Unpacking Privilege

The Unpacking Privilege Series is a Law Weekly feature that will periodically publish the speeches from the Unpacking Privilege Diversity Week event.

Emily Reeder '17
Guest Columnist

I have struggled with mental illness for most of my life, but was not given a label until I was nine: PTSD and depression. I did not receive effective treatment until my early 20s. The interim decade can only be described as a roller coaster.  I was haunted by thoughts of suicide and, in my late teens, went down a path that can only be described as a steady, downward mission of self-destruction. It’s now been several years since my illness has substantially impacted my life, but the fact of its existence is always in the back of my mind. 

My story is simultaneously diverse from many of my classmates and one of tremendous privilege. As an upper-class white woman, I am keenly aware of how my privilege shaped my experience with mental illness. My privilege provided me access to the opportunity to heal, and my privilege affords me the chance to stay healthy. Even with great health insurance that most people in this country cannot afford, the treatments that saved my life were extremely expensive, and, years later, I need access to medication that is far from cheap. I am rare–and lucky–to have an incredible support system that both financially and emotionally supports me.  I know beyond a doubt that there is no way that I would be at UVa Law, much less succeeding here, without the continued access to medical care that my privilege provides me. To be honest, I’m not even sure I would still be alive. 

The “diversity” of my experience is a fundamental driver in how I perceive others, particularly in terms of my duty as a person of privilege to others that struggle with mental illness. Every time I see a homeless person on the street, I am reminded that conservative estimates put the rate of mental illness among this population at 25 percent. These heartbreaking numbers don’t capture the millions of people trapped in poverty who cannot afford the medical care they desperately need to function. The crisis of mental illness goes beyond affording care–there are people in our own community that are too afraid or ashamed to seek the help that would enable them to unlock their true potential. 

As someone that has “overcome” my past, I don’t even see whether to share my experiences with others as a choice: I MUST use my position of privilege.  Lack of access to treatment and stigmatization of mental illness are two of the greatest problems facing the United States. We cannot even begin to have equality until we face this problem head on. Mental illness is tightly wound with so many issues: generational poverty, drug addiction, crime, and unemployment. Even when recognized, mental illness is only viewed as a legitimate disability among certain populations, often along racial, gender, sexuality, or economic lines. 

Although progress has been made, the dominant narrative of the mentally ill is that we are somehow shameful or dangerous. I don’t think I’m shameful or dangerous: the struggle with my illness is a diversity of experience that has made me driven, passionate, empathetic, and brave. Far from holding me back in law school, I believe my background is one of the reasons I have done so well. It’s on me to make sure that I can lift others up to do the same. It’s on all of us to build a society that makes stories like mine more common. 

---

er5zq@virginia.edu

Letter to the Editor: A Gift from Mr. Klaus

If students enjoy the contents of the Klaus Reading Room they should be aware that in 1995 a fund was set up to support the room by Richmond businessman Philip W. Klaus in memory of his brother, Walter Whitlock Klaus. Walter Klaus died in 1936, the year of his graduation from this Law School. The endowment was initially intended to support the purchase of popular books, journals, newspapers and other items that are an alternative to the library’s legal collection. Over the years, the fund has been used to purchase DVDs, CDs, flat screens and comfortable chairs. During the holidays, a very special chair was added to the space. Before his death in 2006, at the age of 92, I had the pleasure of thanking Mr. Klaus for his gift to the Library and letting him know how much it means to the many students who have benefited from his generosity. He seemed pleased that students are guiding decisions on where the funds are spent. There is a suggestion box in the Klaus Reading Room, located adjacent to the Reserve Room on the first floor of the library, and you are invited to submit ideas for movies you would like to see, books you would like to read, and other items that you think the student body might enjoy.

---

lawlibref@virginia.edu

Faculty Senate-General Faculty Council Statement on Immigration Executive Order

On February 1, 2017, both bodies representing UVa faculty—the Faculty Senate and the General Faculty Council—published a statement regarding the recent immigration executive order. The joint statement is significant because it was published by both bodies that are responsible for representing UVa Faculty, and because the statement takes a strong stance against the executive order.

The Law Weekly does not officially endorse the statement nor its sentiments through this news article, but the release of the statement is of particular importance to the Law School community, given both the executive order’s effect on the legal world and the number of faculty members involved on each committee. The Faculty Senate is chaired by UVa Law professor Mimi Riley, and Professors George Cohen and Kim Forde-Mazrui are Senators. The General Faculty Council includes law faculty members Sarah Ware (recently elected to become Chair of the Council this year), Ben Doherty, and Mimi Riley (Ex-Officio as Chair of the Faculty Senate).
The statement is available at http://facultysenate.virginia.edu/faculty-senate-general-faculty-council-statement-immigration-executive-order, and has been reprinted below courtesy of that source.

“The President’s recent executive order banning entry to the United States of citizens from seven predominately Muslim countries, as well as refugees from all countries, is a moral outrage. It threatens lives and divides families, including those of students, staff, and faculty of the University of Virginia. It also threatens the basic values of inclusiveness, equality, and respect for human dignity that we stand for as a university in the public trust. Rather than addressing legitimate security and safety concerns in a responsible and measured way, this drastically overbroad policy needlessly harms decent and talented people who have already been strictly vetted and who pose no demonstrable risk. Despite recent court orders staying parts of the order, much of it remains in effect, and it is therefore an active threat to refugees, immigrants, and Muslim-Americans, including those in our community. We condemn it unequivocally.

We condemn it not only as an offense to human decency and the Constitution, but also because it harms our ability to do our jobs. We are scientists and engineers, physicians and lawyers, historians and philosophers, and business innovators and public servants. We come from all corners of the world to this great University to learn and share knowledge. We depend in turn on communities of learning across the world to enrich our own scholarly endeavors. This discriminatory executive order imperils these relationships, even as it threatens our students and shames our nation.

We call on all faculty to contact their legislators and ask them to condemn this executive order and to urge the President to withdraw it.

As faculty we stand with our students and colleagues who might be harmed by this order, and we resolve to defend their rights and safety to the best of our lawful ability.”