Are Colleges Really Overreacting?
Are Colleges Really Overreacting?
This guest post discusses post-election college mental health concerns
Guest Blog by Dr. Kathryn Gordon, Associate Professor of Psychology, North Dakota State University
Recently, there has been national coverage on university responses to the presidential election. Some have depicted college students upset by the election as ‘crybabies’ or ‘sore losers’ who need to focus on ‘real problems.’ Meanwhile, some of the university responses have been characterized as ‘coddling’ or treating students like ‘precious snowflakes’. I’m using this opportunity to express my personal views on these topics, which are informed by my background in clinical psychology, experience providing mental health services, and interactions with university students and employees in my capacity as a professor.
Are college students who are upset post-election ‘crybabies’ or ‘sore losers’?
Many of the students expressing concerns are not simply distressed over losing an election contest, but fear that specific policies and beliefs endorsed by the President-Elect and Vice President-Elect might realistically impact them, their family and friends, and the world at large, over the next four years. Some of the student concerns I have heard or read about include a range of issues and come from individuals who have been sexually assaulted reacting to the election of a President who was bragging about nonconsensual sexual contact, students with pre-existing health conditions worried that they and many other Americans will lose coverage if the Affordable Care Act is repealed, and members of marginalized groups experiencing outward bigotry or who are struggling with Americans electing a President who has said hateful things about them or mocked them (e.g., in the case of individuals with disabilities or Mexican immigrants).
Does exposure to counseling resources trigger problems in students who were not otherwise experiencing problems?
I wholeheartedly accept the body of research demonstrating the power of human resilience. The majority of students do not need counseling – following this election or otherwise. More importantly, there is evidence that forcing widespread, non-targeted intervention to deal with stressors can be harmful to people. That is why it is extremely important that we don’t insist that people seek intervention or process things that are not a problem for them.
One of most common types of university responses I have seen covered in the news involves e-mailing students or faculty with a list of existing on-campus resources, including counseling. The most important characteristic of this action is that it involves notifying people about resource availability rather than requiring that all students participate in it, which would be inappropriate and potentially harmful. While some individual universities appear to be going beyond distribution of resource information, I have not heard of any that are forcing students to participate in counseling or post-election processing. I believe that students who do not need mental health or other services will largely ignore resources that are not relevant to them. This reasoning comes from an area of research demonstrating that asking people about their mental health, and even suicide, does not plant the idea in their head. Rather, research tends to find that people who are experiencing mental health problems feel better after being asked about them, while those who are not experiencing mental health problems remain unaffected.
Is reminding students of counseling services following this election equivalent to coddling or over-pathologizing them?
If a student who did not think that there was a problem started believing that there was a problem after being informed of mental health resources (though I think this would be rare), there are effective checks in place in the process of counseling that reduce any chance of coddling or other harmful behavior. The first standard step in counseling involves assessing whether the student is experiencing typical emotional reactions, stress, or a clinically significant mental health problem. If students who do not need the services seek help anyway, the counselors will help them to understand that they do not need treatment but can give tips on ways to cope without it. Mental health professionals promote self-efficacy and avoid pathologizing the range of normal reactions to life events– to do otherwise would be unethical and against training. Additionally, there is another check within the mental health system that prevents coddling. The goal of counseling does include comfort, at times, through listening and understanding, but this is not the end goal. Rather, it is a pathway to understanding the person, so that you can effectively empower them to strengthen their own social connections, utilize adaptive coping skills, pursue meaningful activities, and then conclude therapy services. I don’t know of any counselors who practice any equivalent of hand-holding as a therapeutic intervention, because that would be counter to the primary goal.
Are universities overstepping their roles when they offer mental health and other services on campus?
Another argument is that college students should depend on their own parents for these issues and that it is not the role of the university. Most students do depend on their family for support. Unfortunately, a nontrivial portion of the students who might need counseling are people who do not have family support. For example, I have met college students who are LGBTQ+ whose parents sadly have limited or no contact with them. It is these students – those without the familial or friend support or who are living apart from their family (as is the case for international students) that those resources are sent broadly for, just in case they need it. In other cases, there are students who come from families that taught them that therapy was for “weak” people, even when experiencing serious mental disorders that might be exacerbated by external life events. This may prevent them from asking their parents for help. We cannot know ahead of time which students need the campus resources and therefore who to specifically contact with the information. Thus, the most practical approach may be sending resources to all students, hoping to reach those that need them…and having confidence that others will discard the information or go through the checks mentioned above.
Having support services available on campus may also contribute to making college campuses more inclusive. Some have argued that college populations are non-representative of the general population, especially with rising prices of tuition. I, too, am concerned about this. Strategies that may help retain students who are at higher risk of dropping out include reaching out and letting them know there is reasonable support for them on campus– this is true for students with mental health concerns, students trying to balance full-time jobs and classes, and students who have dealt with objectively-documented higher rates of minority-specific stressors (e.g., harsher criminal punishments, homelessness). Moreover, it’s important to keep in mind that the typical age of college students (18-22) is a common age of onset for some mental disorders (e.g., schizophrenia, bulimia nervosa). Universities should be as equipped to respond to mental health conditions as they are for medical conditions. In both cases, students with more severe conditions are typically referred to more appropriate resources off-campus.
Finally, many universities include mission statements about valuing the safety and welfare of all students. Safety, in this context, is not about remaining unchallenged by difficult concepts and contrary ideas. Rather, it is about rejecting bigotry and discrimination that interfere with learning. Some of the statements and actions made by the President-Elect would not be considered in line with university values of inclusion – not because of his political party – but because of the content. Indeed, many of his statements and behaviors have been criticized by members of his own political party. Therefore, some universities may have felt compelled to reaffirm their commitment to inclusivity following this election, particularly in response to reports of discriminatory acts toward students.
Would post-election services be offered if the Democratic candidate had won the election?
Faculty and mental health professionals on campus serve diverse students year-round. University employees and counselors are ethically obligated to serve all students, regardless of their political beliefs. If Hillary Clinton had won and distraught students reported fears regarding her presidency, I believe faculty, administrators, and college counselors would also respond with resources– without hesitation. Some coverage has suggested that faculty and administrators may be projecting their own feelings about the election onto students. I encourage people making those assumptions to reach out and ask faculty and administrators if their actions were preemptive or in response to real concerns expressed by students.
In conclusion, I am not closed off to ideas presented by others that we should consider whether universities are over-pathologizing, coddling, or letting biases impact college students in specific situations or as a national trend. I will continue to read and ponder these arguments, review the scientific evidence, and engage in conversations with people who have those positions. However, it’s important not to be too quick to call something “coddling” or assume negative effects when universities show support in response to students’ concerns. These characterizations may contribute to stigma and misunderstanding.
Recently, there has been national coverage on university responses to the presidential election. Some have depicted college students upset by the election as ‘crybabies’ or ‘sore losers’ who need to focus on ‘real problems.’ Meanwhile, some of the university responses have been characterized as ‘coddling’ or treating students like ‘precious snowflakes’. I’m using this opportunity to express my personal views on these topics, which are informed by my background in clinical psychology, experience providing mental health services, and interactions with university students and employees in my capacity as a professor.
Are college students who are upset post-election ‘crybabies’ or ‘sore losers’?
Many of the students expressing concerns are not simply distressed over losing an election contest, but fear that specific policies and beliefs endorsed by the President-Elect and Vice President-Elect might realistically impact them, their family and friends, and the world at large, over the next four years. Some of the student concerns I have heard or read about include a range of issues and come from individuals who have been sexually assaulted reacting to the election of a President who was bragging about nonconsensual sexual contact, students with pre-existing health conditions worried that they and many other Americans will lose coverage if the Affordable Care Act is repealed, and members of marginalized groups experiencing outward bigotry or who are struggling with Americans electing a President who has said hateful things about them or mocked them (e.g., in the case of individuals with disabilities or Mexican immigrants).
Does exposure to counseling resources trigger problems in students who were not otherwise experiencing problems?
I wholeheartedly accept the body of research demonstrating the power of human resilience. The majority of students do not need counseling – following this election or otherwise. More importantly, there is evidence that forcing widespread, non-targeted intervention to deal with stressors can be harmful to people. That is why it is extremely important that we don’t insist that people seek intervention or process things that are not a problem for them.
One of most common types of university responses I have seen covered in the news involves e-mailing students or faculty with a list of existing on-campus resources, including counseling. The most important characteristic of this action is that it involves notifying people about resource availability rather than requiring that all students participate in it, which would be inappropriate and potentially harmful. While some individual universities appear to be going beyond distribution of resource information, I have not heard of any that are forcing students to participate in counseling or post-election processing. I believe that students who do not need mental health or other services will largely ignore resources that are not relevant to them. This reasoning comes from an area of research demonstrating that asking people about their mental health, and even suicide, does not plant the idea in their head. Rather, research tends to find that people who are experiencing mental health problems feel better after being asked about them, while those who are not experiencing mental health problems remain unaffected.
Is reminding students of counseling services following this election equivalent to coddling or over-pathologizing them?
If a student who did not think that there was a problem started believing that there was a problem after being informed of mental health resources (though I think this would be rare), there are effective checks in place in the process of counseling that reduce any chance of coddling or other harmful behavior. The first standard step in counseling involves assessing whether the student is experiencing typical emotional reactions, stress, or a clinically significant mental health problem. If students who do not need the services seek help anyway, the counselors will help them to understand that they do not need treatment but can give tips on ways to cope without it. Mental health professionals promote self-efficacy and avoid pathologizing the range of normal reactions to life events– to do otherwise would be unethical and against training. Additionally, there is another check within the mental health system that prevents coddling. The goal of counseling does include comfort, at times, through listening and understanding, but this is not the end goal. Rather, it is a pathway to understanding the person, so that you can effectively empower them to strengthen their own social connections, utilize adaptive coping skills, pursue meaningful activities, and then conclude therapy services. I don’t know of any counselors who practice any equivalent of hand-holding as a therapeutic intervention, because that would be counter to the primary goal.
Are universities overstepping their roles when they offer mental health and other services on campus?
Another argument is that college students should depend on their own parents for these issues and that it is not the role of the university. Most students do depend on their family for support. Unfortunately, a nontrivial portion of the students who might need counseling are people who do not have family support. For example, I have met college students who are LGBTQ+ whose parents sadly have limited or no contact with them. It is these students – those without the familial or friend support or who are living apart from their family (as is the case for international students) that those resources are sent broadly for, just in case they need it. In other cases, there are students who come from families that taught them that therapy was for “weak” people, even when experiencing serious mental disorders that might be exacerbated by external life events. This may prevent them from asking their parents for help. We cannot know ahead of time which students need the campus resources and therefore who to specifically contact with the information. Thus, the most practical approach may be sending resources to all students, hoping to reach those that need them…and having confidence that others will discard the information or go through the checks mentioned above.
Having support services available on campus may also contribute to making college campuses more inclusive. Some have argued that college populations are non-representative of the general population, especially with rising prices of tuition. I, too, am concerned about this. Strategies that may help retain students who are at higher risk of dropping out include reaching out and letting them know there is reasonable support for them on campus– this is true for students with mental health concerns, students trying to balance full-time jobs and classes, and students who have dealt with objectively-documented higher rates of minority-specific stressors (e.g., harsher criminal punishments, homelessness). Moreover, it’s important to keep in mind that the typical age of college students (18-22) is a common age of onset for some mental disorders (e.g., schizophrenia, bulimia nervosa). Universities should be as equipped to respond to mental health conditions as they are for medical conditions. In both cases, students with more severe conditions are typically referred to more appropriate resources off-campus.
Finally, many universities include mission statements about valuing the safety and welfare of all students. Safety, in this context, is not about remaining unchallenged by difficult concepts and contrary ideas. Rather, it is about rejecting bigotry and discrimination that interfere with learning. Some of the statements and actions made by the President-Elect would not be considered in line with university values of inclusion – not because of his political party – but because of the content. Indeed, many of his statements and behaviors have been criticized by members of his own political party. Therefore, some universities may have felt compelled to reaffirm their commitment to inclusivity following this election, particularly in response to reports of discriminatory acts toward students.
Would post-election services be offered if the Democratic candidate had won the election?
Faculty and mental health professionals on campus serve diverse students year-round. University employees and counselors are ethically obligated to serve all students, regardless of their political beliefs. If Hillary Clinton had won and distraught students reported fears regarding her presidency, I believe faculty, administrators, and college counselors would also respond with resources– without hesitation. Some coverage has suggested that faculty and administrators may be projecting their own feelings about the election onto students. I encourage people making those assumptions to reach out and ask faculty and administrators if their actions were preemptive or in response to real concerns expressed by students.
In conclusion, I am not closed off to ideas presented by others that we should consider whether universities are over-pathologizing, coddling, or letting biases impact college students in specific situations or as a national trend. I will continue to read and ponder these arguments, review the scientific evidence, and engage in conversations with people who have those positions. However, it’s important not to be too quick to call something “coddling” or assume negative effects when universities show support in response to students’ concerns. These characterizations may contribute to stigma and misunderstanding.
