In Which I Outline a Few Principles of General Application

With respect to recent events, it is needful to take a step back and outline some basic principles that I follow. I am deliberately keeping this generic. As always, I speak only for myself.

• 1. In my case, silence does not necessarily indicate acceptance or consent on a particular topic, issue or event. It may simply mean I've not had a chance to formulate a response. 
• 2. I may not always formulate a public response. 
• 3. Not everyone has the same religious beliefs that I have. The faith that I have adopted for the past two decades, for instance, is quite different from the faith of either of my brothers, and very likely the balance of my extended family on both sides. 
• 4. Not everyone has the same political beliefs that I have. In fact, I am probably a centrist on many issues, and as such, would likely disagree with certain factions from BOTH of the major political parties.
• 5. I feel that we must be respectful and considerate of others, even as to certain subjects and topics of disagreement, and regardless of how the political winds are blowing at the moment. This means finding areas of common ground where possible, but also includes agreeing to disagree when necessary. [Note: Someone will recognize this is a repeat of something I said sometime back, but I felt it was worth repeating.]   
• 6. It is not necessary to change one's religious faith (or any essential portion of that faith), in order to be respectful and considerate of others. 
• 7. It is not necessary to change political party affiliation (or even to have a formal party affiliation) in order to be respectful and considerate of others.
• 8. I don't believe that a difference of opinion should be construed as hatred towards those of the opposing view, unless it is expressly worded as such.
• 9. I am not perfect, and do not know anyone who is, save for one individual who is well known throughout history. Within the bounds of reason, we need to be more patient and forgiving with each other, within our families, and also with ourselves. 
• 10. I will teach and share those things I know for myself to be true, and would accord others the same courtesy, provided it is peaceful and in keeping of the laws and Constitution of our land.
• 11. I believe the First Amendment incorporates more than public conduct, or even private conduct. It incorporates matters of our very conscience. 
• 12. This list is not intended to be exhaustive or to cover every possible situation. I'm only covering the heavy hitters. I reserve the right to amend as necessary. (Or not.) :-)

Regards, --SJR

[Reblog] Raised Brow Tech: An Honest Concern

Raised Brow Tech: An Honest Concern: As a Mormon, this hit straight on. I stand up for my beliefs, though now I worry how that will effect my carrier in software engineering. ...

This writer responds: I'm going to concur with the concern that you published on your own blog (see link above).  I don't see this as being very far removed from posting the Family Proclamation (which, incidentally, I'm going to do here), in a public forum, such as my own timeline on Facebook, in my own blog, or over on Twitter.  The last General Conference was, I thought, pretty emphatic about the need to respect others, but doing so does not require that one adopts the views or orthodoxy of the person(s) with whom you disagree.  In my mind, it means that one acknowledges the differences, agrees to disagree on those points, and then move on.

These will continue to be challenging times, and I'm concerned that we may yet see other examples of the conduct you spoke of in the future.  It's my own prayer that we may remain faithful in the face of such challenges.  --Sandy

Bar Application Questions re.: Mental Health may be Federal ADA Violation

As in many states, persons applying to take the Tennessee bar exam get are questioned about their past history of mental illness.  The Department of Justice is raising the question as to whether these questions are overly broad and ultimately violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Link: DOJ says bar officials violate ADA by asking applicants too much about their mental health

Comment: I think the DOJ is taking the right approach with this.  In looking at my own copy of the Bar Application, at least one question raises significant concern--

26 (A). Do you currently have any condition or impairment (including, but not limited to . . . a mental, emotional or nervous disorder or condition) which in any way currently affects, or if untreated could affect, your ability to practice law in a competent and professional manner?  (Yes/No)  

Boy, that's awfully vague.  Now to a limited extent, I can understand questions about specific illnesses, such as about schizophrenia, that have the potential to impact one's perceptions of reality.  There are other questions regarding past alcohol or substance abuse, and I think those questions are valid as well, on the theory that a person who abused substances in the past could be at risk for such conduct in the future.  But this Question No. 26A can encompass just about anything.  A person facing an a pressing situation, such as the loss of a loved one, could likely be facing acute depression versus adjustment disorder.  A person witnessing a bad event, such as a robbery at a convenience store, could potentially face Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).  A person who was abused or molested as a child: same thing.  And a significant percentage of school-aged children get diagnosed--some would argue over-diagnosed--with attention deficit disorder.  Moreover, the question asks the subject to act as the psychologist and foresee whether the condition--whether diagnosed or not--could progress to the point where it could somehow or in some way change his or her ability to practice law.

I have a concern about that.  To the extent the question encompasses the entire universe of potential or actual mental illness, whether acute or chronic, then it unfairly singles out all forms of mental illness, whether benign or serious--against all other illnesses that could change one's ability to practice law.  And here's what I mean.  A person who has untreated hypertension has a medical condition--now, notice, not a mental condition--that could affect his ability to practice law.  How?  The hypertension could lead to a stroke.  Once the stroke happens, it would be impossible to predict one's residual level of brain function.  A person who has epilepsy--a neurological disorder that is again not a mental illness--could have episodes that are temporarily overpowering, even with treatment.  Sleep apnea, if untreated, may lead to chronic problems with alertness, or in more extreme cases, residual effects from hypoxia.  And a person with diabetes may be at increased risk of cardiovascular or neurological problems as well.  Incidentally, all of these medical conditions, depending on severity, could trigger depression and/or anxiety as well.  (See also this perspective from an attorney with Asperger's Syndrome, which can trigger seemingly many wrong diagnoses.) 

Now we say that none of the people with these medical conditions should be singled out for extra scrutiny, and rightfully so.  We would say that questions about a person's medical conditions are irrelevant to the overall question about the individual's trustworthiness, fitness or overall ability to practice law.  What do we say, then, about the law student who seeks psychological aid during a moment of acute distress?  Or the PTSD example I mentioned above?  Does the individual answer "no" on the theory that the condition is now well controlled, predicting that it will stay that way well in the future, or does the person answer "yes" on the theory that even the slightest possibility of a complication or relapse requires an affirmative response, lest (s)he give a false or misleading answer?  And suppose a person was in denial about whether he or she has a mental illness.  Wouldn't this line of questioning discourage law students and prospective lawyers from seeking help on the first place, on the theory that they are now generating highly sensitive medical records for bar examiners to review?

The last question is not meant to be far-fetched.  According to the American Bar Association, lawyers are more likely to experience mental illness and even commit suicide than the general population.  In fact, as an entire profession, attorneys are #4 in a list of professions where its practitioners are most likely to commit suicide.  We need to encourage, rather than discourage, this type of aid.  Thus, bar application questions, such as No. 26A, are not part of the solution.  They are part of the problem.

The DOJ letter goes on to explain that an individual's prior behavior, rather than a mental health diagnosis or treatment, is the best predictor of future success in law practice.  Nearly all of the remaining bar application questions, in fact, relate to prior behavior in one form or another, whether it be legal misconduct, or financial trouble, or problems at work and school.  To me, this is not unreasonable.

Viewed in this way, I think the solution is clear.  For I would not propose to bar all questions regarding mental health, but only those items which have actually caused problems with conduct in the past.  If a person once had a problem with alcohol or substance addiction, there had to be a pattern of conduct consistent with the condition.  If a person had a form of schizophrenia that was serious enough to cause actual lapses in judgment, perhaps it is reasonable to explore it further.  On the flip side of the coin, if a person with Asperger's has been able to adapt to his condition--and many have--when why it is necessary to go through his medical records?  And if a person with depression sought help and is well now, it seems to be this is the very opposite of the person we want to go after.

In closing, I have no quarrel with the general proposition that applicants to a state's bar are subject to background checks and other forms of heightened scrutiny, given the trust provided to them.  But the scrutiny needs to be reasonable and adequately tailored to the need.  Our Question No. 26A seems to be neither.  --SJR

Where being in the Top 5 is not a good thing

Via CNN: A very sobering look at the legal profession with respect to mental health. FYI. Specifically, lawyers as an entire group rank No. 4 in an activity that shouldn't happen at all. 

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/19/us/lawyer-suicides/index.html