Subjects “at risk” of being labelled a threat to campus

In a move with creepily authoritarian overtones, the university recently implemented a watch program encouraging students and professors to report any peers exhibiting “at risk behaviour,” so that the accused would be put on a watch list and investigated. Those manning the initiative would then determine whether “intervention or assistance” is necessary for the subject of the finger-pointing.

Students' Union VP (Academic) Leah Trueblood has rightfully criticized the program in more polite and reserved terms than I would be able to muster, but it's unfortunate that it's the kind of thing that can be easily made to look proactive and helpful on a superficial level, minimizing opposition to something that should be given a closer look.

Although proponents disingenuously suggested that the program was designed to help the mentally ill and discourage suicide, it's an especially dubious goal given that the program was explicitly developed as a consequence of the Virginia Tech shooting and other such incidents. Titled the “Helping Individuals at Risk Policy," but designed to make everyone suspect that said individuals are all potentially mass-murdering psychopaths, the program can't do anything but stigmatize and discourage people from seeking psychiatric help when they might need it.

This is nothing new. High-profile but rare incidents like the Vincent Li case, as well as demonization in popular culture, serve to create a culture of ignorance and fear with regards to psychiatric illness, and policies such as this will have a similar effect. But in reality, one in five Canadians will undergo mental illness at some point in their lives, and between substantial environmental stress, as well as natural and genetic factors, people of college age are most at risk. Fostering attitudes of suspicion won't help to educate the population of this.

But every time a particularly horrific event occurs, there will always be short-term thinkers and reactionaries who are willing to make unreasonable compromises to enact preventative measures when some things can't be prevented. And in this case, student morale, community, and privacy are being sacrificed in exchange for no tangible benefit. No matter what programs are enacted, people will slip through the cracks and psychiatric help will usually need to be administered in a voluntary fashion until the very rare occasions where thoughts translate into action.

If you think that a friend is in trouble, talk to them. The university already offers crisis counselling, psychiatrists, and support for students with disabilities. These services are all invaluable and take a healthy, understanding approach to the issues. Because being an object of scrutiny and paranoia could, ironically, make the most level-headed of us insane.