The Ethical Paradox in Counseling: Why “Don’t Impose Your Values” Doesn’t Hold

There is a line in the American Counseling Association Code of Ethics that most counselors are trained to take seriously: counselors are not to impose their values on clients. It shows up explicitly in ACA Code A.4.b. Personal Values, which states that counselors are to be aware of their own values and avoid imposing those values on clients (American Counseling Association [ACA], 2014). At a surface level, this makes sense. It aligns with the broader ethical commitments of the profession—respect for autonomy, nonmaleficence, and honoring the dignity of the client.

However, the longer I have worked within the field—both clinically and academically—the more I have found myself questioning whether this standard is actually coherent. Not because the intent is wrong, but because the assumption underneath it does not hold. The idea that a counselor can operate without bringing values into the room is not just difficult; it is impossible.

To be clear, I am not arguing against the ACA Code of Ethics as a whole. In fact, the vast majority of the code reflects necessary and appropriate boundaries for responsible practice. Requirements around confidentiality (ACA, 2014, Section B), competence (C.2.a), and avoiding harm are not controversial. They represent a baseline moral framework that protects clients and preserves the credibility of the profession. Without them, counseling would not function as a trustworthy discipline.

The issue is not that the code exists. The issue is that the code itself is a value system, and yet it includes a directive that assumes value-neutrality is possible.

Every aspect of counseling practice is shaped by underlying values. When a counselor helps a client identify “growth,” they are implicitly defining what growth means. When they conceptualize a behavior as maladaptive, they are applying a standard of what counts as healthy or unhealthy. Even the emphasis on client autonomy—often treated as a neutral principle—is itself a value rooted in a particular philosophical and cultural tradition. It is not universally prioritized across all societies or worldviews.

This is where the tension begins to surface. The profession instructs counselors not to impose their values, but it simultaneously requires them to operate within an ethical framework that is built on specific values. The ACA Code is not merely a procedural document; it reflects assumptions about human nature, well-being, identity, and moral responsibility. Those assumptions shape how counselors are trained, how they interpret client concerns, and how they intervene.

The same dynamic can be observed in the American Psychological Association Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. The APA emphasizes respect for people’s rights and dignity, including autonomy and self-determination (APA, 2017, Principle E). Again, this is not problematic in itself. However, it demonstrates that both major ethical frameworks in mental health are grounded in particular value commitments. These commitments are not neutral; they are normative.

What complicates this further is the way these ethical codes evolve over time. Both the ACA and APA revise their codes periodically. While some changes reflect advances in research or clarification of practice standards, many revisions also track with broader cultural shifts. As societal perspectives on issues such as identity, sexuality, and morality change, those shifts are often reflected in subsequent updates to ethical guidelines. This does not necessarily invalidate the codes, but it does highlight that they are historically situated documents rather than timeless moral absolutes.

In practice, this means that counselors are not simply avoiding value imposition; they are operating within a professionally sanctioned value system that has developed within a particular cultural context. That system inevitably influences the counseling process. It shapes what is affirmed, what is challenged, and what is framed as a legitimate therapeutic goal.

This creates a paradox. Counselors are instructed not to impose their personal values, yet they are required to implement a professional code that carries its own set of values. The distinction between “personal values” and “professional values” is often assumed to resolve this tension, but in reality, it simply relocates it. Professional values are still values, and they still influence clients through the structure of the therapeutic relationship.

From a logical standpoint, it becomes difficult to maintain the claim that value imposition can be entirely avoided. At best, what can be avoided is coercive or unexamined imposition. Counselors can refrain from pressuring clients to adopt specific beliefs, and they can remain attentive to the client’s autonomy and perspective. However, they cannot remove the influence of the value framework that shapes their clinical reasoning and interventions.

This is where I believe the profession would benefit from greater clarity. Rather than framing ethical practice as the absence of value imposition, it may be more accurate to frame it as the responsible management of values within the therapeutic relationship. This would involve acknowledging that values are always present—on the part of the counselor, the client, and the profession—and focusing instead on how those values are engaged.

Such an approach would place greater emphasis on self-awareness. Counselors would need to understand not only that they have values, but how those values influence their interpretations and decisions in session. It would also require a commitment to non-coercion, ensuring that clients are not pressured into adopting the counselor’s framework. At the same time, it would allow for a more honest recognition that counseling is not, and has never been, a value-neutral endeavor.

For counselors who operate from an explicitly articulated worldview—whether religious, philosophical, or otherwise—this issue becomes even more pronounced. In those cases, the tension between personal convictions and professional expectations is not abstract; it is something that must be navigated in real time. The expectation of value neutrality can feel particularly strained when the profession itself is clearly operating from its own set of normative commitments.

None of this requires abandoning ethical codes. The ACA and APA frameworks continue to provide essential guidance for protecting clients and maintaining professional standards. However, it does suggest that the language we use to describe ethical practice may need to be reconsidered. The directive to “not impose values” may function well as a caution against coercion, but it does not accurately describe the reality of counseling work.

A more precise formulation might acknowledge that counselors inevitably bring values into the room and that ethical practice involves engaging those values with humility, awareness, and restraint. This shifts the focus from attempting to eliminate values—which cannot be done—to managing their influence responsibly.

Ultimately, the question is not whether values are present in counseling. They are. The more relevant question is how those values are understood and handled within the therapeutic process. Avoiding that question by appealing to neutrality may simplify the language of ethics, but it does not reflect the complexity of actual practice.

References

American Counseling Association. (2014). ACA code of ethics. Author.

American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Author.

Five Ethical Dilemmas Social Justice Counselors Don't Want to Discuss Exploring conscience rights, value imposition, activism boundaries, organizational ideology, and competence definitions in modern counseling practice The integration of social justice frameworks into professional counseling has brought important conversations about cultural competence and systemic barriers to the forefront of our field. However, this movement has also generated significant ethical tensions that deserve careful examination. As Christian counseling professionals committed to both excellence in practice and fidelity to our values, we must engage these difficult questions with intellectual honesty and grace. This article examines five ethical dilemmas arising from social justice counseling's growing influence in professional organizations, graduate training programs, and clinical practice. These concerns are not merely theoretical—they affect how we train students, serve clients, and maintain professional standards. 1. The Referral Dilemma: Conscience Rights vs. Non-Discrimination Perhaps no issue has generated more controversy than the question of whether counselors may refer clients based on value conflicts. The 2014 American Counseling Association (ACA) Code of Ethics explicitly prohibits counselors from "referring prospective and current clients based solely on the counselor's personally held values, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors" (American Counseling Association [ACA], 2014, Standard A.11.b). This represents a significant departure from earlier ethics codes and has created genuine hardship for religious counselors. The consequences of this policy shift are not hypothetical. In Ward v. Wilbanks (2012), Julea Ward, a Christian graduate student at Eastern Michigan University, was expelled from the counseling program after requesting to refer a client seeking counseling about a same-sex relationship. Ward's religious beliefs led her to conclude she could not affirm same-sex relationships in therapy. The university deemed this a violation of the ACA Code and removed her from the program despite her 3.91 GPA and successful counseling of her first two practicum clients without incident (Ward v. Wilbanks, 2012, p. 733). The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision, with Judge Sutton noting, "Tolerance is a two-way street. Otherwise, the rule mandates orthodoxy, not anti-discrimination" (Ward v. Wilbanks, 2012, p. 734). Significantly, the court found that Eastern Michigan University did not have a blanket no-referral policy and that the ACA Code itself permits values-based referrals under certain circumstances. The case eventually settled in December 2012, with the university paying Ward $75,000 and removing the expulsion from her record (Alliance Defending Freedom, 2012). However, a different case reached a different conclusion. In Keeton v. Anderson-Wiley (2011), the Eleventh Circuit upheld Augusta State University's right to require remediation for a student who indicated she would tell LGBTQ students that being gay is "not okay" and "morally wrong." The court distinguished between belief and conduct, stating that universities may prohibit students "from imposing their values on clients when they are acting in their capacity as an intern counselor in the university's clinic" (Keeton v. Anderson-Wiley, 2011, p. 877). The court analogized: "Just as a medical school would be permitted to bar a student who refused to administer blood transfusions for religious reasons from participating in clinical rotations, so ASU may prohibit Keeton from participating in its clinical practicum if she refuses to administer the treatment it has deemed appropriate" (Keeton v. Anderson-Wiley, 2011, p. 879). These cases highlight a genuine ethical tension. On one side, clients deserve access to services without discrimination based on their identity. Research by Shiles (2009) suggests that invoking "scope of competence" as justification for refusing LGBTQ clients may be "a smoke screen for discriminatory behavior" (p. 150). When counselors refuse clients based on sexual orientation or gender identity, it communicates rejection and can cause harm—particularly to vulnerable populations like LGBTQ youth who already face elevated rates of depression, harassment, and suicidal ideation. On the other side, requiring counselors to provide services that violate deeply held religious convictions raises serious First Amendment concerns. As Herlihy and Watson (2014) observe, "The conflict between a counselor's right to act in accordance with religious beliefs and a client's right to receive services without discrimination based on sexual orientation has been a contentious issue" (p. 148). The tension becomes more complex when we consider rural areas where alternative providers may not exist, power differentials inherent in the counseling relationship, and questions about whether value conflicts genuinely constitute competence limitations. Kocet and Herlihy (2014) propose a middle-ground approach involving "ethical bracketing"—developing awareness of personal values and managing them appropriately—with referral only as a last resort. Empirical research reveals significant confusion about these issues. Lloyd-Hazlett et al. (2017) surveyed 104 student counselors and found they "demonstrated nuanced but sometimes confused understandings of competence, values, and the referral process, suggesting the need for more explicit training on these distinctions" (p. 229). 2. Framework Imposition: Client Autonomy and Informed Consent The Multicultural and Social Justice Counseling Competencies (MSJCC), endorsed by the ACA on July 20, 2015, represent a comprehensive framework for addressing power, privilege, and oppression in counseling (Ratts et al., 2016). While grounded in important insights about systemic barriers, the MSJCC contain requirements that raise questions about value imposition and client autonomy. According to the official MSJCC document, counselors must: "Assist privileged and marginalized clients develop critical consciousness by understanding their situation in context of living in an oppressive society" "Assist privileged and marginalized clients in unlearning their privilege and oppression" "Employ empowerment-based theories to address internalized privilege experienced by privileged clients and internalized oppression experienced by marginalized clients" (ACA, 2015, p. 9) These are substantive therapeutic goals rooted in specific theoretical commitments about how society functions, the nature of privilege and oppression, and what constitutes client growth. Yet how often are clients provided informed consent about these theoretical frameworks and their embedded assumptions? The ACA Code requires counselors to be "aware of—and avoid imposing—their own values, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors" (ACA, 2014, Standard A.4.b). However, when the MSJCC mandates that counselors help clients "unlearn privilege," this raises the question: Is this therapeutic intervention or ideological formation? Critics have expressed concern about potential pathologizing of certain worldviews under the guise of addressing internalized oppression. Research by Trusty et al. (2022) found that approximately 39% of religious clients reported experiencing at least one religious microaggression during treatment, and these microaggressions were negatively associated with therapeutic outcomes. One identified theme was "pathologizing religion" (p. 419). This does not mean that counselors should never explore how clients' worldviews affect their functioning. As Yarhouse and Burkett (2002) note, respectful exploration of how religious beliefs intersect with client concerns is appropriate. The ethical question is whether counselors are imposing their own frameworks about privilege and oppression or collaboratively working within the client's meaning-making system. Ridley et al. (2021) conducted a comprehensive analysis of multicultural competence frameworks and identified ten definitional problems that leave "the construct's operationalization obscured, perplexing, and frustrating to practitioners who attempt to translate the scholarship into practice" (p. 504). Without operational clarity, how can counselors ensure they are providing culturally responsive care rather than imposing ideological commitments? The MSJCC represent valuable insights about systemic barriers, cultural humility, and the need to understand clients contextually. However, when competency frameworks mandate specific therapeutic goals like "unlearning privilege" without robust informed consent procedures, they risk crossing the line from cultural competence to value imposition. 3. Activism and the Therapeutic Boundary The ACA Code states that "when appropriate, counselors advocate at individual, group, institutional, and societal levels to address potential barriers and obstacles that inhibit access and/or the growth and development of clients" (ACA, 2014, Standard A.7.a). The Counselors for Social Justice (CSJ), an ACA division, goes further, stating in their 2020 code of ethics that "activism is a part of the social justice-oriented counselor's personal and professional identity development" (Counselors for Social Justice, 2020, p. 5). This raises important questions about the boundaries between counseling and activism. The therapeutic relationship is built on a fundamental power differential, with counselors possessing greater knowledge, training, and authority (Hargrave, 2015). When counselors add the role of political activist to this already asymmetrical relationship, additional ethical concerns emerge. The CSJ Code requires that social justice-oriented counselors "explain their social justice orientation to clients" (Counselors for Social Justice, 2020, p. 12), which represents an important informed consent measure. However, the ACA Code only requires counselors to "obtain client consent prior to engaging in advocacy efforts on behalf of an identifiable client" (ACA, 2014, Standard A.7.b). This leaves ambiguity about when advocacy as part of the counselor's general orientation requires explicit consent versus when it is embedded in therapeutic approach without formal discussion. Christian counselors often feel isolated navigating these complex ethical tensions alone. Too many Christian counselors feel isolated—and isolation leads to burnout. Remnant Counselor Collective is a community where Christian counselors connect and support one another, preventing burnout and helping them flourish. This kind of professional support becomes especially important when facing pressure to conform to ideological frameworks that may conflict with Christian values. The ethical question is not whether counselors may engage in advocacy—clearly professional codes permit this—but rather: When does advocacy require explicit client consent? How do counselors ensure they are responding to client-identified needs rather than imposing their own social change agendas? How do power dynamics affect clients' ability to disagree with counselor-initiated advocacy? What is the appropriate balance between individual therapeutic goals and systemic change efforts? Proponents of integrating activism into counseling argue that systemic barriers genuinely affect client functioning and that ignoring these factors constitutes therapeutic malpractice. McCollum (2022) argues that "politically-informed therapy is not about using the therapy relationship to manipulate emotionally vulnerable clients" but rather "being responsive to concerns and dilemmas that clients are already feeling" (p. 4). This represents a legitimate perspective, yet it does not resolve the ethical tensions. Even when systemic barriers genuinely affect clients, counselors must carefully distinguish between helping clients navigate oppressive systems and recruiting clients into political movements. The former represents appropriate advocacy; the latter constitutes boundary violation. Research suggests that some clients, particularly political conservatives, report negative experiences when counselors introduce political content. Mather (2021) documented that conservative clients report "bad experiences due to politically misaligned therapists" (para. 7). This suggests that at minimum, counselors need better training in distinguishing responsive advocacy from ideological imposition. 4. The Ideological Evolution of Professional Organizations Professional organizations play a crucial gatekeeping role in counseling—developing ethics codes, accrediting programs, and defining professional standards. Over the past two decades, these organizations have undergone significant ideological evolution that warrants examination. The 2014 ACA Code explicitly lists "promoting social justice" as one of five core professional values in the preamble (ACA, 2014, p. 3). This represents a substantive addition not present in earlier codes. The Code further states that "multicultural counseling competency is required across all counseling specialties" (ACA, 2014, Standard C.2.a, emphasis added), shifting cultural competence from aspirational goal to mandatory requirement. The American Psychological Association (APA) has moved in similar directions. In 2021, the APA issued a formal apology to people of color for psychology's role in contributing to systemic racism and released a comprehensive Racial Equity Action Plan (APA, 2021). The December 2024 draft of the revised APA Ethics Code adds an explicit principle on "Justice and Social Justice," stating that psychologists are "committed to the reduction of disparities" and must "use their knowledge, skills, experience, and influence to identify and counteract the underlying causes and conditions of social injustices" (APA, 2024, p. 3). This evolution from generic diversity language to explicit social justice requirements represents a significant philosophical shift. Historically, professional codes emphasized values like client welfare, justice (defined as fair treatment), and beneficence. The new emphasis on "identifying and counteracting underlying causes of social injustices" moves beyond individual practice ethics to requiring engagement with broader sociopolitical systems. These developments have prompted concern among religious and conservative counselors. The growth of alternative professional organizations suggests these concerns are shared by many. The American Association of Christian Counselors (AACC), founded in 1986, now has approximately 50,000 members and represents the world's largest Christian mental health organization (AACC, 2023). This parallel structure indicates that a substantial portion of practitioners do not find their values represented in mainstream professional organizations. The ethical question is not whether social justice concerns are legitimate—clearly issues of equity, access, and systemic barriers matter. Rather, the concern is whether professional organizations have moved from addressing discrimination to requiring adoption of specific political positions, and whether this shift leaves room for practitioners with diverse philosophical and theological commitments. 5. Defining Competence Through Ideological Lenses Perhaps the most subtle yet consequential development is the redefinition of professional competence in ways that may exclude certain viewpoints. When "competence" becomes defined not merely as clinical skill but as adherence to specific ideological frameworks, this raises fundamental questions about intellectual diversity and academic freedom. The political demographics of psychology and counseling faculty reveal striking homogeneity. Duarte et al. (2015) documented that the liberal-to-conservative ratio in psychology is approximately 14:1, with social psychology even more skewed—only three self-identified conservatives were found among approximately 1,000 attendees at the 2011 Society for Personality and Social Psychology meeting (p. e130). A 2022 survey of Harvard faculty found that 82% identified as "liberal" or "very liberal," while only 1% identified as "conservative" and 0% as "very conservative" (Xu & Mo, 2022). This ideological uniformity has consequences for research, training, and practice. Content analysis of major psychology journals by Redding (2001) found that 97% of articles in American Psychologist expressing views on social policy issues advanced liberal themes, while only 1 of 31 articles reflected conservative perspectives (p. 207). He further documented that all APA Council policy positions on contentious social issues from 1990-1999 aligned with liberal positions, including opposition to the death penalty, support for firearm regulation, and support for abortion rights. Perhaps most concerning, Inbar and Lammers (2012) surveyed 500+ social and personality psychologists and found that 37.5% expressed willingness to discriminate against conservative colleagues in hiring decisions (p. 499). This is not hypothetical bias—Gartner (1986) conducted an experimental study sending identical graduate applications to APA-approved clinical psychology programs, differing only in whether the applicant identified as a conservative Christian. The conservative Christian applicant was rated significantly lower in all areas, with reviewers expressing "more doubts about the conservative's abilities" (p. 474). This ideological homogeneity affects research validity. Chambers and Schlenker (2015) argue that "political homogeneity within a scientific field nurtures threats to the validity of many research conclusions by allowing ideologically compatible values to influence interpretations, by minimizing skepticism, and by creating premature consensus" (p. 1). Meta-analyses confirm increasing publication bias, with Fanelli (2012) documenting a 22% increase in papers declaring significant support for their hypotheses between 1990 and 2007, with "psychology and psychiatry among the disciplines in which this increase is highest" (p. 891). The consequences extend to clients. Gartner et al. (1990) found that politically liberal therapists demonstrated significantly less empathy for conservative clients in clinical case presentations (p. 102). This suggests that ideological homogeneity in the profession may result in inadequate care for clients whose values differ from prevailing orthodoxy. Moving Forward: Toward Dialogue and Pluralism These five dilemmas represent legitimate ethical tensions deserving serious scholarly attention. They are not manufactured controversies or attempts to undermine important work on cultural competence and equity. Rather, they reflect genuine conflicts between competing ethical principles: client autonomy versus counselor conscience, cultural competence versus ideological imposition, advocacy versus therapeutic neutrality, professional gatekeeping versus intellectual diversity. Several principles should guide our path forward: First, robust informed consent. If counselors employ theoretical frameworks that emphasize power, privilege, and oppression as primary explanatory models, clients deserve to understand this orientation and its implications. Informed consent should extend beyond procedural issues to include therapeutic philosophy. Second, distinguishing cultural competence from political orthodoxy. Counselors need frameworks for understanding how cultural context, systemic barriers, and power dynamics affect clients. This does not require adopting specific political positions or mandating that clients develop "critical consciousness" about their privilege. Third, respecting conscience while protecting client access. The conflict between counselor conscience rights and client non-discrimination deserves more nuanced solutions than either absolute conscience accommodations or absolute prohibition of referrals. The middle-ground approaches involving ethical bracketing, consultation, and referral only as last resort deserve serious consideration (Kocet & Herlihy, 2014). Fourth, promoting intellectual diversity in the profession. When 37.5% of psychologists express willingness to discriminate against conservative colleagues, and when diversity statements function as ideological litmus tests, we have moved beyond legitimate professional standards into viewpoint discrimination. A healthy profession requires diversity of thought, including respectful disagreement about contested questions. Fifth, maintaining clear therapeutic boundaries. Counselors may appropriately advocate for clients and address systemic barriers. However, we must remain vigilant about the distinction between responding to client-identified needs and recruiting clients into our political causes. The power differential in the therapeutic relationship makes this vigilance essential. As Christian counseling professionals, we bring distinctive contributions to these conversations. We understand both the reality of human dignity created in God's image and the reality of human brokenness affecting all social systems. We recognize that systemic injustice is real while also affirming individual moral agency and responsibility. We can advocate for justice while respecting the primacy of client autonomy and the limits of therapeutic authority. These are difficult conversations, but necessary ones. The counseling profession serves clients best when we can discuss ethical tensions openly, acknowledge legitimate competing principles, and work toward solutions that honor both our commitment to cultural competence and our respect for intellectual and theological diversity. Christian counselors need not navigate these challenges alone—communities like Remnant Counselor Collective provide essential support for professionals seeking to maintain both excellence and integrity in their practice. References Alliance Defending Freedom. (2012, December 11). EMU student achieves final victory after court rules 'tolerance is a two-way street' [Press release]. https://adfmedia.org/press-release/emu-student-achieves-final-victory-after-court-rules-tolerance-two-way-street/ American Association of Christian Counselors. (2023). AACC code of ethics. https://aacc.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/AACC_Code-of-Ethics-2023_FINAL.pdf American Counseling Association. (2014). ACA code of ethics. https://www.counseling.org/docs/default-source/default-document-library/ethics/2014-aca-code-of-ethics.pdf American Counseling Association. (2015). Multicultural and social justice counseling competencies. https://www.counseling.org/docs/default-source/competencies/multicultural-and-social-justice-counseling-competencies.pdf American Psychological Association. (2021). APA's apology to people of color for APA's role in promoting, perpetuating, and failing to challenge racism, racial discrimination, and human hierarchy in U.S. https://www.apa.org/about/policy/racism-apology American Psychological Association. (2024). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct [Draft revision]. https://apps.apa.org/APACommentingPortal/attachments/Site125_Draft%20Revised%20Code_Final_Dec_2024.pdf Trusty, W. T., Swift, J. K., Black, S. W., Dimmick, A. A., & Penix, E. A. (2022). Religious microaggressions in psychotherapy: A mixed methods examination of client perspectives. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 14(4), 413–427. https://doi.org/10.1037/rel0000419 Chambers, J. R., & Schlenker, B. R. (2015). Political homogeneity can nurture threats to research validity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 38, Article e141. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X14001149 Counselors for Social Justice. (2020). Counselors for Social Justice code of ethics. https://www.counseling-csj.org/uploads/1/2/3/6/123630265/2020_csj_revised_code_of_ethics_revision7_final.pdf Duarte, J. L., Crawford, J. T., Stern, C., Haidt, J., Jussim, L., & Tetlock, P. E. (2015). Political diversity will improve social psychological science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 38, Article e130. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X14000430 Fanelli, D. (2012). Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries. Scientometrics, 90(3), 891–904. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0494-7 Gartner, J. D. (1986). Antireligious prejudice in admissions to doctoral programs in clinical psychology. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 17(5), 473–475. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.17.5.473 Gartner, J., Harmatz, M., Hohmann, A., Larson, D., & Gartner, A. F. (1990). The effect of patient and clinician ideology on clinical judgment: A study of ideological countertransference. Psychotherapy, 27(1), 98–106. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0088544 Hargrave, C. (2015, September 10). The power differential and why it matters so much in therapy. GoodTherapy. https://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/power-differential-why-it-matters-so-much-in-therapy-1009154 Herlihy, B. R., & Watson, Z. E. P. (2014). Legal and ethical implications of using religious beliefs as the basis for refusing to counsel certain clients. Journal of Counseling & Development, 92(2), 148–153. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.2014.00142.x Inbar, Y., & Lammers, J. (2012). Political diversity in social and personality psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(5), 496–503. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612448792 Keeton v. Anderson-Wiley, 664 F.3d 865 (11th Cir. 2011). Kocet, M. M., & Herlihy, B. J. (2014). Addressing value-based conflicts within the counseling relationship: A decision-making model. Journal of Counseling & Development, 92(2), 180–186. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.2014.00146.x Lloyd-Hazlett, J., Rubio, J., & Honderich, E. (2017). Student counselors' perceptions of ethical client referrals. Counseling and Values, 62(2), 221–235. https://doi.org/10.1002/cvj.12065 Mather, R. D. (2021, August 30). The therapist's dilemma: Political neutrality or disclosure? Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-conservative-social-psychologist/202108/the-therapists-dilemma-political-neutrality-or McCollum, V. J. C. (2022). Getting to the root of the problem: Supporting clients with lived-experiences of systemic discrimination. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 1005698. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1005698 Ratts, M. J., Singh, A. A., Nassar-McMillan, S., Butler, S. K., & McCullough, J. R. (2016). Multicultural and social justice counseling competencies: Guidelines for the counseling profession. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 44(1), 28–48. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmcd.12035 Redding, R. E. (2001). Sociopolitical diversity in psychology: The case for pluralism. American Psychologist, 56(3), 205–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.205 Ridley, C. R., Mollen, D., Console, K., & Yin, C. (2021). Multicultural counseling competence: A construct in search of operationalization. The Counseling Psychologist, 49(4), 504–533. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000020988110 Shiles, M. (2009). Discriminatory referrals: Uncovering a potential ethical dilemma facing practitioners. Ethics & Behavior, 19(2), 142–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508420902772777 Ward v. Wilbanks, 667 F.3d 727 (6th Cir. 2012). Xu, N., & Mo, J. (2022, July 13). More than 80 percent of surveyed Harvard faculty identify as liberal. The Harvard Crimson. https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2022/7/13/faculty-survey-2022-politics/ Yarhouse, M. A., & Burkett, L. A. (2002). An inclusive response to LGB and conservative religious persons: The case of same-sex attraction and behavior. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33(3), 235–241. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.33.3.235

Ethics in Counseling: The Value Imposition Problem

The Ethical Paradox in Counseling: Why “Don’t Impose Your Values” Doesn’t Hold

References

Community tags

Clinical Focus

Comments

Related Content