Last week, I attempted to answer one of BU’s mysteries in my column that dealt with the University’s policy toward depressed students in campus housing. Since then, I’ve received feedback about the issue, mainly in the form of testimonials from students who said they were victimized by a housing policy that is cruel and insensitive toward people experiencing depression. A group of such students who hope to educate the BU community about mental illness and provide a support system for those who are affected have formed an organization called Fearless.
The explanation offered by BU spokesman Colin Riley is that students are not asked to leave housing for their diagnosis of mental illness, but rather for any specific and harmful behavior that comes as a result. The policy seems a rational one in theory, consistent with the housing contract that we all sign (which, incidentally, is due today). However, the implications of the policy are of serious consequence when examined in practice.
The single most alarming element of the housing policy toward students dealing with depression is the role of the Resident Assistant. In such an enormous, bureaucratic community, some students see RAs as a their only method of access to information about campus resources. If I had a problem, either with myself or with my roommate or a friend, my first impulse would be to ask my RA what to do about it. Yet under BU’s policy, RAs may be required to report evidence of depressive behavior.
It is important to note, as I mentioned in last week’s column, that the University offers other confidential resources where a student can get help for a friend in trouble without fearing negative consequences. Campus resources, such as the Wellness Center and the Danielsen Institute, are accessible to students.
However, the housing policy sets forth a dangerous conflict. While RAs are meant to be pillars of support for student dealing with problems, they are also meant to be authority figures who look out for the safety of their residents. RAs are at once the most trusted and the most feared members of residential life.
A more sensitive housing policy would alleviate this conflict for RAs. The University should designate two separate jobs: one for authority figures who are required to police the behavior of campus residents, and another for support figures, who are responsible for helping residents make sense of campus resources and in whom residents can confide.
In addition to the complex and conflicting responsibilities of the RAs, the administration has set forth a policy that is flawed in other ways. The Lifebook states that the University may dismiss any student for any “reasons of health, safety or welfare of the University community.” But practically any problem can fall into this category, including a student’s expressed battle with depression. It is left up to the individual residence life officer to determine whether or not a student’s symptoms or behavior constitutes a threat to the health, safety or welfare of the community.
While we should strive to create an environment where students struggling with mental illness or emotional problems feel safe and accepted, we instead have designed one in which the depressed can be frightened and stigmatized.
Our policy should certainly be broad enough to protect residents from those who pose a real threat.
Fearless, the new campus group designed to address this aspect of the housing policy, will hold a “teach-in” about depression on March 15.
This is an account occasionally used by the Daily Free Press editors to post archived posts from previous iterations of the site or otherwise for special circumstance publications. See authorship info on the byline at the top of the page.
