The Corrupt Cracks in the ACA’s Ethical Code - Part 2

When ethical codes serve politics instead of people, clients pay the price.

Jacob tried to focus on the 13-year-old client in front of him but the demand for a letter signing off on hormone therapy and surgery was a gut punch. He was a veteran therapist with an undergraduate degree in biology and had treated this client since their parents’ divorce three years ago. His intuition told him this was a cry for attention not a case of gender confusion.

But with the mother firmly backing this new identity while also dating one of the most powerful lawyers in town, he could feel the sweat starting to stick to his shirt. What was the ethical thing to do? 

The ACA Code of Ethics was no help. Section A.11.b prevented him from transferring the client, A.2.c. demanded he honor his client’s ‘cultural narrative’ –a narrative based on social trends, not science.

A.1.a insisted on prioritizing the client’s welfare, even as Jacob’s biology background told him puberty blockers could lead to irreversible damage. Meanwhile, A.4.a demanded he avoid causing harm. Section E.5.c. warned against biased diagnoses, did that include overdiagnosis of gender dysphoria due to social contagion? 

Then again A.1.c and A.2.d are split on whether to give priority to client autonomy or to limit it because the client was a minor. Jacob had seen recent articles in Counseling Today and the ACA Practice Brief on Transgender youth care both were clear, the orthodoxy called for affirming transgender youth, biology be damned.

Jacob could not even look to his faith because section A.4.b insists he not impose his own values and beliefs.

How does a therapist honor diversity while respecting objective reality? What happens when ‘client autonomy’ clashes with a minor’s inability to fully understand lifelong medical consequences? The ACA Code of Ethics offers no clear answers—only contradictions.

The Ethical Codes’ Corrupt Core

When I was in ethics class for counseling we were tasked with working through similar scenarios using the American Counseling Association’s (ACA) code of ethics much like Jacob in the example above. Objectivity and biological science did not come up, and when I took the initiative to look into reality-based details on one of the assignments, I was called out for overly concrete thought.

While the ACA Code of Ethics purports to provide a guide to practitioners on how to deal with the complexities inherent in counseling, any ethical system based on values like multiculturalism and social justice leads to an incoherent mess because those are poorly defined relativistic concepts.

While there are many points of fault in the code, these issues stick out as critical misfires:

1. Lack of clear priorities.

2. Social justice advocacy undermines therapist neutrality and client autonomy

3. It cripples therapist integrity and agency

4. Offers no metric to weigh benefits against harms

5. A multicultural worldview ignores reality and prescribes relativism.

6. The Codes' role to support the mission of the ACA is a conflict of interest.

Uncovering the Evidence in Plain Sight

These contradictions aren’t hidden. They’re baked into the ACA’s so-called ‘core values,’ principles, and purpose—foundational language that reveals a deeper agenda when examined closely. Let’s take a look. This is what it takes for core values: 

1. enhancing human development throughout the life span; 

2. honoring diversity and embracing a multicultural approach in support of the worth, dignity, potential, and uniqueness of people within their social and cultural contexts;

3. promoting social justice;

4. safeguarding the integrity of the counselor-client relationship; and

5. practicing in a competent and ethical manner.

Those core values are supposed to provide a conceptual basis for what it is calling principles as seen here: 

• autonomy, or fostering the right to control the direction of one’s life;

• nonmaleficence, or avoiding actions that cause harm;

• beneficence, or working for the good of the individual and society by promoting mental health and well-being;

• justice, or treating individuals equitably and fostering fairness and equality;

• fidelity, or honoring commitments and keeping promises, including fulfilling one’s responsibilities of trust in professional relationships; and

• veracity, or dealing truthfully with individuals with whom counselors come into professional contact.

Beyond the confusion between values and principles, this arrangement lacks clear priorities.

A more clear structure would communicate hierarchy, for example, do no harm or nonmaleficence is a traditional top priority in medicine. Veracity or autonomy would make for strong second priorities that would re-enforce the importance of client well-being and trust, and so on creating a strong sense of which values require the most emphasis to produce ethical decisions.

The wheels come off when trying to determine where to fit in promoting social justice, honoring diversity, and embracing multiculturalism, or any of the so-called “core professional values,” which are laid out more like directives. 

An example of how to structure values and principles for clarity would look like this. If the value was honesty, the principle might be–never tell lies or deceive others.

The Code’s Concerning Purpose

Looking at the purpose of the Code offers no help either, if anything it raises more alarms. The primary goal of any ethical code should be to create a framework for ethical decision-making with the individual client’s interests front and center. While the first main purpose mostly covers that obvious goal, that mission is preceded by stating the code sets forth ethical obligations of ACA members. As you can see: 

The ACA Code of Ethics serves six main purposes:

1.  The Code sets forth the ethical obligations of ACA members and provides guidance intended to inform the ethical practice of professional counselors.

Obligation is an interesting word choice, particularly when paired with ideals like multiculturalism and social justice, and in the context of directives that demand counselors set aside their personal values and beliefs.

2. The Code identifies ethical considerations relevant to professional counselors and counselors-in-training.

3. The Code enables the association to clarify for current and prospective members, and for those served by members, the nature of the ethical responsibilities held in common by its members.

While purpose number two presents no problems, purpose three reveals that the code functions as a tool for the ACA to dictate its moral framework to members and the public. 

4. The Code serves as an ethical guide designed to assist members in constructing a course of action that best serves those utilizing counseling services and establishes expectations of conduct with a primary emphasis on the role of the professional counselor.

5. The Code helps to support the mission of ACA.

Purpose four is redundant, but purpose five is chilling. As discussed in Part 1, the mission statement of the ACA has an obvious collectivist call to action. Its mission is to enhance society, not individual client well-being. 

An ethical code should prioritize protecting clients. However, the ACA’s mission prioritizes ‘enhancing society’—a collectivist goal that often runs counter to individual well-being. This isn’t just an oversight. It’s a shift from client welfare to ideological activism. No wonder Jacob was having such a hard time!

Whether intentional or not, this creates an inherent conflict and a conflict of interest. That’s nothing new for this association.

As an organization the ACA has written standards to racially profile both clients and counselors, it has created specifications for transgender-affirming care rushing medicalization, and publishes articles that promote bigotry and racism.

The ACA has a long history of manipulating the profession to advance a worldview that divides people by groups, particularly race, under the guise of helping.

6. The standards contained in this Code serve as the basis for processing inquiries and ethics complaints concerning ACA members.

This last purpose of the code thrusts home that this document will be the standard by which ACA members are judged and complaints are managed. It’s worth noting that many trainees are forced to become ACA members while in grad school as a way to get insurance to cover professional liability during their training, thus becoming subject to this code’s obligations.

The ACA’s ethical code doesn’t guide ethical practice—it dictates ideological compliance. In Part 3, we’ll examine how it stifles therapist autonomy, discourages critical thinking, and creates a system where nearly any agenda can be justified under the guise of ‘ethics.’

Further Reading

How Good People Make Tough Choices by Rushworth Kidder

Practical Ethics by Peter Singer

Help Keep This Conversation Going!

• Share this post on social media–it costs nothing but helps a lot. 

• Want more perks? Subscribe to get full access to the article archive. 

• Become a Paid Subscriber to get video and chatroom access.

Support from readers like you keeps this project alive!

Diogenes in Exile is reader-supported. If you find value in this work, please consider becoming a pledging/paid subscriber, donating to my GiveSendgo, or buying Thought Criminal merch. I’m putting everything on the line to bring this to you because I think it is just that important, but if you can, I need your help to keep this mission alive.

Already a Premium subscriber? Share your thoughts in the chat room.

About

Diogenes in Exile began after I returned to grad school to pursue a Clinical Mental Health Counseling master’s degree at the University of Tennessee. What I encountered, however, was a program deeply entrenched in Critical Theories ideology. During my time there, I experienced significant resistance, particularly for my Buddhist practice, which was labeled as invalidating to other identities. After careful reflection, I chose to leave the program, believing the curriculum being taught would ultimately harm clients and lead to unethical practices in the field.

Since then, I’ve dedicated myself to investigating, writing, and speaking out about the troubling direction of psychology, higher education, and other institutions that seem to have lost their way. When I’m not working on these issues, you’ll find me in the garden, creating art, walking my dog, or guiding my kids toward adulthood.

You can also find my work at Minding the Campus