Brody's Notes... Eastern Michigan University Gets ACLU Backing In Court Case

Julea Ward Photo courtesy of ADF

By Brody Levesque (Bethesda, Maryland) FEB 12 | In the ongoing legal saga between Eastern Michigan University and former graduate student Julea Ward, the American Civil Liberties Union on Friday became the latest organization to enter the fray.

The dispute centered around Ms. Ward's refusal to acknowledge or accept a client's sexuality during a requisite practicum segment of the counseling training program she was enrolled in. She told her supervisory professor and later university officials that homosexuality is immoral, being gay is a "conscience choice," and as such she would counsel a client nor participate in group sessions when gay or lesbian clients were present.

As a result of her refusal, the university removed her from its counseling training program, that action caused Ms. Ward sued the university on the grounds that her religious beliefs had been violated. The case was heard in the U.S. District Court for Eastern Michigan, and Ms. Ward, represented by the Alliance Defense Fund, an Arizona based Christian law firm specialising in college cases where a client's 'faith in Christianity' is alleged to be an essential component, lost. Despite that setback, the ADF then appealed the case to the U. S. Sixth Court of Appeals asking that the lower court's rulings be set aside. In their appellate filing the ADF argued:

“Ms. Ward filed this civil rights action to challenge EMU’s unconstitutional policies and actions both facially and as-applied.”

Yesterday, the ACLU's Michigan chapter filed a brief with federal appeals court supporting EMU. In a press release, Daniel Mach, director of the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief said:

“While counselors are certainly entitled to their own religious beliefs, EMU correctly took steps to prevent Ms. Ward from imposing those beliefs on her clients in the university’s training program. EMU would be remiss if it allowed counseling students to discriminate against clients for any reason, including sexual orientation.”

In their brief Ward's legal team wrote:

“EMU officials expelled her for insufficient tolerance, for ‘condoning discrimination’ and for 'imposing [her] values’ because she refused to promise to verbally affirm homosexual behavior in hypothetical future counseling sessions and because she had expressed moral disagreement with homosexual behavior in classroom discussions.”

The ADF lawyers also told the Sixth Circuit:

“EMU’s disciplinary process featured state officials explicitly impugning Ms. Ward’s religious beliefs, even going so far as to engage her in a self-described ‘theological bout’ where they directly challenged her interpretations and understandings of scripture. 

“Ms. Ward filed this civil rights action to challenge EMU’s unconstitutional policies and actions both facially and as-applied.”

EMU argued that it had the right to set the curriculum and dismiss Ward.

“This case challenges Eastern Michigan University’s firmly- established right to determine, implement and enforce a pedagogically-grounded curriculum of its choosing, even over an individual student’s religious objections,” EMU’s attorneys wrote in their response, which was filed last week. “Appellant’s arguments against that right are founded upon two mistaken premises: 

• (1) that the pedagogically-based curricular requirements in question (i.e., those prohibiting student counselors from imposing their own values on a client, and from discriminating against a client on the basis of his sexual orientation) constitute a “speech code” that supposedly is applicable “at all times,” and 

• (2) that she was disciplined for holding certain religious beliefs.

“The district court properly ruled against Appellant on both issues. First, it held that the learned and scientifically-based professional standards that governed Appellant’s conduct as a student counselor do not constitute a “speech code” because they do “not apply to non-academic student behaviors.” Second, it held that Appellant’s “dismissal was entirely due to [her] refusal to change her behavior, not her beliefs. 

“Under settled U.S. Supreme Court and Sixth Circuit law, EMU had the right not only to determine the contours of its graduate counseling program curriculum, but also to dismiss a student who, after voluntarily applying to that program, and regardless of her beliefs, refused to adhere her behavior to that curriculum.”

This case has garnered close legal scrutiny from the legal community across the U. S. Several organizations outside of the two parties concerned have filed for 'friend of the court' appearances, affirmations and/or briefs.

Another faith based organisation in support of Ward's stance wrote in a brief: 

“The Becket Fund is concerned that the lower court’s ruling in this case, if upheld, will greatly reduce protections for conscience within the Sixth Circuit,” the group’s attorneys wrote in their fling. “In particular, the district court’s decision would allow government entities to systematically disfavor exemptions for religious reasons while allowing exemptions for secular reasons, even values-based secular reasons. Under the facts of this case, such a wide-ranging ruling is not just wrong, it is entirely unnecessary.

“Indeed, refusing to allow students to refer clients for religious reasons could have the effect of excluding entire classes of people from the counseling profession solely because of their religious beliefs and practices.”   ~ The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty