Professor Melissa Harris-Perry, MSNBC host and noted Unitarian Universalist (she wrote the foreword to the newest edition of the UU Pocket Guide), has walked off her show after being preempted again and again in favor on endless election coverage.
She said she had not appeared on the network at all “for weeks” and that she was mostly sidelined during recent election coverage in South Carolina and New Hampshire. (She was asked to return this weekend.)
In her email, Ms. Harris-Perry wrote that she was not sure if the NBC News chairman, Andrew Lack, or Phil Griffin, the MSNBC president, were involved in the way her show was handled recently, but she directed blame toward both.
“I will not be used as a tool for their purposes,” she wrote. “I am not a token, mammy, or little brown bobble head. I am not owned by Lack, Griffin or MSNBC. I love our show. I want it back.”
Prof. Harris-Perry is one of the few black women with a major position in TV news. Often the “election coverage” that pre-empts her show is just showing stump speeches live and other things that could be ignored or condensed.
I stand in solidarity with lack of respect for her show and the work she does. Her show has by far the most people of color as guests.
News shouldn’t just show candidates yelling at each other. it needs to explore how their policies and ideologies will affect communities of regular people. Only through diversity can that be analyzed.
This is part two of a series on UC mental health and the campaign to reform it. A previous post outlining areas of concern is located here.
The UC Students Association (UCSA) has released their evaluation of campus mental health resources, part of a new reform campaign (#HowAreYou) which was adopted last August. Three areas were measured: accessibility of the system, diversity of current staff, and extent and quality of outreach.
Results: not good. UC students would be appalled if their own academic grades were this bad. Campuses scored best on outreach, which is the least important of the three criteria. The core issue is accessibility. Diversity among counselors is only meaningful if students can get appointments within a reasonable amount of time- and are allowed a sufficient number of sessions per term. Outreach is key- it destigmatizes mental illness, and plays a key role in the increasing number of college students looking for treatment in the last fifteen years. But effective outreach magnifies accessibility issues. The more students who seek Counseling and Psychological Services (CAPS) or an equivalent service, the more meaningful staff to student ratios become. It’s clear that the rise in demand for counseling and psychiatry is outpacing general student growth and funding allocations.
The increased need by students for campus mental health services has resulted in an overtaxed delivery system at UC that falls significantly short of meeting the actual student demand and expectation for services
The cumulative toll of this shortfall in service capacity has had and continues to have a significant negative impact on all campus populations, including other students, faculty and staff; on the affected individual student’s academic performance; and on that student’s overall mental and physical well-being.
Further, it is the Committee’s considered view that this situation will not improve over time, and indeed given general societal trends can only further deteriorate, without aggressive intervention on the part of the institution. This intervention must include a systematic review of policy, enhanced communication mechanisms, and a renewed commitment to campus-wide collaboration along with an infusion of new resources commensurate with both the nature and magnitude of the challenge now facing the University.
As usual, the issue boils down to money. The reason is the corporate-like administrative structure that ties up over a billion dollars more than is needed to run the UC. A low-cost, high revenue structure will always underfund student services like counseling. This combines with the ‘progressive’ state government abdicating its duty to provide quality higher education. Thus we are told that any investment in students will raise tuition, because in 2016 there is increasingly little difference between private and public universities. Remember how K-12 is a right, but once you hit around 18 education becomes a paid-for privilege? Students and faculty are hostages of a mindset we see in corporations all the time, where investment in people makes the system uncompetitive.
With that out of the way, I’d like to talk about the disability services for students, in the context of mental health. There are several names for this office:
Office for Students with Disabilities at UC San Diego and UCLA;
Disabled Students’ Program at UC Berkeley and UC Santa Barbara;
Student Disability Center at UC Davis;
Student Special Services at UC Riverside;
Disability Resource Center at UC Santa Cruz;
Disability Services Center at UC Irvine; and the Disability Services Office at UC Merced.
When #HowAreYou was first presented in a public meeting at UCSD, I had issues with its depiction of a full coalition of groups and university services. I like the focus on collaboration- as improving mental health is not just about psychologists but peer mentors, wellness education, student groups, resource centers, etc. But mental illness as disability was never mentioned. Laws like 5150 involuntary commitment were mentioned, but the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was conspicuous in its absence.
Under the ADA, the definition of disability (Section 12102) is broad and non-exhaustive. In public perception, the term “disability” has been strongly tied to physical disability. The International Symbol of Access is the image most closely tied to the concept of disability- part of an inherent bias towards conditions that others can perceive and verify. Part of stigma is how people may not perceive psychological issues as potentially chronic or severe.
So let’s turn the three branches of #HowAreYou– accessibility, diversity, and outreach. All of this is based on my own experience, the experience of many friends and people I come across, and hour-long meetings with a case worker who deals with the largest portion of students seeking help with psychological conditions, dedicated to talking about the mental health system.
Accessibility: There are many different accessibility issues inherent in psychological conditions being the basis of disability accommodations. Here are some that come to mind initially:
Especially in cases of mental health, there are few connections between disabilities office and other parts of the university. Professors rarely, if ever, talk about it or put information on their syllabi. It’s seldom a topic of conversation in student groups.
Documentation is difficult for someone with no prior experience.
The ratio of case workers to students leads to logjams early in each term as everyone is trying to get their accommodations set and given to professors.
Faculty may block accommodation requests, which the student must then solve by going back and forth between the office and faculty.
Diversity: The same issues exist here, as it does when talking about CAPS.
Case workers and staff must be equipped to deal with a very broad spectrum of disabilities (movement, deafness, blindness, learning disabilities, anxiety, depression, mood disorders, PTSD)
Students may lack confidence in a staff member without shared experience (for instance, a deaf person may feel their obstacles can’t be fully experienced, or a depressed student may feel their issues are being devalued because it’s not visible)
Students may come from cultural backgrounds that don’t talk about mental illness, and may stigmatize those who have problems. This is brought up frequently by Asian Pacific Islander (API) students, and is relevant with both CAPS and disability services.
Outreach: Stigma is a big factor here, but I’m very insistent here- the stigma of having mental health problems is very different from the stigma of having a disability. So campaigns launched by #HowAreYou will have limited effect if they are only talking about the direct stigma of mental illness.
The disabilities office, like CAPS, is given a very limited slice of time in orientation. With so much information in a day-long event, students are unlikely to follow up with the office if they had heard about it for the first time.
Faculty aren’t trained at all about disability accommodations. Thus they often treat accommodations as guidelines rather than legal rights. If faculty have to go out of their way to meet standards, they will often refuse to honor entitlements.
Many faculty are new to teaching, or from countries that do not have an equivalent to the ADA. So a large chunk of teachers every year will have no prior experience with the system.
Because mental health is usually placed in a therapy/treatment rather than disability context, anti-stigma campaigns rarely address that there are two stages of stigma of mental illness.
The disabilities office rarely has a robust outreach component. They will table at resource fairs and present at orientation, but there is rarely a push to get staff and student mentors in club meetings, classes, and hold events specifically about disability.
It should be said that everything here applies more to psychological disabilities than other types. Many people have no idea psychological conditions are legally disabilities.
So this concludes my second post about mental health in the context of the UCs and the #HowAreYou campaign by the UC Students Association. I welcome any information by those that have experience with disability services and mental health, especially outside UCSD.
My next post will be about the structure of how students give accommodations. An exchange with someone at a community college in Northern California shows that there are multiple ways to go through the process, and I think some are superior to others.
When I entered junior college in 2010, it required a radical shift in perspective. I attended an independent secular school K-8 and then an independent Benedictine catholic school for high school. This trend of insular schools of little diversity was to continue when I arrived at a liberal arts college in rural Washington state. It had become a lifelong routine. You pursue your degree surrounded by people your age, mostly white, and not filled with wisdom. It’s an environment of smart neophytes. What you can and cannot do as a college student is four years of trial and error, where there are thankfully little of consequence if you screw up.
That college spit me out in a couple of months. I didn’t have the skills, and more importantly didn’t have the sanity to get through it. I came home in November, and almost intermediately applied for junior college starting in January.
For someone who grew up in the white middle-upper class suburban mindset, there are three big things to confront when making a big shift in schools.
1. The diversity. Yes there were blacks and Latinos in prior school, but they were often alone and did not have any kind of ethnic identity in the school. To fit in, they had to acclimate to white expectations. Large social science classes at this college are at least half non-white, you notice a pan-racial tone to develop. A huge portion of clubs are for social and person growth of various groups- like Asian/Pacific Islanders or Latinos. There are also groups involved in dialogue and conquering stereotypes and being academically successful. Also while at previous schools there were ethnic holidays celebrated (like Dia de los Muertos), California colleges use diversity months to have lots of time for pride and education.
It also can make for compelling presentations and classtime. The college has people taken over the border as kids, living and studying while undocumented. Teen mothers, trying to gain the education that had become a secondary priority. Public speaking class had people who were involved in fights and gangs, but turned to martial arts to keep their rage productive. Each class is a wildcard, and you’re not sure who has an amazing story to tell.
2. The public school shock. As a 19 year old who had never been outside of a well-planned private curriculum, it takes some getting used to. Getting help with disability accommodations requires research and patience. Most of the student services are under budget cuts, and the lines can be insane if you don’t start on the first day of term. For so long I took for granted that teachers knew my name, yet even though I speak in class quite often it can take months. There’s rarely coordination between faculty make sure a particular day isn’t just a six-hour test for some students. Keeping things sane may require actively talking to the professors.
3. The age gap. At an undergrad-only liberal arts school (where I briefly was, and my sister did about two years at), almost everyone is the same age. If you’re a freshman you’re 18 or 19. And very few people are over thirty. Continuing education is not a priority, it’s about getting information to the new generation.
In almost every day class, there will be someone in the ballpark of 50 years old. In one case, it was the mother of another student- they were taking the class together. The two evening class I’ve taken skew way towards greybeards. In public speaking, four or so of the initial group were over forty. And since one can gain prerequisites at junior college for graduate education, there are plenty of people in their mid 20s planning to become a nurse or go into graduate science.
Overall, a junior college is a place where many different agenda exist at the same time. 19 year olds studying to get into University of California branch. 25 year olds looking for credits to get into grad school. 35 year olds attempting to make a change to a better and more rewarding job. And 55 year olds maybe just curious about the subject matter.