When I sent Bias Incident: The World’s Most Politically Incorrect Novel to my editor, she didn’t think the premise was realistic. Come on! A school trying to expel a student for not toeing the line on the issue of homosexuality? No school would do that!
Well, the Keeton case is a real-life illustration about how Bias Incident is about as realistic as satirical novels can get. Here’s the story:
Keeton So Far
It concerns a court case in Georgia. Jennifer Keeton was a graduate student at Augusta State University (ASU) where she began studying for a degree in Counselor Education in fall 2009. She completed two regular semesters and two summer sessions but was then dismissed from the program because she refused to participate in a “remediation plan” that was designed either to change her views on homosexuality or convince her to misrepresent those views. Miss Keeton, citing her Christian beliefs, held that homosexuality is a form of “identity confusion,” and had stated this view in class. The faculty members involved rejected her view and cited it as “a violation of the codes of ethics to which counselors and counselors-in-training are required to adhere.” The remediation plan to which she was assigned singled out Miss Keeton’s view that homosexuality is a “lifestyle,” and posited that “sexual orientation is not a lifestyle or choice, but a state of being.” (The quotations are from Keeton’s complaint in U.S. District Court, July 21, 2010.)
Personally, I cannot imagine better advice from a counselor: You must choose how you want your life to be. You must adjust your behavior to make your life as close to how you want it as possible. If some of your desires are incompatible with other of your desires, you must prioritize. How is this not excellent advice?
Apparently, if you’re teaching people how to give advice, your students must not be permitted to think this way.
And yet the lie from the homosexualists is still that state sanctioning of homosexual behavior will not harm anyone. This woman has been harmed for simply disagreeing that homosexuality can be good.
I remember that. I think the issue came up because she refused to counsel students who identified as homosexual. If you’re a school employee, you don’t get to pick and choose the students you work with. One could find homosexuality a sin and still counsel students who identified as homosexual, she refused.
She was not an employee – she was a student. She didn’t refuse to counsel – she refused to counsel that homosexuality was okay, and wanted them to go to another counselor for that. She was required to do such “diversity” in order to finish the course. Then she was required to attend that indoctrination class to force her to accept homosexuality as okay. That’s like telling a person looking to get his degree as a medical doctor that they have to perform abortions to do so, and if they don’t want to then force them to be indoctrinated that abortions are okay.
Well said.
“Then she was required to attend that indoctrination class to force her to accept homosexuality as okay”
Is that true? Or is it merely that she was required to attend the “indoctrination” class, but not required to accept homosexuality as okay?
If anyone can provide a link answering the question, I’d be much obliged.
No, it’s nothing like that. Firstly, school counseling is a subset of counseling, just like OB/GYN is a subset of doctoring, for better lack of terminology. School counseling requires dealing adolescents about many things, including sex and orientations. OB/GYN requires many things, including knowing how to perform an abortion. Religious counseling, or even marriage counseling not as much. Cardiology would not require performing abortions.
From the Fox News article “”The Counselor Education Program is grounded in the core principles of the American Counseling Association and the American School Counselor Association, which defines the roles and responsibilities of professional counselors in its code of ethics,” the statement read. “The code is included in the curriculum of the counseling education program, which states that counselors in training have the same responsibility as professional counselors to understand and follow the ACA Code of Ethics.”
The Code of Ethics prohibits counselors from discriminating based on a number of factors, including gender identity and sexual orientation. “Counselors do not discriminate against clients, students, employees, supervisees, or research participants in a manner that has a negative impact on these persons,” the code says.”
She was in violation. If she was passed through, and hired by a public school district, she is a lawsuit waiting to happen. She becomes a joke, a stain on the university’s reputation. If she said she thought muslims, jews and hindus were morally confused no one would be defending her. Just because *you* don’t like homosexuality doesn’t make it okay for others in a professional setting to show bias against them, they have rights too. Ms. Keeton may believe what she wants. She may also find a career that doesn’t create conflict with those beliefs. Just like the med student can find something medical that doesn’t involve abortion.
Um, the point of the indoctrination class is to make you accept what they are indoctrinating you in.
Actually, she was punished only for what she wrote – she never refused to counsel anyone – she was to be indoctrinated because of what she wrote:
In written assignments and classroom discussions, Keaton has said that sexual behavior is “the result of accountable, personal choices” versus “a state of being.” Tolerant school officials decided this belief questioned her ability “to provide competent counseling to gay men and lesbians.” This past May Keeton was told that she could either participate in a “remediation” (indoctrination) course or be expelled. [Augusta State University] faculty have promised to expel Miss Keeton from the graduate Counselor Education Program not because of poor academic showing or demonstrated deficiencies in clinical performance, but simply because she has communicated both inside and outside the classroom that she holds to Christian ethical convictions on matters of human sexuality and gender identity,” the lawsuit says.
As for the program Keaton was to take:
Specifically, the remediation program was to include “sensitivity training” on homosexual issues, additional outside study on literature promoting homosexuality and the plan that she attend a “gay pride parade” and report on it. … Faculty members, therefore, had demanded Keeton “attend at least three workshops … which emphasize … diversity training sensitive toward working with GLBTQ populations.” They also wanted her to “develop” her knowledge of homosexuality by reading 10 articles and increasing her exposure to homosexuals and lesbians by attending “the Gay Pride Parade.”
I wouldn’t want to be forced to take that either. And I’ve never seen a report which said she refused to counsel – it’s just that IF she was to counsel she would consider homosexual behavior as a choice.
Here is what Keaton actually wrote:
“At times you said that I must alter my beliefs because they are unethical. … Other times you said that I can keep my beliefs so long as they are only personal and I don’t believe that anyone else should believe like me. But that is just another way of saying that I must alter my beliefs, because my beliefs are about absolute truth. … In order to finish the counseling program you are requiring me to alter my objective beliefs and also to commit now that if I ever may have a client who wants me to affirm their decision to have an abortion or engage in gay, lesbian or transgender behavior, I will do that. I can’t alter my biblical beliefs, and I will not affirm the morality of those behaviors in a counseling situation.”
So the issue is that IF she was going to counsel a homophile, she would not do so in a way which would affirm their behavior.
SO, how is this violating any ethics?
First off, she would suck as a counselor. Counseling on abortion (and for that matter, orientation) isn’t about how *she* feels, it’s about how the client feels. *She* may believe it’s a sin, but telling a client that it’s wrong or immoral, because of her beliefs, not taking into account the clients beliefs, isn’t counseling it’s preaching.
Secondly, with that statement, “because my beliefs are about absolute truth” how is she going to counsel *any* one of different beliefs. If an atheist walks in is she going to tell them they’re wrong? Is she going to tell a jewish person going through a hard time that maybe Jesus Christ is the answer?
Unless she was going to market herself as a christian counselor, (which she should have enrolled in such a program if thats the case) she’s not going to have much success. And since she was going for public school counseling, she doesn’t get a choice, public schools do not discriminate against orientation, if she told a public school student questioning their orientation that it was all confusion and that they have to be straight, because gay is a choice, that school district would be flayed for hiring her. Her beliefs, as they stand, and her refusal to have professional respect for others beliefs, makes her unfit to counsel in a public setting.
Tl;Dr version, Public schools pass no judgement over sexual orientation, ergo public school employees should not pass judgement over students orientation.
Besides, if the ACA Code of Ethics does not allow discrimination based on orientation, and she believes orientation is a choice and intends to counsel as such, she is in violation of the ethics.
Yep, don’t dare speak the truth when it comes to homosexuality, or else you just aren’t fit to be a counselor!
It is a bald-faced lie to say people don’t incur harm when same-sex perversion is sanctioned.
Glenn,
Let’s try not to use terms like “perversion” here. Like you I disagree with homosexual practice. But my disagreement is mild and tolerant. My main target in my book and on this blog is the tendency for gay activists to force their opponents to shut up using the tactics of political correctness.
You can use the term “sin” if you would like, as there are religions, including my own, in which homosexual practice is a sin. This is the complete extent of my disapproval of the deed. Were it not banned by the Holy Torah, I would not object much if at all. And even though it is banned by the Torah, I consider it no different than most other sins rated at the same degree of stringency.
It is not acceptable for a public school counselor to tell a student their orientation is wrong, just as it is not acceptable for a public school counselor to tell a student their religion is wrong.
I’m not sure you understand what “harm” entails.
Shanna,
Now, let’s see how far your principle extends.
You say it’s wrong to tell a student that their orientation is wrong.
Okay. Let’s go with that. But how about this: is it okay to mention possible drawbacks from acting one one’s sexual desires, to give them, say, the health advice that is outlined here: http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html.
Enh, it depends. It’s one thing to note that the average gay male has a higher chance of contracting HIV/AIDS, it’s another to suggest that because they’re gay, they’re going to be promiscuous/engage in risky behaviors.
I think Christianity in general would do better to encourage monogamous relationships in gay couples (which, does happen) as opposed to pushing the oh-well-the-gays-are-just-natural-whores angle.
The hand wringing over “sadism” and “human waste” was a bit over done. I find it hilarious to note that Paglia is a lesbian when he quotes her. He pulls a lot of older research and tries to connect it to newer research, and I feel it comes off as questionable. In short, if one is going to mention drawbacks, it should be what the CDC has listed, which includes higher risk for STD’s and depression, but not getting into how promiscuous (because in high school, the straight kids tend to be the promiscuous ones anyway) they must be because they’re gay, or their kinks, beyond to be safe and consensual.
Shanna,
You really think it would be more any easier to convince male homosexuals to be (truly) monogamous than it would be to convince them to get a (real) marriage and be monogamous?
Really?
The statistics are what they are. Here’s one of about a dozen studies that would say that this is not tremendously likely: http://carlsonschool.umn.edu/Assets/71520.pdf
All that said, a good friend of mine is gay and I believe him when he says he was monogamous with his last partner. Him I believe because of his credibility. Others? Let’s say that my pal has an unusual amount of credibility. (and I named a character in his honor in BI).
http://carlsonschool.umn.edu/Assets/71520.pdf
You need to fix that no-more-replies-in-this-thread-glitch.
It would depend. I did but that in a religious context, and there are gay individuals who leave a religion specifically because it tells them to go to hell. Others find denominations/what have you that are more accepting. I know some christian gay men practices celibacy.
Besides just because men may have a stronger sex drive doesn’t excuse their self-control. If monogamy is preferred, men may just have to man up and control themselves.
Shanna,
You can draw few, if any, conclusions about what would happen on a mass scale from the behavior of a non-representative group of individuals.
I happen to have come out ahead in my short and not-so-storied gambling career. (I’ve been to a casino only a couple of times. Gambled very little but got ahead and quit). The lights and massive hotels in Vegas will tell you that my experience is not representative. Likewise, the survey evidence you cite (as well as other evidence, including the general knowledge everybody ought to have about male sexual nature) will tell you that men would be as promiscuous as they can be if they are permitted to be and if the barriers to entry, so to speak, are low. Saying that men ought to just “man up” is not realistic.
BTW, which thread is giving you a “no more replies” glitch?
Hmm. It looks like it is replying okay, but the “reply” button is about three posts up, after the comment I left on the 28th. So, it looks like the posts after it can’t be properly replied too.
Is that what you would prefer though? That gay men marry women? Is that fair to anyone involved?
And you know, screw “realism”. I get tired of the double standard for male promiscuity. Maybe if as a society we expected more of men instead of going “oh, boys will be boys” we’d have less issues with STD’s, crime, the economy, pretty-much-everything-else.
Shanna,
What would I prefer? Nothing. I have no preference because there are no easy answers. For some, it would work fine.
I think the problem has little, if anything, to do with sexual preference. I think the problem is more general. The problem is romanticism and its evil cousin sentimentality. I should really do a post on that.
Basically, it’s like this: you don’t have an authentic self anywhere down in there. Just a bunch of neurons firing. Change the neurons, change the self. If you really think about it, the concept of having a “real you” is just a bunch of nonsense. Sure you have desires. But I bet that few, if any, of your desires are not contradicted by other desires that are incompatible with the first ones. You want security, you want safety. But you want adventure! Excitement! That’s just one example. There are others.
Now, personally, I have studied a great deal about what makes people happy. In Bias Incident, I wrote up exactly what I think of the situation of a person who has the contradictory desires to be in a same sex relationship and to be an orthodox Jew. I drew a great deal on the research about happiness.
And that learning has affected me personally. I can honestly say that any desire I may have had for women other than my wife has been attenuated almost to the point of non-existence. I consciously strove for that goal. How? I realized that, like a new toy or a new car or whatever, a new woman would not make me happy for long. Before long, I would be back in the same rut that I was in in the first place, and desiring a new woman again (not to say that my married life is or ever was a “rut” but for lack of a better term). But a serious look at the human condition (REALISM) made me realize that any natural male desire for promiscuity is a cruel illusion played by a stupid brain. That and my recognition that my wife is really first-rate. In effect, I have attenuated a great deal a desire that I personally had for indulgences incompatible with happy matrimony.
I have also attenuated my desires for coca-cola, oreo cookies, fresh bread, etc. I became convinced that a low-carbohydrate diet is healthier. I pictured what those foods would do to me and how they would make me feel if I ate them. Honestly, the thought of them has actually become somewhat unappealing. People can change their desires. How much? I don’t know. But they do change.
Am I a typical example? I doubt it. But I think that if you say it would be impossible for a person who has desires (ANY desires) incompatible with getting married, I would say that “impossible” is an awfully strong word…
But realism is essential. How can you make decisions without knowing the actual qualities of the world you are living in?
As far as the economy goes, you’d do well to watch this video until you can repeat in verbatim: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xzej7TRfU9w&feature=player_embedded
For others it would be a disaster. Honestly, however, I think that with an attitude adjustment to remove
Ah, in the end it comes down to our difference of opinion in marriage. You would rather someone marry a compatible person of the opposite gender. I’d rather someone marry a compatible person.
my problem with “realism” in this case is that it seems to excuse men of their actions. Oh, you can’t blame the hook up culture on men, it’s in their nature. Oh, you can’t expect men to wear condoms, they don’t feel as good. Oh, you can’t expect men to not rape women, they were tempted. Men having a stronger sex drive suddenly becomes less of their own responsibility and more of womens.
Unfettered capitalism would do no one but the rich good. Communism does no one but those in power good. Balance, (and no, not necessarily socialism) is needed.
I not only consider it a sin, because God calls it a sin, but even before I became a Christian I found it to be perverse. Now, you wanting political-correctness of not using a word which describes the behavior -i.e. “perverse” when it comes to actual biology and the nature of the use of the human body, homosexuality is perverse by its very nature.
Nerdy:
There is a whole lot of difference between telling someone that their philosophy is wrong and telling them their behavior is wrong. BY your logic, I couldn’t tell a thief that he shouldn’t steal or a murderer that he shouldn’t kill.