Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
Mike Adams :: Townhall.com Columnist
Of Mice and Mormons, Part VII: The Conclusion
by Mike Adams
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Editor's Note: This column is the last in a series of seven. To read the previous parts, please click here to view Mike Adams' archive.

On October 25, 2004, the American Association of Marriage and FamilyTherapists (AAMFT) held a site visit for the purpose of reaccrediting the Purdue University Calumet (PUC) Master’s in Family Therapy Program. The AAMFT officials held a group meeting to discuss student concerns, but Mr. Ford remained silent at this meeting. He was afraid of inviting more retaliation if he spoke.

At the end of the meeting, AAMFT officials offered to hear other student concerns in a confidential setting. That evening, Mr. Ford accepted this offer and called Dr. Tom Smith, one of the evaluators. Mr. Ford explained all of the religious discrimination and retaliation he had experienced at the hands of the faculty. Dr. Smith simply advised him to remain silent so he could graduate without experiencing more trouble.

In April 2005, Mr. Ford first requested that Professor Trepper write a letter of recommendation to accompany his applications to doctoral programs. In May 2005, Mr. Ford received an e-mail from his fellow student and former friend, Ms. Duffy-Greslo. Though she was contacting him on an unrelated matter, she decided to bring up his refusal to change his religious convictions at her demand.

On July 20, 2005, Mr. Ford met with Professor Wetchler to determine whether the faculty would write letters of recommendation on his behalf. Wetchler agreed to do so because Mr. Ford had “grown up.” But he could not answer for the others. Instead, Mr. Ford would have to approach them individually.

In October 2005, Mr. Ford met with Professor Wetchler to discuss his prospects for doctoral programs. At this time, Mr. Ford noted that his top choice was Brigham Young University. Wetchler strongly disapproved. Instead, he encouraged Mr. Ford to attend Kansas State University or Texas Tech University because those schools had LDS faculty members who agreed with the program’s beliefs concerning sex therapy for same sex couples.

Around the same time, Mr. Ford met with Professor Trepper to see if he would write a letter of recommendation, and he promised to write Mr. Ford a “strong” letter. Later in October 2005, several faculty members, including Professor Wetchler, intimated to Mr. Ford that he must be “gay” because he was not “pro-gay.”

According to them, those who oppose the political agenda of the advocates of homosexual conduct do so because they are repressing their own homosexual desires. Professor Wetchler and others repeatedly asked Mr. Ford why someone as sensitive would take a stand on issues relating to homosexual conduct and why he (Mr. Ford) cared about these issues.

On November 2, 2005, Professor Wetchler sent Mr. Ford an e-mail asking questions about the information Mr. Ford had provided to help him in writing the letter of recommendation. A little over two hours later, Mr. Ford responded explaining the purpose for each item he provided Wetchler so as to facilitate the letter-writing process.

On November 19, 2005, Professor Trepper sent Mr. Ford an e-mail asking for additional information in order to write the letters of recommendation and inquiring about some of the programs to which Mr. Ford was applying. Mr. Ford responded within two hours noting that he would supply the needed information.

For Mr. Ford’s application to Brigham Young University, the letters of recommendation were due at the end of December 2005. Professor Trepper’s letter did not arrive until after the due date (some time in January 2006). Then, on January 31, 2006, Mr. Ford learned that Brigham Young University had rejected his application.

Professor Wetchler never sent a letter of recommendation for Mr. Ford to Kansas State University. As a direct result, Kansas State University rejected Mr. Ford’s application in February of 2006.

In May of 2006, Mr. Ford graduated from PUC with a Master’s Degree in Child Development and Family Studies with a specialty in Marriage and Family Therapy.

In December 2006, Professor Trepper, who had previously questioned Mr. West’s sensitivity on matters related to sex, lost his position as professor in the master’s program as a result of allegations of harassment. During the investigation, several students were interviewed about their interactions with Trepper, and these questions focused on issues of harassment and sexual harassment. As a result of this investigation, Professor Trepper can no longer teach graduate students, and can no longer serve on the thesis committees for graduate students.

On August 17, 2007, Mr. Ford filed suit against many of the characters featured in this seven part series. I hope that Mormons and non-Mormons alike will be praying for our embattled plaintiff and friend. Despite all our differences, we do face a common enemy.

Author’s note: I want to thank the Alliance Defense Fund (www.TellADF.org) for giving me the information necessary to defend Mr. Ford in the court of public opinion as they prepare to defend him in a court of law.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Mike Adams is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington and author of Feminists Say the Darndest Things: A Politically Incorrect Professor Confronts "Womyn" On Campus.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to receive Mike Adams' column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Anti-Climatic Ending
What gives Mike?

The story was great, it kept me on the edge of my seat, I was hoping for a little more 'satisfaction on Mr. Fords behalf, but it just ends rather quickly, like a bad Lifetime movie, ok like almost all Lifetime movies.

I feel good for Mr. Ford, but I need to know more.

On a side note, it's interesting how the homo agenda people always accuse normal people of being closeted homos if you disagree with them. It shows you how much they despise themselves.

The only tiny surprise is that Mr Ford
GOT his Master's degree! I am taken aback that they could not find some way to wrench it away from him just before graduation.

whew
I was really concerned that Mr. Ford wouldn't take legal action. I know as a society we're sue happy, but in this case I honestly believe it's warranted. I hope we get to hear the results of Mr. Ford's law suit.

Who Shot JR?
Mike,

I hope you continue to follow up with one. You're leaving us with a cliffhanger.

The saga is outrageous, but it is not over. My guess is that in the end it will not only highlight the complete degenerate behavior of some of academias finest, but will also show the absolute contempt for the legal system by some of our liberal judges.

Great series.

Undue Perversity
A friend of mine went to Purdue and used to jokingly refer to it as Undue Perversity. Maybe he wasn't kidding.

Praying For You, Too, Mike!
Hey Mike, not only am I praying for Mr. Ford and his friend, but also for you. I pray for justice for the scholastic fraud and swindle perpetrated on Mr. Ford and mercy on those who engaged in it (better they should be repentant and turned around rather than simply punished). And I thank G-d that you have the expertise, the forum and the guts to expose the perversity that so many regular citizens abhor.

We know it's happening, we suspect the media and academia, and when their collusion is unveiled for everyone to see, we'd like nothing better than an accounting and a reckoning.

Vindictive little git
Ford's classmate has earlier shone more light onto this story and it's proven out to be outright lie and fabrication. Ford was and still is vicious anti-gay bigot who in several occasion used derogatory language about gays and refused to treat them in equal manner. He demanded the right to replace actual facts with prejudices of his religion and constantly harassed gay classmates. He wanted constantly to talk about reparative therapy, practice taht has proven to be harmful and abusive.

And now, this vindictive little bigot is suing bthe university because they didn't think that mormon doctrine is the sole content of family classes. This vicious bigot graduated eevn though his despicable and hateful behavior and now he sues. I hope his lawsuit gets kicked out of courtroom.

His classmate has also showed that most of the incidences Ford claimed to have happened never happened. And for some reason he believe that his viocuness and sheer meanspitritedeness, his contempt and hatred for gays classmates and gay clients, his refusal to lear n anything about gay issues that was outside his religious dogma, all that should have been awarded.

A moron.






Mr Reardon
No judge is contemptuous of the legal system whether they be liberal, conservative, or anything in between.

All I can comment on is that it's extremely hard to prove that someone is acting in a malicious way to undermine you behind your back (That's why cowards like to use skulduggery!) and that courts have to deal with provable issues in front of them.

Perhaps you take issue with them because they can detach themselves from ideology and simply consider the facts in fron of them? So many people rail against the legal system simply because it rules against them.

That's not because the "liberals" (or, on the other hand, if you were all liberals, the "conservatives") are engaged in some great conspiracy to get you down. It's because you're wrong, by some point of law. And if you're going to complain about the refs, you're being a petulant sulk.

Van...
...the plural of "incident" is "incidents," not "incidences."

Do you suppose
that the hatred & vitriol for conservatives from the left come from their repressing of their own conservative desires? Might that be the source of their "conserva-phobic" behavior?

van
Why is Mr Ford a "little" bigot? You're straining your rhetoric to the breaking point-- your desire to be derogatory is so strong it overwhelms you, and lays bare a disregard for anything else. You seem to truly hate this person, and I am now satisfied that you seen him as exemplary of something you have hated all along, before the first facts in this particular case were laid out.

This is a priori thinking-- kind of ironic when your forgone conclusion deals with accusations of "bigotry."

You also couldn't've done a better job of setting yourself up as a punching bag in this, your opportunity to weigh in with a last installment of opinionated vitriol on this subject. Could it be you enjoy the abuse you are clearly inviting?

Once you've moved a few people to return fire, do you feel satisfaction-- or is there a letdown, a feeling of the pointlessness of your insomniacal nattering on the internet?

Much as you exhibit a hatred toward religion, I almost hate to suggest that you try prayer when that "is that all there is" feeling hits you soon-- the dark pre-dawn hours are a good time to try. Nobody's stopping you-- think of it as a cynical exercise in irony.


foxfirebrand
I don't "hate" religion,I hate religious bigotry like that of Mr. Ford. And unlike mr.Ford I resent his behavior and how he has declared thet his religion entitles him not only to treat people in unequal manner but to abuse and mutilate gays both spiritually and psycholigically. It's different from hatting all gays like mr. Ford has done and to use all the classes in spewing anti-gay rhetoric, intientionally insulting his classmates and finding excuses for psychological malpractice and abuse of those who are vulnerable.

Not to talk about his vindictive personality and how he and mr. Adams have used countless hours to demean the professional reputation of professor Wechtler without any shred of evidence.

Mr. Ford's claasmate has also posted several posts where he descrines how Ford actually did behave and I have to say that i find hid description to be very believable. This little moron is a professional victim who wants to revenge because his bigotry and hatred wasn't universally rewarded.

He graduated only to abuse his future clients. we'll hear form this monster in future in connection with some abuse case, I am sure.

And being abused by Christians and other religious extremists doesn't require any kind of invitation, they're doing it freely to everyone who dares to oppose them. Like in this case: most Christians despise this mormon's beliefs but celebrate because he uses his beliefs as excuse to hurt gays.


Not a Soprano's ending...
...but not unexpected. It does reveal the hypocrisy of academia, the "enlightened ones" who are to challenge students to think on their own, not to channel them into an ideology, especially one that conflicts with someones morals.

Van
It's about acceptance. If Dr. Adams show how much alike mainstream Christians and Mormons are, then they be more apt to voe for...a Mormon?

Personally, I don't care what religion (if any) our elected officials have, as long as they're Constructionists.

"vote" not "voe" sorry...
...early a.m. finger misfire...

Ignore Van...
...he is a light-in-the -loafers anti- Christian bigot and has made his reputation on this series of columns by Dr Adams.If the subject isn't "queers",Van wouldn't post anything.

Of course,Van could always write a book on "How To Spel."

Hyperventilating Van
OK Van. What I think I hear you saying is that you have issues with Mr. Ford- deep, dark, brooding, hostile emotions. This for a man you have never met, seen, or spoken to. Your sole sources of information for these disturbing feelings are a) Dr. Adams' "unproven" columns; b) the unproven comments of someone purporting to have been a classmate of Ford's and possessing actual knowledge of all the incidents cited here; and c) your own preconceptions.

We will have to see what happens to young Mr. Ford. In the meantime, it's not to late to get you the help you need. But the recovery has to begin with you. You have to want to get better.

Please give it some thought. And while you are doing that, you might want to try breathing into a paper sack for several minutes. I hear it is great for calming hyperventilators.

Actions have consequences
"As a result of this investigation, Professor Trepper can no longer teach graduate students, and can no longer serve on the thesis committees for graduate students."

More to come.

Van
This vicious bigot

Were you describing yourself Van?

Van, again
Ford has done and to use all the classes in spewing anti-gay rhetoric, intientionally insulting his classmates and finding excuses for psychological malpractice and abuse of those who are vulnerable.

yes i'm sure he was sitting in a liberal setting spewing anti gay rhetoric and insulting his classmates. Sounds plausible to me.

btw , Van if you are gay , Mr Ford might be able to help get you over those feelings.

Vantasia
Van, are you for real or are you a caricature? You claim no hatred of religion, only religious bigotry. How do you distinguish between religion you like and religion you hate? Let me guess - if the religious doctrine does not conflict with your own lifestyle, then you are okay with it. But, if the religious tenant proscribes your choice, then it is bigotry personified! How convenient. So if you agree that honesty is the best policy, then you accept one of the 10 commandment as legit. But if religion frowns upon homosexual intercourse (or, more accurately, labels it an abomination), then you shout Bigots, Bigots, BIGOTS!

Religious doctrine is not some smorgasbord where you can pick and choose what you like. Moral relativism has produced the mess we are in today.

People...enough of Van.

Please, just ignore his posts.
Half of the posts are his or are replies to him.
Skipping over posts with his name on them is boring.

THRadio
I hate and loath people like you or mr. Ford here to whom their religion is only excuse for abuse and hatemongering. As general rule they are smug, supremacis people who are totally indifferent to the pain they cause or they actually enjoy causing as mucy as possible to others.

Mr. Ford is typical totalitarian sadist who when confronted starts whining persecution and sues. They allowed this meanspirited little bigot to graduate even though he doesn't have even the basic qualifications for the job, and still he whines.

Hateful and judgmenatl people like him kane lousy therapists. but the his motivation wasn't halping to begin with, it was about power and control.

And talking about caricatures: the bigots here make Fred Phelps look good.

Van is mad at Jerry Lewis too.
Great series Mike.

Van, the one note charlie.
For months I've noticed Van's postings, he appears to be a signifing monkey stuck in sexual perversions.

Liberal Academia
Let's talk about the WVU College of Law where:

(1) I was told by a Professor that it was a good thing he didn't know my exam number,
(2) I was called on when I had not raised my hand because of my conservative beliefs and asked to expound on gay marriage for no reason in the middle of a property class,
(3) I was asked if I knew I would be working with "poor people" when I applied for a Public Interest scholarship,
(4) A friend of mine who was seeking a recommendation to enter JAG was told that serving his country was a "F-ing waste of his talent,"

etc, etc, etc...


These idiots are all still deeply entrenched in their lifetime positions as tenured indoctrinators.

Homosexuality causes...
Spelling errors?
Or it that due all of the spittle hitting the keyboard?

Wacky
"No judge is contemptuous of the legal system whether they be liberal, conservative, or anything in between."

Sadly you're wrong.

Now Van,
You really must calm yourself. Remember what the doctor said. When you start emoting like this, you always end up in that dark, ugly corner of your soul where you only hurt yourself.

van
How many of the professors you defend have you also slept with? Is Trepper good in bed?

Obviously
the story really isn't over yet. Let's hope for a good outcome.

Harassment of Whom?
Unfortunately we are not informed about the nature of Trepper's harassment dismissal. Since colleges are very tolerant of harassment against conservative thinkers and their opinions, I would guess that Trepper was harassing more liberal students and/or opinions.

Since the assumption is that Mr. Ford must be a closet homosexual because he doesn't toe the line on the homosexual agenda, perhaps we should assume that Mr. Trepper is a homosexual hater/harasser? It only makes sense that if being non-supportive of the homosexual agenda makes one a closet homosexual, than being supportive of the homosexual lifestyle must mean you actually hate homosexuals.

I've heard that the reason that many homosexuals are so angry about the lack of validation for their lifestyles is that they actually hate themselves and seek societal acceptance in an effort to assuage their own hatred. I'd be curious if anyone knows the specifics behind Mr. Trepper's harassment dismissal?

you know
I feel vaguely let down too. This story just didn’t go anywhere. Anyone who’s been in academia knows that this sort of thing happens all the time and for pettier reasons than an over blown religious conflict. Would it make anyone feel better if the injustice done to Ford was over him publishing a paper that repudiated the professor’s hero? This was story was stretched so long, I really thought the outcome would be original or different in some way. Seriously, what did we get out of all this? A gratuitous version of “Academia hates religion” preached to the choir. And the threads have been so tedious that I haven’t felt like contributing for days. It’s been nothing but ridiculous comments from Van and a few others followed by an endless barrage of come-backs and counters. Does anyone actually take Van seriously? My goodness, the man signed one of his comments “A. Moron”. Enough is enough, let’s move on.

Van's signature
Van signed his first post of the day: A Moron.

I concur.

MARC
As distasteful and poorly spelled as Van's postings can be, I wish you would keep the flaming hate dialog to yourself. No one wishes or wants Van & others of his ilk to commit suicide. Asking him to do so only makes you weak minded and thuggish.

Keep that crap on KOS.

He he he ...
Van's funny.

Although Bulwer said "the pen is mightier than a two edged sword", Van's sensational style is so unjustified as to render his own sword about as sharp as a marble.

The Moron
Van's closing of his first postt was apply signed:

"A moron"

My cpmpliments, Van, you have finally admitted and testified of your mental capacities.

There are remedial classes that you might seek to grasp the concept of logic.

Good luck; I hate to admit, I truly feel for your suffering!

error
closing:

s/b "hate to admit" s/b :

error still
"hate to admit it"

MARC the Jackass
Markie, Markie, Markie. tsk, tsk, tsk. Didn't your mother ever teach you that if you didn't have something good to say about someone to keep your puerile mouth shut? Van, for all his bigoted ways, is entitled to his opinion. Yes, yes, I know you are too, but, Van isn't calling on someone to commit suicide, unlike you.
Think on this Marc, suicide is a crime, ergo, pushing someone to commit a crime could be construed as conspiracy to commit a crime. If he actually did, you might end up being charged as an accessory.
Have a nice day, if your dark demented soul will allow it. =)
Taproot

PBN505 -
As one who's been closely acquainted with people who've made the horribly selfish "easy-way-out" choice to commit suicide, I feel fully qualified to say that self-induced delusions are largely to blame. Any respectable mental health professional will agree with that assessment. The worst thing you can do is to encourage such delusions, as you would encourage in Van and in yourself. "Hatred" and "vicious" and "meanspirited" are strong words that are based entirely in sensationalized self-deception when used in reference to Mr. Ford's feelings toward gay people. Wake up and smell reality: If you and Van choose to commit suicide then you'll have nobody but yourselves to blame.

Van - There is no Van
No reply warranted. To do so only affords him the opportunity to spue his bile

Marc with a 'C'
I'm guessing Marc is of French ancestry. To request that another person commit suicide is cowardice of the worst sort.

Van is a misguided individual, but a person suggesting he commit suicide has problems far beyond any mental deficiencies suffered by Van.

This is only one example
of why the public needs to be more aware of what is going on in our universities. The far left has been very successful in getting all sorts of nut-jobs into professorships in nearly every field.

Just see what happens whenever a conservative speaker like Ann Coulter or David Horowitz tries to speak on any college campus.

We not only need to reign in leftist professors, we need to insist that legal action be taken to protect the free speach rights of any legitimate individual or group.

RE: Van
Have you ANY proof of your allegations? Seeing as how you have a LOOOOOOOOONG history of lying on these forums, I'm betting you made all this up. I mean, seriously, you DO know were ANY of your allegations true, Adams and Ford could be hit with slander and defamation lawsuits, and seeing as how Adams is a lawyer, I'm betting he'd have known that in advance.

In other words, back it up or admit you're a liar, as usual.

David Austin
Mr. Austin,

At no time did I recommend that Van commit suicide.

Perhaps whilst Van takes a spelling course, you could invest in a reading program.

Best regards,

PBN505

Off to the Courts
I well understand the apprehension for the judges. But the neat thing about this turn of events is it will be a civil court with its inherently lower standards of evidence. Also, it is likely to be a jury trial.. The secular humanist progressive component of our post modern culture may control the academy, the courts and the media, but the jury comes from the population at large. Most juries are made up of unemployed, unemployable, retired or government employee people who are available to spend the time at trial instead of work. Now I think there are at least twelve people out there who might not be inclined to side with the professors and the faculty. I’m thinking, it will be settled out of court at the expense of the tax payer. The best part of this is the intimidation factor. See we are learning something from those liberal lawyers after all.

all about feelings.....
Van and most libs remind me of my childhood - when my parents would admonish me for bad behavior, I would immaturely retort - you hate me!

This is only an example
of why the public needs to be more aware of what is going on in our universities. The far left has been very successful in getting all sorts of nut-jobs into professorships in nearly every field.

Just see what happens whenever a conservative speaker like Ann Coulter or David Horowitz tries to speak on any college campus.

We not only need to reign in leftist professors, we need to insist that legal action be taken to protect the free speach rights of any legitimate individual or group ESPECIALLY at universities. Our universities should be the place most open to competing ideas, but have become the place most closed to anything the left doesn't like.

MARC
MARC,

If minding my own business means maintaining a sense of decorum and professionalism on this thread, than I will. If your interpretation of minding one's own business is to encourage suicide, then there are better threads than this for your postings.

As angry, immature and senseless as Van is, you have lowered yourself by suggesting he take his own life. I am certain you meant it as a joke, but it is not funny.

Best regards,

PBN505

Yanking the purse strings
There's no excuse for this kind of thing in a public institution, at least in a state whose legislature isn't dominated by hard-lefties. Conservative voters should be building fires under their legislators to start using state support to motivate fairness & justice to students who don't hew to the left-wing agenda. If boards of trustees start filling up with gimlet-eyed conservatives, if legislators start getting fed up with paying off judgements & pass laws to protect the rights of students, this kind of nonsense would stop. If that drives the Trepplers & Wetchlers of academia out to greener pastures, why, good riddance.

There's also alumni and other private donors to consider, an approach that might also motivate right behavior by private schools as well.

Finally, a future conservative Congress could pass a conservative 'Title 9' that requires any institute of higher learning that recieves one 'federal dollar' to comply with strict regulations protecting the rights of conservative dissenters. If it is challenged, it would either survive, or else the fight could take down the detestable 0ne-federal-$-buys-control-of-the-whole-school doctrine with it, which would also be a good thing.

BTW, wonder what sex the victims of Teppler's alleged unwanted advances were?

Correction
Nam65-66 writes: Wednesday, September, 05, 2007 6:09 AM

"Of course,Van could always write a book on "How To Spel."

You meant "Howe too Spel", didn't you?

College
......is a hell-hole; a cess pool of liberal jabberwocky-- no place to learn about the world-the real world!- of work and self discipline, consequences of actions and necessity of action. At a liberal arts school, for 4+ years you can meander about as though you're really doing something; brown nose your way into a department, suck up to the childishly emotionally underdeveloped professors, regurgitate the required mantras of diversity, free love, homosexual equality, and hatred of capitalism, etc. and they'll send you out into the world with some sheepskin that supposedly shows how 'learn-ed' you are. Meanwhile, all you really learned is how to do beer bongs, drop X, snort blow, perfect your hook-up lines, and immerse yourself into every sleazy, fundamentally wrong behavoir possible. Then you wind up having to get a 'real' job and you find out your boss isn't as much of a ne'er do well slacker as all your professors were, and you're screwed. Because you have no idea how to act.

"Higher education" my a@#. Unless you mean the 'other' kind of higher, maybe. But in today's liberal college atmosphere, you are not going to be prepared for what the world really holds in store for you once you leave the la-la land of the campus, and its' ridiculous liberal politics and mentality.

Van
Rumor has it that Van's name is actually Dan.

PLM596

Wally is right & Forget the BS Postings
Wally stated "We not only need to reign in leftist professors, we need to insist that legal action be taken to protect the free speach rights of any legitimate individual or group."

Anyone who violates another's free speech either in classroom or on a university property should be immediately released or permamently removed, whether they are an Tenured Professor, Student, or administrator - no exceptions. If the School violates this law, then all Federal Grants, Monies, etc, to be denied. We should also demand that Civil Rights Actions be immediately initiated by the Federal Government for those responsible and against those who condone or allow this injustice by inaction on their part.
It is past time that we deal with Academia and their blatant bias whether political or religious in nature.

Correction
Re "He remained silent because he was afraid of inviting more retaliation if he spoke": Good---he's learning. If he were a medical student on clinical rotation, assigned to a surgical unit, and he chose to lecture the patients on the superiority of fasting & prayer to surgical treatment, he would equally be in trouble. When you sign on as an intern, it's written in stone that you do things THEIR way. And no mainstream counseling program is going to tolerate a student who intrudes his personal agenda on clients.

I see from many posts that what happened at Purdue is misunderstood at townhall. This is NOT a political issue. It is NOT about holding to leftist values. This is about a basic value of counseling and psychotherapy: the clinician is to remain personally neutral so that space can be made for the client to explore and understand his own issues. Any trainee, whether Christian or Hindu or whatever, would---and should---be corrected if he did otherwise. BTW, it's not a secret that counselors are not supposed to proselytize their clients. What made Mr X choose this field in the first place if that's what he wanted to do?

Lilly, Don’t Be Silly
Do you really believe that no counselor brings a bias to their sessions with a patient? Do you really believe they have a clean slate? To paraphrase a renowned philosopher, show me a mind without prejudice, and I’ll show you an empty mind. I think people who go for therapy are expressing a need for someone they respect, and who has a clear understanding of life as in a solid baseline of values, to help them and guide them through their confusion and problems. If you were lost in the middle of a great city, would you look for someone to give you directions, someone who had no knowledge of where they were and how to go fro that point to the point you want to go to? Don’t be silly.

To Don'tTreadOnMe
1) Mr X was not just an undergraduate taking a course. 2) He was a graduate student training for a specific profession. 3) His behavior violated the ethics of that profession. 4) His professors corrected and stopped that unethical behavior. 5) Now you want the professors punished and 6) the university defunded so that 7) the trainee may with impunity continue to violate the professional ethics he is there to learn.

Doubtless, schools exist where evangelical Christian behaviors dominate all. Pudue is not one of them. And, from what we've heard here, Purdue insists that students in its professional students behave according to the ethics of the profession in which they're training. Why would that be a problem for you? Mr X was a trainee counselor. Counselors may NOT proselytize their clients. This is a major no-no. They are also taught NOT have sex with them, lend them money, invite them out on a date, play golf with them, or offer to babysit for them. All of this serves a purpose: impersonality allows the client to hear his own voice, perhaps for the first time.

Rich D...
...You are certainly correct."Howe Too Spel" is the proper speling.

To Lilly, from Mike S. Adams
After reading a series of articles, which, in part, described a faculty that forced students to force clients to embrace homosexuality - against their own will to change, mind you - you come up with these words of wisdom on the virtue of neutrality.

I think it can be safely asserted that we are all dumber after listening to you speak. I'm already splitting infinitives and ending sentences with prepositions, to.

Rich D...
...Yes,you are correct. "Howe Too Spel" is the proper term.

4Bear
Where your logic doesn't apply is "would you look for someone to give you directions". The job of a counselor is not to give directions. It is to stay out of the client's way while helping him find his own directions. As for personal bias, part of professional training is to teach the trainee how to recognize his own biases and keep them under control so they won't intrude upon the client. This is done through intensive work with individual and group supervisors and often through personal psychotherapy (for example, a trainee who is highly uncomfortable with homosexuality is unlikely to be helpful to a client struggling with homosexual urges and may in fact be harmful to him, so that the trainee must come to terms with his feelings about the very matters that beset his clients).

Rules govern a counselor's behavior where threatened overt behaviors, rather than feelings, are involved. If the client informs the counselor that he has bought a gun and is planning to shoot his mother tonight, the client has a legal "duty to warn". If the client shows the counselor a bottle of pills and announces suicidal intent, the counselor has a duty to take control. But if the client says he struggles with homosexual urges or feels guilty about masturbation or questions the existence of God, those feelings usually are not life-threatening. Part of the complex learning the trainee must undertake is knowing when to keep his mouth shut and his hands off because 99% of the time he or she should NOT be directive.

Sam I Am...
"Never use a preposition to end a sentence with."
Winston Churchill.

Brian
I am certain there will be issues that need to addressed to insure one's ability to instruct, teach, train, etc. However, Freedom of Speech issues should be protected rigorously by all, especially by the establishment. My Comments, in referencing Wally's Statement were directed in regards to blatant Religious Bigotry exhibited during Article by Mike S. Adams, and specifically referencing Wally's comment regarding the Political Bias by Academia that has been well documented at Schools & Universities across America.

Van, you must be...
...either an agitator that makes our friend Loyal Democrat look like an amateur, or if you are genuine, you are so blinded by hate that you can no longer see logic and reason. If you're the former, all I can say is "Wow"; if the latter, I am terribly sorry for whatever circumstance has come to you to foster such hatred and vitriol.

You call Mr. Ford a bigot; most of us clearly see someone described as a person with a firm and principled stance. In a word, integrity. Prof. Mike describes a man who never attacks, only defends; who never condemns, only offers a choice.

I warn my children often about making broad generalizations about individuals or groups based on less than complete information. Unless you have firsthand knowledge beyond what Prof. Mike offers us, you might do well to consider how little of this story you really know before attaching labels and calling names.

One Sided
Of course every person has biases. The problem for Mr. Ford is he didn't have the correct biases. If he had joined with his profs and had been intolerant of religion, then he would be well on the way to his doctorate.

The Lilly's of the world embrace biases they favor, while condemning biases against behaviors they support. Those of us with more developed logic skills reject the hypocrisy. With any luck, a jury will also recognize the hypocrisy and punish the culprits.

To Sam
All counselors and psychotherapists sooner or later (probably sooner) work with clients who do unpleasant things: embezzle money, make obscene phone calls, get drunk, establish unwise sexual liaisons, beat up their children, and cheat their elderly grandmother out of her estate. (Why? Because counseling serves troubled people.) At some point, these behaviors become uncomfortable or inconvenient, then either folks decide to go for help sorting out their lives or else they are referred to counseling by some authority (at a school this may be the Dean; in the community it may be a judge).

So that pretty soon the evil-doer is sitting eyeball-to-eyeball with a counselor or therapist. At that point, the least helpful thing that can happen is for the clinician to communicate disapproval of the behavior because this will shut down all chance of the client confronting himself and figuring out why he does this bad stuff. Does this mean that the client is "embracing" behaviors or even approving of them? Not at all. It means he is remaining NEUTRAL. But at the same time he must achieve a level of acceptance that keeps him from throwing up or fainting when his client walks into the room. If the trainee has what it takes to work in the field, he will regard even the perpetrator of gross behavior with some degree of empathy. Apparently Mr Ford found certain of his clients outside his empathy. Their issues made him anxious, and he dealt with his anxiety by condemning his clients and in so doing he put his own need ahead of the clients' needs. The more constructive way would have been to discuss his own anxiety with his supervisor, rather than act on it. His need to act like a Mormon (proselytize) was stronger than his need to act like a counselor (empathize).

Brian
Your comments were enlightening and did provoke thought on my part. Freedom of Speech & Religious Freedom should not be limited within academia or elsewhere. Sensitive issues might arise that isn't necesarily black and white and will need to be addressed. If the Basics of these Freedoms are applied with due process by all, I am sure that a solution can be found to address those areas that you have expresssed.

Marc
Marc, look closely at my name. It reads TAPROOT, not Larry Craig. I am unashamedly hetero and in no mood to bite someone named Marc, unless Marc is short for Marcia.
Remember Marc, in your case, tis better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, then it is to open it, (like you insist on doing) and removing all doubt.

Have a great day

Taproot

Poor Lilly
Can not see the hypocrisy of her position. While condemning a student that seeks guidance from his adviser on dealing with a homosexual or woman contemplating divorce; she embraces the professors who insist on an agenda instead of the patient's welfare.

Mr. Ford did suppress his religious convictions by discussing the best way to assist in treatment for his patients with his instructors. His instructors on the other hand insisted on pushing the liberal agenda while ignoring the patient's request for the direction of assistance. Part of therapy is to explore your options, discuss the pros and cons which can occur from each option, and hopefully come to a resolution that assists the patient. Therapy is not to force a patient to accept the current agenda but instead to assist the patient in thinking for themselves and learning how to assess their situation so they can make the best choice for themselves.

Lilly
Sheesh, Lilly!

Do you post on these threads to see if you can get a rise out of those of us who have been paying attention?

Clearly, you haven't been (paying attention, that is!).

I'm thinking you could just post your name with nothing written in the comment box and be more accurate as to what has been going on with these articles and the threads!

Flame
We appear to be saying the same thing.

lilly, you must be a guy!!
If SamIAm had set ME straight the way he schooled YOU, I would have timidly said, "never mind..." and gone away. YOU responded AND tried to set straight one who is obviously your superior in every way!

You've got a lot of... testosterone!

Listening Skills
Apparently Lilly is not qualified to be a therapist, because it seems she read the entire saga and still has managed to mangle the truth.

Mr. Ford did not seek to push his views on homosexuality onto clients. The opposite is true. The profs wanted him to promote their leftist views with patients. This is clear with the patient looking to reject his homosexual behavior and it was also true of the patient considering divorce or working on her marriage.

How anyone can read this story and not see that it was the profs who could not put aside their biases is beyond me. Then again, when it comes to the illogic of the left, anything is possible.

lilly
It may appear that way but you have discounted the professor's actions while changing the student's actions so we are not saying the same thing.

Therapy is about the patient not about the agenda of the therapist. The student requested assistance from the professors. The professors insisted that the student push the liberal agenda instead of helping the patient to explore the options available. That is where we differ, you defend the pushing of the professor's agenda (lack of integrity) while I defend student seeking advice (integrity). I have not even mentioned the many other aspects of the professor's inappropriate, unprofessional, and discriminatory actions.

Van proves a point...
It's very interesting that when someone who suggests that homosexuals can be rehabilitated, the gay community attacks them just like Van..."He [Ford])wanted constantly to talk about reparative therapy, practice taht has proven to be harmful and abusive."

D@mn him for wanting to study reparative therapy! How dare he try to repair someone!

Van would have you believe that the evil Mormon Ford has a hatred for homosexuals but are they rehabilitatable? Van, why don't you ask former Lesbian activist Charlene Cothran, longtime publisher of Venus magazine or Michael Glatze who was a rising star in the "gay rights" movement and founding editor of Young Gay America magazine. Ask them how rehabilitation was so "horrible" for them. Michael Glatze now declares not only has he given up activism – he's no longer a homosexual.

By the way, this is all documented at http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56481 WorldNetDaily.com

How do you explain this sudden happiness, Van?






Lilly, wonders around aimlessly...
...because she has been given directions to her destination by someone who has been trained to allow her find her own way. I hope you didn’t pay for those directions.

Mr. Ford’s problem seems to be that his training involved more than instruction in how to keep his own bias out of the process, he claims he was directed to alter his most cherished religious beliefs as a condition of matriculation and any furtherance of his professional goals.

Rules also govern the behavior of professors, especially those in institutions receiving federal funds, and they proscribe treating students differently based on their religious beliefs. Who says, religion and science do not have a point of intersection? Do you not see that the faculty’s behavior as it has been described, imposed their particular bias on the student? Is this not as egregious as a therapist imposing their bias on a client. I reserve the word patient for real medicine.

I would find it very useful, if therapist included a statement regarding their spiritual bias along with their, sheepskin on the wall. In fact, I’d like to see it in the waiting room. It would be nice to see; Protestant, Evangelical, Catholic, Agnostic, Mormon, Darwinian Atheist, Pagan, Debauched Hedonist, etc. advertised so I would know something about where they were coming from. I don’t believe they can separate their bias from their practice. Certainly, it appears the faculty couldn’t.

Lilly?? (part 1)
Lilly, did you read the previous articles at all? At no time did Mr. Ford proselytize.

Here's a news flash for you - no therapist, social worker, doctor, nurse, etc., is required to accept every person who comes to them for treatment. These professionals are actually permitted to NOT work with particular clients or in particular situations, if doing so would violate the professional's own religious beliefs.

Let me give you an example. When student nurses enter their OB-GYN rotation, spending a day or week at an abortion clinic is OPTIONAL. For students whose beliefs don't allow them to participate in an abortion procedure or in counseling a patient to have an abortion, other learning experiences are provided to allow the students to confront their beliefs, as well as to allow the students to work with the patients/potential patients of the clinic in another way.

Mr. Ford didn't refuse to treat gay clients; he only refused to work with a couple who wanted affirmation and acceptance of their lifestyle. Mr. Ford's religious standards tell him that this lifestyle is NOT acceptable. There are many other reasons a gay person might need counseling, for which Mr. Ford might just be the best therapist. But for someone to demand that he step completely outside his beliefs is outrageous, and no different than a medical school or nursing school forcing their religious students to participate in abortions.


Lilly?? (part 2)
School should be a "safe haven" to allow students to explore themselves and their core beliefs. But when a student finds that he has an unshakable belief, he should not be persecuted. He's learned enough about himself to be able to say, "I'm sorry, I'm not the best qualified to help you with that. Please allow me to refer you to ......." and send that client on their way to someone who CAN help.

Someone above asked if anyone here would have a problem with a Muslim therapist refusing to work with Jewish patients. In my personal opinion, if this Muslim is unable to work impartially with a Jewish patient, then he has every right AND THE RESPONSIBILITY to refer them to another therapist.

None of us are impartial 100% of the time. None of us CAN be impartial 100% of the time. Deal with it.

Van, jumping the gun:
Van, you have not resonded to foxfirebrands point that you have predispositioned yourself to hate Mr. Ford. Let me spell it out to you in your own words:

"I hate religious bigotry like that of Mr. Ford." What evidence do you have that Mr. Ford is a "bigot"?

"he [Mr. Ford] has declared thet his religion entitles him not only to treat people in unequal manner but to abuse and mutilate gays both spiritually and psycholigically." Where did he declare this? I would like to see the link. Where is your evidence that his therapy mutilates and abuses homosexuals?

"It's different from hatting all gays like mr. Ford has done" Once again, in order to stake this claim you MUST show the information where you gather that he HATES ALL GAYS. He's a therapist for them...is that your evidence? Sounds like to me that perhaps he LOVES them enough to pursue a career in therapy helping them. His Thesis was on the subject!

"Not to talk about his vindictive personality" Where do you gather that Mr. Ford is VINDICTIVE? At this point, it is YOU, Van that sounds vindictive.

"This little moron" ad hominem attacks will gain you no respect here, Van. You're sounding more like an angry 1st grader on the playground more than an objective debater with valid arguments.

"He graduated only to abuse his future clients. we'll hear form this monster in future in connection with some abuse case, I am sure." This is my favorite claim you make. You seem to know better than anyone WHY Mr. Ford graduated, so please tell us where you got this insider information. Secondly, you make a bold future claim...so tell us, Van...IF Mr. Ford never has an abuse case come forward, will you publicly apologize here?

Your claims are as empty as Al Capone's vault, Van.

Embracing the "alities"
What if instead of the Professors cramming homosexuality down his throat they were cramming bestiality down his throat. Would we see the same kind of neutrality comments? Wait a minute……….maybe we would.

Fraud
I said it last Thursday and I stand by my opinion...

Van is a fraud -- either someone just getting his/her/its jollies off reading the responses here -- or someone posing as a completely irrational liberal gay to help foster the stereotype.

The misspelling & poor grammar appears too contrived to be real -- and that's just for starters...

The "logic & opinions"?

Whew!!

Lilly
By your analogy, it would be as if you had encourage an embezzler to embrace his need to embezzle as being part of who he is. The professors were not advocating neutrality, they were advocating homosexuality. The patient who wanted to change it was discouraged from doing so (biased, not neutral). Everyone was to be encouraged, (biased, not neutral) not treated. According to your analogy, you should only encourage an "evil doer" to embrace his evil as a part of who he is. Not confront, embrace. By your analogy, this person is not even an evildoer, and his behavior is not evil.

Being neutral means taking no side either for or against the situation. The instructors who downgraded Ford for not taking a side "for" something were not being neutral. It is intellectual dishonesty to think they were. There was no indication that he "condemned" his clients or told them that what they were doing was wrong. It was stated that he told them he would refer them to someone that would be better able to help them.

Is homosexuality all that therapists deal with, so that this should be the keystone of his skillset? If not, why is it bad that there might be some who are more skilled in this area of the treatment continuum than others? My mechanic may have many skills but would send me to a mercedes mechanic in certain cases he didnt feel he could do properly. How is this any different? With the exception of the editorial, Ford only discussed his PROPOSED actions with his instructors. His instructors failed to exercise the same neutrality that they expected Ford to use. Where in the article series did it say that he proselytized his patients? Words have meaning and if he wasnt out spreading the word according to the LDS, then you are not telling the truth here. If you are so proud of your neutrality, why are you not able to exercise it in this case? Is it neutral only when you agree with it?

"Nonjudgmentalism" is approval
In the late '60s and 1970's, pub. ed. embraced a psychological nonsense called nonjudgmentalism, supposedly to help young students deal with sexual experimentation and illegal drug use.

By not expressing any "value judgement," those programs helped imbed the drug culture and sexual problems facing all of culture today. If you want to extent of the perils created: at the time basically two diseases were considered veneral, and there are now 56 recognized "STDs," three incurable, and two of them life threatening.

By 1972, the CDC started keeping stats on teen pregnancies, an undertaking never before needing scientific bean counting. Marijuana and cocaine use sky rocketed until it morphed into the crack cocaine epidemic of the '80s, which disproportionately attacked minorities in cities.

Still, "therapists" insisted that telling students "no" would never work and helped two generations of kids "explore" their way into drug addiction, often crime, and poverty through unwed motherhood. Wrecking edcation was merely a secondary by product.

Mr. Ford and Mr. West were not treated by this famous nonjudgmentalism. They were propagandized, threatened, and coerced over issues of patient difficulties that the Purdue faculty only wanted one outcome for: their own prejudices.

The columns' long tale is at least now subject to investigation for religious discrimiation and persecution, heinous activities for a university faculty to pursue.

Lawsuit
The case is Ford v. Flannery et al. in the Indiana Northern District Court, case no.2:2007cv00267, filed August 17, 2007, pending before Judge Theresa L Springmann and alleging violations of the Civil Rights Act. The defendants are: Michael J Flannery, Joseph Wetchler, Lorna Hecker, Terry S Trepper. I believe that the 11th Amendment to the United States Constitution prevents them from naming Purdue University as a defendant.

Lilly...
Your arguments are very interesting, BUT, what gives you the idea that Mr. Ford was "proselytizing" his clients? You seem to assume that he is directing/trying to teach them. That was never claimed in this article.

APA Code of Ethics
3.04 Avoiding Harm
Psychologists take reasonable steps to avoid harming their clients/patients, students, supervisees, research participants, organizational clients, and others with whom they work, and to minimize harm where it is foreseeable and unavoidable.

How many times have we heard this? "First, DO NO HARM."

If a therapist cannot treat a client for whatever reason, they have the responsibility to send them on to someone who can treat the client. They also have the responsibility to recuse themselves without doing harm to the client.


brian
Did you read the entire series of articles?

Did you not get the point about what happened to "Jeff" after he wrote a letter to the editor?

Do you realize you could create an endless series of hypotheticals using the logic of your last question to Hellernot?


Two things I'd like to see:
First, I'd like to have every state representative be required get up to a microphone and voice his or her opinion about this travesty and then explain their plan of action to eliminate it. They would be given prior notice that their response would have to preface any advertisement or speech in future re-election(s) they engage in. If they balk at the word, "required", they would then be taken to task why this student should be required to tow the liberal line. Then they would be removed from office.

Second, I'd like to see liberals start their very own private university to indoctrinate the young'ns to their heart's content. I wonder if it would survive. Any bets? What name would it be given? How about, "Laydown U."?

Donna B
Interesting post.

If that is a direct quote from the APA, I note it also applies to "students".

How well did "Jeff's" teachers apply this ethic toward him?

Brian
Brian, if the therapist is as rabidly Muslim and as rabidly anti-Jewish as was implied in the original post (way up there somewhere), then yes - his treating a Jewish client would lead to further damage for the client. That's considerably more unethical than referring the client to another practitioner.


Brian
I wasn't referring to disruptive behaviors, or when arguing free speech issues. Common sense has already defined what is and not acceptable like yelling fire, or disruptive behavior. The original free speech issue was initiated by Wally regarding the Political Bias of the Left, by not allowing free speech rights issues for someone like Ann Coulter or David Howowitz speaking publicly on campus, etc... Don't take everything to the extreme or ridiculous - that is a trait of the Liberal Left & the Extreme Right, attmepting to be fair and honest.

Liberal University
Marlin, the liberals already have a goodly number of private colleges that indoctrinate students into the liberal agenda. Let's see....Harvard. Yale. Duke.

Mice and Mormon all 7 articles
I appreciate you bringing this to the attention of the readers of Townhall. I am a strong advocate of marriage defined as one man, one woman in bonds of love and commitment to each other. We can say we love the person but dislike certain preferences someone may adopt. This article and the others shows discrimination of the highest order that should NEVER have been part of that schooling program. Thanks greatly to you Mike Adams.

N. Lawrence Head

Broader applications for client referral
A broader application of a refusal to provide services in the better interest of a client could include: a local auto dealer refusing to work on my truck because it was "too old" (1996) and they didn't have the expertise; another local mechanic referring the work because he couldn't relate to the some of specifics of gas vs diesel. In both instances, I was referred to someone who could handle the issues, someone they both trusted and the outcome was favorable to all. Additionally, I’ve seen the sign, “we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone” a few times in restaurants and cafes around the country.

Former Grad and others have supported opting out of treating a potential client should an expertise or bias issue with the therapist prevent the client from being treated properly. I’m relying on memory here but I think one of the 75 parts in the article mentioned it as a course of action when Ford was given a hypothetical situation he knew would make treating the client difficult. If I got this point wrong, feel free to pile on.

I agree with Brian in desiring to see another view point on the story. Having endured this series over its entirety, I would like to see a workable link to another side of the story. I did follow a link from yesterday to a report but there were no quotes from Mr. Ford or West or the professors. Probably keeping things close until trial or settlement.

Brian
Brian, Mr. Ford wasn't refusing to treat anyone based on their sexual orientation - he only refused to treat one couple because they wanted him to lead them in affirmation and acceptance of their behavior, which he could not do.

By the way, doctors can and do dismiss patients every day for behaviors the patients engage in.

brian
I get your "both sides" point, and IF these columns had been written as "news" by a supposed unbiased reporter, then the reactions and comments I would expect to find here should be balanced.

Conversely, whenever I read something written by an opinion columnist, I expect to be reading one person's view of the issue. It is up to me and my past experience with the writer to decide if I'm likely to believe they are representing the true facts as I would discern them if I had the time or inclination to research them myself.

In my experience with Dr. Adams' columns, I'm reasonably certain I would draw the conclusions he would -- therefore I (and probably many others) have written comments & opinins here and the other threads of this series accordingly.

Fortunately, this is NOT a court of law!

Not sure you got the point
In either case the student considered it “sinful” behavior. It matters not how big the audience is that finds it not “sinful”. To put it another way---doesn’t the student have the right to practice his religion in college? You see the problem here is that he was being forced to renounce or no letters. I’d call that blackmail. The worst part is the stupid professors thought it would actually work. Apparently it didn’t.

Caballerokid...
I already tried bringing this one up to Van and he used typical form in twisting facts to meet his agenda.

In the case of people who actually manage to change their homosexual leanings, the Homosexual community use several methods to discredit these people.

First and foremost, the Gay community automatically proclaim that the people lack any credibility whatsoever, and even discount the fact that at one point they lauded these people.

Second, the Gay community claims that these people were not ever really gay. This is a similar tactic that Liberals use against Black Conseratives... "Oh, he's not really Black." According to the Gay community these people might have been experamenting with Homosexuality to test their own sexuality, but were never truely Gay. This is an especially useful tactic when the person in questiondoes the opposite of an Elton John and gets married and has a family.

Another tactic is one that Van used the other night to describe Michael Glatze, where he claimed Michael to be a Celibate Homosexual, this was right before Van claimed Michael to be thoroughly discredited (refer to my first example). Although I had never heard the "celibate homo" tactic before, I quickly saw how useful it was to the Gay community, because until Michael has a public heterosexual relationship, they can claim that he didn't change his impulses, only repressed them.

The last tactic is one that everyone uses, but it's use is especially prevalent among Liberals. They completely ignore any evidence that they wrong, and continue to espouse the same discredited line, even going so far as to claim that the science and research is on their side, but without ever being able to actually provide peer reviewed empiricle data.

Liberals are like my wife, if the logic doesn't fit into their own personal feelings, instead of changing their feelings, they discard the logic.

Norman
Norman, Elton John WAS married once upon a time, long after he became famous.

Brian
Hey Brian, are you aware of the restaurants that have set up hidden cameras in their kitchens, to discover employees of one race spitting into the food of customers of another race? Know something? As a customer, I'd much rather see a sign on the door that says "No xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, or we may end up p*ss*ng in your beer" than take a chance that someone will spit, urinate, ejaculate, etc., on my food without me knowing it. I'd rather be able to walk away before I ever walk in the door.

My main concern with your Muslim-Jewish scenario, which you seem to overlook, is that the therapist will do more harm to the client. If the therapist cannot treat the patient without causing more harm, then the therapist has both the right and the responsibility to refuse to treat that particular client.

PBN505 and Brian-
Yeah, what I wrote made no sense as responding to PBN505 - sorry, PBN505, it was supposed to be directed to taproot, or anyone else who thinks that suicide is caused by the insensitivity of others.

Brian - let's agree
Brian, let's agree on one thing - we need to hear the other side of the story.

One of the Indiana newspapers that reported on the lawsuit has a bulletin board associated with the article. Some of the comments were made by people who claimed to have been classmates or co-workers of Jeff Ford. More than one of those persons has said that it was Mr. Ford who belittled classmates, who denigrated the homosexual lifestyle, and who constantly brought homosexuality into discussions where it wasn't even appropriate just to get an opportunity to state his beliefs. I have no reason to accept these statements as fact, but I will admit that they introduce an element of reasonable doubt. I think most of us have gone to school with, or worked with, someone who espoused a particular belief and just would not let it go, dragging it into every conversation, and flogging all the other listeners with it.

I hope this case doesn't get settled out of court, because I think it's important that the facts on both sides be heard.

Not every dr. treats every
patient.

It's patently ridiculous to claim some code by the AMA or APA directs a therapist take every patient and apply theoretical treatment possibly discussed in a college lecture.

The situation never happens. And the truth is, therapists and psychologist don't have to be members of the APA. I could teach and not be a member of NEA.

No college instructor can demand a future teacher employ every possible measure discussed in college with classroom students. No Perdue prof. can demand of any student that he she MUST practice exactly what the prof taught be replicated in a school class.

No Purdue prof can enforce his/her personal choice of therapeutic methods on a graduate who is in a private practice.

Many drs. in my area of many sr. citizen developments do not take new Medicare patients. Physicians about to retire traditionally do not take new patients. If a dr. or therapist feels unqualified to treat someone, the ETHICAL action is to refer the client to a more suitable person.

This series of articles was hot about the APA, methods of therapeutic treatment, or even the problems of a couple patients mentioned. The articles are about a few profs. in a pub. u. using their power to coerce a religious person into giving up his religious beliefs or not be supported by his faculty.

Donna B.
I said "opposite of an Elton John." I knew he was married and had kids, and then left that lifestyle because he was gay.

Donna B.
That is correct. My father is a psychologist. He routinely referred people to another psychologist if they wanted counseling that he personally didn't believe in or wasn't as well trained. By the same he often received referrals from other doctors who either didn't believe in the counseling they wanted, or weren't good as good at it.

It's pure foolishness to demand that all psychologist become experts in all things, as foolish as expecting them to be homogeneous, and so it's apparent that the AAMFT is stuck in their ivory tower, completely unaware how things really work in the real world.

It's actually a very good system. You can find whatever kind of therapist you want who will be considerate of your belief system and help resolve your issues without destroying the foundation that makes you who you are. The moment they mandate that psychologists are homogenous is the moment that system dies and mental care becomes largely ineffective.

Brian

Shempy Larue
Regrettably, I must disagree with your 11:01 post in which you state that the modern liberal university does not prepare its students for “the real world.”

While everything you say about what they learn and how they spend their time is true, I submit that it does not leave them “screwed” as you put it, when they leave school (providing they even leave school). It is society that is screwed when these self-absorbed, propagandized slackers hit the workforce, because in most cases, they will end up being employed either by, or contracted to, the government.

You are completely correct though when you say there is no place for such “graduates” in the private employer universe, but that of course pre-supposes that the private sector even has an interest in hiring people with degrees in the pseudo-studies most native American kids even major in anymore. Unfortunately, the government is, far and away, the largest employer of people with behavioral science degrees, and eaten up with political correctness and mediocrity as they are, you can be rest assured they will be right at home in whatever taxpayer-financed-but unaccountable-to-taxpayers-type job they land in.

As uneducated as these students tend to be, in any traditional sense of learning, they are objectively well-qualified for the kind of employment the good professors at PU-C have in mind for them. And when you consider that this employment is not dependent upon any forces of the free market, the reality for them and us is that this is the real world.

???
I been looking for "Former grad", anybody seen him? I guess he ran away after "SamItheman"
spanked him in the Larry Craig stall.

Lilly, at no time did Ford bring in his faith, in fact the guy wanted Ford's help with his gay problem. Ford could have brought up faith, but didn't. He asked how to handle it from his "cough" professors.
They were only upset, Ford didn't convince the guy being gay was a progressive new way of life.

Lilly, Lilly lilly, what bitter event happened to you in your life to come to the twisted logic you call your everyday life?
My guess is you where a flower child of the 60's and found it didn't work in the real world. Your parents where conservatives, and dad ran his own business. Your parents still have to bail you out with money to this day.
You liberal views have wasted your own child to addiction, and criminal behavior, but you take no responsibility in their out come.
How close am I?

Try truth, you could set yourself on a whole new path of joy and happiness, which liberals will never achieve through their lies and deception.

Brian re an earlier exchange
Sorry for the delay but I wanted you to know that Your guess is correct. I would have issues if the refusal was stated as “No ____ allowed or else.” I give the proprietors the benefit of doubt that the would be refusal would be for demonstrated behavior such as “pissing in other’s beer” etc.
So far as Donna’s argument, I think that if a therapist has a self recognized bias, be it religious as she has brought up, an honest therapist would be obligated to inform a client of the conflict and in the best interest of the client, refer out. No Harm.

suicide
We're really off topic here - that Van or anyone would commit suicide because someone told them too.

I agree, so long as the person is already suicidal in the first place. I personally don't go around telling people to kill themselves because you never know when somebody is suicidal, and because I value human life - even if it's someone who's really messed up.

Like Van is.

Mr. Ford
As an evangelical I would like to respond to those who say,"why would Mr. Ford want a degree in that." The same reason as a Mormon would want a degree in medicine, or become a lawer. Can't people with strong religious conservative views be in these fields? The article said some of the faculty felt threatened by Mr. Ford. They could not stomach the fact that a person who disagreed with them on the issue of gay marriage could be an effective therapist.

Such an attitude is not surprising because people who hold gay marriage as sacrosanct are intolerant and predjudiced toward those who disagree with them. Even though I am not a Mormon and disagree strongly with their doctrine it is obvious Mr. Ford was the recipiant of religious bigotry and along with Mr. Adams pray that he will receive some sort of vindication and justice.

van ... strange comments about mormons
Van,

I'm coming in late to the conversation here, but describing Mr. Ford as vindictive just seems strange to me in light of my encounters with Mormons.

Not that it's impossible, but every Mormon I've ever encountered seemed to have a kind of quiet strength. They seemed so sure of their believes that the felt no need to argue about them. Now I am NOT a Mormon and don't personally believe a lot of the things they believe. But all of them have been the opposite of combative. Given that I find it impossible to believe that you are Mormon as you signed your original note.

Nothing Dr. Adams said in any of his articles would seem to give the least indication that he is being vindictive either. Just that he justifiably decided not to let himself or others be abused any longer by the system.

Passive-aggressive behavior in missing
the due dates to post letters of recommendations to the two universities is obvious... No letters = incomplete applications to his PhD programs and the deadlines of those acceptance cycle closed! That was mean.

Another year lost as this student tried to work with his professors to take the next logical step in his preparation to become a qualified mental health professional.

Here was a serious student denied access to further education by the subtlety of "missing registration deadlines." He should be deep into an accepted program by now, getting closer to graduation if his professors had been honest in saying they would write letters for him.
I feel compassion for the hero of this story when his mentoring professors somehow could not meet the necessary deadlines with their promised letters of recommendation.

Costs of student loans ticking, peanut butter sandwiches on day-old bread, old beater cars, and deferment of creature comforts were probably the norm as he kept working towards the goal of entering a good PhD program. You all were probably college students without a silver spoon and can identify with the process of meeting long-range educational goals so you can finally go to work earning a living in your chosen field.
This man got derailed!

Lily write about the professionally neutral stance necessary to be effective. My MD husband was trained in that model. My schooling in psychology and social work didn't demand such a strict adherence to that model. The Marriage and Family Dept. had a slightly different model. My point is we reflect our training and professional ethics - which overlap and have the same purpose of doing no harm.

My earlier comments about asking us collectively to cease to take offense with each other's posts was not meant personally and I apologize that one person perceived it as a personal attack.

Passive-aggressive behavior in missing
the due dates to post letters of recommendations to the two universities is obvious... No letters = incomplete applications to his PhD programs and the deadlines of those acceptance cycle closed! That was mean.

Another year lost as this student tried to work with his professors to take the next logical step in his preparation to become a qualified mental health professional.

Here was a serious student denied access to further education by the subtlety of "missing registration deadlines." He should be deep into an accepted program by now, getting closer to graduation if his professors had been honest in saying they would write letters for him.
I feel compassion for the hero of this story when his mentoring professors somehow could not meet the necessary deadlines with their promised letters of recommendation.

Costs of student loans ticking, peanut butter sandwiches on day-old bread, old beater cars, and deferment of creature comforts were probably the norm as he kept working towards the goal of entering a good PhD program. You all were probably college students without a silver spoon and can identify with the process of meeting long-range educational goals so you can finally go to work earning a living in your chosen field.
This man got derailed!

Lily write about the professionally neutral stance necessary to be effective. My MD husband was trained in that model. My schooling in psychology and social work didn't demand such a strict adherence to that model. The Marriage and Family Dept. had a slightly different model. My point is we reflect our training and professional ethics - which overlap and have the same purpose of doing no harm.

My earlier comments about asking us collectively to cease to take offense with each other's posts was not meant personally and I apologize that one person perceived it as a personal attack.

David Austin
Sorry you deduced from my post that I believe suicide is caused by the insensitivity of others. My point was, that by urging others to partake in an activity that breaks laws (suicide in this case) that individual was also potentially breaking the law. Actually, what I was trying to do, unsuccessfully it appears, is show the idiot who taunted Van just what an idiot he is.

Taproot

I sure hope this clears up any confusion in this case.

Excuse the double posting!
Accidental.

That's it?
Seriously?

I read seven articles of predictable drivel to observe an obvious conclusion and read a plea for divine intervention?

Of all the laughable stupidity I have ever observed, you guys are the best.

Thank you Dr. Adams -
I've experianced some persecution for being conservative on a liberal campus over the past couple of years (in fact, just a few hours ago, as I wrote about in my blog) and I must say this whole "Of Mice and Mormon's" series Dr. Adams wrote is great. However, it is very depressing. Please people, we college conservatives have taken enough of a pounding. We can't do this ourselves. All conservatives should start encouraging the younger ones, especially those in college, a lot more, and provide them more help and support. These days it is getting so awful, that from what I've seen, most conservatives in college are giving up: quitting college or professing to be liberal.

If you think regular, compulsory public schools are often liberal re-education grounds, then liberal colleges are torture chambers for some conservatives, such as Mr. Ford.

I'm not Mormon, but I know I'll be praying for Ford, and for Dr. Adams for fighting on behalf of all college conservatives - professors and students alike.

The “Real World” part II
(continuation of my 2:35 post)
Here is the real world template that many functionally uneducated college graduates contend with these days, and it all starts with early childhood.

1. Government paid or subsidized child care.
2. Head start program.
3. Public elementary school system.
4. Government-sponsored before and/or after-school care.
5. Government-provided sex education.
6. Public high school.
7. Affirmatively arranged admission to college.
8. Grade inflated degrees in make-believe “studies” programs.
9. Government jobs or affirmatively arranged positions in the private sector.

Each and every rung of the ladder is characterized by low (or nonexistent) standards and government approved (if not mandated) propagandizement. The instruction, of course, is provided by previous generations of sloggers through the same system. At no point in the cycle do the chickens ever come home to roost, in the sense that a failure on a lower rung will preclude their advancement to the next. The fact that this entire process is either taxpayer financed or government coerced ensures that failure will not result in any meaningful winnowing process for its participants or curbing of the methods of those who manage their parts of the system.

This is how you end up with idiots teaching idiots how to be idiots, and the idiots can all remain employed.

Brian at 2:01 PM writes to Primus54:
"Dr Adams can be as honest as they come, but if his source is Ford's defence team, then he's still forming an opinion based on a very skewed sample. Problem is, Adams didn't even have the token "Trepper wouldn't respond to my emails," which suggests that he's not all that interested in the other side of the story."

Primus54 responds:

Brian... you are being obtuse. Dr. Adams is NOT writing a "report", he's writing an opinion column. No "equal time" provision is required.

And just because he did not cite any other sources specifically, that does not mean he didn't have any.

I repeat, I base my opinions and comments on the presumption that I'm getting the truth as I know Dr. Adams would research & present it -- based upon past experience with HIM. I'm ready to accept the risk that he could be lying, but it does not change my opinions if I accept these columns as truth.

Get it?

What if the defense has nothing to say?
I suppose the presumption of guilt in this case is strong due to the well-known quantity of near extremists and jihadists teaching at the college level. The other side may be hoping for a “he said, she said” but the case wouldn’t be brought if that were the case. I further doubt there will be an out of court settlement, which would deny Mr. Ford his day in court and ultimately his revenge. They have effectively denied him his chosen profession and that means heads are gonna roll.

Brian responds:
"I'm not arguing that he should be held to the "fairness doctrine," just that honest journalism, including opinion journalism, makes an effort to seek out both sides of the story..."

Primus54 responds:

Now you are foisting YOUR opinion of "honest" journalism.

When you become a TH Columnist, you can write your columns any way you want.

Fair enough?

Hellernot opines:
"They have effectively denied him his chosen profession and that means heads are gonna roll..."

I sincerely hope so!

Translation...
Van:
"Ford was and still is vicious anti-gay bigot who in several occasion used derogatory language about gays and refused to treat them in equal manner."

In other words, a decent human being.

How can one avoid using derogatory language about homosexuals? That's like condemning the use of derogatory language toward pedophiles or foot-fetishists. Next Van will be condemning derogatory language about prostitutes, traitors, and communists.

PBN505 from your 9:58am post
The "A" stands for ABSOLUTE.

Wake Up!!
There is only one name for Political Correcteness, Multiculturalism and Packaged Ideologies.

A "Packaged Ideology" is one in which you must accept the totality of positions.

Namely, to be a Democrat you must be for gay marriage, against the war in Iraq, for global warming, etc.

The rejection of any of the goals of the movement makes you into a bad person who needs to be re-educated or, destroyed.

The name is: Totalitarianism.

The institutional regulation of individual ethical believes and behavior and the restriction on free discussion and criticism.

Socialist are not people that simply disagree but people that are determined to curtail your freedom by any means necessary. Ask Janet Reno.

The sin of the Republicans is they continue to simply agree to disagree with people that instead must be defeated. Republicans live in the 18th century like if we never have known of Stalin, Mao, Hitler or, Mussolinni.

The goal of the Democrats is the establishment of a Mussolinean single mass party were the elites would have total monopoly over the culture, the ideas and the mass media in concert with the international corporations and a populace which is completely dependent on the state; from transportation, to health care, to employment and housing.

Wake Up!! (2)
It may sound paranoid, but look at the European Union were one has no danger of being fired from work and no hope of ever becoming your own boss.

Remember the Nazis, Falangist and Fascist were all Socialist who advocated absolute collective power of the state over all branches of society and HATED quasi-laissez-faire economic policies of Classic Liberalism.

Fascists were most vocal in their opposition to finance capitalism, interest charging, and profiteering. Some fascists, particularly Nazis, considered finance capitalism a "parasitic" Jewish conspiracy.

According to sociologist Stanislav Andreski, fascist economics "foreshadowed most of the fundamental features of the economic system of Western European countries today: the radical extension of government control over the economy without a wholesale expropriation of the capitalists but with a good dose of nationalisation, price control, incomes policy, managed currency, massive state investment, attempts at overall planning (less effectual than the Fascist because of the weakness of authority)."[33] Politics professor Stephen Haseler credits fascism with providing a model of economic planning for social democracy.[34]

Seig Heil Hillary!!!

We defeated Hitler but lost to François Mitterrand.

To Nam65-66
Thanks for your service. My brother was there - Captain, Army Artillery. Two of my boys are now home for a few days - Navy and Marines. God Bless you.

Frog
Love the Absolute. Just on ice if you please.

To Brian...
A little late, but: From the APA code of ethics:

3.06 Conflict of Interest
Psychologists refrain from taking on a professional role when personal, scientific, professional, legal, financial, or other interests or relationships could reasonably be expected to (1) impair their objectivity, competence, or effectiveness in performing their functions as psychologists or (2) expose the person or organization with whom the professional relationship exists to harm or exploitation.


Lilly
Where and when did Mr. Ford violate the ethics of the profession for which he was preparing? When you are asked for a personal opinion, you have the right to offer it. Writing a letter to the editor(s) of a publication does not violate any ethics. Disagreeing with someone does not violate any ethics. Any professional organization (APA, AMA, ALA, ADA, etc.) may adopt a position, but an individual that does not agree with said position, whether or not they are a member of the organization, does not violate any ethics.

To lilly
lilly writes: Wednesday, September, 05, 2007 11:19 AM

"3) His behavior violated the ethics of that profession."

I read all of the articles - some twice. Please cite the ethics code sections that you allege that he violated, and the evidence of his violations.

I sure would
brian writes: Wednesday, September, 05, 2007 11:24 AM

"If an Islamic psychotherapist stated that he was unwilling to treat Jews because they were unclean, I suspect you wouldn't all be championing his rights."

Why not? As a businessmanm, am I required to write software for a company that produces pornography?

Stop with the stupid "rights" arguments. Does a lawyer have to take a mobster as a client??

Speech Confusion
brian writes: Wednesday, September, 05, 2007 12:15 PM

"Problem is that although absolute freedom of speech sounds great at an abstract level, when you factor in the context and what is actually being said, it's not always so rosy. In fact limits to free speech are pretty well established in constitutional law. I think the classic example is falsely shouting fire in a crowded movie theatre, more generally limits apply to obscene speech, hate speech, slander, etc."

Not true - you fail to differentiate between speech and censored speech. You DO have the right to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater, but are liable for consequences AFTER you do so if you are *intentially* wrong and cause harm. What if you are part of a play? Show me this in the Constitution.

You do NOT have the right, for example, to threaten the President or say certain things if you are in the military, etc.

At the end of that road lies Auschwitz?
brian wrote, "it'd only serve to legitimise and ultimately institutionalise discrimination in the medical establishment, and would likely spread beyond. At the end of that road lies Auswitch."

Um... I don't think so.

Look, brian, the entire world exercised the same sort of national identity separation for centuries, millenniums, even. Identifying national groups you don't like does not lead to extermination attempts. Auschwitz was the result of a homicidal madman, not a natural extension of nationalistic thinking.

Modern metropolitan pedestrian thinkers -- the average city Joe, usually a social liberal -- think of discrimination as the ultimate sin, the one, truly evil act that humans can commit. It's morality for the morality-free, a standard of right and wrong that makes everybody a saint without lifting a finger. We can f**k who we like, cheat our friends, toss loyalty and fidelity to the wind, remain self-centered infants through our entire adult lives... but WE'RE NOT RACISTS! so we're the best generation that ever lived. And our ancestors? They were made of iron; they made decisions on principle and kept them even to their own hurt; their word was their unbreakable bond; they were loyal to family, friends, and country; they served selflessly; but, hey, they were RACISTS! We don't need to be like them...

What insane, incredibly, self-righteous, self-serving, dispicable hogwash!

If a man doesn't want to operate on me because my last name begins with "Wein" and I have a semitic nose, I ABSOLUTELY want him to say so, and refer me to somebody else.

Two sides? Of course. BUT...
Of course there are two sides to this story. Mr. Ford was a young, zealous, irritating religious man. He certainly made his religion an issue more often than his co-students wanted him to. He was probably stubborn, sure of his righteousness, and argumentative. We've all known people like this; some of us have BEEN people like this, and then grew up. People like that are... irritating.

It's not a crime to be irritating. It's expected in the young. Good professors know it's a temporary condition, address it only when absolutely necessary, and overlook most of it. They're supposed to be the adults.

BUT...

...on the other side, anybody who's been a Christian at a major university, or a conservative at a university, or both, knows that the description we've been reading of the Perdue Calumet faculty is accurate. We don't need further proof, we've seen situations just like this. We know that it's routine -- not common, ROUTINE -- for professors at those universities to harshly ridicule even the slightest hint of conservative or religious thought. There is no part of the Perdue faculty's behavior described in this series that we have not seen before.

It's reasonably likely that Jeff Ford invited persecution unwisely. He was probably foolish; young people are. That's no excuse for the faculty twisting intellectual inquiry into a stomping of hobnailed boots for him.

I hope LOTS AND LOTS of university faculties get sued just like this one; and I hope lots of Thought Nazi faculty lose their jobs over those lawsuits. It's been a long time coming, and it's past due.

Latter Day Critics
These "Latter Day Critics" of religion make me ill. In recent years, they and their "Animal Farm" coconspiritors in the school system have defined deviancy down, rewritten the dictionary and our political vocabulary, taken 2 to 3000 years of religious wisdom and call it bigotry. Hey, you enlightened libs...not all of us Christians out here are sheep.

inkling_revival
Great post above at 6:02!

My generation -- the one immediately following the "Greatest Generation" -- really doesn't have a clue morally. My parents are gone and I frankly sometimes I wish they were still here to occasionally say, "Sorry, Son... that's just wrong!" They were far from perfect, they sometimes "did" wrong, but they KNEW right from wrong.

My generation is going to "debate" right & wrong to the grave.

inkling_revival
"If a man doesn't want to operate on me because my last name begins with "Wein" and I have a semitic nose, I ABSOLUTELY want him to say so, and refer me to somebody else."

Right on.
At least with someone who's up front with his bigotry, you know where you stand.

I am sorry for all your pain
Van has very clearly demonstrated hoe difficult their addictive lifestyle is to shake. Without compassion, patience, and real concern it is impossible. How else are we to share the love, compassion or the atonement of Christ.

(New Testament | John 15:13)
13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

We should do no less.

Pray for Van, for Mr. Ford and the members responsible for this grave fault that must be corrected and if possible their lives restored.

Primus54
"My generation is going to "debate" right & wrong to the grave."

I was just saying to a coworker: "I don't want my life to be a continuous argument."

Thus, I spend more time in my garden, taking care of the animals, working on my collections, model trains, and so on.

Van, et al, can go to h*ll.

Catholics know
Teach them while they are young, and they will be Catholic for life.

Homosexuals have the same plan, but it will not stop the pain or the degradation of society.

A society or culture have basic and primary principles to satisfy before a it can ever exist. The nucleus of every society or community are the traditional family. Meaning responsible, mature caring Mother and father, who set their children a good example in good character, morals, love and service to one another and the community. Strong families are the heart of every thriving society.

A small minority group have secretly gained control in may educational, and mental health associations, even in the APA where you made a politically decided to take Homosexuality of the list of mental illness in Decemper 1973

“To some American psychiatrists this action remains a chilling reminder that if scientific principles are not fought for they can be lost - a disillusioning warning that unless we make no exceptions to science, we are subject to the snares of political factionalism and the propagation of untruths to an unsuspecting and uninformed public, to the rest of the medical profession, and to the behavioral sciences.”

Charles W. Socarides
The Journal of Psychohistory, 19(3), Winter 1992
http://www.geocities.com/kidhistory/homopolo.htm


A couple of thoughts..
1) My undergrad degree cost under $10,000 (which unfortunately dates me) I majored in Business Admin, but my forte was drinking beer and not puking, and rolling camel quality refers. No way I'd spend 10 times that amount today (my kids can pay for their own college education)
2) My folks wanted me to go to a Christian psychologist because they didn't want a bunch of mamby pamby doper baby "whatever feels good do it" help; they wanted absolutes (which is what the world really is); and they wanted my head removed from my rectal region (maybe a glass belly button would have helped!) Somewhere, in this mixed up, we got way too much money and free time world, the grown ups are going to have to school you young whippers about being grown up, and acting like responsible adults.

Inkling_revival, 6:02 and 6:11 posts
Yeah!! That's what I meant!!!! :-)

Stunned? I'm stunned!
Absolutes? We don' need to stinking absolutes!

That's their problem, isn't it. Can't make a decision because there's too much gray out there.

I'm with you. Time to get some real, clear thinking adults out there ... in the school system, churches, and CONGRESS!

A couple of thoughts..
1) My undergrad degree cost under $10,000 (which unfortunately dates me) I majored in Business Admin, but my forte was drinking beer and not puking, and rolling camel quality refers. No way I'd spend 10 times that amount today (my kids can pay for their own college education)
2) My folks wanted me to go to a Christian psychologist because they didn't want a bunch of mamby pamby doper baby "whatever feels good do it" help; they wanted absolutes (which is what the world really is); and they wanted my head removed from my rectal region (maybe a glass belly button would have helped!) Somewhere, in this mixed up, we got way too much money and free time world, the grown ups are going to have to school you young whippers about being grown up, and acting like responsible adults.

By the way...
Since we're talking about Mormons, sex, homosexuality, and tap dancing, etc...you know, don't you, that Larry Craig (R), Idaho, is LDS? Just for your info.

The APA is really messed up
I just have to say as a side note that the APA sure is screwed up. They did all this research to discover that same-sex attraction is genetic, and jumped to the illogical conclusion that if it's genetic then it's good and that we shouldn't fight it. Now it's official position is that homosexuality is healthy and should be encouraged for people with same-sex attraction.

You know, anything that results in a respected Senator to throw caution to the wind and look for anonymous bathroom sex can't be good. I remember reading about fistgate where 15 yr olds were passing out fisting kits that included bandaids because "gay sex can get kind of rough". That's what the APA promotes as a healthy lifestyle?

Nobody is going to convince me that Senator Craig was better off in the bathroom than when he was depriving himself of his same-sex urges while immersed in his heterosexual lifestyle.

So there, Mr. Ford deserves not only a doctorate, but a medal.

AGZ
I don't know about that, but if he is, he isn't a very good one. I'm a Mormon who grew up in Boise Idaho as an extremely involved member (when there were only 80K population), and if he was known as an active Mormon I think I would have heard about it. I'm not saying he wasn't, but he couldn't have been too immersed, if at all.

Besides, what's your point?

No Senator Craig is not a mormon...
Yeah, I was right ... quick google search:
http://thegooddemocrat.wordpress.com/2007/08/29/senator-larry-craig-is-not-a-mormon/

That's not to say that there aren't Mormons with same-sex urges or that they don't give into them, but with September Dawn in theaters (wherein the most injurious parts came from "artistic liberties"), please check your sources before you further fan the flames of hatred.

latebloomer
Conseva-phobe..............Love it.

To Donna B
Was Ford not a counselor-trainee? That's not quite the same as practicing independently. First, he was in a school-sponsored internship program in placement at an agency, so he was ethically bound to follow whatever rules the school had set up for the placement (and there may have been an expectation that he would see any client assigned to him). Second, he was placed at an agency, so he was ethically bound to follow the rules of that agency (which may not have had the policy of referring out homosexuals). Third, he was there to learn to act like a counselor, which means learning to control his own needs and to put the client's needs first. Ford was uncomfortble with homosexuals, perhaps for religious reasons but not necessarily. The responsibility of Ford's clinical supervisors would be to try to help him work with that discomfort so that the work (helping the client) may go forward and not be stopped. It is not usual to refer out, automatically, any client with issues that make a student uncomfortable.

I find it absolutely bizarre that posters to this thread have defended Ford on a "free speech" basis. No student in a counseling training program has the right to say anything he feels like. How about saying to a client "I hate Catholics because they are all drunkards" or "I refuse to work with a Jew because they are all money-grubbing b*******"? Would those statements be permissible as free speech if directed to a client seeking help?

To Garth Esq
In about 1967 I had a professor at the University of Maryland who once asked me what my husband's job was. I explained that he was a scientist at the FDA with responsibility for regulating a certain class of drugs. One day after that she brought up the subject of my husband's job in class, opining that the government should not be regulating drugs at all and that people should be free to buy any drug they want without prescription. The course, by the way, was: Eighteenth Century English Literature. The professor, as you see, was: a conservative. The relevance of my husband's job to the poetry of William Blake was: nil.

Do some teachers misuse the forum of their classrooms? Yes. Are they are liberals? No.

brian writes:
"IdahoGal:I have no issue with Ford's refusal to offer treatment which advocated homosexuality, I was arguing about a hypothetical where a Muslim therapist refused to treat a patient because he was Jewish (which does violate codes of ethics). Ford was on strong ethical grounds."
*******

But,but,but!!!!
Did you not read the code of ethics?? AGAIN:

3.06 Conflict of Interest
Psychologists refrain from taking on a professional role when PERSONAL, scientific, professional, legal, financial, or other interests or relationships could reasonably be expected to (1) impair their objectivity, competence, or effectiveness in performing their functions as psychologists or (2) expose the person or organization with whom the professional relationship exists to harm or exploitation.
*******
That would include for reasons of religion, would it not???

Lilly - read:
3.06 Conflict of Interest
Psychologists refrain from taking on a professional role when PERSONAL, scientific, professional, legal, financial, or other interests or relationships could reasonably be expected to (1) impair their objectivity, competence, or effectiveness in performing their functions as psychologists or (2) expose the person or organization with whom the professional relationship exists to harm or exploitation.

On an amusing note...
None of this would have happened if everyone thought being gay was A-OK and perfectly normal- because no religion would have a stricture against it.

On a less amusing note, if the media, politicians, courts, and government are all so liberal, then, logically speaking, they would have control, right?

If the liberals were that bad, we'd all be living under communism, right?

I don't think it's comparable.

Lilly - about your Lit professor
Lilly, I have to comment first about your Lit professor, simply because this is so danged obvious:

Exactly WHY was your professor asking you about your husband's job in the first place? Could it be that YOU constantly injected your husband into discussions? If you brought him up and dropped his career at the FDA into a Lit discussion, you made him fair game.

I can also promise you that in my years in college and nursing school, NO professor ever, out of the blue, asked me what my husband did. Never. If the question was asked, it wasn't out of the blue - it was relevant in some way, or I brought him up, making the question a reasonable one.

So how about the rest of the story from 1967?

Donna B and Others
Let's set up a parallel. One issue in current news is whether a pharmacist should be required to fill a doctor's prescription if he (the pharmacist) has a moral objection to the drug. (This matter is being litigated in some states.) Now assume that we have a student pharmacist assigned to work in a chain pharmacy x number of hours per week as part of his training. Let's assume that this chain has the policy of requiring pharmacists to fill all prescriptions presented. I maintain that it's a different issue if the pharmacist is in the role of student. He should know ahead of time what the rules of his internship are, and if he plans not to follow them then, in effect, he intends political activism rather than professional training. Whether this is an appropriate rule for a student can be debated. I suspect that you and I may disagree because you are coming down on the side of rejecting work that you find distasteful and I am coming down on the side of professionalism. BTW you gave the example of excusing the student nurse who objects to abortion. The point can be argued that, as of now, abortion is the law of the land and the legal right of the patient, so you would be condoning a student's impediment of the law.

Lilly - ethics
Back to your sort-of response to my earlier response.

Lilly, there is entire ethical code that governs professional therapists and student therapists. There are entire codes that govern educational institutions, clinical institutions, teacher-student relationships .... etc etc etc. There isn't just ONE ethic: Thou shalt not refuse to treat a client.

In the case of Mr. Ford, either he refused to assist a client who wanted Mr. Ford to approve of his homosexual lifestyle - a violation of Mr. Ford's religious code - or he was asked a hypothetical question and his response was that he would refer that client elsewhere. Mr. Ford did not violate the code of ethics, in either case, because it is perfectly within a therapist's code of ethics to refer a client elsewhere if the therapist cannot help him/her. If the therapist would do more harm, he is bound to NOT try to treat the client.


Lilly - abortion
Lilly, abortion might be legal, but that doesn't make it moral or right, especially when used a birth control as the vast majority of abortions in this country are.

A student or a professional who refuses to participate in such a procedure is NOT impeding any patient - there are lots and lots and lots of doctors and nurses and clinics where the surgery is performed routinely. No services are denied just because a small number of people (students or professionals) choose to stand up for what they believe is right.

As for the pharmacists who don't want to dispense Plan B. Yes, we come down on different sides, again because I believe that no one should be able to dictate that another person violate their religious code. In my home town, Planned Parenthood will give prescriptions for Plan B. However, there are at least 3 other women's clinics in this county and 2 more within 45 miles who will dispense the drug itself. I have no problem at all with a physician or pharmacist referring patients to one of those clinics. No services have been denied to anyone.

Oh, by the way, you didn't ask but .. when I was in school, those of us who are pro-life worked on educational materials and presentations geared for teens, college age, and young adults regarding the various types of birth control available. It was a LOT of fun teaching women something that no one had told them before ("If you use birth control correctly, and use it EVERY TIME, your chances of becoming pregnant are less than 5 out of 100.")

MARC Wrote:
to brain and pnb505
i understand how you feel about asking van to commit suicide. however your being nice to him will accomplish nothing. he is an idiot and will not change. and i'm tired of being nice to those people. do you hear what they say about bush. i'm going for the throat and i don't care what you think. i notice how quick you are to jump down your own sides throat. i'm sure you hate ann coulter too. van is rotten thru and thru and you won't change him....so from now on don't bother talking to me, cuz with friends like you who needs enemies

MARC - It seems we have strayed waaayyy off the subject of the Dr. Adams article. I have no interest in being nice to Van. He is a goober. He cannot spell and his 'arguments' fall into the realm of toddler logic. I did not jump down your throat. I merely reminded you of maintaining a level of professional courtesy in the face of Van's rantings. If you are a better debater than he is, show it with your intellect, not your emotional outburst. If you consider me an enemy because I corrected you, well, that is your shortcoming. As for Ann Coulter; she is smokin' hot and one helluva writer.

PBN505

I think what Churchill actually said was
Ending sentences with a preposition is something up with which we will not put.


Dam n I wish I had said
"The Lilly's of the world embrace biases they favor, while condemning biases against behaviors they support. Those of us with more developed logic skills reject the hypocrisy. With any luck, a jury will also recognize the hypocrisy and punish the culprits."

Well said Sim Jim!

lilly writes: Wednesday, September, 05,
"Apparently Mr Ford found certain of his clients outside his empathy. Their issues made him anxious, and he dealt with his anxiety by condemning his clients..."

Lilly, this and other things you have posted seem to indicate that you merely skimmed Doctor Adams seven article series rahter than read it and then filled it in with assumptions based on your own bias.



donna B on refusal on rel grounds
I have thinking of your last post. And then I remembered the following which you may have read about. Moslem taxi drivers in Michigan refused to take passanger carrying bottles of alcohol and blind passangers with seeing eye dogs. Justified on the basis of their religious beliefs. There is much noise about this and consideration of removing their license. I dont know so far what has been done. In Canada the law is such that if a moslem taxi driver is called to blind passanger with a seeing eye dog, he does not have to transport the passanger but has to wait and call for another taxi.
Here is my tentative take and I await your reply. UNder our present laws you need a license to run a taxi; hence, the govt can impose certain rules upon giving the license. And it seems to be reasonable that those rules should not allow religious considerations to override picking up a blind man with a seeing eye dog or someone carrying alcohol. Applying that reasoning to selling birth control or the morning after pill or abortion would fall in the same category. Now if the govt did required taxi drivers, pharmacists, doctors to be licensed, then it is a different story.

donnB correction
The last sentence above should read

if the govt did NOT

David Austin
I stand corrected and I apologize for the error. Got that impression from a search of congressional members many months ago.

By way of explanation, I was jumping back and forth between articles. Had I had my facts straight (no pun intended), the post would have been more appropriate elsewhere. Please accept my apologies, as I am not trying to "fan the flames of hatred."

As a matter of fact (there I go with the facts again), I have LDS relatives, one of whom is from Blackfoot, ID. Among them, I'm considered a "sympathizer." Forgive me.


Brian and Len
Brian, the paragraph I posted is from the APA Code of ethics. I think personal reasons covers religious differences.

Len: In a perfect world, the taxi cab company could refuse to hire Moslems if they refused to carry certain passengers. Moslems could start their own company with the refusal to carry dogs or alcohol openly displayed and then deal with the repercussions from the market place.

Pharmacies could set their own policies as to hiring and dispensing and they could also deal with the repercussions of said policies.

It's really all so simple, but then I'm simple minded!

AGZ
It's cool.

DJF
yes ... one of quotes at which I love to laugh.

;)

Incidentally, it has yet to be confirmed as to whether Winston Churchill really said this (there are a lot of different versions of it too). But that is something of which I am not attempting to make fun.

of.

Mice & Mormons, Law & Ethics
1. Per National Professional guidelines, State Licensing rules, and University ethical rules & regulations, NO ONE should EVER be asked, much less be required to divulge or discuss, personal religious beliefs, nor should instructors self disclose on such matters.
2. "Hurt" feelings are justified only if the "hurt" was intentioanl, in which case the tradiditional solution comes from etiquette, not law. All too often expressions of "Hurt Feelings" are no more than verbal judo to gain conversational/argumentative dominance, possibly as a set up for legal action. The only legally proscribed feeling is HATE (though I'm still confused about that as I can find no constitutional mention deliniating/defining unallowable emotional states).
3. Current counseling theory instructs that a goal of therapy is client education about individuals being ultimately responsible for their feelings and responses to them, both emotionally and behaviorally. Therefore, the BEHAVIOR of hiring only athiests may be illegal, but hating religious people is not, no matter how bad that feeling may be.
4. Educational goals are to teach the legal, ethical and methodological process required for licensing by the State, in a professional and NON-JUDGEMENTAL manner that will enable the therapist to provide the client the help and healing requested by the client within a safe and secure environment per current standard treatment practices.
5. Given the above, and assuming the veracity of the reported story, the University, and particularly the Psychology Dept., was completely out of legal, ethical and etiquette bounds on all counts and in all cases described.
6. The very best of luck to you, Mr. Ford, and your attorney.

idahogirl.
yes, in a perfect world, i could just smile at you and you would melt. Fantasies are beautiful. But we dont live in a perfect world. We live in a world where taxis, doctors etc are licensed and hence the state can have reasonable rules. Even in ancient England there was the common law necessity of inn to serve all for the obvious reason of the great distances between them.
So regulations have to be reasonable. I would think taxi's would be required to pick up all. And I think pharmacies should have the morning after bill. i would make exception for abortion. It is an elective procedure like a plastic surgery and so he should be able to refuse; however, if an emergency a dr refused to an abortion for obvious health reasons then I would hold him criminally negligent and open to civil suit.

I think the canadian law i referenced above is PC. What makes moselms think they are any better than a seeing eye dog. Hubris.

Mormons & Gays
I'm responding to something "Van" said above which is patently untrue. I don't know Mr. Ford personally, so I don't know if he is a homosexual bigoted "git", but I do know Mormon theology about homosexuality.

It is the policy of the Mormon church to welcome ANY well-intentioned people to attend their meetings, participate in activities, and enjoy the fellowship of church members. Indeed, a homosexual could potentially enjoy the full benefits of church membership and all that entails IF they refrain from the PRACTICE of homosexual sex.

That said, even those who are staunchly homosexual are not banned from the church, nor in my experience, treated with anything but love and kindness. Yes - I have often seen "out" homosexuals at Mormon services, and I was always impressed that none have ever felt unwelcome. For that matter, I have seen a host of people who in some obvious way do not fit the Mormon "culture" be welcomed as if they do.

Oh yes, there is a Mormon culture, but in spite of doctrinal limits on full membership, it has never been a hateful or bigoted culture. Any assertion that Mr. Ford gets his bigotry from Mormonism is simply false. For the official compassionate stance of the Mormon church towards homosexuality, you may refer to the recent PBS documentary, The Mormons, though I don't remember the church official who commented on it.

Lilly
Okay, in no particular order.
On "Professionalism" vs rejecting "distasteful" work.
1. He did not reject distasteful work, he refused to do something morally wrong(condone homosexual behavior) in his belief system. ie A patient desires therapy that requires you to affirm his hatred of women and belief that they are sub-human. You: a) be "professional" and accept your inferiority b) refer him to someone else.
2. On Sept 5 at 9:29 PM you first make 3 assertions. They are granted with the proviso that your parenthetical claims of ignorance undermine your argument that he was ethically bound to violate his morals.
3. "I find it absolutely bizarre that posters to this thread have defended Ford on a "free speech" basis."
.....Um......Please STOP SKIMMING the articles and comments. It would be much more interesting to debate you, if you read and understood.

Get the facts before posting
AGZ writes:

"By the way...
"Since we're talking about Mormons, sex, homosexuality, and tap dancing, etc...you know, don't you, that Larry Craig (R), Idaho, is LDS?

"Just for your info."

No, he is not. He's Methodist.

From GetReligion.org (http://www.getreligion.org/?p=2659):

"Today, I went out of my way to ask people here in Washington, D.C., if they knew the religious affiliation of the besieged senator from Idaho. I picked on people who were reading newspapers, mainly.

"Every single one of them said these words or words to this effect: “Isn’t he Mormon?”

"No, he is not. He is listed in several locations as a 'Methodist.' One would assume, out in the West, that this means he is a United Methodist — one of the “seven sisters” of liberal mainline Protestantism. The home page of the annual conference in that part of the world doesn’t give us much evidence as to its political leanings, but, as a rule, the West tends to be a pretty progressive region."

One should check his facts before spouting lies lest his audience label him a bigot.

No pretended good resulting from government-run, tax-funded schools balances the horrific costs imposed on teachers, taxpayers, and students and their families.

Le
==
Please visit http://www.schoolandstate.org

Honest bigotry
Conservatives should support (and many do support) the unconditional right of anyone, in any situation, and at any time, to express his or her bigotry in any area--religion, race, sexual orientation, you name it. If you think about this, it actually makes sense, as long as full disclosure is required. I can imagine that a therapist might have a little sign in his/her outer office: "I will not treat any of the following kinds of people...." Now to be consistent, physicians, lawyers, and other proefessions should do the same thing.

[When I started writing this, I was waiting for some killer liberal concluding argument to come to me, but I know that argument doesn't do much about bigotry. The more I think about this, the more I think I'm on to something that lots of people, of all political and ethical persuasions, do anyway--they just don't disclose it. So how about it? Anyone want to start a "Let's Protect Bigotry" campaign? ]

I'll start: full disclosure: I'm bigoted against bigots.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.