From Inside Higher Ed:
While enrolled at Eastern Illinois, Manges says she saw a private counselor off campus to deal with her diagnosis of PTSD — a result of the sexual abuse she experienced from 1999 through 2000, when someone she knew not only abused her but also collected money from other men who did the same.
She was sitting in French history class September 5 when she could feel a flashback coming. Trying to leave but unable to exit the room in time, she collapsed before reaching the hallway.
“I don’t remember what happened because I was disassociating, but what witnesses said, what my professor said, is that I started sobbing uncontrollably, shouting, screaming. I was unresponsive; I was just lying on the floor,” Manges says. […]
In a letter to Manges dated September 17, Eastern Illinois’ assistant director of judicial affairs writes that given Manges’ admission that she violated the two code of conduct standards prohibiting disruptive behavior during the September 5 “incident” (in other words, the in-class flashback), and “the seriousness with which the board viewed this incident, it is their recommendation that you be suspended from the university, effective immediately, for a minimum of an academic year through the Spring Semester, 2008, during which you would be prohibited from being on the campus without prior permission of the vice president for student affairs.” […]
While what Manges says happened at Eastern Illinois may not be common, nor are such experiences uncommon, says Karen Bower, a senior staff attorney at the Judge David L. Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law. Bower says she routinely (more than once a month) gets calls from students who are forced to leave college for mental health reasons. […]
“We have urged that schools not use disciplinary action for behavior that’s a result of mental illness,” Bower says — echoing Professor Smith’s sentiment that a judicial board hearing didn’t seem like an appropriate venue for addressing his student’s situation. […]
“I think they think it’s objective, but discrimination based on conduct that’s the result of disability is the same as discrimination based on disability,” Bower says. “The use of the disciplinary system as a whole is really a way of removing students from an environment instead of finding out what kinds of supports and services they need to stay in school and be successful.”
“The use of the disciplinary system as a whole is really a way of removing students from an environment instead of finding out what kinds of supports and services they need to stay in school and be successful.”
Untrue! Not as a whole. I had four (non-violent) psychotic events during one semester, and I also had to go before the judicial board of the disciplinary system. After ascertaining the facts, the board’s first order of business was asking about the support I would need to continue. No word about removal was ever dropped. NONE!
I think the more likely state of affairs is that at most schools, the disciplinary system is the only available means of determining what happened and what should happen for any given event. Any other mode would have to be ad hoc.
Just to play devils advocate here… what if someone’s mental illness threatens another students safety (ie- when I suffer a flashback I rage uncontrollably and throw heavy objects)?
Which persons rights win in that scenario?
I was put on probation at my college and kicked out of college housing because I had an eating disorder. I was seeing a psychiatrist and counselor and even agreed to see a college counselor, but they still decided it would be better to take action against me. When I had a bad reaction to sleeping pills (Ambien, which has been proven to cause sleepwalking and amnesia) and some roommates complained to the Dean’s Office that I was acting strange, but I couldn’t remember any of the events that they were complaining of (amnesia, anybody?), I was punished again. I was also turned away from the college counseling center when I tried to get help and told that all I needed was to go home and take a nap.
Wookie, no one is saying that students who have a habit of physically attacking other students should be allowed to continued attending classes (regardless of their mental health). But that has absolutely nothing to do with this case.
The university’s statement is wonderfully condescending, as well: “Since we’re in such a rural area and some of our services are limited, we realize this may not be the best environment to really serve all students…”
Manges wasn’t competent enough to decide whether or not she needed to withdraw from school, apparently.
I wouldn’t be surprised if this decision was the exact *opposite* of beneficial to her mental health. I can only imagine how frustrated and angry I would be in her situation.
Thank you for posting this. I’m a mentally ill college student in VIRGINIA of all places, and we crazies have lived in a very deep kind of fear of this for a long time. Disciplinary action for symptoms of mental illness is par for the course, and unfortunately in the wake of the Tech shooting, I’ve been advised (by a federal disabilities advocate, mind you) to stay as far as possible from the school counseling center and clinic. I wish they would realize how much they are hurting the kids who get kicked out, and those who never get proper help for fear of getting kicked out. So many advances in combating stigma have been made recently in the general population, yet universities are dragging culture back several decades.
Not to be completely insensitive, but if a mental illness arises to the level of a person disassociating in class and freaking out, isn’t it fairly obvious that the person isn’t going to be able to function in a university environment?
My most recent alma mater has a well-equipped office of disability services, that helps people with all kinds of problems (including mental ones) successfully attend the university. I applaud this, as a reasonable accommodation to the needs of a diverse student body.
But there are limits, because the university is a community and the other members of the community have needs and rights as well. If 19 people (or 29 or 129) can’t get through their class because 1 person is freaking out…well. It’s reasonable to give the one person the resources needed to determine what the problem is and fix it if possible. It’s also reasonable, if the problem can’t be fixed and is going to recur, to tell the 1 person that they’re going to have to do something else.
Using the disciplinary system seems weird, although as the first commenter noted, a school that has an affirming attitude towards these students can maybe do so in a supportive and appropriate way. It would seem to be more sensible, if less flexible, to define broadly the categories of problematic mental behavior that should reasonably bar a student from classroom participation in advance, so that students like Manges don’t get caught in the middle.
It would seem to be more sensible, if less flexible, to define broadly the categories of problematic mental behavior that should reasonably bar a student from classroom participation in advance, so that students like Manges don’t get caught in the middle.
Isn’t that like saying guilty until proven innocent?
But in the wake of things like Dawson and VT, should we as a community start being “proactive” about removing threats from possibly explosive situations? Personally, I think that method is ludicrous, likely to cause more harm than good, but the devils advocate says “but if it would save just one life…”
And I do know, Amp, that this particular incident was not about violence, but I’ve witnessed some violent PTSD-induced incidents, one of them involving firearms. So in a country where it is (to my understanding) legal to own and carry a firearm in public, why wouldn’t that be a concern? It might be illegal to sell someone a gun if they are nuts, but that doesnt’ seem to stop crazy people from ending up with guns.
How many times does violence have to occur before it is a “habit” that then finally removes you from participating in public classes? Where does the responsiblity break down between protecting the rights of the disabled and protecting the right of other students to participate in their academic careers without fear of violence.
Would someone who had a physical ailment that caused them to freak out in class be expelled from the university?
Does a panic attack count as freaking out? What about heart problems? What about the student who had no disability, but who yelled at me for a sustained length of time because I didn’t give him the grade he wanted?
What about a manic episode in a student who’s just being diagnosed? Or someone’s first, and harmless, schizophrenic hallucination? Is it legitimate to bar her from further school activities, even after she’s treated? Are people with mental illnesses so toxic that association with them must be contaminating?
I have studied with or taught excellent students with borderline personality disorder, ADHD, manic depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, cyclothymia, major depression, dysthmia, narcissistic personality disorder, panic disorder, and eating disorders, students who struggled with addiction, or who had struggled with addiction, who were suicidal or had been.
Many, many people have mental illnesses. Most are indistinguishable from the so-called normal population, during normal interaction. You don’t prevent violence by barring them at first sign, you prevent violence by providing help and keeping an eye on danger signs.
A PTSD flashback is not itself an indication of later violence. You are ignorant to suggest it is.
If you barred everyone who had a mental illness — or who had ever inconvenienced someone or abdicated an academic oblication because of a mental illness — from the halls of higher learning, I think you’d find the halls emptier than you’d prefer.
“Not to be completely insensitive, but if a mental illness arises to the level of a person disassociating in class and freaking out, isn’t it fairly obvious that the person isn’t going to be able to function in a university environment?”
Can we have some respect? It is not “freaking out”. It is a legitimate mental reaction that comes from this person’s history of being sexually abused and diagnosis of PTSD. How rude to call this flashback “freaking out” or any other word that indicates the person with mental illness might be a “freak” or their behavior “freakish”.
Daomadan, it was I who introduced that language and I should apologize for it. I have had the occasional mental reaction of the sort you describe and that’s what I call it in my own life. I was inappropriately casual and I’m sorry if it negatively impacted anyone.
I think there’s a consensus around two ideas: one, that people who pose a danger should (by some fair and virtuous process) be gently discouraged from attendance, and two, that people who pose no danger should be (by some fair and virtuous benevolence) aided and nurtured in their educational aspirations.
It occurs to me that perhaps people holding those ideas decided to use disciplinary processes to handle the larger question of safety because it eliminates so many of the potential discriminations that a broader policy might incur. If a student’s issue or disability or ANYTHING doesn’t pose a problem, then it doesn’t pose a problem and will never become an issue. Only in cases where a genuine incident occurs does the system get involved, and so the vast majority of socially conforming behavior is allowed to peaceably continue.
That might be the motivation, anyway. It still rings a little off for me.
In the individual case that the school in question was rather high-handed and brusque in its treatment of the student. It occurred to me that the school might not have the resources to extend to a student like Ms. Manges, but I looked at their website and they have loads of things that seem relevant to her situation:
* a Baptist campus outreach ministry
* an office of civil rights and diversity
* a counseling center
* a health service
* a student success center
* a women’s resource center
So where are all these people? It seems to me like the community including the university itself really let this woman down.
Wookie:
So in a country where it is (to my understanding) legal to own and carry a firearm in public,
It is legal across the U.S. to own firearms in general. Different juristictions (the Federal government as well as both states and municipalities) restrict the kinds of firearms you can own to a greater or lesser extent, and also restrict where, how and when you can carry them.
For example; in Illinois I have to get a permit from the State in the form of a special photo ID that I have to show in order to buy guns and ammunition. The Illinois State Police do a search; if I have no felony convictions nor any protection orders out against me, I’ll get the permit. Where I live it’s perfectly legal for me to buy a handgun, a rifle, or a shotgun, but the magazine for the shotgun can hold no more than 3 shells. However, should I move a few miles into Chicago, it would be illegal for me to retain ownership of the handgun unless I have a special permit for that, which I am unlikely to be able to get if I am a private citizen who does not work in law enforcement or private security. It would also be illegal for me to carry any of these guns on my person in either a concealed or open fashion in the city unless, again, I have a special permit (which, again, I am unlikely to get). If I was going hunting or to a target range, I would have to put the unloaded gun and the ammunition in separate areas of my vehicle, neither of which can be accessible to the driver while driving
However, there are other states, where there are no restrictions on owning any of these firearms unless I was a convicted felon. There is also no restrictons on carrying them in either a concealed or open fashion. Some of those states do not require permits; some do and place various restrictions on them and leave discretion as to whether or not to issue them to local law enforcement; and finally others are “shall issue” states, which means that the local authorities have no discretion and are compelled by state law to issue such a permit unless they can show that I fall under certain specific criteria (criminal record of a certain kind, etc.). Some of those states allow me to openly carry a gun anywhere; others restrict you from carrying them into particular kinds of buildings (churches, schools, government buildings are all examples). Others permit private owners to restrict you from carrying a gun into their building. So it varies from state to state.
To drag this back to being at least slightly on point; evidence of mental disease is generally a reason for which one’s right to gun ownership can be restricted or withheld. How that works varies from state to state.
Sorry about the length, but gun ownership in many other countries is a lot less usual than in the U.S. and, after speaking to people from other countries, there seems to be a lot of misconceptions about it out there.
Interestingly enough, there is a case coming before the Supreme Court of the U.S. challenging the right of the District of Columbia’s government (where our national capital is) to restrict people from owning handguns. If that is overturned, laws such as Chicago’s ban on handgun ownership (which the city’s Aldermen thoughtfully exempted themselves from) would be found unconstitutional.
They’re really tossing this woman to the wolves, aren’t they? I’m ashamed as a resident of Illinois whose taxes pay these people’s salaries to read this.
Will someone please explain to me why we’re discussing …
1. Violence associated with mental illness, when the woman in question clearly is not violent;
2. Gun control and mental illness, when there isn’t any mention of firearms anywhere in the story?
It seems to me that several people are trying to see the situation from the side of the administration. Come on. The people who suspended this student from school are in the wrong. Colleges are communities; they’re supposed to provide services to students beyond a simple education. The administrations of colleges bend over backwards to provide services to other disabled students – giving air-conditioned dorm rooms to asthmatic students, providing wheelchair ramps for those unable to climb stairs – why should this be any different?
This woman has a disability and the school refuses to help her, despite the fact that they have the resources. I don’t know why anyone would think that that isn’t wrong unless they are being blinded by the stigma associated with mental illness.
I would bet money on liability being an issue. Much of the reason that schools have started expelling people who are extremely depressed, or emotionally unstable, is that they fear the liability and potential PR nightmare from someone suiciding on campus, or getting violent.*
If you look at it from the perspective of this particular student, obviously that’s not a good thing. But if you look at it from the perspective of all the current and future students, it makes sense.
So when Madeline says:
I’m not blind to it, and I would like her to get help SOMEWHERE. But I’m not sure this decision is wrong.
Ideally this woman would receive help for her problem. But the school didn’t cause the problem, and it’s not clear why the school in particular should be required to bear the burden (real or probabilistic) of her treatment.
There are plenty of other people who have the resources (the U.S. government, the town, the state, etc.) And I don’t think that the general mission of a school or university is to provide mental assistance.
*This woman shows no signs of violence. But it doesn’t matter. Let’s say she’s just as likely to commit violence as any other random female student. That seems all well and good… but if she DOES get violent, then (unlike the other students) the school has to stand up in front of a jury and the national media and explain why they “failed to prevent this predictable tragedy” or something like that.
Her presence raises the school’s potential risk. True, much of that comes from the incorrect public perceptions regarding mental illness. But the school has to live, and make financial decisions, in this imperfect world.
“*This woman shows no signs of violence. But it doesn’t matter. Let’s say she’s just as likely to commit violence as any other random female student. ”
Then this is an example of appalling prejudice, isn’t it?
To put my remarks in context, if it were generally assumed that black students were all two seconds from violence — even if the data didn’t support it — then it would be appalling prejudice to suspend students for being black, just because people draw false correlations between blackness and violence.
If you were just letting us know about the liability, and not defending it, then I hear you — and I’m sorry for reacting so vehemently. On first read, I thought you were condoning that behavior, not just explaining why it happens.
Can we have some respect? It is not “freaking out”.
For my episodes, freakout is the best description going.
I don’t think the liability is good–it’s NOT accurate (thought I made that clear, sorry if not.)
But I also don’t think the university is obliged to ignore what the public (e.g. jurors, potential students, potential donors) thinks is true. The university can combat those perceptions by making statements, educating the public, etc. But if the university is permitted to act in its own self interest (and I think it is,) then it makes choices based on reality, and not idealism.
If I were advising the university, I’d tell them that they should talk to the doctors/medical professionals so that they could know what was going on. That would provide accurate information–I’ll assume for the sake of argument the exam would show this woman to be as non-violent and socially competent as they come.
But I would also tell them that, just as with any other student, shit happens. And that in the case of a “normal” student (e.g. one who isn’t on college’s radar screens because they aren’t noticed, which as we probably know says nothing about how dangerous they ACTUALLY are) the college will be minimally liable. ‘d tell them that if Joe Schmo kills himself in his dorm room without showing any prior signs of grief, or Jill Schmo goes on a shooting spree in the cafeteria, at least the college can say “hey, we had no idea–what were we reasonably supposed to do?”
And I’d tell them that this student–who is on a radar screen, and whose actions (while understandable and justified) can nonetheless be categorized as abnormal–brings high liability.
The college will have allowed a student to attend who was “known to be emotionally unstable” and who “had previously lost all control in a classroom” and so on.
In reality, this isn’t so bad. But that’s hard to prove outright; someone is ALWAYS going to second guess them. And that gets expensive, and breeds bad PR.
Some colleges might keep her anyway. It’s a choice they all make. But I can’t entirely fault a college who’s not willing to take the risk.
The fact that she is ON the radar screen is the problem!
That people without psych labels feel justified to put the labeled on radar screens and then place the burden of proof on them IS the problem.
To subject her to invasions of privacy, and “examinations” in order to satisfy psycho-bigots IS the problem, and the solution, whatever that is, also entirely self-generated by her accusers.
Fantabulists do not have the moral right to interfere with the lives of law-abiding people who make them uncomfortable, because they have no interpretive skills beyond that of “abnormal”, “emotionally unstable” and “the loss of ALL CONTROL in a classroom.” Really, all control? And then, I swear to god her skin took on an eerie, greenish glow…
The woman was reacting to something that was not happening in the world of consensual reality. How is that less crazy than all this talk about her potential for violence? Let’s tend our own gardens here, let her deal with her psychological issues, and you deal with yours, which are clearly on display. What’s wrong with her is inside your head, you can interrogate your imagination or continue to project, scapegoat, conjure up a dystopian fatal attraction witch-hunt and set the bitch on fire. Well yes, as Sailorman put it, that’s how we are, so it must be okay!
I don’t think Sailorman means that it’s okay. Clearly, it’s not okay. I think he’s just explaining why the system functions as it does, which means that the activist intercession has to happen at a different point along the chain. Rather than solely berating the university (though I happen to think the university needs berating), we also have to work at creating legislation to protect this woman, and at removing myths about imagined links between most kinds of mental illness and violence.
With respect, I ask you to tone down your rhetoric in deference to the civility guidelines here. I agree that the prejudice on display in the events of the article against people who are diagnosed with psychiatric labels is appalling, and I agree that there are facets of the thread which demonstrate that commenters are attached to the imagined link between most kinds of mental illness and violence. Your frustration is understandable, but please add a bit more honey to the vinegar.
Not to be completely insensitive, but if a mental illness arises to the level of a person disassociating in class and freaking out, isn’t it fairly obvious that the person isn’t going to be able to function in a university environment?
No. I did this during my undergraduate degree, and still graduated from Oxford with a first.
The options are not 1) attend full-time as if a non-disabled student or 2) be suspended for a year in the hopes of a full cure and attend full time next year.
She could attend by video conferencing, so that if she does have problems she can unobtrusively leave the class. She could have a permanent note-taker record the class so that she only needs attend on days she feels well enough to cope. She could have a personal tutor give her one on one classes so that they can be managed around her illness, not her illness managed around them – either as an alternative to the course, or as a suppliment. She could have a friend, or helper accompany her to her classes to offer support and comfort and to minimise distraction to other tutors. She could be given advance notes on what is going to be covered so that, if unwell, she can stay in her room and research the information in private. She could take exams in private rooms. She could be given extra time for exams in which she has flash-backs (with the extra time built in in advance, rather than dealt with at the time)
ALL of these have been done for me in the course of my university career (along with a sweep of other helpful, expensive, solutions to my other disabilities). All of which were paid for entirely by the UK goverment or by my college. Most of which were arranged entirely by my college so that I have additional stress over them.
Robert: Apology accepted and no harm done. I suffer from PTSD and hearing the word “freak” or “freaking out” applied to my legitimate disorder seems to imply hysteria and not that I am having a legitimate flashback episode.
tred: And for my episodes, as I stated above, I think the phrase “freaking out” seems to imply that my flashbacks or other episodes are the result of hysteria or some emotionality instead of a legitimate symptom of PTSD.
Daomadan: That’s ok. After all, I think the term “depression” is misleading. “Brainstorm” is much more accurate for what I experience (no, I didn’t originate brainstorm, I read it on another blog). It seems like many different conditions often get lumped under one name. Plus, everything seems to be on a spectrum, psychotics like me are non-violent (my condition just doesn’t go there) while sane people can commit the most savage of crimes.
It’s hard to judge Manges’ case with such scant information.
(I hope that made sense. I feel like I’m babbling.)
To comment at Sailorman – unfortunately, the long-term consquence of this sort of behavior by the school is that students who need help consciously decide not to get it because of the possible/probable reaction of the school. Nobody wants to get kicked out, so they will do their darndest to hide any problems. The upshot is it becomes more likely that there will be sudden breakout incidents – suicides, public breakdowns, you-name-it.
I speak from experience, as someone who went to school while suicidally depressed. I knew that if I didn’t end up killing myself, I would want my degree, so I hid my depression, and hid it thoroughly. My college came closer than they will ever know to having a dead body floating in their lake one morning.
Tapetum: Yes, that is true. I can’t recall where, but I seem to remember reading an article that expounded on what you said (and agreed with it). I’ll try to dig it out of my brain over the next few days and will post a link if I remember enough to find it.
I wonder if a solution could be to avoid residential programs. It seems IMO that the problem from the college’s perspective is basically one of liability. And a non-resident, part time, or night school student would probably provide far fewer opportunities for liability.
Obviously this is a “solution” which places most of the burden on the student, not the college. But so long as colleges have more applicants than they do spots, that burden shift is likely to continue.
[Deleted by Amp. Ron, with all due respect, your comment, unless accompanied by very solid empirical evidence, is stereotypical and offensive. –Amp]
Sailor, that’s not really a solution.
Get raped? You can no longer live in a residence at a college.
Mandolin, I’m pretty sure that most rape victims don’t find themselves as psychologically dysfunctional as the woman in this case. Wasn’t it you who was talking about how there is no one rape victim, and that everyone has a different reaction to such a traumatic event?
For students who pose some danger to other students – a small percentage of the mentally ill, and a vanishingly small percentage of rape victims if my experience of both groups can be trusted – nonresidential, distance, tele- or otherwise physically segregated accommodations might be the closest thing available to a win-win.
It is not necessary for all women to react to being raped in the same way for the way that we deal with some of those reactions to be sexist and prejudiced against rape victims.
This woman is being punished for her reaction to having been raped, based on no evidence of her having violent tendencies.
It is not necessary for all women to react to being raped in the same way for the way that we deal with some of those reactions to be sexist and prejudiced against rape victims.
No, but it is necessary for that to be the case, for your “get raped = can’t live in the dorm” formulation to make the slightest bit of sense. Nobody is saying “let’s make rape victims live off campus”; a couple of people have suggested “maybe people who are potentially violent could still get an education without being physically present”. Unless all rape victims are potentially violent, your statement is absurd.
This woman is being punished for her reaction to having been raped, based on no evidence of her having violent tendencies.
This woman is being punished for having a disruptive dissociative episode in class. As noted, it seems very clear that her particular school and community did not serve her well, and shame on them for that.
But the larger question of how schools should make accommodation for the needs and problems of students with mental challenges is perfectly valid. It isn’t going to go away.
The sentence as I constructed it was ambiguous, but it does not necessitate your interpretation.
Back on the actual topic: By playing into a false correlation between a breakdown and imagined violence, you and Sailorman are excusing discrimination against people who have any kind of mental disorder, and in this particular case are saying it’s allowable to punish a woman for her reaction to a traumatic event because of this false and damaging correlation.
Since women are the ones who are overwhelmingly subject to rape violence that could trigger PTSD, this policy drips with sexism.
By playing into a false correlation between a breakdown and imagined violence
Mandolin, I’m sorry. But this is simply wrong.
It isn’t a “false correlation”. I have had breakdowns. In them, I have been violent, or have had the potential for violence. I am very fortunate in that no one else has been harmed significantly by my actions.
Having a breakdown means breaking. When we break, shit happens. I wish it weren’t so, and that all breakdowns involved Hallmark moments, but they don’t.
I don’t know what the universal correlation rate is; I know for a fact that it is greater than zero. And so we have to order society in a way that deals with the potential, just as we try and deal with every other potential threat, as best we can with what we have.
Are the numbers of people who are potentially violent large? I doubt it very much. Is the pool so small that we can just disregard it as one of the risks of going about life on planet Earth? I doubt that, too. That’s my judgment; yours is of course your own to make. I don’t know where the rest of the world comes down on it.
From what I’ve read, everybody here arguing from a cautious approach is saying support, nurture, encourage – but protect. I am sure that there is some fringe thinker out there who is worthy of the suspicion and malevolent motives that you are implicitly ascribing to others, but I assure you that I am not. You are, of course, free to disbelieve that.
…you and Sailorman are excusing discrimination against people who have any kind of mental disorder
No. We are advocating sane and rational policies to ensure that every student is able to receive the fruits of their education, and that students who have problems which would interfere with that mission (for them or for others) should get help.
…and in this particular case are saying it’s allowable to punish a woman for her reaction to a traumatic event because of this false and damaging correlation.
I’m pretty sure that everybody here has condemned this, specific, decision. This is a terrible outcome. There is, literally, nobody in this space arguing that this particular outcome is justified.
Everybody hates what happened here, OK?
It just isn’t helpful to require that people be evil in order for it to be conceivable that they disagree with you. That’s the end path of the worst form of fundamentalism, and I know in my bones that those are not the values you espouse.
I’m not ascribing you malevolent intentions. I’m ascribing you ignorance which leads you to incorrect conclusions that have malevolent results.
I have had breakdowns. I have never been violent in the course of breakdowns. Not all breakdowns are equal.
Since you are arguing that breakdowns positively correlate to violence, you’re going to have to substantiate that, and you’re going to have to be able to prove it for the whole range of things that are considered “breakdowns.”
Robert, you are not a represntative sample.
There are people who have breakdowns who are not violent, and people who have breakdowns who are.
There are people who never have breakdowns who are not violent, and people who never have breakdowns who are nonetheless violent.
Your experience does not prove that violent people are significantly more common in the former group than in the latter group.
I think it makes more sense for schools to discriminate against people who have actually acted violently towards other students, regardless of mental health issues, in order to weed out violent students; than for schools to discriminate against people with mental health issues in order to weed out violent students.
I am not arguing for any specific policy regarding specific mental disorders; I am arguing for a general policy of public safety that is respectful of the civil right of students to an education and supportive of students who have additional needs.
If you would like to make the policy contingent on the correlation, I am willing to do that. What correlation level between a particular mental diagnosis and risk of violence do you wish to see, before the university can take common-sense steps to protect the entire community?
I am sorry to hear that you have had breakdowns and glad to know that there was never any violence. I am sure that is the case for most people, otherwise the universities would be awash in blood 24/7.
Robert, you are not a represntative sample…There are people who have breakdowns who are not violent, and people who have breakdowns who are…There are people who never have breakdowns who are not violent, and people who never have breakdowns who are nonetheless violent…Your experience does not prove that violent people are significantly more common in the former group than in the latter group.
You know what? You’re right. It doesn’t prove it.
So let’s let something else prove it. What are the correlations between mental disorders and violent behavior? Surely there is research. I bet the data is extremely interesting.
I haven’t got time to research it today – maybe this weekend – but here’s the first paper that came up in Google for “what is the correlation between mental disorders and violent behavior”. (Actually a summary of the paper is the #1 hit but I thought you might want the more detailed piece.)
I think it makes more sense for schools to discriminate against people who have actually acted violently towards other students, regardless of mental health issues, in order to weed out violent students; than for schools to discriminate against people with mental health issues in order to weed out violent students.
Absolutely.
I am not suggesting that schools discriminate against anyone. I am suggesting that they adopt behavioral standards that protect the community, and that “I have [mental condition] and so I could not help [violent act]” should not count as a defense. Maybe criminally, but not as to whether someone can be an unrestricted member of the university community.
Do you think that a-priori reasonable safety standards that end up disproportionately impacting people with particular mental conditions are evidence that the standards should be liberalized, or evidence that the mental condition itself should be viewed as dangerous?
(And before someone says that my non-excusal of violent acts for mental reasons means that I am against Ms. Manges or want to see rape victims suffer, please note that Ms. Manges did not commit any violent act.)
Oh. Also, I appreciate that I feel like sharing vulnerable information here, and I probably wouldn’t have been so snappish if I weren’t grumpy.
For the record, I’m cyclothymic. It’s never affected my university or job performance — except for a couple times when I’ve skipped class due to depression or once, when I was an undergraduate, asking for a few days extra on an assignment. When I break down, I tend to have panic attacks and cry a lot. Occasionally, I want to self-injure, which I have never done in a signficant way, and very occasionally, I have sustained and frightening suicidal ideation.
Since my problems are small and I’ve been dealing with them since I was a small child, I find them relatively easy to deal with in a professional sense, although I am aware that I’m fortunate because most of my coping strategies that have prevented me from ever having to deal with professional conflicts wouldn’t work for more severe and sustained problems.
I believe the figure for people with mental diagnoses that can be labeled is something around 30%. Barring us from most walks of life? From college halls? Well. It would be an appalling infringement on our ability to pursue our lives.
I had few undergraduate classes where I was not rated the best student in the course. I maintained a 4.0 GPA. I completed three theses, with honors, one in a field in which I took no lower division courses. In addition to completing my chosen major, I invented another one, and I received high honors in both, as well as college honors. I ran a literary magazine; I worked as a tutor for students who were having trouble passing their writing requirements; I worked on newspaper staffs in roles varying from staff writer to copy editor to art director; I wrote, performed, designed promotional materials for, and designed costumes for theatrical productions; I interned at a local publishing company; and at the same time, I began my freelance journalism career.
I may have breakdowns, but I’m fucking good at academia. And I have never been a danger to anyone.
I can’t even document what I feel would be immeasurably lost if every person I knew who was mentally ill, or who had a breakdown, was unable to contribute to my academic and creative world.
Robert, I think we probably have substantial areas of agreement here.
In and of itself, it wouldn’t necessarily prove either. Let’s say that the school had a reasonable safety standard (if you’re violent, you’re kicked out) and noticed that 90% of students with dandruff were kicked out under this policy. That would be evidence that dandruff should be viewed as dangerous.
But let’s say that the school noticed that 1.3% of students with dandruff ended up getting kicked out under this policy, as opposed to 1% of students without dandruff. That would support the conclusion that students with dandruff were being disproportionately impacted by the policy, but it would not support the conclusion that the policy is too stringent, nor the conclusion that dandruff should be viewed as dangerous.
When we’ve dwindled into dandruff scenarios, we have achieved left-right consensus. Go have a beer, you earned it.
This reminds me of something that happened to me a couple of years ago.
I was sexually assaulted on a Saturday evening. The police were contacted, I went to the hospital for a rape kit, etc, etc. I then left town to be with friends I knew would be supportive. I was supposed to have an exam on Monday. I contacted the professor on Sunday to let him know what had occurred and to tell him I felt I would be unable to attend class on Monday, let alone take the exam. His response? He demanded documentation of the assault and told me that I without it, he would fail me for missing the exam.