Ken Oliver

Let me start this web log entry by stating that “I am NOT a traditionalist!” I’m still fairly young. Though my rapidly receding hairline, and that stubborn gray hair below my right ear may have you believing otherwise. I don’t believe in the curative properties of nostalgia nor do I yearn for a return to the “good old days” of counseling. In fact, in many respects, I think the counseling profession has been rather slow to adapt to the ever-changing world. This does not seem to be the case, however, with online counseling degree programs. The profession seems to be fairly progressive in its willingness to embrace the online counseling degree as a valid, effective means of counselor preparation. Don’t believe me? Let’s take a second to explore my conclusion.

Just type “online counseling program” into your favorite search engine and you’ll find a multitude of programs, several accredited by CACREP, at both the master’s and doctoral level. Now, before you assume that I have a problem with this, just chill. See, I still use words like “chill”. I’m still cool, right? Anyway, my concern isn’t that we have online counseling degree programs, but rather what types of online degree programs do we have? And what does having these programs say about our profession as a whole?

Surprisingly, the state in which I’m licensed, Missouri (“Missourah” for the locals) speaks directly to the legitimacy of online coursework in its state licensure statutes. It basically mandates that online courses have to demonstrate that students have a “means of simultaneously interacting with the course instructor visually and verbally during the transmission of course information” (20 CSR 2095-2.010 C.1). Personally, I have no problem with a course in which students and faculty are able to see one and hear one another in real-time. To me this isn’t much different than the classroom and it saves everyone gas money! Yet, I wonder if all online counseling programs in all states are held to this same standard.

Additionally, the 2009 version of CACREP’s standards mandates experiential learning objectives for the group counseling course. The standards state that students have to engage in a group experience for a “minimum of 10 clock hours” during an academic term. Now, I assume that this requirement can be met in a variety of ways. However, I doubt if any involve sitting around a computer screen.

To speak to my second question above, I’ll make a very concrete, fundamental argument. We already have, in counseling, an issue demonstrating the legitimacy of our profession. Much of our difficulty is not due to the notion that we don’t do good work, but rather that we deal with the ambiguity of constructs that are not well defined, roots of behavior that are not well understood, and a perceived professional reluctance to adhere to the scientist-practitioner model to promote our efficacy. Again, I’m not a traditionalist. I’m not suggesting that empirical evidence is the only way to show our worth. I’m saying that we need to do more to show our worth. Consequently, I question if graduating from an online program adds to the “watering down” of our profession?

By the way, as I’m writing this entry I’m simultaneously conducting a search for accredited online medical degrees and law degrees, just to see how they are trending. The American Bar Association, the accrediting body for law degree programs, explicitly states “Earning an education completely via distance education may drastically limit your ability to sit for the bar in many states,” and states that there are currently no ABA approved programs that offer the JD degree completely via distance education. As far as medical programs, I couldn’t find any online.

Listen, I’m not “hating” on online counseling programs. If done correctly, I think they only add to our ability to provide effective training to a larger pool of prospective counselors. I’m simply trying to raise the question of legitimacy as it relates to professional identity. Just like with any new relationship, I just want to know, “are we moving too fast?” I’m just saying, maybe we should get to know online programs before we jump and marry them. Just because a study supports the utility of online programs, it doesn’t mean it translates well to our profession.

In closing, I am NOT a traditionalist! I’m not suggesting that people trained in traditional programs are any more competent than those trained in online programs. I don’t know the answer to that question, nor do I wish to speculate. I’m just the messenger here. Just the cool, hip, still sort of young, did I mention cool messenger. Did you catch the “hating” reference? I still got it!

Kenneth Oliver is a counselor in Missouri and an assistant professor at Quincy University in Illinois.

Ken Oliver

There’s no doubt that many of you have heard about Dr. Laura Schlessinger’s unfortunate rant in which she repeatedly used racial epithets while interacting with a caller. Dr. Laura, the infamous talk-radio personality, subsequently issued an apology for using the word. Her apology, which was viewed suspiciously by many, was followed by a defiant touting of her First Amendment right to free speech and an announcement that she would be ending her longstanding radio show—well, at least in its current format. Barring the fact that the First Amendment has nothing to do with this case (i.e., since the government did nothing to silence the radio host), and that Dr. Laura seemed to have her own agenda with the N-word, and that her PhD is in Physiology, I don’t really have a problem with her. Wait, wait… let me explain why.

Dr. Laura is a shock-jock. Similar to Howard Stern or Rush Limbaugh, she is an entertainer. It is reckless and irresponsible the amount of moral authority we ascribe to entertainers simply because they are commonplace on the airwaves. Do you really think these characters really believe most of the things they say? C’monnnn. Theirs is a business, first and foremost. Controversy, as long as it isn’t too extreme, rules the day in the world of a shock-jock. I’ll say it again…I don’t really have a problem with her.

In fact, I would rather her use the word in my presence, than behind my back. Hey, she believed she was making an intelligent, well-informed argument that would somehow bring the caller to some cathartic realization of her own over-reaction in the presence of the word. I get it. Problem was, it obviously wasn’t all that well-informed or poignant an argument to begin with. But, I digress. I don’t really have a problem with her…remember?

And what about the millions of callers who believe that having a physiologist berate them over the phone will somehow make them feel better—more empowered even—what about them? They aren’t to blame for wanting help. Misguided…misinformed…mistaken…maybe…but, certainly not to blame for yearning for someone to help them. We are constantly inundated with information about treatments offering a quick fix. If you truly could take a pill or make a 5-minute phone call to end all of your ailments, you would try it too. Well, most of you would. So, in that sense, I don’t have a problem with her for trying to capitalize on the insecurities of people. These are primarily adult callers we’re referring to (i.e., I’ve heard children call in over the years as well). She’s just trying to make a buck. I’m not disrespecting her “hustle.” Remember, I don’t really have a problem with HER.

No, my problem is with YOU. Where are you mental health professionals in this discussion? You do realize that Dr. Laura, Dr. Phil, Mr. Mackey from South Park, and Dr. Katz (i.e., the cartoon therapist) all represent you in the eyes of the public. To the uninformed, they do what you do. Therefore, when they do something that reflects poorly on your profession (I was being facetious with Mr. Mackey and Dr. Katz), it also reflects poorly on you. Where is your voice in all of this? I hate to break it to you counselors, but silence and inaction won’t make these things go away. For example, do these shows have disclaimers (i.e., warnings that the show is for entertainment purposes only and not meant to treat, diagnose, etc.)? I don’t know… maybe I just need to stick to doing my Mr. Mackey impressions.

Kenneth Oliver is a counselor in Missouri and an assistant professor at Quincy University in Illinois.

Ken Oliver

What is the etiology of the psychological distress we purport to treat? Some of you keen counseling philosophers have already become suspicious of my question, so I’ll ask it again in its most common form! What is the cause of mental “illness”? Now, if you’re feeling that sinking sensation in the pit of your stomach, don’t worry! I’m not going to ask you to examine your own philosophy regarding the nature versus nurture debate. I wouldn’t do that to you. Instead, my question intends to go beyond, at least professionally, the nature/nurture debate to explore how the counseling profession benefits from the controversy surrounding the cause of issues that bring people to our care. My task hereafter is to convince you that the counseling profession gains legitimacy as a result of the quest to find a biological etiology for mental illness.

Before I proceed with convincing you of this benefit to the profession, I find it necessary to disclose my existential/feminist/multicultural slant, just in case you aren’t a fan of satire. (Disclaimer: in other words, what follows is meant to be satirical in nature and does not represent the true beliefs of the blogger)
My argument is clearly delineated in five points as follows:
1. The concept of mental illness or disease (e.g., alcoholism) brings us comfort in knowing that we, ultimately, are not responsible for our condition
2. Consequently, mental illness or disease in others is more excusable
3. Positron emission tomography (PET) scans allow researchers to explore differences between individuals based on the responses of neurotransmitters in the brain, thus proving the cause of mental illness as being rooted in biological flaw. This also serves to disprove environmental etiology, not because we know which actually causes the other, but because we can see proof of the biological side. So, there you go!
4. The idea that illnesses like mood disorders and anxiety disorders can be caused by environmental stressors doesn’t explain why these disorders are effectively treated with medication.
5. Counseling, as a profession, doesn’t have a lot of support for efficacy in treatment. Also, research supports the notion that effectiveness has little to do with type of treatment (Seligman, 1995). Without a biological etiology for mental illness, what are we effectively saying about the society in which we live?
a. That people learn to cope with life stressors ineffectively?
b. That we are chronically stressed, which leads to a myriad of psychological distress?
c. That the medical model seeks to treat symptoms rather than causes?
C’mon…Really? Our profession is financially justified in treating things for which others have no control. Conversely, should my “third party provider” really be expected to help me cover the cost of “treatment” for relationship issues? Get serious! Furthermore, “counselor” isn’t even a protected term. The person who walks my dog is a “counselor.” So are my barber, my lawyer, and every bartender I’ve ever met.

Counselors want it both ways; they want to function as servants for the status quo in their promotion of normality and, with this new social justice thing, work to change the very social structure they strive to protect. One hand’s fighting the other! Maybe, just maybe, if there was a clear function or set of objectives for the counseling profession, they wouldn’t need to latch on to biological causes of mental illness. Right now, however, counselors are analogous to that kid from your neighborhood who never really knew he was “tagging along.” Remember him? That kid? Professionally, in many respects, that’s you!

Listen “third wheel,” the sooner you realize that you need a biological basis of mental illness to legitimate your profession, and that treatment of non-biological problems is an effort in mysticism, the better off you will be.

Kenneth Oliver is a counselor in Missouri and an assistant professor at Quincy University in Illinois.

Ken Oliver

What does the term “counselor” mean to you? I don’t mean the technical or conceptual definition, but rather the connotation evoked when you hear the term. For some of you, hearing the term produces visions of helpers. For some, you may remember a guidance counselor from school or a mental health therapist that worked with you or someone you know. Now, for all of you social constructivists and phenomenologists who believe that connotative meaning ultimately overrules that which is demonstrative, you may want to stop reading here…

No, this entry is for you pragmatists who see the need for a concrete definition for counseling. The profession needs more uniformity in how it defines counseling. Instead, as a profession we are more akin to Bubba’s description of the varieties of shrimp in the movie Forrest Gump. “Well, let’s see, we got school counselin, career counselin, clinical mental health counselin which used to be community counselin, and then there’s different counselin rules for different states.” Sorry for the obscure movie reference, but I needed a real “attention-grabber” to help reel you in. What better than Bubba from Forrest Gump?

Let me be clear. I am NOT proposing one definition of counseling to encompass all of these different types of counseling. Instead, I’m proposing that we need more clarity in the delineations between the various types. For a point of reference, let’s look at state licensure and certification laws in the states for which I am most familiar, Illinois and Missouri. In both states it is smarter for counseling students to choose the school counseling track over community counseling. This is due to the fact that the way the laws are written in both states, nothing prohibits a person with a school counseling degree from getting their licensure as a professional counselor. They may need to take a psychopathology course to fulfill the state licensure requirements, but no additional internships or practicum are necessary prior to them practicing as a professional counselor in a non-school setting. This practice must occur under the supervision of a master’s or doctoral level mental health clinician, but Illinois allows Licensed Social Workers to provide supervision to counselors as well. Now, I personally wouldn’t have a problem with LCSW’s providing supervision if LPC’s were allowed to do the same with their supervisees. But we are not!

Some of you might be saying, “c’mon Ken, why does that make it wiser to get a school counseling degree over focusing solely on your LPC?” Well, the reason is that school counselor certification boards in both states specify that an individual must complete a certain amount of hours of practicum and internship within a school setting. This means that a person who chooses the community route will need to take additional coursework and complete additional internships in school settings in order to be certified. In other words, school counseling certification boards have made a clear distinction between school counseling and other non-school counseling modalities. They are suggesting that a counselor needs to have the experience in a school setting before becoming certified. Professional counseling licensure boards in both states, on the other hand, seem to be content with allowing trainees to bypass this training in a community mental health setting.

I have a wealth of clinical experience as a community mental health counselor. However, if I were asked to go into a school to do “school counseling,” I doubt that I would be very effective. Maybe though, just maybe, I’d get the hang of it like the Governor of California in Kindergarten Cop. My bad, I couldn’t resist.

Kenneth Oliver is a counselor in Missouri and an assistant professor at Quincy University in Illinois.

Ken Oliver

I’ve questioned whether or not to write about this topic for some time now. It’s not that the topic is particularly controversial in itself, but rather that the issue is not often discussed by a…gasp…man! I suppose I’ll start the discussion in the same manner as I do in my Human Growth and Development course; with a question. How old were you when you learned that women were inferior?

Now, as you (i.e., well, some of you) feel your stomach tightening or fists clinching, realize that I pose this question to my classes with a “matter of fact” tone and a tremendously sober expression on my face. Sometimes I have to follow with, “Not a rhetorical question; I actually expect a response.” Then I usually proceed to do a “round” until all students have uttered something aloud.

My reason for phrasing the question this way is based on a fairly simple premise. Both women and men are conditioned at a disturbingly early age to recognize women as inferior. In other words, society views women as being “less than”, therefore when little girls learn that they are destined to become women, there is an automatic association with being “less than” their male counterparts. Don’t blame me…I’m just the messenger. We can’t blame Freud or Erikson either for concocting their developmental theories. They were just explaining social norms that were already in place. No, if anyone is to blame, it’s you. Well, I guess you can blame me too! I’m as much a part of the problem as you are.

Most lifespan development theories suggest that somewhere around toddlerhood, girls and boys begin to understand differences in gender role expectations. Developmentally, it is typically not a big deal in families for little girls to be envious of boy-related gender roles (i.e., tomboy), particularly since they make the realization that boys are thought of more positively by the world. However, a little boy better not be envious of girl-related gender roles (i.e., playing with dolls or preferring pink to blue). One inference that can be drawn from this discrepancy is that society sees little boys acting “feminine” and asks, “Why would you throw away all that privilege?”

Some of my students respond to my initial inquiry by saying that they were never taught that women were inferior. I then try to get them to look at things through the lens of society at large rather than their own personal story. In other words, even if their parents told them that boys and girls were equal, at some point society told them that they are not.

How then does a counselor, knowing this, not perpetuate society’s view? For it is the view of society which dictates our understanding of normality or appropriateness regarding behavior. Are counselors simply to accept little girls’ belief in their inferiority as a normal part of development? Or maybe we should just tell them right then to get their time management skills and patience levels up. Get prepared now, little girl, you’ll be expected to do all the same things men do then clean up the mess after everyone. Any accomplishments you have will always come along with the lingering question about how YOU were able to achieve them. Do all of this with a smile, little girl, because you don’t want to be looked at as being too aggressive or direct. You know what we call those. Do all of this while being sure to have a few children and keep your husband happy, little girl, for that is the truest measure of your worth as a woman.

I’ll leave it there, as I tend to in class. This is where my female students usually sit with their eyes averted in disgust with the continued state of things. My male students usually sit with a partial grin as if to say, “Whose side are you on anyway?”

It’s okay if I’m breaking “man code” today. My daughter said so!

Kenneth Oliver is a counselor in Missouri and an assistant professor at Quincy University in Illinois.

Ken Oliver

I currently live in small, rural town in Missouri. Phewww, typing that was cathartic! The town is predominately made up of White, working class Protestants who, until the last presidential election, were tried and true democrats. The town recently renovated the local playhouse and currently shows a movie a few Saturdays a month. You know, one of those movies stuck in the “purgatory” between the theater and DVD release. But, I digress! Much to my delight, the leaders of the playhouse produced a comedy show this past weekend. They brought in a few comics from the St. Louis area and put on a very funny show. The comedy, as typical, was laced with misogynistic and racially insensitive humor that brought the audience to one belly laugh after another. It wasn’t until one comedian started to discuss the Obama presidency, however, that the air of discomfort and tension settled over the room. The comedian jokingly asked how many in the room voted for Obama. Not a peep!

This got me thinking about my own reaction to politics over the years. I used to claim to be apolitical when asked about a particular red/blue affiliation. It did me no good because I would still have to explain that no one group accurately reflects my ideas or positions. But in truth, I believe I just wanted to avoid the topic all together. Now, what does this have to do with counseling, you may ask? Well, counselors often attempt to portray a position of non-politics in their counseling. I’ll hear things from students like, “my beliefs on politics don’t matter; it’s all about what’s best for the client.” Such a dignified position to take! Erroneous, but dignified! Your socio-political views shape your beliefs about what is best for the client.

I take the position that one’s socio-political worldview shapes how they view human nature, the human condition, and the counseling perspective with which one will most closely align. Now, socio-political worldview encompasses much more than just liberal or conservative belief systems. However, let’s use this dichotomy to make the point. Let’s explore the concept of appropriate or normal behavior; something our profession examines on a consistent basis.

I’ll start with the premise that conservative thinkers tend to have more concrete positions on what constitutes moral behavior. Therefore concepts like right and wrong, good and evil, or normal and pathological take on a common meaning and may seem more obvious to a conservative thinker. Liberal thinkers, on the other hand, tend to have more abstraction in their beliefs about what constitutes right, good, and normality. If this holds true, then a conservative-thinking counselor would be more likely to see pathology when thoughts or behaviors do not match up with the counselor’s concrete views of normality. The liberal thinker, on the other hand, would be more inclined to let many things that might be viewed by many in society to be abnormal to pass as a quirk or idiosyncratic tendency. Therefore, even with “clear” diagnostic criteria, one’s politic will undoubtedly influence her or his view of normal human tendency.

But, it’s not all that simple to distinguish between the two. I mean this town has voted democrat in every election since I’ve been here by over a 70% margin except in the last presidential race. Maybe socio-political worldview doesn’t have as much to do with counseling as I previously thought. It obviously has nothing to do with elections!

Kenneth Oliver is a counselor in Missouri and an assistant professor at Quincy University in Illinois.

Ken Oliver

I learned a long time ago not to offer information about what I do for a living. In fact, nowadays I find myself giving as little information as possible when asked. To paint the picture, I’ve been a Licensed Professional Counselor since the ripe old age of 22. Now that you’re done gasping, I’ll continue. You could only imagine the puzzled looks I received when I would proudly respond to that inevitable question, “So, what do you do?” The nonverbal reaction usually spoke much louder than the words that would follow. YOU? A COUNSELOR? Hmm!

I would, and still do, often walk away questioning the reason for the response. As I’ve aged, I’ve found myself more inclined to ask outright or make comments about the reaction. “You seem surprised by that,” I’ll sometimes say. But then I question if I’m being arrogant or vindictive.

This societal appraisal of what a counselor is supposed to look like has led me to question what I can do to look more like the “quintessential” counselor. Maybe I should wear more cardigans. I’m not really a fan of loafers. Don’t smoke, so a pipe is out of the question!

Maybe nothing I do will help….you know, fit the mold. Instead, maybe the mold needs to change to include more people who look like me. Maybe that will help prevent situations from occurring such as my experience at one agency early on in my career. The short version is that I found my caseload full of Black clients, many of whom had been referred from other clinicians upon hearing of my employment with the agency. “Are these clients requesting me,” I asked the caseworker. “No, I just thought you would work better with them,” she explained. After explaining to my supervisor that I was not trained to just work with Black clients-in fact, just the opposite can be stated-I noticed my caseload starting to even out a bit. Maybe she was just helping me find my niche.

This, however, isn’t the only reason I’m inclined to downplay my profession though. Some people find it awkward to continue a conversation with me after my profession is disclosed. Others wish to garner my diagnostic impressions on the spot, but usually for a “friend” of course. Others seem so surprised by the revelation that they inquire about the obviously profound journey that got me to this field and out of a path toward drugs, crime, and whatever else they think young Black men do. But let me stop being vindictive.

Nowadays, I find myself trying to answer in a jovial fashion most of the time. When asked what I do, I might respond, “Oh, as little as I can.”

Kenneth Oliver is a counselor in Missouri and an assistant professor at Quincy University in Illinois.

Ken Oliver

As many of you may be well aware, a prominent counselor educator at a prestigious institution was recently accused of having sexual relationships with several current and former counseling students. Just “process” that sentence for a couple of seconds.

Now, unfortunately my first response was not of outrage or disgust, but rather of wonder about how much this actually occurs within academia and, more specifically, within the field of counselor education. The ACA code of ethics clearly states that within counselor education, “Sexual or romantic interactions or relationships with current students are prohibited.” But then, being my annoyingly inquisitive self, I wondered, “what in the world does ‘current’ mean?” Does it mean currently enrolled in a course that semester, or does it mean currently a student in the program, or does it mean students who have been enrolled but may be on hiatus? Well, maybe “clearly” isn’t the right word…maybe we need to polish this up a bit.

I remember in my undergraduate psychology program there was a professor who married a student whom I had been in several classes with. I also remember my discomfort with him snapping photos, waving, and displaying a prideful grin when she sat in the row in front of me a graduation. Even then, I remember questioning the power dynamics associated with their relationship. It was kind of creepy, and I have since questioned if that professor had interest or similar interactions with other students as well. Now, I’m not saying that two consenting adults cannot find love when one occupies the role of evaluator over the other. I am aware that this happens quite often in a variety of contexts. What I do wonder is should universities and, more specifically, counseling programs even prohibit such relationships? Or, better yet, should universities and counseling programs take a firm stand in prohibition of these relationships or should they simply follow the status quo?

I believe that counselor educators need to be held to a higher standard in this matter. We have, similar to counselors, a significant amount more access to those we serve than other professionals. Supervision can be a very intimate process that can potentially uncover a wealth of insecurities in the counselor-trainee, both personal and professional. Many classroom assignments are designed to have the trainee explore similar vulnerabilities and personal attributes in the attempt to promote self-awareness on one’s journey to become a counselor. It would be easy for counselor educators to use these details or attributes in order to manipulate the students we serve. This vulnerability is further compounded by the fact that counselor educators also serve as evaluators of student performance. This power, along with student vulnerability, in the hands of a counselor educator or counselor who is opportunistic is a dangerous tool.

Lastly, when discussing these types of power dynamics one must not come away with the impression that such abuses of power only occur regarding sexual relationships. Counselor education programs need to do a better job at discussing, and dealing with, various types of potential abuses by counselor educators. It says a great deal about our profession that these issues are not discussed more and with greater transparency. Also, if such abuses go under the radar in counselor education programs, it only makes sense that they also go unveiled with counselors in the fields as well. But shhh, hopefully I haven’t said too much…

Ken Oliver is a counselor in Missouri and an assistant professor at Quincy University in Illinois.em>