by Christine A. Scheller | Jul 25, 2012 | Feature, Headline News |
MOTHER AND SON: UrbanFaith’s Christine Scheller with her late son, Gabe.
Would it surprise you to learn that when I describe myself as a pro-lifer, I don’t think it particularly matters what I believe about the legality of abortion? Well, it’s true. In my two opinion posts on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, I argued from a pro-life perspective, but the legal battle over abortion is not a priority for me. I believe I have the right to wear the pro-life label, no matter what my position is on the legal issues, because I walked the talk as a nineteen-year-old and because I consistently advocate a life-affirming message.
Perhaps it’s battle fatigue. Like many others, I’m tired of the culture wars and the way they’ve turned friends and family members off to the gospel. Some of the people I love most in this world have either had abortions or have participated in abortion decisions and I increasingly don’t want to be associated with rhetoric that hurts them. Conversely, I hope they don’t want to be associated with unkind, unfair, and untrue rhetoric that hurts me.
I know the legal fight is important, but it’s not one I’ve engaged in other than as a writer (occasionally) and a voter. I’ve never protested at an abortion clinic, attended the annual March for Life in Washington D.C., or volunteered at a crisis pregnancy center. I have taught a life skills class to teen moms at an alternative public school though.
When I interviewed a group of Catholic pro-life college students at the Open Hearts, Open Minds, and Fair-minded Words: A Conference on Life and Choice in the Abortion Debate at Princeton University in 2010, I could not relate at all to their passion for the legal fight. I could, however, entirely relate to conference organizer and Fordham University ethicist Charles Camosy’s goal of finding areas of common ground with abortion rights activists. (Check out his five tips for creating civil discourse in an age of polarization here.)
What it means for me to be a pro-lifer now is to be an advocate for a comprehensive ethic of life, one that spans from womb to tomb, from conception to natural death. It includes issues like healthcare and immigration reform, extreme poverty, euthanasia, and more.
Ever since my son died by suicide, my first pro-life priority has been suicide prevention. That’s why I was so glad to read that Tony Cornelius, the son of the late Soul Train founder and host Don Cornelius, has launched a suicide prevention foundation in memory of his father. “This is a huge, huge issue and it’s an issue that has a veil of shame over it. People are still very uncomfortable with who’s talking about suicide,” Cornelius told EURweb. “Breast cancer at one time was something that was under the table. Women didn’t want to discuss it. AIDS was something that was under the table. No one wanted to discuss it. I mean I think this is an opportunity to bring this to the surface.” That’s a pro-life message, if ever I heard one.
I’m also glad to hear pro-lifers like the Rev. James Martin advocating for stricter gun control laws in response to the Aurora shooting. (There’s common ground to be had here too, according to Craig C. Whitney, author of forthcoming book, Living With Guns: A Liberal’s Case for the Second Amendment.) Like me, Martin believes in a “consistent ethic of life.” Writing at the Catholic weekly America about abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, and poverty, he said, “All of these issues, at their heart, are about the sanctity of all human life, no matter who that person is, no matter at what stage of life that person is passing through, and no matter whether or not we think that the person is ‘deserving’ of life.”
In an email exchange with Religion News Service reporter David Gibson, Russell D. Moore, dean of theology at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, argued that “we ought not to let the term ‘pro-life’ become so elastic as to lose all meaning.” He charged that “in most cases, the expansion of ‘pro-life’ is a way to divert attention from the question of personhood and human rights.” I disagree. Just as the gospel message speaks to all of life, so too a pro-life ethic can and should be all-encompassing.
by Christine A. Scheller | Jul 23, 2012 | Entertainment, Feature, Headline News |
As prayer vigils and Sunday services that reflected on the Aurora, Colorado, shooting that killed 12 people at a midnight screening of “The Dark Knight Rises” have receded into the background, discussion has turned to what causes young men to become mass murderers. Before we address this issue, it’s worth stopping again to pray for the families of these 12 people who lost their lives and for the many others who were injured and/or traumatized by the shooting. Perhaps we can even find it within ourselves to pray for the alleged gunman (and his family), as UrbanFaith contributor Rev. Robert Gelinas asked his Denver area congregation to do yesterday. The suspect appeared dazed, and possibly drugged, in court this morning, Yahoo News reported. But, what made him a killer?
Movie Violence
At Charisma, Ted Baehr, publisher of Movieguide and chairman of the Christian Film & Television Commission, argued that the content of the latest Batman movie cannot be blamed for the tragedy. But Baehr also noted that, although most viewers are either desensitized to or scared by movie violence, “more than 500,000 studies, capped by the latest Dartmouth University study, show that violence in the media influences susceptible youths to commit violence.”
Roger Ebert agreed that it wasn’t the content of the latest Batman installment. Writing at The New York Times, he said, “I’m not sure there is an easy link between movies and gun violence. I think the link is between the violence and the publicity. …Whenever a tragedy like this takes place, it is assigned catchphrases and theme music, and the same fragmentary TV footage of the shooter is cycled again and again. Somewhere in the night, among those watching, will be another angry, aggrieved loner who is uncoiling toward action.”
However, at The New Yorker, David Denby expressed ambivalence, writing, “Who knows whether the killer … wanted to be a mass murderer like the Joker, or if he was just using the event as a staging ground to render himself immortal. … Whatever his intentions, the sophisticated response to movie violence that has dominated the discussion for years should now seem inadequate and evasive.”
At The Wrap, Sharon Waxman said, “Movies are not the cause of real-life violence. But that does not mean they have no impact on us. We love the movies because they affect us deeply — often to the good. But if that is true, than so must be the reverse.” Waxman also said obsessive fans can lose touch with reality. “Playing shooter games touches some primal urge in the human psyche, not necessarily our most civilized impulse. And since Columbine, movies and videogames and television shows have only become more violent,” said Waxman.
Fanboy Culture
Because the alleged shooter reportedly died his hair red and identified himself as the Joker at some point Friday, the culpability of “fanboy” culture is worth considering.
“We have a new breed of fanboy, who are more contented by fictitious realities and attack anything that remotely deviates from their film expectations, shattering often overtly fragile sensibilities,” said Levar Polson at Not So Reviews, noting the irrational reactions of some fans following negative reviews of Dark Knight Rises. (The website Rotten Tomatoes was forced to close down its comments section when angry fans leveled death and rape threats at critics who had the nerve to post negative reviews.)
But at Primary Ignition, Rob Siebert defends fanboys, saying, “I’ve been to comic conventions, I’ve been to midnight screenings, I’ve been to autograph signings, and most of the people you see there aren’t violent, cruel or malicious. Some are a little socially awkward, I guess. But that’s the extent of it. … It is still okay to love Batman and superheroes, it is still okay to see The Dark Knight Rises, it’s still okay to be passionate about all that stuff.”
Even movie critic Marshall Fine, who was on the receiving end of some of the most vicious death threats following his negative review of Dark Knight Rises, cautions against making a direct connection between real-life violence and the kind of passion ones sees from fanboys. He writes at The Huffington Post: “It’s the peculiar avidity of the Comic-Con crowd, a passion I don’t particularly share but won’t knock here. … While I’m a little amazed at the size of the response, the intensity of people’s passion for the things they truly love — whether it’s a comic-book movie or a sports team — should never be underestimated. They may not have any actual connection to the thing itself — other than that passion for it — but, to them, it’s personal.” Fine attempts to put matters into their proper context by dismissing his situation as trivial compared to what happened in Aurora: “My 15 minutes are up. Tune in next week when normal life resumes. Except, of course, for the people in Denver.”
Easy Access to Guns
Whatever the psychological and spiritual causes may be, many are calling for stricter gun control laws, including religious leaders. Others are apparently arguing for more liberal concealed weapons laws.
At USA Today, Cathy Lynn Grossman asked if Jesus would “pack heat.” She quoted one writer who said gun control is a “pro-life” issue and referenced a 2011 ABC News/Washington Post survey that found “the most support for stricter [gun] laws came from black Protestants (71%) Catholics (59%) and the unaffiliated (55%)” while “solid opposition was expressed by white evangelical Protestants (60% )” and “mainline Protestants were more divided (47% favor, 51% oppose).”
Patheos blogger Ellen Painter Dollar wants to know “why Christians aren’t bringing the same dedication to talking about guns as we do to other issues, notably abortion and homosexuality.” She said, “Gun control is not about winning or politics or fantasies of well-played vigilante justice. It’s about taking weapons of mass murder out of the hands of those who would use them for ill (such as James Holmes) as well as those who would use them for good but possess the universal human capacity to screw up (such as George Zimmerman).”
At Loop 21, Keli Goff called New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg to account for using this tragedy to argue for gun control while “passionately” defending the city’s “stop and frisk” policy that targets people of color—a policy that would have presumably allowed the Aurora killer to “slip through the cracks.”
The Week, like many other outlets, asked if the tragedy will change or reignite the gun control debate. New York Times columnist Gail Collins sounds doubtful, saying advocates (who also tend to be survivors) just keep slogging along in a seemingly hopeless fight. But at Media Matters, Matt Gertz says the media meme that gun control is a no-win issue among Americans is inaccurate. “Polls indicate public support for a broad range of stronger gun restrictions, including the reinstatement of the assault weapons ban,” said Gertz.
What do you think?
Do violent movies and the culture that crops up around them bear any responsibility for this tragedy and will stricter gun control laws help stem the tide of violence?
by Christine A. Scheller | Jul 20, 2012 | Entertainment, Feature, Headline News |
CRIME SCENE: Police cars and emergency vehicles gather around the Century 16 Theatre in Aurora, Colorado, where early this morning a gunman opened fire on moviegoers during a midnight showing of “The Dark Knight Rises.” (Photo: Jonathan Castner/Newscom)
“A lone gunman dressed in riot gear burst into a movie theater in Aurora, Colo., at a midnight showing of the Batman film ‘The Dark Knight Rises’ and methodically began shooting patrons, killing at least 12 people and injuring at least 50,” ABC News reported this morning.
The outpouring of prayer has been swift. President Obama, speaking from a campaign event in Fort Meyers, Florida, asked for a moment of silence and prayed that the Lord bring would bring the people of Aurora “comfort and healing in hard days to come.” He also promised to “stand by our neighbors in Colorado during this extraordinarily difficult time” and expressed heartbreak on behalf of “the entire American family.” The president didn’t hesitate to call the shooter’s violent rampage “evil.” But he also said the tragedy provides us with an opportunity to reflect on “what makes life worth living.”
“If there’s anything to take away from this tragedy it’s the reminder that life is very fragile. Our time here is limited and it is precious. And what matters at the end of the day is not the small things, it’s not the trivial things, which so often consume us and our daily lives. Ultimately, it’s how we choose to treat one another and how we love one another,” said President Obama.
Both Religion News Service and The Huffington Post published round-ups of tweets from faith leaders regarding the tragedy. Charisma magazine followed with condolences from politicians, including House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), who said, “Confronted with incomprehensible evil, Americans pull together and embrace our national family more tightly. I join President Obama, and every American, in sending my thoughts and prayers to the victims of this awful tragedy. We will all stand with them, as one nation, in the days ahead.”
At The Atlantic, Conor Friedersdorf referred to a 2000 Atlantic article about how police in Colorado and elsewhere have changed their training and protocol for mass shootings in public places. Before Columbine, first responders “never rushed in,” but now, “they are being taught to enter a building if they are the first to arrive at the scene, to chase the gunman, and to kill or disable him as quickly as possible.” Sadly, in Aurora, they were too late for 62 people or more.
“It is time we acknowledge US has a domestic terrorism problem with carnage multiplied by easy access to firearms,” tweeted Mercer University ethicist David Gushee.
The city of Aurora is holding a “dark night prayer vigil” at the Aurora municipal building tonight at 7:00 pm, said Colorado Community Church pastor Robert Gelinas on his Facebook page.
Let’s join all these voices in praying for the Aurora community, the families of those who’ve died, the survivors whose lives are forever changed, and for an end to domestic terrorism.
by Christine A. Scheller | Jul 19, 2012 | Feature, Headline News |
Last week, I wrote a deeply personal post about how the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will help me get much needed treatment for gallstones. I told a bit of my story and posed three basic questions for fiscal and social conservatives who oppose the ACA: 1.) Do they believe small business owners who don’t have access to affordable health insurance will be a drain on the economy? 2.) Do they think homemakers who re-enter the work force are undeserving of affordable health care? 3.) Does pro-life concern for mothers only extend to their utility as symbols for a cause?
The post generated a lot of reaction, both positive and negative. I appreciate all the responses because they tell me I tapped into something important. One criticism in particular stuck in my craw, though, so I’d like to respond to it. Then, I want to offer a challenge to institutions like Wheaton College, which cited religious freedom and sanctity of life concerns in its decision to file a lawsuit this week against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services over the ACA contraception mandate.
What Does It Mean to Be Responsible for Oneself?
First, the criticism. Some accused me of wanting others to pay for the choices I’ve made in my life. This is not only an affront to everything I believe, but it is patently false. From the time I chose not to abort my child, I’ve taken responsibility for my actions. In a 2004 Christianity Today essay about my unplanned pregnancy, for example, I wrote the following words:
“I have always seen the decision not to terminate my pregnancy as the one courageous moment of my life. I acted with self-abandon for the benefit of the innocent. But lately, I’ve begun to think it curious that I should have seen not killing my own child as heroic. I could spin a sad tale to make myself look better, but the fact is I failed in my duty to my family, my community, and my Savior. Accepting the consequences of that failure was not heroism. Only in a culture where sex is divorced from meaning and where self-interest trumps everything could such a narrative be produced. Courage would have been to decline that offer of illicit comfort in the first place.”
I still believe this.
Likewise, when my husband and I decided that I would stay home with our children, it was, in part, an economic decision. It didn’t make financial sense for me to get a job and devote a large chunk of my income to childcare and other work-related expenses, so long before he was earning a six-figure income, we chose to live frugally on one income, at least until our children were in school. I either worked part-time or went to school part-time for much of the time that I “stayed home.” I also home-schooled our sons for several years because our urban district had some typical urban school problems that we judged not to be good for our children. If that was not taking responsibility for myself and my family, I don’t know what is.
I could go on and detail the myriad ways my husband and I have continued to be responsible citizens in the decade since he left his high-paying job, but I’ll simply say that when I was in the midst of any of the four gallbladder attacks I’ve had in the past two weeks, it would have been easy for me to go to the emergency room and not worry about who pays the bill, as I imagine some uninsured Americans do. But I am not one of those people. What I’ve been trying to do instead is to find a way to keep doing what I’ve always tried to do, which is to live my life with integrity. So, I sent in my application for NJ Protect last week, along with a check for $584, which is what a decent plan will cost me every month, and made an appointment with a gastroenterologist for August 2, when I will be insured again. My family will resume paying in the neighborhood of $1000-a-month for mediocre health insurance. How anyone can view this as me wanting someone else to pay my way is beyond me.
The History and Reality of Employer Sponsored Health Insurance
In 2005, the non-partisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center reported that “health insurance provided by employers is a tax-free fringe benefit that costs the government over $140 billion annually.” The report said employer-sponsored insurance covers almost two-thirds of workers and their families, but “overwhelmingly favors” the middle and upper classes. That was seven years ago. I’d guess fewer workers are covered by ESI now.
In a 2006 New England Journal of Medicine article, Dr. David Blumenthal described our system of employer-sponsored insurance as “an accident of history that evolved in an unplanned way and, in the view of some, without the benefit of intelligent design.” He said President Franklin D. Roosevelt chose not to advance universal health insurance as a part of Social Security because of “fierce opposition from the American Medical Association,” which was “a much more potent lobby then than it is now.” As it happens, Roosevelt had lunch with his father-in-law, an influential neurosurgeon who opposed the plan, just before deciding not to push for universal health insurance.
Private insurance emerged to fill the gap and then a series of federal laws cemented the ESI system into place. During World War II, because of inflation concerns, the federal government “limited employers’ freedom to raise wages,” but allowed them to expand benefits like health insurance so that they could compete for scarce workers, Blumenthal said. Then, in 1954, the IRS “decided that the contributions that employers made to the purchase of health insurance for their employees were not taxable as income to workers.” By 2004, the tax benefit for every American with ESI was about $1,180, he said.
Many would argue that a tax break is not the same thing as a subsidy, but it bears noting that workers who have ESI already get a break that the uninsured do not get, and the decisions that led to this break were political, and perhaps even personal, if it’s true that Roosevelt’s father-in-law influenced his decision to not push for universal health insurance.
What Does It mean to be Responsible for One’s Rhetoric?
Now, onto my challenge. In my previous post, I said that vocal pro-lifers seem to care more about the contraception mandate than they do about the long-term well being of women who don’t abort their children. This week, in a highly unusual step, Wheaton College, in Wheaton, Illinois, announced that it is joining other Christian colleges in suing the Department of Health and Human Services over the mandate, in part because it will require Wheaton’s employee health insurance plan to cover abortifacient drugs commonly known as “morning after” and “week after” pills. These schools have every right to do this, but I’d like to challenge them to adopt a more consistent pro-life policy, like the one my uncle Charlie Gifford pushed to have enacted when he was associate dean and campus pastor at Taylor University in Upland, Indiana.
I talked to my uncle this morning. He said that when a freshman at the school came to him and told him she was pregnant, he questioned Taylor’s policy of suspending unmarried pregnant students until after the births of their babies. He also questioned why fathers were not similarly disciplined. As a result, Taylor changed its policy. The school no longer suspends unmarried pregnant students, but it does require them and the male students who impregnate them to live in approved off-campus housing during the third trimester of pregnancy. My uncle did more. He and my aunt welcomed two pregnant Taylor students into their home so that these women could continue their educations. Both women gave their babies up for adoption, he said, and their parents are among the most loyal supporters of his current ministry in Sheridan, Wyoming.
When my late son Gabe was a student at Wheaton College, I asked the dean of women what the school’s policy was on pregnant unmarried students. She said Wheaton had to do what was in the best interest of the whole community, which I took to mean that it suspended or expelled unmarried pregnant women, just as I would have been suspended or expelled when I became pregnant at Eastern Mennonite University in Harrisonburg, Virginia, if I hadn’t already left the school. Wheaton’s current policy, which its communications director LaTonya Taylor sent via email late this afternoon, says the school is prepared to “stand with” both the mother and the father, but in practical terms it is vague, saying only that on-campus residency and/or enrollment “will be considered in light of what is best for all those involved.”
So, I’ll conclude by saying that if Christian colleges want to take a strong pro-life stand, they need to be consistent and do a better job of supporting women who become pregnant on their campuses. Allowing pregnant women to continue with their studies is not synonymous with condoning extra-marital sex. “Grace and mercy is a scandal. It always is,” my Uncle Charlie told me this morning. How about let’s all be scandalized for the right reasons for a change? Wouldn’t that be refreshing?
Update 7/27: Wheaton College emailed the following clarification regarding its policy:
“Under the current policy, which has been Wheaton’s policy since 2001, the College has allowed pregnant female students—as well as the fathers of their children, if they are also enrolled—to continue their studies before and/or after the births of their babies. Students are not automatically suspended or expelled for becoming pregnant while unmarried. The challenge to community life is largely related to providing appropriate housing for an expectant mother and newborn, given the realities of residence hall life. Our practice has been to assist young women in finding off-campus housing during the final months of pregnancy. The living situation following the pregnancy is, of course, dependent on many factors—most of them related to the new parents’ decisions about marriage, adoption, or single parenthood. Our goal and practice for expectant students is to provide spiritual support and practical assistance in arranging appropriate housing, adjusting to their new reality, making decisions, and completing their studies.”
by Christine A. Scheller | Jul 17, 2012 | Feature, Headline News |
IN THE SHADOWS: Shame and stigma can be barriers to treatment for mental illness. Could this be one reason for the secrecy surrounding Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr.’s mood disorder hospitalization?
After weeks of speculation about why U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.) has been on medical leave from Congress for “exhaustion” since early June, his office finally announced that he is receiving “intensive” inpatient treatment for an unspecified mood disorder and is “expected to make a full recovery.” The statement did not say what the disorder is, where Jackson is being treated, or who is treating him, The Chicago Tribune reported, but it did say he is not being treated for alcoholism as had been rumored. Citing privacy concerns, Jesse Jackson Sr. has declined to discuss the specifics of his son’s illness with the press, but surrogates have shot down rumors that Jackson Jr. attempted suicide. Speaking at the Rainbow PUSH coalition conference in Chicago last week, his mother, Jackie Jackson, said her son “is unwell” and “needs a moment to heal.” She also suggested that he lacks the internal resources of his parents in dealing with political “disappointments.” “I want to encourage him to hold on – to hold on to God’s unchanging hand, not this politics. See, I play politics, I don’t live it. I live in the house with God,” said Mrs. Jackson.
JESSE JACKSON JR.: The congressman has been sidelined by scandal and now an unspecified mood disorder.
Jackson Jr. has been caught up in the scandal that sent former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich to prison for attempting to sell President Obama’s vacated U.S. Senate seat. He is currently under investigation by the House Ethics Committee for allegations that he participated in a scheme to fund raise for Blagojevich in exchange for the seat. Amidst the scandal, Jackson Jr. also admitted to having an extramarital affair.
Randy Auerbach, a psychologist and instructor at Harvard Medical School, told ABC News that Jackson may have “a genetic predisposition that might make him more vulnerable to a mood disorder.” Depression and bipolar disorder are cited as common mood disorders in the article, with nearly 17 percent of the population experiencing depression in their lifetimes and 4 percent receiving a bipolar diagnosis. “An individual may have a certain vulnerability and in presence of stress, it may trigger the onset of a disorder,” Auerbach said. “Significant life stress is enough to contribute to a depressive episode about 50 percent of the time.”
Because stigma and shame are often barriers to treatment for African Americans and may be playing a role in the secrecy surrounding Jackson Jr.’s diagnosis, we decided to talk to LaTonya Mason Summers, executive director of LifeSkills Counseling and Consulting Group in Charlotte, North Carolina, about Jackson Jr.’s hospitalization and common barriers to treatment in the Black community. Our interview has been edited for length and clarity.
UrbanFaith: Jesse Jackson Jr. has reportedly been hospitalized for a mood disorder. In general, something serious has to be going on for someone to be admitted for inpatient treatment. Is that correct?
LaTonya Mason Summers: Yes, absolutely. There are usually three criteria to go inpatient. You have to be homicidal, suicidal, or in a psychotic state. People are not admitted for mental exhaustion, unless it’s mental exhaustion with suicidal ideation and a plan. For mental exhaustion, you go on vacation.
If someone has financial resources, could they just check themselves into a facility?
That I don’t know. The criteria may not be the same at centers where you go when you have money. But on our level, you have to be psychotic, suicidal or homicidal.
I’ve heard at least one person express skepticism about Jackson Jr.’s diagnosis. As a journalist, I understand that, but I still find it difficult to believe someone would accept the stigma of having a mood disorder to avoid prosecution.
You would be surprised. I’m not saying that is true or not, but there is a protection when it’s mental health. If you go out of work for mental health, you cannot be fired. When you are in an inpatient hospital, you cannot be arrested. There are certain things that cannot happen until you are discharged.
In our email conversation, you said decreasing barriers to mental health in the Black community is your “soapbox.” Why?
Because here in North Carolina, there are not many African-American providers and I think it helps to have African-American providers, so that African American clients have more access to care. Because there are not many providers, the consumers haven’t necessarily been there, but the number is growing.
One thing I do is I groom African-American providers in the community through the North Carolina Black Mental Health Alliance. A friend of mine and I formed that so that professionals in the community could go further. Some of them might have Bachelors degrees and we encourage them to get Masters degrees. We provide internships and opportunities and we supervise them through licensure so that they are more qualified to provide services. And then, I groom clinicians so that they can become private practitioners and not necessarily work in mental health institutions. There is more of a stigma with those institutions, so African Americans are not as likely to get services if they have to go to a local mental health center. But on a more private level, it’s more acceptable.
Also, churches are becoming more accepting of mental health problems. For African Americans, the church has always been the place to go when you needed help. But the church would say, “Just pray,” “Let go and let God,” and “Keep it in the church or keep it to yourself.” Now that they’re becoming more open, more African Americans are coming to counseling.
According to a National Alliance on Mental Illness fact sheet on African American mental health, only two percent of psychiatrists, two percent of psychologists, and four percent of social workers are Black. Does that sound about right to you?
Absolutely.
What kinds of things are barriers to care?
One is a language barrier. This is a double-edged sword, but a lot of African-American clients come to me and say, “I’m so glad that there are African-American providers because I can say things to you that I wouldn’t say to a White person.” They might say, “Girl, I wanted to beat the black off my kid.” Well, that is a common colloquialism, but should they say that to someone who is not African American, then the department of social services might be called. The double-edged sword is that we African-American therapists may miss abuse because we understand that terminology.
Also, there is a class issue. I had a White therapist who used to work for me when maybe 90 percent of my practice was African American. She was working with a child and also working with the mom on parenting issues. She told the mom to get the child a dog. Now, we know dogs are therapeutic and if you say that to one culture, that may be more acceptable, but to this African American family that was struggling financially, the mom was thinking, “I can’t really feed my kids. How in the world am I going to go get a dog?”
Another thing is that White clinicians may recommend medications more readily than African-American clinicians. I’ve been doing this for 16 years and African-American clients still freeze up when I recommend medication because there is a stigma of taking medications, whereas in the White population that’s okay.
I’ve read that African Americans tend to be diagnosed with more severe mental illnesses than Whites who present with similar symptoms. What do you recommend to overcome these kinds of obstacles?
I definitely recommend counseling and I don’t recommend that African Americans only go to African Americans. I would say there are some African Americans we may not be able to relate to. Culturally, lower income populations may not necessarily come to a designer dressed African-American professional because that might present a barrier. But for someone who can come down a bit and be more urban, but still professional, they may be able to relate. I also recommend that churches be open to recommending counseling and psychiatry and I recommend diversity training for those in the mental health field.
Has the situation gotten any better?
LA TONYA MASON SUMMERS: “For African Americans, the church has always been the place to go when you needed help.”
No. Most of the studies that are done for medications are done on White middle class volunteers, so psychiatrists and physicians still have to adjust the medication and dosages for African Americans. We feel like guinea pigs in trying to find the right dosages. Volunteers in the some of the depression studies are White middle class Americans. Africans Americans don’t show up for stuff like that. So it’s kind of hard to put something together for us because we don’t participate in those kinds of things. I was trained at primarily White Appalachian State University, and even counseling theories were developed by Whites. And so, African-American clinicians have to adapt those theories for African Americans, because they just don’t fit.
And yet, according to the NAMI fact sheet, some of the social barometers that hinder African Americans in regard to wealth, employment, family structure, etc. are associated with greater risk for mental illness. Have you seen an increase in distress among Blacks since the economic downturn?
Yes. I started doing trainings three or four years ago on treating “recession depression.” Someone made up that description, but I thought it was great and started doing research and started publishing on it. The thing that would happen in my practice is that there were Caucasians and upper class African Americans who used to have money and would come for counseling to deal with downward emotions and a down-turned economy, but then the lower income African Americans who had always struggled were struggling even more, so I would have to adapt counseling for two different populations.
How did you adapt it for those populations?
In counseling we don’t ask about money, and so when I started training therapists, I was saying we have to ask people about money, because money is still taboo. People would tell us everything under the sun, but would not bring up financial issues. When you ask, you hear people are in foreclosure, repossessions, and filing bankruptcy. But those are things we would have never known and still don’t know unless we ask. Then, knowing community resources and national resources. What is North Carolina doing for homeowners? What is the U.S. doing? What’s going on in the White House, where they are providing resources for people who are losing their houses and jobs?
It can be difficult for working class people to pay for treatment in a good economy. I can’t imagine in this economy that it’s even an option.
I take Master’s degree level students who are training to become counselors as interns twice a year, and I run a free counseling program, because so many North Carolinians are without insurance. If you don’t have insurance, the only resources available are local mental health centers, but African Americans do not want to go there. No one wants to go there. They’re loud. You may not get the best care. You’re a number. All of that. So, we run a five-month program twice a year, for ten months throughout the year with these students. With supervision, they counsel people who don’t have insurance. It’s a huge program. There are a couple of my colleagues who do the same thing, but if many of us would take it on, people who don’t have insurance could get the help they need.
What I hear you saying is that you would encourage people to get help if they need it.
Yes, I certainly would and hopefully there will come a day when we’ll be able to name disorders, and it won’t be some mystery illness. Should Jackson Jr. name it, there might be more people who come forward, especially as influential as he is. Politically, I know they may not necessarily want to say, but when we lay people see celebrities dealing with stuff, we find it inspirational and encouraging. But there’s still that stigma of mental illness where you can’t give a name. It has to be some mystery.
