Significant Challenges in Teaching and Preparing Counseling and Other Helping Professionals in the Context of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Legislation

This article reviews potential challenges to counseling and other helping professions training programs at state-run institutions, considering current and proposed diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) legislation. It underscores the purpose and characteristics of curriculum and profession, highlighting the crucial role of professors and helping professionals as gatekeepers of the profession in training culturally competent providers. The issue of personally held beliefs and client welfare is also discussed.

Keywords: Diversity; Equity; Inclusion; Ethics; Counseling and helping professions; Student beliefs and client responsibilities; Teaching and training

Banning Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) in state-supported institutions is one of the most significant pieces of legislation in decades. It has potential consequences in governing the training and operations of counselors and other helping professionals. It prohibits, among other things, instruction that holds individuals accountable for the past actions of others based on their color, sex, or national origin [1]. It declares that it is unacceptable to instruct anyone to feel inferior or ashamed based on their race. Free-speech advocates and civil rights organizations have criticized the new law in Florida, claiming it will stifle educators. Counseling professionals are authorized by law to discuss how racial oppression, slavery, racial discrimination, and racial segregation violated the individual liberties of persons and how laws were utilized to enforce racial discrimination.

Officials tasked with reviewing instructional materials are additionally prohibited by law from endorsing materials that unfairly disadvantage individuals based on their color, race, creed, ancestry, national origin, religion, and gender, among other attributes. Furthermore, it strictly prohibits professional and educational programs that advocate for the discrimination or mistreatment of individuals to promote equity, diversity, or inclusion (Hatzenbuehler et al., 2016). Social-emotional learning strategies are frequently implemented to promote mental health. Given the case, this article will address how the diverse discussions surrounding newly passed DEI legislation may significantly impact the fundamental guiding principles upon which counseling and other helping professions have developed and the education and training of students aspiring to enter the field, prompting us to consider the future of the profession.

The helping profession aims to advance the progress and welfare of communities, individuals, and organizations by utilizing counseling theories, interventions, and techniques. Mental health clinicians serve multicultural and diverse populations facing diverse challenges, including stress, trauma, mental disorders, discrimination, oppression, and marginalization [2]. As a result, mental health professionals must address their clients’ ethnic, cultural, racial, gender, and sexual orientations. They must consider the social, cultural, and environmental factors affecting the client’s mental health and well-being [3].

Mental health counselors must promote human rights and social justice for their clients and society. In this case, social justice is deemed as a proactive involvement of counselors in addressing the systemic obstacles and marginalization experienced by individuals based on their cultural, racial, gender, sexual, and ethnicity [4]. Human rights encompass universal entitlements for all individuals, regardless of gender, race, nationality, religion, or ethnic origin. Thus, human rights and social justice aim to guarantee equality, liberty, and dignity among all members of society.

Irrespective of the essential responsibilities and fundamental principles, existing and potential DEI regulations present significant obstacles to effectively educating and preparing mental health counselors for social justice and human rights. This is because mental health counseling programs are incomplete without incorporating coursework on human rights and social justice [4]. Counselors and clients must cultivate critical reflection to confront their preconceptions, prejudices, and biases and work together to bring attention to and remedy systemic inequities and societal injustices [5].

Due to the contrasting objectives and perspectives, there is a potential for discord to arise regarding the proposed rule changes and legislation. The fundamental rationale is that the suggested modifications to regulations might be interpreted as an endeavor to improve the accessibility and capability of mental health services, with a specific emphasis on communities that are economically disadvantaged and marginalized [6]. Despite this, there is a high likelihood of revising the current mental health counseling and other helping professions curricula to address emerging social issues and challenges. These may include, but are not limited to, racial justice movements, the mental health crisis, and the COVID-19 pandemic [1].

Conversely, this legislation might be presumed as a medium for enforcing specific politically or culturally initiated agendas that can potentially inhibit mental health counselors’ scientific and clinical operational standards. Hence, due to the tendency to encourage cultural and identity conflicts, this legislation may significantly influence the perceptions and values of mental health counselors and other helping professionals. Ultimately, conflict will arise between the proposed rule changes and DEI legislation, highlighting the need for resolution.

The underlined situation depicts how the prevailing state laws fail to align with the projected regulatory amendments. For example, it may manifest as a disagreement regarding the suitability and applicability of the health equity continuing education program to the mental health counseling profession and its relevance and appropriateness within the mental health counseling domain. This situation can also manifest through a series of hostilities and aggression against specific mental health counselors and their subsequent clients bearing divergent opinions or working against this ideology [6]. These particular “individuals” might interpret the legislation of the new and proposed state legislation as a violation of their liberties and rights or as a threat to them. In this case, it is presumed that unnecessary disagreements will emanate from the inconsistent and ineffective application of the legislation and subsequent regulatory changes. Additionally, concerns could arise regarding their compatibility and adherence to preexisting laws and regulations, such as the HIPAA and ACA Codes.

Regarding acculturation and accommodation in the community, family, and individual settings, New and proposed DEI legislation often clashes with the identity development paradigm. The Identity Development Model, which emphasizes the importance of cultural identity and the impact of discrimination on individual development, could be at odds with legislation restricting discussions on race and discrimination. Legislations that conflict with the underlying ethical and cultural counseling concepts have been formulated and signed into law in Texas and Florida [7]. The ideologies of advocates of the original DEI legislation shape this law. In this case, the movement entails a political and social framework for promoting empowerment and uplifting the identity of marginalized and oppressed groups.

Recently passed Laws enacted in Florida explicitly ban educational programs and workplace training that tend to promote inherently sexist, discriminatory, and oppressive behaviors, whether consciously or unconsciously [8]. It contests the tendency of privileging or oppressing individuals based on gender, race, or nationality. It ensures individuals take personal responsibility for and obligation to experience anguish, guilt, or other psychological distress associated with their actions. Parents may also file a lawsuit against schools if they have reason to believe that the instructors or administrators are exposing them to such experiences.

On the other hand, the Texas legislature passed several bills affecting mental health counselors’ education and training requirements. One such bill permits applicants to demonstrate their qualifications through alternative means, lowering the barriers to entry into the behavioral health workforce. Another bill mandates that healthcare providers complete health equity continuing education, encompassing subjects including social determinants of health, health disparities, cultural sensitivity, and implicit bias [9].

The American Counseling Association (ACA) values and standards serve as the foundation for the cultural and ethical principles of counseling. However, the proposed regulations might inherently oppose the underlying standards and guiding principles of the helping profession in general [5]. An example of a fundamental principle is upholding dignity and respect while advocating for social justice and human rights across all operational domains. The second principle is that structural and systemic barriers that impact individuals’ mental health and well-being must be recognized and addressed. Additionally, it is recommended that counselors promote the empowerment and integration of all individuals, irrespective of their varied circumstances. Furthermore, helping professionals should ensure they recognize and acknowledge their clients’ distinct identities and backgrounds origin [10]. They are anticipated to demonstrate responsiveness and sensitivity towards, among other unique characteristics, the cultural, ethnic, racial, gender, and sexual orientation of the clients. Another principle posits that clinical social workers should be highly private and confidential when handling sensitive info and client data. Additionally, greater emphasis should be placed on safeguarding their rights and liberties [11]. Finally, counselors should constantly challenge their presumptions, biases, and prejudices when handling sensitive issues affecting their diverse clients. The primary essence is to ensure minimal conflicts between legislation and the identity development framework.

Due to the legislation enacted in Texas and Florida, the counselor-client relationship is significantly susceptible to conflicts and misunderstandings. The reason is that these legislations prohibit, among other things, interventions that hold individuals accountable for the past actions of others based on their color, sex, or national origin [10]. It declares that it is unacceptable to instruct anyone to feel inferior or ashamed based on their race. Conversely, divergent perspectives can potentially compromise the effectiveness of the counseling procedure and the overall coherence and proficiency. Despite the need for counselors and other helping professionals to adhere to the underlying state legislations, they must adhere to their respective guiding principles and professional codes of conduct at all levels [12]. Additionally, they should be capable of managing a variety of uncertainties that may arise due to the awakened legislation and proposed regulations. Potential risks that may arise include opposition and retaliation, significant disputes, lack of consistency, confusion, and the possibility of legal and disciplinary consequences. Lastly, helping professionals must consult their superiors, peers, and other significant professionals and undertake subsequent training to ensure they provide valuable services without bias and prejudice.

It is crucial to recognize that many individuals seeking help for behavioral health issues have undergone trauma. However, they may not fully acknowledge or minimize its impact when discussing their past experiences. Similarly, therapists may not inquire about a client’s traumatic experiences because they may not feel equipped to handle it or their training does not emphasize this area. To establish a trauma-informed environment throughout all stages of treatment, frontline practitioners and community-based programs must acknowledge the link between traumatic experiences and behavioral health disorders [12]. The optimal approach involves addressing the client’s needs in a safe, collaborative, and empathetic manner, with the primary goal being to avoid treatment methods that could re-traumatize individuals who have experienced trauma. Instead, the focus should be on their strengths and ability to adapt within their communities and environments.

Furthermore, organizations need to embrace trauma-informed principles by offering support, consultation, and supervision to their staff. As much as regulations have been established to enhance the dissemination of trauma-informed practices in clinical settings, some legislation is detrimental to accomplishing this objective [13].

One of the significant laws in this real is the Trauma-Informed Care for Children and Families Act of 2017, which seeks to educate the public about trauma, research effective methods of prevention and treatment, and raise general awareness of the issue [10]. The primary aim of this legislation is to enhance the establishment of a federal task force dedicated to trauma-informed care and provide grants and technical assistance to diverse communities for the implementation of trauma-informed practices. The approaches put forth by this legislation are implemented in diverse domains, including the education, health care, and justice departments.

New and proposed DEI legislation enacted in Texas and Florida explicitly forbids educational programs and workplace training that tend to promote insensitivity to individual differences and other historical factors that may lead to harmful behaviors, whether consciously or unconsciously [8]. It contests the tendency of privileging or oppressing individuals based on gender, race, or nationality. It ensures individuals take personal responsibility for and obligation to experience anguish, guilt, or other psychological distress associated with their actions. Parents may also file a lawsuit against schools if they have reason to believe that the instructors or administrators are exposing them to such experiences. The potential to restrict the ability and opportunity of counselors and educators to advocate for human rights and social justice on behalf of their students and clients would greatly influence traumainformed care. Its inability to address the structural and systemic barriers and marginalization that affect the mental health and well-being of diverse and marginalized populations renders this legislation inappropriate for addressing the aspect of traumainformed care. Furthermore, the proposed legislation could segue into establishing an aggressive and extreme setting for educators and counselors, who could be held liable for legal and disciplinary repercussions if they advocate for trauma survivors or express their opinions [5] in the classroom or the field.

In conclusion, DEI is facing criticism from individuals who are unwilling to acknowledge the fundamental issue of inequality. In reviewing the literature, 19+ states, including Florida and Texas, have either implemented or are planning to implement legislation to prohibit educators, staff, and students in state-funded institutions from participating in DEI training or discussions. Current legislation challenges the professions’ guiding principles (e.g., Codes of Ethics). This could potentially impact academic curricula and professor-student interaction in classrooms via confusion and conflict between guiding principles of the respective professions and state laws. For example, “To Do No Harm” emphasizes avoiding harm to clients/ patients while receiving care, extending beyond physical injury to include clients’ dignity. This ensures that helping professionals remain conscious of the consequences of their decisions. The Do No Harm Act also provides one’s constitutional right to religious freedoms, which complicates matters, especially when working with students with divergent views regarding personal beliefs.

Over the past decade, challenges to university counseling and other professional program requirements have triggered changes in how institutions regulate programs, with consequences given that States regulate both university programming and the helping professions as it relates to “To Do No Harm.” In Keeton v. Anderson- Wiley Augusta State University, 2011, a conflict in teaching and training became an issue when Keeton, a student, believed her religious rights and beliefs were violated because she refused to work with an LGBT client during her internship experience. In another case, Ward v. Wilbanks – Eastern Michigan University, 2010 -2012, a conflict in teaching and training based on personal beliefs and values arose when Wilbanks, a student, indicated her right to decline to work with clients wishing to discuss same-sex relationships because it violated her religious belief [14].

In both cases, the institutions prevailed, based on wellestablished programming and external organizations that support the helping professions that have evolved over the past century. However, subsequent appeals of decisions related to the cases resulted in changes in how students are disciplined at State institutions from a constitutional rights perspective. For example, in Keeton v. Anderson-Wiley, a student at Augusta State University (ASU) sought a court order requiring ASU to reinstate her in a graduate-level counseling program even though she insisted on a right – based on her religious beliefs – to counsel lesbian, gay and bisexual clients that being gay is immoral. The case significantly impacted counseling programs, particularly in addressing ethical standards and non-discrimination policies [15].

Consequently, given that States control academic institutions and the helping professions, disruption in progress in addressing the overall mental health and well-being of various populations abound. Given the mental health crisis in America today, collaboration and dialogue are crucial in addressing persisting issues of inequality. As gatekeepers of the profession, Scholars and professionals can contribute to the advancement of DEI and its role in producing culturally competent next-generation helping professionals by sharing their knowledge in training and preparing students who aspire to matriculate through university programs in preparation of entering the field and remaining diligent in producing empirical data to support the need for continued attention to culturally competent training and programming and sharing their experience and insights with state legislators.

None.

No conflict of interest.

1. Cook K (2022) Woke Mental Health. Capital Research Center.
2. Rios K (2022) Multiculturalism and Colorblindness as Threats to the Self: A Framework for Understanding Dominant and Non-Dominant Group Members’ Responses to Interethnic Ideologies. Personality and Social Psychology Review 26(4): 315–341.
3. Fortuna LR, Tolou-Shams M, Robles-Ramamurthy B, Porche MV (2020) Inequity and the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on communities of color in the United States: The need for a trauma-informed social justice response. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy 12(5): 443–445.
4. Kaplan DM, Francis PC, Hermann MA, Baca JV, Goodnough GE, et al. (2017) New concepts in the 2014 ACA Code of Ethics. Journal of Counseling & Development 95(1): 110–120.
5. American Counseling Association (2014) ACA code of ethics.
6. Mather R (2021) The Therapist's Dilemma: Political Neutrality or Disclosure? Psychology Today.
7. Sylvester S (2023) Texas is winning the war against ‘woke. Texas Public Policy Foundation.
8. Reilly K (2022) Florida’s Governor Just Signed the 'Stop Woke Act.’ Here’s What It Means for Schools and Businesses. TIME.
9. Sanchez K, Ybarra R, Chapa T, Martinez ON (2016) Eliminating Behavioral Health Disparities and Improving Outcomes for Racial and Ethnic Minority Populations. Psychiatric Services 67(1): 13–15.
10. Neves R (2020) The Contradictions of Critical Theory and Counseling. New Discourses.
11. NeMoyer AM, Bagué F, Wang L, Alvarez K (2018) Social Determinants of Mental Health: Where We Are and Where We Need to Go. Current psychiatry reports 20(11): 95.
12. Herlihy B, Corey G (2014) ACA ethical standards casebook. John Wiley & Sons.
13. Grossman S, Cooper Z, Buxton H, Hendrickson S, Lewis O Connor A, et al. (2021) Trauma-informed care: recognizing and resisting re-traumatization in health care. Trauma surgery & acute care open 6(1): e000815.
14. Hancock KA, Greenspan K (2010) Emergence and development of the psychological study of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender issues. JC Chrisler, DR McCreary (Eds.), Handbook of gender research in psychology. New York, NY: Springer 1: 59–78.
15. Hancock KA (2014) Student beliefs, multiculturalism, and client welfare. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity 1(1): 4–9.
16. American Counseling Association (2006) ACA code of ethics. Journal of Counseling & Development 84: 235–254.