Recently, a federal judge upheld the dismissal of a counseling student at Eastern Michigan University due to her refusal to provide counseling to an individual who had previously sought counseling about a same-sex relationship.

Julea Ward’s dreams of becoming a high school counselor came to a screeching halt because she was disinclined to affirm any behavior that “goes against what the Bible says.”

Ms. Ward claimed in her federal lawsuit that her Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection were violated when the university expelled her from the program due to her religious beliefs and personal choice to deny therapeutically appropriate services to lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) clients.

Before she was excused from her counseling program, Eastern Michigan University offered Ms. Ward the option to enter a remediation program that would educate her about LGB culture and help her develop appropriate therapeutic skills for working with LGB clients. She declined this offer, claiming that there was no need for remediation as she was following her ethical responsibility to refer the client to another counselor because the client’s behavior conflicted with her personal beliefs.

While the American Counseling Association’s ethics code states that it is a counselor’s responsibility to refer his or her clients to other culturally and clinically appropriate resources if the counselor “determines an inability to be of professional assistance to clients,” (A.11.b Inability to Assist Clients) this particular section of the ethics code activates when a counselor is sick or otherwise incapacitated.

Further, as stated clearly in the American Counseling Association’s Code of Ethics, “Counselors do not condone or engage in discrimination based on … sexual orientation.” (C.5 Nondiscrimination)

Ms. Ward is certainly entitled to her choice of religion, but her personal beliefs have no place in any counseling session. At a fundamental level, it appears that she is a poor match for her former university and the counseling profession as a whole because of her unwillingness to work with LGB individuals appropriately.

Should Ms. Ward choose to pursue her work in another helping profession, she will find that her choice to deny therapeutically appropriate services to LGB clients does not fit within any ethical codes in the field.

The National Association of Social Workers’ Code of Ethics states, “Social workers should not practice, condone, facilitate, or collaborate with any form of discrimination on the basis of … sexual orientation …”

The American Association for Marriage and Family Therapists’ Code of Ethics states in its first principle that, “Marriage and family therapists provide professional assistance to persons without discrimination on the basis o f… sexual orientation…”

Finally, the American Psychological Association’s Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct states in Principle E, “Psychologists are aware of and respect cultural, individual, and role differences, including those based on… sexual orientation… and consider these factors when working with members of these groups.”

Simply put, no helping profession affords the luxury of denying services to anyone based on sexual orientation. But let us put aside ethics codes for a moment.

Ms. Ward stated that she would not affirm any behavior that “goes against what the Bible says.” It is important to remind prospective counselors that the Bible is not an a la carte menu when taken literally.

If Ms. Ward were a counselor at a high school, it stands to reason that the following would occur:

-- The football team at her high school would be denied counseling because tossing around the pigskin goes against what the Bible says (Leviticus 11:7-8).

-- Pubescent boys would be denied counseling should they choose to shave because that goes against what the Bible says (Leviticus 19:27).

-- Students who eat shellfish would be denied services as well because that goes against what the Bible says (Leviticus 11:10-11).

-- Last but not least, high school students who are disrespectful to their parents would be denied counseling because that goes against what the Bible says (Leviticus 20:9).

Who does that leave in the average high school?

It seems to me that Ms. Ward or any counseling student who takes the Bible literally would have a severely limited client pool in the vast majority of high schools across the country. Eastern Michigan University may have done Ms. Ward a favor by ejecting her from their counseling program because her choice to deny services to anyone who exhibits behavior that “goes against what the Bible says” precludes Ms. Ward from providing counseling to most high school students and thus would make her a poor job candidate for the majority of high school districts in the country.

Do not get me wrong. I hold no animus toward Ms. Ward and I hope that she someday finds the inner strength to realize her error should she want to continue working toward becoming a counselor. The field needs more heterosexual-identified counselors who are willing to work with LGB clients in an affirming manner, and the growth that Ms. Ward may experience as she becomes more affirming of differing sexual orientations could actually make her an excellent counselor in this field.

If only she were open to realizing her potential.

I imagine that Ms. Ward might feel incredibly alone at the moment after being kicked out of her school based on her poor and ill-informed decision. As a fellow starving graduate student, my heart goes out to her as she finds a way to somehow cope with her impending student loan repayments.

The ruling in this case will likely be appealed, and there is another similar federal case in Georgia where a counseling student was expelled for allowing her personal religious beliefs to interfere with her training about LGB culture. These cases are likely headed to the Supreme Court in the coming years, and we will be here to cover the rulings.