Eastern Michigan University expels graduate student because of her Christian beliefs|
Current Mood: annoyed
What on earth does 're-education program designed to convert her from biblical faith' mean? I smell extreeeemely biased reporting... you don't happen to know of a non-partisan version of this story? (I'm curious, not trying to pick nits, honest!)
See the anonymous reply below ... the middle item (mlive.com) is the parent site of the Ann Arbor News, which is the daily regional newspaper for the Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti area. (EMU is in Ypsilanti.)
And I haven't read the hearing transcript. (41 pages? It's too sunny outside to read that ...)
|Date:||May 18th, 2009 03:27 pm (UTC)|| |
I have to agree; the tone of the article, as well as the fact that it's written by a Christian minister, gives off a horribly biased vibe. However, reading the Ann Arnor News entry below seems a bit more balanced, and included this (which I didn't see in the "one news" link):
The letter, written by professor and review committee chair Irene Mass Ametrano, says Ward violated the ACA code of conduct bylaws that prohibit counselors from imposing values inconsistent with counseling goals and from discriminating based on sexual orientation.
Considering that Ward referred the patient before ever meeting with him, I don't see how she "impos[ed] values inconsistent with counseling goals". She never met the guy to impose any values, and did the proper thing to refer the patient elsewhere. Sounds like this is a real knee-jerk reaction case, and the more biased article is also knee-jerk in not stating this (if they had the information). Why not use both logos and pathos at the same time?
That said, she might want to move to a different school, one more religiously-inclined, where this wouldn't be a problem.
I'm inclined to give the biased article a break. First of all, it was an opinion piece, not a news article. Second, he may not have add access to information that the newspaper did.
Having said that, she shouldn't have to move to a different school. She paid for this one with her taxes, and her tuition. They're supposed to respect her rights to exercise her religion, not impose anti-religious views as a requirement for graduation. (I suppose it'd be different if they'd made their viewpoint clear before she enrolled, but I suspect they didn't.)
Plus, moving may not be much of an option. The news article points out that she works during the day as an English teacher in Southfield (suburban Detroit). That puts some serious geographic constraints on her. And it's not like English teachers are getting rich off their salaries.
|Date:||May 17th, 2009 10:19 pm (UTC)|| |
Other news reports
ANN ARBOR NEWS
TRANSCRIPT OF DISCIPLINARY HEARING
|Date:||May 23rd, 2009 03:29 am (UTC)|| |
|Date:||May 23rd, 2009 11:28 pm (UTC)|| |
Re: Opposing Viewpoint
I still don't buy the criticism, though. If you know that you're going to have a conflict going into the session, why go through the charade of pretending that there isn't a conflict? It wastes everyone's time (and therefore money), and doesn't get anyone closer to the desired endpoints.
|Date:||July 16th, 2009 11:32 pm (UTC)|| |
Re: Opposing Viewpoint
Agreed. Worse than that, it negatively affects a patient's experience. I had a therapist who questioned why I didn't move in with my boyfriend. (Uhhh....we aren't married?) The session deteriorated from there.
Some patient/dr relationships are better than others. I think Julea was responsible to refer the young man. As is evident, there are plenty of gay-friendly folks at EMU.