The Chronicle
www.dukechronicle.com commentary
MONDAY, DECEMBER 5, 2016 | 15
No equality without Not the self-evident truth standard policy O
M
y heart breaks for anyone who has to suffer through the experience of mental illness. I myself remember the scared person I was almost two and a half years ago. I remember myself unable to explain what was happening to me, and the day I became labeled by the “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders” (DSM). I remember returning to Duke after a summer of intense therapy, feeling terrified—not certain what the future held for me. I was lucky though; my mental illness was not exacerbated until right before the summer and I never had to take a leave of absence from Duke. That is a
his health professionals and that he describes home as his “site of trauma,” this decision might make the most sense. In the other case, as he also mentions, there is the fact that Donahue violated university policy for medical-leave students by coming back on campus, as well as university policy for enrolled students by getting EMSed for underage consumption, while technically on medical leave. Even if he failed to internalize information the day he left Duke, not only is such information usually mailed to students on medical leave, according to several sources, but also it is available in multiple places online. It is for this violation that
bjectivity is subjectively defined. Beyond the seeming paradox of these words lies a truth one may unironically note as authentic. The frameworks of our everyday conversations revolve around ambiguous and subjective rubrics—coined “objective” by their authors. And to find evidence, one need look no further than the unexpected grade they once received on an assignment. However, one might, and within that would discover a world of construed notions of objectivity and utter rejection of subjectivity. Within the realm of foreign policy, U.S. relations with Russia capture the essence of conflicting value-judgements. After all, the extent of bias and sense of justice that colors a nation’s policy objectives often correlates well with clashes they encounter on an international stage.
George Mellgard
Sabriyya Pate
ESSE QUAM VIDERI
IN FORMATION
privilege I recognize. It’s important to understand something about mental illness, which Duke’s medical leave policy attempts to comprehend but ultimately is impossible to quantify. There is no definitive time it takes for someone to address and treat their mental illness. Some individuals will be severely affected for the rest of their lives, others will be able to manage their illness after a few months. Mental illness is a deeply personal and unique struggle and for that reason there is no one-size fits all treatment or time period. It is for that reason that so many students fought against Duke’s previous mandatory two-semesters-off policy for students taking medical leave. Even with such pushback, this policy still unfortunately remains in place, though a mandatory two semesters off have now become an expected. Duke has these policies for a reason. After all, it is the university’s hope that these semesters allow individuals to receive proper treatment, to prepare them to re-enter the often harsh academic and social environment at Duke, to ensure that individuals do not worsen their mental illness by returning to Duke prematurely. It makes sense from administration’s perspective; yet it fails to account for an individual’s narrative. It is because this policy fails to tailor to an individual and their respective treatment that we must continue to question and rework this policy. Any student who cannot come back or has to go through two semesters of medical leave despite recommendations from their health professionals is a “victim” of this policy. However, there is a difference between these students and the case of Jack Donahue, which he made public through an online petition with over 1,200 supporters. If his very-public fight was about the expected number of semesters one might need to take off and about tailoring mental illness to individual cases, it would be one I could get behind. There is a dangerous precedent in conflating the fight for proper understanding of mental illness with the violation of university policy. The progress of his treatment is not the reason he is being denied readmission, rather his actions as an individual and student on medical leave. After all, in the case of Jack Donahue, there are two categories of understanding that must be distinguished. In one case, as he mentions, there is his fight to return to campus after two months of medical leave, and before the expected “leave for two semesters.” Given recommendations from
he ultimately is denied readmission, and for this reason why Donahue’s case cannot be the case for changing the flawed twosemesters-off policy. More important than distinguishing these categories, however, is the impact this individual has on some individuals who have taken or are taking medical leave. Already these individuals feel stigmatized by this petition, because it devalues their experiences and struggles. It suggests that despite taking two semesters off, taking classes, working a job for three months— whatever it may be—other students’ experiences are less valuable. After all, Donahue’s situation doesn’t stand alone. He is now part of a community of Duke students who have taken medical leave, many of whom have returned after adhering to the policy. By attempting to make his case more urgent than these students through a public petition, by using the power of the student body’s passion to bypass others, Donahue is indirectly suggesting that his experience deserves more immediate attention, despite his violations. It is in this respect that this petition serves as a dangerous precedent in regards to the administrative side of Duke’s medical leave policy. Duke’s medical leave policy creates a standard for ensuring systematic treatment of individuals with mental illness, while maintaining itself as a working academic institution. Its policy also allows for transparency and modification of those standards for students despite its flaws. If Donahue were to be treated differently from these set standards in spite of his violations, then it suggests that his case is somehow more deserving of attention than those of other medicalleave students. The danger of making a special case of Donahue’s situation is that it opens up the potential for unequal treatment of different students, based on such subjective reasons as the willingness to publicize his mental illness. With no standard policy, there can be no equality. Without a standard policy, subjective bias and unequal treatment of individuals could quickly become normalized within the process of taking medical leave. The administration needs to take a serious look at its standard for medical policy and provide reform for all students with mental illness. Mental health should not be a barrier to education, ever. Butthis case does not define the fight against this barrier. George Mellgard is a Trinity senior. His column, “esse quam videri,” runs on alternate Wednesdays.
For instance, to Russian President Vladimir Putin, the “Russian truth” may bare down to a fundamental desire to restore Russian power and influence. On Dec. 2, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs updated its foreign policy doctrine to note how Ukraine and Syria are two new prominent “priority areas” for their strategy in the region. Particularly in Syria, however, Russian interests remain convoluted as the Kremlin continues to support a repressive, dictatorial regime. Some argue that Russia views the region as a platform to display their military might, while others point to what Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev has lauded as a “privileged relation” between Russia and Bashar al-Assad’s father, as a possible explanation for Russian intervention. Meanwhile, Russia’s official stance on Syria has been to cooperate with al-Assad in light of the Islamic State. “It is hypocritical and irresponsible to make loud declarations about the threat of international terrorism while turning a blind eye to the channels of financing and supporting terrorists,” claimed Putin in a 2015 speech to the United Nations General Assembly. In that same speech, Putin expresses his preference for “collective work” and “equality” in sovereign nations. What a misunderstanding it must be, then, for the U.S., a country whose constitution professes the exact same ideals as those moralized by Putin, to characterize Russia as anything less. There is no evidence to suggest Putin is not sincere in his interpretation of justice in international law; however, if his truths speak sincerely, how can, therefore, the U.S. Secretary of State denounce the Russian “regime” as one engaging in deliberate efforts to terrorize citizens? Simply put, easily. In a global context where enemies are easily constructed and authentic allyship is difficult to find, both the U.S. and Russia can believe in their respective truths, holding themselves to “objective” standards on the grounds of fairness, respect, and inclusion. Who, however, are the stakeholders in their characterizations of truth? The displaced Syrian populace? The legacy of al-Assad’s father? Russia with its desire to assert global influence? Those are to be, again, factored in an subjective manner. Beyond nation-states alone, everyone can know and appreciate their divergent stakes, interests and risks. But what is intriguing is how confident each actor—be they Russia, the U.S., or a disgruntled professor faced with a regrade—can attribute truth to their words. In that respect, “truth” has become extremely subjective. Within the context
of Russian-U.S. opinions on Syria, much stands to be gained from discussions on the ways in which objectivity can be defined. Once a common rubric or set of objectives is established, defined perhaps by the prioritization of saving the most Syrian lives, the two nations may then proceed to weighing the costs and benefits of engagement. After all, the question of who is a suitable ally in the fight against ISIS or the regime of al-Assad, depending on one’s perspective on the root of instability in Syria, segues well into potential agreements. Effectively, agreements on what is a truth, otherwise described as an objective, can prevent many of the conflicts of interests found on global but also personal levels. Throughout the 2016 U.S. presidential elections, many have taken to accepting truth on their own terms. Researchers at
Stanford have found that young people are more susceptible to fake-news—an emerging “threat to democracy.” With eighty percent of today’s middle schoolers believing ‘sponsored content’ is real news, and high schoolers accepting photographs without verification and failing to distinguish real from fake news sources on Facebook, the future of truthtelling remains dismaying. In response, there has been a commendable call for greater fact-checking. While valiant these efforts, it is important to recognize how individuals may be willful consumers of “subjective” news. The challenge then becomes altering those perceptions, and proving the value of objectiveness as it is contextually defined. Duke’s tenth university president, Vincent Price, wields the power to define our own truths on campus—though how we act on those objectives is up to us. Coming from the University of Pennsylvania with an extensive background in public opinion and political information research, Price perhaps can embrace subjectivity and the nuances of diversity in opinion when implementing policies and promoting messages of our campus’ “truths.” One ironically potent message delivered by Putin regarding Syria, concerning diversity of opinion, was that “we are all different, and we should respect that. No one has to conform to a single development model that someone has once and for all recognized as the only right one. We should all remember what our past has taught us.” Disregarding the egregious and provocative nature of this man’s prior statements and actions, there is a subjectively granted truth to his words. Encouraging debate through conversations, preferably one person at a time, is a crucial aspect of restoring trust in our communities and governments. Our dinner tables shan’t be homogenized echo chambers. Especially within elitist bubbles, diversity, across educational attainment levels, is a “requisite for any meaningful dialogue,” as Tom Ross, UNC president-emeritus, said at the recent Sanford event. Once diverse actors set the criteria for the quality of information they act upon, diplomatic and interpersonal relations can better flourish. While recognizing the immense subjectivity of the words of any columnist, the argument for negotiating definitions of objectivity withstands. We all have different “truths” that we live; the great challenge now is to negotiate those within ourselves and with our neighbors. Sabriyya Pate is a Trinity sophomore. Her column, “in formation,” runs on alternate Mondays.