Ethical Issues Raised by CACREP Accreditation of Programs Within Institutions That Disaffirm or Disallow Diverse Sexual Orientations

Abstract

The field of counseling is expatiating on counselors’ religious values that conflict with the affirmation of diverse sexual orientations. There is also a germane systemic issue: the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs’ practice of providing accreditation to counseling programs housed within religious institutions that disaffirm or disallow individuals with sexual minority identities. This article examines the complexities of this practice given the field's ethical mandate to affirm both religious and sexual orientation diversity.

CACREP Accreditation, Ethics, and the Affirmation of Both Religious and Sexual Identities: A Response to Smith and Okech

“… In response to Smith and Okech (), the authors reason that protections for sexual minorities can thrive with protections for religious liberties. The authors (a) acknowledge that the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs' accreditation process is designed to ensure that counseling programs of religious or secular institutions meet established standards to prepare counselors to work with all client groups, (b) describe the Ethical Acculturation Model (Handelsman, Gottlieb, & Knapp, ), and (c) provide an example of a theological perspective for educators to help students integrate their professional and religious identities. …”

“…Smith and Okech () questioned the ethics of accrediting counseling programs housed in conservative Protestant Christian institutions when those institutions call for students and faculty to ascribe to a set of religiously based personal behavior standards that apparently match with the students' and faculty's belief systems. More specifically, they questioned those behavior standards that call for the restriction of sexual expression outside the parameters of heterosexual marriage.…”

Negotiating CACREP Accreditation Practices, Religious Diversity, and Sexual Orientation Diversity: A Rejoinder to Sells and Hagedorn

“… The authors write a rejoinder to Sells and Hagedorn's () article, “CACREP Accreditation, Ethics, and the Affirmation of Both Religious and Sexual Identities: A Response to Smith and Okech,” which supports Smith and Okech's () assertion that a dialogue examining the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs' accreditation practices pertaining to counseling programs in institutions that disaffirm/disallow diverse sexual orientation is germane. The authors articulate the common ground they share with Sells and Hagedorn while also highlighting areas of dissension. …”

“…To begin our rejoinder, we would like to express our gratitude to Sells and Hagedorn () for participating in this scholarly exchange of ideas. Our primary objective in writing the article, “Ethical Issues Raised by CACREP Accreditation of Programs Within Institutions That Disaffirm or Disallow Diverse Sexual Orientations,” was to draw attention to the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs' (CACREP) practice of accrediting programs that are “housed within institutions that disaffirm sexual minority identities and/or have policies and codes of conduct that disallow LGB [lesbian, gay, or bisexual] sexual expression” (Smith & Okech, , p. 252). We intended to initiate dialogue on how the counseling profession negotiates the ethical issues raised by the practice of accrediting counseling programs that function within such colleges and universities.…”

“… Question 1 : Are the institutional codes of conduct that disaffirm or disallow sexual minority identity on religious grounds acts of discrimination? Question 2 : Do institutional policies influence counseling programs, and if so, how do CACREP‐accredited counseling programs negotiate the stated doctrinal statements and codes of conduct advanced by the administration within their universities? Question 3 : How has CACREP negotiated the adherence to its own standards on diversity and multiculturalism when reviewing accreditation applications from counselor education programs located in religious institutions whose codes of conduct or policies disaffirm/disallow LGB identities? (Smith & Okech, , p. 255) …”