Texas Discrimination Laws BHEC and Social Justice Warriors

Last week the TX Behavioral Health Executive Council met in a joint session with the Social Workers' Board, the purpose being to expedite the review of updates and changes made to the SW's regulations and guidelines. The internet has been abuzz ever since!

What's the Issue?

On the docket for discussion was the decided removal of the, "discrimination clause", an issue which has been promoted primarily by professional organizations, academia, and their following.

Public Reaction from Both Sides of the Issue

Those opposing the Council's action feel that their progressive agenda has been threatened. Those supporting the Council's vote feel that their professional fiduciary responsibility to clients and potential clients is being forcibly altered by a group of unelected, and self-appointed, "legislators".

The Texas Tribune recently penned a somewhat biased article entitled, New Texas Rule Lets Social Workers Turn Away Clients Who Are LGBTQ or Have a Disability, spinning the ruling to sound as if marginalized groups seeking treatment would be turned away at the frosted glass doors of every group practice. This is not the case at all as I will outline below.

The State of Texas

The TX BHEC, their legal staff, and the state attorneys believe the "discrimination clause(s)" are over-reaching and wholly unnecessary in light of existing State law (not to mention the national professional organization code!) which deals with and covers the same issues. BHEC's legal council viewed the clauses as redundant, over-reaching and creating potentially unnecessary legal conflict and, so, sought the advice of the Office of Attorney General for the State of TX.

Their legal staff agreed with and backed BHEC's Executive Council decision to strike the clause(s), based on a new law enacted last year aimed at making the rules and regs of regulated groups come into sync with, and not exceed, those guidelines put into place by current State law.

Factions Supporting the Inclusion of the Discrimination Clause

Those that oppose the clause's removal believe existing law is inadequate and apparently this is their attempt to re-write/amend the law to their liking without having to go through the legislative process.

They would also have you believe that providing a professional referral recommendation is proof of discriminatory intent towards marginalized people groups, by all counselors who do so.

This is in direct conflict with the ACA's Code of Ethics which deals directly, and I believe quite adequately, with the subject of client discrimination practices. You may find that at the link above and please direct your attention to Sections A and C.

Section A-The Counseling Relationship

A.4 Avoiding Harm and Imposing Values

A.4.a Avoiding Harm (Do No Harm)

Counselors act to avoid harming their clients, trainees, and research participants and to minimize or to remedy unavoidable or unanticipated harm.

                A.4.b Imposing Personal Values

Counselors are aware of—and avoid imposing—their own values, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors. Counselors respect the diversity of clients, trainees, and research participants and seek training in areas in which they are at risk of imposing their values onto clients, especially when the counselor’s values are inconsistent with the client’s goals or are discriminatory in nature.

A.11 Termination and Referral

A.11.d

When counselors transfer or refer clients to other practitioners, they ensure that appropriate clinical and administrative processes are completed and open communication is maintained with both clients and practitioners.

Section C-Professional Responsibility

C.2 Professional Competence

C.2.a Boundaries of Competence

Counselors practice only within the boundaries of their competence, based on their education, training, supervised experience, state and national professional credentials, and appropriate professional experience. Whereas multicultural counseling competency is required across all counseling specialties, counselors gain knowledge, personal awareness, sensitivity, dispositions, and skills pertinent to being a culturally competent counselor in working with a diverse client population.

C.5 Nondiscrimination

Counselors do not condone or engage in discrimination against prospective or current clients, students, employees, supervisees, or research participants based on age, culture, disability, ethnicity, race, religion/spirituality, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, marital/partnership status, language preference, socioeconomic status, immigration status, or any basis proscribed by law.

Whether you belong to the group or not, between their professional association Code of Ethics and the State Laws that exist, I think the point is sufficiently made and covered.

Counselors Supporting the Removal of the Discrimination Clause

Those of us who support BHEC's decision base our beliefs upon several points.

First, the topic is covered in TX State law (those who find the state law lacking have legislative remedies available to them which I outline in my conclusion below).

Second, I believe that the vast majority of citizens do not support methods of bringing about behavioral change in the citizenry, methods that circumvent the legislative process.

Third, the subject is more than adequately addressed in the largest professional organization's code of ethics.

Fourth, forcing a licensed counselor to provide a type of professional service to someone that the counselor is knowingly not trained to provide is not only unprofessional, it provides a disservice to the client for obvious reasons.

Fifth, we have a fiduciary responsibility to refer that potential client to a colleague that does provide the specific type of service needed.

Sixth, providing services to anyone for any reason for which I am not qualified to do so opens me up to a raft of liability issues not to mention very costly and lengthy complaints. No thank you!

And finally, we believe 99.8% of all counselors, LMFT's, social workers and psychologists have their hearts in the right place and have their clients' best interests at the fore. We're quite capable of following existing law and ethics and don't want non-elected legislators interfering in our professional decisions.

Texas Discrimination Laws BHEC and Social Justice Warriors: My Opinion

Much like what's been happening on a national scale for the past 50 years, there are advocates of positions that find it much easier and quicker to bring about their agendas through side-channels (the courts, professional boards, etc) than through legislative efforts. I believe that is exactly what's going on here.

A small, un-elected and very vocal group with a social-justice
agenda wants to re-write/amend a State Law they're not happy with, through non-legislative channels. I dont think so.

These groups find it much simpler to create rules at the Board level than obtain change in the state legislative venue which is much slower and more difficult to effect, which is as it should be! They lobbied for BHEC, they got it, and that organization's structure and mandate have made their social agenda much more difficult to obtain now, and they're not happy about it.

And let's not forget who, "the State" actually refers to when referencing what the State has or has not been willing to do concerning a law that rankles some special interest group; it refers to the elected leaders we, the voting people, put into office not some tyrannical despot making up discriminatory edicts as he goes.

We all have the same options. Don't like a law? Lobby to have it changed. Don't like the way the current legislators are writing law? Elect someone who thinks like you do; as of this writing we do still live in a free America.

I have to wonder, if referring a client to a professional that is properly trained for that client's needs doesn't appease the sjw's as to my/our client-treatment motives, then what kind of unprofessional and wholly inadequate service are they suggesting we provide? If high-quality client care isn't at the heart of their motives here, then what is their real agenda?

We've Got This!

We have been trained throughout our careers to maintain a very high standard of client care and I believe that 99.8% of all LPC’s, LMFT’s, Social Workers, and Psychologists are doing exactly that. There are legislative processes in place for state laws and the amendment thereof, and the development of BHEC adds another badly needed layer of checks and balances to the system. Keep doing what you’re doing, keep learning new things, keep your clients’ best interests at heart and we’ll all be just fine!

Plan Smart. Be Safe. Serve Others.

Kathleen Mills, LPC-S, CEAP