A US student who was expelled from her social studies course in the state of Michigan for refusing to offer 
relationship counselling to couples who have sex outside marriage on religious grounds is to have her case heard in court.
Julea Ward, who was expelled by the Eastern Michigan University in 2009, took her case to a Detroit federal court, but her case was dismissed by the court.
However, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the ruling, finding that her claim that she was expelled because of her faith may be valid.
Ms Ward, a student in the university’s graduate level counselling program, had only four courses remaining to earn her degree when she enrolled in a one-on-one counselling practical course in 2009.
As part of the course, Ward was assigned a potential client “seeking assistance regarding a sexual relationship that was contrary to her religious convictions,” explained the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), the legal advocacy group that represented Ward in the case. “Ward recognised the potential conscience issue with the client, and asked her supervisor how to handle the matter.”
After directing her to turn the client over to another counselor, EMU officials informed Ward that in order to stay in the counselling program she would have to undergo a “remediation” program designed to deal with her unsatisfactory viewpoint regarding homosexual relationships.
At a subsequent formal review, EMU faculty denigrated Ward’s Christian views and asked several intrusive questions about her religious beliefs.
Among other things, one EMU faculty member asked Ward whether she viewed her ‘brand’ of Christianity as superior to that of other Christians, and another took Ward on what the faculty member called a ‘theological bout’ designed to show her the error of her religious thinking.” Following the meeting Ward was summarily dismissed from the counseling program.
In a strongly worded opinion in the case, the 6th District Appeals Court reversed a lower court ruling in favor of the university and sent the case back for trial, noting that “a reasonable jury could conclude that Ward’s professors ejected her from the counseling program because of hostility toward her speech and faith….”
The court noted that 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?”
The court ruled: “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…. 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 pointed out that EMU was unable to “point to any written policy that barred Ward from requesting this referral,” and, in fact, several textbooks used in her course work “say that sound counselling practices permit values-based referrals.”
The judges challenged the school on whether its intolerance might impact other counseling students seeking to refer clients over conflicting beliefs. Wrote the court: “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 counsellor 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.”
Walter Kraft, a spokesman for EMU, insisted that the case “has never been about religion or religious discrimination. It is not about homosexuality or sexual orientation. This case is about what is in the best interest of a person who is in need of counselling”.
But Eric Rassbach of the Becket Fund, which submitted a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of Ward, noted that it is common for counsellors to refer clients to other professionals for any number of reasons. “No individual should be forced out of their profession solely because of her religious beliefs,” he said. “Counselors refer clients elsewhere all the time for personal, financial, or ethical reasons, and referrals for religious reasons should be treated no differently.”
ADF attorney Jeremy Tedesco, who argued the case before the court last October, agreed, emphasising that public universities simply cannot “force students to violate their religious beliefs to get a degree. The court rightly understood this and ruled appropriately.”
Meanwhile, Catholic schools in the Canadian province of Ontario are being urged to set up “respecting differences clubs” in place of gay-straight alliances, for students wanting to combat sexual-orientation-related bullying.
The OCSTA, in a report released Thursday, said these anti-bullying groups require a staff adviser committed to the Catholic faith. These clubs would not promote “activism, protest or advocacy that is not in accord with the Catholic faith foundation of the school,” according to the Toronto Star.
The trustees had been meeting with representatives from the Ontario English Catholic Teachers’ Association, the Ontario Association of Parents in Catholic Education and the Assembly of Bishops of Ontario since the summer to hammer out a Catholic framework for anti-bullying support groups addressing the concerns of homosexual, bisexual, and transgendered students.