Ward Vs. Polite Case Summary

Summary

The Ward versus Polite case came to the Sixth Circuit United States Court of Appeals in 2011. The appellate case results from the 2010 lawsuit which the plaintiff lost. Both cases involve a self-professed Christian student, Julea Ward, in her third year of the Eastern Michigan University School Counseling program in 2009. As part of the program, all students are required to work at the university’s counseling center for 100 hours. Mrs. Ward was presented with a case file in which a student wanted counseling. The student had received counseling from the center before for depression stemming from his same-sex romantic relationship; though, the reason for this particular counseling session was unknown. Upon reviewing the file, Ward met with her supervisor, Professor Calloway. Her desire was to either refer the student to a

different counselor citing her religious beliefs would prevent her from affirming the client’s same-sex relationship. Alternatively, Mrs. Ward wanted to counsel him as long as difficulties in his same-sex relationship was not part of counseling. The supervisor assented to the referral request, and brought Julea Ward in to discuss steps for going forward.
The supervisor found Mrs.

Ward’s request unethical and Mrs. Ward’s unwillingness to change her position necessitated an informal review. That review included the academic supervisor along with the practicum supervisor and the student. Offered to the student were three options: complete a remediation plan, resign from the Counseling program, or request a university formal review. The university’s Formal Review Committee consisting of one student and two professors, all from the Counseling Department and one professor from the Education Leadership Department, determined she violated the university’s code of ethics and therefore was dismissed her from the Counseling Program. The dismissal led to the first court case, Ward v. Willbanks. The trial court ruled in favor of Eastern Michigan University (EMU) through summary judgment. Mrs. Ward appealed the case to the state appellate court, who reversed the decision and returned the case to the lower court for adjudication. Judicial adjudication was avoided, however, as the university settled with Mrs. Ward with a monetary payment and the removal of the expulsion from her

record.
The University’s Point of View
In the university internal case and judicial case, EMU contended that the practicum student violated the ethical codes put forth by the American Counseling Association. Specifically, the two codes were A.4.b. which guards against the counselor imposing his/her values on the client and C.5. which prohibits discrimination of protected classes, including sexual minorities (American Counseling Association, 2006). From the informal and formal review, other behaviors were deemed inappropriate by Mrs. Ward and thus would cause her to refer such clients to other counselors, including abortion consideration and premarital sex (Dugger & Francis, 2014). Their desire was remediation in which Mrs. Ward would learn to bracket her values and thus not impose them on counseling clients.
The Student’s Point of View
According to Mrs. Ward, the expulsion from the university’s Counseling program interfered with her First Amendment right to free speech (Ward v. Polite, 2012). From her perspective, her Christian faith was under intense hostility from the university because of her expulsion, which is also part of the First Amendment. Further, EMU restricted her Fourteenth Amendment right to religious freedom. In Mrs. Ward’s estimation, it was the university’s counseling clinic’s theoretical orientation which encouraged practicum students to affirm the beliefs of the client as part of the therapeutic process that created the conflict and not the client’s self-identification as gay. From her perspective, Mrs. Ward felt she was expected to renounce her faith in order to continue in the program (Alliance Defense Fund, 2009).
The Judicial Point of View
The trial court affirmed the university’s opinion, but for the reason that EMU has the right to dictate their students speech when they represent the university (Hancock, 2014). Further, the trial court determined that the dismissal was not personal but rather neutrally applied standard and therefore could not violate Mrs. Ward’s Constitutional rights. Their adherence to the ACA Code of Ethics was part of their pedagogical freedom. In contrast, the Appellate Court’s published opinion (Ward v. Polite, 2012) raises other issues not put forth by either the plaintiff, the defendant, or the trial court. According to the published opinion of the United States District Court of Appeals for the Sixth District, the lack of a no-referral policy creates a problem for the university’s response to Mrs. Ward’s referral request, and thus the decision is worthy of jury consideration.
Master-Level Counseling Students’ Point of View
Burkholder and Hall (2014) conducted a qualitative study through an online survey of Counseling students’ perceptions and takeaways from the Ward case. Their respondents came The Council for Accreditation of Counseling & Related Educational Programs (CACREP) accredited programs, 48.5% from the Southern region, 30.2% from the North Atlantic region, 19.8% from the North Central region, and 1% from the Western region. Of the 201 respondents, only 39 were non-White descent, (14 of African descent, 11 Latino, six multiracial, five First Nation, and three Asian descent), which means over 80% of respondents were White. Eighty-four and one half percent (84.5%) were female.
The researchers did not provide numerical breakdowns of the responses. Instead they only provided central themes that emerged from the student responses. In general, the students supported the university’s dismissal from the program under the gatekeeping principle; the principle addresses the responsibility of educators to evaluate students for their appropriateness in the field to protect the industry and the clients. The contingent of students who dissented were mentioned as well; however, because numbers were not included, how many disagreed is unclear.
The second theme raised addressed how inflexible both Mrs. Ward and EMU were. Though in contrast, the university’s inflexibility was considered necessary but Mrs. Ward’s was indicative of her unsuitability for the counseling field. The timing of the dismissal was questioned, though. Several students stated the dismissal should have occurred earlier in the program. The theme revolved around the confusion students feels as a result of their professors’ divergent views. Though how many of the students experienced this dissonance was not revealed it seem that professors in the same program, in the same university, expressed that referral in this case would be appropriate and not unethical while others taught it was unethical. Student respondents also reported on the dilemmatic nature of the issue; thus, both Mrs. Ward and EMU were correct. Yet there were several who expressed the same sentiment as Mrs. Ward that referral was not just the ethical choice but the best choice in interest of the client. Once again, however, the exact number of respondents who expressed that sentiment was not revealed.
Lastly, the researchers detailed that the participants’ responses indicated the foundational importance for the ACA ethics codes when counseling and how the ethics align with the values both personally and professionally. Though this research attempted to showcase counseling students’ reactions to this case, they missed a big opportunity by not presenting their findings with numbers and by soliciting the ACA’s and EMU’s evaluation of the case summary they used for the participant’s responses but Mrs. Ward’s.
Counselor Educators’ Point of View
The same researchers along with another researcher conducted another qualitative investigation (Burkholder et al., 2014), this time with counselor educators from CACREP-accredited programs. The sample was smaller (n=71) but had a very similar racial composition as the students. Over 80% of respondents self-reported as White; four self-identified as African American, three as multi-racial, two as First Nation, two as Asian, and one as Latino. Again as with the students, more counselor educators came from the CACREP defined Southern area 42.3%, then Northern Central locations with 25.4%. An equal number came from the Rocky Mountain and North Atlantic areas (14.1% each). Lastly, 4.2% were from the Western region. Sixty two percent (62%) of the survey participants were female. While more educators were associate professors than anything else (36.6%), full professors (19.7%), assistant professors (25.4%), and full-time but non-tenure track faculty (7%) also participated. Seven respondents were adjuncts and one was temporary.
Similar to the study of the student’s response, respondents reviewed a write-up that had the same information plus additional paragraphs detailing the ACA’s position and role in the trial case. The respondents received eight questions, of which four were the same as those posed to the students. In this study, the research focused on six themes, some of which were of a similar vein to the student one, how counselors view their roles as gatekeepers of student training and development, Julea Ward and Eastern Michigan University, their opinions on the intersection of values, competency, and skills, their view of the Referral policy in the ACA Code of Ethics, the counselor’s outlook on the ACA’s position of when counselor hold ethical responsibility for a client, and lastly, the effect the case posits to have on the profession of counseling.
One chief difference between this research and the research done with the students was the researchers included the numerical data. The results from the counselors aligned with the students in many ways with respect to the first two themes. They felt it was the responsibility of the university to evaluate Mrs. Ward’s fitness for the counseling field and did not fault the university for their actions so much (50 out of 71 respondents) as questioned the length of time Mrs. Ward was allowed to remain in the program without the potential ethical conflict ever being address. Counselors in smaller numbers expressed concern about the institutional neglect of not adequately training Mrs. Ward for this possible issue. Further, this minority opinion felt the university did the politically expedient thing rather than the right thing to work with Mrs. Ward. The same dichotomy reflected the perceived impact this case had on the profession, with 55 concurring with the ACA and EMU and 16 feeling the ethical requirement is indeed hostile to Christian counselors.
Three divisions existed regarding the relationship between skills, values, and competency. The majority (n=41) felt competency lay exclusively with skills, 19 believe values are inextricably linked to competency, and 11 were ambivalent or doubtful that values are outside of competency consideration. Almost the same number (n=45) who concurred with the university’s decision also agreed with the referral policy expressed by the ACA Code, citing the protection the rule provides for both client and counselor. In contrast, 26 felt being able to refer would offer better protection for both client and counselor. One counselor noted that experience has shown, for example that some non-Christian counselors would not be able to competently assist a Christian client and yet those same counselors would not consider themselves incompetent. Many of the counselors (n=43) disagreed with the declaration expressed by the ACA that at initial contact a person becomes a client as overreaching and way too constrictive. The authors made it very clear that those educators who disagreed with the ACA were putting academic freedom above the perceived requirement to adhere to and articulate the same sentiments put forth by the ACA without flexibility or negotiations.