Court: 'Tolerance is a two-way street'
Jody Brown, Charlie Butts, and Bob Kellogg - OneNewsNow - 1/27/2012 11:30:00 AM
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=1524394
The Sixth Circuit has ruled in favor of Christian graduate student Julea Ward, who almost three years ago was expelled from a university counseling program for her religious beliefs.
As part of her counseling practicum course in early 2009, Ward had been assigned a potential client who was homosexual and was seeking affirmation of that sexual orientation. Because she was unwilling to violate her own religious beliefs in the context of the counseling relationship, Ward was permitted to refer the client to another counselor -- but was told to remain in the counseling program she would have to undergo a "remediation" program that would help her "see the error of her ways."
When Ward refused, a faculty committee dismissed her from the program. In her subsequent lawsuit, a district federal court ruled in favor of EMU -- a ruling that has now been reversed.
"A university cannot compel a student to alter or violate her belief systems based on a phantom policy as the price for obtaining a degree ...," wrote the Sixth Circuit. "Why treat Ward differently? That her conflict arose from religious convictions is not a good answer; that her conflict arose from religious convictions for which the department at times showed little tolerance is a worse answer."
The court continued: "Ward was willing to work with all clients and to respect the school's affirmation directives in doing so. That is why she asked to refer gay and lesbian clients (and some heterosexual clients) if the conversation required her to affirm their sexual practices. What more could the rule require? Surely, for example, the ban on discrimination against clients based on their religion (1) does not require a Muslim counselor to tell a Jewish client that his religious beliefs are correct if the conversation takes a turn in that direction and (2) does not require an atheist counselor to tell a person of faith that there is a God if the client is wrestling with faith-based issues. Tolerance is a two-way street. Otherwise, the rule mandates orthodoxy, not anti-discrimination."
Ward was represented by Alliance Defense Fund. ADF attorney Jeremy Tedesco tells OneNewsNow that the school was obviously hostile to Ward's faith:
"The university's reaction was [to] put her up on disciplinary charges for doing it, and through the course of her disciplinary proceedings to attack and denigrate her religious beliefs," Tedesco explains. "They took her on a self-styled 'theological bout' where they attacked her understanding of scripture. They asked her whether her 'brand' of Christianity was superior to that of other Christians and various things -- [all of which] shows that what was really going on was they did not like her religious beliefs."
The school, says Tedesco, was way out of line. He contends EMU would argue that Ward tried to change her client's views regarding homosexual behavior.
"That's not true," the attorney says. "She asked to refer the client because of a values conflict -- and the court very clearly said ... that's not trying to impose your values on somebody, that's just trying to avoid a violation of your own conscience.
"And the court went on to further recognize that it was really the university here that had a problem with Julea Ward's beliefs and who were trying to impose their own views on Julea."
The case now goes back to the lower court.
As part of her counseling practicum course in early 2009, Ward had been assigned a potential client who was homosexual and was seeking affirmation of that sexual orientation. Because she was unwilling to violate her own religious beliefs in the context of the counseling relationship, Ward was permitted to refer the client to another counselor -- but was told to remain in the counseling program she would have to undergo a "remediation" program that would help her "see the error of her ways."
When Ward refused, a faculty committee dismissed her from the program. In her subsequent lawsuit, a district federal court ruled in favor of EMU -- a ruling that has now been reversed.
"A university cannot compel a student to alter or violate her belief systems based on a phantom policy as the price for obtaining a degree ...," wrote the Sixth Circuit. "Why treat Ward differently? That her conflict arose from religious convictions is not a good answer; that her conflict arose from religious convictions for which the department at times showed little tolerance is a worse answer."
The court continued: "Ward was willing to work with all clients and to respect the school's affirmation directives in doing so. That is why she asked to refer gay and lesbian clients (and some heterosexual clients) if the conversation required her to affirm their sexual practices. What more could the rule require? Surely, for example, the ban on discrimination against clients based on their religion (1) does not require a Muslim counselor to tell a Jewish client that his religious beliefs are correct if the conversation takes a turn in that direction and (2) does not require an atheist counselor to tell a person of faith that there is a God if the client is wrestling with faith-based issues. Tolerance is a two-way street. Otherwise, the rule mandates orthodoxy, not anti-discrimination."
Ward was represented by Alliance Defense Fund. ADF attorney Jeremy Tedesco tells OneNewsNow that the school was obviously hostile to Ward's faith:
"The university's reaction was [to] put her up on disciplinary charges for doing it, and through the course of her disciplinary proceedings to attack and denigrate her religious beliefs," Tedesco explains. "They took her on a self-styled 'theological bout' where they attacked her understanding of scripture. They asked her whether her 'brand' of Christianity was superior to that of other Christians and various things -- [all of which] shows that what was really going on was they did not like her religious beliefs."
The school, says Tedesco, was way out of line. He contends EMU would argue that Ward tried to change her client's views regarding homosexual behavior.
"That's not true," the attorney says. "She asked to refer the client because of a values conflict -- and the court very clearly said ... that's not trying to impose your values on somebody, that's just trying to avoid a violation of your own conscience.
"And the court went on to further recognize that it was really the university here that had a problem with Julea Ward's beliefs and who were trying to impose their own views on Julea."
The case now goes back to the lower court.
No comments:
Post a Comment