OPINION

FRIDAY, AUgUST 27, 2021 tuftsdaily.com

VIEWPOINT COVID-19 and student mental health: Where we are, how to do better

by Eliza Dickson

Contributing Writer Originally published March 19, 2021.

Content warning: This article mentions suicide and mental health struggles.

A year ago, students were abruptly forced to depart campus as COVID-19 began to spread across our country. Little did we know we would be saying goodbye to college life as we knew it. The college experience has always been built on the foundation of community, and with COVID-19 restrictions severely limiting most forms of connection, the toll on our mental health has been steep.

Pre-pandemic, mental health struggles were prevalent among college students. Young adulthood is a mentally turbulent period; it is a time of transition that comes with new stressors and intrinsic biological risk that make mental health difficulties common. In a pre-pandemic survey, 65% of college students reported anxiety, 30% a mental health condition and 10% thoughts of suicide. For some time, young adulthood has been recognized as a common age of onset for numerous serious mental disorders.

The pandemic has exacerbated these already widespread mental health issues among college students. A CDC report on mental health during the pandemic found that in the 18–24 age group, one in four people had considered suicide in the past 30 days. In the fall 2020 exit survey conducted by TCU Senate, 73% of respondents rated their mental health as 5 or lower on a 10-point scale and over 80% stated that their mental health negatively impacted their motivation, academics, work and social lives. Social isolation was the second most cited issue impacting students’ learning and experience. The guidelines put in place to keep us safe are wholly necessary, and careless behavior is inexcusable. Yet when students are forced to choose between being safe and fulfilling their social needs, it’s easy to see why caution tends to get thrown to the wind. For first-years, this lack of community is especially pronounced.

These statistics are frightening, yet not surprising considering the cumulative stressors on college students over the last year. The pandemic has introduced a host of new risk factors that contribute to the development of mental health issues and crises. Prolonged exposure to stress increases risk for anxiety, depression, substance use problems, sleep disturbances and even physical pain and injury. Online classes entail an inherent risk; according to a study published in 2021, spending eight or more hours per day looking at screens correlates with increased psychological impact induced by the pandemic. Over all of this lingers a persistent feeling of uncertainty: Will we be sent home again? For many, particularly those without safe home environments to which they can return, the prospect of getting sent home proves not only disruptive but detrimental.

The pandemic has stripped us of our typical coping strategies for stressful times. Student clubs that provide a break from rigorous academics have been limited in their activities or unable to meet, and spring break was, in large part, eliminated. Tufts students are dedicated to their academics, but so few chances for respite erode students’ capacity to remain focused and engaged.

Tufts has taken some measures to address the mental health issues brought about by the pandemic. Tufts Health and Wellness has encouraged student participation in an online mental health education program, Kognito, designed to educate students about how to support peers struggling with their mental health and direct them to resources. Notably, Tufts implemented exceptional pass/fail again this spring, which students said was crucial to supporting their mental health and academic success, according to the TCU fall exit survey. Additional resources offered by Tufts Counseling and Mental Health Services, such as workshops and discussion groups, amount to important tools that teach coping skills and build a community around self-care.

Despite this, the barriers to seeking help are insurmountable for many. Lack of trust in counseling services is one of the factors that deter college students from seeking help. Clearly, this is the case at Tufts; the majority of respondents to the TCU fall exit survey stated they do not believe CMHS meets their needs, and 60% rated the accessibility of CMHS as 5 or lower on a 10-point scale. This, along with the general stigma surrounding mental health issues, makes getting help incredibly challenging.

In order to address the lack of confidence in CMHS, Tufts must act in response to the needs students have clearly expressed. TCU reported that students specifically asked for “increased one-on-one time with professionals” and “increased diversity in CMHS’s staff.” Therefore, Tufts should allocate resources for CMHS to hire more clinicians in order to meet the need for long term, one-on-one counseling. To address the need for greater diversity, it is critical that CMHS hires more clinicians of color and LGBTQ clinicians. Once students take the initial step of reaching out for help, one that is daunting in and of itself, they must have uncompromised access to the care they need.

To address mental health emergencies, the number of mental health professionals on call must be increased. Additionally, TUPD should be removed from all mental health crisis calls. Police officers are not equipped to deal with mental health emergencies and may even exacerbate these crises, especially for students of color.

Because the barriers to care are so great, TCU Senate’s recommendation for CMHS to take a more proactive approach to student mental health and to publicize opportunities should be implemented. The Senate also recommended a weekly newsletter from CMHS, which could substantially augment the visibility of essential resources. Additionally, CMHS should leverage students’ passion for mental health care, and hire student ambassadors to promote opportunities to peers and bridge the gap between CMHS and the student body.

Analogous to physical health checkups, Tufts should offer screenings for mental health symptoms and risk factors, and when necessary, the detection of such conditions should lead to a referral for care. Tufts should also mandate Kognito training for all students and faculty, so that everybody is equipped with strategies to recognize signs of mental health difficulties in themselves and others.

In addition to making CMHS more accessible, Tufts must address the effects of social isolation. Students should be offered more spaces and opportunities to safely spend time with friends. Tufts should adopt the Senate’s recommendations to make the JumboLife platform more user friendly and create new social media spaces to help students learn about events. Once the weather is warmer, Residential Life should facilitate socially distant, outdoor events; spending time outside is a great way to bolster mental health.

Now more than ever, it is important to check in with your friends; it is a myth that asking about mental health issues or suicide will make things worse. To students who are struggling, know that you are not alone. As it gets warmer and case numbers continue on a downward trajectory, some problems may subside. Nevertheless, the pandemic has elucidated the urgent need to address students’ mental health. Students need a robust support system, now and always.

BY CECILIA OROZCO

VIEWPOINT Marijuana legalization must include efforts to dismantle systems of racial injustice

by Faye Thijssen

Opinion Editor Originally published April 26, 2021.

On March 31, New York became the 15th state to legalize the use of recreational marijuana. This new legislation comes as part of a growing national trend toward legalization and decriminalization of drugs. For many people, the news of legalization implies a positive shift toward freedom for personal, recreational use. While this cultural and political change is worth celebrating, it is important to recognize the implications of these changes on the racial inequities that have long plagued the economic and legal systems of marijuana usage.

Many New York lawmakers, particularly nonwhite Democrats, advocated for nuanced legislation that would address some of the racial inequities of marijuana legality. Although Gov. Andrew Cuomo initially pushed back on these policy proposals, it was eventually decided that 40% of tax revenue from cannabis will be redirected to Black and Latinx communities, which are disproportionately affected by marijuana drug charges. Additionally, anyone who has previously been convicted of marijuana-related offenses that are no longer criminalized will have their records expunged.

These recent legislative acts highlight the racial inequities embedded in the cannabis industry, reflected throughout other states and communities in the nation.

Black and Latinx individuals comprise 31% of the U.S. population, but account for nearly 50% of all marijuana-related arrests. However, even as owning and using cannabis is becoming more widely accepted and formally legalized, those who profit off this sociopolitical shift in attitude toward weed are overwhelmingly wealthy and white; between 80% and 90% of the legal cannabis industry is run by white business owners.

The industry in Massachusetts is hardly better off in comparison to the national average. Massachusetts voted to legalize medical marijuana in 2012 and recreational cannabis in 2016, and the state made headlines for opening the first recreational marijuana stores on the East Coast in 2018. Over the past two years, the gross sales of cannabis in the state have surpassed $1 billion. However, data shows that about 73% of workers in the Massachusetts cannabis industry are white. Although the

MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION

continued from page 12 state provides equity programs for people from communities disproportionately criminalized for marijuana, as of 2019 only two out of 105 provisional and 79 final licenses were issued to applicants from these programs.

As states shift toward the legalization of marijuana and other drugs, legislation should follow the example of New York and retroactively apply legality to expunge the records of those who have been convicted for crimes that are no longer illegal. Additionally, some portion of the revenue from taxes on cannabis should be designated to funding programs that work to dismantle the systems of racial injustice in drug criminalization.

In addition to the legislation, businesses and individual consumers should become informed about the power structures implicated in their purchase of recreational and medical cannabis. Legislation and the demographic control of the cannabis market both influence the industry and its impacts

BY KAYLA DRAZAN

on society. If cannabis users consciously choose to buy from dispensaries that are not complicit in upholding the dominance of large, white-owned cannabis chains, they will help to disrupt the racial inequities in the market. Additionally, consumers can contribute to political and social efforts to encourage lawmakers to push for legislation that facilitates a more equitable industry.

It is vital to bring these conversations to college campuses, where marijuana use is common; a 2020 report from the National College Health Assessment showed that 35.9% of college students have used cannabis for nonmedical purposes. Especially for a school like Tufts that has a predominantly white student body, it is imperative that students who use cannabis engage as conscious consumers. It is the responsibility of students — especially white students — on campus to contend with the hypocrisy and privilege of participating in a system that systematically benefits wealthy white business owners at the expense of communities of color. In order to combat these inequities, students should contribute to efforts to reform the United States’ justice, legal and economic systems to reflect the demographics of consumers and rectify racial injustices.

VIEWPOINT Tufts, other universities must diminish the influence of privilege in admissions processes

by Sara Kessel

Opinion Editor Originally published April 14, 2021.

A little over a year ago today, I received my acceptance notification from Tufts University. In that moment, as I stared in shock at the blue confetti on my computer screen, all of the sleepless nights, extracurricular activities and college application writing had been seemingly justified.

However, it was also impossible to feel anything but absolutely drained by the college admissions process. The jaded attitude many students have toward the process isn’t necessarily because of the time they put in to get a simple yes or no. Ultimately, no matter how much effort an applicant may put in, or how badly they want or deserve to be at a university, privilege-based barriers persist that prevent many from having a fair shot.

The college admissions scandal that emerged two years ago publicized the illegal behavior that many students and admissions experts already knew existed. On March 12, 2019, the U.S. Department of Justice unveiled a scheme led by William “Rick” Singer in which wealthy parents paid thousands to guarantee their children’s admissions into top universities through Singer’s “side door” operation. This entailed funneling money into a fake nonprofit run by Singer, who would then falsify athletic recruitment or standardized testing to ensure students’ admissions.

The recently released Netflix documentary “Operation Varsity Blues: The College Admissions Scandal” (2021) has reignited discussion regarding the false meritocracy of the U.S. college admissions system. As students, we need to continue shedding light on how both explicit and implicit privileges allow families to continue to game the system with little consequence. But when addressing these inequities, we must also not ignore the role institutions like Tufts play in allowing these advantages to sway admissions, especially while attempting to promote an environment of diversity and inclusion.

The criminal practices and shady influences of ultra-rich families are not the only ways privilege manifests within the college admissions process. Often, there are implicit advantages that improve a student’s application in the eyes of an admissions board. “Harder,” more advanced classes might appear more impressive to colleges and universities. However, the quality of education a student has access to depends largely on their location and socioeconomic background; thus, admissions processes can often serve to institutionalize privilege and reinforce class structures. And even when schools try to take this inequity into account, families with higher incomes often have greater access to the “soft skills” valued in the college process. Having the means to pay for expensive niche sports, private college counselors and other extracurricular pursuits amount to other ways one student can have an unfair advantage over another.

The COVID-19 pandemic has further exacerbated barriers for students with limited access to activities both in and out of school. As many universities and colleges implemented test-optional policies, it is likely that many have come to weigh the nonacademic portions of an application more heavily. The barriers to support and communication in an online environment also make it much harder to navigate the required application forms. This, combined with the immense financial and personal pressures induced by the pandemic, has contributed to a decline in the number of low-income applicants this past admissions cycle. The Common Application reported that the number of students “whose family incomes were low enough for them to have the fee waived fell by 2 percent,” while the number of students filling out the FAFSA form decreased by more than 12% nationwide.

It would be remarkably easy to place all of the blame onto uber-wealthy families who abuse their privileges to the fullest extent. At least, that’s the narrative that some universities implicated in the scandal promote. Wanda M. Austin, former interim president of the University of Southern California, called her university a “victim” and isolated the incident to those involved, stating, “It is immensely disappointing that individuals would abuse their position at the university this way.” However, it is these colleges that allow these abuses to occur. By continuing policies such as legacy admissions and thus failing to address the innate elitism and financial motivations within their admis-

BY KAYLA DRAZAN

sions processes, prestigious universities are just as guilty — if not more so — than those who directly broke the law.

Tufts University ranks 10th in the nation on a list of colleges that admit more students from the top 1% of household incomes than the bottom 60%. The university cannot continue to claim that it is a “diverse” and “inclusive” environment when such an overwhelming portion of its students come from this level of wealth. As a student body, we need to pressure our school to end the “back door” of elitism and privilege that allows wealthier students to get admitted at disproportionately high rates. Unless we understand that the fault lies primarily in a university’s complicity, the college admissions process will never truly be a meritocratic one.