EDITORIAL: EMU's dismissal of former counseling student does not violate First Amendment
Eastern Michigan University did not violate Julea Ward’s Constitutional rights by dismissing her for refusing to counsel gay and lesbian patients because of her religion.
Any other course of action by the university would have elevated Ward’s personal convictions superior to the common good of the campus and insult government responsibility.
EMU said Ward was dismissed not for religious beliefs, but for disregarding the assigned curriculum and professional ethics guidelines, according to the American Counseling Association. After a federal judge upheld the university’s decision last July, Ward appealed to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
In response, Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette filed a brief supporting Ward, while nine public universities — including Central Michigan University — filed a brief supporting EMU.
If the appellate court rules in favor of Ward, universities argue in the brief they will have to “fashion their curricular requirements around the religious, political, social, philosophical and ideological beliefs and expressions of each and every student.”
The implications of this scenario would cripple a professor’s right to instruct without bias on topics like evolution in biology classes, the role of spouses and parents in family studies courses, the social influences of religion in history classes and virtually every other class offered in a higher education course.
This case’s precedent would put religious beliefs above the law and other First Amendment guarantees if Ward wins. If a counselor can deny health services to a LGBT student for religious purposes, then would it not follow that academic and financial advisers could do the same thing?
If a LGBT student does not have the right to counseling or advising at a public university, then would it not follow that other minority groups could face the same discrimination under the umbrella of religion?
This chilling reality is what Ward is asking the U.S. judiciary to constitutionalize.
The Supreme Court has ruled that a law or regulation that is otherwise lawful cannot be ruled unconstitutional simply because a religious person disagrees with it.
Also, the religious clause of the First Amendment has never been interpreted to protect a person’s right to use their religious beliefs as an excuse to deny publicly-funded counseling services to someone because of their sexual orientation.
Ward’s case is an egregious assault on what the religious clause of the First Amendment actually protects. Her discomfort with providing a professional service to a LGBT student because of EMU’s policy is not a compelling reason to interpret the First Amendment as an absolute guarantee that one’s religion warrants their arbitrary disregard for the law.
By enforcing its policy, EMU is protecting its interest to ensure its students have uninhibited access to publicly funded counseling. No constitution-abiding court could rule against that logic.
To do so would be to gut decades of precedent and redefine the First Amendment.
