Submitted by Gene Howington, Guest Blogger
Augusta State University (ASU) of Georgia was taken to court by a clinical psychology student, Jennifer Keeton, who refused to do coursework necessary for completing her degree. The coursework in question dealt with LGBTQ population. “In her brief, Keeton describes herself as a Christian who is committed to the truth of the Bible, including what she believes are its teachings on human nature, the purpose and meaning of life, and the ethical standards that govern human conduct. She holds several beliefs about homosexuality that she views as arising from her Christian faith. She believes that ‘sexual behavior is the result of personal choice for which individuals are accountable, not inevitable deterministic forces; that gender is fixed and binary (i.e., male or female), not a social construct or personal choice subject to individual change; and that homosexuality is a ‘lifestyle,’ not a ‘state of being.’” ASU’s officials became aware that Keeton held these beliefs when she expressed to professors in class and fellow classmates in and out of class that she believed that the GLBTQ population suffers from identity confusion, and that she intended to attempt to convert students from being homosexual to heterosexual. Keeton also said that it would be difficult for her to work with GLBTQ clients and to separate her views about homosexuality from her clients’ views. Further, in answering a hypothetical posed by a faculty member, Keeton responded that as a high school counselor confronted by a sophomore student in crisis, questioning his sexual orientation, she would tell the student that it was not okay to be gay. Similarly, Keeton told a fellow classmate that, if a client discloses that he is gay, it was her intention to tell the client that his behavior is morally wrong and then try to change the client’s behavior, and if she were unable to help the client change his behavior, she would refer him to someone practicing conversion therapy.” Keeton v. Anderson-Wiley, 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 10-13925, D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cv-00099-JRH-WLB (Dec. 16, 2011)
This raises some interesting questions concerning free speech, free exercise and educational and professional accreditation.
Keeton’s stance is not only out of line with the prevailing views of homosexuality as expressed by the American Psychological Association (APA), but it runs afoul of the guidelines set forth in the American Counseling Association’s (ACA) Code of Ethics, which ASU was required to adopt and teach in order to offer a counseling program accredited by the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP). To resolve this problem, ASU put Keeton into a remediation program before she could participate in the program’s clinical practicum, in which she would have engaged in one-on-one counseling with a student. The remediation plan was to help Keeton learn how to comply with the ACA Code of Ethics and improve her “ability to be a multiculturally competent counselor, particularly with regard to working with [GLBTQ] populations.” Remediation is not a disciplinary action. As one ASU official described it, a remediation plan is “a plan to deal with the professional part of the curriculum that goes across the program, goes across classes. It’s a plan that is devised with students in order to help students to grow professionally in areas of weakness.”
The ASU student handbook states that students can be placed on “remediation status” when a “student’s progress is not satisfactory on interpersonal or professional criteria unrelated to academic performance.” As in Keeton’s case, the student then receives a remediation plan “outlining the faculty’s concerns” and “delineat[ing] what conditions the student must meet to be removed from remediation status.” Keeton was warned that failure to complete the remediation would result in her being dismissed from the program. After agreeing to the remediation, Keeton was allowed to participate in the program’s clinical practicum. Soon thereafter, Keeton withdrew from the clinical practicum, stating, “I am not going to agree to a remediation plan that I already know I won’t be able to successfully complete.”
Rather than complete the remediation so she could complete the required clinical practicum for her degree, Jennifer Keeton filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that requiring her to complete the remediation plan violated her First Amendment free speech and free exercise rights. Keeton also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to prevent ASU’s officials from dismissing her from the program if she did not complete the remediation plan.
The Georgia courts denied her request for preliminary injunction, stating that Keeton had not met the first requirement for granting such an injunction – establishing a substantial likelihood of success on the merits with respect to her free speech and free exercise claims. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed to lower court’s ruling.
The school did not say Keeton could not practice her religion or say what she likes, but rather said that by refusing to treat LGBTQ patients under accepted professional guidelines that she was not fulfilling the educational requirements for the degree she sought. Consider an alternative situation: a geography student who believes in the Flat Earth Theory and refuses to teach anything else as part of their teaching practicum in pursuit of their Ph.D. Surely the school is reasonable in withholding a degree from said person when they allow their personal beliefs to interfere with their course work required for completion of the degree, but especially when said belief contradicts the scientific consensus within the field? Not challenge mind you. Contradict. To challenge a fact is to dispute it as being unjust, invalid, or outmoded. Dispute means to argue to the contrary or alternative. Contradict means to imply the opposite or a denial of fact. When dealing with scientific facts, like any finding of fact, disputing them is part of the fact finding process but it must be based on evidence, not belief. Keeton presented no evidence for her beliefs, only the assertion that because that’s what she believes, it must be true.
Do you think Keeton would have been sanctioned so if she had merely presented her beliefs as an alternative instead of an absolute? Do you think Keeton’s treatment by ASU was fair, both in their administration of policy and adherence to educational standards of the field? Do you think that the court was correct in their finding that Keeton had failed to establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits with respect to her free speech and free exercise claims?
What do you think?
Source(s): Daily Kos, UC-Davis, Keeton v. Anderson-Wiley (.pdf)
Kudo to Otteray Scribe for pointing out this story.
~Submitted by Gene Howington, Guest Blogger
mespo,
The seasonal bugs have been bad this year. While I’m glad to hear you enjoyed the article, I’m twice as pleased to hear you are on the mend. Ut valeas et bona vita!
To mespo, fundamentalists do not require proof. Once they invoke a higher authority (i.e., the Bible), that answers all questions and settles all issues.
And, by the way, I have always used two spaces after a period. I happen to have a copy of “Standard Handbook for Secretaries,” 8th edition, 1979, p 275:
“Typewrite Spacings”
period two spaces (three, with elite type) after each.
This references “Words Into Type,” c1948 by Skillin, Gay, et al:
“While there may be some aesthetic advantage to be gained from this close spacing, it leaves little chance for the reader to group words that belong together. Educators voice the objection that this practice is helping to break down students’ notion of the integrity of the sentence. A little more open spacing between sentences in textbooks and books of reference is generally to be preferred.”
Now, perhaps, in today’s world of word processing and electronic data communication, it is perhaps a tremendous waste of bandwidth to have to transmit the character code for an extra blank space. But I think it just looks better to spread the thoughts out a bit, and separate them. Or am I just a throwback to the age of cuneiform?
It seems to me that the woman in question should have gone after a divinity degree, and been ordained as a preacher.
I’m struck by the arrogance of the fundamentalist. Rather than compy with secular requirements, she feels it an act of faith to change the entire system of profesional standards to meet her religion. If she had proof of her assertions with respect to the gay and lesibial lifestyle then she has grounds to push for change, but asserting it’s merely her belief is no ground at all absent some proof. Another fantasy in the deluge of fantasy that is faith-based reasoning.
Thanks, raff. We all have it!
Mespo,
I am glad that you are felling better. A lot of flu and colds going around this winter.
Gene:
Very much enjoyed the article. I’m feeling a little better and should be back in the saddle in a day or two at the most. Meanwhile, the GBs have provided me the best tonic available.
Two spaces. I know it’s “wrong.” It’s why I do it. I also use the imperial comma.
and here’s some beautiful Adele (my grandmother’s name!)
I say she is entitled to her own opinions but she cannot make moral judgement on her patients that’s grossly unfair and can be very harmful to the patient. For my part I think that being gay can be a cultural thing, but can also be a natural desire for the same sex and I was brought up religious. I mean I have very close friends who are gay. It’s cool with me. Personally I’d take that girl as a psychologist any day of the week she is fine.
The lengthy initials which I presume describe gays lesbians etc vs non the same reminds me of the Three Stooges movie where they do the alphabet thing and distract one from the message. B I O, B I E, B I bicki I by O Gee, bicki I biki O GG.
This litigant needs to go to the deep south fifty years ago and work on the all white ward with no catholics, jews, or even Pentacostals. It is called b.i.g.o.t
I dont think that a court will play the Stoges game with any initials. I intend to call up hte case on Pacer and learn what I can.
Hilarious Pete!
Two spaces. Habit. Never going to change.
I know that the Bible says it is a sin for “a man to lay down with a man”
but lesbians are cool
we are all free to believe what we wish, it’s our actions that count
Gene,
It seems to me that the problem here is the inability of some people to seperate their personal and religious beliefs; from their treatment of their fellow citizens.
Isn’t this what America is supposed to be about and isn’t this what the Constitution was designed to prevent?
I’m going to go ahead and stick my neck out and reveal that i am a pretty fair example.
I believe in God.
I believe that the Bible is God’s word.
I know that the Bible says it is a sin for “a man to lay down with a man”
I also know that people don’t become Gay. I know this from the scientific reseach and from my own personal observations that agree.
What a reasonable person deduces from this is that being Gay is not a sin because God would not condemn you for something you have no controll over.
The sin is in the acting on the desire to lay with a man; not in having the desire.
Yes; I realise that what i am saying is that I believe for a Gay person to be “right with God” they must refrain from having sex with men.
This does not prohibit them from having sex with a woman if they are able to live that way.
Of course sex with a woman is not an option for all.
Having said that: I do not believe that I have a right to treat any person differently because I don’t believe they are acting as i believe they should.
I don’t try to convince my Gay associates that they should not be Gay or that they should not have sex with men. None of my business.
Each person must (if they choose to) develope their own personal relationship with God. They must act as their conscience dictates whether i agree or not.
If they are wrong’ they will find that out one day. If not; there is no issue but either way; my only possible involvement would be; not to judge them but to explain my beliefs…………If Asked.
I have never understood why I should feel that because I believe a person is wrong in their morals; that I should want, need, or try to condemn them as a person.
We are all here together. Not one of us is free from one type of sin or another; whether you consider them sins against God or sins against Natural Law or against man’s instincual understanding of right and wrong.
You sleep with men, I defile my body with smoke, my friend injects heroin everyday, my neighbor and his wife like to have threesomes, another friend of mine cheats on his wife, my uncle is an alchoholic. I could go on of course; but to what end I don’t know.
What specific sins we committ or what lifestyle we choose because of our inherent sexual orientation has (or should not have) any bearing on how they are treated under the law, how they are traeted by their neighbors or what treatment they receive for whatever problem they might have.
I don’t get it. I never have.
Martin, the answer is ‘yes’ as I read the lawsuit. As Gene wrote in the article, “Jennifer Keeton filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that requiring her to complete the remediation plan violated her First Amendment free speech and free exercise rights.”
The only problem with her stance is that her beliefs and refusal to learn anything about the ethics of dealing with people having beliefs different from hers, is that one cannot admit to being unethical and still expect a university to grant them a degree from their accredited program.
Note that she says if confronted with a student who was gay, if she would tell them being gay is wrong and refer the student to a “conversion therapy” program. CT programs have been found to not only not work, but cause harm to participants. Here is what the American Psychological Association special task force assigned to study the issue found out. This is their official report. (PDF warning; it is a big file, 130 pages long)
http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf
Do you think Keeton would have been sanctioned so if she had merely presented her beliefs as an alternative instead of an absolute?
Gene,
It seems to me that had she offered the Christian belief as an alternative; without her personal endorsement; as in, “We have several options depending on your desired result. One of those; for a person who desires to attempt to live a straight life is…. ” along with options to help the person figure out how to live a Gay life; then she probably would not have been sanctioned.
If offered as maverratick suggests “she merely told kids *they might want to agree with her* that it isn’t OK to be gay?”; then of course, as he said; she would still be sanctioned; rightly
The facts of this case are not such though. In this case, the “Christian Option” was the only option she was prepared to offer her clients. This would and should preclude her from continuence in any accredited program which ends in a proffesional license or degree.
“Do you think Keeton’s treatment by ASU was fair, both in their administration of policy and adherence to educational standards of the field?”
Yes. More than fair. I am surprized that it took so long to find this person’s intention. Had this been discovered earlier; much time and effort and money would have been saved. Had she made it clear from the time of her entrance into the program; I feel that she should heve been denied entrance or at least been made to understand that a degree was not an option (I prefer the first because it prevents her from studying in that program and thus a degree never becomes an issue)
No i don’t think this is decriminatory. In order to be accreditted or licensed in any profession, a person is required to meet standards and conform to certain policies. A person might be allowed to do more to help a client; but never less. if she chooses to practice without a degree; i believe she should be required to make clear; personally; verbally; and have each client sign a release stating that they are aware that she is not acreditted and that she only offers Christian Therapy with the one and only goal being conversion to Herterosexuality. She most likely is not required to do so in those states mentioned as not requiring a degree.
“Do you think that the court was correct in their finding that Keeton had failed to establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits with respect to her free speech and free exercise claims?”
Yes. Of course. Aside from the argument offered by the court; that her right to free speach was not abridged as she was free to practice her religion other than as part of her proffesional conduct where that conduct interferes with the right of clients to obtain the best treatment available with the outcome they choose; there is the related principle that you rights are absolute until they interfere with another persons rights; in this case the right to expect treatment that will achieve the desired goal.
A second concern is that she has expressed the intent; not only to treat these people exclusively with the “Christian Option” but has said that she is determined to refer any she can’t convert to a practitioner of “Conversion Therapy”.
“The American Psychiatric Association states that conversion therapy is a type of psychiatric treatment “based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that a patient should change his/her sexual homosexual orientation.” Psychologist Douglas Haldeman writes that conversion therapy comprises efforts by mental health professionals and pastoral care providers to convert lesbians and gay men to heterosexuality by techniques including aversive treatments, such as “the application of electric shock to the hands and/or genitals,” and “nausea-inducing drugs…administered simultaneously with the presentation of homoerotic stimuli,” masturbatory reconditioning, visualization, social skills training, psychoanalytic therapy, and spiritual interventions, such as “prayer and group support and pressure.”
Mainstream American medical and scientific organizations have expressed concern over conversion therapy and consider it potentially harmful. The advancement of conversion therapy may cause social harm by disseminating inaccurate views about sexual orientation. The ethics guidelines of major mental health organizations in the United States vary from cautionary statements to recommendations that ethical practitioners refrain from practicing conversion therapy (American Psychiatric Association) or from referring patients to those who do (American Counseling Association). In a letter dated February 23, 2011 to the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, the Attorney General of the United States stated “while sexual orientation carries no visible badge, a growing scientific consensus accepts that sexual orientation is a characteristic that is immutable”.
OS She did not want to do the required coursework because it interfered with her beliefs. To me that indicates she is not interested in practicing under the laws of that state or profession.
(In Pa you have to be certified to be a counselor but not a ‘therapist- funny sort fo thing. I am a certified hypnotherapist and can call myself such but if in NJ it is illegal to call yourself a hypnotherapist you can only be called a hypnocounselor.)
You either want to abide by the university rules and professional guidelines or you really do not want to be in that profession. There are plenty of schools that would grant her a degree but it is her choice whether she wants to abide by the laws of her chosen profession as well as the state. She does not. Her recourse, to me, is to go to a religious school and be granted a degree that allows her to practice (something) in her ignorant biased way.