Around the country, things are growing increasingly tough for professionals who wish to exercise their rights of conscience -- especially when the conscience issue is based on a religious objection.
Many have heard, for instance, of the recent plight of 12 nurses at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey who were told they had to assist in abortion cases or face termination, even though such action would be in violation of federal and state law.
But now there's a promising development in another case in point: Julea Ward, an Eastern Michigan University student wrongfully dismissed from the school's graduate counseling program because her religious beliefs would not allow her to affirm a client's sexual relationship without violating her conscience.
In January 2009, Ward was assigned a potential client seeking assistance regarding a non-marital sexual relationship that was inconsistent with biblical teaching. Recognizing a potential conscience issue with the client, she asked her supervisor how to proceed, and she was advised to reassign the potential client to a different counselor.
Then came the backlash. At a required formal review meeting that followed, EMU faculty denigrated Ward's Christian views and asked several intrusive questions about her religious beliefs. Among other things, one EMU faculty member asked Ward whether she viewed her "brand" of Christianity as superior to that of other Christians, and another took Ward on what the faculty member called a "theological bout" designed to show her the "error" of her religious thinking.
A faculty committee then dismissed Ward from the counseling program. Ward appealed, but the dean of EMU College of Education rubber-stamped the dismissal.
With the help of Alliance Defense Fund, Ward took her case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, where she received an unfavorable decision in July 2010. The case was then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, and on Jan. 27, the 6th Circuit handed down a favorable decision: one in which the court asked why the university treated Ward the way it did, and then offered two unacceptable responses:
"That her conflict arose from religious convictions is not a good answer; that her conflict arose from religious convictions for which the department at times showed little tolerance is a worse answer."
And the court went on to explain: "Many of the faculty members' statements to Ward raise a similar concern about religious discrimination. 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."
In other words, public universities shouldn't force students to violate their religious beliefs to get a degree. The court rightly understood this and ruled appropriately. Rather than allow Ward to refer a potential client to another qualified counselor -- a common, professional practice to best serve clients -- EMU attacked and questioned Ward's religious beliefs and ultimately expelled her from the program because of them.
The intolerant and discriminatory exclusion of people of faith from university programs and professions has no place in a society dedicated to religious freedom and tolerance for all. Public universities, hospitals, and professional licensing boards should not force people to violate their sincere religious beliefs as the price to enter or stay in a profession.
In the words of the court, "tolerance is a two-way street."
David Cortman is senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund (www.telladf.org), which represents Julea Ward in her lawsuit against Eastern Michigan University.
