�ֲ���ý

• A counseling or counselor education program may have one team of doctoral degree students and one team of master's degree students in the competition.
• Doctoral degree and master's degree teams will be judged separately. Teams must be made up of students in the same level of a degree program. This is not a mixed-level competition.
• Counseling or counselor education programs with separate and distinct campuses may have a doctoral degree team representing each campus. Separate and distinct campuses are considered those that have stand-alone programs.
• A single counseling or counselor education program that has multiple satellite campuses is not eligible for multiple doctoral degree team submissions. (These campuses would have one dedicated representative in an accreditation process, representing the multiple satellite campuses.) 

• Teams are limited to a minimum of three and a maximum of four students. 

• Each team must have a faculty member who will serve as an administrative contact person for the counseling or counselor education program.
• The role of the faculty contact person is to represent the team’s counseling or counselor education program only.
• Faculty members should not act as consultants in the awards competition.
• The faculty member’s email address must be their own, not that of a student. 

1. Identification of the Dilemma: The team clearly identified the ethical dilemma(s) including conflicting factors, dimensions and variables included in the professional quandary. The dilemma was described in relationship to ethical standards, laws and professional ideas or aspirations.
2. Proposed Ethical Action: The proposed action the team would take including having: (a) clearly articulated professional interventions; (b) persuasive justification for proposed action; and (c) a description of the professionally recognized decision-making model or process used to arrive at decisions.
3. Use of the �ֲ���ýCode of Ethics: The team cited appropriate sections of the �ֲ���ýCode of Ethics (2014) and, if appropriate, other ethical guidelines considered in rendering their arguments. In addition, the team provided a clear rationale regarding selected sections of the 2014 �ֲ���ýCode of Ethics and any other ethical guidelines cited.
4. Use of the Proposed Model: The steps of the group's decision-making model were clearly followed and skillfully applied to the case.
5. Overall: A thorough yet concise paper addressing details of the case and (a) the case study including proper citation of sources throughout the paper using the Publication manual of the American Psychological Association 7th edition for the reference list; (b) the paper was well organized and written, and information was presented clearly and concisely; (c) the paper cited the appropriate scholarly literature relevant to solving the ethical dilemma; and (d) the paper is no longer than 10 pages. 

Bailey, a licensed professional counselor, is a doctoral-level graduate student in a counselor education and supervision program. A strong student in the program, Bailey is deeply involved in student leadership within the program’s honor society and often participates in collaborative work with faculty. Since Bailey often demonstrates effective teaching and clinical skills, the offer to independently teach a master’s level counseling skills class to help meet the requirements for doctoral internship was offered.

Jordan is a student in the master’s level clinical mental health program at the same school. Jordan has also expressed interest in student leadership opportunities and has become involved in programmatic events and professional growth opportunities.

Six months prior, Jordan and Bailey were involved in a romantic relationship. Although the relationship began before Jordan enrolled in the counseling program, it ended shortly after. They both currently serve in student leadership together and recently learned that Bailey would be Jordan’s instructor for Counseling Skills.

While role-playing in the skills course, Jordan receives generally positive feedback from Bailey. On one video-based assignment, Bailey offers Jordan feedback on ways to strengthen skills, and makes a remark stating, “I hope you can change these skills quicker than you were willing to change your behavior in our relationship.” Jordan becomes upset with the feedback from Bailey and accuses Bailey of personal motives for the critique. Jordan sends Bailey a message “You better fix my grade or you’ll be sorry!”.

Bailey receives a calendar request from the faculty advisor, Dr. Smith, requesting to meet with a note referencing the comment from the assignment that Bailey made. Bailey becomes fearful of what the meeting may entail, and immediately messages Jordan, stating, “What did you do?”