Case Study

I think the most telling part of this issue is the lack of qualification and preparation of the individuals conducting the Judicial Board hearings. While they do go through a period of training following the guidelines of the code of conduct, it is ultimately based upon the judgment of those individuals who may very well be uneducated about post traumatic stress disorder and various other sensory disorders.

Manges' "outburst" may have been disruptive to the learning environment and therefore a violation of the code of conduct, but she should have been given reasonable accommodations so that she could continue with her education and healing process. Instead she was forced to chose between two equally bad options and have even more attention drawn towards her disorder. These types of knee-jerk reactions by institutions reflect a lack of understanding and willingness to treat a particular situation individually.

There needs to be a recognition of the needs of individuals with disabilities, meaning that institutions such as EIU need to implement programs that train individuals on how to handle situations similar to Jill Manges' instead of providing blanket codes of conduct that treat every situation the same. A redistribution of needs is in order as well; students will disabilities need to receive the same opportunities to learn as any other student, they should not simply be given their money back and swept out of the university in a neat and tidy fashion. With today's advances in technology, why not implement a program with WebCT that can allow students with disabilities to get lecture notes and study guides, and meet with instructors during office hours for any specific questions or concerns? Or simply offer a full schedule of online classes? There may be better options, but the most important thing is to make the institution address the problem, not sweep it under the rug.

There is no excuse for any institution to have brash, knee-jerk reactions to solvable situations. This wasn't a terrorist attack, this wasn't something that came out of nowhere; it was a symptom of a known disorder that an institution was obviously under-prepared to handle. In my opinion, concerned individuals should approach the administration and do not settle for generalized explanations and excuses. Make them aware that the people of this campus will not stand for any sort of discriminatory practices, and legal action will be brought against the institution if proper action isn't taken.

Bad question... lack of credibility to respond on the subject.

While I sympathize with Jill Manges in this incident, personally and honestly, I feel like it is completely out of my league to speak for her, about her, or on behalf of her. Same with being on the side of the university. I do not know anything about mental disorders, I only know what I have been told about the Manges case, mostly from the side of Manges, and as Alcoff would say, it's very hard and often times very problematic to speak for others.

I do feel that recognition is very important on this issue. As I stated before, I know very little to nothing about mental disorders, esp. PTSD. I feel like most of America is in the same boat, and that recognition of the lives of those living with PTSD is very much needed. By recognizing the complications of PTSD, how people start having PTSD, ways to deal with it, etc. we as a society and as an educational institution can then better handle these types of situations. Much recognition is needed. Many people, schools, universities, etc are very nervous about mental illnesses since events like Virginia Tech, Columbine, and the various other school shootings. Who is at fault for this nervousness? Is it the fault of the close-minded judicial affairs members, the result of society as a whole, the result of the lack of knowledge and recognition, or all combined? I don't know. Personally, I feel it is a combination of all, but I don't know anything about this. I'm in that majority of people who would benefit from knowing more about PTSD.

This is very hard for me. While in ways I understand both sides. I want to be on Mange's side, I want to believe that the way the university handled this is wrong, but again, I don't know. I really do not like this question we are presented with. I do not like the fact that we are to speak for or about someone most of us don't know personally, a case most of us only know what the media is discussing, and an issue most of us know very little about. Makes us all non-credible sources and actually makes our responses irrelevant. None of us have a PHD or even a degree in mental illnesses, none of us can dissect this subject enough to say who is and who is not right. Sure, the situation maybe could have been handled differently, but as much as I want to be on Mange's side, is as disappointed as I am in the way she has handled this. I kind of feel like others are being asked to fight a battle in which she gave up on. I understand her reasons for signing the documents in which she signed, but I feel like if she truly felt the university was wrong, if she truly wanted to fight this, she would have done such and not have signed documents agreeing with the university. I feel like, why should we fight a battle she gave up on? Again, I understand her reasoning for this, but I have to look at this from a personal level, and sure, I'm not in the situation, but I feel like if I were I would definitely fight the university until the end and care more about the injustice I feel I was receiving from the university than the money in the situation. Making things right is more important than money to me (and yes, money is an issue for me and my family, I don't have $4000 per semester to throw at EIU).

Maybe this will be upsetting to some people? Sorry, I don't mean it to be, I am only expressing my uncomfort with this situation and this assignment. Again, I am not taking any side in this situation, I am deciding to stay in the middle until I get the information I need to make an educational decision on this issue.

As for what Emma Goldman would do? Again, I don't know. I don't think I, or anyone else can say what someone would do after reading some articles in which a person wrote. Every situation is different for every person. Maybe she would start a huge rally to help Manges, or maybe she would decide she does not need to get involved. Ask Emma if you want to know what she would do(though, if you can figure out how to do that please let me know!), don't ask someone who doesn't even know Emma even on a nearly aqquaintence level.

APATHY on WWEGD

I think that in this case, there needs to be some outside intervention. Legal help, or help of an outside group specializing in this type of case could be beneficial.

I understand the mentality of the university is that of zero tolerance, however, they need to be more consistent. Unfortunately in the case of Post traumatic stress, they are reeling from the Virginia Tech incident. However unrelated these two cases are, the narrow focus of EIU is the ruling hand.

That is why I suggest the student in question's family and friends pull together to find an outside force such as legal representation (possibly free) or a specialty group to take on the cause. Without that, there is no threat to the University. They make and enforce the rules.

I agree with Dana on how there needs to be some definitive resolutions on how mental health is viewed and treated on campus. Part of the problem is apathy. The students can't even organize a potluck, much less a movement to help those with ptsd. This isn't a large liberal university. It is a small town conservative middle road university.

Radical ideas and change are far and few between here. The school is still debating the same dining hall issues it debated 7 years ago. If change and realization are going to happen, then there needs to be outside representation to blow the lid off of the situation.

STORM THE CASTLE!

 

            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.

 

 

 

Case study

Eastern students absolutely have right to grievance about the unjust treatment of Manges. Witnesses of her epidsode including a professor and several peers all agree that her proposes no threat to others or herself. I would agrue that most of Eastern's campus would side with Manges. Admisistration along with Judicial Affairs holds the power to determine Jill's academic career which they have placed on hiatus. Injestice needs to be recognized and power needs to be redistributed.

I would advocate lobbying of the office of Judicial Affairs, Counseling Center, and the university's administration, as well as gaining advice from other universities. This information must be made available to the students, faculty, and staff to get them all to rally behind the cause and plan a campuswide demonstration.

Emma Goldman would speak out publically about the injustice and call her public to action.

Relevant Words from Red Emma

"Since every effort in our educational life seems to be directed toward making of the child a being foreign to itself, it must of necessity produce individuals foreign to one another, and in everlasting antagonism with each other."

"The motto should not be: Forgive one another; rather understand one another."

"The ultimate end of all revolutionary social change is to establish the sanctity of human life, the dignity of man, the right of every human being to liberty and well-being."

''Public school - where the human mind is drilled and manipulated into submission to various social and moral spooks, and thus fitted to continue our system of exploitation and oppression."

Journal Response (WWEGD)

The citizens do have a right to petition everything that is going on. They have the right to voice their concerns about what is going on at their institution. They are paying huge amounts of money and time at this institution, so if something is not what they want it to be they have the right to petition. However, I do not think the citizens will take their right, and petition what is going on. This institution has a history of being low key. I do not think that this is the time that this institution will be brought into greater limelight.

Using Fraser’s terminology what needs to be recognition is that calling of attention to mental health at institution. Fraser would call for every ones attention to help change the wrong doings of institutions. With Fraser’s term of redistribution would that be of calling an end to discrimination of policies that do not make people with disabilities as equal to those who do not.

I would ask for concerned citizens to first write to the school. Then once it is known that the people are not happy, set up a protest in where the concerned citizens can get their feelings out into the greater public. That is the only way to get their view across to the institution. Once the institution sees the protest, they will move into action to stop the protest and hopefully talk to the citizens and resolve a problem. If that all fails, then I would suggest that the people demand to talk to the administration of the institution to talk about what is going on and how the effects not just one person but everyone at the institution.

Oh what would little Miss Emma Goldman do? I believe that she would be out in the streets voicing her opinion and how this is hurting everyone at the institution. Miss Emma would be out there from sun up to sun down trying to get the attention of the administration to come out and talk to the concerned people of this institution.

On a side note. While reading this and doing this assignment, I found myself sitting on the middle of the fence not knowing where to go. I can see both sides of the coin. Maybe because something like this happened to a very close friend of mine here at school or that I have some but limited knowledge of written policies and the legal jargon behind it. It is sad to see things like this happening in our own backyard. Is it that time where the silence is broken here at school, the silence of no protests? We will just have to wait and see. History can be in the making here at OUR school EIU.