Christian Student's Faith-Based Refusal: Julea Ward Case

Introduction

Ward versus polite case is a case of Julea Ward who has regularly expressed a conviction that her faith as a Christian prohibited her from affirming same-sex relationship among clients .for almost three years none of those elements prevented Ward from going learning towards a degree and from getting good results in class in Eastern Michigan University. The last stage of a counseling program is usually a practicum where learners are expected to take part in experimental learning that is putting into practice what they have been learning in class before they graduate. When the institution aked Ward to counsel a gay client, she asked her department supervisor either to allow her to start counseling and incase the counseling turned to relationship issues. She makes a referral or option two, the supervisor Yvonne Callaway, to refer the client to another student for counseling. The faculty supervisor made a referral to the client.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The university after the referral of the client begun a disciplinary hearing into the referral request of Ward, after several hearing from Ward, Callway as well as professor Suzanne Dugger they seceded that she be expelled from her counseling program. After this action from the university, Ward took a step of suing the institution under the first and fourteen Amendments. Before she was dismissed from the university, Dugger informed Ward that she had violated two provisions of the American Counselling Associations( ACA) code of ethics, which are taking part in discrimination practices based on sexual orientation that is refusing to counsel a gay. Also imposing values that are inconsistent with the goals of counseling.

The moral or ethical principles involved in the case between Ward versus Polite, which could have resulted in ethical conflicts, include foremost the principle of beneficence where a counselor is required to engage in professional activities that offer genera usefulness to the society. This principle was not observed in this case, which resulted in ethical conflict between Ward as well as her professor and supervisor. She was supposed to counsel gay on sexual issues while her religion is against same-sex relationships. The rules of ACA required her not to ask for a referral, which could have resulted in the enforcement of her values to the client, which is against the ethics of counseling.

Secondly, the ethical principle of justice was disobeyed .this principle requires that action is taken to be fair and just. The request for Ward to refer to the gay client was not treated in an only manner by the university. When she was asked during the hearing why she was discriminating clients, she claimed that her actions were not discriminatory since she was holding to her Christian values, which is against same-sex intimacy.

Ward correctly observed the ethical principle of fidelity since she placed the interest of the client before hers and decided rather than conducting the counseling session with a gay and won't provide the proper guidelines in terms of sexual issues she requested her supervisor Callaway to refer the client to another counselor.

Each decision made on the case between Ward and Polite tends to have inevitable consequences linked to it positive or negative. Foremost, the conclusion of the university expelling Ward from the institution after conducting the disciplinary hearing based on the issue she requested of referring a gay client resulted in the termination of her counseling program, which she was in the last stage that is she could not finish her program.

Secondly, the refusal of the university to uphold values of counselors when assigning them clients, for instance, assigning Christian counselors gay or lesbians whom the religious values prohibit think relationship may result in counselors imposing their costs to clients which is against the code of ethics of counseling.

I tend to disagree with the action taken by the district court against Ward because her request for referral of a gay client meant that she was aware of her values. Requesting for referral of the client, she was trying to avoid imposing her values on lesbian or gay customers, this asked was a form of respect to the variety of practicum consumers. Ward, throughout her previous practicum she was conducting the counseling sessions. After doing her review on the next client, she realized the client was gay. She was willing to perform the counseling if the issue of concern was not affirming their sexual practices, and that was what lead to her requesting for referral of the client. In my view, it was not an offense that leads to the dismissal from the program while the sixth circuit of Appeal claimed that Ward was dismissed from the institution basing on her faith as speech but not on referrals.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the case in question is between Ward and Polite. Ward is a graduate counseling learner at Eastern Michigan University takin part in practicum and has been scheduled to have a gay for a counseling session. After reviewing her files, she requests her supervisor for a referral of the client, claiming that Christian religious values discouraged counseling on homosexual relationships, which was successful. Later she was expelled from the institution for not performing the duties as required by the counseling department. She files a lawsuit against the school arguing through the first amendment she has the right to refuse counseling homosexuals. The federal court ruled in favor of the university, but the courts of Appeal reinstated her case.

Reference

CENTER, T. M. L., DEMARS, J., CECI, J., & OBAMA, B. H. (2018). UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT _.https://healthlaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/NHeLP-NILC-Amicus-Brief.pdf