John Cleese and Andrew Graham Dixon

Galaxy

And deciding that people with mental health issues cant cope with challenging opinions is deeply patronising. There is no evidence that the people who demand no platforming ( usually a very small percentage of the student body) have mental health issues. They may or they may not but you cant assume that they do.

I wouldn't say that not-platforming is all about people with mental health difficulties. I would say it was about protecting the vulnerable and this may include those with mental health difficulties. So I'm not assuming anything. I said if it prevented one suicide I would support it. Not all suicides have mental health problems.

Iam64

No it isn’t about mental health being shameful. It’s about all of us taking responsibility for our physical, emotional and mental health.
If we are not seriously mentally ill, ie psychotic , or suicidal to be blunt with the hope I won’t offend someone. Ok we had a miscarriage, a termination, our mother/other loved one has a terrifying diagnosis, we may feel we won’t be functioning at the top of our ability. Most / many employers/every university would accept a week self certification sick leave. It’s the responsible thing to do. If we need more time off, we need a certificate from our GP

It isn’t about shaming m.h. It’s about recognising if we break a leg, sprain an ankle, get a chest infection, we can’t work. Mental health and physical health - some of its management is down to the I fividual

But some people live with mental health problems their whole lives. It isn't going to get better. It isn't a matter of needing time off. It may be controlled with medication, but it can still make life difficult particularly at times of stress. That's why students need support. They don't need to be told they shouldn't be there or that they need to take some time off.

I hate the way suicide is used in these discussions. With no evidence and frequently in direct opposition to guidelines on suicide. I could say I wonder if non platforming has caused many suicides but I try my best not to use suicide as some sort of bargaining tool.

And there you have an exact explanation of why mental health is still regarded as shameful and not to be spoken of. Because if you have a physical disability and need wheelchair access or an amanuensis you will get every consideration and adjustment. But if you have mental health issues well just go home!

That is not what I said ?.

People with the sort of mental health issues (and they are varied) who are unable to give a presentation should not join a course where this is a method of assessment. It's all very well to say that assessment methods should be changed, but if the course is, for example, one that trains teachers, it is dishonest to graduate if you can't stand in front of a group and disseminate information. It is also unfair to give someone who has been assessed differently the same certificate as another student who did do the presentation, despite their nerves. There are many courses which are assessed differently, eg the OU, which offers a wide range of courses that can be studied online and may be more appropriate for people who do not feel able to join in with extra-curricular activities such as listening to speakers in the SU (or other groups of students).

Who said that MH should not be spoken about? Or that it is shameful? Certainly not me, as that is not what I think.

Of course it is patronising to say that people with MH issues should not have their opinions challenged. That assumes that all MH issues are the same, and that people who do suffer from them expect to be protected and treated as children.

Thank goodness most people working in universities don't think like this. It is a disability like any other and it needs to be catered for, not to do so is a breech of the law.
How do you know how 'most people working in universities' think?

Do you think that it is fair that people who are experts in their field should also become experts in mental health? Or that there should be different standards of assessment for some students? How would you answer a student who is very nervous about an exam or a presentation, and comes to you to say that it is unfair that her flatmate is being excused it because she has a sick note saying that she has anxiety? Do you lower the standards of the course for all, or allow some people to qualify without meeting all the requirements?

There are lots of MH disabilities that can be catered for, and universities do, on the whole, do as much as possible to do so. Students who are agoraphobic can often learn from home, or bring in a trusted person to sit with them and walk between classes. Separate rooms can be provided for anxious students to sit exams so that nobody can see them. People who need lots of time off to deal with issues can have work sent home or do it online, and so on. They are just a small part of a much wider range of measures that can, and do, help people with MH issues to study.

I'm all in favour of all of that, but not allowing anyone to hear challenging views in case it upsets someone with fragile MH is several steps too far. It is also unfair to blame a university (which is, after all, just an institution made up of individual people) for being unable to cater for the needs of someone who has not declared those needs, or whose needs place them outside of the parameters of what can be catered for without diluting the experience for others.

‘But some people live with mental health problems their whole lives. It isn’t going to get better’
A;ologies if I didn’t make clear in my post, the distinction between enduring mental and physical health problems and feelings or a common cold - for example

Smileless2012 thank you so much for your support, it’s very much appreciated
Glorianny I withdraw my wanting to believe you weren’t deliberately misunderstanding my post, I find your responses offensive and deliberately so. Perhaps you’d care to apologise for the offence? If I thought for one nanosecond that ML was apologising in absolute good faith having realised the error of his ways would be one thing, an apology grounded in covering his pitiful arse out of fear of cancellation is something else and not worth the time he took to tweet it. Clear enough for you?

This may sound harsh, but I'm not sure why the fact that someone is not going to get better from MH issues has to do with it, if indeed it is the case (again - not all MH issues are the same, and some can be mitigated or cured).

As with all health matters, some measures can help, and a lot of time and effort goes into helping people with Dyslexia, Autism, ADHD and other neurodiversity issues. Physical problems can be alleviated by the use of ramps, hearing loops and so on. Similarly, people with some MH issues can be helped to study on the same terms as other students. The point of all of the above is to create as level a playing field as possible, for all students.

University study is not based on equality. Entrance depends on success in A levels, and in some cases on interviews. Is it 'fair' that some people do better in exams than others? Lots of people are rejected because they are not academic enough to get in, and that is not going to get better either. The stress of the thought of not getting first class degrees can send some students into a decline. Should they be given the marks so that this doesn't happen? I'm not suggesting that anyone on this thread has said that they should, but that is the logical progression of the idea that MH issues have to be catered to at all costs.

Expecting courses or extra-curricular activities to be diluted so that people who can't take the fact that not everyone's views are the same as theirs can not be the way forward, unless we are to accept a fall in standards for everyone. And I repeat - many people with MH issues would not want that to happen at all.

Galaxy

I hate the way suicide is used in these discussions. With no evidence and frequently in direct opposition to guidelines on suicide. I could say I wonder if non platforming has caused many suicides but I try my best not to use suicide as some sort of bargaining tool.

I agree but stating the fact that suicide in universities has declined in the last 5 years and that a more caring and considerate attitude has been brought in including the protection of non-platforming isn't using it as a bargaining tool. It is drawing attention to the fact that progress is being made. If you ignore that simply because you don't agree with a policy I wonder why you do so?

Because there is no evidence of any such link. You may as well say suicide has reduced due to a change in classroom decor. I have watched lots of decisions based on no evidence lately so am very wary of those claims.

Do you understand the difference between correlation and causation, Glorianny?

And this is the risk about hypothesis relating to suicide, according to the data I can see university students are much less likely to commit suicide than those of the same age not in higher education. Males in university are as in the rest of the population much more likely to commit suicide than females at university. Those campaigning about support for those at risk of suicide at university appear to be focussing on the data protection issue (universities not contacting families when issues were apparent). That data raises many issues particularly in relation to males I would say but not an obvious link to no platforming.

Doodledog you said
do think that students (and where they are very young their parents) should take some responsibility when it comes to MH issues. If someone knows that their MH is fragile, or that they are ‘unable’ to fulfil the requirements of a course of study, they should consider choosing a different course or living at home whilst studying. It is unreasonable to expect to get special treatment (eg being absolved from the sorts of assessment that stresses them) when others getting the same qualification are expected to comply
and then
. It is also unfair to give someone who has been assessed differently the same certificate as another student who did do the presentation, despite their nerves.

But dyslexic students can be assessed differently and are permitted to present their work using other methods than writing. So why shouldn't someone with MH problems be given the same consideration?

Of course there are varying levels of MH issues and the help offered has to be individually targeted but the concept that offering such help in some way is unfair to other students is something that really cannot be supported. It is the same argument that was used before proper adjustments for the disabled were brought in. It was unsustainable then and it is now.
I don't think referring to subjects in a considerate and understanding way using language acceptable to all is diluting anything and someone who can't mange to do that needs perhaps to examine why. If the views to be presented do deal with issues that might in some way disturb a section of society then that would need to be tackled in a sensitive way. Many such subjects are and all should be.

There is an issue with not being able to contact families when you are concerned about a student. I don't know what the answer is, as I understand that they are adults; but it can be difficult not to speak 'mother to mother' when you have concerns. A member of staff would risk their job to contact a parent, or even to discuss things with a parent who contacted them. I'm not saying that ways are never found, but it is entirely at the staff member's risk.

This has been going on for years, though - long before no-platforming was a 'thing'.

Yes that is quite a complex issue, I am not sure what I feel about that to be honest.

But dyslexic students can be assessed differently and are permitted to present their work using other methods than writing. So why shouldn't someone with MH problems be given the same consideration?

They are. Where it is appropriate. Believe me, MH is taken seriously. As I asked before, though, what would you say to a tearful student who is worried about a presentation, and knows that her flatmate has been excused it because she has anxiety?

Do you think that nobody should be assessed that way, even if the course is one that leads to careers where public speaking is a necessity? Or that one student should be excused and the other not, but both get the same qualification? Or something else?

The same dilemmas occur with students not feeling up to doing exams, crits, performances and other nerve-wracking assessments that are necessary to judge their competence.

Galaxy

Because there is no evidence of any such link. You may as well say suicide has reduced due to a change in classroom decor. I have watched lots of decisions based on no evidence lately so am very wary of those claims.

It is fine to be wary but personally I would prefer to err on the side of caution. No-platforming does not substantially cause great problems for many people. It may protect others. Is it necessary to prove a link or better to consider it possible and provide protection? Is listening to something which may cause upset and distress an essential part of anyone's education?

^ As I asked before, though, what would you say to a tearful student who is worried about a presentation, and knows that her flatmate has been excused it because she has anxiety?^

Exactly the same as I'd say to someone who questioned a wheelchair ramp. Someone with a disability needs an adaptation.
The fact that you even have to ask that shows a distinct lack of appreciation of disability and MH issues.

Hearing different viewpoints is essential to education yes and to a functioning society in general. We have moved in to a much more polarised society because of our inability to hear others who think differently to us. It is when those who have completely different views work together that progress is made.
No platforming has caused people very severe distress there are many accounts of that distress.

It is fine to be wary but personally I would prefer to err on the side of caution.

What about the side of common sense? Where is 'the side of caution' when you have nothing in the way of figures?

No-platforming does not substantially cause great problems for many people.
How do you know?

It may protect others. Is it necessary to prove a link or better to consider it possible and provide protection?
Of course it is. You may just as well say that there is a link between eating cornflakes and academic success and insist that everyone starts the day with a large bowl of cereal, just in case it is true.

Is listening to something which may cause upset and distress an essential part of anyone's education?
Yes, of course! How do you study literature without considering texts about death, war, disease - the very worst parts of the human condition? Or medicine, without discussing how to break the news that not only is someone going to die of a hereditary illness, but that they have passed it on to their pregnant daughter? Or international development, without learning about starvation, war and illness?

And so on and so on.

University is for adults. It is not a primary school where texts can be sanitised to keep small children in a happy world where everyone is kind and the sun will always shine.

Is listening to something which my cause upset and distress an essential part of anyone's education? it depends on what is being studied, and at degree level is something to be considered by students when choosing the course for study.

I did my Social Sciences degree with the OU. There were aspects of the course which I found very difficult but was aware that may be the case when selecting the units for study.

Glorianny

^ As I asked before, though, what would you say to a tearful student who is worried about a presentation, and knows that her flatmate has been excused it because she has anxiety?^

Exactly the same as I'd say to someone who questioned a wheelchair ramp. Someone with a disability needs an adaptation.
The fact that you even have to ask that shows a distinct lack of appreciation of disability and MH issues.

And your answer shows a distinct lack of understanding of the modern educational landscape. Students are paying a lot of money, and are very alive to anything that could be perceived as disadvantage or unfairness.

What do you say to a 6th former who doesn't have enough points to get on the course she wants to study? Should we get rid of entry requirements so that everyone gets the chance to go to university, or do we accept that people have to make adaptations to their hopes and desires based on their ability to cope with the situation ahead of them?

Doodledog

Glorianny

^ As I asked before, though, what would you say to a tearful student who is worried about a presentation, and knows that her flatmate has been excused it because she has anxiety?^

Exactly the same as I'd say to someone who questioned a wheelchair ramp. Someone with a disability needs an adaptation.
The fact that you even have to ask that shows a distinct lack of appreciation of disability and MH issues.

And your answer shows a distinct lack of understanding of the modern educational landscape. Students are paying a lot of money, and are very alive to anything that could be perceived as disadvantage or unfairness.

What do you say to a 6th former who doesn't have enough points to get on the course she wants to study? Should we get rid of entry requirements so that everyone gets the chance to go to university, or do we accept that people have to make adaptations to their hopes and desires based on their ability to cope with the situation ahead of them?

Fortunately though many students are also aware of the very real problems of mental health and understand what that means and the difference between that and being worried about a single presentation.
I understand that as they are paying, students expect academics to recognise those things as well. Obviously some don't.
Otherwise this strange idea that accommodating people's mental health problems is the same as lowering standards and admitting anyone wouldn't even occur. It is as I said previously exactly the same as the discussions about disabilities in the past. It is just as irrelevant.

I understand that as they are paying, students expect academics to recognise those things as well. Obviously some don't.

Can you explain what you mean by this, please? Who do you mean by 'some', specifically?

I am not saying that accommodating MH needs means lowering standards. I am saying that not all needs can be accommodated, and that in a place of learning, where difficult ideas need to be considered, those who are unable to consider them can not be accommodated without watering down those ideas. As has been pointed out, but as you choose to ignore, there are many types of MH problems, and those that can be accommodate are.

It's not about discrimination - it is about education. You still haven't explained whether you believe that it is ok to discriminate on grounds of examination results when it comes to admission. You may not think it's relevant, but humour me? I have answered questions from you that I don't see as relevant.

So, about correlation and causation. Do you understand the difference, and how would you apply your understanding of those terms to your (unsubstantiated) claim that a decline in suicide figures is related to a rise in no-platforming?

You say yourself that there is a 'more caring and considerate attitude' these days. Compared to what? How is 'caring and considerate' measured? What is the relationship between a 'caring and considerate attitude' and the Mental Health of students? Was their MH measured before, during or after this change in attitude? How has the act of no-platforming been separated from other 'caring and considerate' acts to measure whether or not it has had an effect?

If you can answer those questions, I might believe there are grounds to begin wondering whether there is a causal link, but if not, it is no more than a guess, which is not a good basis for policy.

The distinction made between mental health problems that could result in medical diagnosis and human frailties and feelings remains imo
We do not support or assist by labelling ‘feeling worries about an exam’ a m.h.problem. It’s diminishing real mh problems. Parents, friends, teachers, tutors and colleagues can support and help each other through tough times. That’s totally different to the needs of someone mid psychotic episode. It’s patronising in the extreme to suggest those of us able to discuss this don’t understand or worse, don’t care.

Agreed Iam, and this constant twisting of what people are saying is tiresome.