The University student group Legislators of Tomorrow has received some publicity lately for drafting a bill concerning mental health education at Virginia’s public colleges. The measure proposes the creation of a mandatory online module that would educate and test incoming students on mental health issues. It would also require each college to maintain a website that directs students to the institution’s mental health resources. House Bill 206 is receiving acclaim as a “bipartisan” solution and has the support of notable democrats and republicans in the Virginia legislature. Though the bill pushes college policy in a helpful direction, its meek provisions are out-of-touch given the changing politics of mental health.
Although I see reason to criticize House Bill 206, I also welcome it as a significant advancement for college mental health advocacy. My involvement with University mental health efforts over the past two years has convinced me that one of our biggest obstacles is the lack of student awareness for the resources offered on Grounds. Counseling and Psychological Services (CAPS), a well-staffed subdivision of the Department of Student Health, offers many excellent services that students already pay for (via the Student Health Fee in our tuition). These include individual counseling sessions, group therapy and Student Health Quest, a website that offers a wealth of information about daily mental well-being. The University — like most public colleges in Virginia — does not require students to undergo even basic education on mental health. Even the new bill’s brief tutorial has the potential to raise the general education level on this issue.
But despite House Bill 206’s potential for positive impact, it seems rather timid as a piece of legislation. In the wake of the tragedy involving Virginia state Senator Creigh Deeds and his college-aged son, mental health is receiving a new wave of attention. Bolder mental health bills — i.e. ones that will inevitably be more expensive and intrusive — are the most politically feasible they’ve been since the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007. Politicians and interest groups have new leverage for more significant progress on the issue. New provisions might include increased funds to college counseling centers and the integration of mandatory mental health education for all students.
So why has policy (or even the discussion of policy) on mental health been so lackluster? Perhaps the biggest factor is our larger cultural neglect of the importance of mental health. This includes the misinformation and stigma surrounding the topic, as well as the tendency to hyper focus on physical health to the exclusion of psychological and neurobiological issues.
But there is another obstacle to mental health policy that is more unique to American politics: the debate over “therapeutic entitlement.” A comprehensive 2006 study on campus mental health services characterizes the dispute: proponents argue that “students with serious mental health problems have the right to demand mental health care from the counseling center.” Opponents hold that college centers “should primarily focus on the educational mission of the college,” questioning whether schools should play such a direct role in students’ mental health. Such attitudes are easily provoked in an political atmosphere where the word “entitlement” is in disrepute and budget cuts are often pursued with near-religious zeal.
Attitudes against so-called “therapeutic entitlement” are not only misguided but dangerous. They ignore the importance of providing for the mentally ill — and such neglect is commonly cited as a contributing factor to shootings and other violent crimes. Moreover, such views deny the reality that American colleges serve as communities, not just degree-granting institutions.
Reading the news articles that discuss House Bill 206, one can infer the continuing influence of the entitlement debate. Coming from a mental health background, I found the articles to be rather politically self-conscious considering the timidity of the proposed policy. For such common sense provisions, there seems to be disproportionate praise for the “bipartisan” involvement in the House of Delegates. Granted, Legislators of Tomorrow promotes itself as a bipartisan organization, but such self-congratulatory coverage does a disservice to more imperative (albeit controversial) mental health legislation.
Though House Bill 206 introduces only minor changes for mental health awareness on Grounds, small progress is better than none. Though these “reforms” are ones any college could easily adopt, most do not. There are many obstacles to creating a more mental health-conscious community — stigma, problems of treatment, neurobiological mysteries — but political dysfunction seems a particularly unnecessary one. More aggressive policy would not only provide a safety net for the University’s most distressed individuals, but also encourage a more stable and effective student community.
George Knaysi is an Opinion columnist for The Cavalier Daily. His columns run Tuesdays.
Read More
PARTING SHOT: No man is an island
By Ava MacBlane | 13 hours agoRetirement, as you can tell, has been treating me well. When people ask me now if I miss it, I laugh and tell them some things I definitely don't miss. But I don't always get to tell them about the things I really do miss.
PARTING SHOT: You never know unless you try
By Lexi Baker | YesterdayMy time at the University was shaped by the people who showed me grace and kindness and by those who had confidence in me, even when I struggled to have it in myself.
PARTING SHOT: A love letter to Cav Daily and Connection
By Ava Proehl | YesterdayMy time here taught me to look for the genuine, human connection in every moment.
