A great many Christians face the choice daily in our universities to either bear faithful witness to their beliefs and suffer the consequences, or lie to get by. The unholy alliance of radical feminists and gays/lesbians has been the anchor on the left for far too many years. The following story is not at all uncommon.
AUGUSTA, Georgia, July 22, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) filed suit against Augusta State University Wednesday on behalf of a counseling student who was allegedly told that her Christian beliefs are unethical and incompatible with the prevailing views of the counseling profession. The student, Jennifer Keeton, says she has been told to stop communicating her beliefs and that she must undergo “training” to accept homosexuality in order to graduate from the counseling program.
Augusta State ordered Keeton to undergo a re-education plan, in which she must attend “diversity sensitivity training,” complete additional remedial reading, and write papers to describe their impact on her beliefs. If she does not change her beliefs or agree to the plan, the university says it will expel her from the Counselor Education Program.
“A public university student shouldn’t be threatened with expulsion for being a Christian and refusing to publicly renounce her faith, but that’s exactly what’s happening here. Simply put, the university is imposing thought reform,” said ADF Senior Counsel David French.
“Abandoning one’s own religious beliefs should not be a precondition at a public university for obtaining a degree. This type of leftist zero-tolerance policy is in place at far too many universities, and it must stop.”
Keeton, 24, is pursuing her master’s degree in counseling at Augusta State. Lawyers say that after her professors learned of her biblical beliefs, specifically her views on homosexual conduct, the school imposed the re-education plan. Keeton says she never denigrated anyone in communicating her beliefs but merely stated factually what they were in appropriate contexts.
Read the rest here.
Clinical Truth is on Keeton’s side. Psychologists and Psychiatrists have a diagnostic manual entitled Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the Mental Disorders (DSM), currently in its fourth edition. As DSM II was being prepared, homosexuality was listed in DSM I as a disorder. It was a bizarre and fascinating set of political machinations that led to homosexuality being dropped from DSM II as a disorder, part of which was deliberately changing the diagnostic criteria.
The story is chronicled by the late Dr. Charles Socarides, an expert in the field of sexual disorders and a leader in the field of treating homosexuality, in the following excerpt from the American Journal of Psychotherapy:
“In early 1973, a group superheaded by several leaders of the A.P.A., other psychiatrists, and members of the Gay Activists Alliance, the Mattachine Society, and the Daughters of Bilitis undertook to influence the Nomenclature Committee of the A.P.A. at a closed meeting at Columbia University Psychiatric Institute by requesting deletion of homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual(9).
“By spring 1973 the A.P.A. Committee on Nomenclature and Statistics was seriously considering the removal of homosexuality from the DSM II without consultation with the psychiatrists and psychoanalysts who had long labored in this area of clinical research, and held opposing views.
“A Symposium held in Hawaii on May 9, 1973 was entitled “Should Homosexuality Be in the A.P.A. Nomenclature?” As a member of this panel, I presented the conclusions of the eleven-member Task Force on Homosexuality appointed in 1970 by the New York County District Branch of the A.P.A., of which I was chairman. (10)”
Read the rest here
Keeton’s story, and Socarides’ tale are both cautionary. The fields of psychology and psychiatry do not recognize post-traumatic stress arising from abortion. This stems in part from an official APA position paper in 1978 denying any harm done to women by abortion. Medical schools screen out pro-life candidates in their interviews, a phenomenon discussed at length at a recent bioethics conference. The unholy alliance is firmly in control of our educational institutions from kindergarden to post-doctoral fellowship training, with few notable exceptions.
It is the reason why I and other scientists have stepped forward into the breach. There are many others who would love to give voice to the truth but do not for fear of the consequences being experiences by Keeton, including Maoist indoctrination training or loss of academic rank and standing. Pray for these professors and students.
In our universities the truth is irrelevant.
Coming Home 
On a brighter note, at least Keeton didn’t find herself on double-secret probation.
Yes, it’s a frivolous comment. But sometimes it’s a choice of laughing or screaming. My cats can’t stand screaming.
Subvet,
I agree!!
Mark Anderson,
I deleted your last comment. My blog is an extension of my dining room table. Commenters are cordially requested to comport themselves accordingly. Disagreement is welcomed here. Do so without being disagreeable.
As a First Ammendment fanatic, believe it or not, I have some sympathy for Jennifer Keeton. And the article above (as well as some of the other articles I found by Googling around) aren’t clear on what exactly her beliefs are, and how she would present them to clients in a clinical setting.
On the other hand, I once had an experience that makes me understand why schools want to make sure a counselor isn’t basing his/her treatment entirely on his/her personal beliefs.
Years ago, I once sought out a a counselor for anxiety related to an upcoming international move. He asked me all about my history and recent events in my life, whether I had any children, etc. I said no, but it later came up that I’d had a miscarriage earlier in the year. He decided that my problem was that I was denying that this miscarriage counted as a child, that I was really a mother and not admitting it, that denying this was unhealthy, and that in order to heal and move on, I had to essentially apologize to my unborn baby and properly mourn it. And then, presto, my anxiety about the upcoming move would all go away.
I can also imagine counselors who believe that a woman’s correct role is nurturing children in the home (based on the Bible, Koran, etc.), might counsel working women to follow the correct path by quitting their jobs and relying on their husbands, and that to do otherwise was a sin.
In other words, it’s not just the beliefs of the counselors — it’s how they are applied in their clinical practice.
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by njslea, Gerard M. Nadal. Gerard M. Nadal said: University Persecution of Christians: Game On: http://wp.me/pJSAY-ME […]
“On the other hand, I once had an experience that makes me understand why schools want to make sure a counselor isn’t basing his/her treatment entirely on his/her personal beliefs.”
I would argue that ALL counsellors bring a belief system into their practice.
IT might be Christian or Catholic or evangelical or atheist or new age. Some counsellors base their treatment solely on their belief system as I will indicate in a minute.
But everyone has a value system and a belief system and therefore approaches treatment in a different way. Even an atheist brings in a value system that will affect his/her approach to patients.
When I was looking for someone to help me deal with a life crisis a few years ago, I hunted for a Catholic counsellor. She went to Mass every day to pray for the clients/patients she would see that day (and not all were Catholic) and we prayed before my sessions because she knew I was a practicing Catholic. She was wonderful and helped me heal emotionally.
Thus, in L’s case I would say that you need to actively seek a counsellor who fits your belief system. Most counselling centres I’ve seen have people with all kinds of backgrounds.
I really think the issue here is the thought police once again. No one is allowed to believe today that homosexuality is a sin. As far as I can see, homosexuals simply need to find another therapist instead of getting their knickers in a knot.
People are indeed allowed to believe that homosexuality is a sin. I would avidly fight for the right to such beliefs, even though I don’t share them.
This case isn’t a matter of “homosexuals simply need to find another therapist” — it’s a case of whether a secular academic institution should be required to train someone whose religious beliefs directly conflict with what they are teaching.
I don’t know enough about Ms. Keeton’s beliefs to judge the extent to which they conflict with what her institution is teaching, but I would guess that her case highlights the need for Christian institutions to train specialty counselors.
I am trying to find info somewhere that will tell me exactly how Ms. Keeton’s beliefs were brought to the attention of her school. I also wonder, why would a Christian seek to study at a school that is teaching as a fact something she truly believes to be false? Why would she not seek out an institution in line with what she considers her core beliefs?
I don’t know how reliable this part is:
“According to the remediation plan, program directors are concerned about Keeton’s ability to effectively council people who are gay or lesbian, citing class papers and comments where Keeton has disagreed with the gay ‘lifestyle.’
The letter also cites an email from Keeton in which she says: ‘my Christian moral views are not just about me. I think the Bible’s teaching is true for all people and it shows the right way to live.’ ”
She says wants to be a school counselor. There would certainly be a place for her as such in a Christian school, with people who share her beliefs.
I would argue that the secular university is teaching a value. The value is that homosexuality is ok. Secular universities do not have just athiests and new agers and secularists who attend their schools. They have Christians and Hindus and Muslims and Buddhists. I also thought that universities were realms where many different viewpoints were tolerated and taught???
Apparently not so anymore.
I would expect the university should be teaching the basics of therapy and offering courses in secular counselling as well as other types of counselling.
I still believe this issue is about homosexuality.
If she had been dealing with an issue such as breastfeeding her values would never have been questioned.
But apparently Christians are NEVER allowed to bring their values into their practice (whether it’s medical or otherwise) nor are they allowed to bring them into any aspect of the public sphere.
This is nothing more than an attempt to once again push Christianity and practicing Christians out of the public sphere altogether and it is reprehensible, intolerant and bigoted.
Ha, funny you should mention breastfeeding! I think breast-feeding is a very controversial subject that in some circles can rival the controversy over homosexuality. The physical benefits are clear, so some people take this a step further, and argue that women SHOULD breast feed — or else they are selfish mothers, etc. (Can you tell, I endured a guilt trip from my pediatrician for weaning before 10 months?)
I wonder, what if a Hindu agricultural student refused to slaughter cows, even if it were required for certification in his chosen course of study? What if a Seventh Day Adventist student refused to attend classes on Fridays?
I think it’s too broad to say that Christians are NEVER allowed to bring their values into their practice — your example of your Catholic couselor was a very good one. A doctor/pharmacist who refuses to prescribe contraception is another good example.
At the same time, secular laws aren’t based on Christian principles — nor should they be. Georgia State has to certify that someone meets their academic standards, as they currently sent them forth.
Perhaps the answer would be to allow Ms. Keeton to transfer her credits to a Christian institution, where her minority opinion is mainstream.
University Persecution of Christians: Game On « Coming Home…
I found your entry interesting do I’ve added a Trackback to it on my weblog :)…
For all that I am likely significantly more liberal than most readers here, I will agree that yes, Christianity is under fire in most colleges and universities. I work for a major public university in California.
I can think of only one professor out of 21 tenure-track in my department who is politically conservative, though religiously agnostic or atheist. I can think of two professors who are decidedly anti-Christian. One told me, with venom in her voice, “I HATE Christians.” (She’d been raised Catholic. Her daughter recently converted to Orthodox Judaism and she’s completely fine with that.) Another one told me that she does not allow her students to talk about Jesus in their papers.
On the flip side, the one administrator who was a “good Christian” – active in his Protestant church, traveled to see Christian speakers, conservative – was a hypocrite, often calling his ex-brother-in-law a fag, among doing other less than Christian-ly things.
Even with my beliefs, I am SICK TO DEATH of hearing about “diversity,” followed closely by “tolerance.”
Both are nothing but tools of propoganda spewed in academia. There is NO tolerance for diverse thoughts, i.e., thoughts which differ from any of the darling ones of the overwhelming liberal bias, not only in higher education, but also in elementary and secondary education as well.
jpt, your comment perfectly illustrates why, when we lived in your state, I sent my kids to Catholic school — where the diversity is real and the spirit of love and charity (even toward non-Christians and gays) is true.
L,
You are implying that there is no place in higher academia for Christians. I disagree.
Why should Ms Keeton have to transfer? Because she is a Christian? Would we tell a Muslim the same thing? I think not.
I’m well aware of the issues with breastfeeding having been a LaLeche League leader at one point in my life.
The point is that anyone of any belief SHOULD be able to take a counselling degree and graduate from a secular university provided that he/she completes the academic requirements. It use to be that you could hold a viewpoint in an academic environment provided you could support your argument. This is no longer the case. Your view must the accepted politically correct view.
In the 1980’s I was able to successfullly submit a paper which was prolife and had a Christian-Catholic environmentalist public policy. It was accepted and I received a good mark. I doubt that I could submit the same paper today. It would be immediately written off for it’s Christian centred viewpoint.
What we see here is a tentacle of the homosexual movement which is part of the giant octopus of feminist, man-hating, secular, anti-christian values that has overtaken higher academia.
This is done in the name of tolerance but really it’s a form of soft totalitarianism.
Even with my beliefs, I am SICK TO DEATH of hearing about “diversity,” followed closely by “tolerance.”
Both are nothing but tools of propoganda spewed in academia. There is NO tolerance for diverse thoughts, i.e., thoughts which differ from any of the darling ones of the overwhelming liberal bias, not only in higher education, but also in elementary and secondary education as well.
jpt,
I attended university in the 1970’s the 1980’s and most recently in 2005-06. I can tell you that the entire university system is marked by fear. Students are fearful to say or produce anything but what they know is the accepted view.
I challenged a bombastic windbag of a lecturer in class on certain views he had. While the rest of the class sat on in stunned silence I had no problems taking this liberal airhead on.
Next class, the professor – an older woman complimented me on standing up to him!
Most students told me they were very afraid to say anything but what they believed the profs wanted to hear.
Now, that’s very sad. Society sure has changed alot in 25 years. 😦
“The point is that anyone of any belief SHOULD be able to take a counselling degree and graduate from a secular university provided that he/she completes the academic requirements.”
I agree — but I would guess that a post-graduate counseling degree requires clinical field work. It sounds as if Ms. Keeton’s views are very likely to conflict with some of the requirements.
Yeah, I agree — there is NO place for Christianity at a secular institution, if it’s being espoused as the one and only truth. But hey, I am a gay marriage-loving feminist, so of course I would think that. (I’m Catholic, too, though. Figure that one out!)
“It use to be that you could hold a viewpoint in an academic environment provided you could support your argument.”
Yes, but one can’t support any religious argument in a secular environment. It rests on faith, by definition.
L
There are plenty of reasons other than religious ones to support the view that homosexual lifestyle is harmful.
A counsellor would have a great deal of science and sociology to back up her views.
Mary Catherine, there are indeed plenty of studies that show the very real health risks of both homosexual and heterosexual promiscuity. But the “homosexual lifestyle” also includes monogamous relationships that contribute to societal stability.
A counselor would have a tough time arguing against stable, loving relationships between consenting adults on anything but religious grounds.
“But the “homosexual lifestyle” also includes monogamous relationships that contribute to societal stability. ”
really? Not from the research I’ve seen. In fact homosexual and monogamous do not go together in the same breath.
Most homosexuals have numerous partners, and most relationships do not last long.
That they are unnatural is evidenced by the biological incompatibility of the “partners” as well as their incompatible and uncomplimentary emotional and psychological characteristics.
The Centre for Research and Gender & Sexuality at San Francisco University demonstrated just recently (2010) that 47% of gay couples have “sex agreements” which outline when they can have sex with others.
(Hint: married heterosexuals call this cheating/adultery)
Only 45% said their relationships were monogamous.
A Journal of Sex Research study reveals “that only 2.7 percent of older homosexuals had only one sexual partner in their lifetime.
Married heterosexuals consistently reported that men remained faithful at least 75 percent of the time, and women at least 85 percent of the time. On the other hand, research revealed that it was not uncommon for “the average male homosexual” to have “hundreds of sex partners in his lifetime.” Also, a Dutch study found that “men with a steady partner had an average of eight sexual partners per year.”
hmmm…..
While almost 58 percent of married heterosexuals were still married after 20 years, a survey of same-sex couples found that “only 15 percent describe their current relationship as having lasted twelve years or longer, with five percent lasting more than twenty years.” Also, a Netherlands study related that the ‘duration of steady partnerships’ was typically no more than 1.5 years.
The above comes from Dr. Timothy Dailey’s report done by the Family Research Council.
In addition to all the above, a lifestyle associated with high promiscuity is physically unhealthy and carries medical risks such as AIDS, bowel disorders and intestinal diseases, syphilius and hepatitus. The social cost of these diseases cannot be stabilizing to society since the relationship does not contribute to the overall health of these “partners” but seems to facilitate behaviors which make them ill.
I have no idea WHY you would consider the idea that homosexual relationships are stabilizing to society????
Um, Mary Catherine? How many homosexual couples do you actually know?
I know many who are monogamous, commited, and contributing to societal stability — and together even longer than me and my partner. I even know some who are devout Catholics, and send their kids to Catholic schools.
Also, I think it’s far to say that I am as unlikely to believe anything put out by the Family Research Council as you are to believe anything by the Guttmacher Institute.
But if you prefer to rely solely on the data in limited studies, try looking up sexually transmitted disease rates for lesbians. I hear they’re gay, too.
I guess I just fail to understand why two consenting adults in a committed, mongamous relationship DON’T contribute to societal stability.
Perhaps I am more sensitive to the issue than the average person, because I am in an interracial relationship in a country where they are still not the norm, and I have been accused of sowing societal disharmony with my unnatural union. Some people feel nothing but pity for our mixed-race children, who are doomed to live divided lives, neither here nor there, because of their parents’ poor choices. (Obviously, I don’t share their sentiment!)
I don’t know of any of my children is gay. But what if they are? I would want the same thing for them as if they were heterosexual: peaceful, stable lives, with loving partners. Gender matters about as much to me as race does — but I am acutely aware that there are people with some very strong opinions on both.
Actually I work with 3 lesbians who are lovely people, L.
I love them dearly but I can clearly see that these people are very dysfunctional and that their relationships are dysfunctional.
Would I discriminate against them? Never. I treat them with the respect that any human being deserves – they are persons created in the image of God and completely deserving of my love and care.
But what they have is NOT marriage. It is not stable. And it is unnatural.
Your couples that you know are not the norm. Research proves this.
Anecdotal stories are quaint but the research says it ain’t so. You and all the homosexual pairs in North America can say it is, but they don’t behave as though it is.
I’m truly glad to hear that you are kind to your local lesbians.
And you may insist that research “says it ain’t so,” but I personally know many examples of evidence to the contrary.
One of the great advantages of living in San Francisco for a few years was that I was able to teach my kids about the gay agenda and take them to Gay Pride parades — and just see postive examples of gay families everywhere we went.
I am sad that you subjected your children to the vulgarities of a Gay Pride Parade. I pray that the Lord will show you mercy for the corrupting influence you have exposed your children to.
Yes we all know how loving and tolerate the gays of San Francisco are L.
We’ve seen them chase Christian down the streets.
We’ve seen them mock the beautiful and reverent gift of human sexuality in public.
We’ve seen them force their views on people who don’t believe as they do and try to destroy these people lives.
Yes, homosexuality is such a wonderful and stabilizing thing in society.
How can you be so blind?
And I”m sure this is ALL and ENTIRELY the fault of bigoted people. Because of course, as we all now know in this enlightened age, that to believe something is morally wrong is to be a bigot.
😦
oh I’m also quite glad that you recognize it for what it is – a “gay agenda”
I can tell you that you can force people to behave publicly one way but you cannot force people to BELIEVE privately.
No amount of “re-education” or sensitivity classes will ever convince many that homosexuality is natural and ordered.
Because it is quite natural to have a deep revulsion for such behaviors.
Yes, indeed, I have seen how loving and tolerant the gay people of San Francisco were, and yes, I taught my kids to support their agenda, and still do. Perhaps they will grow up and rebel against this, but what can I do? I am doing my best.
I would never force people to behave publicly any particular way, nor would I ever force anyone to believe anything privately. Other people have a right to their opinion — even to consider certain actions morally wrong.
There are, of course, proper places to express opinions. That’s what this is about.
I was on the board of a Catholic school (and I was a very active room parent, too). Around others who believed differently, I certainly toned down my fervent support of the gay agenda without changing my beliefs, out of respect for those who believed differently and an institution with different rules.
“I was on the board of a Catholic school” – how tragic.
“Perhaps they will grow up and rebel against this, but what can I do? I am doing my best.”
my fervent prayer is that they do and they revert you back to the true teachings of the Catholic church. You are very misguided. Either that or you are completely uninformed about the true nature of gay sex which is neither loving nor reverent. Very very sad. 😦
I agree that gay sex isn’t “reverent” — but neither are my intimate relations with my own non-Catholic partner.
I make no claims that my views on sexuality — as expressed hypothetically in regard to others, as well as personally applied to my private life — are aligned with those of the Catholic Church. I am quite aware they are not, believe me!
I’m very active in my parish here in Tokyo, too, although it doesn’t have a school, alas.
Fortunately, gay sex never came up at any of our school board meetings. 🙂
“I agree that gay sex isn’t “reverent” — but neither are my intimate relations with my own non-Catholic partner. ”
not to worry. Most people in our society today have no reverence for their sexuality and this tremendous gift.
That is why they contracept. That is why they treat sex purely as a recreational activity without ever discovering the deeper more spiritual meaning.
Sorry, I can’t claim to have discussed intimate relations with “most people in our society today,” so I can only speak for myself.
I’ll just say that at my age, sex is pretty irrelevant to the deeper spiritual part — and soon the whole contraception issue will be moot for us, anyway.
Is being gay a form of contraception…? Hmmmmm.
The most effective form is the barrier method: Sleep with your baby in your bed. This works!
It’s sweet you can be flippant about things that make life so beautiful. 😦
And it’s nice you can be sarcastic about things that make you sad. 🙂
see how you have no understanding of the reverence of sexuality?
You completely missed the connection between contraceptives and disordered sexuality. 😀
Pope Paul VI predicted that contraceptives would result in profound disrespect for women and the breakdown of marriage and family life. He also accurately predicted that sexuality would become increasingly disordered and that men and women would abuse one another and cease to see each other as persons but instead as objects for self-gratification.
I know you don’t see it but it’s there. The evidence is everywhere in society today and in your own life. 😉
In my own life? Hmmm, no, sorry, don’t see that. No abuse, so selfish gratification in our house.
There’s nothing “reverent” about sexuality. It’s as “reverent” as eating and breathing, and just as healthy a part of life, in its proper place.
Remember, I asked if being gay was a form of contraception — I believe I was the one who made that connection in the first place.
Oh, wait, I made the comparison because you brought up contraception in your comment.
You said, “Most people in our society today have no reverence for their sexuality and this tremendous gift.
That is why they contracept.”
No, that’s not it — they contracept because, usually for practical reasons, and sometimes even for medical ones, they decide that preventing conception of a baby would be best in their particular situation.
Oh, I stated above that there was no “selfish gratification” in our house. But we have teenagers, so maybe there is a little of that going on, in private.