Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm sorry but I'm still having a problem with this line of reasoning.
Again, quality control is the purview of professional associations, that license such professions.
Regardless of one's views if one satisfactorially completes the course work, one should be granted a degree. Perhaps this is a personal issue for me, because I certainly did not buy into the Chicago School of Economic taught at my alma mater, in point of fact I rejected it at every opportunity except for exams and papers where a well placed "according to" got me around my personal objections. I would have be thoroughly miffed if I had been denied a degree based upon my personally held belief about the subject matter despite haveing recieved passing grades in the course where I didn't buy into what was being taught.
I am troubled by the partitioning of responsibility here. The genuine disagreements between competing economic schools are reflective of their intellectual parity. The disagreements between (for example) creationists and evolutionary scientists are not.
Certainly, such distinctions lay on a continuum of distinction, and where we draw the line between what is a valid disagreement and an invalid one is by definition arbitrary. But even erring boldly on the side of caution, sometimes it is just not a hard call. And when it is not a hard call, I believe that educational institutions share responsibility with licensing and professional organizations in denying their imprimatur.
An educator is frankly in a far better position to judge an individual's genuine competence than any professional organization, especially when reflecting on the difference between long term personal interaction and a test score. A person who is granted a degree (having merely "played the game") is likely to be equally adept at gaining a professional certification, but with much less risk of revealing their rejection of the material that serves as the foundation of the profession.
I'm sorry but I'm still having a problem with this line of reasoning.
Again, quality control is the purview of professional associations, that license such professions.
Regardless of one's views if one satisfactorially completes the course work, one should be granted a degree. Perhaps this is a personal issue for me, because I certainly did not buy into the Chicago School of Economic taught at my alma mater, in point of fact I rejected it at every opportunity except for exams and papers where a well placed "according to" got me around my personal objections. I would have be thoroughly miffed if I had been denied a degree based upon my personally held belief about the subject matter despite haveing recieved passing grades in the course where I didn't buy into what was being taught.
Economics is not counseling.
The student has not completed the coursework in a satisfactory manner, because one of the requirements for counseling is to learn how to separate one's personal beliefs, feelings and biases from the counseling process. This student has not done so. The remedial work the school gave her was to help her master this skill. Counseling requires objectivity. Because she has shown that her intention is to apply her values to the counseling process, without regards to the values of the people being counseled, she is demonstrating that she has not mastered the requirement to be objective. The school clearly sets this ability as a primary one, and that would have been clear from the moment this student started attending. If the student has a problem with meeting the requirements of the school, she is free to pursue her academic degrees elsewhere. There are many schools with counseling programs and degrees. Her rights are not being abridged. Her demands that her perspective be accepted by the school is not a right.
The University has not filed its Answer yet, so we don't know its defenses, but they should be interesting.
If I was a judge, just based on what I see in her interviews and in the Complaint, I would rule that her views are not religious in nature, not compelled by Christianity, and are are not subject to the protections of religious freedom. They are personal beliefs cloaked in the mantle of religion, but the defense probably can get any number of religious experts, clergymen, to testify their religion does not regard homosexulity as a sin, nor its practitioners as immoral or "sick."
She better hope she doesn't get a gay judge. For some insight on what courts might think of this, the Supreme Court a couple of years go struck down a Texas state law making homosexul sodomy illegal. If I recall without looking it up, part of the rationale was these folks have basic rights to express their sexual preferences. As a state funded institution I can see the Univ. refusing to give a degree in counseling to someone who regards homosexuality as a mental illness that has to be cured.
Her comments might be protected by the First Amendment , but no one is denying her the freedom to speak as she wishes. However one's comments may have consequences. General McChrystal is a recent example.
If she was vocally for gay behavior and against Christian beliefs in the same way she is vocally against gay behavior and supportive of Christianity , would they then put her in a "remedial" program to teach her about "tolerance" for those that are conservative and Christian? Would they make her go to a Catholic mass or evangelical church service to see if her views on Christianity changed? I do not think they would and would be heavily sued if they tried to do so. The same people against this girl would then be enthusiastically in support of her. So in essence they are discriminating her viewpoints in a way that they would not do if the situation was reversed. If they are concerned about her professionalism because of her anti-homosexual views than surely they could make the same case against those that voiced anti-Christian or anti-religious viewpoints in papers and in class discussions.
I think the University will lose the case because of how vague the handbook is on "interpersonal" skills being a factor in achieving a degree. How do you objectively determine how a person's non academic skills will affect their performance in that field professionally? If today being a preachy conservative Christian is grounds for being unprofessional, what happens when people change their viewpoints and then atheist viewpoints become grounds for being unprofessional? When you give or take away degrees based on these standards you are making the degree political and personal and not academic and professional. What if there was a student that was naturally shy or introverted, if that grounds for dismissal from the program based on a lack of interpersonal skills? The university will lose and they should change their standards to be more objective and less subjective. Their standards as written is a recipe for discrimination for all sides.
The most scary thing is that her peers reported her. If a student was preachy to me about religion and homosexuality, I would never go to my professors and tell them. The only way I can see reporting her viewpoints to the authorities as being acceptable is if she used homophobic slurs such as the f-word. It is a bad precedent to set in a free society when universities encourage and use hearsay info reported by students against others. Many dictatorships used and still employ this. A university is a place where people should voice viewpoints without fear of being tattled on. Im sure that the same people that support her peers would be pissed if they were tattled on like this. There is no law that says someone cant preach their faith to someone else. If the university is going to send her to a remedial program in part because she was preaching to her fellow students and encourage students to report such behavior to school authorities, then they should be encouraged to do so for students that smoke marijuana and get drunk frequently. They should send those students to remedial programs. How can a counselor that heavily smokes marijuana and drinks frequently be counted on to counsel public school kids about staying away from drugs and alcohol? Isnt the risk of that just as high as the risk that this girl would push her faith and views on gay students? At this point, we have the university becoming thought police. If being a heavy marijuana user can be a counselor than so can a preachy conservative. The risks of both being able to handle their job is the same unless there are statistics that show the rate of occurrence on both sides of the negative consequences that can come from their views and behaviors if they receive the degree. I challenge anyone to show me any statistics on the amount of conservative Christians or drug users that have complaints against them for pushing their viewpoint or encouraging behaviors.
If she was vocally for gay behavior and against Christian beliefs in the same way she is vocally against gay behavior and supportive of Christianity , would they then put her in a "remedial" program to teach her about "tolerance" for those that are conservative and Christian? Would they make her go to a Catholic mass or evangelical church service to see if her views on Christianity changed? I do not think they would and would be heavily sued if they tried to do so. The same people against this girl would then be enthusiastically in support of her. So in essence they are discriminating her viewpoints in a way that they would not do if the situation was reversed. If they are concerned about her professionalism because of her anti-homosexual views than surely they could make the same case against those that voiced anti-Christian or anti-religious viewpoints in papers and in class discussions.
I think the University will lose the case because of how vague the handbook is on "interpersonal" skills being a factor in achieving a degree. How do you objectively determine how a person's non academic skills will affect their performance in that field professionally? If today being a preachy conservative Christian is grounds for being unprofessional, what happens when people change their viewpoints and then atheist viewpoints become grounds for being unprofessional? When you give or take away degrees based on these standards you are making the degree political and personal and not academic and professional. What if there was a student that was naturally shy or introverted, if that grounds for dismissal from the program based on a lack of interpersonal skills? The university will lose and they should change their standards to be more objective and less subjective. Their standards as written is a recipe for discrimination for all sides.
The most scary thing is that her peers reported her. If a student was preachy to me about religion and homosexuality, I would never go to my professors and tell them. The only way I can see reporting her viewpoints to the authorities as being acceptable is if she used homophobic slurs such as the f-word. It is a bad precedent to set in a free society when universities encourage and use hearsay info reported by students against others. Many dictatorships used and still employ this. A university is a place where people should voice viewpoints without fear of being tattled on. Im sure that the same people that support her peers would be pissed if they were tattled on like this. There is no law that says someone cant preach their faith to someone else. If the university is going to send her to a remedial program in part because she was preaching to her fellow students and encourage students to report such behavior to school authorities, then they should be encouraged to do so for students that smoke marijuana and get drunk frequently. They should send those students to remedial programs. How can a counselor that heavily smokes marijuana and drinks frequently be counted on to counsel public school kids about staying away from drugs and alcohol? Isnt the risk of that just as high as the risk that this girl would push her faith and views on gay students? At this point, we have the university becoming thought police. If being a heavy marijuana user can be a counselor than so can a preachy conservative. The risks of both being able to handle their job is the same unless there are statistics that show the rate of occurrence on both sides of the negative consequences that can come from their views and behaviors if they receive the degree. I challenge anyone to show me any statistics on the amount of conservative Christians or drug users that have complaints against them for pushing their viewpoint or encouraging behaviors.
It's not her beliefs that are the problem. She could be vocally in favor of Martians, and opposed to the eating of corn. The problem is that she does not separate her beliefs, feelings, biases, from the counseling process. Something that an ethical, professional counselor must be able to do, must be willing to do, must actually do. She could be a KKK advocate, but if she plans on counseling black patients to commit suicide, that's a problem. If she counsels gay patients that they are sinful and evil, she is not promoting their personal welfare. The school has tried to teach her that she has to separate her personal beliefs from her professional actions. Something she seems unwilling to do.
Let this teach you a lesson. Like myself, keep your politics very private until after you graduate or secure tenure. Then you can shout whatever you'd like from the rooftop.
That case was different since the student was practicing in this manner, meaning she REFUSED to counsel a certain segment of the population. The student we're speaking of hasn't done such a thing. Therefore, she'll still likely get her well deserved degree.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For some insight on what courts might think of this, the Supreme Court a couple of years go struck down a Texas state law making homosexul sodomy illegal. If I recall without looking it up, part of the rationale was these folks have basic rights to express their sexual preferences. As a state funded institution I can see the Univ. refusing to give a degree in counseling to someone who regards homosexuality as a mental illness that has to be cured. 
