Search News


Browse Archives

News

When Student Writing Could be a Red Flag

September 5, 2007

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

As creative writing instructors have discussed how to respond to disturbing or strangely violent student writing in the months since the Virginia Tech shooter’s bloody paper trail came to light, many have pointed to the value of professional judgment. But how does a new teaching assistant distinguish a legitimate artistic exploration of a violent or dark subject from a sign that a writer may be a danger – and then, if need be, respond effectively?

Virginia Tech’s creative writing faculty have formulated written guidelines for “responding to disturbing creative writing,” which, while applicable to all creative writing faculty, were written with graduate teaching assistants in mind.

“It may well be that the traditional way of dealing with disturbing writing -- relying on the sensitivity and intelligence of the creative writing instructor to respond to a troubled student -- is best,” says Ed Falco, director of creative writing at Virginia Tech, where professors had identified disturbing trends in senior Seung Hui Cho's creative writing and behavior before he killed 32 students and faculty in April. “At Virginia Tech, however, we have just come through a difficult time and the creative writing committee felt that under these circumstances it would be wise to offer advice to instructors, especially young instructors, on how to deal with the complicated issues raised by disturbing student writing.”

Anecdotal evidence suggests that few creative writing departments have written guidelines dealing specifically with disturbing student creative writing, although the protocol for responding seems fairly consistent across colleges (albeit in a more informal guise). The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill's approach, for instance, seems fairly typical: "[F]aculty members are in constant communication with each other about all manner of student needs and concerns, certainly about individual as well as collective student health and safety," the director of the entirely undergraduate creative writing program, Bland Simpson, wrote in an e-mail. "We are all always on the lookout for 'disturbing or strangely violent student writing,' indeed anything that might merit involving the university's student affairs office and/or counseling services in a given case, though we have not gone the route of written guidelines on this subject."

Falco, in fact, says that Virginia Tech’s guide largely outlines procedures that were already informally in place prior to the April massacre. The document – which Falco stresses is meant only to provide guidelines, and is open for revision – offers suggestions regarding when and how faculty members should speak with the student directly, and when to involve department leadership, the counseling center, dean’s office or university-wide justice system.

The document also reflects the tightrope its drafters were walking, leaving ample room for intuition and judgment in identifying disturbing writing and offering a series of questions instructors might find helpful in distinguishing creative and literary explorations of themes like violence, drugs and suicide, from a threat or cry for help. Among the questions, geared for fiction, poetry or playwrighting courses:

  • “Is the creative work excessively violent? Do characters respond to everyday events with a level or kind of violence one does not expect, or may even find frightening? If so, does the violence seem more expressive of rage and anger than it does of a literary aesthetic or a thematic purpose?"
  • “Are the characters’ thoughts as well as actions violent or threatening? Do characters think about or question their violent actions?...In other words, does the text reveal the presence of a literary sensibility mediating and making judgments about the characters’ thoughts and actions, or does it suggest unmediated venting of rage and anger? If the literary sensibility is missing, is the student receptive to adding that layer and to learning how to do so?"
  • “Is this the student’s first piece of violent writing?...Is violence at the center of everything the student has written, or does other writing suggest that violence is something the student is experimenting with for literary effect?”
  • “Are the violent actions in the work so disturbing or so extreme as to suggest they go beyond any possible sense of purpose in relation to the larger narrative?”
  • “Is the writing full of expressions of hostility toward other racial or ethnic groups? Is the writing threateningly misogynistic, homophobic, racist, or in any way expressive of a mindset that may pose a threat to other students?”

“The danger,” Falco says of the Virginia Tech document (which has received approvals from the university’s counseling center, legal counsel and provost’s office) “is that written guidelines can be misused….that a situation would come about where you hamper creative freedom because students are afraid to write something because they’re afraid it will get them thrown into a system.”

Yet, he adds, “After having thought about this now for several months, my feeling is that students will turn in disturbing work and that given that, it’s a good idea to have a set of guidelines to deal with that work.”

“You have to find some middle ground,” says Dave Smith, chair of the Writing Seminars at Johns Hopkins University, which doesn’t offer any written guidelines for instructors dealing specifically with disturbing student writing but does invite therapists from the university’s counseling center to meet with teaching assistants during orientation. “I think the promulgation of a document like this is probably a good thing, all in all. I also suspect that it will lead in some cases to overreactions” on the part of teaching assistants who may feel they’re being asked to recognize something that doesn’t always exist, Smith says.

However, he recalls a recent experience in his own classroom in which a student wrote a couple poems about suicidal intentions. Concerned, but not immediately convinced it was necessarily reflective of the student’s own intentions, he watched the student closely and as it turned out, he says, “There was no problem whatsoever and there would be no reason to engage any of the protocols in place."

“That’s a judgment call, but in my case it was a judgment call with 30 years of teaching experience,” Smith says. “Had I been a teaching assistant, facing this for the first time, I would have been lost.”

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on When Student Writing Could be a Red Flag

  • A good warning to students
  • Posted by Larry on September 5, 2007 at 6:15am EDT
  • I actually applaud these guidelines. Not because they will make people safer, but because they put students on notice that their TAs are encouraged to turn them in for overly disturbing writing. Never mind that “good” writing is often suppose to disturb the reader.

    Undergraduate students need to understand that at large schools, TAs will be watching them for any signs of being “disturbed.” Without so much as a hearing, they can be judged to be a threat and their careers will suffer. Even if the school shows “concern” for the student, such “concern” will be a black mark on the student for life.

    I have already told all my friends and relatives to avoid such classes if at all possible, and to, if absolutely necessary only write bland fiction. It is a one-way ticket to ruin if a student writes anything in the categories discussed in the guidelines (which, hopefully, will be distributed to all students.)

  • Response to CW Teaching Guidelines
  • Posted by Deidre , Once Again...Put it on Faculty at PPCC on September 5, 2007 at 7:55am EDT
  • Of course, the irony here is that a couple of professors in the VTech creative writing progam did alert their dean and president of Mr. Cho's "excessively violent writing," and behavior months before the April shootings. No action was taken to remove Mr. Cho.

    And, while I don't usually hold with paranoia as a professional tool, I think it's fair to say in this litiginous, anti-faculty age, that if administrations can pin the responsibility for weeding out dangerous students on faculty, particularly graduate students who have no hope of the tenure system's power behind them and can be "let go" immediately if there is trouble, they will happily do so.

    Universities and colleges will not act definitively until there has been a violent episode, and all of us who are faculty reading the above article, know this truth.

    Yet, we also know that when we encounter truly disturbing students, we comprehend it immediately, and will as a matter of common sense alert our directors and deans. I think it's sensible to have a procedure for action in place, and I agree that faculty are often on the frontlines to catch such things, but I naievely hope that colleges will do these two things:
    1. Support the faculty who bring these situations to attention by having a clear chain of command. When administrators are approached by faculty, they will investigate the claim in a rational manner, then take further action if necessary.
    2. Provide better psychological evaluation of students entering the university, and don't rely on a faculty members to do what medical records and interviews would have done at the admissions level.

  • forced psychological evaluations
  • Posted by Larry on September 5, 2007 at 8:45am EDT
  • Diedre, You said that schools should, “Provide better psychological evaluation of students entering the university.” Are you really suggesting that entering scholars submit to psychological evaluations? Are you really asking that admission to a university be conditioned on an invasive evaluation by a shrink? (Sorry for that word, but where I come from, that is what we call therapists, because it is considered a sign of personal weakness to see one.)

    Are you also suggesting that faculty be forced to undergo psychological testing? After all, if you are so afraid that anyone could at any moment, snap, isn’t the faculty just as prone to going nuts?

    Finally, as to litigation. Outside the malpractice context (where a schools starts to treat someone and does so incompetently), to my knowledge, no court has ever ruled that schools have a duty to affirmatively screen for mentally ill students at entrance.

  • Well, dang, Larry
  • Posted by Buzz on September 5, 2007 at 8:45am EDT
  • " .. they put students on notice that their TAs are encouraged to turn them in for overly disturbing writing. Never mind that “good” writing is often suppose to disturb the reader .."

    Well, dang, Larry. On one hand, you have --

    http://www.stephenking.com/

    Oooh, scary! Call a six-hour administrative meeting (with bagels) -- then do nothing.

    Or design new rules that harass legal citizens who follow the old rules! (Yes!)

    That, while questionable yahoos like this run amok on campuses, unfettered --

    http://pirateballerina.com/

    A new bunch of rules, for a group known for complaining "we have so much to do, we're only making minimum wage." Swell.

    Mr. Cho was clearly troubled. When the most "out-there" instructors complain about a student -- people, you have a reality-based problem.

    Did anyone at VT think about asking Mr. Cho, face-to-face, one-on-one -- "young man, have you thought about taking some time off?"

    Then again -- who could? In a world dominated by memos and bitter fights over the minor and common, viable candidates are hardly visible.

    Kids, Larry's right. Don't write anything "disturbing." Just follow the rules from the Larry Summers Fan Club. Because otherwise, you might force an administrator to stay after 5 P.M. (This will be followed by the sky falling -- you've been warned).

  • Posted by Victoria on September 5, 2007 at 9:00am EDT
  • I agree with Dierdre. The problem becomes whether or not the higher ups will do anything. As a faculty member in an open admissions college, I, as well as my colleagues, have been confronted with students who have been down right scary. Alas, the reaction of the higher administration was that I "stop acting like a girl" and deal with it. The only way the procedures at VTech will be effective is if the upper administration will take the faculty reccomendations seriously and not simply put them down to hysteria. In other words, the administrators have to trust that we do know what we are doing.

  • Redirect
  • Posted by Deidre on September 5, 2007 at 9:45am EDT
  • Thanks, Victoria.

    Larry, I think you've misunderstood me--I was, as far as I am aware, only suggesting that colleges have much earlier opportunities for addressing problems that might arise from clearly unstable students, than freshman level writing classes and inexperienced TAs. I was overtly stating that administrators often don't take such warnings seriously from faculty and particularly junior faculty, so guidelines for dealing with "red flag" students might be pointless. These statements, of course, are limited to my experiences.

  • motorcycles and the thought police
  • Posted by Larry on September 5, 2007 at 9:55am EDT
  • Victoria, You raise an interesting question about “open admissions” institutions. At a “restrictive” institution, students are constantly told that they were selected on their merit, so I don’t really see how a school can turn around and say that their otherwise-legal expressions is unacceptable. In open-admissions institutions, I can’t argue that the school really needs to stop telling the students that they are the cream of the crop.

    On the other hand, Victoria, maybe you need to toughen up. There is a lot of behavior out there that “scares” us on some level. For example, “motorcyclists.” A lot of them look scary. They have beards. They call their vehicles “choppers.” But, the vast majority of them are nice people that like 1) building and fixing them; and 2) the feel of the wind on their face. (Recently, I have noticed that many of them are retired police, high school teachers, and lawyers.) On the other hand, some of the scary ones are, indeed, criminals. They engage in illegal acts of violence and make meth. However, in the “real world” we don’t go around arresting people that dress in leather and have long beards just because they ride a licensed bike. Instead, we wait for people to actually commit crimes.

    Let’s take it one more step. Unless you are a conspiracy theorist, I think we all agree that Arabs committed horrible acts of terrorism on 9/11/01. Does this mean that people that appear Arab, or, for example, write a story about some piece of Arab culture should be analyzed to see if they might suddenly kill everyone in sight? I need to be clear, Victoria, is this what you are arguing?

    You seem to be proposing a very dangerous form of “thought police.” First you tell students to write about their “thoughts” – and then you analyze their thoughts for behavior that differs from what you want to see.

  • Diedre did make a plea for psych evals
  • Posted by Larry on September 5, 2007 at 10:00am EDT
  • Diedre, you said that “I naievely hope that colleges will do these two things... Provide better psychological evaluation of students entering the university, and don’t rely on a faculty members to do what medical records and interviews would have done at the admissions level.” This appears to be a plea that 1) schools mandate psychological evaluation of students; and 2) screen students’ medical records. Tell me why I misinterpreted your words as a plea for psychological screening and invasive prying into a scholar’s life.

  • TAs are overused
  • Posted by T-bone on September 5, 2007 at 10:00am EDT
  • A bigger problem in creative writing is touched at the end of the article by Smith, saying, “Had I been a teaching assistant, facing this for the first time, I would have been lost.”
    Far too many classes are being passed off to TAs. We can now add, "difficulty in identifying troubled students" to the list of negative consequences for this practice.

  • Critical Analysis
  • Posted by William Sumner Scott, J.D. on September 5, 2007 at 11:05am EDT
  • Mr. Cho left numerous writings and a video to question US foreign policy, particularly, the witness of protestors setting themselves on fire.

    When scholars have attempted to link Mr. Cho with what goes around comes around, they have been vilified. This claim that writing needs to be analyzed has merit only if those conducting the review have an open mind to consider the source.

    VT wants to stick their heads in the sand by prevention of creativity rather than search for what would motivate Cho to commit premeditated murder of innocent fellow students with more depth than the act of a mere madman.

    Academics will add value to our society when they tackle moral as well as intellectual issues.

    Free speech requires the elimination of the VT guidelines. If Cho sent a signal that was worthy of analysis, it was his loner attitude + the subject matter of his writings, not his writings alone.

    William Sumner Scott, J.D.
    Judicial Equality Foundation, Inc.
    wss@jefound.org

  • Just My Humble Opinion
  • Posted by kgotthardt on September 5, 2007 at 12:40pm EDT
  • ...and I mean that because this whole situation is so scary and fluid....

    A student who consistently exhibits violent writing without really delving into the character traits behind the actions is focusing on the violent acts and not necessarily the character and writing. Note that while Stephen King's books are creepy, as are many books about violent crimes, characters are somewhat developed and violence happens for a reason. Usually, there are other characters to balance the evil-doer. If the student is focused on just the violent acts, you could have either just a bad writer or a disturbed student.

    There are other ways to tell what's going on though: journal writing, free writing, asking students what kind of books they read, what kind of movies they prefer, what kind of online materials and games they like, what they do our of school, etc. Ask them to write some personal memoir pieces, that kind of thing. I am not suggesting teachers take on the role of therapists or psychological evaluators, but when you see a pattern between the actions and the writing, you should see a real problem if there is one.

    And of course, records from K-12 need to make it over to the college. That, to me, seems a given, and I can't believe it has not been done.

  • kgotthardt and punishing bad writing
  • Posted by Larry on September 5, 2007 at 2:35pm EDT
  • kgotthardt, Why should records from “K-12" make it to college? Do you really want college administrators harassing or “counseling” people based on whether some high school administrator thought they were a “little strange.”

    Whatever the case, I like the fact that you are punishing bad writing. It is about time that we did something about the science majors that are forced to take creative writing classes and couldn’t develop a character to save their lives. And, let’s face it, writing anything remotely bad in a file that can be referred to by others is a form of punishment.

    Whether violence in writings happens in writings for a “reason” is very subjective and difficult to understand. Take King’s novel “It.” I have to admit that I don’t like it, and I think it is just a bunch of random bits of violence. Actually, I can't stand most of what he writes. But, others think that it is a very developed and deep story. Were King a student, and I was on a committee to determine whether he should be “counseled” and marked as a nut for life (perhaps referred for involuntary commitment), I would say “commit.” I might initially be in the dissent, but I would tell the committee members that if they did not put King in jail they would be at fault if and when he killed people.

    The beauty of my assumed position is that I can never be wrong. If I deem all writings I see to be not only 1) bad; but 2) indicative of nuttiness, when the student is removed I can take credit for keeping people safe.

  • Be part of the solution.
  • Posted by TA Smith on September 5, 2007 at 8:55pm EDT
  • I admire someone who sticks to his guns, but Larry seems unable to be convinced of the usefulness of such a protocol. I'd hate to have someone like you as my mentor -- in either a writing or TA capacity. You're part of the problem because I would be afraid to tell you about potentially disturbing writing in my students' work.

    True, often the point of good writing is to disturb. However, the guidelines articulated above clearly are flexible and make room for "good writing" by asking whether students who write about violence for the sake of violence are willing to put it to a literary turn. There is a difference between a literary use of violence and violent writing as an externalization of personal demons. New TAs and new faculty need a baseline to start from to make sure they are open to the possibility of violent writing being indicative of violent tendencies.

    It's not unlike plagiarism -- we should *never* assume that our students are doing it or would even think it, but we should be aware that the possibility exists, and we should know of the warning signs. I trust my students, but there is a difference between trust and naivete, whether you're talking about plagiarism or disturbing writing. Instructors at all levels need to have a protocol, and they should have an immediate supervisor to discuss these things with -- so that no student is put "in a system" unless experienced instructors and experience with the student seem to warrant it.

  • Posted by kgotthardt on September 5, 2007 at 8:55pm EDT
  • "Larry....LOL. I am not suggesting we punish "bad writing." What I am suggesting is that bad writing (in this case violent), in conjunction with other factors and behaviors, can help us recognize possible red flags.

    I am also not suggesting violent writing or even notes in a file that say, "Hey...kgotthardt is a little neurotic and by the way, so is Larry" means anyone should be institutionalized or referred to such an institution. Again, notes like these should be used with discretion and for the purpose of raising awareness only--not for discrimination or rash judgments. Leave diagnosis and treatment to the shrinks.

    That being said, I don't see anything offensive in asking a student, "Hey, is everything okay? You seem a little down or upset or...." You might then remind the student about the counseling center. Government does this all the time through Employee Assistance Programs, and if it becomes a university practice, it won't seem so odd to anyone.

    If you make such inquiries in a nurturing, caring way, and if students come through the University doors knowing their mental and physical health are important to faculty and staff, this won't be such a startling response from an instructor. And after awhile, we will all get a little more open.

    This all goes back to the way we handle information and the way we view mental health. We need to remove the stigma, let everyone know that counseling is not some kind of scarlet letter and neither is mental illness. If someone walked into the classroom on crutches, we wouldn't be afraid to show concern or say, "Hey! What happened to your foot? Are you okay?" Why should we treat mental illness any other way? What might have happened if Cho had lived in a world like this?

  • Guidelines too vague
  • Posted by Laura Valeri , Assistant Professor on September 6, 2007 at 5:50am EDT
  • Let me just put it out there that I don't side with Larry: he doesn't seem to know how to discriminate in matters of writing evaluations, which suggests he is not a writing teacher - or even a writer.

    But I hate to say it: when I read the guidelines, I thought, Oh boy, most Hollywood writers fit this definition.

    Sad that professors have to come up with psychological evaluation guidelines to protect themselves and their jobs. It is not a professor's job to evaluate a student's mental state. It is, however, a professor's right to be safe at his/her job place, just like it is for most of America's workforce, barring only policemen, detectives, soldiers, firemen, etc. who sign up understanding danger is part of their job.

    Sadly, it is also true that administrators are in the business of passing the buck (I suspect Larry is one). Even so, the guidelines are inadequate. A psychological evaluation for studenst, professors, and administrators (you hear that, Larry?) wouldn't be a bad idea. We have to pass all sorts of tests to prove that we are competent and able as students, workers, professors, etc. Mental competence is part of it. Psychology has been a science for long enough now that one must be suspicious of those who still think going to a "shrink" is a sign of weakness. Get over it. Read the newspaper: med students plotting bombings; engineers joining squads of terrorism. Some attention to a potential student's mental state may help us provide some support for those who are not trained to make wholesale evaluation of who is dangerous and who is just experimenting with their imagination.

  • replies
  • Posted by Larry on September 6, 2007 at 5:50am EDT
  • Mr. Smith, I like it. The “guidelines” are clear, yet flexible. This shouldn’t cause any confusion. There will be no ambiguity, and surely nobody will be unjustly punished. Plagiarism, while it does require a showing of subjective intent, can otherwise be empirically verified. Being a potential killer, generally cannot.

    Also, I am not your mentor. If you are afraid to talk to me, it is too bad.

    By the way, is everything okay with you? You seem a little disturbed. Maybe I could make an entry in a database with you, so that you can get some help. Okay? This isn’t a punishment, but it will follow you wherever you go. It is for your own good.

    kgotthardt, While it is legal to say to students, “Is everything okay?” I just did. Anything more organized (such as writing notes in files) will irrevocably hurt the student. I, for one, don’t want to work around someone with such notes in any file regardless of whether they were made by a paranoid (or vindictive) TA, or someone with real concerns. I simply don’t want to be around the kind of person stupid enough to attract such attention. Nor do most people.

    If we want to remove the stigma surrounding mental illness (a condition which I don’t really believe in, anyway) this is not the context to address it in. Everyone seems to be crying out to stigmatize the weirdoes and whatever because they might snap and kill a bunch of people.

    But, okay, let’s play your game. Here are two suggestions:
    1) Treat professors and students alike. They will receive the same mental health screening and surveillance.
    2) Announce that professors and students are mentally sick on their mental sick days. Perhaps mentally ill students and professors can receive get well cards. Same with the staff.

  • pre-clearning students
  • Posted by LArry on September 6, 2007 at 7:10am EDT
  • Ms. Valeri, No, although I make my living “writing” I wouldn’t be called a “writer” in the academic sense. I am also not an “administrator” the way it is referred to on this board. (If you give up on the guessing game, I am a lawyer.)

    First of all, Criminal activity amongst students and professors is nothing new. People have “plotted” bombings or other crimes, and joined rogue gangs for quite some time. Only recently have we called them “terrorists.” There is radically different about today’s times.

    Anyway, as I see it, you want to require everyone in an academic setting to submit to psychological evaluations. Does this mean that everyone does not exhibit the telltale signs of nuttiness will be “cleared” to receive an education? Does it mean that the failures will be prohibited from receiving an education, and won’t even be allowed to work menial jobs because they could snap at any moment? I guess you would be reducing the stigma attached with being psychologically evaluated. However, I assure you that my friends and I could rapidly find shrinks that would “clear” everyone they that was forced to submit for evaluation regardless of any signs of mental illness they exhibited. People without the means to hire their own shrink would be at the mercy of the shrink the school or state provided.

    Whether psychology is a “science” is obviously a philosophical question. However, in many professions, going to a shrink may make it difficult to obtain professional licensure. (Many state bars are suspicious of people that go to shrinks, and for this reason I tell any law student that asks to simply take up a sport rather than go to a shrink. While admission to the bar may be possible, it will require explaining why the shrink-going law student isn’t going to freak out any moment and ineffectively represent a client.

  • Posted by Ed Falco , Professor at Virginia Tech on September 6, 2007 at 8:55am EDT
  • These are the “concluding thoughts” of Virginia Tech’s guidelines for dealing with disturbing creative writing.

    "Judging writing and student intentions is an interpretive act. It is impossible to predict behavior on the basis of writing alone. When writing teachers are concerned about a student, their best service is to encourage that student to engage with specialists. We offer these guidelines caring about our students both as developing writers and as human beings. Guidelines help us think through situations, but they cannot tell us what to do in any absolute sense.

    "One role of creative writing is to disturb and disrupt comfortable, uncritiqued assumptions. Disruption that leads to new understanding is one of its contributions to culture.

    "Some of the greatest writing in the history of our literature, from Catullus to Kafka to Toni Morrison, is deeply disturbing. Intervention with students as a result of writing that pushes limits or is violent should be recommended only when there is genuine and deep concern upon the part of all involved that the writing in question is more of a call for help or a screamed threat than it is in any sense a literary creation."

    And these are the opening sentences:

    "The creative writing program develops the creativity of student writers, which necessarily involves allowing them freedom of expression. Students should not feel that the program monitors and threatens them with disciplinary action for the themes and language they choose. Instructors should not feel that they must take on the roles of therapists or police officers—roles for which they have no professional training."

    The creative writing faculty at Virginia Tech is fully aware of the dangers presented by any set of guidelines on disturbing creative writing. In our particular situation and in our particular moment in time, however, we came to the conclusion that such a set of guidelines would be useful.

  • Free speech for the non-tenured?
  • Posted by Buzz on September 6, 2007 at 11:15am EDT
  • " .. “One role of creative writing is to disturb and disrupt comfortable, uncritiqued assumptions. Disruption that leads to new understanding is one of its contributions to culture .."

    Prof. Falco, thank you for your thoughtful comments. Reasonable persons understand VT's pain and hope for healing and peace.

    We would also note that after the Duke lacrosse case and Larry Summers' forced departure, we are hopeful that views which do not conform to the world-views of Dennis Kucinich, Michael Moore, Al Sharpton, et al., would be respected in academia.

    Others have 1st Amendment rights -- right?

    Finally -- students need to be listened to. Even by administrators and the soon-to-retire tenured.

  • Posted by kgotthardt on September 6, 2007 at 10:30pm EDT
  • I don't think Laura's suggestion of required psych evals for students and employees is so off the mark. If we require health records and shots for school entry, and if we sometimes require background checks, a basic psych screening shouldn't be out of the question.

    Mental illness should not be treated any differently than physical illness. If it completely incapacitates you, then you might not be able to continue in your job or in your schooling. But if you are being treated and can function....what's the big deal?

    If a student tried to get into school without first having a TB test, what would the school do? They would have the student take the test. If the student needed treatment, he/she would get treatment, get-retested and then be welcome to re-apply once treatment was successful. Why wouldn't something like depression be handled the same way?

    Larry, I cannot believe lawyers are discouraged from seeing counselors and seeking mental health. Isn't THAT illegal? Isn't that discrimination? And don't lawyers of all people, need good mental health? What is so stigmatizing about that?

    Why would you not want to work with someone who calls attention to him/herself via a note in a chart? That mentality could be construed as discrimination if you were doing the hiring or admissions. Besides, you have just as much risk if not more by not having notes in files. It's not the information that is the problem. It's the way we handle that information.

    Finally, psychiatrists are MD's as I am sure you know. If you want to argue that psychiatry and neurology are not sciences, do it with a doctor and see how far you get.

  • answers to questions
  • Posted by LArry on September 7, 2007 at 12:45pm EDT
  • kgotthardt, Let me answer your questions about the bar briefly. You want to know whether it is “legal” to discourage lawyers from seeing counselors. To begin, lots of things are “discouraged” in this country on a vague basis. For instance, I am “discouraged” from being seen in public with many people, but it is technically legal. But, as a more practical matter, when applying for membership in a state bar, most (if not all) states ask whether you have seen a shrink. Many states have imposed restrictions upon people that are being treated by shrinks. These restrictions (which often include periodic updates as to the mental fitness of the lawyer from a bunch of doctors are definitely a “discouragement.” (For this reason I tell all law students to NEVER see a shrink. Ever.) These practices have been challenged in court with mixed results, and some states have modified their practices.

    Lawyers need good mental health, but on the other hand, lawyers don’t want to be weak. Seeing a shrink is a sign of weakness an often involves major breaches of client confidences. So, it is often considered to be a very bad idea.

    Secondly, complete medical records are not required for entry into any institution that I know of. Proof of vaccination sometimes is required, but that is hardly a complete medical record.

    Whether the practice of “medicine” is a science is a difficult issue. Just because an MD does something doesn’t mean it is “science.” Whatever the case, I am not going to go to a shrink nor would anyone on my family.