Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More to the point her professors have serious doubts about her ability to set aside her extreme views about homosexuality.
It's not my decision, it's the schools.
Really what that all boils down to is that those liberal professors do not like the idea that she has not "seen the light".
Immie
Yeah, as usual, the problem is those damned libruls.
bTW there are websites dedicated to taking bets on this lawsuit. Put yer money where yer mouth is.
Are you the thread police? Keeton will either get a great Christian job out of this or she will be poison in the job market.Wrong!
She wants to be allowed to believe what she believes.
She has not indicated that she would not abide by the professional standards.
Immie
That's what will be determined in court. Keeton escalated her acadmic problem to the point of initiating a lawsuit. Who wants to hire a litigous counselor. Who will she sue next?
That is an entirely different question and does not belong in this thread.
Immie
Really what that all boils down to is that those liberal professors do not like the idea that she has not "seen the light".
Immie
What is comes down to is that many humans will make excuses to justify their lack of tolerance, or discrimination, or whatever you want to call it, with respect to those with whom they disagree.
Many Christians who rush to defend this lady (and rightly so) would at the same time support discrimination against homosexuals in other areas.
As we can see from this thread, plenty of people who ostensibly support tolerance and inclusion are more than happy to cast those values aside when it comes to a Christian or (I suspect) others with whom they disagree politically or religiously.
Fact is, you'll find precious few people who take a position of tolerance, anti-discrimination, etc., and apply it consistently, whether they agree or disagree with a person.
And again.
Affirming the life of a client IS NOT THE SAME AS AFFIRMING THE LIFESTYLE.
Do you understand yet? Affirming the person is NOT the same as giving kudos for lifestyle. Counselors are absolutely NOT required to proclaim their support of any lifestyle.
So tell me, when are the gay counselors going to start affirming the lifestyles of conservative Christians? Any time soon? You know if they don't, they shouldn't be allowed anywhere near Christians. That means no gay teachers, counselors, prison guards, caseworkers, school kitchen workers, child care providers...
Are you getting a whiff of the hypocrisy yet? No? Yes? Don't care?
All Christians think their biblical morality is for all persons. THAT'S WHAT MAKES US CHRISTIANS AND NOT BUDDHISTS. It's not a problem as the tenet of the religion is that WE ALL ARE SINNERS. We all fall short of the glory of God; homosexuality is one example of a way we do so, but so is extramarital sex, covetnous, dishonesty and a whole slew of other things.
Really what that all boils down to is that those liberal professors do not like the idea that she has not "seen the light".
Immie
What is comes down to is that many humans will make excuses to justify their lack of tolerance, or discrimination, or whatever you want to call it, with respect to those with whom they disagree.
Many Christians who rush to defend this lady (and rightly so) would at the same time support discrimination against homosexuals in other areas.
As we can see from this thread, plenty of people who ostensibly support tolerance and inclusion are more than happy to cast those values aside when it comes to a Christian or (I suspect) others with whom they disagree politically or religiously.
Fact is, you'll find precious few people who take a position of tolerance, anti-discrimination, etc., and apply it consistently, whether they agree or disagree with a person.
I agree. None of us, including me, are tolerant of everyone.
Most of us, including those who are opponents of Ms. Keeton attempt to keep our intolerance to a minimum. I suspect that those who oppose Ms. Keeton in this issue are not doing so based upon her religion but rather on their belief that the institution is correct in trying to uphold the standards.
I on the other hand think the institution is over-stepping its bounds. I also believe that Dr. Anderson-Wiley and Dr. Stenson do not like Ms. Keeton and are attempting to punish her out of spite.
Immie
You've got a poknt. Most of us don't go to Pride parades. We just live our lives.
Not according to the media....you guys are all out there busting your butts in extravagent costumes with feathers and sequins and interesting special effects, while in your spare time you're busy making sure that your agenda is passed at every political level perverting our country's children by forcing them to learn about those who are different from Wonderbread, Mom, the Flag, and Apple Pie and before you know it dontcha know NAMBLA will be an official political party and beatiality and non-biblical bigamy the rule of the land
I think I managed to cover all the issues in one run-on sentance
On a serious note, you are preaching to the choir. Most people do not define themselves by their sexuality.
You forgot hot dogs.
Immie
From the articles themselves, they are attempting to force her out of the program because she maintains the belief that homosexuality is a choice. This belief of hers is religious in nature.
This is how I see it Immie - and I am not a counselor.
The associations that govern standards for the profession she wants to be in - ACA, APA, ASCA - all are in agreement that homosexuality is not a choice but a state of being. Others may disagree - but that is irrelevant because that that is what the profession goes by.
The other thing is that counseling requires a person to be able to set aside their beliefs and be non-judgemental in order to create an atmosphere where the client is comfortable talking about whatever he needs to, without being censored. The counselor has to be able to get a client's trust in order help the client navigate the issues and come to his own solutions. At no time does the counselor propose solutions or make any statements about morality or ethics - the client has to come up with that on his own, according to his own moral compass. Right?
That often means that the counseler does have to affirm in some way, certain aspects of the client's being or his actions. The standards state - on multiple levels, that there should be no discrimination based on sexual orientation (amongst a number of things) and the ASCA states: "Each person has the right to be respected, be treated with dignity and have access to a comprehensive school counseling program that advocates for and affirms all students from diverse populations regardless of ..... gender identity/expression..."
Can Miss Keeton do that based on the positions she has taken so far? She has, according to affidavit by another student - expressed views promoting a type of therapy that is deemed dangerous by her profession. She has also held to views that homosexuality is a "choice", also counter to her professions views. She has a right to her views. I don't deny that. But her refusal to agree to some of the tenants required by her degree and subsequently, the professional standards that govern her chosen career seem to indicate that this isn't the career for her.
The agency that governs accredidation for ASU's counseling program also states: "Consistent with established institutional due process policy and the American Counseling Associations (ACA) code of ethics and other relevant codes of ethics and standards of practice, if evaluations indicate that a student is not appropriate for the program, faculty members help facilitate the students transition out of the program and, if possible, into a more appropriate area of study."
In terms of her belief - no, it isn't necessarily religious. The idea that homosexuality is a "choice" is shared by many who are not religious as well. She frames it in religious terms, but, even her own religion isn't in agreement on that.
They are not processing her out because of anything except for her religious beliefs.
By affirming, are you indicating that a counselor has to tell the alcoholic that it is okay to be drunk? Must he tell the alcoholic who admits to drinking and driving to do whatever he thinks is right?
Drinking is a behavior.
Homosexuality is a state of being - according to Ms Keetons chosen profession.
This is at least one point where, I think Ms Keeton's views do not allow her to meet the standards of her profession.
That seems to be what you indicate when you place all emphasis upon "affirmation".
Does a counselor have to tell a suicidal client that what he is feeling is okay and that suicide might be the answer?
Part of the code of ethics also includes "do no harm" which is why I said this is a profession that requires a great deal of personal judgement and empathy.
There is a difference between affirmation and condemnation. No one is suggesting condemnation, but you are suggesting affirmation which is just as wrong.
Immie
So, what does she say then, when confronted with a homosexual adolescent?
The associations that govern standards for the profession she wants to be in - ACA, APA, ASCA - all are in agreement that homosexuality is not a choice but a state of being. Others may disagree - but that is irrelevant because that that is what the profession goes by.
The other thing is that counseling requires a person to be able to set aside their beliefs and be non-judgemental in order to create an atmosphere where the client is comfortable talking about whatever he needs to, without being censored. The counselor has to be able to get a client's trust in order help the client navigate the issues and come to his own solutions. At no time does the counselor propose solutions or make any statements about morality or ethics - the client has to come up with that on his own, according to his own moral compass. Right?
That often means that the counseler does have to affirm in some way, certain aspects of the client's being or his actions. The standards state - on multiple levels, that there should be no discrimination based on sexual orientation (amongst a number of things) and the ASCA states: "Each person has the right to be respected, be treated with dignity and have access to a comprehensive school counseling program that advocates for and affirms all students from diverse populations regardless of ..... gender identity/expression..."
Can Miss Keeton do that based on the positions she has taken so far? She has, according to affidavit by another student - expressed views promoting a type of therapy that is deemed dangerous by her profession. She has also held to views that homosexuality is a "choice", also counter to her professions views. She has a right to her views. I don't deny that. But her refusal to agree to some of the tenants required by her degree and subsequently, the professional standards that govern her chosen career seem to indicate that this isn't the career for her.
The agency that governs accredidation for ASU's counseling program also states: "Consistent with established institutional due process policy and the American Counseling Associations (ACA) code of ethics and other relevant codes of ethics and standards of practice, if evaluations indicate that a student is not appropriate for the program, faculty members help facilitate the students transition out of the program and, if possible, into a more appropriate area of study."
Drinking is a behavior.
Homosexuality is a state of being - according to Ms Keetons chosen profession.
This is at least one point where, I think Ms Keeton's views do not allow her to meet the standards of her profession.
So, what does she say then, when confronted with a homosexual adolescent?
Keeton is free to sue whoever she wants. Her track record of controversy will follow her into her career. It's hardly 'bashing' to point that out.
ACA Section A-4, b states that counselors should avoid imposing their "values attitudes and beliefs" on others.
And she has not done that in a professional capacity. End of story.
She has to pass her education program. IMO she should have just sucked it up and graduated.
And she has not done that in a professional capacity. End of story.
She has to pass her education program. IMO she should have just sucked it up and graduated.
I hate to say this, but that is the cowardly way of dealing with a problem.
Immie
What is comes down to is that many humans will make excuses to justify their lack of tolerance, or discrimination, or whatever you want to call it, with respect to those with whom they disagree.
Many Christians who rush to defend this lady (and rightly so) would at the same time support discrimination against homosexuals in other areas.
As we can see from this thread, plenty of people who ostensibly support tolerance and inclusion are more than happy to cast those values aside when it comes to a Christian or (I suspect) others with whom they disagree politically or religiously.
Fact is, you'll find precious few people who take a position of tolerance, anti-discrimination, etc., and apply it consistently, whether they agree or disagree with a person.
I agree. None of us, including me, are tolerant of everyone.
Most of us, including those who are opponents of Ms. Keeton attempt to keep our intolerance to a minimum. I suspect that those who oppose Ms. Keeton in this issue are not doing so based upon her religion but rather on their belief that the institution is correct in trying to uphold the standards.
I on the other hand think the institution is over-stepping its bounds. I also believe that Dr. Anderson-Wiley and Dr. Stenson do not like Ms. Keeton and are attempting to punish her out of spite.
Immie
There is nothing in the court documents that point to Anderson-Wiley and Dr Stenson 'not liking' Ms Keeton.
She has to pass her education program. IMO she should have just sucked it up and graduated.
I hate to say this, but that is the cowardly way of dealing with a problem.
Immie
I say it was the mature way. She would have then graduated and be free to start her career.
She'd rather be a martyr and Christian celebrity than a counselor.
I hate to say this, but that is the cowardly way of dealing with a problem.
Immie
I say it was the mature way. She would have then graduated and be free to start her career.
She'd rather be a martyr and Christian celebrity than a counselor.
There is no maturity in being afraid to state one's position.
She would have graduated and been free to start her career and then how many client's might she have harmed before someone came to the rescue?
I find it abhorrent that an institute of higher education has stooped to this level of pettiness.
Immie
I say it was the mature way. She would have then graduated and be free to start her career.
She'd rather be a martyr and Christian celebrity than a counselor.
There is no maturity in being afraid to state one's position.
She would have graduated and been free to start her career and then how many client's might she have harmed before someone came to the rescue?
I find it abhorrent that an institute of higher education has stooped to this level of pettiness.
Immie
Wow. You're all over the map in that post.
There is no maturity in being afraid to state one's position.
She would have graduated and been free to start her career and then how many client's might she have harmed before someone came to the rescue?
I find it abhorrent that an institute of higher education has stooped to this level of pettiness.
Immie
Wow. You're all over the map in that post.
How so?
Because I state that if she had not been willing to discuss this, she might have gone out into the world and actually done some harm?
I have no fear of discussing issues whether I am right or wrong. How else do we learn?
The university is being petty in this case. They are supposed to encourage learning and that is done through dialog. In this case, the best that can be said of them is that they have squelched free speech and an opportunity to teach some one who seems to be misguided. That is the best that can be said of the university.
Immie
Wow. You're all over the map in that post.
How so?
Because I state that if she had not been willing to discuss this, she might have gone out into the world and actually done some harm?
I have no fear of discussing issues whether I am right or wrong. How else do we learn?
The university is being petty in this case. They are supposed to encourage learning and that is done through dialog. In this case, the best that can be said of them is that they have squelched free speech and an opportunity to teach some one who seems to be misguided. That is the best that can be said of the university.
Immie
The university may be unskillful in their approach to Keeton. How they went about it caused her to dig her heels in. We do not know the professors intent, nor what went on in and out of school. It may have been the university's policy to prevent students from causing harm by making sure they are willing to follow professional conduct.
What I wish they had done was encourage her to look at alternative value systems and question her more about how she might suspend her own in the presence of a vulnerable client. We don't know exactly what happened in that school, but I'm sure there is more to the story than meets the eye.
How so?
Because I state that if she had not been willing to discuss this, she might have gone out into the world and actually done some harm?
I have no fear of discussing issues whether I am right or wrong. How else do we learn?
The university is being petty in this case. They are supposed to encourage learning and that is done through dialog. In this case, the best that can be said of them is that they have squelched free speech and an opportunity to teach some one who seems to be misguided. That is the best that can be said of the university.
Immie
The university may be unskillful in their approach to Keeton. How they went about it caused her to dig her heels in. We do not know the professors intent, nor what went on in and out of school. It may have been the university's policy to prevent students from causing harm by making sure they are willing to follow professional conduct.
What I wish they had done was encourage her to look at alternative value systems and question her more about how she might suspend her own in the presence of a vulnerable client. We don't know exactly what happened in that school, but I'm sure there is more to the story than meets the eye.
What I wish they had done was to teach her openly rather than put her in this position.
I think they could have handled this in a much better way. Such as having open discussions with her and other students about conversion therapy and about why it is seen to cause problems rather than to help and about the homosexual community. She does not need to agree that homosexuality is not a choice, but she needs to understand the concept of helping and not hurting. She needs to understand that her actions as a counselor can do irreparable damage to an unstable person.
They did not need to single her out. In fact, I think by doing so they caused more problems and in fact, could have done harm to her as an individual. They could very well have done to her, what they fear she might do to a client.
Immie
The university may be unskillful in their approach to Keeton. How they went about it caused her to dig her heels in. We do not know the professors intent, nor what went on in and out of school. It may have been the university's policy to prevent students from causing harm by making sure they are willing to follow professional conduct.
What I wish they had done was encourage her to look at alternative value systems and question her more about how she might suspend her own in the presence of a vulnerable client. We don't know exactly what happened in that school, but I'm sure there is more to the story than meets the eye.
What I wish they had done was to teach her openly rather than put her in this position.
I think they could have handled this in a much better way. Such as having open discussions with her and other students about conversion therapy and about why it is seen to cause problems rather than to help and about the homosexual community. She does not need to agree that homosexuality is not a choice, but she needs to understand the concept of helping and not hurting. She needs to understand that her actions as a counselor can do irreparable damage to an unstable person.
They did not need to single her out. In fact, I think by doing so they caused more problems and in fact, could have done harm to her as an individual. They could very well have done to her, what they fear she might do to a client.
Immie
You're right. It's always best to not be coercive. It's entirely possible the faculty was unnecessarily heavy handed with Keeton.
We don't know the full story.
What I wish they had done was to teach her openly rather than put her in this position.
I think they could have handled this in a much better way. Such as having open discussions with her and other students about conversion therapy and about why it is seen to cause problems rather than to help and about the homosexual community. She does not need to agree that homosexuality is not a choice, but she needs to understand the concept of helping and not hurting. She needs to understand that her actions as a counselor can do irreparable damage to an unstable person.
They did not need to single her out. In fact, I think by doing so they caused more problems and in fact, could have done harm to her as an individual. They could very well have done to her, what they fear she might do to a client.
Immie
You're right. It's always best to not be coercive. It's entirely possible the faculty was unnecessarily heavy handed with Keeton.
We don't know the full story.
We don't, but I tend to side with the underdog.
In this case, I am convinced until proven otherwise that the evil institution is out to get her.
Immie
And again.
Affirming the life of a client IS NOT THE SAME AS AFFIRMING THE LIFESTYLE.
Do you understand yet? Affirming the person is NOT the same as giving kudos for lifestyle. Counselors are absolutely NOT required to proclaim their support of any lifestyle.
The quoting in the post is mixed up so I'm not sure who is saying what here, I'll answer what I think you are saying in the simplest way because you are going way off on an emotional tangent that I am not following.
1. The standards that regulate this profession all agree on homosexuality as state of being - like heterosexuality- not a lifestyle. It's like being male or female, black or white, fat or thin. Are we on the same page here? It doesn't matter what we personally "believe" - this is what governs the profession.
Right off the bat, this presents a problem for Ms. Keeton because she does not believe that. This means she can not affirm the person because it includes what she views as a "lifestyle". And by the standards of her curriculum and hoped for profession - it is no more a "lifestyle" than being heterosexual.
So tell me, when are the gay counselors going to start affirming the lifestyles of conservative Christians? Any time soon? You know if they don't, they shouldn't be allowed anywhere near Christians. That means no gay teachers, counselors, prison guards, caseworkers, school kitchen workers, child care providers...
This is where I'm trying to figure out what the hell you're talking about.
Are you getting a whiff of the hypocrisy yet? No? Yes? Don't care?
Umh. Nope. Just a really confused emotional rant.
All Christians think their biblical morality is for all persons. THAT'S WHAT MAKES US CHRISTIANS AND NOT BUDDHISTS. It's not a problem as the tenet of the religion is that WE ALL ARE SINNERS. We all fall short of the glory of God; homosexuality is one example of a way we do so, but so is extramarital sex, covetnous, dishonesty and a whole slew of other things.
I think you'll find not all Christians agree on all points except maybe the one and the definition of "biblical morality" is especially diverse among Christians.
