In the spring of 2018, at the beginning of my term as President of the Student Government Association, Stevens lost a beloved member of our community who was a very close friend of mine. This loss was a heavy blow to our tight knit campus and it propelled the conversation on student mental health to the forefront of everyone’s minds. Although I was coping with the loss myself, I was fortunate enough to be in a position where I could impact how Stevens provided for the health and wellness needs of its students.
Through a variety of different conversations with students, faculty, and administrators, it became clear to me that mental health was a topic that did not get the attention it deserved from many at this university. During these conversations, many students suggested that I investigate how to ensure that our faculty, as the only Stevens employees regularly required to see students, are contributing to our “community of care.” After comparing our institution to others, I noticed that a positive step forward could be mandating some of the optional faculty trainings regarding mental health awareness which were already being offered by Stevens. These were important trainings that historically had low attendance.
Currently faculty members have required meetings at the time they are hired at Stevens. After this, there is no way to ensure they are being continually updated on the changing resources and needs of Stevens students. This presented a problem, not only because most other professions require continuous training, but also because even though the school has been improving within student affairs by hiring a Wellness Coordinator and improving the CAPS center, the faculty’s engagement in our community has been lagging behind.
At the inception of this initiative, I had many informal and formal conversations with administrators, including Vice Provost Costas Chassapis, Kim Barletta, Sara Klein, Chris Shemanski, Dean Ken Nilsen and the Faculty Senate. All of whom agreed that this would be a good idea to pursue. In response to that positive feedback, my Cabinet and I pitched the idea of mandatory mental health training to President Farvardin’s Cabinet on April 3rd, 2018. The idea was very positively received. After that meeting, we set up a follow-up meeting with Provost Christophe Pierre and Associate Provost Cindy Chin, on April 30th, 2018 to ensure its progress. According to my notes from that date, the Provost stated that he was very excited about this initiative. He also said that he would be able to make this training mandatory by only granting annual raises to professors after its completion. The Provost also added the modules would have rolling deadlines, and the last mandated module was to be completed by August 2019. Months later, on August 27th, 2018 President Farvardin sent the SGA Cabinet a response to all the concerns that were brought to his attention in the cabinet meeting, one of them being mandating faculty modules. That response, which was then sent to the entire student body, stated:
Students and administrators alike were under the impression that since both the President and the Provost promised that this would happen, it would. Last week, however, I was informed that these trainings were sent out without being made compulsory for faculty members to complete. Not once were any students or any of the administrators who were directed to recreate these trainings informed that this reversal was being made. Cindy Chin explained that the reversal in requiring mental health training was “a managerial decision” made by a group of higher-level administrators, whose identities she refused to reveal because it was a collaborative decision made by senior level administrators.
Most of the trainings that the SGA requested to be mandatory are not new. They have been advertised to faculty in the past, but the goal of this initiative was to increase the low number of faculty who have been recently trained in these subjects. I equate the reversal of this initiative to professors assigning optional homework. Most likely, the only faculty members who will actually complete the trainings are the same ones who do not need it in the first place (which are probably the same ones reading The Stute).
Cindy, the Provost, and Marybeth Murphy explained that mandating mental health training modules might hurt more than help. They stated that faculty members might react negatively and not pay attention to the modules if they were forced to complete them. I am not sure I believe that statement, but if administrators are scared that the faculty would be upset or not pay attention when told to learn about the mental health needs of students at Stevens, then there is a much larger issue at this university.
Requiring training or forcing a conversation is an important thing to do. I do it for my job as an RA at every single one of my events. I engage my residents in conversations about topics that they may not necessarily feel comfortable having. At these events, I do not expect my residents to absorb every piece of information, but I care that they are at least required to begin thinking about the topic. The SGA did not expect that every fact about diversity, inclusion, or mental health would get through to faculty in an online module, no training session would ever be able to do that. However, we did expect that a promise would be fulfilled and that the importance of student wellness would become something that every member of our community is compelled to evaluate.
I have seen a lot of growth in a short time at Stevens regarding student wellness and I am very happy that the Provost said this week that he would be open to reevaluating the decision. This initiative was widely supported by many different members of our community which shows that it should be an ongoing conversation among students, faculty, and the administration. While it is being reconsidered, I urge the Office of the Provost to disclose the number of faculty members that have completed these trainings. I urge them to elevate the importance of these trainings up to the same level as that of sexual assault and compliance. And finally, I urge them to keep a continuous, open, and two-way line of communication available throughout the decision-making process so we can tackle these issues in unison.
Be First to Comment