Court tells college to be tolerant of Christians
by Joel Gehrke Commentary Staff Writer
Federal judges reminded Eastern Michigan University (EMU) that "tolerance is a two-way street," as they ruled against EMU in a case involving a graduate student who was apparently dismissed from a counseling program after she refused to violate her Christian beliefs by giving homosexual relationship counselling.
"Although the university submits it dismissed [Julea] Ward from the program because her request for a referral violated the [American Counseling Association] ACA code of ethics," wrote Sixth Circuit Court Judge Jeffrey Sutton, "a reasonable jury could find otherwise--that the code of ethics contains no such bar and that the university deployed it as a pretext for punishing Ward's religious views and speech." The Sixth Circuit Court overturned a lower court's decison, ruling that Ward's lawsuit against EMU should go to a jury trial.
Ward's lawsuit, in which she is represented by the Alliance Defense Fund, stems from an incident near the end of her time as a graduate student at EMU. "She had no problem counseling gay and lesbian clients," the court noted, explained that "Ward [had] asked that she be allowed to refer gay and lesbian clients seeking relationship advice to another counselor," but instead she was dismissed from the program for allegedly violating ACA code of ethics by discriminating against homosexual clients.
Sutton focused on the significance of religion in the decision to dismiss Ward. "Ward was willing to work with all clients and to respect the school’s affirmation directives in doing so," he wrote, adding:
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.
The circuit court did not rule, as a finding of fact, that EMU had discriminated against Ward, but maintained that the evidence warranted a jury trial. Noting that "a university cannot compel a student to alter or violate her belief systems based on a phantom policy as the price for obtaining the degree," the court said that "a reasonable jury" could conclude that such discrimination had taken place.
campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com |
