are also intended to allow the administration to detect repeat violations that warrant higher, system-level action.
Even if Professor P’s actions did not violate policy, faculty members should think carefully about the possible role of implicit bias in deciding whether to use a formal process. Professor P considered socioeconomic and age diversity as reasons not to report the incident; these and other cultural understandings of academic integrity may have been at play. It is also possible that privilege based on race, ethnicity, or other identities led the student to feel comfortable (or even entitled) to plead for an exception. These same dynamics may have led Professor P to accept the plea. Although the student’s identities are not disclosed, one could ask whether Professor P and the student would have had a similar process and come to the same conclusion if elements of identity had been changed in some way (e.g., if the student was a traditional-aged man of color). Just as there are well-documented disparities at all steps throughout the criminal justice system, systematic disparities are at play in identifying students who have cheated, reporting them, and assigning penalties.
Counselor education programs are somewhat unique within higher education systems given their programmatic approach to preparing students for practice. Professor P notified their department head of the plan to address the concern; however, there is no evidence of consultation with other faculty members regarding prior concerns related to the student, program precedent for handling academic dishonesty, or the need to activate the program’s remediation plan. Instead, Professor P took the issue on themselves, first working with the student to not report the case, then building multiple systems and structures into their courses to protect against future violations.
Although Professor P’s responsiveness is commendable, faculty members should consider working with their programs to address academic integrity on a systems level. Professor P might discuss the incident during a faculty meeting, ascertaining whether there have been previous disposition concerns about this student while also exploring the degree to which academic dishonesty is an issue within the program at large. This process could ensure mentorship for Professor P as they adapt to life as a counselor educator, pointing them to university resources, advising on helpful and not helpful responses, or even helping Professor P understand that there is already explicit coverage of plagiarism within required orientations. Professor P might have chosen a very different course of action had they discovered that the student had had similar violations in the past or had already completed mandatory academic integrity training much like what Professor P built into their courses.
If consultation with faculty reveals that academic dishonesty is a concern across students, this may point to the need for a unified plan for addressing it as a program. A collaborative discussion may help the program to set clear, fair expectations for students. If there is not a university procedure for addressing academic dishonesty, the program could develop a policy, place it in handbooks with clear ties to the ACA Code of Ethics (ACA, 2014), and address it in orientation. This may even result in an orientation assignment for a first-semester professionalism course that frees faculty members to attend to course orientation and relationships rather than plagiarism prevention in their first meetings.
All in all, Professor P expressed care and diligence in their individual response to the student and preventive steps in their courses. By converging their efforts with university policies, peer consultation, and a program-level response, Professor P can ensure fairness, clarity, and appropriate support as they continue in their new role as a counselor educator.
• • •
Chapter 4
Too Much Information: Maintaining Boundaries During Skills Practice
Kathryn L. Henderson
2014 ACA Code of Ethics Standards Addressed
F.1.a. Client Welfare
F.7.g. Student-to-Student Supervision and Instruction
F.8.c. Self-Growth Experiences
F.8.d. Addressing Personal Concerns
F.9.a. Evaluation of Students
F.9.b. Limitations
• • •
In a first-semester counseling skills class, master’s students routinely practiced basic microskills in triads, rotating the roles of counselor, client, and observer. On the first day of class, Professor X discussed the important role of the mock client, noting that students should come to class prepared to discuss real-life topics they were comfortable sharing. Topics such as substance use and trauma were off limits for role plays. This restriction was essential to assist students in developing professional boundaries as well as identifying areas in which personal concerns may intrude into the counseling relationship. Also, personal unfinished business might indicate issues that could use attention in personal counseling, which this course did not provide. Professor X indicated that if role-play practice sessions transitioned to such topics at any time, the client should hit the pause button on the dialogue and say they wanted to talk about something else. Professor X had the same responsibility while observing in-class practice sessions and providing live feedback. The course syllabus included details about these rules, including the expectation that students would notify Professor X if such incidents happened.
A few weeks into the semester, Professor X became concerned about Jessie while watching recordings of in-class practice sessions. Although the role play began on a simple topic—Jessie’s current lack of a romantic relationship—it transitioned to a history of sexual abuse she described in a detailed manner in a calm and matter-of-fact voice. The student in the counselor role looked uncomfortable and asked whether they should switch to another topic, which they did. Neither student discussed this incident with Professor X.
After seeing the video clip, Professor X emailed the students in this triad and asked to meet with them individually to discuss the recording. Jessie initiated the conversation with Professor X, saying she had realized after the fact that her history of sexual abuse might qualify as an off-limits topic. She added that she had received a lot of counseling and felt OK about sharing. Jessie said she thought it was helpful for her peer to hear “this sort of stuff” before practicum.
Professor X thanked Jessie for sharing her perspective. She appreciated that Jessie had received counseling and shared that many counselors have experienced hardships; the work they did on those issues in their own personal counseling was vital for their professional competence. Professor X also noted the importance of maintaining boundaries with clients. Discussing her personal history of abuse in such a detailed way could cause harm to a client who also might be traumatized. There were varying opinions on self-disclosure with clients; best practice at this stage of development suggested consulting first and disclosing deliberately and for the benefit of the client. Professor X shared that because self-disclosure can be a social habit and a more advanced skill, it was off limits in this course. Students were expected to maintain the same boundaries with their peers as they would with future clients. In fact, the class would review the topic of self-disclosure in the upcoming weeks. Professor X shared that she would like to see students asking in advance whether a topic was permissible; this expectation paralleled the expectation to consult when encountering ethical dilemmas.
Jessie said she had not thought of the possibility she might harm someone by sharing her history, and she was concerned she might have caused harm to her peers. She wanted to speak with them and apologize. Professor X let her know she would be meeting with them about it and encouraged her to be in direct discussion with her peers. In separate meetings with the other students, Professor X processed what it had been like for them when Jessie had begun discussing her trauma history and asked what it would have been like for them to notify her about it. Both students shared feeling uncomfortable, overwhelmed, and out of their depth. They also worried about getting Jessie in trouble. Professor X thanked them for sharing their experience and expressed how important consulting was. Professor