In March I was part of an online discussion about the role of mental health policies in promoting students’ mental health – a subject brought to prominence by the Royal College of Psychiatrists. The starting point for the discussion was simple: should all universities have a mental health policy?
At first there seemed to be unanimous agreement from panelists: yes, all universities should have a mental health policy. Since all of the panelists were (to some degree) involved in supporting students’ mental health, this probably wasn’t surprising. Why would anyone not want to make it easier for students to access support, right? But the discussion grew more complex, and an opposing point was raised that I hadn’t anticipated. After reflection it became clear though that the disagreement was not based on a difference of views, but on an ambiguity found in the RPsych’s recommendations – one that I hope to clear up here.
The argument put forward by one of the panellists was that, whilst all universities should have mental health policy, it should not necessarily be based in a single ‘mental health policy’ document. The wider point that they alluded to was that, since the mental health of students is interrelated with other subject areas (such as disability issues and student services), it cannot be looked at in isolation; to expect universities to be able to extricate mental health policy from related policy areas and present it in a single uniform document risks oversimplifying the issues.
In some ways, this view aligns with the principles of the Healthy Universities project (based on the World Health Organisation’s settings-based approach), which recognizes that health and wellbeing is not a standalone issue but one that necessarily involves wider environmental factors. We know that social factors have a profound influence on mental health, therefore for universities to modernize and adopt settings-based approaches they need to recognize the links between mental health and wider campus issues – even those issues traditionally considered to be academic (as alien as this idea may be to certain VCs). The panellist was surely right, then: mental health policy must be embedded into wider institutional policy. And yet, the content of policy and the presentation of policy are not necessarily the same thing.
What the Royal College of Psychiatrists’ report fails to do is recognise the dual roles of a mental health policy. If we explore the definition of ‘policy’, we’re confronted by two interpretations. Whilst on the one hand policy exists to provide standards and guidelines for policy-makers and those policing policy, on the other hand, it exists as a public statement of intent – a contract between those with the power to implement policy, and those whom the policy affects. The former, we can think of as ‘policy‘ (or a number of related policies), the latter as ‘a policy‘ – which is about communicating ‘policy’ to stakeholders through a single document.
The reason I first got involved in mental health campaigning was not to address gaps in support, but gaps in communication. The Mind Matters Society was launched to ‘bring mental health out of the shadows on campus’ – by challenging stigma around mental health issues, but also by making information about mental health more available to students so that they could make their own choices. The latter of these goals (although not as topical as the former) is just as crucial. The sharing of good information necessarily reduces discrimination, but a reduction in discrimination does not necessarily lead to useful information being shared. As long as information about a university’s mental health and support provision remains impenetrable to students, mental health will be a subject difficult to grapple with. It’s for this reason that a formal statement outlining the university’s commitment to student mental health is so important.
The task for universities,therefore, is to provide a policy document on the subject of mental health that is accessible to those it affects, whilst also ensuring that policy on mental health remains embedded within its wider system. The dozens of university mental health policies already in place suggest that this is achievable.
If universities need to provide multiple policy documents then so be it, as long as there’s one starting document that sets out the university’s commitment to the mental health of students. As Chris Brill, the ECU’s policy advisor suggested during the discussion, irrespective of the complexity of policy, universities can offer a reference document that outlines the university’s position on mental health. It’s this that I believe the RPsych’s report is referring to it when it speaks of a ‘mental health policy’, and it’s this that I am campaigning around. Whether the title of this policy document contains the term ‘mental health’ is up to them, but when ‘mental health’ is the universally used term to capture psychological issues and treatments, why complicate matters further by calling it anything else?