Open Society

The public perception of a strong link between mental illness and violence is fueled in part by news coverage of mass shootings and other violent events. Two studies have directly linked news media coverage of high-profile acts of violence by persons with serious mental illness to negative public attitudes toward this group.

When suicide is examined as a part of the picture of gun violence, mental illness legitimately becomes a strong vector of concern; it should become an important component of effective policy to prevent firearm violence.

Evidence is clear that the large majority of people with mental disorders do not engage in violence against others, and that most violent behavior is due to factors other than mental illness.

Jeff Swanson at Duke published a study that estimated somewhere around 4% of violence was attributable to mental illness, which meant if you could get rid of all the violence that was caused by or related to mental illness, we’d still be left with 96% of the violence in this country. There are lots of reasons to want to provide good mental healthcare, but violence reduction is, in my view, pretty low on the list.

Texas ranks near the bottom in primary care providers per 100,000 residents at 182, according to the United Health Foundation. According to The Commonwealth Fund, Texas leads the nation — by far — in residents without health insurance, and a staggering 19% of all people with a credit score in Texas have medical debt that has gone to collections. Those new Texans are also finding few protections in the law. Texas is another state with no public accommodation law barring discrimination against non-disabled people; it has passed a barrage of laws targeting the LGBTQ+ community; and its abortion ban is the strictest in the nation.

For many library workers, the material consequences of unchecked capitalism are the stuff of everyday life. Often we are the only indoor public space in our communities and provide the only accessible public bathroom. We provide broadband internet to people who can’t access it otherwise, and assistance with the email addresses and online forms required to access public welfare programs. Extreme poverty, unaddressed mental illness, the opioid crisis — all of it walks through our doors and makes itself at home.

n many ways, the structure of this book is not unlike a mullet: business in the front, party in the back.

Suppose you have a negative reaction to a certain educational practice but you’re unable to come up with any good reasons to justify your opposition.  All is not lost:  You can always play the “human nature” card.  Never mind whether it’s a good thing to help students become caring and compassionate, for example, or to work at reversing segregation.  Simply assert that everyone is ultimately driven by self-interest, or that people naturally prefer to be with their own kind.  Presto!  All efforts to bring about change can now be dismissed as well-meaning but unrealistic.

Conversely, no logic or data are necessary when you find a practice you happen to like.  Just insist that what you favor is rooted in the natural inclination of our species.  A search of the archives of this very publication reveals that various individuals have taken this tack in support of many different policies, including standardized testing (“It’s just human nature that when performance is measured, performance improves”) and extrinsic incentives (“Human nature . . . has always demanded, for peak performance, a potential reward consistent with effort put forth”).  A lack of interest in school policies on the part of parents, a resistance to change on the part of teachers, even the practice of holding adolescent boys back a year to enhance their athletic prospects (“redshirting”) have all been casually attributed to human nature.

Almost by definition, the BGUTI defense ignores developmental differences.

But people don’t really get better at coping with unhappiness because they were deliberately made unhappy when they were young.  In fact, it is experience with success and unconditional acceptance that help one to deal constructively with later deprivation.  Imposing competition or standardized tests or homework on children just because other people will do the same to them when they’re older is about as sensible as saying that, because there are lots of carcinogens in the environment, we should feed kids as many cancer-causing agents as possible while they’re small to get them ready.

“You’d better get used to it” not only assumes that life is pretty unpleasant, but that we ought not to bother trying to change the things that make it unpleasant.  Rather than working to improve our schools, or other institutions, we should just get students ready for whatever is to come.  Thus, a middle school whose primary mission is to prepare students for a dysfunctional high school environment soon comes to resemble that high school.  Not only does the middle school fail to live up to its potential, but an opportunity has been lost to create a constituency for better secondary education.  Likewise, when an entire generation comes to regard rewards and punishments, or rating and ranking, as “the way life works,” rather than as practices that happen to define our society at this moment in history, their critical sensibilities are stillborn.  Debatable policies are never debated.  BGUTI becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

While such assertions are never accompanied by evidence (presumably because it doesn’t exist), they do prove remarkably effective at shutting down discussion.  Those against whom this rhetorical ploy is used find themselves stymied because it’s not easy to defend something utopian, or to oppose something unavoidable. Here’s another option for those who would rather not have to offer a substantive defense of their views:  In response to a humane and respectful educational practice, they can say, “Yeah, but what’s going to happen to these kids when they learn that life isn’t like that?”  Invoking a dismal future, like invoking human nature, can work both ways – to attack practices one opposes and also to promote practices one prefers.  I’ve lost track of how many times I’ve heard someone respond to the charge that a certain policy is destructive by declaring that children are going to experience it eventually, so they need to be prepared.