was learning and growing; if she had not known this had happened, there would have been no opportunity for growth.
The following week during practice sessions, a student came to get Professor X, saying it was urgent. When Professor X arrived, one student was crying and another was consoling her while Jessie was sitting in the practice room alone. During the role-play session, Jessie had brought up the topic of her trauma history again and seemed to be on autopilot discussing details of the abuse. She said it was not on purpose, and it seemed to happen before she realized it. Professor X asked if someone would go see if other professors were in their office and could join them. Professor Y came and consulted with the crying student while Professor X spoke with Jessie.
Professor X expressed concern that this had happened again. Jessie seemed numb and detached when responding, not answering directly. Jessie said she would contact her counselor the next day and asked whether she would be kicked out of the program. Professor X shared that dismissing a student was a last resort and there were other options to consider. As class ended, Professor X said that it was important that she consult with other faculty and that she would be in touch to set up a time to meet. Before leaving, she confirmed that Jessie had a support she could contact.
Case Analysis and Discussion
The case illustrates the dilemma of assessing the potential for competency concerns that could impact future client welfare while helping new students develop effective personal boundaries. Students are not expected to arrive in their first-semester courses fully formed as professional counselors; counselor educators often look for students to be actively working to meet expectations while demonstrating growth and responding to feedback. Jessie’s history of abuse illustrates how the very nature of life we experience as humans comes with us into our new roles. The critical incident demonstrates the need for ongoing self-care, as this new role may have unexpected consequences for previously settled personal history.
Analysis of the Critical Incident
The ACA Code of Ethics (American Counseling Association [ACA], 2014) offers guidance on many aspects of Jessie’s case. Section B, Confidentiality and Privacy, calls for counselors to establish and uphold appropriate boundaries with clients to contribute to trust in the counseling relationship. Counselors’ disclosure of details about their personal worlds is often referred to as self-disclosure. A basic expectation of new counseling students is to learn and demonstrate basic counseling skills while also respecting boundaries for interpersonal disclosures. This expectation parallels the future obligation to maintain boundaries with clients, as excessive self-disclosure is ineffective and potentially damaging to counseling relationships (Remley & Herlihy, 2020; Young, 2017). Given the natural role of self-disclosure in social relationships, I restrict self-disclosure in beginning skills classes so students rely on their new counseling skills to build rapport instead. A foundational ethical obligation of counselors is to avoid harming clients (ACA, 2014, Standard A.4.a.); this is mirrored in Standard F.1.a., which holds supervisors responsible for monitoring supervisees’ performance. In this case, Jessie’s pattern of sharing detailed information about her history of abuse raises concerns regarding her ability to maintain professional boundaries, which could impact client welfare.
On a related note, counselor educators are also responsible for addressing potential competency concerns and providing remediation as needed (ACA, 2014, Standard F.9.b.). Professor X’s decision to reach out to Jessie after the first incident is aligned with providing formative evaluation and clarifying performance expectations for students (Standard F.9.a.). Another responsibility of counselor educators is to protect all students during experiential activities. Placing limits on topics allowed during role plays assists with upholding the spirit of practicing skills, not providing professional counseling, which is beyond the development of first-semester students. An additional benefit is avoiding exposure to content that may be triggering for students. Standard F.7.g. addresses the need for counselor educators to protect the rights of students when peers lead experiential activities. Professor X’s follow-up with Jessie’s peers reflects a desire to assess their experiences and provide guidance for the future.
Another important element is that Jessie may have a disability due to undisclosed mental health diagnoses. The Americans With Disabilities Act protects students who enter counseling programs with any disability, including a mental health diagnosis. It is not known whether Jessie has a current diagnosis; however, the circumstances of her incident imply that she could. Professor X initiated a dialogue with Jessie that sought to normalize Jessie’s history of trauma, sending the message that professional counselors can experience personal hardships and also become counselors.
Discussion of Actions Taken and Not Taken
Professor X acted diligently in offering clear and timely feedback to Jessie on the problematic nature of her disclosure. At their meeting, she could have discussed other topics related to gatekeeping as a reminder of counselor educators’ obligations when competency concerns arise. Students often do not recall details of gatekeeping policies, which many programs only review during orientation sessions (J. M. Foster et al., 2014); having them indicate their acknowledgment and understanding of them at multiple points, both orally and in writing, is recommended (Pease-Carter & Barrio Minton, 2012). At the first incident, there was no indication that the concerns would develop into a gatekeeping issue; however, a reminder of Professor X’s role in evaluating students could have been helpful. In addition, if the program designated the course a gatekeeping course, a reminder of this fact could be included as well. Given Jessie’s possible undisclosed disability, offering broad information about accommodations available to all students could help Jessie learn about potential options she could pursue.
Professor X may have also consulted with other faculty after the first incident. Consulting is best practice for the continued growth of educators and supervisors and also has the benefit of offering support in challenging scenarios. Given that a colleague was asked to help during the second incident in the classroom, making sure colleagues were aware and up-to-date on the circumstances would have been useful to ensure effective intervention in the moment. After the second incident, it would be advisable for Professor X to consult with colleagues and document the competency concerns noted (Homrich & Henderson, 2018). Regardless of a student’s initiative in terms of seeking personal counseling, Professor X could have recommended or required counseling as part of remediation. Counselor educators are responsible for requiring students to address personal issues that might impact their professional competence, and faculty may help students identify appropriate clinicians (ACA, 2014, Standards F.8.d., F.9.c.).
An additional concern is Jessie’s rationale that her peers could benefit from her disclosure. This perspective seems to indicate a lack of abiding by course policy and could be viewed as similar to refusing to incorporate feedback, a common competency expected of students (Homrich & Henderson, 2018). Professor X indirectly broached this topic but did not directly connect it to Jessie’s decision-making and lack of abiding by course policy.
Professor X and a colleague met with Jessie the next day. Jessie shared that she realized she needed a new counselor who could better help her as she was transitioning into her new role as a graduate student. She realized the two incidents probably indicated she needed at least a few tune-up sessions regarding her trauma history as well. The faculty members validated her self-awareness and encouraged her pursuit of self-growth and her decision to re-enter counseling. They shared information about the campus counseling center, where all students could obtain counseling from licensed clinicians. Professor X suggested Jessie consider consulting with her instructor regarding possible accommodations for triggering course content when she enrolled in the Crisis and Trauma course. Jessie devised a formal written plan with the note that any additional concerns would result in a review for formal remediation. Jessie entered personal counseling and fulfilled the agreement. The faculty did not note any future disclosures of too much information or any additional concerns.
Conclusion
Encountering the key issue of students sharing too much personal