An Ethics Alarms heartfelt thank you and “I owe you one!” to Ethics Sage, for cutting to the other core ethical point about what was wrong with Julea Ward’s refusal to counsel a gay student, and why she should have been dismissed from the university course as a consequence. It wasn’t just failure of responsibility, which my post was fixated on, but also failure of caring, compassion, and our shared duty as human beings to help each other even if our religion encourages us to regard those human beings as immoral.
Ethics Sage shows his handle ain’t just horn-blowin’ with this Comment of the Day, on the post “Yes Julea,You Have A Right To Your Beliefs; You Just Don’t Have A Right…”
“Julea Ward’s refusal to counsel a gay student is despicable on many levels. What if the student’s life had been threatened and he went to counseling to get some advice? How can anyone not act to help a person in that kind of situation or others we can think of that may or may not have anything to do with being gay? By refusing to counsel the gay student, Ward failed miserably not only to meet the requirements of the course but to act as a human being with compassion for another.”
Ethics Alarms 
Thank you, Jack, for your gracious comments. Keep up the good work!
Ethics Sage, good comment, but I think it may be off track with the article. In fact, I’m a little disappointed that the article didn’t explicitly spell out the situation that she refused to participate.
I don’t know that there’s enough information to say, but playing the part of Devil’s Advocate, (which, don’t get me wrong, I’m on Jack’s side and had the same reactions as tgt had in the original post’s comment sections) it sounds like she was willing to counsel the gay student, but not the way that would have affirmed his status and relationship.
Does anyone else read it that way? If so, I don’t think Ethics Sage’s comment is fair and honest to Ward, who would have counseled any student of any orientation as long as it didn’t require her to affirm or encourage homosexual behavior.
Even so, the requirement to affirm and recognize such lifestyles is a requirement of counselors and for good reason. Some people are suicidal because they feel like an outcast because they can’t confide their unique situation to anyone. A counselor must be open to any possibility, no matter how deplorable the counselor considers their client’s actions.
I didn’t read it that way, Tim, though I think you are probably right. The matter is confidential, so we would never know. A gay man, since his sexuality came up, probably wanted counseling about a gay relationship—which is not exactly advice about “how to be gay.” He had a problem that he felt was serious enough to warrant counseling. It did not involve illegal activity. She’s not “affirming” his life by helping him, any more than a doctor who operates on Idi Amin is endorsing his brutality.
I would say that the reason for the counseling session is unrelated to the Sage’s commnent. What would it change?
Sage’s comment:
Hmm… that’s not right….
Sage’s comment:
Suggests that she was making her clients qualify for counseling and refusing clients who were gay. Based on what I read, she accepted the client and then when it became clear to her that she was offended by the homosexual nature of the session, she refused to continue.
I think its a small nuance, but worth noting. She’s still a dunce in my opinion.
What if he was fear of his life because of the threats of anti-gay bullies? I don’t have as much trust in her ability to draw these lines. My take is that she didn’t want to help gay people with their problems, period.
Here’s what I found:
So according to her own testimony, while I still agree with the courts, the situation, and the outcome that has resulted, I still have to say that Ethics Sage’s comment makes it sound like she refused to provide counseling because the client was gay. That couldn’t be further from the truth. She refused to affirm, support, and assist the client to cope with living a homosexual lifestyle.
She’s still wrong. But she’s not a monster that would turn away someone with a problem that affected their physical safety and health. We don’t need to demonize her, just critique her.
Tim, I don’t think we’re arguing exactly, but where do you get that? (Great link, by the way). We still have no idea what the topic of the counseling was. The quote says he was a “gay counseling client” and the hypothetical (which may of may not be precise to the actual client) given to Ward is about her comfort helping someone “who was in a gay relationship.” Why does that mean to you that she was necessarily counseling him regarding that relationship? If Ward hates Red Sox fans, and I go to her, mention I’m a Red Sox fan and she rejects my need to be counseled regarding my man-crush on Gilbert Gottfried, and she was asked, “why she would feel comfortable counseling someone who was contemplating abortion, but not someone who rooted for the Red Sox,” wouldn’t that be germane to the incident? Can I not be described as a “Red Sox fan counseling client” ? But I wasn’t asking for counseling about my Red Sox obsession (and believe me, I should have been.) She rejected my plea for help on a different matter because of my baseball loyalties. Nothing in the quote you included or in the whole linked piece tells me what the subject matter the rejected client was being counseled on.
Where do I get that? From the 2nd half of the quote above:
But that’s a third party hypothetical from a hearsay characterization from a confidential consultation. There is no reason to conclude with certainty that homosexuality was the individual’s problem, rather than just part of the context.
While I may disagree that the hypothetical (since it was posed to Julea Ward and these are her words) was far off the mark, your point proves that there is insufficient evidence to support Ethics Sage’s comment that she would turn away a gay client simply for being gay even though the counseling was for something unrelated.
His comment lacks respect and fairness in a situation apparently no one knows anything about.
I’ll concede that. It’s a little unfair. She’s still a bigot, and her position is in the face of massive scientific and sociological evidence to the contrary. I couldn’t feel less sorry for her.
She still had to be fired, of course.
Of course. No question about that.