In order to correct the wrongs that have been committed by the institution the following must be done… There needs to be some sort of collective vision of how the University should handle cases of mental health issues. There are a variety of resistance efforts that might be taken. For example, this group should insist on a meeting with Judicial Affairs and the committee who is making these decisions to revamp the current system of dealing with mental illness. My understanding is that the University has used silence to their benefit by insisting time and time again that they cannot speak about specific students. Whether or not they can speak about students, certainly they can speak in generalities and shed some light on the (clearly misguided) process they use in dealing with mental illnesses (literally crossing items off of the form used for behavioral problems to make them fit awkwardly cases of mental health “disruptions”).
Education would also be a key factor to righting these wrongs; by educating the staff on things like PTSD, perhaps they would be better suited to deal with people suffering from mental disorders. Along these lines of education, concerned individuals would be wise to make strong parallels between mental illnesses and physical illnesses. Would we force someone to sign a behavioral contract if they had diabetes? Would we ask someone with cancer to guarantee that they would not have any sort of “relapse” into their past medical “behaviors”? Would we tell someone with a pre-existing physical condition that they could not access services at the on-campus health services center? I think it’s clear that the answer to all of these questions would be “no”; yet, this is exactly the parallel that could be drawn to how the administration is treating people with mental illnesses.
Before thinking about what Emma Goldman would do, let’s pause to think about what Nancy Fraser would do. Fraser discusses three different types of injustice that all seem relevant in this case: cultural domination (being subjected to communication associated with another culture that is alien or hostile to one’s own), nonrecognition (being rendered invisible by dominant representations), and disrespect (being stereotyped in everyday life). First, in this case, there is a sense of cultural domination with regard to people with PTSD and other mental illnesses. To be put, for example, on a “behavioral contract” told not to “relapse” or else be dismissed from school, there is a real sense of cultural domination—for someone with a mental illness which, like other illnesses, is not under “rational” control, such a mandate must seem quite hostile and alien to your own understanding of your own body and mind. Second, we see elements of nonrecognition in how the situation is being handled. By requiring a behavioral contract, the University recognizes the potential liability and problem (often bringing up references to Virginia Tech threats), but does not address the people with the mental health concerns as, first and foremost people (or even students at EIU). Disrespect is pretty much rampant throughout this incident; for examples, we find utter disrespect in the way the University has chosen to: a) villainize someone who has been exceptionally victimized; b) remove her from school due to issues that are out of their control; c) suggest that one-size-fits-all responses can work; and d) provide no choice or agency to victims of abuse (thus stripping them further of control over their own bodies).
In answering the question of WWEGD, it seems clear that she would not work within the system, hold meetings, or form a task force. She would, in effect, storm the proverbial castle! Given her anarchist spirit, she would likely seize Dr. Nadler’s office (head of Judicial Affairs), protest during a Judicial Affairs hearing, or plan a take-over of the University Senate. Goldman would gather as many people with mental illnesses as she could (along with allies) and storm the streets of Charleston (something that would surely alarm this sleepy community). She would break outside of the university system. She would demand better at any price necessary.
No comments:
Post a Comment