Resolve to keep happy, and your joy and you shall form an invincible host against difficulties.

Posts for September 18, 2009

Back to top
QDear 100 Hour Board,

Do you think the Horatio Alger myth ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H... ) helps or hurts the socioeconomically disadvantaged?

- person

Direct Link to Question

ADear Person,

I think it depends on the socioeconomically disadvantaged person in question. I believe that there are certainly a great many people who are capable of turning their financial situations around and making more of their lives. Sometimes all they need is motivation and confidence - if they believe that they can become wealthy with hard work, determination, and intelligent decision-making, they can find that they are, indeed, successful.

However, there are also plenty of socioeconomically disadvantaged people who are likely harmed when others assume that their misfortune is solely their own fault. Some have extenuating financial situations, such as an ill or injured family member who requires medical care while being unable to work. Others are finding that employment is difficult to come by despite the effort they have put forth in the past (I am currently aware of many highly qualified and educated professionals who have fallen victim to a brutal economy). Others simply may not have the ability to be a self-made millionaire, or even completely self-reliant due to mental or emotional problems.

This variance found in individual situations raises some interesting and critical points on how we should treat and help the poor. Striking a balance between helping the true hard-luck cases while avoiding fostering a culture of dependency is a huge issue confronted by politicians and philanthropists alike, and isn't likely to go away any time soon.

~Hermia

AAh, the American Dream. Does it not hold a place, however small, in the hearts of most Americans? The idea that one could make something out of nothing is an attractive one. It gives hope to those born into poverty. It gives strength to those who have recently felt the change of the financial tides for the worse. It gives people something to work for; a goal, however far off, to make getting up everyday and looking for better opportunities worth it. It is the reason that countless souls have given everything to reach "the land of opportunity."

I do not believe that the Horatio Alger myth does anyone any harm. It is a source of motivation to people to better their living situation. Often, willpower is enough to climb any mountain. Of course, you have to take into account that people's circumstances differ. Some people are more than capable of making something out of almost nothing. Others need a little help, due to circumstances beyond their control. An interesting conflict in the welfare debate is just where we draw the line when helping the poor. Do we help everyone who is struggling, or only the most needy? Do we only help those who can't help themselves? Who draws the line between those who can succeed on their own and those who need help?

We all need help at some point in our lives. It may not be financially, but we all require the service of others. It's not my job to judge those who are struggling and require help. Poverty is a difficult problem that is not going to go away anytime soon, but I think that giving those affected by it something to hope for is a good thing.

American Dreamin',

⋯Anomalous

Back to top
QDear 100 Hour Board,

How do you feel about mental health being a criteria for enrollment in universities (such as BYU)? I ask this question because I had a friend whose acceptance to BYU-Hawaii was terminated when they discovered she was not in perfect mental health. She had full endorsement from her bishop, stake president, and even a counselor, and was seeking treatment, but no ounce of persuasion would convince the administration to re-enroll her (and they terminated her acceptance like one week before she was supposed to arrive at school, the jerks!). What do you think about this? Is it practical for school administrators to "protect" their student bodies from the effects of those who struggle with psychological disorders, or is this discrimination? What about students who are suicidal? I think you already know how I feel about this, but I'd like to hear your opinions.

- Somewhat Bitter

Direct Link to Question

ASomewhat Bitter-

I think it's wrong to use it as a criteria to get into school. Mental illness is just an illness, and one can recover from it (or at least significantly improve their mental health) given treatment and time. I think there would be outrage if a school was to deny enrollment to a student who had cancer, and I think it should be the same way with psychological disorders.

Those are my thoughts.

- Cuddlefish

ADear Somewhat Bitter,

I agree with Cuddlefish. I don't know your friend's situation, but I can think of very few situations in which I would feel uncomfortable with a fellow student having a psychological disorder. Let me set something straight before my comments get misunderstood: I again want to state that in all but the most extreme of cases, I think that people with psychological disorders have as much of a right to attend a university as you or I. The only reason I can think of as to why a university would be justified in turning down a student based on a psychological disorder would be if the student had proved werfself to be a danger to other people. If that were the case, however, the student would probably not be in a situation that would allow for university attendance in the first place. I just want to make the point that if this were the situation, I think that the university would be within its rights to turn the student down.

If you disagree with my point, consider this: think of a younger sibling, niece, or other child you care about. Now, think about sending that child to school one day, knowing that also in attendance that day would be a student with an extreme emotional disorder, who had injured many students in the past, and had shown no signs of recovery, or willingness to change. How would you feel about that? A university has similar stewardship over its students. The people who are in charge do what they can to keep students safe. Sometimes they have to make controversial decisions for the good of the community. If that doesn't do it for you, think about how you would feel sitting through class next to someone who had been proven to be emotionally unstable to the point that werf had become a danger to the community. Would you be concentrating on the lecture, or on every sudden movement the student next to you made?

Now, don't get me wrong. By no means do I mean this as a personal attack on your friend. From the small amount of information you have provided, I would personally be perfectly comfortable having your friend as a fellow student. In my opinion, if a bishop, stake president, and counselor have no problems with your friend attending a university, I don't see why any university should. I also don't see why any one person should have a problem with it. It's for none of us to judge, and if a student has an endorsement from werf's bishop, none of us have the right to question it.

I truly hope that everything works out for the best for your friend. My prayers and best wishes go out to her,

⋯Anomalous

ADear Somewhat Bitter,

Yeah, you called it. I'm replying to this one.

I tried to find out what BYU and BYU-H's general admissions policy was when it comes to the mentally ill, but I don't think that's going to be possible (read: they just weren't so helpful on this one), so I thought I'd start off with talking about what rights us fun mentally ill folks have when it comes to institutions of higher learning. (Speaking of rights, if I were someone's friend and they were denied entrance to any university because of mental health, I'd want them to meet with an attorney who specializes in advocating for people in these types of situations, just so they could be advised about their rights and make sure they weren't being denied any. If money is an issue, you can often find these types of attorneys are willing to work pro bono and many others work in free legal aid offices.) I found this article which I think gives a pretty good introduction to the federal laws (the two biggies being the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act) which are supposed to protect the mentally ill and other disabled people and talks about some higher court rulings having to do with them as they pertain specifically to the mentally ill. I found it a very interesting read. Dr. Liebert sums up the impact of the Rehabilitation Act (and the Americans with Disabilities Act, which broadened the implications of the act to all public entities and not just institutions which received federal funding) by saying:

Quote:

Institutions may deny access to the disabled if their disability inhibits their ability to reasonably complete the course of study, but not if the disability can be reasonably accommodated for rendering the student 'otherwise' able to perform.

However, these types of situations are not as broad as they sound right at first. Dr. Liebert continues, saying:

Quote:

Schools, of course, may deny access if the student’s mental disability cannot be reasonably accommodated for. For instance, if a student suffering with schizophrenia is actively experiencing psychosis and is acting dangerously to himself or others, he may be denied access. As Alikhan explains, 'A person who poses a "direct threat" to the health or safety of others will not be considered a "qualified person" with a disability' (2001, p. 165). In contrast, however, a student being treated for schizophrenia with the use of antipsychotic medication may experience significant uncontrollable tremors of his or her hands. Providing the use of a tape recorder or note-taker for class lectures and discussions could reasonably accommodate for such side effects.

In all of the sources I looked at, the big factor that kept being discussed was the one that both Dr. Liebert and Alikhan emphasized: is the student a danger to themselves or to others? Apparently, when it comes to mental illness, this really is legally the deciding factor, or at least it should be. Again, said Dr. Liebert:

Quote:

Those with mental illness are afforded the same protections under RA and ADA as others suffering from physical disabilities. However ... institutions of higher education do not apply the RA and ADA as vigorously to those with mental illness as is applied to those with a physical disability. Not all forms of disability are equally stigmatizing.

Look, I'm not trying to point the finger at most institutions of higher learning and say, LOOK. THEY MAKE LIFE HARD FOR TOTALLY INNOCENT MENTALLY ILL PEOPLE. I don't think that is the intent of most anyone. None of my personal friends have ever told me about problems they've had with a college. But I do think that mental illness is highly stigmatized in our society and that university admissions departments are not immune to that. I'm just as anti-spurious-lawsuits as the next person, but I very strongly believe that any public entity that treats a mentally ill person unfairly due only to the fact that they are mentally ill deserves to have the pants sued right off of them.

So, what do I think of mental health being a criterion for college admission? Here are some thoughts:

Be really careful when considering mentally ill people on the basis of being dangerous to others. There's this great stereotype that the emotionally disturbed are dangerous to the population at large. The overwhelming majority of us are no more dangerous to anyone than anyone without a psychological disorder is. There are certain diagnoses (paranoid schizophrenia and antisocial personality disorder, for example) that are associated with higher rates of violence than are found in the general population, but there are not many people in these groups. What's more, a person who is not seeking treatment and has proved to be a danger to society is most likely in an institution and not applying for college. We should not allow our fear of the next Virginia Tech to cause us to be prejudiced against a candidate for admission whose treatment team is giving the go-ahead. This will only perpetuate stereotypes and stigmas and rob hardworking individuals who have overcome incredible odds of great opportunity.
Be even more careful when considering mentally ill people on the basis of being dangerous to themselves. That's all I'm going to say about that. I'm not a lawyer and there are a lot of fuzzy lines and I care a little bit too much about where those lines are.
Students should not have to supply information on their mental health to admissions boards at all, except in very certain situations. I just don't think that most of us fun mentally ill people need to let you know about it. We aren't dangerous, and if you don't know you can't accidentally deny us entrance over nothing.
In situations where admissions boards do need to know, applicants should be judged on their behavior only and not on their diagnoses. It just isn't fair to judge one of my friends on her borderline personality disorder diagnosis because of the disorder's reputation for producing manipulators, self injurers, and people who respond poorly to treatment. It just isn't fair to judge another of my acquaintances on her dissociative identity disorder diagnosis because of the perception that people with her diagnosis have no control over many of their actions. It just isn't fair to judge me on my bipolar disorder diagnosis because I have a higher likelihood than you do of offing myself after spending way too much money, having too much sex, and driving way too fast. Each applicant should be considered individually. What have they done, what improvements have they made, and how does their treatment team feel about their readiness to plunge into a college environment?
Mental health professionals and not administrators should make more of the calls. Mental health professionals will better understand the risks to admitting a mentally ill person. Administrators are more likely to be biased and worry more about covering their tails.

All my best to your friend in all of her future endeavors. Give her a hug for me.

- The Black Sheep

P.S. You might also enjoy these articles.

Back to top
QDear 100 Hour Board,

Is there any law requiring all humans in the United States to have a name? In other words, could a person have no written or verbal handle and not be at odds with the law?

- likes his name fine and is just curious

Direct Link to Question

ADear name liker,

Good question. From what I've been able to find, there is no law that arbitrarily demands that persons living inside the United States need to have a name, per se. I spoke with a very nice woman at the Utah Office of Vital Records (which holds official birth and death certificates for the state of Utah). While she said that she was not aware of any law requiring someone to have a name, she was emphatic about the importance of having a name, a birth certificate and having an official form of identification (and seemed shocked when I asked what the consequences of not having one would be). A birth certificate is vital for virtually any kind of government-issued service or process. These include voting; obtaining a Social Security card, a passport, or a driver's license; receiving public assistance, and attending state-funded schools (to name just a few).

Currently there is no requirement to have any kind of government-issued identification. However, there are situations when you are legally required to identify yourself to a government official. For instance, you can be required by the police to provide identification (this is conditional, of course). Also, if you are asked to provide information to a census taker, you can be fined for not providing required information. Basically, from what I understand, you would not be at odds with the law for NOT having a name, but not having a name could get you into trouble if you are in violation of some other law.

There are some other issues that indicate how difficult it would be to not have a name. From www.lawprofessor.com: "You may not legally change your name for fraud in order to get away with something or do something illegal such as avoiding debts, keeping from being sued or getting away with a crime. . ." So if you had a name issued to you, it would likely be impossible to legally remove it, since the judge who would need to approve the application for a name change would be unlikely to think it acceptable for you to be unidentifiable. Also, when a child is born in a hospital, the facility will create a birth certificate of their own making and later transmit that info to the state Office of Vital Records, who can then issue an official government-endorsed certificate. Even if a child is not given a name at birth, the parents' names are recorded, and so a child will technically have a surname, whether or not a first name has been given to it.

These parents in Sweden tried to protest the naming laws of that country and not give their child a name at all. When the court fined them for not having an approved name, they officially named the child Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116 (pronounced "Albin").

- Rating Pending (who likes the name Albin)

Back to top
QDear 100 Hour Board,

I've been dating a guy for about 6 months now (unlike most of the Provo population, I like to take my time). I really enjoy all the time I spend with him, but I'm thinking I've come to the point where it's either move on, or get serious. What sort of things can I talk about or do with him that can help me know which direction to go?

- One?

Direct Link to Question

ADear Fellow Slow-Dater,

One thing you could do is ask him where he sees your relationship going. If you do not want to be quite so blunt, bring up topics of family, how he wants to raise a family (or if he even wants to at all), where he wants to live in the future, what he wants to do with himself, his ideal spouse situation, etc.

As for things you can do with him, maybe try doing some marital things. That sounds super weird, huh? Try making dinner together at one of your apartments, without roommate interference. Also, if any of your extended family or his lives nearby, go together to a family activity. This way you can tell better how he will act in different filial situations.

-Mico

ADear One~

I'm from Provo, and six months seems really fast to me. Your jibe is still fair, but I wanted you to know there are slow-movers among us as well.

I think Mico's advice is really good, and if you take it, you will not land askew.

Let me just emphasize the first part of it though. If you really think it's time to "move on or get serious," by which I assume you mean talk about marriage, then you sure as heck had better be comfortable enough with this guy to talk about such things.

It certainly would be unwise to pressure him in one direction or another (unless one direction seems a lot better to you, in which case go ahead, but use a gentle hand), but just bring up the subject and see what he has to say about it.

Oh, but don't phrase it, "Should we get serious, or should I move on?" Ultimatums are... not a good idea. However, if you've been dating for six months and the question, "Do you see us getting married?" is still too awkward for you, then your relationship is lame and you should fix that immediately.

Anyway, good luck!

~Hobbes, who hasn't gone on a writer team-up for far too long.

Back to top
CDear 100 Hour Board,

Regarding Board Question #53505, about local phone calling in the 801 area code.

Contrary to the information provided, telephone numbers in the local calling area can be discerned by the number called. The first three numbers following the area code mark the local "exchange" number, which designates the physical location of the telephone exchange, and its associated "rate center." You can look up those numbers and see which calling area it belongs to, using a service such as this one, which shows numbers local to the Provo calling area: http://www.telcodata.us/telcod...

There are too many different exchanges anymore to keep the numbers easily in your head (no longer does Provo have just 373, 374, 375, and 378, for example), so the original answer given, while inaccurate, is probably good for many people.

- Daryl Gibson

Direct Link to Question