Meet Jennifer Keeton - The Link Jennifer is in the Counseling Program at Augusta State University. Her views on homosexuality are at odds with those of her professors. She belives that homosexuality is a sin and a life style choice. Her professors feel those beliefs make her a poor candidate for a career in which she may be called upon to offer sympathetic and effective counseling to gays and lesbians. The program has asked that she engage in remedial activities that
Some difficult issues there. I don't know if the professors should be forced to accept her views, i.e. give her good or passing grades on papers espousing a religious point of view over the predominant scientific community's views. If she wants to counsel people from a religious point of view it is her right, but perhaps she should be attending a Bible college which would teach people to counsel from a religious point of view. Then there is the problem of hiring someone to counsel patients after graduation-an employer shouldn't have to hire someone whose views they don't agree with. Again, if it is one of the religious groups that counsel the way she wants to, and if there are patients who want that kind of treatment, then that is their right. It isn't any different than taking geology and having a student who writes a paper saying the earth is 4,000 years old and everything the class is teaching is bunk. How is a professor going to grade that paper? You can respect someone religious views, but when they are diametrically opposed to classroom teaching, what do you do? Is every teacher going to be sued because they don't teach according to someone's interpretation of the Old Testament? No, Jennifer needs to go to Oral Roberts or someplace like that. It will be entertaining to view the results of the latest Scopes monkey trail, however.
I don't know exactly what the details are. Her beliefs should in no way be a disqualification for admission to or graduation from any school. Nor should they disqualify her from any professional certifications or hiring. Her failure to demonstrate knowledge consistent with the literature is an academic failing that would justify not advancing her. Her refusal to follow accepted professional practices is a reason to deny her certification. Her refusal to comport herself according to the principles of an employer is reason not to employ or retain her. Beliefs, knowledge, and behavior are three distinct issues. EDITed for typo.
This reminds me of people who defined the "mark of Cain" as turning Cain and all his progeny black. I occasionally heard this espoused during my youth in Dallas during the 1950's and 60's. And that Cain's whole lineage (meaning all black people) were forever cursed by God. I assume this religious belief would not be acceptable to most university faculties today. Times change and mainstream religious beliefs change. Hopefully we are in a time of transition in religious beliefs about homosexuality. In the mean time, state supported schools should teach scientifically supported, best-practices guidelines and expect students to abide by them, while church based universities can teach what they will within the limits of the law.
What other religion based beliefs do you want to see college cirricula honor? Should Buddists sue if a class doesn't teach their beliefs? Should Hindus sue A&M for teaching Poultry Science? This doesn't restrict her religion, she is trying to restrict the educational system, and yes, it sounds just like the conservatives on the Texas Education Board.
Augusta State is a publicly funded university, and as such it is subject to the 1st Amendment. Therefore it may not, as I understand it, legally punish a student for simply voicing her religious beliefs in class—let alone outside of class. It could, on the other hand, fire an instructor for such views (in professional academia, freedom of speech is vested in the institution, not in the employee). It would be a more debatable issue if the student found herself in poor academic standing due to her beliefs—if a teacher decided to fail her for turning in a paper that advanced a particular belief system. But that is not what’s indicated by the article. It suggests that a student, who was otherwise in good academic standing, was singled out by a committee for remediation because of her religious views.
For those who are truly interested in this topic, I recommend an excellent book written by Dr. Jeffrey Satinover entitled "Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth". This book goes into why the APA changed it's position on how they viewed homosexuality over the course of the late 60s early 70s (I haven't read the book in a while so not sure the exact year it was voted to be changed in the behavioural book, but I am thinking 1973). It was a political movement not a scientific one. Dr. Satinover is a former fellow in Psychiatry and Child Psychiatry at Yale, and past William James leturer in Psychology and Religion at Harvard. He has degrees from MIT, Harvard and the University of Texas. ( I believe it is from UT's southwestern medical center in Dallas). I took his credentials from the back cover of the book FYI. Bottomline, is that he is well educated in these matters and it is an extremely interesting read. Psychology is always interesting to me. Worldview is vitally important, but not necessarily prescriptive. In fact, in the gradudate level pyschology classes I have had (really only 2), it was interesting that textbooks said that a therapist could approach life really from any worldview, but failed to discern between then at all. Are all worldviews equal? How do science and religion play together? Are they necessarily at odds? etc. Great questions to discuss, but that book deals directly with the matter in this OP.
GT- First, if the student in question let their religious beliefs be known upon interviewing for pharmacy school they probably would not have been admitted as a pharmacy student to begin with. Second, if they were in school and have chosen a career path where they would not be working as a retail or clinic pharmacist then the point is moot. Otherwise, the student should be required to sit down and discuss their duties and responsibilities as a healthcare professional with the administration and then make the decision to stay in school or not. If their religious convictions are so strong I would help coach and point that person down a career path that would best suit their desires and needs. Personally, The only person I've denied the morning after pill to was a dude who was asking for it, "just in case". It just comes down to using "religion" as your excuse. If a pharmacist refused to fill a morning after pill because the person asking for it was a rude, obnoxious ***** then I'm ok with that just as I cannot walk into a nice restaurant and act like a complete ******* and still expect to be served.
You guys that want state institutions to discriminate on the basis of religious beliefs, actions notwithstanding, scare me a little. Schools may demand knowledge, professional boards behavior, but belief? I am not suggesting I know what the student in question has done or may do. I am merely rejecting using a religious test.
Maybe a counselor who believes that homosexuality is a sin will be best able to counsel a homosexual due to their correct understanding? Does believing homosexuality to be a sin necessitate the person to condemn and further injure the client emotionally? Or can that understanding not be used in a wise, compassionate, sympathetic way to point them to the truth and thereby healing even without condemnation?
Leave the counseling about "sin" to the church based programs. Non-church based therapy would not include telling a patient they are evil and must change their sexual orientation because some people believe that's what the Old Testament dictates.
as somone who went to a seminary with a Master's of Conseling major. (they changed the name it was an MACP when I was there) It was fully accredited and most professors were members of the APA. It was a religious school. Pretty conservative Christian in fact. I will say that there is a BROAD spectrum of approaches in counseling, and I don't think that necessarily one worldview should be singled out. Also, The morning after pill is not medicine. It is actually something that could be considered contraray to the Hippocratic Oath. TexasRx, I am younger than you, but graduated with several friends in Pharmacy at UT. Most of them do not fill morning after scripts, and I know one who would not even fill contraception scripts. Pharmacists in Texas have the legal right to not fill any script they have a moral objection to. Just as doctors have the ability to not treat with certain procedures based on religious belief. One massive philosophical issue is at stake here. People don't practice in conflict with their religious beliefs, all people practice in concert with their religious beliefs. Religious belief and worldview is always existant before actions.
If people are allowed to withhold pharmacy treatments or counseling techniques due to their strong religious beliefs, there should be a law requiring them to clearly state that this is that type of facility, so consumers could choose whether or not they want that kind of treatment. Some would, some would not, but it shouldn't be hidden from view.
GT WT, if she meets the criteria for admission, and is capable of learning the information, then she should be admitted to a program regardless of her beliefs. If she can be hired in her career path and apply her trade in an appropriate manner as judged by her employer, then she should be allowed the career of her choosing regardless of her beliefs. If a professor is of the opinion that her personal beliefs impair her ability to perform in a therapeutic manner, then that professor has no obligation to recommend her. A letter of recommendation is a voluntary endorsement given by an individual (not an institution) based on that individual's judgement.
accurate, Any counselor is required by ethics to be up front about their approach to counseling. Doctors, Chiropractors, physical therapists, pharmacists should be as well. I have no problem with that. I just think that people ought to have a variety of choices when it comes to healing and health. Not all doctors use the same meds or surgical procedures for the same patient, which is why second opinions are always important.
I am in agreement with you, THEU. People should have choices, and one sort of treatment may not be right for all.
I keep seeing the phrase "telling the person they are evil." What a bigoted response. It also clearly demonstrates an utter failure to grasp what being a Christian is, and isn't.
