We've been following Julea Ward's story since last March, and today we're thrilled to report that the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has found in her favor, as David French at NRO reports:
So far, 2012 has been a good year for religious liberty in federal court. Two weeks ago the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that religious organizations have a First Amendment right to choose their ministers — even in the face of federal nondiscrimination policies. Today, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a trial-court ruling that essentially allowed Eastern Michigan University to erect a “no Christians allowed” sign outside its graduate counseling program.
... The trial court had essentially ruled that the university could do whatever it wanted with its curriculum, and if it wanted to mandate that Christian students affirm homosexuality while granting referrals and exemptions to other students on other issues, it could. The Sixth Circuit disagreed, strongly:
A reasonable jury could find that the university dismissed Ward from its counseling program because of her faith-based speech, not because of any legitimate pedagogical objective. 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.
The stakes of this case were very high. If the university had prevailed, students would truly have been at the mercy of ad hoc ideological demands reformulated as “curricular requirements.” Understanding the stakes for individual liberty, theMichigan attorney general, the American Center for Law and Justice (where I’m a senior counsel), the Becket Fund, Eugene Volokh, and others submitted amicus briefs on Ward’s behalf. They were opposed by, among others, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, LAMBDA Legal, and the ACLU.
You can read the Sixth Circuit opinion here (PDF).
28 Comments
A great day for religious liberty and a bad day for homosexual dogma!
Wow. I'm shocked, and delighted for her.
The whole issue was about Ward's dismissal due to a request by her for a referral. But "the school does not have a no-referral
policy for practicum students and adheres to an ethics code that permits values-based
referrals in general. When the facts are construed in Ward’s favor, as they must be at this stage of the case, a reasonable jury could conclude that Ward’s professors ejected
her from the counseling program because of hostility toward her speech and faith, not
due to a policy against referrals." It is important to note that the case is simply being remanded to the district court for a merits trial. "None of this means that Ward should win as a matter of law with respect to her
free-speech and free-exercise claims. In view of the university’s claim that a no-referral
policy existed for the practicum class, supported by the testimony of several professors
and administrators, and in view of the reality that the purported policy arises in the
context of a university’s curriculum and its counseling services, the district court
properly rejected Ward’s cross-motion for summary judgment."
This is confusing, on the WSJ it's reported that she is now allowed to pursue a lawsuit to sue the university.
Excellent.
This is a great victory for the counseling profession and the hundreds of thousands of people who have overcome their SSA. Religious values should not be undermined for those who suffer from homosexuality and seek to deny a child their right to both a mother and father.
Man, 2012 is off to a great start!
Compulsory re-education camps for Christians were a bad idea when tried in other countries. I am glad the judge thought they were a bad idea for the U.S.
This is a big victory for all of our civil rights and liberties not just religious liberties. Remember the left and the ACLU are dedicated to taking away all of our civil rights and liberties including religion.
This is great news and was a great day for re-enforcing our rights to moral beliefs without persecution.
I'm following the Julea Wards from the very beginning. I'm happy, this is a glorious day for freedom, also for the freedom of the promoters of gay ideology.
The district court had granted summary judgment in favor of the university. The Sixth Circuit reversed, on the basis that on a motion for summary judgment, the facts must be construed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. In light of the facts presented to the district court, a judge could reasonably believe that "Ward’s professors ejected her from the counseling program because of hostility toward her speech and faith, not
due to a policy against referrals," partly on the basis that "[t]he ACA code of ethics, in the first place, does not prohibit values-based
referrals like the one Ward requested" and that the university's claim that there was "a 'blanket rule”' that [practicum students] could not refer any clients" could reasonably be viewed as an "after-the-fact invention. The
university cannot point to any policy articulated in its course materials, the student handbook or anything else forbidding practicum students from making referrals". the Sixth Circuit denied summary judgment for Ward because by "[c]onstruing the evidence in the university’s favor", as the court must in the summary judgment motion by Ward, " it might "might credit the university’s claim that such a policy
existed and conclude that practicum students were subject to a general ban on referrals,
making it difficult for Ward to demonstrate that she was expelled on pretextual grounds" Therefore, a full trial is needed to determine if Ward was expelled because of hostility to her beliefs, or because of a generally-applicable, facially neutral policy with few exceptions.
Bigotry wins!
A great ruling.
The court notes that "the most aggressive form of viewpoint discrimination" is to compel an individual “to utter what is not in [her] mind” and indeed what she might find deeply offensive."
The school effectively told Julie Ward she must utter speech that affirms a gay sexual relation or be terminated.
Such speech was not in her mind, and the school's demand for such speech violated her freedom of speech and conscience.
The tyranny of it is typical of the gay agenda overall, as well. Where it goes, tyranny follows.
Also note that Julie was not trying to speak her views to gay clients. She was, instead, seeking to refer such clients to someone else, and not even automatically, but only if the dialog later turned in a direction that would require affirmation of gay sexual behavior.
In other words, she was being as flexible as she reasonably could while the school was being as unreasonable and intolerant as it could.
And this is despite the fact referral is an established tool for counselors to use when value based issues arise, and that she used a referral in that same manner. There was nothing unethical about her request.
The court made that clear as follows:
Thus, it was the school that acted unethically.
The faculty of Eastern Michigan University sought to impose "the most aggressive" form of violating freedom of speech and freedom of conscience that it could.
The school knew the speech they required went against Julie's individual conscience, it should have known it was reasonable for Julie to have a conscientious objection on this particular matter since other counselors do also, and it should have known its reasonable for counselors to use referrals to avoid values based conflicts.
The proper recourse is for faculty to apologize in full for its intolerance and its violation of her civil rights, update its policy to allow faith based referrals, and reverse the dismissal.
Bman, good stuff!
Ok folks, there are missing parts to this story, first of all she didn't win the case against EMU. Form the article:
Eastern Michigan University cautioned in a statement this morning that the 6th Circuit made no legal findings against the school, did not rule that the university engaged in discrimination and did not rule in Ward’s favor in the suit.
“Rather, the Sixth Circuit Court ruled that there needs to be additional legal proceedings before a decision can be reached,” EMU Vice President for Communications Walter Kraft said. “The Court also found that the Regents and the President of Eastern Michigan University were properly dismissed from the lawsuit and refused to reinstate them despite Ward's request.”
Kraft added: “This 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 counseling, and following the curricular requirements of our highly respected and nationally accredited counseling program, which adheres to the Code of Ethics of the American Counseling Association and the Ethical Standards of the American School Counselor Association. Those Ethical Standards require that counselors are not to allow their personal values to intrude into their professional work.”
The ACLU of Michigan, which filed a court brief supporting the university, said: “While no public university can discipline any student because of her beliefs, universities have a right to insist that their graduate students adhere to accepted standards of professionalism and place the needs of their clients first.”
That's right. Forcing the affirmation of homosexuality is not a legitimate pedagogical objective.
Correction. I spelled her name as Julie but its Julea.
"Ok folks, there are missing parts to this story, first of all she didn't win the case against EMU. Form the article..."
What article? Not the NRO post linked and not the Sixth Circuit opinion linked.
As for the actual ruling, bman did a fine job highlighting the relevant parts of the decision. The lower court ruled Ms. Ward had no case for religious discrimination. The Sixth Circuit slapped them down and said -wrong -she does have a case. Let it go to trial.
Wonderful news.
There is no "bigotry" involved in determining that any person asking for advice about homosexual relationships needs to be taught that such relationships should always be avoided.It's entirely a matter of standards of conduct,and reputable counselors who DO care about a patient's needs will not substitute affirmation of the patient's self-centered delusions.
I hope this puts an end to religious discrimination as practiced by most of the so called counseling profession. So much evidence from Dr. Cameron, Throckmorton and others about successful change therapy. Julea was well within her rights to encourage repairative therapy for homosexual clients.
The most devastating aspect of this case has got to be the judges finding that the defendants should not be shilded from monetary damages because the schools actions were an obvious affront to the plaintiffs 1st and 14th amendment rights.
Nothing drives the message home to the Godless quite like a direct hit to their most prized possession -their wallet.
You're laying it on a bit thick, Mary.
Actually, Bigotry loses.
This is exactly why the homo agenda must be exposed at every turn. Religion speaks out against them so they try to suppress it. Quote from Leviticus and it's called "hate speech". How can anything from the bible ever be considered "hate speech"? What's next? A federal ban on religion? I hope Ms. Ward wins and sues the pants off the school administration. Someone needs to teach those left-wing zealots a lesson.
Tolerance is 2 way by definition in any language. Yet their is no tolerance for a Christian when living their beliefs that are not of the majority. The Court of Appeals ruling is the first thing I have seen in a very long time that gives me some hope for our country. My sincere admiration to Ms. Ward for taking this the distance - so that she could get the simple justice every citizen is suppose to already have.
"It's not bigotry that I judge you with no knowledge of the content of your character, but rather by your sexual orientation! It's not, it's not!". Keep deluding yourselves, folks. And Diana, the Bible is so hate-filled and dark, it's practically demonic. Have you read the thing?