For the record...

[kellinator]

Apparently I am not as clear a writer as I hoped I was. I do not know how people are getting the idea that I think MIT should be dumbed down. Nor am I suggesting that students should be coddled and babied. My points are twofold. Let me spell them out in black and white (or purple, as the case may be in my LJ):

1. Refusing someone a position they are qualified for on no basis other than the fact that they have issues with mental health such as antidepressants or therapy is discrimination, pure and simple.
2. Institutions that provide physical health care (such as employers and universities) should have a moral, ethical, and in my opinion legal obligation to provide mental health care as well.

I would like to add, though this is more of an opinion than a firm belief, that the high-stress pressure-cooker environment so prevalent in our society, especially at the top universities and pretty much any sector that is high-powered, does little to increase productivity or knowledge, probably contributes to the sort of mental problems that cost billions each year in lost productivity, and to boot turns people into insufferable raging assholes.

EDIT: penguinicity makes a powerful point I forgot to mention: Statements like Dean Jones' are only going to discourage students who need help from getting it, creating even larger problems.

Comments

[weaktwos.livejournal.com]

I agree to an extent. And there's definitely some room for improvement across our country for dealing with health care (physical, mental, etc.)

I think universities should have mental health care treatment solutions for students, mainly for the reason that until they get to the university, they may not have demonstrated any symptoms of any mental illness that prohibits them from being successful in school. Note that there are mental illnesses that are conducive to academic success: control freaks, obsessive compulsives can flourish, anal retentive folks could, too.

But if a student has demonstrated a historical unreliability in maintaining treatment of a disorder that would be counterproductive to his/her academic career, that should be a factor. At places like MIT, you go there for the intensity of it all--to be the best. If you have been unable to maintain your particular mental illness such that you want to kill yourself every so often under the pressure, its not going to be any easier for you at MIT.

The other option is that if a student has a bad mental history, and still wants to subject themselves to MIT's environment, then they should sign a waiver (or their parents), that they will not hold MIT responsible for said student committing suicide.

This is such a hard issue, and I don't think I'm doing justice in expressing my thoughts. Some other thoughts:

1.I don't think students should be excluded from attending a university because of their mental disability/illness, but they need accept some responsibility for it or compensate for it.

2. Universities should have some services available to funnel students who need mental health assistance to the right channels. Sometimes this isn't even a good solution, either, because most people who go into the mental health profession can be nuts, too. And will all mentally ill people who need the care seek it out? What if the person doesn't keep track of their medication properly, and goes out of control. Or, like a friend of mine, what if the student knows they have a mental illness, but refuses to take the medication because they don't like the side-effects?

3. I don't think the University/Organization should be held responsible for stress-induced suicides when they make it more than clear that the environment is extremely stressful. There is a price for such success (unless you're a Bush family member, then we pay the price for their success).