A social work student who posted anti-gay marriage views on Facebook has lost his appeal against being expelled from his course.
Felix Ngole, who was a second year social work masters student at Sheffield University, was excluded from the course in February after making a Facebook post in support of Kim Davis, a US county clerk who was jailed after refusing to give marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Ngole said his views were a part of his Christian faith. He had also published quotes from Leviticus on his private Facebook account, which described homosexuality as an “abomination”.
The appeals office at Sheffield University said his social media posts were “inappropriate” in light of the professional conduct set by the Health and Care Professions Councils (HCPC).
He had been told he did not offer insight or reflection into the potential impact of his postings, or how the profession might be perceived as a result of what he posted.
Fitness-to-practise
In response, Ngole said it should not be a university’s decision to “arbitrarily ‘vet’ who should enter a chosen career” and that it should be up to the professional body to decide.
However, the university said this was a fitness-to-practice issue judged using the guidance all social workers are held to, and that he had not been excluded from studying at Sheffield, only from studying social work.
Ngole said: “I did not say that everyone has to agree with me. However, I was reported to the university for these views and they unilaterally decided to end my course. In so doing, they ended my training for my chosen vocation.
“All students would expect every professional body to have their own set of codes and practises when the time comes, and each student would decide whether they felt comfortable in applying to that profession, given those codes.”
He said he will take further action over the “legal questions” his case has raised, such as whether Christians with “traditional biblical and moral beliefs” can still enter professions like social work.
Split opinion
A spokesperson for Sheffield University said: “The committee came to its conclusions based on the professional standards of conduct, performance and ethics and guidance on conduct and ethics for students set out by the [HCPC].
“He now has the option to register on an alternative course of study at the University of Sheffield.”
The story split opinion among Community Care readers. Some argued his views were “not compatible with the job”, while others said his ability to be a social worker should have been tested on his behaviour in the profession rather than his thoughts.
Andrea Williams, barrister and founder of the Christian Legal Centre, which is supporting Ngole, said this is the first case of a Christian student being stopped from entering a vocation.
She added there was “no evidence” his biblical views would have negatively impacted his work.
“Mr Ngole has worked with those who identify as homosexual in the past and has always treated them with respect, never discriminating against them,” Williams said.
Sara Sharif case review begins after father and stepmother convicted of murder 
Facebook
X
LinkedIn
Instagram
guess logic is not the strength of those who wrote the guidelines. as they expect honesty but encourage you to be dishonest about your moral convictions for the sake of potential damage to the trust in the profession. If you have to lie about your personal convictions for the sake of political neutrality you cannot be trusted by definition. No wonder we have a problem with social servies in the trust department as they are working on the issues of moral judgements all the time. The question if you can separate your moral judgement from your professional work ethics. It is obvious that the University fails exactly in what they accuse the other party of doing by their actions whilst he expressed his opinon. Thus the failure of discrimination is theirs bringing the profession into disrepute. It’s a joke they are blind to it 🙂
3 You should keep high standards of personal conduct.
– You should be aware that conduct outside of your programme
may affect whether or not you are allowed to complete your
programme or register with us.
and
12 You should behave honestly.
– You should not pass off other people’s work as your own.
– You should make sure that you reference other people’s
work appropriately.
– You should make sure that you truthfully and accurately fill in
any documents.
– You should not let any improper financial reward influence the advice
and services you provide, or the products you recommend.
– You should follow your education provider’s policies on ethics
when carrying out research.
13 You should make sure that your behaviour does not
damage public confidence in your profession.
– You should be aware that your behaviour may affect the trust that
the public has in your profession.
– You should not do anything which might affect the trust that the
public has in your profession.
” … while others said his ability to be a social worker should have been tested on his behaviour in the profession rather than his thoughts.”
This is the right decision and it is self-evident that none of us can be tested on our thoughts unless and until we act upon them. This man’s behaviour – in both articulating those thoughts and publishing them – is what has had him excluded and properly so.
It is not acceptable to claim sincerity or to cite a faith belief to justify discriminatory conduct. Sincerity and faith may be admirable attributes but sincerely held discriminatory beliefs – when acted upon – are discriminatory. It really isn’t complicated and religious activists need to be aware of this. However well they may think their belief system equips them for public service it’s not a qualification and when they declaim in a bigoted fashion it can be a disqualification.
I do not agree with the man but I have noticed that Christianity is being discriminated. A few years ago an air stewardess lost her job as she refused to take off the cross of her necklaces. Meanwhile a Muslim woman was allowed wearing religious symbols at work . The decision was made upon an opinion that Muslim women apparently have to cover their hair but the Bible does not say that a Christian must wear a Cross. That in my opinion is an absolute rubbish as in both cases it depends on the need of an individual. Some Muslim women cover hair others not so some Christians wear crosses others not. I have an impression that “the West” shows double standards in their “Equality” especially when one of the sides can play with bombs. If you do not let that guy to study SW then be fair and do not let other people who maybe think that alcoholics are devil or guys should be executed executed etc to study….Will people be honest? Majority specially after this case surely not….
So articulating religious beliefs and publishing them is now a discriminatory act?
ECHR
Article 7
No punishment without law
1No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed.
2This Article shall not prejudice the trial and punishment of any person for any act or omission which, at the time when it was committed, was criminal according to the general principles of law recognised by civilised nations.
Article 9
Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
1Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
2Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
Article 10
Freedom of expression
1Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
First of all, issues of ethical dilemma must form part of the interviewing questions on the MA Social Work application process. Social work is service to humanity but not service to a particular social group or individuals. Sharing your prejudicial thoughts about a particular group detracts for the code of ethics of the social work profession. This is a clear manifestation of not understanding what the social work profession is about. By second year on a master’s social work training, am pretty sure the student must be able to distinguish personal values from social work values and ensure that his personal values do not come into conflict with social work values. If social workers said things like this about people, they will not be compelled to support them. He has very clearly wasted another person’s opportunity to be a dedicated social worker. This was an attempt to undermine the very profession he was training to become. He has been stopped in his tracks!!!
First of all, issues of ethical dilemma must form part of the interviewing questions on the MA Social Work application process. Social work is service to humanity but not service to a particular social group or individuals. Sharing your prejudicial thoughts about a particular group detracts from the code of ethics of the social work profession. This is a clear manifestation of not understanding what the social work profession is about. By second year on a master’s social work training, am pretty sure the student must be able to distinguish personal values from social work values and ensure that his personal values do not come into conflict with social work values. If social workers said things like this about people, they will not be compelled to support them. He has very clearly wasted another person’s opportunity to be a dedicated social worker. This was an attempt to undermine the very profession he was training to become. He has been stopped in his tracks!!!
Freedom of Expression Legal Framework
This guide explains the legal framework which protects freedom of expression and the circumstances in which that freedom may be restricted in order to prevent violence, abuse or discrimination. It explores the boundaries between freedom of expression, unlawful discrimination and harassment, and hate speech. It also considers various contexts in which freedom of expression is curtailed. There are, of course, other aspects of the right to freedom of expression (such as privacy, libel and defamation) which will be covered in future publications.
http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/publication_pdf/20150318%20FoE%20legal%20framework%20guidance%20revised%20final.pdf