, they wouldn't. That's not the sort of recommendation a degree is. However, this doesn't mean that a degree isn't a recommendation at all.

A degree is an endorsement that the student has acheived a certain level of competence in his or her field of study. There is much more to competence than just passing exams and assignments.

Again, it's not that kind of recommendation. But it's still a recommendation.

1 a : to present as worthy of acceptance or trial <recommended the medicine> b : to endorse as fit, worthy, or competent <recommends her for the position>
2 : entrust, commit <recommended his soul to God>
3 : to make acceptable <has other points to recommend it>
4 : advise <recommend that the matter be dropped>

So exactly which kind of recommendation is it? You proved my initial point, it's not that type of recommendation so the school has no liability if the student practices their profession contrary to their teaching.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

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.

Read my post again and see if I said anything of the sort.

 

[Autodidact]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Autodidact
Actually, that's exactly and all it is.

Depends on what definition you are using. If you are looking at an approval then yes. I was going by this definition, which is more common IMO.

Quote:
to approve openly <endorse an idea>; especially : to express support or approval of publicly and definitely <endorse a mayoral candidate> b : to recommend (as a product or service) usually for financial compensation <shoes endorsed by a pro basketball player>
In which case, approval versus public support or recommendation are two different things.

A degree is a public approval and endorsement that the candidate has mastered a field of knowledge and is qualified in it. That's what a degree is. It's the university's recommendation of that individual for employment in that field. That's why people go to a lot of trouble to get them.

 

[Autodidact]

1 a : to present as worthy of acceptance or trial <recommended the medicine> b : to endorse as fit, worthy, or competent <recommends her for the position>
2 : entrust, commit <recommended his soul to God>
3 : to make acceptable <has other points to recommend it>
4 : advise <recommend that the matter be dropped>

So exactly which kind of recommendation is it? You proved my initial point, it's not that type of recommendation so the school has no liability if the student practices their profession contrary to their teaching.

It's the kind in bold.

 

[Alceste]

1 a : to present as worthy of acceptance or trial <recommended the medicine> b : to endorse as fit, worthy, or competent <recommends her for the position>
2 : entrust, commit <recommended his soul to God>
3 : to make acceptable <has other points to recommend it>
4 : advise <recommend that the matter be dropped>

So exactly which kind of recommendation is it? You proved my initial point, it's not that type of recommendation so the school has no liability if the student practices their profession contrary to their teaching.

1 B, obviously. If the university endorses her as a fit, worthy and competent therapist and she goes on to recommend conversion therapy to her patients or refuse to see homosexual patients, or even to advise straight or bi clients that their homosexual fantasies are perverted, the university's reputation will be adversely affected and the respectability of the qualifications they issue downgraded.

 

[Panda]

I never understood why religious beliefs are a more valid reason to complain than any other belief.

 

[brbubba]

1 B, obviously. If the university endorses her as a fit, worthy and competent therapist and she goes on to recommend conversion therapy to her patients or refuse to see homosexual patients, or even to advise straight or bi clients that their homosexual fantasies are perverted, the university's reputation will be adversely affected and the respectability of the qualifications they issue downgraded.

You could say that about anyone. Say you are a biology major but express views that you admire Hitler, would the university be justified in dismissing you? If you turn out to be a third reich nut job that's not going to reflect well on the university, but does that really have any bearing on your chosen profession or degree?

 

[Alceste]

I never understood why religious beliefs are a more valid reason to complain than any other belief.

"Freedom of religion" is often thought to be a license to espouse any nonsense at all, so long as you can find a "church" that agrees with you. I've often thought I should start a religion myself that endorses "all conceivable beliefs, however implausible, not currently espoused by any known religion" just to make things fair.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You could say that about anyone. Say you are a biology major but express views that you admire Hitler, would the university be justified in dismissing you? If you turn out to be a third reich nut job that's not going to reflect well on the university, but does that really have any bearing on your chosen profession or degree?

The difference is one's views on Hitler do not conflict with basic biology.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

You could say that about anyone. Say you are a biology major but express views that you admire Hitler, would the university be justified in dismissing you? If you turn out to be a third reich nut job that's not going to reflect well on the university, but does that really have any bearing on your chosen profession or degree?

This is getting ridiculous. You're grasping now.

 

[Alceste]

You could say that about anyone. Say you are a biology major but express views that you admire Hitler, would the university be justified in dismissing you? If you turn out to be a third reich nut job that's not going to reflect well on the university, but does that really have any bearing on your chosen profession or degree?

More like if you are a historian and a holocaust denier. Biology has nothing to do with WWII - I imagine you could obtain a biology degree without your views on Hitler ever coming up. If you are an historian and announce your intention to reject the empirical evidence of the holocaust in favour of your irrational belief it never occurred, it would be unethical for a reputable secular university to issue a degree. However, you may be able to find an Islamic college in Iran where you could still meet the school's criteria. Just as holocaust denial is directly relevant to a historian's professional competence, heterosexual bias is directly linked to the effective practice of psychotherapy. It negatively impacts the patient's wellbeing.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

The difference is one's views on Hitler do not conflict with basic biology.

Pops, did you drink some of my happy juice? I normally have more patience than I do right now.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

This is getting ridiculous. You're grasping now.

Once Hitler comes into the conversation, it's a dead give away....

 

[Panda]

You could say that about anyone. Say you are a biology major but express views that you admire Hitler, would the university be justified in dismissing you? If you turn out to be a third reich nut job that's not going to reflect well on the university, but does that really have any bearing on your chosen profession or degree?

And you loose. Everyone knows the person who brings up Hitler in their argument automatically loses the debate.