Back in May we posted about how California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists (CAMFT) was trying to make the practice of “Reparative Therapy” or any sexually oriented change counseling unethical. Thank goodness that effort, while not completely gone, failed.
… Clearly, the current CAMFT board is not at all ready to pass judgment on the ethical standards of ANY therapeutic orientation. I believe the board began to recognize the danger of putting CAMFT in the position of going way beyond what even the APA (American Psychological Association) has stated concerning SOCE. The APA has never stated that SOCE practices are unethical, and in fact they have supported the concept of a client’s right to be consistent with their religious beliefs where therapy is concerned. (Although, the APA has also stated they do not believe sexual orientation can be changed and that therapists should not tell clients they can change.) I believe the CAMFT board’s decision (7 to 2 vote) to send this issue to their ethics committee indicates they understand that any decision concerning ethics will take a very long time involving much research and debate before it goes back to the board. …
Professional organizations are finding that activist driven agendas cannot be proved as beneficial to all who struggle with same sex attraction. They are finding that a client’s right to self-determination cannot be trumped by gay activist ideology and morality. It should be obvious that further study on those of us who have benefitted from this type of counseling is needed, not disenfranchisement of conservative/Christian counselors.
Some gay affirming counselors and professors are finding it next to impossible to remove what is already in place. Now it would appear they wish to attack future potential counselors who don’t adhere to a liberal gay ideology before they ever get into practice.
From Michigan:
… A federal judge has ruled in favor of a public university that removed a Christian student from its graduate program in school counseling over her belief that homosexuality is morally wrong. Monday’s ruling, according to Julea Ward’s attorneys, could result in Christian students across the country being expelled from public university for similar views.
“It’s a very dangerous precedent,” Jeremy Tedesco, legal counsel for the conservative Alliance Defense Fund, told FOX News Radio. “The ruling doesn’t say that explicitly, but that’s what is going to happen.” …
From Georgia:
The Augusta case was filed last Wednesday by graduate student Jennifer Keeton, 24, who contends her professors want her to a undergo a remediation plan because of her Christian convictions.
Specifically, Keeton has expressed her views both during and outside class that gays, lesbians and transgender people suffer “identity confusion.”
In a similar incident last year, an Eastern Michigan University student working toward her master’s degree was criticized by her professors for her opinions on homosexuality, according to the Alliance Defense Fund, a faith-based coalition of lawyers.
The student, Julea Ward, came under scrutiny during practicum sessions when she referred a potential client to another counselor. Ward said she could not go against her values and affirm the client’s same-sex relationship, said attorney David French, who represents both Ward and Keeton.
Ward was taken before a panel of her professors who challenged her beliefs within the master’s program, French said.
From Baptist Press(BP) News Concerning the Georgia case:
… The latest controversy involves Augusta (Ga.) State University, where the faculty allegedly required Jennifer Keeton — a counseling student with strong Christian beliefs — to attend “diversity sensitivity” training, increase her interaction with homosexual populations, read scholarly articles about homosexuality, and then write about what she learned and how her beliefs were impacted. The faculty allegedly even encouraged her to attend a “gay pride” parade in Augusta.
…
The Augusta case, though, is only the latest dust-up pitting religious beliefs against non-discrimination policies. …
We live in a great country that believes in freedom. We believe in the inalienable rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. If someone is seeking help to embrace a gay identity and ideology … as much as I wouldn’t agree with those end goals, I have no issue with them seeking help from a professional counselor.
In fact, if they are participating in harmful or addictive behaviors I hope they find a professional counselor quickly. I don’t want someone deprived of therapeutic help (example: sexual addictions, substance abuse, depression … whatever) because of my conflicting beliefs about the best way to steward same sex attractions and identity.
That said, people of faith/or not … who are on a post-gay journey of whatever type … should not be deprived of the amazing skills represented in licensed professional counseling because some other counselor opposes biblical morality and worldview. The professional organizations are beginning to recognize the rank hypocrisy of claiming to uphold the tenent of “a client’s right to self-determination” but then attempt to strip that very same right away from people of faith who struggle with homosexuality.
Professional counselors should be allowed to help without fear of being thrown out of school or professional organizations.
About Randy Thomas
Hi Randy,
I have to say that I disagree with Ms. Keeton’s lawsuit. It smacks of exactly the type of elitist superiority complex member of the Christian community are all too often accused of having.
Mrs. Keeton could have signed up for any number of Christian Universities that offer Christian-based counselling courses. You could probably name several such universities off the top of your head. I know I can.
However, she did not do this. Instead, she applied and was accepted to a secular university which clearly outlined a course consisting of secular-based material and an adherence to mainstream medical sources, such as the American Psychiatric Association.
When she disapproved of certain course material, Ms. Keeton sought to vocally oppose it and substitute it with her private religiously-based views. When the university told her that this was not how things work (students don’t get to dictate the lesson material), she sued.
I cannot in good conscious support this.
Let’s reverse this: let’s say an Atheist intentionally attends a Christian university, and insists on replacing the approved course material with opposing secular-based sources. Would any of us support him/her suing the school for standing by its right to adhere to the pre-approved lesson plan? I doubt it.
What’s next? Will Creationist students sue the Harvard Geology department for not accepting “6,000 years” as the age of the Earth?
Ms. Keeton has made Christians look absolutely stupid and ridiculous, and I for one am not going to hop on the bandwagon supporting her.
Thank you for the great blog entry, I look forward to reading more! Have a good day.
Hi Randy,
I have to say that I disagree with Ms. Keeton’s lawsuit. It smacks of exactly the type of elitist superiority complex member of the Christian community are all too often accused of having.
Mrs. Keeton could have signed up for any number of Christian Universities that offer Christian-based counselling courses. You could probably name several such universities off the top of your head. I know I can.
However, she did not do this. Instead, she applied and was accepted to a secular university which clearly outlined a course consisting of secular-based material and an adherence to mainstream medical sources, such as the American Psychiatric Association.
When she disapproved of certain course material, Ms. Keeton sought to vocally oppose it and substitute it with her private religiously-based views. When the university told her that this was not how things work (students don’t get to dictate the lesson material), she sued.
I cannot in good conscious support this.
Let’s reverse this: let’s say an Atheist intentionally attends a Christian university, and insists on replacing the approved course material with opposing secular-based sources. Would any of us support him/her suing the school for standing by its right to adhere to the pre-approved lesson plan? I doubt it.
What’s next? Will Creationist students sue the Harvard Geology department for not accepting “6,000 years” as the age of the Earth?
Ms. Keeton has made Christians look absolutely stupid and ridiculous, and I for one am not going to hop on the bandwagon supporting her.
Thank you for the great blog entry, I look forward to reading more! Have a good day.
Tommy, it is the role of a university course to have the best research documents to support a view. The university in question promotes what is known as gay affirmative therapy – that is counselling therapies to help the client accept their homosexuality and overcome internalised homophobia. The problem with this is that there is no diagnostic tool for us to be able to claim that a client has internalised homophobia. In fact internalised homophobia is not a condition recognised by the American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, Royal College of Psychiatrists, British Psychological Association or any other professional organisation. On the other hand there is still the possibility of diagnosis of ego-dystonic sexuality, and all the listed professional organisations recognise the possibility of people changing their sexuality and have stated the clients right to pursue that if that is what they wish. As such whether Ms Keeton’s lawsuit was as self centred as you think or not the university was not actually teaching best practice concerning the wisdom of the psychological world. Added to this that Gay Affirmative Therapy has no research to show it to be either effective or safe we have the issue of a university promoting what in any other area would be classified as a “quack” therapy. In this light it is unethical for a university to teach this therapy as the only option and to remove those who disagree with that stance. If Ms Keeton was able to provide academic references in an essay then the university is out of order removing her as rather than looking impartially at her essay and course work as the university should have done it prejudged both her and the research for its own gain and Ms Keeton would have ground not only to sue the university but also to get the people who recognise the course to sanction the university.
Also, the counsellor is there to help the client fulfil the goal they have set themselves. If a client wants to change and the counsellor does not believe this is possible and can only supply gay affirmative therapy then the counsellor has not been equipped to meet the clients needs and would be in danger of breaching the clients human rights.
Tommy, it is the role of a university course to have the best research documents to support a view. The university in question promotes what is known as gay affirmative therapy – that is counselling therapies to help the client accept their homosexuality and overcome internalised homophobia. The problem with this is that there is no diagnostic tool for us to be able to claim that a client has internalised homophobia. In fact internalised homophobia is not a condition recognised by the American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, Royal College of Psychiatrists, British Psychological Association or any other professional organisation. On the other hand there is still the possibility of diagnosis of ego-dystonic sexuality, and all the listed professional organisations recognise the possibility of people changing their sexuality and have stated the clients right to pursue that if that is what they wish. As such whether Ms Keeton’s lawsuit was as self centred as you think or not the university was not actually teaching best practice concerning the wisdom of the psychological world. Added to this that Gay Affirmative Therapy has no research to show it to be either effective or safe we have the issue of a university promoting what in any other area would be classified as a “quack” therapy. In this light it is unethical for a university to teach this therapy as the only option and to remove those who disagree with that stance. If Ms Keeton was able to provide academic references in an essay then the university is out of order removing her as rather than looking impartially at her essay and course work as the university should have done it prejudged both her and the research for its own gain and Ms Keeton would have ground not only to sue the university but also to get the people who recognise the course to sanction the university.
Also, the counsellor is there to help the client fulfil the goal they have set themselves. If a client wants to change and the counsellor does not believe this is possible and can only supply gay affirmative therapy then the counsellor has not been equipped to meet the clients needs and would be in danger of breaching the clients human rights.
“The problem with this is that there is no diagnostic tool for us to be able to claim that a client has internalised homophobia. In fact internalised homophobia is not a condition recognised by the American Psychiatric Association…” etc.
The problem with this, of course, Phelim, is that it does not follow from the above that there is no such thing as internalised homophobia: a phenomenon does not have to be an officially recognized medical or psychiatric condition in order to exist. The definition given by medilexicon.com is “the type of homophobia occurring in a homosexual person, often associated with self-loathing, self-censure, and self-censorship.” Internalised homophobia, as so defined, undoubtedly exists.
It can, I think, be plausibly maintained – and I personally would maintain – that internalised homophobia is a mistaken, highly undesirable and dangerous attitude or frame of mind which, while it may not itself be a psychiatric illness, may nonetheless be a cause of psychiatric illnesses, e.g. depression.
Those who approve of internalised homophobia and wish to encourage it, perhaps in order to sustain or expand the “market” for ex-gay programs and change therapies, may prefer to call it by a different name.
You say that “the counsellor is there to help the client fulfil the goal they have set themselves”, and that a counsellor who does not believe that change of sexual orientation is possible “has not been equipped to meet the clients needs and would be in danger of breaching the clients human rights”.
It’s not quite as simple as that. A counsellor, psychiatrist, psychotherapist or any other kind of practitioner may have beliefs and values of his/own which he/she cannot in good conscience violate. (No responsible doctor or dietician, for example, will help an emaciated anorexic to fulfil the goal that he has set himself of losing further weight.) The goal which a client has set himself may in fact be either impossible or highly unlikely of attainment. If a counsellor believes this to be the case, he cannot in good conscience encourage a client to believe otherwise and is no danger at all of breaching the client’s human rights by saying so. On the contrary, the counsellor would be deceitful and dishonest if he/she did not do this. I can think of a number of things that I would like to have but which no counsellor can ever help me to get. To say that a counsellor in this situation has not been equipped to meet my needs would not be an appropriate criticism.
“The problem with this is that there is no diagnostic tool for us to be able to claim that a client has internalised homophobia. In fact internalised homophobia is not a condition recognised by the American Psychiatric Association…” etc.
The problem with this, of course, Phelim, is that it does not follow from the above that there is no such thing as internalised homophobia: a phenomenon does not have to be an officially recognized medical or psychiatric condition in order to exist. The definition given by medilexicon.com is “the type of homophobia occurring in a homosexual person, often associated with self-loathing, self-censure, and self-censorship.” Internalised homophobia, as so defined, undoubtedly exists.
It can, I think, be plausibly maintained – and I personally would maintain – that internalised homophobia is a mistaken, highly undesirable and dangerous attitude or frame of mind which, while it may not itself be a psychiatric illness, may nonetheless be a cause of psychiatric illnesses, e.g. depression.
Those who approve of internalised homophobia and wish to encourage it, perhaps in order to sustain or expand the “market” for ex-gay programs and change therapies, may prefer to call it by a different name.
You say that “the counsellor is there to help the client fulfil the goal they have set themselves”, and that a counsellor who does not believe that change of sexual orientation is possible “has not been equipped to meet the clients needs and would be in danger of breaching the clients human rights”.
It’s not quite as simple as that. A counsellor, psychiatrist, psychotherapist or any other kind of practitioner may have beliefs and values of his/own which he/she cannot in good conscience violate. (No responsible doctor or dietician, for example, will help an emaciated anorexic to fulfil the goal that he has set himself of losing further weight.) The goal which a client has set himself may in fact be either impossible or highly unlikely of attainment. If a counsellor believes this to be the case, he cannot in good conscience encourage a client to believe otherwise and is no danger at all of breaching the client’s human rights by saying so. On the contrary, the counsellor would be deceitful and dishonest if he/she did not do this. I can think of a number of things that I would like to have but which no counsellor can ever help me to get. To say that a counsellor in this situation has not been equipped to meet my needs would not be an appropriate criticism.