Addressing mental-illness stigma bluntly

Addressing mental-illness stigma bluntly

By MAEL ANNE DINNELL Santa Cruz Sentinel OP ED June 27, 2004

In my previous short essays I approached the subject of discrimination against and the stigma of the mentally ill rather gently. But here the issue will be addressed more bluntly, because of the raw anger people in the mental-health system carry about this issue , I being one.

Lest anyone think we imagine or exaggerate the problem, I have included remarks from the United States Department of Labor and the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission.

When the bitter flavor of our lives is revealed, the well-off leftist elite in Santa Cruz respond with sympathy, donations and lots of tongue-clucking agreement, but in their role as merchants and professionals do not make any effort to improve the lot of mental-health clients by allowing us to work. You are quick to complain about your tax money being used to give us living assistance, but just as quick to judge us unfit for employment and turn us away with the excuses we have all heard a hundred times. Shall we be noble and refuse state assistance and then, having no job, become one of the panhandling homeless whom you also ignore and detest?

The fifth and 14th amendments of the United States Constitution grant equal protection of the law, in the case of employment, prohibiting unequal treatment of any individual because of their membership in any particular group. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, the American Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1993 insure equal treatment for everyone without regard to age, sex, sexual orientation, gender, religion, national origin or physical disability. In theory it protects us, too, but it has never been tested in court.

Most of us are quite familiar with brush-offs in every form, from "you wouldn't be happy in this job" to "I think there would be too much pressure on you." I was told this by a manager at a downtown business who, over the phone, had no objection to anything about me, knowing my age and that I was widowed and assured that I could lift the necessary weight. But at first glance something "tipped him off," I don't know what, and feeling stung did not insist on an explanation. I had no chance to tell him of my military, electronic and counseling experience, for as soon I said my most recent job was with the Mental Health Client Action Network, I was quickly dismissed. Perhaps I am ugly and should sue on the grounds of Santa Cruz's infamous ugly law. I'd have better luck.

What is it you fear from us? That we could have an episode; a relapse of symptoms and miss work? Of course, it's possible. It is also possible that people with any number of other conditions that don't carry stigma, from hepatitis and migraines to someone in a situation of domestic violence or addiction to alcohol, could do the same.

According to the Department of Labor, people with mental illnesses, including those in recovery indefinitely, are the most underemployed group of people in the country; less than any ethnic minority, than the developmentally disabled, than people over 40. And no one takes this problem, or us, seriously. Some people who or even chronic but invisible conditions (say, true paranoia) may work and never have their condition detected. But someone who is overtly a member of county mental health is simply dismissed.

Yes, I resent it; a lot of us resent it. We manage our symptoms as best we can and if we did not think we could make a sandwich or lift a stock-room box or run a cash register, we wouldn't apply for jobs where one must do so. It is arrogant and uncompassionate for you to sympathize with us but disallow our involvement in this community. Checks at Christmas and clothing donations are nice gestures, but they are segregating ones. And you are foolishly letting a great well of creativity, reliability, talent, intelligence and capableness go unplumbed. We get bitter and you miss out. Despondent, we may give up for years at a time ... because, oh dear, we can't have one of "Them" working for "Us."

How can you expect us, handicapped already, to rise about this persistent delineation between the employable and us? Our living assistance does not even cover our needs. Most of us pay $500 to $600 for a simple room; the last week of the month is very lean, even void, of our basic needs. Is it just for you to relegate us to this kind of life, and then judge us for being unable to escape it?

We know what our limitations are, and we know what our skills and potential are. Out of necessity, a lot of us may be better at managing disadvantages and stress than you are. We are not imbeciles; we have symptoms. If you will not put us to work because of this insulting but persistent stigma, then you deserve to pay high taxes that are used in part by the federal and state governments to financially assist people like us.

When you dismiss us, we may be out of sight at the bottom of the ladder, but we do not disappear; we are still here, scrambling, like you, to get by.

Mael Anne Dinnell is a Santa Cruz resident.

Source: Santa Cruz Sentinel

This 'Mental Health E-News' posting is a service of the New York Ass'n of Psychiatric Rehabilitation Services, a statewide coalition of people who use and/or provide community mental health services dedicated to improving services and social conditions for people with psychiatric disabilities by promoting their recovery, rehabilitation and rights. To join our list, please click on the E-News Subscription button.

Last Updated on 07/26/04 webmaster@namiscc.org

Opinions expressed in this web site do not necessarily reflect the views of NAMI Santa Cruz County, NAMI California or any affiliated organizations. We attempt to present a balanced perspective on issues by presenting multiple viewpoints.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This may contain copyrighted (©) material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available to advance understanding of ecological, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.