John Cleese and Andrew Graham Dixon

I do wonder Doodledog if pretending to be cleverer or more erudite than others makes you feel better. Who knows perhaps it does. I could go through this thread and pick out how your statements have shifted since the first one on Mental Health issues. But I can't be bothered. It is obvious to me that whatever I say you are going to try and belittle me in some way. If that makes you happy so be it. I said I was out before and returned because you post such tosh. Best to ignore you I think.

Who is saying that anyone should be denied access to HE?

People without the relevant A level grades already are, but you are repeatedly ignoring that inconvenient truth.

I have explained my position more than once, but you are not responding to what I say - you are twisting it to suit your bizarre agenda.

As for the Guardian article, I read that, too, and it is not as simple as you suggest (which is what happens when people report on research that they don't understand).

On the face of it, it seems very worrying, and if students are are being allowed to dictate which views they hear it is yet another indictment of the fee system.

Again, though, it is dangerous to believe reports of research studies without seeing the studies themselves. Asking whether universities should 'ensure that all students are protected from discrimination rather than allow unlimited free speech' is a very loaded question. I am guessing (which is all I can do without reading the research paper) that this is a journalist's summary of a research conclusion that is based on very different questions - no researcher asking questions phrased in that way would get the study past an ethics committee or any sort of peer review.

Still - this is another deflection, isn't it?

Actually DD that is exactly what was said about dyslexics 30 years ago!
They need to do something with their hands
They'd be better off on a practical course
They can't keep up academically
They don't belong at university.
Surprise surprise some of them do and some of them do very well. And you can't judge because dyslexia is a disability just as mental health problems are a disability, and people with disabilities sometimes fail, just as people without disabilities do. But the disability is nothing to do with that failure and should never be considered as grounds for denying anyone access to higher education that is their decision not yours.

Oh interesting data just released from a study of a sample of university students, 11 % think speakers from the Tory party should be prevented from speaking, 5 % think speakers from the labour party should be prevented from speaking and 5 % think speakers from the socialist worker party should be banned.

Sigh.

I even broke it down in an earlier post so that you could see what sorts of things need to be considered before research can be reliable.

Nobody is saying that Dyslexics or people with many MH conditions are unable to learn. Nobody.

What I am saying is that there are MH conditions which do not lend themselves to the sufferer being better off in University, and that if courses have to be adapted to suit conditions where people are unable to listen to challenging views, there will be a reduction in standards.

I don't know how you can argue with that. Actually, you aren't even trying - you just shift the goalposts to deflect from the discussion in hand.

Some of us followed the research on dyslexia others didn't. Just as some will follow the research on mental health and act accordingly. Kind and caring attitudes come with following the research and not choosing to imagine that when things change it is always some sort of reduction in standards and lowering of expectations. The amount of talent which would have gone unrecognised if we had insisted on absolute proof first is uncountable. Research only finds things when researchers have open minds, but an idea that something may possibly be there, and don't reject every concept. I know that much.

Before you leave it, would you like to explain how 'research' led to your conclusion about 'kind and caring attitudes'? You have shown zero understanding of research, so don't seem to be in a position to lecture anyone about how it works.

Or are you going to insult people then flounce rather than answer a difficult question? That's a pattern we've seen before on here ?

Do you know it occurred to me last night that this was the same argument I had about 30 years ago with colleagues who questioned dyslexia. They used exactly the same arguments. Admitting people who can't read will lower standards. If they can't pass a written exam they shouldn't be in higher education. If we change things for them everyone will expect it. How can you tell someone who is dyslexic and someone who is just slow? Even- Dyslexia is a middle class term parents use for a thick child. Thank goodness some of us realised what was happening and adapted for dyslexic children and students. Just as those academics who realise what mental health difficulties are will adapt for their students and those who question it won't. And there I'm going to leave it. There is no point in trying to convince those who simply don't believe in something as I discovered 30 years ago. Time, research and knowledge leads to better practice thank goodness.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

^ 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.

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?

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.

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

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'.

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.

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.

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

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.