TPC-Journal-V1-Issue3

196 The Professional Counselor \ Volume 1, Issue 1 Internet delivery means institutions and programs are no longer thwarted by geography, nationality, enrollment restrictions, number of faculty, distance, language, culture, etc. Instead of strolling through ivy-covered campuses, students can simply walk across their living room to access a college or graduate education through numerous virtual options. Besides the University of Phoenix, several online universities such as Capella University (2011) and Walden University (2011) also offer CACREP-accredited counseling programs. Web-based education poses several challenges for the counseling profession: advising and mentoring are virtual, not in person; web programs are staffed primarily by part-time faculty; when courses are delivered across state and international borders, which state or nation’s rules apply? Technology occasionally fails, leaving students and faculty “virtually” stranded. Finally, given huge enrollments and reliance on adjuncts as opposed to full-time faculty, questions regarding for-profit institutions’ principal concern (e.g., profit over academic quality) are likely to be raised. There also is pressure for U.S. institutions to establish international partnerships to educate students on diverse cultures and plan for a global, interconnected world (American Council on Education, 2008). The Under Secretary of Commerce recently was quoted saying, “Education is one of our most valuable exports” (Sanchez, 2011). Numerous U.S. institutions have built satellite campuses in Europe, the Middle-East, Asia and Australia. Madeline Green, Vice President for the American Council on Education’s International Initiatives, along with her colleagues, opined current international initiatives are insufficient and pressed further: “Every institution needs to pay attention to internationalization if it is to prepare students for the multicultural and global society of today and tomorrow” (American Council on Education, 2008, p. 2). Even non-elite institutions have heeded Green’s message. A job advertisement in a recent edition of The Chronicle of Higher Education (Chronicle Careers, 2010) revealed that Troy University in rural Alabama has locations in 15 states and 14 countries. The counseling profession also has begun to heed the call for globalization. Edith Cowen University in Perth, Western Australia, offers an off-shore counseling program in Singapore (Edith Cowen University, 2011) and California State University-Fullerton offers a joint counseling doctoral program with the University of New England in Australia (J. Kottler, personal communication, July 23, 2010). International partnerships offer numerous advantages. For example, perhaps a program in New York doesn’t offer a specialty course in trauma counseling, but a cooperating institution in New Zealand does. In this scenario, students could access the missing course via the Internet. Furthermore, students could travel to, say, Bhutan for an internship, profoundly enhancing a student’s multicultural experience. International partnerships also pose challenges for accrediting organizations such as CACREP (e.g., creating global, unifying standards), sponsoring institutions (e.g., differing guidelines), credentialing boards (e.g., licensure and certification bodies), faculty (e.g., full vs. part-time), ethical codes (e.g., cultural variations), and the future direction of the counseling profession (from Euro-American to an international focus). CACREP’s response was to create the International Registry of Counsellor Education Programs (IRCEP) in 2008 (IRCEP, 2011). IRCEP is not a credentialing body like CACREP, but a branch of CACREP designed to empower international counselor education programs appropriate to their country (IRCEP, 2011). IRCEP represents CACREP’s recognition that a uniform accreditation credential may not be realistic given the wide variation in global social and cultural norms. Widely varying social and cultural norms inherent in the emerging global counseling movement also pose numerous challenges for the profession. Western counseling organizations have taken a social justice stance in promoting multiculturalism, gender equality, freedom of and from religion, and pluralism for sexual minorities in their various codes of ethics. ACA’s support in a high-profile court case involving the Eastern Michigan University counseling program and a conservative Christian dismissed from the program for refusing to counsel a gay client is a notable example of advocacy (Shallcross, 2011. “The EMU ruling upheld the ideals of the profession,” (Kaplan, 2011, p. 33). Such advocacy is commendable, especially as culturally relevant counseling practice is imperative in a global age (Arthur & Pedersen, 2008; Sue & Sundberg, 1996). Nevertheless, even within segments of Western civilization, issues of ethnicity, gender, religion and sexual orientation often form contentious points of debate. Though tensions can run high, Western academia offers a forum for discussing controversial issues. But what happens when constructivist, post-modern, pluralistic- oriented counselor education programs are offered in countries where discrimination plays a pivotal role? Saudi Arabia, for example, is an absolute monarchy that prohibits men and women from sharing the same classroom, restricts women’s movement outside the home, prohibits women from divorcing their husbands and provides no legal protection against domestic abuse. Furthermore, homosexuality and a Saudi’s practice of a religion other than Islam are potentially punishable by death (Saudi Arabia Guide, 2011). How will a Western social justice-oriented counseling profession address such restrictions on gender roles, religious identity, and sexual orientation in restrictive societies? Equally problematic, how will the counseling profession advocate equality without, ironically, appearing culturally insensitive in societies with