Ethics Reaction Paper

Argosy University

Jennifer Keeton was a counseling student at Augusta State University (ASU) who felt her constitutional rights had been violated. Miss Keeton enrolled into ASU’s Educational Counselor Program in Fall 2009 to obtain her Master’s degree and become a school counselor. Miss Keeton had voiced her religious views to many of her colleagues in and out of the classroom. She has also stated her views to her professors within many papers she has written over her two semester time frame at ASU. Miss Keeton is a Christian and she strongly defends her Christianity and condemns homosexuality because of her bible teachings. During Summer 2010, Miss Keeton was informed in order for her to remain in the school’s counseling program, she needed to complete a Remediation Plan. She would be dismissed from the counseling program if she was unable to successfully complete the programs’ Remediation Plan, which consisted of two sections. The professors informed Miss Keeton it is unethical for her to impose her values and beliefs to her clients. She was also advised it is possible for others to have views not the same as her own. The purpose of the Remediation Plan was to expose Miss Keeton to more of the gay and lesbian populations as well as improve her technical-grammatical skills. Miss Keeton’s professors wanted to ensure she had the ability to separate her personal values from her professional requirements. The Remediation Plan advised Miss Keeton her alleged speech is a violation of the codes of ethics in which counselors as well as counselors-in-training are to abide, including the American Counseling Association and American School Counselors Association. Miss Keeton addressed she does not understand how her biblical values disqualify her competence in becoming a counselor. Miss Keeton had several meetings with the professors from her Counseling Department to discuss the process of the Remediation Plan. Miss Keeton was advised her biblical views could be harmful to some clients and during the remediation process she should consider the impact it could have on her clients and she needed to “alter” her some of her views accordingly. Initially she agreed to complete the plan but upon reflection of the entire plan, she realized the second part to the plan she was morally unable to complete. Miss Keeton decided to sue the school for violating her freedom of speech, freedom of religion, among other rights she felt were violated during the process. The Defendants in the case responded to Miss Keeton’s claims by addressing they never told her she was required to abandon or change her religious beliefs in order to stay in the program. They were aware Miss Keeton was reluctant in counseling the gay and lesbian community. The Defendants provided affidavits from students stating their conversations with Miss Keeton and her view on this population. Upon consideration of all claims by the district court denied all claims brought forth by Miss Keeton. I believe the court was correct in denying Miss Keeton’s claims because as a counselor-in-training, you are to be aware of your biases as well as your beliefs and values. A counselor in training must understand the requirements as licensed professionals do. The ACA Code of Ethics states:
F.8.a. Counselors-in-training have a responsibility to understand and follow the ACA Code of Ethics and adhere to applicable laws, regulatory policies, and rules and policies governing professional staff behavior at the agency or placement setting. Students have the same obligation to clients as those required of professional counselors.

Miss Keeton’s professors monitored her performance and felt it necessary to place her on a remediation plan to help her succeed as a counselor. As a counseling student educator, they had a responsibility to evaluate Miss Keeton’s performance. Though Miss Keeton reflected a grade of an “A”, it did not change the fact her professors had an ethical responsibility to intervene and point out she had a major personal values problem. ACA code A.4.b. Personal Values addresses counselors to be aware of their own values, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors and avoid imposing values that are inconsistent with counseling goals. Miss Keeton wanted to be a school counselor but she wanted to impose her values on students who did not have the same values and beliefs as she did. She would be in direct violation of ethical code A.4.b. Miss Keeton apparently did not understand what it meant to be able to keep her identity, yet understand others have their own identity as well. Miss Keeton’s religious values on homosexuality were a major conflict with the curriculum requirement. As a direct result, Miss Keeton knew she would be unable to counsel a gay, lesbian, or transgender client without value imposition. She would be unable to truly consult with a colleague due to her inability to understand all clients are not the same and without trying to convince the colleague her view was correct and the only way. Miss Keeton felt she could tell the client their lifestyle was morally wrong and they needed to change. If she was unable to change them, she wished to transfer them to a counselor practicing conversion therapy. None of Miss Keeton’s objectives would be good for the client because as a counselor, we are to help the client find their own solution to what may be perceived as a problem. Imposing personal values to a client often causes client shut-down and rejection. Often times, the client just needs to know someone is listening and not being judgmental. However, prior to the court’s decision, there was not an indication Miss Keeton showed progress in becoming a nonjudgmental counselor. I believe the court’s decision should not be a challenge for counseling students mainly because as counselors-in-training, we are to use the ACA Code of Ethics as our guide. We are to read it and understand what our responsibility as a counselor is. If there is a need for clarity, we consult with the instructor or if during internship, consult with the supervisor. As a student, we are taught to be open to understanding your clients and learn to listen to them. They are to be given the opportunity to do most of the talking.
With regard to training, it will be useful for counseling professors to discuss professional identity development throughout the training process within the framework of self-assessment and personal reflection. Mentoring and self-disclosure related to the professor’s past would help students understand their identity within the counseling field and may also be useful for students as they attempt to understand how the personal and professional values come to reach congruence. As for the professional counselors, it may be useful for agencies to focus on positive client outcomes as a valued basis for the evaluation of success instead of the nonessentials outside of the therapeutic setting. Not only would a focus on outcomes assist in a needed focus on quality care, but it would also serve as an influence to the community. Miss Keeton’s case will allow students and professional counselors to understand better how personal values is always a separate entity when it comes to the welfare of the client. Personal values may control our actions from day to day but it has no place in the counseling session or towards the client.

References
Corey, G., Corey, M., & Callahan, P. (2011). Issues and ethics in the helping professions (8th ed.). Belmont, CA:

Brooks/Cole, Cengage.

Herlihy, B. & Corey, G. (2006). ACA ethical standards casebook (6th ed.). Alexandria VA: American Counseling

Association